HomeMy WebLinkAboutPacket, Planning Commission PLANNER 5/6/2008
I
Au NDA I
OF '/lfE SPRINGFIELD PLANNING COM1\HSSIO
I '
Greg Matt
Community Planning and Rev~alization
Planning Manager
--,
I
I
(
l {Full Packet} I
- --------- --------)
I
SPRINGFIELD CITY HALL *COUNClL CHAMBERS'* 225 FIFTH STREET * 541 726-3753
TUESDAY
MA Y 6, 2008
7:00 P.M.
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
"
SPRINGFIELD AND LANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
7:00 p.m.
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
1. PLEDGE OF-ALLEGIANCE-
2. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE-
3. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARlNG-
a. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN (PFSP) AMENDMENT-
The City of Springfield is proposing to amend the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General
Plan (Metro Plan) and the Eugene-Springfield Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP) by
adding or modifying nine projects in Table 4 of the PFSP; deleting four projects from Table 4 and
five projects from Table 16 of the PFSP; and updating Map 2 in the PFSP to indicate the general
- location of the new projects added to Table 4_ Because the Metro Plan adopted these maps and
tables as part of the adoption of the PFSP in 2001, any amendments to these maps and tables in
the PFSP requires a concurrent amendment to the Metro Plan_ .
Planner: Greg Mott
60 Minutes
CONDUCT OF LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
. Commencement of the hearing
. Declaration of conflict of interest or "ex-parte" contact.
. Staff report
. Testimony of those in support
. Testimony of those in opposition
. Testimony of those neutral
. Questions from the Commission
,
. Summation by Staff
. Close of public testimony. D t R . ed
.. , . a e ecelv
The meeting location is whee/chair~accessible. For the hearing-impaired, an interpreter can be provided with 48 hours notice prior to the meeting.
For meetings in the Council Meeting Room. a ':Personal PA Receiver"for the hearing-impaired is available. To arrangefPr t}t,eSl\sf!l"Vimophone
726-2700_ . filAr U 0 LUU(J
PC Agenda - Karen LaFleur
Page I
Plann~r: BJ
. Discussion of policy issues and compliance with adopted plans (possible questions to staff or public)
· Motion to recommend approval, approval with modification or not to adopt the proposal based on staff report
and/or oral/written testimony and directing of Chair to ~ign Recommendation to the City Council.
4. ADJOURN
c
John Sullivan, Chair
Lisa Arkin, Vice Chair
Ed Becker
Steve Dignam
Todd Johnston
Nancy Nichols
Jozef Siekiel-Zdzienicki
Howard Shapiro
The meeti~g location is ,wheelchair-acces~ible. For the hearing-impaired, an interpreter can be provided with 48 D.a1eJ3eCejVe~i9
For meeting/i~ the Council Meeting Room, a "Personal P A Receiver" for the hearing-impaired is available. To arrange for these servicex.' phone
726-2700, : " . '" M~Y 06 ZOOl)
Snrinl!field Planninl! Commissioners
Frank Cross, Chair
Johnny Kirschenmann, Vice Chair
Bill Carpenter
Lee Beyer
Terri Leezer
Eric Smith
Sheri Moore
La Ie Countv'Planninl! Commissioners
PC Agenda - Karen Lafleur
Page 2
Planner: BJ
)
.'
;.>
. .......
~,
~
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 6, 2008
City of Springfield
Springfield Planning Commission
Lane County Planning Commission
; , I
Gregory Mott, Planning Manager tA6"--
IJ MEMORANDUM
Amendment to the E~gene-SpringfiJld Metropolitan
Area General (Metro Plan) and the Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area Public' Facilities and
Services Plan (PFSP) i
ISSUE: . I '
The City of Springfield has determined that upgrades to the city's wastewater collection
system need to be undertaken in order to provide wastewater service to future planned
population and employment growth. Several of these upgrades need to be included in the
lists and maps of the Metro Plan and the Public ~acilities and Services Plan. Inclusion of
these projects into these documents requires a post-acknowledgement plan amendment;
the Lane County Board of Commissioners must co-adopt these amendments because
several of these facilities are outside the city limits; by provision in the Metro Plan, the City
of Eugene is not required to participate and has opted not to do so.
To:
COMMISSION
BRIEFING
From:
Subject:
BACKGROUND:
The City of Springfield completed an analysis of its wastewater collection system and has
used this analysis as a basis for development of the Wastewater Master Plan - 2008
ryvwMP). The WWMP replaces several earlier sanitary sewer plan/studies that attempted
to address issues and needs on a basin by basin basis. These earlier studies were based
on Springfield having its own treatment plant facility (formerly located at Aspen and West
D); on various state and federal water quality laws subsequently superseded; and on data
not on par with the quantity and quality of data currently available to undertake such an
analysis. The WWMP unifies the city's collection system under a single plan;
acknowledges the single regional treatment plant and makes appropriate adjustments to
new environmental laws. The WWMP makes a number of comprehensive
recommendations for improvement to the system including upgrades to several pipe
systems and pumps. The significance of some of these facilities upgrades requires their
inclusion in the Metro Plan and PFSP as specified in Oregon Administrative Rule 660
Division 11 - Pu~lic Facilities Planning.
DISCUSSION:
All cities over 2,500 population are required by law to prepare and adopt public facilities
plans (Goal 11; OAR 660-011). These plans must include the following elements:
* an inventory and general assessment of the condition of all significant public facility
systems which support the land uses designated in the acknowledged comprehensive plan;
* a list of the significant public facility projects which are to suppo'rt the land uSt)at R
designated in the acknowledged comprehensive plan; e eceived
* rough cost estimates of each public facility project; MAY 116
* a map or written description of each public facility project's general locate or service area; 2008
Planner: BJ
;/
* policy statements or urban growth management agreement identifying the provider of
each public facility system; , I.
* an estimate of when each facility will be needed; and,
* a discussion of the provider's existing funding mechanisms and the ability of these
mechanisms to fund the development of each public facility project.
The law also requires cities to adopt into their comprehensive plans the lists, maps and the
policies or growth management agreements designating the provider of each of these
services. (Emphasis added)
In 2001 Eugene, Springfield and Lane County completed an update of the 1987 Public
Facilities Plan (now the Public Facilities and Services Plan - December 2001) and Chapter
III, Section G Public Facilities and Services Element of the Metro Plan. The PFSP and
Chapter III, Section G of the Metro Plan were amended in 2004 and again, after remand
from the Land Use Board of Appeals, in 2006. The 2004 and 2006 amendments included
tables identifying all pipe projects 24 inches and larger; all pump stations and a number of
treatment facilities including the treatment plant, residual treatment projects and beneficial
reuse projects. These projects, their description and their location on various maps were
also adopted into the Metro Plan in compliance with state law.
Subsequently, the City has completed a wastewater management master plan that:
"provides an assessment of existing and future needs for the City's collection system... [It] 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 WWMP does not replace the PFSP; the analysis and most of the recommendations are
appropriate to a local master plan strategy for wastewater collection rather than the region-
wide system of primary collection. and treatment contained in the PFSP and Metro Plan.
OAR 660-011-0010 recognizes this distinction between mandated public facilities planning
and local efforts to manage this service: "It is not the purpose of this division to cause
duplication of or to supplant existing applicable facility plans and programs. Where all or
part of an acknowledged comprehensive plan, facility master plan either of the local
jurisdiction or appropriate special district, capital improvement program, regional functional
plan, similar plan or any combination of such plans meets all or some of the requirements of
this division, those plans, or programs may be incorporated by reference into the public
facility plan required by this division. Only those referenced portions of such documents
shall be considered to be a part of the public facility plan and shall be subject to the
administrative procedures of this division and ORS Chapter 197."
Rather than adoption by reference, the City is simply amending the Metro Plan and PFSP
project lists and maps to include the upgrade recommendations contained in the WWMP for
all pipes 24 inches and larger; all pump stations; and the removal of completed projects or
those projects that are no longer necessary within Springfield's jurisdiction. The City will
rely on the recommendations in the WWMP for local decisions regarding wastewater
system improvements when such detailed direction is not provided in the Metro Plan or
PFSP. '
Amendment of the Metro Plan and PFSP require affirmative findings addressing the
following criteria:
The amendment shall be consistent with the relevant Statewide planning goals adopted by
the Land Conservation and Development Commission; and
Adoption of the amendment shall not make the Metro Plan internally inconsisti3ate Received
The staff report attached to this Briefing Memorandum addresses all the goals applicable
within the city's urban growth boundary, the relationship of these goals to the proposMllY II 6 ZOOS
Planner: BJ
amendments; the administrative rules applicable to public facilities plans and public facilities
plans amendments; and the statutOry requirements for comprehensive plan amendments.
The findings also address the question of Metro Plan internal consistency'as that question
relates to the inclusion of these projects in the tables and maps contained in both the Metro
Plan and the PFSP. '
These findings demonstrate the proposal is consistent with the applicable plan policies; that
the amendments comply with statewide planning goals; and that the amendments comply
with Oregon Administrative Rules. Before the, Planning Commissions can make a final
recommendation on this proposal, all the evidence submitted into the record of this
proceeding must be considered, i~cluding the findings in Attachment 3. '
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct a public hearing on these proposed Metro Plan and Public Facilities and Services
I
Plan amendments, consider public testimony and findings, and forward a recommendation
to the City Council.
Attachments: 1. Executive Summary of the Wastewater Master Plan
2. Wastewater Master Plan - 2008
3. Staff Report arid Findings in Support of Proposed Amendments
4. Proposed Table 4
5. Proposed Table 16
,
6. Existing Map 2
I
7. New projects Map; to be included to existing Map 2 upon adoption
:
Date Received
MAY 0" Z008
Planner: BJ
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 (MWMq. 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 II I 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 emploYJI.lent 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 NPDFS (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 con~l:l1et. . d
requirement that Springfield, Eugene and MWMC fully implement.the WWf1.M~necewe
discharges of untreated wastewater can be discharged to the waters of the state and ~J!'lJElPt
under the following conditions; for flows greater than those occurring for the 24-hoJPlllura~~
Planner:. BJ
A I I AGHMI:NPl - 1
1
1 in 5--year'winter and 1 in 10-year summer storms. These conditions form the baseline
assumptions for overflow avoidance in this.pIan and are consistent with the assumptions of the
WWFMP: The Springfield/Eugene/MWMC Nru~ 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
To be completed by City of Springfield staff
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.
1bis occurs at a number of 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 1/ I can be
reduced. Consistent with the WWFMP, rehabilitation is assumed to consist of main lines
and laterals within the public right-of-way ("public only").
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 - 1bis option increases pipe cliameters 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 - 1bis 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.
St t'd d t effecti' 'ti' Infiltr ti' d lnfl d Date' Received,
orage was no COnsl ere a cos ve op on. a on an ow re uction,
conveyance improvements, and additional treatment capacity consistent with the ~o: 6 ?nn~ '
2
Planner: BJ
ATTACHMENT~1 - 2
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 III 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 ~ompliance 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 21st and E pump
station and at the eastern end of the Main St. trunk, 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.
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, d€fllll;q.jp~'p'~' d
were developed and the needed pipe locations, diameters and lengths were cMmM!d gt:::lielVe
follows. '
MAY 116 2668
3
Planner: BJ
ATTACHMENT~1 - 3
I
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 Gty's design
standard, and calculated pipe slope, pipe diameters were calculated. To assist the Gty 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 plamring time frame (see Figure 5.5 of the plan).
CIP Recommendations
Shown on Figure ES-l and listed in Table ES-l 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 Gty of Springfield
. A proposed implementation year (or range of years)
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 upsized 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 Gty 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 in close '
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 landBate Received
MAY \} 2 lOBS
Planner: BJ
ATTACHMENT~l - 4
TABLE ES-1
Capital Improvement Project Listing
, Springfield Wastewater Master Plan
Springfield Wastewater Collection System Improvements
- Proposed
Project 10 'Purpose Existing Dia Diameter (Inch) or
(Inch) Peak Rate (gpm)
24
1
Existing
uOQrade
2 Existing
upgrade
3 Existing
uoprade
4 Existing,
uOQrade
5 Existing
upgrade
6 Existing
upgrade
7 Existing
, upgrade
-
8 Existing
upprade '
9 Existing
upqrade
10 Existing
upgrade
11 Existing
uPQrade
12 Existing
uOQrade
Rehabilitation Existing
for In
, Reduction Rehab
Nugget Way Existing .
PS .upgrade
, 'Hayden PS Existing
upgrade
River Glen PS Existing ,
upgrade
13 Future
uocrade-
14 Future
upqrade
.Rehabilitation
for III
Reduction
Future rehab
'12
12 '
'10 .~,
15
10
27/36
10
15/18
12
10
Varies
642 gpm (single
pump) 898 gpm
(oumps 1 &2)
380 gpm (single
. pump)
379 gpm (single
, pump)
12
10
Varies
No of
MHs
,22
Length
(ft) .
6418
21 4 795
18 1 5 1112
12 ' ,'I 11 1538','
24 21 4161
15 6 1231
15
15
21-existing,24'-
Mure
15
12'
8"12
911 peak wet
weather
483 gpm existing
peak, 494 gpm
future peak
525 gpm e,xisting
peak, 664 gpm
future peak
18
12
8-12
,
::-
3
714
17
4837
11
3589
9
1014
3
529
23,548
6
2224
3
, 325
31,211
DeSCription
Parallel existing 24-inch pipe with new 24-inch pipe
JrC)m MH 1 0033730 dls toMH10033409
Replace existing 12-inch with 21-inch from
MH10033284 uls to MH10033293 '
I Replace existing 12.inch with 18,inch from
MH10034175 uls to MH10034164
,. ~~~~~;;b~i~~s ~~,~~~.;g~3~~~nch from
Replace existing 15-inch with 24-inch pipe from
MH10034054 dls,to MH10033730. Project not
required if future rehabilitation is performed.
Replace existing 10-inch with 15-inch pipe from
MH10033920 dls to MH10033982. Project not
required if future rehabilitation is performed.
Flow at vault on west dls end of Main Street
Interceptor reconfigured to prevent flow from going
north. All flow is diverted south.
Replace existing 1 O-inch with 15-inch from
MH10034589 uls to MH10034519.
New 15-inch wet weather bypass from
MH10035662 dls to MH10035367.
Replace existing 15-inch and 18-inch pipe ~h 24-
inch from MH10035908d1s to MH10035636:
Replace existing 12-inch with 15-inch from
MH 1 0035903 dls to MH10035835.
Replace existing 10-inch with 12-inch from
MH 1 0036187 dls to MH10036186.
All.rehab in basin SN 22, This completes the
existing rehab listed in the 2001 WWFMP.
Upgrade 2 pump system with 911 gpm capacity
each
Upgrade 2 pump system with494 gpm,capac~
each.,
-'
Upgrade 2 pump system with 664 gpm capac~
each
Replace existing 12-inch pipe with 18-inch pipefrom I
MH10035908 uls to MH10036270.
Replace existing lO-inch pipe with a 12-inch pipe I,
from MH10036195 dls to MH10036,187
22.6k fUn SN19, 7k feet in SN48, 1.5kfeet in SN49.
This plus reduction due,to pipe improvements
completes the future rehab listed in the 2001
WWFMP.
5
ATTACHME~l I - 0
Comments
Will require 300 It auger bore (bore & jack) 36-steel casing
$75.000 (at $2501ft) unlJer H~ 126
Used to control simulated overflow at MH10033395.
Downstream pipe segment from MH10033284 uls to
MH10033294 is upgraded to 27-inch for future
improvements..
Crosses'Mohawk Blvd
Flow monitoring basins 83 and 84 just uls of improvements.
Calibration fair in this area.
Flow monitoring suggested prior to preliminary design
No construction assumed. Reconfiguration of flow achieved
through valve or weir adjustments.
I' Lucerne Meadows LS is routed to the West. As of 2007, this 1
LS discharged to the north through these pipe segments. .
'I Bypass weir set at 496.0 It,elevation (COS) at MH10035662. I
Crosses Bob Straub PkyIy at start of 1105.
A 21-inch is necessary for existing land use. For future land
use, this project is -upgraded to a 24-inch pipe. Flow'
monitoring is recommended prior to preliminary.design.
1 Flow monitoring is recommended prior to preliminary design
I Flow monitoring is recommended prior to preliminary design 1
Review cost effectiveness reiative to conventional I
conveyance improvements
Flow monitoring suggested prior to preliminary design I
Flow monitoring'suggested prior to preliminary design I
Flow. monitoring suggested prior to preliminary design
Review cost effectiveness relative to conventional
conveyance impn;>vements
i,
priority
J '
6
10
:19
.20
~11
15
.'
16
5
,
3
.,
'.,-
\21
I
,
.. ~
'22
I
1
I'
,~3
,
17
1
SN19-1
~
SN48&49 - 9
j
;
i.:
-
8
Proposed Construction Total Cost
Year Cost
2009 - 2010 $2,539,000 $3,935,000
2010.2011 $307,000 $476,000
2013 - 2014 $398,000 $617,000
. 1 2103 - 2014 1 $477,000 $739,000
$1,625,000 $2,519,000
$391,000 $606,000
$224,000 $347,000
2010 - 2011 $1,416,000 $2,195,000
2010 -201'1 $1,356,000 $2,102,000
2012 -2013 $348;000 1 $539,000
2012 - 2013 $159,000 1 $246;000
2009 - 2010 $3,908,968 $7,573,000
2008 - 2009 $769,417 $1.443,000
2013 - 2014 $560,379 $1,050,000
2014 - 2015 $653,152 $1,224,000
2011 - 2012 $739,000 [-$1,145,000
2012 - 2013 $105,000 1 $163,000
2008-2009
$5,181,026 $10,038,000
2010-2011
-~rmLe1\ecffived
MAY I) 6 21108
Planner: BJ
Proposed "
Existing Dia No of Length " Proposed Construction
Project ID Purpose ' Diameter (Inch) or Description Comments " Priority Total Cost
(Inch) MHs (ft) , Year Cost
Peak Rate (Ilpm)
Service requirements: 1) new "Hamor Drive" t-'::i
System 8 (gravity) and 5 equipped with 2 pumps each with 145 gpm capacity. Project evaluated if river crossing reduced cost. Most cost
Hamor Drive 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
expansion (fo'fce main) main 3) 7684 ft of 8-inch pipe to service entire main in place north of the neighborhood.. ,
,:!eightJ.orhood. -----.-
I::xlends system along Jasper Road to allow for the
System 22992 decommissioning of Lucerne Meadows and Golden
Jasper Road 10,12,21 89 TerraCe PSs. Service requirements: 1) 2581 ft of 1()" " 4 2008-2010 $7,496,000 $11,619,000
expansion ,
inch pipe, 2) 3395 ft of 12-inch pipe, and 3) 17016 ft
of 21-inch pipe.
System 27 . Extends the system from the existing 3D,incl] south I Includes the.150 trailer.parCels,not originally contained in the I 2008 - 2009 $1,934,000 $2,998,006
Franklin Blvd 8, 15 6280 along Franklin Blvd. Service requirements: 1) 2411 ft 2
expansion of 8-inch pipe, and 2) 3868 ft of 15--inch .Ripe. GIS. . , ,',
System ' Extends the system from the existing 15--inch east
Thurston Rd 8 17 3882 along Thurston Road. Service requirements are 24 ,2016 - 2017 . $949,000 ' $1,471,000
expansion 3882 fl of 8-inchpipe. . "
Extends the system from the existing 21-inch east
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 fl of lO-inch pipe, and 2) 1983 fl of 12-inch Last manhole shown is at crest of hill.
pipe.
System Services the development east of the new Vera I
Vera Area 8,12 39 9583 pump station. Service requirements: 1924 fl of 1()" 23. 2014 - 2016 $2,570,000 $3,984,000
expansion inch pipe and 1983 fl of 12-inch pipe.
Peace Healthl System Pump station designed as part of the I Basis for costis the Sanital)' Sewer Study for Riverbend
Subdivision (KPFF Consulting Engineeelll, 2005). Costs 12 2011 - 2012 $2,232,930 $3,189,900
Rivemend PS expansion PeaceHealthlRiverbend 'Campus' Development. adjusted to' 2008 dol/alll.
Existing Subtotal ' $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
I'
:!
Date Received
"
"
6
MAY 0 (; ZUUtl
Planner: BJ
ATTACHMENT 1 - 6
0'
J"
,- .
'~;
_A',l -
.iI CH2MHILL
~
CH2M HILL
2020 SW Fourth Avenue .
Third Floor
Portland, Oregon 97201
Tel 503.235.5000
Fax 503.736.2000
Wastewater Master Plan
Prepared for
City of Springfield, Oregon
Da\ti'~rfed
MAY 0 6 2008
, .
',I
f\TTACHMENT 2
Planner: BJ
r
..
t-:".....
Acknowledgements
SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL
Christine Lundberg - War<J 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
'.
Date Received
N\JW \I liZ006
Planner: BJ
T' .
Contents
Contents ................:............................................................................................................. .... I
Glossary of Acronyms ..... ............. .............................. ...... ................ ................................ ...............v
Executive Summary .............. .......... .........:............ ................. .............. ..................................... .......1
Background ................ ........ ...................... ......: ........... ............... ...................................... .....1
Regulatory Dri vers...............................................................................................................1
Public Process .......... ............. .............................. .......... ......................... ..............................2
Alternative Analysis.... ........ ............................... ........ .......................... .............. ... ...... ....... :..2
CIP Recommendations. ................. .............................................................. .........................4
1.0 Introduction and Background ..............................................................................................8
1.1 Background and Goals .............................................................................................8
1.2 Regulatory Requirements.......... ...... .........................:........... ............... .....................8
I .2. I F ederiil.....................,.........................................:.............................................................. 8
1.2.2 State of Oregon ..... .....................................................................:............... ...........:..........9
1.2.3 Statewide Planning Goals .... ................................................................. ....... ..........:......... 9
1.2.4 Pump Station Sizing Requirements...........................................................................10
I. .2.5 City of Springfield .................................................................,.......................................10
2.0 Related Documents ............................................................................................................11
2.1 Wet Weather Flow M~nagement Plan (WWFMP)................................................11
2.2 MWMC Facilities Plan ..........................................................................................11
2.3 Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP)............................................................12
2.4 Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual........................................13
2.5 North Springfield Sewer Study..............................................................................13
2.6 SHN 1&1 Investigation................................................................... ........................13
2.7 Standard Construction Specifications .................:.................:.............:..................14
2.8 Sanitary Sewer Study for RiverBend Subdivision.................................................14
2.9 Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan............................................15
3.0 Study Area Characteristics.......................:.........................................................................16
3.1 Study Area .............................................................................................................16
i. 3.2 3:2.~;:~:~r::;~~~.n.~~~:.:::::::.......:::::::::.....:::::::...........::::::::.........::::::...........:p~t.~::R~C.~.iV.iJ
MAY 11 t; lIJ08
. "
Planner: BJ
3.2.2 Precipitation Patterns ................................................................. .......... ........... ............... \6
3.2.3 Groundwater................................................................................................................... 16
3.3 Socioeconomic Environment .................................................................................18
3.3. I Historical Population......................... ...................... ........................................... ............18
3.3.2 Population Growth Projections ......................................................................................\9
3.4 Land Use Regulations .........:..................................................................................20
3.4.\ Springfield Facilitie~ Located Within the Urban Growth Boundary .............................20
3.4.2 Zoning Designations.................................................... ...................................................20
3.4.3 Land Use...........................:............................................................................................ 20
3.5 Vertical Datum used for Model.........................................................................................2I
4.0 Existing Wastewater Collection System ........................................................................................25
4.1 Inventory of Existing System ............................................................................................25
4.\.1 Springfield Wastewater Collection System ...................................................................25
4.1.2 Pump Stations ..................... ... ................. .................... .................... ...............................28
5.0 Sewer System Eval uation ............................................................................................................... 30
5. \ Planning Scenarios............................................................................................................ 3 0
5.2 Design Storm Selection ..... ...:....... ........................................... ........... ............................... 30
5.3 Model Deve lopment ;......................................................................................................... 30
5.4 Collection System Capacity Analysis ......................................................................................31
5.4. \ Deficiency Definiti on...........................................................:......................................... 3 \
5.4.2 Existing Defic iencies ..............................................................:...........................:........... 3 2
5.4.3 System Improvement Options......................................................................................... 3 2
5.4.4 Description of Improvement Methodology .................................. ........... .......... ............... 35
5.4.5 Pri vate Lateral Program ................................................................................................. 36
5.4.6 Exi sting System Improvements...................................................................................... 43
5.4.7 Future System Improvements ................................................................... ......................47
5.4.8 Expanding System to Meet Development......................................................................49
6.0 . Capital I mprovements Program...................................................................................................... 53
6.\ Cost Estimate Development ..............................................................................................53
6.2 Capital \m provements proj ects ......................................................................................... 54
6.3 S DC Allocations................................................................................................................ 54
,.'
o
,P;, ,
Date Rece\ved
MAY 062008.
Planner: BJ
,
Tables
Table ES-I- Capital Improvement Project List .........................................................................6
Table 2.1 - WWFMP Solutions for Existing Conditions......................................................... I I
Table 3.1 - Average Temperature and Precipitation in Springfield .........................................18
Table 3.2 - Historical Population Data for Springfield, 1990-2006........................................19
Table 3.3 - Existing Land Use Zoning.........................................................................:...........21
Table 3.4 _ Future Land Use Zoning........................................................................................22
Table 4.1 - Summary of the System per Flow Monitoring Basin............................................25
Table 4.2 - Summary of Collection System Age ...........................................:.........................26
Table 4.3 - Summary of Stations Modeled and No. of Pumps ................................................29
Table 5.1 - Pump Station Needs ..............................................................................................33
Table 5.2 - Status of Rehabilitation .........................................................................................35
Table 5.3 - Subbasins Targeted for Rehabilitation ..................................................................44
Table 5.4 - Pipeline Improvements for Existing Land Use .....................................................46
Table 5.5 - Collection System Improvements for Future Land Use ........................................47
Table 5.6 - Summary of Expansion Projects ...........................................................................50
Table 6.1 - Capital Improvement Project Listing ....................................................................55
Table 6.2 - Peak Flows for SDC Allocation ........~..........:........................................................57
Figures
Figure ES-I - System Improvements .........................................................................................5
Figure 3.1 _ Study Area..................................................................:.........................................17
. . .
Figure 3.2 - Average Temperature...........................................................................................18
Figure 3.3 - Precipitation .........................................................................................................18
Figure 3.4 - Historical Population for Springfield .....:.............................................................19
Figure 3.5 - Existing Land Use Zoning .................................:...........................:.....................23
Figure 3.6 - Future Land Use Zoning ......................................................................................24
Figure 4.1 - Existing Wastewater Collection System ....:.........................................................27
Figure 5.1 - Hydraulic Gradeline Elevations for 5- Year Event, Existing
Land Use Conditions................... ......................... ........................ ......... ...............34
Figure 5.2 - Rehabilitation .......................................................................................................37
Figure 5.3 - System Improvements..................................................................................:.......45
Figure 5.4 - Future Deficiencies with Existing Improvements in Place ..................................48
Figure 5.5 - Expanded Service Pipes ........................................................................:..............52
;\ .- ~
; !~ ~
Date Received
j\
ii;~Y D 3 lUuni
~ .'
Planner: BJ
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.IA Near-term Projects ....:................................................................................................. A-2
A.2 Flow Monitoring and Data Analysis................................................................... A-2
A.3 Modeling Methodology ...................................................................................... A-6
A.3.1 Hydraulic Model........................,............................................................:.................... A-6
A.3.2 Flow Development ..................................................................................................... A-12
AA 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
D~e Re~e\ved
Mfl..'( \) G Z'U08
Planner: BJ
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
ROI/I
SAM
SDC
SSMP
SSO
SSS
UBC
UGB
WERF
WWFMP
.,
.'. .
"" \..,
" l
,;
American Association of Cost Engineering
capital improvement project
Oregon Deparbnent 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
Date Received
MAY 0 6 zti08
Planner: BJ
:
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 ahd reflect results of the MWMC s Wet
I
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 and1politically 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 ~olution. 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 c6mpletion in 2001.
The Springfield Wastewater System Master Plan is intended to identify existing and future
capacity constraints, determine capacity requirements qnd 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 thatSprin... gfield, Eugene and MWMC fully implement the WWFMP, and th::~~
discharg~s, ~f u,ritF',at~d wastewater can be discharged to the waters ~t~~
under the following conditions; for flows greater than those occurring-rch"fh~ t4~~~'l1uration,
, ~. . MAY 06Z008
t:ldi-.i1er:1 ad-
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
To be completed by City of Springfield staff
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 tile 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 downtownaiea 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 1/1 can be
reduced. Consistent with the WWFMP, rehabilitation is assumed to consist of main lines
and laterals within the public right-of-way ("public only").
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 tile 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.
~torage was not considered a cost effective option. Infiltration and Inflow nl!.c!i.2.nft .
corivefani:PiinprovemHitS:~nd additional treatment capacity consistent ~eeelved
'1 MAY 0 i 2008
-. .-------. - Planner: DJ
,.
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-1). 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 III 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" and E pump
station and at the eastern end of the Main St. trunk, which requires tile identification of
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
~,wf ellre de~~I?pecl ~l'cl the needed pipe locations, diameters and lengths weatelff~eeived
o ows. .
t
MAY 0 6 2008
Planner: BJ
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-l and listed in Table ES-I.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)
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 upsized 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
associa ted 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 in close
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.
see 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.
. ~d
Mt! - ~ j 7nOll
"anr,...,
\
.....
.....-...
C--=i111
~
r
.
.........,
''''
:]
,1
.
Harbo,Drtve
o
?>...
--
~
~.
,,-- '::"
~
H'Wd.nlo
J
,
......'h..r.
00""
'>
Thunton
I
i -,-
......'u
---
i
, Main Slreet
~
L~_
"'HOWI.
--,
-.... -~
----
'''llo1~ , ~ ""'..
-.,
.~.
,~
:-....r~.-....,
.
_ ~M~~:.w.IUi
1\ ,.""......nt
G ~v.Mr1lghlU.....I~.......
. F"'lnV.t<<1lghIM..hoIIlmpn;lO'_1I
~E''-lInllB''lnRIoh.bItI'l\on
Dl/l'bInGrOWlh80UfldNy
I!!l P
:3. E~~
:J. P",",~
~ ;;-Q.
... wczav~.
CO ~
or----- (1) ~
C- 0..
-~PI...I"","",~
-~""''ilI,,,,,,(11
;.!..J
~,
"
G'~
T'.K'~ l
...-.
....-
,....".,.,
J
,-
.....:.._.......'....
.-
,
10
f' " "
...
~
'..
EJI!ClJlNe Surrmay
Clyol~~I,,(lk'r>l
---.,.
~~
TABLE ES-l 'i-':~~ ':::'
Capital Improvement Project Ustlng
S~rin,~field WastewatOr.Master Plan
Sprlngneld Waltewater Collectfon System Improvements
"'E:ldstJngDla Proposed Noot I Length \ Proposed Constructlon
Project 10 Purpose Diameter (Inch) or Description Comments Priority Total Cost
.- (Inch) PeakRatefQoml MH. ,ft, Year COlt
1;"-' Existing 24 22 6418 Parallel existing 24-inch pipe with new 24-inch pipe 'Nill require 300 n auger bore (bore & iack) 36-steelcasing 6 2009.2010 $2,539,000 $3,935,0001
,,, uoorade from MH10033730 d/s 10 MH10033409 575,000(al$250IftlunderH~126
..' Used to control simulated overflow at MH10033395.
2'.1.. Existing 12 21 4 795 Replacoexisting12..jnchwith21-inchfrom Downstream pipe segment from MH10033284 uJs to 10 2010-2011 $307.000 $476,000
upgrade MH10033284 uJs to MH10033293 MH10033294 is upgraded to 27-inch for future
imorovemenls.
3 Existing 12 " 1112 I Replecoexisting 12.inchwith 18-inch from I Crosses Mohawk Blvd 19 2013.2014 I $398.000 $617,000
~rade MH10034175 uJs to MH10034164
4 Existing 10 12 11 15" I Repleeoexisting 1G-inchwith 12-inchfrom 20 2103-2014 $477,000 $739,000 I
uoorade MH10033706 d/s 10 MH10033719
Existing Replaeoexisting 15-inchwith 24.jnch pipe from I Flowmoniloring basins 83 and 84 just ufS of improvements. I' 52.519,0001
5 15 24 21 4161 MH10034054 dls 10 MH10033730. Project not $1,625,000
upgrade renuJred if future rehabilitation I, oerlormed. Callbralion fair in this area. .
I Existing RePlaeoexiSting 1O-inchwith1s...nchpipetrom I Row monitoring stIggested prior to preliminary design $606.000 I
6 upgrade 10 15 6 1231 MH10033920 dls to MH10033982. Project not $391,000
renulred if future mhabilitation Is oerlormed.
I Existing Flow at vault on west dls end of Main'Streel No constnJction assumed. Reconfiguration of now achieved I
7 27"" Interceptorreconfigured to preventllowfrom going
upgrade north. Afl lIowisdiVl:lrted south. through valve or weir adjustmenls.
8 I Existing 10 15 3 714 Replace existing 1D.:-inchwith 154nchfrom lucerne Meadows LS is routed to the West. As of 2007, this $224,000 $347,000 I
up.Rrade MH100J4589ulsto MH10034519. LS discha!'led tothe..!!orth throu~hthese.o~l!.e seqments.
9 Existing 15 17 4837 New lS-inch wet weather bypass from Bypass weir set at 486.0 n elevation (CaS) at MH10035662. 2010-2011 $1,416,000 ,$2.195,000
uoorade MH10035662 d/s to MH10035367. Crosses Bob Straub ~wy_at start of t105
Existing 21-existing,24- Repfaeoexisting 15-inchand 18-inch pipe with 24- A 21-inch is necessary for existing Jand llse. For future land
10 upgrade 15/18 future " 3589 inch from MH10035908 dls to MH10035636. use,thisprojact is upgraded to a 24-inch pipe. Flow 11 2010_2011 51,356,000 $2,102,000
monitorinnisracommendedoriortooreliminarvdesilln.
11 Existing 12 15 9 1014 RepJaceexisting 12-inchwith 15-inchfTom Flow monitoring is recommended prior to preliminary design 15 2012-2013 $348,000 $539,000 I
up'o.rade MH1oo35903 dls to MH10035835.
12 I EXIsting 10 12 529 Replace existing 1D-inch with 12-inch fTom Row monitoring is recommended prior to pre~minary design 16 2012-2013 $159,000 $246,000
uoorade MH10036187 dls to MH10036186.
Rehabilitation Existing Aflrehab in basin SN 22. This completes the Review cost effectiveness relative to conventional 57,573.0001
for III Varies 8-12 23,548 2009-2010 $3.908.968
Reduction Rehab existingrehablistedinthe2001WWFMP. conveyance improvements
NuggelWay Existing 642 gpm(singJe 911 peak wet Upgrade 2 pump system with 911 gpmcapacity 51.443,000 I
PS upgrade pu.mp) 898 gpm weather ,,'" Row monitoring suggested prior 10 preliminary design 3 2008-2009 $769.417
(Dumas 1 &2\
Existing 380gpm(sin9le 483gpmexisting I Upgrade 2 pump system with 494 gpm capacity 51,050,000 I
HaydenP$ peak,494gpm Row monitoring suggested prior 10 preliminary design 21 2013-2014 $560,379
upgrade pump) fllllll"f.!(l('Bk ,,'"
I Existing 379gpm(singla 525 gpm eiosting I Upgrade 2 pump system with 664 gpm capacity I Flow monitoring suggested prior to preliminary design $1,224,0001
RiverGlenPS upgrade pump) peak. 664gpm ,,'" 22 2014-2015 5653.152
future~ak
f" ~ 12 18 6 2224 Replace existing 12..jnch pipe with llHnch pipe from 13 $1,145,000 I
" . MH1oo35908 uJs to MH10036270. 2011-2012 $739,000
14 ur 10 12 3 325 ReplaceexistinIlW-mchpipewitha12-inchpipe 17 2012-2013 $105,000 $163,000]
ehabilit~ from MH100J6195 dls 10 MH10036187
22.6k It in SN19, 7k teet in SN48, 1.5k teet in SN49. SN19-1 2008-2009 $10,038,000 I
forllr< F~hab Varies 8-12 31,211 This pfus reduction due to pipe improvements I Review cost effectiveness relative to conventional $5,181,026
ReductJ~ completes the future rehab listed in the 2001 conveyance improvements SN46&49.9 2010-2011
WNFMP.
CD = ~U
.., "" n
. . = CD
=
CO -.
OJ <
cp
Co- I..L. 6
. 'PrQJedID', EllIstlngDI_ Proposed Noof Length Proposed Construetlon I
Purpose Dlameter(lneh) or Descrlptlon Comments Priority Total Cost
(Inch) Peak Rate lapm' MH. (ft) Year Cost
Service requirements: 1) new "Harbor Drive" PS
System 8 (gravily) and 5 equipped with 2 pumpseech wilh 145gpm capacity. ProjecteV8luated if river crossing reduced cost. Mo5tcost
Harbor Drive expansion (force main) 32 7818 2) 134 It olS-inch to extend existing "dry pipe~ force elledive solution makesuseoftheexisling"drypipe'force 25 2017-2018 $2,156,000 $3,342,000
main 3) 76B4 It ol8-inch pipe to service enlire main in place north 01 the neighborhood..
ne!J:jhbomood.
Extends system along Jasper Road to allow for lhe $1'.619,000 I
System decommissioning 01 Lucerne Meadows and Golden
Jasper Road 10,12,21 B9 22992 Terrace PSs. Service requirements: 1) 2581 n 0110- 2008-2010 $7,496,000
expansion inch pipe, 2) 3395nof12-inch pipe, and 3) 17016 It
of21.inchpi~. 52,998,000 1
System Extendslhe system from lhe exisling 3O-inch south Indudeslhe 150 trailer parcels not originalty conlained in the
FrankJinBIvd 8,15 27 6280 along Franklin Blvd. Service requirements: 1)2411 It 2008-2009 $1,934,000
expansion ol8-inchpiP!l: and 2\3868nof1S-inchppe. GIS.
System Extandsthesyslemll"Omtheexisling15-incheast 51,471,0001
Thurston Rd 8 17 3882 along Thurston Road. Service requirements are " 2016-2017 $949,000
expanslOn 3882nof8-inchp'p!:
Extends the syslem Irom the exisling 21-inch east $1,625,000 1
McKenzie Hwy System 10,12 17 3906 along McKenzie Highway. Service requirements: 1) Pipe extended east as laras grade supported gravity flow, " 2011_2012 $1,049,000
expansion 1924n of lQ-inch pipe, and 2) 1983ftof12-inch Last manhole shown is at a-Bst of hill.
pl~. $3,984,000 1
System Services lhe development east of the new Vera
VeraATea 8.12 39 9583 pumpslalion. Service requirements: 1924nollo- " 2014-2016 52,570,000
expansion inch pice and 1983 ftol12-inch Dice.
PeaceHealthl System Pump station designed as part ollhe Basis for cost is thtl Sanitary Sewer Study ror Riverbend $3,189,9001
Riverbend PS expansion PeaceHealthIRiverbend Campus Development. Subdivision (KPFF Consulting Engineeers, 2005), Costs 12 2011-2012 52,232,930
adiusted to 2008 dollars
1
I ExistingSublotal $15,131,917 $25,611,0001
I FutumSubtotal $6,025,026 $11,346,000
I System Expansion Subtotal $18,386,930 $28,229,900
Total 539,543,873 $65,186,900
"'0 0
- ~...
~ ;: CD
::J !< :XJ
::J c
- CD "
CD ~ 0
- CD
,- - B -<
7
OJ CD
C- o.
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 fuhlre 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 fuh,re 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) plamung 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.
qoals of this plan include:
. management of collection system flows and review of projected infiltration and inflow (1/1)
removal requiremep.ts 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 developmentcomlT!unity.
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.
~
1}.1 i:: ~e~~ral
Date Received
MAY l) 6 looa
Planner: BJ
8
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 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 EPA, 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 WiIlamette 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. Itshould 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 EP A 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 SSG 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 Fa'cilities 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
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.
.,
rs :J8UUHld-
9
B002 9 0 ^V~
pa^!aOaH alBa
"
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
1.2.5.1 Springfield Municipal Code
Section under development by City ofSprmgfield Staff.
1.2.5.2 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.
,
Date neGeived
MAY 0 6 Z008
,~.. .
. '~:;. ' ~
Planner: BJ
2.0 Related Documents
2.1 Wet Weather Flow Management Plan (WWFMP)
I
In 1998, MWMC initiated a project to 'develop a compr~hensive WWFMP for the local and
regional wastewater collection and treatment facilities in th,e Eugene/Springfield metropolitan
area. Developing the plan essentially consisted of ev~luating four technologies for managing
excess wet weather flow relative to performance (frequency of 55Os), cost, and political and
community acceptance. The four technologies included: (1) system rehabilitation to control
rainfall-derived infiltration and inflow (ROI/I); (2) in-line and off-line storage of peak flows; (3)
additional conveyance (including greater pipe conveyance and pump station capacity); and (4)
I, .
additional capacity to treat peak flows at the treatmen~ plant. The objective of the plan was to
develop and implement the most cost-~ffective 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 below.
TABLE 2.1
WWFMP Solutions for Existing Conditions
City of SorinWield Wastewater Master Plan
Component of WWFMP
Sub-Area Solution E24 (Springfield)
Description
I
. Public system rehabilitation in seven sub-basins
. Further investigation and remediation as
necessary in Gateway area
. Upgrades to the Willakenzie Pump Station and
potentially the Gateway Pump Station
. No storage
Sub-Area Solution W25 (Eugene)
. Public system rehabilitation in 21 sub-basins
. Installation of valve at 14th and Tyler
I
. Upgrade to screw pumps at treatment plant
. No Storage
I
. Manage 100 percent of 82-mgd excess fiow 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 Eugene/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 cBtIlh::P liliilfl"'riG\tffid
208 Plan established the original projections, requirements, and projects ne'tcte~ t~ ~~~JI 0
Eugene-Springfield community through 2004. This Facilities Plan also builds Ml'I'P'll'602lfua
11
Planner: BJ
"
targeted studies, including the 1997 MWMC Master Plan for the Eugene/Springfield Water
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 tl1e Willamette River.
No additional primary clarifiers will be constructed but rather primary peak flow treatment
capacity will be increased in tl1ese 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 PlaI1 (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 (April 1999) serves as a teclmical
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 .
proj:,c~~J1S,and_as~O~j~tedre~ional wastewater facilities for a new PFSP plannQdkfRecelVed
. -'.'-' 3~?; \- ,:. j..
.\:. .1-'
MA'120 6 Z008
Planner: BJ
oj
2025. Springfield's wastewater capital improvements will need to be consistent with the PFSP.
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
permi1:t:iTIg 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 ar 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 i~cludes discussion and recommendations
pertinent of the facilities needed to expand the sewer system to serve North Springfield. Major
elements of the report included: I
I. 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 pla~g and implementing critical III reduction imProrMn~l8tltletCi
Interceptor: . 0
900lg 0 MVl
pa^\aoa\:\ alBa
.~. J
'"
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 1/1 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 Masf 'r Plan
Description
Marcola Interceptor
Marcola Interceptor
Glenwood Trunk Line
Glenwood Trunk Line
Glenwood Trunk Line
Glenwood Trunk Line
Glenwood Trunk Line
Glenwood Trunk Line
Line Size
42 -inch
Manholes
24-inch
18-inch
15-inch
12-inch
8-inch
Manholes
Estimated Footage or No.
5,682 Lineal Feet'
9
3,399 Lineal Feet
1,450 Lineal Feet
203 Lineal Feet
853 Lineal Feet
93 Lineal Feet
26
Total CCTV Footage
Total Manhole Inspections
11,680 Lineal Feet
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 (555), 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;C;ame;FarmRoad'hl,the west, and a residential neighborhood to the Sjll\tht R . d
' . . " . . Ua e ecelve
'.. ~ .
, MAY t)!6 2008
. . .~.
Planner: BJ
2.9 Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
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 Co.unty 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, further~nce of assets, and development or
redevelopment of the metropolitan area. I
The Public Facilities and Services element of the Metro Plan provides direction for the future
provision of wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure as "key urban services:' to
planned land uses within the Metro Plan, Plan Boundary.
".''-
Date'Received
MAY 0 fZ008
Planner: BJ
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 treabnent
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).
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 I inch of rainfall.
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 monthly temperature and precipitation data.
Date Received
MAY 06 Z008
Plantter: BJ
I
North
Brench
GI~wood
-c 0
- ?-1
S>> CO
:J .
:J CO
CD <n
...., n
- ~GENI(t)
. . ~. --
OJ ~~fQwlh8ound>l1'1
:=,ft,
c... ",~~... ......,
- ~
\
'I,
~~
Downtown
-
North Sprtngfleld
lJ;>;
."
,-.-"
...
,
..
South wA"
~
'M~\' ell It,.".
~
.
!
--
J
,-
";"-'_..'-
Thunton
-.~
M.ln Street
..
-
.-
,
I
;0,'"
...
\
r-
,
I
~
J.----
-
AGURE3.1
--
ay III SpmgIMI.............. ~
---.L
TABLE 3.t
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.c1.springfield.or.us/slats.htm
Figure 3.2
Average Temperatures
!IO'F
/<J'F
if1F
!O'F
5O'F
4O'F
3O'F
2O'F ,
I 1 , , .. 1
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun JIol Aug Sep oa Nov De<:
Average Temperature
I%Fl I%FI
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
tlnl
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
8"
~ 7"
."
;:vm; 5"
411
~ 311
Precipitation
CiY
A v.rage
us Ivtf1ge
::, T t f 14 I I
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun JiA Aug Sep oa Nov De<:
I--
us average
Source: http:j j www.cily-data.comjcityjSpringfield-Oregon.hlml
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 throug~~Ot ~Fi~re 3.4), d
Historical population data have been summarized and presented in T~ t1eCelVe
I.l;:,"~~~
Planner: BJ
I -
T A8LE 3.2
Historical Population Data for Springfield, 1990-2006
City of Sprinllfield Wastewater Master Plan
Year
1990
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
FIGURE 3.4
Historical Population for Springfield
Springfield
Pqpulation
44,683
49,005
50,140
50,670
51,700
52,945
53,005
53,483
53,946
54,720
55,350
55,860
57,065
Springfield Population
100000
90000
80000
70000
c: 60000
0
'"
~ 50000 - --
:; .---- -
c-
o 40000
Q.
30000
20000 .
10000
o
-----
- ---
I
[1__poPulationl
1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
3.3.2 Population Growth Projections
Year
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:
rg :J8UUE!rI
19
BOOl 9 0 A\fVi
pa^!aoaH alBa
. 2010: 60,960
. 2015: 66,130
. 2020: 71,216
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 (UGB), 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 UGB.
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 UGB.
Currently, approximately 39,683 acres are served by MWMC. Of this area, 36 t'~..~..t is
classified residential, 15 percent is commercial, 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 identified 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.
Date Received
MAY 0 6 2008
20 J
Planner: B
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
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 NGVDI 929. The final MWMC datum
will be NGVDI 929.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
5173
5173
5173
F70
F70
F70
F72
F72
F72
F74
F74
F74
F77
FB1
F81
F81
F83
F83
F83
F84
F84
F84
F85
F85
F85
F86
F86
F87
F87
F88
F88
F88
Land Use Category_ EOU
Commerdal 3475,05
Industrial 897.66
Residential 15906.34
Commerdal 776.74
----...--.-...-..
Industrial 259.56
Residential _519.~5_
Commerdal _ _ 65.08
Industrial 2,29
Residential 873.00
Commerdal 353,86_
Indust~a'-_ _ _538.72__
Residential 833.58
Residential 675.03_
Commerdal _ _---16,10
Industrial __ _ _.1}9.70_
Residential _50.52 _
Commerdal 100,21
Industrial 90.66 __
Residential 255.34
Commerdal 18.79
Industrial 3.73
Residential 221.92
Commerdal 371.90
Industrial 3.73
Residential 508,00
Commerdal 40,71
Residential 223,00
Commerdal 8.44
Residential 150.00
Commerdal 281.22
Industrial 1025,85
Residential 595,74
Acres
332,61
224,90
2366,30
45,84
6601
SO.61
3.57
OA6
119,66
26.63
146.51
213.65
73.14
17.15
48,13
45,32
9.65
7.56
35A5
0,94
0,73
40,75
6,71
0,01
45,31
2.87
34.72
OA2
21.75
15.05
4ooAO
97.73
Date Reoe\veu
MAY 06 2008
Planner: BJ
Basin 10
F89
F89
F90
F90
F90
I LandUse Category
I Industrial
1_~.~idenUal - -
I Commercial
Industrial
I Residential
TABLE 3.7
Future Land Use
Ci/v of Sari" eld Wastewater Master Plan
Basinl'L- Land Use C;ileaory_ I
5173 Commercial I
5173 Industrial I
5173 ~esidential I
F70 tommercial I
F70 Industrial I
F70 Residential ,-
F72 Com~ryial
F72 Industrial
F72 I Residential-=--
F74 Commrryial
F74 [Industrial
F74 Residential
F77 _ ~esident~1
F81 tommerylal
F81 Industrial
F81 ~esidentijll
F83 j tomrperylal
F83 Induslrlal
F83 ReSldentJal
F84 l Commercial
F84 Industrial
-1'84- - Residential
F85 I Commeryjal
F85 I Industrial
F85 ~esidenti!lL.
F86 tonpreryJal
F86 Resldenl~1
F87 I cOI"(l1eerclal
- - I
F87 .. ~esl ential
-
F88 ommercial
F88 Industrial
F88 R~derlial_ I
F89 In ustna 1
-
F89 esidential I
F90
F90
F90
~ommercial
Industrial
Residential
EOU
5,81
2351.24
197.39
54,82
977.35
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
Total EOU
3908.07
1360.50
1811,)3.66
8 ~.23
427.58
1507.47
65.08
2.29
873.00 I
353.86 --..l
839.89 -1
856.58 I
675.03 I
131.11 1-
346.17 1_
111.63 I
100.21 I
90.86
255.34 1
18.79 I
3.73 I
221.92 I
371.90 I
3.73 I
508.00 I
40.71 I
223.00 I
8.44 I
150.00 I
281.22 I
1348,66 I
603.74 I
5.81 I
2351.24 1
197.39 I
54.82 I
977.35 I
Acres
4,54
425.44
12.33
0.55
154,89
Total Acres
362.19
264.59
2394.79
53.61
101.83
87.85
~.57_
~.46
119.66
22.73
306.44
213,66
73.14
18.55
88.66
34.71
9.65
7.56
35.45
0.94
0.73
40.75
6.71
0.01
45.31
2.87
34.72
0.42
21.75
15.05
409.91
101.43
4.54
421.74
12.33
0.55
154.89
Date Received
MAY ti8 zoos
Planner: BJ
-0
-
s>>
:J
:J
(1)
-
.,
J
1(("""'"
r...., .,,~.
~
.
,'f.
"',
'....
CJ
~
~ (1)
~~
en (1)~
r-> 0
g g!.
"" <:
9J e_, ,_"'_~,,_...__..__,_.~__..._.o_ ..~.._
l
,pi
. .
~
[!!!J Flow Uonllo"nlilBasInI
D lhbolnG,owlh80u~ry
ExiltlngL...dUH
Sing.....F.nW,rResid.ntial
MuIl-Flmit,'Rlltsidenhl
_RelgiOUI
_Rllleiland'MloleSaleTrad8
~lndlt6~fal
Gov.m....nl.ElIlK800n100
GenerllSe<Yio:ft
_eorr.nunlca~onlllldUtilili"
_Transpofltadon
_V.ClInI
ROIIds.AhyJ..ndR.*oadtl
_ Parband RlIcrN~on
AQIlQJlur"IlfI<lTlmbef
1.000 HIO(l
_~....14"~_ '
.
AGURE 3.5
Exisbng Land Use
c.tyolSpnng6eld~",",Pl<<I
-..
\
),W'
,:.".....
\
-
,
......
.r_\<;:
...
.
I
L.
'.
"
"
~
--=---
~
(
~7
-o~
- .....
s::u ~ (t)
:J ~
_ ~::IJ
- c:r> (t)
~.....'" .'d,.....,..~-AI_..,"""_P_"--".'....L_....."...... ""~~, <WI 1~~""~..
. CJ __
. ca <.
(t)
a.
OJ
C-
l::!:!!] FIowMooItorlngllaslna
DUrbanGmwlh8<lunda,.,
Furu...LandU..
Slngl...f8....,R.llldential
= MuIi-FamllyRnidential
_RHgiOOI
_RelallandlMwlleallleTrada
_Induabral
Govern.....nt. Educ8boll and
o."",.ISarvic..
--
IIl~UliMiM
_Trllfl~ahlllOn
_v.cant
Roads.Atev-aIldR..olldo
_ ParbandRac:<<latlon
AgtkuIu1.lIIKI........'
_Mi.ItdUse
j
U.. 4,00CI
-i......I...~_ '
AGURE 3.6
Future land Use
ClyotSpmgifeId~.ussterPlln
--...
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 lO-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. Table 4.2 summarizes the collection system by age.
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 Monitoring Basin
Cltv of SDrlnq(jetd Wilrtewater Master Plan
Flow Monitor Basin No of Pipes I Leng,th (It I I
5173 3,932 "62.476
F70 I 1861 32.728 I
F72 109 30.416 I
B1- [ 397 84.859 I
F77 76 18.965 I
F81 I 71 17.995
F83 46 10.320
F84 r ~5_ _ 9.543
F85 73 14.137
F86 I 32 I 9.393
F87 I 30 I 6,585
F88 I 2081 46,105
F89 . 652 120.110
F90 I 179/ 46.366
Total 6.036 1.209.998
Area (Acres)
5,779
433
251
928
109
324
84
69
88
53
43
704
924
258
10.048
Date Rece\ved
I,\~\' ~ ~ 1~1l
25
Planner: BJ
, .
TABLE 4.2
Summary of Collection System Age
Citr..Of. SD.rf"afi.e1d wastewa~r Master Plan
_[)"- e .fonslrucled _ ~ _ Length.C)fl'ipe (miles).
19B7-2007 .. 41.3
-100e:1986 - - -,- - - -'86.3- -- -.
1945-1965 76.05
I Per<:.ent (%J_
r 20.3
,- ---
42.4
r- 37.3
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 storm water 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 storm water 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.
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 Springfield/North 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 IS-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 East Springfield 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 moderi>lf J:;radients. Wes.t of
Highway 126, pipe depths and slopes are deeper with less gradient, resiWte Reooived
characteristic of the low relief alluvial plains.
MAY 0 6 2008
Planner: BJ
\~
..
~
....
l1( ,,,tII'l'l""
'-
HaydenLo
,.,::'
-
{
~
-l
,I
~-..
FS'
,(-" -
,
North
Branch
~
5113 IL
- ...:.----L-!it!..
F83
~ bowntown
South ~A~
I
"
5173
~
"-
..
-""""
~~5,.m;.
-..,
_,
....1\ -
Terrace
i'" .
"
,S.up"
.- M..dO'fll'l,
-..r J...:.....
- . .
-
ft11UI1IIlF""..."".1
'tin, RI"'Il'~
~
---
~
~GENO = CD
ar p~j:I;l"~n
~ ""~"""CD
... Ma~ __
2i! elCist-.gM.jor ~ S)'lltemPipes
, .,.., --","""..~,.....,.....,..:.."..... -- -~""'......., )~,......
. ."'._.._.....'..T~"._ .
ArWIfCFaclllUn
_FIowMonMorlngBBSins
o UrblonGrowth Boundarv
J
~.~
.-
.
AGURE ...,
Existing
Clyof_
CoAecIionSystem
....
...-.u
. Glenwood Pump 51.6on
- EJdsllng Majoor Wast.wale, System PiPK
___tn_
, .
Main Street: This basin currently drains southeast Springfield. The Main Street trunk sewer
ranges in size from 1-inch near 71" 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" 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" 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 "E" and 21" Streets diverts flow to the South" A" trunk line, reliving
the overloaded upper reaches of the Central trunk.
South" A": This basin primarily consists of industrial lands adjacent to South" A" Street. The
South" 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.
Date Received
tiir l>> I; zooa
Planner: BJ
. .
TABLE 4.3
Summary of Stations Modeled and No. of Pumps
City of SprlnQfle/lt Was,t~,((ilfJf Master Plan
~ump ~tation
Golden Terrace
Lucerne Meadows
I-j~ow (new)
Havden
tllladmo,\d Ferry
;ffJr~ral
~~~~l Way
lFada
i;;;m\1
River Glen
Total NUmb!, of Pumps
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Additional information regarding current and future landuse pump station requirements is
presented in Table 5.1.
Date Rece\\Jed
w~.~ \I 6 L~b
p\anner: BJ
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 200S/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 wiihin 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 fue 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.
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 S-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 S.99 inches over 72 hours (including 3.83 over 24
hours) as the S-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 ~onditions developed from calibration, the design storm was inserted within the
precipitation time series on December 2S, 200S (peak rainfall intensity occurs at noon on
December 27, 200S). 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 ?!ner~.J2.iges. d
10-inches and larger ,,:eremodeled. . Dale 11t=t,;ewe
IL't"
MMb U 0 z068
,
./
Planner: BJ
. .
Once fue 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 bofu dry and wet weafuer flows. Finally, flow prediction accuracy is
produced through a calibration process where flow monitoring data gafuered during fue
December 2005, January 2006 wet weafuer season is used to adjust fue model's flow generation
variables. O~ce fue n;lodel is able to generate flow rates fuat occurred (using rainfall during fue
monitoring period), fuat generally match fue flow measured at fue flow monitors, fue model is
considered ready to predict flows for ofuer wet weafuer periods such as fue 5-year design
storm. The Springfield model appears to accurately independently predict peak flows
measured at fue flow monitors.
",
i
.../
However, when fue design storm was input to fue model and flows predicted from fue model
fuey were determined to initially be too high based on ofuer prediction mefuods such as linear
regression estimation and City staff's observations. Therefore, an adjustment factor was
applied to hydrologic variables in fue model resulting in reduced flow 'rates for more fuan half
of fue contributing area. The resulting model was fuen used to identify hydraulic deficiencies
and associated improvements. Details of this process is provided in Appendix A.
I
5.4 Collection System Capacity Analysis
5.4.1 Deficiency Definition
5.4.1.1 Pipelines .
The DEQ requirement is fuat no overflows occur ofuer fuan during periods where
rainfall is equal to or greater fuan fue design storm event. Therefore a deficiency is
defined by fue water surface elevation in manhqles predicted by fue hydraulic model
relative to fue ground surface. As a result, pipelines are allowed to surcharge or
pressurize for short durations during peak flow 'periods. From fue 2001 Wet Weafuer
Flow Management Plan, each improvement must meet fue criterion of keeping
maximum water surface elevations in manholes lower fuan critical elevations. These
critical elevations include 3 feet above pipe crown elevations in fue manhole in areas
where fuere are basements. In areas wifuout basements, fue water surface elevation
must be 2 feet below fue ground surface. For fue Springfield Master Plan, all locations
where fue mod~led water surface reaches fue ground surface an improvement is
recommended to lower fue water surface to meet fue 2 foot criterion.
For pipe improvements, pipe slopes consistent wifu existing pipes are used. The
minimum diameter needed to convey fue peak wet-weafuer flow rates is based on fue
need to maintain fue maximum water level below fue 2 foot criterion.
For new pipes needed to service areas of future (buiIdout = 20 year planning horizon)
development, pipe sizing is based on fue projected flows associated wifu buildout land
use conditions and fue 2000 gallons per acre per day (gpad) infiltration allowance
established in fue 2001 WWFMP. Where possible, 2 feet per second minimum velocity is
maintained during dry-weafuer. In most cases new pipe gravity capacity is equal to or
greater fuan fue peak flow rate. However, some new pipes are surcharged at acceptable
levels based on backwater from downstream conditions.
Date tie~iv~d
MAY. 0 6Z008
Planner: BJ
1"--".
/
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 calibra~ed 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 drawdown 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 1/1 can be
reduced. The WWFMP documents a review of the available data relating RDl/l 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-RDl/l consequently reduced was developed.
Consistent with the WWFMP, rehabilitation is assumed to consist of main lines and laterals
. r
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 1/1 reduction will have the greatest bepefit.
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.
'f:
Date Received
MAY 3ij 6 2008
Planner: BJ
" ."
I Marsha~ 230 2 224 224 None 1
.:2 I River GIfl!.1) 379 2 525 664 PS capacity increase I Add capacity to 664 gpm firm capacity. I '
t>> I V~ (CW"ructed in 2 405 None 1 Pump capacity is estimated at 500 gpm based on I'
:::J 200'i') pump curves and elevation data.
-t 1. Pump st"capadty improvements are sized to meet future land use flow rates give,. that the development is expected to occur within the 20 -year planning period.
..J 2. FI6W moBimfing recommended at all improvement locations prior to improvement design
CD a> n ," '
-; ~ CD
III D c::J __
QO <:
CD
C.
,
TAB~E5.1 '
'Pump:Station Needs
City of. Sprinqfield Wastewater Master Plan
2005 Single
Pump
Pump,ID Drawdown
Test
(gpm)
Golden Terrace 225
Lucerne Meadows
186
New Harlow
Hayden ~o
I Deadmond Ferry
1 Commercial
I 21" & E Street
380
1010
274
954
Nugget Way'
642
I 49'" Street
I Ramada
Glenwood (MWMC
Facility)
288
120
OJ
c....
Existing Existing
Number of Land use
Pu'mps (gpm)
2 316
2 260
3 2729
2 483
2 232
2 215
2 785
2
911
2
2
269
16
2
5489
Future Land
use
(gpm)
461
3694
494
503
218
898
911
.274
16
5889
Improvement Need
None
None
None
PS capacity increase for existing
land use
None
None
None
PS capacity increase required for
existing land use
None
None
None
33
Comment
PS to be decommissioned. Flow routed west as
part of Jasper Road Extension Proiect
PS to be decommissioned. Flow routed west as
part of Jasper Road Extension Pro;ec!
No improvement needed. Pumps designed at
3500 Qpm/each.
I, Add capaCity to 494 gpm firm capacity.
Force main recently rerouted south.
Wet weather pump station
Significant source detection performed and
sources of inflow/infiltration were removed.
Therefore, additional flow monitoring"is
recommended prior to improvement. An
alternative to a PS capacity increase has been
.- - -developed,by,others,tobuild gravitypipelines,to
convey flow to lines in McVay Highwav.
Space for two additional pumps is available,
however based on pump and elevation data
provided, no improvement is needed.
"',
't.
"
.... ---.J
C_.reilll
i;
fJ
-IT
----
~
..~
5''''1
'.'0' ,.1-
North
Br.nch
~'o.'l~
I,
\
:t"t1~
~
~
SAST
South "A" ~
.--I
~
, -....
-
,W' -R,
M 1~\c~ "
o
-./'"
'"'0
-
~ lEG~ tT\
.... o."lh~f"'l\ICJ tnom "'.n/Io,. Rim (1..,)
- .'0< :D
:J.~ (1)
CD . ~ (")
-C = (1)
.. ""'?
F........~""..........<
OJ CD
C- a.
I!!J
..
'.
WeirlDivenlon
- Existing M&jo< WMIe_O!If System Pipn
DUrbanGlowthBouodarv
.ClIyUmits
,<'_."".". ~-..<_............~...- -",............,........
-
.'-
-;.~
-"
---
Go,o.,~
"-'~i
J
~~~.11~~00Q
-
\
--' - --....
,
-~
-
RGURE 5.1
HyaaUicGradeIine Elevations lor S-Year
EV9f1t, Existi'lg lBnd Use Conditions
C1yolSpmgWl~"""P/fIJ
. .
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
lreabnent 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 system 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
City of Spri~ufleld WasOwater Master Plan
Existing Future Original ROil Remaining
SN Planned Planned Rehab Remaining Remaining Reduction ROil
Basin 10 Rehab (It) Rehab (It) Completed Existing Future Estimate Reduction
Estimate'"
SN-08 3,419 1 2.725 \ 6941 13,8% r2~%
- I l_ 6,3731 4261
SN-10 6,799 13.8% 0.9%
~=- 11,449 7,466 I 3,9831 43.3% I 15.1%
SN-SO 1.223 -I 1,2231 34.9% 34.9%
SN-18 I 7.749 8,3261 7.7491 40.5% ~0'5%
SN-21 6,332 -I 43.3% 0.0%
SN-20 I ~oool I 10,000 L -=J 45.7% 0.0%
-.
SN-07 1 I 11.3791 1 11,3791 32.5% 32.5%
SN-11 I I 4,358 r --- -I 1 4,358 15.4% T15.4'10
SN-49 \ \ 1.534\ , I 1,534 37.0% 1 37.0%
I
SN-48 I - -1 7.0481 I I 7.0481- 43.3% 1 43.3%
SN-19 I I 22.6291-- I I 22,629 I 42.0% 1 42.0%
TOTAL 1 46,971 I 46,948 r 34,8001 14,0751 46,938 I I
.. shaded Is reduction for "existing", non~shaded is reduction for "future"
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) Existin>' Svstem Rehabilitation: Since the 2001 adoption of the WWFMP, Springfield has
been systematically implementing a sanitary sewer rehabilitation program to ad~re~ss
the basins identified as having high If I. Of the WWFMP pI~h\1~~e1V
about 14,000 feet of pipe rehabilitation in the public system re~!itlt~ De ~;rorrne .
Based on the updated modeling of the Springfield system, as well aYA'Yi<tWi<16'6ftUal
35
Planner: BJ
, .
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 met for 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.
. II,.
Date Received
MAY 0 G ZQQS
36
Planner: BJ
-:.. J. J .~ ..- JJ" J'." t'. -:
-0
-
~
:::J
:::J
CD
-
. .
OJ
C-
....~.
8GENQ:IJ
IT\ ~ Urbln Growltl Bolndltry
~~B","Fl"III.bilrtJlllonL.......l
*Q."
~::I~'
'''P''''P..~..p.,,'IO<e1'Q1j'',._o-......
a.
""\
-..
-..
_n
~
--
/J
H~
CJ
~ ~C.l.
.....
-.oJ ~
~
H
BfltUf;lRl)
,"
,].~~
"--
-
---
../
~
-
~,~
"
"
"
H
H
..
H
n
H
.-
"
n
-.
\
\~
j
~
H
.'
.~.
..
..
--'
.
ow.t.
" "II"~,V"
IIJI~,fl'V
'----
-
---
I
J
,-
....:....-'_..-
1O"....._O'..I..t<1'I31.~~
..
~
.-
,
........... r---J ...-r-
~~
, -:-=~. J
~I
--..,
.~
"'''1-.,..,
...
"_n
.,
I-'Ipe 10 Targel
Basin Rehab Reduction
landU88 ,1t\, "
~tm ,.
80stl 45.] (wrth
Future SH22 9473 II)xlsti I
rw,{t~ 1fm l2,619 42
1 !\Ii' 433
SN49 -n34 J1
Future
n
\
AGURE 5.2
Rehabitilation
ClyofSjRlglleldWEIewtltWAoIuIw~
---.c
"
- ,
"
-'
5.4.5.1 Definition of Private Lateral Program
The intention of a private lateral rehabilitation program is to achieve more If I 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 the 1/1 from the private laterals and 2)
because 1/1 can migrate to locations in the private system where defects allow 1/1 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 1/1 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 1/1 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 1/1 contributions due to laterals
alone. More information on this report (#02-CT-S5) can be found at wef.org.
The City has several imp\~mentation options to evaluate based on the experience of
other municipalities., Cities and/ or 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 tile 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 coI)1plying or failing to comply with the program are also included in
some programs.
Date Received
,I
M~'ll U II 2008
If .-' i
Planner: BJ
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 RDII flow reductions in the basins where the
work was performed.
. Public sewer rehabilitation may beneficially;reduce overall RDII volume.
Reductions in peak 24-hour average RDII volumes ranged from 2-30%. Reductions
in peak monthly average flows ranged from'2-65%. Reduction in the total volume of
RDII, but not the peak, suggests that infiltration from the groundwater entering
public sewers can be reduced significantly under certain conditions (depending on
I '
the overall groundwater conditions). Reducpons in peak-day and peak-month RDII
volumes benefit wastewater treatment facilities, but do not necessarily benefit the
I
conveyance system. i
I
,
Reduction Estimates
As a part of a 2003 WERF study titled, "R~dllcing 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: I
,
-j
. Rehabilitation of only the sewers in the public-right-of-way may provide little
reduction in peak-hour RDII flows. One study found a 17% reduction in' peak-hour
flows when the portion of building laterals i:h the public right-of-way was replaced.
The other projects of this type found 5% or I~ss 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 RDn volume.
Reductions in peak 24-hour average RDII volumes ranged from 2-30%. Reductions
in peak monthly average flows ranged from;2~65%. Reduction in the total volume of
RDII, 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). Reducpons 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 w~s a manhole rehabilitation project in
Milwaukee, WI, that appar~ntly achieved a 45% reduction in peak RDII flows,
through manhole rehabilitation only. The cil-cumstances suggest that attention to
manholes as inflow sources in instances whe're ground conditions reduce the impact
of groundwater may produce significant results. Manhole rehabilitation in other
case studies, however, did not achieve the same results.
I
More information on this study (#99-WW-F8) can be found at ~f.org. .....:. ,^""
. IJdRA~
',", 39
MAY 06 2008
Planner: BJ
" "
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 RDn
reduction and system rehabilitation that included upper/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/private,
laterals. Some agencies reported that subsequent to rehabilitating 100% of the public-
owned portions of their systems, they were able to increaseRDn reduction rates by 50%
to 70% by rehabilitating the privately owned portions of their system, i.e., the upper
la terals.
Monitoring data from other agencies were typically obtained within a few years of
completing system rehabilitation projects so the data was not necessarily representative
of RDn 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 RDn reduction greater than 50%. Taking other agency data only from sub-
basins yielding greater than 50% RDn reduction in association with full system
rehabilitation (including privately owned upper laterals), the average RDn 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 / or replace
elements of the sanitary sewer infrastructure.
4. Produces additional reductions in 1/ I that allow for greater available capacity in
downstream po~tions of the system. Dale ReceNed
5. .R!:dll~e.s e..o!enJ:i~1 for migration of infiltration,
1bMi:'<< IHii _
Planner: BJ
'-
"
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 chara~teristics and options for
implementation.
Program Participatioll
Private lateral replacement is a system-wide issJe. However, specific drainage basins in
the system have been identified through flow m~mitoring as contributing more III than
other basins. The rehabilitation program could ~arget one or both of the following
groups:
.~
,
,
i
j
. Property owners whose laterals are determiried to be defective through inspection as
part of a public rehabilitation project. I
. Anyone whose lateral fails or is determined to be defective independent of its
location (relative to public rehabilitation projects).
Illcelltive Optiolls for Participatioll
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 f~llows:
. 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.
Vollllltary vs. Malldatory
Two options to consider include:
I;'! :". "'. 'l;;.ipj~;nJnt the program as a long-term, voluntary program.
, ,
Date Rece\ved
MAY 0 6~008
Planner: BJ
,'.
. 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 Laterai Rehabilitation
Consider the follow"ing 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 inthe 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 laterals. 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 is slug grouting. The WERF report
provides detailed data about currently available technologies in the US. 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 ..
e?,ceede~ces upto ~d including the design storm condition that causDat&~eeeIVed
plant are notper.o,1.1tted. .
.. : MAY411 II 2008
..' I
Planner: BJ
\
''-..,-"
While the City has implemented many of the "public-only" rehabilitation projects
identified in the WWFMP, the combination of growth and changes in RDIl contributions
have the potential to exceed this 100 mgd target. To limit the RDIl contribution and
create awet 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 ROIl
reduction program that maximizes the amount imd duration of wet weather flow
reduction. A ROIl program that includes privatJ laterals will best achieve this program
goal. 1
,
5.4.6 Existing System Improvements
i ,
Listed in Table 5.3 are the public system rehabilitation improvements proposed to reduce
existing deficiencies. The targeted ROl reduction and ~e associated percentage of pipelines to
rehabilitate was developed as part of the WWFMP to m,inimize downstream pipeline
improvements and reduce peak flows at the EjS WPCF. The target ROl reduction summarized
in Table 5.3 were consistent with the WWFMP, howeveL the subbasins selected for future
,
rehabilitation were selected based on the results of the hydraulic modeling and flow
monitoring. Varying levels of RDl 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 in\provement upgrades.
Figure 5.3 and Table 5.4 show th~ gravity repl~cement JiPes, parallel pipes, diversions and
pump stations that need to be upgraded to correct the e\cisting hydraulic deficiencies. These
, '
projects are necessary with the rehabilitation described above to eliminate sanitary sewer
overflows under existing conditions. Project 9 is a diversion propos!"d 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.
"
"
Date Received
MAY \l G zl1b\
Planner: BJ
r
" "
TABLE 5.3
Subbasins Targeted For Rehabilitation
City of Sor'nafield 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 ('/0) Basin (ftl of DiDe rehab, ft
72 SN22 10033374 12.671 Existina 45.7% 33640 70"10 23548
I 10033395 16.123 --
I I 10033002- I 21.372 r
I 10033021 1 40.633 ,
==l I 10033266 8.784 1
I 10033275 I 32.709 ---I
L -r-
I I 1()()]3284- I 17.507 '-=t
-I ...1.0033289 38,061
10033295 52.856
90 I SN19 10033565 26.664 Future 42.0% 41144 55% 22629
- 10033842 27.363 -=j- --~
-
10033650 28.983
--
10033696 11.446
10033734 53,29 I I
10033991 14.879 I I
10033995_ 9.952 I
I 10034008 10.525 I I
~- , .10034Q~_ 25.256 L I
! 110034065~ 20.626 ! I I !
84 I 10034030 10.555 I '~I
J""'" . . "'" 1 -t -~
I 1003404~ 28.487
10034063 I 6.84 -I
83 J SN48 10033997 ~_ Future 43,3% 11747 60% I 7048
I I 10033999 I 9.805 I ~ I
I -+ -- ~
I I 10034001 I 23,014 I -- 1
I I 10034013 I 42.17 I
5173 SN49 I 10033920~ 69.1 I Future I 37.0% I 3835 I 40% I 1534
'T~tals-r I I I ---I 90,366 I I 54,759
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 than the recommended improvement to install water tight manhole covers at
these limited number of manholes.
Date Received
MM U b lUOS
Planner: BJ
'"0
-
0)
::s
::s
(1)
...,
. .
OJ
c...
{::..
~
....
-
Com....rc...
'J
N
Nari'
8r.nc;:h
~.
o
~t"
:!: CD
-:n-
~~.
- - if"~."
.-- ..on'"
~F il""'S18!iona
"'~..-l<>n
,.,_~CD. . .....
c.
.
~-
,....
....
.
-- ....
8''''1
HaylknLo
!
....
7
,....
..0,.1
)
.
....
E
South RA"
r--
-HarttotDrtvI
-....
-"'"
,',
....
--
o
Edall""......ITlgtttU.""oIel"llfO".merl!'l _ =~~~~~~'~,D; ,,'
FutUl'IW.,...T\lIMi Is
.
~ Emttlllg en'" Reh.tlilallon
Dl..IrNnGrowthBoulldary
-Fulur.Plpe
-E.Ist'ngP,
-ExtsIInS "," ,""'" , 'lJMl$
Thurston
-,-
".....s.
-........
Main Str..t
LIKI,,",
......OWl.
~'
-~
,
~I
"".~
'1
r-
.
....
.-.
o.--m-
T'~"~~
Jupu
....-
(priY-1
J
o U"" .._
L... "':'..-'ovA~
~
,.
,.
11 12 14
13
l
AGURE 5.3
System I Is
ClyofSpmgfeld~MNtwPlllfl
,
" '.
TABLE 5.4
Pipeline Improvements for Existing Land Use - (See Figure 5.3)
City of Sprinqfield Wastewater Master Plan
Proposed
Diameter
(Inch) or Peak
Rate (QDm)
Project ID
2
3
4
5
6
7
^8
9
10
11
12
Rehabilitation
lor III
Reduction
Nugget Way
PS
Hayden PS
River Glen PS
, ; . :;: J ~~ ": './.
^ ,
Purpose
Existing
l!PQrade
Existing
upqrade
Existing
uPQrade
Existing
uPQrade
Existing
upgrade
Existing
upgrade
Existing
upgrade
Existing
uPQrade
Existing
uPQrade
Existing
uDqrade
Existing
uPQrade
Existing
uDQrade
Existing
Rehab
Existing
upgrade
Existing
upgrade
Existing
upgrade
Existing
Dia (Inch)
12
12
10
15
10
27/36
10
15/18
12
10
Varies
642 gpm
(single
pump)
898 gpm
(pumps 1
&2)
380 gpm
(single
pump),
379 gpm
(single
pump)
24
21
18
12
24
15
15
15
21-existing,
24-future
15
12
8.12
911 peak wet
weather
483 gpm
existing peak,
,494 gpm future
peak
525 gpm
existing peak,
664 gpm future
peak
No 01
MHs
Length
(ft)
22
6418
4
5
1112
11
1538
21
4161
6'
1231
3
17
4837
11
3589
g
1014
3
~
23.548
,r
Description
795
Parallel existing 24-inch pipe with new 24-inch
p.ioe from MH10033730 dls to MH10033409
Replace existing 12-inch with 21-inch from
MH1 0033284 uls to MH1 0033293
Replace existing 12-inch with 18-inch from
MH10034175 uls to MH10034164
Replace existing 10-inch with 12-inch from
MH10033706 dls to MH10033719
Replace existing 15-inch with 24-inch pipe from
MH10034054 dls to MH10033730. Project not
required if future rehabilitation' is
oerlormed.
Replace existing 10-inch with 15-inch pipe from
MH10033920 dls to MH10033982, Project not
required if future rehabilitation is
oerlormed.
Flow at vault on west dls end of Main Street
Interceptor reconfigured to prevent flow from
going north. All flow is diverted south.
Replace existing 10-inch with 15-inch from
MH10034589 uls to MH10034519.
New 15-inch. wet weather bypass from
MH1 0035662 dls to MH1 0035367.
Replace existing 15-inch and 18-inch pipe with
24.lnch from MH10035908 dls to MH10035636,
Replace existing 12-inch with 15-inch from
MH10035903 dis to MH10035835,
Replace existing 10-inch with 12-inch from
MH10036187 dls to MH10036186,
All rehab in basin SN 22. This completes the
existing rehab listed in the 2001 'v\IWFMP.
714
529
Upgrade 2 pump system with 911 gpm cBpacity
each
Upgrade 2 pump system with 494 gpm capacity
each
Upgrade 2 pump system with 664 gpm capacity
each
Date Received
MAfCU 6 zoos
Planner: BJ
5.4.7 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.
, Figure 5.4 shows the potential water level for this condition. As shown, multiple downtown
locations around the 21" 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 upsizing to meet
future conditions. ,I.
As stated in Section 5.4.4, additio~al rehabilitation is in~luded as part of the future
improvements to meet 2001 WWFMP targeted peak flo~ reductions. One additional
improvement along the Main St. trunk is necessary to aodress 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.
,
1
. There are approximately 4 manholes (See Figure 5.3) iniaddition to those iden,tified for existing
conditions, where improvements do not eliminate HGL's within 2 feet of the ground surface.
The extent of additional improvements requirecj to further reduce the HGL are greater than the
recommended improvement to install water tight manhole covers at these limited number of
manholes.
I
TABLE 5.5 , I
Collection System Improvements for Future Land Use - (See Figure 5.3)
City of SorinQt;^/d Wastew.ter Master Plan i
Proposed
Diameter
(Inch) or
Peak Rate
(gpm)
Project 10
Existing
Oia (Inch) .
Purpose
13
Future
upgrade
12
18
14
Future
upgrade
12
10
Rehabilitation
forI/I
Reduction
Future
rehab
Varies
8-12
PeaceHealthl System
Riverbend PS expansion
Note: Expansion areas listed in Table 5,6
.'
Noaf
MHs
Length
(ft)
6
2224
3
325
31,211
Description
Replace existing 12-inch pipe with 18-inch pipe
from MH10035908 uls to MH10036270.
Replace existing 1 D-inch pipe with a 12-inch pipe
from MH10036195 dls to MH10036187
22,6k ft in SN19, 7k feet In SN48, 1,5k feet in
SN49. This plus reduction due to pipe
improvements completes the future rehab listed
In the 2001 IMNFMP.
Pump station designed as part of the
PeaceHealthlRiverbend Campus Development.
DCl~.: R;2{";~h.rod
\,11\" U . 000"'7
I',.., '-' lU)Ot
Planner: BJ
--..,...
o'
<'~'t,
"
~
C....-n;..
'_M
.J
j"
,1
I
~:::'l
North Springfield
~
Nort.
Branch
11",0'"
I
~
Uti
South -A"
"
Q)GEND r-+
.....Ih to ~...., ('1)""""''' R1m f1-J
~ 0 --<
j ~'= :D
CD. '~a> CD
"", C')
:1. I (1),,",..--- , '
OJ <'
C-. ~
mg Pump S1.1Io...
. WK/OIv'1MHl
- Elrlstlng M.jo< Wnl._er S'I"'tam Pipn
c::::J UrbIor . -,.' 'V
--.
-"~
---.
~
:;:-]
~~
:--.. L..-..-
Thurston
!
-,-
i
--
..,..."~
"-'~i
J
1.- ,,(IDa
,. ,
_.........
.....
\
.------
..-~_t-
AGURE5..4
FutureOeficiencies~bisbng
Impovements in Place
Ctyol$JmgWd I'M
o--.u
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 5.6 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 S-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 tile 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
Harbor Dr. route to the north. It is recommended the City pump the wastewater north along
Sou th 2nd Street.
McVay Highway
In Southwest Springfield, 6,280 feet of 8 and 15-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 existing 30-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 A venue. 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. T9~vQeeefved
based on the projected land use. This loading may be revised in the future b~~~oA g,e
development from near the Lane Community College and Bloomberg Road B<1Ilil.Ya~~'2008
Planner: BJ
,I "
..-.-'
Following improvement definition an additional, 588 EDUs were identified for a;total of 1194
EDUs in this location and should be included in future analyses.
TABLE 5.6
Summary of Expansion Projects
City of S/Jrinafield "lIastewater Master PI,'~
Area of Future
Service
Harbor Drive
McVay
Highway
Main Street
Extension
Thurston'Road
Extension
Jasper Road
Vera
Area
(acre)
Avg
Sanitary
Flow
(mlld)
EDU
72.2
128
0,04
212
606
0,14
546
1308
0,31
40
60
0,01
1233
3447
0.81
185
532
0,13
Main Street Extension
Peak
"Wet
Weather
(mgd)
0,01
0.25
109
0,08
247
0,37
Total
Flow
(mgd)
0,22
049
1.63
0,11
3.85
0,58 ' I
Diameter
(inch)
8" (gravity)
5" (force
main)
8"
15"
10"
12"
8"
10"
12"
21"
, 8"
Pipe '"
Length
(ft)
7684,
2411
3868
1924
1983
3882
2581
3395
17016
1703
Comment
Includes a pump station
to connect to existing
force main along S. 2nd
Street.
134
Includes 150 trailer
park parcels. Following
improvement definition
an additional 588 EDUs
were identified for a
total of 1194 EOUs in
this location and should
be induded in future
analyses.
Following improvement
definition an additional
1252 EOUs were
identified for a total of
2560 EDUs in this
location and should be
included in future
analyses.
Following .improvement
definition an additional
520 EDUs were
identified for a total of
580 EDUs in this
location and should be
included in future
analvses.
Indudes Jasper
Meadow and Brand S
Rd. stubouts.
Construction timing
may impact. capacity
needs at Golden
Te~race. Following
improvement definition
an additional-318 ED Us
were identified for a
total of 3765 EDUs in
this location and should
be induded in future
analyses.
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
east as,ti\~~,:,se.~e.va~,ql1s s)lpport gravity flow into the system. However, there are por",~~f R . d
parcelS at tli.e 'east end' of'this area that may require lift stations. Following improvem@!CiUe ecewe
..:~ jj
50
MtAY 06_
iP~anner: BJ
, .....,
"
definition an additional 1252 EDUs were identified for a 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 ED Us have been included
in the model for future development. As of 2007, the system terminates with a 15-inch diameter
pipe just east of Weaver Road on Thurston Road. To service these future parcels, 3,882 feet of8-
inch diameter pipe is recommended. Following improv~ment 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 cOImecting 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 ih the expansion area: 1) I2.inch line to
servic.e the 0.78 mgd Jasper Meadows area from the terriporary 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 alidnment 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 Sh:eet pump station in North Springfield was fonstructed in 2007 in anticipation of
servicing the Hayden Bridge and Yolanda Avenue neigj1borhoods. 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.
. I,'
The natural drainage of the neighborhood indicates thar 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 comer of the City near Deadmond Ferry
Road and Baldy View.Lane includes a wastewater pum'p stations in coordination with the
PeaceHealth hospital. The Sanitanj Sewer Study for RivefBend Subdivision (KPFF Consulting
Engineers, March 2005) indicates the pump station will1have a peak capacity of 0.52 mgd. Cost
of the pump station is included in the CIP listing in Section 6.
Other Local System Extensions
Date Received
seciio/1 r:nder development by City of Springfield staff.
MAY U b2008 51
Planner: BJ
.....
"
"""
a-O..7
&,Ir"'.
""'I. 'I' 1
,.-!;t. ,;f.!": ),.....
_:?
South -A-
i
..
"lie:. Q-0.21
~l ~
\ ~~~
.r,
-
OJ
c...
<"
CD
a.
Oe'.O
~1[~\"'"
I ," ·
Q "'It .~"J,-I
II ~.,
l
LEGEND
.=,=N
.
lIll
Ful"'IPu"",Stdons
P\lrrfISUltons
.
IMtir/Olll_n
E
P/p..bI'DriMn.,..
5ino;h
lIUlcll
10indl
12indl
1SInd!
" ...
ElliatingMI
SY5lemPlPM
D lktIanG.owlha-..wy
&p...Pon.......
_ EMtSouth
_ f_1lI<ntonRd
_F,...kln8M:l
_H.rbo<om..
_J"pefR<*l
.V....PSAr..
No,.: O.'p<>Inf(mr/d)
J
. UGI ._
--'.....~-'
AGURE 5.$
EJ:panded SeMoe f'1:Ies
Clyal~~
-...
" .,. t
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 $166/ foot was developed from these data.
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
Indirect costs include:
. Engineering, legal, administration, and coordination at 30 percent
. Services during construction at 15 percent
Date Received
MAY 0 lY3z008
Planner: BJ
,
",. '.
. 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 30-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 ~osts
. A project description
. Comments
. Priority provided by City of Springfield
. A proposed implementation year (or range of years)
The project priorities are based ona combination of downstream to upstream logic, availability
of monitor datain 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.
Date Received
MAY 0 iil Z008
.>. .....,
Planner: BJ
TA8LE6.1
CapItal Improvement Project Ustlng
S~r;nfJfie'd Wastewater Master Plan
Springfield Wastewater Collection System Improvements
E:dstlngOia Proposed No of Length Proposed Construction
ProJectlD Purpose (Inch) Diameter (Inch) or MH. (ftj Description C.omments Priority Year Cost Total Cost
Peak Rate IIUlm\
Existing 24 22 6418 Parallel existing 24-inch pipe with newL4-inchplpe vv<lIrequ;re3oonaugeroore\oore&jaCkj3&-steelcasing 6 2009-2010 $2,539,000 $3,935,000
uDC'rade from MH10033730 dls to MH10033409 $75.000 (at $2501ftl under H!'iY_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 u/s to 10 2010-2011 $307,000 S476,OOO
upgrade MH10033284 ulsto MH10033293 MH10033294 is upgraded to 27-inch for future
improvements.
3 Existing 12 18 5 1112 Replace existing 12-inchwith 18-inchfrom 19 2013-2014 $398,000 $617,000
~O:fl.rade MH10034175u/sto MH10034164
4 Existing 10 12 11 1538 Replace existing 10-inchwith 12-inchfrom Crosses Mohawk 81vd 20 2103-2014 $477,000 $739,000
uDorade MH10033706 dls to MH10033719
Existing Heplaceexisting1~lflchWlml4-lncnplpefrom Flow monitoring basins 83 and 84 just u/s of improvements.
upgrade 15 24 21 4161 MH10034054 d/s 10 MH10033730. Project not Calibration fair in this area, $1,625,000 $2,519,000
re9pired if future rehabilitation Is performed.
Existing t-<eptaceexisting 10-inchwitn l~_IflC1lplperrom
6 upgrade 10 15 ,6 1231 MH10033920 dls to MH1 0033982. Project not Flowmoniloringsuggestedpriortoprefiminarydesign $391;000 $606,000
retlulred if future rehabilitation is oerformed.
Existing Flow al vault on west dls end of Main 'Street No construction assumed. Reconfigurationoffiowachieved
7 27/36 Interceptor reconfigured to prevent fiowtrom going
upgrade north. All flow is diverted south. through valve or weir adjustments,
8 Existing 10 15 714 Replace existing 10-inc/1with 15..jnc/1from Luceme Meadows LS is routed to the West. Asol 2007, this $224,000 5347,000
l!l!.9rade MH10034589 ufsto MH10034519 LSdisc/1B:lJ'edtothenOrththroughthesepipeseoments.
9 Existing 15 17 4837 New 15-inch wet weall1er bypass from Bypass. weir set at 496.0 It elevation (CaS) at MH10035662. 8 2010-2011 $1.416,000 $2,195,000
uporade MH10035662 d/s to MH10035367. CrOSfes Bob Straub P~'!'t atstar! of1105. '
Existing 21,-existing,24- Replace existing 15-inchand 18'-inchpipewith24- A21-mch IS necessary lor eXisting land use. For future land
10 upgrade 15/18 future 11 3589 inch from MH10035908 d/s to MH10035636. use, this project is upgraded to a 24-inch pipa. Flow 11 2010-2011 $1,356,000 -52,102,000
monitoring is recommended prior to preliminar,r desion.
11 Existing 12 15 9 1014 Replace existing 12-inchWlth 15-inc/1from Flow monitoring is recommended prior to preliminary design 15 2012-2013 $348,000 $539,000
upprade MH10035903dJsto MH10035835.
12 Existing 10 12 3 529 Repraceexisting 1O-inc/1wiIt112-inchfrom Flow monitoring is recOmmended prior to preliminary design 16 2012-2013 $159,000 $246,000
uoorade MH10036187 dls 10 MH10036186.. >
Rehabilitation Existing All rehab in basin SN 22. This completes the Review cost effectiveness relative to conventional
for III Rehab Varies 8-12 23,548 existing rehab listed in the 2001 VVWFMP. conveyance improvements 5 2009-2010 $3,908,968 $7,573,000
Reduction
Nugget Way Existing 642gpm(single 911 peak wet Upgrade2pumpsyslemwith911 gpmcapacity
PS upgrade pump) 898 gpm wealher each Flowmoniloring suggested prior to preliminary design 3 2008-2009 $769,417 $1,443,000
(pumps 1 &21
Existing 380 gpm (single 483 gpm existing Upgrade 2 pump system with 494 gpm capacity
HaydenPS upgrade pump) peak,494gpm ."" Flow monitoring suggested prior to preliminary design 21 2013-2014 $560,379 $1,050,000
future Reak
RiverGle~ Existing I :::;:Jgpm(Single 525 gpm existing Upgrade 2 pump system with 664 gpm capacity
upgrade pump} peak,664gpm each Flow monitoring suggested prior to preliminary design 22. 2014-2015 $653,152 $1,224,000
-= :~ Murepeak
135>> Future Replace existing 12-inch pipe with l&-inch pipe from
uJ!il~ ,- 12 18 6 2224 MH10035908ulstoMH10036270. 13 2011- 2012 $739,000 $1,145,000
14;:;J t"utu(l> ~ ~} 10 12 325 Replace existing lO..jnch pipe with a 12..jnchpipe 17 2012-2013 $105,000 '$163,000
upqradl( from MH10036195 dls to MH10036187 .
Rehabi!. C "U 22.6k /tin SN19, 7k leet in SN48, 1.5k feetin SN49. SN19-1 2008-2009
This plus reduction due 10 pipe improvemenls Review cost effectiveness relalive to conventional
fO'Q) Future. !~hab ~ tJ Varies 8-12 31,211 completes the future rehab listed inthe 2001 conveyance improvements $5,181,026 $10,038,000
Redu . "J "-~ WNFMP. SN48&49-9 2010-2011
. C5 (;0)
. . CO,
00 .....,.....
j]'1 e"'-'
,"
C- . J 55
Ll..
'.
-~.~l
,
I ProjeetlD. Purpose
" ._~
. Harbor Drive System
expan.:.~.~~ ~
Jasp.erRoad Syster:!'" ~
expan~~on
j"
I Franklin Blvd System
expansion
I Thurston Rd System
expansion
I M<:Kenzie Hwy System
expansion
I Vera Area I System
expansion
I PeaceHeallhl I System
RiverbendPS expansion
Existing Subtotal
Future Subtotal
System Expansion Subtotal
Tota!
Existing Dla Proposed Nool Length
(Inch) Diameter (Ineh)or MH. 1ft)
Peak Rate flJoml
8 (gravity) andS 32 7818
(forcemllin)
10,12,21
89
8,15
"27.
17
10.12
17
8,12
39
=u 0
- ~
s>> ~
~ ~ CD
=' = :D
(I) cr> '"U 56
I'-> (")
- = CD
a a =
CO <"
OJ CD
C- e..
Description
22992
Service requirements: 1) new "Harbor Drive" PS
equipped with 2 pumps each with 145gpmcapacity.
2} 134/tof5-inch to extend existing "dry pipa" lorca
main 3) 7684 ftof8-inch pipe to service entire
neinhbomood.
Extends system along Jasper Road to allow for the
decommissioning of lucerne Meadows and Golden
TerracePSs. Service requirements: 1)2581/101,10-
inch pipe, 2) 3395/1 of 12-lnch pipe, and 3) 17016ft
af2l-inchDioo
Extends the system from the existing 30.inch soulh
along Franklin Blvd. Service requirements: 1)2411 ft
of8-inchp':iD~. and2~3868 ftof 15-inch.o,ip_e.
Extends lhesystem from the existing 15-incheasl
along Thurston Road. Service requirements are
3882 ftof8-inchplD~.
Extends the system from the existing 21-inch east
along McKenzie Highway. Service requirements: 1)
1924/1of10-inch pipe, and 21 19S3 I'tol 12-inch ,
p~o~.
Services the deva!opment east of the new Vera
pump station. Service requirements: 1924 ftof,10-
inch oioe and 1983ft of 12-inch oioe.
Pumpstationdesignedaspartoflhe "
peaceHeallhfRive~end Campus Development.
6280
3882
3906
9583
.
"
Comments Priority Proposed Construction Total Cost
Year Cost
Proj"ectevaluated ilrivercrossing reduced cost.'Mostcosl 2011-2018
effective solution makes use 01 the existing "dry pipe' force 25 $2,156,000 $3,342,000
main in place north of the neighbomood,.
~
4 2008-2010 $7,496,000 $11,619,000
Includes the 150 trai!er parcels notoriginallycontain~d in the 2008- 2009 $1,934,000 $2,998,000
GIS.
24 2016-2017 $949,000 $1,471,000
Pipe extended east as far as grade supported gravity flow. 14 2011-2012 $1,049,000 $1,626,000
Last manhQfe shown is at crest of hW.
23 2014 2016 $2,570,000 $3,984,0001
Basis lor cost is the Sanitary Sewer Study for RiverlJend
SubdiVision'(KPFF Consulting Engineeers. 2005J, Costs 12 2011.2012 $2,232,930 $3,189,900
adiustedto2008dollars .
$15,131,911 $25,611,000
$6.025,026 $11,346,000
$18,386,930 $28,229,900
$39,543,873 $65,186,900
'"
...."
'C . , .~. '
TABLE 6.2
Peak Flows for SDC Allocation
Springfield Wastewater Collection System Improvements
:,1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
100% ExistinglO% Future I
100% Existing/O% Future I
98% Existing/2% Future I
I 525 664, '79% Existing/21 % Future I
..j:fiojeCisj~qijJ[ed):torfuture~@.n:dj~~~o;c'Qn'iji1ji5n~ .' ~:I
2.4 3,2 75% Existing/25% Future I
1.0 1,6 60% Existing/40% Future \
fiows from future
development areA,8% of
the total future flow
l":'/I~ ~ _.' ,i. ~:;\f~:".:,'~)~rQJ~-~~\,rliqUJf~aIJ9~' sy~J~W1~~.~Rab~i~r1T~r~~!:h\. . '~ "~I
I Harbor Drive 0.22 0% Existing/1 00% Future I
Jasper Road 3.8 0% Existing/1 00% Future I
I Franklin Blvd 0.49 0% Existing/100% Future I
E. Thurston Rd 0.11 0% Existing/100% Future I
I E. McKenzie Hwy 1.6 0% Existing/100% Future I
I Vera Pump I
Station Area 0,58 0% Existing/100% Future '
I Peace Health/ 360 0% Existing/100%. Future I
Riverbend PS
Notes:
1) All fiows 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 fiow for all pump stations are in gallons per minute (gpm)
Project
Identification
Number
k
I 1
I 2
I 3
I 4
I 5
I 6
I ,7
I 8
I. 9
I 10
I 11
I 12
I Rehabilitation for
III Reduction
Nugget Way
Pump Station'
Hayden Lo
Pump Station'
River Glen
~ump Station'
- . .~?,_..._",._-
,.
.J.........,
13
14
Rehabilitation for
1/1 Reduction
"'.,
.,
"
Peak Flow (mgd) Peak Flow (mgd)
in Most in Most I
Downstream Pipe Downstream Pipe
Section--Existing Section--Future
Land Use 1,2 Land Use 1,2 ;
Project~ required,fo'r,ej(isting land:'iis:e;conditiolls' .
I 8.3 8.4 I I 100% Existing/O% Future
.1.8 1,8 100% Existing/O% Future
I 2.1 2,1 I 100% Existing/O% Future
I 1,3 1.3 I 100% Existing/O% Future
2,5 2.5 100% Existing/O% Future
1 ,1 1.1 100% Existing/O% Future
22,0 23.7 93% Existing/7% Future
1.5 1.5 100% Existing/O% Future
1.3 1.4 88% Existing/12% Future
4.3 5.4' 80% Existing/20% Future
1.3 1,8 65% Existing/35% Future
1.0 1,5 70% Existing/30% Future
Percent of Flow From
Existing/Future Sources
\
Varies
,
I,
Varies
911
911
483
484
'varies
varies
Date Received
MA Y Us\! 2008
Planner: BJ
r
~
- 1 -
Staff Report and Findings of Compliance with the Metro Plan an9 Statewide
Goals and Administrative Rules
File LRP 2000-0007 Amendments to the Metro Plan and Public Facilities and Services
Plan
Applicant:
City of Springfield, Public Works Department
Nature of the Application:
The applicant proposes to amend the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General .
Plan (Metro Plan) and the Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP) to: (I) add or
modify nine projects to Table 4 of the PFSP including five pump stations and four
wastewater lines 24 inches in diameter or larger; (2) delete four projects from Table 4 and
five projects from Table 16 of the PFSP which have been constructed or deemed
unnecessary; and, (3) update Map 2 in the PFSP to indicate the general location of these
new projects added to Table 4.
Background:
Metro Plan-PFSP-Local Facilities Plan Context
Oregon state land use law (Goal 11, OAR 660-011) requires all cities with a population
over 2,500 to develop and adopt a public facilities plan for the area within the city's
urban growth boundary. The public facilities plan is a support document or documents to
a comprehensive plan. Certain elements of the public facility plan also shalf be adopted
as part of the comprehensive plan; these elements include a list of public facility project
titles, (excluding the descriptions or specifications of those projects uso desired by the
jurisdiction); a map or written description of the public facility projects' locations or
service areas; and the policies or urban growth management agreement designating the
provider of each public facility system. (OAR 660-011-0045)
In 2001 the governing bodies of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County repealed the 1987
Public Facilities and Services Plan and replaced it with the EU!1ene-Snrinl!field
Metronolitan Area Puhlic Facilities and Services Plan. December 2001 (subtitled: A
RefmellJcnt Plan of the .F',ll~ene~S~rin"field Metronolitan Area General Plan). One of
the results of this action is described in the PFSP as follows: "Chapter II of this plan
reco=ends tex1 amendments to the Metro Plan which are adopted as part of, and are
incorporated into, the Metro Plan. The project lists and maps in Chapter II are also
adopted as part of the Metro Plan but are physically located in this refinement plan. If
there are any inconsistencies between this plan and the Metro Plan, the Metro Plan
prevails." (page I, Introduction, PFSP)
Date Received
MAY 0 6 2008
Staff Report and Findings Page 1
ATTACHMENT',g - 1
Planner: BJ
, ..
---
-2-
This text confirms that the PFSP is a refinement plan of the Metro Plan; that both the
PFSP and the Metro Plan "co-adopted" the project lists, maps and policies as required by
OAR 660-011-0045; that the project lists and maps do not physically appear in the
published Metro Plan but instead are to be found in the PFSP; and that amendment of the
project list, maps or policies, because they are co-adopted into both the Metro Plan and
PFSP, require identical amendment to both those 'documents ifchanges are made.
In February 2004 the City of Springfield, on behalf of the Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Commission, initiated amendments to the Metro Plan and PFSP project
lists, maps and policies. These amendments were adopted by the governing bodies in
July 2004, but were appealed to the state Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). LUBA
remanded some of these amendments (project lists) which were subsequently changed
accordingly by the elected officials of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County and again
adopted as amendments to the Metro Plan and the PFSP in November and December,
2006.
On April 21, 2008 the Springfield City Council, on behalf of the Public Works
Department of the City of Springfield, initiated amendments to the Metro Plan and PFSP
to incorporate specific recommendations found in the City of Springfield's draft
Wastewater Master Plan - Februarv 2008. (Attachment #2) This plan recommends the
addition or mo<;lification of 9 projects and the removal of 4 projects that have been
completed or are no longer necessary. All of these projects are part of the City's
collection system (not MWMC projects) and serve only the residents and businesses of
the City of Springfield. Notwithstanding the single jurisdiction service purpose of these
. new projects, the Metro Plan (page V-4,Public facility projects: (b) Wastewater)
requires all pump stations, and all wastewater lines 24 inches or larger, to be identified in
the project lists and maps. Because the Metro Plan "prevails" if there are any
.inconsistencies between the Metro Plan and the PFSP, the PFSP project lists and maps
also must show all pump stations and wastewater lines 24 inches or larger.
Wastewater Master Plan - 2008
The City's Wastewater Master Plan (WWMP) is a citywide public infrastructure plan that
evaluates existing and future demand on the wastewater collection system (based on
projected population and employment growth through the year 2025) and makes
recommendations for system improvements (capacity and efficiency). The WWMP was
initiated by COIinCil to update the 1980 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan, and to assist in the
implementation of the Metropolitan Wet Weather Flow Management plan, adopted by the
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission.
The City's WWMP is not a substitute for the wastewater systems planning that appears in
Chapter III of the Metro Plan or throughout the PFSP; Oregon Administrative Rule 660-
011-0010 identifies the constituent components of public facility plans including how
these state requirements relate to other public facilities planning that may be prepared by
cities and authorized service providers:' Date Received
MAY 06 2008
Staff Report and Findings Page 2
ATTACHMENT\3 - 2
Planner: BJ
,
./
- 3 -
"(3) It is not the purpose of this division to cause duplication of or to supplant existing
applicable facility plans and programs. Where all or part of an acknowledged
comprehenSive plan, facility master plan either of the local jurisdiction or appropriate
special district, capital improvement program, regional functional plan, similar plan or
any combination of such plans meets all or some of the requirements of this division,
those plans, or programs may be incorporated by reference into the public facility plan
required by this division. Only those referenced portions of such documents shall be
considered to be,a part of the public facility plan and shall be subject to the administrative
procedures of this divisions and ORS Chapter 197."
Taken in its entirety, this rule provision is intended to allow cities to adopt existing public
facilities documents, rather than prepare new ones, where those documents satisfy the
standards of OAR 660-011. This rule provision does not invalidate other elements of
these local planning efforts that do not address provisions of the rule; it simply qualifies
those elements oflocal planning documents that can be used to meet this rule and in so
doing, obligates such elements to the requirements of ORS 197 (goals compliance; post-
acknowledgment plan amendment procedures). The City is not proposing to reference
any elements of the WWMP as provided in OAR 660-011-0010, but does contend that
the development and application of the WWMP is consistent with the following Metro
Plan policy:
"G.2 Use the planned facilities maps of the Public Facilities and Services Plan for water,
wastewater, stormwater, and electrical projects in the metropolitan area. Use local
facility master plans, refinement plans, and ordinances as the guide for detailed planning
and project implementation" [Emphasis added]
The WWMP reco=ends a variety of projects and programs to achieve the stated goal of
the plan: "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 following project reco=endations need to be included in the lists and maps
in the Metro Plan and PFSP:
For inclusion in Table 4:
Project # 1 04 - Jasper Road sewer extension
System extension in the general vicinity of Jasper Road to collect flow from
future development I the Jasper-Natron area
Project #105 - 10th and N Street Upgrade
Construct parallel 24 inch pipe to increase capacity of existing system to
acco=odate wet weather flows
Project #106 - E Street (Central Trunk) upgrade
Construct 24 inch pipe to increase capacity of existing system ~AJI1!J)~\loe'lved
wet weather flows. Ud.Lt:: nt::li
MAY 06 2008
Staff Report and Findings Page 3
ATTACHMENT\3 - 3
Planner: BJ
r'
.- 4-
Project #107 - Main Street sewer upgrade #1
Construct.24 inch pipe to increase capacity of existing system to acco=odate
wet weathedlows
Project #108 - Nugget Way pump station upgrade
Increase pump station capacity to acco=odate wet weather flows with the
'largest pump out of service .
Project #109 - Hayden Lo pump station upgrade
Increase pump station capacity to acco=odate wet weather flows with the
largest pump out of service
Project #110 - River Glen pump station upgrade
Increase pump station capacity to acc'o=odate wet weather flows With the
largest pump out of service
Project #202 - Harbor Drive pump station )
New pump station to collect flow from future development in the vicinity of the
South 2nd Street area
Project #203 - PeaceHeaIth pump station
New pump station to collect flow from future development in the vicinity of
Deadmond Ferry Road and Baldy View Drive
For deletion from Table 4:
Project #105 - Game Farm Road trunk sewer
Project # I 06 - GatewayIHarlow Road pump station upgrade
Project #202 ...: East Glenwood gravity sewer
Project #203 - 19th Street pump station.
NOTE: Table 16 contains the same projects found in Table 4 proposed for inclusion or
deletion; in addition Table 16 provides cost estimates and completion year estimates for
each project. Please refer to Attachments #4, #5, and #6.
Metropolitan Area General Plan Amendment Criteria
The proposed amendments are considered to be Type II Metro Plan amendments because
they are site specific ,amendments to Plan project lists and maps. Type II Metro Plan
amendments inside the city limits shall be approved by the Home City; Type II Metro
Plan amendments between the city limits and the Plan Boundary sh1)~fErl1e'(feRl~d
MAY 06 2008
Staff Report and Findings Page 4
ATTACHMENT'.3 - 4
Planner: BJ
,-_......
?-
- 5 -
Home City and Lane County. At least three of the pump stations are outside the city
limits therefore Lane County must co-adopt these amendments.
Springfield and Lane County adopted identical Metro Plan amendment criteria into their
respective implementing ordinances and codes. Springfield Development Code (SDC)
Chapter 5, Section 5.l4-l35(C) (1 & 2) and Lane Code l2.225(2).(a & b) require that the
amendment be consistent with relevant statewide planning goals and that the amendment
not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. These criteria are addressed as follows:
(a) . The amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide planning goals
adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission;
Goal! - Citizen Involvement
To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens
to be involved in all phases of the planning process.
The two cities and the county have acknowledged land use codes that are intended
to serve as the principal implementing ordinances for the Metro Plan. Chapter 5 of
the SDC, Metro Plan Amendments; Public Hearings, prescribe the manner in
which a Type II Metro Plan amendment must be noticed. Citizen involvement for
a Type II Metro Plan amendment not related to an urban growth boundary
amendment requires: Notice to interested parties; notice to properties and
property owners within 300 feet of the proposal; published notice in a newspaper
of general circulation; and notice to the Department of Land Conservation and
Development (DLCD) at least 45 days before the initial evidentiary hearing
(planning commission).
Notice of the joint planning commission hearing was mailed on April 18, 2008;
notice was published in the Register-Guard on April 24, 2008. Neighborhood
Associations, if any, were mailed notice on April 18, 2008. Notice of the fIrst
evidentiary hearing was provided to DLCD on March 4, 2008. Lane County is
participating in this matter; Eugene was sent a referral on February 20, 2008.
SpringfIeld's Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCl) met on March 4,2008 to-
discuss citizen involvement opportunities. A public workshop, website posting,
two public hearings (planning Commission, City Council) and mailed notice to
neighborhood associations, local engineering firms, developers and other
stakeholders were approved by the CCI.
Requirements under Goal 1 are met by adherence to the citizen involvement
processes required by the Metro Plan and implemented by the SpringfIeld
Development Code, Chapter 5 and Lane Code Sections 12.025 and 12.240.
Staff Report and Findings Page 5
ATTACHMENF3 - 5
Date Received
MAY 0 6 2008
Planner: DJ
/
-6-
Goal 2 - Land Use Planning
To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all
decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequatefactual
base for such decisions and actions.
All land-use plans and implementation ordinances shall be adopted by the
governing body after public hearing and shall be reviewed and, as needed,
revised on a periodic cycle to take into account changing public policies and
circumstances, in accord with a schedule set forth in the plan. Opportunities
shall be providedfor review and comment by citizens and affected governmental
units during preparation, review and revision of plans and implementation
ordinances.
Implementation Measures - are the means used to ,carry out the plan. These are
of two general types: (1) management implementation measures such as
ordinances, regulations or project plans, and (2) site or area specific
implementation measures such as permits and grants for construction,
construction of public facilities or provision of services.
The current version of the Metro Plan was last adopted in 2004 (Springfield
(Ordinance No. 6087; Eugene Ordinance No, 20319; and Lane County Ordinance
No. 1197) after numerous public meetings, public workshops and joint hearings
of the Springfield, Eugene and.Lane County Planning COnmllssionsand Elected
Officials.
Subsequent to these Metro Plan adoption proceedings, Eugene, Springfield and
Lane County considered amendments to Chapter ill-G Public Facilities and
Services Element and Chapter V Glossary of the Metro Plan; and amendments to
the Public Facilities and Services Plan by adding new tables (4a; 4b; 16a) and a
new map (2a) identifying wastewater treatment facilities and conveyance systems
in Chapter II; amended Chapter IV wastewater system condition assessment; and
added a new Chapter VI Amendments. These amendments were also reviewed at
public meetings, public workshops and joint hearings of the Springfield, Eugene
and Lane County Planning COnmllssions and Elected Officials. These .
amendments were appealed to LUBA and subsequently some (project list) were
remanded to the elected officials for additional clarification and description of
projects associated with the wastewater treatment facility expansion; The elected
officials adopted these remanded amendments in 2006.
The Metro Plan is the'''land use" or comprehensive plan required by'this goal; the
Springfield Development Code and the Lane Code are the "implementation
measures" required by this goal. Comprehensive plans, as defined by ORS
197.015(5), must be coordinated with affected governrmintal units. Coordination
means that comments from affected governmental units are solicited and
considered. Date Received
MAY 062008
Planner: BJ
Staff Report and Findings Page 6
ATTACHMENr.3 - 6
J
-7-
Goal 3 - Agricultural Lands
'To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
The changes do not affect Metro Plan or PFSP consistency with this goal and it
does not apply within adopted, acknowledged urban growth boundaries. None of
the proposed projects are intended to provide wastewater service outside the
UGH; the projects were recommended in the Wastewater Master Plan to "meet
the city of Springfield's projected population and employment growth through the
(2025) planning year."
,
Goal 4 - Forest Lands
To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base ,and to protect the
state's forest economy by making possible economically efficientforest practices
that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the
leading use onforest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water,
and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and
agriculture.
The changes do not affect Metro Plan or PFSP consistency with this goal and it
does not apply within adopted, acknowledged urban growth boundaries. None of
the proposed projects are intended to provide wastewater service outside the
UGH; the projects were recommended in the Wastewater Master Plan to "meet
the city of Springfield's projected population and employment growth through the
(2025) planning year."
GoalS - Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources
To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and-historic areas and open
spaces.
The City has finished all work required under Goal 5 during the most rec.erlt
Periodic Review (completed in 2007). None of the proposed project additions are
located within any of the City's l-'.u~"'uted Goal 5 resource sites; none of the
proposed projects were designed or intended to allow development to occur
within a protected resource site; the presence of urban services does not invalidate
Goal 5 inventories or protection measures even if the new urban service becomes
available to any of these sites; these Goal 5 sites were identified and protected
because they qualified under city or state laws, not because of a lack of available
services. The changes do not affect acknowledged Goal 5 inventories so this
proposal does not create an inconsistency with the goal.
Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality
, To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the
state. Date Received
MAY 0 6 2008
Staff Report and Findings Page 7
ATTACHMENT',3 - 7
Planner: BJ
,~
- 8-
1bis goal is primarily concerned with compliance with federal and state
environmental quality statutes, and how this compliance is achieved as
development proceeds in relationship to air sheds, river basins and land resources.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, P.L. 92-500, as amended in 1977,
became known as the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). The goal of this
Act Was to eliminate the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters. ORS
468B.035 requires the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) to
implement the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The primary method of
implementation of this Act is through the issuance of a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit prior to the discharge of any
wastes into the waters of the state. (ORS 468B.050) Among the "pollutants"
regulated by the EQC are temperature (OAR 340-041-0028) and toxic substances
(OAR 340-041-0033).
Previously, the Plan Was amended to ensure that the Metro Plan and the PFSP'
accurately reflect regional Wastewater system needs as imposed by Federal and
State regulation. Currently, the PFSP states that "... the Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant has sufficient design capacity to accommodate population
increases and serve all new development at buildout." 1bis amendment takes the
next step in bringing the plan current by incorporating those local facilities in
Springfield which are required to adequately and efficiently convey sewage to the
Regional Wastewater Treatment Plan for treatment. The proposed amendment is
based on the most current draft of a Sanitary Sewer Master Plan now under
preparation for the City. That Plan is anticipated to be adopted by the City of
Springfield in mid-2008. Until that time, it is possible that the list of projects may
be amended and, accordingly that the current drafts of the proposed map and table
amendments will be further modified to conform to the provisions of the adopted
Master Plan
Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards
To protect people and property from natural hazards.
The Metro Plan and the City's development code are acknowledged to be in
compliance with all applicable statewide land use goals; including Goal 7. The
proposed projects are not located within hazard areas nor does their presence have
any affect on existing policies or procedures adopted by the City of Springfield
and applicable in hazard areas. 1bis Goal is unaffected by the presence or
absence of urban services to natural hazard areas.
Goal 8 - Recreational Needs
To satisfY the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and,
where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities
including destination resorts.
Date Received
MAY 062008
Staff Report and Findings Page 8
ATTACHMENF3 - 8
Planner: BJ
.'~
-9-
AIl of the proposed projects are intended to accommodate future growth in
population and employment. What is meant, but not stated in this general concept
of "future growth in population and employment" is that it includes ancillary
activities as welL The Metro Plan anticipates up to 32% of residential designation
will be occupied by these ancillary activities: "In the aggregate, non-residential
land uses consume' approximately 32 percent of buildable residential land. These
non-residential uses include churches, day care centers, parks, streets, schools,
and neighborhood commercial." (page III-A-4; Metro Plan) Determination,of
pipe sizes and pump capacity includes the presence of these land uses and in any
case, the Willamalane Park and Recreation Master Plan includes future park sites
needed to keep pace with residential growth.
Goal 9 - Economic Development
To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic
activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens.
The Metro Plan cites the provision of adequate public facilities and services as
necessary for economic development. Objective 10, at page III-B-4 states:
Provide the necessary public facilities and services to allow economic
development. Policy B25, at Page I1I-B-6, states: PurSue an aggressive
annexation program and servicing of designated industrial lands in order to have a
sufficient supply of "development ready" land. Policy B26, at page III-B-6,
states: In order to provide locationaI choice and to attract new campus industrial
fIrms to the metropolitan area, Eugene and SpringfIeld shall place as a high
priority service extension, annexation, and proper zoning of all designated special
light industrial sites. AIl of these policies are serVed by the proposed amendments
to the Metro Plan and PFSP as these projects are intended to meet future demand
generated by population and employment growth. .Additionally, it is the provision
of key urban services that typically determines suitability ofland to be converted
from rural to urban and to be annexed into the city limits: "Land within the UGB
may be converted from urbanizable to urban only through annexation to a city
when it is found that: a. A minimum level of key urban facilities and services can
be provided to the area in an orderly and efficient manner; b. There will be a
logical area and time within which t90 deliver urban services and facilities.
Conversion ofurbanizable land to urban shall also be consistent with the Metro
Plan." (Page II-C-4, Metro Plan) Each of the pump stations islocated in or near
areas not yet annexed or developed with planned urban uses. These pump stations
will allow wastewater extension to these lands so that planned development may
occur. The Nugget Way and PeaceHealth pump stations in particular will
facilitate commercial and industrial development by making available this
mandatory urban service.
Goal 10 - Housing
To providefor the housing needs of citizens of the state. Goal 10 P~ []^ . d
Guideline 3 states that "[PJlans shouldprovidefor the appropriat~~~~tCeIVe
and phasing of pubic facilities and services sufficient to support housing 0 6
. , MAY 2008
Staff Report and Findings Page 9
ATTACHMENT~3 - 9
Planner: ' BJ
- 10-
development in areas presently developed or undergoing development or
redevelopment. "
OAR 66~08--O01O requires that "[S]ufficient buildable land shall be designated
on the comprehensive plan map to satisfy housing needs by type and density
range as determined in the housing needs projection." Goal I 0 defines buildable
lands as ". . . lands in urban and urbanizable areas that are suitable, available and
necessary for residential use." 66~08--O005(13), in part, defmes land that is
"suitable and available" as land "for which public facilities are planned or to
which public facilities can be made available."
Similar to Goal 9, adequate public facilities are necessary to accomplish the
objectives of this goal and applicable administrative rules (OAR Chapter 660,
Division 008). The purpose of the proposed amendments is to provide the
capacity for future development (year 2025) ofresidential (population) and
commercial and industrial (employment) use consistent with the comprehensive
plan.
Goal 11 - Public Facilities and Services
To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public
facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development.
OAR Chapter 660, Division 011, implements goal I!. OAR 66~II--0030(1)
requires that the public facility plan list the proposed projects and identify the
general location of the project on a map. The proposal will add nine projects to
Tables 4 and 16; delete four projects from these same tables in recognition of their
completion or supplanted need; and show the location of all proposed projects on
Map 2. These tables and map are adopted as part of the Metro Plan, but are
located in, and are a part of the PFSP.
OAR 66~II--0035(1) requires that the public facility plan include a rough cost
estimate for sewer public facility projects identified in the facility plan. In
conformity with this requirement, Table 16 includes rough cost estimates for all
nine proposed projects. These costs are derived from the work performed during
the preparation of the Wastewater Master Plan.
OAR 66~II--0045 requires certain elements of the public facility plan to be
adopted as part of the comprehensive plan. These elements. include the list of
public facility project titles (Table 4); the map or written description of the public
facility projects locations or service areas (Map 2); and policies or urban growth
management agreements designating the provider of each public facility system.
No policy amendments are proposed in this action. The notice of proposed
amendment sent to DLCD, the notice of the hearing on these amendments, and
the applicable criteria are consistent with the provisions for a land use decision
and the post-acknowledgment proceduresofORS 197.610. Date Received
MAY 0 6 2008
Planner: BJ
Staff Report and Findings Page 10
ATTACHMENT\3 -"0
,'-
- 11 -
Goal 12 - Transportation
To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation
system.
The transportation system plan is not dependent upon, or influenced by the
wastewater system plan. Land development cannot occur in the absence of
infrastructure and that includes wastewater imd transportation; but neither the
goals nor the OARs require a corollary analysis of each of these services when the
city is proposing one or both. of these plans for post-acknowledgement
amendment. All of the proposed amendments are needed to upgrade (expand the
capacity of) existing facilities. In each case, the planned transportation facilities
are: I already in place; 2 under construction; 3 in design; or, 4 planned. The
changes do not affect Metro Plan or PFSP consistency with this goal:
Goal 13 - Energy Conservation
To conserve energy. 0-
3. Land use planning ~hould, to the maximum extent possible, seek to recycle and
re-use vacant land and those uses which are not energy efficient.
All of the projects are upgrades or expand the capacity of existing systems. Such
a strategy mayim;"PS the efficiency of the existing system (sunk cost) and
provides for infill and redevelopment opportunities that couldn't go forward
without these improvements. The changes do not affect Metro Plan or PFSP
consistency with this goal.
Goal 14 - Urbanization
To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to
accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth
boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable.1
communities. .
The amendments do not affect the existing UGB; they will alloY' caPllcity
expansion of existing facilities to enable projected planned population and
employment growth through the (2025) planning year. If these upgrades do not
occur, projected population and employment growth will need to be
accommodated beyond the existing UGB. The proposed amen~ents will
,potentially delay when UGB adjustments must be taken and may reduce the
acreage necessary to accommodate projected growth. The changes do not affect
Metro Plan or PFSP consistency with this goal.
Goal 15,- WiIlamette River Greenway
To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, scenic, historical,
agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette
River as the Willamette River Greenway.
Date Received
MAY 062008
Staff Report and Findings Page 11
A TT ACHMENT'>3 - 11
Planner: BJ
.~
- 12-
There are two projects in proximity to the WiIlamette River: Nugget Way and
Harbor Drive pump stations. The presence of these facilities, and the necessary
upgrades, will allow planned development of these areas to occur, but not at the
exclusion of any other rules or standards that may be applicable to even permitted
development.. For example, development within the Greenway Boundary is
permitted but is subject to SDC 3.3-300 regardless of the presence or absence of
infrastructure. The changes do not affect Metro Plan or PFSP consistency with
this goal.
Goa116 Estuarine Resources, Goal 17 Coastal ShoreIands,_GoaI18 Beaches
. and Dunes, and Goa119 Ocean Resources
These goals do not apply to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
.,
(b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally
inconsistent.
The project lists and maps contained in the PFSP were adopted as part of the
Metro Plan in 2004 and 2006. The project lists in the PFSP, in the form of tables,
include pump stations and any pipes 24 inches or larger; the maps show the
general location or service area of the projects. The proposed amendments
include pump stations and pipes 24 inches or large, project descriptions, and
changes to the map to show the general location of each project. These same
amendments are applied to the same project lists (Tables 4 and 16) and maps
(Map 2) in the PFSP that are specifically adopted as part of the Metro Plan. This
action constitutes the quintessential test of consistency. The proposed changes, as
presented, will not create internal inconsistencies within the Metro Plan.
In addition to the foregoing, the proposed amendments are consistent with the
following Metro Plan policies:
"Extend the minimum level and full range of key urban facilities and services in
an orderly and efficient manner consistent with the growth manage~ent policies
in Chapter II - C, relevant policies in this chapter, and other Metro Plan policies."
(page III-G-4, policy G.1)
"Use the planned facilities maps of the Public Facilities and Services Plan to.
guide the generallocatiiln of water, wastewater, stormwater, and electrical
projects in the metropolitan area. Use local facility master plans, refinement
plans, and ordinances as the guide' for detailed 'planning and project ..
implementation." (page III-G-4, policy G.2)
"Modifications and additions to or deletions from the project lists in the Public
of
Facilities and Services Plan for water, wastewater; and stormwater public facility
projects or significant changes to project location, from that described in ~ - . d
Public Facilities and Services Plan planned facilities Maps 1, 2 at@)ate~celve
MAY 06 Z008
Staff Report and Findings Page 12
ATTACHMENr.3 - 12
Planner: BJ
/'~
- 13 -
amending the Public Facilities and Services Plan and the Metro Plan..." (page III-
G-4, policy G.3)
"Use annexation, provision of adequate public facilities and services; rezoning,
,redevelopment and infill to meet the 20-year projected housing demand." (page
III-A-5, policy A.4)
"Endeavor to provide key urban services and facilities required to m~tain a five-
year supply of serviced, buildable residential land." (page III-A-6, policy A.7)
"Coordinate higher density residential development with the provision of
adequate infrastructure and services, open space, and other urban amenities."
(page III-A-7, policy A.l2)
"Coordinate local residential land use and housing planning with other elements
of this plan, including public facilities and services, and other local plans, to
ensure consistency among policies." (page III-A-13, policy A.35)
Staff Report and Findings Page 13
A TT ACHMENr.3 - 13
Date Received
MAY 06 2008
Planner: BJ
I Project .
Number
I
I
104
I~
105
I -l-%
106
107
108
109
110
I
I
I~
202
12W
203
--
Table 4
City of Springfield Wastewater System Improvement Projects
I Project Name
I
I Short-Term
Jasper Road sewer extension
I Game Farm Read !runic sewer
lOll> & N Street Upgrade
G~ewG.,',qlarlew !l-ea~ fllHRll staHea Hllwade
E Street (Central Trunk) upgrade
Main Street Sewer upgrade # I
Nugget Way pump station upgrade
Hayden Lo pump station upgrade
River Glen pump station upgrade
I
I Lon/!-Term
I East Gl~ffiYeed a-avity se'lIer
Harbor Drive pump station
I -l-9ti.-Str&;, p~v staHeB
Peace Health pump station
ATTACHMENT'4 - 1
Description
I
System extension in the general
vicinity of Jasper Rd to collect
flow from future development in
the Jasper-Natron area
I I
Construct parallel 24 inch pipe to .
increase capacity of existing
system to accommodate wet
weather flows
I
Construct 24 inch pipe to increase
capacity of existing system to
accommodate wet weather flows
Construct 24 inch pipe to increase
capacity of existing system to
accommodate wet weather flows
Increase pump station ~apacity to
accommodate wet weather flows
with the largest pump out of
service
Increase pump station capacity to
accommodate wet weather flows
with the largest pump out of '
service
Increase pump station capacity to
accommodate wet weather flows
with the largest pump out of
.service
I
j
I
New pump station to collect flow
from future development in the
vicinity of the South 2nd Street
area
I
New pump station to collect flow
from future development in the
vicinity ofDeadmond Feny Road
and Baldy View Drive
Date Received
MAY 06 2008
Planner: BJ
Table 16
City of Springfield
Wastewater System Improvements, Estimated Costs, and Timing
I Project I Project NameIDescription
Number '
1
Ii:
I~'
105
1+%
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
I
I
I~
1202
I~
1203
Short Term
.Jast1er Road se~;:er e:nteasioB
Jasper Road 'sewer extension
Gi...:.li...:" :" w-.on ~.:t>o.J ~J( sevier
lOin & N Street Upwade
I GatowwdHarlsw Rsad ;::.:::; ::".atis8 HflWiule
I E street (Central T runic) up~ade
I Main Street Sewer uPllfade # I
Nug~et Way pump station up~de
Hayden Lo pump station upgrade
River Glen pump station upwade
I
I Lon!! Term
I EBfit GleBwssB efavitv sewer
I Harbor Drive pumP statiorin
I -l9lh Stroet- flllfBll statis8
I Peace Health pump station
ATTACHMENF5 - 1
Cost
($000)
~
11,600
-l-;$OO
3,950
I -l-;$OO
I 2,5 00
12,100
I 1,400
I 1,050
I 1.200
BOO
13,340
I WI)
13,190
Estimated Completion
Year
19992(l(l4
2010-2012
1999 2(l(l4
2010
1 19992(l(l4
I 2010-2013
I 2010-2013
12010
I 2010-2013
12010-2013
I
I 2(l(l5 2(l(l(j
I 2015-2020
I 2(l(l5 2(l(l(j
I 2012-2017
Date Received
MAY 06 2008
P.i~ J"'l n
!~~nner: ti,j
l
.
)
t
l I
~
l
'\
Eugene-Springfield Public Facilities and S~I'~IVes Plan
Planned MWMC Wastewater Project Sites
302
Further detailS 01 s~~cific projects at each of the identified
sites are described in tables 3, 4, 4a and 4b
Planned Metro Wastewater Sites
. Regional Pump Station
... Screw Pump Station
. Local Pump Station
. Regional Wastewater Treatment Site
D Metro Plan Boundary
Metro Urban Growth Boundary
_ Urban Reserves
_ Proposed Wastewater Unes of 24" or larger
Note: UtbanRI "'" . .',. ,,'udifJd
as part of the Metropolitan Urban Reserve Analysis
Periodic Review Study.
JD
I .
.-.
2 Miles:
-"
-----
~-';/
;~
CJ
.......
:J ~ CD
Nms, =::0
1. ~lires ~out..me UGB cannot 6e locaf9(j lIS shown
~out first~'nI~ County land use approval.
2. Ifh,ge~~ationmw f8Cill'i'~I/~ ShPJl!' on this map.
&actproJ~a~(Jl\ \ '.'. I~'jlrhlocalprocesses.
.
----tl
~-
MAP 2
C-
0.
March, 2004
ATTACHMENT 6
~....
,
1
f
....OllONRD
r
-'J-
IInnch
" -=f"".
"'
.r
'1]
-
OJ
::J
:J
CD
'""'l
. ,
o
~
~~S_
~"" --
~-*
r--> C')
..~-..~'''''l>__'''--
co -,
<
CD
c..
OJ
C'-
.
. ~
I
.
.;
/
, - ~
---........Gl~ .
-
..
~
'1
I r-"
I
t: I ",=,~
rL'l. =-/ ff~ a~ j- ., L:
~-'- 1'- i
--....-.... -.tt-
~
- .
~-=--r!l"ST .....
~...,-~~
r
j
~
":,"~ I
- ./
,? ..,.....lMo,'l'/J;~
'"
-EIlhIllngPlpe~
- ~u.Jor~.Sya1empPK
C l.ktl8n GrowIh 90tmBry
.' - FUlI.nPlpelmprowment
~" .... ''''''-'''---~'.'''''''''-~''
ATTACHMENT 7
n.~...
)
'."''''''1_
" MaIn Street
'~O_~_
1\
/
/
J
,.,.
~_.....
..,.
I
.
J
~
r
,
/
/
RGORE 1
System .., ;_.
Clyds,.ftg/feld~""*PfIn
CM2MHOU.