Loading...
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.