Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - EVWD Board of Directors - 04/24/2019REG ULA R BO A RD MEET IN G April 24, 2019 - 5:30 P M 31111 Greenspot Road, Highland, C A 92346 AG E N D A "In order to comply with legal requirements for posting of agenda, only those items filed with the District C lerk by 12:00 p.m. on Wednesday prior to the following Wednesday meeting not requiring departmental investigation, will be considered by the Board of Directors". C A LL TO O RD ER P LED G E O F A LLEG IA N C E RO LL C A LL O F BO A RD MEMBERS P U B L I C C O MME N T S Any person wishing to speak to the Board of Directors is asked to complete a Speaker Card and submit it to the District Clerk prior to the start of the meeting. Each speaker is limited to three (3) minutes, unless waived by the C hairman of the Board. Under the State of C alifornia Brown Act, the Board of Directors is prohibited from discussing or taking action on any item not listed on the posted agenda. T he matter will automatically be referred to staff for an appropriate response or action and may appear on the agenda at a future meeting. AGE N D A - T his agenda contains a brief general description of each item to be considered. Except as otherwise provided by law, no action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the following agenda unless the Board of Directors makes a determination that an emergency exists or that a need to take immediate action on the item came to the attention of the District subsequent to the posting of the agenda. 1.Approval of Agenda 2.AP P RO VAL O F C ON SE N T C AL E N D AR All matters listed under the C onsent C alendar are considered by the Board of Directors to be routine and will be enacted in one motion. T here will be no discussion of these items prior to the time the board considers the motion unless members of the board, the administrative staff, or the public request specific items to be discussed and/or removed from the C onsent C alendar. a.Approve the March 27, 2019 regular board meeting minutes b.Approve the April 10, 2019 regular board meeting minutes c.Approve the April 17, 2019 special board meeting minutes d.March 2019 Disbursements: Accounts payable disbursements for the period include check numbers 253811 through 253987, bank drafts, and A C H Payments in the amount of $4,156,321.20 and $378,822.38 for payroll. e.Financial Statements for March 2019 f.Approve Investment Report for Quarter Ended March 31, 2019 I N F ORMAT I ON AL I T E MS 3.District Partnership with San Bernardino C ounty Sheriff's D epartment D I SC U SSI O N AN D P OS SI B L E AC T I O N I T E MS 4.Consider Adoption of Resolution 2019.05 Updating Investment Policy 7.6 5.Consider Approval of 2019 Water and Sewer System Master Plans RE P O RT S 6.Board of Directors' Reports 7.General Manager/C EO Report 8.Legal C ounsel Report 9.Board of Directors' Comments AD J O U RN P LEAS E NO T E: Materials related to an item on this agenda s ub mitted to the Board after dis trib utio n of the agend a pac ket are available for p ublic ins p ectio n in the Dis tric t's o ffice lo cated at 31111 G reens pot R d., Highland, during no rmal b usines s hours . Also, s uc h d o cuments are available o n the Dis tric t's web s ite at www.eas tvalley.o rg sub ject to s taff's ab ility to post the d o cuments b efo re the meeting. P urs uant to G overnment C o d e S ec tion 54954.2(a), any reques t fo r a d is ab ility-related mo dific ation or ac commod ation, inc luding auxiliary aids or s ervic es , that is s ought in order to participate in the abo ve- agendized p ublic meeting s hould b e d irected to the Dis tric t C lerk at (909) 885-4900 at leas t 72 hours prior to said meeting. 1 Minutes 3/27/2019 smg Draft pending approval EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT March 27, 2019 REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES The Chairman of the Board called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Mr. Tompkins led the flag salute. PRESENT: Directors: Carrillo, Coats, Goodrich, Morales, Smith ABSENT: Director Smith STAFF: John Mura, General Manager/CEO; Brian Tompkins, Chief Financial Officer; Jeff Noelte, Director of Engineering and Operations; Kelly Malloy; Director of Strategic Services; Justine Hendricksen, District Clerk; Shayla Gerber, Senior Administrative Assistant LEGAL COUNSEL: Jean Cihigoyenetche GUEST(s): Members of the public PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Carrillo declared the public participation section of the meeting open at 5:31 p.m. There being no written or verbal comments, the public participation section was closed. APPROVAL OF AGENDA M/S/C (Coats-Goodrich) that the March 27, 2019 agenda be approved as submitted. FEBRUARY DISBURSEMENTS M/S/C (Coats-Goodrich) that the General Fund Disbursements #253682 through #253810 which were distributed during the period of February 1, 2019 through February 28, 2019, bank drafts, and ACH Payments in the amount of $6,758,364.51 and $431,390.02 for payroll and benefit contributions, totaling $7,189,754.53 be approved. APPROVE THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR FEBRUARY 2019 M/S/C (Coats-Goodrich) that the Board approve the financial statements for February 2019 as submitted. 2 Minutes 3/27/2019 smg APPROVE THE MARCH 13, 2019 REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES M/S/C (Coats-Goodrich) that the Board approve the March 13, 2019 regular board meeting minutes as submitted. INTRODUCTION OF DISTRICT VOLUNTEERS The General Manager/CEO stated that the District’s Volunteer Program has been a huge success; he stated that there are five volunteers working in various departments; and he thanked them for their time they have dedicated to the District. The volunteers were individually introduced and were presented with a certificate of appreciation. Information only. RECORDS RETENTION POLICY AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 2019.03 – UPDATING THE RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE The District Clerk provided information regarding updates to the District’s Record Retention Policy and Schedules; she stated that the District retained the services of Gladwell Government Services, Inc. to assist in the revision of the Records Retention Schedule; and the consultant will provide updates to changes in law pertaining to record retention on an as needed basis. M/S/C (Morales-Goodrich) that the Board adopt Resolution 2019.03 updating the Records Retention Policy and Schedules and rescinding Resolution 2010.08. EMAIL AND INSTANT MESSAGING ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY The Information Technology Manager provided information regarding the Instant Messaging and Acceptable Use Policy; he discussed the purpose of the policy; he stated that staff will be trained on retaining emails before the policy goes into effect; and that in creating the policy, staff sought guidance from information technology consultants and the Municipal Information Systems Association of California. M/S/C (Goodrich-Morales) that the Board approve the Email and Instant Messaging Acceptable Use Policy as submitted. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 2019.02 – REPLACING REIMBURSEMENT RESOLUTION 2018.15 The Chief Financial Officer provided information regarding revisions to Resolution 2018.15. He stated that this is the second revision to the State Revolving Fund loan; that staff is requesting an additional $25 million in loan funding to add digesters to the Sterling Natural Resource Center Project versus contracting for sludge hauling, as originally planned. The Chief Financial Officer discussed benefits of adding the digesters to the project and potential revenue projection; and stated that the request for additional funding is not a commitment to adding digesters, it is a request to borrow 3 Minutes 3/27/2019 smg the funds from the State. M/S/C (Goodrich-Morales) that the Board adopt Resolution 2019.02 as submitted. CANCELLATION OF THE MAY 8, 2019 REGULAR BOARD MEETING The General Manager/CEO requested that the May 8, 2019 regular board meeting be canceled due to members of the Board and staff attending the Association of California Water Agencies Spring Conference. M/S/C (Coats-Goodrich) that the Board approve the cancellation of the May 8, 2019 regular board meeting. CSDA BOARD OF DIRECTORS SUPPORT RESOLUTION 2019.04 The General Manager/CEO provided a brief overview of the California Special Districts Association (CSDA) and the structure of Board Members; he also reviewed Chairman Coats’ interest in his submittal of nomination paperwork to continue with the District’s efforts to increase regional partnerships and participation with other agencies. M/S/C (Coats-Goodrich) that the Board adopt Resolution 2019.04 to support placing in nomination Ronald L. Coats as a member of the California Special Districts Association Southern Network Seat B Board Election. BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ REPORTS Director Goodrich reported on the following: March 18 he attended the Association of San Bernardino County Special Districts meeting; March 21 he attended the Del Rosa Neighborhood Action Group (DR.NAG) meeting; and March 26 he attended the District’s Engineering and Operations Committee meeting. Director Morales reported on the following: March 20 he received updates on Safe Drinking Water through a legislative hearing; March 26 he attended the District’s Engineering and Operations Committee meeting; and March 26 he placed a conference call with the Association of California Water Agencies Region 9 Committee to discuss the upcoming conference in May. Director Coats reported on the following: March 18 he attended the Association of San Bernardino County Special Districts meeting; March 19 he attended San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District Board meeting; March 21 he attended the Del Rosa Neighborhood Action Group (DR.NAG) meeting; and March 26 he attended the Highland Chamber of Commerce meeting where Third District Supervisor, Dawn Rowe, was the guest speaker. Chairman Carrillo reported on the following: March 15 he met with the General Manager/CEO to discuss District business; March 18 he attended the Association of San Bernardino County Special Districts meeting; March 21 he met with the General 4 Minutes 3/27/2019 smg Manager/CEO to review the agenda; and March 26 he attended the Highland Chamber of Commerce meeting where there are three vacancies on the Planning Commission. Information only. GENERAL MANAGER/CEO REPORT The General Manager/CEO reported that last week the District hosted a tour of the Sterling Natural Resource Center site for Supervisor Dawn Rowe and staff. He thanked the Board for their leadership and vision of the Sterling Natural Resource Center project. The General Manager/CEO informed the Board of the following: • The District will be participating and have a booth at the Annual Citrus Harvest Festival this Saturday, March 30, from 10:00 to 3:30 p.m. • The North Fork Water Company Annual Meeting of the Shareholders will be held on April 2 at 2pm. • March 28 the District will be hosting a tour for Engineering Students from Crafton Hills College. • The District will be hosting a tour of the Sterling Natural Resource Center site for Assembly Member Reyes and her staff on April 5. • The Finance and Human Resources and Community Advisory Commission will be meeting on April 9. LEGAL COUNSEL REPORT No report at this time. BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ COMMENTS Director Coats commended the District Clerk and staff on updating the Record Retention Policy. Director Morales congratulated Director Coats on his nomination for Director on the California Special Districts Associations’ Board (CSDA). Chairman Carrillo and Director Goodrich concurred the comments of Director Coats and Director Morales. Information only. 5 Minutes 3/27/2019 smg ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 6:29 p.m. ___________________________ Chris Carrillo, Board President __________________________ John Mura, Secretary 1 Minutes 04/10/2019 smg Draft Pending Approval EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT April 10, 2019 REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES The Chairman of the Board called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. PRESENT: Directors: Carrillo, Coats, Goodrich, Morales, Smith ABSENT: None STAFF: John Mura, General Manager/CEO; Brian Tompkins, Chief Financial Officer; Jeff Noelte, Director of Engineering and Operations; Justine Hendricksen, District Clerk; Shayla Gerber, Senior Administrative Assistant LEGAL COUNSEL: Jean Cihigoyenetche GUEST(s): Members of the public PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Carrillo declared the public participation section of the meeting open at 4:30 p.m. There being no written or verbal comments, the public participation section was closed. APPROVAL OF AGENDA M/S/C (Coats-Goodrich) that the April 18, 2019 agenda be approved as submitted. CLOSED SESSION The Board entered into Closed Session at 4:31 p.m. as provided in the Ralph M. Brown Act Government Code Section 54956.8 to discuss the item(s) listed on the agenda. THE BOARD RECONVENED THE MEETING AT 5:30 P.M. Mr. Cihigoyenetche led the flag salute. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Directors: Carrillo, Coats, Goodrich, Morales, Smith ABSENT: None 2 Minutes 04/10/2019 smg ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS With respect to Item #2: Approved as follows: Legal Counsel announced that the Board discussed item #2 in closed session and unanimously voted (5-0) to approve the purchase of real property identified as 3.62 acres of land located at 28798 Live Oak Road, in the City of Highland, at the price of $445,000. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Carrillo declared the public participation section of the meeting open at 5 :32 p.m. There being no written or verbal comments, the public participation section was closed. DIRECTORS’ FEES AND EXPENSES FOR MARCH 2019 M/S/C (Smith-Coats) that the Board approve the Directors’ fees and expenses for March 2019 as submitted. REVIEW FRAUD PREVENTION AND DETECTION POLICY The Chief Financial Officer reviewed the Fraud Prevention and Detection Policy and provided a brief summary of each item; he reviewed the purpose of the policy and stated that no changes were made. Information only. OVERVIEW OF WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM MASTER PLANS The General Manager/CEO stated that an overview of the Water and Sewer System Master Plan is being presented to the Board for their feedback and will be brought back to the Board at a future meeting for adoption. The Director of Engineering and Operations provided the Board with an overview of the Water and Sewer Master Plans; he stated that the Master Plans are utilized by the District to plan infrastructure improvements needed to support expansion and optimized system operation; and he addressed questions from the Board regarding cost sharing with developers and how it relates to the Master Plan. Information only. 3 Minutes 04/10/2019 smg BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ REPORTS Director Goodrich reported on the following: April 2 he attended the North Fork Water Company Annual meeting; and April 5 he met with the General Manager/CEO where he received training on budget-based rates and discussed District business. Director Morales reported on the following: April 4 he met with staff to discuss the Region 9 presentation for the the Association of California Water Agencies Spring Conference; April 5 he attended the East Valley Association of Realtors meeting; and April 9 he attended the City of San Bernardino Board of Water Commissioners meeting. Vice Chairman Smith reported on the following: March 31 he attended the Highland Citrus Harvest Festival; April 2 he attended the North Fork Water Company Annual meeting; April 4 he met with the General Manager/CEO to review the agenda; and April 10 he attended the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District Board meeting. Director Coats reported on the following: March 28 he attended the Inland Empire Economic Partnership meeting where Dr. John Husing provided a State of the Region update; April 2 he attended the North Fork Water Company Annual meeting; April 3 he participated in the California Association of Special Districts webinar: Cradle to the Grave: Special District LAFCO Involvement; and April 9 he met with the General Manager/CEO to discuss District business. Chairman Carrillo reported on the following: April 2 he attended the North Fork Water Company Annual meeting; and April 4 he met with the General Manger/CEO to review the agenda. Information only. GENERAL MANAGER/CEO REPORT The General Manager/CEO reported that on March 30 the District participated in the City of Highland’s Annual Citrus Harvest Festival; April 1 the District held a Sterling Natural Resource Center Partnering meeting; staff presented District updates to the Community Advisory Commission meeting; and today he attended a Career Pathway Development meeting, hosted by the San Bernardino City Unified School District, with the Human Resources/Risk and Safety Manager. The General Manager/CEO informed the Board of the following: • April 12 staff will be hosting a tour of the District’s headquarters for the Inland Empire Economic Partnership during their Regional Parent Leadership Academy. • The deadline for local students to submit artwork for the District’s 2019 poster contest is this Friday, April 12. 4 Minutes 04/10/2019 smg • A Special Board meeting will be held April 17, staff will be presenting proposed Goals and Objectives for 2019-20. • The District will be hosting the annual North Fork Tour on April 23. • April 27 the District will be hosting its first Community Conservation Fest. This free event will celebrate Earth Month with fun activities, workshops and more. The event is being held at 26032 6th Street in San Bernardino. Information only. LEGAL COUNSEL REPORT No report at this time. BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ COMMENTS Director Coats thanked everyone for attending the Board meeting. Director Morales thanked the Operations Manager and staff for attending the Citrus Harvest Festival. Chairman Carrillo commended staff for being proactive and thanked everyone for attending the Board meeting. Information only. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 6:56 p.m. ___________________________ Chris Carrillo, Board President __________________________ John Mura, Secretary 1 Minutes 04/17/2019 smg Draft pending approval EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT April 17, 2019 SPECIAL BOARD MEETING MINUTES The Chairman of the Board called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Mr. Mura led the flag salute. PRESENT: Directors: Carrillo, Coats, Goodrich, Morales, Smith ABSENT: None STAFF: John Mura, General Manager/CEO; Jeff Noelte, Director of Engineering and Operations; Kelly Malloy, Director of Strategic Services; Justine Hendricksen, District Clerk; Shayla Gerber, Senior Administrative Assistant LEGAL COUNSEL: None GUEST(s): Members of the public and District staff PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman C arrillo declared the public participation section of the meeting open at 5 :31 p.m. There being no written or verbal comments, the public participation section was closed. FY 2019-20 PROGRAM GOALS AND OBJECTIVES WORKSHOP The General Manager/CEO stated that Program Managers will be presenting their departments Goals and Objectives for FY 2019-20. The Chief Financial Officer stated that departmental Goals and Objectives are aligned with Agency Goals and Objectives and the 5-Year Work Plan; and they support the General Manager/CEO’s Goals and Objectives that were approved in March 2019. Program Managers and staff reviewed their departments’ FY 2018-19 accomplishments and presented their proposed FY 2019-20 program Goals and Objectives to the Board. The Board took a break at 6:42 p.m. The Board reconvened the meeting at 6:51 p.m. Chairman Carrillo reviewed the Board’s accomplishments and presented their proposed FY 2019-20 Goals and Objectives. 2 Minutes 04/17/2019 smg Information only. GENERAL MANAGER/CEO REPORT No report at this time. LEGAL COUNSEL REPORT Legal counsel not present. BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ COMMENTS Director Morales commended staff on their presentations and stated that their goals are ambitious, but attainable. Director Goodrich stated that he appreciates the information presented. Director Coats commented that staff elevated the bar this year for their goals and objectives. Vice Chairman Smith thanked staff for the presentations. Chairman Carrillo commended staff on their presentations; and stated that the District’s goals and objectives are what drives the District and the Board. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 7:36 p.m. ___________________________ Chris Carrillo, Board President __________________________ John Mura, Secretary B OAR D AG E N D A S TAF F R E P O RT Agenda Item #2.d. Meeting Date: April 24, 2019 C ons ent Item To: G overning Board Memb ers From: G eneral Manager/C E O S ubject: March 2019 Dis bursements : Ac counts p ayable disbursements for the p eriod inc lud e c heck numb ers 253811 thro ugh 253987, b ank drafts, and AC H P ayments in the amount of $4,156,321.20 and $378,822.38 fo r payroll. R E COMME N D AT IO N: S taff rec o mmend s that the Board o f Directo rs (Bo ard ) review and ap prove the Dis trict’s expense dis b urs ements fo r the period March 1, 2019 through March 31, 2019 in the amo unt o f $4,535,143.58. B AC KG R O UN D / AN ALYS IS : In the c o ntinued effort to b e fis c ally trans parent, the payment register fo r sup p lies, materials , servic es , and p ayro ll fo r March 2019 is attac hed fo r review and ap p roval. T his pro cess provides the Board and the p ub lic an o pportunity to review the exp ens es o f the Dis tric t. Acc o unts P ayable is p roc es s ed weekly, while p ayro ll is p roc es s ed b i-weekly. I nfo rmatio n to jus tify each expend iture is available through the F inance Department. Ac counts p ayab le dis bursements for the p eriod inc lud e c heck numb ers 253811 through 253987, bank drafts , and AC H P ayments in the amo unt of $4,156,321.20 and $378,822.38 for payroll. S ignific ant exp ens es greater than o r eq ual to $50,000 are further exp lained belo w: R ec o mmend ed b y: John Mura G eneral Manager/C EO R espec tfully s ubmitted: Brian Tomp kins C hief F inancial O fficer AGE N C Y GOALS AN D OB J E C T IVE S: G oal and O b jec tives I I - Maintain a C o mmitment to S us tainab ility, Trans p arency, and Ac countability a) P rac tic e Transparent and Ac countable F isc al Management R E VIE W B Y O T HE R S : T his agend a item has been reviewed b y the F inanc e Department. F IS CAL IMPAC T S uffic ient fund s have b een b ud geted in the ad o p ted F Y 2018-19 Bud get. ATTAC H M E NTS: Description Type M arch 2 019 P ayment Register Backup Material PAYMENT REGISTER MARCH 1, 2019 - MARCH 31, 2019 PAYMENT DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME AMOUNT 3/6/2019 253811 Karina Cornejo 940.00 3/6/2019 253812 MIKE NOVAK-SMITH 65.27 3/6/2019 253813 DEBBIE PRICE 91.67 3/6/2019 253814 JUAN AQUINO 30.44 3/6/2019 253815 DAVID MCADAM 131.40 3/6/2019 253816 THERESA M ROSALES 97.91 3/6/2019 253817 SOCORRO PARRA 141.23 3/6/2019 253818 MARO MERCADO 65.23 3/6/2019 253819 JUDITH ALFORD 66.19 3/6/2019 253820 HUNG TRAN 107.20 3/6/2019 253821 AMERICAN FIDELITY ASSURANCE COMPANY 92.30 3/6/2019 253822 AMERICAN FIDELITY ASSURANCE COMPANY 1,341.47 3/6/2019 253823 AMERICAN FIDELITY ASSURANCE COMPANY 1,387.62 3/6/2019 253824 AMERICAN FIDELITY ASSURANCE COMPANY 1,387.62 3/6/2019 253825 AMERICAN FIDELITY ASSURANCE COMPANY 1,387.62 3/6/2019 253826 GRISELDA CHAGOLLA 500.00 3/7/2019 253827 ADP SCREENING 61.33 3/7/2019 253828 AMAZON.COM, LLC 4,825.22 3/7/2019 253830 AMERICAN FIDELITY ASSURANCE COMPANY 1,796.96 3/7/2019 253831 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION 4,141.00 3/7/2019 253832 APPLEONE EMPLOYMENT SERVICE 1,054.08 3/7/2019 253833 BATTERY SOLUTIONS, LLC 219.90 3/7/2019 253834 BEAR VALLEY MUTUAL WATER COMPANY 142.50 3/7/2019 253835 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, PUBLIC WORKS DEPT 1,121.96 3/7/2019 253836 COLONIAL LIFE, PREMIUM 582.66 3/7/2019 253837 CUES 2,600.00 3/7/2019 253838 CULLIGAN OF ONTARIO 96.50 3/7/2019 253839 DENTAL HEALTH SERVICES 332.35 3/7/2019 253840 DIRECTV 244.76 3/7/2019 253841 ECONOMIC DEVEOPMENT AND CORPORATE TRAINING FOUNDATION, EDCT FOUNDATION 750.00 3/7/2019 253842 EVERSOFT, INC 215.72 3/7/2019 253843 EXPERIAN 208.96 3/7/2019 253844 FIRST CHOICE SERVICES 335.48 3/7/2019 253845 FLEET MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 360.44 3/7/2019 253846 GARY YOUNG 533.75 3/7/2019 253847 GOODMAN DISTRIBUTION INC 501.54 3/7/2019 253848 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION 150.00 3/7/2019 253849 HATFIELD BUICK 8.04 3/7/2019 253850 HUB CONSTRUCTION SPECIALTIES 471.69 3/7/2019 253851 INLAND WATER WORKS SUPPLY CO 5,210.98 3/7/2019 253852 K & L HARDWARE 124.35 3/7/2019 253853 KELLY ASSOCIATES MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC 8,030.00 3/7/2019 253854 KRIEGER & STEWART, INCORPORATED 7,799.00 PAYMENT REGISTER MARCH 1, 2019 - MARCH 31, 2019 Page 1 of 7 PAYMENT DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME AMOUNT 3/7/2019 253855 LOWE'S 352.37 3/7/2019 253856 METROPOLITAN LIFE INS CO 127.05 3/7/2019 253857 QUINTANA, WATTS & HARTMANN LLC 8,443.69 3/7/2019 253858 REVHS ENGINEERING CLUB 2,500.00 3/7/2019 253859 SOUTH COAST A Q M D 538.58 3/7/2019 253860 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 2,968.68 3/7/2019 253861 TEC-REFRESH, INC 8,000.00 3/7/2019 253862 TYLER TECHNOLGIES 5,827.50 3/7/2019 253863 VALLEY OFFICE EQUIPMENT 8.46 3/7/2019 253864 VERIZON 1,236.45 3/11/2019 253865 GRISELDA CHAGOLLA 1,000.00 3/11/2019 253866 LAW OFFICE OF BRUCE S. HERWIG 400.00 3/13/2019 253867 LUIS R GOMEZ 47.57 3/13/2019 253868 FIGWOOD GROUP LLC 108.76 3/13/2019 253869 FIGWOOD GROUP LLC 132.47 3/13/2019 253870 OPENDOOR LABS INC 61.00 3/13/2019 253871 MATICH CORPORATION 1,459.32 3/13/2019 253872 JOSE CARRILLO 22.12 3/13/2019 253873 BOWARI 58.83 3/13/2019 253874 HYUN JIN KIM 188.55 3/13/2019 253875 LEOBARDO BECERRA 39.19 3/13/2019 253876 HIGHLAND FUELS 5,686.19 3/14/2019 253877 AMERICAN PAYROLL ASSOCIATION 254.00 3/14/2019 253878 ANTHESIS 3,627.00 3/14/2019 253879 APPLEONE EMPLOYMENT SERVICE 1,317.60 3/14/2019 253880 BUGGY ROGERS PAINTING 800.00 3/14/2019 253881 BURGESS MOVING & STORAGE 1,552.30 3/14/2019 253882 BURRTEC WASTE (GROUP) INDUSTRIES, INC. 1,353.01 3/14/2019 253883 BURRTEC WASTE (GROUP) INDUSTRIES, INC. 346.85 3/14/2019 253884 BURRTEC WASTE (GROUP) INDUSTRIES, INC. 126.48 3/14/2019 253885 BURRTEC WASTE (GROUP) INDUSTRIES, INC. 126.48 3/14/2019 253886 CHEM-TECH INTERNATIONAL INC 2,592.04 3/14/2019 253887 CINTAS CORP. (SERVICE) 2,223.43 3/14/2019 253888 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, PUBLIC WORKS DEPT 1,682.94 3/14/2019 253889 EYE MED VISION CARE 1,305.40 3/14/2019 253890 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION 95.52 3/14/2019 253891 HATFIELD BUICK 4.85 3/14/2019 253892 HIGHLAND COMMUNITY NEWS 2,115.08 3/14/2019 253893 INLAND WATER WORKS SUPPLY CO 10,118.70 3/14/2019 253894 JURUPA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 531.00 3/14/2019 253895 K & L HARDWARE 10.76 3/14/2019 253896 LOWE'S 1,515.65 3/14/2019 253897 PETTY CASH 335.34 3/14/2019 253898 RBC RESOURCES 1,880.00 3/14/2019 253899 SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL WATER DEPARTMENT 18,460.32 3/14/2019 253900 SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL WATER DEPARTMENT 736,647.45 3/14/2019 253901 SO CAL GAS 1,181.15 3/14/2019 253902 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 96,801.77 3/14/2019 253903 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 511.85 3/14/2019 253904 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 1,195.65 3/14/2019 253907 VALERO MARKETING & SUPPLY COMP 9,306.70 3/19/2019 253908 GREGORY JACOBO 72.98 3/19/2019 253909 CYNTHIA ENGKRAF 129.28 PAYMENT REGISTER MARCH 1, 2019 - MARCH 31, 2019 Page 2 of 7 PAYMENT DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME AMOUNT 3/19/2019 253910 LIG 105.73 3/19/2019 253911 RUBEN V RUBIO 223.21 3/19/2019 253912 NCEM, LLC 63.29 3/21/2019 253913 ALTERNATIVE HOSE INC 109.06 3/21/2019 253914 AMERICAN FIDELITY ASSURANCE COMPANY 1,830.18 3/21/2019 253915 AMERICAN FIDELITY ASSURANCE COMPANY (FSA) 1,387.62 3/21/2019 253916 APPLEONE EMPLOYMENT SERVICE 1,366.74 3/21/2019 253917 AT&T 49.68 3/21/2019 253918 AUTO UPHOLSTERY INC. 612.37 3/21/2019 253919 CHEM-TECH INTERNATIONAL INC 45,021.54 3/21/2019 253920 ESRI 25,000.00 3/21/2019 253921 FIRST CHOICE SERVICES 380.53 3/21/2019 253922 FLEET MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 598.42 3/21/2019 253923 GOODMAN DISTRIBUTION INC 311.26 3/21/2019 253924 HARPER & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERING, INC 11,000.00 3/21/2019 253925 HUB CONSTRUCTION SPECIALTIES 334.28 3/21/2019 253926 INLAND WATER WORKS SUPPLY CO 6,249.52 3/21/2019 253927 K & L HARDWARE 86.78 3/21/2019 253928 KONICA MINOLTA 766.52 3/21/2019 253929 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 4,270.17 3/21/2019 253930 TYLER TECHNOLGIES 440.00 3/21/2019 253931 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 391.09 3/21/2019 253932 USC FOUNDATION OFFICE 1,000.00 3/26/2019 253937 DAVID TANNEN 100.00 3/26/2019 253938 JIM E. DAY 100.00 3/26/2019 253939 LINDA JADESKI 300.00 3/26/2019 253940 LUIS CARRANZA 200.00 3/26/2019 253941 MOLLEE ODAY 300.00 3/26/2019 253942 REBECCA VELASCO 200.00 3/26/2019 253943 RICHARD GARCIA 100.00 3/26/2019 253944 SANDRA HOSTETLER 200.00 3/26/2019 253945 TERESA CABELLO 100.00 3/26/2019 253946 WILLIAM WILLIAMSON 100.00 3/27/2019 253933 CARLOS ZECENA 72.64 3/27/2019 253934 ISABEL RUIZ 40.90 3/27/2019 253935 ROSALITA PICKARD 1.71 3/27/2019 253936 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE 65.44 3/27/2019 253947 ADVANCED OFFICE, IMAGING PLUS 409.79 3/27/2019 253948 ANTHESIS 4,001.00 3/27/2019 253949 APPLEONE EMPLOYMENT SERVICE 596.16 3/27/2019 253950 AT&T 156.99 3/27/2019 253951 AT&T 323.82 3/27/2019 253952 CHEM-TECH INTERNATIONAL INC 1,734.42 3/27/2019 253953 COLONIAL LIFE, PREMIUM 582.66 3/27/2019 253954 DENTAL HEALTH SERVICES 320.40 3/27/2019 253955 DIB'S SAFE & LOCK SERVICE 19.44 3/27/2019 253956 FIRST CHOICE SERVICES 182.64 3/27/2019 253957 GNA FIRE ELECTRIC, INC. 23,280.73 3/27/2019 253958 GRISELDA CHAGOLLA 1,000.00 3/27/2019 253959 HATFIELD BUICK 159.71 3/27/2019 253960 KELLY ASSOCIATES MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC 7,500.00 3/27/2019 253961 METROPOLITAN LIFE INS CO 127.05 3/27/2019 253962 NASSAU LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 133.48 PAYMENT REGISTER MARCH 1, 2019 - MARCH 31, 2019 Page 3 of 7 PAYMENT DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME AMOUNT 3/27/2019 253963 NATIONAL PEN CO. LLC 951.20 3/27/2019 253964 ORANGE COUNTY COASTKEEPER, INC 1,500.00 3/27/2019 253965 SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL WATER DEPARTMENT 633,850.85 3/27/2019 253966 SLATER, INC. 21,076.47 3/27/2019 253967 SO CAL GAS 198.13 3/27/2019 253968 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES, INC. 13,415.00 3/27/2019 253969 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 1,532.23 3/27/2019 253970 SUMMIT FIRE PROTECTION, INC 2,280.00 3/27/2019 253971 THE K.W.C. COMPANIES, INC. 3,532.50 3/27/2019 253972 U.S. BANCORP SERVICE CENTER 33,664.16 3/27/2019 253977 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 354.90 3/27/2019 253978 UNIVERSAL SELF STORAGE HIGHLAND 3,025.00 3/27/2019 253979 VERIZON 1,236.45 3/28/2019 253986 DAVID MERCADO 550.00 3/28/2019 253987 TAWIAH FINLEY 477.90 BANK DRAFTS 3/4/2019 DFT0003162 MERCHANT BANKCD 290.57 3/6/2019 DFT0003155 CALPERS/ DEFERRED COMPENSATION 16,498.70 3/6/2019 DFT0003156 CALPERS/ RETIREMENT 38,443.52 3/6/2019 DFT0003160 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT 2,442.47 3/6/2019 DFT0003163 PayNearMe, Inc. 224.87 3/8/2019 DFT0003154 CA SDI Tax 2,482.06 3/8/2019 DFT0003157 Federal Payroll Tax 22,733.00 3/8/2019 DFT0003158 Medicare 7,198.02 3/8/2019 DFT0003159 Social Security 130.22 3/8/2019 DFT0003161 State Payroll Tax 8,981.13 3/11/2019 DFT0003166 TRANSFIRST DISCOUNT 11,146.89 3/12/2019 DFT0003164 FORTE, ACH DIRECT INC, ACH FEES 4,175.82 3/13/2019 DFT0003165 PayNearMe, Inc. 274.62 3/14/2019 DFT0003269 VERIFONE INC 22.00 3/20/2019 DFT0003261 CALPERS/ DEFERRED COMPENSATION 16,524.33 3/20/2019 DFT0003262 CALPERS/ RETIREMENT 38,458.61 3/20/2019 DFT0003266 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT 2,442.47 3/20/2019 DFT0003268 PayNearMe, Inc. 214.92 3/22/2019 DFT0003260 CA SDI Tax 2,582.60 3/22/2019 DFT0003263 Federal Payroll Tax 27,135.41 3/22/2019 DFT0003264 Medicare 7,640.66 3/22/2019 DFT0003265 Social Security 963.16 3/22/2019 DFT0003267 State Payroll Tax 11,127.02 3/22/2019 DFT0003277 CBB 1,872.82 3/22/2019 DFT0003279 VERIFONE INC 22.00 3/25/2019 DFT0003280 VERIFONE INC 22.00 3/27/2019 DFT0003278 PayNearMe, Inc. 197.01 3/29/2019 DFT0003281 PayNearMe, Inc. 35.82 ACH PAYMENTS 3/7/2019 10005467 ADCOMP SYSTEMS 319.29 3/7/2019 10005468 ADS LLC 1,600.00 3/7/2019 10005469 APPLIED MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES & SOLUTIONS LLC 78.20 3/7/2019 10005470 ASBCSD 32.00 3/7/2019 10005471 B&A BLAIS & ASSOCIATES INC 1,448.10 3/7/2019 10005472 BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE INSPECTIONS INC 99.00 PAYMENT REGISTER MARCH 1, 2019 - MARCH 31, 2019 Page 4 of 7 PAYMENT DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME AMOUNT 3/7/2019 10005473 BARRY'S SECURITY SERVICES, INC 1,730.39 3/7/2019 10005474 CAROL CALES 503.05 3/7/2019 10005475 CLEARFLY COMMUNATIONS 1,349.41 3/7/2019 10005476 DANIEL DAVIS 501.20 3/7/2019 10005477 DAVID HERNANDEZ 391.92 3/7/2019 10005478 ELISEO OCHOA 487.85 3/7/2019 10005479 EVWD EMPLOYEES EVENTS ASSOC 368.92 3/7/2019 10005480 EXCEL LANDSCAPE, ICN 8,550.00 3/7/2019 10005481 EZEQUIEL ELECTRIC, INC. 1,266.00 3/7/2019 10005482 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC. 9,003.92 3/7/2019 10005483 FMB TRUCK OUTFITTERS, INC 21.50 3/7/2019 10005484 GARY STURDIVAN 609.28 3/7/2019 10005485 GENESIS INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY, INC 6,060.48 3/7/2019 10005486 GERALD SIEVERS 609.28 3/7/2019 10005487 GORDON GRANT 523.40 3/7/2019 10005488 HERC RENTALS, INC 616.13 3/7/2019 10005489 JC LAW FIRM 21,730.00 3/7/2019 10005490 KATHLEEN R BURKE 62.65 3/7/2019 10005491 LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INS CO. 2,257.88 3/7/2019 10005492 MCMASTER-CARR 148.00 3/7/2019 10005493 MERLIN JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION 24,987.21 3/7/2019 10005494 MICHAEL HENDERSON 594.16 3/7/2019 10005495 MIKE J. ROQUET CONSTRUCTION INC 4,428.00 3/7/2019 10005496 MIKE MALONEY 647.10 3/7/2019 10005497 MILLER SPATIAL SERVICES LLC 4,220.00 3/7/2019 10005498 MINUTEMAN PRESS OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 560.67 3/7/2019 10005499 OFFICIAL PAYMENTS CORP. 37.40 3/7/2019 10005500 ORION SYSTEMS INTEGRATORS LLC 2,000.00 3/7/2019 10005501 PLUMBERS DEPOT INC. 1,210.18 3/7/2019 10005502 PLUS 1 PERFORMANCE 1,125.32 3/7/2019 10005503 PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL GROUP 9,388.14 3/7/2019 10005504 QUINN COMPANY 2,779.50 3/7/2019 10005505 REBECCA KASTEN 533.61 3/7/2019 10005506 ROUNSVILLE'S AUTO BODY 3,092.92 3/7/2019 10005507 SUPERIOR AUTOMOTIVE WAREHOUSE, INC. 135.71 3/7/2019 10005508 TESCO CONTROLS, INC. 1,966.75 3/7/2019 10005509 THOMAS P ORTON 436.74 3/7/2019 10005510 TK CONSTRUCTION/ KIRTLEY CONSTRUCTION INC 90,497.00 3/7/2019 10005511 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT 408.43 3/7/2019 10005512 USA BLUE BOOK 1,087.81 3/7/2019 10005513 VULCAN MATERIALS CO/ CALMAT CO 5,303.25 3/7/2019 10005514 WESTERN WEATHER GROUP INC 300.00 3/14/2019 10005515 ANTHONY'S IRRIGATION 6,505.00 3/14/2019 10005516 BARRY'S SECURITY SERVICES, INC 1,746.67 3/14/2019 10005517 BOOT BARN, INC 959.45 3/14/2019 10005518 CHEMSEARCH 343.35 3/14/2019 10005519 CINTAS CORPORATION (FIRST AID) 171.92 3/14/2019 10005520 CLINICAL LAB OF S B 4,776.00 3/14/2019 10005521 DIMENSION DATA NORTH AMERICA 1,395.36 3/14/2019 10005522 ELEPHANT FIRE EXTINSUISHER 1,307.84 3/14/2019 10005523 ENERSPECT MEDICAL SOLUTIONS 603.42 3/14/2019 10005524 EVWD EMPLOYEES EVENTS ASSOC 393.92 3/14/2019 10005525 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC. 17,442.42 PAYMENT REGISTER MARCH 1, 2019 - MARCH 31, 2019 Page 5 of 7 PAYMENT DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME AMOUNT 3/14/2019 10005526 FMB TRUCK OUTFITTERS, INC 21.50 3/14/2019 10005527 HAAKER EQUIPMENT COMPANY 413.26 3/14/2019 10005528 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTIC 7,436.80 3/14/2019 10005529 INDUSTRIAL RUBBER & SUPPLY 2,985.82 3/14/2019 10005530 JC LAW FIRM 6,950.00 3/14/2019 10005531 JONATHAN PEEL 100.00 3/14/2019 10005532 KEVIN SMITH 694.43 3/14/2019 10005533 LANDS END INC 149.63 3/14/2019 10005534 LEGEND PUMP AND WELL 899.00 3/14/2019 10005535 MANAGED MOBILE, INC. 2,575.52 3/14/2019 10005536 MCMASTER-CARR 173.13 3/14/2019 10005537 MERLIN JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION 8,724.70 3/14/2019 10005538 MIKE J. ROQUET CONSTRUCTION INC 28,948.00 3/14/2019 10005539 MINUTEMAN PRESS OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 5,149.50 3/14/2019 10005540 MUFG UNION BANK N.A. 517,831.57 3/14/2019 10005541 MUFG UNION BANK, N.A. 292,425.86 3/14/2019 10005542 NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION RENTALS 158.49 3/14/2019 10005543 PLUMBERS DEPOT INC. 1,148.49 3/14/2019 10005544 ROUNSVILLE'S AUTO BODY 1,165.51 3/14/2019 10005545 SHRED-IT US JV LLC 1,826.91 3/14/2019 10005546 SUPERIOR AUTOMOTIVE WAREHOUSE, INC. 117.52 3/14/2019 10005547 WSP USA INC. 3,537.60 3/14/2019 10005548 ROUNSVILLE'S AUTO BODY 1,505.19 3/21/2019 10005549 ADVANTAGE FLEET WASH, INC 400.00 3/21/2019 10005550 AIRGAS, USA LLC 180.95 3/21/2019 10005551 AMERICAN RENTALS, INC 92.40 3/21/2019 10005552 ANDREW MATA 105.00 3/21/2019 10005553 ASBCSD 133.00 3/21/2019 10005554 ASHOK K. DHINGRA, AKD CONSULTING 19,248.16 3/21/2019 10005555 BARRY'S SECURITY SERVICES, INC 1,714.11 3/21/2019 10005556 CINTAS CORPORATION (FIRST AID) 248.69 3/21/2019 10005557 CLIFF'S PEST CONTROL 323.00 3/21/2019 10005558 CLINICAL LAB OF S B 5,676.25 3/21/2019 10005559 COAST FITNESS REPAIR SHOP 250.00 3/21/2019 10005560 CORELOGIC SOLUTIONS INC. 350.00 3/21/2019 10005561 DAVID SMITH 460.00 3/21/2019 10005562 DIMENSION DATA NORTH AMERICA 2,188.65 3/21/2019 10005563 EVWD EMPLOYEES EVENTS ASSOC 393.92 3/21/2019 10005564 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC. 121.37 3/21/2019 10005565 FMB TRUCK OUTFITTERS, INC 181.03 3/21/2019 10005566 FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS 774.09 3/21/2019 10005567 GENESIS INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY, INC 1,745.53 3/21/2019 10005568 GOLDEN STATE LABOR COMPLIANCE, LLC 42,750.00 3/21/2019 10005569 HAAKER EQUIPMENT COMPANY 357.74 3/21/2019 10005570 INDUSTRIAL RUBBER & SUPPLY 60.97 3/21/2019 10005571 INFOSEND, INC 93,879.52 3/21/2019 10005572 INLAND DESERT SECURITY & COMMUNICATIONS, INC 562.45 3/21/2019 10005573 LANDS END INC 776.98 3/21/2019 10005574 LESLIE'S POOL SUPPLIES, INC. 61.79 3/21/2019 10005575 MCCRAY ENTERPRISES 1,538.68 3/21/2019 10005576 MCMASTER-CARR 89.41 3/21/2019 10005577 MIKE J. ROQUET CONSTRUCTION INC 30,928.75 3/21/2019 10005578 MINUTEMAN PRESS OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 1,249.31 PAYMENT REGISTER MARCH 1, 2019 - MARCH 31, 2019 Page 6 of 7 PAYMENT DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME AMOUNT 3/21/2019 10005579 MONTROSE ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, INC. 475.00 3/21/2019 10005580 NEOGOV 3,307.50 3/21/2019 10005581 PATTON'S SALES CORP 13.44 3/21/2019 10005582 PLUS 1 PERFORMANCE 27.00 3/21/2019 10005583 RAFTELIS FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC 8,080.00 3/21/2019 10005584 SUPERIOR AUTOMOTIVE WAREHOUSE, INC. 102.25 3/21/2019 10005585 VERIZON WIRELESS 3,803.46 3/21/2019 10005587 VULCAN MATERIALS CO/ CALMAT CO 1,421.76 3/21/2019 10005588 WORK BOOT WAREHOUSE 263.51 3/29/2019 10005589 SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT 468,986.59 3/29/2019 10005590 ADCOMP SYSTEMS 319.29 3/29/2019 10005591 ALLIED REFRIGERATION INC. 171.21 3/29/2019 10005592 AMANDA PARRILLA, ROXS WITH A TWIST 560.00 3/29/2019 10005593 BARRY'S SECURITY SERVICES, INC 2,072.27 3/29/2019 10005594 CHERRY VALLEY NURSERY MAR-LYN BUILDERS, INC. 753.61 3/29/2019 10005595 CLA-VAL CO 7,053.33 3/29/2019 10005596 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC. 70,087.00 3/29/2019 10005597 FLEET SALES & CONSULTING, INC. DBA BILL & WAGS INC. 516.38 3/29/2019 10005598 FMB TRUCK OUTFITTERS, INC 2.80 3/29/2019 10005599 FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS 515.48 3/29/2019 10005600 INLAND MARKETING GROUP, JEFF WHITMAN 160.00 3/29/2019 10005601 JOSE MILLAN 2,990.00 3/29/2019 10005602 LEGEND PUMP AND WELL 9,656.00 3/29/2019 10005603 MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK 231.84 3/29/2019 10005604 MINUTEMAN PRESS OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 2,580.82 3/29/2019 10005605 MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT LLP 7,850.06 3/29/2019 10005606 OFFICIAL PAYMENTS CORP. 31.85 3/29/2019 10005607 ORION SYSTEMS INTEGRATORS LLC 545.00 3/29/2019 10005608 PLUMBERS DEPOT INC. 2,299.79 3/29/2019 10005609 PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL GROUP 9,342.24 3/29/2019 10005610 ROUNSVILLE'S AUTO BODY 5,400.00 3/29/2019 10005611 SAFETY COMPLIANCE COMPANY 200.00 3/29/2019 10005612 SCHUBERT ENTERPRISES INC 220.00 3/29/2019 10005613 THE WINNER INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC 114.59 3/29/2019 10005614 TK CONSTRUCTION/ KIRTLEY CONSTRUCTION INC 127,043.50 3/29/2019 10005615 TROY ALARM, INC. 384.00 3/29/2019 10005616 USA BLUE BOOK 91.17 3/29/2019 10005617 WIRELESS GUYS, INC. 2,000.00 TOTAL 4,156,321.20$ PAYMENT REGISTER MARCH 1, 2019 - MARCH 31, 2019 Page 7 of 7 R ec o mmend ed b y: John Mura G eneral Manager/C EO R espec tfully s ubmitted: Brian Tomp kins C hief F inancial O fficer B OAR D AG E N D A S TAF F R E P O RT Agenda Item #2.e. Meeting Date: April 24, 2019 C ons ent Item To: G overning Board Memb ers From: G eneral Manager/C E O S ubject: F inanc ial S tatements fo r Marc h 2019 R E COMME N D AT IO N: S taff recommends that the Board o f Direc tors (Board ) ac cept and file the attached financial s tatements as o f, and fo r the perio d end ed, Marc h 31, 2019. B AC KG R O UN D / AN ALYS IS : Inc luded herewith fo r the Board’s review is a summary of Eas t Valley Water Dis trict’s financial res ults , as o f March 31, 2019. AGE N C Y GOALS AN D OB J E C T IVE S: G oal and O b jec tives I I - Maintain a C o mmitment to S us tainab ility, Trans p arency, and Ac countability a) P rac tic e Transparent and Ac countable F isc al Management R E VIE W B Y O T HE R S : T his agend a item has been reviewed b y the F inanc e Department. F IS CAL IMPAC T T here is no fis cal imp ac t as s oc iated with this agend a item. ATTAC H M E NTS: Description Type M arch 2 019 Financial Statement Mo nthly Backup Material M arch 2 019 Financial Statements Backup Material FINANCIAL STATEMENTS MONTHLY REVIEW MARCH 31, 2019 page | 1 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS MONTHLY REVIEW MARCH 31, 2019 page | 2 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS MONTHLY REVIEW MARCH 31, 2019 page | 3 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS MONTHLY REVIEW MARCH 31, 2019 page | 4 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS MONTHLY REVIEW MARCH 31, 2019 page | 5 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS MONTHLY REVIEW MARCH 31, 2019 page | 6 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS MONTHLY REVIEW MARCH 31, 2019 page | 7 WATER WASTEWATER DISTRICT TOTAL Assets: Current Assets: 01 Cash and Cash Equivalents 14,004,415.35$ (5,899,174.84)$ 8,105,240.51$ 02 Investments 3,525,864.71 1,853,289.75 5,379,154.46 03 Accounts Receivable, Net 3,479,528.82 276,400.83 3,755,929.65 04 ‐Interest Receivable 5,951.06 3,377.19 9,328.25 14*05 Other Receivables 327,667.85 - 327,667.85 06 Due from other Governments 16,144.57 8,493,000.00 8,509,144.57 08 Inventory 319,299.30 6,721.16 326,020.46 09 Prepaid Expenses 181,472.50 6,487.03 187,959.53 21,860,344.16 4,740,101.12 26,600,445.28 Non-Current Assets: 10 Restricted Cash and Cash Equivalents 5,987,274.04 2,309,445.57 8,296,719.61 11 Capital Assets not being Depreciated 16,610,071.61 28,826,609.83 45,436,681.44 13 Capital Assets, Net 110,035,605.33 19,118,185.92 129,153,791.25 132,632,950.98 50,254,241.32 182,887,192.30 Total Assets:154,493,295.14 54,994,342.44 209,487,637.58 Deferred Outflow Of Resources 24*Deferred Charge on Refunding 120,546.13 - 120,546.13 25 Deferred Outflows - Pensions 3,316,376.79 1,073,353.21 4,389,730.00 157,930,218.06 56,067,695.65 213,997,913.71 Current Liabilities: 22 Accounts Payable and Accrued Expenses 2,209,132.15 29,959.97 2,239,092.12 23 Accrued Payroll and Benefits (9,368.95) - (9,368.95) 15 Customer Service Deposits 1,559,238.94 - 1,559,238.94 16 Construction Advances and Retentions 106,000.00 882,449.50 988,449.50 17 Accrued Interest Payable 395,073.92 53,743.75 448,817.67 18 Current Portion of Compensated Absences 273,181.99 79,391.90 352,573.89 19 Current Portion of Long-Term Debt 1,808,921.45 122,958.00 1,931,879.45 6,342,179.50 1,168,503.12 7,510,682.62 Non-Current Liabilities: 20 Compensated Absences, less current portion (52,722.61) 363,007.83 310,285.22 28 Net Pension Liability 8,923,234.92 2,678,563.08 11,601,798.00 21 Long Term Debt, Less Current Portion 43,621,532.11 22,125,066.78 65,746,598.89 27 Other Liabilities 1,173.64 347,146.16 348,319.80 Deferred Inflows Of Resources 26 Deferred Inflows - Pensions 436,011.87 127,507.13 563,519.00 52,929,229.93 25,641,290.98 78,570,520.91 59,271,409.43 26,809,794.10 86,081,203.53 31 Equity 90,357,062.90 27,740,053.35 118,097,116.25 90,357,062.90 27,740,053.35 118,097,116.25 Tot Total Revenue 20,348,876.88 10,080,672.79 30,429,549.67 Tot Total Expense 12,047,131.15 8,562,824.59 20,609,955.74 8,301,745.73 1,517,848.20 9,819,593.93 98,658,808.63 29,257,901.55 127,916,710.18 157,930,218.06$ 56,067,695.65$ 213,997,913.71$ Unaudited As of March 31, 2019 Combining Schedule of Net Position Total Equity and Current Surplus (Deficit): Total Assets and Deferred Outflows of Resources: Total Current Assets: Total Non-Current Assets: Total Liabilities, Equity and Current Surplus (Deficit): Total Total Beginning Equity: Equity: Revenues Over/Under Expenses Total Current Liabilities: Total Non-Current and Deferred Inflows of Resources: Total Liabilities and Deferred Inflows of Resources: Page 1 of 8 ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED REMAINING MTD YTD BUDGET MTD YTD BUDGET TOTAL BUDGET BUDGET Revenue 41 Water Sales 611,373.56$ 12,444,881.11$ 15,100,000.00$ -$ -$ -$ 15,100,000.00$ 2,655,118.89$ 42 Meter Charges 751,785.47 6,752,760.32 8,960,000.00 - - - 8,960,000.00 2,207,239.68 43 Penalties 30,340.31 438,736.97 452,000.00 3,119.28 32,382.21 164,000.00 616,000.00 144,880.82 44 Wastewater System Charges - - - 363,990.92 3,496,715.76 4,630,000.00 4,630,000.00 1,133,284.24 45 Wastewater Treatment Charges - - - 632,772.04 6,489,186.50 8,233,000.00 8,233,000.00 1,743,813.50 46 Other Operating Revenue 8,862.66 337,980.57 21,000.00 - 4,300.00 - 21,000.00 (321,280.57) 47 Non Operating Revenue 5,709.12 374,517.91 200,000.00 - 58,088.32 88,000.00 288,000.00 (144,606.23) 48 Gain or Loss on Disposition - - - - - - - - 56 Benefits - - - - - - - - 68 Depreciation - - - - - - - - Revenue Total: 1,408,071.12 20,348,876.88 24,733,000.00 999,882.24 10,080,672.79 13,115,000.00 37,848,000.00 7,418,450.33 - - - - - Expense by Category 51 Labor 348,543.15 3,299,204.81 4,865,400.00 94,965.14 883,401.43 1,457,600.00 6,323,000.00 2,140,393.76 56 Benefits 123,902.54 1,754,395.57 2,183,300.00 31,315.05 462,246.20 647,700.00 2,831,000.00 614,358.23 63 Contract Services 338,423.33 2,394,167.62 3,856,000.00 56,107.16 6,674,872.49 9,357,000.00 13,213,000.00 4,143,959.89 65 Professional Development 12,236.73 128,117.53 281,200.00 5,337.07 51,529.25 114,800.00 396,000.00 216,353.22 53 Overtime 24,891.67 242,195.02 289,200.00 3,817.56 20,423.58 59,800.00 349,000.00 86,381.40 62 Materials and Supplies 145,081.29 1,462,732.86 1,177,800.00 13,233.76 175,720.20 175,200.00 1,353,000.00 (285,453.06) 64 Utilities 130,689.72 1,475,901.52 2,376,523.89 10,460.51 73,913.51 200,900.00 2,577,423.89 1,027,608.86 52 Temporary Labor 3,034.21 24,106.21 - 1,300.37 10,331.20 - - (34,437.41) 67 Other 5,270.53 232,821.86 358,000.00 2,196.05 98,940.03 153,000.00 511,000.00 179,238.11 54 Standby 2,512.00 23,856.81 33,000.00 328.00 3,959.20 2,000.00 35,000.00 7,183.99 61 Water Supply 750.00 170,669.50 1,067,000.00 - - - 1,067,000.00 896,330.50 71 -Debt Service 38,986.59 2,238,961.84 4,046,000.00 - 207,487.50 312,000.00 4,358,000.00 1,911,550.66 81 -Capital Improvement 107,977.43 1,984,442.60 3,175,000.00 7,573,655.32 18,364,161.70 430,000.00 3,605,000.00 (16,743,604.30) 82 -Capital Outlay 29,998.53 249,171.37 950,576.11 19,328.32 72,839.23 175,000.00 1,125,576.11 803,565.51 83 -Accounting Income Add back - (3,633,613.97) - (7,592,983.64) (18,537,000.93) - - 22,170,614.90 Expense Total: 1,312,297.72 12,047,131.15 24,659,000.00 219,060.67 8,562,824.59 13,085,000.00 37,744,000.00 17,134,044.26 Total Surplus (Deficit): 95,773.40$ 8,301,745.73$ -$ 780,821.57$ 1,517,848.20$ -$ -$ -$ Unaudited Revenue and Expense Budget-to-Actual by Category Month Ended March 31, 2019 WATER WASTEWATER DISTRICT WIDE Page 2 of 8 ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED REMAINING MTD YTD BUDGET MTD YTD BUDGET TOTAL BUDGET BUDGET Revenue 41 Water Sales 611,373.56$ 12,444,881.11$ 15,100,000.00$ -$ -$ -$ 15,100,000.00$ 2,655,118.89$ 42 Meter Charges 751,785.47 6,752,760.32 8,960,000.00 - - - 8,960,000.00 2,207,239.68 43 Penalties 30,340.31 438,736.97 452,000.00 3,119.28 32,382.21 164,000.00 616,000.00 144,880.82 44 Wastewater System Charges - - - 363,990.92 3,496,715.76 4,630,000.00 4,630,000.00 1,133,284.24 45 Wastewater Treatment Charges - - - 632,772.04 6,489,186.50 8,233,000.00 8,233,000.00 1,743,813.50 46 Other Operating Revenue 8,862.66 337,980.57 21,000.00 - 4,300.00 - 21,000.00 (321,280.57) 47 Non Operating Revenue 5,709.12 374,517.91 200,000.00 - 58,088.32 88,000.00 288,000.00 (144,606.23) Revenue Total: 1,408,071.12 20,348,876.88 24,733,000.00 999,882.24 10,080,672.79 13,115,000.00 37,848,000.00 7,418,450.33 Progra 1000 - Board of Directors 20,527.47 90,096.59 235,900.00 6,486.10 37,950.01 101,100.00 337,000.00 208,953.40 Progra 2000 - General Administration 57,469.21 553,489.39 880,600.00 22,979.26 223,475.41 377,400.00 1,258,000.00 481,035.20 Progra 2100 - Human Resources 24,578.35 442,762.93 693,000.00 10,533.51 188,106.99 297,000.00 990,000.00 359,130.08 Progra 2200 - Public Affairs 31,540.44 365,965.88 571,000.00 23,655.15 417,560.90 571,000.00 1,142,000.00 358,473.22 Progra 2300 - Conservation 35,812.65 846,762.93 593,000.00 - - - 593,000.00 (253,762.93) Progra 3000 - Finance 46,395.35 590,224.57 792,000.00 19,850.68 245,604.23 339,000.00 1,131,000.00 295,171.20 Progra 3200 - Information Technology 44,236.82 430,375.97 706,300.00 19,599.34 186,067.47 302,700.00 1,009,000.00 392,556.56 Progra 3300 - Customer Service 134,731.56 860,094.11 1,357,900.00 28,153.45 270,320.84 428,100.00 1,786,000.00 655,585.05 Progra 3400 - Meter Service 19,879.06 187,672.79 283,000.00 3,005.39 5,676.94 - 283,000.00 89,650.27 Progra 4000 - Engineering 68,263.73 624,837.65 1,064,700.00 16,241.89 285,257.21 456,300.00 1,521,000.00 610,905.14 Progra 5000 - Water Production 217,830.06 2,495,855.84 4,358,423.89 - - - 4,358,423.89 1,862,568.05 Progra 5100 - Water Treatment 60,152.52 554,057.85 848,000.00 - - - 848,000.00 293,942.15 Progra 5200 - Water Quality 30,895.38 279,117.56 434,000.00 - - - 434,000.00 154,882.44 Progra 6000 - Field Maintenance Administration 19,799.77 255,471.26 310,500.00 1,719.39 19,337.51 34,500.00 345,000.00 70,191.23 Progra 6100 - Water Maintenance 232,597.60 1,687,081.52 2,204,000.00 - - - 2,204,000.00 516,918.48 Progra 6200 - Wastewater Maintenance - - - 44,022.47 6,376,304.08 8,996,000.00 8,996,000.00 2,619,695.92 Progra 7000 - Facilities Maintenance 50,591.98 526,804.01 742,000.00 17,745.99 137,082.49 219,000.00 961,000.00 297,113.50 Progra 7100 - Fleet Maintenance 45,283.22 417,498.46 413,100.00 5,068.05 62,593.01 45,900.00 459,000.00 (21,091.47) Progra 8000 - Capital 176,962.55 838,961.84 8,171,576.11 - 107,487.50 917,000.00 9,088,576.11 (14,028,488.13) Total Surplus (Deficit):90,523.40$ 8,301,745.73$ -$ 780,821.57$ 1,517,848.20$ -$ -$ -$ Revenue and Expense Budget-to-Actual by Program Month Ended March 31, 2019 Unaudited WATER WASTEWATER DISTRICT WIDE Page 3 of 8 ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED REMAINING MTD YTD BUDGET MTD YTD BUDGET TOTAL BUDGET BUDGET Revenue 41 Water Sales 611,373.56$ 12,444,881.11$ 15,100,000.00$ -$ -$ -$ 15,100,000.00$ 2,655,118.89$ 42 Meter Charges 751,785.47 6,752,760.32 8,960,000.00 - - - 8,960,000.00 2,207,239.68 43 Penalties 30,340.31 438,736.97 452,000.00 3,119.28 32,382.21 164,000.00 616,000.00 144,880.82 44 Wastewater System Charges - - - 363,990.92 3,496,715.76 4,630,000.00 4,630,000.00 1,133,284.24 45 Wastewater Treatment Charges - - - 632,772.04 6,489,186.50 8,233,000.00 8,233,000.00 1,743,813.50 46 Other Operating Revenue 8,862.66 337,980.57 21,000.00 - 4,300.00 - 21,000.00 (321,280.57) 47 Non Operating Revenue 5,709.12 374,517.91 200,000.00 - 58,088.32 88,000.00 288,000.00 (144,606.23) 48 Gain or Loss on Disposition - - - - - - - - 56 Benefits - - - - - - - - 68 Depreciation - - - - - - - Revenue Total: 1,408,071.12 20,348,876.88 24,733,000.00 999,882.24 10,080,672.79 13,115,000.00 37,848,000.00 7,418,450.33 Program: 1000 - Board of Directors - - - 51 Labor 4,532.50$ 38,597.37$ 73,500.00$ 1,942.50$ 16,541.73$ 31,500.00$ 105,000.00$ 49,860.90$ 56 Benefits 4,048.69 36,777.98 45,500.00 1,735.17 15,762.02 19,500.00 65,000.00 12,460.00 62 Materials and Supplies - 82.49 700.00 - 35.36 300.00 1,000.00 882.15 63 Contract Services 5,250.00 5,250.00 77,700.00 2,250.00 2,250.00 33,300.00 111,000.00 103,500.00 65 Professional Development 1,446.28 9,388.75 38,500.00 558.43 3,360.90 16,500.00 55,000.00 42,250.35 Program: 1000 - Board of Directors Total: 15,277.47 90,096.59 235,900.00 6,486.10 37,950.01 101,100.00 337,000.00 208,953.40 Program: 2000 - General Administration - - - 51 Labor 28,963.06 222,970.69 354,900.00 12,412.74 95,485.90 152,100.00 507,000.00 188,543.41 53 Overtime 101.24 1,432.65 2,100.00 43.39 614.00 900.00 3,000.00 953.35 56 Benefits 10,470.41 143,120.66 189,000.00 2,836.90 47,676.01 81,000.00 270,000.00 79,203.33 62 Materials and Supplies 198.51 1,302.63 5,600.00 85.08 558.28 2,400.00 8,000.00 6,139.09 63 Contract Services 13,772.67 118,894.46 252,000.00 5,902.58 50,954.77 108,000.00 360,000.00 190,150.77 64 Utilities 171.29 1,587.90 2,100.00 73.41 680.53 900.00 3,000.00 731.57 65 Professional Development 3,792.03 64,180.40 74,900.00 1,625.16 27,505.92 32,100.00 107,000.00 15,313.68 Program: 2000 - General Administration Total: 57,469.21 553,489.39 880,600.00 22,979.26 223,475.41 377,400.00 1,258,000.00 481,035.20 Program: 2100 - Human Resources - - - - 51 Labor 11,126.09 103,364.74 156,800.00 4,768.31 44,299.14 67,200.00 224,000.00 76,336.12 52 Temporary Labor - - - - - - - - 53 Overtime 66.02 1,424.19 2,100.00 28.30 610.36 900.00 3,000.00 965.45 56 Benefits 3,804.55 57,158.89 72,800.00 1,630.46 25,388.86 31,200.00 104,000.00 21,452.25 62 Materials and Supplies 105.88 2,698.21 11,900.00 45.38 1,156.38 5,100.00 17,000.00 13,145.41 63 Contract Services 3,849.56 28,881.28 63,700.00 1,649.81 12,377.67 27,300.00 91,000.00 49,741.05 64 Utilities 26.61 290.25 700.00 11.40 124.36 300.00 1,000.00 585.39 65 Professional Development 489.55 19,498.64 28,000.00 209.80 5,262.70 12,000.00 40,000.00 15,238.66 67 Other 5,110.09 229,446.73 357,000.00 2,190.05 98,887.52 153,000.00 510,000.00 181,665.75 Program: 2100 - Human Resources Total: 24,578.35 442,762.93 693,000.00 10,533.51 188,106.99 297,000.00 990,000.00 359,130.08 Month Ended March 31, 2019 Unaudited Program Expense Detail Budget-to-Actual WATER WASTEWATER DISTRICT WIDE Page 4 of 8 ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED REMAINING MTD YTD BUDGET MTD YTD BUDGET TOTAL BUDGET BUDGET Month Ended March 31, 2019 Unaudited Program Expense Detail Budget-to-Actual WATER WASTEWATER DISTRICT WIDE Program: 2200 - Public Affairs - - - - 51 Labor 18,181.97 166,928.37 196,500.00 11,555.39 106,929.38 196,500.00 393,000.00 119,142.25 52 Temporary Labor - - - - - - - - 53 Overtime 829.54 5,357.28 3,500.00 829.53 5,011.90 3,500.00 7,000.00 (3,369.18) 56 Benefits 6,202.68 66,079.60 66,000.00 3,975.80 53,549.72 66,000.00 132,000.00 12,370.68 62 Materials and Supplies 373.10 13,659.17 94,500.00 1,862.14 112,999.01 94,500.00 189,000.00 62,341.82 63 Contract Services 4,639.51 101,750.81 176,000.00 4,118.64 119,400.44 176,000.00 352,000.00 130,848.75 64 Utilities 85.68 3,735.76 14,000.00 85.68 11,056.39 14,000.00 28,000.00 13,207.85 65 Professional Development 1,227.96 8,454.89 20,500.00 1,227.97 8,614.06 20,500.00 41,000.00 23,931.05 Program: 2200 - Public Affairs Total: 31,540.44 365,965.88 571,000.00 23,655.15 417,560.90 571,000.00 1,142,000.00 358,473.22 Program: 2300 - Conservation - - - - 51 Labor 10,148.05 86,363.14 98,000.00 - - - 98,000.00 11,636.86 52 Temporary Labor - - - - - - - - 53 Overtime 572.22 2,928.42 3,000.00 - - - 3,000.00 71.58 56 Benefits 2,573.39 24,439.56 27,000.00 - - - 27,000.00 2,560.44 62 Materials and Supplies 10,322.83 681,209.72 228,000.00 - - - 228,000.00 (453,209.72) 63 Contract Services 11,919.55 48,661.40 210,000.00 - - - 210,000.00 161,338.60 64 Utilities 62.51 608.59 22,000.00 - - - 22,000.00 21,391.41 65 Professional Development 214.10 2,552.10 5,000.00 - - - 5,000.00 2,447.90 Program: 2300 - Conservation Total: 35,812.65 846,762.93 593,000.00 - - - 593,000.00 (253,762.93) Program: 3000 - Finance - - - - 51 Labor 30,844.04 299,363.48 455,000.00 13,190.23 128,112.56 195,000.00 650,000.00 222,523.96 52 Temporary Labor 1,867.70 11,467.32 - 800.44 4,914.53 - - (16,381.85) 53 Overtime 496.23 7,501.29 3,500.00 212.68 3,214.78 1,500.00 5,000.00 (5,716.07) 56 Benefits 11,054.08 176,976.93 181,300.00 4,733.03 67,861.50 77,700.00 259,000.00 14,161.57 62 Materials and Supplies 88.42 1,567.77 7,700.00 37.90 813.91 3,300.00 11,000.00 8,618.32 63 Contract Services 241.79 85,852.32 120,400.00 103.63 37,737.91 51,600.00 172,000.00 48,409.77 64 Utilities 146.18 1,024.61 2,800.00 62.66 439.13 1,200.00 4,000.00 2,536.26 65 Professional Development 1,656.91 6,456.44 20,300.00 710.11 2,509.91 8,700.00 29,000.00 20,033.65 67 Other - 14.41 1,000.00 - - - 1,000.00 985.59 Program: 3000 - Finance Total: 46,395.35 590,224.57 792,000.00 19,850.68 245,604.23 339,000.00 1,131,000.00 295,171.20 Program: 3200 - Information Technology - - - - 51 Labor 16,539.06 150,591.74 233,800.00 7,088.17 64,539.36 100,200.00 334,000.00 118,868.90 52 Temporary Labor - - - - - - - - 53 Overtime - - - - - - - - 56 Benefits 3,686.38 48,308.67 76,300.00 1,579.78 21,683.45 32,700.00 109,000.00 39,007.88 62 Materials and Supplies 9,702.46 27,566.03 24,500.00 4,798.99 12,454.81 10,500.00 35,000.00 (5,020.84) 63 Contract Services 13,224.10 200,343.67 350,700.00 5,667.48 85,861.61 150,300.00 501,000.00 214,794.72 64 Utilities 400.95 2,727.92 3,500.00 171.83 1,169.12 1,500.00 5,000.00 1,102.96 65 Professional Development 683.87 837.94 17,500.00 293.09 359.12 7,500.00 25,000.00 23,802.94 Program: 3200 - Information Technology Total: 44,236.82 430,375.97 706,300.00 19,599.34 186,067.47 302,700.00 1,009,000.00 392,556.56 Page 5 of 8 ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED REMAINING MTD YTD BUDGET MTD YTD BUDGET TOTAL BUDGET BUDGET Month Ended March 31, 2019 Unaudited Program Expense Detail Budget-to-Actual WATER WASTEWATER DISTRICT WIDE Program: 3300 - Customer Service - - - - 51 Labor 20,792.02 192,845.18 333,200.00 8,910.84 82,647.83 142,800.00 476,000.00 200,506.99 52 Temporary Labor 1,166.51 12,638.89 - 499.93 5,416.67 - - (18,055.56) 53 Overtime 219.52 2,341.69 3,500.00 94.08 1,003.55 1,500.00 5,000.00 1,654.76 56 Benefits 9,023.86 133,120.45 179,900.00 3,867.24 58,214.60 77,100.00 257,000.00 65,664.95 62 Materials and Supplies 104.21 1,222.20 5,600.00 44.67 523.82 2,400.00 8,000.00 6,253.98 63 Contract Services 88,243.66 458,367.28 713,200.00 8,304.12 98,529.73 151,800.00 865,000.00 308,102.99 64 Utilities 13,445.12 54,161.29 110,700.00 5,762.19 23,211.97 48,300.00 159,000.00 81,626.74 65 Professional Development 1,576.22 2,036.41 11,800.00 664.38 720.16 4,200.00 16,000.00 13,243.43 67 Other 160.44 3,360.72 - 6.00 52.51 - - (3,413.23) Program: 3300 - Customer Service Total: 134,731.56 860,094.11 1,357,900.00 28,153.45 270,320.84 428,100.00 1,786,000.00 655,585.05 Program: 3400 - Meter Service - - - - 51 Labor 15,316.83 123,776.37 178,000.00 2,564.91 3,977.34 - 178,000.00 50,246.29 53 Overtime - 2,608.52 10,000.00 - 503.17 - 10,000.00 6,888.31 56 Benefits 4,280.97 56,246.69 80,000.00 440.48 896.43 - 80,000.00 22,856.88 62 Materials and Supplies 25.82 653.83 5,000.00 - - - 5,000.00 4,346.17 63 Contract Services 185.67 3,803.35 8,000.00 - 300.00 - 8,000.00 3,896.65 64 Utilities 69.77 584.03 2,000.00 - - - 2,000.00 1,415.97 65 Professional Development - - - - - - - - Program: 3400 - Meter Service Total: 19,879.06 187,672.79 283,000.00 3,005.39 5,676.94 - 283,000.00 89,650.27 Program: 4000 - Engineering - - - - 51 Labor 28,052.63 354,387.71 494,900.00 12,022.57 151,880.42 212,100.00 707,000.00 200,731.87 52 Temporary Labor - - - - - - - - 53 Overtime 56.59 1,199.39 1,400.00 24.25 514.00 600.00 2,000.00 286.61 56 Benefits 8,264.52 142,549.49 184,100.00 3,522.15 62,498.55 78,900.00 263,000.00 57,951.96 62 Materials and Supplies 856.61 2,464.93 17,500.00 324.55 753.06 7,500.00 25,000.00 21,782.01 63 Contract Services 28,789.34 79,983.48 203,700.00 107.89 65,371.67 87,300.00 291,000.00 145,644.85 64 Utilities 2,169.11 37,746.60 137,200.00 208.37 1,398.79 58,800.00 196,000.00 156,854.61 65 Professional Development 74.93 6,506.05 25,900.00 32.11 2,840.72 11,100.00 37,000.00 27,653.23 Program: 4000 - Engineering Surplus Total: 68,263.73 624,837.65 1,064,700.00 16,241.89 285,257.21 456,300.00 1,521,000.00 610,905.14 Program: 5000 - Water Production - - - - 51 Labor 49,661.33 462,670.53 649,000.00 - - - 649,000.00 186,329.47 53 Overtime 828.79 16,423.09 61,000.00 - - - 61,000.00 44,576.91 54 Standby 1,160.00 10,998.00 15,000.00 - - - 15,000.00 4,002.00 56 Benefits 15,244.78 244,583.67 292,000.00 - - - 292,000.00 47,416.33 61 Water Supply 750.00 170,669.50 1,067,000.00 - - - 1,067,000.00 896,330.50 62 Materials and Supplies 28,453.55 140,809.44 284,000.00 - - - 284,000.00 143,190.56 63 Contract Services 28,802.70 328,034.13 381,000.00 - - - 381,000.00 52,965.87 64 Utilities 92,028.91 1,118,186.47 1,594,423.89 - - - 1,594,423.89 476,237.42 65 Professional Development 900.00 3,481.01 15,000.00 - - - 15,000.00 11,518.99 Program: 5000 - Water Production Total: 217,830.06 2,495,855.84 4,358,423.89 - - - 4,358,423.89 1,862,568.05 Page 6 of 8 ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED REMAINING MTD YTD BUDGET MTD YTD BUDGET TOTAL BUDGET BUDGET Month Ended March 31, 2019 Unaudited Program Expense Detail Budget-to-Actual WATER WASTEWATER DISTRICT WIDE Program: 5100 - Water Treatment - - - - 51 Labor 17,316.90 161,749.97 214,000.00 - - - 214,000.00 52,250.03 53 Overtime 1,635.96 26,563.83 25,000.00 - - - 25,000.00 (1,563.83) 56 Benefits 5,600.36 78,405.97 95,000.00 - - - 95,000.00 16,594.03 62 Materials and Supplies 29,955.36 123,431.82 165,000.00 - - - 165,000.00 41,568.18 63 Contract Services 1,227.70 64,187.24 149,000.00 - - - 149,000.00 84,812.76 64 Utilities 4,416.24 99,719.02 200,000.00 - - - 200,000.00 100,280.98 Program: 5100 - Water Treatment Total: 60,152.52 554,057.85 848,000.00 - - - 848,000.00 293,942.15 Program: 5200 - Water Quality - - - - 51 Labor 13,050.76 119,331.95 168,000.00 - - - 168,000.00 48,668.05 53 Overtime - 4,316.06 15,000.00 - - - 15,000.00 10,683.94 56 Benefits 3,538.48 78,550.50 66,000.00 - - - 66,000.00 (12,550.50) 62 Materials and Supplies 380.55 13,248.55 18,000.00 - - - 18,000.00 4,751.45 63 Contract Services 13,854.76 61,823.10 159,000.00 - - - 159,000.00 97,176.90 64 Utilities - 1,568.44 2,000.00 - - - 2,000.00 431.56 65 Professional Development 70.83 278.96 6,000.00 - - - 6,000.00 5,721.04 Program: 5200 - Water Quality Total: 30,895.38 279,117.56 434,000.00 - - - 434,000.00 154,882.44 Program: 6000 - Field Maintenance Administration - - - - 51 Labor 12,568.16 116,613.33 159,300.00 834.70 7,795.49 17,700.00 177,000.00 52,591.18 52 Temporary Labor - - - - - - - - 53 Overtime - 967.12 18,000.00 - - 2,000.00 20,000.00 19,032.88 54 Standby 1,352.00 12,858.81 18,000.00 328.00 3,959.20 2,000.00 20,000.00 3,181.99 56 Benefits 4,350.24 107,613.31 81,000.00 382.32 5,934.45 9,000.00 90,000.00 (23,547.76) 62 Materials and Supplies - 1,350.58 2,700.00 - 44.04 300.00 3,000.00 1,605.38 63 Contract Services 356.55 1,962.54 900.00 39.60 175.29 100.00 1,000.00 (1,137.83) 64 Utilities 1,068.77 9,659.63 18,900.00 118.75 1,073.28 2,100.00 21,000.00 10,267.09 65 Professional Development 104.05 4,445.94 11,700.00 16.02 355.76 1,300.00 13,000.00 8,198.30 Program: 6000 - Field Maintenance Administration Total: 19,799.77 255,471.26 310,500.00 1,719.39 19,337.51 34,500.00 345,000.00 70,191.23 Program: 6100 - Water Maintenance - - - - 51 Labor 58,069.45 577,789.89 925,000.00 - - - 925,000.00 347,210.11 53 Overtime 18,528.59 161,138.98 130,000.00 - - - 130,000.00 (31,138.98) 56 Benefits 26,335.60 286,169.34 454,000.00 - - - 454,000.00 167,830.66 62 Materials and Supplies 54,722.07 359,424.22 241,000.00 - - - 241,000.00 (118,424.22) 63 Contract Services 74,941.89 293,649.09 454,000.00 - - - 454,000.00 160,350.91 64 Utilities - 8,910.00 - - - - - (8,910.00) Program: 6100 - Water Maintenance Total: 232,597.60 1,687,081.52 2,204,000.00 - - - 2,204,000.00 516,918.48 Program: 6200 - Wastewater Maintenance - - - - 51 Labor - - - 15,657.24 146,842.35 290,000.00 290,000.00 143,157.65 53 Overtime - - - 1,934.18 5,679.46 45,000.00 45,000.00 39,320.54 56 Benefits - - - 4,917.13 81,299.07 146,000.00 146,000.00 64,700.93 62 Materials and Supplies - - - 2,860.54 25,942.93 36,000.00 36,000.00 10,057.07 Wastewater Treatment - - - 632,772.04 6,489,186.50 7,610,000.00 7,610,000.00 1,120,813.50 63 Contract Services - - - (614,118.66) (372,646.23) 869,000.00 869,000.00 1,241,646.23 Program: 6200 - Wastewater Maintenance Total:- - - 44,022.47 6,376,304.08 8,996,000.00 8,996,000.00 2,619,695.92 Page 7 of 8 ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED REMAINING MTD YTD BUDGET MTD YTD BUDGET TOTAL BUDGET BUDGET Month Ended March 31, 2019 Unaudited Program Expense Detail Budget-to-Actual WATER WASTEWATER DISTRICT WIDE Program: 7000 - Facilities Maintenance - - - - 51 Labor 7,972.18 67,434.04 102,600.00 3,416.64 28,302.57 44,400.00 147,000.00 51,263.39 53 Overtime 1,572.28 8,934.98 10,500.00 673.82 3,829.21 4,500.00 15,000.00 2,235.81 56 Benefits 3,373.82 39,827.69 55,300.00 1,445.90 17,269.47 23,700.00 79,000.00 21,902.84 62 Materials and Supplies 5,013.22 41,239.45 36,400.00 1,872.56 11,902.79 9,600.00 46,000.00 (7,142.24) 63 Contract Services 25,011.43 300,771.90 383,700.00 7,365.24 48,440.17 75,300.00 459,000.00 109,787.93 64 Utilities 7,649.05 68,595.95 152,800.00 2,971.83 27,338.28 61,200.00 214,000.00 118,065.77 65 Professional Development - - 700.00 - - 300.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 Program: 7000 - Facilities Maintenance Total: 50,591.98 526,804.01 742,000.00 17,745.99 137,082.49 219,000.00 961,000.00 297,113.50 - - Program: 7100 - Fleet Maintenance - - - - 51 Labor 5,408.12 54,426.31 72,900.00 600.90 6,047.36 8,100.00 81,000.00 20,526.33 53 Overtime 50.71 481.72 2,700.00 5.63 53.51 300.00 3,000.00 2,464.77 56 Benefits 1,983.71 33,041.98 36,000.00 220.39 3,601.71 4,000.00 40,000.00 3,356.31 62 Materials and Supplies 4,778.70 50,801.82 29,700.00 1,301.95 8,535.81 3,300.00 33,000.00 (26,337.63) 63 Contract Services 24,112.45 211,951.57 153,000.00 1,944.79 36,932.96 17,000.00 170,000.00 (78,884.53) 64 Utilities 8,949.53 66,795.06 113,400.00 994.39 7,421.66 12,600.00 126,000.00 51,783.28 65 Professional Development - - 5,400.00 - - 600.00 6,000.00 6,000.00 Program: 7100 - Fleet Maintenance Total: 45,283.22 417,498.46 413,100.00 5,068.05 62,593.01 45,900.00 459,000.00 (21,091.47) - - Program: 8000 - Capital - - - 71 -Debt Service 38,986.59 2,238,961.84 4,046,000.00 - 207,487.50 312,000.00 4,358,000.00 1,911,550.66 81 -Capital Improvement 107,977.43 1,984,442.60 3,175,000.00 7,573,655.32 18,364,161.70 430,000.00 3,605,000.00 (16,743,604.30) 82 -Capital Outlay 29,998.53 249,171.37 950,576.11 19,328.32 72,839.23 175,000.00 1,125,576.11 803,565.51 83 -Accounting Income Add back (137,975.96) (3,633,613.97) - (7,592,983.64) (18,537,000.93) - - 22,170,614.90 Program: 8000 - Capital Total: 38,986.59 838,961.84 8,171,576.11 - 107,487.50 917,000.00 9,088,576.11 8,142,126.77 Total Surplus (Deficit): 233,749.36$ 8,301,745.73$ -$ 780,821.57$ 1,517,848.20$ -$ -$ -$ Page 8 of 8 B OARD AGE ND A S TAF F RE P ORT Agenda Item #2.f. Meeting Date: April 24, 2019 C ons ent Item To: G overning Bo ard Memb ers From: G eneral Manager/C E O S ubject: App rove Inves tment R ep ort for Q uarter Ended March 31, 2019 R E C OMME ND AT IO N: S taff reco mmend s that the Bo ard of Directors ac cept and file the attac hed Investment R epo rt fo r the quarter ended, Marc h 31, 2019. B ACKGR O UN D / AN ALYS IS : C alifornia G overnment C ode §53646(b) requires the T reasurer or C F O of a local agency to submit a quarterly report on the agency’s investments to the legislative body of the agency within 30 days of the end of each quarter. T he attached I nvestment R eport shows all of the District’s cash and investments, restricted and unrestricted, as of March 31, 2019. Attachment A presents the investment securities purchased and retired during the quarter J anuary to March 2019. I ncreases and decreases in highly liquid funds, such as L AI F, are explained in the narrative below. Unrestricted Investments L AI F T he b alance held in the Loc al Agenc y Investment F und at the beginning of the quarter was $22,078,177. Interest earned during the previous quarter of $111,878 was p os ted to the acco unt in January. Transfer activity fo r the q uarter included two trans fers o ut to taling $7,500,000 into the ac c ount. As a res ult, the acco unt experienced a net d ecreas e of $7,388,123 and a b alanc e o f $14,690,055, at the end o f the quarter. L AI F earnings for the quarter ended March 31, 2019 were $106,880, calc ulated at an app ortio nment rate o f 2.55%; up from 2.40% whic h had been in effect for the p revious q uarter. T he earnings were posted to the District’s ac co unt on April 15, 2019. C itizen’s Bus ines s Bank (C B B) Wealth Management T he total (b ook) value of the ass ets held with C BB inc reas ed $23,877 to $5,734,220 during the quarter ended March 31, 2019. T he balance in this ac co unt is held bo th in a mo ney market acc ount ($524,479) and in a $5,209,741 po rtfolio of Treas ury and fed eral agency s ec urities s hown on Attac hment A. Net interest payments received o n securities in the Dis trict’s portfo lio were $25,951 and fund s held in money market ac c ounts earned $1,225. Inves tment manager fees paid during the q uarter were $2,085. T here were no Dis trict trans fers to o r from this inves tment acco unt during the quarter. T he follo wing sched ule summarizes the ac tivity for Unres tric ted Inves tments d uring the Q uarter ended March 31, 2019: Restricted Investments Trus t acco unts with Union Bank are us ed to safeguard fund s which are restricted b y b ond c ovenants . T he ac co unts remaining open as of Marc h 31, 2019, are used to receive Dis trict depo s its, fro m which the Trustee (Union Bank) pays Dis tric t b ond holders . S emiannual bo nd payment dates are April 1st and O c to ber 1st. S ummary S c hedule of Union Bank Trus tee Ac c ounts T he follo wing sched ule summarizes activity in the Unio n Bank ac c ounts for the Q uarter ended Marc h 31, 2019: AG E N C Y G OALS AN D O B J E CT IVE S : G oal and O bjectives I I - Maintain a C o mmitment to S us tainab ility, Trans parenc y, and Ac c ountab ility a) P ractic e Trans parent and Acco untable F iscal Management R E VIE W B Y O T HE R S: T his agenda item has been reviewed b y the F inance Dep artment. F IS C AL IMPAC T T here is no fiscal imp ac t as so c iated with this agenda item. R ec ommended by: John Mura G eneral Manager/C E O R es pectfully submitted: Brian Tomp kins C hief F inancial O fficer ATTACH M E N TS: Description Type Investmnt Rpt Qtr Ended Mar 31 2019 Backup Material Attachment A - CBB Investment Activity Rpt Qtr Ended Mar 3 1 2019 Backup Material EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Investment Activity Quarter Ended March 31, 2019 Market Purch Units / Maturity Amort Cost Adjusted Cost Matured / Adjusted Cost Value Date Issuer CUSIP Yield Face Value Date 1/1/2019 Adjustment 1/1/2019 Purchases Called 3/31/2019 3/31/2019 Water Sewer 01/27/16 Federal Home Loan Bank 3130A6XY8 2.000% 100,000 01/27/21 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 99,062.00 99,062.00 10/12/16 Federal Home Loan Bank 3130A9GS4 1.700% 100,000 10/12/17 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 98,380.00 98,380.00 10/29/15 Federal Home Loan 3130A6NA1 1.400% 100,000 10/29/19 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 99,397.00 99,397.00 12/09/16 Federal Home Loan 313371U79 3.125% 200,000 12/11/20 205,522.10 205,522.10 205,522.10 202,412.00 202,412.00 08/03/16 Federal Home Loan 3130A8WW9 1.300% 100,000 05/01/20 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 98,783.00 98,783.00 05/31/18 FHLB 3130AEBM1 2.750% 100,000 05/10/21 99,892.00 99,892.00 99,892.00 101,368.00 101,368.00 05/31/17 US Treasury Note 912828XR6 1.750% 300,000 05/31/22 299,765.63 299,765.63 299,765.63 295,560.00 295,560.00 03/15/16 Fannie Mae 3136G3CK9 1.520% 300,000 06/15/20 299,745.00 299,745.00 299,745.00 296,727.00 296,727.00 07/28/16 Fannie Mae 3136G3J30 1.600% 100,000 07/28/21 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 98,466.00 98,466.00 08/04/16 Fannie Mae 3136G3XV2 1.100% 100,000 07/27/17 99,750.00 99,750.00 99,750.00 98,343.00 98,343.00 08/24/16 Fannie Mae 3135G0N66 1.400% 100,000 08/24/20 99,981.00 99,981.00 99,981.00 98,539.00 98,539.00 08/25/16 Fannie Mae 3136G3Y33 1.400% 300,000 08/25/21 300,000.00 300,000.00 300,000.00 293,934.00 293,934.00 10/27/15 Freddie Mac 3134G3F88 1.500% 100,000 08/28/19 100,118.17 100,118.17 100,118.17 99,594.00 99,594.00 07/26/16 Freddie Mac 3134G9J40 1.000% 200,000 04/26/19 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 199,800.00 199,800.00 08/25/16 Freddie Mac 3134G95L7 1.600% 200,000 08/25/21 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 196,502.00 196,502.00 09/20/16 Freddie Mac 3134GALQ5 1.300% 100,000 09/20/19 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 99,451.00 99,451.00 09/30/16 Freddie Mac 3134GAHK3 1.600% 200,000 09/30/21 199,800.00 199,800.00 199,800.00 195,900.00 195,900.00 07/27/17 Freddie Mac 3134GBZS4 2.150% 300,000 04/27/22 300,000.00 300,000.00 300,000.00 298,305.00 298,305.00 05/21/18 Freddie Mac 3134GSFY6 3.100% 300,000 03/29/23 298,785.00 298,785.00 298,785.00 - - - 12/14/18 Federal Farm Credit Bank 3133EJ2R9 2.750% 100,000 12/14/20 99,862.00 - 99,862.00 100,682.00 100,682.00 10/24/18 Federal Home Loan Bank 3130AFBQ9 2.750% 200,000 10/24/19 200,002.00 - 200,002.00 200,300.00 200,300.00 12/09/16 Tenn Valley Authority 880591EL2 3.875% 111,000 02/15/21 115,447.44 (2,276.00) 113,171.44 113,171.44 113,994.78 113,994.78 11/04/16 US Treasury Note 912828T67 1.250% 500,000 10/31/21 499,765.63 499,765.63 499,765.63 487,405.00 487,405.00 06/14/16 Federal Home Loan Bank 3130A8EN9 1.640% 100,000 06/14/21 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 98,446.00 98,446.00 05/27/16 Fannie Mae 3136G15S4 1.250% 200,000 12/27/19 199,250.00 199,250.00 199,250.00 198,240.00 198,240.00 08/30/16 Fannie Mae 3136G35C5 1.400% 100,000 08/25/21 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 98,525.00 98,525.00 08/25/16 Freddie Mac 3134G93Q8 1.680% 200,000 08/25/21 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 196,858.00 196,858.00 09/14/17 Freddie Mac 3134GBC83 2.070% 200,000 06/14/18 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 198,384.00 198,384.00 01/02/18 US Treasury Note 912828N89 1.375% 500,000 01/31/21 493,115.86 493,115.86 493,115.86 491,565.00 491,565.00 5,511,000.00 5,510,801.83 (2,276.00) 5,208,661.83 - 298,785.00 5,209,740.83 5,154,922.78 3,271,505.00 1,883,417.78 Activity (Book Value) Attachment A B OAR D AG E N D A S TAF F R E P O RT Agenda Item #3. Meeting Date: April 24, 2019 To: G overning Board Memb ers From: G eneral Manager/C E O S ubject: Dis trict P artners hip with S an Bernardino C o unty S heriff's Dep artment R E COMME N D AT IO N: T his repo rt is pro vided to the Bo ard o f Directo rs fo r its information only. B AC KG R O UN D / AN ALYS IS : T he Dis tric t has partnered with the S an Bernardino C ounty S heriff ’s S WAT Team in an effo rt to ens ure a s afer wo rk environment for staff and give them the neces s ary training to b e prep ared if a vio lent encounter were to o c cur on Dis trict premis es . O n Marc h 7, 2019, two Detectives c o nduc ted C ritical Incident Management/Ac tive S hooter and Vio lent Encounters training for our staff. T he c las sroom instructio n cons is ted o f training o n id entific ation, p reventio n, p reparation, and management o f potential vio lent enc o unters and active s ho o ters . T he Detectives gave real-life examp les of field enc o unters , inc lud ing their res p o ns e to the active sho oting incident at the Inland R egio nal C enter o n December 2, 2015. S taff was very engaged , and the Detectives kept the s es s ion interactive by enc ouraging s taff participation and q ues tions thro ughout. Immed iately follo wing the clas s ro o m ins tructio n, the Detec tives us hered s taff around the head q uarters to id entify s afe rooms , areas to hid e, the b est es c ap e ro utes, and mo re. Many s taff memb ers c o mmented that they apprec iated this detailed walk-thro ugh and had a better und ers tanding of how to utilize the designated safe ro o m as well as the Dis tric t’s two roof-ac c es s areas as esc ap e ro utes . T he next c omp o nent o f this p artners hip will b e a moc k ac tive sho o ter s cenario c o nduc ted at District head q uarters. T he Distric t is very ap p rec iative to the S heriff ’s Department fo r ded icating their servic es to ens uring the continuo us safety of o ur staff and cus to mers . AGE N C Y GOALS AN D OB J E C T IVE S: G oal and O b jec tives I I I - Deliver P ub lic S ervice with P urpose W hile Embrac ing C o ntinuous G rowth a) Advance Emergenc y P repared nes s Efforts d) Emb rac e an Enviro nment o f Active Learning and Kno wled ge S haring R ec o mmend ed b y: John Mura G eneral Manager/C EO R espec tfully s ubmitted: Kerrie Bryan HR /R is k & S afety Manager R E VIE W B Y O T HE R S : T his agend a item has been reviewed b y the Administration d ep artment. F IS CAL IMPAC T T here is no fis cal imp ac t as s oc iated with this item. B OAR D AG E N D A S TAF F R E P O RT Agenda Item #4. Meeting Date: April 24, 2019 Dis c ussion Item To: G overning Board Memb ers From: G eneral Manager/C E O S ubject: C o ns id er Adoption of R esolutio n 2019.05 Upd ating Inves tment P olicy 7.6 R E COMME N D AT IO N: S taff recommends that the Board of Directors (Bo ard) review and ap p ro ve R es olution 2019.05 approving a S tatement o f Investment P o lic y 7.6 (P olic y) for fis c al year 2019-20. B AC KG R O UN D / AN ALYS IS : C alifornia Government C ode section 53646(a) requires that the C F O /T reasurer of a local agency annually render to the legislative body a S tatement of I nvestment P olicy for consideration at a public meeting. Attac hed and sub mitted for Board c o ns id eratio n is the Eas t Valley Water District Inves tment P o licy as ad opted for 2018-19; no changes have been made. Every o ther year s taff s ubmits the Inves tment P o lic y to the C alifornia Municipal Treas urers As s o ciation for p eer review and makes c hanges to the P o lic y b as ed o n comments rec eived. T he P o licy is due to b e s ubmitted for p eer review at the b eginning of next fis cal year. S taff rec ommends that the Board ado p t R esolution 2019.05, ap p roving the S tatement o f Investment P o licy as s ub mitted fo r use in fis c al year 2019-20. AGE N C Y GOALS AN D OB J E C T IVE S: G oal and O b jec tives I I - Maintain a C o mmitment to S us tainab ility, Trans p arency, and Ac countability a) P rac tic e Transparent and Ac countable F isc al Management R E VIE W B Y O T HE R S : T his agend a item has been reviewed b y the F inanc e Department. F IS CAL IMPAC T R ec o mmend ed b y: John Mura G eneral Manager/C EO R espec tfully s ubmitted: Brian Tomp kins C hief F inancial O fficer F IS CAL IMPAC T T here is no fis cal imp ac t as s oc iated with this agend a item. ATTAC H M E NTS: Description Type Resolution 201 9.05 Resolution Lette r Investment P o licy 7.6 Exhibit East Valley Water District Resolution 2019.05 Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2019.05 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT ESTABLISHING AN INVESTMENT POLICY FOR PUBLIC FUNDS WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the East Valley Water District (the “District”) desires to maintain a formal policy regarding the investment of public funds pursuant to the requirements of Government Code Sections 5921 and 53600 et seq.; and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the District has employed qualified staff to invest those funds in accordance with the law and the terms of the District’s investment policy , as well as in a manner that advances the District’s investment objectives of safety, liquidity and yield; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the District that the East Valley Water District Investment Policy attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated in full herein by this reference is hereby adopted as the formal investment policy of the District; and BE IF FURTHER RESOLVED that the General Manager/CEO and the Treasurer/Chief Financial Officer of the District are hereby authorized and directed to invest the District’s funds in a manner consistent with the terms hereof and in accordance with any further directions of the District’s Board of Directors; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution supersedes Resolution No. 2018.08 adopted by the Board of Directors of the District on April 25, 2018. This Resolution shall take effect on July 1, 2019. ADOPTED this 24th day of April 2019. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: Chris Carrillo, Board President East Valley Water District Resolution 2019.05 Page 2 of 2 April 24, 2019 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of Resolution 2019.05 adopted by the Board of Directors of East Valley Water District at its Regular Meeting held April 24, 2019. John Mura, Secretary, Board of Directors EXHIBIT "A" Statement of Investment Policy 7.6 EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Administrative Policies & Programs Policy Title: Investment Policy Original Approval Date: July 22, 2015 Last Revised: April 24, 2019 Policy No: 7.6 Page 1 of 15 Purpose The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines for the prudent investment of East Valley Water District (District) funds in conformance with California Government Code requirements. Funds will be managed to provide for daily cash flow requirements and to meet the objectives of this policy. Policy It is the policy of the District to invest public funds in a manner which ensures the safety and preservation of capital while meeting reasonably anticipated operating needs, achieving a reasonable rate of return, and conforming to all state and local statutes governing the investment of public funds. Scope This policy applies to the investment of all operating funds; it does not apply to investments held in trust for the District retirement plan, or post-employment health benefits, as these investments are subject to policies established by the plan trustees. Indenture agreements specify how bond proceeds will be invested, but generally they will be invested in securities permitted by this policy. Invested funds are accounted for, and are identified in, the District’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Objectives As specified in CGC §53600.5, when investing and managing public funds, the primary objectives, in priority order, of the District’s investment activities shall be: 1. Safety: Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the investment program. Investments of the East Valley Water District shall be undertaken in a manner that seeks to ensure the preservation of capital in the overall portfolio by mitigating certain risks. Some of those risks are: A. Interest Rate Risk – the District will minimize the risk that the market value of securities in the portfolio will fall due to changes in general interest rates by: EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Administrative Policies & Programs Policy Title: Investment Policy Original Approval Date: July 22, 2015 Last Revised: April 24, 2019 Policy No: 7.6 Page 2 of 15 • Structuring the investment portfolio so that securities mature to meet cash requirements for ongoing operation and avoiding the need to sell securities on the open market prior to maturity. • Investing operating funds primarily in short-term securities money market mutual funds, or investment pools. B. Credit Risk – the risk that an issuer or other counterparty to an investment will not fulfill its obligations, will be reduced by: • Limiting investments to higher rated securities as further described in this policy. • Diversifying the investment portfolio so that potential losses on individual securities will be reduced. 2. Liquidity: The investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to enable the East Valley Water District to meet all operating requirements that might be reasonably anticipated. 3. Return on Investments: The investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of attaining the best yield or returns on investments, taking into account the investment risk constraints and liquidity needs. Return on investment is of secondary importance compared to the safety and liquidity objectives. Prudence The standard of prudence to be used by District officials involved in the investment program shall be the “prudent investor” standard and shall be applied in the context of managing the overall portfolio. The meaning of the standard of prudent investor is explained in CGC Section 53600.3, which states that “when investing, reinvesting, purchasing, acquiring, exchanging, selling, or managing public funds, a trustee shall act with care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing, including, but not limited to, the general economic conditions and the anticipated needs of the agency, that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiarity with those matters would use in the conduct of funds of a like character and with like aims, to safeguard the principal and maintain the liquidity needs of the agency.” EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Administrative Policies & Programs Policy Title: Investment Policy Original Approval Date: July 22, 2015 Last Revised: April 24, 2019 Policy No: 7.6 Page 3 of 15 The CFO/Treasurer and delegated investment officers, acting in accordance with written procedures and this Policy and exercising due diligence, shall be relieved of personal responsibility for an individual security’s credit risk or market price changes, provided deviations from expectations are reported in a timely fashion and appropriate action is taken to control adverse developments. Delegation of Authority The authority of the District’s Board of Directors to invest District funds is derived from California Government Code (CGC) section 53601. Section 53607 of the CGC grants the Board the authority to delegate that authority to the District’s Chief Financial Officer (CFO)/Treasurer. Such delegation shall expire and be renewed annually, by Board Resolution, in conjunction with the annual investment policy review. The CFO/Treasurer shall be responsible for all transactions undertaken, and shall establish a system of controls to regulate the activities of subordinate officials in the absence of the Treasurer. All transactions will be reviewed by the Treasurer on a regular basis to ensure compliance with this Policy. No Person may engage in an investment transaction except as provided under the terms of this Investment Policy and the procedures established by the Treasurer. Ethics and Conflicts of Interest Officers and employees involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business activity that could conflict with proper execution of the investment program or which could impair their ability to make impartial investment decisions. Employees and investment officials shall disclose to the District’s General Manager/CEO any material financial interest in financial institutions that conduct business within the District, and they shall further disclose any large personal financial/investment positions that could be related to the performance of the District. All bond issue participants, including but not limited to, underwriters, bond counsel, financial advisors, brokers, and dealers will disclose any fee sharing arrangements or fee splitting to the CFO/Treasurer prior to the execution of any transaction. EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Administrative Policies & Programs Policy Title: Investment Policy Original Approval Date: July 22, 2015 Last Revised: April 24, 2019 Policy No: 7.6 Page 4 of 15 Authorized Broker-Dealers The CFO/Treasurer will maintain a list of approved financial institutions authorized to provide investment services to the public agency in the State of California. These may include primary dealers authorized to buy and sell government securities in direct dealings with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, or regional dealers that qualify under Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15C33-1 (uniform net capital rule). All Broker Dealers who desire to conduct investment transactions with the District must supply the CFO/Treasurer with the following: • Audited Financial Statements • Proof of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) certification • Proof of State of California registration • Completed broker/dealer questionnaire (except Certificate of Deposit counterparties) • Certification of having read the District’s investment policy and depository contracts Authorized and Suitable Investments The East Valley Water District as empowered by California Government Code (CGC) §53600, et. Seq., establishes the following as authorized investments: A. Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF). The District may invest in the Local Agency Investment Fund established by the State Treasurer for the benefit of local agencies (CGC §16429.1). The fund must have 24 hour liquidity. There is no limitation on the percentage of the District portfolio that may be invested with LAIF, however, LAIF does impose a maximum deposit of $65 million. B. United States Treasury Securities. United States Treasury notes, bonds, or bills for which the full faith and credit of the United States is pledged for the payment of principal and interest (CGC §53601(b)). There is no limitation as to the percentage of the District’s portfolio that may be invested in these securities, however, maximum investment maturities are limited to five years. C. Federal Agency Obligations. The District is permitted to invest in federal agency or United States government sponsored enterprise obligations, participations, mortgage backed securities or other instruments, including those issued by or fully EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Administrative Policies & Programs Policy Title: Investment Policy Original Approval Date: July 22, 2015 Last Revised: April 24, 2019 Policy No: 7.6 Page 5 of 15 guaranteed as to principal and interest by Federal agencies or United States government sponsored enterprises (CGC §53601(f)). Maximum maturity is limited to five years. There is no limitation as to the percentage of the District’s portfolio that may be invested in agencies. D. Bank Depository Accounts. The District may invest in insured or collateralized certificates of deposit, savings accounts, market rate accounts, or other bank deposits issued by a state or national bank, savings and loan associations, or state or federal credit unions located in California (CGC §53630 et. Seq.). A written depository contract is required with all institutions that hold District deposits requiring that deposits be collateralized in accordance with the CGC. The Treasurer may waive collateral requirement for the portion of any deposit insured pursuant to federal law. Securities placed in a collateral pool must provide coverage for at least 110% of all deposits that are placed in the institution. Acceptable pooled collateral is governed by CGC §53651. Real estate mortgages are not considered acceptable collateral by the District, even though they are permitted in CGC §53651(m). All financial institutions holding District deposits are required to provide the District with a regular statement of pooled collateral. This report will state that they are meeting the 110%collateral rule, a listing of all collateral with location and market value, plus an accountability of the total amount of deposits secured by the pool. Deposits are allowable in any institution that insures its deposits with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) or the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), and a maximum deposit of up to the federal insurance limits may be deposited in any one institution without collateral. No bank shall receive District deposits in excess of the federal insurance limits that has a long-term debt rating by Moody’s investors Service, Standard & Poor’s, or Fitch Ratings of less that ‘A’. The maximum maturity is restricted to three years. In accordance with CGC §53638, no deposit shall exceed the shareholder’s equity of any depository bank, nor shall a deposit exceed the total net worth of any institution. No deposits shall be made at a state or federal credit union if a member of the Board of Directors or the General Manager/CEO or CFO/Treasurer of the District serves on the Board of Directors or a committee of the credit union. E. Municipal Securities. Registered treasury notes or bonds issued by the State of California or any of the other 49 states, including bonds payable solely out of the revenues from a revenue producing property owned, controlled, or operated by a EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Administrative Policies & Programs Policy Title: Investment Policy Original Approval Date: July 22, 2015 Last Revised: April 24, 2019 Policy No: 7.6 Page 6 of 15 state or by a department, board, agency, or authority of any states (CGC §53601 (c)(d)). Bonds, notes, or other evidence of debt issued by a local agency within the State of California, including issues by East Valley Water District. This includes bonds payable solely out of revenue form a revenue-producing property owned, controlled, or operated by the local agency, or by an authority of the local agency (CGC §53601 (a)(e)). Securities must have a debt rating of at least ‘AA’ by a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (NRSRO). Maximum maturity is limited to five years from the date of purchase, and holdings of this type of security are limited to a maximum of 20% of the District’s investment portfolio. F. Commercial Paper. Commercial paper of ‘prime’ quality of the highest ranking of the highest letter and number rating as provided for by a NRSRO and must be issued only by general corporations that are organized and operating within the United States and have total assets in excess of $500 million. The general corporation must have an ‘A’ rating or better on debt other than commercial paper, if any, assigned by an NRSRO (CGC §53601(h)). Purchases shall not exceed 5% of the outstanding paper of the issuing corporation, and maximum maturity is restricted to 270 days. This type of investment shall not exceed 15% of the District’s investment portfolio. G. Placement Service Deposits. The District may invest in Certificates of Deposit placed with a private sector entity that assists in the placement of deposits with eligible financial institutions located in the United States (CGC §53601.8). The full amount of the principal and the interest that may be accrued during the maximum term of each deposit shall at all times be insured by federal deposit insurance. Placement Service Deposits, in combination with bank certificates of deposit shall not exceed 25% of the value of the District’s investments at any time. The maximum investment maturity will be restricted to three years. H. Medium Term Notes. The District may invest in corporate and depository institution debt securities issued by corporations organized and operating within the United States, or by depository institutions licensed by the United States or any state and operating within the United States (CGC §53601(k)). Securities eligible for investment under this section shall be rated ‘AA’ or better by EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Administrative Policies & Programs Policy Title: Investment Policy Original Approval Date: July 22, 2015 Last Revised: April 24, 2019 Policy No: 7.6 Page 7 of 15 an NRSRO. The maximum maturity is restricted to five years, and investment in this category of security shall not exceed 30% of the District’s investible funds, and not more than 5% from a single issuer. I. Money Market Funds. Shares of beneficial interest issued by diversified management companies that are money market funds registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (CGC §53601(l)(2)). The Company shall either 1) have attained the highest ranking or the highest letter and numerical rating provided by not less than two NRSROs or 2) retained an investment adviser registered or exempt from registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission with not less than five years of experience managing money market mutual funds with assets under management in excess of five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000). A maximum of 15% of the District’s investible funds can be invested in Money Market Mutual funds. J. Local Government Investment Pools. Shares of beneficial interest in an investment pool created by a joint powers authority organized pursuant to CGC §6509.7 and that invest in securities and obligations authorized in the California Government Code (CGC §53601(p)). Investment is limited to pools that seek to maintain a stable Net Asset Value (NAV) and must be rated at least ‘AA’ or better by a NRSRO. A maximum of 25% of the District’s portfolio may be invested in Local Government Investment Pools. K. Prohibited Investments. Under the provision of CGC §53601.6 and §53631.5, the District shall not invest any funds covered by this Investment Policy in inverse floaters, range notes, interest-only strips derived from mortgage pools or any investment that may result in a zero interest accrual if held to maturity. Review of Investment Portfolio The securities held by East Valley Water District must be in compliance with the above section ‘Authorized and Suitable Investments’ at the time of purchase. Because some securities may not comply with this section subsequent to the date of purchase, the CFO/Treasurer shall at least quarterly review the portfolio to identify those securities that do not comply. The CFO/Treasurer shall establish procedures to report to the District’s Board of Directors, major and critical incidences of non-compliance identified through the review of the portfolio. EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Administrative Policies & Programs Policy Title: Investment Policy Original Approval Date: July 22, 2015 Last Revised: April 24, 2019 Policy No: 7.6 Page 8 of 15 Investment Pools / Mutual Funds When the District’s investment portfolio includes Investment Pools and Mutual Funds, as permitted in the section ‘Authorized and Suitable Investments’, the CFO/Treasurer shall as a matter of due diligence, monitor the assets held by the pools/funds. At least quarterly, the CFO/Treasurer will conduct an investigation to determine the following: 1. A description of eligible investment securities, and a written statement of investment policy and objectives. 2. A description of interest calculation and how it is distributed, and how gains and losses are treated. 3. A description of how the securities are safeguarded (including the settlement processes), and how often the securities are priced and the program audited. 4. A description of who may invest in the program, how often, what size deposit and withdrawal are allowed. 5. A schedule for receiving statements and portfolio listings. 6. Are reserves, retained earnings, etc. utilized by the pool/fund? 7. A fee schedule, and when and how it is assessed. 8. Is the pool/fund eligible for bond proceeds and/or will it accept such proceeds? Safekeeping and Custody Agreements To protect against potential losses caused by collapse of individual securities dealers, all securities owned by the East Valley Water District shall be kept in safekeeping by a third party bank trust department, acting as agent for the District under the terms of a custody agreement executed by the bank and the District. All securities will be received and delivered using standard delivery versus payment (DVP) procedures with the Districts custodial bank, and evidenced by safekeeping receipts. EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Administrative Policies & Programs Policy Title: Investment Policy Original Approval Date: July 22, 2015 Last Revised: April 24, 2019 Policy No: 7.6 Page 9 of 15 Diversification and Maximum Maturities The District will diversify its investment by security type and institution. With the exception of the US Government, its agencies and instrumentalities, and the Local Agency Investment Fund, no more than 5% of the District’s total investment portfolio will be invested in a single security type with a single financial institution. To the extent possible, East Valley Water District will attempt to match its investments with anticipated cash flow requirements. Unless matched to a specific cash flow, the District will not directly invest in securities maturing more than 5 years from the date of purchase. Reserve funds may be invested in securities exceeding 5 years if the maturity of such investments is made to coincide as nearly as practicable with the expected use of the funds. Internal Controls The CFO/Treasurer is responsible for establishing and maintaining an internal control structure designed to ensure that the assets of the District are protected from loss, theft, or misuse. The internal control structures shall be designed to provide reasonable assurance that these objectives are met. Internal controls shall be in writing and shall address the following: separation of transaction authority from accounting and record keeping, safekeeping of assets and written confirmation of telephone transactions for investments and wire transfers. The external auditors will annually review the investments and general activities associated with the investment program. This review will provide internal control by assuring compliance with the Investment Policy and District policies and procedures. Performance Standards The investment portfolio will be designed with the objective of obtaining a rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, commensurate with the investment risk constraints, and the cash flow needs. The District’s investment strategy is passive. The performance of the District’s investment portfolio will be evaluated and compared to an appropriate benchmark in order to assess the success of the investment portfolio relative to the District’s Safety, Liquidity, and Return on Investments’ objectives. EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Administrative Policies & Programs Policy Title: Investment Policy Original Approval Date: July 22, 2015 Last Revised: April 24, 2019 Policy No: 7.6 Page 10 of 15 Investment Reporting In accordance with California Government Code §53646, the CFO/Treasurer will prepare a quarterly Investment Report and render the report to the Board of Directors no later than 30 days after the close of each calendar quarter. The report shall provide the type of investment, issuers, the date of maturity, par values and market values of each investment, transactions occurring during the reporting period, and identification of funds managed by third party managers. The report will also include 1) certification that all investment transactions have been made in compliance with the District’s Investment Policy, and 2) a statement that the District has the ability to meet all of its expenditure requirements during the next six months. Policy Adoption Adoption. This policy shall be reviewed annually with the Board of Directors and adopted by Board Resolution. Amendments. Any changes to the policy, or persons charged with maintaining internal controls over investments, must be approved by the Board. Glossary of Terms (Note: All words of a technical nature should be included. Following is an example of common treasury terminology.) Agencies: Federal agency securities and/or Government-sponsored enterprises. Benchmark: A comparative base for measuring the performance or risk tolerance of the investment portfolio. A benchmark should represent a close correlation to the level of risk and the average duration of the portfolio’s investments. Broker: A broker brings buyers and sellers together for a commission. Certificate of Deposit (CD): A time deposit with a specific maturity evidenced by a Certificate. Large-denomination CDs are typically negotiable. Collateral: Securities, evidence of deposit or other property, which a borrower pledges to secure repayment of a loan. Also refers to securities pledged by a bank to secure deposits of public monies. EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Administrative Policies & Programs Policy Title: Investment Policy Original Approval Date: July 22, 2015 Last Revised: April 24, 2019 Policy No: 7.6 Page 11 of 15 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR): The official annual report of the (East Valley Water District). It includes five combined statements for each individual fund and account group prepared in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). It also includes supporting schedules necessary to demonstrate compliance with finance-related legal and contractual provisions, extensive introductory material, and a detailed Statistical Section. Coupon: (a) The annual rate of interest that a bond’s issuer promises to pay the bondholder on the bond’s face value. (b) A certificate attached to a bond evidencing interest due on a payment date. Dealer: A dealer, as opposed to a broker, acts as a principal in all transactions, buying and selling for his own account. Delivery versus Payment: There are two methods of delivery of securities: delivery versus payment and delivery versus receipt. Delivery versus payment is delivery of securities with an exchange of money for the securities. Delivery versus receipt is delivery of securities with an exchange of a signed receipt for the securities. Derivatives: (1) Financial instruments whose return profile is linked to, or derived from, the movement of one or more underlying index or security, and may include a leveraging factor, or (2) financial contracts based upon notional amounts whose value is derived from an underlying index or security (interest rates, foreign exchange rates, equities, or commodities). Discount: The difference between the cost price of a security and its maturity when quoted at lower than face value. A security selling below original offering price shortly after sale also is considered to be at a discount. Diversification: A Dividing investment funds among a variety of securities offering independent returns. Duration: A measure of the sensitivity of the price (the value of principal) of a fixed- income investment to a change in interest rates. Duration is expressed as a number of years. Rising interest rates mean falling bond prices, while declining interest rates mean rising bond prices. Federal Credit Agencies: Agencies of the Federal government set up to supply credit to various classes of institutions and individuals (e.g., S & L’s, small business firms, students, farmers, farm cooperatives, and exporters). EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Administrative Policies & Programs Policy Title: Investment Policy Original Approval Date: July 22, 2015 Last Revised: April 24, 2019 Policy No: 7.6 Page 12 of 15 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC): A federal agency that insures bank deposits, currently up to $250,000 per entity. Federal Funds Rate: The rate of interest at which Federal funds are traded. This rate is currently pegged by the Federal Reserve through open-market operations. Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLB): Government sponsored wholesale banks (currently 12 regional banks), which lend funds and provide correspondent banking services to member commercial banks, thrift institutions, credit unions, and insurance companies. The mission of the FHLBs is to liquefy the housing related assets of its members who must purchase stock in their district Bank. Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA): FNMA, like GNMA was chartered under the Federal National Mortgage Association Act in 1938. FNMA is a federal corporation working under the auspices of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). It is the largest single provider of residential mortgage funds in the United States. Fannie Mae, as the corporation is called, is a private stockholder-owned corporation. The corporation’s purchases include a variety of adjustable mortgages and second loans, in addition to fixed-rate mortgages. FNMA’s securities are also highly liquid and are widely accepted. FNMA assumes and guarantees that all security holders will receive timely payment of principal and interest. Federal Reserve System: The central bank of the United States created by Congress and consisting of a seven member Board of Governors in Washington, D.C., 12 regional banks, and about 5,700 commercial banks that are members of the system. Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA or Ginnie Mae): Securities influencing the volume of bank credit guaranteed by GNMA and issued by mortgage bankers, commercial banks, savings and loan associations, and other institutions. Security holder is protected by full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. Ginnie Mae securities are backed by the FHA, VA, or FHA mortgages. The term “pass-throughs” is often used to describe Ginnie Maes. Liquidity: A liquidity asset is one that can be converted easily and rapidly into cash without a substantial loss of value. In the money market, a security is said to be liquid if the spread between bid and asked prices is narrow and reasonable size can be done at those quotes. Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP): The aggregate of all funds from political subdivisions that are placed in the custody of the State Treasurer for investment and reinvestment. EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Administrative Policies & Programs Policy Title: Investment Policy Original Approval Date: July 22, 2015 Last Revised: April 24, 2019 Policy No: 7.6 Page 13 of 15 Market Value: The price at which a security is trading and could presumably be purchased or sold. Master Repurchase Agreement: A written contract covering all future transactions between the parties to repurchase-reverse repurchase agreements that establishes each party’s rights in the transactions. A master agreement will often specify, among other things, the right of the buyer-lender to liquidate the underlying securities in the event of default by the seller borrower. Maturity: The date upon which the principal or stated value of an investment becomes due and payable. Money Market: The marker in which short-term debt instruments (bills, commercial paper, bankers’ acceptances, etc.) are issued and traded. Offer: The price asked by a seller of securities. (When you are buying securities, you ask for an offer.) See Asked and Bid. Portfolio: Collection of securities held by an investor. Primary Dealer: A group of government securities dealers who submit daily reports of market activity and positions and monthly financial statements to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and are subject to its informal oversight. Primary dealers include Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)-registered securities broker-dealers, banks, and a few unregulated firms. Prudent Person Rule: An investment standard. In some states the law requires that a fiduciary, such as a trustee, may invest money only in a list of securities selected by the custody state-the so-called legal list. In other states the trustee may invest in a security if it is one which would be bought by a prudent person of discretion and intelligence who is seeking a reasonable income and preservation of capital. Qualified Public Depositories: A financial institution which does not claim exemption from the payment of any sales or compensating use or ad valorem taxes under the laws of this state, which has segregated for the benefit of the commission eligible collateral having a value of not less than its maximum liability and which has been approved by the Public Deposit Protection Commission to hold public deposits. Rate of Return: The yield obtainable on a security based on its purchase price or its current market price. This may be the amortized yield to maturity on a bond the current income return. EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Administrative Policies & Programs Policy Title: Investment Policy Original Approval Date: July 22, 2015 Last Revised: April 24, 2019 Policy No: 7.6 Page 14 of 15 Repurchase Agreement (REPO): A holder of securities sells these securities to an investor with an agreement to repurchase them at a fixed price on a fixed date. The security “buyer” in effect lends the “seller” money for the period of the agreement, and the terms of the agreement are structured to compensate him for this. Reverse Repurchase Agreement (Reverse REPO): A reverse-repurchase agreement (reverse repo) involves an investor borrowing cash from a financial institution in exchange for securities. The investor agrees to repurchase the securities at a specified date for the same cash value plus an agreed upon interest rate. Although the transaction is similar to a repo, the purpose of entering into a reverse repo is quite different. While a repo is a straightforward investment of public funds, the reverse repo is a borrowing. Safekeeping: A service to customers rendered by banks for a fee whereby securities and valuables of all types and descriptions are held in the bank’s vaults for protection. Secondary Market: A market made for the purchase and sale of outstanding issues following the initial distribution. Securities & Exchange Commission: Agency created by Congress to protect investors in securities transactions by administering securities legislation. Sec Rule 15(C)3-1: See Uniform Net Capital Rule. Structured Notes: Notes issued by Government Sponsored Enterprises (FHLB, FNMA, SLMA, etc.) and Corporations, which have imbedded options (e.g., call features, step-up coupons, floating rate coupons, and derivative-based returns) into their debt structure. Their market performance is impacted by the fluctuation of interest rates, the volatility of the imbedded options and shifts in the shape of the yield curve. Treasury Bills: A non-interest bearing discount security issued by the U.S. Treasury to finance the national debt. Most bills are issued to mature in three months, six months, or one year. Treasury Bonds: Long-term coupon-bearing U.S. Treasury securities issued as direct obligations of the U.S. Government and having initial maturities of more than 10 years. Treasury Notes: Medium-term coupon-bearing U.S. Treasury securities issued as direct obligations of the U.S. Government and having initial maturities from two to 10 years. Uniform Net Capital Rule: Securities and Exchange Commission requirement that member firms as well as nonmember broker-dealers in securities maintain a maximum ratio of indebtedness to liquid capital of 15 to 1; also called net capital rule and net capital ratio. EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Administrative Policies & Programs Policy Title: Investment Policy Original Approval Date: July 22, 2015 Last Revised: April 24, 2019 Policy No: 7.6 Page 15 of 15 Indebtedness covers all money owed to a firm, including margin loans and commitments to purchase securities, one reason new public issues are spread among members of underwriting syndicates. Liquid capital includes cash and assets easily converted into cash. Yield: The rate of annual income return on an investment, expressed as a percentage. (a) Income Yield is obtained by dividing the current dollar income by the current market price for the security. (b) Net Yield or Yield to Maturity is the current income yield minus any premium above par or plus any discount from par in purchase price, with the adjustment spread over the period from the date of purchase to the date of maturity of the bond. B OAR D AG E N D A S TAF F R E P O RT Agenda Item #5. Meeting Date: April 24, 2019 Dis c ussion Item To: G overning Board Memb ers From: G eneral Manager/C E O S ubject: C o ns id er Approval o f 2019 Water and S ewer S ys tem Mas ter P lans R E COMME N D AT IO N: S taff rec o mmend s that the Board o f Directors rec eive and file the 2019 Water S ystem Master P lan and the 2019 S ewer S ys tem Mas ter P lan. B AC KG R O UN D / AN ALYS IS : Mas ter P lans fo r the Water S ystem and S ewer S ystem are utilized by the Dis trict to p lan infras truc ture improvements need ed to s upport expans io n and optimized s ys tem o p eratio n. T hes e Master P lans need to b e d evelo p ed regularly s ince the fac tors that d etermine the outcomes of the Mas ter P lans, s uc h as water s upply availab ility and the rate of development and p o p ulation growth, c hange over time. T he last Mas ter P lans were d evelo p ed in 2014. In January 2018, the Dis trict engaged S tantec to d evelo p updated Master P lans fo r the Water S ys tem and S ewer S ys tem. T he 2019 Water S ys tem Mas ter P lan (W S MP ) inc ludes the fo llo wing: A d es cription of the exis ting water s ys tem (p ipelines, reservoirs, bo o s ter pump s , and pres s ure reducing s tatio ns ) Water demand p rojec tions fo r a near-term planning horizon that is charac terized by the c o mp letio n o f the s ignificant developments known to the Distric t, and p ro jec tions for the build-out planning ho rizon An updated hyd raulic model to simulate sys tem perfo rmance und er d ifferent d emand c ond itions An evaluatio n o f the s ystem ac c o rd ing to es tab lis hed c riteria for p ressures, velo c ities, and s torage volumes und er existing, near-term, and build -out conditio ns A s et o f recommended improvements and as s o ciated cos t es timates to addres s defic iencies id entified thro ugh the mo d el s imulations T he 2019 S ewer S ys tem Mas ter P lan (S S MP ), although having s imilar elements to the W S MP, are summarized b elow to make the d ifferences c lear: A d es cription of the exis ting s ewer s ystem (pip elines , s ip hons, and d ivers io n s truc tures ) S ewer flow projectio ns during d ry and wet weather fo r a near-term planning ho rizon that is c haracterized by the c o mpletion of the s ignific ant developments kno wn to the Dis tric t, and p rojec tions fo r the build -out planning horizon An updated hyd raulic model to simulate perfo rmance o f the gravity sewer s ystem und er d ifferent flo w R ec o mmend ed b y: John Mura G eneral Manager/C EO R espec tfully s ubmitted: Jeff No elte Direc tor of Engineering & O perations An updated hyd raulic model to simulate perfo rmance o f the gravity sewer s ystem und er d ifferent flo w c ond itions An evaluatio n o f the s ystem ac c o rd ing to the flo w d epth ratio n (d /D) under exis ting, near-term, and b uild - out c o nditions A s et o f recommended improvements and as s o ciated cos t es timates to addres s defic iencies id entified thro ugh the mo d el s imulations An overview o f the Master P lans was pres ented to the Bo ard at its regular meeting o n Ap ril 10, 2019 fo r c o mment. T he Mas ter P lans are ready to b e received and filed, pending mino r revisions. AGE N C Y GOALS AN D OB J E C T IVE S: G o al and O bjectives I - Implement Effective S olutio ns T hrough Visionary Lead ers hip a) Id entify O p portunities to O ptimize Natural R es ources G oal and O b jec tives I V - P romo te P lanning, Maintenanc e and P res ervation of Distric t R es o urces a) Develo p P rojects and P ro grams to Ens ure S afe and R eliable S ervic es b) Enhance P lanning Efforts that R espond to F uture Demands R E VIE W B Y O T HE R S : T his agend a item has been reviewed b y the exec utive management team. F IS CAL IMPAC T T he project to d evelop the W S MP and S S MP was approved in the F Y 2017-18 Budget in the amount o f $338,930. ATTAC H M E NTS: Description Type Draft Water System Master P lan Backup Material Draft Sewer System Master P lan Backup Material Water System Master Plan Update Draft Report Prepared for: East Valley Water District April 2019 Water System Master Plan Update Draft Report April 2019 Prepared for: East Valley Water District Prepared by: Stantec i Table of Contents ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................................... VII  1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1  1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................................................................................... 1  1.2 OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................................... 1  1.3 SCOPE OF WORK ........................................................................................................... 2  1.4 DATA SOURCES .............................................................................................................. 2  1.5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................. 2  1.6 PROJECT STAFF ............................................................................................................. 3  1.7 REPORT OUTLINE ........................................................................................................... 3   2.0 EXISTING WATER SYSTEM ........................................................................................ 2.1  2.1 PRESSURE ZONES ...................................................................................................... 2.1  2.2 WATER SUPPLY ........................................................................................................... 2.8  2.2.1 Groundwater Wells ....................................................................................... 2.8  2.2.2 Imported Water ............................................................................................. 2.9  2.2.3 North Fork Mutual Water Company .............................................................. 2.9  2.3 BOOSTER PUMPING STATIONS ............................................................................... 2.12  2.4 WATER STORAGE RESERVOIRS ............................................................................. 2.15  2.4.1 Existing Conditions of Reservoirs ............................................................... 2.16  2.5 PRESSURE REDUCING STATIONS .......................................................................... 2.17  2.6 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM NETWORK ......................................................................... 2.18  2.7 OTHER FACILITIES AND ASSETS ............................................................................. 2.26  2.7.1 Valves ......................................................................................................... 2.26  2.7.2 Fire Hydrants .............................................................................................. 2.27  2.7.3 Customer Meters ........................................................................................ 2.28  2.7.4 Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System (SCADA) ..................... 2.29  2.7.5 Geographic Information System (GIS) ....................................................... 2.29  3.0 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND WATER DEMANDS ................................................ 3.1  3.1 HISTORICAL WATER PRODUCTION AND PEAKING FACTORS ............................... 3.1  3.2 HISTORICAL WATER CONSUMPTION ........................................................................ 3.2  3.3 POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR EVWD’S SERVICE AREA .................................. 3.4  3.3.1 Baseline Population – Year 2010 to 2017 .................................................... 3.4  3.3.2 Population Projections for EVWD’s Service Area ......................................... 3.5  3.3.3 Existing Per Capita Water Use ..................................................................... 3.7  3.3.4 Future Per Capita Water Use due to Conservation Update ......................... 3.8  3.4 DEMAND PROJECTIONS FOR EVWD’S SERVICE AREA (POPULATION METHODOLOGY) .......................................................................................................... 3.9  3.5 WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS – LAND USE METHODOLOGY .......................... 3.11  3.5.1 Assigning Average Demand and Land Use Types ..................................... 3.11  3.5.2 Water Duty Factors ..................................................................................... 3.17  3.5.3 Build-out Water Demand Projections – Land Use Methodology ................ 3.18  3.6 MODELED DEMANDS ................................................................................................ 3.18  ii 3.6.1 Near-Term Planning Scenario .................................................................... 3.18  3.6.2 Build-out Planning Scenario ....................................................................... 3.18  3.7 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................ 3.19  4.0 HYDRAULIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND CALIBRATION ..................................... 4.1  4.1 HYDRAULIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 4.1  4.1.1 Data Collection ............................................................................................. 4.1  4.1.2 Pipelines ....................................................................................................... 4.2  4.1.3 Valves and Junctions .................................................................................... 4.9  4.1.4 Storage Tanks .............................................................................................. 4.9  4.1.5 Pumps and Wells .......................................................................................... 4.9  4.1.6 Surface Water Treatment Plant .................................................................... 4.9  4.1.7 Facility Nomenclature ................................................................................. 4.10  4.1.8 Facility Elevation Data ................................................................................ 4.10  4.1.9 Geocoding .................................................................................................. 4.10  4.1.10 Diurnal Curve .............................................................................................. 4.11  4.2 MODEL CALIBRATION ............................................................................................... 4.11  4.2.1 Steady-State Calibration ............................................................................. 4.12  4.2.2 Extended Period Simulation ....................................................................... 4.19  4.3 CALIBRATION CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................. 4.20  5.0 PLANNING CRITERIA .................................................................................................. 5.1  5.1 DESIGN CRITERIA ........................................................................................................ 5.1  5.1.1 System Pressures ........................................................................................ 5.3  5.1.2 Pipeline Velocities ........................................................................................ 5.3  5.1.3 Storage ......................................................................................................... 5.3  5.1.4 Supply Capacity ............................................................................................ 5.4  5.1.5 System Reliability ......................................................................................... 5.4  6.0 SYSTEM EVALUATION ................................................................................................ 6.1  6.1 EXISTING SYSTEM DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS .......................................................... 6.1  6.1.1 Minimum Pressure During Peak Hour Demand (PHD) ................................ 6.1  6.1.2 Maximum Pressure During Average Daily Demand (ADD) .......................... 6.7  6.1.3 Minimum Pressure with MDD plus Fire Flow ................................................ 6.7  6.2 EXISTING SYSTEM STORAGE EVALUATION .......................................................... 6.11  6.3 EXISTING SYSTEM SUPPLY ANALYSIS ................................................................... 6.15  6.3.1 Existing Supply Sources ............................................................................. 6.15  6.3.2 System-wide Supply Evaluation ................................................................. 6.16  6.3.3 Pressure Zone Supply Analysis .................................................................. 6.16  6.4 RELIABILITY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 6.27  6.4.1 Major Transmission Breaks ........................................................................ 6.27  6.4.2 Imported Water Out of Service for Seven Days ......................................... 6.31  6.5 NEAR-TERM SYSTEM DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS ................................................... 6.31  6.5.1 Minimum Pressure during Peak Hour Demand (PHD) ............................... 6.32  6.5.2 Maximum Pressure during Average Daily Demand (ADD) ......................... 6.39  6.5.3 Minimum Pressure with MDD plus Fire Flow .............................................. 6.39  6.6 NEAR-TERM SYSTEM STORAGE EVALUATION ...................................................... 6.43  iii 6.7 NEAR-TERM SYSTEM SUPPLY ANALYSIS .............................................................. 6.47  6.7.1 System-wide Supply Evaluation ................................................................. 6.47  6.7.2 Pressure Zone Supply Analysis .................................................................. 6.47  6.8 BUILD-OUT SYSTEM DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS ..................................................... 6.48  6.8.1 Minimum Pressure during Peak Hour Demand (PHD) ............................... 6.49  6.8.2 Maximum Pressure during Average Daily Demand (ADD) ......................... 6.55  6.8.3 Minimum Pressure with MDD plus Fire Flow .............................................. 6.55  6.9 BUILD-OUT SYSTEM STORAGE EVALUATION ........................................................ 6.59  6.10 BUILD-OUT SYSTEM SUPPLY ANALYSIS ................................................................ 6.63  6.10.1 System-wide Supply Evaluation ................................................................ 6.63  6.10.2 Pressure Zone Supply Analysis .................................................................. 6.63  7.0 GIS MANAGEMENT EVALUATION.............................................................................. 7.1  7.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 7.1  7.2 GIS AUDIT ..................................................................................................................... 7.1  7.3 GIS SAMPLE AREA ....................................................................................................... 7.4  7.4 DATA IMPORT AND CONNECTIVITY REVIEW ........................................................... 7.5  7.5 SUMMARY OF REVIEW FINDINGS ............................................................................. 7.6  8.0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ........................................................................ 8.9  8.1 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................ 8.9  8.1.1 Existing System Water System Improvements ............................................. 8.9  8.1.2 System Evaluation ........................................................................................ 8.9  8.1.3 Existing Water System Improvements ........................................................ 8.10  8.1.4 Near-Term Water System Improvements ................................................... 8.15  8.1.5 Build-Out Water System Improvements ..................................................... 8.19  8.1.6 Phasing of Near-Term System Improvements ........................................... 8.21  8.2 UNIT COSTS ............................................................................................................... 8.21   8.3 WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS COST ESTIMATES .......................................... 8.22  8.4 SUMMARY OF GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................... 8.25  9.0 FINANCING OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................... 9.27  9.1 FUNDING SOURCES .................................................................................................. 9.27  9.1.1 Pay-As-You-Go .......................................................................................... 9.27  9.1.2 Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Loan Program ................................. 9.28  9.1.3 General Obligation Bonds ........................................................................... 9.28  9.1.4 Revenue Bonds .......................................................................................... 9.28  9.1.5 Certificates of Participation ......................................................................... 9.29  9.1.6 Commercial Paper (Short Term Notes) ...................................................... 9.30  9.1.7 Property Related Debt ................................................................................ 9.30  9.1.8 Private Sector Equity .................................................................................. 9.31  9.1.9 Developer Impact or Connection Fees ....................................................... 9.31  9.1.10 Department of Water Resources Grant Programs ...................................... 9.31  9.1.11 Federal Funding ......................................................................................... 9.32  APPENDIX A – REFERENCES  iv APPENDIX B – APRIL 3, 2018 OPERATIONS MEETING MINUTES  APPENDIX C – EPS CALIBRATION RESULTS  APPENDIX D – FIRE FLOW IMPROVEMENT SUMMARY  APPENDIX E – MEDITERRA ANALYSIS  LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1: Summary of Water Distribution System Components .............................................. 2.1  Table 2-2: EVWD Pressure Zones ............................................................................................. 2.2  Table 2-3: Active Groundwater Well Charateristics ................................................................. 2.10  Table 2-4: Booster Pumping Stations Characteristics ............................................................. 2.12  Table 2-5: Storage Reservoir Characteristics .......................................................................... 2.15  Table 2-6: Storage Reservoir Capacity by Pressure Zone ...................................................... 2.16  Table 2-7: Pressure Regulation Stations ................................................................................. 2.18  Table 2-8: Summary of Pipeline by Diameter .......................................................................... 2.19  Table 2-9: Summary of Pipeline by Installation Period ............................................................ 2.20  Table 2-10: Summary of Pipeline by Material Type ................................................................. 2.21  Table 2-11: Summary of Valves by Diameter .......................................................................... 2.26  Table 2-12: Summary of Valves by Type ................................................................................. 2.27  Table 2-13: Summary of Fire Hydrants by Diameter ............................................................... 2.27  Table 2-14: Summary of Fire Hydrants by Type ...................................................................... 2.28  Table 2-15: Summary of Meters by Diameter .......................................................................... 2.28  Table 2-16: Summary of Meters by Type ................................................................................. 2.29  Table 3-1: Historical Water Production ...................................................................................... 3.1  Table 3-2: Historical Daily Demands .......................................................................................... 3.2   Table 3-3: Demands and Peaking Factors ................................................................................ 3.2  Table 3-4: Historical Water Consumption .................................................................................. 3.3  Table 3-5: Unaccounted-for Water ............................................................................................. 3.4   Table 3-6: Population from 2010 through 2017 ......................................................................... 3.5  Table 3-7: Major Future Developments ..................................................................................... 3.7  Table 3-8: Population Estimate Comparisons ............................................................................ 3.7  Table 3-9: Per Capita Demand .................................................................................................. 3.8  Table 3-10: Future Per Capita Use for EVWD Service Area ..................................................... 3.9  Table 3-11: Demand Estimates for Proposed Developments .................................................. 3.11  Table 3-12: Land Use Classifications and Acreage ................................................................. 3.12  Table 3-13: Calculated Water Duty Factors ............................................................................. 3.17  Table 3-14: Adjusted Water Duty Factor for Single Family Residential Land Use ................... 3.18  Table 3-15: Demand Projection Comparisons (MGD) ............................................................. 3.19  Table 4-1: Pipe Roughness ....................................................................................................... 4.2  Table 4-2: Steady-State Hydrant Test Calibration Results ...................................................... 4.17  Table 4-3: Calibration Criteria .................................................................................................. 4.19  Table 4-4: Summary of Calibration Results ............................................................................. 4.19  Table 5-1: Water System Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................. 5.1  Table 6-1: Transmission Improvements – Existing Conditions .................................................. 6.2  Table 6-2: Fire Flow Requirement Estimations Based on Land Use ......................................... 6.8  Table 6-3: Existing Water System Storage Capacity Evaluation ............................................ 6.13  v Table 6-4: Water Supply Analysis – Existing Active Well Capacities ....................................... 6.15  Table 6-5: Water Supply Analysis – Existing Conditions ......................................................... 6.16  Table 6-6: Water Supply Analysis by Zone – Existing Conditions ........................................... 6.17  Table 6-7: Lower Zone Existing Supply Analysis ..................................................................... 6.18  Table 6-8: Intermediate Zone Existing Supply Analysis ........................................................... 6.19  Table 6-9: Upper Zone Existing Supply Analysis ..................................................................... 6.20  Table 6-10: Foothill Zone Existing Supply Analysis ................................................................. 6.21  Table 6-11: Canal 1 Zone Existing Supply Analysis ................................................................ 6.23  Table 6-12: Canal 2 Zone Existing Supply Analysis ................................................................ 6.24  Table 6-13: Canal 3 Zone Existing Supply Analysis ................................................................ 6.25  Table 6-14: Mountain Zone Existing Supply Analysis .............................................................. 6.26  Table 6-15: Existing Water Source Reliability – Plant 134 Out of Service ............................... 6.31  Table 6-16: Transmission Improvements – Near-Term Conditions ......................................... 6.33  Table 6-17: Storage Improvements – Near-Term Conditions .................................................. 6.33  Table 6-18: Pumping Improvements – Near-Term Conditions ................................................ 6.33  Table 6-19: Near-Term Water System Storage Capacity Evaluation...................................... 6.45  Table 6-20: Water Supply Analysis – Near-Term Conditions .................................................. 6.47  Table 6-21: Water Supply Analysis by Zone – Near-Term Conditions .................................... 6.48  Table 6-22: Build-Out Water System Storage Capacity Evaluation ........................................ 6.61  Table 6-23: Water Supply Analysis – Build-Out Conditions ..................................................... 6.63  Table 6-24: Water Supply Analysis by Zone – Build-Out Conditions ....................................... 6.64  Table 7-1. Feature Classes Relevant to Water Model Development ......................................... 7.2  Table 7-2. Summary of Primary Layers and Selected Fields ..................................................... 7.3  Table 7-3. Summary of Primary Layers Imported and Used for Sample Area Audit.................. 7.4  Table 7-4. Summary of Sample Area Data Issues ..................................................................... 7.7  Table 8-1: Existing System Improvements .............................................................................. 8.11  Table 8-2: Near-Term Capital Improvements .......................................................................... 8.15  Table 8-3: Build-Out Capital Improvements ............................................................................. 8.19  Table 8-4: Summary of Water Main Unit Costs ....................................................................... 8.22  Table 8-5 Capital Improvement Costs ..................................................................................... 8.23  Table 0-1: Summary of Fire Flow Improvements ..................................................................... 9.42  LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1: Existing Water System Facilities ............................................................................. 2.4  Figure 2-2: Water System Hydraulic Schematic ........................................................................ 2.6  Figure 2-3: Pipeline by Diameter ............................................................................................. 2.22   Figure 2-4: Pipeline by Material ............................................................................................... 2.24  Figure 3-1: Historical Water Consumption ................................................................................. 3.3  Figure 3-2: Population Projections for EVWD’s Service Area .................................................... 3.6  Figure 3-3: Water Demand Projections for EVWD’s Service Area (Population-based) ........... 3.10  Figure 3-4: Existing Land Use in EVWD Service Area ............................................................ 3.13  Figure 3-5: Future/Build-out Land Use in EVWD Service Area................................................ 3.15  Figure 4-1: Existing Water System Facilities ............................................................................. 4.3  Figure 4-2: Pipelines By Diameter ............................................................................................. 4.5  Figure 4-3: Pipelines By Material ............................................................................................... 4.7  Figure 4-4: System-Wide Diurnal Curves ................................................................................ 4.11  Figure 4-5: Hydrant Test Locations (Insert Figure) .................................................................. 4.15  vi Figure 6-1: Existing System Pressure Analysis ......................................................................... 6.3  Figure 6-2: Existing System Velocity Analysis ........................................................................... 6.5  Figure 6-3 Existing System Fire Flow Analysis .......................................................................... 6.9  Figure 6-4 Transmission Main Reliability Analysis ................................................................... 6.29  Figure 6-5: Near-Term System Pressure Analysis .................................................................. 6.35  Figure 6-6: Near-Term System Velocity Analysis .................................................................... 6.37  Figure 6-7: Proposed Infrastructure to Address Growth in East Part of System ...................... 6.39  Figure 6-8 Near-Term System Fire Flow Analysis ................................................................... 6.41  Figure 6-9: Build-Out System Pressure Analysis ..................................................................... 6.51  Figure 6-10: Build-Out System Velocity Analysis ..................................................................... 6.53  Figure 6-11 Build-Out System Fire Flow Analysis ................................................................... 6.57  Figure 7-1 GIS Audit Sample Area ............................................................................................ 7.5  Figure 8-1 Existing System Recommendations ....................................................................... 8.13  Figure 8-2 Near-Term System Recommendations .................................................................. 8.17  Figure 0-1 Existing System Fire Flow Recommendations ....................................................... 9.45  vii Abbreviations AACE Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering AC Acre ACRE-FT Acre-feet ADD Average Day Demand AF Acre-Feet AFY Acre-Feet per Year AS Antiscalant AVE Avenue AWWA American Water Works Association CAL WATER California Water Service Company CDPH California Department of Public Health CEO Chief Operating Officer CII Commercial Industrial and Institutional CIP Capital Improvement Program CL&C Cement Lined & Coated CML Cement Mortar Lined COP Certificates of Participation CP Critical Pipes D High Density Polyethylene DD&W Double Dipped & Wrapped DWR Department of Water Resources viii EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. ETO Reference Evapotranspiration EVWD East Valley Water District FPS Feet per Second FT Feet GAC Granular activated carbon GIS Geographic Information System GO General Obligation Bond GPCD Gallons per Capita per Day GPD Gallons per Day GPD/ACRE Gallons per Day per Acre GPM Gallons per Minute HGL Hydraulic Grade Line HP Horsepower HRS Hours ID Identification IN Inch IRWM Integrated Regional Water Management IRWMP (Greater Los Angeles) Integrated Regional Water Management Plan IS Initial Study LN Lane MDD Maximum Day Demand ix MG Million Gallons MMD Maximum Monthly Demand MMP Maximum Month Production MSL Mean Sea Level MWH MWH Inc. N Nitrogen NFMWC North Fork Mutual Water Company PCE Passenger Car Equivalent PHD Peak Hour Demand PRS Pressure Reducing Station PRV Pressure Reducing Valve PSI Pounds per Square Inch PVC Polyvinyl Chloride RCP Regional Comprehensive Plan RD Road RSI Recommended System Improvements RUWMP Regional Water Urban Water Management Plan SANBAG San Bernardino Associated Governments SBVRUWMP San Bernardino Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCE Southern California Edison SGWP Sustainable Groundwater Planning x SRF State Revolving Fund SS Steady-State ST Street SWP State Water Project SWTP Surface Water Treatment Plant TCE Trichloroethylene TDH Total Dynamic Head THM Trihalomethanes US United States USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency UWMP Urban Water Management Plan VFD Variable Frequency Drive WIFIA Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act WSMP 2014 Water System Master Plan WSMPU 2018 Water System Master Plan Update WTP Water Treatment Plant Introduction 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION East Valley Water District (EVWD) retained Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (Stantec) to prepare this Water System Master Plan Update (WSMPU) on January 11, 2018. Stantec has partnered with Sedaru in order to deliver the updated model for the WSMPU. This plan updates EVWD’s 2014 Water System Master Plan (2014 WSMP). A brief narrative of the project background, scope of work, and a description of the report sections is presented below. 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND EVWD provides both water and sewer service to customers within its service area that lies at the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains, east of the City of San Bernardino and north of the City of Redlands. EVWD’s last WSMP was completed in 2014. Since completion of the 2014 WSMP, there have been significant changes to water demand within EVWD’s service area. These changes are due to factors such as the economic downturn following the housing market collapse in 2008, the prolonged drought in southern California, and changes to anticipated development. These resulted in projected water demand estimated in the 2014 WSMP being higher than what was actually recorded. Updated information on the proposed Harmony Development, Highland Hills Development, and Greenspot Village and Marketplace Development have also affected projected demand and planning for the water system. Finally, changes to the overarching goals of EVWD, such as maximizing water rights, increasing the amount of stored water, and increasing operational flexibility of the system have also driven a need for changes to the WSMP. This WSMPU update provides a guideline for the orderly planning and expansion of EVWD’s water system, as well as the future operation of the system. This WSMPU evaluates EVWD’s water system under existing and future (near- term and build-out) conditions and considers different sources of water resources in the future. This WSMPU covers the entire service area of EVWD, which includes the City of Highland, portions of the City of San Bernardino, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, and portions of unincorporated San Bernardino County. With over 23,464 water meters, EVWD currently serves a population of approximately 100,000. The proposed developments and in-fill growth within EVWD’s service area offer a significant potential for growth. The planning and sizing of new facilities to serve the new developments are an important focus in this WSMPU. 1.2 OBJECTIVES The primary objective of this WSMPU is to provide cost-effective and fiscally responsible water services that meet the quality and reliability requirements of EVWD’s customers. This WSMPU assists EVWD achieve this objective by meeting the following goals:  Developing an infrastructure plan that balances reliability and cost  Maximizing the ability of EVWD to serve water from multiple sources entering at different locations in the water system  Accommodating planned development and infill within the service area  Minimizing pumping and operations costs  Addressing areas of the system where water is not being conveyed efficiently (areas of high headloss)  Creating an accurate and usable calibrated hydraulic model Introduction 2  Evaluating water system performance and water resources  Identifying needed capital improvement projects  Training EVWD’s staff to use the updated hydraulic model For this WSMPU , Stantec, along with our partner Sedaru, have updated EVWD’s extended period simulation (EPS) computer model of the water system. The calibrated water model includes all water pipelines within EVWD’s water system. Future system elements necessary to meet the near and long-term service conditions are added to analyze the future conditions and define system improvements. A Recommended System Improvements includes all system improvements recommended to meet the water system needs. These improvements are identified by analyzing the system under existing and future demand conditions. The Recommended System Improvements includes a list of the recommended improvements, proposed phasing of those improvements, and opinions of probable construction cost. The Recommended System Improvements will provide EVWD with a water system planning road map for the future. 1.3 SCOPE OF WORK The Scope of Work for this WSMPU consists of the following tasks:  Project management and administration  Data collection and review of EVWD documents and records  Project water system demands in the service area  Perform a water supply analysis  Update EVWD’s existing hydraulic model  Conduct storage, booster station, and system reliability analysis  Analyze the water distribution system under existing conditions  Analyze the water distribution system under future conditions  Identify water system improvements  Prepare a Capital Improvement Program for the water system  Produce a draft and final WSMPU  Perform GIS management analysis 1.4 DATA SOURCES In preparing this update, EVWD’s staff supplied many reports, maps and other sources of information. In addition, multiple meetings with EVWD staff were held to obtain a thorough understanding of EVWD’s available data, goals for the service area, operational issues, condition of current infrastructure, and general information on the distribution system. Pertinent materials included water system atlas maps, historical production and billing data, planning and development information, land use information, aerial photography and Geographic Information System (GIS) information. A list of references used for this WSMPU is shown in Appendix A. 1.5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Stantec wishes to acknowledge and thank all of EVWD’s staff for their support and assistance in completing this project. Special thanks go to the following key staff: Introduction 3 CEO/General Manager: John Mura Director of Engineering and Operations: Jeff Noelte Project Manager and Senior Engineer: Eliseo Ochoa Senior Engineering Technician: Leida Thomas 1.6 PROJECT STAFF The following Stantec staff members were principally involved in the preparation of this report: Principal-in-Charge: Venu Kolli Technical Reviewer: Nicholas Anderson Paul Marshall Project Manager: Jim Cathcart Project Engineers: Oliver Slosser Areeba Syed Michael Steele GIS Specialist: Chisa Whelan Sedaru Paul Hauffen (Principal) Jennifer Wood (Project Manager) Matt Sellers (Project Engineer and Lead Modeler) Sal Sailik (Project Engineer) 1.7 REPORT OUTLINE This WSMPU is divided into 8 sections. Section 2 discusses the existing water system, while Section 3 discusses population, land use, and water demands. The water system computer model update and calibration is described in Section 4. Planning criteria are discussed in Section 5, the system evaluation is discussed in Section 6, and the GIS management evaluation is described in Section 7. Based on the system evaluations, the Recommended System Improvements for the water system is developed and is discussed in Section 8. A description of the topics discussed within each section can be found in the Table of Contents. Existing Water System 2.1 2.0 EXISTING WATER SYSTEM This section describes East Valley Water District’s (EVWD) existing water system facilities and provides an understanding of the water system operations. The existing water system consists of 18 storage reservoirs, 31 booster pumping stations, 21 groundwater wells (active and inactive), 14 pressure reducing stations, and approximately 301 miles of pipeline. A summary of the water system components is shown in Table 2-1. The locations of the water facilities are shown on Figure 2 1. A hydraulic schematic representation of all facilities and their interactions is presented on Figure 2-2. Information presented in this section regarding the current conditions of EVWD facilities was collected in a meeting with operations staff conducted on April 3, 2018; meeting notes are presented in Appendix B. Table 2-1: Summary of Water Distribution System Components Facility Type Number Storage Reservoirs 18 Booster Pump Stations 31 Groundwater Wells (active) (1) 16 Groundwater Wells (inactive) 5 Imported Water Connection 1 Surface Water Connection 1 Pipeline (miles) 301 Pressure Reducing Stations 14 Surface Water Treatment Plant 1 Groundwater Treatment Plants 4 Hydrants 3,025 Valves 8,225 Customer Meters (as of 2017) 22,907 (1) Includes one well that is currently questionable status; EVWD reported detection of radionuclides at Well 9 and has temporarily removed the well from production. . Source: EVWD GIS data and supplemental information (2017 Plant Location Information) A computer hydraulic model has been developed that represents the existing water system, including all water facilities. This model is used for the evaluation of existing and future conditions, as well as to identify areas for improvements. The model creation and calibration are described in Section 4, while the system analyses for the existing and future conditions are described in Section 6. 2.1 PRESSURE ZONES The current water system is divided into six main pressure zones, the Lower Zone, the Intermediate Zone, the Upper Zone, the Foothill Zone, the Canal Zone, and the Mountain Zone. The Canal Zone consists of three hydraulically disconnected zones that are, for the purposes of this report, referred to as Canal 1 Zone, Canal 2 Zone, and Canal 3 Zone. There is no redundancy in the Canal 1 and Canal 2 Zones. The Canal zones may be tied together in the future. Existing Water System 2.2 Water does not flow from the Upper Zone to the west easily. Upper zone reservoirs routinely operate at different levels, there can be as much as a 10 ft. different in tank water levels during the day. There are four small hydropneumatic zones and three zones that are supplied through pressure reducing valves (PRVs). The hydropneumatic zones are designated: Hydro Zone 59, Hydro Zone 101, Hydro Zone 149, and Hydro Zone 34. The PRV supplied zones are designated: Highland Upper Zone, Mercedes Zone, and Baldridge Canyon Zone. The maximum hydraulic grade elevation for each main pressure zone is determined by the high-water level of the reservoirs feeding the zone. All pressure zones in the existing and future system are gravity-fed from storage reservoirs, through pressure reducing stations, or by hydropneumatic tanks. Booster pumping stations are used to pump water from lower to higher pressure zones, where needed. The names of the pressure zones and their respective hydraulic characteristics are listed in Table 2 2 and the pressure zone boundaries are shown on Figure 2 1. Static pressure ranges presented Table 2 2 in represent pressure ranges based on demand nodes. Table 2-2: EVWD Pressure Zones Pressure Zone Name Area (square miles) Hydraulic Grade Elevation (feet- msl(1)) Ground Elevation Range (feet-msl) Static Pressure Range (2) (psi) Lower Zone 2.29 1,248 1,032-1,212 12-101 Intermediate Zone 4.16 1,368 1,086-1,353 6-108 Upper Zone 5.73 1,560 1,170-1,513 20-162 Foothill Zone 3.75 1,690 1,315-1,682 3-166 Canal 1 Zone 6.16(3) 1,820 1,432-1,783 16-135 Canal 2 Zone 1,852 1,557-1,825 12-130 Canal 3 Zone 1,838 1,468-1,852 7-170 Mountain Zone 1.93 2,015 1,668-2,016 12-165 Hydro 59 0.26 1,931 1,686-1,827 45-116 Hydro 101 0.01 2,020 1,751-1,824 85-116 Hydro 149 0.05 2,198 1,918-2,058 61-121 Hydro 34 0.05 1,479 1,171-1,256 97-133 Baldridge Canyon 0.03 1,566 1,389-1,443 43-67 Mercedes 0.02 1,669 1,382-1,427 80-99 Highland Upper 0.72 1,440 1,151-1,326 45-120 (1) Feet above mean sea level (2) Calculated based on difference between hydraulic grade elevation and ground elevation range (3) Area for Canal zone as a whole is presented Existing Water System 2.3 The largest individual pressure zone in the system is Upper Zone which covers approximately 30 percent of the existing water service area. This zone contains the surface water treatment plant (Plant 134), four groundwater wells, and four reservoirs with a combined storage capacity of approximately 12.9 million gallons (MG). Pressure zones are separated by closed valves, check valves, pressure regulating stations, and booster stations. The delineation of the pressure zone boundaries was obtained from EVWD and shown on Figure 2 1. EVWD operations staff noted that the pipeline along Highland Avenue traveling westward from treatment plant is 16” and constricts flow to the west. They also noted that the area around Pumps 59 and 56 may need to be isolated on their own zone as that area experiences high pressures. EVWD should monitor pressures in that zone and establish a PRV zone specific to the area where pressures regularly exceed district standards. ³±T PW ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")")") ") ") ") ") ") ")$+ $+ $+ $+ ") ") ")") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")") ") ") ") ") ") ")") #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* P125 P142 P129 P37 P140P131 P11 P127 P147 P146 P143 P108 P33 P24 P25 P101 P134 P59 P39 P34 P40 P99 P151 P141 P9 P149 P28 P132 P148 P137 P56 P130 6th St Highland Ave Greenspot Rd Ch u r c h S t Or a n g e S t St e r l i n g A v e Pa l m A v e Baseline St Marshall Blvd ¬«210 ¬«330 ¬«210 Canal Upper Lower Intermediate Foothill Foothill Mountain Highland Upper 59 Hydro 34 Hydro 149 Hydro Mercedes Baldridge Cyn 101 Hydro Mountain Figure 2-1 Existing Water System Facilitiesº0 0.5 10.25 Miles Date:Nov 28, 2018 Legend #*PRV Station ")Booster Station $+Reservoir ")Well ³±T PW WTP Pipeline by Pressure ZoneLowerIntermediateUpper Highland UpperFoothillCanalMountain Service Area Boundaryfreeway Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VFIPS 0405 FeetDocument: C:\Projects\Box Sync\zdrive\Projects\Stantec PLT. #148 PLT. #140 PLT. #137PLT. #101 PLT. #59 PLT. #56 PLT. #99 PLT. #131 PLT. #108 PLT. #37 PLT. #134 PLT. #129 PLT. #142 PLT. #125 PLT. #104/OUT OF SERVICE PLT. #146 PLT. #147 PLT. #143 PLT. #120/OUT OF SERVICE PLT. #39 PLT. #40 PLT. #9 PLT. #132 PLT. #141 PLT. #151 PLT. #27/OUT OF SERVICE PLT. #24 PLT. #25 PLT. #33 PLT. #130 PLT. #34 PLT. #28 EL.1090' EL.1060' EL.1060' EL.1110' EL.1137' EL.1248' EL.1203' EL.1150'EL.1157' EL.1121'EL.1123' EL.1234' EL.1299' EL.1250' 4M (gal) HWL EL.1560' PAD EL.1520' EL.1399' EL.1342' EL.1326' EL.1364' EL.1318' EL.1613' EL.1546' .5M (gal) HWL EL.1685.9' PAD EL.1666' .5M (gal) HWL EL.1689.5' PAD EL.1666' .7M (gal) HWL EL.1820' PAD EL.1800' .07M (gal) HWL EL.1838.4' PAD EL.1816' .75M (gal) EL.2015' EL.1930' PLT. #149 PRS 324 PRS 311 PRS 309 PRS 308 PRS 306 PRS 305 PRS 302 PRS 301 PRS 326 PLT. #107 PLT. #11 PLT. #12/ OUT OF SERVICE LOWER ZONE INTERMEDIATE ZONE UPPER ZONE FOOTHILL ZONE UPPER ZONE CANAL ZONE MOUNTAIN ZONE MOUNTAIN HYDRO CANAL ZONE HYDRO HYDRO ZONE 59 CANAL ZONE FOOTHILL ZONE HYDRO ZONE 34 BALDRIDGE CANYON ZONE HIGHLAND UPPER ZONE PRS 325 PLT. #127 MEMBRANE FILTRATION ION EXCHANGE NITRATE /PERCHLORATE BLENDING GAC SURFACE WATER TREATMENT PLANT 1.4M (gal) HWL EL.1851.5' PAD EL.1820' HWL EL.1368' PAD EL.1333' .9M (gal) HWL EL.1366.07' PAD EL.1342.87' FLUORIDE BLENDING 2M (gal) HWL EL.1850' PAD EL.1820' 2M (gal) HWL EL.1709.5' PAD EL.1662' 3M (gal) 3M (gal) HWL EL.1560' PAD EL.1530' 1.4M (gal) HWL EL.1365.58' PAD EL.1343.38' ION EXCHANGE NITRATE /URANIUM BLENDING 2.9M (gal) HWL EL.1560' PAD EL.1520' EL.1581' 1M (gal) HWL EL.1248' PAD EL.1210' PAD EL 1141'-1021' PAD EL. 1143'-1217' SWP SAR CANAL ZONE BASELINE AVE. & STERLING AVE. PACIFIC AVE. & OSBUN RD. ION EXCHANGE NITRATE /PERCHLORATE BLENDING BLENDING BOOSTERS CENTRAL AVE. & MANSFIELD ST. ORANGE ST. & MERCEDES AVE. PALM AVE. S/O NORWOOD ST. CHURCH AVE. & CYPRESS ST. BASELINE AVE. & CHURCH AVE. CHURCH ST & WATER ST. CLUB VIEW DR & MEADOWGATE LN PALM AVE. N/O HIGHLAND AVE. A 100 hp / 980 gpm B 75 hp / 850 gpm C 75 hp / 760 gpm A 15 hp / 285 gpm B 40 hp / 892 gpm A 150 hp / 2187 gal B 100 hp / 1467 gal C 60 hp / 865 gal A 60 hp / 847 gpm B 60 hp / 807 gpm A 75 hp / 1285 gpm B 75 hp / 1361 gpm A 75 hp /1225 gpm B 75 hp/1145 gpm A 40 hp / 425 gpm B 50 hp / 725 gpm C 125 hp / 970 gpm D 125 hp / 863 gpm E 20 hp / 1698 gpm F 20 hp / 1720 gpm A 100 hp / 835 gpm B 75 hp / 795 gpm A 50 hp/1119 gpm B 40 hp/532 gpm A 30 hp/ 647 gpm B 30 hp/615 gpm C 15 hp/286 gpm A 40 hp/624 gpm B 40 hp/541 gpm A 30 hp /922 gpm B 30 hp /1,004 gpm A 75 hp / 627 gpm B 75 hp / 660 gpm C 75 hp / 853 gpm A 75 hp / 905 gpm B 75 hp / 860 gpm C 75 hp / 869 gpm D 60 hp / 896 gpm E 60 hp / 833 gpm A 40 hp/547 gpm B 25 hp/204 gpm C 30 hp/302 gpm A 100 hp / 1647 gpm B 100 hp / 1636 gpm C 100 hp / 1648 gpm A 100 hp / 980 gpm B 25 hp/971 gpm A 100 hp /1312 gpm B 100 hp/1207 gpm A 40 hp/ 530 gpm B 40 hp / 523 gpm A 60 hp / 777 gpm B 60 hp / 800 gpm A 50 hp / 977 gpm B 30 hp / 498 gpm C 50 hp / 820 gpm A 40 hp / 1187 gpm B 20 hp / 595 gpm A 75 hp/1367 gpm B 30 hp/460 gpm C 50 hp/873 gpm A 100 hp/1588 gpm B 50 hp/699 gpmA 60 hp/564 gpm A B A B C A B C A 100 hp / 1553 gpm B 75 hp / 1004 gpm C 60 hp / 934 gpm A A B A B A B C A B A B D C A B A B A B A B A B A B A B A B A B A B A B A B A B A B C D C A B C C C A B C A B A B C LITTLE SYCAMORE ZONE MERCEDES ZONEE F 1M (gal)2.5M (gal)1M (gal) D E C A B C D A B PLT. #143 1M (gal)' A 15 hp / 173 gpm B 15 hp / 215 gpm C 100 hp / 1786 gpm D 100 hp / 1690 gpm A 40 hp / 442 gpm B 25 hp / 345 gpm C 30 hp / 358 gpm A 250 hp / 2950 gpm B 250 hp / 228 gpm PLT. #140 A 100 hp / 1301 gpm B 100 hp / 1293 gpm C 100 hp / 1295 gpm D 100 hp / 1308 gpm WELL PRESSURE REGULATION STATION RESERVOIR BOOSTER WATER IMPORT CONNECTION WATER TREATMENT FOREBAY PRESSURE ZONE LEGEND 1200' 1250' 1300' 1350' 1400' 1450' 1500' 1550' 1600' 1650' 1700' 1750' 1800' 1850' 1900' 1950' 2000' 2050' 2100' 1200' 1250' 1300' 1350' 1400' 1450' 1500' 1550' 1600' 1650' 1700' 1750' 1800' 1850' 1900' 1950' 2000' 2050' 2100' 1150' 1100' 1150' 1100' 1050'1050' 1000'1000' 950'950' EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT HYDRAULIC SCHEMATIC HYDROPNEUMATIC TANK 2018 PUMP INFORMATION REFLECTS HORSEPOWER PER CAPACITY PER 2017 SCE PUMP TESTS Existing Water System 2.8 2.2 WATER SUPPLY EVWD has three existing principal sources of water supply: local groundwater pumped from EVWD-owned wells, imported water from the State Water Project, and local surface water from the Santa Ana River (North Fork Water). 2.2.1 Groundwater Wells There are 22 wells within EVWD’s water system, of which 16 wells are currently active and 6 are inactive. The physical and operational data of EVWD’s wells are presented in Table 2-3:, while the locations of the groundwater wells are shown on Figure 2-1. The well capacity of the 16 listed wells is approximately 23,042 gallons per minute (gpm) (33.2 million gallons per day (MGD). The well capacities are obtained from Southern California Edison Company (SCE) pump efficiency test points and the 2014 WSMP. Existing Conditions of Groundwater Wells Discussion with EVWD staff of current well condition and operational issues identified the following information:  Wells number 12, 27, 40, 107, and 120 are inactive due to water quality issues and are not included in Table 2-3:  Uranium was found in samples from well 40  Perchlorate and nitrates have been found in samples from Well 107.  Well 9 is in questionable status due to detection of radionuclides.  Wells 24A and 24B operate one at a time due to high power costs associated with running concurrently.  Well 146 and 146A operate one at a time because the aquifer in that area cannot support concurrent operation.  Well 28A has GAC treatment for TCE treatment and PCE.  Entrained air has been seen from wells 147, 146, 146A and 143. The reservoir at 143 is used to off-gas or release entrained air coming from these wells and could be cascading water in the wells.  EVWD has been injecting polyphosphates for corrosion control at wells 142, 143, 146, 146A, 147, and Plant 134.  Well 39 is a blending facility due to high fluoride concentration and pumps to a forebay that feeds two boosters to Upper and Foothill zones.  EVWD is evaluating if they can pack off sections of production zones to isolate good quality water. The Canal 1, Canal 2, Canal 3, and Mountain zones do not have any groundwater wells. Existing Water System 2.9 2.2.2 Imported Water EVWD purchases imported water from the State Water Project from the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District to meet a portion of the system water demands. This water is treated in conjunction with Santa Ana River water at EVWD’s surface water treatment plant. 2.2.3 North Fork Mutual Water Company As a shareholder of the North Fork Mutual Water Company (NFMWC), EVWD obtains water from the Santa Ana River. Based on its current shares, EVWD is entitled to 4 MGD from NFMWC. EVWD is in the process of purchasing additional stock that will ultimately give EVWD rights to an additional 2.5 MGD of Santa Ana River water. This water is treated in conjunction with any State Water Project water at EVWD’s surface water treatment plant. Existing Water System 2.10 Table 2-3: Active Groundwater Well Charateristics No. Location Status Pressure Zone Capacity (gpm) (1) Pump Head (feet) Water Surface Elevation (feet) Ground Elevation (feet) Hydraulic Grade (feet) Discharge Pressure (psi) 9A(2) 26493 Temple St. Questionable Intermediate 1,112 229 926 1,149 1,155 3 11A(2) 6th/Pedley Active Lower 1,953 198 874 1,058 1,072 6 24A 1 Harrison/Lynwood Active Intermediate 795 366 928 1,268 1,281 6 24B 30 Harrison/Lynwood Active Intermediate 2,215 408 873 1,206 1,217 5 25A 3187 N. Mountain Ave. Active Intermediate 799 471 935 1,258 1,384 55 28A(2) 25385 Court St. Active Lower 1,505 397 872 1,091 1,269 77 39 2683/2695 E. Citrus St. Active Intermediate 1,530 454 944 1,336 1,358 10 125 2129 Plant H5 Active Foothill 1,293 284 1,417 1,663 1,676 6 132 7479 San Francisco Active Intermediate 2,337 478 917 1,154 1,375 96 141 2287 E. 5th Street Active Intermediate 1,925 525 882 1,103 1,369 115 142 7695 Vista Rio Active Foothill 895 308 1,361 1,607 1,650 19 143(2) 29090 Abbey Way Active Upper 1,202 771 1,006 1,340 1,777 189 146 7938 Church Street Active Upper 420 408 1,079 1,425 1,469 19 146A 7938 Church Street Active Upper 845 491 1,020 1,378 1,424 20 147 29250 Abbey Way Active Upper 1,630 301 1,216 1,414 1,450 15 151 6032 6th St. Active Intermediate 2,586 488 1,414 1,627 1,882 110 Total Capacity 23,042 (1) Data for wells obtained from the most recent SCE pump tests performed in 2016 and 2017. (2) Current pump test data were not available from SCE. Well characteristics were used from the 2014 WSMP and confirmed with EVWD. Existing Water System 2.11 (This page intentionally left blank) Existing Water System 2.12 2.3 BOOSTER PUMPING STATIONS EVWD operates 31 booster pumping stations. These booster pumping stations either transfer water between zones or pump groundwater into the distribution system. The number of pumps at each station ranges from one to eight booster pumps. The individual booster pump capacities vary from about 170 gpm to 2,950 gpm (0.24 MGD to 4.2 MGD). The total capacity of all booster stations is approximately 70,400 gpm (101 MGD). The total capacity assumes that each pump runs to the full rated capacity (capacities are listed on Table 6-4). These capacities are based on duty pump capacity only and does not assume running the standby pump. The firm capacity is rated by assuming the largest pump is out of service at that pump station. It is noted that the standby pump is available when a pump goes down, however the firm capacity analysis assumes a loss of functionality in the largest pump with no standby availability as a conservative assumption. The booster pumping stations are operated when either the adjacent well is on or when reservoirs in higher zones need replenishment. Details of each booster station are summarized in Table 2-4:. The booster pumping station locations are shown on Figure 2-1 and are schematically represented on Figure 2-2. Table 2-4: Booster Pumping Stations Characteristics Booster Pump Motor Horsepower(2) (hp) Total Head(2) (ft) Capacity(2) (gpm) Overall Efficiency(2) (Percent) Suction Zone(2) Discharge Zone(2) PMP_9_1(1) 75 278 542 50.9 Plant 9 Intermediate PMP_9_2(1) 75 291 612 61.2 Plant 9 Intermediate PMP_12_1(1) 150 194 2,187 75.3 Plant 11 Lower PMP_12_2(1) 100 203 1,467 74.2 Plant 11 Lower PMP_12_3(1) 60 199 865 66.8 Plant 11 Lower PMP_24_1 100 150 980 36.3 Plant 24 Intermediate PMP_24_2 75 138 850 38.4 Plant 24 Intermediate PMP_24_3 75 137 760 36.5 Plant 24 Intermediate PMP_25_1 60 203 798 72.2 Plant 25 Upper PMP_33_1 100 197 1,553 66 Intermediate Upper PMP_33_2 75 201 1,004 65.4 Intermediate Upper PMP_33_3 60 199 934 76.8 Intermediate Upper PMP_34_1 15 77 285 33 Lower Hydro 34 PMP_34_2 40 119 892 49.8 Lower Hydro 34 PMP_37_1 100 234 835 57.9 Upper Foothill PMP_37_2 75 216 795 57.8 Upper Foothill PMP_39_1 40 190 425 46.7 Intermediate Upper PMP_39_2 50 204 725 78.1 Intermediate Foothill Existing Water System 2.13 Booster Pump Motor Horsepower(2) (hp) Total Head(2) (ft) Capacity(2) (gpm) Overall Efficiency(2) (Percent) Suction Zone(2) Discharge Zone(2) PMP_39_3 125 383 970 72.8 Intermediate Foothill PMP_39_4 125 360 863 55.9 Intermediate Foothill PMP_39_5 20 22 1,698 45.6 Intermediate Forebay PMP_39_6 20 20 1,720 41 Intermediate Forebay PMP_40_1 100 199 1,301 65.4 Intermediate Upper PMP_40_2 100 196 1,293 62.9 Intermediate Upper PMP_40_3 100 199 1,295 64.7 Intermediate Upper PMP_40_4 100 196 1,308 63.9 Intermediate Upper PMP_56_1 50 149 1,119 63.5 Foothill Canal1 PMP_56_2 40 149 532 48.1 Foothill Canal1 PMP_59_1 30 126 647 66.9 Canal1 Hydro59 PMP_59_2 30 122 615 62.9 Canal1 Hydro59 PMP_59_3 15 125 286 53.9 Canal1 Hydro59 PMP_99_1 40 174 624 68.7 Foothill Canal2 PMP_99_2 40 172 541 65.5 Foothill Canal2 PMP_101_1 30 76 992 51.3 Canal2 Hydro101 PMP_101_2 30 73 1004 49.9 Canal2 Hydro101 PMP_108_1(1) 100 163 1,278 63.1 Foothill Canal3 PMP_108_2(1) 100 158 1,207 59.2 Foothill Canal3 PMP_125_1 40 97 1,187 66.3 Plant 125 Foothill PMP_125_2 20 92 595 63.4 Plant 125 Foothill PMP_127_1 75 168 1,285 66.7 Lower Intermediate PMP_127_2 75 167 1,361 70.9 Lower Intermediate PMP_129_1(1) 100 175 1,647 75.9 Upper Foothill PMP_129_2(1) 100 172 1,636 71.6 Upper Foothill PMP_129_3(1) 100 175 1,648 71.6 Upper Foothill PMP_129_4(1) 100 304 980 68.9 Upper Canal3 PMP_129_5(1) 100 302 971 68 Upper Canal3 PMP_130_1 60 136 847 52.4 Lower Intermediate PMP_130_2 60 135 807 44.8 Lower Intermediate PMP_131_1 40 156 442 56.8 Foothill Canal3 PMP_131_2 25 157 345 52.1 Foothill Canal3 PMP_131_3 30 165 358 54.9 Foothill Canal3 Existing Water System 2.14 Booster Pump Motor Horsepower(2) (hp) Total Head(2) (ft) Capacity(2) (gpm) Overall Efficiency(2) (Percent) Suction Zone(2) Discharge Zone(2) PMP_134_1 75 172 905 72.2 Upper Foothill PMP_134_2 75 153 860 58.6 Upper Foothill PMP_134_3 75 159 869 59.9 Upper Foothill PMP_134_4 60 182 896 68.3 Upper Foothill PMP_134_5 60 201 833 73.2 Upper Foothill PMP_134_6 75 325 627 64.6 Upper Canal3 PMP_134_7 75 329 660 65.9 Upper Canal3 PMP_134_8 100 321 853 76.4 Upper Canal3 PMP_137_1 40 212 530 67.8 Canal3 Mountain PMP_137_2 40 208 523 66.2 Canal3 Mountain PMP_140_1(1) 60 217 777 70.1 Canal3 Mountain PMP_140_2(1) 60 219 800 71.8 Canal3 Mountain PMP_142_1 50 168 977 67.3 Plant 142 Foothill PMP_142_2 30 164 498 61.8 Plant 142 Foothill PMP_142_3 50 189 820 60.6 Plant 142 Canal3 PMP_143_1 250 199 2950 66.1 Wells Upper PMP_143_2 250 198 2280 67.6 Wells Upper PMP_149_1 15 119 173 53.6 Mountain Hydro149 PMP_149_2 15 113 215 60.3 Mountain Hydro149 PMP_149_3 100 106 1,786 48.8 Mountain Hydro149 PMP_149_4 100 135 1,690 59.8 Mountain Hydro149 Total Average Capacity 70,433 (1) Current pump test data were not available from SCE. Well characteristics were used from the 2014 WSMP and confirmed with EVWD. (2) Source: SCE Pump Tests, schematics, and other data provided by EVWD Existing Conditions of Booster Pumping Stations Discussion with EVWD staff of existing conditions of booster pumping stations identified the following information:  Currently, approximately four pumps in the system are replaced each year.  Pumps 149_1 and 149_2 were being replaced at the time of this WSMPU.  EVWD is concerned that pumps 56 and 59 may be too small to serve the planned 500 room hotel and casino in the Canal 1 Zone. The pumps themselves appear to have enough capacity (3 MGD) to serve both the existing and future demands in this zone. However, it is recommended that EVWD conduct a study prior to connection to the Casino expansion considering resizing of the plant 59 hydropneumatics tank, changes Existing Water System 2.15 in tank settings, sizing of tank at plant 134, and possible changes to the pumps at plant 56 and 59 to evaluate the most efficient way to serve this new development.  Pump 59 pumps into hydro zone and cycles excessively (i.e. hydro turns on and off constantly) and may need to be upsized. The pump appears to have sufficient capacity to serve both existing and future demand, but it is recommended the study described in the previous bullet be initiated in order to serve the new demand as efficiently as possible.  There are 5 VFDs on permeate pumps at Plant 134, and 2 VFDs at Plant 143.  Booster site 127 has a pressure reducing valve to bring water from the intermediate zone to the lower zone, the set point of which is based on Plant 34 level.  Several of the pumps have efficiency issues and may need to be resized. SCE does efficiency tests every other year which were used to populate Table 2-4:. 2.4 WATER STORAGE RESERVOIRS There are 18 storage reservoirs, not including forebays, in EVWD’s system with capacities ranging from 0.07 million gallons (MG) to 4 MG. EVWD has a total reservoir storage capacity of approximately 27.6 MG. The hydraulic grade elevation in each pressure zone is controlled by the high-water elevation of the reservoirs that feed the zones by gravity. Table 2-5 shows the details of EVWD’s storage reservoirs. Table 2-6 summarizes the reservoir capacities by their respective pressure zones. Their locations are shown on Figure 2-1 and are schematically represented on Figure 2-2. Table 2-5: Storage Reservoir Characteristics Reservoir ID Pressure Zone Volume (MG) Bottom Elevation (ft) High Water Elevation (ft) Height (ft) Dia. (ft) Year Built. Plant 33_1 Intermediate 1.0 1,330 1,365 34.75 70.0 1956 Plant 33_2 Intermediate 2.5 1,330 1,365 34.75 110.0 1957 Plant 33_3 Intermediate 1.0 1,330 1,365 34.75 70.0 1957 Plant 34 Lower 1.0 1,210 1,248 38.0 66.5 1957 Plant 37 Upper 4.0 1,520 1,560 40.0 132.0 2003 Plant 39_1 Intermediate 0.9 1,343 1,366 23.2 80.0 1961 Plant 39_2 Intermediate 1.4 1,343 1,366 23.2 100.0 1983 Plant 56 Foothill 0.5 1,666 1,690 23.5 60.0 1968 Plant 59 Canal 1 0.7 1,800 1,820 20.0 78.0 1986 Plant 99 Foothill 0.5 1,666 1,690 23.5 60.0 1968 Plant 101 Canal 2 1.4 1,820 1,852 31.5 85.0 1978 Plant 108 Foothill 2.0 1,662 1,710 47.5 84.0 1980 Existing Water System 2.16 Plant 129_1 Upper 3.0 1,530 1,560 30.0 130.0 1993 Plant 129_2 Upper 3.0 1,530 1,560 30.0 130.0 1993 Plant 134 Upper 3.0 1,520 1,560 40.0 113.0 1996 Plant 137 Canal 3 0.07 1,816 1,838 22.0 23.5 1960 Plant 140 Canal 3 2.0 1,820 1,850 30.0 106.0 1990 Plant 148 Mountain 0.75 2,015 2,044 29.0 65.0 2002 Total Capacity 27.6 Table 2-6: Storage Reservoir Capacity by Pressure Zone Pressure Zone Storage Capacity (MG) Percent Total (percent) Lower 1.00 3.6 Intermediate 6.80 24.6 Upper 12.90 46.7 Foothill 3.00 10.9 Canal 1 0.70 2.5 Canal 2 1.40 5.1 Canal 3 2.07 7.5 Mountain 0.75 2.7 Total Storage Capacity 27.60 100.0 2.4.1 Existing Conditions of Reservoirs Based on conversations with EVWD operational staff, the following information on the current condition of EVWD reservoirs were identified:  Corrosion has been observed at Plant 140 and the reservoir needs rehabilitation. Plant 140 cannot be taken down for maintenance without a temporary system as Plant 137 volume is too small to support the Canal 3 zone. Temporary storage may be needed to address the corrosion.  Plant 134 is a concrete tank, and Plant 37 is buried concrete tank, all others are steel tanks.  Plant 59 needs rehabilitation, but it cannot be taken out of service without a temporary system.  Plant 34 and Plant 101 need to be rehabilitated or replaced.  Tanks are inspected by divers every 4-6 years to assess if recoating is required. Hydro tanks need to be inspected but can’t be taken out of service. Some are undersized, and some may have corrosion problems. Existing Water System 2.17  Tank water age is contributing to higher THM concentrations in the distribution system. Most tanks are single inlet and outlet, contributing to water age issues. Adding mixers or a second inlet should be considered to reduce nitrification.  Canal Zones tanks do not float well together due to hydraulic constriction in the pipelines connecting them.  Plant 99 and 101 tanks do not float together due to hydraulic constriction in the pipelines connecting them. This constriction is addressed in the transmission piping recommendations in Section 8.  Due to inadequate storage in Foothill zone, Plant 108 water levels will drop no matter how much is pumped into it, especially during summer months.  Plant 134 has a seismic valve while other tanks are not seismically retrofitted. This area was connected to a residential zone and is now serving many additional customers on the San Manuel Reservation, the tank is undersized to serve the additional consumers. It is recommended that seismic retrofitting be performed on all District tanks. 2.5 PRESSURE REDUCING STATIONS There are fourteen pressure reducing stations (PRSs) in EVWD’s water service area. Most pressure reducing stations have two or more pressure reducing valves (PRVs), a main valve, and one or more supplemental valve(s). The main valve, the smallest in diameter, is normally open and has the highest-pressure setting. Water continuously flows through this main valve with a downstream pressure equal to the main valve’s pressure setting. Supplemental valves are larger in diameter and have a slightly lower pressure setting than the main valve. If the downstream water pressure drops (due to large water demand) below the supplemental valve’s pressure setting, the supplemental valve will open to provide additional water. In addition, pressure relief valves are generally present at each PRS. These valves protect the water system from abnormally high pressure should the regulating valves fail to work properly. In the model, it is assumed that there is a 2 psi difference between the smaller and larger valve settings. Table 2-7: summarizes the details of all pressure regulating stations as modeled. The pressure regulating stations are shown in Figure 2-1 and are schematically represented on Figure 2-2. Existing Water System 2.18 Table 2-7: Pressure Regulation Stations Station No. From Zone To Zone Pressure Setting (psi) Ground Elevation (ft) 33 Upper Intermediate SCADA Controlled 1,333 40 Upper Intermediate SCADA Controlled 1,200 108 Canal Foothill SCADA Controlled 1,665 127 Intermediate Lower SCADA Controlled 1,109 301 Highland Upper Intermediate 92 1,214 302 Foothill Baldridge Canyon 70 1,405 305 Foothill Upper 57 1,424 306 Highland Upper Intermediate 98 1,205 308 Foothill Mercedes 105 1,426 309 Intermediate Lower 62 1,108 311 Intermediate Lower 48 1,134 324 Foothill Upper 56 1,429 325 Upper Highland Upper 88 1,237 326 Upper Highland Upper 82 1,261 Source: EVWD Staff 2.6 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM NETWORK EVWD’s distribution system network consists of approximately 301 miles of pipeline, which range in diameter from 1- inch to 36-inches. The distribution of pipeline diameters is summarized in Table 2-8:, and mapped in Figure 2-3. It should be noted that the numbers presented in Table 2-8 are based on the water main pipelines, and do not include service laterals. Approximately 60 percent of the distribution system network consists of pipes with diameters between 6 inches and 8 inches, while 19 percent of the distribution system network is comprised of pipes that are 12 inches in diameter. Existing Water System 2.19 Table 2-8: Summary of Pipeline by Diameter Diameter Total Length (ft) Total Length (miles) Percentage of Total Length (percent) Unknown 412 0.1 0.0 2" 7,033 1.3 0.4 3" 9,114 1.7 0.6 4" 64,559 12.2 4.1 5" 121 0.0 0.0 427,878 81.0 26.9 8" 532,723 100.9 33.5 10" 33,822 6.4 2.1 12" 298,342 56.5 18.8 14" 11,363 2.2 0.7 16" 110,598 20.9 7.0 18" 521 0.1 0.0 20" 43,154 8.2 2.7 21" 7,478 1.4 0.5 24" 10,191 1.9 0.6 30" 16,439 3.1 1.0 36" 15,793 3.0 1.0 Total 1,589,541 301.0 100 Source: EVWD’s GIS database All pipes in EVWD’s water distribution system network were installed between year 1929 and year 2017. As shown in Table 2-9:, approximately 16 percent of the pipelines have an unknown installation date, while approximately 18 percent of the pipelines have been installed in the partial decade of 2010-2017. Existing Water System 2.20 Table 2-9: Summary of Pipeline by Installation Period Installation Period Length (ft) Length (miles) Total (percent) 1920-1939 464 0.1 0.0 1940-1949 5,097 1.0 0.3 1950-1959 95,238 18.0 6.0 1960-1969 236,890 44.9 14.9 1970-1979 145,359 27.5 9.1 1980-1989 201,684 38.2 12.7 1990-1999 193,700 36.7 12.2 2000-2009 191,554 36.3 12.1 2010-2017 277,141 52.5 17.4 Unknown 242,415 45.9 15.3 Total 1,589,541 301.0 100 Source: EVWD’s GIS data Table 2-10: summarizes the total lengths of pipelines by material type, and Figure 2-4 maps the pipeline material distribution. The most common pipe material is asbestos cement, which makes up approximately 47 percent of the total pipeline length in the system. Existing Water System 2.21 Table 2-10: Summary of Pipeline by Material Type Material Total Length (ft) Total Length (miles) Total Length (percent) Steel Cement Lined & Coated (CL&C) 138,286 26.2 8.7 Cement Lined & Wrapped (CL&W) 48,537 9.2 3.1 Cement Mortar Lined (CML) 1,663 0.3 0.1 Dipped & Wrapped (D&W) 66,270 12.6 4.2 Double Dipped & Wrapped (DD&W) 91,125 17.3 5.7 Steel (Unspecified) 47,986 9.1 3.0 Subtotal Steel Pipes 393,868 75 24.8 Iron Cast Iron Pipe 3,298 0.6 0.2 Ductile Iron 421,238 79.8 26.5 Galvanized Iron Pipe 359 0.1 0.0 Subtotal Iron Pipes 424,895 80 26.7 Other Materials Asbestos Cement (AC) 752,089 142.4 47.3 Copper 107 0.0 0.0 Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) 15,185 2.9 1.0 Reinforced Concrete (RCP) 897 0.2 0.1 Subtotal Other Material Pipes 768,278 146 48.3 Unknown 2,500 0.5 0.2 Grand Total 1,589,541 301 100 Source: EVWD’s GIS data Note: Subtotals and grand total may not add up due to rounding. Existing Water System 2.26 2.7 OTHER FACILITIES AND ASSETS In addition to the facilities described above, EVWD’s system includes many other smaller facilities, including valves, fire hydrants, customer meters, a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system to control and monitor system facilities, and a GIS database. 2.7.1 Valves EVWD’s distribution system network includes approximately 8,225 valves, which range in diameter from 1-inch to 36- inches. The distribution of valve diameters is summarized in Table 2-11. About 67 percent of the distribution system valves consist of valves that are 6 or 8 inches in diameter. Table 2-11: Summary of Valves by Diameter Diameter (inches) Total Number of Valves Percentage of Total Valves 1 311 3.8 1-1/2 1 0.0 2 194 2.4 3 13 0.2 4 703 8.5 4-1/2 6 0.1 5-1/2 1 0.0 6 3,680 44.7 6-5/8 50 0.6 8 1,799 21.9 8-5/8 38 0.5 10 55 0.7 10-3/4 22 0.3 12 750 9.1 12-3/4 73 0.9 14 19 0.2 14-1/2 1 0.0 16 239 2.9 18 3 0.0 20 59 0.7 21-25/32 6 0.1 24 14 0.2 30 9 0.1 36 13 0.2 Unknown 166 2.0 Total 8,225 100 Source: EVWD GIS data Existing Water System 2.27 The 8,225 valves within EVWD’s water distribution system can be categorized broadly into eight types. The distribution of valve type within EVWD’s system is shown in Table 2-12. Approximately 89 percent of the distribution system valves are gate valves. Table 2-12: Summary of Valves by Type Type Total Number of Valves Percentage of Total Valves (percent) Air Vacuum 418 5.1 Butterfly 391 4.8 Check Valve 3 0.0 Control 2 0.0 Curb Stop 4 0.0 Double Detector Check 73 0.9 Gate 7,295 88.7 Pressure Reducing Device 4 0.0 Unknown 35 0.4 Total 8,225 100 Source: EVWD GIS data 2.7.2 Fire Hydrants EVWD’s distribution system network consists of approximately 3,025 fire hydrants, which range in diameter from 1- inch to 12-inches. The distribution of fire hydrant diameters is summarized in Table 2-13. Roughly 95 percent of the distribution system hydrants have diameters that are either 4 inches or 6 inches. Table 2-13: Summary of Fire Hydrants by Diameter Diameter (inches) Total Number of Hydrants Percentage of Total Hydrants 1” 7 0.2 2” 76 2.5 4” 483 16.0 6” 2,400 79.3 12” 3 0.1 Unknown 56 1.9 Total 3,025 100 Source: EVWD’s GIS data Of the 3,025 fire hydrants in EVWD’s water distribution system, there are a total of five hydrant types. The distribution of hydrant types is shown in Table 2-14. Approximately 76 percent of the distribution system fire hydrants are pumper hydrants. Existing Water System 2.28 Table 2-14: Summary of Fire Hydrants by Type Type Total Number of Hydrants Percentage of Total Hydrants Standard 183 6.0 Pumper 2,303 76.1 Blow off 456 15.1 Flush out 35 1.2 Standard (2 Outlets) 45 1.5 Unknown 3 0.1 Total 3,025 100 Source: EVWD’s GIS data 2.7.3 Customer Meters EVWD’s distribution system network includes approximately 22,907 customer meters, which range in diameter from 5/8-inches to 10-inches. The distribution of meter diameters is summarized in Table 2-15. Table 2-15: Summary of Meters by Diameter Diameter Total Number of Meters Percentage of Total Meters ହ ଼ " 86 0.4 ଷ ସ " 19,597 85.6 1" 1,918 8.4 1 ଵ ଶ " 252 1.1 2" 279 1.2 3" 85 0.4 4" 65 0.3 6" 109 0.5 8" 58 0.3 10" 9 0.0 Unknown 449 2.0 Total 22,907 100 Source: EVWD’s GIS data Of the 22,907 meters in EVWD’s water distribution system, there are five unique meter types: domestic, irrigation, commercial, fire, and multi-family. The distribution of meter types is summarized in Table 2-16. Approximately 90 percent of the distribution system meters are domestic meters. Existing Water System 2.29 Table 2-16: Summary of Meters by Type Type Total Number of Hydrants Percentage of Total Hydrants Commercial 799 3.5 Domestic 20,377 89.0 Fire 347 1.5 Irrigation 1,343 5.9 Multi-Family 30 0.1 Unknown 11 0.0 Total 22,907 100 Source: EVWD’s GIS data 2.7.4 Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System (SCADA) EVWD has a SCADA system that allows it to remotely monitor and control system facilities within the water system. The majority of the SCADA system is approximately 25 years old. SCADA functionality includes monitoring tank levels, well status, booster pump status, treatment units, and meter readings and sounding alarms at some of the facilities. EVWD also has the capability to turn pumps and wells on and off remotely. The current SCADA system has been evaluated and upgraded under a previous Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). 2.7.5 Geographic Information System (GIS) EVWD maintains geographic information system (GIS) data of its existing facilities. Data are stored as feature classes within a geodatabase, with separate feature classes for facility types. GIS data include laterals, mains, manholes, meters, treatment plants, pumps, pressure regulating stations, and valves. Data for each facility include installation year, material, diameter, etc. as appropriate. Data are updated as old facilities are repaired or replaced and as new facilities are installed. GIS data were used to compile a majority of the information presented in this chapter. Land Use, Population, and Water Demands 3.1 3.0 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND WATER DEMANDS This section describes the existing water demands, population projections, and projected future water demands for EVWD’s service area. The future water demands are calculated based on population through year 2040 and EVWD’s will-serve list for future developments. System build out demands are calculated based on land use information obtained from General Plans and water duty factors developed for various land use types. This WSMPU evaluates the existing system under two future scenarios, the near-term scenario and the ultimate build-out (planning year 2040) scenario. 3.1 HISTORICAL WATER PRODUCTION AND PEAKING FACTORS The historical water production for 2009 through 2017 along with the maximum month production (MMP) is presented in Table 3-1. This information was summarized from EVWD’s yearly Groundwater Recordation Worksheets, which also lists the amount of surface water produced from Plant 134. The water production numbers represent all water produced from groundwater and surface water sources in the district. The average annual water production in this period is approximately 19,786 acre-feet per year (AFY) with the highest production occurring in 2009 (22,723 AFY) and the lowest production in 2016 (17,164 AFY). The maximum month production (MMP) peaking factors range from 1.31 to 1.48. Table 3-1: Historical Water Production Calendar Year Annual Total (AF) Average Month (AF) Maximum Month (AF) MMP Peaking Factor 2009 22,723 1,894 2,702 1.43 2010 20,663 1,722 2,546 1.48 20111 18,375 1,531 2,253 1.47 2012 21,917 1,826 2,648 1.45 2013 21,493 1,791 2,514 1.40 2014 19,920 1,660 2,277 1.37 2015 17,165 1,430 1,879 1.31 2016 17,164 1,430 2,024 1.42 2017 18,655 1,555 2,173 1.40 Average 19,786 1,649 2,335 1.41 Maximum 22,723 1,894 2,702 1.48 1 Note: 2011 Production Data from EVWD did not include surface water production. Average day demand (ADD) is a baseline for computing peaking factors. ADD is computed by dividing the total water produced during the year by 365 days. The max monthly demand (MMD) is a daily amount of water computed by dividing the sum of water produced during the maximum month by the number of days in that month. For example, in 2009, the most water was produced during the month of July (2,702 AF) which has 31 days, for a daily MMD of 2,702 AF / 31 = 87.2 AF = 28.4 MGD. The ADD and MMD from 2009 to 2017 are summarized in Table 3-2. Land Use, Population, and Water Demands 3.2 Table 3-2: Historical Daily Demands Year ADD (mgd) MMD (mgd) Peaking Factor 2009 20.29 28.40 1.40 2010 18.45 26.76 1.45 2011 16.40 23.68 1.44 2012 19.57 27.84 1.42 2013 19.19 26.43 1.38 2014 17.78 23.93 1.35 2015 15.32 19.75 1.29 2016 15.32 21.27 1.39 2017 16.65 22.84 1.37 Average 17.66 24.54 1.39 Maximum 20.29 28.40 1.45 The maximum day demand (MDD), peaking factor and peak hour demand (PHD) factors are used to scale up the ADD to estimate MDD and PHD, metrics that are used to evaluate the updated hydraulic model. The MDD and PHD are the demand conditions used to size water distribution system pipelines and facilities. Daily production data from 2017 was analyzed to establish a conservative MDD/ADD peaking factor of 1.8, which is consistent with the 2014 WSMP. The PHD factor of 2.72 was established using the MDD factor of 1.8 and applying the diurnal curve for the system. Creation of the diurnal curve is discussed in Section 4.1.11. Table 3-3 summarizes the established demands and peaking factors used for this WSMPU. 20.29 MGD was selected for the existing system water demand based on the 10 years of historical data analyzed for the system and represents the maximum yearly demand from that period. This value is higher than the demand EVWD saw in the previous 3 years but reflects the upward trend in demand over the last few years of record and is a conservative estimate of existing demands that accounts for changes in efficiency and infill growth that may happen between 2017 and when the recommendations from the WSMPU can be implemented. Table 3-3: Demands and Peaking Factors ADD (mgd) MDD/ADD Peaking Factor MDD (mgd) PHD Peaking Factor 20.29 1.8 36.52 2.72 3.2 HISTORICAL WATER CONSUMPTION Annual historical water consumption information from 2008 to 2017 was provided by EVWD through their billing records. Consumption is defined as all water uses tracked by EVWD and is typically smaller than the water produced. The difference between the historical consumption and production is water losses in the system, from pipes, valves, and other infrastructure, that is lost during transmission of water to customers. Historical water production was used to establish multi-year trends in water consumption, as well as to establish patterns in use over a single year (i.e. Land Use, Population, and Water Demands 3.3 MMD, MDD, ADD, and PHD). This information was used in conjunction with the 2014 WSMP, as well as supporting planning documents such as the 2015 San Bernardino Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan (SBVRUWMP). Annual historical water consumption is summarized in Table 3-4, and plotted on Figure 3-1. Table 3-4: Historical Water Consumption Year Water Consumed (acre-feet) 20091 21,100 20101 18,600 20112 18,567 20122 19,562 20132 19,586 20143 19,006 20153 15,459 20163 15,743 20173 16,692 1 2014 WSMP, confirmed with billing data 2 2015 San Bernardino Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan 3 EVWD Metered Consumption Data Figure 3-1: Historical Water Consumption As shown in Figure 3-1, the total average water consumption was greatest in 2009, at 21,100 AF. After 2009, water consumption declined through 2011. Factors contributing to this decrease in demand include the economic downturn 21100 18600 18567 19562 19586 19,006 15,459 15,743 16,692 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Co n s u m p t i o n   ( A c r e ‐ f e e t ) Year Land Use, Population, and Water Demands 3.4 associated with the collapse of the housing market. Due to drought conditions and the conservation efforts of EVWD, water consumption also declined from 2012 to a low in 2015 of 15,459 AF. Consumption increased in 2016 and 2017; water demand in 2017 was 16,692 AF. 2017 was the last full year of data available for this WSMPU. The difference in volumes between water produced and water consumed is defined as “unaccounted-for water”, or the water losses within a system. Unaccounted-for water may be attributed to accounting and metering errors, leaking pipes, unmetered water use, water theft or any other event causing water to be withdrawn and not measured or accounted for in EVWD billing data. Other sources of unaccounted for water include reservoir overflows or leakage as well as hydrant flushing and fire-fighting. Average percentages of unaccounted-for water per year are shown in Table 3-5. Table 3-5: Unaccounted-for Water Year Water  Produced  (AF)  Water  Consumed  (AF)  Unaccounted‐ For Water  (percent)  2009 22,723 21,100 7.1 2010 20,663 18,600 10.0 2012 21,917 19,562 10.7 2013 21,493 19,586 8.9 2014 19,920 19,006 4.6 2015 17,165 15,459 9.9 2016 17,164 15,743 8.3 2017 18,655 16,692 10.5 Average 18,879 17,297 8.8 Note: 2011 Omitted due to lack of surface water production data. 3.3 POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR EVWD’S SERVICE AREA Population within EVWD’s service area is utilized to analyze existing and future water needs. The population data were obtained from the following sources:  United States Census Bureau  Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)  California Department of Finance Details regarding the existing and future population for EVWD’s service area are presented in the following paragraphs. 3.3.1 Baseline Population – Year 2010 to 2017 EVWD’s service area population was analyzed for the years 2010 through 2017. The population from 2017 is used as the baseline population for the service area, while the historical record is considered to capture patterns in population growth over the last eight years. The 2017 population serves as the basis for the existing scenario, as well as for future water demand projections and the evaluation of water conservation effectiveness. Population within the service Land Use, Population, and Water Demands 3.5 area was estimated by analyzing the baseline population established in the 2014 WSMP and applying estimated growth rates for 2010 to 2017 from California Department of Finance, as well as from information from the SBVRUWMP and Census data. Population estimates were calculated for each census block located within the service area. For census blocks partially located within the service area, the estimated population was adjusted based on the percentage of the census block area located within the service area. Census blocks were also visually inspected against aerial imagery to validate the adjustments made for blocks that are partially located within the service area. The 2017 population estimate within the service area is 103,249 people. Table 3-6 summarized the calculated population and growth from 2010 through 2017. Table 3-6: Population from 2010 through 2017 Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Population 97,001 97,893 98,786 99,678 100,571 101,464 102,356 103,249 Baseline 97,001 97,001 97,001 97,001 97,001 97,001 97,001 97,001 Growth 0 893 1,785 2,678 3,570 4,463 5,355 6,248 3.3.2 Population Projections for EVWD’s Service Area Population forecasts developed by SCAG form the basis of the projections developed by Stantec for EVWD’s service area. Stantec developed population projections for the following four scenarios:  Scenario 1: SCAG Projections through year 2040. Assumes growth in the service area effective 2018.  Scenario 2: SCAG Projections from 2021 through 2040. No growth in the service area until 2020.  Scenario 3: SCAG Projections through year 2040. All major developments are constructed between year 2018 and year 2025.  Scenario 4: SCAG Projections through year 2040. All major developments are constructed between year 2025 and year 2040. Scenarios 3 and 4 assume that growth associated with the major developments are not included in the SCAG projections. Figure 3-2 shows the population projections for these scenarios. Land Use, Population, and Water Demands 3.6 Figure 3-2: Population Projections for EVWD’s Service Area The projections range from approximately 123,000 people by year 2040 in Scenarios 1 and 2 to approximately 142,000 people by year 2040 in Scenarios 3 and 4. Scenarios 1 and 2 represent a 19 percent increase in population from the year 2017. Scenarios 3 and 4 represent a 37 percent increase from the year 2017. Populations for Scenarios 3 and 4 are different from Scenarios 1 and 2 as they include major proposed developments (summarized in Table 3-7). It cannot be verified whether populations for these developments are captured in the population projections developed by SCAG, which is why they have been added to scenarios 3 and 4 as a conservative estimate. Table 3-7 shows major developments anticipated for the EVWD service area. The projected populations from these developments at build-out were taken from supporting information provided by EVWD. For this WSMPU, known developments reflected in the EVWD will serve list are assumed to have been built in the near-term scenario. In order to compare demands and population of the near-term scenario with other planning documents, it was assumed that the near-term demands could happen as soon as 2025. However, near-term demands may occur later than 2025 and as such no specific year is attributed to the near-term scenario in the WSMPU. Figure 3-2 shows the population change if the will serve developments were to occur by 2025. 90,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000 140,000 150,000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Scenario 1 ‐ SCAG Projections Scenario 2 ‐ No Growth to 2020; SCAG Scenario 3 ‐ Development 2020‐2025; SCAG Scenario 4 ‐ Development 2025‐2040 Land Use, Population, and Water Demands 3.7 Table 3-7: Major Future Developments Development  Population Projections at Build‐out  Percent of Total  Harmony 11,986 62% Greenspot Village and Marketplace 2,640 14% Highland Hills Ranch 2,145 11% Sunland Communities 1,980 10% Arnott Ranch 248 1% Centerstone 195 1% Total 19,194 100 A comparison between the Scenario 3 population estimates developed by Stantec and the population estimates presented in the 2015 SBVRUWMP are summarized in Table 3-8. The final population projections for the EVWD service area are slightly less than those presented in the SBVRUWMP, which is reflective of the growth that has occurred since that document was created and the updated data available to Stantec for this analysis. Table 3-8: Population Estimate Comparisons 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Stantec Estimate – Scenario 3 105,855 129,391 133,567 137,742 141,918 2015 SBVRUWMP Estimate 124,062 130,391 135,690 141,205 146,945 3.3.3 Existing Per Capita Water Use Average per capita water use has generally decreased in the service area over the past 10 years, due to the economic downturn, drought conditions, and EVWD conservation programs. The average water production from 2013 to 2017 divided by the 2017 baseline estimated population yields an average demand of 163 gallons per capita per day. To avoid using a year with lower than normal water production, a variety of years and sources were analyzed. According to the 2015 SBVRUWMP, EVWD has met both its 2015 and 2020 compliance targets. Even if per capita demand increases from the recent low totals, it is expected to stay within the 2020 compliance target of 175 gallons per capita per day. This information is summarized Table 3-9. Land Use, Population, and Water Demands 3.8 Table 3-9: Per Capita Demand Criteria Gallons Per Capita per Day 2004-2008 (5-year UWMP baseline)1 209 2015 UWMP compliance target1 195 2015 actual demand1 145 2020 UWMP compliance target1 175 2009-2012 average demand2 197 2013-2017 average demand 163 Estimated Existing and Future Per Capita Demand 175 1 Source: 2015 SBVRUWMP 2 Source: 2014 WSMP 3.3.4 Future Per Capita Water Use due to Conservation Update Per capita water use for future customers presented in the 2014 WSMP was reviewed and updated for this WSMPU. In the previous analysis, per capita water use for residential customers was estimated to be 130 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) while per capita water use for commercial, industrial, and institutional customers was estimated to be 42 gpcd, for a total per capita use of 172 gpcd. Table 3-10 presents the updated estimates per capita water use for residential customers was estimated to be 129 gpcd while per capita water use for commercial, industrial, and institutional customers was estimated to be 40 gpcd, for a total per capita use of 168 gpcd. The future per capita water use of 168 gpcd represents 3 percent increase from the 2013-2017 average demand per capita water use of 163 gpcd, and 15% conservation from the 2009-2012 average demand per capita water usage. It also represents a 2.3% decrease in the anticipated demand for future customers and reflects an overall gain in conservation for EVWD since the 2014 WSMP. The estimates for future per capita use are consistent with Method 2 for calculating Compliance Water Use Targets published in the guidebook for the 2015 UWMP. Land Use, Population, and Water Demands 3.9 Table 3-10: Future Per Capita Use for EVWD Service Area No. Parameter Value Per Capita Water Use for Residential Customers A Average Lot Size for Single Family Residences for EVWD’s Service Area 10,000 square feet B Assumed Average Irrigated Area 50% C Estimated Irrigated Area (A x B) 5,000 square feet D ETo (based on California Irrigation Management Information System data) 55.6 inches E Plant Factor (based on the Highland Landscape ordinance for a mix of turf and low to moderate water using plants) 0.7 F Estimated Water Use (C x D x E x 0.62 x 7.48/0.8) 94,015 gallons G Persons per dwelling unit (Estimates for the City of Highland) 3.48 H Per Capita Water Use (F/365/G) 74 gpcd I Indoor Water Use (Target Indoor Water Use per Method 2 of the UWMP) 55 gpcd J Total Residential Water Use (H+I) 129 gpcd Per Capita Water Use for Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Customers K 2009-2012 Average CII Water Use 4,532,540 gpd L 2010 or Baseline Population 103,249 M CII Water Use (K/L) 43.9 gpcd N 10 percent savings on CII Water Use (0.1 x M) (per Method 2 of the UWMP) 4.39 gpcd O Total Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Water Use (M - N) 40 gpcd P Per Capita Water Use for Future Customers 168 gpcd 3.4 DEMAND PROJECTIONS FOR EVWD’S SERVICE AREA (POPULATION METHODOLOGY) Future water requirements for EVWD’s service area are estimated as the product of the population estimates, and the per capita water use discussed earlier in this section. Per capita water use for existing and future customers is assumed to be 175 gpcd as a conservative estimate, based on the analysis in Table 3-10 and conversations with EVWD staff. Demands based on population for EVWD’s service area are presented in Figure 3-3. Land Use, Population, and Water Demands 3.10 Figure 3-3: Water Demand Projections for EVWD’s Service Area (Population-based) Demands for Scenarios 3 and 4 differ from Scenarios 1 and 2 as they include the proposed developments summarized in Table 3-11 and assume these developments happen prior to 2025. After discussion with EVWD staff, the demand projections shown in Table 3-11 were used to project demand for will serve developments assumed to occur in the near-term scenario, while the land-use based method presented in the following subsection was used to project overall demand in the buildout scenario.. 17,000 19,000 21,000 23,000 25,000 27,000 29,000 31,000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 De m a n d   i n   A c r e ‐ F e e t Scenario 1 ‐ SCAG Projections Scenario 2 ‐ No Growth to 2020; SCAG Scenario 3 ‐ Development 2020‐2025; SCAG Scenario 4 ‐ Development 2025‐2040 Land Use, Population, and Water Demands 3.11 Table 3-11: Demand Estimates for Proposed Developments Development Demand (AFY) Harmony 3,168 San Manuel Hotel Casino Expansion 1,049 Greenspot Village and Marketplace 405 Highland Hills Ranch 310 Sunland communities 286 Arnott 36 Centerstone 28 Total 5,284 3.5 WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS – LAND USE METHODOLOGY Existing and future production requirements for EVWD’s service area were estimated based on development projections, land use classifications, and water duty factors. A water duty factor is the average water use of a given land use type (in gallons per day per acre). Establishing water duty factors for EVWD’s service area requires consumption data within the system, locations of water meters, and existing and future land use designations. The development of water duty factors using GIS (Geographic Information System) software is presented in the following paragraphs. 3.5.1 Assigning Average Demand and Land Use Types Water consumption data and the spatial location of water meters in the system was used for establishing existing water duty factors. By analyzing EVWD’s geocoded GIS water meter information, a link between the spatial location of the meters and the water consumption billing data was established. Water meters for which billing data exists were located by matching the billing addresses to existing geo-located meters. The largest remaining consumptive meters were manually located. A three-year average (2015-2017) demand was developed for these meters, and any meter that was inactive for both of the final months of 2017 was assumed to be inactive. Existing Land Use and General Plan Land Use shapefiles were obtained from the SCAG website. Based on their spatial locations within the service area, a land use type was assigned for each meter and current land use designations were assigned to all parcels within EVWD’s service area. The resulting current land use is shown in shown in Figure 3-4. The General Plan Land Use was used to establish a future land use designation for all parcels, as shown in Figure 3-5. Table 3-12 tabulates the existing and future land use classifications within the service area. Land Use, Population, and Water Demands 3.12 Table 3-12: Land Use Classifications and Acreage Land Use Current Area (Acres) % of Total Future Planned Area (Acres) % of Total Agricultural 536 3% 0 0% Commercial 481 3% 990 6% Industrial 154 1% 163 1% Multi-Family Residential 618 4% 1,543 9% Open Land 1,558 9% 1,031 6% Parks 212 1% 173 1% Public 825 5% 749 4% Single-Family Residential 5,004 30% 8,136 48% Vacant 7,490 44% 4,093 24% Total (MGD) 16,878 100% 16,878 100% Land Use, Population, and Water Demands 3.17 3.5.2 Water Duty Factors After designating land use types for every parcel, the meters with consumption data were overlaid on the parcels to associate consumption with the land use types and the acreage of each parcel. Due to irregularities in digitization, there are locations where meters do not directly overlap with parcels. While these meters are carefully reviewed and some of these meters are attributed to the correct parcel, some of these meters are also omitted from the analysis in order to not skew the water duty factors with erroneous data. Parcels removed from the analysis are not thought to have a significant effect as these are generalized factors to be applied to the system as whole. Since water duty factors are only calculated for those parcels that have an overlying meter, the omission of a few meters and parcels has negligible impact on the water duty factors. A water duty factor for each land use type is calculated by dividing the three-year average demand for each meter overlying a parcel (from 2015-2017) in gallons per day (gpd) by the area (in acres) of the parcel it serves. These values are then averaged by land use type and rounded to get a generalized value. Aerial photography is reviewed to ensure that vacant parcels are omitted, and to verify land use for larger parcels. Table 3-13 presents the water duty factors for the different land use types based on consumption. The product of the water duty factor expressed in gpd per acre and the corresponding area of the parcel in acres represents the total demand for EVWD’s service area. Table 3-13: Calculated Water Duty Factors 3-year total consumption 2015 through 2017 (acre feet) Current land use (acres) 2015-2017 factor(1) (gpd/acre) Agricultural 7,183 536 1,000 Commercial 969,571 481 2,000 Industrial 101,631 154 800 Multi-Family Residential 2,105,543 618 3,500 Open Land 158,604 1,558 1,000 Parks 411,592 212 3,000 Public 1,216,046 825 3,000 Single-Family Residential 9,521,113 5,004 2,000 Vacant 167,481 7,490 0 (1) Water duty factors are been rounded to nearest hundred Since single-family residential land use covers over 50 percent of EVWD’s service area, refinements to the estimated water duty factor for that land use types were warranted in the 2014 WSMP. To estimate a water duty factor for single-family residential parcels that is representative of existing conditions, a sampling method was employed. Groups of parcels representing single-family houses were selected across 15 different locations spread throughout the EVWD service area. Water duty factors were then estimated for each group. The water duty factor for the residential land use type is the average water duty factor across all groups sampled. Table 3-14 shows the resulting single-family residential water duty factor from the sampling methodology. This updated water duty factor for single Land Use, Population, and Water Demands 3.18 family residential, along with the factors presented in Table 3-13 were used as a starting off point for assigning demands in the model, and were subsequently adjusted based on calibration results. Table 3-14: Adjusted Water Duty Factor for Single Family Residential Land Use Land Use Water Duty Factor based on Sampling (gallons per day per acre) Adjusted Single-Family Residential 2,700 Total Existing Demand 24,700 Acre-Ft 3.5.3 Build-out Water Demand Projections – Land Use Methodology Using the water duty factors described previously in this section, build out water demand projections are estimated based on General Plan Land Use designations obtained from San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG). Build out demands for parcels that are currently occupied are estimated using the existing duty factor estimated for the land use types. This analysis yielded a 2040 demand of 27.69 MGD, which was significantly higher than the total calculated based on population. Given the more detailed methodology of projecting demand through land use and considering the projections from the 2014 WSMP and the trends in the historical data, it was determined to use the value of 27.69 MGD for the 2040 scenario in the model. 3.6 MODELED DEMANDS 3.6.1 Near-Term Planning Scenario The near-term planning horizon accounts for the specific growth in the system based on the will serve list and developments such as the Casino expansion and the Harmony Development. For this scenario, the demand from the specific developments was assigned to the model based on provided information. For developments that didn’t have a demand calculated, demand was estimated by using average persons per household data from the US Census, and the 175 gpcd compliance target from the RUWMP. The specific developments from the will serve list accounted for an additional ADD of 5.05 MGD, which was added to the existing demand of 20.29 MGD for a total near-term demand of 25.34 MGD. 3.6.2 Build-out Planning Scenario Build-out (2040) demand for the model was analyzed by looking at both population and land use projections. Population estimates were taken from SANBAG information and US Census data. The 2040 population was estimated to be 122,802 in 2040. A per capita usage of 175 gpcd was then applied to this population estimate which yielded a total demand of 21.49 MGD. The 175 gpcd value was based on the RUWMP compliance target for the District and agrees with the value used in the 2014 WSMP. Based on historical data for the District, the current per capita usage averaged 163 gpcd over the last 3 years, however the 175 gpcd accounts for changes in efficiency that may occur in the future and is reflective of a realistic long-term goal for per capita usage as presented in the SBVRUWMP Land Use, Population, and Water Demands 3.19 Results for the population and land-use base methods for projecting future demand are presented in Table 3-15. This table presents demands in million gallons per day, and presents final demands used for the hydraulic model. Hydraulic model demands account for the demands calculated by both the population and land-use based methodologies, as well as accounting for non-revenue water and specific demands for major developments. Near- term projections for demand exceed the projections for 2025 shown on Table 3-15 as it was assumed major will serve developments would be built prior to the near-term planning year, although the full growth associated with these developments may happen later. For the purposes of comparison, 2025 was used to assess the projections of the near-term scenario, but the near-term demand is dependent upon the progression of development and not connected to a specific year. Build-out growth is consistent with the land use-based methodology. Table 3-15: Demand Projection Comparisons (MGD) Demand Source  2018  2020  2025  2040  2015 SBVRUWMP Subtotal  ‐  22.24  23.37  26.34  Population based demand (using UWMP compliance  target for per capita usage)  18.07  18.45  19.33  21.49  Land Use Based  18.58  19.41  21.48  27.69  Model Scenarios  Existing    Near‐Term  Build‐out  Demand in Model (ADD)  20.29   ‐  25.34  27.69  Demand in Model (MDD)  36.52    45.62  49.84  3.7 RECOMMENDATIONS The effects of the recession on future growth were significant, and the future economic conditions for the service area cannot fully be anticipated. While economic factors may slow growth in the short-term, it is likely that growth will resume and steadily continue within the service area during the planning horizons of this WSMPU. This is also indicated by the resumption in development activity within EVWD’s service area with proposed developments such as the Harmony Development. To be conservative for the purposes of planning, it is recommended the most aggressive growth projection for year 2040 (Scenarios 3) be utilized for the purposes of sizing infrastructure to serve future growth and was used to develop the build-out demand projections for this WSMPU. Infrastructure recommendations contingent upon a major development or based upon these growth assumptions should be reevaluated before construction to confirm the necessity of the project and the accuracy of the demand projections against field data. Land Use, Population, and Water Demands 3.20 (This Page Intentionally Left Blank) Hydraulic Model Development and Calibration 4.1 4.0 HYDRAULIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND CALIBRATION This section describes the processes utilized to update and calibrate the hydraulic model of EVWD’s water system. The existing model was updated to include changes in EVWD’s geographical information system (GIS), ground elevations for new elements, the allocation of water demands, and modifications to represent current operational controls. This section concludes with a discussion of the model calibration process which is performed to verify the model results with field measurements. Model calibration was performed in two phases: steady-state (SS) and extended period simulation (EPS) calibration. In preparation for the steady-state calibration, 10 hydrant test locations were identified throughout the system and plotted on a map. This along with guidance on the fire hydrant testing procedures, equipment list, and data collection form was presented to EVWD to perform the hydrant testing. The calibrated model will be used to evaluate the existing system under existing demand conditions and future demand conditions. 4.1 HYDRAULIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT EVWD has an existing hydraulic model of the water system that was developed in 2014 as part of the 2014 WSMP using Innovyze’s InfoWater software, which is based on ESRI’s ArcGIS platform. The existing system model was updated by identifying new or abandoned elements as compared to the latest ArcGIS geodatabase provided by EVWD. Pipes, along with their connection junctions, identified as new, with a major alignment change, or hydraulically significant were included as part of the model update. The updated hydraulic model contains pipelines as discussed above and facilities (booster pumps, storage tanks, wells, and pressure reducing valves) currently in the ArcGIS geodatabase provided by EVWD. The model was also updated to reflect the current system SCADA operation logic and settings for all facilities (booster pumps, storage tanks, wells, and pressure reducing valves) as provided by EVWD. Existing water system facilities are shown in Figure 4-1. 4.1.1 Data Collection Data used for the development of the hydraulic model is obtained from a variety of sources. Key information includes:  GIS geodatabase of all water mains, fittings, valves, fire hydrants, laterals, and water facilities  Hydraulic water system schematic  Pump curves and performance tests for wells and booster pumps  Pump controls and settings of pressure regulating valves  Water production records (2015-2017)  Customer usage records (2015-2017)  Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) data  General Plan and land-use information  Ground elevation contour lines  Street centerline data  Aerial photography coverage  Dimensions for new storage reservoirs Hydraulic Model Development and Calibration 4.2 4.1.2 Pipelines Pipelines in the existing hydraulic model were compared with the corresponding elements in the wMain pipeline feature class—pipes that are new, abandoned, had significant alignment change, or are hydraulically significant were identified. The hydraulic model was updated accordingly by importing new pipes and removing abandoned ones. Since EVWD does not maintain a feature class for facility piping (internal pipes associated with facilities), pipes for any new facilities were drawn manually to establish connectivity of these facilities with the system. Model attributes for pipelines include the pipe ID, pipeline length, diameter, material, roughness, and pressure zone. The pipe roughness remained unchanged from the 2014 WSMP, which was based on the age and material, as shown in Table 4-1. Pipelines color-coded by diameter and material are shown on Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3, respectively. Table 4-1: Pipe Roughness Material Hazen Williams C-Factor  Asbestos Cement 130 Cement Mortar Line Steel 125 Cast Iron 64 Dipped and Wrapped Steel 100 Ductile Iron 130 Copper 125 PVC 140 Steel 135 Unknown 100 ³±T PW ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")")") ") ") ") ") ") ")$+ $+ $+ $+ ") ") ")") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")") ") ") ") ") ") ")") #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* P125 P142 P129 P37 P140P131 P11 P127 P147 P146 P143 P108 P33 P24 P25 P101 P134 P59 P39 P34 P40 P99 P151 P141 P9 P149 P28 P132 P148 P137 P56 P130 6th St Highland Ave Greenspot Rd Church St Orange St Sterling Ave Palm Ave Baseline St Marshall Blvd ¬«210 ¬«330 ¬«210 Canal Upper Lower Intermediate Foothill Foothill Mountain Highland Upper 59 Hydro 34 Hydro 149 Hydro Mercedes Baldridge Cyn 101 Hydro Mountain Figure 4-1 Existing Water System Facilitiesº0 0.5 10.25 Miles Date:Nov 28, 2018 Legend #*PRV Station ")Booster Station $+Reservoir ")Well ³±T PW WTP Pipeline by Pressure ZoneLowerIntermediateUpper Highland UpperFoothillCanalMountain Service Area Boundaryfreeway Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VFIPS 0405 FeetDocument: C:\Projects\Box Sync\zdrive\Projects\Stantec ³±T PW ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")")") ") ") ") ") ") ")$+ $+ $+ $+ ") ") ")") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")") ") ") ") ") ") ")") #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* P125 P142 P129 P37 P140P131 P11 P127 P147 P146 P143 P108 P33 P24 P25 P101 P134 P59 P39 P34 P40 P99 P151 P141 P9 P149 P28 P132 P148 P137 P56 P130 6th St Highland Ave Greenspot Rd Church St Orange St Sterling Ave Palm Ave Baseline St Marshall Blvd ¬«210 ¬«330 ¬«210 Canal Upper Lower Intermediate Foothill Foothill Mountain Highland Upper 59 Hydro 34 Hydro 149 Hydro Mercedes Baldridge Cyn 101 Hydro Mountain Figure 4-2 Pipelines by Diameterº0 0.5 10.25 Miles Date:Nov 28, 2018 Legend #*PRV Station ")Booster Station $+Reservoir ")Well ³±T PW WTP Pipeline by Diameter< 4 inch (165)4 - 7 inch (4,786)8 - 13 inch (8,620) 14 - 18 inch (1,183)20 - 24 inch (438)> 24 inch (153) Service Area Boundaryfreeway Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VFIPS 0405 FeetDocument: C:\Projects\Box Sync\zdrive\Projects\Stantec ³±T PW ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")")") ") ") ") ") ") ")$+ $+ $+ $+ ") ") ")") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")") ") ") ") ") ") ")") #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* P125 P142 P129 P37 P140P131 P11 P127 P147 P146 P143 P108 P33 P24 P25 P101 P134 P59 P39 P34 P40 P99 P151 P141 P9 P149 P28 P132 P148 P137 P56 P130 6th St Highland Ave Greenspot Rd Church St Orange St Sterling Ave Palm Ave Baseline St Marshall Blvd ¬«210 ¬«330 ¬«210 Canal Upper Lower Intermediate Foothill Foothill Mountain Highland Upper 59 Hydro 34 Hydro 149 Hydro Mercedes Baldridge Cyn 101 Hydro Mountain Figure 4-3 Pipelines by Materialº0 0.5 10.25 Miles Date:Nov 28, 2018 Legend #*PRV Station ")Booster Station $+Reservoir ")Well ³±T PW WTP Pipeline by MaterialACP (6,891)CIP (25)CL&C (1,288)CL&W (317) CML (102)COP (81)D&W (507)DD&W (551)DIP (4,510) PVC (201)STL (679)UNK (78)ABS (1); CLB (7); DI (1); GIP (4); TRANS (2) (15)Service Area Boundaryfreeway Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VFIPS 0405 FeetDocument: C:\Projects\Box Sync\zdrive\Projects\Stantec Hydraulic Model Development and Calibration 4.9 4.1.3 Valves and Junctions Junctions are defined as the intersections of two or more pipelines, at the location where any pipeline changes diameter or material and represents fittings such as bends, crosses, tees, reducers, caps, etc. Fittings, as provided in the wFitting feature class, that split pipe were modeled as junctions. Fire hydrants are modeled as junctions, and the fire flow demands are recorded in the model at these junctions. Attribute data populated for junctions include elevation, demand, and pressure zone. Valves are usually modeled as junctions, except for control valves and closed zone isolation valves, which are modeled as valves. Modeling pressure regulating valves (PRVs) requires two attributes, which are valve diameter and valve setting. During the model update, one pressure reducing station (PRS_317) was identified as abandoned, no new control valves were added, and control valve settings were updated as provided by EVWD. Zone isolation valves are modeled where the geodatabase indicates the presence of normally closed valves. The zone isolation valves are modeled as flow control valves with an initial status set to “CLOSED.” 4.1.4 Storage Tanks Storage tanks are modeled as cylindrical tanks. The legacy model contains all existing tanks and relevant attributes associated with each tank, such as elevation, diameter, tank height, and installation year. During the model update, only one new tank was added to the system, which is associated with Plant 143. For model calibration, the initial water level of each tank is set to the recorded water depth. The initial water level represents the water depth at the beginning of a hydraulic simulation (midnight). Hydropneumatic tanks are also included in the model. These were modeled as elevated tanks, with initial and maximum elevations inferred from SCADA pressure readings at the downstream side of each facility. Pressures experienced in a hydro-pneumatic zone can be satisfactorily simulated by using this modeling technique. 4.1.5 Pumps and Wells During the model update, new pumps at Plant 40 and Plant 134 were added to the system and Plant 12 was abandoned. Per EVWD, Well 9 was modeled as inactive in the existing scenario due to water quality issues but retained in the model so it can be turned on in later planning horizons. Some adjacent wells cannot be operated simultaneously, and include Wells 24A and 24B and Wells 146 and 146A. Several updated pump tests were performed since the 2014 WSMP, and the model was updated to reflect the new reported design points. Well pumps were modeled as flow control valves, which eliminates the impact of the seasonal variation of groundwater elevations on well-pumping rates. This will result in simulated flows from the wells that are closely matching observed flows and will help reduce inaccuracies in the model calibration 4.1.6 Surface Water Treatment Plant The surface water treatment facility at Plant 134 is modeled with its associated booster pumps and tank supplying the Upper, Foothill, and Canal zones. The treatment facility is modeled as a fixed head reservoir connected to a flow control valve ensuring a steady flow of water into the system. The flow from the plant is adjusted based on the Hydraulic Model Development and Calibration 4.10 average flow observed for each calibration period. Per EVWD, Plant 134 has a limited capacity due to process limitations and can only produce 5.2 MGD for an extended period instead of its rated capacity of 8.0 MGD. For the evaluations, it was assumed EVWD would use the full 8.0 MGD during MDD as this would only be for a few days at most. In addition, it was assumed that process issues would be addressed in the near-term. The model was updated to include the three pumps that were added to Plant 134 since the 2014 WSMP. 4.1.7 Facility Nomenclature The identification scheme used in the existing system model is based on the type of facility. Tanks begin with the letter “T”, booster pumps with the letter “PMP”, well pumps with the letters “WELL”, and pressure reducing stations with the letters “PRS”. This prefix is followed by the number of the plant and lastly a sequential number if there are multiple facilities at the site. For example, T_134 is the tank at Plant 134 while PMP_134_4 is pump number 4 at the same plant. This nomenclature makes model navigation easier for the user. 4.1.8 Facility Elevation Data Elevations for new facilities added to the model are derived from contour data (one-foot intervals) provided by EVWD. Using the contour data, ground elevations are extracted and assigned to all junctions and facilities (except for storage reservoirs) in the model. Elevations for storage reservoirs are assigned based on information contained in the drawings provided by EVWD. 4.1.9 Geocoding The process of geographically locating each billing record is known as geocoding. The billing data received from EVWD was spatially located in a GIS geodatabase, where each meter is located at the centroid of the parcel. The billing data and meter layer were used to allocate demand to the model which was then scaled up to account for the water losses in the system. Billing data at meter locations are allocated to “demand” junctions based on proximity. The updated system model is comprised of nearly 21,000 pipelines and 19,900 junctions. To incorporate the demands into the hydraulic model, demand nodes are selected that represent a small area of multiple accounts. Meters were associated with demand junctions based on pressure zone boundaries and proximity. Junctions associated with water facilities or transmission pipes were excluded from the demand allocation process, except when a lateral connects a water meter with such pipes. The wLateral layer was also used at pressure zone boundary locations or where there were parallel pipes to correctly assign billing data to the correct water main. Future demands are allocated geographically based on the location of vacant parcels in the existing land use GIS coverage. Information regarding the locations of proposed developments (described in Section 3) is considered. The total demand for each parcel (or group of parcels) is calculated based on the size of the parcel, future land use classification, and the water duty factor. Once the future demands are determined, the demands are assigned to the closest existing demand node in the hydraulic model. Hydraulic Model Development and Calibration 4.11 4.1.10 Diurnal Curve A diurnal curve represents the average hourly demand fluctuation in a water system. The diurnal curve for EVWD’s water distribution system is created by preparing an hourly mass balance using well production, imported water supplies, and change in storage, as recorded by the SCADA system. Where flows at wells and booster pump stations are not recorded in SCADA, pump ON/OFF times are used along with the flow rates obtained from the SCE test data to estimate the volume of water produced at the pumping facilities. Total system inflow data is based on the production data provided by EVWD. The calculated average day diurnal curve is presented on Figure 4-4 and represents the average hourly demand fluctuation in the system for a weekday during April 2018. The diurnal curve shows a unique demand pattern with low peaking factors during evening usage compared with those commonly seen in most systems that are predominantly residential. Individual diurnal curves for each pressure zone could not be created due to data limitations such as the lack of flow meters to record inter-zonal transfers at the pressure reducing stations and pumping stations. Also, shown on Figure 4-4 are the calibration day curve and the planning curve. The planning diurnal was developed by adjusting the average diurnal to have a peak multiplier of 1.53. Figure 4-4: System-Wide Diurnal Curves 4.2 MODEL CALIBRATION The hydraulic model with the existing system configuration and demands is calibrated to improve the accuracy of the model in predicting system performance, which then can be used to identify system deficiencies and recommend pipelines and facilities to address system deficiencies. Model calibration is the process of comparing model results with field results and adjusting model parameters where appropriate until the model results match corresponding field measurement data, within an acceptable difference. Hydraulic Model Development and Calibration 4.12 Typical adjustments include adjustments to system connectivity, operational controls, facility configurations, diurnal patterns, elevations, roughness coefficients for pipelines, etc. Several indicators are utilized to determine if the model accurately simulates field conditions: water levels in storage tanks, the run times for pumps, and static and residual pressures from the fire flow tests. This also acts as the “debugging” phase for the hydraulic model where any modeling discrepancies or data input errors are discovered and corrected. The hydraulic model is calibrated for two scenarios: Steady-State Calibration: Simulating fire hydrant flow tests to match field results (April 12th and 17th, 2018) 24-hour EPS Calibration: Modifying the model until it mimics the field operations on the day of calibration (April 19, 2018) 4.2.1 Steady-State Calibration The objective of the steady-state calibration is to validate the assumed pipeline roughness coefficients (C-factors) in the hydraulic model and make modifications, where appropriate. Fire hydrant tests are conducted at ten locations throughout the distribution system. Each test consists of opening a fire hydrant (indicated as flowing hydrant) and flowing the open hydrant until the residual pressure at an adjacent hydrant (indicated as the gauging hydrant) stabilizes at least 10 pounds per square inch (psi) lower than the static pressure recorded at the gauging hydrant. The flow measured at the hydrant is then input in the hydraulic model as an additional demand and the pressures at the node that represents the gauging hydrant location with and without this fire flow demand is then compared with the field results. The locations of the ten fire hydrant tests are shown on Figure 4-5. Table 4-2 presents information on hydrant location, hydrant number, static and residual pressure, and actual flow. The results of the fire flow test calibration are also summarized in Table 4-2. The static and residual pressures in the field are compared with the residual and static pressures predicted with the hydraulic model. As shown in Table 4-2, 80 percent of the model results for the steady-state calibration are within 5 psi of the observed field data as promulgated by AWWA’s Computer Modeling Manual M32. In order to achieve a better steady-state calibration, several assumptions about closed valves and partially closed valves were made. It should be noted that EVWD checked for closed valves nearby tests (1,2,4, and 8) but did not find any. It is recommended that EVWD investigate these areas further as the hydraulic model indicated unknown bottlenecks. The valve adjustments used for the steady-state calibration were not made permanent in the model. Two tests (Location Numbers 2 and 10) were outside the acceptable limits, where the number of system changes needed to achieve a good calibration match was deemed unrealistic. Common causes for discrepancies that can be further investigated by EVWD are provided below: Open or closed valves in the immediate vicinity of the fire flow area can significantly change the measured flow and pressures. Heavily tuberculated pipe can result in a significant reduction in fire flow capacity. Fire flow pitot tube measurements and/or calculations can have a manual error. While unlikely, this can happen from time to time. The most efficient way to confirm a fire flow result in question is to look up historical tests for that hydrant or re-run the test. Unknown boundary condition not accounted for in the model. For example, a pump station was on in the field but not in the model. Hydraulic Model Development and Calibration 4.13  GIS discrepancies such as connectivity issues or wrong diameter information can lead to a discrepancy between the model and field data. Hydraulic Model Development and Calibration 4.14 (This page intentionally left blank) ³±T PW ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")")") ") ") ") ") ") ")$+ $+ $+ $+ ") ") ")") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")") ") ") ") ") ") ")") #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ P125 P142 P129 P37 P140P131 P11 P127 P147 P146 P143 P108 P33 P24 P25 P101 P134 P59 P39 P34 P40 P99 P151 P141 P9 P149 P28 P132 P148 P137 P56 P130 6th St Highland Ave Greenspot Rd Church St Orange St Sterling Ave Palm Ave Baseline St Marshall Blvd ¬«210 ¬«330 ¬«210 Canal Upper Lower Intermediate Foothill Foothill Mountain Highland Upper 59 Hydro 34 Hydro 149 Hydro Mercedes Baldridge Cyn 101 Hydro Mountain 9 7 8 5 3 1 64 2 10 Figure 4-5 Hydrant Test Locationsº0 0.5 10.25 Miles Date:Nov 28, 2018 Legend ¬Hydrant Test Location #*PRV Station ")Booster Station $+Reservoir ")Well ³±T PW WTP Model PipeService Area Boundaryfreeway Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VFIPS 0405 FeetDocument: C:\Projects\Box Sync\zdrive\Projects\Stantec 4.17 Table 4-2: Steady-State Hydrant Test Calibration Results Test # Zone Test Date/Time Gauging hydrant ID Gauging hydrant address Measured Flow (gpm) d_Static (psi) (M-F) d_Res (psi) (M-F) d_Drop (psi) (M-F) Pressure Drop Comments 1 Lower 4/12/18 10:25 AM FH_M1_104 405 N Waterman Ave 654 -12 3 0 Closing pipe M1_1036 brings d-drop from -15 to 0 2 Lower 4/12/18 11:00 AM WV_J3_198 7101 Garden Dr 534 -4 15 -19 Closing pipes I3_1162 & K3_1028 made minimal difference 3 Intermediate 4/12/18 11:50 AM FH_G4_124 25446 Pumalo St 534 -1 4 -4 4 Intermediate 4/12/18 11:45 AM FH_M7_129 26607 6Th St 827 -4 18 -4 Clos ing pipe M7_1057 brings d-drop from -22 to -4 psi. 5 Upper 4/12/18 1:35 PM FH_D4_105 5391 Dogwood St 1013 -4 1 -5 drop vari ance is acceptable 6 Intermediate 4/17/18 11:10 AM FH_L12_148 On Clubview (Rear Of 29125) 860 -2 1 -3 7 Highland Upper 4/17/18 10:35 AM FIT_K8_600 27245 Baseline 924 6 8 -2 8 Foothill 4/17/18 10:00 AM FH_F7_100 3154 Cactus Cir 1307 6 11 0 Partially closed valve. Added Minor loss 40 to pipe F7_1031. d-drop changes from -5 to 0. 9 Foothill 4/17/18 8:55 AM FH_K13_145 7508 Lochinvar Ct 1067 -6 -1 -4 10 Canal 3 4/17/18 8:25 AM FH_L16_115 7852 Santa Paula St 844 -6 17 -23 Closing multiple pipes made minimal difference 4.18 (This Page Intentionally Left Blank) Hydraulic Model Development and Calibration 4.19 4.2.2 Extended Period Simulation A model calibrated for a steady-state scenario provides an instantaneous snapshot of a water distribution system. As steady-state modeling does not involve time-steps, the behavior of a water distribution system over time cannot be analyzed. An EPS model provides a better understanding of the operations of a water distribution system than a steady-state model. The goal of the EPS calibration is to estimate the accuracy with which the model simulates the field operations over a 24-hour period. The EPS calibration is performed for the 24-hour period between midnight April 18, 2018 and midnight April 19, 2018. The total water production on this day was calculated to be 11,567 gpm (16.66 MGD). This is equal to 82 percent of the Average Day Demand (ADD) for the 2015-2017 period. Calibration criteria are presented in Table 4-3. Model calibration was considered achieved when the difference between model output and field data were within the tolerances listed in the table. If these tolerances could not be “Excellent” or “Good”, an explanation is provided justifying why calibration could not be achieved. These explanations are included in the calibration summary table provided in Appendix C. Table 4-3: Calibration Criteria Measurement Calibration Criteria Excellent Good Fair Flow (gpm) <=10% 10%-20% >20% Pressure (psi) <=3 3-5 >5 Level (ft) <=3 3-6 >6 The model was calibrated against 50 total locations: flows recorded at 24 locations, pressures recorded at 7 locations, and water levels recorded at 19 locations. The model results are compared with the field data to determine if the model reflects the actual system operating conditions over a 24-hour period. A summary of the calibration results are presented in Table 4-4. Detailed results of modeled versus field data for the storage tanks, booster stations, and groundwater wells on calibration day are presented in Appendix C. Table 4-4: Summary of Calibration Results Measurement Count per Calibration Criteria Total Excellent Good Fair Flow (gpm) 20 3 1 24 Pressure (psi) 5 1 1 7 Level (ft) 17 2 0 19 Total 42 6 2 50 Hydraulic Model Development and Calibration 4.20 4.3 CALIBRATION CONCLUSIONS Consistent with the above-mentioned calibration criteria, it can be concluded that the results from the hydraulic model are satisfactory for the purposes of long-term planning, where 48 out of 50 (96 percent) measurements are within the calibration criteria. While this model can be used for long-term planning, it is important to understand the inherent errors in the model are due to the input data used to develop the model. While the inherent errors may not result in the output to exceed the calibration criteria, it is important to understand where discrepancies are most likely going to come from within the EVWD model. The following list gives common causes for discrepancies between the model and field data.  Temporal variation in demand between EPS and steady-state calibration days. The diurnal curve created for the calibration day is also used to determine demand at each hour for the fire flow tests. However, customer demands change from day to day and hour to hour resulting in different diurnal curves on different days.  Demand variance in different pressure zones. A lack of sufficient flow meter data for each pressure zone of the system results in the use of a generalized diurnal curve for the entire system. With individual pressure zone diurnal curves, a more accurate demand can be captured as some zones have little to no irrigation demand and others have high irrigation demand.  Inaccuracies in elevation data. Elevations used throughout the system for junctions, pump stations, and valves are based on ground elevation. A PRV setting is based on the pressure in the hydraulic model, however, it references the ground elevation in the model to calculate the downstream pressure. If the elevation value is off by even a few feet, the PRV flow can be significantly different than that in the field.  Inaccuracies in observed pump flow. Because most of the flows calculated for the pump stations are based on on/off times and flow rates from SCE tests, the actual flow from any of these devices could vary.  Inaccuracies in pump curves: EVWD has limited information on pump curves and therefore, the model creates a generic pump curve based on a single design point. This can significantly change the flow versus head relationship for each pump station resulting in flow or head variances from field conditions if the pump does not operate near its design point. The lack of SCADA data to record flows at pump stations compounds these inaccuracies.  Unknown groundwater level: Changes in depth to groundwater are not accounted for in the model. Groundwater levels vary throughout the year and from year to year. The groundwater elevations used throughout the system are based on the depth of water during the most recent SCE tests provided by EVWD. However, groundwater drawdown can vary significantly depending on the pumping rate and the static groundwater level conditions. These factors introduce additional inaccuracies in the model. In most cases recent groundwater data was not available, therefore well pumps were replaced by flow control valves in the model so observed flow could be simulated very closely. This helped reduce inaccuracies in the model calibration. Based on the findings from the steady-state and the EPS calibration, the following items are recommended to improve and refine the predictive capability of the model in the future:  Installation of flow meters at pump stations that lack flow monitoring.  Installation of pressure loggers to capture pressures at key points in the system such as the suction and discharge pressures at pump stations or critical points of the system. Pressures at these loggers should be relayed to EVWD’s SCADA system.  Using manufacturer’s pump curves adjusted for SCE test data rather than design point curves in the hydraulic model. Planning Criteria 5.1 5.0 PLANNING CRITERIA This section presents the design criteria and methodologies for analysis used to evaluate the existing distribution system and its facilities and to size future improvements. 5.1 DESIGN CRITERIA Design criteria are established for the evaluation of EVWD’s water system. Peaking factors for EVWD’s system are determined based on a review of daily production data for the years 2015 to 2017. The criteria are developed using the typical planning criteria used in the systems of similar water utilities, local codes, engineering judgment, and commonly accepted industry standards. The “industry standards” are typical ranges of values that are acceptable for the criteria in question and, therefore, are used more as a check to confirm that the values being developed are reasonable. The design criteria and analytical methodologies used to conduct this evaluation are presented in Table 5-1. Table 5-1: Water System Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria Value Units(1) Evaluation Demand Conditions(2) Peaking Factors MDD/ADD 1.8 - - PHD/ADD 2.75 - - System Pressure Maximum Pressure 125 psi ADD Minimum Pressure, normal conditions 40 psi PHD Minimum Pressure, with fire flow 20 psi MDD Minimum Pressure, transmission mains with no water services 5 psi PHD Maximum Pipeline Velocity Existing Pipelines (excluding fire hydrant runs) 6 fps MDD New Distributions Pipelines (≤ 12-inch in diameter) 4(4) fps MDD New Transmission Mains (>12-inch in diameter) 6(4) fps MDD Pump Station suction pipelines 4 fps MDD Distribution System Pipeline Life Expectancy 75 years n/a Minimum Diameter for New Pipelines 8 inches n/a Planning Criteria 5.2 Storage Volume Operational 25% of MDD MG MDD Fire Fighting Highest fire flow requirement per zone MG MDD Emergency 100% of MDD MG MDD Fire Flow Requirements (3) Single Family Residential 1,500 gpm 2 hours MDD Multi-Family Residential 2,500 gpm 2 hours MDD Commercial 3,000 gpm 3 hours MDD Public 3,000 gpm 3 hours MDD Industrial 4,000 gpm 4 hours MDD Agricultural 1,500 gpm 2 hours MDD Supply Capacity Entire System Provide MDD with largest single source out of service MDD By Pressure Zone Provide MDD with firm transfer/booster capacity between zones MDD Tank Replenishment Provide sufficient supply and transmission capacity to refill reservoirs to operating HGL in 24 hours. (i.e. replenish water used during MDD within 24 hours) MDD System Reliability Pipe Breaks Maintain service with a single transmission pipeline out of service MDD No Wells Maintain service for 7 days with all groundwater wells out of service MDD No Purchased Water Maintain service for 7 days with no imported water from Valley District (i.e. without SWP supplies to Plant 134) MDD Single Largest Source Out of Service per Pressure Zone Maintain service for 7 days with a single source out of service in each pressure zone MDD (1) psi = pounds per square inch, fps = feet per second, gpm = gallons per minute, MG = million gallons (2) PHD = peak hour demand, MDD = maximum day demand, ADD = average day demand (3) Based on 2014 WSMP and generally accepted planning standards (4) Maximum pipeline velocities up to 15 fps are acceptable for new pipelines under fire flow scenarios. Planning Criteria 5.3 5.1.1 System Pressures Minimum system pressures are evaluated under two different scenarios: PHD and MDD plus fire flow. The minimum pressure criterion for normal PHD conditions is 40 pounds per square inch (psi), while the minimum pressure criterion under MDD with fire flow conditions is 20 psi. The pressure analysis is limited to demand nodes because only locations with service connections need to meet such pressure requirements. Lower pressures are acceptable for junctions at water system facilities and on transmission mains that have no service demands; however, no pressure shall be less than 5 psi except for short lengths near reservoir inlets and outlets where the water main is on premises owned, leased or controlled by EVWD per state regulations. 5.1.2 Pipeline Velocities Pipeline velocities are evaluated for the future system for three different conditions as listed in Table 5-1. The maximum recommended velocity is 6 feet per second (fps) provided that the system pressures are sufficient. This criterion is intended to minimize head-loss, and subsequent added pumping costs. This criterion does not apply to flow in fire hydrant laterals. Under fire flow conditions, maximum pipeline velocities up to 15 fps are acceptable for new pipelines. New distributions system pipelines (≤12-inch in diameter) that are installed within the EVWD’s system should have a maximum design velocity of 4 fps under MDD conditions. The maximum velocity for transmission mains (> 12-inch in diameter), or suction pipelines at booster stations, should be 4-6 fps under MDD conditions based on trade-offs between pipeline cost and energy usage. The design velocity for transmission mains should consider energy requirements and pipeline length to determine the optimal diameter rather than use a fixed velocity criterion. 5.1.3 Storage The total storage recommended for a water system is evaluated in three parts: 1) storage for operational use 2) storage for firefighting and 3) storage for emergencies. These three components are determined by pressure zone in order to evaluate the ability of the water system to meet the storage criteria on both an inter-zone basis as well as a system-wide basis. These three storage components are discussed in more detail below. Operational Storage Operational storage is defined as the quantity of water that is required to balance daily fluctuations in demand and water production. It is necessary to coordinate the water source production rates and the available storage capacity in a water system to provide a continuous treated water supply to the system. Water systems are usually designed to supply the average demand on the maximum day and use reservoir storage to supply water for peak hour flows that typically occur in the mornings and late afternoons. This operational storage is replenished during off-peak hours that typically occur during nighttime when the demand is less. The American Water Works Association (AWWA) recommends that an operational supply volume ranging from one-quarter to one-third of the demand experienced during one maximum day. It is recommended that each pressure zone in the EVWD have an operational storage of at least 25 percent of MDD. Fire Flow Storage and Criteria The fire flow volume requirements for the various land use types are listed in Table 5-1. Fire flow storage is determined based on the highest fire flow requirement of each pressure zone multiplied by the corresponding Planning Criteria 5.4 duration. The fire flow duration is dependent on the fire flow criteria and is based on the Uniform Fire Code requirements. For flows less than or equal to 2,500 gpm, the fire flow storage volume is based on a duration of 2 hours. Similarly, for flows of 4,000 gpm and greater, a duration of 4 hours is used. For example, if the highest fire flow of a zone is 4,000 gpm for the duration of 4 hours, the recommended fire flow storage for that zone is 0.96 million gallons (MG). For analysis purposes, it is assumed that there will only be one fire per pressure zone at any one time. Emergency Storage The volume of water that is needed during an emergency is usually based on the estimated amount of time expected to elapse before the emergency is corrected. Possible emergencies include earthquakes, water contamination, several simultaneous fires, unplanned electrical outages or pipeline ruptures or other unplanned events. The occurrence and magnitude of emergencies are difficult to predict; therefore, the emergency storage criterion is based on experience and engineering judgment. Typically, emergency storage is set as a percentage of MDD. However, this percentage needs to be based on the water system layout and facilities. Water systems that have only one source of supply are more vulnerable in emergencies such as an earthquake or supply outage than water systems with a large number of other sources such as groundwater wells that are located throughout the distribution system. For the purposes of the WSMP, it is assumed that the emergency storage criterion for EVWD’s system is 100 percent of MDD. By setting emergency storage at 100 percent of MDD demand, it ensures that EVWD staff have at least 24 hours to address any emergency loss of supply during peak summer demand conditions, and, close to two days during average demand conditions. 5.1.4 Supply Capacity The water supply reliability is evaluated for the entire system and on a pressure zone basis using a spreadsheet model that calculates the water supply balance by pressure zone including zone transfers. The firm well capacity, all wells except for the largest well, is used as the available groundwater supply for most scenarios. The system demands should be met under MDD conditions with the largest well out of service. The hydraulic model is used to verify that 1) the system can move water between zones according to the transfers calculated using the spreadsheet model, 2) system pressure criteria are met, and 3) that all storage tanks replenish in a 24-hour period. 5.1.5 System Reliability Two evaluation criteria are established for the system reliability evaluation. EVWD should have adequate source water to:  Maintain service with a single transmission pipeline out of service during MDD conditions (3 individual locations are analyzed)  Maintain service for 7 days with no imported water during MDD conditions, where imported water is defined as water from State Water Project (SWP) purchased through San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (Valley District). The intent of these reliability criteria is to identify storage needs during emergencies to provide reliable service to customers. EVWD’s system is evaluated against these criteria and results are presented in Section 6. System Evaluation 6.1 6.0 SYSTEM EVALUATION This section describes the evaluation of the water distribution system under existing and future conditions, i.e. the planning horizons for near-term and build-out. Hydraulic deficiencies based on the evaluations are identified and infrastructure improvements are recommended to address the deficiencies. The following information is presented in this section for existing, near-term, and build-out demand conditions:  A description of the criteria used for the distribution system evaluation,  An evaluation of the distribution system for system pressures under different demand conditions,  An evaluation of the distribution system for system pressures under fire flow conditions,  An evaluation of the adequacy of the storage and pumping facilities within EVWD’s service area, and  Supply analyses, both system-wide and by pressure zone, and  Reliability analyses. The design criteria and analytical methodologies used to conduct this evaluation are presented in detail in Section 5 of this WSMP. Recommendations are made for each of these evaluations, which are combined in a summary of recommendations and proposed improvements at the end of this section. 6.1 EXISTING SYSTEM DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS The distribution system analysis consists of evaluations that are conducted for each planning horizon (Existing, near- term, and build-out). Improvements identified for each planning horizon are incorporated in the model for subsequent planning horizons. Hence, each improvement listed in this section is only included in one category and is summarized at the end of each planning horizon evaluation. This approach provides a limited amount of phasing, where further phasing and prioritization is discussed in Section 8. The EVWD hydraulic model is used to evaluate the system pressures for the following scenarios:  Meet Existing PHD while maintaining a minimum pressure of 40 pounds per square inch (psi) at all demand junctions associated with customer services  Meet Existing ADD while not exceeding a maximum pressure of 125 psi  Meet Existing MDD plus fire flow while maintaining a minimum pressure of 20 psi at all demand junctions 6.1.1 Minimum Pressure During Peak Hour Demand (PHD) For the first criterion, the model is run for 24 hours under MDD conditions. As described earlier in this section, the minimum pressure criterion under PHD conditions is 40 psi. This criterion does not apply to junctions on transmission mains or junctions at water facilities (such as reservoirs, wells, etc.) provided that the minimum pressure at such locations exceeds 5 psi (consistent with California). The evaluation is performed for over 6,700 demand junctions (out of approximately 20,800 junctions total). The results from this are shown on Figure 6-1. As shown on the figure, the hydraulic simulation identified 43 demand junctions with pressures below 40 psi. Low pressures at these 43 demand junctions varied between 6 and less than 40 psi. Inspection of the low-pressure areas reveals that all are a function of System Evaluation 6.2 ground elevation and not due to pipe capacity (high velocities and or high head losses). These areas are called out as Area 1, 2, and 3 on Figure 6-1. Model nodes in these areas have elevations that are very close to their pressure zone’s hydraulic grade established by tank level. These model nodes will still have low-pressure even with significantly reduced demands and reduced head loss between the supplying tank and low-pressure area. If warranted, these areas could be improved by moving pressure zone boundaries so low-pressure areas could be served from a higher HGL zone. Infrastructure is not needed to specifically address the 43 demand junctions below 40 psi under existing demands. It is recommended that EVWD monitor pressure in Areas 1, 2, and 3 specifically during higher demand conditions. EVWD can also investigate if pressure complaints have been received for these areas and cross-reference fire flow results to see if there are any critical customers that may need to be shifted to higher zone and/or upgraded pipe size. In addition to analyzing pressures, high-velocity pipelines are analyzed to find potential bottlenecks in the system. There are several pipelines that experience high velocities in the existing system, most of which are near facilities. None of these pipelines identified with higher velocities in the existing system prevent water delivery to current customers. However, one pipeline connecting the Plant 134 surface water treatment plant to the Foothill Zone limits the amount of water that can be transferred from the newly expanded plant. In addition, this 8-inch pipe experiences velocities close to 8 fps when Plant 134 boosters supply the Foothill Zone, and it was constructed in the 1960s. Given this pipe limits Plant 134 and the pipe age, it is recommended to replace this pipe with a 16-inch. Figure 6-2 shows the maximum velocities observed during the existing EPS MDD simulation. Note that pipes with velocities above 6 fps are colored purple with thick lines, and pipes above 8 fps are colored red with thick lines. Figure 6-2 shows the location of the bottleneck pipeline which is described as T-1 in Table 6-1. T-1 included on the existing system recommendations map on Figure 8-1. It has been noted by EVWD that this project has been completed and as such, the costs are not included in the summary of recommendations presented on Table 8-5. The T-1 pipeline project is summarized in Table 6-1. Table 6-1: Transmission Improvements – Existing Conditions Pipe ID Diameter (inches) Length (feet) Project Description T-1* 16 2,100 Along Highland Ave, from Plant 134 to Orchard Road * This project is complete ³±T PW ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")")") ") ") ") ") ") ")$+ $+ $+ $+ ") ") ")") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")") ") ") ") ") ") ")") #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! !! !!!! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !!!!!!! ! !!! !!!!!! ! !! ! !! !! !!! !! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! !! !! ! !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!!!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!!! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! !!!! ! !!!!!!!! !! !!!!!! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !!!!!!!! !!!!! !!! ! !!!! !! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !! !!!! !!! !!! !!! !!!! !!! !!! !!!!! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! !!! !!! ! ! !! ! !!!!!!!! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!!! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! P125 P142 P129 P37 P140P131 P11 P127 P147 P146 P143 P108 P33 P24 P25 P101 P134 P59 P39 P34 P40 P99 P151 P141 P9 P149 P28 P132 P148 P137 P56 P130 6th St Highland Ave Greenspot Rd Church St Orange St Sterling Ave Palm Ave Baseline St Marshall Blvd ¬«210 ¬«330 ¬«210 Upper Area 1Low pressure dueto ground elevation Area 2Low pressure dueto ground elevation Area 3Low pressure dueto ground elevation Canal Upper Lower Intermediate Foothill Foothill Mountain Highland Upper 59 Hydro 34 Hydro 149 Hydro Mercedes Baldridge Cyn 101 Hydro Figure 6-1 Existing SystemPressure Analysisº0 0.5 10.25 Miles Date:Sep 20, 2018 Legend Pressure !min pressure less than 30 psi !min pressure is 30 to 35 psi !min pressure is 35 to 40 psi !max pressure is more than 125 psi #*PRV Station ")Booster Station $+Reservoir ")Well ³±T PW WTP Model PipeService Area Boundaryfreeway Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VFIPS 0405 FeetDocument: C:\Projects\Box Sync\zdrive\Projects\Stantec ³±T PW ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")")") ") ") ") ") ") ")$+ $+ $+ $+ ") ") ")") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")") ") ") ") ") ") ")") #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* P125 P142 P129 P37 P140P131 P11 P127 P147 P146 P143 P108 P33 P24 P25 P101 P134 P59 P39 P34 P40 P99 P151 P141 P9 P149 P28 P132 P148 P137 P56 P130 6th St Highland Ave Greenspot Rd Church St Orange St Sterling Ave Palm Ave Baseline St Marshall Blvd ¬«210 ¬«330 ¬«210 T-1Canal Upper Lower Intermediate Foothill Foothill Mountain Highland Upper 59 Hydro 34 Hydro 149 Hydro Mercedes Baldridge Cyn 101 Hydro Mountain Figure 6-2 Existing SystemVelocity Analysisº0 0.5 10.25 Miles Date:Sep 20, 2018 Legend Maximum Velocity< 1 fps1-3 fps 3-6 fps6-8 fps> 8 fps #*PRV Station ")Booster Station $+Reservoir ")Well ³±T PW WTP Service Area Boundaryfreeway Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VFIPS 0405 FeetDocument: C:\Projects\Box Sync\zdrive\Projects\Stantec System Evaluation 6.7 6.1.2 Maximum Pressure During Average Daily Demand (ADD) The hydraulic model is also used to identify areas where the maximum pressure exceeds 125 psi. This evaluation is conducted under ADD conditions. There are 615 demand junctions or approximately three percent of the system where the system pressures exceed 125 psi. High pressures at these demand junctions vary between 125 psi and 170 psi. These high-pressure areas are depicted on Figure 6-1. High-pressures are mostly found in the lowest elevations of the pressure zones where static pressures increase due to lower ground elevations. If not properly designed for high pressures, there is an increased risk of pipe leaks or breaks. As mentioned in the 2014 WSMP, EVWD’s Operations staff expressed that these high pressures do not affect normal distribution system operations. In the 2014 WSMP, pipe leak records were reviewed and compared against the high- pressure areas identified and found no conclusive correlation between pipe leaks and high pressures in EVWD’s system. While these same high pressures exist today, EVWD has not indicated they are affecting operations, and therefore no pressure zone boundary shifting is recommended. It is assumed that individual customer pressure regulating valves are installed in this area to reduce pressures to 80 psi as required per the Uniform Plumbing Code. Future developments in this part of the system should also include the installation of pressure regulators at the meter connections. 6.1.3 Minimum Pressure with MDD plus Fire Flow The hydraulic model is also used to evaluate the impact of fire flows on the distribution system. For this analysis, an InfoWater design fire flow simulation is used per pressure zone, which simultaneously checks the available fire flow at each hydrant. Each hydrant simulation’s goal is to keep residual pressure at each demand junction within its pressure zone at or above 20 psi and meet the recommended fire flow. Recommended fire flows were used from the 2014 WSMP, which were assigned to each parcel based on the existing land-use category. Only new pipes added in the model update had new fire flow requirements assigned based on reviewing aerial imagery. The fire flow requirements for each land use type are listed in Table 6-2. Each of the 2,627 hydrants in the service area is correlated to a junction in the model that is designated as a hydrant. The hydrant junction is then assigned the highest fire flow demand for all parcels nearest to that junction. Using the MDD as the base system demand, the model then computes the residual pressure at the recommended fire flow for each hydrant junction. Hydrants that cannot supply MDD plus fire flow (within 10 percent) at a minimum pressure of 20 psi at all demand junctions within the pressure zone are identified as not meeting criteria. Hydrants that do not meet the fire flow criteria within 10 percent are shown on Figure 6-3. It is noted that hydrants not meeting criteria are a common situation as fire flow requirements and land use change over time and as such the criteria by which the hydrants are evaluated change over time. This analysis looks at hydrants on an individual basis, and firefighting typically makes use of multiple hydrants simultaneously, which may or may not be located on separate water lines. Because the model cannot evaluate all permutations of hydrants that may be used during a fire and the resultant flow and pressure available in these situations, fire hydrants are evaluated individually to assess each hydrant response to the fire flow demand. This analysis is also performed during MDD, or the most extreme demand condition defined in the model, to identify as many hydrants as possible that may benefit from improvements to the transmission system. This analysis is intended to be a guide for EVWD to help prioritize maintenance and improvement activity in the potable system, so that any infrastructure projects undertaken by EVWD can be coordinated with hydrant replacements and/or additional System Evaluation 6.8 pipe lines to provide higher fire flow and pressures. Coordination of these projects can allow EVWD to save costs, decrease disruption from construction activities, and help determine the impact of new development in the system compared to available fire flow. Table 6-2: Fire Flow Requirement Estimations Based on Land Use Land Use Type Fire Flow (gpm) Single Family Residential 1,500 Multi-Family Residential 2,500 Commercial 3,000 Public 3,000 Industrial 4,000 Agricultural 1,500 (This page intentionally left blank) ³±T PW ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")")") ") ") ") ") ") ")$+ $+ $+ $+ ") ") ")") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")") ") ") ") ") ") ")") #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* P125 P142 P129 P37 P140P131 P11 P127 P147 P146 P143 P108 P33 P24 P25 P101 P134 P59 P39 P34 P40 P99 P151 P141 P9 P149 P28 P132 P148 P137 P56 P130 6th St Highland Ave Greenspot Rd Church St Orange St Sterling Ave Palm Ave Baseline St Marshall Blvd ¬«210 ¬«330 ¬«210 Canal Upper Lower Intermediate Foothill Foothill Mountain Highland Upper 59 Hydro 34 Hydro 149 Hydro Mercedes Baldridge Cyn 101 Hydro Mountain Figure 6-3 º0 0.5 10.25 Miles Date:Nov 26, 2018 Legend 1500 gpm < 50% 50% - 75% 75% - 90% > 90% 2500 gpm < 50% 50% - 75% 75% - 90% > 90% 3000 gpm < 50% 50% - 75% 75% - 90% > 90% 4000 gpm < 50% 50% - 75% 75% - 90% > 90% #*PRV Station ")Booster Station $+Reservoir ")Well ³±T PW WTP Model PipeService Area Boundaryfreeway Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VFIPS 0405 FeetDocument: C:\Projects\Box Sync\zdrive\Projects\Stantec Existing SystemFire Flow AnalysisHydrants Not Meeting CriteriaPercent Fire Flow Available System Evaluation 6.11 The model simulation results show that the fire flow demands can be met at 84 percent of the hydrant junctions, while maintaining the minimum pressure criteria of 20 psi at all demand junctions within each pressure zone. A total of 426 hydrant junctions, approximately 16 percent of the existing system, did not meet the residual pressure criterion of 20 psi when the entire fire flow demand is supplied from one location as depicted on Figure 6-3. To identify areas that would benefit most from fire flow improvement projects, hydrants were prioritized by percent shortfall of the recommended flow. Areas with a cluster of hydrants that fell short of the recommended flow were grouped into ten priority fire flow areas. Recommendations were made for each of the ten areas to improve fire flow availability of each of the hydrants not meeting criteria within each of the ten areas. These recommendations are presented in Appendix D. 6.2 EXISTING SYSTEM STORAGE EVALUATION The existing distribution system contains 18 storage reservoirs with a total storage volume of 27.8 MG. The storage and emergency supply analyses are performed separately for each pressure zone. Storage criteria are discussed earlier in Section 5. The total recommended storage is a combination of three components: 1. Operational storage, 2. Fire flow storage, and 3. Emergency storage. The recommended storage is compared with the actual storage for the entire system and by individual pressure zone. A summary of the recommended and available storage volumes is presented in Table 6-3 by pressure zone. Any sub-zones supplied only by pressure reducing stations are assumed to be a part of the supplying zone for the storage analysis. For example, the Highland Upper Zone has several PRVs that are fed by the Upper Zone. Therefore, the demand in Highland Upper is included in Upper in Table 6-3. This table indicates that EVWD has an apparent net deficiency of approximately 22.5 MG in storage capacity for the existing system. However, this net deficiency does not consider the ability of EVWD to move water from other pressures zones and thus the final recommended storage for individual zones is considerably less than this net deficit. Construction of additional storage will provide additional capability to withstand power outages or other emergency supply interruptions. The storage analysis was refined to include supply from wells having standby power that would be available during local power failures. Available supply during a power failure is included when either a power transfer switch or backup generators are available on-site. The available groundwater supply during power failure provides 27.8 MGD of supply. A zone by zone comparison of available and recommended storage depicts deficits in the Lower, Foothill, Upper, and Mountain Zones if only storage is evaluated. Once available supply during a power failure is included, only Lower, Foothill, and Mountain have storage deficits. Since pressure reducing stations or PRVs allow transfer from higher zones to lower zones, it is recommended that storage improvements be constructed in higher elevation pressure zones to the extent possible as this will allow for use of the storage in lower zones without pumping. A detailed phasing plan for the storage improvements is presented in Section 8. The total recommended storage to meet existing system needs on a zone-by-zone basis, with consideration of transfer from other zones, is 5.5 MG. Note that the volumes specified below come from the deficits volume and System Evaluation 6.12 rounding to the nearest 0.25 MG. It is recommended to consider phasing and future growth when determining final tank volumes. Recommendations from the existing zone-by-zone system storage evaluation are summarized below, and are based upon the analysis presented in Table 6-3:  Construct 3.5 MG of additional storage in the Lower Zone  Construct 1.5 MG of additional storage in the Foothill Zone  Construct 0.5 MG of additional storage in the Mountain Zone It is noted that building storage in higher zones allows for more flexibility and benefits lower zones. 6.13 Table 6-3: Existing Water System Storage Capacity Evaluation Pressure Zone Demands Storage Required Storage Evaluation ADD (mgd) Peaking Factor MDD (mgd) Fire Flow (gpm) Duration (hrs) Fire Flow1 (MG) Operational2 (MG) Emergency3 (MG) Required (MG) Available (MG) Avail. Supply During Power Failure7 (MG) Surplus/ Deficit4 (MG) Recommended6 (MG) Lower 2.22 1.8 4.00 4,000 4 0.96 1.00 4.00 5.96 0.99 2.00 -2.97 3.50 Sub-zone Hydro34 0.01 1.8 0.03 3,000 3 0.54 0.01 0.03 0.57 0.00 0.00 -0.57 - Intermediate 4.87 1.8 8.77 4,000 4 0.96 2.19 8.77 11.93 6.80 10.00 4.88 - Upper 6.89 1.8 12.41 4,000 4 0.96 3.10 12.41 16.47 13.05 8.90 5.48 - Foothill 4.14 1.8 7.44 3,000 3 0.54 1.86 7.44 9.84 3.07 5.20 -1.57 1.50 Canal1 0.03 1.8 0.05 1,500 2 0.18 0.01 0.05 0.25 0.71 0.00 0.47 - Sub-zone Hydro59 0.04 1.8 0.07 1,500 2 0.18 0.02 0.07 0.27 0.00 0.00 -0.27 - Canal2 0.24 1.8 0.43 1,500 2 0.18 0.11 0.43 0.72 1.34 0.00 0.62 - Sub-zone Hydro101 0.02 1.8 0.04 1,500 2 0.18 0.01 0.04 0.23 0.00 0.00 -0.22 - Canal3 1.42 1.8 2.56 3,000 3 0.54 0.64 2.56 3.74 2.05 1.70 0.01 - Mountain 0.32 1.8 0.57 1,500 2 0.18 0.14 0.57 0.89 0.72 0.00 -0.17 0.50 Sub-zone Hydro149 0.08 1.8 0.15 1,500 2 0.18 0.04 0.15 0.36 0.00 0.00 -0.36 - Grand Total 20.29 N/A 36.52 N/A N/A 5.58 9.13 36.52 51.23 28.75 27.80 5.31 5.50 Notes: 1. Fire flow based on highest estimated requirement per zone 2. Operational Storage equals 0.25 times MDD 3. Emergency Storage equals 1.0 times MDD 4. Surplus is positive, and deficit is negative 5. Storage capacity recommended could be provided in the deficient zone or in higher pressure zones 6. Storage capacity recommendations are rounded to nearest 0.25 MG. 7. Available supply during power failure is based on well and WTP capacity with a transfer power switch or backup generators. 6.14 (This page intentionally left blank) 6.15 6.3 EXISTING SYSTEM SUPPLY ANALYSIS A discussion of the supply sources for EVWD’s existing system and their adequacy under existing demand conditions is presented. 6.3.1 Existing Supply Sources Currently, EVWD has two primary sources of water: a network of 15 active groundwater wells and one surface water treatment plant (Plant 134). The capacity of the 15 in-service wells equals 29.1 million gallons per day (MGD). Note that the available capacity is 3.8 MGD less than rated capacity. Available capacity is assumed more accurate as this is from the calibration which used recent SCADA data to calibrate the hydraulic model. It is common for well capacity to decrease over time due to decreasing well water levels and/or lower performance as the pump and motor age over time. Table 6-4: Water Supply Analysis – Existing Active Well Capacities Well # Rated Capacity(a)  (MGD) Available Capacity (b) (MGD) Operation Comments Well 11 1.7 1.7 Well 24 A 1.6 0.0 Wells at Plant 24 are not operated simultaneously due to high power cost considerations. Well 24 B 3.9 3.9 Well 25 1.3 1.3 Well 28 A 2.0 2.0 Well 39 2.2 2.2 Well 125 1.8 1.8 Well 132 3.1 3.1 Well 141 3.0 3.0 Well 142 1.5 1.5 Well 143 1.6 1.6 Well 146 0.7 0.0 Wells at Plant 146 are not operated simultaneously due to aquifer capacity in this area. Well 146 A 1.5 1.5 Well 147 2.4 2.4 Well 151 3.2 3.2 TOTAL 32.9 29.1 Notes: (a) Rated capacity is from available data such as model design point curve and SCE tests. (b) Available capacity is based on the calibrated model. As a non-plaintiff party to the 1969 Western Judgment (Western Municipal Water District of Riverside County et al. v. East San Bernardino County Water District, et al. Case No. 78426), EVWD can pump groundwater to meet the needs of their customers, even in excess of their production rights (14,217 AFY, 12.69 MG), and Valley District has the responsibility to replenish the groundwater basin. 6.16 EVWD holds water rights to Santa Ana River water through its stock ownership in the North Fork Mutual Water Company, which entitles EVWD to 4 MGD on average. Plant 134 treats water from the Santa Ana River using membrane microfiltration and supplements this supply with imported water from the State Water Project (SWP) purchased from Valley District. EVWD completed the expansion of Plant 134 from 4 MGD to 8 MGD in early 2013, which results in a combined system wide supply capacity of 37.1 MGD from both ground and surface water sources. 6.3.2 System-wide Supply Evaluation A water supply analysis was performed to determine whether available water sources are sufficient to meet MDD under normal and emergency operations. Under normal operating conditions in this scenario, the excess supply is 0.6 MGD. When the largest source, Plant 134, is out of service, there is a deficit supply capacity of 7.4 MGD. Results from the system-wide supply evaluation are presented in Table 6-5. Table 6-5: Water Supply Analysis – Existing Conditions Description Wells Plant 134 Total MDD Available Value (MGD) All Supply Sources 29.1 8.0 37.1 36.5 0.6 Largest Source Out of Service (Plant 134) 29.1 0.0 29.1 36.5 (7.4) 6.3.3 Pressure Zone Supply Analysis In addition to evaluating the system supply and demand as a whole, it is important that each zone has sufficient pumping capacity and supply to meet MDD in that zone while transferring excess supply to other pressure zones. In this analysis, pump capacity and available supply are used to calculate the pressure zone supply analysis. Three supply scenarios were evaluated for each pressure zone, where pumping capacity is the differentiating factor for each: 1. Total capacity analysis: Each pump station is assumed to run at its rated capacity as shown in Table 6-4. These capacities are based on duty pump capacity and not running the standby pump. 2. Firm capacity analysis: Each pump station has the largest pump removed from available supply per pressure zone. It is noted that the standby pump is available when a pump goes down, however the firm capacity analysis assumes a loss of functionality in the largest pump with no standby availability. 3. Largest single source out of service: Each pressure zone has the largest single source out of service. A “source” is a well or Plant 134 or the largest booster pump supplying that zone. Note that all scenarios limit pump station capacity if the supplying zone’s transfer capacity is less than the pump station capacity (either full or firm). Supply of each pressure zone is compared with the total demand for the pressure zone to calculate the available supply and is referred to as “Surplus/Deficit” in each pressure zone analysis. Total demand is MDD for the zone 6.17 plus any zone transfer flow from that zone through zone transfer valves, PRVs, or boosters. To consider redundancy, the supply analysis is evaluated with the largest single-water source out of service for the pressure zone. Transfer valve flow is only considered a demand if the downstream zone relies on this flow to meet the supply deficit. If demand is not met by either a well or WTP then it must be boosted or transferred through a valve from an adjacent zone. This is referred to as “Supply Needed from Boosters or Zone Transfer” in this analysis and is estimated in addition to the surplus/deficit. Knowing the supply needed from a booster or zone transfer is valuable information for EVWD when a supply source goes out of service, where major operational adjustments are needed to make up for the lost supply. Flow transferred between zones are a function of the surplus amount available to be transferred and booster pump capacity was not the limiting factor for these transfers. A summary table for the existing system supply analysis is shown in Table 6-6. The total capacity and firm capacity analysis produces the same surplus of 0.5 MGD. This means the system is limited by source capacity and there is generally ample booster capacity. The single largest source analysis indicates there are supply deficits for each pressure zone except for the Intermediate Zone. In summary, the system has limited redundancy if any water sources are off-line during MDD conditions. Table 6-6: Water Supply Analysis by Zone – Existing Conditions Zone MDD Total Demand (includes zone transfers) Total Capacity: Surplus/Deficit Firm Capacity: Surplus/Deficit Largest Single Source: Surplus/Deficit Value (MGD) Lower 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 (0.5) Intermediate 8.8 13.9 0.5 0.5 (4.8) Upper 12.4 12.4 0.0 0.0 (7.2) Foothill 7.4 8.2 0.0 0.0 (5.0) Canal1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Canal2 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Canal3 2.6 3.3 0.0 0.0 (3.3) Mountain 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total (MGD) 36.5 0.5 0.5 (20.8) The following sections provide the supply evaluation for all three scenarios listed above per pressure zone. Lower Zone Supply Analysis The Lower Zone is supplied directly by Well 11, Well 28A, and several PRV and transfer valves from the Intermediate Zone. The Lower Zone has the lowest hydraulic grade in the system. The Lower Zone does not have enough well capacity to satisfy the Lower Zone MDD of 4 MGD, therefore, additional supply is provided through the PRVs and transfer valves from the Intermediate Zone. It is assumed the flow at Plants 137 and 130 from the Lower Zone to the Intermediate Zone is zero. 6.18 Based on the analysis in Table 6-7, there is surplus available supply except for when the largest source out of service for that zone (Well 28A). If Well 28A is out of service, the Lower Zone would have a deficit of -0.51 MGD. This is due to the limiting supply available in the Intermediate Zone, where only 1.78 MGD would be available to transfer, however, the Lower Zone needs 2.29 MGD. Table 6-7: Lower Zone Existing Supply Analysis Source Zone Total Capacity (MGD) Firm Capacity (MGD) Capacity w/ Largest Source Out (MGD) Supply Wells Well 11 Lower 1.73 1.73 1.73 Well 28 A Lower 1.98 1.98 Subtotal, Wells 3.71 3.71 1.73 Zone Transfers (Incoming) PRVs & DV (1) Intermediate 0.31 0.31 1.78 Subtotal, Zone Transfers (Incoming) 0.31 0.31 1.78 Total Supply 4.02 4.02 3.51 Demands Zone Demand (MDD) 4.02 4.02 4.02 Zone Transfers (Outgoing) Booster 137/130 Intermediate 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subtotal, Zone Transfers (Outgoing) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Demand 4.02 4.02 4.02 Surplus/Deficit 0.00 0.00 -0.51 Supply Needed from Boosters or Zone Transfer 0.31 0.31 2.29 Notes: (1) DV = drop valve between zones, PRV = pressure reducing valve Intermediate Zone Supply Analysis The Intermediate Zone is supplied directly by seven wells, two booster stations, and several PRVs from the Highland Upper Zone. The Intermediate Zone has surplus capacity to meet its MDD of 8.77 MGD, therefore, additional supply is delivered to the Upper, Foothill, and Lower Zones. After these transfers, the Intermediate Zone has an excess of 0.53 MGD. Based on the analysis in Table 6-8 there is surplus available supply except for the largest source out of service for that zone (Well 24B) during which the excess supply to Upper and Foothill is assumed zero leaving zero surplus supply. 6.19 Table 6-8: Intermediate Zone Existing Supply Analysis Source Zone Total Capacity (MGD) Firm Capacity (MGD) Capacity w/ Largest Source Out (MGD) Supply Wells Well 9 Well Out of service due to water quality Well 24 A Well Well 24A and B do not run at the same time Well 24 B Well 3.89 3.89 Well 25 Well 1.30 1.30 1.30 Well 132 Well 3.14 3.14 3.14 Well 141 Well 2.95 2.95 2.95 Well 151  Well  3.17  3.17  3.17  Subtotal, Wells  14.44  14.44  10.55  Boosters (Incoming) Booster 130 - 1 Lower 1.30 1.30 Booster 130 - 2 Lower 0.92 0.92 0.92 Booster 127 - 1 Lower 1.91 1.91 1.91 Booster 127 - 2 Lower 1.92 1.92 Subtotal, Boosters (Incoming) 6.05 2.83 6.05 Subtotal, Boosters (supply limited) (1) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Supply 14.44 14.44 10.55 Demands Zone Demand (MDD) 8.77 8.77 8.77 Zone Transfers (Outgoing) Boosters Upper 4.78 4.78 4.78 Boosters Foothill 0.05 0.05 0.05 PRV/DV (2) Lower 0.31 0.31 1.78 Subtotal, Zone Transfers (Outgoing) 5.14 5.14 6.61 Total Demand 13.91 13.91 15.38 Surplus/Deficit 0.53 0.53 -4.83 Supply Needed from Boosters or Zone Transfer 0.00 0.00 4.83 Notes: (1) Surplus supply is not available from the Lower Zone (2) DV = drop valve between zones, PRV = pressure reducing valve 6.20 Upper Zone Supply Analysis The Upper Zone is supplied directly by five wells, four booster stations, and several PRVs from the Foothill Zone. Note that the Highland Upper Zone is assumed to be a part of the Upper Zone. The Upper Zone does not have surplus capacity to meet its MDD of 12.41 MGD and must rely on adjacent zones to meet the supply deficit. Based on the analysis in Table 6-9 there is zero surplus supply for the total capacity and firm capacity analysis. With the largest source out of service for that zone (Well 147) there is a deficit of -2.45 MGD. The booster station capacity is ample even with only firm capacity considered. The limiting factor is the source capacity from adjacent zones, where only 4.78 MGD is available for transfer. Table 6-9: Upper Zone Existing Supply Analysis Source Zone Total Capacity (MGD) Firm Capacity (MGD) Capacity w/ Largest Source Out (MGD) Supply Wells  Well 143 Well 1.56 1.56 1.56 Well 146(a) Well Well 146 and 146A do not run simultaneously. Well 146 A Well 1.47 1.47 1.47 Well 147 Well 2.45 2.45 Well 39 Well 2.16 2.16 2.16 Subtotal, Wells 7.63 7.63 5.18 Boosters (Incoming) Booster 25 - 1 Intermediate 0.83 0.83 Booster 33 - 1 Intermediate 2.34 2.34 Booster 33 - 2 Intermediate 1.44 1.44 1.44 Booster 33 - 3 Intermediate 1.07 1.07 1.07 Booster 39 - 1 Intermediate 0.61 0.61 0.61 Booster 39 - 2 Intermediate 1.04 1.04 Booster 40 - 1 Intermediate 1.44 1.44 1.44 Booster 40 - 2 Intermediate 1.44 1.44 1.44 Booster 40 - 3 Intermediate 1.44 1.44 Booster 40 - 4 Intermediate 1.44 1.44 Subtotal, Boosters (Incoming) 13.10 6.01 13.10 Subtotal, Boosters (supply limited)(1)    4.78  4.78  4.78  Total Supply 12.41 12.41 9.96 Demands Zone Demand (MDD) 12.41 12.41 12.41 Zone Transfers (Outgoing) 6.21 Source Zone Total Capacity (MGD) Firm Capacity (MGD) Capacity w/ Largest Source Out (MGD) Boosters Foothill 0.00 0.00 0.00 Boosters Canal3 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subtotal, Zone Transfers (Outgoing) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Demand 12.41 12.41 12.41 Surplus/Deficit 0.00 0.00 -2.45 Supply Needed from Boosters or Zone Transfer 4.78 4.78 2.45 Notes: 1. Surplus supply available from the Intermediate Zone 2. DV = drop valve between zones 3. PRV = pressure reducing valve Foothill Zone Supply Analysis The Foothill Zone is supplied directly by two wells, Plant 134, and three booster stations. The Baldridge Canyon and Mercedes Zone are also considered a part of the Foothill Zone for this analysis. The Foothill Zone does not have surplus capacity to meet its MDD of 7.44 MGD and must rely on adjacent zones to meet the supply deficit. Based on the analysis in Table 6-10 there is zero surplus supply for the total capacity and firm capacity analysis. With the largest source out of service for that zone (Plant 134) there is a deficit of -4.18 MGD. The booster station capacity is ample even with only firm capacity considered. The limiting factor is the source capacity from adjacent zones, where only 0.05 MGD is available for transfer from Intermediate and Upper Zones. It is assumed that the Intermediate Zone will be transferring water to Upper and Lower and will only have 0.05 MGD left for the Foothill Zone. Table 6-10: Foothill Zone Existing Supply Analysis Source Zone Total Capacity (MGD) Firm Capacity (MGD) Capacity w/ Largest Source Out (MGD) Supply Wells Well 142 Well 1.47 1.47 1.47 Well 125 Well 1.80 1.80 1.80 Subtotal, Wells 3.27 3.27 3.27 SWTP Booster 134 - 1 Supply SWTP 1.30 Booster 134 - 2 Supply SWTP 1.24 1.24 Booster 134 - 3 Supply SWTP 1.25 1.25 Booster 134 - 4 Supply SWTP 1.29 1.29 Booster 134 - 5 Supply SWTP 1.20 1.20 6.22 Source Zone Total Capacity (MGD) Firm Capacity (MGD) Capacity w/ Largest Source Out (MGD) Subtotal, SWTP (from Booster 134) 6.28 4.98 Subtotal, SWTP (supply limited)(1) 4.92 4.92 Subtotal Well + SWTP 8.19 8.19 3.27 Boosters (Incoming) Booster 39 - 3 Intermediate 1.40 1.40 Booster 39 - 4 Intermediate 1.24 1.24 1.24 Booster 37 - 1 Upper 1.57 1.57 1.57 Booster 37 - 2 Upper 1.58 1.58 Booster 129 - 1 Upper 2.37 2.37 2.37 Booster 129 - 2 Upper 2.36 2.36 2.36 Booster 129 - 3 Upper 2.37 2.37 Subtotal, Boosters (Incoming) 12.89 7.54 12.89 Boosters Intermediate (Supply limited)(2) 0.05 0.05 0.00 Boosters Upper (Supply limited)(2) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Supply 8.24 8.24 3.27 Demands Zone Demand (MDD) 7.44 7.44 7.44 Zone Transfers (Outgoing) Booster 56 Canal 1 0.13 0.13 0.00 Booster 99 Canal 2 0.47 0.47 0.00 Booster 108/131 Canal 3 0.20 0.20 0.00 Subtotal, Zone Transfers (Outgoing) 0.80 0.80 0.00 Total Demand 8.24 8.24 7.44 Surplus/Deficit 0.00 0.00 -4.18 Supply Needed from Boosters or Zone Transfer 0.00 0.00 4.18 Notes: 1. SWTP booster pumps to the Foothill Zone is supply limited as it supplied both Foothill and Upper. 2. Boosters are supply limited as Intermediate and Upper do not have surplus supply for the Foothill Zone. 3. DV = drop valve between zones 4. PRV = pressure reducing valve Canal 1 Zone Supply Analysis The Canal 1 Zone is supplied directly by Booster Station 56. This station has ample capacity (3 MGD) to meet Canal 3 MDD of 0.13 MGD. 6.23 Based on the analysis in Table 6-11 there is zero surplus supply for the total, firm, and largest single source capacity analysis. While not shown in the table, it should be noted that if Plant 134 was out of service, the Canal 1 Zone would not be served since Foothill is supplied by Plant 134. Table 6-11: Canal 1 Zone Existing Supply Analysis Source Zone Total Capacity (MGD) Firm Capacity (MGD) Capacity w/ Largest Source Out (MGD) Supply             Wells             Subtotal, Wells 0.00 0.00 Boosters (Incoming)             Booster 56 - 1 Foothill 1.01 1.01 1.01 Booster 56 - 2 Foothill 2.02 Subtotal, Boosters (Incoming) 3.02 1.01 1.01 Subtotal, Boosters (supply limited) 0.13 0.13 0.13 Total Supply 0.13 0.13 0.13 Demands             Zone Demand (MDD) 0.13 0.13 0.13 Zone Transfers (Outgoing)                 0.00    0.00    0.00  Subtotal, Zone Transfers (Outgoing) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Demand 0.13 0.13 0.13 Surplus/Deficit 0.00 0.00 0.00 Supply Needed from Boosters or Zone Transfer 0.13 0.13 0.13 Notes: 1. DV = drop valve between zones 2. PRV = pressure reducing valve 6.24 Canal 2 Zone Supply Analysis The Canal 2 Zone is supplied directly by Booster Station 99. This station has ample capacity (1.73 MGD) to meet Canal 3 MDD of 0.47 MGD. Based on the analysis in Table 6-12 there is zero surplus supply for the total, firm, and largest single source capacity analysis. While not shown in the table, it should be noted that if Plant 134 was out of service, the Canal 2 Zone would not be served since Foothill is supplied by Plant 134. Table 6-12: Canal 2 Zone Existing Supply Analysis Source Zone Total Capacity (MGD) Firm Capacity (MGD) Capacity w/ Largest Source Out (MGD) Supply Wells                Subtotal, Wells 0.00 0.00 Boosters (Incoming) Booster 99 - 1 Foothill 0.96 Booster 99 - 2 Foothill 0.77 0.77 0.77 Subtotal, Boosters (Incoming) 1.73 0.77 0.77 Boosters (supply limited) 0.47 0.47 0.47 Total Supply 0.47 0.47 0.47 Demands Zone Demand (MDD) 0.47 0.47 0.47 Zone Transfers (Outgoing)                Subtotal, Zone Transfers (Outgoing) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Demand 0.47 0.47 0.47 Surplus/Deficit 0.00 0.00 0.00 Supply Needed from Boosters or Zone Transfer 0.47 0.47 0.47 Notes: 1. DV = drop valve between zones 2. PRV = pressure reducing valve 6.25 Canal 3 Zone Supply Analysis The Canal 3 Zone is the largest Canal Zone. It is supplied directly by Plant 134, and boosters 129, 131, 108, and 142. The booster stations have ample capacity (8.93 MGD) to meet Canal 3 MDD of 2.56 MGD, however, these boosters are supply limited and are unable to contribute much flow for long durations during MDD conditions. Therefore, during MDD, Canal 3 Zone relies heavily on Plant 134 to meet its MDD of 2.56 MGD and the 0.72 MGD that is pumped to the Mountain Zone from Canal 3. Based on the analysis in Table 6-13 there is zero surplus supply for the total capacity and firm capacity analysis. With the largest source out of service for that zone (Plant 134) there is a deficit of -3.28 MGD. Table 6-13: Canal 3 Zone Existing Supply Analysis Source Zone Total Capacity (MGD) Firm Capacity (MGD) Capacity w/ Largest Source Out (MGD) Supply  Wells Subtotal, Wells SWTP Booster 134 - 6 Supply SWTP 0.90 0.90 Booster 134 - 7 Supply SWTP 0.95 0.95 Booster 134 - 8 Supply SWTP 1.23 1.23 Subtotal, SWTP 3.08 3.08 0.00 Subtotal Well + SWTP 3.08 3.08 0.00 Boosters (Incoming) Booster 129 - 4 Upper 1.41 1.41 Booster 129 - 5 Upper 1.40 1.40 1.40 Booster 131 - 1 Foothill 0.73 0.73 Booster 131 - 2 Foothill 0.39 0.39 0.39 Booster 131 - 3 Foothill 0.42 0.42 0.42 Booster 108 - 1 Foothill 1.73 1.73 1.73 Booster 108 - 2 Foothill 1.74 1.74 Booster 142 - 3 Foothill 1.12 1.12 Subtotal, Boosters (Incoming) 8.93 3.93 8.93 Boosters Upper (Supply limited) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Boosters Foothill (Supply limited) 0.20 0.20 0.00 Total Supply 3.28 3.28 0.00 Demands Zone Demand (MDD)   2.56 2.56 2.56 Zone Transfers (Outgoing) 6.26 Source Zone Total Capacity (MGD) Firm Capacity (MGD) Capacity w/ Largest Source Out (MGD) Boosters 137/140 Mountain 0.72 0.72 0.72 Subtotal, Zone Transfers (Outgoing) 0.72 0.72 0.72 Total Demand 3.28 3.28 3.28 Surplus/Deficit 0.00 0.00 -3.28 Supply Needed from Boosters or Zone Transfer 0.00 0.00 3.28 Notes: 1. DV = drop valve between zones 2. PRV = pressure reducing valve Mountain Zone Supply Analysis The Mountain Zone is supplied directly by Plant 134, and boosters 129, 131, 108, and 142. The booster stations have ample capacity (3.85 MGD) to meet Mountain Zone’s MDD of 0.72 MGD. The Mountain Zone relies 100 percent on Canal 3. Based on the analysis in Table 6-14 there is zero surplus supply for the total capacity and firm capacity analysis. With the largest source out of service for that zone (Booster 140-2), the remaining boosters can meet MDD for Mountain Zone. While not shown in the table, it should be noted that if Plant 134 was out of service, the Mountain Zone would not be served since Canal 3 is heavily dependent on Plant 134. Table 6-14: Mountain Zone Existing Supply Analysis Source Zone  Total Capacity (MGD)  Firm Capacity (MGD)  Capacity w/ Largest Source Out (MGD)  Supply Wells Subtotal, Wells 0.00 0.00 0.00 Boosters (Incoming) Booster 137 - 1 Canal3 0.79 0.79 Booster 137 - 2 Canal3 0.79 0.79 0.79 Booster 140 - 1 Canal3 1.12 1.12 1.12 Booster 140 - 2 Canal3 1.15 Subtotal, Boosters (Incoming) 3.85 1.91 2.70 Boosters (supply limited) 0.72 0.72 0.72 Total Supply 0.72 0.72 0.72 Demands Zone Demand (MDD) 0.72 0.72 0.72 6.27 Source Zone  Total Capacity (MGD)  Firm Capacity (MGD)  Capacity w/ Largest Source Out (MGD)  Zone Transfers (Outgoing) Subtotal, Zone Transfers (Outgoing) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Demand 0.72 0.72 0.72 Surplus/Deficit 0.00 0.00 0.00 Supply Needed from Boosters or Zone Transfer 0.72 0.72 0.72 Notes: 1. DV = drop valve between zones 2. PRV = pressure reducing valve Pressure Zone Supply Analysis Summary The pressure zone evaluation indicates that the system would use almost all available supply sources during MDD. Most pressure zones have a deficit in supply when their single largest supply source is offline. With that said, it is likely EVWD can supply deficit pressure zones from neighboring zones for a few days if needed. However, this temporary solution has limited duration during MDD conditions. Intermediate, Upper, and Foothill would all benefit from additional supply sources, such as a new well or WTP. The recommended supply amount for existing conditions is specified in the next section. 6.4 RELIABILITY ANALYSIS 6.4.1 Major Transmission Breaks The hydraulic model was used to evaluate the impact of transmission main breaks on the distribution system. Three critical pipeline failures were tested to measure system impacts. Pipe breaks are identified as critical when pressures are insufficient, water demands cannot be met, or a combination of both. Based on the hydraulic model simulations, the list below provides a description of the failure impacts and proposed solutions to mitigate each failure. The critical pipes (CP) are shown on Figure 6-4.  CP-1: 190 linear feet of 36-inch diameter (Intermediate Zone) pipe at the intersection of Sterling Avenue and 13th Street, which supplies the zone from Well 141 and Well 151. If this pipeline fails, there should not be a significant loss of service. Plant 132 can continue to supply the zone and the system would not be affected significantly while the pipeline is repaired.  CP-2: 2,300 linear feet of 16-inch diameter (Upper Zone) pipe on Base Line Road, between Tarnell Road and Boulder Avenue. The hydraulic model indicates that the pressure in the neighborhood of the pipeline failure will barely meet the 40-psi requirement when served from the Upper Zone. System pressures will be significantly lower should a fire occur under this mode of operation.  CP-3: 300 linear feet of 12-inch diameter (Canal 3 Zone) pipeline on Weaver Street between Clear View Lane and Base Line Road. This pipeline supplies Canal 3 Zone from Plant 108. If a pipe breaks along this alignment, 6.28 water service will be interrupted for customers in Canal 3 Zone east of Plant 108. To mitigate the service interruption while the main is being repaired, EVWD should either operate Canal 3 pumps in Plant 129 or Pump 3 at Plant 142 (PMP_142_3). This break will result in the service area being a closed system. As described above, solutions to mitigate each critical pipe failure can be achieved through short term operational changes. It is assumed that it would be acceptable to interrupt water service temporarily in these areas while the main break is being repaired and the temporary emergency response is put in place. To limit the duration of interrupted water service, it is recommended that EVWD develop an emergency response plan to mitigate interruptions to its customers during a failure of a major supply line. ³±T PW ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")")") ") ") ") ") ") ")$+ $+ $+ $+ ") ") ")") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")") ") ") ") ") ") ")") #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* P125 P142 P129 P37 P140P131 P11 P127 P147 P146 P143 P108 P33 P24 P25 P101 P134 P59 P39 P34 P40 P99 P151 P141 P9 P149 P28 P132 P148 P137 P56 P130 6th St Highland Ave Greenspot Rd Ch u r c h S t Or a n g e S t St e r l i n g A v e Pa l m A v e Baseline St Marshall Blvd ¬«210 ¬«330 ¬«210 Upper CP-1 CP-2 CP-3 Canal Upper Lower Intermediate Foothill Foothill Mountain Highland Upper 59 Hydro 34 Hydro 149 Hydro Mercedes Baldridge Cyn 101 Hydro Figure 6-4 Transmission MainsReliability Analysisº0 0.5 10.25 Miles Date:Nov 26, 2018 Legend Model Pipe #*PRV Station ")Booster Station $+Reservoir ")Well ³±T PW WTP Evaluated Critical PipesService Area Boundaryfreeway Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VFIPS 0405 FeetDocument: C:\Projects\Box Sync\zdrive\Projects\Stantec 6.31 6.4.2 Imported Water Out of Service for Seven Days The existing system is evaluated for a scenario in which Plant 134 is out of service for seven consecutive maximum demand days. The system has sufficient supply and booster pumping capabilities to meet one day but will reach a storage deficit by the end of four days. A 7-day outage of Plant 134 would need an additional 23.3 MG of storage that could be delivered to the system. It is noted that the analysis assumes MDD demands during the outage, and during average demand conditions the system could meet demands for longer than 4 days. Table 6-15 provides a summary of each scenario. Should the surface water treatment plant at Plant 134 be out of service for a 7-day period, operations of each pump station would have to be reviewed to ensure that the pumps remain operational during the outage to transfer water between the pressure zones in the system. Also, during an outage scenario such as this, customer consumption would likely be substantially cut back while the service interruption is repaired. Table 6-15: Existing Water Source Reliability – Plant 134 Out of Service 1 day (MG) 4 days (MG) 7 days (MG) Water Demand MDD 36.5 146.0 255.5 Water Supply Sources Groundwater 29.1 116.2 203.4 Imported water(1) 0 0 0.0 Emergency Storage 28.8 28.8 28.8 Total Available Water Supply 57.8 145.0 232.2 Surplus/Deficit meeting MDD(2) 21.3 -1.0 -23.3 1. Plant 134 is the only imported water source for the existing system, which is out of service rendering 0 mgd capacity 2. Surplus/Deficit = Total available Water Supply - MDD The total additional daily supply needed to meet the existing system 7-day outage is 3.30 MGD (23.3/7). The recommendation for the existing system reliability evaluation is to construct 2,000 gpm of well capacity in the Intermediate, Upper, or Foothill Zones. The zones have excess booster station capacity and can transfer water to other parts of the system. Per EVWD, one new well would range between 1,500 and 2,000 gpm (2.14 and 2.88 MGD). Assuming one new well at 2.88 MGD, this will still leave a deficit of 0.42 MGD. 6.5 NEAR-TERM SYSTEM DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS This section identifies the infrastructure needed to address near-term demands based on water demand projections through the near-term as presented in Section 3. Recommended improvements are summarized at the end of this section, while the Recommended System Improvements with cost estimates and proposed phasing for these improvements is presented in Section 8. 6.32 The hydraulic model reflecting the existing distribution system is used to evaluate the system under the near-term demand conditions for the following three criteria and the results of these analyses are discussed below.  Meet Near-Term Peak Hour Demand (PHD) while maintaining a minimum pressure of 40 psi  Meet Near-Term Maximum Day Demand (MDD) with fire flow while maintaining a minimum residual pressure of 20 psi  Meet Near-Term Minimum Day Demand (ADD) while not exceeding a maximum pressure of 125 psi The same approach used in the existing evaluation is used for near-term evaluations. The system is run with the existing system recommendation incorporated into the model, and any additional deficiencies are addressed with additional recommendations. 6.5.1 Minimum Pressure during Peak Hour Demand (PHD) For the first criterion, the model is run for 24 hours under near-term MDD conditions. The results from this are shown on Figure 6-5. As shown on the figure, the hydraulic simulation identified 37 demand junctions with pressures below 40 psi. Low pressures at these 37 demand junctions varied between 8 and less than 40 psi. Similar to the existing system evaluation, inspection of the low-pressure areas reveals that the deficiencies are caused by ground elevation and not pipe capacity (high velocities and or high head losses). In addition, it should be noted that there are fewer junctions below 40 psi than in the existing system pressure evaluation. The difference is due to the existing system being evaluated under an EPS MDD scenario versus a steady-state PHD. EPS is preferred if possible; however, the supply shortage under near-term demand is too large for the model to successfully finish a near-term MDD EPS model run. The existing system MDD EPS has more nodes below 40 psi because of system changes, such as a pump turning on, that might drop pressure slightly outside of peak hour. This difference is considered negligible. The low-pressure areas are called out as Area 1, 2, and 3 on Figure 6-5. Model nodes in these areas have elevations that are very close to their pressure zone’s hydraulic grade established by tank level. These model nodes will have low-pressure even with significantly reduced demands and reduced head loss between the supplying tank and low-pressure area. Infrastructure is not needed to specifically address the 37 demand junctions below 40 psi under near-term demands. As with the existing system demands, it is recommended that EVWD monitor pressure in Areas 1, 2, and 3 specifically during higher demand conditions. In addition to analyzing pressures, high-velocity pipelines are analyzed to find any hydraulic restrictions in the system. Figure 6-6 shows the maximum velocities observed during the near-term EPS MDD simulation. Note that pipes with velocities above 6 fps are colored purple with thick lines, and pipes above 8 fps are colored red with thick lines. A large amount of future demand is projected to occur in the eastern part of the system in Canal 3. There would be significant pipeline capacity issues that would require transmission pipe upgrades if the water were conveyed through the Canal 3 zone. A significant amount of transmission upgrades can be avoided by connecting future developments to the Foothill Zone, as the Foothill Zone has larger transmission mains that reach the eastern part of the system. Therefore, the Foothill Zone would be used to convey the water to the east, and then the water would be pumped into the higher elevations of the developments from that Zone. 6.33 The large transmission main in the Foothill Zone should be connected to the existing 20-inch line along Greenspot Road that is supplied by the Canal Zone. This zone serves EVWD headquarters and is planned to serve the future Mediterra Development. An analysis of the Mediterra development and recommendation on new infrastructure to serve this development was conducted by Stantec and Sedaru, and is presented in Appendix E. Connecting this area to the Foothill Zone as opposed to serving from the Canal 3 Zone would require less infrastructure improvements than adding new transmission piping in Canal 3. The Foothill Zone 20-inch pipeline supplying the projected growth to the eastern part of the system has a velocity of 3.2 fps which does not exceed the design criteria. Additional pumping, storage, and pipelines will be needed to provide service for the planned Harmony Development and other development in the eastern part of the system. A pump station and storage tank will lower the head loss in the 20-inch line and minimize pressure in the southeast part of the Foothill Zone. The recommended pump station and storage locations are shown on Figure 8-2. Figure 6-7 shows the proposed connection to the foothill zone in detail which is described as T-2 in Table 6-16. T-2 is included on the near-term system recommendations map on Figure 8-2. The near-term pipeline, storage, and pumping recommendations that address minimum pressures are summarized in Table 6-16, Table 6-17, and Table 6-18 respectively. Note that additional recommendations are provided later in the near-term evaluation. Based on conversations with EVWD regarding the Harmony development and the results of the model, three projects are recommended to specifically address the growth from this development. The Harmony Transmission Pipeline, tank S-1, and PMP-1 are all recommended to specifically serve this development in the eastern portion of the service area. These recommendations are accounted for when making further recommendations for the system. Table 6-16: Transmission Improvements – Near-Term Conditions Pipe ID Diameter (inches) Length (feet) Project Description T-2 20 50 Reconfiguration of pipe at Greenspot Rd and Santa Paula St Harmony Transmission Pipe 24 5,500 Dependent on growth in the eastern part of the system (Harmony Development). Table 6-17: Storage Improvements – Near-Term Conditions Tank ID Size (MG) Project Description S-1 4.5 Proposed tank in future growth area in the eastern part of the system. Table 6-18: Pumping Improvements – Near-Term Conditions Pump ID Size (MGD @ TDH) Project Description PMP-1 3.7 MGD @ 250 FT Proposed booster station for future growth in eastern part of system. 6.34 (This page intentionally left blank) ³±TPW ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")")") ") ") ") ") ") ")$+ $+ $+ $+ ") ") ")") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")") ") ") ") ") ") ")") #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! !!!!! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! !! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !!!! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! !! !! ! !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !!! ! !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !!! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!!! ! !! !!!!!!! !! !!!! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! !! !!!!!! !!!! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !!! !!!! !!! ! !! !!! ! ! !!!! !!! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!!!!!!! !! !!!! !!!! !!! ! !!! !!!! !!! !!! !!!!! ! !!! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! !!! !!!! ! !!!!!! !!! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! P125 P142 P129 P37 P140P131 P11 P127 P147 P146 P143 P108 P33 P24 P25 P101 P134 P59 P39 P34 P40 P99 P151 P141 P9 P149 P28 P132 P148 P137 P56 P130 6th St Highland Ave Greenspot Rd Ch u r c h S t Or a n g e S t St e r l i n g A v e Pa l m A v e Baseline St Marshall Blvd ¬«210 ¬«330 ¬«210 Area 1Low pressure dueto ground elevation Area 2Low pressure dueto ground elevation Area 3Low pressure dueto ground elevation Canal Upper Lower Intermediate Foothill Foothill Mountain Highland Upper 59 Hydro 34 Hydro 149 Hydro Mercedes Baldridge Cyn Mountain Figure 6-5 Near-Term System Pressure Analysisº0 0.5 10.25 Miles Date:Dec 20, 2018 Legend Pressure !min pressure less than 30 psi !min pressure is 30 to 35 psi !min pressure is 35 to 40 psi !max pressure is more than 125 psi #*PRV Station ")Booster Station $+Reservoir ")Well ³±TPW WTP Model PipeService Area Boundaryfreeway Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VFIPS 0405 FeetDocument: C:\Projects\Box Sync\zdrive\Projects\Stantec ³±TPW ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")")") ") ") ") ") ") ")$+ $+ $+ $+ ") ") ")") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")") ") ") ") ") ") ")") #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* P125 P142 P129 P37 P140P131 P11 P127 P147 P146 P143 P108 P33 P24 P25 P101 P134 P59 P39 P34 P40 P99 P151 P141 P9 P149 P28 P132 P148 P137 P56 P130 6th St Highland Ave Greenspot Rd Ch u r c h S t Or a n g e S t St e r l i n g A v e Pa l m A v e Baseline St Marshall Blvd ¬«210 ¬«330 ¬«210 Canal Upper Lower Intermediate Foothill Foothill Mountain Highland Upper 59 Hydro 34 Hydro 149 Hydro Mercedes Baldridge Cyn 101 Hydro Mountain Figure 6-6 Near-Term System Velocity Analysisº0 0.5 10.25 Miles Date:Dec 20, 2018 Legend Maximum Velocity< 1 fps1-3 fps 3-6 fps6-8 fps> 8 fps #*PRV Station ")Booster Station $+Reservoir ")Well ³±TPW WTP Service Area Boundaryfreeway Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VFIPS 0405 FeetDocument: C:\Projects\Box Sync\zdrive\Projects\Stantec 6.39 Figure 6-7: Proposed Infrastructure to Address Growth in East Part of System 6.5.2 Maximum Pressure during Average Daily Demand (ADD) The hydraulic model is used to identify areas where the maximum pressure exceeded 125 psi under near-term ADD. Maximum system pressures are largely dependent on tank levels and pressure zone boundaries. Because no recommendations on zone boundary changes are made, the analysis for maximum pressures in the near-term system does not change from the analysis in the existing system. These findings are verified in the model with future demands as well and no improvements are recommended. Maximum pressure results are included on Figure 6-5. 6.5.3 Minimum Pressure with MDD plus Fire Flow The hydraulic model is used to evaluate the impact of fire flows on the distribution system under near-term MDD conditions. The near-term fire flow is tested without the existing system fire flow recommendations to fully evaluate the current system’s capability to handle fire flow with near-term demands. The same approach and criteria used in the existing system fire flow are used for the near-term evaluation. Hydrants that cannot supply MDD plus fire flow within 10 percent at a minimum pressure of 20 psi at all demand junctions within the pressure zone are identified as not meeting criteria. Hydrants that do not meet the fire flow criteria within 10 percent are shown on Figure 6-8. 6.40 (This Page Intentionally Left Blank) ³±TPW ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")")") ") ") ") ") ") ")$+ $+ $+ $+ ") ") ")") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")") ") ") ") ") ") ")") #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* P125 P142 P129 P37 P140P131 P11 P127 P147 P146 P143 P108 P33 P24 P25 P101 P134 P59 P39 P34 P40 P99 P151 P141 P9 P149 P28 P132 P148 P137 P56 P130 6th St Highland Ave Greenspot Rd Ch u r c h S t Or a n g e S t St e r l i n g A v e Pa l m A v e Baseline St Marshall Blvd ¬«210 ¬«330 ¬«210 Canal Upper Lower Intermediate Foothill Foothill Mountain Highland Upper 59 Hydro 34 Hydro 149 Hydro Mercedes Baldridge Cyn 101 Hydro Mountain Figure 6-8 º0 0.5 10.25 Miles Date:Dec 20, 2018 Legend 1500 gpm < 50% 50% - 75% 75% - 90% > 90% 2500 gpm < 50% 50% - 75% 75% - 90% > 90% 3000 gpm < 50% 50% - 75% 75% - 90% > 90% 4000 gpm < 50% 50% - 75% 75% - 90% > 90% #*PRV Station ")Booster Station $+Reservoir ")Well ³±TPW WTP Model PipeService Area Boundaryfreeway Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VFIPS 0405 FeetDocument: C:\Projects\Box Sync\zdrive\Projects\Stantec Near-Term System Fire Flow Analysis Hydrants Not Meeting Criteria Percent Fire Flow Available 6.43 The model simulation results show that the fire flow demands can be met at 83 percent of the hydrant junctions while maintaining the minimum pressure criteria of 20 psi at all demand junctions within each pressure zone. A total of 426 hydrant junctions, approximately 17 percent of the existing system, did not meet the residual pressure criterion of 20 psi when the entire fire flow demand is supplied from one location as depicted on Figure 6-8. However, firefighting often requires the use of multiple fire hydrants to produce the needed flow. The model evaluates fire flow availability by looking at a single hydrant under the highest (MDD) demand conditions as a conservative analysis. The analysis is intended to identify any areas where fire flow performance can be improved so EVWD can coordinate these activities with other system improvements. The near-term fire flow results are very similar to the results from the existing system analysis; only 8 additional hydrants do not meet recommended criteria. 6.6 NEAR-TERM SYSTEM STORAGE EVALUATION The storage and emergency supply analyses are performed for each pressure zone with near-term MDD. Storage criteria are presented in Section 5 of this report. A summary of the required and available storage volumes is presented in Table 6-19 by pressure zone. This table indicates that EVWD will have a gross deficiency of approximately 14.75 MG storage capacity for the system in the near-term. This represents a net deficiency of 9.25 MG for the near-term assuming the 5.5 MG of storage recommendations for the existing system is implemented. Recommendations from the near-term system storage evaluation are summarized below and are based upon the analysis presented in Table 6-19 and the resultant storage deficit that is calculated. These recommendations assume the additional storage recommendations from the existing system evaluation have been implemented:  Construct 4.5 MG of storage (Tank S-1) in the east part of the system to serve the Harmony development, connected to the eastern Canal Zone or Foothill Zone. This storage is accounted for when addressing deficiency in the Foothill Zone.  Construct 2.75 MG of additional storage in the Foothill Zone.  Construct 2.0 MG of additional storage in the Canal 3 Zone Storage recommendations are listed by pressure zone except for S-1. This tank is needed to supply future growth east of the system. A storage evaluation of this new area was completed based on the near-term and build-out demand projections. The analysis assumed a commercial fire flow demand of 3,000 gpm is required for this area and that new supply has backup power. This resulted in a storage deficit of 4.0 and 4.5 for near-term and build-out system, respectively. Therefore, it is recommended to construct 4.5 MG of storage for the near-term. . 6.44 (This Page is Intentionally Left Blank) 6.45 Table 6-19: Near-Term Water System Storage Capacity Evaluation Pressure Zone Demands Storage Required Storage Evaluation ADD (mgd) Peaking Factor MDD (mgd) Fire Flow (gpm) Duration (hrs) Fire Flow (MG) Operational (MG) Emergency (MG) Required (MG) Available (MG) Available Supply During Power Failure (MG) Surplus/Deficit (MG) Recommended (MG) Lower 2.26 1.8 4.06 4,000 4 0.96 1.02 4.06 6.04 0.99 2.00 -3.05 3.50 Sub-zone Hydro34 0.02 1.8 0.03 3,000 3 0.54 0.01 0.03 0.57 0.00 0.00 -0.57 - Intermediate 4.92 1.8 8.85 4,000 4 0.96 2.21 8.85 12.03 6.80 10.00 4.78 - Upper 7.73 1.8 13.92 4,000 4 0.96 3.48 13.92 18.36 13.05 8.90 3.60 - Foothill 7.37 1.8 13.27 3,000 3 0.54 3.32 13.27 17.12 3.07 5.20 -8.85 8.75 Canal1 0.05 1.8 0.09 1,500 2 0.18 0.02 0.09 0.29 0.71 0.00 0.42 - Sub-zone Hydro59 0.04 1.8 0.07 1,500 2 0.18 0.02 0.07 0.27 0.00 0.00 -0.27 - Canal2 0.29 1.8 0.52 1,500 2 0.18 0.13 0.52 0.83 1.34 0.00 0.50 - Sub-zone Hydro101 0.02 1.8 0.04 1,500 2 0.18 0.01 0.04 0.23 0.00 0.00 -0.22 - Canal3 2.24 1.8 4.03 3,000 3 0.54 1.01 4.03 5.58 2.05 1.70 -1.83 2.00 Mountain 0.32 1.8 0.57 1,500 2 0.18 0.14 0.57 0.90 0.72 0.00 -0.18 0.50 Sub-zone Hydro149 0.09 1.8 0.17 1,500 2 0.18 0.04 0.17 0.39 0.00 0.00 -0.39 - Grand Total 25.34 N/A 45.62 N/A N/A 5.58 11.40 45.62 62.60 28.75 27.80 -6.05 14.75 Recommended Storage in Existing Scenario (MG) 5.5 Net Near-Term Deficiency (MG) 9.25 Notes: 1. Fire flow based on highest estimated requirement per zone 2. Operational Storage equals 0.25 times MDD 3. Emergency Storage equals 1.0 times MDD 4. Surplus is positive, and deficit is negative 5. Storage capacity recommended could be provided in the deficient zone or in higher pressure zones 6. Storage capacity recommendations are rounded to nearest 0.25 MG. 7. Available supply during a power failure is based on well and WTP capacity with a transfer power switch or backup generators. 8. Near-term storage evaluation table does not include any proposed supply with secondary power 6.46 (This page intentionally left blank) . 6.47 6.7 NEAR-TERM SYSTEM SUPPLY ANALYSIS A discussion of the supply sources for EVWD’s existing system and their adequacy under near-term demand conditions is presented. 6.7.1 System-wide Supply Evaluation A water supply analysis is performed to determine whether available water sources are sufficient to meet near-term MDD. Under normal operating conditions in this scenario, the deficit supply is 8.56 MGD. When the largest source, Plant 134, is out of service, there is a deficit supply of 16.56 MGD. This indicates that there is a deficiency in supply under the near-term system with the largest supply source out of service. Results from the system-wide supply evaluation are presented in Table 6-20. Table 6-20: Water Supply Analysis – Near-Term Conditions Well Supply (MGD) Plant 134 Capacity (MGD) Total Supplies (MGD) MDD (MGD) Excess Supply (MGD) All Supply Sources 29.06 8.00 37.06 45.62 (8.56) Largest Source Out of Service (Plant 134) 29.06 0.00 29.06 45.62 (16.56) New supply sources are needed based on near-term MDD conditions. These supply recommendations are provided in the following section. 6.7.2 Pressure Zone Supply Analysis In addition to evaluating the system supply and demand system-wide, it is important that each zone has sufficient pumping capacity and supply to meet MDD in that zone while transferring excess supply to other pressure zones. In this analysis, pump capacity and available supply are used to calculate the pressure zone supply analysis. Three supply scenarios were evaluated for each pressure zone, where pumping capacity is the differentiating factor for each: 1. Total capacity analysis: Each pump station is assumed to run at rated capacity as shown in Table 6-4. These capacities are based on duty pump capacity and not running the standby pump. 2. Firm capacity analysis: Each pump station has the largest pump removed from available supply per pressure zone. 3. Largest single source out of service: Each pressure zone has the largest single source out of service. A “source” is a well or Plant 134 or the largest booster pump supplying that zone. Note that all scenarios limit pump station capacity if the supplying zone’s transfer capacity is less than the pump station capacity (either full or firm). Refer to the Existing System Supply Analysis for a detailed explanation of the methodology. A summary table for the near-term system supply analysis is shown in Table 6-7. When compared with the existing system pressure zone analysis, demand is the only variable, therefore only the summary table is provided in this section. Evaluations for each zone were performed on a desktop spreadsheet analysis. The total capacity and firm 6.48 capacity analysis produce the same deficit of 8.6 MGD. This means the system is limited by source capacity and there is generally ample booster capacity. The single largest source analysis indicates there are supply deficits for each pressure zone except for the Intermediate Zone. Table 6-21: Water Supply Analysis by Zone – Near-Term Conditions Zone MDD  Total Demand (includes zone transfers)  Total Capacity: Surplus/Deficit   Firm Capacity: Surplus/Deficit   Largest Single Source: Surplus/Deficit   Value (MGD) Lower 4.1 4.1 0.0 0.0 (0.7) Intermediate 8.9 14.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Upper 13.9 13.9 (1.1) (1.1) (8.7) Foothill 8.8 8.8 (0.6) (0.6) (5.6) Canal1 0.2 0.2 (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) Canal2 0.6 0.6 (0.6) (0.6) (0.6) Canal3 8.5 8.5 (5.4) (5.4) (8.5) Mountain 0.7 0.7 (0.7) (0.7) (0.7) Total (MGD) 45.6   (8.6) (8.6) (24.9)  The total recommended additional supply to meet near-term system needs is 8.6 MG. Recommendations from the near-term system reliability evaluation are summarized below:  Construct one 2,083 gpm (3.0 MGD) capacity SWTP or another 2.88 MGD well east of the system where growth is projected in order to serve North Fork Santa Ana River water.  Construct two 2,000 gpm capacity wells in the Intermediate, Upper, or Foothill Zones. This is in addition to the one well recommended in existing system evaluation. The zones have excess booster station capacity and can transfer water to other parts of the system. Per EVWD, a new well would range between 1,500 and 2,000 gpm (2.14 and 2.88 MGD). The above supply recommendations would give the near-term system a surplus of 3.0 MGD; however, the model indicated this excess supply is needed as not all wells are at 100 percent production due to pump output based on tank level and several tanks emptied if only two wells and the proposed SWTP are active. 6.8 BUILD-OUT SYSTEM DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS This section identifies the infrastructure needed to address build-out demands based on water demand projections through the year 2040 as presented in Section 3. Recommended improvements are summarized at the end of this section, while the Recommended System Improvements with cost estimates and proposed phasing for these improvements is presented in Section 8. 6.49 6.8.1 Minimum Pressure during Peak Hour Demand (PHD) The pressure analysis results for the build-out evaluation are shown on Figure 6-9. As shown on the figure, the hydraulic simulation identified 41 demand junctions with pressures below 40 psi. Low pressures at these 41 demand junctions varied between 9 and less than 40 psi. These areas are called out as Area 1, 2, and 3 on Figure 6-9. Model nodes on these areas have elevations that are very close to their pressure zone’s hydraulic grade established by tank level. Infrastructure is not needed to specifically address the 41 demand junctions below 40 psi under build-out demands. It is recommended that EVWD monitor pressure in Areas 1, 2, and 3 specifically during higher demand conditions. In addition to analyzing pressures, high-velocity pipelines are analyzed to find hydraulic restrictions in the system. Figure 6-10 shows the maximum velocities observed during the build-out EPS MDD simulation. Note that pipes with velocities above 6 fps are colored purple with thick lines, and pipes above 8 fps are colored red with thick lines. None of the bottlenecks in the system prevent water delivery to current and future customers. There are no build-out recommendations made that directly address minimum pressure issues. Recommendations for additional storage and supply is provided later in the build-out analysis. 6.50 (This page intentionally left blank) ³±TPW ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")")") ") ") ") ") ") ")$+ $+ $+ $+ ") ") ")") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")") ") ") ") ") ") ")") #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! !!! !! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!! !! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! !! !! !!! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! !!!! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! !! !! ! !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! !!! ! !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! !! !!! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!! ! !!!!!!!! !! !!!! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! !! !!!!! ! !! ! !! !!! ! !! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! !! !!!!!! !!!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !!! !!!! !!! ! !! !!! ! ! !!!! !!! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!!!! !! !!!! !!!! !!! ! !!! !!!! !!! !!! !!!!! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! !!! !!!! ! !!!!!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!! !! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! !!! ! ! P125 P142 P129 P37 P140P131 P11 P127 P147 P146 P143 P108 P33 P24 P25 P101 P134 P59 P39 P34 P40 P99 P151 P141 P9 P149 P28 P132 P148 P137 P56 P130 6th St Highland Ave Greenspot Rd Ch u r c h S t Or a n g e S t St e r l i n g A v e Pa l m A v e Baseline St Marshall Blvd ¬«210 ¬«330 ¬«210 Area 1Low pressure dueto ground elevation Area 2Low pressure dueto ground elevation Area 3Low pressure dueto ground elevation Canal Upper Lower Intermediate Foothill Foothill Mountain Highland Upper 59 Hydro 34 Hydro 149 Hydro Mercedes Baldridge Cyn Mountain Figure 6-9 Future System Pressure Analysisº0 0.5 10.25 Miles Date:Dec 20, 2018 Legend Pressure !min pressure less than 30 psi !min pressure is 30 to 35 psi !min pressure is 35 to 40 psi !max pressure is more than 125 psi #*PRV Station ")Booster Station $+Reservoir ")Well ³±TPW WTP Model PipeService Area Boundaryfreeway Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VFIPS 0405 FeetDocument: C:\Projects\Box Sync\zdrive\Projects\Stantec ³±TPW ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")")") ") ") ") ") ") ")$+ $+ $+ $+ ") ") ")") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")") ") ") ") ") ") ")") #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* P125 P142 P129 P37 P140P131 P11 P127 P147 P146 P143 P108 P33 P24 P25 P101 P134 P59 P39 P34 P40 P99 P151 P141 P9 P149 P28 P132 P148 P137 P56 P130 6th St Highland Ave Greenspot Rd Ch u r c h S t Or a n g e S t St e r l i n g A v e Pa l m A v e Baseline St Marshall Blvd ¬«210 ¬«330 ¬«210 Canal Upper Lower Intermediate Foothill Foothill Mountain Highland Upper 59 Hydro 34 Hydro 149 Hydro Mercedes Baldridge Cyn 101 Hydro Mountain Figure 6-11 º0 0.5 10.25 Miles Date:Dec 20, 2018 Legend 1500 gpm < 50% 50% - 75% 75% - 90% > 90% 2500 gpm < 50% 50% - 75% 75% - 90% > 90% 3000 gpm < 50% 50% - 75% 75% - 90% > 90% 4000 gpm < 50% 50% - 75% 75% - 90% > 90% #*PRV Station ")Booster Station $+Reservoir ")Well ³±TPW WTP Model PipeService Area Boundaryfreeway Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VFIPS 0405 FeetDocument: C:\Projects\Box Sync\zdrive\Projects\Stantec Future System Fire Flow AnalysisHydrants Not Meeting Criteria Percent Fire Flow Available 6.55 6.8.2 Maximum Pressure during Average Daily Demand (ADD) The hydraulic model is used to identify areas where the maximum pressure exceeded 125 psi under build-out ADD. As mentioned in the existing and near-term analysis, no recommendations on zone boundary changes are made and no improvements are recommended for the build-out system. Maximum pressure results are included on Figure 6-9. 6.8.3 Minimum Pressure with MDD plus Fire Flow The build-out fire flow is tested without the existing system fire flow recommendations to fully evaluate the current system’s capability to handle fire flow with build-out demands. The same approach and criteria used in the existing and near-term system fire flow evaluation are used for the build-out evaluation. Hydrants that cannot supply MDD plus fire flow within 10 percent at a minimum pressure of 20 psi at all demand junctions within the pressure zone are identified as not meeting criteria. Hydrants that do not meet the fire flow criteria within 10 percent are shown on Figure 6-11. The build-out fire flow results are very similar to the existing and near-term, where only 8 additional hydrants do not meet criteria. Given that build-out demand is based on growth, no further fire flow improvements are recommended. 6.56 (This page intentionally left blank) ³±TPW ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")")") ") ") ") ") ") ")$+ $+ $+ $+ ") ") ")") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")") ") ") ") ") ") ")") #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* P125 P142 P129 P37 P140P131 P11 P127 P147 P146 P143 P108 P33 P24 P25 P101 P134 P59 P39 P34 P40 P99 P151 P141 P9 P149 P28 P132 P148 P137 P56 P130 6th St Highland Ave Greenspot Rd Ch u r c h S t Or a n g e S t St e r l i n g A v e Pa l m A v e Baseline St Marshall Blvd ¬«210 ¬«330 ¬«210 Canal Upper Lower Intermediate Foothill Foothill Mountain Highland Upper 59 Hydro 34 Hydro 149 Hydro Mercedes Baldridge Cyn 101 Hydro Mountain Figure 6-10 Future System Velocity Analysisº0 0.5 10.25 Miles Date:Dec 20, 2018 Legend Maximum Velocity< 1 fps1-3 fps 3-6 fps6-8 fps> 8 fps #*PRV Station ")Booster Station $+Reservoir ")Well ³±TPW WTP Service Area Boundaryfreeway Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VFIPS 0405 FeetDocument: C:\Projects\Box Sync\zdrive\Projects\Stantec 6.59 6.9 BUILD-OUT SYSTEM STORAGE EVALUATION The storage and emergency supply analysis is performed for each pressure zone with build-out MDD. Storage criteria are presented in Section 5 of this report. A summary of the recommended and available storage volumes is presented in Table 6-22 by pressure zone. This table indicates that EVWD will have a gross deficiency of approximately 18.0 MG storage capacity for the build-out demand. The storage recommendations for the build-out scenario equal a combined net storage of 3.25 MG and assumes that recommendations from the earlier scenarios have been implemented Recommendations from the build-out system storage evaluation are summarized below, and are based upon the analysis presented in Table 6-22 and the resultant storage deficit that is calculated:  Construct 0.75 MG of additional storage in the Lower Zone  Construct 0.50 MG of additional storage in the Foothill Zone  Construct 0.25 MG of additional storage in the Canal 1 Zone  Construct 0.75 MG of additional storage in the Canal 2 Zone  Construct 0.75 MG of additional storage in the Canal 3 Zone  Construct 0.25 MG of additional storage in the Mountain Zone The recommended storage of 3.25 MG assumes no additional supply will have secondary power. If the proposed additional supply in the near-term has back up power, then the capacity of this supply would decrease recommended storage by 3 MG in the zone that the supply feeds. 6.60 (This page intentionally left blank) 6.61 Table 6-22: Build-Out Water System Storage Capacity Evaluation Pressure Zone Demands Storage Required Storage Evaluation ADD (mgd) Peaking Factor MDD (mgd) Fire Flow (gpm) Duration (hrs) Fire Flow (MG) Operational (MG) Emergency (MG) Required (MG) Available (MG) Available Supply During Power Failure (MG) Surplus/Deficit (MG) Recommended (MG) Lower 2.57 1.8 4.63 4,000 4 0.96 1.16 4.63 6.75 0.99 2.00 -3.76 4.25 Sub-zone Hydro34 0.02 1.8 0.04 3,000 3 0.54 0.01 0.04 0.59 0.00 0.00 -0.59 - Intermediate 5.32 1.8 9.58 4,000 4 0.96 2.40 9.58 12.94 6.80 10.00 3.86 - Upper 8.48 1.8 15.26 4,000 4 0.96 3.81 15.26 20.03 13.05 8.90 1.92 - Foothill 7.56 1.8 13.61 3,000 3 0.54 3.40 13.61 17.55 3.07 5.20 -9.28 9.25 Canal1 0.21 1.8 0.38 1,500 2 0.18 0.09 0.38 0.65 0.71 0.00 0.06 0.25 Sub-zone Hydro59 0.04 1.8 0.08 1,500 2 0.18 0.02 0.08 0.28 0.00 0.00 -0.28 - Canal2 0.72 1.8 1.30 1,500 2 0.18 0.33 1.30 1.81 1.34 0.00 -0.47 0.75 Sub-zone Hydro101 0.02 1.8 0.04 1,500 2 0.18 0.01 0.04 0.23 0.00 0.00 -0.22 - Canal3 2.61 1.8 4.69 3,000 3 0.54 1.17 4.69 6.40 2.05 1.70 -2.65 2.75 Mountain 0.33 1.8 0.60 1,500 2 0.18 0.15 0.60 0.93 0.72 0.00 -0.21 0.75 Sub-zone Hydro149 0.18 1.8 0.33 1,500 2 0.18 0.08 0.33 0.59 0.00 0.00 -0.59 - Grand Total 28.08 N/A 50.54 N/A N/A 5.58 12.63 50.54 68.75 28.75 27.80 -12.20 18.00 Recommended Storage in Existing Scenario (MG) 14.75 Net Near-Term Deficiency (MG) 3.25 Notes: 1. Fire flow based on highest estimated requirement per zone 2. Operational Storage equals 0.25 times MDD 3. Emergency Storage equals 1.0 times MDD 4. Surplus is positive, and deficit is negative 5. Storage capacity recommended could be provided in the deficient zone or in higher pressure zones 6. Storage capacity recommendations are rounded to nearest 0.25 MG. 7. Available supply during a power failure is based on well and WTP capacity with a transfer power switch or backup generators. 8. Future storage evaluation table does not include any proposed supply with secondary power 6.62 (This page intentionally left blank) . System Evaluation 6.63 6.10 BUILD-OUT SYSTEM SUPPLY ANALYSIS A discussion of the supply sources for EVWD’s existing system and their adequacy under build-out demand conditions is presented. 6.10.1 System-wide Supply Evaluation A water supply analysis is performed to determine whether available water sources are sufficient to meet build-out MDD. Under normal operating conditions in this scenario, the deficit supply is 13.44 MGD. When the largest source, Plant 134, is out of service, there is a deficit supply of 21.44 MGD. This indicates that there is a deficit in supply under the build-out system with the largest supply source out of service. Results from the system-wide supply evaluation are presented below in Table 6-23. Table 6-23: Water Supply Analysis – Build-Out Conditions Well Supply (MGD) Plant 134 Capacity (MGD) Total Supplies (MGD) MDD (MGD) Excess Supply (MGD) All Supply Sources 29.06 8.00 37.06 50.5 (13.44) Largest Source Out of Service (Plant 134) 29.06 0.00 29.06 50.5 (21.44) New supply sources are needed based on build-out MDD conditions. These supply recommendations are provided in the following section. 6.10.2 Pressure Zone Supply Analysis A summary table for the build-out system supply analysis is shown in Table 6-24. When compared with the existing system and near-term pressure zone analysis, only the demand is the variable, therefore only the summary table is provided in this section. Evaluations for each zone were performed on a desktop spreadsheet analysis. The total capacity and firm capacity analysis produce the same deficit of 13.5 MGD. This means the system is limited by source capacity and there is generally ample booster capacity. The single largest source analysis indicates there are supply deficits for each pressure zone except for the Intermediate Zone. System Evaluation 6.64 Table 6-24: Water Supply Analysis by Zone – Build-Out Conditions Zone MDD (MGD) Total Demand (MGD) (includes zone transfers) Total Capacity: Surplus/Deficit (MGD) Firm Capacity: Surplus/Deficit (MGD) Largest Single Source: Surplus/Deficit (MGD) Lower 4.7 4.7 0.0 0.0 (2.0) Intermediate 9.6 14.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Upper 15.3 15.3 (3.7) (3.7) (10.1) Foothill 13.6 13.6 (5.4) (5.4) (10.3) Canal1 0.5 0.5 (0.5) (0.5) (0.5) Canal2 1.3 1.3 (1.3) (1.3) (1.3) Canal3 4.7 4.7 (1.6) (1.6) (4.7) Mountain 0.9 0.9 (0.9) (0.9) (0.9) Total (MGD) 50.5 (13.5) (13.5) (29.8) The total recommended additional supply to meet existing system needs is 13.5 MG. Recommendations from the build-out system reliability evaluation are summarized below:  Construct two 2,000 gpm capacity well in the Intermediate, Upper, or Foothill Zones. This is in addition to the supply and storage recommendations in the existing and near-term evaluations. The zones have excess booster station capacity and can transfer water to other parts of the system. Per EVWD, a new well would range between 1,500 and 2,000 gpm (2.14 and 2.88 MGD). The addition of two wells at 2.88 MGD will provide the system with a surplus of 3.9 MGD. The hydraulic model confirmed these additional wells are needed to keep all tanks cycling during the build-out MDD EPS scenario. Given the uncertainty of existing well status in the build-out, these wells are recommended from a redundancy standpoint and a critical part of build-out supply and operations. GIS Management Evaluation 7.1 7.0 GIS MANAGEMENT EVALUATION 7.1 INTRODUCTION EVWD’s water GIS network was audited with the intention of helping EVWD improve the process of ensuring the GIS data is model-ready to more easily update and integrate GIS data in the hydraulic model in the future. In general, GIS layers representing a water system are comprehensive and not needed in entirety to develop a hydraulic model. On the other hand, there are model details that are essential for modeling, but are unnecessary when building those layers. Based on the audit, these critical details are identified to enable EVWD to achieve more seamless GIS integration in the future. After reviewing the overall schema and data, a sample area was selected to import into the modeling software, identify issues with those data sets, and present EVWD with recommendations to implement to in the overall GIS workflow. 7.2 GIS AUDIT The GIS audit was performed with the required model data in mind. The model consists of the following element types:  Nodes, which represent the following elements: o Junctions, which consist of fittings, fire hydrants, and non-control valves o Valves, which consist of control valves and zone boundary valves o Pumps o Tanks o Wells, and other water sources, e.g. treatment plant and connections from adjacent systems  Links, which represent pipes and consist of water distribution and transmission mains  Operation data, such as control valve settings and pump curves/rating  Control data, such as pump ON/OFF levels and bypass valve controls  Demand data and fire flow While the geodatabase provided by EVWD contains layers representing its water distribution system, only layers relevant to model development were reviewed, referred to as primary layers. The primary layers, which include wMain, wFitting, wValve, wFireHydrant, and wLateralLine, contain comprehensive accounting of system features needed for model development. Other layers, including wTank, wPump, wBooster, wWells, wReservoirs, wPlant, GIS Management Evaluation 7.2 wWaterStructure, and wRegulatingStation, have incomplete information about corresponding assets in the system. Also, internal facility piping connecting pumps, tanks, and wells to the system was not available in GIS. Table 7-1 includes a listing of feature classes in Water.mdb geodatabase relevant for the water model development. Table 7-2 shows the primary layers, the selected attribute fields for each, and their use for model importation. As discussed earlier, only a small sample was imported in the model to identify data issues. Table 7-3 shows the primary layers, a summary of the filters to apply during a model import, and statistics for the whole system. Table 7-1. Feature Classes Relevant to Water Model Development GIS Feature Class Data Type Import into Model? Comments wFitting Point Yes Deactivate any that do not split pipes. wFireHydrant Point Yes wValve Point Yes Deactivate any that do not split pipes. wMain Line Yes wLateralLine Line Yes Import fire hydrant laterals only. wAbandonedLine Point No Use as reference. wAbandonedPoint Point No Use as reference. wBoosters Polygon No Use as reference. wLeaks Point No wManhole Point No wMeter Point No Use for demand allocation in model. wPlant Point No Layer represents water sources and is currently incomplete. wPump Point No Layer represents individual pumps and is currently incomplete. wRegulatingStation Point No Layer represents regulating valves and is currently incomplete. wReservoir Polygon No Layer represents system tanks and is currently incomplete. wSamplingStation Point No wWells Polygon No wWaterStructure Polygon No Use as reference.     GIS Management Evaluation 7.3 Table 7-2. Summary of Primary Layers and Selected Fields GIS Feature Class Field # Records with Null or Empty # Duplicate Records Purpose wMain FacilityID 18 27 Import Enabled 0 - Filter InstallDate 1 - Import OperatingStatus 1 - Filter Material 36 - Import MainSize 5 - Import PressureZone 9 - Import MainlineType 0 - Filter/Import wFitting FacilityID 73 36 Import Enabled 0 - Filter InstallDate 11,915 - Import OperatingStatus 1,282 - Filter FittingType 0 - Filter/Import wValve FacilityID 104 8 Import Enabled 165 - Filter InstallDate 1,171 - Import OperatingStatus 292 - Filter ValveSize 163 - Import ValveType 38 - Import NormallyClosed 3 - Import/Filter ValvePurpose 261 - Import/Filter wFireHydrant FacilityID 2 76 Import Enabled 2 - Filter OperatingStatus 62 - Filter FireHydrantType 2 - Import HydrantSize 57 - Import wLateralLine FacilityID 28 20 Import Enabled 0 - Filter OperatingStatus 236 - Filter Material 1,229 - Import LateralType 0 - Filter/Import LateralSize 272 - Import     GIS Management Evaluation 7.4 Table 7-3. Summary of Primary Layers Imported and Used for Sample Area Audit GIS Feature Class Model Layer # of Features Filters for Features to be Included in Model # Filtered Features wMain Pipes 14,308 [OperatingStatus] = 0 (Active) AND  [MainlineType] IN ( 0 , 2 ) (Main & Transmission)  (Excludes: Drain) 14,195 wFitting Junctions 32,494 [OperatingStatus] = 0 (Active) AND  [MainlineType] <> 7 (Excludes: Service Saddle)  (Includes: Bend, Cross, Tee, Reducer, Cap, Tapping Sleeve, Service Saddle, Pipe Change, Coupling, Corp Stop, Terminating Point, and Vertical Offset) 9,972 wValve (Normally Open) Junctions 8,337 [OperatingStatus] = 0 (Active) AND  [ValvePurpose] IN ( 'Main' , 'Hydrant' , 'BlowOff' )  (Excludes: AirRelease, FireService, MeterService) 7,107 wValve (Normally Closed) Valves 8,337 [OperatingStatus] = 0 (Active) AND [ValvePurpose] IN ( 'Main' , 'Hydrant' , 'BlowOff' ) AND (Excludes: Air Vacuum, FireService, MeterService) [NormallyClosed] = 1 (Includes: Closed Valves) 42 wFireHydrant Junctions 3,027 [OperatingStatus] = 0 (Active) 2,963 wLateralLine Pipes 28,650 [OperatingStatus] = 0 (Active) AND  [MainlineType] IN (1 , 4 , 5 , 10 )  (Includes: FireHydrant, BlowOff, Manifold, Capped)  (Excludes: FireService, AirRelease, WaterServiceLine, Domestic, Commercial, Irrigation, Network, and Multi- Family) 5,711   7.3 GIS SAMPLE AREA A sample area was selected in the Upper Zone north of Plant 25 and is shown on Figure 7-1. This area has 919 junctions (fittings and non-control valves), 958 pipes (mains and laterals), and 11 valves (zone boundary valves).   GIS Management Evaluation 7.5   Figure 7-1 GIS Audit Sample Area   7.4 DATA IMPORT AND CONNECTIVITY REVIEW The primary layers were imported into the model using InfoWater’s GIS Gateway tool. The GIS Gateway was setup to only import features that meet the filter criteria shown in Table 7-3. InfoWater has built-in Network Review/Fix and Connectivity tools that were used to review network connectivity and identify connectivity issues, described as follows:  Trace Network Disconnect (TND) – Nodes or pipes that are not connected to the system. Disconnected elements in a hydraulic model prevent the model from running, as they have no connection to a water source.  Orphan Nodes/Pipes (Orphan) – Orphan nodes are not connected to a model pipe. An Orphan pipe is missing either a “To” node or a “From” node, or both. Most Orphan nodes will also be identified in the Trace Network command as Disconnected (TND). GIS Management Evaluation 7.6  Nodes in Close Proximity (NICP) – Nodes that overlap or are duplicated. The NICP search tolerance is a critical parameter and can be defined as a percentage of the shortest pipe length.  Pipe Split Candidates (PSC) – Nodes that lie on top of a pipe but do not split the pipe. These may have a significant impact on connectivity required by the modeling software. The PSC search tolerance is a critical parameter and can be defined as a percentage of the shortest pipe length.  Crossing/Intersecting Pipes (CP) – Pipes that are crossing or intersecting with another pipe but do not split each other with a junction.  Parallel Pipes (PP) – Multiple pipes that have the same START and END nodes but have different alignment.  Duplicate Pipes (DP) – Multiple pipes that have the same START and END nodes and have the same alignment.  Diameter Discrepancy (DD) – Pipes in series that change diameter significantly along a particular run of pipe. For example, a pipe segment that has the following diameters: 36” – 6” – 36.” This would be considered to have a diameter discrepancy. The 6” section of pipe may be the result of an input error. Diameter changes of equal to or greater than 8 inches is recommended. 7.5 SUMMARY OF REVIEW FINDINGS Based on the data import and connectivity review of the sample area shown on Figure 7-1, Table 7-4 summarized the findings and show examples of each of the connectivity check errors found. GIS Management Evaluation 7.7 Table 7-4. Summary of Sample Area Data Issues Connectivity Check Reason # in Sample Area Example from Sample Area Orphan Nodes Fitting, FH or Valve on main that was not imported or main that is not in GIS 13   Orphan Pipe No junction was associated with on end of the pipe 2   Nodes in Close Proximity Nodes that overlap or are duplicated 1   Trace Network Disconnect, or Pipe Split Candidates Pipe not spilt at fitting or valve 15   GIS Management Evaluation 7.8 Connectivity Check Reason # in Sample Area Example from Sample Area Crossing/ Intersecting Pipes 1   Capital Improvement Program 8.9 8.0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM This section describes the Recommended System Improvements (RSI)) for the EVWD’s water system. This Recommended System Improvements identifies the improvements necessary to address existing system deficiencies as well as new facilities recommended for increased water demands to provide continued reliable water service through the build-out system. The recommended improvements are discussed first, followed by a discussion of the construction cost-estimating basis. The phasing of improvements and capital costs requirements are also discussed. This section concludes with a brief discussion on various financing sources to implement the Recommended System Improvements. 8.1 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS The water distribution system and water facilities are evaluated using the criteria discussed in Section 5. This evaluation has been conducted for both existing water demand conditions and the projected future demands for year 2035. Based on these evaluations, the recommendations are divided into three categories; recommendations for the existing, near-term, and build-out system. 8.1.1 Existing System Water System Improvements The primary goal of the WSMPU is to develop recommendations and projects that achieve EVWD’s distribution system criteria. This section provides a discussion of the existing system evaluation and lists specific projects for prioritization within the Recommended System Improvements. Recommendation System Improvements include piping, pumping, and storage facilities to improve the existing and future water system. 8.1.2 System Evaluation Key observations and insights about the distribution system can be learned through the process of updating the model, calibrating it, and performing the evaluation against EVWD design criteria. This section provides a discussion of those findings by topic. Model Calibration: It was observed that the PRVs in the system can significantly impact the hydraulics and therefore tank levels in the distribution system. It is recommended that EVWD add the most frequently used PRVs to the SCADA system. Real-time flow, pressure, and valve status of these PRVs would be valuable data for system operators. Pump Operation: The calibration and evaluation efforts revealed some operational rigidity for plants having both wells, a forebay, and booster pumps. In most cases, small forebays do not provide sufficient operational flexibility. For example, there are times when booster station pumps turn off in order to allow the forebay water level to recover. Adding variable frequency drives (VFD) to one or more booster pumps would allow synchronization between well and booster pumps. Existing System Pressure Analysis: This analysis indicates there are no areas that experience low pressures (below 40 psi) during PHD. Areas in the model having pressure below 40 psi were either near tanks or had low pressure due to elevation and not accumulated head loss. In general, the system is well looped and has ample pipe Capital Improvement Program 8.10 capacity. Some areas see high pressures, above 125 psi; however, these high pressures are due to being in the lowest elevation range for the pressure zone. Fire Flow Improvements: The fire flow evaluation identified some minor adjustments that could be made to one existing PRV to support better flow and pressure during a fire. PRS_302 was adjusted to 80 psi to satisfy fire flow requirements. The higher PRV pressure setting provides more flow to downstream hydrants. Also, a new PRV is proposed on the 12-inch main at 3588 E Highland Avenue, north of the intersection with Palm Avenue. The proposed PRV, at a 50 psi setting, will allow flow from Foothill to Upper Zone. Fire Flow Evaluation: The fire flow evaluation found areas that do not meet the land use-based fire flow criteria. Solutions were developed to address the ten areas that would benefit most from improvement and are presented in Appendix D. Existing System Storage Evaluation: The distribution system has an existing storage deficit of 5.5 MG on a zone- by-zone basis. The storage evaluation provides proposed storage volumes by pressure zone. However, when siting reservoirs, adjacent zones at higher hydraulic grades should be considered to provide multi-zone benefits, provided adequate transmission piping exists to deliver the recommended operational, fire protection, and emergency storage to the area needing the storage. For instance, the Lower Zone needs 3.5 MG based on the evaluation. The 3.5 MG could be provided from the Intermediate Zone or by future wells with a standby power source in the Lower Zone. Existing System Supply Analysis: One of the significant findings of the supply analysis is that groundwater supply has decreased significantly since the 2014 WSMP. Per conversations with EVWD, the decrease in capacity is from offline wells due to water quality issues, as well as decreasing groundwater levels at some wells. EVWD has a limited amount of excess supply during MDD conditions. Therefore, a critical recommendation is for EVWD to investigate maximizing current sources including new well locations. Some wells may be candidates for larger pumps and motors if significant capacity has been lost due to lowered groundwater levels, if the existing well casing and screen can accommodate a larger pump, and screen depths are sufficient to allow deeper pump settings. Existing System Reliability Analysis: The three critical pipe segment outages tested in the reliability analysis can all be mitigated by a quick operational response. In most cases, opening nearby zone boundary valves or turning on additional pumps will maintain acceptable pressures until the pipe can be repaired. 8.1.3 Existing Water System Improvements The system improvement projects for the existing system evaluation are provided below in Table 8-1. The projects are also displayed on Figure 8-1. Capital Improvement Program 8.11 Table 8-1: Existing System Improvements Recommended System Improvements Name Proposed Improvements Size Quantity Unit Description Transmission Improvements T-1 16-inch 2,100 LF Along Highland Ave, from Plant 134 to Orchard Road. This project has been completed and is not included as part of the costs presented in Section 8.4. Storage Improvements Lower Zone 3.5 - MG Additional storage in Lower Zone. Foothill Zone 1.5 - MG Additional storage in Foothill Zone. Mountain Zone 0.5 - MG Additional storage in Mountain Zone. Supply Improvements New Well 01 2.88 MGD 1 each Additional well for either Intermediate, Upper, or Foothill. Capital Improvement Program 8.12 (This Page Intentionally Left Blank) ³±T PW ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")")") ") ") ") ") ") ")$+ $+ $+ $+ ") ") ")") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")") ") ") ") ") ") ")") #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* P125 P142 P129 P37 P140P131 P11 P127 P147 P146 P143 P108 P33 P24 P25 P101 P134 P59 P39 P34 P40 P99 P151 P141 P9 P149 P28 P132 P148 P137 P56 P130 6th St Highland Ave Greenspot Rd Ch u r c h S t Or a n g e S t St e r l i n g A v e Pa l m A v e Baseline St Marshall Blvd ¬«210 ¬«330 ¬«210 T-1 59 Hydro Canal 101 Hydro 149 Hydro Mountain Foothill Mercedes Baldridge Cyn Upper Foothill Highland Upper Intermediate Lower Upper Canal Canal Fire FlowArea: 7 FireFlowArea: 8 Fire FlowArea: 6 Fire FlowArea: 5 Fire FlowArea: 10 FireFlowArea: 4 FireFlowArea: 3 Fire FlowArea: 2 Fire FlowArea: 9 Fire FlowArea: 1 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Figure 8-1 Existing SystemRecommendationsº0 0.5 10.25 Miles Date:Nov 26, 2018 Legend Capital ProjectsNew PipePipe UpsizeFF Improvements (Pipes) New Pipe Pipe Upsize #*PRV Station ")Booster Station $+Reservoir ")Well ³±T PW WTP Model Pipe Fire Flow Priority AreasService Area Boundary freeway Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VFIPS 0405 FeetDocument: C:\Projects\Box Sync\zdrive\Projects\Stantec Capital Improvement Program 8.15 8.1.4 Near-Term Water System Improvements System improvement projects for the near-term evaluation are provided below in Table 8-2. The projects are also displayed on Figure 8-2. Table 8-2: Near-Term Capital Improvements Recommended System Improvements Name  Proposed Improvements  Size Quantity Unit Description  Transmission Improvements T-2 20-inch 50 LF Reconfiguration of pipe at Greenspot Rd and Santa Paula Street Harmony Transmission Pipe 24-inch 5,500 LF Dependent on growth to the east of the system (Harmony Development). Storage Improvements Foothill Zone 2.75 - MG Storage needed in Foothill Zone. S-1 4.5 MG S-1 is for growth to the east of the system. Canal 3 2.0 MG Storage needed in Canal 3 Zone. Supply Improvements New Well 02 2.88 MGD 1 each Additional well for either Intermediate, Upper, or Foothill. New Well 03 2.88 MGD 1 each Additional well for either Intermediate, Upper, or Foothill. New SWTP or Well 3.00 MGD 1 each New SWTP or well to support growth to the east of the system. Notes: 1. Recommended storage quantity is for the total needed by near-term. 2. Foothill Zone includes storage for growth in east part of the system. (Total recommended storage is 6.0 MG, where 4.5 MG are dedicated to area east of existing system.) Capital Improvement Program 8.16 (This page intentionally left blank) ") $+ ") ")#*#* P125 P142 P129 Harmony Transmission Pipe (24-inch)to connect proposed SWTPto Foothill Zone (AlignmentTBD) PMP-1(Location TBD)ProposedTreatment Plant(Location TBD) Foothill Canal T-2 New 4.5MG Reservoir (S-1)(Location TBD) Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Figure 8-2 Near-Term System Recommendationsº0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles Date:Dec 20, 2018 Legend Proposed CIP Pipes #*PRV Station ")Booster Station $+Reservoir ")Well ³±TPW WTP Model Pipe Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VFIPS 0405 FeetDocument: C:\Projects\Box Sync\zdrive\Projects\Stantec Capital Improvement Program 8.19 8.1.5 Build-Out Water System Improvements System improvement projects for the build-out evaluation are provided below in Table 8-3. No figure is provided as there are no transmission pipeline recommendations, and tanks and wells are only located by zone. Table 8-3: Build-Out Capital Improvements Recommended System Improvements Name  Proposed Improvements  Size Quantity Unit Description  Transmission Improvements - - - - - Storage Improvements Lower Zone 0.75 - MG Storage needed in Lower Zone. Foothill Zone 0.5 - MG Storage needed in Foothill Zone. Canal 1 0.25 - MG Storage needed in Canal 1 Zone. Canal 2 0.75 - MG Storage needed in Canal 2 Zone. Canal 3 0.75 - MG Storage needed in Canal 3 Zone. Mountain Zone 0.25 - MG Storage needed in Mountain Zone. Supply Improvements New Well 04 2.88 MGD 1 each Additional well for either Intermediate, Upper, or Foothill. New Well 05 2.88 MGD 1 each Additional well for either Intermediate, Upper, or Foothill. Notes: 1. Recommended storage quantity is for the total needed for build-out. 2. Foothill Zone includes storage for growth in east part of the system. (Total recommended storage is 9.25 MG, where 4.5 MG are dedicated to area east of existing system.) Capital Improvement Program 8.20 (This page intentionally left blank) Capital Improvement Program 8.21 8.1.6 Phasing of Near-Term System Improvements Existing system improvements that address the most significant system needs and impact the largest number of customers are scheduled first, while on-going projects such as pipeline rehabilitation are used to make the capital expenditures more uniform from year to year. The following methodology is used for the project phasing: New Reservoirs: Phasing of storage reservoirs is based on the projected demands and the storage evaluations. New reservoirs are recommended to be constructed first in the Canal, Mountain, and Foothill zones followed by zones with lower hydraulic grade lines (HGL). This phasing approach will ensure that surplus water in zones with higher HGLs can be conveyed via pressure reducing valves to zones with lower HGLs. Pumping Facilities: The existing system evaluation identified a needed pumping capacity improvement from the Intermediate Zone to the Upper Zone. EVWD is in the process of upgrading Plant 40 with a booster station as part of the 2014 CIP (Project No. W2544). Therefore, this improvement is eliminated from the proposed near-term Recommended System Improvements in this report. Supply Facilities: The WSMP recommends new supply facilities in the form of new supply wells and possibly the addition of a new water treatment plant in the eastern portion of EVWD’s service area where significant future demands have been identified. 8.2 UNIT COSTS The Recommended System Improvement project cost estimates in this section are planning level cost estimates. The appropriate use of this estimate is for planning and may not be an actual representation of design to construction activities and costs. This estimate was developed as an Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) – International Class 5 cost estimate which has an expected accuracy range of -20 to -50 percent on the low end, and +30 to +100 percent on the high end. This range depends on the technological complexity of the project, appropriate reference information, and the inclusion of an appropriate contingency determination. Accuracy could exceed this range in unusual circumstances. The estimate was prepared using a combination of parametric estimating factors and local experience in delivering projects similar to those that constitute this Recommended System Improvements. Costs were based on Stantec’s experience with costs of similar projects. Table 8-4 shows a summary of the unit costs for water mains used for this cost estimate. All improvements are assumed to take place under asphalt road, and operations and maintenance costs are not included in this estimate. Due to fluctuations in the market and other factors, this estimate should only be used for planning purposes and a more rigorous estimate shall be prepared during the design and is recommended for any further activity. For these projects, a depth of 6 feet or less was assumed for all pipelines. Any requirements for constructing at a deeper depth should be considered when planning these improvements. This planning level estimate is meant to be conservative, and include the cost of design, administration, and contingency. Capital Improvement Program 8.22 Table 8-4: Summary of Water Main Unit Costs Description (1) Diameter Road Condition Cost 2018 (2) ($/lf) Cost 2018 ($/in- diam./lf) (in) 8-inch 8 Asphalt $258.40 $32.30      10-inch 10 Asphalt $272.00 $27.20      12-inch 12 Asphalt $340.00 $28.33 15-inch 15 Asphalt $340.00 $22.67      16-inch 16 Asphalt $367.20 $22.95      18-inch 18 Asphalt $380.80 $21.16      21-inch 21 Asphalt $408.00 $19.43 24-inch 24 Asphalt $408.00 $17.00 1) Costs assume using PVC pipes 2) Costs include material and installation Based on conversations with EVWD, the 2014 WSMP, and review of past projects in the area, unit costs were developed for new storage, wells, and surface water treatment. New storage reservoirs estimated to cost $1,250,000 per MG. Wells are estimated to cost $520,800 per MGD, and new surface water treatment (new or expansion to existing) is estimated to cost $3 per gpd, or $3,000,000 per MGD. 8.3 WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS COST ESTIMATES The cost of the water system improvements is estimated by project for each planning horizon using the cost estimating assumptions and the project phasing discussed previously. The Recommended System Improvements are presented in Table 8-5. Capital Improvement Program 8.23 Table 8-5 Capital Improvement Costs Existing System Improvements Recommended System Improvements Name Proposed Improvements Size Quantity Unit Description Unit Cost Project Cost Transmission Improvements T-1 16-inch 2,100 LF Along Highland Ave, from Plant 134 to Orchard Road. Completed   Completed   Storage Improvements Lower Zone 3.5 - MG Additional storage in Lower Zone. $ 1,250,000 $ 4,375,000 Foothill Zone 1.5 - MG Additional storage in Foothill Zone. $ 1,250,000 $ 1,875,000 Mountain Zone 0.5 - MG Additional storage in Mountain Zone. $ 1,250,000 $ 625,000 Supply Improvements New Well 01 2.88 MGD 1 each Additional well for either Intermediate, Upper, or Foothill. $ 520,800 $ 1,500,000 Near-Term Improvements Recommended System Improvements Name Proposed Improvements Size Quantity Unit Description Unit Cost Project Cost Transmission Improvements T-2 21-inch 50 LF Reconfiguration of pipe at Greenspot Rd and Santa Paula Street $ 408.00 $ 20,000 Harmony Transmission Pipe 24-inch 5,500 LF Dependent on growth to the east of the system (Harmony Development). $ 408.00 $ 3,672,000 Storage Improvements Foothill Zone 2.75 - MG Storage needed Foothill Zone. $ 1,250,000 $ 3,437,500 S-1 4.5 MG S-1 is for growth to the east of the system. $ 1,250,000 $ 5,625,000 Canal 3 2 MG Storage needed in Canal 3 Zone. $ 1,250,000 $ 2,500,000 Supply Improvements New Well 02 2.88 MGD 1 each Additional well for Intermediate, Upper, or Foothill. $ 520,800  $ 1,500,000   New Well 03 2.88 MGD 1 each Additional well for Intermediate, Upper, or Foothill. $ 520,800  $ 1,500,000   New Well or SWTP 3.00 MGD 1 MGD or gpd New supply to support growth in eastern system. $ 520,800 or $ 3.00 $ 1,562,500 or $ 9,000,000 Build-out System Improvements Recommended System Improvements Name Proposed Improvements Size Quantity Unit Description Unit Cost Project Cost Transmission Improvements - - - - -       Storage Improvements Lower Zone 0.75 - MG Total storage needed in Lower Zone. $ 1,250,000 $ 937,500 Foothill Zone 0.5 - MG Total storage needed Foothill Zone. $ 1,250,000 $ 625,000 Canal 1 0.25 MG Total storage needed in Canal 1 Zone. $ 1,250,000 $ 312,500 Canal 2 0.75 MG Total storage needed in Canal 2 Zone. $ 1,250,000 $ 937,500 Canal 3 0.75 MG Total storage needed in Canal 3 Zone. $ 1,250,000 $ 937,500 Mountain Zone 0.25 - MG Total storage needed in Mountain Zone. $ 1,250,000 $ 312,500 Supply Improvements New Well 04 2.88 MGD 1 MGD Additional well for Intermediate, Upper, or Foothill.  $ 520,800   $ 1,500,000  New Well 05 2.88 MGD 1 MGD Additional well for Intermediate, Upper, or Foothill.  $ 520,800   $ 1,500,000  Capital Improvement Program 8.24 (This Page Intentionally Left Blank) Capital Improvement Program 8.25 8.4 SUMMARY OF GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS The following items are recommended as a result of this evaluation  Infrastructure recommendations contingent upon a major development should be reevaluated before construction to confirm the necessity of the project and the accuracy of the demand projections against field data. Data Gathering  It is recommended that flow meters be installed at all pumping facilities to record the transfer of water between zones. Flows at these meters should be relayed to EVWD’s SCADA system.  Installation of pressure loggers to capture pressures at key points in the system such as the suction and discharge pressures at pump stations or critical points of the system. Pressures at these loggers should be relayed to EVWD’s SCADA system.  It is recommended that EVWD input manufacturer’s pump curves adjusted for SCE test data into the hydraulic model rather than design point curves for future updates.  It is recommended that EVWD investigate causes for model discrepancies identified in Section 4.2.1 Steady- State Calibration as the hydraulic model indicated unknown bottlenecks  PRV elevations should be surveyed to update and verify the hydraulic model.  It is recommended that EVWD add the most frequently used PRVs to the SCADA system. Real-time flow, pressure, and valve status of these PRVs would be valuable data for system operators and future modeling.  It is recommended that EVWD investigate areas 1,2,4, and 8 shown in Table 4 3 for bottlenecks, closed valves, or other causes of hydraulic constriction that could be causing discrepancies with the calibrated model. Water Quality  It is recommended that mixers or separate inlet/outlet piping be added to reduce residence time and short circuiting of water. Operations and Maintenance  It is recommended that seismic retrofitting be performed on all inlet/outlet lines at EVWD tanks.  To limit the duration of interrupted water service, it is recommended that EVWD develop an emergency response plan to mitigate interruptions to its customers during a failure of a major supply line.  It is recommended that EVWD conduct a study prior to connection to the Casino expansion considering resizing of the plant 59 hydropneumatics tank, changes in tank settings, changes to sizing of the tank at plant 134, and possible changes to the pumps at plant 56 and 59 to evaluate the most efficient way to serve this new development. Pressure Zones  It is recommended that EVWD monitor pressure in Areas 1, 2, and 3 specifically during higher demand conditions. EVWD can also investigate if pressure complaints have been received for these areas and Capital Improvement Program 8.26 cross-reference fire flow results to see if there are any critical customers that may need to be shifted to higher zone and/or upgraded pipe size.  The area around pumps 59 and 56 should be investigated for high pressure based on model results. If high pressures are confirmed, the pumps need to be isolated on their own zone. EVWD should monitor pressures in that zone and establish a PRV zone specific to the area where pressures regularly exceed EVWD standards. Storage  Since pressure reducing stations or PRVs allow transfer from higher zones to lower zones, it is recommended that storage improvements be constructed in pressure zones with higher HGL to the extent possible as this will allow for use of the storage in lower zones without pumping.  New reservoirs are recommended to be constructed first in the Canal, Mountain, and Foothill zones followed by zones with lower hydraulic grade lines (HGL). Supply  It is recommended that EVWD investigate maximizing current sources including new well locations. Some wells may be candidates for larger pumps and motors if significant capacity has been lost due to lowered groundwater levels, if the existing well casing and screen can accommodate a larger pump. This may minimize the need for additional wells as outlines in the water system improvements. Financing Objectives 9.27 9.0 FINANCING OBJECTIVES Successful financing of large capital programs depends on optimizing three overarching financial objectives:  Produce capital in sufficient amounts when needed;  Produce capital at lowest cost; and  Produce capital with greatest equity among customers, including the principle that growth-pays-for-growth. Because the EVWD CIP will be implemented and refined over many years, the financial plan should be robust, yet flexible to accommodate changes in project timing, capital requirements, system and constituency requirements or changes in law. There are several possible funding sources available for the successful implementation of the CIP, including pay-as- you-go, Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Loan Program, general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, Certificates of Participation, commercial paper (short term notes), developer impact or connection fees, and other state grants and loans. These methods are further described below. 9.1 FUNDING SOURCES There are several possible funding sources available for the successful implementation of the CIP, including pay-as- you-go, Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Loan Program, general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, Certificates of Participation, commercial paper (short term notes), developer impact or connection fees, and other state grants and loans. These methods are further described below. 9.1.1 Pay-As-You-Go Pay-as-you-go funding requires that an agency (or group of agencies) have adequate revenue generation or reserves to fund capital improvements and would be funded by water rates. Reserves can be built up in advance to pay for future facility requirements by raising fees prior to the need for capital facilities. The funds can provide for either all or part of the capital costs. Using pay-as-you-go funding reduces the overall costs of capital facilities by avoiding the costs associated with arranging financing (bond issue costs, legal and financial advisers, etc.) as well as interest on borrowed money. Pay-as-you-go funding often leads to inequities since customers today are paying the full costs for facilities that will provide benefits to future customers. To achieve a more equitable sharing of the cost burden, other funding sources usually are utilized in addition to pay-as-you-go, due to the differences in timing between accumulation of reserves and the capital spending requirements. Financing Objectives Economy Flexibility Equity Financing Objectives 9.28 9.1.19.1.2 Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Loan Program Through a jointly financed program between the federal EPA and the State of California, and administered by the State Water Board, the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) Loan Program can provide low interest loans to water utilities to help pay for improvements and are loaned to a single water agency. Under the program, loans are issued for up to 20 years, and in some cases 30-years, at a fixed interest rate equal to 50 percent of the State’s average interest rate paid on general obligation bonds sold during the previous calendar year. Repayment under the program must begin within six months after completion of the project. Loans are granted based on a set of ranking criteria that give highest priority to projects that resolve deficiencies having direct health implications. Also high on the priority list is insufficient water source capacity that results in water outages. Funds are allocated to applicants based on the priority categories until all funds are obligated. 9.1.19.1.3 General Obligation Bonds General Obligation (G.O.) bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the issuer. As such, they also carry the pledge of the issuer to use its taxing authority to guarantee payment of interest and principal. The issuer’s general obligation pledge is usually regarded by both investors and ratings agencies as the highest form of security for bond issues. Because G.O. bonds are viewed as having lower risk than other types of bonds, they are usually issued at lower interest rates, have fewer costs for marketing and issuance, and do not require the restrictive covenants, special reserves, and higher debt service coverage typical of other types of bond issues. Issuance of G.O. bonds requires electoral approval by two-thirds of the voters. The ultimate security for G.O. bonds is the pledge to impose a property tax to pay for debt service. G.O. bonds are typically issued by a single water agency. Use of property taxes, assessed on the value of property, may not fairly distribute the cost burden in line with the benefits received by the customers. While the ability to use the taxing authority exists, the water agency seeking G.O. bonds could choose to fund the debt service from other sources of revenues, such as water rates or from development impact fees. Use of development impact fees to pay the debt service would provide the most equitable matching of benefits with costs, since debt service on projects that benefit primarily new customers would be paid from fees collected from those new customers. G.O. bonds are attractive due to lower interest rates, fewer restrictions, greater market acceptance, and lower issuing costs. However, the difficulties in securing a two-thirds majority of the qualified electorate make them less attractive than other alternatives, such as revenue bonds and certificates of participation. 9.1.19.1.4 Revenue Bonds Revenue bonds are long-term debt obligations for which the revenue stream of the issuer is pledged for payment of principal and interest. Because revenue bonds are not secured by the full credit or taxing authority of the issuing agency, they are not perceived as being as secure as general obligation (G. O.) bonds. Since revenue bonds are perceived to have less security and are therefore considered riskier, they are typically sold at a slightly higher interest rate (frequently in the range of 0.5 percent to 1.0 percent higher) than the G.O. bonds. The security pledged Financing Objectives 9.29 is that the system will be operated in such a way that sufficient revenues will be generated to meet debt service obligations. Typically, issuers provide the necessary assurances to bondholders that funds will be available to meet debt service requirements through two mechanisms. The first is provision of a debt service reserve fund or a surety. The debt service reserve fund is usually established from the proceeds of the bond issue. The amount held in reserve in most cases is based on either the maximum debt service due in any one year during the term of the bonds or the average annual debt service over the term. The funds are deposited with a trustee to be available in the event the issuer is otherwise incapable of meeting its debt service obligations in any year. The issuer pledges that any funds withdrawn from the reserve will be replenished within a short period, usually within a year. The second assurance made by the borrower is a pledge to maintain a specified minimum coverage ratio on its outstanding revenue bond debt. The coverage ratio is determined by dividing the net revenues of the borrower by the annual revenue bond debt service for the year, where net revenues are defined as gross revenues less operation and maintenance expenses. Based on this, the perceived risk minimum coverage ratios are usually within the range of 1.1 to 1.3, meaning that net revenues would have to be from 110 percent to 130 percent of the amount of revenue bond debt service. To the extent that the borrower can demonstrate achievement of coverage ratios higher than required, the marketability and interest rates on new issues may be more favorable. Issuance of revenue bonds may be authorized pursuant to the provisions of the Revenue Bond Law of 1941. Specific authority to issue a specified amount in revenue bonds requires approval by a simple majority of voters casting ballots and would typically be limited to a single agency seeking a revenue bond. To limit costs (and risks) associated with seeking approval through elections, authorization is typically sought for the maximum amount of bonds that will be needed over the planning period. Upon receiving authorization, the agency actually issues bonds as needed, up to the authorized amount. 9.1.19.1.5 Certificates of Participation Certificates of Participation (COPs) are a form of lease-purchase financing that has the same basic features of revenue bonds except they do not require voter approval through an election. COPs represent participation in an installment purchase agreement through marketable notes, with ownership remaining with the agency. COPs typically involve four different parties — the public agency as the lessee, a private leasing company as the lessor, a bank as trustee and an underwriter who markets the certificates. Because there are more parties involved, the initial cost of issuance for the COP and level of administrative effort may be greater than for bond issues. Due to the widespread acceptance of COPs in financial markets, COPs are usually easier to issue than other forms of lease purchase financing, such as lease revenue bonds. The certificates are usually issued in $5,000 denominations, with the revenue stream from lease payments as the source of payment to the certificate holders. From the standpoint of the agency as the lessee, any and all revenue sources can be applied to payment of the obligation, not just revenues from the projects financed, thereby providing more flexibility. Unlike revenue bonds, COPs do not require a vote of the electorate and have no bond reserve requirements, although establishing a reserve may enhance marketability. In addition, since they are not technically debt instruments, COP issues do not count against debt limitations for the agency. Financing Objectives 9.30 While interest costs may be marginally higher than for revenue bonds, a COP transaction is a flexible and useful form of financing that should be considered for financing of the WSMPU projects. COP transactions would be typically limited to a single water agency obtaining a COP for a specific project. 9.1.19.1.6 Commercial Paper (Short Term Notes) To smooth out capital spending flows without the costs of frequent bond issues, many public agencies with sufficient revenue streams use short-term commercial paper debt to attenuate the peaks and valleys of capital expenses year to year. Similar to bonds issued by public agencies, commercial paper instruments are typically tax-exempt debt, thus demanding a lower interest cost to the agency than would prevail if the commercial paper were taxable. Commercial paper is usually issued for terms ranging from as short as a few days to as long as a year depending on market conditions. As the paper matures, it is resold (“rolled over”) at the then prevailing market rate. Consequently, the paper can in effect “float” over an extended time, being constantly renewed. The short-term rates paid on commercial paper are frequently much lower than those on longer term debt. The primary advantage in using commercial paper is to provide interim funding of capital projects when revenues and reserves are insufficient to fund capital projects fully. In this scenario either (1) the total amount needed is too small to justify a bond issue or (2) the funds are not currently available but will be building up in the immediate future to a level sufficient to repay the borrowing. Commercial paper funding can provide the “bridge” to smooth out the flow of funds. As with other forms of debt financing, there are costs associated with issuing commercial paper. Many of the costs are similar to those of issuing bonds. With commercial paper, however, there is often a requirement that a line of credit be established that will guarantee payment of the commercial paper should it not be possible to roll the commercial paper over at any given maturity date. The cost of the credit line is usually based on the full amount of commercial paper authorized, whether issued or not, so the total commercial paper authorization must be carefully determined to maximize the benefit while minimizing costs. While the interest rate for a particular commercial paper issue is fixed until its maturity, the short maturities and frequent rollovers of the debt effectively make commercial paper much like a long-term variable rate bond. Consequently, there is some exposure to interest rate risk in using commercial paper as a funding mechanism. However, unless inflationary pressure is great, the risk is relatively low. The strategy now being used by a number of water agencies is to issue commercial paper up to the authorized limit, then pay-off the commercial paper outstanding through a revenue bond issue. The water agency gets the benefit of low short-term interest rates while still being able to convert to long term fixed rates through a bond issue. This is an appropriate strategy during relatively stable interest rates, but not when interest rates are rising or expected to rise substantially. Commercial paper programs are typically limited to a single water agency, and the agency pursuing commercial paper will need to confer with their legal and financial advisors to determine if sufficient authorization currently exists to implement a commercial paper program. 9.1.19.1.7 Property Related Debt For many years, California has allowed a form of financing where the properties that benefit from projects pay debt service in proportion to the benefit received. The California Streets and Highways Code allows bonds to be sold Financing Objectives 9.31 under the 1911 Improvement Act or 1913 Municipal Improvement Act, under the procedure of the 1913 Act and the 1931 Majority Protest Act. Mello Roos Community Facilities District Act (1982) financing is another variation of this theme. Assessment financing, as the method was called, is useful for allocating shares of cost and debt service to properties within specific areas (called assessment districts) within which all of the financed project’s benefit accrued. Assessment districts are typically used for defined geographic areas to finance specific projects which benefit the property’s in that geographic area. The voting requirement of the Tax Payers’ Right to Vote Act (Proposition 218) and more recent court decisions challenging certain methods of apportionment, has made the procedure less attractive. In cases where the required water infrastructure would serve only new development, such as in newly developing areas, this type of financing mechanism can be useful. 9.1.19.1.8 Private Sector Equity Some utilities find it convenient to enter into agreements with a private sector service provider to perform certain well- defined functions. The service provider provides the assets as well as human resources, materials, supplies and other costs of business and includes those costs in the amount charged to the utility. This procedure becomes, de facto, a financing technique for the utility in that the capital cost of the assets are financed by the private sector service provider since the assets are owned by it. The financing costs and interest rates are often more expensive than traditional public financing methods as the private equity firm’s cost of capital is generally higher and there are income taxes considerations. The specifics can depend much on the private equity firm’s other portfolio assets, but this method can reduce the capital requirement to be financed by the utility and may offer greater flexibility and creativity than other financing options. Specific projects for engaging a private sector equity participant have not been identified. Further, any cost savings associated with this approach might depend on the specific projects, so this approach is not considered further in this financing plan. Again, this method can be a valuable tool for application in certain situations and should be considered when appropriate. 9.1.19.1.9 Developer Impact or Connection Fees Developer impact fees or connection fees are commonly used alone, or more commonly in conjunction with user rates to finance capacity related water system improvements and to recover previous sunk costs paid by existing system users that benefit future growth. The use of the connection fees to recover sunk facility costs and to provide service to accommodate new customers is completely appropriate. Connection fees are generally calculated by estimating the overall cost of infrastructure necessary to support future growth plus the recovery of sunk costs and allocating those costs to the various benefit zones, usually by water service size. Water agencies have discretion in setting connection fees for water supply, storage, transmission and distribution pipelines as long as established computation methodologies are followed. 9.1.29.1.10 Department of Water Resources Grant Programs There are several water related grant programs that are administered by the Department of Water Resources. Funding for these programs has often come from voter approved propositions. In 2014, voters passed Proposition 1, the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014, which authorized $7.545 billion in G.O. bonds to fund water-related projects. While there are some remaining funds available from Prop 1, the majority has been awarded. Financing Objectives 9.32 In June 2018, California approved Proposition 68 (Prop 68), the California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All, which authorized $4.1 billion in (General Obligation) GO bonds. Of the $4.1 billion in funding, approximately $1.6 billion is directed at water-related projects to be administered by various state agencies, including the DWR. Two main funding programs administered by the DWR are discussed below. Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) California DWR has a number of IRWM grant program funding opportunities. Current IRWM grant programs include planning, implementation, and stormwater flood management. DWR’s IRWM Grant Programs are managed within DWR’s Division of IRWM by the Financial Assistance Branch with assistance from the Regional Planning Branch and regional offices (IRWMP website). Funding for this program is currently provided by Prop 1 and remaining funding is anticipated to be awarded in 2019. The intent of these grants is to assist in developing regional projects benefitting multiple stakeholders. Thus, IRWMP grants are not considered a viable primary CIP funding strategy. Sustainable Groundwater Grant Program (Planning and Implementation) DWR plans to continue its Sustainable Groundwater Planning (SGWP) Grant Program with funding from Proposition 68. This program offers competitive grants to support implementation of local and regional groundwater projects required to support sustainable groundwater management. The funding round for planning grants is anticipated to be in 2019, with draft guidelines released in the Spring and solicitation opening in the Summer of 2019. The next funding cycle for implementation grants is anticipated in 2020. 9.1.29.1.11 Federal Funding US Bureau of Reclamation, Title XVI Program Federal funding for recycled water projects is available through the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, Title XVI Program. The Title XVI Program makes funds available to eligible projects (water reclamation and reuse of municipal, industrial, domestic and agricultural wastewater, and naturally impaired ground and surface waters, and for design and construction of demonstration and permanent facilities to reclaim and reuse wastewater) in the form of grants. The Program funds up to 25 percent of the total project cost. Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) The WIFIA program was established by the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 2014 and provides long-term, low cost supplemental loans for water infrastructure projects, including projects to build and upgrade wastewater and drinking water treatment systems. This competitive program is administered by the EPA and will provide loan funding up to 49% of the project cost at interest rates based on US Treasury rates. The minimum project size for a large community is $20 million and the project must be of a “regional or national significance”. As WIFIA loans only fund up to 49% of project costs, they are intended to be combined with various funding sources such as private equity, revenue bonds, grants, and SRF loans and the repayment structure can be somewhat flexible to accommodate other potential lenders. Financing Objectives 9.33 The application process can take up to two years and is largely a two-step process. Applicants must first submit a letter of interest. After review of these letters of interest, EPA selects projects to invite to submit a full application. The process requires significant due-diligence and up-front funding in terms of an application fee ($100,000) and credit processing fee, if project is invited to submit a full application (estimated to range from $250,000 - $500,000, to which the application fee can be applied). The amount of credit assistance offered through WIFIA is contingent on the size of congressional appropriations. The Congressional appropriation was $30 million in 2017 and $63 million in 2018. The first project applicants were approved funding in 2017 ($2.3 billion in loans). In 2018, a second round of projects were awarded to 39 applicants for a total of $5 billion in loans. The program is anticipated to continue in 2019, however the congressional appropriation has not yet been approved. Financing Objectives 9.34 (This Page is Intentionally Left Blank) Appendix A – References APPENDIX A – REFERENCES 2015 San Bernardino Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan, June 2016, prepared by Water System Consulting, Inc. Black and Veatch, 2013. Wastewater Collection System Master Plan CDM, 2008. East Valley Water District - Water Master Plan Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, 2010. Water Use Efficiency Plan MWH, 2014, Water System Master Plan RBF, 2013. Harmony Water Supply Assessment and Verification 2018 Uniform Plumbing Code. IAPMO/ANSI UPC – 1 2018 Western Municipal Water District of Riverside County et al. v. East San Bernardino County Water District, et al. Case No. 78426 Appendix A – References (This Page is Intentionally Left Blank) Appendix B – April 3, 2018 Operations Meeting Minutes APPENDIX B – APRIL 3, 2018 OPERATIONS MEETING MINUTES Appendix B – April 3, 2018 Operations Meeting Minutes (This Page is Intentionally Left Blank) 4-3-2018 Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 10 Meeting Minutes Project: EVWD – Water and Sewer System Master Plans Update Purpose: Progress Meeting 2: Operations Meeting Date and Time: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 at 10:00 AM Location: 31111 Greenspot Rd, Highland, CA 92346 Attendees: EVWD Stantec IDModeling Distribution: Attendees, Files AGENDA TOPICS Action Item Owner Needed By SCADA set points (list or screen shots), tags, and time series data EVWD ASAP Review SCADA tags to identify fields needed for time series data IDM/Stantec After receipt of tag data Provide list of sewer infrastructure added or changed since previous MP EVWD ASAP Documentation of changes to the water model IDM 4/11/2018 Demand TM Stantec 4/13/2018 Demands to IDM for incorporation into the model Stantec Complete Updated flow monitoring locations Stantec 4/6/2018 List of areas with break in connections where hydraulics are causing localized flow issues EVWD ASAP Map of flow splits and constrictions identified during model update, to be reviewed by EVWD Stantec 4/20/2018 List of pumps that have been changed or replaced since previous master plan NOTE: EVWD has provided “ECM No. 2” document showing pump upgrades implemented with Honeywell program. Please confirm these are the only changed pumps since previous master plan or if additional will be provided EVWD ASAP Report showing latest inspections of the tanks EVWD ASAP GIS layer of septic customers EVWD ASAP File of pipe breaks in system (GIS if available) EVWD ASAP Subsewersheds created from previous MP EVWD ASAP OPERATOR MEETING NOTES 4-3-2018 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 10 MEETING MINUTES • Introductions Jeff Noelte, Director of Engineering & Operations EVWD Eliseo Ochoa, Senior Engineer EVWD Patrick Milroy, Operations Manager EVWD Rick Bacerra EVWD Allen Williams EVWD Kyle Vasquez EVWD Daniel Davis EVWD Richard Becerra EVWD Jim Cathcart, Project Manager Stantec Oliver Slosser, Lead Engineer Stantec Christopher Mote, Condition Assessment Stantec Jennifer Wood, ID Modeling Project Manager IDM Matt Sellers, Lead Water Modeler IDM Sal Sailik, Water Modeling IDM • Data Request List and Action Item Review • Water o SCADA calibration data: SCADA screenshots were reviewed with EVWD, IDM and Stantec. EVWD to provide set points in the SCADA system for water system facilities, SCADA tags, and time series data for the week of the hydrant testing and one week before and after. IDM and Stantec will review available SCADA tags and identify which fields will be required from the time series data. • Sewer o List of updated facilities: EVWD to provide CIP projects completed or in progress since previous sewer master plan • Task Updates • Water model update o Review of updated facilities by IDModeling: This item was tabled due to time. IDM will produce documentation of questions/changes to the water model based on the model update and submit to EVWD for reconciliation. Updated model will be uploaded in Sedaru for review. • Demand analysis and future projections o Demand analysis task is nearly complete. Stantec will provide updated demands to IDM for incorporation into the water model, and submit draft of demands TM to EVWD for review • Condition assessment o Discussed during this meeting, notes below • Flow monitoring o Stantec to review notes from ADS and provide updated locations to EVWD • Sewer model update o Stantec is waiting for updated facilities and then will begin update of the model • Operations Meeting • Operational Strategy Review-Water o Stantec reviewed the overall operations strategy with EVWD and IDM. o Water is mainly pumped from the south east end (lower elevations) of the District through multiple pressure zones. OPERATOR MEETING NOTES 4-3-2018 Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 10 o Hydroelectric power station has not yet been commissioned at the State Water Project (SWP) turnout where water can flow to the North Fork Santa Ana River, and/or the water treatment plant. o Currently bringing SWP water in at high pressure. o North Fork Water CO (a mutual water company) among others have rights to North Fork water, EVWD is an approximate 80 percent rights holder. Rights holders are served their share of water through gravity. o Water quality issues (high turbidity) in North Fork at times, most recently the entire month of February 2018, EVWD used only SWP water. • Condition of Existing Sewer Facilities o Siphons:  List of siphons as presented in previous sewer MP is still accurate, no additional siphons.  Siphons are checked weekly and cleaned monthly  EVWD cannot get cameras under siphons  Siphons 2 and 5 are regularly impacted by grease and require regular maintenance  Siphon 3 has regular maintenance issues due to the State Hospital. Crews have found rags, bedsheets, and other items in the sewer system. EVWD has discussed the potential of cost sharing with the hospital for an onsite “muffin monster” or other solution to intercept the items before they enter the collection system. Stantec suggested EVWD also consider an upstream OPERATOR MEETING NOTES 4-3-2018 Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 10 trash rack or traveling bar screen as the “muffin monster” may not be effective in dealing with fibrous material in large quantities. o Diversion Structures  EVWD reviewed diversion structures listed in previous master plan  There is an additional structure located east of Church St. and Greenspot Ave. This structure will be added to the table. o Flow Splits and Flow Constrictions:  There is a flow split at Witlock Ave. where there is a relief line. Normal flow is routed to the main line. High flows overflow to the relief line.  There are some connections in the system that cause non ideal flow dynamics in localized areas. They include service laterals and main lines (at Hospital) that enter manholes at 90 degree angles. These will not necessarily be modeled, but will be addressed in the condition assessment. New manhole bases, or new manholes would correct the problem. EVWD to provide these locations.  Stantec will identify flow splits and constrictions while updating the model and present to EVWD in a map for review. EVWD will identify where flow travels based on their experience.  Recent SSO at Ferndale, there is a section of pipe that has a 6 inch flow constriction between two 8 inch pipes. o Pipelines and Manholes  Highland Ave experiences high amounts of fats and grease from the meat processing plant on Highland.  EVWD has no formal FOG program, as sewage now is treated at the San Bernardino WWTP. EVWD is addressing areas of high FOG currently and will start a FOG program when the Sterling plant comes online. Stantec will make recommendations for personnel and equipment to conduct inspections and maintenance.  EVWD is working through areas that need grease traps, this has led to decreases in FOG issues  On Webster St. south of Baseline near Emmanuel Baptist Church there is a very flat 74-ft section, and buildup of sand can cause localized backflow conditions. There is side flow from break-in connections.  There are a few other areas in the system with flat sections where debris builds up.  There are manholes located behind houses and in difficult to access areas that cause some maintenance issues.  EMWD will provide a speadsheet they use to track problem areas.  High H2S concentrations in some of the manholes downstream of the San Manuel Casino have deteriorated the concrete. OPERATOR MEETING NOTES 4-3-2018 Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 10 o Septic Customers  EVWD maintains a GIS layer of septic customers, this will be provided to Stantec for use in the sewer master plan. Data are color coded to denote septic systems within 200-ft of a sewer, and whether they have water service or not. • Condition of Existing Water Facilities o Pipelines  EVWD maintains a pipe break file and will provide to Stantec. o Wells  List of wells from previous master plan was reviewed, well 27 is missing from the list, it has sanding problems. No . Lo c a t i o n St a t u s Pr e s s u r e Zo n e Ca p a c i t y (g p m ) (1 ) To t a l He a d (f e e t ) Pu m p i n g El e v a t i o n (f e e t ) Gr o u n d El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) Hy d r a u l i c Gr a d e (f e e t ) Di s c h a r g e Pr e s s u r e ( p s i ) 9 26493 Temple St. Questio nable Intermediate 1,112 229 926 1,149 1,155 3 11 A 6th/Pedley Active Lower 1,953 198 874 1,058 1,072 6 24 A 1 Harrison/Lynwood Active Intermediate 1,069 337 928 1,251 1,265 6 24 B 30 Harrison/Lynwood Active Intermediate 2,691 387 873 1,246 1,260 6 25 3187 N. Mountain Ave. Active Intermediate 950 436 935 1,248 1,371 53 28 A 25385 Court St. Active Lower 1,505 397 872 1,091 1,269 77 39 2683/2695 E. Citrus Active Intermediate 1,257 429 944 1,352 1,373 9 40 27346 E. 3rd Street Inactive Intermediate 1,459 613 952 1,201 1,565 158 107 1425 E Citrus St. Inactive Intermediate 1,133 534 1,003 1,219 1,537 138 125 2129 Plant H5 Active Foothill 1,681 295 1,417 1,614 1,712 42 132 7479 San Francisco Active Intermediate 1,802 456 917 1,157 1,373 94 141 2287 E. 5th Street Active Intermediate 2,095 506 882 1,120 1,388 116 142 7695 Vista Rio Active Foothill 1,367 196 1,361 1,545 1,557 5 143 29090 Abbey Way Active Upper 1,202 771 1,006 1,340 1,777 189 146 7938 Church Street Active Upper 729 499 1,079 1,322 1,578 111 146A 7938 Church Street Active Upper 1,759 622 1,020 1,323 1,642 138 147 29250 Abbey Way Active Upper 2,410 375 1,216 1,365 1,590 97 151 6032 6th St. Active Intermediate 2,871 390 1,414 1,121 1,803 295 Total Capacity 29,045  There are now 15 active wells, 5 inactive wells, and 1 questionable well.  Wells number 40 and 107 are inactive. Uranium found in samples from well 40, perchlorate and nitrates in 107. They also have perchlorate.  Well number 9 is questionable due to detection of radionuclides. EVWD is evaluating if they can pack off sections of production zones to isolate good quality water.  Wells 24A and 24B are only run one at a time. They are close together and if run together, pumping water levels interfere with each other and result in high power consumption.  Well 146 and 146A have the same issues as above.  Well 28A has GAC treatment for TCE, possibly PCE. The filters are over 20 years old.  Entrained air comes from wells 147, 146, 146A and 143. Reservoir at 143 is used to off gas. Could be cascading water in the well. OPERATOR MEETING NOTES 4-3-2018 Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 10  Wells 40, 27, and 107 had ion exchange but the maintenance contract has been terminated, and they are inactive.  Injecting polyphosphates for corrosion control at 142, 143, 146, 146A, 147, and Plant 134  Well 39 is a blending facility. Well pumps to forebay that feeds two boosters to Upper and Foothill zones. Blending is due to high fluoride in Well 39.  Currently EVWD rehabs two wells per year. o Pressure Zones  List of Pressure Zones from previous master plan was reviewed Pressure Zone Name Area (square miles) Hydraulic Grade Elevation (feet- amsl(1)) Ground Elevation Range (feet-amsl) Static Pressure Range(2) (psi) Lower Zone 2.29 1,248 1,032-1,212 16-94 Intermediate Zone 4.16 1,368 1,086-1,353 6-122 Upper Zone 5.73 1,560 1,170-1,513 20-169 Foothill Zone 3.75 1,690 1,315-1,682 3-162 Canal 1 Zone 6.16(3) 1,820 1,432-1,783 16-168 Canal 2 Zone 1,852 1,557-1,825 12-128 Canal 3 Zone 1,838 1,468-1,852 7-160 Mountain Zone 1.93 2,015 1,668-2,016 12-163 Hydro 59 0.26 1,931 1,686-1,827 45-116 Hydro 101 0.01 2,020 1,751-1,824 85-116 Hydro 149 0.05 2,198 1,918-2,058 61-121 Hydro 34 0.05 1,479 1,171-1,256 97-133 Baldridge Canyon 0.03 1,566 1,389-1,443 53-77 Mercedes 0.02 1,669 1,382-1,427 105-124 Highland Upper 0.72 1,440 1,151-1,326 49-125 (1) Feet above mean sea level (2) Calculated based on difference between hydraulic grade elevation and ground elevation range (3) Area for Canal zone as a whole is presented  Little Sycamore to be added to pressure zone list.  Water does not flow from the Upper Zone to the west easily.  Upper zone reservoirs routinely operate at different levels, there can be as much as a 10 ft. different in tank water levels during the day. Stantec requested daily data to see if levels equalize during low demand periods. If so, this could indicate hydraulic restrictions in transmission system piping.  No redundancy in the Canal 1 and Canal 2 Zones.  Static max/min pressure range will represent pressure range at demand nodes and not calculated as in the current table.  Pipeline on Highland westward from treatment plant is 16” and constricts flow.  EVWD would like to tie the Canal Zones together if possible  Area around Pumps 59 and 56 may need to be on its own zone, experiencing high pressures. o Booster Pump Stations  Reviewed list of booster pumps are listed in the previous master plan. Booster Pump Motor Horsepower (hp) Design Head (ft) Design Flow (gpm) Overall Efficiency (%) Suction Zone Discharge Zone PMP_101_1 30 83 399 31.4 Canal2 Hydro101 PMP_101_2 30 88 441 33.0 Canal2 Hydro101 PMP_108_1 100 163 1,278 63.1 Foothill Canal3 OPERATOR MEETING NOTES 4-3-2018 Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 10 Booster Pump Motor Horsepower (hp) Design Head (ft) Design Flow (gpm) Overall Efficiency (%) Suction Zone Discharge Zone PMP_108_2 100 158 1,207 59.2 Foothill Canal3 PMP_125_1 40 93 1,203 61.1 Plant 125 Foothill PMP_125_2 20 89 657 66.9 Plant 125 Foothill PMP_127_1 75 153 1,327 65.5 Lower Intermediate PMP_127_2 75 163 1,335 66.9 Lower Intermediate PMP_129_1 100 175 1,647 75.9 Upper Foothill PMP_129_2 100 172 1,636 71.6 Upper Foothill PMP_129_3 100 175 1,648 71.6 Upper Foothill PMP_129_4 100 304 980 68.9 Upper Canal3 PMP_129_5 100 302 971 68.0 Upper Canal3 PMP_12_1 150 194 2,187 75.3 Plant 11 Lower PMP_12_2 100 203 1,467 74.2 Plant 11 Lower PMP_12_3 60 199 865 66.8 Plant 11 Lower PMP_130_1 60 119 475 30.2 Lower Intermediate PMP_130_2 60 150 637 44.1 Lower Intermediate PMP_131_1 40 168 504 61.9 Foothill Canal3 PMP_131_2 25 165 270 49.2 Foothill Canal3 PMP_131_3 30 167 290 47.1 Foothill Canal3 PMP_134_1 75 155 1,015 69.5 Upper Foothill PMP_134_2 75 187 687 68.4 Upper Foothill PMP_134_3 75 191 557 63.3 Upper Foothill PMP_134_4 75 374 512 62.3 Upper Canal3 PMP_134_5 75 386 693 80.8 Upper Canal3 PMP_137_1 40 210 550 69.5 Canal3 Mountain PMP_137_2 40 212 548 69.4 Canal3 Mountain PMP_140_1 60 217 777 70.1 Canal3 Mountain PMP_140_2 60 219 800 71.8 Canal3 Mountain PMP_142_1 50 182 867 67.3 Plant 142 Foothill PMP_142_2 125 182 470 66.7 Plant 142 Foothill PMP_142_3 125 192 778 58.6 Plant 142 Canal3 PMP_149_1 15 162 80 42.0 Mountain Hydro149 PMP_149_2 15 115 81 41.7 Mountain Hydro149 PMP_149_3 100 193 1,530 74.9 Mountain Hydro149 PMP_149_4 100 188 1,505 73.1 Mountain Hydro149 PMP_24_1 100 170 1,869 78.7 Plant 24 Intermediate PMP_24_2 75 154 1,756 73.4 Plant 24 Intermediate PMP_24_3 75 124 1,473 64.7 Plant 24 Intermediate PMP_25_1 60 233 573 61.6 Plant 25 Upper PMP_33_1 100 199 1,623 68.8 Intermediate Upper PMP_33_2 75 207 1,003 66.4 Intermediate Upper PMP_33_3 60 208 746 62.8 Intermediate Upper PMP_34_1 15 169 199 52.3 Lower Hydro 34 PMP_34_2 40 125 915 54.3 Lower Hydro 34 PMP_37_1 100 159 1,089 56.6 Upper Foothill PMP_37_2 100 150 1,065 52.2 Upper Foothill PMP_39_1 40 182 662 69.1 Intermediate Upper PMP_39_2 50 379 287 45.0 Intermediate Foothill PMP_39_3 125 341 1,053 66.1 Intermediate Foothill PMP_39_4 125 375 1,128 78.1 Intermediate Foothill PMP_39_5 20 21 1,895 51.0 Intermediate Forebay PMP_39_6 20 21 1,735 45.8 Intermediate Forebay OPERATOR MEETING NOTES 4-3-2018 Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 10 Booster Pump Motor Horsepower (hp) Design Head (ft) Design Flow (gpm) Overall Efficiency (%) Suction Zone Discharge Zone PMP_56_1 50 150 802 51.7 Foothill Canal1 PMP_56_2 50 163 1,210 77.8 Foothill Canal1 PMP_59_1 30 91 824 57.7 Canal1 Hydro59 PMP_59_2 30 104 765 65.9 Canal1 Hydro59 PMP_59_3 15 85 541 72.0 Canal1 Hydro59 PMP_99_1 40 172 667 76.2 Foothill Canal2 PMP_99_2 40 176 519 62.9 Foothill Canal2 PMP_9_1 75 278 542 50.9 Plant 9 Intermediate PMP_9_2 75 291 612 61.2 Plant 9 Intermediate Total Average Capacity 58,427  EVWD to provide a list of pumps that have been replaced or changed since previous master plan. Current upgrade schedule is four pumps per year.  Pumps 149_1 and 149_2 are currently being replaced.   Pumps 56 and 59 may be too small to serve the planned Casino 500 room hotel.  Pumps 59 pump into hydro zone and cycles excessively.  5 VFDs on permeate pumps at Plant 134, and 2 VFDs at Plant 143.  Several of the pumps have efficiency issues and may need to be resized.  Booster site 127 has a pressure reducing valve to drop water from the intermediate zone to the lower zone, the set point is based on Plant 34 level.  SCE does efficiency tests every other year. EVWD will do additional testing for needed for the master plan. o Storage Reservoirs  Reviewed storage reservoirs as presented in previous master plan Reservoir ID Pressure Zone Volume (MG) Bottom Elevation (ft.) High Water Elevation (ft.) Height (ft.) Dia. (ft.) Year of Const. Plant 101 Canal 2 1.4 1,820 1,852 31.5 85.0 1978 Plant 108 Foothill 2.0 1,662 1,710 47.5 84.0 1980 Plant 129_1 Upper 3.0 1,530 1,560 30.0 130.0 1993 Plant 129_2 Upper 3.0 1,530 1,560 30.0 130.0 1993 Plant 134 Upper 3.0 1,520 1,560 40.0 113.0 1996 Plant 137 Canal 3 0.07 1,816 1,838 22.0 23.5 1960 Plant 140 Canal 3 2.0 1,820 1,850 30.0 106.0 1990 Plant 148 Mountain 0.75 2,015 2,044 29.0 65.0 2002 Plant 33_1 Intermediate 1.0 1,330 1,365 34.75 70.0 1956 Plant 33_2 Intermediate 2.5 1,330 1,365 34.75 110.0 1957 Plant 33_3 Intermediate 1.0 1,330 1,365 34.75 70.0 1957 Plant 34 Lower 1.0 1,210 1,248 38.0 66.5 1957 Plant 37 Upper 4.0 1,520 1,560 40.0 132.0 2003 Plant 39_1 Intermediate 0.9 1,343 1,366 23.2 80.0 1961 Plant 39_2 Intermediate 1.4 1,343 1,366 23.2 100.0 1983 Plant 56 Foothill 0.5 1,666 1,690 23.5 60.0 1968 Plant 59 Canal 1 0.7 1,800 1,820 20.0 78.0 1986 Plant 99 Foothill 0.5 1,666 1,690 23.5 60.0 1968 Total Capacity 27.6  Corrosion at Plant 140, needs rehabilitation, but cannot be taken down for maintenance because 137 volume is too small to support the zone. OPERATOR MEETING NOTES 4-3-2018 Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 10  Plant 134 is a concrete tank, and 37 is buried concrete, all others are steel tanks.  Plant 59 is also in need of rehabilitation but it cannot be taken out of service.  EVWD to provide copy of report showing latest inspections of the tanks.  Recoating of tanks is based on inspection. Tanks are inspected by divers every 4-6 years.  Hydro tanks are in need of inspection but can’t be taken out of service. Some are undersized and some may have corrosion problems.  Tank water age is contributing to higher THM concentrations in the distribution system.  Most tanks are single inlet and outlet, contributing to water age issues. Adding mixers or a second inlet have been considered to reduce nitrification.  Canal Zones tanks do not float well together, and the Plant 99 and 101 tanks do not float together.  Inadequate storage in Foothill zone, Plant 108 water levels will drop no matter how much is pumped into it, especially in summer.  Plant 134 has a seismic valve. Other tanks are not seismically retrofitted.  Plant 59 hydro turns on and off constantly. This area was connected to a residential zone, and is now serving many additional customers on the San Manuel Reservation, the tank is undersized.  Plant 34 and Plant 101 need to be rehabilitated or replaced. o Pressure Regulating Stations  Reviewed pressure regulating stations as presented in previous master plan Station No. From Zone To Zone Pressure Setting (psi) Ground Elevation (feet) 301 Highland Upper Intermediate 92 1,214 302 Foothill Baldridge Canyon 70 1,405 305 Foothill Upper 57 1,424 306 Highland Upper Intermediate 98 1,205 308 Foothill Mercedes 105 1,426 309 Intermediate Lower 62 1,108 311 Intermediate Lower 48 1,134 324 Foothill Upper 56 1,429 325 Upper Highland Upper 88 1,237 326 Upper Highland Upper 82 1,261 33 Upper Intermediate SCADA Controlled 40 Upper Intermediate SCADA Controlled 108 Canal Foothill SCADA Controlled 127 Intermediate Lower SCADA Controlled  Additional PRS are shown in the above table in red.  PRS 308 is rarely used.  PRS 40 can drop water via PRV from upper to intermediate zone. • Future Operational Strategy Discussion o Change to Surface Water Sources  Santa Ana River and SWP water to supply roughly 75 percent of future supply. o The Conservation District recharge basins can take as much water as necessary for recharge, and are not restricted by flood control operations. OPERATOR MEETING NOTES 4-3-2018 Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 10 o Flexibility needs to be added to the system to switch between ground and surface water as local and state water supplies vary. o Reduce energy costs and do less pumping. o Treatment must address THM issues in system. • Next Steps • Hydrant Testing o EVWD to complete hydrant testing week of 4/9/18 • Flow Monitoring o Stantec will review notes from ADS on land use specific flow monitoring sites and make new recommendations. Appendix C – EPS Calibration Results APPENDIX C – EPS CALIBRATION RESULTS Appendix C – EPS Calibration Results (This Page is Intentionally Left Blank) EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration Excellent Good Fair Flow gpm <=10% 10% ‐ 20% >20% Pressure psi <=3 3 ‐ 5 >5 Level ft <=3 3 ‐ 6 >6 Total Flow 20 3 1 24 Pressure 5 1 1 7 Level 17 2 0 19 Total:42 6 2 50 Total Excellent + Good:48 96% Total:50 Calibration Point Simulated  Average Measured  Average Comparison Is Average  within  Criteria? % of Time  within  Acceptable  Criteria? Comments P148 Reservoir Level  18 ft   17 ft  1.2 ft Excellent 100% ‐ P149 Hydro Pressure  116 psi   115 psi  0.4 psi Excellent 67% ‐ Plant 137 Reservoir Level  19 ft   19 ft  0.2 ft Excellent 100% ‐ P140 Reservoir Level  20 ft   19 ft  0.1 ft Excellent 100% ‐ Canal Zone Pressure  131 psi   128 psi  2.5 psi Excellent 85% ‐ P131Flow Rate  302 gpm   740 gpm  59.2% Fair 0% SCADA provided is identical to drop valve at this pump station and does  not match pump run status from SCADA. P108 Drop Valve Flow Rate  704 gpm   740 gpm  4.8% Excellent 100% ‐ P101 Hydro Pressure  51 psi   50 psi  0.7 psi Excellent 47% ‐ P101 Reservoir Level  19 ft   17 ft  1.4 ft Excellent 100% ‐ P59 Reservoir Level  17 ft   17 ft  0.1 ft Excellent 100% ‐ P59 Hydro Pressure  58 psi   55 psi  3.2 psi Good 51% ‐ P108 Reservoir Level  29 ft   30 ft  1.0 ft Excellent 100% By closing PRS_324, the tank level achieves an excellent calibration  match. If this valve is set to open at 58 psi, Tank 108 level drops  significantly in the simulation and does not match the SCADA very well. It  is recommended to field check PRS_324 to confirm if it has flow passing  through the valve. It could also be the case where PRS_324 has a lower  setting than 58 psi which results in the PRV closing due to a higher  downstream pressure. Plant 56 Reservoir Level  16 ft   16 ft  0.7 ft Excellent 100% Disabled float valve control from legacy model to improve calibration. In  addition, PRS_315 was set to active at 70 psi to improve calibration (was  previously closed per EVWD). Calibration indicates additional flow leaves  the Foothill Zone near Tank 56 and Tank 99. PRS_315 simulates this flow  leaving Foothill.  It is recommended to field check PRS_315 to confirm if it  has flow passing through the valve. Plant 99 Reservoir Level  17 ft   17 ft  0.3 ft Excellent 100% PRS_315 was set to active at 70 psi to improve calibration (was previously  closed per EVWD). Calibration indicates additional flow leaves the  Foothill Zone near Tank 56 and Tank 99. PRS_315 simulates this flow  leaving Foothill.  It is recommended to field check PRS_315 to confirm if it  has flow passing through the valve. Well 125 Flow Rate  1,250 gpm   1,246 gpm  0.3% Excellent 100% ‐ Well 125 System Flow Rate  1,243 gpm   1,227 gpm  1.3% Excellent 98%‐ Well 142 Flow Rate  1,020 gpm   1,037 gpm  1.6% Excellent 100% ‐ P142 Clearwell Level  3 ft   3 ft  0.4 ft Excellent 100% ‐ P142‐1 Flow Rate  837 gpm   835 gpm  0.3% Excellent 100% ‐ P37 Reservoir Level  27 ft   26 ft  0.1 ft Excellent 100% ‐ P129 Reservoir Level  18 ft   18 ft  0.3 ft Excellent 100% ‐ P134 Reservoir Level  26 ft   29 ft  3.3 ft Good 90% ‐ Plant 143 Flow Rate  1,080 gpm   1,067 gpm  1.2% Excellent 100% ‐ Well 146 Flow Rate  470 gpm   472 gpm  0.3% Excellent 100% ‐ Well 146A Flow Rate  1,020 gpm   1,000 gpm  2.0% Excellent 100% ‐ W147 Flow Rate  1,700 gpm   1,700 gpm  0.0% Excellent 100% ‐ Combined Well Flow Rate  1,946 gpm   1,937 gpm  0.5% Excellent 100% ‐ Tank 100 Level  20 ft   20 ft  0.2 ft Excellent 100% ‐ Average Booster Flow Rate  1,942 gpm   1,911 gpm  1.6% Excellent 95%‐ P25‐1 Flow Rate  707 gpm   799 gpm  11.6% Good 100% ‐ Upper Zone Flow Rate  1,215 gpm   1,034 gpm  17.5% Good 47% Tapered flow pattern recorded by SCADA could be a result of fast change  in flow not captured in the 15‐minute sampling period. P40 Upper Zone Flow Rate  1,347 gpm   1,234 gpm  9.1% Excellent 80% ‐ P40 Discharge Pressure  149 psi   142 psi  7.5 psi Fair 1% Plant 40 discharge pressure is about 8 psi lower in SCADA than in the  model. Several attempts to lower the pressure through closing valves did  not help to lower the pressure in the model. In addition, the hydrant test  in Upper actually matches the simulated pressure more than the P40  pressure. It is recommended that this pressure gauge be checked for  accuracy. Measurement Count per Calibration Target Calibration Period: April 18, 2018 Measurement EPS Calibration Summary Report Page 1 of 2 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration Calibration Point Simulated  Average Measured  Average Comparison Is Average  within  Criteria? % of Time  within  Acceptable  Criteria? Comments P40 Drop Valve Flow Rate  1,297 gpm   1,287 gpm  0.8% Excellent 100%‐ Plant 33 Reservoir Level  28 ft   29 ft  0.9 ft Excellent 100% ‐ P39 Forebay Level  9 ft   13 ft  3.8 ft Good 98% ‐ P39 Reservoir Level  17 ft   18 ft  1.1 ft Excellent 100% While model achieves an excellent match for this T_39, it was observed  that the pump tests for Pump 39 #3 and #4 had a higher recorded  discharge pressure of near 180 psi, while the model is at 157 psi. There  are not any pressure calibration points in the Foothill Zone to help  investigate this discrepancy. It is recommended that EVWD confirm the  discharge pressure at this pump station and investigate if there are any  significant head losses, such as partially closed valves that might result in  the 23 psi delta. T_9 Reservoir Level  0 ft   0 ft  0.0 ft Excellent 100% ‐ W39 Flow Rate  1,500 gpm   1,499 gpm  0.1% Excellent 100% ‐ W132 Flow Rate  2,180 gpm   2,177 gpm  0.1% Excellent 100% ‐ W132 Pressure  91 psi   93 psi  1.8 psi Excellent 99% ‐ W151 Flow Rate  2,200 gpm   2,181 gpm  0.9% Excellent 99% ‐ W24B Flow Rate  2,215 gpm   2,722 gpm  18.6% Good 100% Updated well flow rate to match pump test, from 2,720 gpm to 2215 gpm,  which resulted in better match and cycling at T‐24. It is recommended to  validate SCADA flow versus the pump test for Well 24B. P24 Clearwell Level  5 ft   5 ft  0.4 ft Excellent 100% ‐ W25 Flow Rate  900 gpm   889 gpm  1.2% Excellent 100% ‐ P127 Drop Flow  1,270 gpm   1,256 gpm  1.2% Excellent 100% ‐ P130 Flow Rate  784 gpm   785 gpm  0.0% Excellent 100% ‐ P34 Reservoir Level  30 ft   33 ft  2.4 ft Excellent 100% ‐ Well 11 Flow Rate  1,200 gpm   1,170 gpm  2.6% Excellent 100% ‐ P34 Hydro Pressure  80 psi   79 psi  0.7 psi Excellent 51% ‐ EPS Calibration Summary Report Page 2 of 2 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 1 of 50 ‐5 5 10 15 20 25 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Le v e l   ( f t ) Time Calibration Results: Level Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 P148 Reservoir Level (0.75M MOUNTAIN) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Excellent % of values within acceptable  criteria: 100% Model ID: T_148 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 2 of 50 ‐10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Pr e s s u r e   ( p s i ) Time Calibration Results: Pressure Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 P149 Hydro Pressure (MOUNTAIN) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Excellent % of values within acceptable  criteria: 67% Model ID: EVWD_1343 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 3 of 50 ‐5 5 10 15 20 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Le v e l   ( f t ) Time Calibration Results: Level Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 Plant 137 Reservoir Level (0.07M CANAL) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Excellent % of values within acceptable  criteria: 100% Model ID: T_137 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 4 of 50 ‐5 5 10 15 20 25 30 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Le v e l   ( f t ) Time Calibration Results: Level Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 P140 Reservoir Level (2M CANAL) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Excellent % of values within acceptable  criteria: 100% Model ID: T_140 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 5 of 50 ‐10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Pr e s s u r e   ( p s i ) Time Calibration Results: Pressure Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 P129‐Canal Zone Pressure (CANAL) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Excellent % of values within acceptable  criteria: 85% Model ID: EVWD_1310 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 6 of 50 ‐800 ‐700 ‐600 ‐500 ‐400 ‐300 ‐200 ‐100 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Fl o w   ( g p m ) Time Calibration Results: Flow Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 P131Flow Rate (CANAL) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Fair % of values within acceptable  criteria: 0% Model ID: J12_1028 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 7 of 50 ‐100 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Fl o w   ( g p m ) Time Calibration Results: Flow Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 P108 Drop Valve Flow Rate (CANAL to FOOTHILL) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Excellent % of values within acceptable  criteria: 100% Model ID: EVWD_3421 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 8 of 50 ‐10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Pr e s s u r e   ( p s i ) Time Calibration Results: Pressure Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 P101 Hydro Pressure (CANAL) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Excellent % of values within acceptable  criteria: 47% Model ID: EVWD_1208 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 9 of 50 ‐5 5 10 15 20 25 30 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Le v e l   ( f t ) Time Calibration Results: Level Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 P101 Reservoir Level (1.1M CANAL) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Excellent % of values within acceptable  criteria: 100% Model ID: T_101 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 10 of 50 ‐5 5 10 15 20 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Le v e l   ( f t ) Time Calibration Results: Level Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 P59 Reservoir Level (0.7M CANAL) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Excellent % of values within acceptable  criteria: 100% Model ID: T_59 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 11 of 50 ‐10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Pr e s s u r e   ( p s i ) Time Calibration Results: Pressure Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 P59 Hydro Pressure (CANAL) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Good % of values within acceptable  criteria: 51% Model ID: EVWD_1174 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 12 of 50 ‐5 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Le v e l   ( f t ) Time Calibration Results: Level Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 P108 Reservoir Level (2M FOOTHILL) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Excellent % of values within acceptable  criteria: 100% Model ID: T_108 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 13 of 50 ‐5 5 10 15 20 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Le v e l   ( f t ) Time Calibration Results: Level Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 Plant 56 Reservoir Level (0.5M FOOTHILL) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Excellent % of values within acceptable  criteria: 100% Model ID: T_56 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 14 of 50 ‐5 5 10 15 20 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Le v e l   ( f t ) Time Calibration Results: Level Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 Plant 99 Reservoir Level (0.5M FOOTHILL) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Excellent % of values within acceptable  criteria: 100% Model ID: T_99 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 15 of 50 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Fl o w   ( g p m ) Time Calibration Results: Flow Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 Well 125 Flow Rate (FOOTHILL) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Excellent % of values within acceptable  criteria: 100% Model ID: EVWD_4180 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 16 of 50 ‐200 ‐100 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Fl o w   ( g p m ) Time Calibration Results: Flow Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 Well 125 System Flow Rate (FOOTHILL) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Excellent % of values within acceptable  criteria: 98% Model ID: EVWD_3464 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 17 of 50 ‐100 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Fl o w   ( g p m ) Time Calibration Results: Flow Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 Well 142 Flow Rate (FOOTHILL) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Excellent % of values within acceptable  criteria: 100% Model ID: EVWD_3831 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 18 of 50 ‐5 5 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Le v e l   ( f t ) Time Calibration Results: Level Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 P142 Clearwell Level (FOOTHILL) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Excellent % of values within acceptable  criteria: 100% Model ID: T_142 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 19 of 50 ‐100 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Fl o w   ( g p m ) Time Calibration Results: Flow Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 P142‐1 Flow Rate (FOOTHILL) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Excellent % of values within acceptable  criteria: 100% Model ID: EVWD_3813 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 20 of 50 ‐5 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Le v e l   ( f t ) Time Calibration Results: Level Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 P37 Reservoir Level (4M UPPER) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Excellent % of values within acceptable  criteria: 100% Model ID: T_37 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 21 of 50 ‐5 5 10 15 20 25 30 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Le v e l   ( f t ) Time Calibration Results: Level Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 P129 Reservoir Level (3+3M UPPER) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Excellent % of values within acceptable  criteria: 100% Model ID: T_129_1 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 22 of 50 ‐10 ‐5 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Le v e l   ( f t ) Time Calibration Results: Level Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 P134 Reservoir Level (2.9M UPPER) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Good % of values within acceptable  criteria: 90% Model ID: T_134 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 23 of 50 ‐100 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Fl o w   ( g p m ) Time Calibration Results: Flow Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 Well 143 Flow Rate (UPPER) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Excellent % of values within acceptable  criteria: 100% Model ID: EVWD_3840 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 24 of 50 ‐50 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Fl o w   ( g p m ) Time Calibration Results: Flow Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 Well 146 Flow Rate (UPPER) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Excellent % of values within acceptable  criteria: 100% Model ID: EVWD_3848 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 25 of 50 ‐100 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Fl o w   ( g p m ) Time Calibration Results: Flow Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 Well 146A Flow Rate (UPPER) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Excellent % of values within acceptable  criteria: 100% Model ID: EVWD_4352 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 26 of 50 ‐100 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Fl o w   ( g p m ) Time Calibration Results: Flow Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 W147 Flow Rate (UPPER) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Excellent % of values within acceptable  criteria: 100% Model ID: EVWD_3875 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 27 of 50 ‐200 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2,200 2,400 2,600 2,800 3,000 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Fl o w   ( g p m ) Time Calibration Results: Flow Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 Plant 143 Combined Well Flow Rate (UPPER) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Excellent % of values within acceptable  criteria: 100% Model ID: EVWD_4327 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 28 of 50 ‐5 5 10 15 20 25 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Le v e l   ( f t ) Time Calibration Results: Level Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 Plant 143 Tank 100 Level (1M UPPER) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Excellent % of values within acceptable  criteria: 100% Model ID: T_143 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 29 of 50 ‐1,000 ‐800 ‐600 ‐400 ‐200 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2,200 2,400 2,600 2,800 3,000 3,200 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Fl o w   ( g p m ) Time Calibration Results: Flow Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 Plant 143 Pump Flow Rate (UPPER) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Excellent % of values within acceptable  criteria: 95% Model ID: EVWD_4332 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 30 of 50 ‐200 ‐100 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Fl o w   ( g p m ) Time Calibration Results: Flow Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 P25‐1 Flow Rate (UPPER) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Good % of values within acceptable  criteria: 100% Model ID: EVWD_3094 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 31 of 50 ‐400 ‐300 ‐200 ‐100 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Fl o w   ( g p m ) Time Calibration Results: Flow Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 P39‐Upper Zone Flow Rate (UPPER) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Good % of values within acceptable  criteria: 47% Model ID: SL_G6_1312 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 32 of 50 ‐100 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Fl o w   ( g p m ) Time Calibration Results: Flow Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 P40 Upper Zone Flow Rate (UPPER) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Excellent % of values within acceptable  criteria: 80% Model ID: M8_1099 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 33 of 50 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Pr e s s u r e   ( p s i ) Time Calibration Results: Pressure Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 P40 Discharge Pressure (UPPER) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Fair % of values within acceptable  criteria: 1% Model ID: WV_M8_153 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 34 of 50 ‐100 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Fl o w   ( g p m ) Time Calibration Results: Flow Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 P40 Drop Valve Flow Rate (to INTERMEDIATE) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Excellent % of values within acceptable  criteria: 100% Model ID: M8_1059 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 35 of 50 ‐5 5 10 15 20 25 30 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Le v e l   ( f t ) Time Calibration Results: Level Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 Plant 33 Res. Level (1,1,2.5M INTERMEDIATE) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Excellent % of values within acceptable  criteria: 100% Model ID: T_33_1 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 36 of 50 ‐10 ‐5 5 10 15 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Le v e l   ( f t ) Time Calibration Results: Level Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 P39 Forebay Level (INTERMEDIATE) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Good % of values within acceptable  criteria: 98% Model ID: T_39_3 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 37 of 50 ‐5 5 10 15 20 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Le v e l   ( f t ) Time Calibration Results: Level Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 P39 Reservoir Level (0.9+1.4M INTERMEDIATE) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Excellent % of values within acceptable  criteria: 100% Model ID: T_39_1 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 38 of 50 ‐5 5 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Le v e l   ( f t ) Time Calibration Results: Level Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 T_9 Reservoir Level Forebay (INTERMEDIATE) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Excellent % of values within acceptable  criteria: 100% Model ID: T_9 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 39 of 50 ‐100 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Fl o w   ( g p m ) Time Calibration Results: Flow Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 WELL 39 Flow Rate (PLANT39) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Excellent % of values within acceptable  criteria: 100% Model ID: EVWD_3205 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 40 of 50 ‐200 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2,200 2,400 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Fl o w   ( g p m ) Time Calibration Results: Flow Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 W132 Flow Rate (INTERMEDIATE) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Excellent % of values within acceptable  criteria: 100% Model ID: EVWD_3606 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 41 of 50 ‐10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Pr e s s u r e   ( p s i ) Time Calibration Results: Pressure Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 W132 Pressure (INTERMEDIATE) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Excellent % of values within acceptable  criteria: 99% Model ID: EVWD_1348 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 42 of 50 ‐200 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2,200 2,400 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Fl o w   ( g p m ) Time Calibration Results: Flow Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 W151 Flow Rate (INTERMEDIATE) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Excellent % of values within acceptable  criteria: 99% Model ID: SL_M5_1057 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 43 of 50 ‐600 ‐400 ‐200 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2,200 2,400 2,600 2,800 3,000 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Fl o w   ( g p m ) Time Calibration Results: Flow Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 W24B Flow Rate (INTERMEDIATE) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Good % of values within acceptable  criteria: 100% Model ID: EVWD_3076 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 44 of 50 ‐5 5 10 15 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Le v e l   ( f t ) Time Calibration Results: Level Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 P24 Clearwell Level (INTERMEDIATE) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Excellent % of values within acceptable  criteria: 100% Model ID: T_24 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 45 of 50 ‐100 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Fl o w   ( g p m ) Time Calibration Results: Flow Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 W25 Flow Rate (INTERMEDIATE) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Excellent % of values within acceptable  criteria: 100% Model ID: EVWD_3099 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 46 of 50 ‐100 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Fl o w   ( g p m ) Time Calibration Results: Flow Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 P127 Drop Valve Flow (INTERMEDIATE) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Excellent % of values within acceptable  criteria: 100% Model ID: EVWD_4339 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 47 of 50 ‐100 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Fl o w   ( g p m ) Time Calibration Results: Flow Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 P130 Flow Rate (INTERMEDIATE) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Excellent % of values within acceptable  criteria: 100% Model ID: EVWD_3568 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 48 of 50 ‐5 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Le v e l   ( f t ) Time Calibration Results: Level Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 P34 Reservoir Level (1M LOWER) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Excellent % of values within acceptable  criteria: 100% Model ID: T_34 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 49 of 50 ‐100 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Fl o w   ( g p m ) Time Calibration Results: Flow Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 Well 11 Flow Rate (LOWER) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Excellent % of values within acceptable  criteria: 100% Model ID: SL_M2_1203 EVWD Water Master Plan Update EPS Calibration EPS Calibration Graphs Page 50 of 50 ‐10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 4/19/18 12:00 AM 4/19/18 4:00 AM 4/19/18 8:00 AM 4/19/18 12:00 PM 4/19/18 4:00 PM 4/19/18 8:00 PM 4/20/18 12:00 AM Pr e s s u r e   ( p s i ) Time Calibration Results: Pressure Graph April 19 to April 20, 2018 P34 Hydro Pressure (LOWER) Simulated Data Measured Data Difference:Meets Target Difference:Outside Target Calibration Target Met: Excellent % of values within acceptable  criteria: 51% Model ID: EVWD_1077 Appendix D – Fire Flow Improvement Summary APPENDIX D – FIRE FLOW IMPROVEMENT SUMMARY To identify areas that would benefit most from fire flow improvement projects, hydrants were prioritized by percent shortfall of the recommended flow. Areas with a cluster of hydrants that fell short of the recommended flow were grouped into ten priority fire flow areas. Recommendations were made for each of the ten areas to improve fire flow availability of each of the hydrants not meeting criteria within each of the ten areas. The list below provides a detailed methodology of how these recommendations were developed: In some cases, “incorrect” fire flow demands are initially assigned to the demand junctions, due to the multiple land use types near that junction. For example, an industrial demand might be assigned to the nearest junction that is actually on a residential street. This is addressed by ensuring that the residential demand would be associated with the hydrant on the residential street and the high demand could be served by another junction nearby on a larger street. Where appropriate, the fire flow demand at that junction is revised and the model simulation is repeated with the adjusted fire flow demand. As shown in Table 6-2, some of the land use categories have a fire flow requirement that is greater than 2,500 gpm. These high fire flow demands typically cannot be met by a single hydrant. To simulate the use of multiple hydrants, the fire flow demand is divided among multiple adjacent hydrants and the model simulation is repeated. If the use of multiple hydrants satisfies the demand, then no recommendations are made. Some of the deficient junctions fall on dead end pipelines or cul-de-sacs. This is typical in a water distribution network as these pipelines can receive water only from a single direction resulting in a larger head-loss as opposed to looped configurations. In such cases, a check is made to determine if the demand can be met by making use of multiple hydrants from adjacent water mains within 500 feet. If the use of multiple hydrants satisfies the demand, then no recommendations are made. Otherwise, pipeline upsizing is recommended for the pipeline that connects to these dead-end pipelines. In a few dead-end locations where the modeled flow reaches greater than 90 percent of the recommended flow, no improvements are recommended. The detailed investigation described above reduced the number of deficient hydrants in each of the ten areas. Recommendations to improve pressures at each hydrant not meeting criteria include upsizing pipeline diameters, replacing hydrant laterals, and creating looped networks where possible. After replacing the small diameter pipelines in each area to either 6 or 8-inch diameter pipelines, additional fire flow deficiencies are addressed by increasing pipeline diameters and creating loops in the system. Lastly, hydrant laterals are upsized from 2 or 4-inch to 6-inch laterals if this change helps meet recommended flow. In most small lateral cases, the hydrant is described as a blow off, therefore it is recommended that the entire lateral to hydrant assembly be replaced in these cases so that a fully supporting hydrant can meet recommended flow. A blow-off type hydrant may still contribute excessive head-loss which the model does not simulate. To minimize the number of recommendations, fire flow improvements are grouped into the ten fire flow areas. All fire flow recommendations are shown in Figure D-1. A summary of the proposed small diameter pipeline improvements, upsized laterals, and new pipelines for fire flow improvements for each fire flow area is presented is in Table D-1. Approximately 8.2 miles of pipeline Appendix D – Fire Flow Improvement Summary improvements are recommended to address fire flow deficiencies. Figures for each fire flow improvement area are provided in this Appendix. Table D-1: Summary of Fire Flow Improvements Fire Flow Area Proposed Improvements Size Quantity Unit Description 1 New 8-inch 1,700 LF Connects existing 8-inch and closes a loop. Replacement/Upsize 8-inch 1,300 LF Replaces existing 6-inch pipe. Hydrant 3 each Replaces hydrants or hydrant laterals with 2 and 4- inch size. 2 New 8-inch 2,700 LF Connects existing 8-inch and closes a loop. 12-inch 600 LF Connects existing 12-inch to fire flow area. Replacement/Upsize 8-inch 2,100 LF Replaces existing 6-inch pipe. hydrant 1 each Replaces blow off hydrants or hydrant laterals with 2 and 4-inch size. 3 New None - - - Replacement/Upsize 8-inch 1,500 LF Replaces existing 4 and 6-inch pipe. 10-inch 400 LF Replaces existing 8-inch pipe. 12-inch 1,200 LF Replaces existing 6-inch pipe. Hydrant 2 each Replaces existing blow off hydrants served by 2 and 4-inch laterals. 4 New ‐ - - - Replacement/Upsize 8-inch 3,400 LF Replaces existing 4 and 6-inch pipe. Hydrant 5 each Replaces existing blow off hydrants served by 2 and 4-inch laterals. 5 New 6-inch 100 LF Connects existing 6-inch to fire flow area. 10-inch 100 LF Connects existing 30-inch to fire flow area. Appendix D – Fire Flow Improvement Summary Fire Flow Area Proposed Improvements Size Quantity Unit Description Replacement/Upsize 6-inch 3,200 LF Replaces existing 4-inch pipe. 8-inch 4,500 LF Replaces existing 4 and 6-inch pipe. 10-inch 2,100 LF Replaces existing 6-inch pipe. Hydrant 7 each Replaces existing blow off hydrants served by 2 and 4-inch laterals. 6 New 8-inch 100 LF Connects existing 12-inch to fire flow area. Replacement/Upsize 6-inch 4,100 LF Replaces existing 4-inch pipe. 8-inch 2,900 LF Replaces existing 4 and 6-inch pipe. Hydrant 4 each Replaces existing blow off hydrants served by 2 and 4-inch laterals. 7 New None - - - Replacement/Upsize 6-inch 400 LF Replaces existing 4-inch pipe. 8-inch 2,600 LF Replaces existing 4 and 6-inch pipe. 12-inch 1,600 LF Replaces existing 8-inch pipe. Hydrant 4 each Replaces existing blow off hydrants served by 2 and 4-inch laterals. 8 New 6-inch 300 LF Connects existing 6 and 8-inch to close the loop. 8-inch 100 LF Connects existing 12-inch to fire flow area. Replacement/Upsize 6-inch 700 LF Replaces existing 4-inch pipe. 8-inch 1,900 LF Replaces existing 4 and 6-inch pipe. Hydrant 1 each Replaces existing blow off hydrants served by 2 and 4-inch laterals. 9 New 8-inch 200 LF Connects existing 8-inch to close a loop. 10-inch 100 LF Connects existing 12-inch to fire flow area. 12-inch 100 LF Extends existing 12-inch to close a loop. Appendix D – Fire Flow Improvement Summary Fire Flow Area Proposed Improvements Size Quantity Unit Description 8-inch PRV 1 each New PRV North of intersection of Palm Ave and Highland Ave, connecting Upper Zone to Foothill Zone. Proposed setting is at 50 psi. Replacement/Upsize 8-inch 1,500 LF Replaces existing 4 and 6-inch pipe. 10-inch 1,900 LF Replaces existing 4 and 6-inch pipe. Hydrant 6 each Replaces existing blow off hydrants served by 2 and 4-inch laterals. Open Closed Valve 1 each Open Normally Closed Valve # V_H7_110. 10 New None - - - Replacement/Upsize 8-inch 900 LF Replaces existing 6-inch pipe. Change PRV Setting 1 each Change Setting for PRS_302 to 80 psi. !!((!!(( !!((!!((!!((!!(( !!(( !!(( !!((!!(( !!(( !!((!!(( !!((!!((!!(( !!((!!(( !!((!!(( !!(( !!(( !!(( !!(( !!(( !!(( !!((!!((!!((!!((!!((!!(( !!(( ¸#vRp!?¸#vRp P37 P11 P127 P146 P143 P33 P24 P25 P101 P134 P59 P39 P34 P40 P99 P151 P141 P9 P28 P132 P137 P56 P130 6th St Highland Ave Ch u r c h S t Or a n g e S t St e r l i n g A v e Pa l m A v e Baseline St Marshall Blvd ¬«210 ¬«330 ¬«210 Fire FlowArea: 7 FireFlowArea: 8 Fire FlowArea: 6 Fire FlowArea: 5 Fire FlowArea: 10 FireFlowArea: 4 FireFlowArea: 3 Fire FlowArea: 2 Fire FlowArea: 9 Fire FlowArea: 1 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Figure D-1 Existing SystemFire Flow Recommendationsº0 0.4 0.80.2 Miles Date:Nov 26, 2018 Legend Improvements (Pipes) New PipePipe Upsize !!((Hydrants with Lateral Upsize Improvements (Valves) ¸#vRp New PRV ¸#vRp PRV Setting Change !?Valve Open !(Hydrants (Do Not Meet Criteria) #*PRV Station ")Booster Station $+Reservoir ")Well ³±T PW WTP Model Pipe Fire Flow Priority Areasfreeway Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VFIPS 0405 FeetDocument: C:\Projects\Box Sync\zdrive\Projects\Stantec $+") ") ") #*!( !( !(!(!(!( !(!(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !!((!!(( !!(( 8" 12" 8" 6" 8" 6 " 6" 6" 8" 8" 6" 6" 6" 6" 8" 6" 8" 6" 8"8"8" 6" 8 "6" 6" 8"8" 4" 6"6" 6" 8"6" 6" 8"8" 6" 8" 12" 6" 6" 6" 6" 12" 6" 6" 6" 6" 8" 6" 12" 4" 4" 8" 6" 12" 2" 12" 8"8" 8" 8"12" 1 2 " 24" 6" 6" 2 4 " 6" 6" 2 4 " 12" 12" 6" 6" 12" 8" 6" 8" 6" 12"8" 8" 3" 8" 6" 6" 6" 10" 6" 6" 6" 6" 6 " 6" 6"6"6" 6" 6"6"6" 6" 12" 10" 6" 12.75" 6"6"8" 12" 6" 10" 8" 6" 8"6"6" 6"8" 8" 6"6"6" 6" 10" 8" 12" 8" 6"6"6"6" 10" 16" 12" 16" 8" 8"8" Figure - Existing System MDDFire Flow Improvementsº0 0.075 0.150.0375 Miles Date:Sep 20, 2018 Legend Improvements (Pipes)New PipePipe Upsize !!((Hydrants with Lateral Upsize Improvements (Valves) ¸#vRp New PRV ¸#vRp PRV Setting Change !?Valve Open !(Hydrants (Do Not Meet Criteria) #*PRV Station ")Booster Station $+Reservoir ")Well ³±T PW WTP Model PipeFire Flow Priority Areas Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VFIPS 0405 FeetDocument: C:\Projects\Box Sync\zdrive\Projects\Stantec318\001_evwd_wmp\05GIS\09MapDocuments\FFProjects in Priority Areas v2.mxd Fire Flow Improvement Area 1 Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community ")#* !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !!(( 14" 8" 8" 14" 8" 12" 6" 8" 6" 6" 6"14" 12" 8" 6" 6" 8" 8" 8"8" 8" 8" 6" 8" 8" 8" 8" 14" 6" 8" 20" 12" 8" 12.75" 6" 6" 4" 8.625" 8"8"14"14" 4" 12" 6" 12" 12" 12.75" 8" 8" 8" 8" 8" 8" 14" 8" 4" 8" 8" 8.625" 8" 8" 8" 12" 8" Figure - Existing System MDDFire Flow Improvementsº0 0.05 0.10.025 Miles Date:Sep 20, 2018 Legend Improvements (Pipes)New PipePipe Upsize !!((Hydrants with Lateral Upsize Improvements (Valves) ¸#vRp New PRV ¸#vRp PRV Setting Change !?Valve Open !(Hydrants (Do Not Meet Criteria) #*PRV Station ")Booster Station $+Reservoir ")Well ³±T PW WTP Model PipeFire Flow Priority Areas Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VFIPS 0405 FeetDocument: C:\Projects\Box Sync\zdrive\Projects\Stantec318\001_evwd_wmp\05GIS\09MapDocuments\FFProjects in Priority Areas v2.mxd Fire Flow Improvement Area 2 Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community ") !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !!(( !!(( 6" 6" 8" 8 " 8" 6" 6" 8" 6" 8" 6"6" 6" 8" 6" 8" 8" 8" 8" 8" 8" 6" 6" 12" 8" 8" 8" 8" 16" 8" 8" 6" 8" 8" 8" 8" 8" 6" 6" 8" 12" 8" 8" 10" Figure - Existing System MDDFire Flow Improvementsº0 0.05 0.10.025 Miles Date:Sep 20, 2018 Legend Improvements (Pipes)New PipePipe Upsize !!((Hydrants with Lateral Upsize Improvements (Valves) ¸#vRp New PRV ¸#vRp PRV Setting Change !?Valve Open !(Hydrants (Do Not Meet Criteria) #*PRV Station ")Booster Station $+Reservoir ")Well ³±T PW WTP Model PipeFire Flow Priority Areas Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VFIPS 0405 FeetDocument: C:\Projects\Box Sync\zdrive\Projects\Stantec318\001_evwd_wmp\05GIS\09MapDocuments\FFProjects in Priority Areas v2.mxd Fire Flow Improvement Area 3 Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community ") ")!( !(!(!( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !!(( !!(( !!(( !!(( !!((36"12"36 " 8" 6" 8" 6" 6" 10" 36" 8 " 8" 16 " 12" 10"8" 8"1 6 " 16" 10" 8" 8" 8" 8" 8" 6" 8" 10" 8"6" 6" 8" 8" 8" 8" 6" 8" 8" 6" 8" 8" 8" 8" 8" 8" 8" 6" 8" 8" 6" 6" 36" 8" 36 " 6"6" 6" 8" 8" 8" 36" 10 " 8" 8" 8" 8" 12" 8" 36" 36" 8" 8" 10" 10" 8" 16" 10" 8" 8" 8" 8" 3 0 "3 0 " 10" 8" 10" 1 6 " 8" 10 " 6" 8" 10" 8" 10" 12" 10" 8" 8" 8 " 12" 6" 6" 8" 8" 10" 10" 6" 36" 36 " 16" 8" 8" Figure - Existing System MDDFire Flow Improvementsº0 0.055 0.110.0275 Miles Date:Sep 20, 2018 Legend Improvements (Pipes)New PipePipe Upsize !!((Hydrants with Lateral Upsize Improvements (Valves) ¸#vRp New PRV ¸#vRp PRV Setting Change !?Valve Open !(Hydrants (Do Not Meet Criteria) #*PRV Station ")Booster Station $+Reservoir ")Well ³±T PW WTP Model PipeFire Flow Priority Areas Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VFIPS 0405 FeetDocument: C:\Projects\Box Sync\zdrive\Projects\Stantec318\001_evwd_wmp\05GIS\09MapDocuments\FFProjects in Priority Areas v2.mxd Fire Flow Improvement Area 4 Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community ")") !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !!(( !!(( !!((!!(( !!(( !!(( !!(( 10" 8" 12" 12" 6" 8" 6" 6" 4" 4" 6" 4" 6" 8" 6" 6" 6" 8" 6" 6 " 6" 2" 4" 6" 4" 8" 12" 12" 6" 12" 6 " 6" 4" 6"6" 6 " 6" 6" 4" 30" 6" 6" 12" 8" 4" 6" 6" 4" 4" 6" 6" 30" 6" 2" 4" 4" 6" 10" 6" 6" 30" 6"6" 4" 6" 10"10" 8" 8"12" 6" 8" 8" 10"10" 12" 8" 6" 8" 12" 10"10" 6" 10" 12" 6" 8" 8"6" 8" 6" 6" 8" 6" 8" 6" 6" 4" 6"10" 12" 12" 30"30" 30 " 8"10" 6" 6" 8" 8" 6" 8" 6" 6" 8" 8" Figure - Existing System MDDFire Flow Improvementsº0 0.065 0.130.0325 Miles Date:Sep 20, 2018 Legend Improvements (Pipes)New PipePipe Upsize !!((Hydrants with Lateral Upsize Improvements (Valves) ¸#vRp New PRV ¸#vRp PRV Setting Change !?Valve Open !(Hydrants (Do Not Meet Criteria) #*PRV Station ")Booster Station $+Reservoir ")Well ³±T PW WTP Model PipeFire Flow Priority Areas Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VFIPS 0405 FeetDocument: C:\Projects\Box Sync\zdrive\Projects\Stantec318\001_evwd_wmp\05GIS\09MapDocuments\FFProjects in Priority Areas v2.mxd Fire Flow Improvement Area 5 Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community #*#* !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !!(( !!(( !!(( !!(( 6" 6" 6" 8" 8"8" 12" 12" 8" 6" 8" 12" 6" 8" 6" 8"6" 12" 6" 8" 4" 8" 8" 6" 8 " 8" 4" 8" 10" 8" 8 " 8" 8" 8" 12" 8" 10"6" 12" 8" 8" 6" 6" 8" 8 " 8" Figure - Existing System MDDFire Flow Improvementsº0 0.04 0.080.02 Miles Date:Sep 20, 2018 Legend Improvements (Pipes)New PipePipe Upsize !!((Hydrants with Lateral Upsize Improvements (Valves) ¸#vRp New PRV ¸#vRp PRV Setting Change !?Valve Open !(Hydrants (Do Not Meet Criteria) #*PRV Station ")Booster Station $+Reservoir ")Well ³±T PW WTP Model PipeFire Flow Priority Areas Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VFIPS 0405 FeetDocument: C:\Projects\Box Sync\zdrive\Projects\Stantec318\001_evwd_wmp\05GIS\09MapDocuments\FFProjects in Priority Areas v2.mxd Fire Flow Improvement Area 6 Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community #* #* #* !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !!(( !!(( !!((!!(( !!(( 6" 6" 4" 6" 8" 12" 6" 2" 6" 8" 6" 8" 8" 6"6" 6" 8 " 6" 6" 2" 8"8" 6" 6" 6" 6" 6" 6"16" 6" 6" 8" 6" 6" 6" 6" 6" 6" 6" 6" 4" 6" 6" 12" 6" 4" 4" 6" 6" 8" 6" 6" 6 " 4 " 8" 4" 6" 8" 6 " 4" 6" 6" 6" 6" 6" 6" 12" 8" 6" 6" 8" 8" 4" 6" 4" 8" 8" 6" 6" 6" 6" 6" 6" 16" 6" 8 " 6"6" 12" 8"6" 12" 8" 6" 8" 6" 8" 6" 4" 6" 6" 6" 6"6" 6" 8" 8" 8 " 6"6" 6" 12" Figure - Existing System MDDFire Flow Improvementsº0 0.05 0.10.025 Miles Date:Sep 20, 2018 Legend Improvements (Pipes)New PipePipe Upsize !!((Hydrants with Lateral Upsize Improvements (Valves) ¸#vRp New PRV ¸#vRp PRV Setting Change !?Valve Open !(Hydrants (Do Not Meet Criteria) #*PRV Station ")Booster Station $+Reservoir ")Well ³±T PW WTP Model PipeFire Flow Priority Areas Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VFIPS 0405 FeetDocument: C:\Projects\Box Sync\zdrive\Projects\Stantec318\001_evwd_wmp\05GIS\09MapDocuments\FFProjects in Priority Areas v2.mxd Fire Flow Improvement Area 7 Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community !( !(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !!(( !!(( !!((!!(( !!(( 6" 4" 6" 4" 12" 6" 12" 6" 1 2 " 8" 6"4" 6" 8" 8" 6" 16" 8"8" 8" 6" 6" 8" 2" 8"8" 6" 12" 8" 6" 6 " 4" 8" 6" 8" 6" 8" 6" 12" 4" 6" 12" 6" 6" 6" 4" 4" 12" 16"16" 6" 6" 6" 12" 6" 6" 12" 6"6" 4 " 4" 6" 8" 12" 6" 6" 8" 6" 4" 6 " 6" 8" 6" 4" 12" 6" 6" 4" 4" 6" 8" 6" 8" 6 " 4 " 8" 4" 6" 6" 12" 8" 8" 8" 6 " 8" 6" 4" 8" 4" 8" 8" 6" 12" 6" 8 " 6" 1 2 " 8" 12" 8" 8" 8"8" 8"6" 3 " 8" 8" 8" 8" 6" 6" 12" 6" 4" 12" 6" 4" 12" 6" 8" 6" 8" 12" 1" 8" 12" 8 " 6" 8" 12" 8" 6" 16" 6 " 6" 6" 4" 6" 16" 6" 4" 4" 12" 6" 8" 6" 6" 6" 4" 12" 6" 16"16" 6"6" 6" 8" 8" 8" 6"6" 6" Figure - Existing System MDDFire Flow Improvementsº0 0.065 0.130.0325 Miles Date:Sep 20, 2018 Legend Improvements (Pipes)New PipePipe Upsize !!((Hydrants with Lateral Upsize Improvements (Valves) ¸#vRp New PRV ¸#vRp PRV Setting Change !?Valve Open !(Hydrants (Do Not Meet Criteria) #*PRV Station ")Booster Station $+Reservoir ")Well ³±T PW WTP Model PipeFire Flow Priority Areas Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VFIPS 0405 FeetDocument: C:\Projects\Box Sync\zdrive\Projects\Stantec318\001_evwd_wmp\05GIS\09MapDocuments\FFProjects in Priority Areas v2.mxd Fire Flow Improvement Area 8 Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community ")$+") #* #*#* #*#* !( !(!( !( !(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!( !( !(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !(!( !(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!( !( !(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !!((!!(( !!((!!(( !!(( !!(( !!(( ¸#vRp !? ¸#vRp 8"6" 12" 4" 8" 8" 6" 8" 6" 12" 12" 6" 16" 12" 6" 1 2 " 2" 6" 16" 12" 12" 12 " 12" 8" 2" 8" 8" 6" 8" 12" 8" 8" 8" 6" 6" 6 " 12"16 " 8" 6" 6" 1 4 " 6" 8" 6" 6" 8" 12" 6" 6" 12" 6"8" 8" 6" 12" 6" 21" 2" 6" 6" 8" 16" 12" 16" 8" 16"16" 1 2 " 6" 6" 12" 6" 6" 6"6"6" 12" 12" 4" 8" 21" 6"6" 8" 12" 12" 6" 16" 6 " 8" 6" 6 " 6" 6" 6" 6" 8" 12" 6" 14" 12"6" 4"4" 6" 21" 6" 8" 21"12" 8" 6" 8" 12" 8" 6" 6" 8" 6" 6" 8" 12"12" 12" 21"6" 6" 8"8" 12" 16"6" 12" 12"12" 12" 6" 12" 8" 12" 6" 4" 6"16" 12" 12" 8" 4" 12" 12" 16"16" 6"6" 21" 8" 6" 16" 8" 16" 12" 6" 12" 20" 6" 16" 1 0 " 8" 10" 10" 6"8"6"6" 8" Figure - Existing System MDDFire Flow Improvementsº0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles Date:Sep 20, 2018 Legend Improvements (Pipes)New PipePipe Upsize !!((Hydrants with Lateral Upsize Improvements (Valves) ¸#vRp New PRV ¸#vRp PRV Setting Change !?Valve Open !(Hydrants (Do Not Meet Criteria) #*PRV Station ")Booster Station $+Reservoir ")Well ³±T PW WTP Model PipeFire Flow Priority Areas Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VFIPS 0405 FeetDocument: C:\Projects\Box Sync\zdrive\Projects\Stantec318\001_evwd_wmp\05GIS\09MapDocuments\FFProjects in Priority Areas v2.mxd Fire Flow Improvement Area 9 Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community #* #*#* !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!(!( ¸#vRp ¸#vRp 12" 12" 6" 12" 14" 1 2 " 8" 6" 12" 12" 8" 12" 8" 6"12" 6" 12" 6" 12" 12" 12" 8" 8" 6" 6" 12" 6" 8" 12" 8" 8"8" 6" 4"6" 4" 6" 12" 6" 12" 8" 14" 14" 3"8" 6" 8" 8" 12" 6" 6" 12" 12" 12" 12" 12" 6" 12" 12" 10" Figure - Existing System MDDFire Flow Improvementsº0 0.04 0.080.02 Miles Date:Sep 20, 2018 Legend Improvements (Pipes)New PipePipe Upsize !!((Hydrants with Lateral Upsize Improvements (Valves) ¸#vRp New PRV ¸#vRp PRV Setting Change !?Valve Open !(Hydrants (Do Not Meet Criteria) #*PRV Station ")Booster Station $+Reservoir ")Well ³±T PW WTP Model PipeFire Flow Priority Areas Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VFIPS 0405 FeetDocument: C:\Projects\Box Sync\zdrive\Projects\Stantec318\001_evwd_wmp\05GIS\09MapDocuments\FFProjects in Priority Areas v2.mxd Fire Flow Improvement Area 10 Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Appendix E – Mediterra Analysis APPENDIX E – MEDITERRA ANALYSIS Appendix E – Mediterra Analysis (This Page is Intentionally Left Blank) East Valley Water District Technical Memorandum: Mediterra Development Hydraulic Evaluation East Valley Water District September 2018 Page 1 of 2 TO: Eliseo Ochoa, P.E., EVWD FROM: Matt Sellers, P.E., Sedaru Jennifer Wood, P.E., Sedaru CC: Oliver Slosser, P.E., Stantec DATE: September 01, 2018 1 Introduction This technical memorandum (TM) has been developed by Stantec and Sedaru for the East Valley Water District (EVWD) to evaluate the proposed Mediterra development. The goal of this analysis is to evaluate the available information on the development and assess the impact on the water system through analysis of the District’s existing water model. The project goals are listed below: • Estimate average day demand (ADD), maximum day demand (MDD), and peak hour demand (PHD) demands for the Mediterra development for Phase 1 and Phase 2 only. • Evaluate the impact of adding the Mediterra demands on the EVWD water distribution system to meet fire flow requirements in the Canal Zone (at MDD). • Evaluate the impact of adding the Mediterra demands during PHD, specifically in the Canal Zone. • Complete a storage/supply spreadsheet analysis to validate if existing system pumping/supply and storage capacities meet the established criteria with the addition of the Mediterra demands. Initially, it was planned for this evaluation to use the hydraulic model from the 2014 Water System Master Plan (MWH, 2014) as the model calibration and existing demand factors had not yet been determined as part of the Master Plan Update project currently underway. However, the updated and calibrated hydraulic model has recently been approved by EVWD including existing demand factors. Therefore, it is preferred to use the updated model for this analysis. This TM includes the following sections and attachments: Section 1 – Introduction Section 2 – Mediterra Development Section 3 – Mediterra Demands Section 4 – Evaluation Section 5 – Conclusions and Recommendations Attachment 1 – Mediterra Overview Drawing Plan of Phase 1 and 2 2 Mediterra Development The proposed development is located in the southeast part of the water system, specifically Canal Zone 3. Figure 1 shows the location of the proposed Mediterra development. It is comprised of 320 lots divided East Valley Water District Technical Memorandum: Mediterra Development Hydraulic Evaluation East Valley Water District September 2018 Page 2 of 3 into four phases. Per EVWD’s instructions, this analysis only evaluates the system impact of Phase 1 and 2 which has 144 total residential lots. The total acreage is estimated to be 26.86 utilizing tools within ESRI’s ArcMap program (this only includes residential lots), which equates to about 0.19 acres per lot. Attachment 1 provides an overview plan of the development. Eight (8) inch pipes and connecting junctions were drawn into the model to represent the Mediterra development. These pipes and junctions are shown on Figure 2. There are 37 nodes and approximately 6,980 LF of 8-inch pipe for the Mediterra development in the model. Elevations for the 37 nodes were updated based on United States Geological Survey (USGS) Digital Elevation Map (DEM). The maximum node elevation is 1,718 feet, the minimum is 1,643 feet, and the average is 1673 feet. No adjustments have been made to account for planned construction grading within the development in the model. Figure 1 – System Location of Mediterra Development East Valley Water District Technical Memorandum: Mediterra Development Hydraulic Evaluation East Valley Water District September 2018 Page 3 of 4 Figure 2 – Proposed Mediterra Development 3 Mediterra Demands Future land use water duty factors from the 2014 Master Plan are used to estimate the Mediterra demands. Specifically, the single-family residential future development water duty factor (2,350 gallons per day per acre) is used to estimate Mediterra demands. Future water usage factors from the 2014 WSMP are shown in Table 1. Water demand estimates for the Mediterra development are shown in Table 2, which includes average day demand (ADD) at 44 gpm, maximum day demand at 79 gpm, and peak hour demand at 121 gpm. The Mediterra demands will be added onto the existing demands determined from the updated Water Master Plan, which is currently being developed. While this Master Plan has not been finalized, the demands and peak hour multiplier have been approved by EVWD. The existing ADD for the EVWD system is 20.29 MGD, the MDD is 36.52 MGD, and the PHD 55.8 MGD. The Mediterra demands use the same MDD (ADD x 1.8) and PHD (MDD x 1.53) scaling factors. The Mediterra development demands are evenly distributed across the 37 junctions created. For example, the ADD for Mediterra is 44 gpm, which is approximately 1.18 gpm per junction. East Valley Water District Technical Memorandum: Mediterra Development Hydraulic Evaluation East Valley Water District September 2018 Page 4 of 5 Table 1 – Build-Out System Water Duty Factors (from 2014 WSMP, Table 3-15) Table 2 – Estimated Mediterra Water Demand Mediterra Development Value Total Acres (Phase 1 and 2) 26.86 Total Lots (Phase 1 and 2) 144 Single-Family Residential (gpd per acre)1 2,350 Average Day Demand (gpm) 44 Maximum Day Demand (gpm) (ADD x 1.8)2 79 Peak Hour Demand (gpm) (PHD/ADD = 2.75)2 121 1Single-Family Residential land-use demand factor originates from 2014 WSMP 2MDD and PHD scaling factors originate from the Water Master Plan Update (currently under development) East Valley Water District Technical Memorandum: Mediterra Development Hydraulic Evaluation East Valley Water District September 2018 Page 5 of 6 4 Evaluation Sedaru performed the following evaluations on the Mediterra development within the updated and recently calibrated hydraulic model. • MDD + Fire Flow Evaluation (model evaluation) • PHD Evaluation (model evaluation) • Pumping/Supply and Storage Requirements (desktop analysis) 4.1 Evaluation Assumptions The following assumptions are made for the evaluation: • Existing conditions average day demand (ADD) in the model for the entire EVWD system is 14,090 gpm, or 20.29 MGD (not including Mediterra demands). • Existing conditions maximum day demand (MDD) in the model for the entire EVWD is 1.8 x ADD, which is 25,363 gpm or 36.52 MGD (not including Mediterra demands). • Existing conditions peak hour demand (PHD) in the model for the entire EVWD is 1.53 x MDD, which is 38,805 gpm or 55.88 MGD (not including Mediterra demands). • The Mediterra development will be fed by the Canal Zone 3 zone. • All pipes within the Mediterra development are assumed to be 8-inches with Hazen Williams C- factors of 120. • All junction ground elevations in the Mediterra development are extracted from USGS DEM elevation data. No adjustments were made to proposed junction elevations based on planned grading plans by the developer. • No future system analysis (beyond Mediterra demands) is considered as part of this evaluation. • Criteria from the 2014 WSMP were used for this evaluation. • Pumps 131_1, 131_2, 134_7, and 129_4 are ON for all steady state simulations. These pumps supply Canal Zone 3. • It is assumed that storage tanks in the system will satisfy the demand above MDD for every pressure zone (PHD – MDD = tank demand). This assumption is relevant to the storage evaluation. East Valley Water District Technical Memorandum: Mediterra Development Hydraulic Evaluation East Valley Water District September 2018 Page 6 of 7 4.2 Evaluation Criteria Table 3 summarizes the criteria used for this evaluation. Note the criteria specified below comes from the 2014 WSMP, and only criteria applicable to this analysis is provided in Table 3. Table 3 – Evaluation Criteria (from 2014 WSMP, Table 5-1) Evaluation Criteria Value Evaluation Demand Conditions System Pressure Minimum Pressure, normal conditions 40 psi PHD Minimum Pressure, with fire flow 20 MDD Minimum Pressure, transmission mains with no water services 5 psi PHD Maximum Pipeline Velocity Existing Pipelines (excluding fire hydrant laterals) 6 fps MDD New Distributions Pipelines (≤ 12-inch in diameter) 4 fps MDD Pump Station suction pipelines 4 fps MDD Storage Volume Operational 25% of MDD (MGD) MDD Fire Fighting Highest fire flow requirement per zone (MG) MDD Emergency 100% of MDD (MG) MDD Fire Flow Requirements Single-Family Residential 1,500 gpm x 2 hours MDD Existing Pipelines During Fire Event (excluding fire hydrant laterals) 10 fps MDD Supply Capacity/System Reliability By Pressure Zone Provide MDD with firm transfer/booster capacity MDD Single Largest Source out of Service Per Pressure Zone Provide MDD with firm transfer/booster capacity with single largest source out of service MDD East Valley Water District Technical Memorandum: Mediterra Development Hydraulic Evaluation East Valley Water District September 2018 Page 7 of 8 4.3 MDD + Fire Flow Evaluation This scenario has the following parameters and assumptions described in Section 4.1: Demand Condition: Existing Conditions MDD (25,363 gpm) + Mediterra MDD (79 gpm) + Single-Family Residential Fire Flow (1,500 gpm) Model Changes: Includes Mediterra development Simulation Option: Steady State Fire Flow Analysis at MDD (Design Method) This scenario calculated the available fire flow capacity for the junctions within the Mediterra development. The “Design Method” evaluates available flow at each junction while keeping junctions above 20 psi and pipes above 10 fps within Canal Zone 3 for each test. This method typically produces a lower available fire flow for each junction when compared to only evaluating available flow at 20 psi. However, the “Design Method” is recommended as it ensures no parts of the nearby system are below 20 psi or pipes above 10 fps due to a required fire flow demand. Summarized fire flow results are in Table 4 below. Results show all junctions meet the 1,500 gpm required fire flow. Figure 3 shows the Mediterra development junctions fire flow color coded by the design flow. Note there are 31 junctions with a design fire flow of 1,650 gpm or less. These junctions are limited by the design pipe velocity constraint of 10 fps. Note on Figure 3 all orange or green junctions (at least <= 1,650 gpm) are downstream of a single 8-inch pipe. This is because a single 8-inch pipe has a flow of 1,566 gpm at 10 fps. If the fire flow requirement is modified to be greater than 1,500 gpm, then the development will need larger than 8-inch diameter pipe. However, based on available data and current criteria, the proposed development meets the District’s fire flow requirements. Table 4 – Mediterra MDD + Design Fire Flow Summary Summary Count 1,500 – 1,550 gpm @ 20 psi or greater 23 1,551 – 1,650 gpm @ 20 psi or greater 8 1,651 – 2,000 gpm @ 20 psi or greater 0 2,001 – 2,500 gpm @ 20 psi or greater 8 East Valley Water District Technical Memorandum: Mediterra Development Hydraulic Evaluation East Valley Water District September 2018 Page 8 of 9 Figure 3 - Mediterra MDD + Design Fire Flow Map 4.4 PHD Evaluation This scenario has the following parameters and assumptions described in Section 4.1: Demand Condition: Existing Conditions PHD (38,805 gpm) + Mediterra PHD (121 gpm) Model Changes: Includes Mediterra development Simulation Option: Steady State at PHD This scenario evaluates the proposed development during peak hour demand conditions against system pressure and maximum velocity criteria (refer to Table 3). No pressure or velocity deficiencies are observed for the proposed Mediterra development during PHD conditions. Figure 4 highlights the simulated system pressure and velocity for the study area. While not shown in the figure, no deficiencies are observed in the rest of Canal Zone 3 due to the Mediterra demand. Average pressure during the PHD simulation for the Mediterra junctions is 71 psi, with a minimum of 51 and maximum of 83 psi. East Valley Water District Technical Memorandum: Mediterra Development Hydraulic Evaluation East Valley Water District September 2018 Page 9 of 10 Figure 4 – PHD Results for Mediterra Development 4.5 Pumping and Storage Requirements Pumping and storage requirements are analyzed through a spreadsheet analyses. The evaluation determines if existing system storage and pumping capacities meet the established criteria with the addition of the Mediterra Proposed Development. Storage Evaluation The storage evaluation compares existing MDD plus Mediterra MDD within the Canal Zone 3. The Mediterra MDD increases Canal Zone 3’s demand by 0.11 MGD, resulting in a total MDD of 2.5 MGD. Based on the established storage criteria, the Canal Zone 3 has a storage deficit, regardless of the added Mediterra demands (as shown in Table 5). The largest criteria requirement is emergency storage at 100% of MDD, which is 2.5 MG, and the overall storage requirement based on Fireflow, Operational, and Emergency storage requirements is 3.43 MG. The Canal Zone 3 only has 2.07 MG available. Emergency storage analysis per pressure zone is based on the assumption that no additional storage would be available from adjacent pressure zones either through pumping or transferring flow. A total power grid failure for over 24 hours would be an example emergency situation that would require this kind of emergency storage. East Valley Water District Technical Memorandum: Mediterra Development Hydraulic Evaluation East Valley Water District September 2018 Page 10 of 11 A simple volume calculation shows that if the Canal Zone 3 tanks are 75% full, the tanks would empty about 40 minutes faster with the Mediterra demands, from 15.6 hours to 14.9 hours. Because the Canal Zone 3 analysis shows a deficit of the required storage based on EVWD’s established criteria, it is recommended that additional storage be built in this zone prior to further development. Alternatively, EVWD may consider modification of their storage criteria with consideration of storage from neighboring zones, and possibly the addition of an emergency power source for interzonal pumps in order to maintain service during a power outage. Pumping Evaluation The pumping evaluation compares existing MDD plus Mediterra MDD within the Canal Zone 3. For the Canal Zone 3, the available capacity at water sources in Upper and Foothill Zones is less than the combined booster pumping capacity to the Canal Zone 3. The Canal Zone 3 has four (4) booster stations that could supply the zone, with a combined full capacity of 10.88 MGD. However, excess supply from Upper and Foothill Zones only adds up to 3.16 MGD per the 2014 WSMP. Therefore 3.16 MGD is used as the available supply in the pumping evaluation. Canal Zone 3 has a total demand of 3.06 MGD, which includes 2.5 MGD for Canal Zone 3, 0.11 MGD for Mediterra, and 0.56 MGD for Mountain Zone. Therefore, the Canal Zone 3 has a small surplus of 0.10 MGD. A breakdown of the available supply, demand, and surplus is shown in Table 6. Table 5 – Canal Zone 3 + Mediterra Demand Storage Analysis Category Units Canal Zone 3 De m a n d s 1 ADD1 MGD 1.39 MDD/ADD Factor n/a 1.8 MDD MGD 2.50 St o r a g e R e q u i r e d Fire Flow2 gpm 2500 Duration2 hrs 2 Fire Flow2 MG 0.30 Operational3 MG 0.63 Emergency4 MG 2.50 Required MG 3.43 St o r a g e Ev a l u a t i o n Available1 MG 2.07 Surplus/ Deficit5 MG -1.36 Note: due to rounding, some totals may not add up. 1Includes Mediterra Demand 2Fire flow based on highest estimated requirement per zone (from 2014 WSMP) East Valley Water District Technical Memorandum: Mediterra Development Hydraulic Evaluation East Valley Water District September 2018 Page 11 of 12 3Operational Storage equals 0.25 times MDD 4Emergency Storage equals 1.0 times MDD 5Surplus is positive and deficit is negative Table 6 – Canal Zone 3 + Mediterra Demand Supply Analysis Source Capacity (mgd) Supply Boosters 134_6 0.90 134_7 0.95 134_8 1.23 129_4 1.41 129_5 1.40 131_1 0.73 131_2 0.39 131_3 0.42 108_1 1.73 108_2 1.73 Subtotal, boosters 10.88 Available booster capacity1 3.16 Total Supply 3.16 Demands Canal 3 Zone MDD 2.39 Mediterra MDD 0.11 PLT 137 & PLT 140 to Mountain Zone2 0.56 Total Demand 3.06 Surplus/Deficit +0.10 1 Based on supply available from Upper and Foothill Zones from 2014 WSMP (Figure 6-6) 2 Based on existing MDD demand for Mountain Zone from 2018 calibrated model. East Valley Water District Technical Memorandum: Mediterra Development Hydraulic Evaluation East Valley Water District September 2018 Page 12 of 12 5 Conclusion and Recommendations This section summarizes conclusions and recommendations from the Mediterra development hydraulic evaluation. • Mediterra Development Pipe Sizing. This analysis assumes all pipes within the Mediterra development are 8-inches. While no deficiencies were observed with these pipes, this analysis concludes that an 8-inch pipe is the minimum recommended size for the development. Upsizing for some segments may be required if additional base demands and/or fire flow requirements increase. • MDD + Fire Flow Evaluation. For MDD conditions plus fire flow at 1,500 gpm, no deficiencies were observed for the Mediterra development for Phase 1 and 2. If fire flow criteria are increased above 1,500 gpm due to land use type changes, it is recommended that the District request for the developer to evaluate which pipes need upsizing to meet the fire flow demand and design criteria. The existing 24-inch line along Greenspot Rd in Canal Zone 3 has ample capacity to meet the Mediterra development single-family residential fire flow requirement of 1,500 gpm. More specifically, both “entrances” at Greenspot Rd to the development can supply a design fire flow of 2,400 gpm while maintaining 20 psi inside the development. • PHD Evaluation. No pressure or velocity deficiencies were observed in the peak hour demand simulation for the Mediterra development. • Storage Requirements. The Mediterra demands for Phase 1 and 2 add a minor increase in storage requirements to Canal Zone 3. This pressure zone already had a storage deficit from existing demands. It is recommended the District consider the likelihood of a total power grid failure and associated risk involved, where excess storage from adjacent zones would not be available to supplement Canal Zone 3. The addition of Mediterra demands only decreases the available supply by 40 minutes (from 15.6 hours to 14.9 hours) assuming the tanks are 75% full. • Pumping Requirements. The pumping analysis on Canal Zone 3 with Mediterra demands found the zone still has a small surplus of 0.10 MG during MDD. Therefore, additional pumping or supply infrastructure is not required to meet the Mediterra demands. However, considering the surplus is small, it is recommended the District evaluate adding supply options to plan for additional future demand growth. EASEMENT TO HIGHLAND ORANGE CO. ITEM #12 BK. 1707, PG. 343, O.R. CITY OF HIGHLAND ROAD AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT ITEM #8 BK. 31, PG. 340, O.R. SCALE: 1"=100' 100 0 100 200 SCALE: 1"=2000' VICINITY MAP 30 MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET 2 SHEET 1 OF 2 SITE PART Design with community in mind Contact: Oliver Slosser Water Resources Engineer P: (626) 568-6063 E: oliver.slosser@stantec.com Sewer System Master Plan Update Draft Report Prepared for: East Valley Water District April 2019 Sewer System Master Plan Draft Report April 2019 Prepared for: East Valley Water District Prepared by: Stantec iii Table of Contents ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................................... VII  1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1.1  1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 1.1  1.2 GOAL AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................. 1.1  1.3 SCOPE OF WORK ........................................................................................................ 1.2  1.4 DATA SOURCES ........................................................................................................... 1.2  1.5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................. 1.2  1.6 PROJECT STAFF .......................................................................................................... 1.3  1.7 REPORT OUTLINE ........................................................................................................ 1.3  2.0 EXISTING SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM ................................................................ 2.1  2.1 GRAVITY SEWER PIPELINES ...................................................................................... 2.1  2.2 SIPHONS ..................................................................................................................... 2.13  2.3 DIVERSION STRUCTURES ........................................................................................ 2.14  2.4 LIFT STATIONS AND FORCE MAINS ........................................................................ 2.14  2.5 OTHER FACILITIES AND ASSETS ............................................................................. 2.15  2.5.1 Geographic Information System (GIS) ....................................................... 2.15  3.0 POPULATION, LAND USE, AND SEWER FLOWS ..................................................... 3.1  3.1 POPULATION ................................................................................................................ 3.1  3.1.1 Existing Population ....................................................................................... 3.1  3.1.2 Future Population Projections ....................................................................... 3.1  3.1.3 Historical Sewer Flow Generation ................................................................ 3.3  3.2 LAND USE ..................................................................................................................... 3.4  3.2.1 Assigning Average Flow and Land Use Types ............................................. 3.4  3.2.2 Sewer Duty Factors .................................................................................... 3.11  3.2.3 Build-Out Sewer Flow Projections – Land Use Methodology ..................... 3.12  3.2.4 Future Sewer Flow Projections – Population Methodology ........................ 3.13  3.2.5 Summary of Future Flow Projections ......................................................... 3.14  4.0 HYDRAULIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND CALIBRATION ..................................... 4.1  4.1 MODEL DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................. 4.1  4.1.1 Data Collection ............................................................................................. 4.1  4.1.2 Data Update ................................................................................................. 4.1  4.1.3 Nomenclature ............................................................................................... 4.3  4.1.4 Model Update ............................................................................................... 4.4  4.1.5 Model Cleanup and QA/QC ........................................................................ 4.15  4.1.6 Adequacy of Sewershed Areas .................................................................. 4.15  4.1.7 Summary of Model Update ......................................................................... 4.19  4.2 FLOW MONITORING .................................................................................................. 4.23  4.2.1 Flow Monitoring Studies ............................................................................. 4.23  iv 4.2.2 Flow Metering Locations ............................................................................. 4.23  4.3 INFLOW ALLOCATION ............................................................................................... 4.27  4.3.1 Existing Dry Weather Flow ......................................................................... 4.27  4.3.2 Future Dry Weather Flow ........................................................................... 4.29  4.3.3 Wet Weather Flow ...................................................................................... 4.33  4.3.4 Summary of Demand Allocation ................................................................. 4.33  4.4 MODEL CALIBRATION ............................................................................................... 4.34  5.0 PLANNING CRITERIA .................................................................................................. 5.1  5.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 5.1  5.2 RECOMMENDED DESIGN CRITERIA FOR GRAVITY SEWERS ................................ 5.1  5.2.1 Recommended Design Criteria for Special Projects .................................... 5.2  5.2.2 Peak Design Flow ......................................................................................... 5.2  5.2.3 Peaking Factors ............................................................................................ 5.2  5.2.4 Coefficients of Pipe Friction .......................................................................... 5.3  5.2.5 Minimum Collection Sewer Size ................................................................... 5.3  5.2.6 Flow Depth Ratio (d/D) ................................................................................. 5.4  5.2.7 Slopes and Velocity ...................................................................................... 5.4  5.2.8 Manholes ...................................................................................................... 5.4  6.0 SYSTEM EVALUATION ................................................................................................ 6.1  6.1 EXISTING SYSTEM CAPACITY EVALUATION ........................................................... 6.1  6.1.1 Dry Weather – Existing System .................................................................... 6.1  6.1.2 Wet Weather – Existing System ................................................................... 6.7  6.2 EXISTING 2018 SYSTEM RELIABILITY EVALUATION.............................................. 6.11  6.3 NEAR-TERM SYSTEM CAPACITY EVALUATION...................................................... 6.15  6.3.1 Dry Weather – Near-Term System ............................................................. 6.15  6.3.2 Wet Weather – Near-Term System ............................................................ 6.21  6.4 BUILD-OUT SYSTEM CAPACITY EVALUATION........................................................ 6.27  6.4.1 Dry Weather – Buildout System ................................................................. 6.27  6.4.2 Wet Weather – Buildout System ................................................................. 6.31  6.5 BUILD-OUT SYSTEM TRUNK LINE ANALYSIS ......................................................... 6.35  7.0 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS PLAN ................................................................. 7.1  7.1 UNIT COSTS ................................................................................................................. 7.1  7.2 CAPACITY BASED IMPROVEMENTS AND COSTS .................................................... 7.5  7.2.1 EVWD Service Area ................................................................................... 7.11  7.2.2 East Trunk Sewer ....................................................................................... 7.11  7.2.3 Pipes to Monitor .......................................................................................... 7.12  7.2.4 Summary of Capacity Improvements .......................................................... 7.12  7.3 CONDITION ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................... 7.1  7.3.1 EVWD Service Area ..................................................................................... 7.1  7.3.2 East Trunk Sewer ......................................................................................... 7.3  7.3.3 Recommended Actions ................................................................................ 7.4  7.4 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................ 7.4  8.0 FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................................... 8.1  v 8.1 FINANCING OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................ 8.1  8.1.1 Funding Sources .......................................................................................... 8.1  APPENDIX A – REFERENCES APPENDIX B – DIURNAL CURVES APPENDIX C – CALIBRATION GRAPHS LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1: Summary of Sewer Mains by Diameter .................................................................... 2.2  Table 2-2: Summary of Sewer Pipeline by Material ................................................................... 2.7  Table 2-3: Summary of Sewer Pipeline by Installation Period ................................................... 2.7  Table 2-4: EVWD Siphons ....................................................................................................... 2.14  Table 2-5: Diversion Structures ............................................................................................... 2.14  Table 3-1: Major Future Developments .................................................................................... 3.3  Table 3-2: Population Estimate Comparisons ............................................................................ 3.3  Table 3-3: Historical Per Capita Sewer Flows ........................................................................... 3.3  Table 3-4: Land Use Classifications and Acreage ..................................................................... 3.5  Table 3-5: Calculated Sewer Duty Factors .............................................................................. 3.11  Table 3-6: Land Use Sewer Generation Study Results ........................................................... 3.11  Table 3-7: Final Sewer Generation Duty Factors ..................................................................... 3.12  Table 3-8: Existing and Build-out Land-Use-Based Sewer Generation ................................... 3.13  Table 3-9: Increase in Flow due to Infill Population Growth ..................................................... 3.14  Table 3-10: Increase in Flow due to Specific Major Developments ......................................... 3.14  Table 3-11: Average Dry Weather Flow Projection Comparisons in MGD .............................. 3.15  Table 4-1: Missing Data ............................................................................................................. 4.2  Table 4-2: New Model Assets .................................................................................................... 4.5  Table 4-3: GIS Shapefile Field Mapping to Sewer Model .......................................................... 4.9  Table 4-4: Modeled Pipe Updates ........................................................................................... 4.11  Table 4-5: Flow Monitoring Studies ......................................................................................... 4.23  Table 4-6: Sewer Flow Verification Study Results ................................................................... 4.27  Table 4-7: San Bernardino Flow in the East Trunk Sewer ....................................................... 4.29  Table 4-8: Future Major Developments ................................................................................... 4.30  Table 4-9: Summary of Demand Allocation ............................................................................. 4.33  Table 4-10: Calibration Results ................................................................................................ 4.35  Table 5-1: Gravity Sewer Design Criteria .................................................................................. 5.1  Table 5-2: Design Criteria for Special Projects .......................................................................... 5.2  Table 5-3: Minimum Pipe Slope ................................................................................................. 5.4  Table 6-1: Summary of Existing 2018 Model Results ................................................................ 6.1  Table 6-2: Summary of Reliability Analysis ................................... ...........................................6-11  Table 6-3: Summary of Near-Term Model Results .................................................................. 6.15  Table 6-4: Summary of Build-Oout Model Results ................................................................... 6.27  Table 7-1: Summary of Gravity Main Unit Costs ........................................................................ 7.1  Table 7-2: EVWD Capacity Improvement Project Costs .......................................................... 7.11  Table 7-3: East Trunk Sewer Capacity Improvement Project Costs ........................................ 7.12  vi Table 7-4: Summary of Capacity Improvements ........................................................................ 7.1  Table 7-5: Number of Pipes by Max Defect and Flow ............................................................... 7.2  Table 7-6: Pipeline Replacement Length by Max Defect Rating and Flow ................................ 7.2  Table 7-7: Matrix of Estimated Cost to Rehabilitate Pipelines (dollars) ..................................... 7.2  Table 7-8: Prioritized List of Pipeline Condition Rehabilitation .................................................. 7.3  LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1: Existing Sewer Facilities .......................................................................................... 2.3  Figure 2-2: Sewer Pipeline by Diameter .................................................................................... 2.5  Figure 2-3: Sewer Pipeline by Material ...................................................................................... 2.9  Figure 2-4: Sewer Pipeline by Installation Date ....................................................................... 2.11  Figure 3-1: Population Projections for EVWD’s Service Area .................................................... 3.2  Figure 3-2: Existing Land Use in EVWD Service Area .............................................................. 3.7  Figure 3-3: Build-out Land Use in EVWD Service Area ............................................................. 3.9  Figure 3-4: Summary of Future Sewer Generation Projections ............................................... 3.15  Figure 4-1: New Sewer Model Assets ........................................................................................ 4.7  Figure 4-2: Sewer Model Asset Updates ................................................................................. 4.13  Figure 4-3: Sewersheds ........................................................................................................... 4.17  Figure 4-4: Modeled Sewer System ......................................................................................... 4.21  Figure 4-5: Flow Meter Schematic ........................................................................................... 4.24  Figure 4-6: Flow Monitoring Locations and Meter Basins ........................................................ 4.25  Figure 4-7: Average Diurnal for Flow Meter 6 - Conejo ........................................................... 4.28  Figure 4-8: Septic Conversion ................................................................................................. 4.31  Figure 4-9: Flow Calibration Curve for Flow Meter 6 - Conejo ................................................. 4.34  Figure 5-10: Typical Flow Patterns ............................................................................................ 5.3  Figure 6-1: Existing 2018 System Dry Weather Capacity Analysis ........................................... 6.3  Figure 6-2: Existing 2018 System Dry Weather Velocity Analysis ............................................. 6.5  Figure 6-3: Existing 2018 System Wet Weather Capacity Analysis ........................................... 6.9  Figure 6-4: Existing 2018 System Reliability Analysis ............................................................. 6.13  Figure 6-5: Near-Term System Dry Weather Capacity Analysis .............................................. 6.17  Figure 6-6: Near-Term System Dry Weather Capacity Analysis (without Mediterra) ............... 6.19  Figure 6-7: Near-Term System Wet Weather Capacity Analysis ............................................. 6.23  Figure 6-8: Near-Term System Wet Weather Capacity Analysis (without Harmony Development) ............................................................................................................ 6.25  Figure 6-9: Build-Out System Dry Weather Capacity Analysis ................................................ 6.29  Figure 6-10: Build-Out System Wet Weather Capacity Analysis ............................................. 6.33  Figure 6-11: Build-Out System Trunk Line Analysis ................................................................ 6.37  Figure 7-1: Recommended Capacity Projects ........................................................................... 7.7  Figure 7-2: Capacity Recommendations by Planning Horizon .................................................. 7.9  vii Abbreviations AACE Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering ABS Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene ADDF Average Daily Dry Flow ADS ADS Environmental Services ADWF Average Daily Weather Flow AVE Avenue BLVD Boulevard CCTV Closed Conduit Television CDPH California Department of Public Health CIP Capital Improvement Program COP Certificates of Participation CWSRF Clean Water State Revolving Fund DI Ductile Iron DIP Ductile Iron Pipe DWR Department of Water Resources EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. EVWD East Valley Water District FM Force Main FPS Feet per Second GIS Geographic Information System viii GPCD Gallons per Capita per Day GPD Gallons per Day GPD/ACRE Gallons per Day per Acre ID Identification IN Inch IRWMP (Greater Los Angeles) Integrated Regional Water Management Plan IS Initial Study LF Linear feet LN Lane MG Million Gallons MGD Million Gallons per Day MH Manhole MIN Minute NASSCO National Association of Sewer Service Companies PACP Pipeline Assessment Certification Program PDWF Peak Dry Weather Flow PVC Polyvinyl Chloride QA Quality Assurance QAQC Quality Assurance / Quality Control QC Quality Control RCP Regional Comprehensive Plan RD Road RDII Rainfall-Derived Infiltration and Inflow SBMWD San Bernardino Municipal Water Department ix SBVRUWMP San Bernardino Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan SBWRP San Bernardino Water Reclamation Plant SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SNRC Sterling Natural Resources Center SRF State Revolving Fund SSMP Sewer System Master Plan Update ST Street UNK Unknown US United States USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency WIFIA Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act WSMP Water System Master Plan WWF Wet Weather Flow Introduction 1.1 1.0 INTRODUCTION East Valley Water District (EVWD) retained Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (Stantec) to prepare this Sewer System Master Plan Update (SSMP) on January11, 2018. This SSMP updates EVWD’s 2013 Sewer Master Plan and associated hydraulic model. A brief narrative of the project background, scope of work, and a description of the report sections is presented below. 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND EVWD provides both water and sewer service to customers within its service area that lies at the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains, east of the City of San Bernardino and north of the City of Redlands. This SSMP covers the entire service area of EVWD, which includes the City of Highland, portions of the City of San Bernardino, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, and portions of unincorporated San Bernardino County. Since completion of the 2013 SSMP, there have been significant changes in sewer generation within EVWD’s service area. These changes are due to factors such as the economic downturn following the housing market collapse in 2008, the prolonged drought in southern California, and changes to anticipated development. These resulted in projected sewerage generation estimated in the 2013 SSMP being higher than what was recorded. Updated information on the proposed Harmony Development, Highland Hills Development, and Greenspot Village and Marketplace Development have also affected projected generation and planning for the sewer system. Finally, the proposed Sterling Natural Resources Center (SNRC) water recycling project has also driven a need for changes to the SSMP, such as an increased focus on converting septic systems to the sewer collection system. The sewer system flows completely by gravity, generally from north to south and east to west. In a 1957 Joint Powers Agreement with the City of San Bernardino, all flows from EVWDs service area are discharged into the East Trunk Sewer and treated at the San Bernardino Water Reclamation Plant (SBWRP), both of which are owned and operated by the City of San Bernardino. This SSMP update provides a guideline for the orderly planning and expansion of EVWD’s sewer system and evaluates EVWD’s sewer system under existing and future (near-term and build-out) conditions. EVWD currently serves a population of approximately 100,000 customers, and anticipates additional growth through expansion, infill, and septic system user conversion. Proposed developments and infill within EVWD’s service area offer a significant potential for growth, and attendant generation of additional sewerage. The planning and sizing of new facilities to serve new developments and customers are an important focus in this SSMP, as is quantifying future sewer flows. 1.2 GOAL AND OBJECTIVES The primary goal of this SSMP is to provide cost-effective and fiscally responsible sewer services that meet the quality and reliability requirements of EVWD’s customers. This SSMP assists EVWD achieve this goal by meeting the following objectives:  Developing an infrastructure plan that balances sewer service reliability and cost Introduction 1.2  Updating and calibrating EVWD’s sewer system model  Evaluating sewer system performance under existing and Year 2040 conditions  Identifying septic system users and planning for their conversion to the collection system  Identifying needed capital improvement projects For this SSMP, EVWD’s sewer system computer model was updated and calibrated based on recent flow monitoring data. The calibrated sewer model includes all pipes 10 inches in diameter and greater, as well as some smaller diameter pipes where necessary to fully define catchments within the model. Future system elements necessary to meet the year 2040 service conditions are added to analyze the future conditions and system improvements. A Recommended Improvements includes all system improvements required to meet the existing and future sewer system needs. These improvements are identified by analyzing the sewer system under existing and future flow conditions. The recommended improvements includes a list of the recommended improvements, proposed phasing of those improvements, and opinions of probable construction cost. The recommended improvements provides EVWD with a sewer system planning road map for the future. 1.3 SCOPE OF WORK The Scope of Work for this SSMP consists of the following tasks:  Data collection and review of EVWD documents and records  Project wastewater flows in the service area  Update EVWD’s existing model  Analyze the collection system under existing conditions  Analyze the collection system under future conditions  Identify collection system improvements  Identify septic customers and plan for conversion to the collection system  Perform a trunk line analysis for the East Valley Pipeline and maximize sewage flows to the SNRC  Prepare a Capital Improvement Program for the sewer collection system 1.4 DATA SOURCES In preparing this update, EVWD’s staff supplied many reports, maps and other sources of information. In addition, multiple meetings with EVWD staff were held to obtain a thorough understanding of available data, goals for the service area, operational issues, condition of current infrastructure, and general information on the collection system. Pertinent materials included updated GIS information, flow monitoring data, the previous computer model, data on the SNRC, and a list of septic customers. A full list of reference used in this SSMPU is presented in Appendix A. 1.5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Stantec wishes to acknowledge and thank all of EVWD’s staff for their support and assistance in completing this project. Special thanks go to the following key staff: CEO/General Manager: John Mura Director of Engineering and Operations: Jeff Noelte Introduction 1.3 Operations Manager: Patrick Milroy Senior Engineering Technician: Leida Thomas 1.6 PROJECT STAFF The following Stantec staff members were principally involved in preparing this report: Principal-in-Charge: Venu Kolli Technical Reviewer: Carl Chan Project Manager: Jim Cathcart Project Engineers: Oliver Slosser Michael Steele Areeba Syed GIS Specialist: Chisa Whelan 1.7 REPORT OUTLINE This Sewer System Master Plan is divided into 7 sections. Section 2 discusses the existing sewer system, while Section 3 discusses current and projected sewer generation and flow. The sewer system computer model update and calibration effort are described in Section 4. Planning criteria are discussed in Section 5 and the system evaluation is discussed in Section 6. Based on these system evaluations, the sewer system recommended improvements are developed and discussed in Section 7. A description of the topics discussed within each section can be found in the Table of Contents. Introduction 1.4 Existing Sewer Collection System so \\us0383-ppfss01\shared_projects\224501161\06 studies and reports\06-7 final report\ssmpu\evwd_ssmpu draft_for board packet_04182019.docx 2.1 2.0 EXISTING SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM This section describes East Valley Water District’s (EVWD) existing sewer system facilities and provides an understanding of the sewer system operations. The existing sewer system consists of approximately 213 miles of pipeline, 4,400 sewer manholes, 7 siphons, and 5 diversion structures. The sewer system flows into San Bernardino’s East Trunk Sewer which conveys flows to the San Bernardino Water Reclamation Plant (SBWRP). The sewer system components are summarized in Figure 2-1. A computer hydraulic model has been developed that represents the existing sewer system. This model is used for the evaluation of existing and future conditions, as well as to identify areas for improvements. The model creation and calibration are described in Section 4, while the system analyses for the existing and future conditions are described in Section 6. 2.1 GRAVITY SEWER PIPELINES EVWD’s sewer pipeline network includes approximately 213 miles of pipeline ranging in size from 4 inches to 24 inches in diameter. The East Trunk Sewer is approximately 9 miles of pipelines ranging in size from 8 inches to 54 inches in diameter. Table 2-1 shows the existing sewer facilities, and Figure 2-2 summarize EVWD’s sewer pipelines by diameter. Existing Sewer Collection System so \\us0383-ppfss01\shared_projects\224501161\06 studies and reports\06-7 final report\ssmpu\evwd_ssmpu draft_for board packet_04182019.docx 2.2 Table 2-1: Summary of Sewer Mains by Diameter Diameter (in) Cumulative Length of Sewer Pipelines in EVWD System (LF)1 Cumulative Length of Sewer Pipelines Comprising SBMWD East Trunk Sewer Line (LF) 2 4 250 0 6 157,610 0 8 789,190 970 10 41,220 2,340 12 50,560 2,290 15 39,200 9,570 16 660 0 18 13,230 2,100 21 17,300 1,200 24 16,100 2,710 27 0 3,050 30 0 2,220 33 0 2,130 39 0 1,690 48 0 4,540 54 0 7,810 Unknown 1,370 0 Total 1,126,690 42,620 1 Source: EVWD GIS database 2 Source: 2013 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan ·-··-.. -· ·-··-·· -· ·-··-·· -· ·-··-·· - Pipe Diameter < 10" ---East Trunk Sewer � Treatment Plant 10" -18" -Sewer Siphon --->18" i:·:.:·J Service Area Boundary 0 Diversion Structure Flow Monitor I ··-··-··- --··-. . . .... _,.-..... .. .... _. . I ··-··,r··-·· I I ··-··-· ·-··-·· -· ·-··-·· -· .,. I.·-··-··-·· 0 0.25 0.5 I.·-··-··-··-··-··-··-:.-· ·-··-·· 1 Miles ···--:--.l I .. ·-··-·· Existing Sewer Facilities Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California V FI PS 040 5 Feet Document: R:\Water and Sewer System Master Plan 2017 _224501161 \14 Electronic Files - Modeling\GIS\MXDs\Figures\Sewer\Figure 2-1.mxd Date: 12/3/2018 () Stantec Figure 2-1 Existing Sewer Collection System so \\us0383-ppfss01\shared_projects\224501161\06 studies and reports\06-7 final report\ssmpu\evwd_ssmpu draft_for board packet_04182019.docx 2.7 Approximately 75 percent of EVWD’s sewer pipes are made of vitrified clay pipe (VCP). A majority of the rest of the pipes (and 17 percent of the total) are constructed of Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC). Table 2-2 and Figure 2-3 summarize the various pipe materials in the system. The East Trunk Sewer was installed in 1958 and is comprised of VCP for pipes 36 inches in diameter and smaller and reinforced concrete pipeline (RCP) for diameters 39 inch and larger. A majority of the pipes in EVWD’s sewer collection system were installed prior to 1970. Table 2-3 and Figure 2-4 summarize the age of pipes in EVWD’s system. Table 2-2: Summary of Sewer Pipeline by Material Material Total Length (feet) Total Length (miles) Total Length (percent) Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene (ABS) 6,630 1.3 1% Cast Iron (CIP) 4,780 0.9 0% Ductile Iron (DI) 4,980 0.9 0% Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) 195,140 37.0 17% Steel 30 0.0 0% TRUSS 74,810 14.2 7% Vitrified Clay Pipe (VCP) 840,320 159.2 75% Total 1,126,690 213.4 100% Source: EVWD GIS database Note: Totals are exclusive of East Valley Trunk Line Table 2-3: Summary of Sewer Pipeline by Installation Period Installation Period Total Length (feet) Total Length (miles) Total Length (percent) 1957-1959 293,540 55.6 26% 1960-1969 251,270 47.6 22% 1970-1979 118,660 22.5 11% 1980-1989 183,260 34.7 16% 1990-1999 134,410 25.5 12% 2000-2009 75,370 14.3 7% 2010-2016 13,210 2.5 1% Unknown 56,970 10.8 5% Total 1,126,690 213.4 100% Source: EVWD GIS database Note: Totals are exclusive of East Valley Trunk Line Existing Sewer Collection System so \\us0383-ppfss01\shared_projects\224501161\06 studies and reports\06-7 final report\ssmpu\evwd_ssmpu draft_for board packet_04182019.docx 2.8 (This page is intentionally left blank) Existing Sewer Collection System so \\us0383-ppfss01\shared_projects\224501161\06 studies and reports\06-7 final report\ssmpu\evwd_ssmpu draft_for board packet_04182019.docx 2.13 Stantec conducted a meeting with EVWD staff including system operators, during which flow splits and flow constrictions in the system were discussed. Flow constrictions are any transition from one pipe to another pipe where the downstream pipe has a smaller diameter than the upstream pipe, and a flow split is any manhole where sewage can flow down multiple pipelines. From these discussions, EVWD identified the following areas where a flow split or constriction has significant impact on their operations and maintenance activities:   There is a flow split at Witlock Ave, where there is a relief line. Normal flow is routed to the main line and high flows overflow to the relief line.  There are some connections in the system that cause non-ideal flow dynamics in localized areas. They include service laterals and main lines (at Hospital) that enter manholes at 90-degree angles. These lines will not necessarily be modeled depending on the size pipeline the constriction occurs. It is recommended that EVWD provide new manhole bases, or new manholes in these areas to correct the problem, and in extreme cases realign the pipelines to avoid 90-degree bends. This information was recorded and used during model analysis of the collection system 2.2 SIPHONS EVWD’s system includes 7 siphons to convey flows in areas where physical constraints prevent the construction of a typical gravity pipeline. Two additional siphons are constructed on the East Trunk Sewer. These are owned and operated by the City of San Bernardino. Figure 2-4Table 2-4 summarizes the siphons in the EVWD system.. Siphons are checked weekly and cleaned monthly, but cameras cannot be fed through the siphons for visual inspection. Siphons 2 and 5 are frequently impacted by grease and require regular maintenance. Siphon 3 has regular maintenance issues due to the state hospital that discharges to the siphon. Rags, bedsheets, and other items have been found in Siphon 3. EVWD has discussed the potential of cost sharing with the hospital for an onsite macerator or other solution to intercept the items before they enter the collection system. Stantec suggests that EVWD also consider an upstream trash rack or traveling bar screen as the macerator may not be effective in dealing with fibrous material in large quantities. Existing Sewer Collection System so \\us0383-ppfss01\shared_projects\224501161\06 studies and reports\06-7 final report\ssmpu\evwd_ssmpu draft_for board packet_04182019.docx 2.14 Table 2-4: EVWD Siphons Siphon Number Location Number of Barrels Diameter (in) Length (feet) Material Year Installed EVWD Siphons 1 Between Elmwood Rd/Holly Vista Blvd intersection and Del Rosa Ave 2 6 64 CIP 1958 2 Pumalo St between Taylor Rd and Del Rosa Ave 2 6 103 CIP 1958 3 Pacific St between Victoria Ave and Valaria 3 8 235 CIP 1970 4 North of E Third St between Palm Lane and Waterman Ave 2 8 102 CIP 1957 5 San Francisco St just north of Base Line St 3 6 66 DIP 1999 6 Plunge Creek along Greenspot Rd 3 6 326 DIP 1993 7 Warm Creek Siphon 2 4 90 CIP 1971 East Trunk Siphons (Operated and Maintained by City of San Bernardino) 8 E Sixth St between Cooley St and Pedley Rd 2 15 & 21 130 RCP 1958 9 S Waterman Ave between E Valley St and E Mill St 2 21 & 30 191 RCP 1958 2.3 DIVERSION STRUCTURES EVWD has five diversion structures in its sewer collection system. Diversion structures are generally installed in manholes to divert flows along an alternative route in case of a blockage in the system or during times of high flow. Table 3-3 lists the diversion manholes located within EVWD’s wastewater collection system. Table 2-5: Diversion Structures Diversion Number Manhole Number Intersection Primary Flow Direction Secondary Flow Direction 1 I6-142 Pacific Street & Victoria Avenue West South 2 H8-118 Highland Avenue & Palm Avenue South West 3 G9-161 Piedmont Drive & Diablo Drive South West 4 I7-126 Central Avenue & Pacific Street South West 5 M3-118 5th Street & Whitlock Avenue South West 2.4 LIFT STATIONS AND FORCE MAINS EVWD’s sewer system does not currently include any lift stations or force mains. All flow is conveyed by gravity to the East Trunk Line. Existing Sewer Collection System so \\us0383-ppfss01\shared_projects\224501161\06 studies and reports\06-7 final report\ssmpu\evwd_ssmpu draft_for board packet_04182019.docx 2.15 2.5 OTHER FACILITIES AND ASSETS 2.5.1 Geographic Information System (GIS) EVWD maintains geographic information system (GIS) data of its existing facilities. Data are stored as feature classes within a geodatabase, with separate feature classes for facility types. GIS data include laterals, mains, manholes, meters, treatment plants, pumps, pressure regulating stations, and valves. Data for each facility include installation year, material, diameter, etc. as appropriate. Data are updated as old facilities are repaired or replaced and as new facilities are installed. GIS data were used to compile most of the information presented in this chapter. 2.5.1.1 Septic Customers EVWD maintains a GIS layer of septic customers, which was provided to Stantec for use in this SSMP. This information is collected by identifying customers with a water service account but no sewer account in the EVWD billing system. This septic customer GIS layer was cross reference with billing data provided by EVWD and used to estimate future contributions from septic customers in the planning horizons. Septic customers are discussed in more detail in Section 4.3.2.2. Existing Sewer Collection System so \\us0383-ppfss01\shared_projects\224501161\06 studies and reports\06-7 final report\ssmpu\evwd_ssmpu draft_for board packet_04182019.docx 2.16 (This page is intentionally left blank) Population, Land Use, and Sewer Flows 3.1 3.0 POPULATION, LAND USE, AND SEWER FLOWS Population projections along with existing and future land use were used to analyze the existing sewer flows and project future sewer flows. Specific future sewer flows are calculated based on population through year 2040 and EVWD’s will-serve list for future developments. The following sources were contacted in the development of the existing and future land use and population projections:  Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)  United States Census Bureau  San Bernardino County Transportation Authority  City of Highland  California Department of Finance Additional details regarding the existing and future population for EVWD’s service area are presented in this chapter. 3.1 POPULATION Population estimates were developed as described in Chapter 3 of EVWD’s 2018 Water System Master Plan (WSMP) Update and are summarized in the following section. 3.1.1 Existing Population EVWD’s service area population from 2017 is representative of the baseline population used for this SSMP. The 2017 population serves as the basis for future sewer flow projections and for the evaluation of the existing system. Population within the service area was estimated by analyzing the baseline population established in the 2014 Water System Master Plan (2014 WSMP) and applying estimated growth rates for 2010 to 2017 from California Department of Finance. Population estimates were calculated for each census block located within the service area. For census blocks partially located within the service area, the estimated population was adjusted based on the percentage of the census block area located within the service area. Census blocks were also visually inspected against aerial imagery to validate the adjustments made for blocks that are partially located within the service area. The 2017 population estimate within the service area is 103,249. This is a 6.4% increase from the estimated 2010 service area population of 97,001. 3.1.2 Future Population Projections Population forecasts developed by SCAG form the basis of the projections developed by Stantec for EVWD’s service area. Stantec developed population projections for the following four scenarios as discussed with EVWD staff:  Scenario 1: SCAG Projections through year 2040. Assumes growth in the service area effective 2018.  Scenario 2: SCAG Projections from 2021 through 2040. No growth in the service area until 2020. This scenario assumes longer recovery from current population levels to those assumed in the SCAG projections but with the same rate of increase.  Scenario 3: SCAG Projections through year 2040. All major developments are constructed between year 2018 and year 2025. This scenario assumes a greater rate of population increase in the near-term based on the assumption that will serve development will occur within 7 years, and subsequent growth will occur the rate assumed in the SCAG projections Population, Land Use, and Sewer Flows 3.2  Scenario 4: SCAG Projections through year 2040. All major developments are constructed between year 2025 and year 2040. This assumes that the growth from known developments occur between 2025 and 2040, and the rate of growth until 2025 occurs at the rate assumed in the SCAG projections Scenarios 3 and 4 assume that growth associated with the major developments are not included in the SCAG projections. Figure 3-1 shows the population projections for these scenarios. Figure 3-1: Population Projections for EVWD’s Service Area The projections range from approximately 123,000 people by year 2040 in Scenarios 1 and 2 to approximately 142,000 people by year 2040 in Scenarios 3 and 4. Scenarios 1 and 2 represent a 19 percent increase in population from the year 2017. Scenarios 3 and 4 represent a 37 percent increase from the year 2017. Populations for Scenarios 3 and 4 are different from Scenarios 1 and 2 as they include the proposed developments summarized in Table 3-1. As a conservative estimate, Scenario 3 was used for this SSMP. Major future developments that were included in the population projections and their estimated future populations are summarized in Table 3-1. 90,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000 140,000 150,000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Po p u l a t i o n Year Scenario 1 ‐ SCAG Projections Scenario 2 ‐ No Growth to 2020; SCAG Scenario 3 ‐ Development 2020‐2025; SCAG Scenario 4 ‐ Development 2025‐2040 Population, Land Use, and Sewer Flows 3.3 Table 3-1: Major Future Developments Name Type Units Population Percent of Total % San Manual Casino Expansion and Hotel1 Commercial 504 Rooms - Harmony Single-Family Residential 3,600 12,600 63.7 Greenspot Village Commercial/Multi-Family Unknown 2,800 14.2 Highland Hills Ranch Single-Family Residential 650 2,275 11.5 Sunland Communities Single-Family Residential 600 2,100 10.6 Total 19,775 1: Because a casino and hotel expansion would not add any permanent population to the EVWD service area, no population numbers are accounted for in this analysis. However, the flow generation from this development is accounted for as a future projected flow in the model. Population estimates were compared to the San Bernardino Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan (SBVRUWMP) and are summarized in Table 3-2. Table 3-2: Population Estimate Comparisons 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Stantec Estimate – Scenario 3 113,312 130,085 134,261 138,436 142,612 2015 SBVRUWMP Estimate 124,062 130,391 135,690 141,205 146,945 3.1.3 Historical Sewer Flow Generation Permanent flow monitors were installed in 2014 at the 3rd Street and 6th Street connections with the East Trunk Sewer, which captures much of the sewer flow generated in EVWD’s service area. The average flow recorded at those meters were compared with the estimated service area population to determine an overall per capita generation factor, as summarized in Table 3-3. As shown on the table, the flow and per capita usage has trended downward since 2013 due to conservation. These trends were accounted for in the future projections used in the model. Table 3-3: Historical Per Capita Sewer Flows Dates Average Monthly Flow (MGD) Estimated Population GPCD 2013 Sewer Master Plan Flows & 2014 Water Master Plan Estimated Population 2010 6.5 97,001 67 Permanent Flow Monitors on 3rd and 6th Street with Estimated Populations within tributary areas1 2015 6.0 91,310 66 2016 6.0 92,120 65 Population, Land Use, and Sewer Flows 3.4 2017 5.9 92,930 63 Weighted average of FM 4, 6, & 7 during 2018 flow monitoring and estimated populations within tributary areas2 2018 (May – June) 5.0 84,400 59 1Assumes 10% of population live outside of 3rd and 6th street flow meter sheds 2These three flow monitors were selected as they represent the largest area of the system without overlap from the monitors used in the flow monitoring study. 3.2 LAND USE In addition to population, existing and future sewer flows for EVWD’s service area are estimated based on development projections, land use classifications, and sewer flow duty factors. A sewer flow duty factor is the average sewer flow of a given land use type (in gallons per day per acre). Establishing sewer flow duty factors for EVWD’s service area was based on the established water duty factors, water-to-wastewater factors, flow monitoring data and locations, and existing and future land use designations. The development of sewer flow duty factors using GIS (Geographic Information System) software is presented in the following paragraphs. 3.2.1 Assigning Average Flow and Land Use Types Water consumption data and the spatial location of water meters in the system were used for establishing existing water duty factors, as described in Section 3 of EVWD’s 2018 WSMP Update. By analyzing the EVWD’s geocoded GIS water meter information, a link between the spatial location of the meters and the water consumption billing data was established. Several thousand additional water meters for which billing data exists were located by matching the billing addresses to existing geo-located meters. Finally, the largest remaining consumptive meters were manually located. A three-year average (2015-2017) flow was developed for these meters, and any meter that was inactive for November and December of 2017 were assumed to be inactive. Existing land use and general plan land use shapefiles were obtained from the SCAG website. Based on their spatial locations within the service area, a land use type was assigned for each meter and current land use designations were assigned to all parcels within EVWD’s service area. The resulting current land use is shown in shown in Figure 3-2. The 2006 City of Highland General Plan land use and subsequent 2012 General Plan Implementation Report was used to establish a future land use designation for all parcels, as shown in Figure 3-3. Table 3-4 tabulates the land use classifications within the service area and summarizes the vacant and occupied acreage for each land use within the system under existing conditions. Population, Land Use, and Sewer Flows 3.5 Table 3-4: Land Use Classifications and Acreage Land Use Current Area (Acres) % of Total Future Planned Area (Acres) % of Total Agricultural 536 3% 0% Commercial 481 3% 990 6% Industrial 154 1% 163 1% Multi-Family Residential 618 4% 1,543 9% Open Land 1,558 9% 1,031 6% Parks 212 1% 173 1% Public 825 5% 749 4% Single-Family Residential 5,004 30% 8,136 48% Vacant 7,490 44% 4,093 24% Total (MGD) 16,878 100% 16,878 100% Population, Land Use, and Sewer Flows 3.6 (This Page Intentionally Left Blank) Legend VacanVNot Categorized � Multi-Family Residential � Public � Commercial � Open Land Smgl&-Fam1ly Residential � Industrial � Parks C::7.'J SeJ'ViceArea Boundary t o 0.2s o.s ' � .. ___ ,_,,,,,,v,... .. _ fo-Vol ""Wll\-.. - ... -�­ IIH-,, .. -. .. ,tG!l\,.,I)<\ __ ._ ... .,.1 ..... Future/Bulldout Land Use () Stantec Population, Land Use, and Sewer Flows 3.11 3.2.2 Sewer Duty Factors Sewer flow generation duty factors were developed for each land use type by using the water duty factors developed for the water master plan, the results from the land-use specific flow monitoring study, and review of typical values. A water duty factor for each land use type was calculated by dividing the three-year average flow for each meter overlying a parcel (from 2015 to 2017) in gallons per day (gpd) by the area (in acres) of the parcel it serves. These values were then averaged for every meter in the system by land use type. Because sewer flows are not metered at every customer connection, a water-to-wastewater ratio was estimated based on typical flows that each land use type contributes to sewer flow. Multiplying the water duty factors by the water-to-wastewater ratio results in the sewer flow duty factors. Table 3-5 contains the initial sewer flow duty factors for the different land use types. Table 3-5: Calculated Sewer Duty Factors Water Duty Factor (GPD/acre) Water to Wastewater Ratio (Wastewater/Water) Sewer Flow Duty Factor (GPD/acre) Agricultural 1,000 0 0 Commercial 2,000 0.25 500 Industrial 800 0.38 300 Multi-Family Residential 3,500 0.60 2,100 Open Land 1,000 0 0 Parks 3,000 0 0 Public 3,000 0.10 300 Single-Family Residential 2,000 0.45 900 Vacant 0 0 0 Three land-use-specific wastewater flow meters were deployed to help determine the volume and diurnal pattern of flow generated from an area with a single land use. The results of the study are summarized in Table 3-6. Table 3-6: Land Use Sewer Generation Study Results Location Pacific St. and Elm Ave. Date St. and Chiquita Ln. Piedmont (4010 Highland Ave.) Type Single-Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Commercial Acres 50.9 11.3 33.7 Metered Average DWF (MGD) 0.055 0.065 0.015 Duty Factor (GPD/Acre) 1,075 5,740 440 Dwelling Units 269 163 0 Per Dwelling Unit (GPD) 204 397 - Per Person (3.5/unit) 58 113 - Population, Land Use, and Sewer Flows 3.12 Sewer duty factors were inputted into the collection system model and were calibrated against measured flow at the 3rd and 6th street flow monitors, as well as the 10 temporary flow monitoring locations as discussed in Section 4.2. This process uses the initial duty factors presented in Table 3-5, and then adjusts them as necessary to match measured values from the flow monitors. Table 3-7 show the final calibrated sewer generation duty factors, and the total flows by land use tributary to the 3rd and 6th street flow monitors. Table 3-7: Final Sewer Generation Duty Factors Sewer Flow Generation Duty Factor (GPD/Acre) Acreage in 3rd and 6th Street Flow Meter Shed Duty Factor Calculated Flow (MGD)* Agriculture 0 34 0 Commercial 500 432 0.22 Industrial 500 109 0.05 Multi-Family Residential 2,100 571 1.20 Open 0 75 0 Park 0 125 0 Public 600 760 0.46 Single-Family Residential 925 4,382 4.05 Vacant 0 209 0 Total 6,697 5.98 Avg. 2015-2017 dry weather flow at 3rd and 6th Street flow monitors 5.97 * Total DWF for all areas tributary to the 3rd and 6th street flow monitors. 3.2.3 Build-Out Sewer Flow Projections – Land Use Methodology Using the sewer flow duty factors described previously in this section, build-out sewer flow projections were estimated based on general plan land use designations obtained from SCAG. Build-out flows for parcels were estimated using the sewer flow duty factors estimated for the land use types. The projected build-out sewer flow is approximately 11.8 MGD. The estimated flow generated by land type is summarized in Table 3-8. Population, Land Use, and Sewer Flows 3.13 Table 3-8: Existing and Build-out Land-Use-Based Sewer Generation Existing Land Use (Acres) Existing Calculated Avg. DWF (MGD)* Future/Buildout Land Use (Acres) Buildout Calculated Avg. DWF (MGD) Agriculture 536 0 0 Commercial 481 0.24 990 0.50 Industrial 154 0.08 163 0.08 Multi-Family Residential 618 1.30 1,543 3.24 Open 1,558 0 1,031 0 Park 212 0 173 0 Public 825 0.50 749 0.45 Single-Family Residential 5,004 4.63 8,136 7.53 Vacant 7,490 0 4,093 0 Total 16,878 6.74 16,878 11.79 * DWF totals for all areas in the EVWD service area It is noted that the build-out capacity of the SNRC facility is 10 MGD, which is less than the projected wastewater generation for the EVWD service area at build-out. However, due to the location of the SNRC, not all wastewater generated in the system will be able to be conveyed to the facility and therefore the SNRC will likely be capable of treating any wastewater that can be sent to it. 3.2.4 Future Sewer Flow Projections – Population Methodology A per capita sewer flow generation factor must be established to estimate future flows by population growth. The future population includes all customers estimated to live in the service are, including septic customers. When compared to historical trends, the 2018 flow monitoring period had lower than average flows. This is due to conservation realized in the service area since the previous master plan. Based on the current usage data, the recommended per capita sewer flow is 70 gpd per capita, which accounts for the increases in conservation while allowing for some increases in per capita use based on drought recovery and the lifting of some conservation requirements. Existing per capita sewer flow generation is the same as the expected sewer flow, because the previous several years have seen low potable water usage and sewer flows, compared to prior years. Further conservation was not assumed for the future scenarios as the current per capita usage rate is historically low and may represent a minimum for possible conservation in the service area. Recent water usage was below the 2020 compliance target of 175 gpcd and is expected to stay below this number. Similarly, sewer flow may increase if water consumption increases, but conservation technology will also be improving to counteract this increase. Assuming 70 gpcd, the projected increase in flow due to population growth (not associated specific developments) is shown in Table 3-9. Infill growth is defined as densification within the service area and accounts for changes in land use and occupancy of vacant areas throughout the system Population, Land Use, and Sewer Flows 3.14 Table 3-9: Increase in Flow due to Infill Population Growth 2018 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Population 103,249 105,418 110,430 115,690 121,210 122,802 Flow (MGD) 7.23 7.38 7.73 8.10 8.48 8.60 Increased in Flow 0.15 0.50 0.87 1.26 1.37 Note: Assuming 70 gpd per capita Future major developments not included in the population growth were also analyzed. Using specific development information and EVWD’s will-serve list, populations and sewer flow were projected for the future scenarios. Future planned developments with population greater than 500 are included. When detailed information on projected population for these developments were not available, 3.5 people per dwelling unit were assumed (from City of Highland 2012-2016 Census data) and a per capita generation of 70 gpd were assumed, for a total sewer flow of approx. 245 gpd per dwelling unit. In the absence of dwelling units, the expected flow generation for the development was based on the population and the 70 gpd per capita generation rate. These projections are summarized in Table 3-10. Table 3-10: Increase in Flow due to Specific Major Developments Development Population Estimate Sewer Generation (MGD) Harmony 12,712 0.88 San Manual Casino Expansion 1.01 Greenspot Village 2,800 0.20 Highland Hills Ranch 2,275 0.16 Sunland Communities 2,100 0.15 Total 19,887 2.39 3.2.5 Summary of Future Flow Projections The projected future flows from these various projection methods were compared with each other and with historical data and previous projections, and discussed with EVWD staff. The following projection methodology was used for each of the three planning horizons: The flows assigned to the existing model scenario are equal to the estimated service area population multiplied by the established per-capita generation factor. Flows assigned to the model for the near-term scenario are equal to all specific future developments being built in addition to the infill population growth from 2017 to 2025. While 2025 was selected for the infill growth, the near-term scenario is not specific to any year and is predicated upon the will serve development timing. The flows assigned to the model for the build-out scenario are equal to the totals based on the land-use duty factors and build-out land use. Specific flows for major developments are retained in the build-out scenario; if a inflow was identified for the near-term scenario it was not decreased in the build-out scenario in order to match build-out land use estimates. These totals provide a conservative estimate of the flows that EVWD could experience in their system at each planning horizon. Overall, the projected flows are very similar in volume to the 2013 SSMP at each planning horizon, Population, Land Use, and Sewer Flows 3.15 however the year in which these flows are projected are roughly 5 years later than what was projected in the previous master plan, likely due to slower growth in the service area over the last 5 years. Final projected future flows as input into the collection system model are summarized in Table 3-11 and represented on Figure 3-4. The “Planning Total” line on Figure 3-4 represents the final projections used for this SSMP Update. Table 3-11: Average Dry Weather Flow Projection Comparisons in MGD Existing 2018 2020 Near-Term 2030 2035 Build-Out Land Use 6.34 7.05 8.23 9.42 10.60 11.79 Natural Population 7.23 7.41 7.71 8.01 8.3 8.59 Future Developments 2.39 Population and Future Developments 7.23 10.1 10.98 Flows to Model 7.23 10.1 11.79 Figure 3-4: Summary of Future Sewer Generation Projections 4 6 8 10 12 14 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Av e r a g e   D a i l y   D r y   W e a t h e r   S e w e r   F l o w   ( M G D ) 2013 SSMP Land Use Based Per Capita (Natural Population Only)Per Capita (Nat. Pop + Developments) Planning Total Population, Land Use, and Sewer Flows 3.16 (This page is intentionally left blank) Hydraulic Model Development and Calibration 4.1 4.0 HYDRAULIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND CALIBRATION This section describes the update and calibration of EVWD’s existing sewer system model. The process of updating the existing model included data collection, model construction, flow allocation, future projections, and calibration. The discussion of data collection in this section includes information on how data was prioritized and incorporated into the model, and the assumptions and methods used for addressing incomplete data. This section details the update of different elements of the model for assets that have been constructed since the previous SSMP. A discussion is included on the methodology used to allocate existing and future dry and wet weather flows into the model scenarios. Finally, a discussion on calibration of the model is presented in this section. 4.1 MODEL DEVELOPMENT EVWD’s existing sewer model was created using Innovyze InfoSewer, which is run in the ESRI ArcGIS, Version 10 environment, allowing for a modeling system that is fully integrated with (Geographic Information System) GIS software and permits all the advanced ArcGIS functions to be utilized. Using EVWD’s most recent GIS data, the previous model was updated to reflect physical changes in the sewer collection system that have occurred since the previous model build. This model build process begins with reviewing and updating sewer GIS data (including manholes, pipes, and siphons), identifying sewer asset nomenclature, inputting data into the sewer model, and QAQC of model data. Once the model is verified for connectivity and it is confirmed that the model runs properly, sewersheds are created in order to subdivide the service area into distinct areas> Sewer flows are calculated and assigned to the sewersheds in the model by identifying a demand node within each sewershed. Once the model flows have been assigned, the model is calibrated against flow monitoring data to ensure agreement with real data, and then used to run analyses and identify improvements. 4.1.1 Data Collection Data was provided by EVWD for the development of the model update. Key data sources that were used for the model update include:  Previous EVWD Sewer Model  2013 Sewer Master Plan  GIS file of sewer mains  GIS file of sewer manholes  GIS file of 1-foot contours  As built drawings of new infrastructure  Atlas maps 4.1.2 Data Update The first step in the model update process is to review the available data and identify any data gaps. The sewer network is built using GIS files of the sewer pipes and manholes in GIS shapefile format (.shp). These shapefiles are projected in the State Plane Coordinate System North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83), California Zone V. The Hydraulic Model Development and Calibration 4.2 attribute information from shapefiles are organized into categories known as fields, which contain information such as identification (ID) numbers, installation year, material, lengths or depths, invert elevations, and other attributes of a pipe or manhole. New pipes and manholes that need to be input into the model are identified and the data attributes reviewed. During Stantec’s review, the majority of the missing data identified were ground and invert elevation data as well as missing ID numbers. Missing ID numbers were resolved by evaluating other attribute values for the GIS record in question, discussion with EVWD staff, and referencing as built drawings and atlas maps to identify the ID for the specific record. Missing elevations and depths were determined by evaluating attribute values for the record in question, discussion with EVWD staff, and referencing other sources of data such as atlas maps. When an elevation or depth could not be determined from the supporting data, adjacent pipes, manholes, or contours were used to estimate the missing information. All missing data and resolutions were catalogued before being resolved. A full list of missing data and the respective resolution is detailed in Table 4-1 below. Table 4-1: Missing Data Facility ID Missing Attribute Field Solution Value S-SM-N2-1021 Facility ID Determined from adjacent pipes. S-SM-N2-1021 S-MH-H10-134 ManHoleNumber Determined from Facility ID. H10-134 S-SM-M16-1027 UpManhole, DownManhole Determined from connecting manhole numbers. M16-126, M16-125 S-SM-M16-1028 M17-100, M16-126 S-SM-M17-1000 M17-102, M17-100 S-SM-M17-1001 M17-103, M17-102 S-SM-M16-1026 InElevation, OutElevation (pipe slope reversed) Switched two attributes to achieve correct slope based on Slope and PipeLength values and adjacent pipes. 1639, 1626.37 S-MH-J6-134 RimElevation InvertElevation – ManholeDepth. 1130.03 S-MH-J6-137 1131.4 S-MH-M3-138 RimElevation Estimated from nearest 1-foot contours. 1064 S-MH-M3-137 1063 S-MH-M3-136 1063 S-MH-M3-135 1061 S-MH-M3-134 1060 S-MH-N3-119 1059.5 S-MH-N3-118 1057 S-MH-N3-117 1055 S-MH-N3-116 1054 S-MH-N2-121 1053 S-MH-N2-120 1050 S-MH-N2-119 1050 S-MH-N2-118 1048 Hydraulic Model Development and Calibration 4.3 Facility ID Missing Attribute Field Solution Value S-MH-N2-117 1045 S-MH-N2-116 1042.5 S-MH-M12-137 1333 S-MH-K8-153 1203.5 S-SM-L8-1002 OutElevation & InElevation Estimated from downstream manhole invert and min flow 1194.22, 1196.6 S-SM-H7-1107 S-SM-H7-1084 S-SM-H7-1121 S-SM-H7-1091 S-SM-H7-1108 S-SM-H7-1109 S-SM-H7-1110 S-SM-H7-1115 S-SM-H7-1114 S-SM-H7-1091 S-SM-H7-1004 S-MH-H7-177 S-MH-H7-176 S-MH-H7-150 S-MH-H7-152 S-MH-H7-156 S-MH-H7-155 S-MH-H7-200 S-MH-H7-201 S-MH-H7-202 InvertElevation Owned by Patton State Hospital. Not added to model. 4.1.3 Nomenclature Easy identification of model elements (i.e. links and nodes) is important as it provides for better understanding and use of the model. The model requires a unique identification value for each element. Identification for the manholes in the model is based on EVWD’s manhole number. Identification for the pipes in the model is based on EVWD’s Facility ID number. In the model, pipes are represented as links and manholes are represented as nodes. Not every node in the model will represent a manhole. Additional nodes may be needed along a pipe to model changing invert elevations or offsets that do not occur at a manhole. An example of this is a siphon where the pipe slope changes throughout the siphon with no manhole. These pipe slope changes are represented in the model with multiple links, and require a node to be added between the links. . New nodes in the model that are not associated to EVWD manholes are labeled as a 2- or 3-digit numerical ID code designated by the InfoSewer software. Nodes associated with East Trunk sewer manholes are labeled with a 7-digit numerical ID code. Links in the model that are associated with East Trunk sewer pipes are named with a 14-digit numerical ID code, or as BV followed by a 2-digit numerical code (BV##). This Hydraulic Model Development and Calibration 4.4 nomenclature system is carried through from the previous master plan to keep the update consistent with the previous model. 4.1.4 Model Update After missing data were identified, resolved, and input into the GIS database, the model was updated with infrastructure changes that occurred since the previous model version. The criteria used to identify new pipes and manholes added to the model were determined by the following criteria:  Mains greater than or equal to 10” diameter and associated manholes  All manholes where sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) have occurred  Any mains and associated manholes needed to connect the previously mentioned features to the sewer model A list of the Facility ID numbers of the pipes and manholes that were added to the model are listed in Table 4-2 and shown in Figure 4-1. Hydraulic Model Development and Calibration 4.5 Table 4-2: New Model Assets Pipes Added S-SM-M16-1026 S-SM-H9-1035 S-SM-M12-1038 S-SM-M3-1043 S-SM-F5-1049 S-SM-J6-1049 S-SM-M12-1039 S-SM-N2-1020 S-SM-H10-1004 S-SM-J6-1050 S-SM-M12-1042 S-SM-N2-1021 S-SM-H10-1031 S-SM-J6-1051 S-SM-M16-1026 S-SM-N2-1022 S-SM-H10-1032 S-SM-J6-1054 S-SM-M16-1027 S-SM-N2-1023 S-SM-H10-1033 S-SM-J6-1055 S-SM-M16-1028 S-SM-N2-1024 S-SM-H10-1035 S-SM-J6-1056 S-SM-M17-1000 S-SM-N2-1025 S-SM-H9-1022 S-SM-J6-1059 S-SM-M17-1001 S-SM-N2-1026 S-SM-H9-1030 S-SM-J6-1060 S-SM-M3-1039 S-SM-N3-1020 S-SM-H9-1031 S-SM-J6-1061 S-SM-M3-1040 S-SM-N3-1021 S-SM-H9-1033 S-SM-L9-1028 S-SM-M3-1041 S-SM-N3-1022 S-SM-H9-1034 S-SM-M12-1037 S-SM-M3-1042 S-SM-N3-1023 S-SM-L8-1002 Manholes Added F5-150 J6-133 M12-136 N2-116 H10-102 J6-134 M12-137 N2-117 H10-104 J6-136 M16-125 N2-118 H10-130 J6-137 M16-126 N2-119 H10-131 J6-138 M17-100 N2-120 H10-133 J6-139 M17-102 N2-121 H10-134 J6-140 M17-103 N3-116 H9-125 J6-141 M3-134 N3-117 H9-126 J6-142 M3-135 N3-118 H9-128 K8-153 M3-136 N3-119 H9-129 L9-126 M3-137 H9-130 M12-135 M3-138 Hydraulic Model Development and Calibration 4.6 (This Page is Intentionally Left Blank) Hydraulic Model Development and Calibration 4.9 4.1.4.1 Field Mapping The GIS Gateway tool was used to import shapefiles into the model, and link data from the shapefile fields to the appropriate InfoSewer model attributes. The names of the shapefiles used to create the model and the field mapping to the model are shown in Table 4-3. Table 4-3: GIS Shapefile Field Mapping to Sewer Model EVWD Shapefile Name Shapefile Description Field Title Description InfoSewer Attribute sManhole.shp EVWD Manholes RimElevati Manhole Rim Elevation MHHYD->RIM_ELEV FacilityID Facility ID Number MANHOLE->2018FACID GIS X1 X position NODE->X GIS Y1 Y position NODE->Y sMain.shp EVWD Pipes UpManhole Upstream manhole name LINK->FROM DownManhol Downstream manhole name LINK->TO MainSize Pipe diameter PIPEHYD->DIAMETER Material Pipe material PIPE->MATERIAL InElevatio Upstream invert elevation PIPEHYD->FROM_INV OutElevati Downstream invert elevation PIPEHYD->TO_INV FacilityID Facility ID Number PIPE->2018FACID GIS Length1 Pipe length PIPEHYD->LENGTH Note: 1 Calculated GIS values 4.1.4.2 Pipe Roughness Coefficients and Manhole Diameters In addition to the GIS data provided in the shapefiles, certain element attributes are needed in order to run the model. These attributes include pipe roughness coefficients and manhole diameters, which aren’t always contained in the provided GIS. Pipe roughness coefficients were manually assigned to all pipes added to the model and assumed to be 0.013. This assumption is based on the previous model and industry standards for pipes that have been in service for many years. This initial assumption was further refined during calibration of the model. Diameters for manholes that were added to the model were assumed to be 5 feet. The diameters of the manholes do not affect the hydraulics of the underlying flow, but do define a volume for the manhole and amount of sewage needed to cause an overflow. Since pipes in the system showing full flow are identified for monitoring or improvement, the volume for overflow is not a significant factor in model analysis. Both assumptions were made for consistency with the previous version of the model. 4.1.4.3 Model Verification Once new infrastructure was identified and added to the model, a comparison of the previous model to EVWD’s current GIS database was performed in ArcMAP and in Excel to find existing model assets whose attributes changed since the previous model update. Pipes with different diameters, materials, or that had been abandoned were Hydraulic Model Development and Calibration 4.10 changed in the model to match EVWD’s current GIS information. Table 4-4 lists the pipes that were updated in the model and the respective changes and are shown on Figure 4-2. Hydraulic Model Development and Calibration 4.11 Table 4-4: Modeled Pipe Updates Change Type Facility ID # Changed From Changed To Diameter S-SM-F5-1051 8” 10" S-SM-H4-1003 8" 10" S-SM-H4-1015 10" 12" S-SM-H4-1061 15" 18" S-SM-H7-1000 12" 10" S-SM-H7-1001 12" 8" S-SM-H7-1005 12" 10" S-SM-I10-1004 12" 8" S-SM-I3-1010 6" 10" S-SM-I4-1069 6" 8" S-SM-I7-1031 12" 8" S-SM-I7-1073 12" 8" S-SM-I8-1020 12" 10" S-SM-J9-1060 10" 8" S-SM-K4-1031 8" 6" S-SM-K9-1006 10" 8" S-SM-N3-1007 8" 15" Material S-SM-K7-1011 Vitrified Clay Pipe Ductile Iron Pipe S-SM-K7-1013 Vitrified Clay Pipe Ductile Iron Pipe S-SM-K11-1057 Vitrified Clay Pipe PVC S-SM-K11-1062 Vitrified Clay Pipe PVC S-SM-N3-1007 Vitrified Clay Pipe PVC S-SM-M3-1009 Vitrified Clay Pipe Truss S-SM-M3-1028 Vitrified Clay Pipe Truss S-SM-M3-1036 Vitrified Clay Pipe Truss S-SM-N3-1008 Vitrified Clay Pipe Truss S-SM-F4-1034 UNK Vitrified Clay Pipe S-SM-F4-1047 UNK Vitrified Clay Pipe S-SM-H3-1003 UNK Vitrified Clay Pipe S-SM-M10-1015 PVC Vitrified Clay Pipe S-SM-M10-1016 PVC Vitrified Clay Pipe S-SM-K13-1004 PVC Vitrified Clay Pipe Abandoned S-SM-H7-1002 Active Removed S-SM-H7-1003 Active Removed S-MH-H7-102 Active Removed S-MH-H7-103 Active Removed Hydraulic Model Development and Calibration 4.12 (This page is intentionally left blank) Hydraulic Model Development and Calibration 4.15 4.1.5 Model Cleanup and QA/QC Once GIS information was input into the model using the GIS Gateway, a thorough quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) of the entire system was conducted of the pipeline and manhole data. To execute this QA/QC process, a number of tools within the InfoSewer model were employed. In addition to the proprietary functions of the InfoSewer software, manual checks of data were performed to ensure accuracy, with emphasis placed on new or changed elements in the model as described above. Because this project entails the update of an existing model as opposed to the creation of a new one, many typical errors that would need to be resolved had previously been addressed. Because extensive evaluation was done of the data prior to model update, many potential errors with the updated model assets were identified early in the process. The following QA/QC checks were performed of the updated model:  Review pipes not connected to a manhole  Delete abandoned and orphaned manholes  Verify pipe lengths against GIS  Verify manhole rim elevations against GIS  Verify pipe information (e.g., upstream and downstream invert elevations, pipelines with missing diameter, etc.)  Profile check of new pipes in the model. Profile checks involve visualizing the hydraulic profile of the pipes in the InfoSewer software and verifying connectivity and a negative slope. Discrepancies between the GIS data and the InfoSewer model included the following:  Pipes (1884 total pipes)  63 pipes did not have a pipe length in the GIS database.  23 pipes had greater than a one-foot difference between their modeled and GIS lengths.  102 pipes had no associated upstream invert elevations  99 pipes had no downstream invert elevations in the GIS database.  54 pipes were identified with a difference in elevation of greater than 1 foot between the modeled and GIS elevations.  Manholes (1865 total manholes)  107 had no GIS rim elevations  35 manholes were identified with a difference in elevation of greater than 1 foot between the modeled and GIS elevations. Discrepancies with new manholes and pipes added to the model were resolved by reviewing adjacent network features and attributes, discussions with EVWD staff, and referencing supporting data as discussed in Section 4.1.2. 4.1.6 Adequacy of Sewershed Areas When developing a sewer system model, the geographical area that the model covers must be divided up into sub- areas, or sewersheds. These geographical areas represent all the pipes and manholes in a similar area, such as a neighborhood block, that are contributing flow to a single node in the model. By dividing the service area into these sewersheds, sewer flows can be summed up and assigned to nodes within the model easily. Creation of these sewersheds requires balancing the ease of which the modeler can assign flows to nodes in the model, while not being so big that they do not represent flow in individual pipes accurately, and thus do not represent the creation of flow throughout the system accurately. It is important that each sewershed only has a single outlet for flow (i.e. one exiting pipeline); otherwise flows might be misappropriated in the model and sent down the wrong pipeline. Hydraulic Model Development and Calibration 4.16 Furthermore, a inflow node should be chosen within each sewershed such that flow is being represented in as many of the pipes as possible. When evaluating the adequacy of the sewersheds provided by EVWD, the number of pipelines exiting the sewershed, the inflow nodes, the size and shape of the sewershed, and it relationship to neighboring sewersheds are all considered in the analysis Stantec evaluated the previously-developed sewershed areas to assess their accuracy for this model update. A map of the sewersheds is shown on Figure 4-3. In total, the EVWD Sewer System Model is represented by 547 sewershed areas. These 547 sewersheds average approximately 35 acres in area and comprise 19,320 acres in total area, which is approximately 60 acres greater than the total acreage of EVWD’s service area. This slight difference is due to some overlap between the individual areas and some discrepancies with the service area boundary. These discrepancies were minor and do not significantly affect the accuracy of the model. Three sewersheds do not contribute flow to the model, because even though they are within EVWD’s service area, these areas’ sewer flows are conveyed directly into the City of San Bernardino’s collection system. The size of the sewersheds used in the model are relatively small given other models created and updated by Stantec and offer a strong level of granularity to allocation of inflows in the model. All sewersheds had a single point of outlet, or if multiple outlet points were present, the hydraulics of any split were well defined (such as the case of an overflow pipeline). The size of the sewersheds do require a higher than average amount of inflow calculation, but not prohibitively so. It is noted that not all sewersheds are “snapped” to the edges of the service area boundary and the boundaries of neighboring sewersheds which may mean that some sewersheds overlap and some areas of the service area are not contained within a sewershed. EVWD could pursue rectifying this in future updates, however this is typically a time consuming process and given the degree of the overlap, would likely have a negligible effect on the overall usefulness of the sewershed layer. In general, no further changes are needed to use the sewersheds for future updates barring significant changes to the pipe network and flow directions. Hydraulic Model Development and Calibration 4.19 4.1.7 Summary of Model Update 49 pipes and 46 manholes extending over 2.1 miles were added to the existing sewer network. The entire updated model network now contains approximately 1,900 manholes, 1,900 pipe segments, and extends over 83 miles within the EVWD service area, or approximately 32 percent of the entire network. The analyzed database includes all collection system pipelines 10-inches in diameter and greater. Additional pipes with diameters smaller than 10-inches were added in order to capture flow from a larger network of small pipes. All information imported from the EVWD GIS information described above, and any additional information taken from atlas maps or through discussion with EVWD staff, is included in the InfoSewer database. The EVWD sewer system as modeled in InfoSewer is shown in Figure 4-4. Hydraulic Model Development and Calibration 4.20 (This page is intentionally left blank) Hydraulic Model Development and Calibration 4.23 4.2 FLOW MONITORING Flow monitoring is essential for developing and calibrating a sewer system model. Flow monitoring data validate assumptions made while developing the model. Flow, depth, and velocity are typically measured in a flow metering study. By adjusting the model so that it matches real data collected in the field, greater confidence can be put in the model and the resulting analysis and recommendations. For development of a sewer model, the flow metering points are the only points in the system that you can exactly confirm the existing flow conditions; therefore, there is a direct correlation between the amount of flow monitoring data available and the accuracy of the model. 4.2.1 Flow Monitoring Studies ADS Environmental Services (ADS) completed three recent flow monitoring studies that were used in the development of this master plan. Flow monitoring is essential to any master plan, as the model is calibrated to the results of flow monitoring studies, forming a crucial link between real-world data and flow calculated in the model. Two studies were performed specifically for the development of this master plan, and a third was performed for the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians. No wet weather events were captured in these studies so wet weather flows were based on previous studies. Details of the three flow monitoring studies are summarized below in Table 4-5. Table 4-5: Flow Monitoring Studies Name of Study Dates of Study Number of Metered Locations EVWD Sewer Flow Verification Report May 17, 2018 – June 15, 2018 7 EVWD Land Use Sewer Generation Report May 8, 2018 – June 6, 2018 3 Casino Sewer Flow Study May 26, 2018 – June 8, 2018 1 In addition to these studies, EVWD maintains two permanent flow monitors through ADS at the terminal end of their system, capturing almost all the flow generated in their service area before entering the East Valley Trunk Line. These permanent monitoring locations were also used for calibration of the model, as well as for development of long-term flow trends and peaking factors. 4.2.2 Flow Metering Locations EVWD performed the sewer flow verification and land use generation studies to establish current flows in the collection system. The results of this study were used to allocate sewer flow and calibrate the model. 10 temporary flow meters were deployed and used in conjunction with EVWD’s two permanent flow meters. Of the 10 temporary meters, three were deployed to determine land-use specific usage patterns; these meters were located to record the pattern of flows contributed from EVWD three most common single land use types (single family residential, multi- family residential, and commercial). The remaining seven flow monitors were placed at locations that captured flow from similarly sized sewersheds that comprised a majority of the overall EVWD system. These seven monitors were used to calibrate flow for these discrete areas and identify any anomalous flow generation in areas of the system. Additionally, data from a temporary flow meter installed at the San Manuel Casino as part of a different project was analyzed to help predict future flows resulting from an anticipated casino expansion (one of the larger anticipated developments for the EVWD system). A schematic of the flow meters and their relation to each other is shown in Figure 4-5. Hydraulic Model Development and Calibration 4.24 Figure 4-5: Flow Meter Schematic For each meter, a meter sewershed or basin was developed which encompassed the tributary area and population contributing flow to that specific meter. Each meter basin includes the sewersheds upstream of the meter, up to the next upstream meter or the end of the sewer main. A map of the flow meters and their respective meter basins is shown on Table 4-6. Hydraulic Model Development and Calibration 4.27 4.3 INFLOW ALLOCATION Existing inflows were allocated into the model using the flow monitoring data, U.S. census block data, and the existing EVWD sewersheds. Future demands were developed using SCAG population projections, EVWD’s will-serve list, specific development projections and reports, the City of Highland General Plan future land use shapefile, and flow monitoring data. The demand allocation methods are described herein. 4.3.1 Existing Dry Weather Flow Flow monitor basins were evaluated by determining every pipe upstream of a flow meter that conveys flow only to that specific meter. Data from the flow monitor studies were used to develop average weekday (Monday-Thursday) and weekend flows. Weekday flows typically had a larger peaking factor and were therefore used to allocate demands into the model. By comparing Average Daily Dry Weather Flows (ADDF) at each meter with the estimated population living within that basin, an average flow generation factor was determined. This factor was then adjusted to account for residents that use septic systems instead of the centralized collection system, as well as for flows that are generated from areas outside of EVWD’s service area. Each flow monitor basin is comprised of many sewersheds, and each sewershed has a single manhole to which flows are assigned in the model. This is known as the demand node for the sewershed. The flow generated at each manhole is estimated by multiplying the number of people calculated to live in the sewershed by the flow generation factor for that basin. EVWD has permanent flow meters installed at the trunk line connections with the East Trunk Sewer near the intersection of 3rd Street with Waterman Ave. and 6th Street with Waterman Ave. These meters are not used for demand allocation due to a higher propensity for data errors resulting from their permanent installation. However, these meters are used for calibration of the model, as discussed in Section 4.4. The results of the sewer flow verification study and basin flow generation factors are summarized in Table 4-6. Table 4-6: Sewer Flow Verification Study Results Flow Meter Basin Metered Weekday Avg. (MGD) Estimated 2017 Population Revised GPCD1 4 0.78 14,098 59 5 1.72 17,093 87 6 3.21 50,716 60 7 0.98 19,591 59 8 0.37 6,238 66 9 0.55 13,571 50 10 0.73 10,233 71 Most Downstream Meters (4, 6, & 7) 4.97 84,405 602 1 Revised based on assumptions including septic population and flow from outside of EVWD service area 2 Weighted average Hydraulic Model Development and Calibration 4.28 Weekday diurnal curves were identified for each basin and applied to the inflow generated at each manhole within that basin to simulate the flow variation that occurs throughout an average day. Both weekday and weekend diurnal curves were evaluated, and weekday curves were applied to the model due to the higher peaking factor observed at Flow Meter 6 – Conejo which had the greatest average and peak flow in the study. Diurnal patterns vary based on the land use types within the basin. EVWD’s service area typically generates two peaks in flow, a morning peak and an evening peak, which is typical for a largely residential service area. Most meters recorded a larger peak in the evening compared to the morning for an average weekday, but a larger late-morning peak compared to the evening for a typical weekend. A sample plot for flow meter 6 – Conejo is shown in Figure 4-7. Plots of the average weekday and weekend diurnal curves for each flow meter are included in Appendix B. Figure 4-7: Average Diurnal for Flow Meter 6 - Conejo After the model is calibrated (which is discussed in Section 4.4), the existing scenario is created for analysis by scaling up the calibrated demands. Because flows vary month by month and year by year, this is done to adjust for any seasonal variability between the flow monitoring period and other times of the year. This scaling is also a conservative estimate to keep from evaluating the sewer system in a year in which EVWD might be experiencing lower than normal flows, such as might occur in a dry year. This assumption was validated by comparing historical flows, as discussed in Section 3 of this SSMP. To create the existing scenario, the inflows were increased by approximately 28%. 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM Fl o w   ( M G D ) Average Weekday Average Weekend Hydraulic Model Development and Calibration 4.29 4.3.1.1 East Trunk Sewer and City of San Bernardino Flows Flows in the East Trunk Sewer consist of flow generated both in EVWD’s service area as well as the City of San Bernardino’s. It is important to include these flows in order to accurately model the actual flows observed in the East Trunk pipes. Because data from the City of San Bernardino was limited, several assumptions were carried through from previous reports. EVWD’s Solids Separation Study estimated that 1218 parcels outside of EVWD’s service area to the north contribute approximately 0.342 MGD of flow into the East Trunk Sewer. These flows are distributed between two connection points at Harrison St & Marshall Blvd and Mountain Ave & Eureka St. The distribution of the flows between these two locations is based on the percentage between inflows at these two manholes in the 2013 Master Plan. Another major connection point where San Bernardino Flows enter the East Trunk Sewer is at the intersection of Waterman Ave & 6th St, which is just downstream of EVWD’s permanent 6th Street flow monitor. The 2013 Master Plan estimated the average daily dry-weather flow (ADDF) that enters the system at this location to be 6.135 MGD. It was established that the land area from which this flow is generated was largely built-out and not expected to change dramatically. This assumption was carried forward for this master plan. The existing average daily dry-weather flows generated from San Bernardino and used in the East Valley Sewer System Model are summarized in Table 4-7. Table 4-7: San Bernardino Flow in the East Trunk Sewer Intersection Estimated ADDF Model Node Harrison St & Marshall Blvd .161 F3-108 Mountain Ave & Eureka St .181 E3-126 Waterman Ave & 6th St 6.135 0670079 4.3.2 Future Dry Weather Flow The existing scenario flows form the basis for flows in the future scenarios. To project future growth and future flows in the system, Stantec analyzed multiple sources of information including EVWD’s will-serve list, EVWD’s GIS database, current and future land use, and population projections. Whenever possible, specific information is used to develop flow projections. EVWD’s will-serve list includes potential future developments and information on these developments. If future flows had not previously been developed, Stantec used the assumption developed in Section 3 of 70 gpd per person. Using EVWD’s GIS database, Stantec developed targeted septic parcels for conversion into the sewer system. When other more specific development information was not available, current and future land use from the general plan was used in conjunction with land use duty factors to estimate flow. 4.3.2.1 Major Developments Stantec evaluated EVWD’s will-serve list to help project future flows. A will-serve list contains information on proposed developments for which the Developer and EVWD have entered into an agreement to provide future sewer access to the development. This is typically one of the best sources of specific information about what future flows will be generated from an undeveloped parcel. Populations projected to inhabit these developments were determined Hydraulic Model Development and Calibration 4.30 from the will-serve list as well as publicly-available information. When projected sewer flow generation was not available, 70 gallons per day per person was estimated. If specific populations were not projected, then 3.5 residents per dwelling unit were assumed based on the City of Highland’s average household size. Whenever available, Stantec used these specific estimates instead of flows estimated from the General Plan and Land-Use-Based generation factors. The inflows were applied as point loads to the parcel on which they will be constructed, or at the nearest parcel to an existing sewer for multi-parcel developments. Projected flows and the assumed locations in the model for major developments with populations greater than 500 people as well as the major casino expansion are summarized in Table 4-8. Table 4-8: Future Major Developments Development Population Projected Sewer Flow Generation (MGD) Inflow Manhole Harmony 12,712 0.882 M16-124 San Manual Casino Expansion - 1.008 F6-135 Greenspot Village 2,800 0.196 M11-115 Highland Hills Ranch 2,275 0.159 H10-111 Sunland Communities 2,100 0.147 M16-124 4.3.2.2 Septic Conversion Stantec evaluated the current residents within EVWD’s service area that use septic systems to treat wastewater instead of contributing flows to the centralized sewer collection system. According to the EVWD’s GIS data, there are 1495 customers that are billed for water but not sewer. These correspond to 1400 unique parcels totaling 745 acres. Approximately 90% of parcels’ current land use is single-family residential. Using the sewer generation duty factors, the estimated total amount of flow that would be added to the system if all were these parcels converted is approximately 0.75 MGD. In order to maximize potential flow to the SNRC, Stantec proposes prioritizing projects with a high density of septic customers in the same area for conversion. The map shown in Figure 4-8 shows the areas that Stantec recommends prioritizing. Blue dots account for 810 of the 1495 (54%) septic nodes and were included in the near-term planning horizon flow projections. All remaining septic nodes are assumed to be converted for the build-out scenario. Hydraulic Model Development and Calibration 4.33 4.3.2.3 Summary of Future Flow Projections When more detailed information is not available, future flow projections are estimated by comparing the existing land use to future land use from the general plan. By using the acreage of a parcel and the land use generation factors, a future flow can be estimated. When allocating demands into the model, preference was given to results from the specific analysis performed for the major developments and septic conversion. When using general plan estimates, flow was allocated first to parcels that are currently vacant but are planned to be developed in the future. Additionally, if a future projection for a model node was less than the existing flow, the larger existing inflow was used instead. 4.3.3 Wet Weather Flow A wet weather event was not captured during the 2018 flow monitoring studies. However, long term flow monitors at 3rd and 6th street have metered wet weather responses since their installation at the end of 2014. These meters were reviewed and evaluated for a wet weather peaking factor to be applied to the system. Stantec evaluated historical rainfall data and compared this with the hourly flow monitoring data provided by EVWD. Based on this analysis, the max wet weather peaking factor experienced was approximately 1.7. This is consistent with an equivalent wet weather peaking factor in the previous model scenarios, which was 1.84 times the peak dry weather flow just downstream of the 6th street meter. Wet weather flow calibration for the previous model included a 5-year, 24-hour storm and a 10-year, 24-hour storm. To conservatively estimate the wet weather flows the system might experience, Stantec and EVWD agreed on applying a peaking factor of 2 to the existing dry weather flows. The resulting flow volume that was determined by applying the peaking factor to the existing dry weather flows were also applied to the near-term and build-out scenarios. This volume was used in order to not over-estimate the future storm by peaking the increased flows. There is one exception to this which was the Harmony Development. Because this development would include the new development of a currently un-developed portion of the service area, it is assumed that with the expansion of the system, I&I flows would increase as well. A peaking factor of 2 was applied to the estimated near-term and build-out dry weather flows to simulate wet weather flows. 4.3.4 Summary of Demand Allocation The total flows that were allocated into the EVWD sewer model are summarized in Table 4-9. Flows are totaled for both EVWD’s service as well as total flows at the SBWRP. Table 4-9: Summary of Demand Allocation Model Scenario EVWD Service Area Flow (MGD) Total Flow at SBWRP (MGD) Calibration 6.0 N/A Existing DWF 7.2 13.7 Exiting Peak WWF 14.5 27.4 Near-Term Average DWF 10.1 16.6 Near-Term Peak WWF 17.3 31.5 Build-out Avg. DWF 11.8 18.3 Build-out Peak WWF 19.0 33.2 Hydraulic Model Development and Calibration 4.34 4.4 MODEL CALIBRATION Adjustments are made to the model to help make the assumptions used to generate the model produce as accurate results as possible. Dry weather model flows, diurnal patterns, and manning’s coefficients are adjusted to match the flow and depth observed at each flow metering location. The model was only calibrated to dry weather conditions because no wet weather event was captured in the flow monitoring study. The flow calibration curve for Flow Meter 6 – Conejo is shown in Figure 4-9. Calibration graphs for all meters are included in Appendix C. Figure 4-9: Flow Calibration Curve for Flow Meter 6 - Conejo The goal of calibration was to have a 10 percent or less difference between the modeled and observed dry weather flows. Model results and flow monitoring data are compared both on a total volumetric basis, as well as the peak flow, average, and maximum depth. Some variation from this criterion is expected for any calibration and best judgement must be used to try and identify the cause of the discrepancies, adjust the model, and decide when the calibration cannot be further improved with the data available. The dry weather flow calibration results are summarized in Table 4-10. Most of the results are well within the 10% criteria for calibration, with the 3rd Street location being the biggest outlier. This location was discussed with EVWD staff and the cause of this discrepancy is thought to be disagreement in some on the source data for the dimensions of the pipelines and manholes around this location, and the low amount of flow at this location. The calibration could not be further refined without decreasing the accuracy of other locations and it is noted that the model is showing higher flows than the flow monitoring which suggests model results are a conservative representation of flows at this meter. Overall, the model flows are very close to the flow monitoring data and the results relay a high level of confidence in model results. In order to further refine the calibration in future updates, it is recommended that EVWD conduct further flow studies in the system. 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM Fl o w   ( M G D ) Metered Weekday Avg.Model Results Hydraulic Model Development and Calibration 4.35 Table 4-10: Calibration Results Modeled  Flow (MGD)  Observed  Average  Weekday  Flow (MGD)  Percent  Difference  Modeled  Depth (FT)  Observed  Average  Weekday  Depth (FT)  Percent  Difference   Total Volume  Average Depth  FM 4 0.75  0.78  ‐3%  0.51  0.46  11%  FM 5 1.68  1.71  ‐2%  0.45  0.46  ‐2%  FM 6 3.18  3.20  0%  0.65  0.59  10%  FM 7 0.90  0.97  ‐7%  0.38  0.37  3%  FM 8 0.35  0.37  ‐6%  0.30  0.32  ‐7%  FM 9 0.52  0.55  ‐5%  0.30  0.27  14%  FM 10 0.71  0.72  0%  0.24  0.21  11%  3rd Street 0.26  0.32  ‐18%  0.24  0.20  19%  6th Street 5.69  5.49  4%  1.01  1.11  ‐9%   Peak Flow  Maximum Depth  FM 4 1.08  1.14  ‐5%  0.63  0.57  11%  FM 5 2.36  2.45  ‐4%  0.55  0.56  ‐1%  FM 6 4.47  4.64  ‐4%  0.79  0.75  4%  FM 7 1.55  1.66  ‐7%  0.51  0.50  3%  FM 8 0.59  0.66  ‐11%  0.40  0.45  ‐12%  FM 9 0.93  1.00  ‐7%  0.42  0.35  20%  FM 10 1.02  1.13  ‐10%  0.29  0.29  ‐2%  3rd Street 0.38  0.52  ‐28%  0.29  0.26  13%  6th Street 7.95  7.77  2%  1.22  1.32  ‐8%  Hydraulic Model Development and Calibration 4.36 (This page is intentionally left blank) Planning Criteria 5.1 5.0 PLANNING CRITERIA This section presents the design criteria and methodologies for analysis used to evaluate the existing distribution system and its facilities and to size future improvements. 5.1 INTRODUCTION Criteria are established for evaluating the adequacy and condition of EVWD’s sewer collection system and designing replacement or new infrastructure in the system. Peak sewer flow factors for EVWD’s system are determined based on a review of flow monitoring data produced by EVWD for the purpose of this SSMP update. The criteria are developed using typical planning criteria of similar wastewater utilities, engineering judgment, and commonly accepted industry standards. The “industry standards” are typically ranges of values that are acceptable for the criterion in question and, therefore, are used more as a check to confirm that the values being developed are reasonable. Deviations from the recommended guidelines may be necessary in defining specific improvement projects for an existing sewer collection system due to the restrictions posed by existing upstream and downstream conditions. In these special circumstances, design criteria will need to be determined on a case-by-case basis. 5.2 RECOMMENDED DESIGN CRITERIA FOR GRAVITY SEWERS This section provides recommended design criteria for sewer mains in the EVWD system. Table 5-1 shows the recommended design criteria for new sewers and manholes. The criteria presented in this table are discussed in more detail below. Table 5-1: Gravity Sewer Design Criteria Design Criteria Value Per Capita Flow Flow Generation Rate Based on Population and Land Use Velocity Minimum 2 fps Maximum 10 fps d/D Ratio during peak dry weather flow For all sewers that are less than 18-inch in diameter 0.5 For all sewers that are greater than or equal to 18-inch in diameter 0.75 d/D Ratio during peak wet weather flow All Diameters d/D = 1.0 (Surcharge) Siphon Pipelines All Diameters Maximum Velocity < 8 feet per second Other Criteria Manning’s n (gravity mains) Dependent upon material, 0.013 used for all existing pipelines in the system or if material is not known Planning Criteria 5.2 Average Manhole Losses 0.1 feet Manhole Losses during peak wet weather flow 0.5 feet 5.2.1 Recommended Design Criteria for Special Projects In addition to the recommended design criteria for gravity sewers, the recommended design criteria for non-gravity sewer improvement projects are discussed in this section. Special projects are defined in this master plan as projects other than gravity mains, and include such facilities as lift stations, force mains, weirs, etc. Recommended design criteria for special projects are summarized in Table 5-2. Table 5-2: Design Criteria for Special Projects Item Recommended Values Sp e c i a l P r o j e c t s Lift Stations and Force Mains  Lift Stations and force mains will be avoided whenever possible.  Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) (existing conditions) velocity = 3.0 fps minimum.  Hazen-William’s “C” factor of 120 will be used to analyze hydraulic conditions for all force mains in the system  Force mains shall be sized to provide a design velocity no less than 4 ft. per second with all pumps running and 2.5 ft. per second during normal operations.  Maximum velocity shall be 7 fps. Diversion Structures  New diversion structures will be avoided whenever possible  Maintain existing diversion structures open with no control setting whenever possible  If a gate/stop-log setting is required for a diversion structure, maintain a fixed setting for all flow conditions whenever possible 5.2.2 Peak Design Flow Considering the limited precipitation in southern California and potential for corrosive gasses to form in sewers with very low flow depths, it is recommended that new pipelines for the EVWD sewer system be sized for partially-full conditions at peak dry weather flow (PDWF). Based on master planning activities completed in conveyance systems like the EVWD, Stantec recommends the peak dry weather flow be determined using the following criteria:  For collector sewers less than 18-inch in diameter, the design PDWF should be equal to 3 times the average dry weather flow.  For trunk sewers greater than or equal to 18-inch in diameter, the design PDWF should be equal to 2.5 times the average dry weather flow.  These peak dry weather flows for design do not include increases in flow rates due to Rainfall-Derived Infiltration and Inflow (RDII). 5.2.3 Peaking Factors A typical flow pattern from field monitoring data is presented on Figure 5-10. These curves represent the variation in sewer flows over a 24-hour period and were generated from the flow monitoring discussed in Section 3. The y-axis shows flows normalized to the average for the day, such that all over the day average 1.0. Planning Criteria 5.3 Figure 5-10: Typical Flow Patterns Peaking factors are generated by taking the peak dry weather flow (PDWF) for the system and dividing it by the average dry weather flow (ADWF). These peaking factors are only for dry-weather contributions and are exclusive of RDII contributions. Peaking factor determination specific to the EVWD system is discussed in detail in Section 3. 5.2.4 Coefficients of Pipe Friction A Manning’s ‘n’ value of 0.013 is used to analyze hydraulic conditions in gravity sewers for all pipe materials in the EVWD system. This value is typical for sanitary sewer systems as a base assumption for all pipe materials in the system. Though Manning’s “n” values can vary depending on pipe material, the deposition of film and material along the walls of existing pipes in the system leads to a similar roughness for most pipes in the system. If instances of obstructions or other impeding factors are known, or the internal conditions of certain pipes (either due to material, size, or geography, can be determined to be different from this base assumption from available data (i.e. CCTV, condition assessment, operations and maintenance records, etc.), a higher value will be used to represent those conditions. 5.2.5 Minimum Collection Sewer Size No sewer shall be less than 8-inches in diameter except at locations authorized by EVWD. 0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200 1.400 1.600 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM NO r m a l i z e d   A v e r a g e   F l o w   ( U n t i l e s s ) 24 Hour Weekday Diurnal Single‐Family Residential Multi‐Family Residential Commercial Planning Criteria 5.4 5.2.6 Flow Depth Ratio (d/D) Typically, sewer systems in climates that do not experience significant rainfall are designed to have a maximum flow depth (d) to pipe diameter (D) ratio (d/D ratio) at PDWF conditions. Under this design scenario, increased flows from usage spikes or RDII during infrequent wet-weather conditions can be conveyed without surcharging the sewer pipe. Based on experience with similar systems in southern California, the d/D ratios recommended for the sewer conveyance system are:  Maximum d/D ratio for all sewers that are less than 18-inch in diameter shall be 0.50 during PDWF; and  Maximum d/D ratio for all sewers that are greater than or equal to 18-inch in diameter shall be 0.75 during PDWF. The above criteria will be used for all new pipes in the system. The criteria will also be used to assess whether existing pipes have the required hydraulic capacity or are in need of relief. Any pipes identified as over these thresholds will be documented in this Master Plan. While improvements are recommended for those pipe segments identified as having insufficient capacity, a d/D threshold of 0.85 is recommended as a “trigger” point to necessitate implementation of a relief project. A d/D of 0.85 at any time during a day indicates essentially full pipe conditions and can result in upstream pipe segments becoming surcharged by creating a backwater condition, or insufficient capacity for accommodating wet weather flows. Initiating a project at this “trigger” point allows the relief project to be designed and installed prior to the pipeline experiencing frequent surcharge conditions. Any modeled pipes with a d/D ratio over 0.85 at PDWF will be recommended for improvement, either immediately for existing pipes, or at the appropriate planning horizon. 5.2.7 Slopes and Velocity To minimize potential for grit and debris accumulation in the conveyance system, all trunk and collector sewers shall be designed with hydraulic slopes that result in mean velocities during ADWF of not less than 2 feet per second (fps). To minimize potential for scouring and pipe erosion, the maximum allowable velocity in the sewer shall not be greater than 10 fps. Table 5-3 summarizes the recommended minimum slope based on pipe. Table 5-3: Minimum Pipe Slope Sewer Size (in) 8 10 12 15 18 21 24 27 Minimum Pipe Slope (ft. /ft.) 0.004 0.0032 0.0024 0.0015 0.0012 0.0009 0.0008 0.0006 5.2.8 Manholes Manholes shall be installed on sewers at all changes in slope, size of pipe, changes in vertical or horizontal alignment and at all intersections of main line sewers. The recommended maximum spacing allowable between manholes is 400 feet unless otherwise approved. The average friction loss for manholes should be 0.1 feet of head, while the peak loss through a manhole should not exceed 0.5 feet of head as listed in Table 5-1. The friction loss is causes by interactions between the surface of the pipe or manhole and the flow of water which causes turbulence and loss of energy. System Evaluation 6.1 6.0 SYSTEM EVALUATION This section describes the evaluation of the sewer collection system under existing and future conditions, i.e. the planning horizons for near-term (year 2025) and build-out (year 2040). Capacity and condition deficiencies based on the evaluations are identified and infrastructure improvements are recommended to address the deficiencies. The following information is presented in this section for existing, near-term, and build-out demand conditions:  A description of the criteria used for the collection system evaluation,  An evaluation of the collection system for capacity constraints under different demand conditions,  An evaluation of the collection system for condition constraints under different demand conditions, and  Reliability analyses. The design criteria and analytical methodologies used to conduct this evaluation are presented in detail in Section 5.0 of this Sewer System Master Plan (SSMP). Recommendations are made for each of these evaluations, which are combined in a summary of recommendations and proposed improvements at the end of this section. 6.1 EXISTING SYSTEM CAPACITY EVALUATION The updated sewer system model was evaluated under existing conditions for both dry and wet weather for the purpose of identifying capacity constraints. Table 6-1 summarizes the lengths of pipes that were identified in the existing model as being outside the limits of the design criteria. Table 6-1: Summary of Existing 2018 Model Results Parameter Dry Weather Wet Weather EVWD (LF) East Trunk Sewer (LF) EVWD (LF) East Trunk Sewer (LF) Pipes < 18”, 1> d/D > 0.5 626 3,670 - - Pipes ≥ 18”, 1> d/D > 0.75 0 2,706 - - Surcharged Pipe (LF) 0 627 10,973 19,362 Total length pipeline out of planning criteria based on model results (LF) 626 6,376 10,973 19,362 6.1.1 Dry Weather – Existing System The existing system model was run under dry weather conditions and the maximum d/D ratios were evaluated to determine the capacity constraints in the system. The results of the model run are shown in Figure 6-1. System Evaluation 6.2 6.1.1.1 EVWD Service Area The model showed 626 feet of pipe in EVWD’s service area to be outside the limits of the design criteria. However, none are shown to have a d/D ratio greater than .85 which would trigger a replacement project. Siphons were excluded from this analysis as they are expected to function at a d/D of 1. 6.1.1.2 East Trunk Sewer The model showed 6,376 feet of the East Trunk Sewer to be outside the limits of the design criteria. Pipes in the East Trunk Sewer in the existing 2018 dry weather model run that were identified as overcapacity (d/D > 0.85) and needing replacement include the following:  A 400 ft section of 27-inch pipe along 6th Street near Palm Park is shown as surcharged in the model run. This section of pipe serves as the basis for the existing dry-weather flow recommendation of Project E-1, as discussed in Section 7.  A 225 ft section of 24-inch pipe along N. Tippecanoe Ave. is shown as surcharged in the model run. This part of the East Trunk Sewer crosses under Warm Creek and appears to have been constructed to be surcharged. For this reason, a replacement project is not suggested. 6.1.1.3 Low Flow in Dry Weather The existing model scenario was evaluated for minimum flow velocities in low flow conditions. The system was evaluated during the early morning, which is when the least flow is typically observed in the system. The pipes in which the modeled velocities are outside of design criteria are shown in Figure 6-2. There are a significant number of pipes that the model shows are outside of design criteria. It is important to note that the sewer system model was not calibrated to velocity. Common practice is to calibrate the model to measured flow and the depth of flow in pipes. Even though the model was not calibrated to velocity, the model results were compared to the velocities recorded in the flow monitoring studies. Comparison of these results varied, but there were instances in which modeled vs. measured velocities at the flow meter locations varied by up to 1.5 feet per second. This type of variation can occur due to differences in pipe invert elevations or slope in the model as compared to the actual existing condition. 2 feet per second is a typical minimum velocity for sewer design criteria as an estimate of the minimum scouring velocity of the pipe. When velocities are less than the scouring velocity for an extended period, it is possible for sediment to settle out and deposit in the pipe. This can result in reduced capacity of the pipe as well as give rise to issues such as a noticeable odor emanating from the pipes. System Evaluation 6.7 6.1.2 Wet Weather – Existing System The existing system model was run under wet weather conditions and the maximum d/D ratios were evaluated to determine the capacity constraints in the system. The results of the model run are shown in Figure 6-3. 6.1.2.1 EVWD Service Area The model showed 10,973 feet of pipe in EVWD’s service area to be outside the limits of the design criteria. Pipes in EVWD service area in the existing 2018 wet weather model run that were identified as surcharged (d/D = 1.0) and needing replacement include the following:  The model shows approximately 10,000 feet of 21 and 24-inch pipe along 6th Street between Victoria Ave. and Whitlock Ave. as surcharged in wet weather. This serves as the basis for project E-4 discussed in Section 7.  The model shows a 250-foot section of 24-inch pipe along 5th Street as surcharged. This part of the East Trunk Sewer crosses under the City Creek Bypass Channel. Upon discussion with East Valley, this section of pipe was improved in 2015 by the 5th St. Storm Drain Improvement Project.  The model shows 265 feet of 8-inch pipe on Southwood Ln. as surcharged. This serves as the basis for project E-5 discussed in Section 7. E-5 call for modification of slope in order to address flat areas that are causing surcharge during wet weather conditions.  The model shows 30 feet of 8-inch pipe at the intersection of Santa Ana Canyon Rd. and Alta Vista Rd. as surcharged. This serves as the basis for project E-6 discussed in Section 7.  The model shows 330 feet of 8-inch pipe on Sterling Ave. south of Lynwood Dr. as surcharged. This area is part of the sewer affected by the casino expansion currently under construction and is addressed in project I-1. 6.1.2.2 East Trunk Sewer The model showed 19,362 feet of pipe in the East Trunk Sewer to be outside the limits of the design criteria. Pipes in the East Trunk Sewer in the existing 2018 wet weather model run that were identified as surcharged (d/D = 1.0) and needing replacement include the following:  The model shows approximately 12,650 feet of pipe as surcharged between the downstream limit of Pedley Road an 6th Street and the upstream limit of Del Rosa Ave. just North of Pumalo Street Projects E-2 and E-3 address these surcharging issues.  The model shows approximately 6,720 feet of pipe along 6th Street and Waterman Ave. with diameters ranging from 27-inch to 54-inch as surcharged. This is addressed by project E-1. No projects are suggested downstream of the intersection of Waterman Ave. and 3rd Street, the boundary of EVWD’s service area. System Evaluation 6.8 (This page intentionally left blank) System Evaluation 6.11 6.2 EXISTING 2018 SYSTEM RELIABILITY EVALUATION Stantec discussed locations of critical pipes within the system with EVWD. A reliability evaluation was performed for these location which looked at the pumping required to convey flow in these areas were there to be a pipe failure. Because of the configuration of the current EVWD system, diversion of flow at upstream locations is not feasible, and the only option should one of these pipes fail would be temporary pumping while the pipe is repaired. For each location, a peak dry weather flow was assessed in the hydraulic model, and the amount of bypass pumping required to convey that flow was reported. The three locations that were selected by EVWD are:  Pacific St. & Del Rosa Dr.  Sterling Ave. & Highland Ave.  Greenspot Rd. at City Creek The results of the reliability evaluation are summarized in Table 6-2 and are mapped in Figure 6-4. Table 6-2: Summary of Reliability Analysis Location Peak Dry Weather Flow (MGD) Total Volume, Peak Dry Weather Flow (MG) Bypass Pumping Required (gpm) Pacific St. & Del Rosa Dr. 2.81 1.99 279 – 1,951 Sterling Ave & Highland Ave. 1.05 0.74 104 – 729 Greenspot Rd. @ City Creek 1.99 1.16 197 – 1,382 Bypass pumping should cover a range of instantaneous flow rates to meet demand from low flow to peak dry weather conditions. This can be accommodated by modulating the flow rate to target a specific downstream pressure. Bypass pumping is a complicated process and typically puts stress on the system. Line breaks should be repaired as quickly as possible in order to limit the amount of bypass pumping time. System Evaluation 6.12 (This page intentionally left blank) System Evaluation 6.15 6.3 NEAR-TERM SYSTEM CAPACITY EVALUATION Additional sewer flows were applied to the sewer system model based on projections for growth in the EVWD service area for the near-term planning horizon. The near-term scenario was developed to evaluate the sewer system under future conditions related to development that is expected to occur with relative certainty, such as those on EVWD’s will-serve list and converted septic customers. The near-term scenario was evaluated under both dry and wet weather to identify capacity constraints. Table 6-2 summarizes the lengths of pipes that were identified in the near- term model as being outside the limits of the design criteria. Table 6-2: Summary of Near-Term Model Results Parameter Dry Weather Wet Weather EVWD (LF) East Trunk Sewer (LF) EVWD (LF) East Trunk Sewer (LF) Pipes < 18”, 1 > d/D > 0.5 26,930 3,670 - - Pipes ≥ 18”, 1> d/D > 0.75 9,527 5,905 - - Surcharged Pipe (LF) 11,868 3,844 44,813 20,475 Total length pipeline out of planning criteria based on model results (LF) 36,457 9,575 44,813 20,475 6.3.1 Dry Weather – Near-Term System The near-term system model was run under dry weather conditions and the maximum d/D ratios were evaluated to determine the capacity constraints in the system. The results of the model run are shown in Figure 6-5. The location of the Sterling Natural Resource Center (SNRC), construction of which started in late 2018, is shown in the figure. Resulting from discussion with EVWD, a proposed sewer line is plotted from the site of the San Manuel Casino expansion to the proposed tie-in point with the existing sewer system at the intersection of Arden Ave. and Marshall Blvd. Several areas that the model showed as surcharged in the existing planning horizon had additional surcharged pipes in the vicinity. This resulted in the expansion of the proposed recommendations which are discussed in Section 7. Because development in the East of EVWD’s service area drive many of the recommendations resulting from the near-term model, an additional model run was evaluated. This additional scenario is the same as the near-term model run except that it assumes the Harmony development has not been built. Significantly fewer pipes surcharge without the construction of the Harmony development, as is shown in Figure 6-6. 6.3.1.1 EVWD Service Area The model showed 36,457 feet of pipe in EVWD’s service area to be outside the limits of the design criteria. In addition to the expansion of previously identified surcharged pipe areas, pipes in EVWD’s service area in the near- term dry weather model run that were identified as overcapacity (d/D > 0.85) and needing replacement include the following: System Evaluation 6.16  The model shows approximately 3,320 feet of 8-inch diameter pipe along Marshall Blvd. and Sterling Ave. as surcharged. This serves as the basis for project I-1 discussed in Section 7.  The model shows approximately 5,520 feet of 12 and 15-inch diameter pipe along Santa Paula St., Mission St., Calle del Rio St., and Greenspot Rd as surcharged. This serves as the basis for project I-2 discussed in Section 7. 6.3.1.2 East Trunk Sewer The model showed 9,575 feet of pipe in EVWD’s service area to be outside the limits of the design criteria. Other than the expansion of previously identified surcharged pipe areas, no additional pipes in the East Trunk Sewer in the near-term dry weather model run necessitated the development of a new replacement project. '= w I I I -· I • I ,- - - I I I I I I --,,� -- - -- I' .-----·-- --- -- - -- - -- ------- r--- I ---I r - - - I - - - I -- - . . ,• ••, I ,,-----------------------.,-------------------------------------------------, ; '_. -" , I 1,,_,......_....,_,,....._t-_-_.._ _________ --t:=::.-....--.-,......_,..,_.,. _ - -- ,. ; I , •' San Ba-nard1no lnt"I Airport Redland l,lun1c1pal Airpcrt I ---I I I ,-- - I I I I I I I - Esri, HERE, Garmin,© OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community 0 0.25 0.5 Legend Pipe Max d/D Less than 0.5 0.5-0.75 ---0.75-0.99 ---• Greater than 0.99 • 1 EVWD Service Area I. - - - • ---• East Trunk Sewer 1 Miles Proposed Casino Pipe � Reclamation Plant () Stantec Figure 6-5 Near-Term System Dry Weather Capacity Evaluation Date: 12/13/2018 Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California V FIPS 0405 Feet '= w I I I -· I • I ,- - - I I I I I I --,,� -- - -- I' .-----·-- --- -- - -- - -- ------- r--- I ---I r - - - I - - - I -- - . . ,• ••, I ,,-----------------------.,-------------------------------------------------, ; '_. -" , I 1,,_,......_....,_=-_-_-_.._ _________ --t:=::.-....--.-,......_,..,_.,. _ - -- ,. ; I , •' San Ba-nard1no lnt"I Airport Redland l,lun1c1pal Airpcrt I ---I I I ,-- - I I I I I I I - Esri, HERE, Garmin,© OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community 0 0.25 0.5 Legend Pipe Max d/D Less than 0.5 0.5-0.75 ---0.75-0.99 ---• Greater than 0.99 • 1 EVWD Service Area I. - - - • ---• East Trunk Sewer 1 Miles Proposed Casino Pipe � Reclamation Plant () Stantec Figure 6-6 Near-Term System (Without Harmony Development) Dry Weather Capacity Evaluation Date: 12/13/2018 Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California V FIPS 0405 Feet System Evaluation 6.21 6.3.2 Wet Weather – Near-Term System The near-term system model was run under wet weather conditions and the maximum d/D ratios were evaluated to determine the capacity constraints in the system. The results of the model run are shown in Figure 6-7. The location of the SNRC, construction of which started in late 2018, is shown in the figure. Resulting from discussion with EVWD, a proposed sewer line is plotted from the site of the San Manuel Casino expansion to the proposed tie-in point with the existing sewer system at the intersection of Arden Ave. and Marshall Blvd. Because development in the East of EVWD’s service area drive many of the recommendations resulting from the near-term model, an additional model run was evaluated. This additional scenario is the same as the near-term model run except that it assumes the Harmony development has not been built. Significantly fewer pipes surcharge without the construction of the Harmony development, as is shown in Figure 6-8. 6.3.2.1 EVWD Service Area The model showed 44,813 feet of pipe in EVWD’s service area to be outside the limits of the design criteria. Pipes in in the near-term wet weather model run that were identified as surcharged (d/D = 1.0) include the following:  The model shows approximately 940 feet of 24-inch diameter pipe along 5th Street as surcharged in wet weather. This serves as the basis for project N-3 discussed in Section 7. 6.3.2.2 East Trunk Sewer The model showed 20,475 feet of pipe in the East Trunk Sewer to be outside the limits of the design criteria. Other than the expansion of previously identified surcharged pipe areas, no additional pipes in the East Trunk Sewer in the near-term wet weather model run necessitated the development of a new replacement project. System Evaluation 6.22 (This page intentionally left blank) '= w ,• ••, I I I I -· I • I .- - - I I I I I I --,,� -- - -- I' ,-----·-- --- -- - -- - -- - ------ r--- I ---I r - - - I - - - I -- - . . ,,-----------------------.,-------------------------------------------------, ; '_. -" , I ; I , San Ba-nard1no lnt"I Airport •' Redland l,lun1c1pal Airpcrt I ---I I I ,- - - I I I I I I I - Esri, HERE, Garmin,© OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user com munity 0 0.25 0.5 Legend Pipe Max d/D Less than 0.5 0.5-0.75 ---0.75-0.99 ---• Greater than 0.99 • 1 EVWD Service Area I. - - - • 1 Miles Proposed Casino Pipe ---• East Trunk Sewer � Reclamation Centers () Stantec Figure 6-7 Near-Term System Wet Weather Capacity Evaluation Date: 12/13/2018 Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California V FIPS 0405 Feet '= w ,• ••, I I I I -· I • I .- - - I I I I I I --,,� -- - -- I' ,-----·-- --- -- - -- - -- - ------ r--- I ---I r - - - I - - - I -- - .. ,,-----------------------.,-------------------------------------------------, ; '_. -" , I ; I , San Ba-nard1no lnt"I Airport •' Redland l,lun1c1pal Airpcrt I ---I I I ,- - - I I I I I I I - Esri, HERE, Garmin,© OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community 0 0.25 0.5 Legend Pipe Max d/D Less than 0.5 ---0.5-0.75 ---0.75-0.99 ---• Greater than 0.99 • 1 EVWD Service Area I. - - - • 1 Miles Proposed Casino Pipe ---• East Trunk Sewer � Reclamation Centers () Stantec Figure 6-8 Near-Term System (Without Harmony Development) Wet Weather Capacity Evaluation Date: 12/13/2018 Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California V FIPS 0405 Feet System Evaluation 6.27 6.4 BUILD-OUT SYSTEM CAPACITY EVALUATION Additional sewer flows were applied to the sewer system model based on projections for future build-out of the EVWD service area for the 2040 planning horizon. The build-out scenario was developed to evaluate the sewer system under future conditions caused by construction of all expected specific developments as well as development in line with the SCAG’s General Plan for the service area. All of EVWD’s will-serve list and current septic customers are assumed to be contributing flow to the future system. The build-out scenario was evaluated under both dry and wet weather to identify capacity constraints. Figure 6-4 summarizes the lengths of pipes that were identified in the build- out model as being outside the limits of the design criteria. Table 6-3: Summary of Build-Out Model Results Parameter Dry Weather Wet Weather EVWD Pipes (LF) East Trunk Sewer (LF) EVWD Pipes (LF) East Trunk Sewer (LF) Pipes < 18”, 1 > d/D > 0.5 36,456 4,604 - - Pipes ≥ 18”, 1 > d/D > 0.75 12,242 6,077 - - Surcharged Pipe (LF) 23,964 3,844 49,296 22,230 Total length pipeline out of planning criteria based on model results (LF) 48,698 10,681 49,296 22,230 6.4.1 Dry Weather – Buildout System The build-out system model was run under dry weather conditions and the maximum d/D ratios were evaluated to determine the capacity constraints in the system. The results of the model run are shown in Figure 6-9. The location of the SNRC, construction of which started in late 2018, is shown in the figure. Resulting from discussion with EVWD, a proposed sewer line is plotted from the site of the San Manuel Casino expansion to the proposed tie-in point with the existing sewer system at the intersection of Arden Ave. and Marshall Blvd. Several areas that the model showed as surcharged in previous planning horizons had additional surcharged pipes in the vicinity. This resulted in the expansion of the proposed recommendations which are discussed in Section 7. 6.4.1.1 EVWD Service Area The model showed 48,698 feet of pipe in EVWD’s service area to be outside the limits of the design criteria. Other than the expansion of previously identified surcharged pipe areas, no additional pipes in EVWD’s service area in the build-out dry weather model run necessitated the development of a new replacement project. 6.4.1.2 East Trunk Sewer The model showed 10,681 feet of pipe in the East Trunk Sewer to be outside the limits of the design criteria. Other than the expansion of previously identified surcharged pipe areas, no additional pipes in the East Trunk Sewer in the build-out dry weather model run necessitated the development of a new replacement project. System Evaluation 6.28 (This page intentionally left blank) '= w I I I -· I • I ,- - - I I I I I I --, ; � -- - -- I' .-----·-- --- -- - -- - -- - ------ r--- I ---I r - - - I - - - I -- - . . ,• ••; I ,,-----------------------.,-------------------------------------------------, ; '_. -" , I �-'"""-�-�-�---�-""""'-�---�-�;::;;;;:::;.,....--.-,....,._,..,_.,. _ --- , . ; I ; ,' San Ba-nard1no lnt'I A,rport Redland l,lun1c1pal Airpcrt I - - -I I I ,-- - I I I I I I I - Esri, HERE, Garmin,© OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community 0 0.25 0.5 Legend Pipe Max d/D Less than 0.5 0.5-0.75 ---0.75-0.99 ---• Greater than 0.99 • 1 EVWD Service Area I. - - - • 1 Miles Proposed Casino Pipe ---• East Trunk Sewer � Reclamation Center () Stantec Figure 6-9 Build-Out System Dry Weather Capacity Evaluation Date: 12/13/2018 Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California V FIPS 0405 Feet System Evaluation 6.31 6.4.2 Wet Weather – Buildout System The build-out system model was run under wet weather conditions and the maximum d/D ratios were evaluated to determine the capacity constraints in the system. The results of the model run are shown in Figure 6-10. The location of the SNRC, construction of which started in late 2018, is shown in the figure. Resulting from discussion with EVWD, a proposed sewer line is plotted from the site of the San Manuel Casino expansion to the proposed tie-in point with the existing sewer system at the intersection of Arden Ave. and Marshall Blvd. 6.4.2.1 EVWD Service Area The model showed 49,296 feet of pipe in EVWD’s service area to be outside the limits of the design criteria. Pipes in the East Trunk Sewer in the build-out wet weather model run that were identified as surcharged (d/D = 1.0) and needing replacement include the following:  The model shows approximately 790 feet of 6-inch diameter pipe along Osbun Rd. as surcharged in wet weather. This serves as the basis for project B-1 discussed in Section 7.  The model shows approximately 1,300 feet of 15-inch diameter pipe along 3rd Street as surcharged in wet weather. This serves as the basis for project B-2 discussed in Section 7.  The model shows a 30-foot, 8-inch diameter pipe at the intersection of Atlantic Ave. and La Praix Street as surcharged in wet weather. This serves as the basis for a watch area discussed in Section 7.  The model shows a 75-foot, 8-inch diameter pipe between Ridge Dr. and Leedom Dr. as surcharged in wet weather. This serves as the basis for a watch area discussed in Section 7.  The model shows a 50-foot, 15-inch diameter pipe along Webster St. as surcharged in wet weather. This serves as the basis for a watch area discussed in Section 7. 6.4.2.2 East Trunk Sewer The model showed 22,230 feet of pipe in the East Trunk Sewer to be outside the limits of the design criteria. Other than the expansion of previously identified surcharged pipe areas, no additional pipes in the East Trunk Sewer in the build-out wet weather model run necessitated the development of a new replacement project. System Evaluation 6.32 (This page intentionally left blank) '= w ,• ••, I I I I -· I • I .- - - I I I I I I --,,� -- - -- I' ,-----·-- --- -- - -- - -- - ------ r--- I ---I r - - - I - - - I -- - . . ,,-----------------------.,-------------------------------------------------, ; '_. -" , I ; I , San Ba-nard1no lnt"I Airport •' Redland l,lun1c1pal Airpcrt I ---I I I ,- - - I I I I I I I - Esri, HERE, Garmin,© OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user com munity 0 0.25 0.5 Legend Pipe Max d/D Less than 0.5 0.5-0.75 ---0.75-0.99 ---• Greater than 0.99 • 1 EVWD Service Area I. - - - • 1 Miles Proposed Casino Pipe ---• East Trunk Sewer � Reclamation Center () Stantec Figure 6-10 Build-Out System Wet Weather Capacity Evaluation Date: 12/13/2018 Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California V FIPS 0405 Feet System Evaluation 6.35 6.5 BUILD-OUT SYSTEM TRUNK LINE ANALYSIS The Sterling Natural Resources Center is a state-of-the-art water reclamation facility currently under construction at the intersection of Del Rosa Ave. and 6th Street. When complete, the SNRC will provide a sustainable new water supply to EVWD and the region. The SNRC will have a treatment capacity of 10 MGD, and so Stantec used the build- out model scenario to determine sources for the future flow. Through discussion with EVWD, the details of a new SNRC interceptor pipeline were determined and used to evaluate flows at the proposed interception locations. According to the model, 11.7 MGD of flow will be able to be redirected from the East Trunk Sewer to the SNRC through the new Interceptor. The location of the SNRC, the proposed interceptor, and a breakdown of the build-out max day dry weather flows at each interception point are shown in Figure 6-11. System Evaluation 6.36 (This page intentionally left blank) Recommended Improvements Plan 7.1 7.0 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS PLAN This section presents a summary of EVWD’s recommended improvement plan and planning level cost estimates for recommended projects. 7.1 UNIT COSTS The recommended improvements cost estimates in this section are planning level cost estimates. The appropriate use of this estimate is for planning and may not be an actual representation of design to construction activities and costs. This estimate was developed as an Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) – International Class 5 cost estimate which has an expected accuracy range of -20 to -50 percent on the low end, and +30 to +100 percent on the high end. This range depends on the technological complexity of the project, appropriate reference information, and the inclusion of an appropriate contingency determination. Accuracy could exceed this range in unusual circumstances. The estimate was prepared using a combination of parametric estimating factors and local experience in delivering projects similar to those that constitute this recommended improvements plan. Costs were based on Stantec’s experience with costs of similar projects. Table 7-1 shows a summary of the unit costs for gravity mains used for this cost estimate. All improvements are assumed to take place under asphalt road, and operations and maintenance costs are not included in this estimate. A summary of costs for all estimates for this project can be found at the end of this section. Due to fluctuations in the market and other factors, this estimate should only be used for planning purposes and a more rigorous estimate shall be prepared during the design and is recommended for any further activity. For these projects, manhole costs were addressed by assuming a cost per linear foot of new or replacement pipe, assuming a new manhole would be needed every 300 feet, based on Stantec’s previous experience in creating planning level estimates for similar systems. This planning level estimate is meant to be conservative, though changes in elevation and EVWD’s ability to reuse old manholes may affect the true cost of manholes for these recommended projects. Table 7-1: Summary of Gravity Main Unit Costs Pipeline Description(1) Diameter Pipe Depth Road Condition Cost (2) ($/lf) Cost ($/in- diam./lf) (in) (ft) 8-inch 8 8 Asphalt $258 $32 8-inch 8 12 Asphalt $299 $37 8-inch 8 16 Asphalt $340 $43 8-inch 8 20 Asphalt $394 $49 8-inch 8 23 Asphalt $449 $56 8-inch 8 27 Asphalt $544 $68          10-inch 10 6 Asphalt $272 $27 Recommended Improvements Plan 7.2 Pipeline Description(1) Diameter Pipe Depth Road Condition Cost (2) ($/lf) Cost ($/in- diam./lf) (in) (ft) 10-inch 10 8 Asphalt $272 $27 10-inch 10 12 Asphalt $326 $33 10-inch 10 16 Asphalt $340 $34 10-inch 10 20 Asphalt $408 $41 10-inch 10 23 Asphalt $639 $64 10-inch 10 27 Asphalt $639 $64          12-inch 12 6 Asphalt $340 $28 12-inch 12 8 Asphalt $354 $29 12-inch 12 12 Asphalt $381 $32 12-inch 12 16 Asphalt $422 $35 12-inch 12 20 Asphalt $490 $41 12-inch 12 23 Asphalt $666 $56 12-inch 12 27 Asphalt $680 $57          15-inch 15 6 Asphalt $340 $23 15-inch 15 8 Asphalt $340 $23 15-inch 15 12 Asphalt $374 $25 15-inch 15 16 Asphalt $408 $27 15-inch 15 20 Asphalt $462 $31 15-inch 15 23 Asphalt $571 $38 15-inch 15 27 Asphalt $694 $46          16-inch 16 6 Asphalt $367 $23 16-inch 16 8 Asphalt $367 $23 16-inch 16 12 Asphalt $394 $25 16-inch 16 16 Asphalt $435 $27 16-inch 16 20 Asphalt $476 $30 16-inch 16 23 Asphalt $598 $37 16-inch 16 27 Asphalt $721 $45          18-inch 18 6 Asphalt $381 $21 18-inch 18 8 Asphalt $381 $21 Recommended Improvements Plan 7.3 Pipeline Description(1) Diameter Pipe Depth Road Condition Cost (2) ($/lf) Cost ($/in- diam./lf) (in) (ft) 18-inch 18 12 Asphalt $422 $23 18-inch 18 16 Asphalt $462 $26 18-inch 18 20 Asphalt $517 $29 18-inch 18 23 Asphalt $639 $36 18-inch 18 27 Asphalt $775 $43          21-inch 21 6 Asphalt $408 $19 21-inch 21 8 Asphalt $408 $19 21-inch 21 12 Asphalt $435 $21 21-inch 21 16 Asphalt $476 $23 21-inch 21 20 Asphalt $530 $25 21-inch 21 23 Asphalt $802 $38 21-inch 21 27 Asphalt $898 $43          24-inch 24 6 Asphalt $408 $17 24-inch 24 8 Asphalt $415 $17 24-inch 24 12 Asphalt $462 $19 24-inch 24 16 Asphalt $476 $20 24-inch 24 20 Asphalt $530 $22 24-inch 24 23 Asphalt $802 $33 24-inch 24 27 Asphalt $898 $37          27-inch 27 12 Asphalt $490 $18 27-inch 27 16 Asphalt $530 $20 27-inch 27 20 Asphalt $598 $22 27-inch 27 27 Asphalt $911 $34          30-inch 30 6 Asphalt $462 $15 30-inch 30 8 Asphalt $476 $16 30-inch 30 12 Asphalt $503 $17 30-inch 30 16 Asphalt $544 $18 30-inch 30 20 Asphalt $626 $21 30-inch 30 23 Asphalt $721 $24 Recommended Improvements Plan 7.4 Pipeline Description(1) Diameter Pipe Depth Road Condition Cost (2) ($/lf) Cost ($/in- diam./lf) (in) (ft) 30-inch 30 27 Asphalt $952 $32          36-inch 36 8 Asphalt $639 $18 36-inch 36 12 Asphalt $653 $18 36-inch 36 16 Asphalt $707 $20 36-inch 36 20 Asphalt $843 $23 36-inch 36 23 Asphalt $1,006 $28 36-inch 36 27 Asphalt $1,333 $37          42-inch 42 12 Asphalt $734 $17 42-inch 42 16 Asphalt $898 $21 42-inch 42 20 Asphalt $993 $24 42-inch 42 23 Asphalt $1,102 $26 42-inch 42 27 Asphalt $1,496 $36          48-inch 48 20 Asphalt $1,047 $22 48-inch 48 25 Asphalt $1,958 $41          54-inch 54 6 Asphalt $979 $18 54-inch 54 8 Asphalt $993 $18 54-inch 54 12 Asphalt $1,088 $20 54-inch 54 16 Asphalt $1,210 $22 54-inch 54 20 Asphalt $1,387 $26 54-inch 54 23 Asphalt $1,890 $35 54-inch 54 27 Asphalt $1,958 $36 1) Costs assume using PVC pipes 2) Costs include material and installation Recommended Improvements Plan 7.5 7.2 CAPACITY BASED IMPROVEMENTS AND COSTS Once deficiencies in the sewer system were identified using the updated hydraulic model, capital projects were developed to address these deficiencies. Stantec reviewed recommendations from the 2013 SSMP and using current system data, identified cost effective projects that addressed as many deficiencies as possible with the least amount of new or replaced pipeline. Pipelines in need of replacement were grouped into projects to minimize construction costs and time. Some of the pipes upsized as part of a larger project did not show deficiencies themselves but were upsized to avoid constrictions in pipe diameter as flow travels downstream. Pipe diameter constrictions can cause blockages and other operational problems. Before EVWD decides to design or construct any of the recommended improvements, the need for the project should be confirmed through field investigation, flow monitoring, and additional detailed analysis. Figure 7-1 shows the improvements grouped into projects, while Figure 7-2 shows the projects color coded by their respective planning horizon, as well as lists “pipes to monitor.” “Pipes to monitor” or watch areas are single pipes showing capacity deficiency in the future planning horizon during wet weather flow and should be monitored to verify the need for replacement and possibly realignment once significant growth has occurred in the service area. The deficiencies in the watch areas may be due to pipe slope or hydraulics and are localized enough that a project is not recommended in this SSMP until the deficiency can be field verified in the future. Recommended Improvements Plan 7.6 (This Page Intentionally Left Blank) Recommended Improvements Plan 7.11 7.2.1 EVWD Service Area The improvements identified are summarized in Table 7-2. For each project, a total length of pipeline replaced, original pipeline diameter, and new pipeline diameter are identified, as well as a description of the project, and which model scenario deficiency is addressed by each project. These projects are listed in a prioritized order, addressing the dry weather capacity deficiencies in each planning horizon first. Costs for each project are calculated by taking the unit costs previously submitted to EVWD multiplied by the pipe diameter, length, and maximum pipeline depth as calculated from the EVWD GIS information. The unit cost table provides different costs for pipes depending on how deep the pipeline is buried. Stantec calculates the upstream and downstream manhole depths from the GIS and uses the largest value to determine which unit cost to apply to each replacement. Table 7-2: EVWD Capacity Improvement Project Costs Project Name Description Estimated Project Cost ($) E-4 Upsize 15,000 LF of 21"-24" pipe with 30" pipe. 7,851,000 E-5 Replace 400 LF of 8" pipe with modified slope. 110,000 E-6 Upsize 30 LF of 8" pipe to 10" pipe. 10,000 Existing Subtotal 7,971,000 N-1 Upsize 6,200 LF of 8"-12" pipe to 15" pipe. Development driven (Casino Expansion). 2,248,000 N-2 Upsize 20,200 LF of 12"-18" pipe to 18"-21" pipe. Development driven (Harmony and Sunland/Mediterra). 8,750,000 N-3 Upsize 4,500 LF of 24" pipe to 30" pipe. Development driven. 2,480,000 Near-term Subtotal 13,478,000 B-1 Upsize 2,100 LF of 6"-8" pipe to 10" pipe. 589,000 B-2 Upsize 2,200 LF of 15" pipe with 18" pipe, including a possible siphon upsize. 876,000 Buildout Subtotal 1,465,000 Total 22,914,000 7.2.2 East Trunk Sewer Capacity deficiencies in the East Trunk Sewer were also determined, and the estimated costs for these projects are summarized in Table 7-3. Recommended Improvements Plan 7.12 Table 7-3: East Trunk Sewer Capacity Improvement Project Costs Name Description Project Cost ($) E-1 Upsize 5,900 LF of 27"-48" pipe with 30"-54" pipe, including a possible siphon upsize. 5,265,000 E-2 Upsize 6,500 LF of 21"-30" pipe with 30"-36" pipe. 4,224,000 E-3 Upsize 8,500 LF of 15"-24" pipe with 18"-30" pipe. 3,812,000 Total 13,301,000 7.2.3 Pipes to Monitor Several areas that were determined from the model capacity evaluation to be surcharged in the build-out scenario is recommended as “pipes to monitor” as shown in Figure 7-1. 7.2.4 Summary of Capacity Improvements A summary of the recommended capacity improvements is shown in Table 7-4. Recommended Improvements Plan 7.1 Table 7-4: Summary of Capacity Improvements Planning Horizon Project Name Description Driver Original Diameter New Diameter Length (LF) Estimated Project Cost ($) Existing E-1 Upsize 5,900 LF of 27"-48" pipe with 30"-54" pipe, including a possible siphon upsize. East Trunk Sewer and SNRC sewer relief project. Existing DWF 27" 36" 1,366 5,265,000 33" 42" 2,127 39" 42" 662 39" 48" 1,025 48" 54" 663 E-2 Upsize 6,500 LF of 21"-30" pipe with 30"-36" pipe. East Trunk Sewer and SNRC sewer relief project. Existing DWF 21" 30" 880 4,224,000 24" 30" 1,875 27" 36" 2,068 30" 36" 1,650 E-3 Upsize 8,500 LF of 15"-24" pipe with 18"-30" pipe. East Trunk Sewer project. Existing WWF 15" 18" 326 3,812,000 15" 21" 5,176 18" 21" 2,103 24" 30" 835 E-4 Upsize 15,000 LF of 21"-24" pipe with 30" pipe. Provides and SNRC sewer relief. Existing WWF 21" 30" 9,861 7,851,000 24" 30" 5,113 E-5 Replace 400 LF of 8" pipe with modified slope in order to address areas of flat slope that cause high flow conditions Existing WWF 8" 8" 383 110,000 E-6 Upsize 30 LF of 8" pipe to 10" pipe. Existing WWF 8" 10" 31 10,000 Subtotal 21,262,000 Near- Term N-1 Upsize 6,200 LF of 8"-12" pipe to 15" pipe. Development driven (Casino Expansion). 2025 DWF and Casino Expansion 8" 15" 4,565 2,248,000 12" 15" 1,670 N-2 Upsize 20,200 LF of 12"-18" pipe to 18"-21" pipe. Development driven (Harmony and Sunland/Mediterra). 2025 DWF 12" 18" 13,219 8,750,000 15" 18" 3,060 15" 21" 3,543 18" 21" 346 N-3 Upsize 4,500 LF of 24" pipe to 30" pipe. Development driven. 2025 WWF Dependent upon assumed development 24" 30" 4,542 2,480,000 Subtotal 13,478,000 Buildout B-1 Upsize 2,100 LF of 6"-8" pipe to 10" pipe. 2040 WWF 6" 10" 1,092 589,000 8" 10" 1,034 B-2 Upsize 2,200 LF of 15" pipe with 18" pipe, including a possible siphon upsize. 2040 WWF 15" 18" 2,077 876,000 Subtotal 1,465,000 Pipes to Monitor M-1 Pipe S-SM-I9-1012. 2040 WWF 10 27 - M-2 Pipe S-SM-J11-1020. 2040 WWF 8 75 - M-3 Pipe S-SM-J11-1042. 2040 WWF 10 44 - M-4 Pipe S-SM-J5-1052. 2040 WWF 21 8 - M-5 Pipe S-SM-K10-1047. 2040 WWF 18 50 - Total Capital Cost 36,205,000 Recommended Improvements Plan 7.2 (This Page is Intentionally Left Blank) Recommended Improvements Plan 7.1 7.3 CONDITION ASSESSMENT Stantec analyzed recent CCTV records for EVWD sewer pipes televised since the previous SSMP. Condition scoring was provided for 3,108 unique pipes with a total length of roughly 138.9 miles, or 46 percent of the total pipe length in the EVWD system. Stantec applied the analysis performed in the 2013 SSMP to estimate the capital cost to repair and rehabilitate the pipeline assets. EVWD CCTV inspections use the standard Pipeline Assessment Certification Program’s (PACP) rating system per the National Association of Sewer Service Companies (NASSCO). The PACP rating system is used to rate structural and maintenance defects as they are observed by the CCTV camera operator. A code is assigned to defects identified in the pipeline, ranging from one to five in increasing severity. PACP Quick Ratings summarize the overall findings by listing the top two defect codes and their respective number of occurrences in a four-digit score. For example, a Quick Rating of 5436 represents a pipeline that had four occurrences of grade five defects and six occurrences of grade three defects. For this analysis, Quick Ratings were used to estimate a rehabilitation/replacement length for each pipeline and associated estimated capital cost. Length of pipeline in need of rehabilitation was calculated by multiplying the number of occurrences of the two most severe defects for each pipe by an assumed length needed to replace those defects, not to exceed the total length of the pipeline. Defect codes were assigned the following assumed lengths needing replacement: 5 = 40 feet, 4 = 30 feet, 3 = 20 feet, 2 = 10 feet, and 1 = 4 feet. The capital cost was then calculated by multiplying the total length of pipe needing replacement by the unit cost based on the pipe’s diameter, assuming an 8 ft average depth for all pipelines. For example, a 12-inch diameter pipeline with a Quick Rating of 5436 would have an estimated rehabilitation/replacement length of 280 ft ([4 x 40 ft] + [6 x 20 ft]) and an estimated capital cost of $ $99,008 (280 ft x $353.60 per lf. [unit cost for a 12-inch diameter pipe at 8 ft. installation depth as presented in unit costs submitted to EVWD]). 7.3.1 EVWD Service Area Stantec used the sewer system hydraulic model to calculate existing peak flows for each pipeline, along with the Quick Ratings for each pipeline to establish a prioritization for rehabilitation. The matrices presented below prioritize rehabilitation projects by maximum defect code and the amount of flow conveyed during the maximum existing scenario in the model. Table 7-5 presents the number of occurrences of each category; Table 7-6 presents the total length of pipeline; and Table 7-7 presents the estimated capital cost to replace each category of pipeline. The different categories of pipelines per the matrices are then organized into four levels of prioritization as expressed in the color coding on each matrix and summarized by cost in Table 7-8. Recommended Improvements Plan 7.2 Table 7-5: Number of Pipes by Max Defect and Flow Flow Maximum Defect Rating Total Instances by Flow 1 2 3 4 5 >1.5 mgd 0 0 0 0 0 0 >1.0 mgd 0 0 0 0 0 0 >0.5 mgd 0 0 1 0 0 1 <0.5 mgd 9 27 70 16 11 133 Not Modeled 39 57 157 27 32 312 Total Instances by Defect Rating 48 84 228 43 43 446 Table 7-6: Pipeline Replacement Length by Max Defect Rating and Flow Flow Maximum Defect Rating Total Length of Pipeline by Flow (ft.) 1 2 3 4 5 >1.5 mgd - - - - - - >1.0 mgd - - - - - - >0.5 mgd - - 40 - - 40 <0.5 mgd 44 474 5,620 1,819 1,510 9,467 Not Modeled 176 756 12,014 2,958 3,325 19,229 Total Length of Pipeline by Defect Rating (ft.) 220 1,230 17,674 4,777 4,835 28,736 Table 7-7: Matrix of Estimated Cost to Rehabilitate Pipelines (dollars) Flow Maximum Defect Rating Total Capital Cost by Flow ($) 1 2 3 4 5 >1.5 mgd - - - - - - >1.0 mgd - - - - - - >0.5 mgd - - 10,000 - - 10,000 <0.5 mgd 11,000 125,000 1,456,000 474,000 391,000 2,457,000 Not Modeled 45,000 196,000 3,104,000 764,000 859,000 4,968,000 Total Capital Cost by Defect Rating ($) 56,000 321,000 4,570,000 1,238,000 1,250,000 7,435,000 Recommended Improvements Plan 7.3 Table 7-8: Prioritized List of Pipeline Condition Rehabilitation Priority Number of Pipelines Estimated Length (ft.) Project Cost ($) Priority 1 43 4,835 1,250,000 Priority 2 43 4,777 1,238,000 Priority 3 228 17,674 4,570,000 Priority 4 132 1,450 377,000 Total 446 28,736 7,435,000 7.3.2 East Trunk Sewer No inspection data or updated information was available for the East Trunk Sewer as part of this master plan update. As such, this section 7.3.2 is a presentation of the condition assessment findings presented in EVWD’s 2013 SSMP. The assessment is limited to an understanding of the pipelines materials, age, hydraulic characteristics, and experience with similar types of gravity sewers. 7.3.2.1 Pipeline Background and Understanding The main portion of the East Trunk Sewer begins at Del Rosa Avenue and Lynwood Drive. It was constructed in 1957 and includes approximately 26,900 feet of 15- to 36-inch VCP and approximately 14,000 feet of 39- to 54-inch RCP. The system includes two siphons under Highland Creek: west of Cooley Street on 6th Street and south of Valley Street on Waterman Avenue. 7.3.2.2 Life-cycle Factors The typical published useful life for VCP is up to 100 years. RCP useful life is typically 70 years to 100 years. However, the useful life of a pipeline is subject to many factors that can significantly extend or decrease the useful life of a gravity sewer pipeline. Factors that can shorten the useful life include:  Improper installation including pipe bedding, bedding compaction, joint connections, depth of pipe, and/or damage during installation.  Corrosion from external soil characteristics and groundwater.  Corrosion from internal water quality and characteristics. This is particularly important with wastewater. In addition to these factors, damage from other utility installation or nearby construction activities can also shorten the useful life. Installation practices for VCP in the 1950s typically did not include water tight joints. Therefore, VCP may be affected by infiltration and inflow and root intrusion that will require repair of the joints or removal of blockages from root growth. Beneficially, VCP is chemically inert and is resistant to the effects of sulfide generated acid, most industrial wastes and solvents, or aggressive soils. In addition, VCP is a rigid pipe made of a ceramic material that is resistant Recommended Improvements Plan 7.4 to scouring from sediment, debris, and other materials that are carried in the sewers and can cause scouring of the pipe at higher velocities. VCP, however, is fairly brittle and multiple new connections over the years can shorten the useful life. The use of RCP was common for larger diameter pipelines in the 1950s. RCP provided the structural characteristics needed to address external flows and installation did not require stringent bedding requirements. However, hydrogen sulfide gas is a common cause of corrosion of the interior of the RCP and a major cause of pipe failures. When CCTV inspection is conducted at low flow conditions this corrosion can be observed with the formation of a “shelf” at the normal water level. Although hairline cracks in RCP have been of concern regarding the structural integrity, studies have shown that hairline cracks are not a major factor in pipe failure. 7.3.3 Recommended Actions To confirm the estimated remaining life expectancy of approximately 10 years (based on a 70 useful life) and prioritize rehabilitation projects further inspection data will need to be collected. The following inspection and evaluation methods should be considered:  CCTV allows visual observation of the pipe and is useful for identifying larger defects such as leaking joints, leaking lateral connections, cracks in the pipe wall, and joint alignment. CCTV technology has improved over the years and now includes “panorama” and pan and tilt capabilities.  Laser scanning is a newer technology that provides accurate measurement of the ovality of the pipe, a measurement of wall loss above the waterline, and any defects in the pipe wall. This is an improvement over the visual CCTV because it provides actual measurements of the pipe interior in addition to visual observations.  Sonar profiling is another newer, yet proven, technology for inspection of partially full sewer pipes and produces an image below the waterline and can be used to identify build-up of sediment or other material in the pipelines and any major defects. Previously, inspections could not provide information below the water surface. This information is helpful when planning for cleaning of the pipe to provide accurate quantities. 7.4 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS  There are some connections in the system that cause non-ideal flow dynamics in localized areas including service laterals and main lines that enter manholes at 90-degree angles. These lines will not necessarily be modeled depending on the size pipeline the constriction occurs. It is recommended that EVWD provide new manhole bases, or new manholes in these areas to correct the problem, and in extreme cases realign the pipelines to avoid 90-degree bends.  Based on the current usage data, the recommended per capita sewer flow is 70 gpd per capita, which accounts for the increases in conservation while allowing for some increases in per capita use based on drought recovery and the lifting of some conservation requirements.  In order to maximize potential flow to the SNRC, Stantec proposes prioritizing projects with a high density of septic customers in the same area for conversion. The map shown in Figure 4-8 shows the areas that Stantec recommends prioritizing.  It is recommended that new pipelines for the EVWD sewer system be sized for partially-full conditions at peak dry weather flow (PDWF). Stantec recommends the peak dry weather flow be determined using the following criteria: o For collector sewers less than 18-inch in diameter, the design PDWF should be equal to 3 times the average dry weather flow. Recommended Improvements Plan 7.5 o For trunk sewers greater than or equal to 18-inch in diameter, the design PDWF should be equal to 2.5 times the average dry weather flow. o These peak dry weather flows for design do not include increases in flow rates due to Rainfall- Derived Infiltration and Inflow (RDII).  Based on experience with similar systems in southern California, the d/D ratios recommended for the sewer conveyance system are: o Maximum d/D ratio for all sewers that are less than 18-inch in diameter shall be 0.50 during PDWF; and o Maximum d/D ratio for all sewers that are greater than or equal to 18-inch in diameter shall be 0.75 during PDWF.  While improvements are recommended for those pipe segments identified as having insufficient capacity, a d/D threshold of 0.85 is recommended as a “trigger” point to necessitate implementation of a relief project. Any modeled pipes with a d/D ratio over 0.85 at PDWF will be recommended for improvement, either immediately for existing pipes, or at the appropriate planning horizon.  The recommended maximum spacing allowable between manholes is 400 feet unless otherwise approved.  Pipes in the East Trunk Sewer in the existing 2018 dry weather model run that were identified as overcapacity (d/D > 0.85) and needing replacement include the following: o A 400 ft section of 27-inch pipe along 6th Street near Palm Park is shown as surcharged in the model run. This section of pipe serves as the basis for the existing dry-weather flow recommendation of Project E-1, as discussed in Section 7. o A 225 ft section of 24-inch pipe along N. Tippecanoe Ave. is shown as surcharged in the model run. This part of the East Trunk Sewer crosses under Warm Creek and appears to have been constructed to be surcharged. For this reason, a replacement project is not suggested.  Pipes in the East Trunk Sewer in the near-term 2025 wet weather model run that were identified as surcharged (d/D = 1.0) and needing replacement include the following: o The model shows approximately 940 feet of 24-inch diameter pipe along 5th Street as surcharged in wet weather. This serves as the basis for project N-3 discussed in Section 7. o The model shows approximately 6,420 feet of 15-inch diameter pipe along Whitlock Ave. and Little St. as surcharged in wet weather. This sewer main is one of the recent EVWD projects and was constructed as an overflow for the 6th Street sewer main. If the 6th Street main is upsized, the surcharging in these pipes is solved. Therefore, a replacement project is not suggested.  Before EVWD decides to design or construct any of the recommended improvements, the need for the project should be confirmed through field investigation, flow monitoring, and additional detailed analysis.  Pipes in the East Trunk Sewer in the build-out 2040 wet weather model run that were identified as surcharged (d/D = 1.0) and needing replacement include the following: o The model shows approximately 790 feet of 6-inch diameter pipe along Osbun Rd. as surcharged in wet weather. This serves as the basis for project B-1 discussed in Section 7. o The model shows approximately 1,300 feet of 15-inch diameter pipe along 3rd Street as surcharged in wet weather. This serves as the basis for project B-2 discussed in Section 7. o The model shows a 30-foot, 8-inch diameter pipe at the intersection of Atlantic Ave. and La Praix Street as surcharged in wet weather. This serves as the basis for a watch area discussed in Section 7. o The model shows a 75-foot, 8-inch diameter pipe between Ridge Dr. and Leedom Dr. as surcharged in wet weather. This serves as the basis for a watch area discussed in Section 7. o The model shows a 50-foot, 15-inch diameter pipe along Webster St. as surcharged in wet weather. This serves as the basis for a watch area discussed in Section 7.  “Pipes to monitor” or watch areas are single pipes showing capacity deficiency in the future planning horizon during wet weather flow and should be monitored to verify the need for replacement and possibly realignment once significant growth has occurred in the service area. The deficiencies in the watch areas may be due to pipe slope or hydraulics and are localized enough that a project in not recommended in this SSMP until the deficiency can be field verified in the future. Recommended Improvements Plan 7.6  The following inspection and evaluation methods should be considered: o CCTV allows visual observation of the pipe and is useful for identifying larger defects such as leaking joints, leaking lateral connections, cracks in the pipe wall, and joint alignment. CCTV technology has improved over the years and now includes “panorama” and pan and tilt capabilities. o Laser scanning is a newer technology that provides accurate measurement of the ovality of the pipe, a measurement of wall loss above the waterline, and any defects in the pipe wall. This is an improvement over the visual CCTV because it provides actual measurements of the pipe interior in addition to visual observations. o Sonar profiling is another newer, yet proven, technology for inspection of partially full sewer pipes and produces an image below the waterline and can be used to identify build-up of sediment or other material in the pipelines and any major defects. Previously, inspections could not provide information below the water surface. This information is helpful when planning for cleaning of the pipe to provide accurate quantities. Funding Considerations 8.1 8.0 FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS 8.1 FINANCING OBJECTIVES Successful finalizing of large capital programs depends on optimizing three overarching financial objectives:  Produce capital in sufficient amounts when needed;  Produce capital at lowest cost; and  Produce capital with greatest equity among customers, including the principle that growth-pays-for-growth. Because the EVWD CIP will be implemented and refined over many years, the financial plan should be robust, yet flexible to accommodate changes in project timing, capital requirements, system and constituency requirements or changes in law 8.1.1 Funding Sources There are several possible funding sources available for the successful implementation of the CIP, including pay- as- you-go, Clean Water State Revolving Fund Loan Program, general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, Certificates of Participation, commercial paper (short term notes), developer impact or connection fees, and other state grants and loans. These methods are further described below. 8.1.1.1 Pay-As-You-Go Pay-as-you-go funding requires that an agency (or group of agencies) have adequate revenue generation or reserves to fund capital improvements and would be funded by sewer rates. Reserves can be built up in advance to pay for future facility requirements by raising fees prior to the need for capital facilities. The funds can provide for either all or part of the capital costs. Using pay-as-you-go funding reduces the overall costs of capital facilities by avoiding the costs associated with arranging financing (bond issue costs, legal and financial advisers, etc.) as well as interest on borrowed money. Pay-as-you-go funding often leads to inequities since customers today are paying the full costs for facilities that will provide benefits to future customers. To achieve a more equitable sharing of the cost burden, other funding source usually are utilized in addition to pay-as-you-go, due to the differences in timing between accumulation of reserves and the capital spending requirements. 8.1.1.2 Clean Water State Revolving Fund Loan Program Through a jointly financed program between the federal EPA and the State of California, and administered by the State Water Board, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) Loan Program can provide low interest loans to wastewater utilities to help pay for improvements and are loaned to a single utility/agency. Under the program, loans are issued for up to 30-years, at a fixed interest rate equal to 50 percent of the State’s average interest rate paid on Funding Considerations 8.2 general obligation bonds sold during the previous calendar year. Repayment under the program must begin within twelve months after completion of the project. Beginning in 2019, loans will be granted based on a points based or scoring system. The primary scoring criteria is based on the type of project and whether it is a corrective or preventative improvement project. Secondary scoring criteria includes points for climate action, whether the project is regional in nature and whether it provides multiple environmental benefits. The final scoring category is for project readiness, with projects that have completed the CWSRF application process and have completed plans and specifications receiving more points. Since financing its first project in 1989, the CWSRF program has executed more than $11 billion in financial assistance with over 300 unique recipients.1 8.1.1.3 Water Recycling Funding Program The CWSRF program also administers the Water Recycling Funding Program. This program’s focus is to promote the beneficial use of treated municipal wastewater (water recycling) in order to augment fresh water supplies in the state by providing technical and financial assistance to agencies and other stakeholders in support of water recycling projects and research. Water recycling projects can receive loans through the CWSRF program. In addition, planning grants are available for up to 50 percent of eligible project costs up to a maximum of $75,000. Grants are provided for studies to determine the feasibility of using recycled water and selecting a recommended alternative to offset or augment the use of fresh/potable water from state and/or local supplies. 8.1.1.4 General Obligation Bonds General Obligation (G.O.) bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the issuer. As such, they also carry the pledge of the issuer to use its taxing authority to guarantee payment of interest and principal. The issuer’s general obligation pledge is usually regarded by both investors and ratings agencies as the highest form of security for bond issues. Because G.O. bonds are viewed as having lower risk than other types of bonds, they are usually issued at lower interest rates, have fewer costs for marketing and issuance, and do not require the restrictive covenants, special reserves, and higher debt service coverage typical of other types of bond issues. Issuance of G.O. bonds requires electoral approval by two-thirds of the voters. The ultimate security for G.O. bonds is the pledge to impose a property tax to pay for debt service. G.O. bonds are typically issued by a single utility/agency. Use of property taxes, assessed on the value of property, may not fairly distribute the cost burden in line with the benefits received by the customers. While the ability to use the taxing authority exists, the utility/agency seeking G.O. bonds could choose to fund the debt service from other sources of revenues, such as sewer rates or from development impact fees. Use of development impact fees to pay the debt service would provide the most equitable matching of benefits with costs, since debt service on projects that benefit primarily new customers would be paid from fees collected from those new customers. 1 State of California, Clean Water State Revolving Fund, Intended Use Plan, 2018-2019,dated June 19, 2018, page 4. Funding Considerations 8.3 G.O. bonds are attractive due to lower interest rates, fewer restrictions, greater market acceptance, and lower issuing costs. However, the difficulties in securing a two-thirds majority of the qualified electorate make them less attractive than other alternatives, such as revenue bonds and certificates of participation. 8.1.1.5 Revenue Bonds Revenue bonds are long-term debt obligations for which the revenue stream of the issuer is pledged for payment of principal and interest. Because revenue bonds are not secured by the full credit or taxing authority of the issuing agency, they are not perceived as being as secure as general obligation (G. O.) bonds. Since revenue bonds are perceived to have less security and are therefore considered riskier, they are typically sold at a slightly higher interest rate (frequently in the range of 0.5 percent to 1.0 percent higher) than the G.O. bonds. The security pledged is that the system will be operated in such a way that sufficient revenues will be generated to meet debt service obligations. Typically, issuers provide the necessary assurances to bondholders that funds will be available to meet debt service requirements through two mechanisms. The first is provision of a debt service reserve fund or a surety. The debt service reserve fund is usually established from the proceeds of the bond issue. The amount held in reserve in most cases is based on either the maximum debt service due in any one year during the term of the bonds or the average annual debt service over the term. The funds are deposited with a trustee to be available in the event the issuer is otherwise incapable of meeting its debt service obligations in any year. The issuer pledges that any funds withdrawn from the reserve will be replenished within a short period, usually within a year. The second assurance made by the borrower is a pledge to maintain a specified minimum coverage ratio on its outstanding revenue bond debt. The coverage ratio is determined by dividing the net revenues of the borrower by the annual revenue bond debt service for the year, where net revenues are defined as gross revenues less operation and maintenance expenses. Based on this, the perceived risk minimum coverage ratios are usually within the range of 1.1 to 1.3, meaning that net revenues would have to be from 110 percent to 130 percent of the amount of revenue bond debt service. To the extent that the borrower can demonstrate achievement of coverage ratios higher than required, the marketability and interest rates on new issues may be more favorable. Issuance of revenue bonds may be authorized pursuant to the provisions of the Revenue Bond Law of 1941. Specific authority to issue a specified amount in revenue bonds requires approval by a simple majority of voters casting ballots, and would typically be limited to a single agency seeking a revenue bond. To limit costs (and risks) associated with seeking approval through elections, authorization is typically sought for the maximum amount of bonds that will be needed over the planning period. Upon receiving authorization, the agency actually issues bonds as needed, up to the authorized amount. 8.1.1.6 Certificates of Participation Certificates of Participation (COPs) are a form of lease-purchase financing that has the same basic features of revenue bonds except they do not require voter approval through an election. COPs represent participation in an installment purchase agreement through marketable notes, with ownership remaining with the agency. COPs typically involve four different parties — the public agency as the lessee, a private leasing company as the lessor, a bank as trustee and an underwriter who markets the certificates. Because there are more parties involved, the initial cost of issuance for the COP and level of administrative effort may be greater than for bond issues. Due to the widespread Funding Considerations 8.4 acceptance of COPs in financial markets, COPs are usually easier to issue than other forms of lease purchase financing, such as lease revenue bonds. The certificates are usually issued in $5,000 denominations, with the revenue stream from lease payments as the source of payment to the certificate holders. From the standpoint of the agency as the lessee, any and all revenue sources can be applied to payment of the obligation, not just revenues from the projects financed, thereby providing more flexibility. Unlike revenue bonds, COPs do not require a vote of the electorate and have no bond reserve requirements, although establishing a reserve may enhance marketability. In addition, since they are not technically debt instruments, COP issues do not count against debt limitations for the agency. While interest costs may be marginally higher than for revenue bonds, a COP transaction is a flexible and useful form of financing that should be considered for financing of the Master Plan projects. COP transactions would be typically limited to a single sewer agency obtaining a COP for a specific project. 8.1.1.7 Commercial Paper (Short Term Notes) To smooth out capital spending flows without the costs of frequent bond issues, many public agencies with sufficient revenue streams use short-term commercial paper debt to attenuate the peaks and valleys of capital expenses year to year. Similar to bonds issued by public agencies, commercial paper instruments are typically tax-exempt debt, thus demanding a lower interest cost to the agency than would prevail if the commercial paper were taxable. Commercial paper is usually issued for terms ranging from as short as a few days to as long as a year depending on market conditions. As the paper matures, it is resold (“rolled over”) at the then prevailing market rate. Consequently, the paper can in effect “float” over an extended time, being constantly renewed. The short-term rates paid on commercial paper are frequently much lower than those on longer term debt. The primary advantage in using commercial paper is to provide interim funding of capital projects when revenues and reserves are insufficient to fund capital projects fully. In this scenario either (1) the total amount needed is too small to justify a bond issue or (2) the funds are not currently available, but will be building up in the immediate future to a level sufficient to repay the borrowing. Commercial paper funding can provide the “bridge” to smooth out the flow of funds. As with other forms of debt financing, there are costs associated with issuing commercial paper. Many of the costs are similar to those of issuing bonds. With commercial paper, however, there is often a requirement that a line of credit be established that will guarantee payment of the commercial paper should it not be possible to roll the commercial paper over at any given maturity date. The cost of the credit line is usually based on the full amount of commercial paper authorized, whether issued or not, so the total commercial paper authorization must be carefully determined to maximize the benefit while minimizing costs. While the interest rate for a particular commercial paper issue is fixed until its maturity, the short maturities and frequent rollovers of the debt effectively make commercial paper much like a long-term variable rate bond. Consequently, there is some exposure to interest rate risk in using commercial paper as a funding mechanism. However, unless inflationary pressure is great, the risk is relatively low. The strategy now being used by a number of utilities/agencies is to issue commercial paper up to the authorized limit, then pay-off the commercial paper outstanding through a revenue bond issue. The agency gets the benefit of low short-term interest rates while still being able to convert to long term fixed rates through a bond issue. This is an Funding Considerations 8.5 appropriate strategy during relatively stable interest rates, but not when interest rates are rising or expected to rise substantially. Commercial paper programs are typically limited to a single agency, and the agency pursuing commercial paper will need to confer with their legal and financial advisors to determine if sufficient authorization currently exists to implement a commercial paper program. 8.1.1.8 Property Related Debt For many years, California has allowed a form of financing where the properties that benefit from projects pay debt service in proportion to the benefit received. The California Streets and Highways Code allows bonds to be sold under the 1911 Improvement Act or 1913 Municipal Improvement Act, under the procedure of the 1913 Act and the 1931 Majority Protest Act. Mello Roos Community Facilities District Act (1982) financing is another variation of this theme. Assessment financing, as the method was called, is useful for allocating shares of cost and debt service to properties within specific areas (called assessment districts) within which all of the financed project’s benefit accrued. Assessment districts are typically used for defined geographic areas to finance specific projects which benefit the property’s in that geographic area. The voting requirement of the Tax Payers’ Right to Vote Act (Proposition 218) and more recent court decisions challenging certain methods of apportionment, has made the procedure less attractive. [In cases where the required sewer infrastructure would serve only new development, such as in newly developing areas, this type of financing mechanism can be useful.] 8.1.1.9 Private Sector Equity Some utilities find it convenient to enter into agreements with a private sector service provider to perform certain well- defined functions. The service provider provides the assets as well as human resources, materials, supplies and other costs of business and includes those costs in the amount charged to the utility. This procedure becomes, de facto, a financing technique for the utility in that the capital cost of the assets are financed by the private sector service provider since the assets are owned by it. The financing costs and interest rates are often more expensive than traditional public financing methods as the private equity firm’s cost of capital is generally higher and there are income taxes considerations. The specifics can depend much on the private equity firm’s other portfolio assets, but this method can reduce the capital requirement to be financed by the utility and may offer greater flexibility and creativity than other financing options. Specific projects for engaging a private sector equity participant have not been identified. Further, any cost savings associated with this approach might depend on the specific projects, so this approach is not considered further in this financing plan. Again, this method can be a valuable tool for application in certain situations and should be considered when appropriate. 8.1.1.10 Developer Impact or Connection Fees Developer impact fees or connection fees are commonly used alone, or more commonly in conjunction with user rates to finance capacity related sewer system improvements and to recover previous sunk costs paid by existing system users that benefit future growth. The use of the connection fees to recover sunk facility costs and to provide service to accommodate new customers is completely appropriate. Connection fees are generally calculated by estimating the overall cost of infrastructure necessary to support future growth plus the recovery of sunk costs and allocating those costs to the various benefit zones, usually by sewer service size. Wastewater agencies have Funding Considerations 8.6 discretion in setting connection fees for wastewater collection and treatment as long as established computation methodologies are followed. 8.1.1.11 Federal Funding Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) The WIFIA program was established by the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 2014 and provides long-term, low cost supplemental loans for public infrastructure projects, including projects to build and upgrade wastewater and drinking water treatment systems. This competitive program is administered by the EPA and will provide loan funding up to 49% of the project cost at interest rates based on US Treasury rates. The minimum project size for a large community is $20 million and the project must be of a “regional or national significance”. As WIFIA loans only fund up to 49% of project costs, they are intended to be combined with various funding sources such as private equity, revenue bonds, grants, and SRF loans and the repayment structure can be somewhat flexible to accommodate other potential lenders. The application process can take up to two years and is largely a two-step process. Applicants must first submit a letter of interest. After review of these letters of interest, EPA selects projects to invite to submit a full application. The process requires significant due-diligence and up-front funding in terms of an application fee ($100,000) and credit processing fee, if project is invited to submit a full application (estimated to range from $250,000 - $500,000, to which the application fee can be applied). The amount of credit assistance offered through WIFIA is contingent on the size of congressional appropriations. The Congressional appropriation was $30 million in 2017 and $63 million in 2018. The first project applicants were approved funding in 2017 ($2.3 billion in loans). In 2018, a second round of projects were awarded to 39 applicants for a total of $5 billion in loans. The program is anticipated to continue in 2019, however the congressional appropriation has not yet been approved. A.7 REFERENCES B.1 DIURNAL CURVE 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM Fl o w ( M G D ) FM 1 -Date Average Metered Flow Average Weekday Average Weekend 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM Fl o w ( M G D ) FM 2 -Pacific Average Metered Flow Average Weekday Average Weekend 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM Fl o w ( M G D ) FM 3 -Piedmont Average Metered Flow Average Weekday Average Weekend 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM Fl o w ( M G D ) FM 4 -Berry Average Metered Flow Average Weekday Average Weekend 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM Fl o w ( M G D ) FM 5 -Dwight Average Metered Flow Average Weekday Average Weekend 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM Fl o w ( M G D ) FM 6 -Conejo Average Metered Flow Average Weekday Average Weekend 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM Fl o w ( M G D ) FM 7 -5th Average Metered Flow Average Weekday Average Weekend 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM Fl o w ( M G D ) FM 8 -Greenspot Average Metered Flow Average Weekday Average Weekend 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM Fl o w ( M G D ) FM 9 -Lowes Average Metered Flow Average Weekday Average Weekend 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM Fl o w ( M G D ) FM 10 -Sterling Average Metered Flow Average Weekday Average Weekend 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM Fl o w ( M G D ) Casino Average Metered Flow Average Weekday Average Weekend C.3 CALIBRATION GRAPHS 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM Fl o w ( M G D ) FM 4 -Berry Flow Callibration Metered Weekday Avg.Model Results 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM De p t h ( f t ) FM 4 -Berry Depth Callibration Weekday Avg Model Results 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM Fl o w ( M G D ) FM 5 -Dwight Flow Callibration Metered Weekday Avg.Model Results 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM De p t h ( f t ) FM 5 -Dwight Depth Callibration Weekday Avg Model Results 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM Fl o w ( M G D ) FM 6 -Conejo Flow Callibration Metered Weekday Avg.Model Results 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM De p t h ( f t ) FM 6 -Conejo Depth Callibration Weekday Avg Model Results 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM Fl o w ( M G D ) FM 7 -5th Flow Callibration Metered Weekday Avg.Model Results 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM De p t h ( f t ) FM 7 -5th Depth Callibration Weekday Avg Model Results 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM Fl o w ( M G D ) FM 8 -Greenspot Flow Callibration Metered Weekday Avg.Model Results 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM De p t h ( f t ) FM 8 -Greenspot Depth Callibration Weekday Avg Model Results 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM Fl o w ( M G D ) FM 9 -Lowe Flow Callibration Metered Weekday Avg.Model Results 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM De p t h ( f t ) FM 9 -Lowe Depth Callibration Weekday Avg Model Results 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM Fl o w ( M G D ) FM 10 -Sterling Flow Callibration Metered Weekday Avg.Model Results 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM De p t h ( f t ) FM 10 -Sterling Depth Callibration Weekday Avg Model Results 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM Fl o w ( M G D ) 3rd Street Flow Comparison Metered Weekday Avg.Model Results 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM De p t h ( f t ) 3rd Street Depth Comparison Weekday Avg Model Results 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM Fl o w ( M G D ) 6th Street Flow Callibration Metered Weekday Avg.Model Results 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM De p t h ( f t ) 6th Street Depth Comparison Weekday Avg Model Results Design with community in mind Contact: Oliver Slosser Water Resources Engineer P: (626) 568-6063 E: oliver.slosser@stantec.com