The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet - EVWD Board of Directors - 02/12/20142014 Water System Master Plan FEBRUARY 2014 East Valley Water District Final Report Project Number: 10502575 i February 2014 SECTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................. ES-1 1.1 Study Area and Population ........................................................................................ ES-1 1.2 Water Demands ........................................................................................................ ES-1 1.3 Water Supplies .......................................................................................................... ES-1 1.4 Hydraulic Evaluation ................................................................................................. ES-4 1.5 Recommended Improvements................................................................................... ES-5 1.5.1 Near-Term Potable Water System Improvements ................................................ ES-5 1.5.2 Future Potable Water System Improvements ....................................................... ES-6 1.6 Potable Water System CIP ........................................................................................ ES-7 1.6.1 Phasing of Near-Term System Improvements ...................................................... ES-7 1.7 Potable Water Cost Estimates ................................................................................. ES-10 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Project Authorization ....................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Project Background ......................................................................................................1-1 1.3 Objectives ....................................................................................................................1-1 1.4 Scope of Work .............................................................................................................1-2 1.5 Data Sources ...............................................................................................................1-2 1.6 Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................1-2 1.7 Project Staff .................................................................................................................1-3 1.8 Report Outline ..............................................................................................................1-3 1.9 List of Abbreviations .....................................................................................................1-3 SECTION 2 EXISTING POTABLE WATER SYSTEM ............................................. 2-1 2.1 Pressure Zones............................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Water Supply ...............................................................................................................2-5 2.2.1 Groundwater Wells .................................................................................................2-5 2.2.2 Imported Water .......................................................................................................2-7 2.2.3 North Fork Mutual Water Company .........................................................................2-5 2.3 Booster Pumping Stations ............................................................................................2-7 2.4 Water Storage Reservoirs ............................................................................................2-7 2.5 Pressure Reducing Stations ....................................................................................... 2-10 2.6 Distribution System Network ...................................................................................... 2-11 2.7 Other Facilities and Assets ......................................................................................... 2-13 2.7.1 Valves .................................................................................................................. 2-13 2.7.2 Fire Hydrants ........................................................................................................ 2-17 2.7.3 Customer Meters .................................................................................................. 2-17 2.7.4 Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System (SCADA) ................................. 2-18 2.7.5 GIS....................................................................................................................... 2-18 SECTION 3 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 ...........................................................................3-4 3.3.2 Population Estimates from Other Sources ..............................................................3-5 3.3.3 Population Projections for EVWD’s Service Area....................................................3-5 3.3.4 Existing Per Capita Water Use ...............................................................................3-7 3.3.5 Future Per Capita Water Use due to Conservation .................................................3-7 3.4 Demand Projections for EVWD’s Service Area (Population Methodology) .....................3-9 3.5 Water Demand Projections – Land Use Methodology ................................................. 3-10 3.5.1 Assigning Average Demand and Land Use Types ................................................ 3-10 Table of Contents Project Number: 10502575 ii February 2014 3.5.2 Water Duty Factors .............................................................................................. 3-11 3.5.3 Build Out Water Demand Projections – Land Use Methodology ........................... 3-16 3.6 Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 3-16 SECTION 4 HYDRAULIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND CALIBRATION ............ 4-1 4.1 Hydraulic Model Development ......................................................................................4-1 4.1.1 Data Collection ......................................................................................................4-1 4.1.2 Model Construction ................................................................................................4-2 4.1.3 Pipelines ................................................................................................................4-2 4.1.4 Valves and Junctions .............................................................................................4-2 4.1.5 Storage Tanks .......................................................................................................4-3 4.1.6 Pumps and Wells ...................................................................................................4-3 4.1.7 Surface Water Treatment Plant ..............................................................................4-3 4.1.8 Facility Nomenclature ............................................................................................4-4 4.1.9 Facility Elevation Data ...........................................................................................4-4 4.1.10 Water Losses.........................................................................................................4-4 4.1.11 Geocoding .............................................................................................................4-5 4.1.11 Diurnal Curve.........................................................................................................4-5 4.2 Model Calibration .........................................................................................................4-6 4.2.1 Steady State Calibration ........................................................................................4-6 4.2.2 Extended Period Simulation ...................................................................................4-7 4.3 Calibration Conclusions.............................................................................................. 4-12 SECTION 5 PLANNING CRITERIA ........................................................................ 5-1 5.1 Design Criteria .............................................................................................................5-1 5.1.1 System Pressures ..................................................................................................5-2 5.1.2 Pipeline Velocities ..................................................................................................5-2 5.1.3 Storage ..................................................................................................................5-3 5.1.4 Supply Capacity .....................................................................................................5-4 5.1.5 System Reliability ..................................................................................................5-4 SECTION 6 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 Minimum Daily Demand (MinDD) ..................................6-5 6.1.3 Minimum Pressure with MDD plus Fire Flow ..........................................................6-5 6.2 Existing System Storage Evaluation ........................................................................... 6-11 6.3 Existing System Supply Analysis ................................................................................ 6-13 6.3.1 Existing Supply Sources ...................................................................................... 6-13 6.3.2 System-wide Supply Evaluation ........................................................................... 6-13 6.3.3 Inter-Zone Transfer Evaluation ............................................................................. 6-14 6.4 Reliability Analysis ..................................................................................................... 6-16 6.4.1 Major Transmission Breaks .................................................................................. 6-16 6.4.2 Purchased Water Out of Service for 7 Days ......................................................... 6-17 6.4.3 Largest Supply Sources (per pressure zone) Out of Service ................................. 6-18 6.5 Future System Distribution Analysis ........................................................................... 6-20 6.5.1 Minimum Pressure with PHD ............................................................................... 6-20 6.5.2 Maximum Pressure with MinDD ........................................................................... 6-21 6.5.3 Minimum Pressure with MDD plus Fire Flow ........................................................ 6-21 6.5.4 Pipeline Replacement Plan for Aging Pipes .......................................................... 6-24 6.5.5 Summary of Distribution System Recommendations ............................................ 6-26 6.6 Future System Storage Evaluation ............................................................................. 6-27 6.7 Future System Supply Analysis .................................................................................. 6-29 6.7.1 Future Supply Sources ........................................................................................ 6-29 6.7.2 System-wide Supply Evaluation ........................................................................... 6-30 Table of Contents Project Number: 10502575 iii February 2014 6.7.3 Inter-Zone Transfer Evaluation ............................................................................. 6-31 6.7.4 Future Supply Analysis – Other Considerations .................................................... 6-33 6.8 Timing of Developments in the East Side ................................................................... 6-33 6.9 Summary of Recommendations ................................................................................. 6-36 SECTION 7 RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY..................................................... 7-1 7.1 Potential Recycled Water Customers ...........................................................................7-1 7.2 Survey of Recycled Water Rates ..................................................................................7-6 7.3 Recycled Water Infrastructure for the Harmony Development .......................................7-6 7.3.1 Design Criteria .......................................................................................................7-7 7.3.2 Evaluation Methodology .........................................................................................7-9 7.4 Storage Evaluation ..................................................................................................... 7-10 7.5 Piping Evaluation ....................................................................................................... 7-10 7.6 Pumping Evaluation ................................................................................................... 7-11 7.7 Other Considerations ................................................................................................. 7-12 SECTION 8 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM .............................................. 8-1 8.1 Recommended Improvements......................................................................................8-1 8.1.1 Near-Term Potable Water System Improvements...................................................8-1 8.1.2 Future Potable Water System Improvements .........................................................8-2 8.2 Cost Estimating Basis ..................................................................................................8-3 8.3 Potable Water System CIP ...........................................................................................8-4 8.3.1 Phasing of Near-Term System Improvements ........................................................8-4 8.4 Potable Water Cost Estimates .................................................................................... 8-11 8.5 Other Recommendations ........................................................................................... 8-13 8.6 Finance Objectives..................................................................................................... 8-14 8.6.1 Funding Sources.................................................................................................. 8-14 Table ES-1 Summary of Near Term System Improvements ......................................................... 5 Table ES-2 Summary of Future System Improvements ................................................................ 6 Table ES-3 Near-Term Improvements Phasing ............................................................................ 9 Table ES-4 Cost Estimates of Near-Term Water System Improvements..................................... 10 Table ES-5 Cost Estimates of Future Water System Improvements ........................................... 16 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 Characteristics ...................................................................2-6 Table 2-4 Booster Pumping Stations Characteristics .................................................................2-8 Table 2-5 Storage Reservoir Characteristics .............................................................................2-9 Table 2-6 Storage Reservoir Capacity by Pressure Zone ........................................................ 2-10 Table 2-7 Pressure Regulating Stations .................................................................................. 2-11 Table 2-8 Summary of Pipelines by Diameter ......................................................................... 2-12 Table 2-9 Summary of Pipelines by Installation Period ............................................................ 2-12 Table 2-10 Summary of Pipelines by Material ......................................................................... 2-13 Table 2-11 Summary of Valves by Diameter ........................................................................... 2-16 Table 2-12 Summary of Valves by Type.................................................................................. 2-16 Table 2-13 Summary of Fire Hydrants by Diameter ................................................................. 2-17 Table 2-14 Summary of Fire Hydrants by Type ....................................................................... 2-17 Table 2-15 Summary of Meters by Diameter ........................................................................... 2-18 Table 2-16 Summary of Meters by Type ................................................................................. 2-18 Table 3-1 Historical Water Production .......................................................................................3-1 Table 3-2 Historical Daily Demands and Maximum Day Peaking Factors ..................................3-2 Table 3-3 Historical Potable Water Consumption ......................................................................3-2 Table of Contents Project Number: 10502575 iv February 2014 Table 3-4 Unaccounted-For Water ............................................................................................3-3 Table 3-5 Baseline Population for EVWD’s Service Area ..........................................................3-4 Table 3-6 Population from Other Sources .................................................................................3-5 Table 3-7 Population Estimates for Proposed Developments within EVWD’s Service Area ........3-6 Table 3-8 Population Estimates for Proposed Developments within EVWD’s Service Area ........3-7 Table 3-9 Existing Per Capita Water Use for the Service Area ..................................................3-7 Table 3-10 Future Per Capita Water Use for the Service Area...................................................3-8 Table 3-11 Demand Estimates for Proposed Developments within EVWD’s Service Area ....... 3-10 Table 3-12 Land Use Classifications and Acreage .................................................................. 3-11 Table 3-13 Calculated Water Duty Factors .............................................................................. 3-14 Table 3-14 Adjusted Water Duty Factor for Single Family Residential Land Use ...................... 3-14 Table 3-15 Build Out System Water Duty Factors ................................................................... 3-16 Table 4-1 Pipeline Roughness ..................................................................................................4-2 Table 4-2 Water Losses ...........................................................................................................4-4 Table 4-3 Steady State Comparison Table ................................................................................4-9 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 ..........................................6-5 Table 6-3 Summary of Fire Flow Improvements .......................................................................6-9 Table 6-4 Existing Potable Water System Storage Capacity Evaluation ................................. 6-12 Table 6-5 Water Supply Analysis – Existing Conditions ........................................................... 6-13 Table 6-6 Existing Water Source Reliability – Plant 134 Out of Service ................................... 6-18 Table 6-7 Existing Water Source Reliability – Largest Source (Per Pressure Zone) Out of Service ................................................................................................................................... 6-18 Table 6-8 Future System Transmission Pipeline Improvements .............................................. 6-21 Table 6-9 Summary of Existing Water System Pipeline Improvements .................................... 6-26 Table 6-10 Future Storage Evaluation ..................................................................................... 6-28 Table 6-11 Water Supply Analysis – Future Conditions ........................................................... 6-31 Table 6-12 Pumping Improvements – 2035 Conditions ........................................................... 6-31 Table 6-13 Recommended Improvements Summary ............................................................... 6-36 Table 7-1 Recycled Water Demand by Customer Type .............................................................7-3 Table 7-2 Recycled Water Rates in Southern California ............................................................7-6 Table 7-3 Water System Evaluation Criteria ..............................................................................7-7 Table 7-4 Recycled Water Demands .........................................................................................7-8 Table 7-5 Harmony Zones ...................................................................................................... 7-10 Table 7-6 Storage Evaluation.................................................................................................. 7-10 Table 7-7 Transmission Pipeline Evaluation ............................................................................ 7-10 Table 7-8 Pumping Station Evaluation .................................................................................... 7-12 Table 8-1 Summary of Near Term System Improvements .........................................................8-1 Table 8-2 Summary of Future System Improvements ................................................................8-3 Table 8-3 Cost Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................................8-4 Table 8-4 Near-Term Improvements Phasing ............................................................................8-6 Table 8-5 Cost Estimates of Near-Term Water System Improvements .................................... 8-11 Table 8-6 Cost Estimates of Future Water System Improvements ........................................... 8-12 Figure ES-1 Study Area ES-2 Figure ES-2 Water Demand Projections for EVWD’s Service Area (based on population) ...... ES-3 Figure ES-3 Supply Demand Comparison .............................................................................. ES-4 Table of Contents Project Number: 10502575 v February 2014 Figure ES-4 Near-Term Improvements (Area 1) ................................................................... ES-11 Figure ES-5 Near-Term Improvements (Area 2) ................................................................... ES-12 Figure ES-6 Near-Term Improvements (Area 3) ................................................................... ES-13 Figure ES-7 Future System Improvements........................................................................... ES-14 Figure ES-8 Near-term Water System Improvement Costs (2015-2020) ............................... ES-15 Figure ES-9 Annual Costs (2015-2020)................................................................................ ES-16 Figure ES-10 Future Water System Improvement Costs (2015-2035) .................................. ES-16 Figure 2-1 Existing Water System Facilities .............................................................................2-3 Figure 2-2 Hydraulic Schematic of the Existing System .............................................................2-4 Figure 2-3 Pipelines by Diameter ............................................................................................ 2-14 Figure 2-4 Pipelines by Material .............................................................................................. 2-15 Figure 3-1 Historic Water Consumption in the East Valley Water District ...................................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 (based on population) ............3-9 Figure 3-4 General Plan Land Use .......................................................................................... 3-12 Figure 3-5 Existing Land Use .................................................................................................. 3-13 Figure 3-6 Single-Family Residential Sampling Locations ....................................................... 3-15 Figure 4-1 System Wide Diurnal Curve ....................................................................................4-6 Figure 4-2 Hydrant Test Locations .......................................................................................... 4-10 Figure 4-3 Hydrant Testing Pressure Comparisons ................................................................. 4-11 Figure 6-1 Existing System Pressure Deficiencies.....................................................................6-3 Figure 6-2 Existing System Transmission Improvements ..........................................................6-4 Figure 6-3 Existing System High Pressure Areas ......................................................................6-6 Figure 6-4 Deficient Hydrants – Fire Flow Conditions ................................................................6-7 Figure 6-5 Fire Flow Recommendations.................................................................................. 6-10 Figure 6-6 Transfer Capacity – Existing Conditions .................................................................... 15 Figure 6-7 Critical Pipes in the System.................................................................................... 6-19 Figure 6-8 Future System Pressure Deficiencies ..................................................................... 6-22 Figure 6-9 Future System Transmission Improvements ........................................................... 6-23 Figure 6-10 Pipeline Replacements Based on Age.................................................................. 6-25 Figure 6-11 Development of the District’s Water Distribution System....................................... 6-26 Figure 6-12 Future System Supply Sources ........................................................................... 6-30 Figure 6-13 Transfer Capacity – Future Demands ...................................................................... 32 Figure 6-14 Transfer Capacity – Existing Demand Conditions (including 750 units in Harmony) .................................................................................................................................. 35 Figure 6-15 Future Water System Improvements .................................................................... 6-37 Figure 7-1 Potential Recycled Water Customers by Demand ....................................................7-4 Figure 7-2 Potential Recycled Water Customers by Type ..........................................................7-5 Figure 7-3 Harmony Recycled Water Pressure Zones ............................................................. 7-11 Figure 7-4 Harmony Recycled Water Transfer Capacity .......................................................... 7-12 Figure 8-1 Near-Term Improvements (Area 1)...........................................................................8-7 Figure 8-2 Near-Term Improvements (Area 2)...........................................................................8-8 Figure 8-3 Near-Term Improvements (Area 3)...........................................................................8-9 Figure 8-4 Future System Improvements ................................................................................ 8-10 Figure 8-5 Near-term Water System Improvement Costs (2015-2020) .................................... 8-11 Figure 8-6 Annual Costs (2015-2020) ..................................................................................... 8-12 Figure 8-7 Future Water System Improvement Costs (2015-2035) .......................................... 8-13 Table of Contents Project Number: 10502575 vi February 2014 Appendix A References .......................................................................................... A-1 Appendix B Calibration Plan ................................................................................... B-1 Appendix C Extended Period Calibration Results .................................................. C-1 Appendix D Fire Flow Improvements ..................................................................... D-1 Appendix E Existing System Facility Assessment ................................................... E-1 Appendix F Potential Recycled Water Customers .................................................. F-1 Project Number: 10502575 ES-1 The primary objective of the East Valley Water District’s (EVWD) 2014 Water System Master Plan (WSMP) is to provide cost-effective and fiscally responsible water services that meet the water quantity, water quality, system pressure, and reliability requirements of its customers. This WSMP has a planning horizon of the year 2035. This WSMP addresses existing system deficiencies and facility requirements to meet increasing demands over the next 20 years. The report also provides details of a proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the water system, including phasing of projects and capital requirements. This WMP covers the entire service area of EVWD, which consists of the entire City of Highland, portions of the City of San Bernardino, and unincorporated areas of the San Bernardino County. Based on the 2010 data from the United States Census Bureau, EVWD currently serves a population of approximately 97,000 within its service area. Based on a review of growth forecasts developed by the San Bernardino Association of Governments, the population within EVWD’s service area is expected to be approximately 141,000 by year 2035. This represents a 45 percent increase in overall population. This population growth results in increased water demands and water supply requirements. In addition, development activity has resumed within EVWD’s service area with proposed developments such as the Harmony Development, the Arnott Development, the Highland Hills Development, and the Greenspot Village and Marketplace Development being in various stages of planning. The population projections along with the existing and future land use plans are discussed in detail in Section 3. Figure ES-1 shows the Study Area considered for this WSMP. New residential and non-residential growth is expected to result in a significant increase in water demands. The potable water demand projections are depicted on Figure ES-2. Figure ES-2 shows that the EVWD’s potable water demands are projected to increase from 21,500 acre-feet per year currently to approximately 31,500 acre-feet per year by 2035. This corresponds to a 43 percent increase compared to water demands in 2010. The impact of water conservation on future demands is considered while forecasting water demands. EVWD’s existing supply sources consist of local groundwater, surface water from the Santa Ana River obtained through the North Fork Water Company, and imported water from the State Water Project. There is sufficient redundancy in the facilities delivering these supplies to meet existing demands under maximum day demand (MDD) conditions. However, additional supplies are necessary to support future demands within EVWD’s service area. Page Intentionally Left Blank Project Number: 10502575 ES-3 February 2014 Figure ES-2 Water Demand Projections for EVWD’s Service Area (based on population) This WSMP considers three new potential future supply sources for EVWD’s system. These consist of: • Conjunctive Use Wells – EVWD is currently in the planning stages with Valley Water District to drill two new 2,000 gpm wells in the Intermediate Zone. These wells would provide increased supply reliability especially during extended drought. • East-side Water Treatment Plant – EVWD could build a new water treatment plant to serve the Harmony Development and other developments on the east side of EVWD’s service area. Water for this treatment plant would come from EVWD’s rights to Santa Ana River Water and from purchased SWP water. A new water treatment plant may provide opportunities for improved water management in the region. • Plant 150 – EVWD could build Plant 150 in the Lower Zone to treat for perchlorates as recommended in EVWD’s 2008 Water Master Plan (CDM, 2008). This would enable EVWD to operate Well 12 and drill additional wells in the area where perchlorate contamination is an issue. The total capacity of Plant 150 would be 12,000 gpm, 5,000 gpm of which would be imported water for blending. A 12,000 gpm capacity would include the existing capacity of Wells 11 and 28. These supply facilities were evaluated in detail as part of this WSMP. The supply demand comparison under existing and future conditions is depicted on Figure ES-3. The analysis 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 De m a n d i n A c r e - F e e t P e r Y e a r Year Project Number: 10502575 ES-4 February 2014 concluded that supplies from the proposed water treatment plant in the Harmony Development area that can produce 5.8 MGD and the two 2,000 gpm conjunctive use wells are sufficient to meet projected future water demands while serving as a backup source in the event the water treatment plant is inoperable. The analysis also concluded that there was no need to add additional supply redundancy in the system by the construction of Plant 150, the most expensive among the three supply sources to develop. Eliminating the construction of Plant 150 would result in a redeployment of approximately $22 million of capital costs that could be diverted to implement more practical and cost-effective projects that provide additional reliability and redundancy to EVWD’s system. Section 6 provides details of the supply analysis conducted as part of this WSMP. Figure ES-3 Supply Demand Comparison The adequacy of EVWD’s system under existing and future demand conditions is evaluated using a calibrated hydraulic model of EVWD’s water system. A well calibrated model serves as an excellent planning tool and results in the development of defensible recommendations. The hydraulic model, built using EVWD’s robust GIS database, contains all the pipes within the potable water system and is an accurate representation of the water distribution system. This model is used to identify pressure, fire flow, supply, and storage deficiencies in the water system. Recommendations are made to address these deficiencies. The development and the calibration Plant 150: Not recommended for construction Serves as a backup source for the new WTP Project Number: 10502575 ES-5 February 2014 of the hydraulic model are discussed in Section 4 of this report. The details of the hydraulic analyses are discussed in Section 6 of this report. Based on these evaluations, the recommendations are divided into two categories; 1) near-term system (2015-2020) improvements addressing existing water system deficiencies, and 2) future system (2020-2035) improvements necessary to meet the needs under 2035 conditions. The near-term improvements are divided into the following five categories: • Transmission pipeline improvements to improve system pressures and system flow (T) • Pipeline improvements to address fire flow deficiencies (FF) • Small diameter pipeline replacement for pipelines with a diameter smaller than 6 inches (SD) • Storage improvements (RES) • Water supply improvements (S) These recommendations are summarized in Table ES-1and are briefly described below. Table ES-1 Summary of Near Term System Improvements Category Improvements Description Quantity Unit T Pipeline Improvements for pressure deficiencies 4.7 miles FF(1) Pipeline Improvements for fire flow deficiencies 5.4 miles SD(2) Pipelines with a diameter of 4-inch or smaller 16.5 miles RES Reservoirs Improvements – construction of new reservoirs 25.0 MG PMP Pumping Improvements – construction/expansion of pump stations 5.8 MGD S Supply Improvements – new wells/WTP facilities 11.6 MGD (1) Due to the large number of pipelines projects under these categories, the projects are listed separately in Appendix D. (2) Due to the large number of pipelines projects under these categories, the pipeline improvements will be provided in a GIS Shapefile to EVWD staff. The fire flow improvement projects are prioritized based on the pressure deficiency. Approximately 5.4 miles of existing system fire flow recommendations are phased for installation in the near-term. Approximately 16 miles of small diameter pipelines which create hydraulic bottlenecks are recommended for replacement in the near-term. Replacement of these pipelines will also enhance fire flow capabilities of the existing system. Transmission pipeline projects T-1, T-2, T-3, and the Harmony Transmission Main are recommended for the near-term. These pipelines eliminate existing bottlenecks in the conveyance system and improve system pressures. Project Number: 10502575 ES-6 February 2014 Approximately 25 MG of storage reservoirs are recommended in the near-term. The majority of this storage is recommended in the Foothill Zone followed by the Lower, Intermediate, Upper, and other smaller pressure zones. Increasing overall storage in the system will provide reliability and redundancy during emergencies and provide adequate storage during fire protection. Approximately 5.8 MGD in pumping capacity improvements is recommended for the near-term. The need for these improvements is primarily governed by the supply requirements for the future demands on the east side of EVWD’s service area. A total of 11.6 MGD in new supply capacity is recommended for the near-term. A new water treatment plant (5.8 MGD) to serve the Harmony Development and the proposed future developments in the eastern portion of EVWD’s service area is recommended. In addition, it is recommended that EVWD continue the development of the two conjunctive use wells in the southern part of the system. The two conjunctive use wells have a combined capacity of approximately 5.8 MGD. The future system improvements are divided into the following four categories: • Transmission pipeline improvements to improve system pressures and system flow (T) • Pipeline replacements for pipelines with an age of more than 75 years (Age) • Storage improvements (RES) • Pumping improvements (PMP) These recommendations are summarized in Table ES-2. Table ES-2 Summary of Future System Improvements Category Improvements Description Quantity Unit T Pipeline Improvements for pressure deficiencies 1.7 miles A(1) Pipelines with an age of more than 75 years 31.7 miles RES Reservoirs Improvements – construction of new reservoirs(1) 7.3 MG PMP Pumping Improvements – construction/expansion of pump stations 25.5 MGD (1) Due to the large number of pipelines projects under these categories, the pipeline improvements will be provided in a GIS Shapefile to EVWD staff. Approximately 1.7 miles of transmission pipelines (projects T-4, T-5, and T-6) are recommended for the future system. These pipelines eliminate existing bottlenecks in the conveyance system and improve system pressures in their vicinity. As mentioned previously, the majority of the Project Number: 10502575 ES-7 February 2014 transmission pipelines are required to provide adequate conveyance capacity to deliver water supply to meet the potential future demands in the eastern portion of EVWD’s service area. By 2035, pipelines constructed in 1960 will be 75 years old. Since these pipelines would be nearing the end of their useful lives, a regular replacement program is required. The total length of recommended pipe improvements for age is approximately 32 miles. This equates to an average construction/replacement rate of 1.9 miles per year. Approximately 7 MG of storage reservoirs are recommended to meet the needs of the future system. Storage reservoirs are recommended in the Foothill, Canal 3, Mountain, and Upper Zones. These improvements are necessary to provide adequate fire flow capabilities and storage redundancy in the future system. Approximately 26 MGD in pumping capacity improvements is recommended for the future system. The need for these improvements is primarily governed by the supply requirements for the potential future demands in the eastern portion of EVWD’s service area. Capital improvement projects are phased based on system needs. Projects addressing existing system deficiencies are phased over the next 6 years (2015-2020). A detailed phasing plan is not provided for projects addressing future system (2020-2035) deficiencies due to the uncertainties associated with the timing of future demands. It is expected that this WSMP will be updated by EVWD every five years and the future system CIP refined as part of these updates. Existing system improvements that address the most significant deficiencies, impact the largest number of customers, or are related to important water facilities 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: • Transmission and Distribution System Pipelines: Pipelines addressing fire flow deficiencies are scheduled first, followed by small diameter, transmission, and age related improvements. Phasing of pipelines is adjusted such that multiple improvements in the same street or close vicinity are grouped together in the highest priority phase to avoid subsequent construction work in the same streets. In addition, an effort is made to distribute pipeline replacement costs evenly throughout the 2015-2020 period to avoid significant fluctuations in EVWD’s annual spending towards pipeline replacement. • 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. Project Number: 10502575 ES-8 February 2014 • Pumping Facilities: The existing system evaluation identified a pumping capacity deficiency 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 CIP in this report. • Supply Facilities: The WSMP recommends new supply facilities in the form of a new water treatment plant in the eastern portion of EVWD’s service area and conjunctive use wells in the southern portion of EVWD’s service area. The proposed treatment plant is phased to become operational by 2018 to provide adequate supply reliability to the proposed new developments in the eastern portion of EVWD’s service area. The conjunctive use wells are phased to become operational by 2020. Table ES-3 summarizes the phasing of the near-term CIP improvements. In order to assist the reader in reviewing the locations of the recommended improvements, the near-term improvements are depicted on three figures designated as Area 1, Area 2, and Area 3. These recommendations are depicted on Figure ES-4, Figure ES-5, and Figure ES-6. The future system recommendations are depicted on Figure ES-7. Project Number: 10502575 ES-9 February 2014 Table ES-3 Near-Term Improvements Phasing Improvement Type 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Storage Improvements Canal 3 Zone (2.5 MG) Mountain Zone (1 MG) Foothill Zone (4 MG) Foothill Zone (4 MG) Upper Zone (3 MG) Intermediate Zone (5 MG) Lower Zone (5.75 MG) Supply Improvements New Water Treatment Plant (5.8 MGD) Two 2,000 gpm Conjunctive Use Wells (5.8 MGD) Pumping Improvements Canal 3 Zone to Harmony (2.9 MGD) Upper Zone to Canal 3 Zone (2.9 MGD) Pipeline Improvements Fire Flow 5.4 miles - - - - - Small Diameter - 3.8 miles 3.8 miles 3.7 miles 2.9 miles 2.5 miles Transmission T-1(1) T-2(2) T-3(3) Harmony Transmission Main(4) - - - - (1) T-1 represents 3,200 feet of 16-inch transmission main (See Figure ES-5) (2) T-2 represents 2,100 feet of 16-inch transmission main (See Figure ES-4) (3) T-3 represents 9,200 feet of 24-inch transmission main (See Figure ES-6) (4) The Harmony Transmission Main represents10,600 feet of 20-inch transmission main (See Figure ES-6) FF-14 FF-12 FF-19 FF-8 FF-18 FF-4 FF-5 FF-11 FF-6 FF-3 T-1 T-2 º Date: 00.550.275 Miles \\Uspas1s01\muni\Clients\ East Valley WD\Water System Master Plan\ 14 Electronic Files - Modeling\GIS\_MXD\ CIPPhasing.mxd Key to Features January 28, 2014 Document: EVWD Service Area 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Small Diameter Replacements (SD)Fire Flow (FF) Recommendations Transmission (T) Improvements Near-Term Improvements (Area 1) Figure ES-2 Year Storage Reservoir Improvements (Size) 2015 Canal 3 Zone (2.5 MG) and Mountain Zone (1 MG) 2016 Foothill Zone (4 MG) 2017 Foothill Zone (4 MG) 2018 Upper Zone (3 MG) 2019 Intermediate Zone (5 MG) 2020 Lower Zone (5.75 MG) Year Pumping Improvements (Size) 2015 Canal 3 Zone to Harmony Development (2.9 MGD) 2015 Upper Zone to Canal 3 Zone (2.9 MGD) Year Supply Source Improvements (Size) 2018 New Water Treatment Plant (5.8 MGD) 2020 Conjunctive Use Wells (5.8 MGD) 2016 2015 FF-14 FF-13 FF-1 FF-19 FF_2 FF-8 FF-9 FF-4 FF-10 (Connection to new 30 inch) FF-6 FF-15 FF-16 FF-7 T-1 º Date: 00.550.275 Miles \\Uspas1s01\muni\Clients\ East Valley WD\Water System Master Plan\ 14 Electronic Files - Modeling\GIS\_MXD\ CIPPhasing.mxd Key to Features January 28, 2014 Document: EVWD Service Area 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Small Diameter Replacements (SD)Fire Flow (FF) Recommendations Transmission (T) Improvements Near-Term Improvements (Area 2) Figure ES-32016 2015 T-3 Harmony Transmission Main FF-12 FF-8 FF-17 F-6 T-2 º Date: 00.550.275 Miles \\Uspas1s01\muni\Clients\ East Valley WD\Water System Master Plan\ 14 Electronic Files - Modeling\GIS\_MXD\ CIPPhasing.mxd Key to Features January 28, 2014 Document: EVWD Service Area 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Small Diameter Replacements (SD)Fire Flow (FF) Recommendations Transmission (T) Improvements Near-Term Improvements (Area 3) Figure ES-42016 2015 T-5 T-4 T-6 º Date: 010.5 Miles \\Uspas1s01\muni\Clients\ East Valley WD\Water System Master Plan\ 14 Electronic Files - Modeling\GIS\_MXD\ CIPPhasing.mxd Key to Features January 28, 2014 Document: EVWD Service AreaFuture Transmission (T) Recommendations Aging (A) Pipelines (older than 1960) Transmission Main to Harmony Development Future System Improvements Figure ES-7 Zones Recommended Pumping Improvements (gpm) Intermediate to Upper 3,000 Intermediate to Foothill 7,050 Foothill to Canal 2 500 Foothill to Canal 3 7,200 Canal 3 to Harmony 4,060 Zone Storage Reservoir Improvements (MG) Mountain 1 Canal 3 2 Foothill 2.75 Upper 2 Project Number: 10502575 ES-10 February 2014 The cost of the potable water CIP is estimated by project for each five-year period using the cost estimating assumptions presented in Section 8 and the project phasing discussed previously. Cost estimates for the near-term system improvements are presented in Table ES-4. Cost estimates for the overall near-term CIP is depicted on Figure ES-8. Annual costs for each year in the 2015-2020 period are depicted on Figure ES-9. Costs presented in this WSMP are in year 2014 US dollars. A contingency of 35 percent is included in these cost estimates to cover engineering, administration, construction management, and contingency for these CIP projects. Table ES-4 Cost Estimates of Near-Term Water System Improvements ($ Million) Facility Type 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Storage $5.3 $6.5 $6.5 $4.9 $8.1 $9.3 $40.5 Pumping $2.7 - - - - - $2.7 Transmission Pipelines $1.7 $8.7 - - - - $10.5 Distribution Pipelines $5.8 $3.2 $3.1 $3.1 $2.5 $2.1 $19.8 Supply Sources $1.9 $1.9 $10.9 $10.9 $1.6 $1.6 $28.9 Subtotal $17.4 $20.4 $20.5 $18.9 $12.2 $13.1 $103 Project Number: 10502575 ES-15 February 2014 Figure ES-8 Near-term Water System Improvement Costs (2015-2020) 0 5 10 15 20 25 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Co s t s i n M i l l i o n D o l l a r s Year Storage Supply Sources Distribution Pipelines Transmission Pipelines Pumping Project Number: 10502575 ES-16 February 2014 Figure ES-9 Annual Costs (2015-2020) Cost estimates for the future system improvements are summarized in Table ES-5 and graphically depicted on Figure ES-10. Note that the cost estimates for the future system improvements also include costs for the near-term improvements. Table ES-5 Cost Estimates of Future Water System Improvements ($ Million) Facility Type 2021-2035 Storage $11.8 Pumping $11.9 Transmission Pipelines $2.9 Distribution Pipelines $26.8 Subtotal – Long-term CIP $53.5 Subtotal – Near-term CIP (from Table ES-4) $103 Total CIP $155.5 Figure ES-10 Future Water System Improvement Costs (2015-2035) Project Number: 10502575 ES-17 February 2014 To assist in the implementation of the CIP from the 2014 WSMP, EVWD has selected a consultant who will develop a financing plan and conduct a water rates and fees evaluation that will determine the most appropriate methods for funding the CIP and operating costs. Project Number: 10502575 1-1 February 2014 This section provides an overview of the Water System Master Plan (WSMP) for the East Valley Water District (EVWD). A brief narrative of the project background, the scope of work, and a description of the report sections to follow is presented. This WSMP is prepared in accordance with the Consulting Services agreement between the EVWD and MWH Americas, Inc. (MWH) dated March 6, 2013. EVWD’s last WSMP was completed in 2008. Since the completion of the 2008 WSMP, there has been a significant change in water usage within EVWD’s service area due to the economic downturn that followed the collapse of the housing market in 2008. More recently, development activity has resumed within EVWD’s service area with proposed developments such as the Harmony Development, the Arnott Development, the Highland Hills Development, and the Greenspot Village and Marketplace Development being in various stages of planning. The intent of this current WSMP is to develop a document that can be used as a guideline for the planning of the EVWD’s potable water system. This WSMP has a planning horizon of year 2035 and evaluates the EVWD’s potable water system under existing and future conditions. This WSMP covers the entire service area of the EVWD, which includes the entire city of Highland, portions of the City of San Bernardino, and portions of unincorporated San Bernardino County. With over 21,725 water meters, the EVWD currently serves a population of approximately 97,000. 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 WSMP. The primary objective of this WSMP is to provide cost-effective and fiscally responsible water services that meet the water quantity, water quality, system pressure, and reliability requirements of its customers. This WSMP is developed to assist EVWD achieving its primary objective by meeting the following goals: • Developing an infrastructure plan that balances reliability and cost • Creating an accurate and usable calibrated hydraulic model • Evaluating water system performance and water resources • Identifying needed capital improvement projects • Transferring knowledge to EVWD’s staff Project Number: 10502575 1-2 February 2014 For this WSMP, a new 24-hour extended period simulation (EPS) computer model of the potable water system is created. The calibrated potable water model includes all water pipelines within EVWD’s water system. Future system elements that will become necessary to meet the year 2035 service conditions are added to analyze the future conditions and make recommendations for system improvements. A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is prepared that includes all system improvements required to meet the potable water system needs through the year 2035. These improvements are identified by analyzing the potable water system under existing and future demand conditions. The CIP includes a list of the recommended improvements, proposed phasing and cost estimates. The CIP will provide EVWD with a water system planning road map for the future. The Scope of Work (SOW) of this WSMP consists of the following tasks: • Create a calibrated, 24-hour Hydraulic Potable Water Model of EVWD’s system • Project Potable Water Demands in the service area for year 2035 • Perform a Water Supply Analysis • Conduct Storage, Booster Station, and System Reliability Analysis • Analyze the Potable Water Distribution System under Existing Conditions • Analyze the Potable Water Distribution System under Future Conditions • Prepare a Pipeline Replacement Program • Identify Potable Water System Improvements • Prepare a Capital Improvement Program for the Potable Water System • Provide Training to EVWD Staff to use the Hydraulic Models For the preparation of this report, the 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 the EVWD’s information and needs. 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 complete list of reference documents is provided in Appendix A. MWH wishes to acknowledge and thank all of the EVWD’s staff for their support and assistance in completing this project. Special thanks go to John Mura (General Manager), Eliseo Ochoa (Project Manager), Nemesciano Ochoa (Engineering Manager), Leida Thomas (Senior Engineering Technician), Sarah Kurth (Engineering Assistant), and Ashok Dhingra (AKD Consulting Inc.). Project Number: 10502575 1-3 February 2014 The following MWH staff members were principally involved in the preparation of this report: Principal-in-Charge: Ajit Bhamrah, P.E. Technical Reviewer: David Ringel, P.E. Project Manager: Ganesh Krishnamurthy, P.E., PMP Project Engineers: Brett Singley, EIT Laura Lamdin, P.E. GIS Specialist: Jackie Silber, GISP This Water System Master Plan is divided into 8 sections. Section 2 discusses the existing potable water system computer model, while Section 3 discusses population, land use, and water demands. The potable water system creation and calibration is described in Section 4. The planning criteria are discussed in Section 5 and the system evaluation is discussed in Section 6. The recycled water system evaluation is described in Section 7. Based on these system evaluations, the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the potable 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. To conserve space and improve readability, abbreviations have been used in this report. Each abbreviation has been spelled out in the text the first time it is used. Subsequent usage of the term is usually identified by its abbreviation. The abbreviations used are shown in Table 1-1. Project Number: 10502575 1-4 February 2014 Table 1-1 List of Abbreviations Abbreviation Explanation AC Asbestos Cement AF Acre-Feet AFY Acre-Feet Per Year ADD Average Day Demand AMSL Above Mean Sea Level AWWA American Water Works Association cfs Cubic Feet Per Second CIMIS California Irrigation Management Information System CIP Capital Improvement Plant CL&C Concrete Lined And Coated CL&W Concrete Lined And Wrapped CML Cement Mortar Lined COP Certificates Of Participation D&W Dipped And Wrapped DD&W Double Dipped And Wrapped EPS Extended Period Simulation Eto Evapotranspiration EVWD East Valley Water District ft Feet Feet-amsl Feet Above Mean Sea Level FF Fire Flow G.O. General Obligation GIS Geographic Information System gpd Gallons Per Day gpcd Gallons Per Capita Per Day gpm Gallons Per Minute HGL Hydraulic Grade Line hp Horsepower IRWMP Integrated Regional Water Management Plan MDD Maximum Day Demand MG Million Gallons mgd Million Gallons Per Day MinDD Minimum Day Demand mi/yr Miles Per MMP Maximum Month Production MWH MWH Americas, Inc. NFMWC North Fork Mutual Water Company PHD Peak Hour Demand PRS Pressure Reducing Stations PRV Pressure Reducing Valve psi Pounds Per Square Inch PVC Polyvinyl Chloride RCP Reinforced Concrete Pipe SCADA Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition RUWMP Regional Urban Water Management Plan SCE Southern California Edison Company SD Small Diameter SOW Scope Of Work SWP State Water Project Project Number: 10502575 1-5 February 2014 Table 1-1 (cont’d) List of Abbreviations Abbreviation Explanation TDS Total Dissolved Solids USACE U.S. Army Corp Of Engineers WSMP Water System Master Plan Page Intentionally Left Blank Project Number: 10502575 2-1 February 2014 This section describes the 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, 24 booster pumping stations, 21 groundwater wells, 10 pressure reducing stations, and approximately 295 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 of the facilities and their interactions is presented on Figure 2-2. Table 2-1 Summary of Water Distribution System Components Facility Type Number Storage Reservoirs 18 Booster Pump Stations 24 Groundwater Wells (active) 18 Groundwater Wells (inactive) 3 Imported Water Connection 1 Surface Water Connection 1 Pipeline (miles) 295 Pressure Reducing Stations 10 Surface Water Treatment Plant 1 Groundwater Treatment Plants 4 Hydrants 2,893 Valves 7,992 Customer Meters (as of 2013) 22,796 Source: Information presented in Table 2-1 is based on EVWD’s GIS data 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. 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 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 Project Number: 10502575 2-2 February 2014 and their respective hydraulic characteristics are listed in Table 2-2 and the pressure zone boundaries are shown on Figure 2-1. Table 2-2 EVWD Pressure Zones 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 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 is obtained from EVWD. Project Number: 10502575 2-5 February 2014 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). There are 21 wells within EVWD’s water system, of which 18 wells are currently active. The physical and operational data of EVWD’s wells are presented in Table 2-3, while the location of the groundwater wells is shown on Figure 2-1. Well Nos. 12, 27, and 120 are inactive due to water quality issues and are not included in Table 2-3. The well capacity of the 18 active wells is approximately 29,045 gallons per minute (gpm) (41.8 million gallons per day (MGD)). The well capacities are obtained from Southern California Edison Company (SCE) pump efficiency test points. The Canal 1, Canal 2, Canal 3, and Mountain zones do not have any groundwater wells. Approximately 57 percent of EVWD’s well capacity is located in the Intermediate Zone and approximately 21 percent of EVWD’s well capacity is located in the Upper Zone. The 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 the EVWD’s surface water treatment plant. As a shareholder of the North Fork Mutual Water Company (NFMWC), EVWD obtains water from the Santa Ana River. Based on its current shares, the EVWD is entitled to 4 MGD from NFMWC. EVWD is in the process of purchasing additional stock that will ultimately give the 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 the EVWD’s surface water treatment plant. Project Number: 10502575 2-6 February 2014 Table 2-3 Active Groundwater Well Characteristics No. Location Status Pressure Zone Capacity (gpm)(1) Total Head (feet) Pumping Elevation (feet) Ground Elevation (feet) Hydraulic Grade (feet) Discharge Pressure (psi) 9 26493 Temple St. Active 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 St. Active Intermediate 1,257 429 944 1,352 1,373 9 40 27346 E. 3rd Street Active Intermediate 1,459 613 952 1,201 1,565 158 107 1425 E Citrus St. Active 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 (1) Data for Well obtained from the most recent SCE pump tests performed in 2011 and 2012 Project Number: 10502575 2-7 February 2014 EVWD operates 24 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 five booster pumps. The individual booster pump capacities vary from about 80 gpm to 2,187 gpm (0.1 MGD to 3.1 MGD). The total capacity of all booster stations is approximately 58,427 gpm (84 MGD). 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. There are 18 storage reservoirs, not including forebays, within EVWD 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. Project Number: 10502575 2-8 February 2014 Table 2-4 Booster Pumping Stations Characteristics 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 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 Project Number: 10502575 2-9 February 2014 Table 2-4 Booster Pumping Stations Characteristics (cont’d) Booster Pump Motor Horsepower (hp) Design Head (ft) Design Flow (gpm) Overall Efficiency (%) Suction Zone Discharge Zone 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 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 Source: SCE Pump Tests, schematics, and other data provided by EVWD Table 2-5 Storage Reservoir Characteristics 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 Source: Schematics and other data provided by EVWD Project Number: 10502575 2-10 February 2014 Table 2-6 Storage Reservoir Capacity by Pressure Zone Pressure Zone Storage Capacity (MG) Percent Total (%) 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% Source: Schematics and other data provided by EVWD There are ten 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. Project Number: 10502575 2-11 February 2014 Table 2-7 Pressure Regulating Stations 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 Source: Provided by EVWD Staff EVWD’s distribution system network consists of approximately 295 miles of pipeline, which range in diameter from 2-inches to 36-inches. The distribution of pipeline diameters is summarized in Table 2-8, and Figure 2-3 shows the pipelines colored by diameter. It should be noted that the numbers presented in Table 2-8 are based on the pipelines included in the hydraulic model only, which do not include service laterals. As shown in Table 2-8, about 59 percent of the distribution system network consists of pipes with diameters between 6 inches and 8 inches, while 16 percent of the distribution system network is comprised of pipes that are 12 inches in diameter. All pipes in EVWD’s water distribution system network are installed between year 1900 and year 2013. The distribution of pipe age is shown in Table 2-9. Project Number: 10502575 2-12 February 2014 Table 2-8 Summary of Pipelines by Diameter Diameter (inches) Total Length (feet) Total Length (miles) Percentage of Total Length (%) 2 8,000 1.5 0.51% 4 72,000 13.6 4.63% 6 406,000 76.9 26.09% 8 516,000 97.7 33.16% 10 32,000 6.1 2.06% 12 256,000 48.5 16.45% 14 68,000 12.9 4.37% 16 113,000 21.4 7.26% 18 532 0.1 0.03% 20 46,000 8.7 2.96% 24 17,000 3.2 1.09% 30 6,000 1.1 0.39% 36 16,000 3.0 1.03% Unknown 50 0.0 0.00% Total 1,556,000 294.7 100.00 % Source: Information presented in Table 2-8 is based on EVWD’s GIS data Table 2-9 Summary of Pipelines by Installation Period Installation Period Length (feet) Length (miles) Total (percent) 1900-1929 585 0.1 0.04% 1930-1939 1,000 0.2 0.06% 1940-1949 10,000 1.9 0.64% 1950-1959 196,000 37.1 12.60% 1960-1969 310,000 58.7 19.92% 1970-1979 166,000 31.4 10.67% 1980-1989 240,000 45.5 15.42% 1990-1999 215,000 40.7 13.82% 2000-2009 185,000 35.0 11.89% 2010-2013 2,000 0.4 0.13% Unknown 230,000 43.6 14.78% Total Length 1,556,000 294.7 100.00 % Source: Information presented in Table 2-9 is based on EVWD’s GIS data As shown in Table 2-9, approximately 15 percent of the pipelines have an unknown installation date, while approximately 32 percent of the pipelines were installed between 1950 and 1969. The most common pipe material is asbestos cement, which covers approximately 48 percent of the total pipeline length in the system. Figure 2-4 Figure 2-4 shows the pipeline material by color, while Table 2-10 summarizes the total lengths of pipelines by material type. Project Number: 10502575 2-13 February 2014 Table 2-10 Summary of Pipelines by Material Material Total Length (feet) Total Length (miles) Total Length (percent) Steel Pipes Steel (Unspecified) 49,790 9.4 3.20% Dipped and Wrapped (D&W) 70,533 13.4 4.53% Double Dipped and Wrapped (DD&W) 93,395 17.7 6.00% Concrete Lined and Coated (CL&C) 143,019 27.1 9.19% Concrete Lined and Wrapped (CL&W) 48,189 9.1 3.10% Cement Mortar Lined (CML) 1,289 0.2 0.08% Subtotal Steel Pipes(1) 406,215 76.9 26.11 % Iron Pipe 0.00% Cast Iron 3,297 0.6 0.21% Ductile Iron 379,715 71.9 24.40% Galvanized Iron Pipe 360 0.1 0.02% Subtotal Iron Pipes(1) 383,372 72.6 24.64 % Other Pipe Material 0.00% Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) 12,669 2.4 0.81% Asbestos Cement (AC) 752,625 142.5 48.37% Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) 897 0.2 0.06% Copper (COP) 107 0.0 0.01% Subtotal Other Material Pipes(1) 766,298 145.1 49.25 % 0.00% Unknown 1,267 0.2 0.08% 0.00% Grand Total(1) 1,556,000 294.7 100.00% Source: Information presented in Table 2-10 is based on EVWD’s GIS data (1) – Subtotals and Grand Totals may not add up due to rounding. In addition to the facilities described above, EVWD’s system includes many other smaller facilities, including valves, fire hydrants, customer meters, and a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system to control and monitor system facilities, and a GIS database. The EVWD’s distribution system network includes approximately 7,992 valves, which range in diameter from 1-inch to 36-inches. The distribution of valve diameters is summarized in the numbers presented in Table 2-11. About 67 percent of the distribution system valves consist of valves that are 6 inches or 8 inches in diameter. Page Intentionally Left Blank Project Number: 10502575 2-16 February 2014 Table 2-11 Summary of Valves by Diameter Diameter (inches) Total Number of Valves Percentage of Total Valves (%) 1 317 4.0% 1 ½ 2 0.0% 2 214 2.7% 3 14 0.2% 4 735 9.2% 4 ½ 6 0.1% 5 ½ 1 0.0% 6 3,646 45.6% 6 5/8 52 0.7% 8 1,736 21.7% 8 5/8 38 0.5% 10 52 0.7% 10 ¾ 21 0.3% 12 734 9.2% 12 3/4 69 0.9% 14 18 0.2% 14 ½ 1 0.0% 16 236 3.0% 18 1 0.0% 20 59 0.7% 21 5/64 6 0.1% 24 12 0.2% 30 3 0.0% 36 13 0.2% Unknown 6 0.1% Total 7,992 100.0 % Source: Information presented in Table 2-11 is based on EVWD’s GIS data Of the 7,992 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 90 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 (%) Gate 7,161 89.6% Butterfly 365 4.6% Control 3 0.0% Air Vacuum 397 5.0% Curb Stop 3 0.0% Double Detector Check 56 0.7% RP Device 4 0.1% Check Valve 3 0.0% Total 7,992 100.0 % Source: Information presented in Table 2-12 is based on EVWD’s GIS data Project Number: 10502575 2-17 February 2014 The EVWD’s distribution system network consists of approximately 2,893 fire hydrants, which range in diameter from 1-inch to 12-inches. The distribution of fire hydrant diameters is summarized in the numbers presented in Table 2-13. About 97 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 8 0.3% 2 76 2.6% 4 482 16.7% 6 2,324 80.3% 12 3 0.1% Total 2,893 100.0 % Source: Information presented in Table 2-13 is based on EVWD’s GIS data Of the 2,893 fire hydrants in EVWD’s water distribution system, there are a total of six 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. Table 2-14 Summary of Fire Hydrants by Type Type Total Number of Hydrants Percentage of Total Hydrants (%) Standard 306 10.6% Pumper 2,191 75.7% Blow off 352 12.2% Flush out 38 1.3% Standard (2 Outlets) 5 0.2% Total 2,892 100.0 % Source: Information presented in Table 2-14 is based on EVWD’s GIS data The EVWD’s distribution system network includes approximately 22,796 customer meters, which range in diameter from 5/8-inches to 8-inches. The distribution of meter diameters is summarized in the numbers presented in Table 2-15. About 98.5 percent of the distribution system meters consist of ¾-inch meters. Project Number: 10502575 2-18 February 2014 Table 2-15 Summary of Meters by Diameter Diameter (inches) Total Number of Meters Percentage of Total Meters (%) 5/8 2,401 10.53% ¾ 14,084 61.78% 1 5,285 23.18% 1.5 276 1.21% 2 316 1.39% 3 146 0.64% 4 88 0.39% 6 136 0.60% 8 64 0.28% Total 22,796 100.00 % Source: Information presented in Table 2-15 is based on EVWD’s GIS data Of the 22,796 meters in the EVWD’s water distribution system, there are a total of four meter types: domestic, fire, irrigation, and commercial. Approximately 99 percent of the distribution system meters are domestic meters. Table 2-16 Summary of Meters by Type Type Total Number of Valves Percentage of Total Valves (%) Domestic 21,619 99.5% Fire 13 0.1% Irrigation 45 0.2% Commercial 48 0.2% Total 21,725 100% Source: Information presented in Table 2-16 is based on EVWD’s GIS data The 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 20 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 EVWD maintains a 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 includes laterals, mains, manholes, meters, treatment plants, pumps, pressure regulating stations, and valves. Data for each facility includes installation year, material, diameter, etc. as appropriate. This data is updated as old facilities are repaired or replaced and as new facilities are installed. Page Intentionally Left Blank Project Number: 10502575 3-1 February 2014 This section describes the existing water demands, the population projections, and the projected future water demands for EVWD’s service area. The future water demands are calculated based on population through year 2035. 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 section includes a discussion comparing the growth projections developed for this WSMP and EVWD’s Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. A discussion on the impact of water conservation practices within the EVWD service area on future demands is also discussed. The historical water production for the period 2009 through 2012 along with the maximum month production (MMP) is presented in Table 3-1. The average annual water production in this period is approximately 21,454 acre-feet per year (AFY) with the highest production occurring in 2009 (22,722 AFY) and the lowest production in 2010 (20,663 AFY). The MMP peaking factors range from 1.45 to 1.5, which are typical values for water systems of this size in Southern California. Table 3-1 Historical Water Production Calendar Year Annual Average (AF) Average Month (AF) Maximum Month (AF)(1) MMP(2) Peaking Factor 2009 22,722 1,894 2,701 1.43 2010 20,663 1,722 2,546 1.48 2011 20,637 1,720 2,573 1.50 2012 21,792 1,816 2,656 1.46 Average 21,454 1,788 2,619 1.47 Maximum 21,136 1,761 2,598 1.48 (1) AF = acre-feet (2) MMP = Maximum Month Production Average day demand (ADD) is a baseline for computing peaking factors. 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. These estimated MDD and PHD are the demand conditions used to size water distribution system pipelines and facilities. Historical monthly and daily production data are used to calculate these peaking factors and are presented in Table 3-2. The PHD peaking factor is discussed in Section 5 of this report. Project Number: 10502575 3-2 February 2014 Table 3-2 Historical Daily Demands and Maximum Day Peaking Factors Year ADD (mgd) MDD (mgd) MDD Peaking Factor 2009 24.21 38.72 1.6 2010 22.00 39.49 1.8 2011 21.97 37.84 1.7 2012 23.26 40.93 1.8 Source: Historical Production Records (EVWD, 2013) The MDD peaking factors (MDD/ADD) varied between 1.6 and 1.8 over four previous years. These values are representative of a system that has a significant percentage of commercial and industrial water demand that is fairly uniform throughout the year. A conservative peaking factor value of 1.8 was selected as the MDD/ADD ratio, which is a value similar to other water utilities and commonly accepted industry standards. Yearly water consumption information is obtained from EVWD for the period 2003 through 2012. This data is summarized in Table 3-3 and depicted on Figure 3-1. Table 3-3 Historical Potable Water Consumption Year Average Annual Consumption (MGD) 2003 19.3 2004 20.9 2005 19.7 2006 21.4 2007 21.9 2008 19.8 2009 18.8 2010 16.6 2011 16.9 2012 17.9 Average 19.3 Source: Historical Consumption Records (EVWD, 2013) Figure 3-1 shows the historical consumption for the 2003-2012 periods. As shown on Figure 3-1, the total average water consumption increased to approximately 22 mgd in 2007. Since then, due to the economic downturn associated with the collapse of the housing market, water consumption has progressively declined. In 2010, the total average water consumption was 16.6 mgd, approximately 30 percent lower than the 2007 consumption. Overall water consumption seems to have stabilized in 2011 before increasing to approximately 18 mgd in 2012. Project Number: 10502575 3-3 February 2014 Figure 3-1 Historic Water Consumption in EVWD’s Service Area 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, such as reservoir overflows or leakage, hydrant flushing and fire-fighting. Average percentages of unaccounted-for water per year are shown in Table 3-4. Table 3-4 Unaccounted-For Water Year Water Produced (AF) Water Consumed (AF) Unaccounted-For Water (%) 2009 22,700 21,100 7% 2010 20,663 18,600 10% 2011 20,600 19,000 8% 2012 21,800 20,100 8% Average 21,400 19,700 8% Source: Production and consumption values provided by EVWD staff. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Co n s u m p t i o n ( M G D ) Year Project Number: 10502575 3-4 February 2014 Population within EVWD’s service area is utilized to analyze existing and future water needs. The population data are obtained from the following sources: • United States Census Bureau • San Bernardino Association of Governments (SANBAG) • California Department of Finance Additional details regarding the existing and future population for EVWD’s service area are presented in the following paragraphs. Population for year 2010 for EVWD’s service area is considered to be representative of the baseline population. The 2010 population serves as the basis for future water demand projections and for the evaluation of water conservation effectiveness. Population within the service area is estimated by analyzing 2010 census block information which is publicly available from the United State Census Bureau. Population estimates are calculated for each census block located within the service area. For census blocks partially located within the service area, the estimated population is adjusted based on the percentage of the census block area located within the service area. Census blocks are also visually inspected against aerial imagery to validate the adjustments made for blocks that are partially located within the service area. The 2010 population within the service area is 97,001. Table 3-5 summarizes the 2010 baseline population for EVWD’s service area. Table 3-5 Baseline Population for EVWD’s Service Area Source 2010 Population (1) 2010 Population within the Service Area - Census Blocks completely within EVWD Service Area 97,057 Adjusted 2010 Population within Census Blocks that partially overlap Service Area 2,821 Total unadjusted 2010 population within Service Area 99,878 Population Adjustments Eastwood Farms Annexation 2010 Population 375 Baseline Gardens Annexation 2010 Population 2,502 Total Population within recently Annexed Areas 2,877 Total Baseline 2010 population within Service Area minus population within Annexed Areas 97,001 (1) Population data are obtained from publicly available information from the United State Census Bureau (2010). Project Number: 10502575 3-5 February 2014 MWH reviewed population estimates for EVWD’s service area developed as part of other studies such as the 2010 Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP), the 2013 Water Use Efficiency Plan, and the 2014 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. MWH also estimated population within the service area based on information available from the California Department of Finance. Findings from these reviews are summarized in Table 3-6. Table 3-6 Population from Other Sources Source 2010 Population 2013 Water Use Efficiency Plan(1) 63,055 California Department of Finance(2) 79,889 2013 Draft Wastewater Collection System Master Plan(3) 93,500 (1) Kennedy/Jenks Consultants estimate for the 2010 population for EVWD’s service area. (2) MWH’s estimate for 2010 population is based on the number of persons per household and the number of service connections. The number of service connections in 2012 is estimated to be 23,126. Per the California Department of Finance’s estimates on Population and Housing for 2012, the number of persons per household in the City of Highland is 3.453. Per the 2012 estimates, the number of persons per household in the City of San Bernardino is 3.44. (3) Black and Veatch’s estimate for the 2010 population for EVWD’s service area based on the 2008 Regional Transportation Plan and SANBAG’s Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) data. As shown in Table 3-6, there is significant variation in the population estimates documented in other studies reviewed by MWH. MWH’s estimated 2010 population of 97,001 is approximately 3.7 percent higher than the estimate used in the 2014 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan and approximately 53 percent higher than the estimate used in the 2013 Water Use Efficiency Plan. EVWD reviewed these estimates and directed MWH to use MWH’s estimate of 97,001 as the baseline population for EVWD’s service area. Population forecasts developed by SANBAG form the basis of the projections developed by MWH for EVWD’s service area. MWH developed population projections for the following four scenarios: • Scenario 1: SANBAG Projections through year 2035. Assumes growth in the service area effective 2011. • Scenario 2: SANBAG Projections from 2016 through 2035. No growth in the service area until 2015. • Scenario 3: SANBAG Projections through year 2035. All major developments are constructed between year 2015 and year 2020. • Scenario 4: SANBAG Projections through year 2035. All major developments are constructed between year 2020 and year 2035. Scenarios 3 and 4 assume that growth associated with the major developments are not included in the SANBAG projections. Figure 3-2 shows the population projections for these scenarios. Project Number: 10502575 3-6 February 2014 Figure 3-2 Population Projections for EVWD’s Service Area The projections range from approximately 125,000 people by year 2035 in Scenarios 1 and 2 to approximately 142,000 people by year 2035 in Scenarios 3 and 4. Scenarios 1 and 2 represent a 30 percent increase in population from the baseline or year 2010 conditions. Scenarios 3 and 4 represent a 46 percent increase from the baseline or year 2010 conditions. Populations for Scenarios 3 and 4 are different from Scenarios 1 and 2 as they include the following proposed developments summarized in Table 3-7. It cannot be verified whether populations for these developments are captured in the population projections developed by SANBAG. There is no publicly available information regarding the timing of these potential developments. Table 3-7 Population Estimates for Proposed Developments within EVWD’s Service Area Proposed Developments Estimated Population at Build Out Harmony 11,989 Arnott Ranch 248 Highland Hills Ranch 1,650 Greenspot Village and Marketplace 2,800 Total Population 16,686 Source: Population for Harmony is estimated by MWH based on a review of RBF Consulting’s Study for the Harmony Development. Populations for the other developments are estimated by MWH based on information presented in Section 2 of Black and Veatch’s Draft 2013 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. A comparison between the population estimates developed by MWH and the population estimates presented in Black and Veatch’s 2014 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan are summarized in Table 3-8. 90,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000 140,000 150,000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Po p u l a t i o n Year Scenario 1 - SANBAG Projections Scenario 2 - No Growth, SANBAG Scenario 3 - Development 2015-2020, SANBAG Scenario 4 - Development 2020-2035, SANBAG Project Number: 10502575 3-7 February 2014 Table 3-8 Population Estimates for Proposed Developments within EVWD’s Service Area Population Range MWH Estimate Black and Veatch Estimate(1) Low End 124,780 126,300 High End 141,466 150,700 (1) Population estimates obtained from the 2014 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Water production within the service area has declined over the past few years primarily due to the economic recession. In order to avoid using a year with lower than average production, existing per capita water use for EVWD’s service is estimated based on an average water production for the 2009 through 2012 period. This information is presented in Table 3-9. Table 3-9 Existing Per Capita Water Use for the Service Area Year Annual Production (Million Gallons) Production (Gallons Per Day) 2009 7,404 20,285,340 2010 6,733 18,446,553 2011 6,725 18,423,559 2012 7,101 19,454,958 Average Production (gallons per day) 19,152,603 Per Capita Demand (gallons per capita per day) = Average Production/Baseline Population 197 Source: Production data provided by EVWD staff. As shown in Table 3-9, MWH estimates that the existing per capita water use is approximately 197 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). This is approximately 43 percent lower than the 10-year base daily per capita water use reported in the 2010 RUWMP. Based on a review of the 2010 RUWMP, it is observed that the population differences explained previously in this section resulted in a higher estimate of per capita water use for EVWD’s service area for the RUWMP. It is recommended that the basis for the RUWMP per capita values be reassessed in light of the differing population values as it affects EVWD’s compliance with the requirements of Senate Bill SB x7-7. Per capita water use for future customers is assumed to be lower than for the existing customers in the service area due to the impacts of water conservation policies. Per capita water use for residential customers is estimated to be 130 gpcd while per capita water use for commercial, industrial, and institutional customers is estimated to be 42 gpcd. Table 3-10 presents the details of these estimates. The future per capita water use of 172 gpcd represents 13 percent conservation from the existing per capita water use of 197 gpcd. The estimates for future per capita use are consistent with Method 2 for calculating Compliance Water Use Targets published in the guidebook for the 2010 UWMP. Project Number: 10502575 3-8 February 2014 Table 3-10 Future Per Capita Water Use for the 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 CIMIS 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) 3.453 H Per Capita Water Use (F/365/G) 75 gpcd I Indoor Water Use (Target Indoor Water Use per Method 2 of the UWMP) 55 gpcd J Total Residential Water Use (H+I) 130 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 97,001 M CII Water Use (K/L) 46.73 gpcd N 10 percent savings on CII Water Use (0.1 x M) (per Method 2 of the UWMP) 4.673 gpcd O Total Residential Water Use (M - N) 42 gpcd P Per Capita Water Use for Future Customers 172 gpcd Project Number: 10502575 3-9 February 2014 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 customers is assumed to be 197 gpcd. Per capita water use for future customers is assumed to be 172 gpcd. Demands based on population for EVWD’s service area are presented on Figure 3-3. Figure 3-3 Water Demand Projections for EVWD’s Service Area (based on population) The projections range from approximately 27,000 AF by year 2035 in Scenarios 1 and 2 to approximately 31,000 AF by year 2035 in Scenarios 3 and 4. Scenarios 1 and 2 represent a 25 percent increase in population from the baseline, or year 2010 conditions. Scenarios 3 and 4 represent a 43 percent increase from the baseline, or year 2010 conditions. Demands for Scenarios 3 and 4 are different from Scenarios 1 and 2 as they include the following proposed developments which are summarized in Table 3-11. 20,000 22,000 24,000 26,000 28,000 30,000 32,000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 De m a n d i n A c r e - F e e t Year Scenario 1 - SANBAG Projections Scenario 2 - No Growth, SANBAG Scenario 3 - Development 2015-2020, SANBAG Scenario 4 - Development 2020-2035, SANBAG Project Number: 10502575 3-10 February 2014 Table 3-11 Demand Estimates for Proposed Developments within EVWD’s Service Area Proposed Developments Estimated Demand at Build Out (AFY) Harmony 3,168 Arnott Ranch 36 Highland Hills Ranch 240 Greenspot Village and Marketplace 539 Total Demand 3,982 Source: Demand for Harmony is estimated by MWH based on a review of RBF Consulting’s Study for the Harmony Development. Demands for the other developments are estimated by MWH based on information presented in Section 2 of Black and Veatch’s 2014 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Existing and future production requirements for EVWD’s service area are estimated based on development projections, land use classifications, and water duty factors. A water duty 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 are presented in the following paragraphs. Water consumption data and the spatial location of water meters in the system are used for establishing existing water duty factors. Using GIS processes such as geocoding, a link IS established between the spatial location of the meters and the water consumption data. A three- year average (2010-2012) demand is developed for these meters. General Plan Land Use and Existing Land Use shapefiles are obtained from the SANBAG website. Based on their spatial locations within the service area, a land use type is assigned for each meter. Land use designations are also assigned to all parcels within EVWD’s service area. Figure 3-4 and Figure 3-5 show the General Plan Land Use and the Existing Land Use, respectively, for the service area. Table 3-12 shows the land use classifications within the service area and summarizes the vacant and occupied acreage for each land use within the system. Project Number: 10502575 3-11 February 2014 Table 3-12 Land Use Classifications and Acreage Land Use Total Area(1) (Acres) Land Use as percent of Total Vacant Area(1) (Acres) Occupied Area(1) (Acres) Agricultural 832 5% 529 303 Commercial 1,279 8% 392 888 Industrial 156 1% 61 95 Multi-Family Residential 1,060 6% 187 872 Open Land 3,565 21% 3,565 0 Parks 119 1% 0 119 Public 795 5% 66 729 Single-Family Residential 9,061 54% 3,932 5,129 Total 16,868 100% 8,732 8,136 (1) All Land Use classifications are based on SANBAG General Plan Land Use while vacant acreage was calculated based on Existing Land Use from SANBAG. After designating land use types for every parcel, the meters with consumption data are 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. 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 2010 to 2012) in gallons per day (gpd) by the area (in acres) of the parcel it serves. These values are then averaged for every meter in the system by land use type. Aerial photography is reviewed to ensure that vacant parcels are omitted. Table 3-13 contains the water duty factors for the different land use types based on production. 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. After applying these factors to the parcels within the service area, the total calculated demand is 27,000 AFY. A review of the consumption data adjusted for water losses indicates that the three-year consumption average for the period 2010-2012 is approximately 19,700 AFY. Page Intentionally Left Blank º00.510.25 Miles \\uspas1s01\MUNI\Clients\ East Valley WD\Water System Master Plan \14 Electronic Files - Modeling\GIS\_MXDs\ 2nd try\landusetry2.mxd Document: Date:January 28, 2014 Agricultural Commercial Industrial Multi-Family Residential Open Land Parks Public Single-Family Residential Service Area Boundary Key to Features Figure 3-4 General Plan Land Use Figure 3-5 Existing Land Useº00.510.25 Miles \\uspas1s01\MUNI\Clients\ East Valley WD\Water System Master Plan \14 Electronic Files - Modeling\GIS\_MXDs\ 2nd try\landusetry2.mxd Document: Date:January 28, 2014 Agricultural Commercial Industrial Multi-Family Residential Open Land Parks Public Single-Family Residential Service Area Boundary Key to Features Vacant/Not Categorized Project Number: 10502575 3-14 February 2014 Table 3-13 Calculated Water Duty Factors Land Use Water Duty Factor All Meters (gallons per day per acre) Agricultural 1,600 Commercial 2,050 Industrial 1,000 Multi-Family Residential 3,500 Open Land - Parks 3,250 Public 3,250 Single-Family Residential 3,100 Existing Demand 27,000 AF Source: The water duty factors are based on the existing land use. The discrepancy between the calculated demand and the actual demand for the service area indicates that the estimated water duty factors are not representative of existing conditions. 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 is warranted. In order to estimate a water duty factor for single-family residential parcels that is representative of existing conditions, a sampling method is employed. Groups of parcels representing single- family houses are selected across 15 different locations spread throughout the EVWD service area. Water duty factors are then estimated for each group. The water duty factor for the residential land use type is considered to be the average water duty factor across all groups sampled. Locations used for sampling are presented on Figure 3-6. Table 3-14 shows the resulting single-family residential water duty factor from the sampling methodology. The adjusted existing system demand due to adjustments in the single family residential water duty factor is 24,700 acre-ft/year, approximately 15 percent higher than existing demands estimated using the population methodology. 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 Source: This water duty factor is based on sampling parcels in 15 locations throughout the EVWD service area. Page Intentionally Left Blank Figure 3-6 Single-Family Residential Sampling Locations º00.510.25 Miles \\uspas1s01\MUNI\Clients\ East Valley WD\Water System Master Plan \14 Electronic Files - Modeling\GIS\_MXDs\ 2nd try\landusetry2.mxd Document: Date:January 28, 2014 Service Area Boundary Key to Features Sample Location Project Number: 10502575 3-16 February 2014 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 SANBAG. Build out demands for parcels that are currently occupied are estimated using the existing duty factor estimated for the land use types. In order to establish build out demands for vacant parcels that have the potential to develop in the future, an adjusted water duty factor is developed to account for water conservation. Existing water duty factors are lowered by 13 percent to reflect the impacts of conservation. This adjustment is consistent with the 13 percent reduction for future per capita water use discussed earlier in this Section. Table 3-15 shows the water duty factors for existing and future developments. The projected build out water demand is approximately 37,600 acre-ft/year which is 40 percent higher than Scenarios 1 and 2 and approximately 25 percent higher than Scenarios 3 and 4. Table 3-15 Build Out System Water Duty Factors Land Use Existing Infrastructure Water Duty Factors(1) (gallons per day per acre) Future Developments Water Duty Factors(2) (gallons per day per acre) Agricultural 1,600 1,400 Commercial 2,050 1,800 Industrial 1,000 850 Multi-Family Residential 3,500 3,050 Open Land - 1,100 Parks 3,250 2,850 Public 3,250 2,850 Single-Family Residential 2,700 2,350 Total Demand 37,600 AF (1) Calculated based on land use (2) Accounts for 13% conservation. The effects of the on-going recession on future growth cannot be accurately quantified. Although the current slowdown in the economy will affect growth in the EVWD service area in the near future, it is likely that growth will resume and steadily continue within the service area during the 25-year planning horizon of this WSMP. This is also indicated by the resumption in development activity within EVWD’s service area with proposed developments such as the Harmony Development, the Arnott Development, the Highland Hills Development, and the Greenspot Village and Marketplace Development being in various stages of planning. In order to be conservative for the purposes of planning, it is recommended the most aggressive growth projection for year 2035 (Scenarios 3 and 4) be utilized for the purposes of sizing infrastructure to serve future growth. Page Intentionally Left Blank Project Number: 10502575 4-1 February 2014 This section describes the processes utilized to develop and calibrate the hydraulic model of EVWD’s potable water system. First, the development of the model distribution network from EVWD’s geographical information system (GIS) is described. Subsequently, the allocation of pressure zones, ground elevations, and water demands are discussed. This section concludes with a discussion of the model calibration process, which is performed to verify the model results with field measurements. In preparation for model calibration, a technical memorandum (MWH, 2013) was presented to EVWD which outlined the fire hydrant testing procedures, equipment list, and hydrant maps needed to perform hydrant tests at 20 locations throughout the system. The technical memorandum is attached to this report as Appendix B. The calibrated model will be used to perform system analyses of the system under existing demand conditions and future demand conditions. The hydraulic model of the EVWD potable water system is created using Innovyze’s InfoWater software, which is based on ESRI’s ArcGIS platform. The ArcGIS files for the distribution system network provided by EVWD are used as a base for creating the hydraulic model for this Water System Master Plan (WSMP). The hydraulic model contains all pipelines and facilities (booster pumps, storage tanks, wells, and pressure reducing valves) present in the ArcGIS geodatabase provided by EVWD. Data used for the development of the hydraulic model is obtained from a variety of sources. Key information includes: • GIS database of all water mains, laterals, and water facilities • Hydraulic water system schematic • Dimensions for storage reservoirs • Pump curves and performance tests for booster pumps • Pump controls and settings of pressure regulating valves • Water production records (2009-2012) • Customer usage records (2002-2012) • Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) data • General Plan and land use information • Ground elevation contour lines • Street centerline data • Aerial photography coverage • Imported and emergency water connections, sizes, and capacity • Summary of projects currently under construction or scheduled for construction in near future Project Number: 10502575 4-2 February 2014 All pipelines and facilities included in the hydraulic model are obtained from the GIS information provided by EVWD. The spatial representation of the hydraulic model in NAD83 datum, California State Plane Zone V coordinate system is consistent with the coordinate system in which EVWD’s GIS data are projected. All pipelines and facilities in the model are checked for accuracy and some pipelines and facilities are redrawn to resolve model connectivity issues. Model attributes for pipelines include the pipe number, pipeline length, diameter, material, roughness, and pressure zone. While most of these attributes are provided by EVWD, the roughness attribute is based on the age and material of the pipeline as shown in Table 4-1. Table 4-1 Pipeline Roughness Material Hazen Williams C-Factor(1) Asbestos Cement 130 Cast-Iron(3) 64 Cement Mortar Lined Steel 125 Copper 125 Dipped and Wrapped Steel (3) 100 Ductile Iron 130 Steel (2) 135 Unknown 100 (1) C Factors are estimated based on the age and the material of the pipeline. (2) Assumed to be cement lined based on the typical age of installation. (3) Pipelines older than 40 years are assigned a low C-factor of 100. Pressure regulating valves (PRVs) are modeled with information such as valve diameter, pressure zones, valve settings, and minor loss coefficients. Pressure settings provided by EVWD are used for each active valve. Zone isolation valves are modeled where the geodatabase indicates the presence of normally closed valves. The zone isolation valves are modeled with an initial status set to “CLOSED”. Junctions are defined as the intersections of two or more pipelines, or at the location where any pipeline changes diameter or material. Attribute information for junctions include elevation, demand, and pressure zone. Fire hydrants are modeled as junctions and the fire flow demands are recorded in the model at these junctions. Project Number: 10502575 4-3 February 2014 Storage tanks are modeled as cylindrical tanks. Their locations and pressure zones are determined from the system map provided by EVWD. Attributes such as elevation, diameter, tank height, and installation year are included based on a tank summary report provided by EVWD. 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 but they are not modeled as tanks. Instead, they are represented by a pump set to the “ON” position flowing directly to a PRV. The valve is set to the pressure level observed in the field for the zone. Pressures experienced in a hydro- pneumatic zone can be satisfactorily simulated by using this modeling technique. The pump database in the model is populated with a plant number and pump curve for each pump or well in the system. Manufacturer’s pump curve information is provided by EVWD for the following pumps: • Plant 39 booster #2 • Plant 39 well • Plant 125 well • Plant 143 well Each pump is modeled as an adjusted multi-point curve based on the manufacturer’s pump curves in conjunction with the most recent Southern California Edison Company (SCE) test data. Where pump curve data are not available, total dynamic head and corresponding flow information obtained from the most recent SCE pump test results are used in the model. The model creates design point curves, which allow the pumps to produce head up to 133 percent of the recorded head and flow up to two times the recorded flow. It is recommended that as new pumps are installed throughout the system, the model be updated with the manufacturer’s pump curve adjusted for SCE test data. Each well is modeled as a reservoir and a pump, where the reservoir represents the groundwater aquifer and the pump represents the well pump. The reservoirs are modeled as “fixed head” (i.e. unlimited volume of water at a specified elevation) reservoirs with a water elevation equal to the static groundwater level minus drawdown. 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 average flow observed for each calibration period. Project Number: 10502575 4-4 February 2014 The identification scheme used in the existing system model is based on 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. Elevations for the model are derived from contour data (two feet intervals) provided by EVWD. Using the contour data, ground elevations are extracted and assigned to all junctions and facilities (with the exception of storage reservoirs) in the model. Elevations for storage reservoirs are assigned based on information contained in the summary sheets provided by EVWD. The water demands for existing conditions are based on customer usage information (billing data) provided by EVWD. The billing data covers the water usage for nearly 22,796 accounts for the period of November 2002 to December 2012. The data includes information on service IDs, street addresses, and monthly consumption. The average daily demand used in the model is based on four years of data (2009-2012) to reduce errors that may be caused by unusual consumption patterns in a single high or low water year. Based on these four years of data, the average water consumption for the entire water system is 12,200 gpm (17.6 MGD). Table 4-2 contains a comparison of the consumption and production data in the system over the same four- year period. On average, EVWD loses around eight percent of the water produced through leaks, firefighting, maintenance tasks, and other unaccounted for use, which is typical and acceptable in potable water systems. Table 4-2 Water Losses Year Produced Water (gpm) Billed Consumption (gpm) Water Losses (gpm) Water Losses (% of production) 2009 14,100 13,100 1,000 7 2010 12,800 11,500 1,300 10 2011 12,800 11,800 1,000 8 2012 13,500 12,500 1,000 8 Average 13,300 12,200 1,100 8 Project Number: 10502575 4-5 February 2014 The process of geographically locating each billing record is known as geocoding. Each billing record is geographically located using the street addresses in the billing data and street centerline GIS coverage. The geocoding process electronically places the location of each service connection on a map. The demands are then scaled up to account for the water losses in the system. Demands are allocated to “demand” junctions based on proximity to the geocoded consumption data. The existing system model is comprised of nearly 21,000 pipelines and 20,000 junctions. To incorporate the demands into the hydraulic model, demand nodes are selected that represent a small area of multiple accounts. Demand junctions are selected based on pressure zone boundaries and proximity to meter locations. All junctions associated with water facilities or transmission pipes are excluded from the demand allocation process. Upon completion of the demand allocation process, the locations of the top 25 largest customers in the service area are manually verified, as these large customers can impact system hydraulics significantly. 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, 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. A diurnal curve represents the average hourly demand fluctuation in a water system. The diurnal curve for EVWD’s potable distribution system is created based on hourly production and tank level information from the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (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 diurnal curve is presented on Figure 4-1. This curve represents the average hourly demand fluctuation of all pressure zones on August 9, 2012 and is representative of a hot summer day for the year 2012. The diurnal curve is created by preparing an hourly mass balance using well production, imported water supplies, and change in storage. As shown on Figure 4-1, the peak hour occurs around noon, which has a demand of 1.5 times the average demand of that day. 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 pressure reducing stations and pumping stations. The diurnal curve shows a unique demand pattern as there is little to no peaking in usage commonly seen in the evening in most systems that are predominantly residential. This pattern was confirmed with EVWD operations staff. Project Number: 10502575 4-6 February 2014 Figure 4-1 System Wide Diurnal Curve The hydraulic model with the existing system configuration and demands is calibrated to enhance the accuracy of the model results and provide a planning tool that 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 making model modifications where appropriate to simulate the field results as closely as possible. Typical adjustments include adjustments to system connectivity, operational controls, facility configurations, diurnal patterns, elevations, 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, and roughness coefficients for pipelines. 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 (May 14th and 16th, 2013) • 24-hour Extended Period Simulation (EPS) Calibration: Modifying the model until it mimics the field operations on the day of calibration (August 9, 2012) 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. To 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223 Wa t e r U s e (h o u r l y / av e r a g e ) Project Number: 10502575 4-7 February 2014 facilitate this exercise, fire hydrant tests are conducted at 20 locations throughout the distribution system. Appendix B provides a detailed description of all data gathered for the steady state and EPS calibration efforts. 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 5 pounds per square inch (psi) lower than the static pressure recorded at the gauging hydrant. The flow measured at the hydrant is then input to 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 20 fire hydrant tests are shown in Figure 4-2. Table 4-3 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 4-3. 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 4-3 and Figure 4-3, nearly all of the model results are within 10 feet of head (4.5 psi) of the observed field data as promulgated by AWWA’s Computer Modeling Manual M32. Four tests (Location Numbers 17, 18, 19, and 20) are outside the acceptable limits. Each of these four tests is performed in zones regulated by hydropneumatic tanks. In general, hydropneumatic zones have at least one small pump to meet demands under normal operations and one large pump to meet fire or other emergency conditions. The large pump remains OFF under normal operations. When running fire flow tests with a steady state model, the emergency pumps are turned on immediately to respond to the drop in system pressures. In reality, the emergency pumps turn on after some pressure is already lost from the system. Based on discussions with EVWD staff, it was agreed that calibrating the model for static pressures is sufficient for fire flow tests conducted within hydropneumatic zones. Two locations required further evaluation during steady state calibration. A 90 psi pressure drop was observed during the hydrant test at Location 12 in the Canal Zone. However, the hydraulic model simulated a 21 psi drop at this location. It appeared that this could be caused by a partially closed valve in the vicinity of the test location. This information was presented to EVWD staff and field investigations later revealed the presence of a closed valve in the system consistent with the model results. The hydrant at Location 16 is located in the Highland Upper zone where flow is controlled solely by PRVs. Based on discussions with EVWD staff, it was found that one of the valves at the station was closed because of leaks in the syst em. Adjusting the pressure setting at this PRV resolved the pressure discrepancy between the observed data and the simulated results. 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 extended period simulation (EPS) model provides a better understanding of the operations of a water distribution system than a Project Number: 10502575 4-8 February 2014 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 August 8, 2012 and midnight August 9, 2012, approximating operations on a peak summer day. The total water production on this day was calculated to be 17,700 gpm (25.5 MGD). This is equal to 1.33 times the Average Day Demand (ADD) for the 2010-2012 time period. 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. The modeled versus field data for the storage tanks, booster stations, and groundwater wells on calibration day are presented in Appendix C. Project Number: 10502575 4-9 February 2014 Table 4-3 Steady State Comparison Table Location Number Zone Date (2013) Time Address of gaging hydrant (direction to flowing hydrants) Average Flow Rate Observed/ Modeled (gpm) Static Pressure Observed (psi) Static Pressure Simulated (psi) Change in Static Pressure Over Observed Residual Pressure Observed (psi) Residual Pressure Simulated (psi) Change in Residual Pressure Over Observed Observed Pressure Drop Comparison (psi) Simulated Pressure Drop Comparison (psi) 1 Lower May14 8:15 AM Pine St./ E. 4th St. (West) 865 85 84 1% 79 79 1% 6 6 2 Lower May14 9:04 AM 7114 Elmwood Rd. (South) 1,450 60 58 4% 49 53 8% 11 5 3 Intermediate May14 11:52 AM Hibiscus St./ Central Ave. (East) 1,058 78 79 2% 68 74 8% 10 6 4 Intermediate May14 8:38 AM Base Line St./ McKinley St. (South) 2,620 100 104 4% 95 97 2% 5 7 5 Intermediate May14 10:00 AM 2355 Osbun Rd. (South) 1,115 72 74 2% 69 71 3% 3 3 6 Upper May14 10:15 AM Val Mar Dr./ Newcomb St. (South) 1,168 85 85 1% 76 74 2% 9 10 7 Upper May14 12:10 PM Fisher St./ Center St. (East) 908 108 102 5% 79 72 9% 29 31 8 Upper May16 9:54 AM Canyon Oak Dr./ Streater Ave. (East) 1,220 106 100 5% 100 98 2% 6 2 9 Foothill May16 9:42 AM Lochinvar Ct./ Lochinvar Rd. (North) 1,165 108 105 3% 99 100 1% 9 5 10 Foothill May16 8:45 AM 21st St./ Rainbow Ln. (West) 1,170 108 106 2% 103 102 1% 5 4 11 Foothill May14 10:35 AM Edgemont Dr./ Arden Ave. (East) 1,365 132 130 1% 124 124 0% 8 7 12 Canal May14 10:52 AM Juniper Dr./Manzanita Dr. (Northeast) 710 134 134 0% 44 44* 0% 90 90 13 Canal May16 7:54 AM Lynwood Dr./ Palm Ave. (Southeast) 1,000 102 99 3% 92 89 3% 10 10 14 Canal May16 9:30 AM Havenwood Ln./Westwood Ln. (East) 1,000 82 82 0% 76 75 1% 6 7 15 Mountain May16 9:20 AM Horner Ln./ Bernard Ln. (West) 1,220 112 114 1% 103 100 3% 9 13 16 Highland Upper May14 11:33 AM Fisher St./ Orange St. (West) 788 84 84 1% 52 48 7% 32 36 17 Hydro 34 May14 9:36 AM 6547 Monte Vista Dr. (East and North) 865 52 52 1% 26 48 86% 26 4 18 Hydro 59 May14 11:10 AM 3712 N. Hemlock Dr. (Southwest) 500 72 72 1% 52 60 14% 20 13 19 Hydro 101 May16 8:25 AM 3074 N Small Canyon Dr (South and East on Mountain Top Dr.) 945 84 82 3% 44 58 31% 40 24 20 Hydro 149 May16 9:02 AM 6456 Emmerton Ln. (Southwest) 1,115 80 80 1% 39 59 51% 41 21 *Original model result showed a residual pressure of 113 psi. The value in the table resembles the model after a partially closed valve was simulated. EVWD has since found the partially closed valve and opened it. DRAFT 4-11 February 2014 Project Number: 1008070 Figure 4-3 Hydrant Testing Pressure Comparisons Project Number: 10502575 4-12 February 2014 In order to achieve a balanced and calibrated model, the following adjustments are made in the model: • Based on the SCE test point and the standard pump curves in the model, five wells were producing nearly two times the flow observed in the field. These wells are modeled with flow control valves to better mimic the field conditions. • Adjusting facility controls for pumps. For example, based on discussions with EVWD operations staff, the reservoir levels at which certain pumps turned ON was adjusted. • Changing many pump controls from tank level control to timer control based on discussions with EVWD operations staff. The American Water Works Association (AWWA) Manual of Water Supply Practices M32 provides guidelines for computer modeling of water distribution systems. These guidelines include Hydraulic Grade Line (HGL) predictions and water level fluctuation predictions. HGL predictions by the model should be within 5 to 10 feet of those recorded in the field which is equivalent of 2.2 to 4.3 psi. The tank water level fluctuations predicted by the model should be within 3 to 6 feet of those recorded in the field. The lower accuracy range in these guidelines can typically be applied to models used for design and operational evaluations while the higher accuracy guideline (4.3 psi) is typically applied to models used for long range or master planning. Consistent with the above mentioned guidelines, it can be concluded that the results from the hydraulic model are satisfactory for the purposes of long term planning. 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. The following list gives possible causes for the 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. • Inaccuracies in observed pump flow. Because a majority of the flows calculated for the pump stations is based on on/off times and flow rates from SCE tests, the actual flow from any of these devices could vary. Project Number: 10502575 4-13 February 2014 • 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 drastically change the flow versus head relationship for each pump station resulting in flow or head variances from field conditions. 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. 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 flow meters at pumping stations and PRVs 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. Pressures at these loggers should be relayed to EVWD’s SCADA system. • Utilizing manufacturer’s pump curves adjusted for SCE test data rather than design point curves in the hydraulic model. Page Intentionally Left Blank Project Number: 10502575 6-1 February 2014 This section describes the evaluation of the water distribution system under existing and future conditions, i.e. the planning horizon of Year 2035. 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 and future (2035) 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, • Supply analyses, both system-wide and by pressure zone, and • Reliability analyses evaluation of the water system facilities consisting of a facility assessment (Appendix E) and capacity analysis The design criteria and analytical methodologies used to conduct this evaluation are presented in detail in Section 5 of this Water System Master Plan (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. The distribution system analysis consists of evaluations that are conducted in sequence. Improvements identified in the first evaluation are included in the second evaluation and improvements identified in the second evaluation are included in the third evaluation. Hence, each improvement listed in this section is only included in one category. The phasing of the recommended improvements is explained further in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), discussed in Section 8. The EVWD hydraulic model is used to evaluate the system pressures for the following scenarios: • Meet PHD while maintaining a minimum pressure of 40 pounds per square inch (psi) at all demand junctions • Meet Minimum Day Demand (MinDD) while not exceeding a maximum pressure of 125 psi • Meet Maximum Day Demand (MDD) and fire flow while maintaining a minimum pressure of 20 psi at all demand junctions 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 Project Number: 10502575 6-2 February 2014 reservoirs, wells, etc.) provided that the minimum pressure at such locations exceeds 5 psi (consistent with California Department of Public Health regulations). The evaluation is performed for over 6,600 demand junctions (out of approximately 20,000 junctions total). The hydraulic simulation identified 14 demand junctions with pressures below 40 psi. Low pressure deficiencies at these 14 demand junctions varied between 37 and 40 psi. All junctions with pressures below 40 psi are shown on Figure 6-1. There are a few junctions in the Intermediate and Upper pressure zones that fall below the 40 psi threshold. After careful review of these junctions, it is observed that the pressures drop below the 40 psi criterion on the peak hour of the MDD. Given that pressures at these junctions are marginally below the 40 psi criterion, infrastructure improvements are not recommended to address these deficiencies. As shown on Figure 6-1, the largest low-pressure area is in the northern portion of the Lower Zone near Plant 130. It is observed that there is insufficient transmission capacity at the discharge pipeline for the reservoir at Plant 34. In addition, low pressures are further exacerbated when Plant 130 is in operation and water is being transferred from the Lower Zone to the Intermediate Zone. This results in significant head loss in the pipeline when Plant 130 is in operation leading to pressures lower than 40 psi along Pacific Street. It is recommended that a parallel pipeline be constructed from Plant 34 to Plant 130 to alleviate this pressure issue. The hydraulic model indicates that a 12-inch parallel pipeline is sufficient under existing conditions. However, a hydraulic simulation of future demand conditions indicates that the pressure deficiencies are intensified and require a 16-inch parallel pipeline to address them. Therefore, it is recommended that a 16-inch parallel pipeline (depicted as T-1 on Figure 6-2) be constructed to address this issue. Infrastructure recommendations to address existing pressure deficiencies are shown on Figure 6-2. The recommendation is summarized in Table 6-1. In addition to the transmission improvements for pressures, high velocity pipelines are analyzed to find bottlenecks in the system. None of the bottlenecks 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 used from the newly expanded plant. Figure 6-2 shows the location of the bottleneck pipeline which is described as T-2 in Table 6-1. Table 6-1 Transmission Improvements – Existing Conditions Pipe ID Diameter (inches) Length (feet) Proposed Alignment T-1 16 3,200 From Plant 34 east along 19th Street, then south on Glasgow Avenue, then east on Pacific Street to Plant 130 T-2 16 2,100 Along Highland Ave, from Plant 134 to Orchard Road Project Number: 10502575 6-5 February 2014 The hydraulic model is also used to identify areas where the maximum pressure exceeds 125 psi. This evaluation is conducted under MinDD conditions. There are 1,635 demand junctions or approximately eight percent of the system where the system pressures exceed 125 psi. High pressures at these demand junctions vary between 125 psi and 200 psi. These high-pressure areas are depicted on Figure 6-3. High-pressures are mostly found in the lowest portions of the pressure zones where static pressures increase due to lower ground elevations. High pressures can cause leaks in the distribution system as well as increased risk of pipe breaks. These high pressure areas can be remedied by creating a new pressure zone with a lower HGL than the HGL of the parent pressure zone. Based on discussions with the EVWD’s Operations staff, it is inferred that these high pressures do not affect normal distribution system operations. Pipe leak records provided by EVWD staff were reviewed and compared against the high- pressure areas identified in the model. Figure 6-3 shows that there is no conclusive correlation between pipe leaks and high pressures in EVWD’s system and, therefore, no changes to pressure zone boundaries are recommended. It is assumed that individual 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. The hydraulic model is also used to evaluate the impact of fire flows on the distribution system. For this analysis, an InfoWater fire flow simulation is used, which can simultaneously check the available fire flow at each hydrant on a system-wide basis. Required fire flows are assigned to each parcel based on the existing land use category, as shown previously in the report on Figure 3-5. The fire flow requirements for each land use type as listed in Table 6-2. Each of the 2,648 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 required fire flow for each hydrant junction. Demand junctions that cannot supply MDD plus fire flow at a minimum pressure of 20 psi are identified as deficient. Deficiencies are shown on Figure 6-4. 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 Open 0 Parks 0 Source: Based on MWH's experience conducting analysis for water systems in Southern California that are similar in size and complexity to EVWD’s system. Page Intentionally Left Blank Project Number: 10502575 6-8 February 2014 The model simulation results show that the fire flow demands can be met at 88 percent of the hydrant junctions, while maintaining the minimum pressure criteria of 20 psi. A total of 308 hydrant junctions, approximately 12 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 6-4. However, in reality, firefighting often requires the use of multiple fire hydrants. To identify the actual locations with fire flow deficiencies, a detailed investigation for each of the 308 pressure deficient junctions is conducted. This investigation consisted of the following adjustments and additional model runs: • 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 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. 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 95 percent of the required flow, no improvements are recommended. • Many of the parcels having an industrial land use are actually vacant based on aerial photography. Where existing buildings occupied the parcels, care is taken to accommodate these high flows. For vacant parcels with high fire demand, no recommendations are made. Since there is a possibility that these parcels are never developed or developed differently, it is unwise to invest in future infrastructure that might be oversized or otherwise unnecessary. The detailed investigation describe above reduced the number of deficient hydrants from 308 to 233. Recommendations to improve pressures at each of the 233 deficient hydrants include upsizing pipeline diameters and creating looped networks where possible. Many potable water distribution systems contain small diameter pipelines that are decades old. These pipelines are sufficient to supply maximum day and peak hour demand but are undersized for fire protection. EVWD’s comprehensive geodatabase is used to identify the small diameter pipelines that have a large impact on fire protection. After running the hydraulic model, it is apparent that the pipelines with diameters under 6-inch reduced the fire flow capabilities throughout the system. As the first step in correcting fire flow issues in the system, all water Project Number: 10502575 6-9 February 2014 mains and fire hydrant lateral pipelines less than 6 inches in diameter are replaced with 8-inch diameter pipelines. These improvements have a combined length of approximately 16.5 miles and are shown on Figure 6-5 as small diameter (SD) pipelines. The phased implementation of these improvements is explained in Section 8. After replacing the small diameter pipelines in the model to 8-inch diameter pipelines, additional fire flow deficiencies are addressed by increasing pipeline diameters and creating loops in the system. To minimize the number of recommendations, pipelines with the same diameter that are located in series in the same street are typically assigned a common improvement identification (ID). Nineteen fire flow improvement projects are identified in total. All fire flow recommendations are shown on Figure 6-5 and labeled with an ID prefix “FF” followed by a project number. These IDs correlate with the summary of fire flow improvements presented in Appendix D. Approximately 5.4 miles of pipeline improvements are recommended to address fire flow deficiencies. Proposed small diameter pipeline improvements and pipelines requiring fire flow improvements are summarized in Table 6-3. Table 6-3 Summary of Fire Flow Improvements Original Diameter (inches) New Diameter (inches) Length (miles) Small Diameter (SD) < 6in. 8 16.5 Fire Flow (FF) Projects 8 2.8 12 2.6 Total 22 Project Number: 10502575 6-11 February 2014 The existing distribution system contains 18 storage reservoirs with a total storage volume of approximately 27.6 MG. The storage and emergency supply analyses are performed for each pressure zone. Storage criteria are discussed earlier in Section 5. The total required storage is a combination of three components: 1. Operational storage, 2. Fire flow storage, and 3. Emergency storage. The operational storage criterion is set at 25 percent of MDD for the EVWD system. Fire flow storage should provide sufficient water for the highest fire flow requirement of the zone evaluated. Emergency storage is set at 100 percent of MDD. The required storage is compared with the actual storage for the entire system and by pressure zone. A summary of the required and available storage volumes are presented in Table 6-4 by pressure zone. This table indicates that EVWD has a net deficiency of approximately 19 MG in storage capacity for the existing system. Currently, the water system has sufficient storage to meet operational and fire protection needs while maintaining about one-half of a MDD for emergency storage. Construction of additional storage will provide additional capability to withstand power outages or other emergency conditions. A zone by zone comparison of available and required storage depicts large deficits in the Foothill, Lower, and Intermediate Zones. Since pressure reducing stations allow transfer from higher zones to lower zones, it is recommended that storage improvements be constructed in pressure zones with higher HGL than zones with lower HGL. A detailed phasing plan for the storage improvements is presented in Section 8. Recommendations from the existing system storage evaluation are summarized below: • Construct 0.5 MG of additional storage in the Mountain Zone • Construct 1.25 MG of additional storage in the Canal 3 Zone • Construct 6.5 MG of additional storage in the Foothill Zone • Construct 2.15 MG of additional storage in the Upper Zone • Construct 4.25 MG of additional storage in the Intermediate Zone • Construct 5 MG of additional storage in the Lower Zone Project Number: 10502575 6-12 February 2014 Table 6-4 Existing Potable Water System Storage Capacity Evaluation Category Units Zone To t a l Lo w e r ( H y d r o - 3 4 ) In t e r m e d i a t e Up p e r ( H i g h l a n d U p p e r ) Fo o t h i l l ( B a l d r i d g e C a n y o n & M e r c e d e s ) Ca n a l 1 ( H y d r o - 5 9 ) Ca n a l 2 ( C a n a l H y d r o ) Ca n a l 3 Mo u n t a i n ( M o u n t a i n H y d r o & H y d r o - 1 3 7 ) De m a n d s 1 ADD MGD 2.20 4.49 6.25 4.12 0.08 0.29 1.35 0.40 19.2 Peak Hour Factor n/a 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 14.4 MDD MGD 3.96 8.09 11.25 7.42 0.14 0.51 2.43 0.73 34.5 St o r a g e R e q u i r e d Fire Flow2 gpm 4,000 4,000 4,000 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 Duration2 hrs 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 Fire Flow2 MG 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 4.4 Operational 3 MG 0.99 2.02 2.81 1.86 0.03 0.13 0.61 0.18 8.6 Emergency4 MG 3.96 8.09 11.25 7.42 0.14 0.51 2.43 0.73 34.5 Required MG 5.91 11.07 15.03 9.58 0.47 0.94 3.34 1.21 47.6 St o r a g e Ev a l u a t i o n Available1 MG 1 6.8 12.9 3 0.7 1.4 2.07 0.75 28.6 Surplus/ Deficit5 MG -4.91 -4.27 -2.13 -6.58 0.23 0.46 -1.27 -0.46 -18.9 Recommended6 MG 5 4.25 2.15 6.5 0 0 1.25 0.5 19.7 1 –See Section 3 2 – Fire flow based on highest estimated requirement per zone 3 – Operational Storage equals 0.25 times MDD 4 – Emergency Storage equals 1.0 times MDD 5 – Surplus is positive and deficit is negative 6 – Storage capacity recommended could be provided in the deficient zone or in higher pressure zones Project Number: 10502575 6-13 February 2014 A discussion of the supply sources for EVWD’s existing system and their adequacy under existing demand conditions is presented. Currently, EVWD has two primary sources of water: a network of 21 groundwater wells and a surface water treatment plant (Plant 134). Three of the 21 wells are currently out of service due to water quality issues and are not considered in this analysis. Additionally, due to water quality issues at Plant 40, EVWD plans to decommission that well in the near future. The capacity of the 17 remaining, in-service, wells is 39.7 million gallons per day (MGD). This analysis considers Plant 107 to be operational during future conditions. However, due to the high operational cost of Plant 107, EVWD plans to use this well on an as needed basis. As a non-plaintiff party to the 1969 Western Judgment (Western Municipal Water District of Riverside County 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 to their production rights (14,217 AFY), and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (Valley District) has the responsibility to replenish the groundwater basin. 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. With the conversion of remaining agricultural properties and water shares of stock, these rights are expected to increase to 6.5 MGD by 2015 (RUWMP, 2010). Plant 134 treats this 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 recently completed the expansion of Plant 134 from 4 MGD to 8 MGD. Upon operation of this treatment plant at full capacity, the combined capacity of EVWD’s existing supply sources will be 47.7 MGD. A water supply analysis is performed to determine whether available water sources are sufficient to meet MDD. Under normal operating conditions in this scenario, the excess supply is 9,200 gpm. When the largest source, Plant 134, is out of service, there is excess supply capacity of 3,600 gpm. This indicates that there is sufficient supply capacity under the existing system with the largest supply source out of service. Results from the system-wide supply evaluation are presented in Table 6-5. Table 6-5 Water Supply Analysis – Existing Conditions Well Supply (gpm) Plant 134 Capacity (gpm) Total Supplies (gpm) MDD (gpm) Excess Supply (gpm) All Supply Sources 27,586 5,556 33,142 23,983 9,159 Largest Source Out of Service (Plant 134) 27,586 0 27,586 23,983 3,603 Project Number: 10502575 6-14 February 2014 In addition to evaluating the system supply and demand as a whole, it is important that each zone has sufficient pumping capacity to meet MDD in that zone while transferring the water needed to supply higher pressure zones. In this analysis, a firm transfer capacity (i.e., largest pump at each pumping station is out of service) is used which ensures some redundancy in the system. This analysis is depicted on Figure 6-6 and shows the interactions between the different pressure zones within EVWD’s system. Figure 6-6 shows that the existing system has sufficient firm pumping capacity to meet MDD in each zone. The system supplies and the booster pumping capacities between zones in the existing system provide reliability and redundancy to the existing system that does not require any improvements under existing conditions. Project Number: 10502575 6-15 February 2014 Figure 6-6 Transfer Capacity – Existing Conditions Project Number: 10502575 6-16 February 2014 Three evaluation criteria are established for the system reliability evaluation. The water distribution system should have adequate supplies to meet system demands in the following scenarios: • Failure of key transmission mains • Outage of purchased water supplies for a 7-day period • Outage of the largest supply sources (per pressure zone) for a 7-day period Demands during peak hours are supplied from reservoir storage under these scenarios. The hydraulic model is used to evaluate the impact of transmission main breaks on the distribution system. The five largest pressure zones are evaluated for pipelines whose failure could affect a significant number of customers in the system. Additionally, pipelines that are constructed along bridges are analyzed to verify the impacts of a bridge failure on customers in the system. Pipe breaks are identified as critical when pressures are insufficient, water demands cannot be met, or a combination of both. Dead end mains are excluded from this analysis. Based on the hydraulic model simulations, the following pipes are identified as critical pipes (CP) and are shown on Figure 6-7. • CP-1: 1,350 lineal feet of 20-inch diameter (Foothill Zone) pipeline on Highland Avenue where the pipelines crosses over Highway CA-330. In case of a pipe break along this alignment, water losses should be addressed by closing isolation valves on either side of the break. Since the Foothill Zone has storage on both sides of this pipeline, if the valves are closed quickly upon failure, the failure should not impact service for any customers. To ensure that this configuration can supply water to all customers in the Foothill Zone, reservoir improvements recommended for this zone (see Section 6.2) should be distributed equally between the eastern and western portion of this pressure zone. • CP-2: 260 lineal feet of 12-inch diameter (Foothill Zone) pipeline in Boulder Avenue crossing Highway CA-330. In case of a pipe break along this alignment, water service to the customers in this area will be temporarily cut off. While this pipeline is repaired, it is recommended that the valve separating the Foothill and Upper Zones near the intersection of Pasito Street and Mountain Avenue be opened. The hydraulic simulation 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. Therefore, the recommended solution of opening the valve between the Foothill and the Upper zones is a temporary solution that should be implemented only while EVWD repairs the pipeline. • CP-3: 5,500 lineal feet of 20-inch diameter pipeline (Upper Zone) along Greenspot Road from Weaver Street to Calle Del Rio Street. If this pipeline fails, there should not be a significant loss of service. Plant 125 can continue to supply the tank at Plant 129 and the system would not be affected significantly while the pipeline is repaired. Project Number: 10502575 6-17 February 2014 • CP-4: 2,700 lineal feet of 24-inch diameter pipeline (Foothill Zone) from the corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Alta Vista through Greenspot Road until it reaches Calle Del Rio Street. If this pipeline fails, EVWD staff should close the nearest isolation valve to isolate the break. The Foothill zone, west of the pipeline failure, should have sufficient storage in the Foothill zone tanks to provide service to the customers. In the Foothill Zone, east of the break, service to customers will not be interrupted and supply can be provided from the Canal 3 Zone to the Foothill Zone via a pressure reducing valve located at Plant 129. • CP-5: 2,700 lineal feet of 16-inch diameter pipeline (Canal 3 Zone) from the corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Alta Vista through Greenspot Road until it reaches Calle Del Rio Street. If this pipeline fails, EVWD staff should close the nearest isolation valve to isolate the break. The Canal 3 zone, west of the break, should still have sufficient storage to provide uninterrupted supplies to the customers. In the Canal Zone, east of the break, the customers will experience a temporary interruption in their water supply. The booster pump at Plant 129 which pumps to the Canal 3 Zone will no longer have a tank to r eceive water. With further development on the east side of EVWD’s service area, there may be opportunities to provide backup supply water to the Canal 3 zone. Alternatively, a hydropneumatic tank could be connected to the system in the Canal 3 zone near Plant 129 or a variable frequency drive pump could be installed at Plant 129 to provide water to these customers. CP-3, CP-4, and CP-5 cross Plunge Creek near a bridge on Greenspot Road adjacent to one another. In the event that two or more pipelines are impacted, a combination of the recommendations described above should be implemented. It is assumed that it would be acceptable to interrupt water service temporarily in these areas while the main break is repaired. A hose connection could be used to provide temporary service while the pipe is being repaired. 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 pipe failure. The existing system is evaluated for a scenario in which Plant 134, is out of service for seven consecutive days. Since the system has sufficient supply and booster pumping capabilities to meet MDD, a 7-day outage of Plant 134 does not require any additional storage improvements in the system. There is adequate groundwater supply as well as storage to meet system demands during a 7-day outage at Plant 134. 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. Project Number: 10502575 6-18 February 2014 Table 6-6 Existing Water Source Reliability – Plant 134 Out of Service 1 day (mgd) 7 days (MG) Water Demand MDD1 34.5 241.5 Water Supply Sources Groundwater 39.7 278.0 Imported water2 0.0 0.0 Emergency Storage 34.5 34.5 Total Available Water Supply 74.2 312.5 Surplus/Deficit meeting MDD3 39.7 71.0 1 – From Section 4. 2 – Plant 134 is the only imported water source for existing system, which is out of service rendering 0 mgd capacity 3 – Surplus/Deficit = Total available Water Supply - MDD The existing system is also analyzed for supply reliability of each zone. Since most of the sources are located in the Intermediate and Upper Zones, it is important to ensure that if the largest source that supplies water to a zone becomes inoperable, there is reliable backup supply water to the zone. Due to the interconnected nature of the system, the excess supply at Plant 134 surface water treatment plant and the groundwater sources in the Intermediate Zone have sufficient flow capacity to provide water to Lower Zone via PRV. If the Lower Zone loses a supply well, it can be supplied by the Intermediate Zone. The Intermediate Zone has excess supply under MDD conditions and can easily handle a well that goes offline. The Upper and Highland Upper Zone demands under MDD have proven to be sufficient with Plant 134 out of service with existing infrastructure. In the Foothill, Canal 3, and Mountain Zones, there are sufficient water transfer capabilities to meet demands as shown in Table 6-1. Canal 1, Canal 2 and the Hydropneumatic zones are each only supplied by a single plant. Because these zones service a small number of customers, it is not recommended to build additional pumping stations but rather it is suggested that backup power generation be available to these pumping stations. Table 6-7 Existing Water Source Reliability – Largest Source (Per Pressure Zone) Out of Service Zones Supply 1 (gpm) Demand MDD (gpm) Surplus/Deficit (gpm) Notes Lower Zone 1,505 2,752 -1,247 Deficit met by Intermediate Zone PRVs Intermediate Zone 15,196 5,616 9,580 Upper Zone 10,707 7,816 2,891 Foothill Zone 9,899 7,7992 2,100 Canal 1 Zone 0 96 -96 Backup power required Canal 2 Zone 0 357 -357 Backup power required Canal 3 Zone 4,998 2,1923 2,806 Mountain Zone 2,698 505 2,193 Note: Hydropneumatic zones will also require backup power. 1 –Supply considers all well and booster pumping entering a zone with the largest source out of service. 2 – Foothill Zone demands include all Canal Zone and Mountain Zone demands 3 – Canal 3 Zone demands include Mountain Zone Demands. Project Number: 10502575 6-20 February 2014 After analyzing the system under existing demands and existing infrastructure, the proposed improvements are added to the hydraulic model. After integrating the improvements mentioned previously in this section and the future water demands described in Section 3, the system is evaluated. The remainder of this section identifies the infrastructure needed to address future demands, based on water demand projections through the year 2035 as presented in Section 3. Recommended improvements are summarized at the end of this section, while the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) with cost estimates and proposed phasing for these improvements is presented in Section 8. The hydraulic model is used to evaluate the system pressures under the demand conditions of year 2035 for the following three criteria and the results of these analyses are discussed below. • Meet Peak Hour Demand (PHD) while maintaining a minimum pressure of 40 psi • Meet Maximum Day Demand (MDD) with fire flow while maintaining a minimum pressure of 20 psi • Meet Minimum Day Demand (MinDD) while not exceeding a maximum pressure of 125 psi The hydraulic model is updated with the improvements recommended to address existing system deficiencies. For the first criterion, the model is run for 24 hours under MDD conditions. The demands at noon on the maximum day reflect PHD conditions. The pressures are evaluated only for the 6,600 demand junctions, because the pressure criteria do not apply to transmission mains or at water facility locations provided the minimum pressure exceeds 5 psi. The model run identified one large group of demand junctions with pressures below 40 psi under these conditions. Figure 6-8 shows the pressure deficiencies in the future system. These low pressures are caused by the water supply needs of the Harmony Development. Water is conveyed from the Canal 3 Zone to the Harmony Development at high velocities resulting in significant head loss and consequently low pressures in the system. A new 24-inch transmission pipeline (T3) alleviates the pressure issues in this area by providing sufficient transmission capacity in the system. A review of the hydraulic simulation indicated several pipelines in the system that were undersized and thereby, restricted the flow through the system. Improvements are recommended to reduce head loss in the pipelines, increase water transfers between zones, and improve water flow through zones. Table 6-8 describes the length, diameter, and location of the transmission pipeline improvements, which are depicted on Figure 6-9. Project Number: 10502575 6-21 February 2014 Table 6-8 Future System Transmission Pipeline Improvements Pipe ID Diameter (inches) Length (feet) Proposed Alignment T-3 24 9,200 From Plant 108, south to Greenspot Road along Weaver Street and then east along Greenspot Road to connect into the existing 16-inch pi peline just east of Alta Vista T-4 16 6,700 Near Plant 33, south along Sterling Avenue from Foothill Drive/Sterling Avenue to Marshall Boulevard, east along Marshall Boulevard to Arden Avenue and south along Arden Avenue to Lynwood Drive T-5 20 900 From Plant 39 directly north in the Foothill Zone to Citrus Street extended T-6 16 1,200 Along Highland Avenue from Gala Street to Hamilton Drive In the existing system, the hydraulic model is used to identify areas where the maximum pressure exceeded 125 psi. This evaluation was conducted under MinDD conditions. 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 future system does not change from the analysis in the existing system. These findings are verified in the model with future demands and no improvements are recommended. The hydraulic model is also used to evaluate the impact of fire flows on the future distribution system based on future demands expected in 2035. Just as with the existing system, the InfoWater Fireflow Simulation is used to check the available fire flow at each model node on a system-wide basis. Fire flows ranging from 1,500 to 4,000 gpm are applied to the 2,648 demand junctions in addition to the system demand to evaluate whether the system can meet the required fire flow demand under MDD conditions, while maintaining a minimum pressure of 20 psi. The fire flow demands that are assigned to the model junctions are based on the General Plan land use shown previously in Figure 3-4. The same verification method used to evaluate these initial deficiencies in the existing system analysis (presented previously in this section) is used to identify whether these deficiencies require pipeline improvements. All deficient demand junctions are re-evaluated based on the methodology explained in Section 6.1.3. This verification process eliminated all deficient junctions, thus, no fire flow-related improvements are required for the future system. Harmony Transmission Main T-6 T-4 T-5 T-3 º Date: 010.5 Miles \\Uspas1s01\muni\Clients\ East Valley WD\Water System Master Plan\ 14 Electronic Files - Modeling\GIS\_MXD\ Present0114\Section6.mxd Key to Features January 28, 2014 Document: EVWD Service AreaFuture Transmission (T) Recommendations Transmission Main to Harmony Development Future System Transmission Improvements Figure 6-9 Project Number: 10502575 6-24 February 2014 The existing distribution system consists of approximately 295 miles of pipeline with known installation dates between 1929 and 2013. Hence, the pipelines range in age from one to 85 years. The expected useful life for a pipeline is 50-75 years depending on the type of material. In the absence of replacement during the planning period, some of these pipelines could reach an age of 110 years. Many of the transmission, fire flow, and small diameter improvements listed previously will replace older smaller pipelines in the existing system. After assessing the remaining aged pipelines, only one-half mile of pipeline currently exceeds the 75 year expected life. However, by the year 2035, nearly 32 miles of pipeline will be over the age of 75. Figure 6-10 shows the pipelines that are over 75 years old in 2035. While most of the system pipelines have known year of installation, about 46 miles (16 percent) of the pipelines had an unknown year of installation. It is recommended that the EVWD perform a detailed investigation to determine the year of installation and physical conditions for the pipes with unknown year of installation before replacing them. By leveraging the comprehensive, GIS geodatabase that EVWD has developed, estimates can be made for pipe age based on the surrounding pipelines and can be verified in the field. Page Intentionally Left Blank Project Number: 10502575 6-26 February 2014 The distribution of pipeline length by year of installation is presented on Figure 6-11. As shown on this figure, the majority of the EVWD distribution system was constructed after 1955. Figure 6-11 Development of the District’s Water Distribution System The pipeline replacements are summarized by category in Table 6-9. A total of 60 miles of pipeline replacements are recommended, which corresponds to a replacement rate of 2.9 mi/yr through year 2035. Table 6-9 Summary of Existing Water System Pipeline Improvements Improvement Type Prefix Length (miles) Pressure Improvements P 6.4 Small Diameter Pipe Improvements (<6-inch) SD 16.5 Fire Flow Improvements FF 5.4 Age Improvements of all remaining pipes installed before 1960 A 31.7 Total 60.0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 19 2 9 19 4 2 19 4 6 19 4 8 19 5 0 19 5 2 19 5 4 19 5 6 19 5 8 19 6 0 19 6 2 19 6 4 19 6 6 19 6 8 19 7 0 19 7 2 19 7 4 19 7 6 19 7 8 19 8 0 19 8 2 19 8 4 19 8 6 19 8 8 19 9 0 19 9 2 19 9 4 19 9 6 19 9 8 20 0 0 20 0 2 20 0 4 20 0 6 20 0 8 20 1 0 20 1 2 Le n g t h ( f t ) Year Installed Project Number: 10502575 6-27 February 2014 Because the EVWD distribution system consists of a variety of pipe materials, pipe material needs to be considered in the replacement strategy. Based on a study performed by the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR, 1994) on the historical performance of buried pipelines, it was concluded that cast iron pipes have the highest failure rate and ductile iron pipes had the second highest failure rate. Pipe materials with low failure rates include steel, PVC, and asbestos cement. To determine which pipes need replacement and which pipes can be relined, coupons should be taken by selectively hot-tapping pipes of various ages and materials (excluding PVC and AC) to conduct standard materials testing to evaluate pipeline conditions. A detailed evaluation of the relation between pipeline age and material versus pipeline failure and leak history should be conducted as an initial step in a replacement program. In addition, flow testing can be conducted on selected pipelines to determine the friction factor. This information would indicate pipelines with poor hydraulic performance (high head loss), which are more likely with unlined steel or cast iron pipes. Other criteria that should be considered when selecting a pipe for rehabilitation or replacement stems from the need to be synergistic with street and other infrastructure improvement programs. If a street were scheduled to be paved or modified, all other things being equal, this information would help prioritize projects. Where feasible, dead-end pipelines should be looped. On occasion, it may be necessary to relocate a pipeline from the alley to the street. Access to the pipeline can be improved if the pipeline is located in the public right-of-way. Based on the system pressure evaluation, fire flow requirements, and assessment of rehabilitation needs, 60 miles of pipelines are recommended for replacement. These improvements are summarized by category in Table 6-9. A detailed phasing plan of these improvements is presented in Section 8. In addition, it is recommended that flow and coupon testing be conducted prior to pipeline rehabilitation to determine the actual condition of the identified pipelines and that rehabilitation techniques be considered as an alternative to pipe replacement. In locations where the existing unlined pipe is structurally sound, has a remaining useful life of at least 20 years and no increase in diameter is required to correct pressure or fire flow deficiencies, pipeline rehabilitation measures such as cleaning and lining may provide a more cost-effective solution to pipeline replacement. The storage and emergency supply analyses is performed for each pressure zone. Storage criteria are presented in Section 5 of this report. The total required storage is a combination of three components: • Operational storage, • Fire flow storage, and • Emergency storage. A summary of the required and available storage volumes are presented in Table 6-10 by pressure zone. This table indicates that EVWD will have a net deficiency of approximately 32 MG storage capacity for the system as a whole in 2035. In order to offset deficiencies in the existing system, 25 MG of storage is recommended to be constructed by year 2020. An Project Number: 10502575 6-28 February 2014 additional 7 MG of storage is proposed meet the storage requirements for the system under year 2035 conditions and assigned to the zones shown in Table 6-10. Table 6-10 Future Storage Evaluation Category Units Zone Lo w e r ( H y d r o - 3 4 ) In t e r m e d i a t e Up p e r ( H i g h l a n d U p p e r ) Fo o t h i l l ( B a l d r i d g e C a n y o n & M e r c e d e s ) Ca n a l 1 ( H y d r o - 5 9 ) Ca n a l 2 ( C a n a l H y d r o ) Ca n a l 3 Mo u n t a i n ( M o u n t a i n H y d r o & H y d r o - 1 3 7 ) To t a l De m a n d s 1 ADD MGD 2.6 4.8 7.2 5.8 0.1 0.6 2.6 1.0 24.7 Peak Hour Factor n/a 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 24.7 MDD MGD 4.6 8.6 12.9 10.5 0.1 1.1 4.6 1.9 44.3 St o r a g e R e q u i r e d Fire Flow2 gpm 4000 4000 4000 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 Duration2 hrs 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 Fire Flow2 MG 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 4.38 Operational 3 MG 1.2 2.2 3.2 2.6 0.0 0.3 1.2 0.5 11.2 Emergency4 MG 4.6 8.6 12.9 10.5 0.1 1.1 4.6 1.9 44.3 Required MG 6.8 11.8 17.1 13.4 0.5 1.6 6.1 2.6 59.9 St o r a g e Ev a l u a t i o n Available1 MG 1.0 6.8 12.9 3.0 0.7 1.4 2.1 0.8 28.7 Surplus/ Deficit5 MG -5.8 -5.0 -4.2 -10.4 0.2 -0.2 -4.0 -1.9 -31.3 Recommended by 20356 MG 5.8 5 4.2 10.4 0.25 4 2 31.7 Note: due to rounding, some totals may not add up. 1 – From Section 3 2 – Fire flow based on highest estimated requirement per zone 3 – Operational Storage equals 0.25 times MDD 4 – Emergency Storage equals 1.0 times MDD 5 – Surplus is positive and deficit is negative 6 – Storage capacity recommended could be provided in the deficient zone or in higher pressure zones Project Number: 10502575 6-29 February 2014 Recommendations for the future system storage are summarized below: • Construct 2 MG of additional storage in the Mountain Zone • Construc4 MG of additional storage in the Canal 3 Zone • Construct 0.25 MG of additional storage in the Canal 2 Zone • Construct 10.4 MG of additional storage in the Foothill Zone • Construct 4.2 MG of additional storage in the Upper Zone • Construct 5 MG of additional storage in the Intermediate Zone • Construct 5.8 MG of additional storage in the Lower Zone It should be noted that these recommendations are not in addition to the storage improvements recommended for the existing system. These recommendations represent the overall storage improvements that will be required in year 2035 if the existing system recommendations are not implemented. A discussion on the supply sources for EVWD’s future system and their adequacy under future demand conditions is presented. As described in Section 3 of this report, the year 2035 average day demand (ADD) for EVWD is 13,300 gpm (19.1 MGD) based on the average water consumption records from 2009 through 2012. Using a MDD to ADD peaking factor of 1.8, the estimated MDD for EVWD is 34,800 gpm (50.1 MGD). Three supply sources are considered as potent ial future supply sources for EVWD’s system. These consist of: • Conjunctive Use Wells – EVWD is currently in the planning stages with Valley Water District to drill two new 2,000 gpm (5.8 MGD) wells in the Intermediate Zone. These wells are expected to become operational within the next five years. • East-side Water Treatment Plant – EVWD could build a new water treatment plant to serve the Harmony Development and other developments in the eastern portion of EVWD’s service area. Water for this treatment plant would come from EVWD’s rights to Santa Ana River Water and from purchased SWP water. • Plant 150 – EVWD could build Plant 150 in the Lower Zone to treat for perchlorates. This would enable EVWD to operate Well 12 and drill additional wells in the area where perchlorate contamination is an issue. The total capacity of Plant 150 would be 12,000 gpm (17.3 MGD), 5,000 gpm (7.2 MGD) of which would be treated imported water for blending. The proposed 12,000 gpm capacity would include the existing capacity of Wells 11 and 28. These supply facilities were evaluated in detail. The analysis concluded that supplies from the proposed water treatment plant in the Harmony Development area (producing 5.8 MGD) and the two, 2,000 gpm (2.9 MGD) conjunctive use wells are sufficient to meet future water demands. Project Number: 10502575 6-30 February 2014 The analysis also concluded that there was no need to add additional supply redundancy in the system by the construction of Plant 150. Plant 150 is the most expensive among the three supply sources because the use of this water in the Lower Zone requires significant additional booster pumping to deliver the water to the higher zones in the system. Plant 150 also increases use of groundwater which may have replenishment repercussions in the future. The supply demand comparison under future conditions is depicted on Figure 6-12. *Serves as a backup source for New WTP Figure 6-12 Future System Supply Sources A water supply analysis is performed to determine whether available water sources are sufficient to meet MDD in 2035. The MDD for year 2035 conditions is expected to be approximately 38,800 gpm (55.9 MGD). If only existing supply sources are considered, there is a deficit of 1,672 gpm with no redundancy in the system. With the new water treatment plant and the conjunctive use wells, the system has a supply surplus of 6,355 gpm. When the largest source, Plant 134, is out of service, there is excess supply of 800 gpm. This indicates that there is sufficient supply capacity under the future system with the largest supply source out of service if both the new WTP and the conjunctive use wells are put in place. Table 6-11 summarizes the findings from this evaluation. Plant 150: Not recommended for Construction * Project Number: 10502575 6-31 February 2014 Table 6-11 Water Supply Analysis – Future Conditions Well Supply (gpm) Plant 134 Capacity (gpm) New WTP (gpm) Conjunctive Use Wells (gpm) Total Supplies (gpm) 2035 MDD (gpm) Excess Supply (gpm) All Supply Sources 27,586 5,556 4,028 4,000 41,169 34,814 6,355 Largest Source Out of Service (Plant 134) 27,586 0 4,028 4,000 35,614 34,814 800 Recommendations from the future system supply evaluation are summarized below: • Two 2,000 gpm conjunctive use wells in the Intermediate Zone • New 6 MGD Water Treatment Plant on the east side of the EVWD service area In addition to evaluating the system supply and demand as a whole, it is important that each zone has sufficient pump capacity to supply enough water to meet MDD in that zone. In this analysis, a firm transfer capacity (i.e., largest pump at each pumping station is out of service) is used which ensures some redundancy in the system. Figure 6-13 shows that the future system has insufficient firm booster capacity to meet MDD in 2035 in each pressure zone. The recommended pump improvements required to meet these future demands are shown in Table 6-12. Table 6-12 Pumping Improvements – 2035 Conditions Zone Transfers Number of Pumps1 Individual Pump Capacity (gpm) Firm Pump Capacity (gpm) Intermediate to Foothill 2+1 2,350 4,700 Foothill to Canal 2 1+1 250 250 Foothill to Canal 3 2+1 2,400 4,800 Upper to Canal 3 2+1 300 600 Canal 3 to Harmony 2+1 2,020 4,040 1 – Number of new pumps may be adjusted depending on pump station site selection. DRAFT 6-32 February 2014 Project Number: 1008070 - – Project Number: 10502575 6-33 February 2014 There are potential benefits of increasing the size of the proposed east-side treatment plant. A larger treatment plant would provide EVWD greater operational flexibility and would allow for transfer of surplus water from the Harmony Development to pressure zones at lower hydraulic grade lines via gravity. This could result in significant pumping and energy cost savings for EVWD. In addition, a larger treatment plant could potentially serve as a Regional Water Treatment Plant providing opportunities for collaboration with neighboring agencies that also rely on treated surface and imported water to meet their demands. An additional item to consider in the long term is the cost to replenish overdraft of the groundwater basin. EVWD has established rights to extract 14,217 AFY from the San Bernardino Basin Area (SBBA). EVWD is expected to augment this supply in the future to have a total base period production right to pump 16,524 AFY of water from the SBBA (RBF, 2013); however, under existing and future conditions, additional groundwater is needed to meet demand. EVWD is a non-plaintiff party to the adjudication of the basin and thus can pump water to meet the needs of their customers, even in excess to their production rights, and Valley District has the responsibility to replenish the basin. Due to excess pumping credits since the Western Judgment, funding replenishment has not been an important issue. It is expected that as water demands increase in the future, that funding of replenishment water will become an important and potentially expensive issue, which may increase the overall cost of groundwater use in excess of production rights. New developments in the east side of the EVWD system have a significant impact on the systematic development of the infrastructure improvements. These developments are not expected to reach their build out demands immediately. It is assumed that development will occur in phases. For the purposes of this WSMP, it is assumed that 750 units w ill be developed in the Harmony Development in the next six years. This equates to one-fifth of the build out development and has an MDD of the 800 gpm. This demand is used to analyze the infrastructure improvements necessary to provide reliable water if these units are developed in the near-term. To support the new units in the Harmony Development, it is recommended to build the East Side Water Treatment Plant. This treatment plant will be the primary source of water for the new development. Back-up supply will be provided from the existing system, which will require additional transmission pipeline and pumping improvements. The pipelines required for this development are the T-3 pipeline, which reduces pressure deficiencies in the Canal 3 Zone, and the Harmony Transmission Main that connects the Canal 3 Zone to the Harmony Development. These pipelines are shown previously on Figure 6-9. To ensure water can be effectively transferred to supply the new developments during a treatment plant outage, an inter-zone transfer evaluation is conducted. It is recommended that two 1,000 gpm booster pumps be constructed to pump water from the Upper Zone to the Canal 3 Zone to ensure adequate redundancy should one of the pumping units fail. A similar booster Project Number: 10502575 6-34 February 2014 pumping station is required to move the water from the Canal 3 Zone to the Harmony Development. The cost of supply, pumping, and transmission improvements associated with the the Harmony Development and other developments on the east side of EVWD’s service area can be found in the near-term Capital Improvement Program (CIP) described in Section 8. DRAFT 6-35 February 2014 Project Number: 1008070 - – Project Number: 10502575 6-36 February 2014 The recommendations for the entire system through the year 2035 are summarized in Table 6-13. A visual condition assessment of EVWD’s facilities is also performed as part of the WSMP. Findings of the facility assessment are documented in Appendix E of this report. A detailed explanation of the timing and cost estimations of these improvements can be found as part of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) as described in Section 8. Table 6-13 Recommended Improvements Summary Category Improvements Description Quantity Unit T Pipeline Improvements for pressure deficiencies 6.4 miles FF Pipeline Improvements for fire flow deficiencies 5.4 miles SD Pipelines with a diameter of 4-inch or smaller 16.5 miles A Pipelines with an age of more than 75 years 31.7 miles RES Reservoirs Improvements – construction of new reservoirs(1) 32.3 MG PMP Pumping Improvements – construction/expansion of pump stations 31.3 MGD S Supply Improvements – new wells/WTP facilities 11.6 MGD Page Intentionally Left Blank FF-7 FF-16 FF-3 FF-15 FF-6 FF-11 FF-10 (Connection to new 30 inch) FF-5 FF-4 FF-9 FF-17 FF-18 FF-8 FF_2 FF-19 FF-1 FF-12 FF-13 FF-14 T-1 T-2 T-4 T-5 T-6 T-3 Harmony Transmission Main º Date: 010.5 Miles \\Uspas1s01\muni\Clients\ East Valley WD\Water System Master Plan\ 14 Electronic Files - Modeling\GIS\_MXD\ Present0114\Section6.mxd Key to Features January 28, 2014 Document: EVWD Service Area Future Water System Improvements Figure 6-15 Age-based Improvements (A) Transmission Improvements (T) Fire Flow Improvements (FF) Small Diameter Improvements (SD) Page Intentionally Left Blank Project Number: 10502575 8-1 February 2014 This section describes the recommended Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the EVWD’s potable water system. This CIP identifies the improvements necessary to address existing system deficiencies as well as new facilities required for increased water demands to provide continued reliable water service through the year 2035. 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 CIP. 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 two categories; 1) near-term system (2015-2020) improvements addressing existing water system deficiencies, and 2) future system (2021-2035) improvements necessary to meet the needs under 2035 conditions. The near-term improvements are divided into the following five categories: • Transmission pipeline improvements to improve system pressures and system flow (T) • Pipeline improvements to address fire flow deficiencies (FF) • Small diameter pipeline replacement for pipelines with a diameter smaller than 6 inches (SD) • Storage improvements (RES) • Water supply improvements (S) These recommendations are summarized in Table 8-1 and are briefly described below. Table 8-1 Summary of Near Term System Improvements Category Improvements Description Quantity Unit T Pipeline Improvements for pressure deficiencies 4.7 miles FF(1) Pipeline Improvements for fire flow deficiencies 5.4 miles SD(2) Pipelines with a diameter of 4-inch or smaller 16.5 miles RES Reservoirs Improvements – construction of new reservoirs 25.0 MG PMP Pumping Improvements – construction/expansion of pump stations 5.8 MGD S Supply Improvements – new wells/WTP facilities 11.6 MGD (1) Due to the large number of pipelines projects under these categories, the projects are listed separately in Appendix D. (2) Due to the large number of pipelines projects under these categories, the pipeline improvements will be provided in a GIS Shapefile to EVWD staff. Project Number: 10502575 8-2 February 2014 The fire flow improvement projects are prioritized based on the pressure deficiency. Approximately 5.4 miles of existing system fire flow recommendations are phased for installation in the near-term. Approximately 16 miles of small diameter pipelines which create hydraulic bottlenecks are recommended for replacement in the near-term. Replacement of these pipelines will also enhance fire flow capabilities of the existing system. Transmission pipeline projects T-1, T-2, T-3, and the Harmony Transmission Main are recommended for the near-term. These pipelines eliminate existing bottlenecks in the conveyance system and improve system pressures. Approximately 25 MG of storage reservoirs are recommended in the near-term. The majority of this storage is recommended in the Foothill Zone followed by the Lower, Intermediate, Upper, and other smaller pressure zones. Increasing overall storage in the system will provide reliability and redundancy during emergencies and provide adequate storage during fire protection. Approximately 5.8 MGD in pumping capacity improvements is recommended for the near-term. The need for these improvements is primarily governed by the supply requirements for the future demands on the east side of EVWD’s service area. A total of 11.6 MGD in new supply capacity is recommended for the near-term. A new water treatment plant (5.8 MGD) to serve the Harmony Development and the proposed future developments in the eastern portion of EVWD’s service area is recommended. In addition, it is recommended that EVWD continue the development of the two conjunctive use wells in the southern part of the system. The two conjunctive use wells have a combined capacity of approximately 5.8 MGD. The future system improvements are divided into the following four categories: • Transmission pipeline improvements to improve system pressures and system flow (T) • Pipeline replacements for pipelines with an age of more than 75 years (Age) • Storage improvements (RES) • Pumping improvements (PMP) These recommendations are summarized in Table 8-2. Project Number: 10502575 8-3 February 2014 Table 8-2 Summary of Future System Improvements Category Improvements Description Quantity Unit T Pipeline Improvements for pressure deficiencies 1.7 miles A(1) Pipelines with an age of more than 75 years 31.7 miles RES Reservoirs Improvements – construction of new reservoirs 7.3 MG PMP Pumping Improvements – construction/expansion of pump stations 25.5 MGD (1) Due to the large number of pipelines projects under these categories, the pipeline improvements will be provided in a GIS Shapefile to EVWD staff. Approximately 1.7 miles of transmission pipelines (projects T-4, T-5, and T-6) are recommended for the future system. These pipelines eliminate existing bottlenecks in the conveyance system and improve system pressures in their vicinity. As mentioned previously, the majority of the transmission pipelines are required to provide adequate conveyance capacity to deliver water supply to meet the potential future demands in the eastern portion of EVWD’s service area. By 2035, pipelines constructed in 1960 will be 75 years old. Since these pipelines would be nearing the end of their useful lives, a regular replacement program is required. The total length of recommended pipe improvements for age is approximately 32 miles. This equates to an average construction/replacement rate of 1.9 miles per year. Approximately 7 MG of storage reservoirs are recommended for the future system. Storage reservoirs are recommended in the Foothill, Canal 3, Mountain, and Upper Zones. These improvements are necessary to provide adequate fire flow capabilities and storage redundancy in the future system. Approximately 26 MGD in pumping capacity improvements is recommended for the future system. The need for these improvements is primarily governed by the supply requirements for the potential future demands in the eastern portion of EVWD’s service area. The future system recommendations are depicted on Figure 8-4. Construction cost estimates are developed based on costs obtained from industry manufacturers, MWH’s experience on similar water system master planning projects and data provided by EVWD staff. The cost estimates presented in this master plan are consistent with the American Association of Cost Engineers guidelines for developing reconnaissance-level estimates. The appropriate use of this estimate is for planning and may not be an actual representation of design to construction activities and costs. Expected accuracy ranges are from –50 percent to +100 percent, depending on technological complexity of the project, appropriate reference Project Number: 10502575 8-4 February 2014 information, and the inclusion of an appropriate contingency determination. Ranges could exceed those shown in unusual circumstances. Based on the level of detail that a water system master plan provides, it is required that additional contingency be applied to the construction cost estimates to account for potential construction complexity, site conditions and construction bid variability. This contingency factor is used for both existing system and future system recommendations. The contingencies used in planning level studies are typically higher than in design or construction as details that can significantly impact cost are unknown at this stage. For example, freeway or railroad crossings and utility conflicts will increase pipeline cost above the typical unit cost per lineal feet. As more details regarding construction issues become apparent and the recommended projects proceed through the preliminary and detailed design process, many of the unknown issues will be resolved and the contingency amount can be lowered. For the purposes of this WSMP, contingency is assumed to be 10 percent of the construction costs. The environmental, design and engineering, administration, and legal costs are estimated to be 15 percent of construction costs. The construction management cost is estimated to be 10 percent of the construction cost. Therefore, the capital cost is estimated to be 135 percent (100% + 10% + 15% + 10%) of the base construction cost. The contractor’s overhead and profit are included in the construction cost estimates. Costs for acquisition of land are not included in the capital cost estimates. Table 8-3 presents the assumptions made for developing the planning level cost estimates for this WSMP. Table 8-3 Cost Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria Value Units Capital Cost Assumptions(1) New 2,000 gpm Well 1,200,000 $ New WTP(2) Cost-curve $/gal-day Pipelines(3) 15 $/ft/inch of diameter Pumps(3) 350,000 $/MGD capacity Storage(4) 1,250,000 $/MG (1) Land acquisition costs are not considered in the cost estimates. (2) Cost curve based on $3/gal-day assumption for a 6 MGD WTP (3) Costs for transmission pipelines, pumps, and pressure reducing stations are based on recent bid data reviewed by MWH. (4) Cost assumption assumes a steel tank Capital improvement projects are phased based on system needs. Projects addressing existing system deficiencies are phased over the next 6 years (2015-2020). A detailed phasing plan is not provided for projects addressing future system (2020-2035) deficiencies due to the uncertainties associated with the timing of future demands. It is expected that this WSMP will be updated by EVWD every five years and the future system CIP refined as part of these updates. Project Number: 10502575 8-5 February 2014 Existing system improvements that address the most significant deficiencies, impact the largest number of customers, or are related to important water facilities 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: • Transmission and Distribution System Pipelines: Pipelines addressing fire flow deficiencies are scheduled first, followed by small diameter, transmission, and age related improvements. Phasing of pipelines is adjusted such that multiple improvements in the same street or close vicinity are grouped together in the highest priority phase to avoid subsequent construction work in the same streets. In addition, an effort is made to distribute pipeline replacement costs evenly throughout the 2015-2020 period to avoid significant fluctuations in EVWD’s annual spending towards pipeline replacement. • 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 pumping capacity deficiency 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 CIP in this report. • Supply Facilities: The WSMP recommends new supply facilities in the form of a new water treatment plant in the eastern portion of EVWD’s service area and conjunctive use wells in the southern portion of EVWD’s service area. The proposed treatment plant is phased to become operational by 2018 to provide adequate supply reliability to the proposed new developments in the eastern portion of EVWD’s service area. The conjunctive use wells are phased to become operational by 2020. Table 8-4 summarizes the phasing of near-term improvements for the existing system. In order to assist the reader in reviewing the locations of the recommended improvements, the near-term improvements are depicted on three figures designated as Area 1, Area 2, and Area 3. These recommendations are depicted on Figure 8-1, Figure 8-2, and Figure 8-3. The future system recommendations are depicted on Figure 8-4. Project Number: 10502575 8-6 February 2014 Table 8-4 Near-Term Improvements Phasing Improvement Type 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Storage Improvements Canal 3 Zone (2.5 MG) Mountain Zone (1 MG) Foothill Zone (4 MG) Foothill Zone (4 MG) Upper Zone (3 MG) Intermediate Zone (5 MG) Lower Zone (5.75 MG) Supply Improvements New Water Treatment Plant (5.8 MGD) Two 2,000 gpm Conjunctive Use Wells (5.8 MGD) Pumping Improvements Canal 3 Zone to Harmony (2.9 MGD) Upper Zone to Canal 3 Zone (2.9 MGD) Pipeline Improvements Fire Flow 5.4 miles - - - - - Small Diameter - 3.8 miles 3.8 miles 3.7 miles 2.9 miles 2.5 miles Transmission T-1(1) T-2(2) T-3(3) Harmony Transmission Main(4) - - - - (1) T-1 represents 3,200 feet of 16-inch transmission main (See Figure 8-2) (2) T-2 represents 2,100 feet of 16-inch transmission main (See Figure 8-1) (3) T-3 represents 9,200 feet of 24-inch transmission main (See Figure 8-3) (4) The Harmony Transmission Main represents10,600 feet of 20-inch transmission main (See Figure 8-3) FF-14 FF-12 FF-19 FF-8 FF-18 FF-4 FF-5 FF-11 FF-6 FF-3 T-1 T-2 º Date: 00.550.275 Miles \\Uspas1s01\muni\Clients\ East Valley WD\Water System Master Plan\ 14 Electronic Files - Modeling\GIS\_MXD\ CIPPhasing.mxd Key to Features January 28, 2014 Document: EVWD Service Area 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Small Diameter Replacements (SD)Fire Flow (FF) Recommendations Transmission (T) Improvements Near-Term Improvements (Area 1) Figure 8-1 Year Storage Reservoir Improvements (Size) 2015 Canal 3 Zone (2.5 MG) and Mountain Zone (1 MG) 2016 Foothill Zone (4 MG) 2017 Foothill Zone (4 MG) 2018 Upper Zone (3 MG) 2019 Intermediate Zone (5 MG) 2020 Lower Zone (5.75 MG) Year Pumping Improvements (Size) 2015 Canal 3 Zone to Harmony Development (2.9 MGD) 2015 Upper Zone to Canal 3 Zone (2.9 MGD) Year Supply Source Improvements (Size) 2018 New Water Treatment Plant (5.8 MGD) 2020 Conjunctive Use Wells (5.8 MGD) 2016 2015 FF-14 FF-13 FF-1 FF-19 FF_2 FF-8 FF-9 FF-4 FF-10 (Connection to new 30 inch) FF-6 FF-15 FF-16 FF-7 T-1 º Date: 00.550.275 Miles \\Uspas1s01\muni\Clients\ East Valley WD\Water System Master Plan\ 14 Electronic Files - Modeling\GIS\_MXD\ CIPPhasing.mxd Key to Features January 28, 2014 Document: EVWD Service Area 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Small Diameter Replacements (SD)Fire Flow (FF) Recommendations Transmission (T) Improvements Near-Term Improvements (Area 2) Figure 8-22016 2015 T-3 Harmony Transmission Main FF-12 FF-8 FF-17 F-6 T-2 º Date: 00.550.275 Miles \\Uspas1s01\muni\Clients\ East Valley WD\Water System Master Plan\ 14 Electronic Files - Modeling\GIS\_MXD\ CIPPhasing.mxd Key to Features January 28, 2014 Document: EVWD Service Area 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Small Diameter Replacements (SD)Fire Flow (FF) Recommendations Transmission (T) Improvements Near-Term Improvements (Area 3) Figure 8-32016 2015 T-5 T-4 T-6 º Date: 010.5 Miles \\Uspas1s01\muni\Clients\ East Valley WD\Water System Master Plan\ 14 Electronic Files - Modeling\GIS\_MXD\ CIPPhasing.mxd Key to Features January 28, 2014 Document: EVWD Service AreaFuture Transmission (T) Recommendations Aging (A) Pipelines (older than 1960) Transmission Main to Harmony Development Future System Improvements Figure 8-4 Zones Recommended Pumping Improvements (gpm) Intermediate to Upper 3,000 Intermediate to Foothill 7,050 Foothill to Canal 2 500 Foothill to Canal 3 7,200 Canal 3 to Harmony 4,060 Zone Storage Reservoir Improvements (MG) Mountain 1 Canal 3 2 Foothill 2.75 Upper 2 Project Number: 10502575 8-11 February 2014 The cost of the potable water CIP is estimated by project for each five-year period using the cost estimating assumptions and the project phasing discussed previously. Cost estimates for the near-term system improvements and the future system improvements are presented in Table 8-5 and in Table 8-6 respectively. Cost estimates for the overall near-term CIP is depicted on Figure 8-5. Annual costs for each year in the 2015-2020 period is depicted on Figure 8-6. Costs presented in this WSMP are in year 2014 US dollars. Table 8-5 Cost Estimates of Near-Term Water System Improvements ($ Million) Facility Type 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Storage $5.3 $6.5 $6.5 $4.9 $8.1 $9.3 $40.5 Pumping $2.7 - - - - - $2.7 Transmission Pipelines $1.7 $8.7 - - - - $10.5 Distribution Pipelines $5.8 $3.2 $3.1 $3.1 $2.5 $2.1 $19.8 Supply Sources $1.9 $1.9 $10.9 $10.9 $1.6 $1.6 $28.9 Subtotal $17.4 $20.4 $20.5 $18.9 $12.2 $13.1 $103 Figure 8-5 Near-term Water System Improvement Costs (2015-2020) Project Number: 10502575 8-12 February 2014 Figure 8-6 Annual Costs (2015-2020) Cost estimates for the future system improvements are summarized in Table 8-6 and graphically depicted on Figure 8-7. Note that the cost estimates for the future system improvements also include costs for the near-term improvements. Table 8-6 Cost Estimates of Future Water System Improvements ($ Million) Facility Type 2021-2035 Storage $11.8 Pumping $11.9 Transmission Pipelines $2.9 Distribution Pipelines $26.8 Subtotal – Long-term CIP $53.5 Subtotal – Near-term CIP (from Table 8-5) $103 Total CIP $155.5 0 5 10 15 20 25 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Co s t s i n M i l l i o n D o l l a r s Year Storage Supply Sources Distribution Pipelines Transmission Pipelines Pumping Project Number: 10502575 8-13 February 2014 Figure 8-7 Future Water System Improvement Costs (2015-2035) • Recommendations for the rehabilitation of reservoirs, groundwater wells, and booster pumps are presented in Appendix E • It is recommended that flow meters be installed at all pumping facilities to record the transfer of water between zones. • It is recommended that flow meters be installed at all pressure reducing valves between zones to record the transfer of water between zones. • It is recommended that pressure loggers be installed at the suction and the discharge sides of groundwater wells and booster pumps. Project Number: 10502575 8-14 February 2014 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. 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. Through a jointly financed program between the federal EPA and the State of California, 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 Financing Objectives Economy Flexibility Equity Project Number: 10502575 8-15 February 2014 program, loans are issued for up to 20 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. Generally, loans are limited to $20 million for any one project, with a cap of $30 million available to a single water utility in a single fiscal year. These amounts may be modified if it is determined that excess funds are available that cannot otherwise be obligated before the EPA obligation deadline. 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. Since the program began in May 1998 through March 30, 2010, CDPH has closed 207 loans totaling $895 million cumulatively (USEPA, 2010). 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. Project Number: 10502575 8-16 February 2014 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. 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. Project Number: 10502575 8-17 February 2014 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. 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 water agency obtaining a COP for a specific project. 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. Project Number: 10502575 8-18 February 2014 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. 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. Although assessment methods still are legal, the voting requirement of the Tax Payers’ Right to Vote Act (Proposition 218) has made the procedure less attractive. 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. 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 Project Number: 10502575 8-19 February 2014 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. 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). The funding provided under this program is through Proposition 50, Proposition 84, and Proposition 1E. 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. 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. This might not be applicable to District 29 Master Plan projects unless there is a way to tie it to some water reclamation benefit. To assist in the implementation of the CIP from the 2014 WSMP, EVWD has selected a consultant who will develop a financing plan and conduct a water rates and fees evaluation that will determine the most appropriate methods for funding the CIP and operating costs. Contact Us 618 Michillinda Avenue Suite 200 Arcadia, CA 91007 Phone: 626.796.9141 Fax: 626.568.6101 www.mwhglobal.com Contact Us 618 Michillinda Avenue Suite 200 Arcadia, CA 91007 Phone: 626.796.9141 Fax: 626.568.6101 www.mwhglobal.com WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN B&V PROJECT NO. 177947 PREPARED FOR OCTOBER 18, 2013 ___________________ Kyle McCarty, P.E. Project Manager ________________________ James Strayer, P.E. Associate Vice President ©B l a c k & V e a t c h H o l d i n g C o m p a n y 2 0 1 1 . A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . ® ® EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT| Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Table of Contents i Table of Contents 1 Introduction and Background .................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Master Plan Objectives ............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Report Organization .................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.3 Study Area Description ............................................................................................................ 1-1 1.4 Regional Considerations .......................................................................................................... 1-2 2 Population and Land Use ........................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Land Use ......................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Population...................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2.1 Existing Population and Large Users ............................................................... 2-1 2.2.2 Evaluation of Large Water and Wastewater Use Customers ................. 2-3 2.2.3 Future Population Projections ........................................................................... 2-4 3 Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses ................... 3-1 3.1 Existing Wastewater Collection System ............................................................................ 3-1 3.1.1 Gravity Sewer Pipelines ........................................................................................ 3-1 3.1.2 Siphons ......................................................................................................................... 3-5 3.1.3 Diversion Structures .............................................................................................. 3-6 3.1.4 Lift Stations and Force Mains ............................................................................. 3-6 3.2 Flow Monitoring .......................................................................................................................... 3-6 3.2.1 Flow Metering Locations ...................................................................................... 3-6 3.2.2 Flow Monitoring Studies ...................................................................................... 3-8 3.3 Dry Weather Analysis ............................................................................................................... 3-9 3.4 Dry weather Model ................................................................................................................. 3-11 3.4.1 Existing Flow .......................................................................................................... 3-11 3.4.2 Future Flow ............................................................................................................. 3-14 3.5 Wet Weather Analysis ........................................................................................................... 3-15 3.6 2013 Flow Monitoring Assessment.................................................................................. 3-18 3.6.1 2013 Dry Weather Analysis ............................................................................. 3-18 3.6.2 2013 Wet Weather Analysis ............................................................................. 3-22 3.6.3 R-Value Analysis ................................................................................................... 3-23 4 Capacity Analysis .......................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Evaluation Criteria ..................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Existing System Capacity Evaluation .................................................................................. 4-1 4.2.1 Dry Weather............................................................................................................... 4-2 4.2.2 Wet Weather .............................................................................................................. 4-5 4.3 2035 System Capacity Evaluation........................................................................................ 4-8 4.3.1 Dry Weather............................................................................................................... 4-8 4.3.2 Wet Weather .............................................................................................................. 4-8 4.4 Capacity Improvements ........................................................................................................ 4-13 4.4.1 District Facilities ................................................................................................... 4-13 EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT| Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Table of Contents ii 4.4.2 Regional Facilities ................................................................................................ 4-15 4.4.3 Watch List ................................................................................................................ 4-16 4.4.4 Summary of Capacity Improvements ........................................................... 4-17 4.5 Water Reclamation Plant Option Analysis .................................................................... 4-17 5 Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 5-1 5.1 Unit Costs ....................................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1.1 Capital Costs .............................................................................................................. 5-1 5.1.2 Construction Costs .................................................................................................. 5-1 5.1.3 Total Project Costs .................................................................................................. 5-2 5.1.4 Cost Summary ........................................................................................................... 5-2 5.2 Capacity Projects Costs ............................................................................................................ 5-2 5.3 Water Reclamation PLant Option Analysis ...................................................................... 5-3 5.3.1 WRP Option Analyses Costs ................................................................................ 5-3 5.3.2 WRP Considerations ............................................................................................... 5-5 5.3.3 WRP Recommendations ....................................................................................... 5-6 5.4 Replacement Assessment ........................................................................................................ 5-6 5.4.1 District Facilities ...................................................................................................... 5-6 5.4.2 Regional Facilities ................................................................................................ 5-10 5.5 Recommended Capital IMprovement Plan ................................................................... 5-13 5.5.1 District Capacity & Replacement/Rehabilitation Projects Capital Improvement Plan ................................................................................................... 5-16 5.5.2 Regional Capacity Projects Capital Improvement Plan ........................ 5-16 5.5.3 Regional Replacement/Rehabilitation Projects ....................................... 5-16 5.6 Funding Considerations ........................................................................................................ 5-16 5.6.1 District Fees ............................................................................................................ 5-16 5.6.2 Regional Fees .......................................................................................................... 5-16 EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT| Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Table of Contents iii LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1 Top Water Customers ................................................................................................. 2-4 Table 2-2 Top Wastewater Customers ..................................................................................... 2-4 Table 2-3 Planned Developments Projected Populations ................................................ 2-5 Table 3-1 Wastewater Collection System Pipelines ............................................................ 3-3 Table 3-2 Siphons .............................................................................................................................. 3-5 Table 3-3 Diversion Structures .................................................................................................... 3-6 Table 3-4 Dry Weather Flow Summary .................................................................................... 3-9 Table 3-5 UGR by Basin ................................................................................................................ 3-11 Table 3-6 Summary of City of San Bernardino Flows Conveyed by East Trunk Sewer ................................................................................................................. 3-12 Table 3-7 Summary of Dry Weather Model Calibration ................................................. 3-13 Table 3-8 Future 2035 Flows .................................................................................................... 3-14 Table 3-9 Significant Rainfall Events Summary ................................................................. 3-15 Table 3-10 2013 Observed Flow Summary ............................................................................ 3-20 Table 3-11 2013 Observed Rainfall Event Summary.......................................................... 3-22 Table 3-12 R-Value Summary by Meter Basin ....................................................................... 3-24 Table 4-1 Capacity Evaluation d/D Criteria ........................................................................... 4-1 Table 4-2 Summary of Existing System Model Results ...................................................... 4-2 Table 4-3 Summary of 2035 System Model Results............................................................ 4-8 Table 4-4 Summary of Capacity Improvements ................................................................ 4-17 Table 4-5 Summary of Offload Flow for WRP Options ................................................... 4-18 Table 4-6 Summary of Capacity Improvements ................................................................ 4-19 Table 5-1 Capacity Improvements Costs ................................................................................. 5-2 Table 5-2 Baseline Scenario: (Continued SBWRP) Capacity Improvements Costs ................................................................................................................................... 5-3 Table 5-3 WRP Option 1: Offload 1.33 mgd (Harmony Alternative) Capacity Improvements Costs .................................................................................................... 5-4 Table 5-4 WRP Option 2: Offload 2.25 mgd (Boulder Alternative) Capacity Improvements Costs .................................................................................................... 5-4 Table 5-5 WRP Option 3: Offload 3.85 mgd (Hwy 210 Alternative) Capacity Improvements Costs .................................................................................................... 5-5 Table 5-6 Prioritized Defect/Flow Matrix ............................................................................... 5-7 Table 5-7 Pipeline Prioritization Summary ............................................................................ 5-7 Table 5-8 Summary of Rehabilitation/Replacement Costs for the District ........... 5-10 Table 5-9 Regional Rehabilitation/Replacement Projects – Replacement Projects .......................................................................................................................... 5-12 Table 5-10 Capital Improvement Program ...........................................................................5-154 EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT| Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Table of Contents iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 District Location ............................................................................................................ 1-3 Figure 2-1 Land Use and Major Developments ....................................................................... 2-2 Figure 2-2 Existing 2012 Population by Class ......................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-3 Projected 2035 Population by Customer Type ................................................. 2-6 Figure 2-4 Residential Population Projections ....................................................................... 2-7 Figure 3-1 Existing Facilities and Meter Basins...................................................................... 3-2 Figure 3-2 Existing District Wastewater Collection System by Pipe Material ........... 3-4 Figure 3-3 Length of District’s Gravity Sewer Pipe by Installation Period .................. 3-4 Figure 3-4 Dry Weather Flow Metering ..................................................................................... 3-7 Figure 3-5 Wastewater Flow Schematic .................................................................................... 3-8 Figure 3-6 Sample Diurnal Curves for Flow Meter 1008-001 ....................................... 3-10 Figure 3-7 Calibration Curve for Flow Meter CUN02 ........................................................ 3-12 Figure 3-8 Observed Flow and Rainfall during December 2010 Storm (Dec. 20 – Dec. 21, 2010) .................................................................................................... 3-16 Figure 3-9 December 2010 Storm Frequency ...................................................................... 3-17 Figure 3-10 Wet Weather Calibration Graph ..................................................................... 3-18 Figure 3-11 Wet Weather Flow Monitoring ........................................................................... 3-19 Figure 3-12 2013 Flow Monitoring Wastewater Flow Schematic ................................ 3-20 Figure 3-13 2013 Flow Monitoring Study Storm Frequency Compared to December 2010 Event.............................................................................................. 3-23 Figure 4-1 Existing District System Dry Weather Capacity Evaluation ........................ 4-3 Figure 4-2 Existing Regional System Dry Weather Capacity Evaluation ..................... 4-4 Figure 4-3 Existing District System Wet Weather Capacity Evaluation ....................... 4-6 Figure 4-4 Existing Regional System Wet Weather Capacity Evaluation .................... 4-7 Figure 4-5 2035 District System Dry Weather Capacity Evaluation .............................. 4-9 Figure 4-6 2035 Regional System Dry Weather Capacity Evaluation ........................ 4-10 Figure 4-7 2035 District System Wet Weather Capacity Evaluation .......................... 4-11 Figure 4-8 2035 Regional System Wet Weather Capacity Evaluation ....................... 4-12 Figure 4-9 Capacity Improvements .......................................................................................... 4-14 Figure 4-10 Estimated Potential WRP Flows ..................................................................... 4-18 Figure 5-1 Percent of Pipes with Defects by Age ................................................................... 5-8 Figure 5-2 VCP Survival Curve ....................................................................................................... 5-9 Figure 5-3 Factors Shortening Useful Pipe Life ................................................................... 5-11 Figure 5-4 Capital Improvement Plan ..................................................................................... 5-15 EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT| Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Table of Contents v LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Agreements Between City of San Bernardino and District Appendix B Land Use and Population Projection Detail Appendix C 2013 Flow Monitoring Study Appendix D Weekday and Weekend Diurnal Curves Appendix E Dry Weather Calibration Graphs Appendix F Model Results Appendix G Hydraulic Profiles for Areas on the Watch List Appendix H WRP Considerations Appendix I Pipe Survival Curves Appendix J Condition Database Appendix K CIP Detail East Valley Water District | Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Abbreviations ABB- 1 Abbreviations ADDF Average Daily Dry Weather Flow ADS ADS Environmental Services BOD Biological Oxygen Demand CIP Capital Improvement Program CCTV closed-circuit television District East Valley Water District d/D ratio of flow depth to pipe diameter ENR-CCI Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index EDU equivalent dwelling units ft feet fps feet per second GIS Geographic Information Systems gpd gallons per day gpcd gallons per capita per day HDPE high density polyethylene IDF intensity duration-frequency Hwy 210 Highway 210 JPA Joint Powers Agreement of 1957 between the City of San Bernardino and the East San Bernardino County Water District Master Plan Wastewater Collection System Master Plan 2002 Master Plan 2002 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan MGD million gallons per day NASSCO National Association of Sewer Service Companies N/I none identified PACP Pipeline Assessment Certification Program PVC polyvinyl chloride RCP Reinforced concrete pipeline RDII rainfall-derived inflow and infiltration RTP Regional Transportation Plan, 2008 RTP Update Regional Transportation Plan Update SANBAG San Bernardino Associated Governments SBWRP San Bernardino Water Reclamation Plant SBCUSD San Bernardino County Unified School District SCAG Southern California Association of Governments TAZ traffic analysis zone TRUSS thermoplastic VCP vitrified clay pipe UGR unit generation rates USGS United States Geological Survey WRP water reclamation plant EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT | Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Introduction and Background 1-1 1 Introduction and Background The East Valley Water District’s (District’s) Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (Master Plan) is an update to the 2002 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (2002 Master Plan). Due to increased growth and aging infrastructure, the District needs to update its 20-year capital improvement program (CIP). 1.1 MASTER PLAN OBJECTIVES The objectives of the Master Plan are to evaluate the collection system capacity and provide a general assessment of the condition of the existing sewer collection system in order to develop a comprehensive 20-year CIP. The 20-year CIP includes pipeline condition and capacity improvement projects, long range maintenance program considerations, as well as conveyance needs. The recommended CIP will be the basis for wastewater rate evaluations and long range financial plans to be completed in separate financial studies. 1.2 REPORT ORGANIZATION The Master Plan provides a comprehensive review and evaluation of the District’s wastewater collection, conveyance, and capacity requirements under existing and projected future conditions. Based on findings of the evaluation, the Master Plan recommends facility improvements and capital cost requirements to ensure that aging infrastructure remains serviceable and to allow for the continued buildout of the District. The Master Plan contains five (5) chapters: Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the project, the study area, and the relationship between the District and the City of San Bernardino. Chapter 2 summarizes land use and population information for existing and future evaluations. Chapter 3 presents an overview of the existing collection system and sewer basins, flow metering information, and estimates of existing and future wastewater generation rates for both dry and wet weather. Chapter 4 presents the capacity analysis including: methodology and findings of the hydraulic modeling, identified capacity constraints, and alternatives to address capacity concerns. Chapter 5 presents findings and recommendations for both condition assessment and capacity limitations. For condition assessment the findings will include a summary of the pipe condition assessment and identify specific condition deficiencies. A recommended rehabilitation and replacement program will be included based on identified risk. For capacity recommendations, a capital cost and prioritization is included. 1.3 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION The District is located in the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains along Highway 210 (Hwy 210) between the City of Redlands to the south and San Bernardino to the west. The District serves the City of Highland, portions of the City of San Bernardino, and areas of unincorporated San Bernardino County, including the San Manuel Indian Reservation. District wastewater is conveyed to the San Bernardino Water Reclamation Plant (SBWRP) via the regional East Trunk Sewer. Both the SBWRP and the East Trunk Sewer are owned and operated by the City of San Bernardino. For EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT | Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Introduction and Background 1-2 the Master Plan, the study area includes the District and portions of the City of San Bernardino that drain to the East Trunk Sewer. Figure 1-1 shows the study area location, District and municipal boundaries, as well as the East Trunk Sewer and SBWRP. Topographically, the study area varies considerably. Generally, the service area drains from north to south and east to west. Terrain in the study area ranges in elevation from approximately 1,000 to 3,000 feet (ft). 1.4 REGIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Since 1957, the District has conveyed wastewater to the City of San Bernardino for treatment at the SBWRP via the East Trunk Sewer. This relationship is described in more detail in the Joint Powers Agreement of 1957 Between the City of San Bernardino and the East San Bernardino County Water District (JPA) and subsequent amendments and supplements, provided in Appendix A. The East San Bernardino County Water District was later renamed to East Valley Water District in 1982. Through this agreement, the City of San Bernardino owns and maintains the East Trunk Sewer and SBWRP and the District has the right to discharge wastewater into the East Trunk Sewer (or other tributary sewers) for treatment at the SBWRP. The City of San Bernardino bills the District for services, which are then passed through to District customers based on their water usage. As the District moves forward with plans to extend service there may need to be additional amendments to the JPA. 0 2,500 5,000 Feet 1 inch = 5,500 feet LEGEND East Trunk Sewer SBWRP District Boundary City of Highland City of San Bernardino Figure1_1 February 15, 2013 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Figure 1-1 District Location EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT | Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Population and Land Use 2-1 2 Population and Land Use Population and land use information was utilized to analyze existing wastewater flows and to estimate future flows. The population and land use data were obtained from the following: United States Census Bureau San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) San Bernardino County County of San Bernardino City of Highland Additional details on land use and population projections are included in Appendix B. 2.1 LAND USE The District is comprised of the City of Highland, unincorporated areas of San Bernardino County, and portions of the City of San Bernardino. Existing land use information was provided by SANBAG. Future land use was developed from information provided by: SANBAG, City of San Bernardino Planning Division (including the 2005 San Bernardino General Plan and 2012 General Plan Update), and the City of Highland Planning Division (including the 2006 General Plan, Harmony Specific Plan, Greenspot Village & Market Place Specific Plan, and known development projects). Figure 2-1 shows existing land use in the District and the locations of the major planned developments. 2.2 POPULATION Population data, both existing and projected, was obtained primarily from the 2008 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and SANBAG’s associated Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) data. The RTP is a 25-year plan that provides population projections through 2035. 2.2.1 Existing Population and Large Users As a result of the economic downturn and subsequent stagnant growth from 2008 to 2012, it was assumed that the existing population in 2008 is equivalent to the 2012 population. The existing population projections in the District were estimated using TAZ data, which provided population by class including single-family residential, multi-family residential, retail employment, non-retail employment, and students. The TAZ boundaries were then overlaid with the District Boundary. Where the TAZ boundary extended beyond the District boundary, the TAZ boundary population was decreased to match the percent of land within the District (for example, if 90 percent of a TAZ was located within District boundaries it was assumed that 90 percent of the population of the TAZ was served by the District). Figure 2-2 shows the existing population provided by class. LEGEND Collection System Modeled Collection System East Trunk Sewer Planned Developments Existing Land Use Single Family Multi-Family Commercial Industrial Institutional School Open Space Agriculture ROW Vacant SBWRP District Boundary City of Highland City of San Bernardino Figure2_1 April 12, 2013 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan 0 5,500 Feet 1 inch = 5,500 feet Figure 2-1 Land Use & Major Developments EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT | Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Population and Land Use 2-3 Figure 2-2 Existing 2012 Population by Class The residential population provided by the SANBAG TAZ data was compared to the District’s billing database as well as 2010 Census data. Dwelling unit data in the District’s billing database seems to confirm the existing population with a population density roughly between 3 and 3.5 persons per household. Both the District’s billing database and Census data verify the TAZ population projections for the District’s service area. 2.2.2 Evaluation of Large Water and Wastewater Use Customers Customers who use large quantities of water or wastewater warrant a separate analysis to determine whether they are contributing significant flows to the sewer. This typically occurs with industrial customers who use large quantities of water for processing. A list of large water and wastewater users was obtained from the District and their usage was compared with the projected flows estimated from population. This analysis indicated that there were no users contributing a disproportionate amount into the system so flows were not point loaded for these customers. The customers reviewed are listed in Table 2-1 and Table 2-2. 93,500 1,800 19,400 23,600 Resident Retail Non-Retail Student Total Residential Population = 93,500 Total Non-Residential Population = 44,800 EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT | Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Population and Land Use 2-4 Table 2-1 Top Water Customers CUSTOMER NAME AVERAGE DAILY WATER DEMAND (gpd) San Bernardino County Unified School District (SBCUSD) 6,097 Patton State Hospital 5,093 San Manuel Mission Indians 2,737 San Manuel Bingo & Casino 1,986 Stubblefield Construction 1,458 Valencia LEA Mobile Home Park 1,178 East Highland Ranch 1,053 City of Highland 871 Lynwood Owners Association 817 gpd – gallons per day Top customer list provided by District and based on revenue Table 2-2 Top Wastewater Customers CUSTOMER NAME AVERAGE DAILY WASTEWATER FLOW (gpd) San Manuel Mission Indians 2,737 SBCUSD 2,624 San Manuel Bingo & Casino 1,795 Stubblefield Construction 1,458 Valencia LEA Mobile Home Park 1,023 Victoria Village Apartments 826 Sunset Ridge Apartments 767 CS Aventerra LP 743 Highland Palms Homeowners 719 Village Lakes Homeowners Association 691 gpd – gallons per day Top customer list provided by District and based on revenue 2.2.3 Future Population Projections Future population projections were made based on the projected growth by TAZ in the RTP, which includes about 1,020 new residents per year (assuming straight-line growth). The information from the RTP was supplemented with development information from the City of Highland in the form of the Highland Housing Activity September 2012 Map, as well as other specific development information including specific plans and sewer studies. Potential population projections were calculated for each of the identified planned developments based on available land use and/or dwelling unit information. The potential populations for each planned development were then compared to the growth projected in the RTP. Many of the planned developments are smaller, and EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT | Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Population and Land Use 2-5 it appears that the additional population is accounted for in the RTP projections; however, the potential population growth calculated for the four largest developments appears to be significantly higher than that projected in the RTP. To be conservative in future flow estimates, the larger population was assumed for this Master Plan. These developments are shown on Figure 2-1 and the adjusted population is summarized in Table 2-3. Table 2-3 Planned Developments Projected Populations DEVELOPMENT CUSTOMER TYPE RTP POPULATION PROJECTIONS ADJUSTED POPULATION PROJECTIONS Harmony Resident Retail Non-Retail Student 6,341 146 759 627 17,838 434 868 830 Arnott Ranch Resident 265 1,050 Highland Hills Ranch Resident 1,759 5,851 Greenspot Village and Marketplace Resident Retail 500 303 2,750 4,500 Note: In general, adjusted population projections were calculated based on available dwelling unit estimates, and assuming a population density of 3.5 persons per household. For the Harmony development, more specific land use data was available. Adjusted population projections for the Harmony development are based on the land use details described in the Draft Harmony Specific Plan (2012). The maximum allowable dwelling unit densities per acre of land use were assumed, as well as a population density of 3.5 persons per dwelling unit. The adjusted population projections estimate that the total residential population for the four largest planned developments is approximately 27,500, while the RTP projections estimate a total residential population of approximately 8,900 for these same areas. Likewise, the adjusted population projections estimate that the total non-residential population for the four largest planned developments is approximately 6,600, while the RTP projections estimate a total non- residential population of approximately 1,800 for the same areas. Again, to be conservative in future flow estimates, the larger populations were assumed for this Master Plan. Figure 2-3 summarizes the 2035 total population projections as provided by the RTP versus the adjusted population projections accounting for the higher growth rates in the larger developments listed in Table 2-3. EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT | Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Population and Land Use 2-6 132,033 5,016 26,504 30,051 Resident Retail Non-Retail Student Total Residential Population = 132,033 Total Non-Residential Population = 61,571 150,657 9,501 26,613 30,254 Total Residential Population = 150,657 Total Non-Residential Population = 66,368 Figure 2-3 Projected 2035 Population by Customer Type Note: The adjusted projections include the maximum potential densities for Harmony identified in the Draft Harmony Specific Plan. Based on the two population models, four growth scenarios, shown in Figure 2-4, were evaluated to bracket potential growth. These scenarios include: RTP. The original projected growth from the RTP with a 2035 residential population of 132,000. This is based on an annual growth of 1,426 persons per year. Delayed RTP. Assumes that no growth has occurred in the last 5 years, and the recovery will occur at approximately the same rate of 1,426 people per year, as originally anticipated in the RTP. This projection has a 2035 population of 126,300. Adjusted RTP. Assumes that no growth has occurred in the last 5 years, but that the recovery will include rapid growth and the adjusted projections will be met by 2035. This projection will include a growth rate of approximately 2,490 residents per year with a 2035 population of 150,700. Aggressive. Assumes that no growth has occurred in the last 5 years. It further assumes that the specific development areas will be built out in the next 5 years, by 2017. From 2017 to 2035, it assumes that the remaining growth projected in the RTP will be occurring. This projection has a growth rate of 5,160 people per year from 2012 to 2017, and a growth rate of 1,740 people per year through 2035. This results in a 2035 projected population of 150,700. Adjusted 2035 Projections RTP 2035 Projections EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT | Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Population and Land Use 2-7 Figure 2-4 Residential Population Projections In order to position the District to address growth-related capacity issues, the aggressive growth projections were used for the hydraulic modeling. Recommended capacity improvements will be tied to specific development areas or other triggers, so that the District can adjust the timing of capital improvements based on actual growth. In 2012, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) finalized its 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP Update). The RTP Update is a long-range regional transportation plan that provides a blueprint to help achieve a coordinated and balanced regional transportation system in the SCAG region. The SCAG region is comprised of six counties: Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. Currently, SANBAG is updating its population projections based on the RTP Update, with expected completion in 2014. Based on the regional population trends presented in the RTP Update, it is expected that SANBAG’s 2014 population projections will not differ significantly from those presented in the RTP utilized in this Master Plan. 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000 140,000 150,000 160,000 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 93,500 126,300 132,000 150,700 RTP Delayed RTP Aggressive Adjusted RTP EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT | Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses 3-1 3 Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses The first step in evaluating the capacity of the wastewater collection system is development and calibration of the wastewater collection system model. Facilities for the District hydraulic model were imported into InfoSewer® by Innovyze® from Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data supplied by the District. Wastewater flows were then developed and allocated to the hydraulic model under dry weather and wet weather flow conditions and calibrated to the flow metering data. 3.1 EXISTING WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM The District’s existing wastewater collection system includes approximately 215 miles of gravity sewer pipelines, 4,500 sewer manholes, 6 siphons, and 5 flow diversion structures. The District’s gravity sewer pipelines convey wastewater to the East Trunk Sewer, generally draining from east to west, and north to south. The existing wastewater collection system is shown in Figure 3-1 and described in the following sections. 3.1.1 Gravity Sewer Pipelines The District owns and operates approximately 215 miles of gravity sewer pipelines, ranging in size from 6 inches to 24 inches in diameter. The East Trunk Sewer, owned and operated by the City of San Bernardino, conveys the District’s flows to the SBWRP. The East Trunk Sewer is approximately 9 miles of primarily gravity sewer pipelines, ranging in size from 8 inches to 54 inches in diameter. The hydraulic model includes all pipes 10 inches in diameter and larger, as well as 6 inch and 8 inch lines that were considered hydraulically necessary or important to evaluating the wastewater collection system. The model includes the entire East Trunk Sewer. Table 3-1 summarizes the District’s gravity sewer pipelines by diameter. East Trunk Sewer components are also summarized. The majority of the District’s gravity sewer pipelines are composed of vitrified clay pipe (VCP). VCP pipe was used until 1970; since then, the District’s sewer system has included polyvinyl chloride (PVC), thermoplastic (TRUSS), and high density polyethylene (HDPE) materials for new pipe installations. Figure 3-2 summarizes the distribution of pipe materials in the existing wastewater collection system. The East Trunk Sewer was installed in 1958 and consists of VCP for diameters 36 inch and smaller and reinforced concrete pipeline (RCP) for diameters 39 inch and larger. The majority of the District’s wastewater collection system was installed in the 1950s and 1960s. Figure 3-3 summarizes the District’s wastewater collection system pipelines by installation period and length. 0 2,000 4,000 Feet 1 inch = 4,000 feet LEGEND Flow Meters 2010 Flow Meter Rain Gauge 2011 Flow Meter 2012 Flow Meter Collection System Modeled Collection System < 12" 12" - 18" 21" - 30" > 30" SBWRP District Boundary Basin Boundaries 1000-009 1008-001 604-026 606-031 703-001 902-000 911-070 CHU03 CON01 CUN02 Figure3_1 February 15, 2013 Figure 3-1 Existing Facilities & Meter Basins Wastewater Collection System Master Plan EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT | Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses 3-3 Table 3-1 Wastewater Collection System Pipelines DIAMETER (INCHES) TOTAL DISTRICT LENGTH (FEET) MODELED DISTRICT LENGTH (FEET) EAST TRUNK SEWER LENGTH (FEET) Unknown 6,300 700 -- 6 160,000 30,700 -- 8 784,500 183,100 970 10 41,600 41,600 2,340 12 57,700 57,700 2,290 15 33,100 33,100 9,570 16 700 700 -- 18 13,400 13,400 2,100 21 17,300 17,300 1,200 24 15,900 15,900 2,710 27 -- -- 3,050 30 -- -- 2,220 33 -- -- 2,130 36 -- -- -- 39 -- -- 1,690 48 -- -- 4,540 54 -- -- 7,810 Total 1,130,500 394,200 42,620 EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT | Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses 3-4 Figure 3-2 Existing District Wastewater Collection System by Pipe Material Figure 3-3 Length of District’s Gravity Sewer Pipe by Installation Period VCP 75.4% PVC 16.6% TRUSS 6.4% DIP 0.5% CIP 0.4% ABS 0.3% HDPE 0.3% Unknown 0.2% Other 24.6% 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Le n g t h o f P i p e ( 1 , 0 0 0 f t ) Installation Period Note: Does not include East Trunk Sewer. Pie Chart shown on the right reflects the breakdown of the “Other” Category. EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT | Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses 3-5 3.1.2 Siphons The District owns and operates six siphons within the wastewater collection system. Siphons generally convey flows underneath storm drain channels or natural waterways where it is not possible to install a gravity sewer pipeline. Currently, the District provides weekly maintenance on the siphons. In addition, there are two siphons in the East Trunk Sewer, which are maintained by the City of San Bernardino. The siphons in the East Trunk Sewer convey flows from both the District’s and the City of San Bernardino’s wastewater collection systems. Siphon details are summarized in Table 3-2. All of the siphons are included in the hydraulic model, with the exception of the Warm Creek Siphon. Table 3-2 Siphons LOCATION NO. OF BARRELS DIAMETER (INCHES) LENGTH (FEET) MATERIAL YEAR INSTALLED East Valley Water District 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 Dr 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 N/A Warm Creek Siphon(2) 2 4 90 CIP 1971 East Trunk Sewer Siphons(¹) 7 E Sixth St between Cooley St and Pedley Rd 2 15 & 21 130 RCP 1958 8 S Waterman Ave between E Valley St and E Mill St 2 21 & 30 191 RCP 1958 (1) Operated and maintained by the City of San Bernardino. Siphons were identified through review of as-built drawings provided. (2) Warm creek siphons not included in the model due to its limited service area. EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT | Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses 3-6 3.1.3 Diversion Structures The District has identified five diversion structures in its wastewater 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 the District’s wastewater collection system and are shown in Figure 3-4. Table 3-3 Diversion Structures DIVERSION NO. MANHOLE NO. 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 3.1.4 Lift Stations and Force Mains Currently, the District’s wastewater collection system does not include any lift stations or force mains. 3.2 FLOW MONITORING Data from recent flow monitoring studies, as well as from a permanent flow meter located at the SBWRP, were used to calibrate the wastewater collection system model. 3.2.1 Flow Metering Locations During a flow monitoring study, flow meters capture wastewater generated within a given sub-area of the system upstream of their location. These sub-areas, called meter basins, define the area and population which contribute to flows observed at that specific location. Meter basins include all pipes upstream of the flow meter, up to the next upstream flow meter or the end of the sewer pipeline. The meter basins defined for this Master Plan are based on the location of the 2010 and 2011 flow meter locations, and are shown in Figure 3-4. Data from the 2013 Flow Monitoring Study will be used to confirm previous findings. Figure 3-5 includes a schematic of the 2010 and 2011 meter basins, numbered by flow metering manhole, and more clearly identifies how the meter basins are hydraulically related to each other. RedlandsRedlands MunicipalMunicipal AirportAirport San BernardinoSan Bernardino International AirportInternational Airport Ea s t T w i n C r e e k Plunge C r e e k Can a l Sch e n k C r e e k Oak Creek Gage Canal Fredalba Creek L i t t l e S and Creek L ittl e M ill C r e e k C it y C r e e k Warm Creek Highland C a nal S a n d Creek N orth F ork Canal S T i p p e c a n o e A v e W 3Rd St S A r r o w h e a d A v e N A r r o w h e a d A v e E 30Th St W Lugonia Ave W Mill St De l R o sa A v e W Rialto Ave N S i e r r a W a y E Highland Ave Va l e n c i a A ve El e c t r i c A v e Bu c k e y e S t Al a b a m a S t B o u l d e r A v e E Mill St Carnegie Dr Mo u n t a i n V i ew Av e S S i e r ra Wa y Ch u r c h S t Te n n e s s e e S t E Lynwood Dr E 3Rd St Ar d e n A v e Foothill Dr S W a t e r m a n A v e E 5Th St N T i p p e c a n o e A v e St e r l i n g A v e Ju d s o n S t Ch u r c h A v e Highland Ave N Wa t er m a n A v e Baseline St W 13Th St Vi c t o r i a Av e Lynwood Dr Ha r r i s o n S t Pa l m A v e W 6Th St E F o o t h i ll D r 5Th St E 40Th St E Rialto Ave Mentone Blvd Base Line St 40Th St W San Bernardino Ave W Base Line St E 39Th St E San Bernardino Ave E Lugonia Ave E 13Th St E Base Line St T i pp e c a n o e A v e O ra n g e S t San Bernardino Ave Ca l i f o r n ia St N M o u n t a i n V i e w A v e W 5Th St 3Rd St Wa b a s h A v e 30 18 330 38 39 ' ' 33'' 36'' 48 ' ' 54 ' ' 24 ' ' 27'' 24'' 21 ' ' 27'' 30 ' ' 15'' 15 ' ' 12'' 15 ' ' 18'' 0'' 0' ' 8'' 10 ' ' 8'' 10 ' ' 10 ' ' 8' ' 10 ' ' 8' ' CON01 CUN02 CHU03 SBWRP RG01 RG02 RG03 1000-009 902-000 703-001 604-026 606-031 911-070 1008-001 Diversion No. 4 Diversion No. 1 Diversion No. 2 Diversion No. 3 Diversion No. 5 0 2,000 4,000 Feet 1 inch = 4,000 feet LEGEND Flow Meters 2010 Flow Meter Rain Gauge 2011 Flow Meter DiversionStructures Collection Sewer (Not Modeled) Modeled Sewer East Trunk Sewer SBWRP District Boundary Dry Weather Meter Basins 1000-009 1008-001 604-026 606-031 703-001 902-000 911-070 CHU03 CON01 CUN02 Figure3_4 March 28, 2013 K. McRae Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Figure 3-4 Dry Weather Flow Metering EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT | Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses 3-8 Figure 3-5 Wastewater Flow Schematic 3.2.2 Flow Monitoring Studies ADS Environmental Services (ADS) has completed three recent flow monitoring studies for the District: two were performed prior to the development of this master plan, and one was performed as part of this master planning effort. ADS installed flow meters and collected flow data during the following periods: March – May 2010 – 7 flow meters March – April 2011 – 3 flow meters December 2012 – February 2013 – 8 flow meters Additional information on the flow metering sites, methodology, data collection, and data quality is available in the East Valley Water District Flow Monitoring Study (2010, 2011, and 2013) summary reports prepared by ADS (the 2013 Flow Monitoring Study is included in Appendix C). The goal of a flow monitoring study is to improve the understanding of dry and wet weather flows throughout the wastewater collection system. If performed during significant storm events, flow monitoring helps to identify areas with higher rainfall-derived inflow and infiltration (RDII) and areas with existing or potential capacity issues. While no major storm events were captured in the three most recent flow metering periods, the data has helped the District understand wastewater unit generation rates and how meter basins respond to smaller wet weather events. EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT | Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses 3-9 Data collected by a permanent flow meter at the SBWRP was provided by the City of San Bernardino and used to supplement the data collected during the District’s flow monitoring studies and identify large wet weather flow events for evaluation. The permanent flow meter at SBWRP measures flows entering the plant from the East Trunk Sewer, which includes flows from both the City of San Bernardino and the District. 3.3 DRY WEATHER ANALYSIS The data from the 2010 and 2011 Flow Monitoring Studies was determined to be adequate to develop the dry weather model. Subsequently, the dry weather analysis was completed utilizing this data. Data from these previous studies was used to develop average weekday and weekend diurnal curves, which determine the loading pattern for flows within a particular meter basin. Dry weather flows were allocated to the model based on the average flows observed at each flow meter. The Average Daily Dry Weather Flow (ADDF) at each flow monitoring site was determined based on the average flow at that site. Once the ADDF for each meter site was identified, the flows were balanced with the total metered flow at the SBWRP. Flow balancing is an accounting procedure to verify that the sum of the meter basin flows matches the monitored cumulative flow at the SBWRP. Flow imbalances can result from measurement errors with the flow meters. These errors can be compounded in flow monitoring programs where flow is captured by multiple flow meters or when data is collected in multiple years. The flow balancing exercise generally revealed that the District experienced higher flows in 2010 than in 2011. This is expected due to increasing trends in water use efficiency and conservation. Table 3-4 summarizes the ADDF information for each meter basin and the diurnal peaking factor. Table 3-4 Dry Weather Flow Summary METER BASIN BASIN ADDF (MGD) TRIBUTARY METERED ADDF (MGD) CUMULATIVE ADDF (MGD) DIURNAL PEAKING FACTOR 703-001 1.33 0 1.33 1.45 604-026 0.60 0 0.60 1.38 CON01 1.81 1.93 3.74 1.36 606-031 0.19 0 0.19 1.34 CUN02 0.74 0.19 0.93 1.51 1008-001 0.72 0 0.72 1.73 911-070 0.42 0 0.42 1.65 CHU03 0.04(1) 1.14 1.18 1.68 902-000 0.27 5.85 6.12 1.47 1000-009 0.15 0 0.15 1.66 SBWRP 6.80(2) 6.27 13.07(3) 1.73 (1) Adjusted ADDF for the CHU03 sewer basin. (2) Includes seven connections from the City of San Bernardino wastewater collection system. (3) Average flow at SBWRP during the 2010 and 2011 flow monitoring periods. EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT | Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses 3-10 Diurnal curves were identified for each meter basin based on the observed flow patterns at the flow meter. Flow data for weekdays and weekends were analyzed separately to more accurately reflect the system operation specific to these conditions. Weekday and weekend diurnal curves for each flow meter are included in Appendix D. In general, diurnal curves represent behavioral patterns specific to land use or population type. Typically, peak flows in a residential area occur between 8:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. with a lower peak in the evening hours. Areas with proportionately larger commercial and industrial land uses generally have flatter diurnal patterns with relatively constant peaking factors between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. A sample diurnal curve showing the difference between weekday and weekend flow patterns in provided in Figure 3-6. Figure 3-6 Sample Diurnal Curves for Flow Meter 1008-001 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 0:00 6:00 12:00 18:00 0:00 Fl o w ( m g d ) Hour Observed ADDF Weekend Observed ADDF Weekday EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT | Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses 3-11 3.4 DRY WEATHER MODEL Dry weather flows were allocated to the model based on SANBAG population data, District’s land use details, and observed flow data from the recent flow metering efforts. 3.4.1 Existing Flow The population contributing to each meter basin was identified by combining SANBAG population data with the meter basin boundaries. Once the average flow per meter basin was determined, diurnal curves were identified, and flows were balanced, Unit Generation Rates (UGR) was developed for the users within each basin based on the existing population per population class from SANBAG population data. Table 3-5 summarizes the UGR for each basin. Using these UGR rates, flows were assigned to the hydraulic model. Table 3-5 UGR by Basin BASIN UNIT GENERATION RATES BY POPULATION CLASS (gpcd(1)) RESIDENTIAL RETAIL EMPLOYEE NON-RETAIL EMPLOYEE STUDENT 703-001 70 25 50 25 604-026 55 25 25 15 CON01 70 25 50 25 606-031 70 25 50 25 CUN02 60 25 35 10 1008-001 70 25 35 15 911-070 70 25 35 15 CHU03 50 25 25 10 902-000 50 25 25 10 1000-009 50 25 25 10 (1) gallons per capita per day Since the SBWRP receives flows from both the District and the City of San Bernardino, flows from City of San Bernardino need to be accounted for in the model in order to accurately assess the capacity of the District’s sewers. The hydraulic model from the City of San Bernardino’s 2002 Wastewater Master Plan was initially assessed to determine flow contributions from the City of San Bernardino into the East Trunk Sewer. The model showed that the City of San Bernardino’s wastewater collection system ties into the East Trunk Sewer at seven locations, four of which are south of the Waterman Avenue and 6th Street connection, and contributed an estimated 7.0 mgd into the Regional facility. Based on current GIS data, review of the 2013 flow metering data, and review of SBWRP flow records, it is assumed that the City of San Bernardino consistently contributes flows to the East Trunk Sewer via only three connection points, none of which are south of the Waterman Avenue & 6th Street tie-in. Based on the City of San Bernardino hydraulic model and the 2013 flow metering data, it is estimated that the City of San Bernardino contributes approximately 6.3 mgd of flows into the East Trunk Sewer. In addition, it is assumed based on the City of San Bernardino’s most recent EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT | Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses 3-12 master plan that the portions of the City of San Bernardino tributary to the East Trunk Sewer are built-out and little to no future growth is expected. The City of San Bernardino flows, summarized in Table 3-6, are included in the model as point loads applied at the appropriate manhole location. Table 3-6 Summary of City of San Bernardino Flows Conveyed by East Trunk Sewer LOCATION ESTIMATED ADDF (MGD) LOADING MANHOLE Harrison St & Marshall Blvd 0.065(1) F3-108 Mountain Ave & Eureka St 0.073(2) E3-126 Waterman Ave & 6th St 6.135(3) 0670079 TOTAL 6.273 (1) ADDF estimated based on the City of San Bernardino’s modeled peak flow of 0.098 mgd, assuming a peak flow/ADDF of 1.5. (2) ADDF estimated based on the City of San Bernardino’s modeled peak flow of 0.110 mgd, assuming a peak flow/ADDF of 1.5. (3) ADDF estimated based 2013 Flow Monitoring Study data and SBWRP records. Using InfoSewer’s Load Allocator Tool, loads were spatially assigned to manholes to be routed through the system. The dry weather model was calibrated by slightly adjusting the diurnal patterns for the various flow meters in order to match the simulated flow in the model to the observed flow in the wastewater collection system at the same location. In addition, to being conservative, model calibration aimed to match weekend flows at each flow meter since they tended to be higher than weekday flows. Figure 3-7 shows a sample calibration graph, comparing the simulated and observed flows at flow meter CUN02. Dry weather calibration graphs for all meters are included in Appendix E. Figure 3-7 Calibration Curve for Flow Meter CUN02 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 0:00 6:00 12:00 18:00 0:00 Fl o w ( m g d ) Hour Observed ADDF Weekend Observed ADDF Weekday Simulated Existing ADDF EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT | Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses 3-13 The goal of model calibration was to have less than a 10 percent difference between the simulated and observed dry weather flows. As a result of the difference in flows between metering periods, some variation from this criterion is considered acceptable. Table 3-7 summarizes the dry weather model calibration for each flow meter. The simulated flows calibrated to within 10 percent of the observed values for all but three basins, which are explained in Table 3-7. Table 3-7 Summary of Dry Weather Model Calibration FLOW METER OBSERVED WEEKEND FLOW (MGD) SIMULATED FLOW (MGD) DIFFERENCE (%) COMMENTS 703-001 1.37 1.34 -1.9 604-026 0.65 0.68 4.6 CON01 3.82 3.64 -4.8 606-031 0.20 0.16 -19.0 The calibration percentage was deemed acceptable because the precision of the flow meter equipment is reduced at low flows. CUN02 0.96 0.99 3.2 1008-001 0.80 0.74 -8.0 911-070 0.44 0.44 0 CHU03 1.18 1.24 5.1 902-000 5.98 6.67 11.6 The calibration percentage was deemed acceptable because the upstream 2011 meters were calibrated within approximately 5% 1000-009 0.15 0.17 14.1 The calibration percentage was deemed acceptable because the precision of the flow meter equipment is reduced at low flows. SBWRP – East Trunk Sewer 13.07 13.72 5.0 Note: SBWRP currently treats approximately 23 mgd, and has capacity to treat 33 mgd. EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT | Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses 3-14 3.4.2 Future Flow Future flows were determined based on projected population growth from SANBAG population data, and from planned development information. Development information included the number of dwelling units for residential land uses and acreages of non-residential land uses. Recommended population and land use based UGRs were developed and are summarized below: 70 gpcd - Residential Population 25 gpcd – Retail Employee Population 35 gpcd – Non- Retail Employee Population 15 gpcd – Student Population 245 gpd/dwelling unit – Residential Dwelling Unit 1,500 gpd/acre – Non-Residential Area The non-residential category typically includes commercial, industrial, and institutional land uses which can have a wide range of unit flows, typically from 500 – 5,000 gpd/acre, depending on factors, such as the number of students or employees, or whether the facility is utilized for manufacturing or warehousing. The recommended 1,500 gpd/acre is an average of these various types of uses utilized for planning purposes. The District reserves the right to apply more or less stringent criteria to future development projects on a case-by-case basis. Table 3-8 provides a summary of the existing and projected future flows for each major development and the general population increase based on the 2035 aggressive growth scenario presented in Chapter 2. The flow estimate for Harmony assumes the maximum potential densities based on the Draft Harmony Specific Plan. Table 3-8 Future 2035 Flows FUTURE FLOW COMPONENTS ADDF (MGD) Existing District Flows 6.50 Future Major Development Flows - Arnott Development - Harmony Development(1) - Highland Hills Development - Greenspot Development - Subtotal 0.08 1.33 0.39 0.31 2.11 Future Population Flows - Residential Population - Retail Population - Non-Retail Population - Student Population - Subtotal 2.60 0.05 0.25 0.08 2.98 TOTAL Future District Flows(2) 11.59 San Bernardino Flows 6.27 TOTAL East Trunk Sewer Flows(2) 17.86 (1) Harmony Development assumes the maximum potential densities in the Draft Specific Plan. (2) Includes existing flows. EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT | Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses 3-15 3.5 WET WEATHER ANALYSIS Wet weather responses in a wastewater collection system vary in relation to the duration and intensity of the storm event, the antecedent conditions, as well as the land use and pipe characteristics of the service area. The goal of a wet weather analysis is to determine the volume of RDII that enters the wastewater collection system relative to a rain event and develop parameters that define the responses for use in the hydraulic model. Historical rainfall records were reviewed in order to identify a recent large storm event to evaluate wastewater collection system capacity. Daily rainfall totals for the City of Highland were provided by the District for 2001 through 2012, and events receiving at least 1.53 inches of rain within 24 hours, or a 1-year, 24-hour storm, were identified. Flows observed at SBWRP during these events were reviewed to identify any wet weather responses in the system. The City of San Bernardino provided flow data records from SBWRP between 2004 through 2011. Table 3-9 summarizes the rainfall events during which a significant wet weather response was observed at SBWRP. Table 3-9 Significant Rainfall Events Summary DATE AVERAGE FLOW (MGD) INSTANTANEOUS(1) PEAK FLOW (MGD) PEAKING FACTOR 2/26/2004 16.30 25.53 1.57 10/19/2004 15.18 21.46 1.41 10/20/2004 18.72 34.79 1.86 10/26/2004 14.81 22.42 1.51 1/10/2005 19.33 34.60 1.79 1/11/2005 17.16 24.60 1.43 2/20/2005 15.61 23.73 1.52 4/6/2006 15.75 23.03 1.46 12/1/2007 14.96 22.06 1.47 1/5/2008 16.74 23.71 1.42 12/17/2008 14.45 22.77 1.58 12/13/2009 14.22 22.50 1.58 12/19/2010 17.13 25.80 1.51 12/20/2010 18.55 39.75 2.14 12/21/2010 16.82 23.56 1.40 12/22/2010 20.70 38.75 1.87 (1) Record peak flows based on 5 minute flow readings at SBWRP. EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT | Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses 3-16 The December 2010 rainfall event was selected to perform the wet weather analysis on the District’s wastewater collection system. This was a complex storm event which included multiple days of continuous rainfall. During the event period, SBWRP observed a peak flow of approximately 40 mgd. Figure 3-8 shows the storm response observed at SBWRP over the selected 48-hour storm period from December 20 through December 21, 2010. Figure 3-8 Observed Flow and Rainfall during December 2010 Storm (Dec. 20 – Dec. 21, 2010) More detailed rainfall data for this event was provided by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Incremental 15-minute rainfall data revealed that this storm was defined by a series of 12- to 24-hour storm events. The peak flow observed at SBWRP was caused by a 10-year, 24-hour rainfall event, which was preceded by a 5-year, 24-hour storm. Figure 3-9 shows the intensity- duration-frequency (IDF) curves for the two rainfall events. Based on industry experience, a 10-year, 24-hour rainfall event is typically the highest design storm utilized to assess wastewater collection system capacity for master planning purposes. 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.00 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 Ra i n f a l l ( i n c h e s ) Fl o w ( m g d ) Rainfall SBWRP Observed Flow SBWRP ADDF EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT | Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses 3-17 Figure 3-9 December 2010 Storm Frequency An average RDII volume for this event was determined based on the flows observed at the SBWRP, average day flows generated by the City of San Bernardino, and average day flows generated by the District. Approximately half of the RDII volume was uniformly distributed to the District’s wastewater collection system based on the percentage of the District’s total load allocated to a manhole. This method was utilized because of the limited wet weather flow metering data available. The remainder of the RDII volume was distributed among the City of San Bernardino’s seven tie-ins to the East Trunk Sewer based on the percentage of the City of San Bernardino’s total load allocated to the connection. During wet weather model calibration, additional RDII volume was assigned to the City of San Bernardino’s flows in order to simulate the expected response at the SBWRP. Increasing the peaking factor on all wet weather loads equally caused the hydraulic model to generate significant overflows in the District’s service area. Since the District’s records confirmed that there were no overflows during the 2010 storm event, it was determined that more RDII volume is contributed by the City of San Bernardino’s wastewater collection system. Figure 3-10 shows the existing system wet weather calibration graph for the December 2010 storm event. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 500 1000 1500 2000 P e a k C u m u l a t i v e R a i n f a l l ( i n . ) Duration (min.) Dec. 19, 2010 Dec. 20-21, 2010 EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT | Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses 3-18 Figure 3-10 Wet Weather Calibration Graph 3.6 2013 FLOW MONITORING ASSESSMENT The 2013 Flow Monitoring Study was completed as part of this Master Plan in an effort to capture potentially significant wet weather flow conditions in the District’s wastewater collection system. Flow meters were placed at eight locations throughout the wastewater collection system from December 22, 2012 through February 24, 2013. Figure 3-11 shows the locations of the 2013 flow meters and the contributing meter basins. The data collected for the 2013 Flow Monitoring Study was utilized for two main purposes: to confirm dry weather calibration of the existing InfoSewer model, and provide an assessment of the District’s wastewater collection system operation under wet weather conditions. 3.6.1 2013 Dry Weather Analysis The flow meter locations are schematically shown in Figure 3-12 to clearly identify how the basins are hydraulically related to each other. Table 3-10 summarizes the observed flows during the 2013 Flow Monitoring period. 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 10 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0:00 6:00 12:00 18:00 0:00 6:00 12:00 18:00 0:00 Ra i n f a l l ( i n c h e s ) Fl o w ( m g d ) Rainfall Observed Wet Weather Flow Simulated Wet Weather Flow RedlandsRedlands MunicipalMunicipal AirportAirport San BernardinoSan Bernardino International AirportInternational Airport Ea s t T w i n C r e e k Plunge C r e e k Can a l Sch e n k C r e e k Oak Creek Gage Canal Fredalba Creek L i t t l e S and Creek L ittl e M ill C r e e k C it y C r e e k Warm Creek HighlandCanal S a n d Creek N orth F ork Canal S T i p p e c a n o e A v e W 3Rd St S A r r o w h e a d A v e N A r r o w h e a d A v e E 30Th St W Lugonia Ave W Mill St De l R o sa A v e W Rialto Ave N S i e r r a W a y E Highland Ave Va l e n c i a A ve El e c t r i c A v e Bu c k e y e S t Al a b a m a S t B o u l d e r A v e E Mill St Carnegie Dr Mo u n t a i n V i ew Av e S S i e r ra Wa y Ch u r c h S t Te n n e s s e e S t E Lynwood Dr Ar d e n A v e Foothill Dr S W a t e r m a n A v e E 5Th St N T i p p e c a n o e A v e St e r l i n g A v e Ju d s o n S t Ch u r c h A v e Highland Ave N Wa t er m a n A v e Baseline St W 13Th St Vi c t o r i a Av e Lynwood Dr Ha r r i s o n S t Pa l m A v e W 6Th St E F o o t h i ll D r 5Th S t E 40Th St E Rialto Ave Mentone Blvd Base Line St 40Th St W San Bernardino Ave W Base Line St E 39Th St E San Bernardino Ave E 3Rd St E Lugonia Ave E 13Th St E Base Line St T i pp e c a n o e A v e O ra n g e S t San Bernardino Ave Ca l i f o r n ia St N M o u n t a i n V i e w A v e W 5Th St 3Rd St Wa b a s h A v e 30 18 330 38 39 ' ' 33'' 36'' 48 ' ' 54 ' ' 48 ' ' 24 ' ' 27'' 21 ' ' 27'' 30 ' ' 15'' 15 ' ' 12'' 15 ' ' 18'' 0'' 0' ' 8'' 10 ' ' 8'' 10 ' ' 10 ' ' 8' ' 10 ' ' 8' ' FM1 FM2 FM3 FM4 FM5 FM6 FM7 FM8 SBWRP RG01 RG02 RG03 Diversion No. 4 Diversion No. 1 Diversion No. 2 Diversion No. 3 Diversion No. 5 0 2,000 4,000 Feet 1 inch = 4,000 feet LEGEND Flow Meters Rain Gauge 2013 Flow Meter DiversionStructures Collection Sewer (Not Modeled) Modeled Sewer East Trunk Sewer SBWRP District Boundary Wet Weather Meter Basins FM_01 FM_02 FM_03 FM_04 FM_05 FM_06 FM_07 FM_08 Figure3_11 March 29, 2013 K. McRae Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Figure 3-11 Wet Weather Flow Metering EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT | Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses 3-20 Figure 3-12 2013 Flow Monitoring Wastewater Flow Schematic Table 3-10 2013 Observed Flow Summary METER BASIN BASIN ADDF (MGD) CUMULATIVE ADDF (MGD) DIURNAL PEAKING FACTOR FM01 6.44(1) 12.7(2) 1.47 FM02 0.16 2.8 1.62 FM03 3.46(3) 3.5 1.43 FM04 1.66 2.7 1.67 FM05 0.06 0.1 1.44 FM06 1.00 1.2 1.87 FM07 0.08 0.2 1.97 FM08 0.10 0.1 1.89 SBWRP 0.00 12.7 1.66 (1) Includes connection from City of San Bernardino collection system at Waterman Avenue and 6th Street. (2) Includes three connections from the City of San Bernardino collection system. (3) Includes two connections from City of San Bernardino collection system at Harrison Street and Marshall Boulevard and Mountain Avenue and Eureka Street. EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT | Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses 3-21 In general, the flows observed during the 2013 flow monitoring period confirm the dry weather calibration of the existing system InfoSewer model. The dry weather flow data summarized in Table 3-10 can be compared to the data presented previously in this chapter in Table 3-4. At comparable flow meter locations, the ADDF and diurnal peaking factors observed during the 2013 flow monitoring period are very similar to those observed during the 2010 and 2011 flow monitoring efforts. The 2013 observed flow data confirms the modeled dry weather conditions throughout the District’s service area, and also confirms the assumption that nearly all of the City of San Bernardino’s flow contributions to the East Trunk Sewer enter the system through the Waterman Avenue and 6th Street connection. Flows captured by FM05, located at the north end of Victoria Avenue, provide information on the volume and capacity required to convey flows generated by the San Manuel Indian Reservation. The San Manuel Indian Reservation includes residential population, but also contributes commercial flows to the wastewater collection system from the San Manuel Bingo & Casino. Based on SANBAG population data and the ADDF and flow patterns observed at FM05, the existing system model conveys approximately 85-percent of the flows allocated to the San Manuel Indian Reservation population to the Victoria Avenue pipeline. The remaining 15-percent of residential flows enter the system in Piedmont Drive, to the east of the Victoria Avenue connection. Flows entering at this location are conveyed through pipelines in Piedmont Drive, Mirada Road, and eventually Victoria Avenue south of Mirada Road. Likewise, the remaining 15-percent of retail and non-retail flows are modeled to enter the system in Valaria Drive, to the west of the Victoria Avenue connection. These flows are conveyed south through the Sterling Avenue pipeline. Given the large potential residential growth expected in the San Manuel Indian Reservation identified in the TAZ data, the 2035 system model assumed that all flows generated by the San Manuel Indian Reservation population will be conveyed south via the Victoria Avenue pipeline. Furthermore, an additional scenario was evaluated in order to model the San Manuel Indian Reservation flows as they are likely distributed to the District’s wastewater collection system. This scenario is referred to as the San Manuel Alternative, and divides all future flows between the east and west connection points in Piedmont Drive and Valaria Drive, respectively. While all existing flows enter the District’s wastewater collection system at the north end of Victoria Avenue, all future residential flows are directed down the Piedmont Drive pipeline and all non-residential or “casino” flows are conveyed via the Valaria Drive pipeline. EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT | Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses 3-22 3.6.2 2013 Wet Weather Analysis Twelve storm events were observed during the 2013 flow monitoring period; however, none of the events were of significant duration or intensity. A storm is defined as significant if it is a 1-year, 24-hour frequency storm event. Table 3-11 summarizes the observed rainfall events, listing the observed duration and volume of rainfall, and the peak intensity. Table 3-11 2013 Observed Rainfall Event Summary EVENT START DATE RAINFALL DURATION (HOUR) TOTAL RAINFALL (INCHES) PEAK INTENSITY (INCHES/HOUR) 12/24/2012 5.3 0.27 0.10 12/26/2012 5.0 0.51 0.34 12/29/2012 8.3 0.30 0.13 12/30/2012 2.8 0.08 0.07 1/6/2013 5.3 0.24 0.19 1/10/2013 6.8 0.83 0.38 1/24/2013 7.1 0.28 0.14 1/25/2013(1) 19.3 0.55 0.19 1/26/2013 1.0 0.06 0.06 1/27/2013 2.9 0.21 0.15 2/8/2013(1) 13.7 0.77 0.17 2/19-20/2013(1) 8.4 0.65 0.31 Average 7.2 0.40 0.19 (1) Storm event is shown in IDF Curve in Figure 3-13 Furthermore, storms that produce at least ½ inch of rainfall in six hours are identified as potentially being large enough to cause a wet weather response in the wastewater collection system. Four storms occurred during the 2013 flow monitoring period that met these minimum criteria. These events occurred on January 10, 2013; January 25, 2013; February 8, 2013; and, February 19, 2013. Wet weather responses were observed by all meters during these storm events, except for the January 10 event. Few flow meters registered a wet weather response during this rainfall event. This indicates the rainfall that occurred during this storm event was likely centralized, not occurring uniformly over the District’s entire service area. Since all meter basins were not affected, this event was not considered in the 2013 wet weather analysis. Figure 3-13 shows the IDF curves for the three largest rainfall events that occurred during the recent flow monitoring period. The IDF curves for the large December 2010 events that were used for wet weather model calibration are also shown in the figure for comparison. EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT | Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses 3-23 3.6.3 R-Value Analysis The R-Value is the ratio of the RDII volume observed by the flow meter to the volume of rainfall that fell on the contributing meter basin. An R-Value analysis was performed using the 2013 Flow Monitoring Study data in an effort to determine if any areas of the District’s wastewater collection system were prone to experiencing higher RDII than others. The R-Value analysis evaluates the flows observed in the wastewater collection system during periods of wet weather to assess the amount of rainfall that enters the wastewater collection system via inflow and infiltration. The R-Value can be used as a guide to determine the relative number and size of RDII defects within the wastewater collection system. Note that calculating R-Values involves assumptions about complex physical processes that affect wet weather infiltration to sanitary sewers; therefore, R-Values can vary significantly between rainfall events depending on moisture conditions, seasons, rainfall patterns, and numerous other factors. To characterize the R-Value in each of the meter basins, the available rainfall and flow data from the 2013 flow monitoring period were reviewed to identify time of increased flow in the collection system corresponding to periods of rainfall. Wet weather responses were identified in the flow monitoring data during three of the observed storm events: January 25, 2013; February 8, 2013; and February 19, 2013. R-Values for all flow meters are summarized in Table 3-12. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 500 1000 1500 2000 P e a k C u m u l a t i v e R a i n f a l l ( i n . ) Duration (min.) Dec. 19, 2010 Dec. 20-21, 2010 Jan. 25, 2013 Feb. 8, 2013 Feb. 19-20, 2013 Figure 3-13 2013 Flow Monitoring Study Storm Frequency Compared to December 2010 Event EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT | Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Wastewater Collection System and Flow Generation Analyses 3-24 Table 3-12 R-Value Summary by Meter Basin METER BASIN R-VALUE (%) AVERAGE R- VALUE RANK JAN. 25, 2013 FEB. 8, 2013 FEB. 19-20, 2013 AVERAGE FM01 0.20% 0.16% 0.19% 0.18% 2 FM02 0.11% 0.09% 0.10% 0.10% 5 FM03 0.29% 0.20% 0.24% 0.24% 1 FM04 0.13% 0.16% 0.08% 0.12% 4 FM05 0.15% 0.26% 0.14% 0.18% 2 FM06 0.12% 0.09% 0.07% 0.09% 6 FM07 0.03% 0.03% 0.04% 0.03% 8 FM08 0.06% 0.06% 0.02% 0.05% 7 While there is some variance, the calculated R-Values presented in Table 3-12 do not show great disparity, ranging from 0.02 to 0.29-percent among the flow meter basins. Typically, R-Values greater than 3-percent indicate benefit from RDII reduction. Furthermore, meter basins with the highest R-Values (FM03, FM01, and FM05) receive and convey flows from non-District customers. As shown in Figure 3-11, FM01 and FM03 were located in the East Trunk Sewer downstream of the City of San Bernardino connections; and FM05 was located downstream of the San Manuel Indian Reservation connection in Victoria Avenue. Thus, the limited available wet weather data suggests that higher RDII is contributed by the City of San Bernardino and the San Manuel Indian Reservation sewer collection systems. It is important to note that this R-Value analysis is based on flow and rainfall data collected during three small storm events, all of which are considered to be the minimum acceptable size for this type of analysis. Additional flow monitoring is required to validate the R-Value analysis presented in this section. Data from multiple significant storms would provide more information on the wet weather response experienced in each meter basin. It is recommended that flow and rainfall data from at least four 1-year, 24-hour storm events be collected to perform a more conclusive R-Value analysis. EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT | Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Capacity Analysis 4-1 4 Capacity Analysis The capacity analysis used the calibrated dry weather and wet weather wastewater collection system model to evaluate existing and projected 2035 conditions. In order to position the District to address growth-related capacity issues, the aggressive growth projections described in Chapter 2 were used for hydraulic model runs for the 2035 Model Scenarios. Appendix F contains the wastewater collection system modeling results. 4.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA The wastewater collection system was evaluated based on its ability to convey wastewater flow under dry weather and wet weather conditions, for both existing and projected 2035 flow conditions. Gravity sewer pipeline capacity was assessed based on the maximum depth of flow to diameter of pipe ratio (d/D) simulated in the model run. Siphon pipeline capacity was assessed based on maximum velocity and confirmation that siphons were not causing back-ups in the upstream pipelines. Capacity issues were identified in the wastewater collection system if a pipeline segment met or exceeded any of the criteria presented in Table 4-1. Table 4-1 Capacity Evaluation d/D Criteria PIPELINES EVALUATED CONDITION CRITERIA Gravity Pipelines Diameter ≤ 12 inches Peak Dry Weather d/D = 0.5 Diameter> 12 inches Peak Dry Weather d/D = 0.75 All Gravity Sewer Pipelines Peak Wet Weather d/D = 1.0 (Surcharge) Siphon Pipelines All Siphon Pipelines Peak Dry Weather Maximum Velocity < 8 feet per second All Siphon Pipelines Peak Wet Weather Limited Headloss New replacement or parallel pipelines, recommended in the capacity improvement projects discussed in Section 4-4, are sized to convey peak wet weather flow at a d/D ratio of 0.75. 4.2 EXISTING SYSTEM CAPACITY EVALUATION The hydraulic model was initially run on the existing wastewater collection system to identify any existing pipelines that exceeded or were above capacity under both dry weather and wet weather conditions. Model results are summarized in Table 4-2. The term Regional refers to the East Trunk Sewer. EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT | Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Capacity Analysis 4-2 Table 4-2 Summary of Existing System Model Results PARAMETER DRY WEATHER(¹) WET WEATHER(²) District Regional District Regional Pipe ≤ 12 inches, d/D > 0.5 (ft) 0 0 -- -- Pipe > 12 inches, d/D > 0.75 (ft) 0 0 -- -- Surcharged Pipe (ft) 0 227 0 4,481 Siphons Exceeding Criteria (ft) 0 0 0 0 Total Pipe Exceeding Criteria (ft) 0 227 0 4,481 (1) Peak dry weather flow at SBWRP = 19.5 mgd. (2) Peak wet weather flow at SBWRP = 40.6 mgd. Identified lengths of wet weather capacity deficiencies are inclusive of dry weather. Only Surcharged pipeline lengths were shown for Wet Weather per evaluation criteria. 4.2.1 Dry Weather The existing system model was run under dry weather conditions to identify any current capacity constraints in the wastewater collection system. Figure 4-1 shows the District pipelines maximum d/D ratio during the existing system dry weather hydraulic model run. Figure 4-2 shows the Regional pipelines maximum d/D ratio during the existing system dry weather hydraulic model run. The model results identify a section of the East Trunk Sewer which exceeds the evaluation criteria; however, the deficiency is considered as minor and thus not considered for immediate improvement. No capacity constraints were identified in District trunk sewers. 4.2.1.1 Regional Facilities A 227-foot section of the East Trunk Sewer, 24-inch diameter, was identified in the model as surcharged under peak dry flow conditions. These pipelines are part of the East Trunk Sewer along Tippecanoe Avenue between Baseline Street and 9th Street. The pipelines in this location cross underneath Warm Creek, and as-built drawings suggest that the pipelines were designed to surcharge due to the drop manhole and flat sloped pipeline crossing underneath the Warm Creek channel. The pipeline was likely designed to surcharge and thus was not considered for immediate improvement. RedlandsRedlands MunicipalMunicipal AirportAirport San BernardinoSan Bernardino International AirportInternational Airport Ea s t T w i n C r e e k Plunge C r e e k Can a l Sch e n k C r e e k Oak Creek Gage Canal Fredalba Creek Li ttl e Sa nd Cr eek L ittl e M ill C r e e k C it y C r e e k Warm Creek Highland C a nal S a n d Creek N orth F ork Canal S T i p p e c a n o e A v e W 3Rd St S A r r o w h e a d A v e N A r r o w h e a d A v e E 30Th St W Lugonia Ave W Mill St De l R o sa A v e W Rialto Ave N S i e r r a W a y E Highland Ave Va l e n c i a A ve El e c t r i c A v e Bu c k e y e S t Al a b a m a S t B o u l d e r A v e E Mill St Carnegie Dr Mo u n t a i n V i ew Av e S S i e r ra Wa y Ch u r c h S t Te n n e s s e e S t E 3Rd St Ar d e n A v e Foothill Dr S W a t e r m a n A v e E 5Th St N T i p p e c a n o e A v e St e r l i n g A v e Ju d s o n S t Ch u r c h A v e Highland Ave N Wa t er m a n A v e Baseline St W 13Th St E Lynwood Dr Vi c t o r i a A v e Lynwood Dr Ha r r i s o n S t Pa l m A v e W 6Th St E F o o t h i ll D r 5Th S t E 40Th St E Rialto Ave Mentone Blvd Base Line St 40Th St W San Bernardino Ave W Base Line St E 39Th St E San Bernardino Ave E Lugonia Ave E 13Th St E Base Line St Ti p p e c an o e A v e O ra n g e S t San Bernardino Ave Ca l i f o r n ia St N M o u n t a i n V i e w A v e W 5Th St 3Rd St Wa b a s h A v e 30 18 330 38 SBWRP 0 2,000 4,000 Feet 1 inch = 4,000 feet LEGEND Max d/D, Existing Dry Weather 0.5 - 0.75 0.75 - 0.99 Surcharge District Sewer Mains East Trunk Sewer SBWRP District Boundary Figure4_1 March 29, 2013 K. McRae Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Figure 4-1 Existing District System Dry Weather Capacity Evaluation San BernardinoSan Bernardino InternationalInternational AirportAirport Ea s t Twi n C r e e k Gage Canal L i t t l e S a n d C r e ek City Creek W ar m C r e e k W Mill St W 3Rd St E 5Th St W Rialto Ave S A r r o w h e a d A v e N A r r o w h e a d A v e E Mill St Carnegie Dr S S i e r r a W a y E 30Th St S W a t e r m a n A v e N W a t e r ma n Av e S E S t S T i p p e c a n o e A v e St e r l i n g A v e W 13Th St Highland Ave E Lynwood DrVa l e n c i a A v e 3Rd St De l R o s a A v e N E S t Base Line St Ha r r i s o n S t N M ou n t a i n V i e w A v e Lynwood Dr E Rialto Ave W 4Th St E Base Line St E 3Rd St W Ba se Line St W Highland Ave N S i e r r a W ay E 13Th St 5Th St E Highland Ave Mo u n t a i n V i e w A v e W 5Th St Ti p p ec a n o e A v e W 6Th St E San Bernardino Ave 259 18 30 206 215 SBWRP Figure4_2 March 29, 2013 K. McRae 0 1,550 3,100 Feet LEGEND Max d/D, Existing Dry Weather East Trunk Sewer only 0.5 - 0.75 0.75 - 0.99 Surcharge District Sewer Mains East Trunk Sewer SBWRP District Boundary Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Figure 4-2 Existing Regional System Dry Weather Capacity Evaluation 1 inch = 3,100 feet EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT | Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Capacity Analysis 4-5 4.2.2 Wet Weather The existing wastewater collection system model was run under wet weather conditions to identify any current capacity constraints in the system. Model results showed that 4,481 feet of pipeline surcharged under wet weather conditions. Figure 4-3 shows the District pipelines maximum d/D ratio during the existing system wet weather hydraulic model run. Figure 4-4 shows the Regional pipelines maximum d/D ratio during the existing system wet weather hydraulic model run. The model results identify three sections of the East Trunk Sewer as exceeding criteria. In all cases, the pipeline deficiencies were considered allowable under existing conditions and requiring upgrades to accommodate potential future flows. No capacity constraints were identified in District trunk sewers. 4.2.2.1 Regional Facilities A 3,213-foot section of the East Trunk Sewer, located along 6th Street and Waterman Avenue, was identified in the model as surcharged under peak wet weather flow conditions. These pipeline segments were not identified as dry weather deficiencies. The maximum pipeline surcharge was approximately 5 inches, and had an approximate 8.2-foot freeboard to the manhole rim. The model only predicted minor surcharging and thus was not considered for immediate improvement. A 618-foot section of the East Trunk Sewer, located along Tippecanoe Avenue between Baseline Street and 9th Street, was identified in the model as surcharged under peak wet weather flow conditions. A portion of these pipeline segments were also identified as dry weather deficiencies. The pipeline crossing underneath Warm Creek is a bottleneck under wet weather flow conditions causing capacity constraints in upstream pipelines. The maximum pipeline surcharge was approximately 11 inches, and had an approximate 13.5-foot freeboard to the manhole rim. The model only predicted minor surcharging and thus was not considered for immediate improvement. A 650-foot section of 15-inch diameter pipeline located on Del Rosa Avenue just south of Pumalo Street was identified in the model as being surcharged under peak wet weather flow conditions. The as-built drawings suggest that the pipelines were designed to surcharge due to the drop manhole and flat sloped pipeline crossing underneath the drainage channel pipeline. The maximum surcharge was approximately 4.5 inches, and had an approximate 10.7-foot freeboard to the manhole rim. The pipeline was likely designed to surcharge, and the model only predicted minor surcharging thus, it was not considered for immediate improvement. RedlandsRedlands MunicipalMunicipal AirportAirport San BernardinoSan Bernardino International AirportInternational Airport Ea s t T w i n C r e e k Plunge C r e e k Can a l Sch e n k C r e e k Oak Creek Gage Canal Fredalba Creek Li ttl e Sa nd Cr eek L ittl e M ill C r e e k C it y C r e e k Warm Creek Highland C a nal S a n d Creek N orth F ork Canal S T i p p e c a n o e A v e W 3Rd St S A r r o w h e a d A v e N A r r o w h e a d A v e E 30Th St W Lugonia Ave W Mill St De l R o sa A v e W Rialto Ave N S i e r r a W a y E Highland Ave Va l e n c i a A ve El e c t r i c A v e Bu c k e y e S t Al a b a m a S t B o u l d e r A v e E Mill St Carnegie Dr Mo u n t a i n V i ew Av e S S i e r ra Wa y Ch u r c h S t Te n n e s s e e S t E 3Rd St Ar d e n A v e Foothill Dr S W a t e r m a n A v e E 5Th St N T i p p e c a n o e A v e St e r l i n g A v e Ju d s o n S t Ch u r c h A v e Highland Ave N Wa t er m a n A v e Baseline St W 13Th St E Lynwood Dr Vi c t o r i a A v e Lynwood Dr Ha r r i s o n S t Pa l m A v e W 6Th St E F o o t h i ll D r 5Th S t E 40Th St E Rialto Ave Mentone Blvd Base Line St 40Th St W San Bernardino Ave W Base Line St E 39Th St E San Bernardino Ave E Lugonia Ave E 13Th St E Base Line St Ti p p e c an o e A v e O ra n g e S t San Bernardino Ave Ca l i f o r n ia St N M o u n t a i n V i e w A v e W 5Th St 3Rd St Wa b a s h A v e 30 18 330 38 SBWRP 0 2,000 4,000 Feet 1 inch = 4,000 feet LEGEND Max d/D, Existing Wet Weather 0.5 - 0.75 0.75 - 0.99 Surcharge District Sewer Mains East Trunk Sewer SBWRP District Boundary Figure4_3 March 29, 2013 K. McRae Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Figure 4-3 Existing District System Wet Weather Capacity Evaluation San BernardinoSan Bernardino InternationalInternational AirportAirport Ea s t Twi n C r e e k Gage Canal L i t t l e S a n d C r e ek City Creek W ar m C r e e k W Mill St W 3Rd St E 5Th St W Rialto Ave S A r r o w h e a d A v e N A r r o w h e a d A v e E Mill St Carnegie Dr S S i e r r a W a y E 30Th St S W a t e r m a n A v e N W a t e r ma n Av e S E S t S T i p p e c a n o e A v e St e r l i n g A v e W 13Th St Highland Ave E Lynwood DrVa l e n c i a A v e 3Rd St De l R o s a A v e N E S t Base Line St Ha r r i s o n S t N M ou n t a i n V i e w A v e Lynwood Dr E Rialto Ave W 4Th St E Base Line St E 3Rd St W Ba se Line St W Highland Ave N S i e r r a W ay E 13Th St 5Th St E Highland Ave Mo u n t a i n V i e w A v e W 5Th St Ti p p ec a n o e A v e W 6Th St E San Bernardino Ave 259 18 30 206 215 SBWRP Figure4_4 March 29, 2013 K. McRae 0 1,550 3,100 Feet LEGEND Max d/D, Existing Wet Weather East Trunk Sewer only 0.5 - 0.75 0.75 - 0.99 Surcharge District Sewer Mains East Trunk Sewer SBWRP District Boundary Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Figure 4-4 Existing Regional System Wet Weather Capacity Evaluation 1 inch = 3,100 feet EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT | Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Capacity Analysis 4-8 4.3 2035 SYSTEM CAPACITY EVALUATION Following the existing system capacity analysis, additional loads were applied to the hydraulic model to simulate flows in the District’s wastewater collection system under the projected 2035 condition. The 2035 model was run under both dry weather and wet weather conditions in order to evaluate the ability of the system to accommodate future growth. Model results are summarized in Table 4-3. Table 4-3 Summary of 2035 System Model Results PARAMETER DRY WEATHER(¹) WET WEATHER(²) District Regional District Regional Pipe ≤ 12 in., d/D > 0.5 (ft) 14,010 0 -- -- Pipe > 12 in., d/D > 0.75 (ft) 4,749 0 -- -- Surcharged (ft) 11,313 3,500 20,771 12,439 Siphons Exceeding Criteria (ft) 977 260 977 260 Total Length Exceeding Criteria (ft) 31,049 3,760 21,748 12,699 (1) Peak dry weather flow at SBWRP = 26.9 mgd. (2) Peak wet weather flow at SBWRP = 47.6 mgd. Identified lengths of wet weather capacity deficiencies are inclusive of dry weather. Only Surcharged pipeline lengths were shown for Wet Weather per evaluation criteria. 4.3.1 Dry Weather The projected 2035 model was run under dry weather conditions to identify any potential future capacity constraints in the wastewater collection system. Figure 4-5 shows the District pipelines maximum d/D ratio during the 2035 system dry weather hydraulic model run. Figure 4-6 shows the Regional pipelines maximum d/D ratio during the 2035 system dry weather hydraulic model run. The model results identified that 11,313 ft of District pipeline and 3,500 ft of Regional pipeline are expected to surcharge under dry weather conditions. An additional 18,759 ft of District pipeline are expected to exceed peak dry weather flow maximum d/D criteria. In total, model results indicate that 31,049 ft of District pipeline and 3,760 feet of Regional pipeline exceed peak dry weather flow d/D criteria. 4.3.2 Wet Weather The projected 2035 model was run under wet weather conditions to identify any potential future capacity constraints in the wastewater collection system. Figure 4-7 shows the District pipelines maximum d/D ratio during the 2035 system wet weather hydraulic model run. Figure 4-8 shows the Regional pipelines maximum d/D ratio during the 2035 system wet weather hydraulic model run. The model results identified that 21,748 ft of District pipeline and 12,699 ft of Regional pipeline are expected to surcharge under wet weather conditions. Capacity constraints expected to occur under future wet weather conditions are highly dependent on the projected aggressive growth due to development in east Highland. As shown in Figure 4-7, capacity deficiencies in the District’s collection system occur along Greenspot Road, 6th Street, and Victoria Avenue. These model results provide the basis for the capacity improvement projects described in Section 4-4. As shown in Figure 4-8, capacity deficiencies in the Regional East Trunk Sewer occur downstream of the District’s two main connection points on Baseline Street and 6th Street. RedlandsRedlands MunicipalMunicipal AirportAirport San BernardinoSan Bernardino International AirportInternational Airport Ea s t T w i n C r e e k Plunge C r e e k Can a l Sch e n k C r e e k Oak Creek Gage Canal Fredalba Creek Li ttl e Sa nd Cr eek L ittl e M ill C r e e k C it y C r e e k Warm Creek Highland C a nal S a n d Creek N orth F ork Canal S T i p p e c a n o e A v e W 3Rd St S A r r o w h e a d A v e N A r r o w h e a d A v e E 30Th St W Lugonia Ave W Mill St De l R o sa A v e W Rialto Ave N S i e r r a W a y E Highland Ave Va l e n c i a A ve El e c t r i c A v e Bu c k e y e S t Al a b a m a S t B o u l d e r A v e E Mill St Carnegie Dr Mo u n t a i n V i ew Av e S S i e r ra Wa y Ch u r c h S t Te n n e s s e e S t E 3Rd St Ar d e n A v e Foothill Dr S W a t e r m a n A v e E 5Th St N T i p p e c a n o e A v e St e r l i n g A v e Ju d s o n S t Ch u r c h A v e Highland Ave N Wa t er m a n A v e Baseline St W 13Th St E Lynwood Dr Vi c t o r i a A v e Lynwood Dr Ha r r i s o n S t Pa l m A v e W 6Th St E F o o t h i ll D r 5Th S t E 40Th St E Rialto Ave Mentone Blvd Base Line St 40Th St W San Bernardino Ave W Base Line St E 39Th St E San Bernardino Ave E Lugonia Ave E 13Th St E Base Line St Ti p p e c an o e A v e O ra n g e S t San Bernardino Ave Ca l i f o r n ia St N M o u n t a i n V i e w A v e W 5Th St 3Rd St Wa b a s h A v e 30 18 330 38 SBWRP 0 2,000 4,000 Feet 1 inch = 4,000 feet LEGEND Max d/D, 2035 Dry Weather 0.5 - 0.75 0.75 - 0.99 Surcharge District Sewer Mains East Trunk Sewer SBWRP District Boundary Figure4_5 March 29, 2013 K. McRae Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Figure 4-5 2035 District System Dry Weather Capacity Evaluation San BernardinoSan Bernardino InternationalInternational AirportAirport Ea s t Twi n C r e e k Gage Canal L i t t l e S a n d C r e ek City Creek W ar m C r e e k W Mill St W 3Rd St E 5Th St W Rialto Ave S A r r o w h e a d A v e N A r r o w h e a d A v e E Mill St Carnegie Dr S S i e r r a W a y E 30Th St S W a t e r m a n A v e N W a t e r ma n Av e S E S t S T i p p e c a n o e A v e St e r l i n g A v e W 13Th St Highland Ave E Lynwood DrVa l e n c i a A v e 3Rd St De l R o s a A v e N E S t Base Line St Ha r r i s o n S t N M ou n t a i n V i e w A v e Lynwood Dr E Rialto Ave W 4Th St E Base Line St E 3Rd St W Ba se Line St W Highland Ave N S i e r r a W ay E 13Th St 5Th St E Highland Ave Mo u n t a i n V i e w A v e W 5Th St Ti p p ec a n o e A v e W 6Th St E San Bernardino Ave 259 18 30 206 215 SBWRP Figure4_6 March 29, 2013 K. McRae 0 1,550 3,100 Feet LEGEND Max d/D, 2035 Dry Weather East Trunk Sewer only 0.5 - 0.75 0.75 - 0.99 Surcharge District Sewer Mains East Trunk Sewer SBWRP District Boundary Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Figure 4-6 2035 Regional System Dry Weather Capacity Evaluation 1 inch = 3,100 feet RedlandsRedlands MunicipalMunicipal AirportAirport San BernardinoSan Bernardino International AirportInternational Airport Ea s t T w i n C r e e k Plunge C r e e k Can a l Sch e n k C r e e k Oak Creek Gage Canal Fredalba Creek Li ttl e Sa nd Cr eek L ittl e M ill C r e e k C it y C r e e k Warm Creek Highland C a nal S a n d Creek N orth F ork Canal S T i p p e c a n o e A v e W 3Rd St S A r r o w h e a d A v e N A r r o w h e a d A v e E 30Th St W Lugonia Ave W Mill St De l R o sa A v e W Rialto Ave N S i e r r a W a y E Highland Ave Va l e n c i a A ve El e c t r i c A v e Bu c k e y e S t Al a b a m a S t B o u l d e r A v e E Mill St Carnegie Dr Mo u n t a i n V i ew Av e S S i e r ra Wa y Ch u r c h S t Te n n e s s e e S t E 3Rd St Ar d e n A v e Foothill Dr S W a t e r m a n A v e E 5Th St N T i p p e c a n o e A v e St e r l i n g A v e Ju d s o n S t Ch u r c h A v e Highland Ave N Wa t er m a n A v e Baseline St W 13Th St E Lynwood Dr Vi c t o r i a A v e Lynwood Dr Ha r r i s o n S t Pa l m A v e W 6Th St E F o o t h i ll D r 5Th S t E 40Th St E Rialto Ave Mentone Blvd Base Line St 40Th St W San Bernardino Ave W Base Line St E 39Th St E San Bernardino Ave E Lugonia Ave E 13Th St E Base Line St Ti p p e c an o e A v e O ra n g e S t San Bernardino Ave Ca l i f o r n ia St N M o u n t a i n V i e w A v e W 5Th St 3Rd St Wa b a s h A v e 30 18 330 38 SBWRP 0 2,000 4,000 Feet 1 inch = 4,000 feet LEGEND Max d/D, 2035 Wet Weather 0.5 - 0.75 0.75 - 0.99 Surcharge District Sewer Mains East Trunk Sewer SBWRP District Boundary Figure4_7 March 29, 2013 K. McRae Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Figure 4-7 2035 District System Wet Weather Capacity Evaluation San BernardinoSan Bernardino InternationalInternational AirportAirport Ea s t Twi n C r e e k Gage Canal L i t t l e S a n d C r e ek City Creek W ar m C r e e k W Mill St W 3Rd St E 5Th St W Rialto Ave S A r r o w h e a d A v e N A r r o w h e a d A v e E Mill St Carnegie Dr S S i e r r a W a y E 30Th St S W a t e r m a n A v e N W a t e r ma n Av e S E S t S T i p p e c a n o e A v e St e r l i n g A v e W 13Th St Highland Ave E Lynwood DrVa l e n c i a A v e 3Rd St De l R o s a A v e N E S t Base Line St Ha r r i s o n S t N M ou n t a i n V i e w A v e Lynwood Dr E Rialto Ave W 4Th St E Base Line St E 3Rd St W Ba se Line St W Highland Ave N S i e r r a W ay E 13Th St 5Th St E Highland Ave Mo u n t a i n V i e w A v e W 5Th St Ti p p ec a n o e A v e W 6Th St E San Bernardino Ave 259 18 30 206 215 SBWRP Figure4_8 March 29, 2013 K. McRae 0 1,550 3,100 Feet LEGEND Max d/D, 2035 Wet Weather East Trunk Sewer only 0.5 - 0.75 0.75 - 0.99 Surcharge District Sewer Mains East Trunk Sewer SBWRP District Boundary Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Figure 4-8 2035 Regional System Wet Weather Capacity Evaluation 1 inch = 3,100 feet EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT | Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Capacity Analysis 4-13 4.4 CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS The capacity concern locations identified based on the evaluation criteria were analyzed in detail. Some involved only minor surcharging for a short duration, less than one-hour and these areas were identified as watch areas to be observed by the District. As a result of the hydraulic model runs, three areas were identified as potentially requiring capacity improvements. The proposed capacity improvements are shown in Figure 4-9 and described in more detail below. Before design or construction of the capacity improvements, the District should field verify the results of this analyses utilizing field inspections and surveys, and flow monitoring. 4.4.1 District Facilities The 2035 wet weather hydraulic model results identified three capital improvement projects in the District’s collection system. Victoria Avenue. The 2035 model shows major surcharging in the existing Victoria Avenue Trunk Sewer between Highland Avenue and Mirada Road. The District identified that approximately 85 percent of the existing San Manuel Indian Reservation’s wastewater flows are conveyed to this pipeline, and the TAZ projected population data showed significant increases in this area. The modeling evaluated two alternatives: 1) All of the flow enters the District’s wastewater collection system through one of the connections tributary to Victoria Avenue; 2) Future non-residential flow enters the District wastewater collection system through the western-most San Manuel Indian Reservation connection, which is not tributary to the Victoria Avenue Trunk Sewer. Although moving the non-residential flows to another connection did not cause any additional capacity problems in the wastewater collection system, it did not eliminate the need for a capacity improvement in Victoria Avenue. For this assessment, it was assumed that all future flows from the San Manuel Indian Reservation will enter the District wastewater collection system at the Victoria Avenue Trunk Sewer. The 2035 model results show that approximately 2,030 ft of 8-inch gravity sewer pipeline between Mirada Road and Highland Avenue surcharges under wet weather conditions. Existing model results show no existing surcharging, however, there is no capacity to support additional growth. The recommended improvement consists of replacement of approximately 3,000 feet of existing 8-inch diameter gravity sewer pipeline with a 10-inch diameter pipeline. Pipeline replacement is the selected improvement method because of the age of the existing sewer pipeline (45 – 50 years old). The San Manuel Indian Reservation is not subject to state or local development guidelines or permitting and could move quickly on additional development. In order to have adequate time for capacity upgrades, the District should maintain communication with the San Manuel Indian Reservation to understand the timing and projected flows from future development. Before any improvements are made, the existing connection locations for the San Manuel Indian Reservation should be confirmed through closed-circuit television (CCTV) and the flows metered. RedlandsRedlands MunicipalMunicipal AirportAirport San BernardinoSan Bernardino International AirportInternational Airport Ea s t T w i n C r e e k Plunge C r e e k Can a l Sch e n k C r e e k Oak Creek Gage Canal Fredalba Creek Li ttl e Sa nd Cr eek L ittl e M ill C r e e k C it y C r e e k Warm Creek Highland C a nal S a n d Creek N orth F ork Canal S T i p p e c a n o e A v e W 3Rd St S A r r o w h e a d A v e N A r r o w h e a d A v e E 30Th St W Lugonia Ave W Mill St De l R o sa A v e W Rialto Ave N S i e r r a W a y E Highland Ave Va l e n c i a A ve El e c t r i c A v e Bu c k e y e S t Al a b a m a S t B o u l d e r A v e E Mill St Carnegie Dr Mo u n t a i n V i ew Av e S S i e r ra Wa y Ch u r c h S t Te n n e s s e e S t E 3Rd St Ar d e n A v e Foothill Dr S W a t e r m a n A v e E 5Th St N T i p p e c a n o e A v e St e r l i n g A v e Ju d s o n S t Ch u r c h A v e Highland Ave N Wa t er m a n A v e Baseline St W 13Th St E Lynwood Dr Vi c t o r i a A v e Lynwood Dr Ha r r i s o n S t Pa l m A v e W 6Th St E F o o t h i ll D r 5Th S t E 40Th St E Rialto Ave Mentone Blvd Base Line St 40Th St W San Bernardino Ave W Base Line St E 39Th St E San Bernardino Ave E Lugonia Ave E 13Th St E Base Line St Ti p p e c an o e A v e O ra n g e S t San Bernardino Ave Ca l i f o r n ia St N M o u n t a i n V i e w A v e W 5Th St 3Rd St Wa b a s h A v e 30 18 330 38 SBWRP 0 2,000 4,000 Feet 1 inch = 4,000 feet LEGEND Max d/D, 2035 Wet Weather 0.5 - 0.75 0.75 - 0.99 Surcharge District Sewer Mains East Trunk Sewer Replacement Projects Victoria Ave Greenspot East Greenspot West East Trunk Sewer - 6th St North East Trunk Sewer SBWRP District Boundary Figure4_9 March 29, 2013 K. McRae Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Victoria Avenue Replace 3,000 feet of 8-inch with 10-inch Development Driven Greenspot East 21,000 feet of parallel 12-inch Development DrivenGreenspot West Replace 15,400 feet of21 to 24-inch with 30-inch Development Driven East Trunk Sewer - 6th Street Replace 5,500 feet of 27 to 39-inch with 36 to 48-inch Development Driven North East Trunk Sewer Replace 7,500 feet of 21 to 30-inch with 30 to 36-inch Development Driven Figure 4-9 Capacity Improvements Watch Area Del Rosa Ave Watch Area Pacific St Watch Area Webster St EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT | Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Capacity Analysis 4-15 Greenspot East. The 2035 model results show major surcharging in the existing Greenspot Road Trunk Sewer from Highway 210 to the eastern extent of the system. The model shows that over 2,000 ft of 12- to 15-inch diameter pipeline surcharge under wet weather conditions and that under dry weather conditions nearly all of the existing 12-inch diameter pipeline exceeds the d/D = 0.50 criteria. This proposed project also crosses Plunge Creek, which would require upgrading the existing triple barrel siphon. The recommended improvement consists of a 12-inch diameter parallel pipeline for approximately 21,000 ft. The existing pipelines can accommodate an additional 27.1 gpm or 0.04 mgd of peak flow or roughly 100 equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) (note: 1 EDU equals 3.5 people). Based on the limited number of future EDUs that the existing pipeline can accommodate it is recommended that this improvement be constructed in the next 1 – 2 years. Project scheduling assumes that initial growth will likely occur in the known developments at a rate of approximately 50-400 dwelling units per year. Development planning should be closely monitored in order to accelerate or delay construction. Paralleling the existing pipeline was the selected improvement method because the pipeline is relatively new (20 – 30 years old). Greenspot West. The 2035 model results show major surcharging under dry and wet weather flow conditions for the Greenspot Road Trunk Sewer from the connection of the East Trunk Sewer back to East 3rd Street and Central Avenue. The model shows that approximately 12,300 ft of 21- to 24-inch pipeline surcharge under wet weather conditions. The recommended improvement consists of replacement of approximately 15,400 ft of existing 21- to 24-inch diameter pipeline with 30-inch diameter. The existing pipelines can accommodate an additional 149.3 gpm or 0.22 mgd of peak flow or roughly 547 EDUs. Based on the limited number of future EDUs that the existing pipeline can accommodate it is recommended that this improvement be constructed in the next 2 – 4 years. Project scheduling assumes that initial growth will likely occur in the known developments at a rate of approximately 50-400 dwelling units per year. Development planning should be closely monitored in order to accelerate or delay construction. Pipeline replacement was the selected improvement method because of the age of the existing sewer pipeline (45 – 50 years old). 4.4.2 Regional Facilities The 2035 model results identified two capital improvement projects in the City of San Bernardino’s East Trunk Sewer. East Trunk Sewer – 6th Street. The 2035 model results show major surcharging under dry and wet weather flow conditions for the East Trunk Sewer from East 6th Street and Pedley Road to Waterman Avenue and East 3rd Street. The model shows that approximately 5,200 ft of 27- to 39-inch pipeline surcharge under wet weather conditions. This project also crosses a storm drain channel which would require upgrading the existing double barrel siphon. The recommended improvement consists of replacement of approximately 5,200 ft of existing 27- to 39-inch diameter pipeline with 36- to 48-inch diameter. The existing pipelines are at capacity under the modeled peak wet weather flows and need to be replaced prior to additional flows being added to the system. Pipeline replacement was the selected improvement method because of the age of the existing sewer pipeline (50 – 60 years old). EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT | Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Capacity Analysis 4-16 North East Trunk Sewer. The 2035 model results show major surcharging under wet weather flow conditions for the East Trunk Sewer north of 6th Street, along Pedley Road, 9th Street, Tippecanoe Avenue, and Baseline Street. The model shows that approximately 5,100 ft of 21- to 30-inch pipeline surcharged under wet weather conditions. This project crosses the Warm Creek channel which may require the installation of a siphon structure. The recommended improvement consists of replacement of approximately 7,500 ft of existing 21- to 30-inch diameter pipeline with 30- to 36-inch diameter. The existing pipelines are at capacity under the modeled peak wet weather flows and need to be replaced prior to additional flows being added to the system. Pipeline replacement was the selected improvement method because of the age of the existing sewer pipeline (50 – 60 years old). 4.4.3 Watch List Areas with minimal surcharging for a short duration were not regarded as critical problem areas. Although no improvements were identified for these areas, if additional development, beyond what was considered in this report, is proposed upstream of these areas, additional analyses should be performed to evaluate the impact of the changes in proposed development on the wastewater collection system. It is also recommended that the District keep these locations on a “Watch List” and monitor, particularly during large storm events. These areas can be found in Figure 4-9 and are described below. Hydraulic profiles showing the projected surcharge for these areas are included in Appendix G. 4.4.3.1 District Facilities A 325-foot pipeline in Pacific Street, west of Valaria Drive is expected to surcharge under wet weather conditions. Due to unavailable as-built information, invert elevations were field verified by District staff. The pipeline expected to surcharge is a relatively flat pipeline, with a slope of 0.18 percent. The upstream manhole I6-140 is expected to experience a surcharge depth of approximately 3 inches into the manhole chamber, remaining nearly 11.5 ft below rim elevation. Approximately 50 ft of 15-inch pipeline in Webster Street, south of Cherokee Rose Drive, are expected to surcharge under wet weather conditions, and an additional 110 ft exceed peak dry weather flow d/D criteria of 0.75. As-built drawings and aerial photographs were reviewed. The pipeline expected to surcharge is the first pipeline in a reach of relatively flat segments (slope of 0.06 percent), and is immediately downstream of a relatively steep-sloped 15-inch pipeline segment (slope of 5 percent) and an 8-inch sewer connection at Cherokee Rose Drive. The pipeline segments in Webster Street are flat in order to flow underneath a drainage channel. The upstream manhole K10-139 is expected to surcharge approximately 1.25 ft into the chamber, remaining nearly 20 ft below rim elevation. 4.4.3.2 Regional Facilities Approximately 650 ft of 15-inch sewer mains in Del Rosa Avenue, south of Pumalo Street, are expected to surcharge under wet weather conditions. As-built drawings confirmed that these segments have relatively flat slopes (average slope of 0.44-percent), and are immediately downstream of a drop manhole and a 12-inch sewer connection at Pumalo Street. These pipelines are expected to surcharge 1.25 ft into the chambers for manholes H4-113 and H4-114, but will remain approximately 15 and 12 ft below rim elevation, respectively. This deficiency occurs in EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT | Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Capacity Analysis 4-17 the existing system hydraulic model under wet weather conditions. It is also described above in Section 4.2.2. 4.4.4 Summary of Capacity Improvements A summary of the identified capacity improvements and their anticipated trigger points are provided in Table 4-4. Table 4-4 Summary of Capacity Improvements NAME DESCRIPTION DISTRICT/ REGIONAL TRIGGER Victoria Avenue Replace 3,000 ft of 8-inch with 10-inch diameter pipeline District 34.7 gpm – peak flow 0.05 mgd – peak flow Approximately 125 upstream EDUs Greenspot East Parallel 21,000 ft with 12-inch pipeline District 27.1 gpm – peak flow 0.04 mgd – peak flow Approximately 100 upstream EDUs Greenspot West Replace 15,400 ft of 21- to 24-inch with 30-inch pipeline District 149.3 gpm – peak flow 0.22 mgd – peak flow Approximately 550 upstream EDUs East Trunk Sewer - 6th Street Replace 5,500 ft of 27- to 39-inch with 36- to 48-inch pipeline Regional At Capacity (Immediately) North East Trunk Sewer Replace 7,500 ft of 21- to 30-inch with 30- to 36-inch pipeline Regional At Capacity (Immediately) 4.5 WATER RECLAMATION PLANT OPTION ANALYSIS Given the size, timing, and concentrated location of the proposed developments, the District has a unique opportunity to consider expanding its services to include wastewater treatment and recycled water production. Developing reclamation capabilities provides benefits to the District such as creating a new water supply or supplementing groundwater reserves. Three alternative Water Reclamation Plant (WRP) options were evaluated against the current system operations, or baseline, to determine feasibility. This section describes the different WRP options, which vary in capacity from 1.33 – 3.85 mgd. Each option was simulated in the 2035 wet weather model to determine the potential reduction in the identified capacity improvements. The proposed location for the WRP is along Greenspot Road. The current system operation and three alternatives include: Baseline: Continued SBWRP. Use the existing system and SBWRP to treat and dispose of all of the District’s flows. This option requires the identified capacity improvements described previously in this chapter. WRP Option 1: Offload 1.33 mgd (Harmony Alternative). Build a WRP for the Harmony Development to treat and dispose of up to 1.33 mgd of average wastewater flows. WRP Option 2: Offload 2.25 mgd (Boulder Alternative). Build a WRP to treat and dispose of up to 2.25 mgd of average wastewater flows. It is assumed that wastewater flows in the system EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT | Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Capacity Analysis 4-18 would be provided to the proposed treatment plant via a “pump-back” station along Greenspot Road near Boulder Avenue. WRP Option 3: Offload 3.85 mgd (Highway 210 Alternative). Build a WRP to treat and dispose of up to 3.85 mgd of average wastewater flows. It is assumed that wastewater flows in the system would be provided to the proposed treatment plant via a “pump-back” station along Greenspot Road near Hwy 210. Table 4-5 Summary of Offload Flow for WRP Options OPTION MINIMUM DRY WEATHER FLOW (MGD) AVERAGE DRY WEATHER FLOW (MGD) PEAK DRY WEATHER FLOW (MGD) PEAK WET WEATHER FLOW (MGD) WRP Option 1 0.41 1.33 2.19 2.33 WRP Option 2 0.68 2.25 3.72 3.91 WRP Option 3 1.02 3.85 6.44 6.88 For each WRP option, Figure 4-10 presents the available ADDF that could be diverted to a potential WRP. Figure 4-10 Estimated Potential WRP Flows Note: The Interim flow projection assumes half of the flow estimated from the known major developments. 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 WRP Option 1 1.33 MGD / Harmony WRP Option 2 2.25 MGD / Boulder Ave. WRP Option 3 3.85 MGD / Highway 210 Fl o w ( m g d ) 2013 Interim 2035 EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT | Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Capacity Analysis 4-19 The three WRP options were evaluated in the 2035 wet weather model to determine the potential reduction in the identified capacity improvements, as compared to those identified in the baseline scenario. Table 4-6 includes a summary of the required capacity improvements for each option. Table 4-6 Summary of Capacity Improvements OPTION REQUIRED CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT Baseline Scenario: Continued SBWRP Greenspot East - 21,000 ft of 12-inch pipeline Greenspot West - 15,400 ft of 30-inch pipeline East Trunk Sewer – 6th Street - 5,500 ft 36- to 48-inch pipeline WRP Option 1: Offload 1.33 mgd (Harmony Alternative) Greenspot West - 15,400 ft of 30-inch pipeline East Trunk Sewer – 6th Street - 5,500 ft 36- to 48-inch pipeline WRP Option 2: Offload 2.25 mgd (Boulder Alternative) East Trunk Sewer – 6th Street - 5,500 ft 36- to 48-inch pipeline WRP Option 3: Offload 3.85 mgd (Hwy 210 Alternative) East Trunk Sewer – 6th Street - 5,500 ft 36- to 48-inch pipeline Note: Table does not include Victoria Avenue and North East Trunk Sewer capacity improvement projects because they are not affected by the potential WRP options. As shown in the Table 4-6, a potential WRP will offload the system by diverting flows to be treated at a local WRP instead of conveyed through the District’s mains and East Trunk Sewer, and treated at SBWRP. These alternative options assume that no flows will bypass the facility, meaning that the facility will include solids handling and have capacity to receive peak wet weather flows. Model results show that Greenspot East upgrades can be avoided if the District conveys no flows from Harmony Development. Moreover, the model shows that the Greenspot West replacement project can be avoided with the implementation of either a 2.25 mgd or 3.85 mgd WRP. The initial capacity of any WRP Option will be less than the projected 2035 flows. If a WRP Options is selected, the construction of the facility will likely be phased to accommodate existing and projected flows. For example, if WRP Option 3 is selected, the facility would likely have three phases. The initial phase may include 1.25 mgd of treatment with the remaining future phases adding an additional 1.25 mgd of treatment when required. To determine avoided capacity improvements for each WRP Option, it was assumed that the WRP Options would include solids handling and peak flow management. WRPs that do not include solids handling and/or peak flow management are typically referred to as “Scalping Plants” and require capacity in downstream sewers. Scalping Plants typically discharge solids ranging in flow from 5 to 15 percent of the treatment capacity to the downstream sewers with potentially minimal impacts to the collection system and increased Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) concentrations at regional treatment facilities. Wet weather flows, if not stored at the WRP, could potentially overload downstream sewers providing limited or no reduction in the identified capacity improvements. Expanding District services to include water reclamation will have its benefits and constraints. Wastewater is being viewed more and more as a resource as opposed to a waste. The District’s entry into water reuse would provide a new locally controlled resource available to help offset water supplies and to help comply with California SB X7-7 water conservation requirements. EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT | Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Capacity Analysis 4-20 Having a WRP also opens up the possibility of eventually supplementing groundwater supplies. However, there will be large capital and operational costs associated with the construction and operation of a WRP that the District does not currently incur. The District currently does not operate wastewater pumping or treatment facilities and would need to provide training to existing staff and/or supplement current staff. Additional WRP considerations and disposal options are included in Appendix H. EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT| Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Recommendations 5-1 5 Recommendations The final recommendations of the master plan are presented in this chapter. Unit costs were developed for pipelines, pump stations and treatment plants. Capital, construction, and total project costs were developed for the capacity and condition projects and for each WRP alternatives. Total project costs for the WRP alternatives were compared to determine the recommended CIP. The recommended CIP includes both capacity and condition related capital projects and recommendations on further studies. District and Regional capacity projects were evaluated against the WRP options presented in Chapter 4. District and Regional condition related projects were developed from analyses of CCTV inspection data and previous Black & Veatch experience with similar sewer systems. The information from the two analyses was then combined to develop a prioritized 20-year CIP for the District. 5.1 UNIT COSTS Planning level construction and total project costs for each recommendation were developed at a Class 5 cost estimate level per the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering – International. The opinions of capital costs are based on information from the District and recent similar Black & Veatch projects. The Class 5 estimate is defined as an estimate prepared based on limited information, where little more than proposed facility type, its location, and the capacity are known. Planning level evaluations include, but are not limited to, market studies, assessment of viability, evaluation of alternate schemes, project screening, and location, evaluation of resource needs and budgeting, and long-range capital planning. All costs are presented in March 2013 dollars when the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (ENR-CCI) for Los Angeles was 10,284. The probable costs are presented at a level of accuracy considered acceptable for master planning; actual project costs would depend on current labor and material costs, competitive market conditions, the final project scope, bid date, and other variable factors. The typical expected accuracy range for this class estimate is –20 to -50 percent on the low side and +30 to +100 percent on the high side. 5.1.1 Capital Costs Capital costs are the unit costs multiplied by the quantity. To estimate capital costs, unit costs were developed for pipelines, pumping stations, and treatment plants. A unit cost of $15 per inch- diameter-foot was used for estimating the probable capital cost for pipeline construction. Unit costs for pumping stations can vary depending on the size and economy of scale of the pumping station, assuming that the WRP pumping station will range in size from 2-8 mgd, a unit cost range of $1.50 to $3 per gallon was utilized to estimate capital costs. Unit costs for treatment plants can vary widely depending on the size and economy of scale of the treatment system. Assuming that the WRP will have solids processing on site and will range in size from 1-3 mgd, a unit cost range of $15 to $20 per gallon was utilized to estimate WRP capital costs. 5.1.2 Construction Costs The opinion of construction costs includes a 20 percent allowance of the capital costs for mobilization, overhead and profit. EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT| Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Recommendations 5-2 5.1.3 Total Project Costs The opinion of total project cost includes the construction cost for each recommended improvement project and a 25 percent allowance of the construction costs to cover required engineering, legal, and administration fees. In addition, a construction contingency allowance of 30 percent of the construction costs is included to cover project uncertainties. 5.1.4 Cost Summary A summary of the capital, construction, and total project costs is provided below. Contingencies were calculated as a percentage of the total capital or construction cost, respectively. Percentage used for cost allowances are as follows: Capital Costs include unit costs multiplied by quantities Construction Costs include Capital Costs plus 20 percent of Capital Costs for Mobilization, Overhead and Profit Total Project Costs include Construction Costs plus 25 percent of Construction Costs for Engineering, Legal, Administration, and Construction Management No allowance was included to cover irregular construction or environmental difficulties. Details relating to the CIP and associated cost tables are provided in Appendix K. 5.2 CAPACITY PROJECTS COSTS Capacity deficiencies were identified for District facilities and along the regional East Trunk Sewer. Table 5-1 summarizes the capacity related project costs applying the budgetary unit costs described above. Table 5-1 Capacity Improvements Costs NAME DESCRIPTION DISTRICT/ REGIONAL CAPITAL COST CONSTRUCTION COST PROJECT COST Victoria Avenue Replace 3,000 ft of 8-inch with 10-inch diameter pipeline District $450,000 $540,000 $837,000 Greenspot East Parallel 21,000 ft with 12- inch pipeline District $3,780,000 $4,536,000 $7,031,000 Greenspot West Replace 15,400 ft of 21- to 24-inch with 30-inch pipeline District $6,930,000 $8,316,000 $12,890,000 District Subtotal $11,160,000 $13,392,000 $20,758,000 East Trunk Sewer – 6th Street Replace 5,500 ft of 27- to 39-inch with 36 to 48-inch pipeline Regional $3,708,000 $4,449,600 $6,897,000 North East Trunk Sewer Replace 7,500 ft of 21- to 30-inch with 30- to 36- inch pipeline Regional $3,726,000 $4,471,200 $6,931,000 Regional Subtotal $7,434,000 $8,920,800 $13,828,000 Total $18,594,000 $22,312,800 $34,586,000 EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT| Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Recommendations 5-3 5.3 WATER RECLAMATION PLANT OPTION ANALYSIS As discussed in Chapter 4, three options were considered for a District owned and operated WRP to address additional wastewater flows from planned development. Capital, construction, and total project costs were estimated for each option and compared to the capacity project costs presented in Table 5-1, or baseline condition. Operating considerations are also addressed in this chapter. 5.3.1 WRP Option Analyses Costs Construction and total project costs were estimated for each WRP Option analyzed for comparative purposes. In addition to the WRP option cost, each option will also include wastewater collection system capacity improvements. Comparison of the options needs to include both the WRP and the wastewater collection system capacity improvements required. Tables 5-3 through 5-5 summarize the capital, construction and total project costs, for the Baseline Scenario and each of the WRP Options. The Victoria Avenue and North East Trunk Sewer capacity improvement costs were not included in the comparison, because they are required for each option. Table 5-2 shows the costs for Baseline scenario of collection of sewage only with treatment at SBWRP. It should be noted that this Baseline scenario does not consider any capital costs that may be required for the expansion of capacity at SBWRP or rehabilitation costs that may be required for any processes e.g. primary clarifiers. Furthermore, it does not take into account any change that SBMWD would levy on the developments a per EDU change. Table 5-2 Baseline Scenario: (Continued SBWRP) Capacity Improvements Costs NAME DESCRIPTION UNIT COSTS CAPITAL COST CONSTRUCTION COST PROJECT COST WRP with Solids Not Required $0 $0 Diversion Pump Station to WRP Not Required $0 $0 Forcemain to WRP Not Required $0 $0 Greenspot East Parallel 21,000 ft with 12-inch pipeline $15 / inch- foot $3,780,000 $4,536,000 $7,031,000 Greenspot West Replace 15,400 ft of 21- to 24-inch with 30-inch pipeline $15 / inch- foot $6,930,000 $8,316,000 $12,890,000 East Trunk Sewer – 6th Street Replace 5,500 ft of 27- to 39--inch with 36- to 48- inch pipeline $15 / inch- foot $3,708,000 $4,449,600 $6,897,000 Total $14,418,000 $17,301,600 $26,818,000 Note: Costs not included for specific development projects (onsite facilities and facilities to connect to the District wastewater collection system). EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT| Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Recommendations 5-4 Table 5-3 WRP Option 1: Offload 1.33 mgd (Harmony Alternative) Capacity Improvements Costs NAME DESCRIPTION UNIT COSTS CAPITAL COST CONSTRUCTION COST PROJECT COST WRP with Solids 1.33 mgd $20 / gallon $26,600,000 $31,920,000 $49,476,000 Diversion Pump Station to WRP Not Required Forcemain to WRP Not Required Greenspot East Not Required Greenspot West Replace 15,400 ft of 21- to 24-inch with 30-inch pipeline $15 / inch- foot $6,930,000 $8,316,000 $12,890,000 East Trunk Sewer – 6th Street Replace 5,500 ft of 27- to 39-inch with 36 to 48-inch pipeline $15 / inch- foot $3,708,000 $4,449,600 $6,897,000 Total $37,238,000 $44,685,600 $69,263,000 Note: Costs not included for specific development projects (onsite facilities and facilities to connect to the District wastewater collection system). Table 5-4 WRP Option 2: Offload 2.25 mgd (Boulder Alternative) Capacity Improvements Costs NAME DESCRIPTION UNIT COSTS CAPITAL COST CONSTRUCTION COST PROJECT COST WRP with Solids 2.25 mgd $17.50 / gallon $39,375,000 $47,250,000 $73,238,000 Diversion Pump Station to WRP 2 mgd pump station $3 / gallon $6,000,000 $7,200,000 $11,160,000 Forcemain to WRP 17,500 ft of 12-inch diameter $15 / inch- foot $3,150,000 $3,780,000 $5,859,000 Greenspot East Not Required Greenspot West Not Required East Trunk Sewer - 6th Street Replace 5,500 ft of 27 to 39-inch with 36 to 48-inch pipeline $15 / inch- foot $3,708,000 $4,449,600 $6,897,000 Total $52,233,000 $62,679,600 $97,154,000 Note: Costs not included for specific development projects (onsite facilities and facilities to connect to the District wastewater collection system). EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT| Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Recommendations 5-5 Table 5-5 WRP Option 3: Offload 3.85 mgd (Hwy 210 Alternative) Capacity Improvements Costs NAME DESCRIPTION UNIT COSTS CAPITAL COST CONSTRUCTION COST PROJECT COST WRP with Solids 3.85 mgd $15 / gallon $57,750,000 $69,300,000 $107,415,000 Diversion Pump Station to WRP 5 mgd pump station $1.50 / gallon $7,500,000 $9,000,000 $13,950,000 Forcemain to WRP 22,000 feet of 18-inch diameter $15 / inch- foot $5,940,000 $7,128,000 $11,049,000 Greenspot East Not Required Greenspot West Not Required East Trunk Sewer – 6th Street Replace 5,500 ft of 27- to 39-inch with 36- to 48-inch pipeline $15 / inch- foot $3,708,000 $4,449,600 $6,897,000 Total $74,898,000 $89,877,600 $139,311,000 Note: Costs not included for specific development projects (onsite facilities and facilities to connect to the District wastewater collection system). The costs presented in the tables above are planning level cost estimates utilized for comparative purposes and should be revised once specific treatment technologies, sizing, and location are identified. Furthermore, costs were developed assuming that pump back facilities would relieve 100 percent of the flows at their identified locations and that treatment facilities would operate with onsite solids handling corresponding to the hydraulic analyses performed. A WRP facility constructed without solids handling or full pump-back would require additional capacity in the downstream trunk sewer. Further analyses of the existing system’s and the East Trunk Sewer’s ability to deliver solids to the SBWRP would need to be conducted, if solids handling were not to be included on site. 5.3.2 WRP Considerations In addition to construction costs, the District should consider other factors when deciding whether or not to get into the wastewater treatment as one of its business units. Some of these considerations are included below: Operating a WRP will require additional qualified and certified staff to operate and maintain the facility, implement a backflow prevention and/or industrial discharge program, operate non-potable reuse sites, and potentially require other additional staff. Construction of a new WRP provides the District with a valuable new resource. The District would have a new locally controlled water resource available to help offset limited water supplies and to help comply with California SB X7-7 water conservation requirements. The facility may help defer or avoid other water system costs. EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT| Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Recommendations 5-6 5.3.3 WRP Recommendations Based on the cost comparisons between the baseline scenario and the WRP options, the least cost option may be to continue conveying wastewater flows to the SBWRP. However, potential SBWRP expansion or rehabilitation costs may warrant further evaluation of the cost feasibility of the WRP options. As stated earlier this cost does not account for any costs that may be passed on as a result of any expansion or rehabilitation. The District may choose that the higher costs of the WRP options are mitigated by the development of a new water supply source. If the District decides to pursue a WRP option it is recommended that the District perform a recycled water market assessment, and a comprehensive rate study. The District has two options to meet capacity needs for future growth. The District may elect to continue to rely on the regional system by constructing new pipeline capacity and delivering additional flows to the SBWRP. Alternatively, the District may elect to pursue a more independent approach through construction of a new District WRP to serve a portion of the District. However, there are other considerations including the value of being less reliant on external agencies and the value of the new water created by a District reclamation plant. This master plan provides budget costs and considerations for both options to aid the District in making this important policy decision. 5.4 REPLACEMENT ASSESSMENT An assessment was performed on the District and Regional gravity sewer pipelines to estimate the capital cost to repair and rehabilitate the pipeline assets. The assessment of the District’s wastewater collection system was based on recent CCTV inspection and condition assessment data provided by the District. Because no inspection data was available for the Regional East Trunk Sewer, the assessment is limited to an understanding of the pipelines characteristics based on previous Black & Veatch experience with similar types of gravity sewers. 5.4.1 District Facilities An assessment was performed on the sewer pipelines to estimate the capital cost to repair and rehabilitate the District’s wastewater collection system based on defect trends. The assessment of the existing wastewater collection system was based on the District’s condition inspection database, which included more than 98 percent of the overall District gravity sewer pipeline length. 5.4.1.1 Evaluation of District Inspection Data District CCTV inspections utilized the standard Pipeline Assessment Certification Program’s (PACP) rating system per the National Association of Sewer Service Companies (NASSCO). The PACP rating system is utilized to rate structural and maintenance defects as they are observed by the camera operator. The defect codes range from one to five, with five being the most severe. Defects were organized by defect code and the top two defect codes and their respective number of occurrences is presented in the condition inspection database as a score for both structural and maintenance defects, by reach of pipeline. For example a structural code of 5846 represents a pipeline that had eight occurrences of defect grade five defects and six occurrences of grade four defects. A rehabilitation/replacement length was estimated for each pipeline based on the structural PACP score in order to identify the estimated capital cost. The score was based on the severity of the defect multiplied by the number of occurrences, not exceeding the length of the pipeline. Defect severity codes were assigned the following lengths: 5 – 40 feet, 4 – 30 feet, 3 – 20 feet, 2 – 10 feet, EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT| Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Recommendations 5-7 and 1 – 4 feet. The capital cost was then calculated by multiplying the pipeline unit cost of $15 per inch-diameter per foot described above. For example, a 10-inch diameter pipeline with a structural code of 5846 would have an estimated rehabilitation/replacement length of 500 ft ([8 x 40 ft] + [6 x 30 ft]) and an estimated capital cost of $75,000 (500 ft x 10-inches diameter x $15 per inch- diameter-foot). The condition inspection database was utilized along with the existing system hydraulic model results to develop a matrix that categorized estimated pipeline capital costs by maximum defect rating and amount of average daily flow in order to establish initial priorities for District consideration. Table 5-6 presents the Defect/Flow matrix and identifies the initial priorities by color. Table 5-7 summarizes the estimated replacement length, total project cost, and number of identified pipelines by priority. Table 5-6 Prioritized Defect/Flow Matrix FLOW MAXIMUM DEFECT RATING PROJECT COST TOTAL BY FLOW 1 (Least) 2 3 4 5 (Worst) > 1.5 mgd N/I N/I $13,400 N/I N/I $13,400 > 1.0 mgd N/I N/I N/I N/I N/I $0 > 0.5 mgd N/I N/I N/I N/I N/I $0 < 0.5 mgd $1,300 $203,300 $263,400 $205,000 $173,800 $846,800 Not Modeled $76,300 $1,027,400 $3,033,000 $1,925,900 $399,500 $6,462,100 Capital Cost Total by Defect Rating $77,600 $1,230,700 $3,309,800 $2,130,900 $573,300 $7,322,300 Note: Project Cost include: 20 percent of Capital Costs for Mobilization, Overhead and Profit, 25 percent of Construction Costs for Engineering, Legal, Administration, and Construction Management, and 30 percent of Construction Costs for Construction Contingency Table 5-7 Pipeline Prioritization Summary PRIORITY NUMBER OF PIPELINES ESTIMATED LENGTH (FEET) PROJECT COST Priority 1 30 2,756 $573,300 Priority 2 91 10,061 $2,114,300 Priority 3 269 15,473 $3,296,400 Priority 4 391 5,333 $1,308,300 Total 781 33,623 $7,322,300 Note: Project Cost include: 20 percent of Capital Costs for Mobilization, Overhead and Profit, 25 percent of Construction Costs for Engineering, Legal, Administration, and Construction Management, and 30 percent of Construction Costs for Construction Contingency EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT| Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Recommendations 5-8 5.4.1.2 Deterioration Trends Defect codes were sorted by material and age to evaluate trends. As expected, older pipes generally had a greater number of defects. Figure 5-1 shows the percent of pipes with defects by age. Half of the pipes installed before 1960 (over 50 years old) showed at least minor defects and half of those defects were categorized as moderate to severe. The results are consistent with expectations that as pipelines approach the last portion of their useful life, deterioration and failure rates increase substantially. The increase in defect rates and defect severity above can be correlated to typical survival curves for pipelines. Figure 5-2 shows a typical VCP survival curve categorized into favorable and unfavorable conditions (other materials are included in Appendix I). As pipelines reach 50 to 60 years of age, the likelihood of failure accelerates increasing overall risk to the agency. This situation is now commonly occurring through the United States with the large portion of the infrastructure built in the 1950s and 1960s. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Pre 1960 1960 - 1969 1970 - 1979 1980 - 1989 1990 - 1999 Post 2000 Pe r c e n t o f P i p e s w i t h D e f e c t s Year 1 2 3 4 5 Maximum Defect Rating Figure 5-1 Percent of Pipes with Defects by Age EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT| Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Recommendations 5-9 Figure 5-2 VCP Survival Curve Note: The curve above represents a typical survival curve for VCP pipelines. Favorable and unfavorable curves are shown to represent more ideal and less ideal condition. Actual results can vary depending on specific conditions. It is important to note that the District’s current assessment and PACP scoring is limited to what was visible on the CCTV camera and the judgment of the PACP assessor. Non-visible defects and dynamic conditions in the system can cause unexpected pipeline failures. Therefore, best management practices include ongoing monitoring and assessment of aging infrastructure, and adoption of an asset management program to maximize the life of the assets and reduce overall agency costs. Due to the prevalence of older VCP pipelines, it is recommended that the District continue its condition assessment program to refine the expected survival curves and long-term financial impact. The condition assessment program is included in the 5-10-year CIP. 5.4.1.3 Rehabilitation/Replacement Projects and Costs A recommended budget was determined for the rehabilitation and replacement of the District’s facilities to support a proactive condition assessment and asset management program. Many wastewater agencies across the country have shifted to place a major focus on asset management as much of the pipeline infrastructure approaches the end of its useful life. A proactive approach, placing more focus on aging assets now, will help the District avoid potential failures and bigger liabilities. A condition assessment budget was estimated based on a review of the highest priority pipelines (summarized as Priority 1 and Priority 2 pipelines in Table 5-6 and Table 5-7) and an assessment of the remaining life cycle of the District pipelines based on age and material. The remaining life cycle assessment estimated an approximate replacement length of 12,000 feet per year. The costs are summarized in Table 5-8 and only include costs associated with the rehabilitation/replacement of District sewer facilities. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 20406080100120 Pe r c e n t S u r v i v a l Years Favorable Survival Curve Unfavorable Survival Curve EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT| Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Recommendations 5-10 Table 5-8 Summary of Rehabilitation/Replacement Costs for the District PIPELINES CAPITAL COST CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL PROJECT COST Priority 1 Pipelines – Pipes with Class 5 defects $573,000 $687,600 $860,000 Priority 2 Pipelines – Pipes with Class 4 defects $2,144,000 $2,572,800 $3,216,000 Rehabilitation/Replacement of Aging Pipelines¹ $27,000,000 $32,400,000 $40,500,000 Total Pipelines Reaching Useful Life in Next 20 Years $29,717,000 $35,660,400 $44,576,000 ¹ Cost estimated based on replacement/rehabilitation of 12,000 ft of pipe per year, at a cost of $15 per inch-diameter-foot using an average of 10 inches in diameter. It was assumed that half of the pipelines would require replacement, and half would be rehabilitated at one half of the cost to replace the segment. Note: The projects above include replacing/rehabilitating pipelines to maintain existing capacities. These segments are separate from capacity upgrades identified in this chapter. Based on a review of the highest priority pipelines identified in the condition database, it is recommended that the District allocate approximately $4.1 million over the next five years to address the highest priority pipelines (Class 4 and Class 5 defects), equating to an annual budget of approximately $820,000. These immediate costs are included as an annual cost during years 1 – 5 of the CIP. It is also recommended that the District take a proactive asset management approach and budget approximately $41 million over the next twenty years to address aging infrastructure. This total is included as an annual cost for years 6 – 20 of the CIP. Furthermore, it is recommended that the District: continue to maintain the condition database; identify condition improvements on an annual basis; and, within the next 5 – 10 years, perform an additional condition assessment and re-assess condition project budget allocations. 5.4.2 Regional Facilities Because no inspection data was available for the East Trunk Sewer, the assessment is limited to an understanding of the pipelines materials, age, hydraulic characteristics, and experience with similar types of gravity sewers. 5.4.2.1 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. Dry weather ADDF at the SBWRP is approximately 13 mgd with a peak wet weather flow of 40.5 mgd. Based on the hydraulic model results, the peak velocities in the system generally range from 4 to 6 feet per second (fps) in the VCP section to 2 to 4 fps in the RCP section. EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT| Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Recommendations 5-11 5.4.2.2 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. Figure 5-3 shows some factors that can shorten the useful life including: 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 the factors shown on Figure 5-3, damage from other utility installation or nearby construction activities can also shorten the useful life. Figure 5-3 Factors Shortening Useful Pipe Life EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT| Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Recommendations 5-12 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 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 loadings 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. 5.4.2.3 Life-cycle and Replacement Cost Estimate The life expectancy of both the VCP and RCP pipelines were estimated at 70 years based on the unfavorable life expectancy projection, shown in Figure 5-2, for typical VCP pipelines. The VCP portion of the East Trunk Sewer was constructed at a similar period and has similar environmental considerations as the District’s VCP pipelines, suggesting a similar number of defects per pipeline. The RCP pipeline section is un-lined and the concrete has been exposed to hydrogen sulfide gas for more than 50 years, likely causing minor to significant damage to the concrete and reinforcing steel in areas with higher turbulence. Table 5-9 presents the rehabilitation/replacement of the East Trunk Sewer broken into two projects based on material and summarizes the construction and total project costs and timing. The replacement costs presented below represent replacing these pipe segments at existing capacities. These two segments were not identified for further upsizing in the capacity assessment. Table 5-9 Regional Rehabilitation/Replacement Projects – Replacement Projects NAME DESCRIPTION TIMING CAPITAL COST CONSTRUCTION COST PROJECT COST East Trunk Sewer RCP Replacement 11,700 ft (size varies from 48- to 54-inches in diameter) 2028 $9,111,000 $10,933,200 $16,947,000 East Trunk Sewer VCP Replacement 17,600 ft (size varies from 8- to 30-inches in diameter) 2028 $3,718,000 $4,461,600 $6,916,000 Total $12,829,000 $15,394,800 $23,863,000 Note: The projects above include replacing/rehabilitating pipelines to maintain existing capacities. These segments are separate from capacity upgrades identified in this chapter. EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT| Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Recommendations 5-13 To confirm the estimated remaining life expectancy of approximately 15 years 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. The use of CCTV has been used for inspection of sewers for decades. 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. 5.5 RECOMMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN This section presents a prioritized 20-year schedule of CIP. These projects include capacity projects, condition projects and recommended studies and programs. Projects were prioritized in 5-year phases with an annual cost breakdown for the first 5 years. For capacity driven projects, the project timing was estimated based on available capacity compared to an annual growth rate. Of the four growth scenarios presented in Chapter 2, the Adjusted RTP Scenario’s growth rate of 640 EDUs was selected to estimate the timing of capacity driven projects, to be conservative. The District should closely monitor growth trends to determine whether the identified capacity driven projects should be moved forward or can be delayed. To develop an estimate for the duration of each project and the associated project cost per year, the following assumptions were made: 2 years for planning and design at 15 percent of the Project Cost. 1 year for construction less than 5,000 ft. 2 years for construction greater between 5,000 and 10,000 ft. 3 years for construction greater than 10,000 ft. The CIP is summarized in Table 5-10, Figure 5-4, and Exhibit 1. EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT| Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Recommendations 5-14 Table 5-10 Capital Improvement Program NAME DESCRIPTION TOTAL PROJECT COST FISCAL YEAR 13/14 FISCAL YEAR 14/15 FISCAL YEAR 15/16 FISCAL YEAR 16/17 FISCAL YEAR 17/18 2023 2028 2033 DISTRICT PROJECTS Greenspot East Capacity Driven Project Parallel 21,000 ft with 12-inch diameter pipeline. Trigger = 100 EDUs $ 7,031,000 $ 527,325 $ 527,325 $ 1,992,117 $ 1,992,117 $ 1,992,117 $ - $ - $ - Victoria Capacity Driven Project Replace 3,000 ft of 8-inch with 10-inch diameter pipeline. Trigger = 125 EDUs $ 837,000 $ 62,775 $ 62,775 $ 355,725 $ 355,725 $ - $ - $ - $ - Greenspot West Capacity Driven Project Replace 15,400 ft of 21 to 24-inch with 30-inch diameter pipeline. Trigger = 550 EDUs $ 12,890,000 $ 966,750 $ 966,750 $ 3,652,167 $ 3,652,167 $ 3,652,167 $ - $ - $ - District Rehabilitation Condition Project Allowance of $100k per year $ 44,576,400 $ 815,280 $ 815,280 $ 815,280 $ 815,280 $ 815,280 $ 13,500,000 $ 13,500,000 $ 13,500,000 Rate Study Perform a Rate Study to assess the financial impacts of the CIP on District and Regional Capacity and Surcharge Fees $ 200,000 $ - $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Master Plan Update Perform a Master Plan Update every 5 to 10 years $ 600,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 300,000 $ - $ 300,000 District Condition Assessment Perform evaluation of deterioration trends and develop rehabilitation projects every 5 to 10 years based on CCTV inspections and condition assessments provided by District staff. $ 150,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 District Wet Weather Flow Monitoring Perform wet weather flow monitoring every winter for use in next Master Plan Update $ 150,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ - $ - $ - Subtotal $ 66,434,400 $ 2,402,130 $ 2,602,130 $ 6,845,288 $ 6,845,288 $ 6,489,563 $ 13,850,000 $ 13,550,000 $ 13,850,000 REGIONAL PROJECTS East Trunk Sewer - 6th Street Capacity Driven Project Replace 5,500 ft with 27 to 39-inch with 36 to 48- inch diameter pipeline. Trigger = At Capacity $ 6,897,000 $ 517,275 $ 517,275 $ 2,931,225 $ 2,931,225 $ - $ - $ - $ - North East Trunk Sewer Capacity Driven Project Replace 7,500 ft with 21 to 30-inch with 30 to 36- inch diameter pipeline. Trigger = At Capacity $ 6,931,000 $ 519,825 $ 519,825 $ 2,945,675 $ 2,945,675 $ - $ - $ - $ - Subtotal $ 13,828,000 $ 1,037,100 $ 1,037,100 $ 5,876,900 $ 5,876,900 $ - $ - $ - $ - Total $ 80,262,400 $ 3,439,230 $ 3,639,230 $ 12,722,188 $ 12,722,188 $ 6,489,563 $ 13,850,000 $ 13,550,000 $ 13,850,000 Note: Costs shown in March 2013 $’s (ENR LA CCI 10284) RedlandsRedlands MunicipalMunicipal AirportAirport San BernardinoSan Bernardino International AirportInternational Airport Ea s t T w i n C re e k Plunge C r e e k Can a l Sch e n k C r e e k Oak Creek Gage Canal Fredalba Creek Little Sa nd Creek L ittl e M ill C r e e k C it y C r e e k Warm Creek Highland Canal Sa nd Creek N orth Fork Canal S T ip p e ca n oe A ve W 3Rd St S A r r o w h e a d A v e N A r r o w h e a d A v e E 30Th St W Lu gonia Ave W Mill St De l R o s a A v e W Rialto Ave N S i e r r a W a y E Highland Ave Va l e n c i a A v e El e c t r i c A v e Bu c k e y e S t Al ab a m a S t B o u l d e r A v e E Mi ll St Carnegie Dr Mo u n t a i n V i e w A v e S Si e r r a W a y Ch u r c h S t Te n n e s s e e S t E 3Rd St Ar d e n A v e Foothill Dr S W a t e r m a n A v e E 5Th St N T i p p e c a n o e A v e St e r l i n g A v e Ju d s o n St Ch u r ch A v e Highland Ave N W a t e rman A ve Baseline St W 13Th St E Lynwood Dr Vi c to r i a A v e Lynwood Dr Ha r r i s o n S t Pa l m A v e W 6Th St E F o o t h i l l Dr 5Th St E 40T h St E Rialto Ave Mentone Blvd Base Line St 40Th St W San Bernardino Ave W Base Line St E 39Th St E San Bernard ino Ave E Lugonia Ave E 13Th St E Base Line St Ti p p ec a n oe A v e Or a n g e S t San Bernardino Ave Ca l i f o r ni a S t N M o u n t a i n Vi e w A v e W 5Th St 3Rd St Wa b a s h A v e 30 18 330 38 SBWRP 0 2,000 4,000 Feet 1 inch = 4,000 feet LEGEND FY 2013/2014 Rehabilitation Projects Collection System East Trunk Sewer Replacement Projects Victoria Ave Greenspot East Greenspot West East Trunk Sewer - 6th St North East Trunk Sewer SBWRP District Boundary Figure5-4_CIP April 19, 2013 K. McRae Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Victoria Avenue Greenspot East Greenspot West East Trunk Sewer - 6th Street North East Trunk Sewer Figure 5-4 Capital Improvement Plan EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT| Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | Recommendations 5-16 5.5.1 District Capacity & Replacement/Rehabilitation Projects Capital Improvement Plan The District Projects identified in the CIP in Table 5-10 (not including regional projects) totals $23,858,000 and includes capacity projects, condition rehabilitation allowance, and recommended studies including a rate study, master plan updates, continued condition assessments, and on-going wet weather flow monitoring. 5.5.2 Regional Capacity Projects Capital Improvement Plan The total Regional portion of the CIP is $13,828,000. The large majority of these projects are the responsibility of the District based on flows conveyed to the sewers. However, a detailed rate study would better define responsibilities. 5.5.3 Regional Replacement/Rehabilitation Projects The replacement/rehabilitation projects included in Table 5-9 of $23,863,000 and any related studies were not included in the CIP because Section 3 of the Joint Powers Agreement places maintenance and repair responsibility of the East Trunk Sewer on the City of San Bernardino. Section 3 states, “The City will also acquire, construct, maintain, repair, manage, operate, and control independently from the District facilities for the treatment and disposal of sewage, including effluent reclamation works. The parts of said City facilities involved in this agreement are the East Trunk Sewer and northerly extensions thereof and the facilities connected thereto for the treatment and disposal of sewage, including effluent reclamation works.” Based upon our current understanding of Section 3 of the Joint Powers Agreement, rehabilitation and replacement costs for the East Trunk Sewer wouldn’t apply to the District’s capital funds. 5.6 FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS The District collects capacity and operational fees from wastewater customers. A portion of these fees are paid to the City of San Bernardino for constructing, operating, and maintaining the regional facilities (East Trunk Sewer and SBWRP). The scope of this master plan includes summarizing the current state of funding for these facilities, and determining whether a detailed cost of service study and/or a capacity charge study should be performed. For financial conservatism the Delayed RTP Scenario’s growth rate of 295 EDUs per year was selected to evaluate current funding and determine if a detailed rate study is required. 5.6.1 District Fees The District currently has a limited fund balance for CIP Projects and will need to evaluate its funding options. The District currently collects a capacity fee of $645 per EDUs from new wastewater customers. Funding options available to the District may include: revenue bonds, federal or state grants, state revolving fund loans, etc. The current capacity fee is likely insufficient to cover the District’s CIP. Therefore, it is recommended that the District complete wastewater rate evaluations and long term financial plans as part of a financial study. 5.6.2 Regional Fees The District has an East Trunk Sewer Capacity Fund balance of $7,512,195 which is currently being held by the City of San Bernardino. The District currently collects a capacity fee of $158 per EDUs from new wastewater customers and a surcharge fee of $2 per month per EDU for customers East of Boulder Avenue. The District’s current East Truck Sewer capacity fund balance does not EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT| Wastewater Collection System Master Plan BLACK & VEATCH | 5-17 currently exceed the estimated total project costs identified in the regional improvement program. Funding options available to the District may include: revenue bonds, federal or state grants, state revolving fund loans, etc. Further evaluations relative to District’s liability to pay for condition upgrades of East Truck Sewer are recommended. Therefore, it is recommended that the District complete wastewater rate evaluations and long term financial plans as part of a financial study. East Twin Creek P l u n g e C r e e k C a n a l M orto n Creek G age C anal Schenk Creek O a k C re e k City Creek L ittle MillCreek Little Sand Creek Fredalba Creek C it y C r e e k Sand Creek Warm Creek HighlandCanal NorthForkCanal Alabama St W 4Th St S Tippecanoe Ave W3RdSt S Arrowhead Ave N Arrowhead Ave E 30Th St W Orange Show Rd W Lugonia Ave Del Rosa Ave W Rialto Ave W2NdSt N Sierra Way E Highland Ave Valencia Ave Electric Ave W 30Th St Buckeye St B o u l d e r A v e E Mill St CarnegieDr Mo u n t a i n V i e w A v e S Sierra Way Church St Te n n es s e e S t E 3Rd St Arden Ave Foothill Dr Judson St S Waterman Ave Mountain Ave N E St S E St W San Bernardino Ave E 5T h St W 40Th St N Tippecanoe Ave WMillSt Sterling Ave Church Ave HighlandAve N Waterman Ave BaselineSt E Lynwood Dr M i l l C r e e k R d Waterman Ave Victoria Ave Lynwood Dr Harrison St Palm Ave E F o othill D r 5T h S t E 40Th St E Rialto Ave Mentone Blvd BaseLineSt 40T h S t W Base Line St E 39Th St W 13Th St E San Bernardino Ave E Lugonia Ave E 13Th St E Base Line St T i p p ec a n oe Ave 6Th St Orange St California St San Bernardino Ave W Highland Ave N Mountain View Ave W 6Th St W5ThSt 3Rd St Wabash Ave E San Bernardino Ave ST259 ST330 ST30 ST206 ST18 ST38 ¨§¦215 SBWRP CIP_Exhibit_[Arch_D] October 18, 2013 K. McRae # VictoriaAvenue # GreenspotEast # GreenspotWest # EastTrunkSewer6thStreet # NorthEastTrunkSewer Name Description TotalProjectCost FY13/14 FY14/15 FY15/16 FY16/17 FY17/18 2023 2028 2033 GreenspotEast CapacityDrivenProject Parallel21,000feetwith12inch diameterpipeline. Trigger=100EDUs $7,031,000 $527,325 $527,325 $1,992,117 $1,992,117 $1,992,117 $ $ $ Victoria CapacityDrivenProject Replace3,000feetof8inchwith10 inchdiameterpipeline. Trigger=125EDUs $837,000 $62,775 $62,775 $355,725 $355,725 $$ $ $ GreenspotWest CapacityDrivenProject Replace15,400feetof21to24inch with30inchdiameterpipeline. Trigger=550EDUs $12,890,000 $966,750 $966,750 $3,652,167 $3,652,167 $3,652,167 $$ $ DistrictRehabilitation ConditionProject Allowanceof$100kperyear $44,576,400 $815,280 $815,280 $815,280 $815,280 $815,280 $13,500,000 $13,500,000 $13,500,000 RateStudy PerformaRateStudytoassessthe financialimpactsoftheCIPon DistrictandRegionalCapacityand SurchargeFees $200,000 $$200,000 $ $ $$ $ $ MasterPlanUpdate PerformaMasterPlanUpdateevery5 to10years $600,000 $$ $ $$$300,000 $$300,000 DistrictConditionAssessment Performevaluationofdeterioration trendsanddeveloprehabilitation projectsevery5to10yearsbasedon CCTVinspectionsandcondition assessmentsprovidedbyDistrict staff. $150,000 $$ $ $$$50,000 $50,000 $50,000 DistrictWetWeatherFlow Monitoring Performwetweatherflowmonitoring everywinterforuseinnextMaster PlanUpdate $150,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $ $ $ Subtotal $66,434,400 $2,402,130 $2,602,130 $6,845,288 $6,845,288 $6,489,563 $13,850,000 $13,550,000 $13,850,000 EastTrunkSewer6thStreet CapacityDrivenProject Replace5,500feetwith27to39inch with36to48inchdiameterpipeline. Trigger=AtCapacity $6,897,000 $517,275 $517,275 $2,931,225 $2,931,225 $$ $ $ NorthEastTrunkSewer CapacityDrivenProject Replace7,500feetwith21to30inch with30to36inchdiameterpipeline. Trigger=AtCapacity $6,931,000 $519,825 $519,825 $2,945,675 $2,945,675 $$$ $ Subtotal $13,828,000 $1,037,100 $1,037,100 $5,876,900 $5,876,900 $$ $ $ Total $80,262,400 $3,439,230 $3,639,230 $12,722,188 $12,722,188 $6,489,563 $13,850,000 $13,550,000 $13,850,000 DistrictProjects RegionalProjects LEGEND FY2013/2014RehabilitationProjects CollectionSystem EastTrunkSewer SBWRP DistrictBoundary ReplacementProjects VictoriaAve GreenspotEast GreenspotWest EastTrunkSewer6thSt NorthEastTrunkSewer WastewaterCollectionSystem MasterPlan Exhibit1 CapitalImprovementPlan /0 1,800 3,600 Feet 1inch=1,800feet