FRESNO COUNTY
9. A summary of Stillage Site nitrogen control measures for the previous water year (i.e., from October through September). The summary shall discuss total monthly stillage application; total wastewater recycled annually (if applicable); total nutrient loading annually from applied stillage and wastewater (if applicable), and total estimated amount of nutrients removed through crop harvest. In short, the summary shall present a mass balance relative to constituents of concern and hydraulic and waste constituent loading along with supporting data and calculations. The summary shall include a tabulation and interpretation of analytical results of Stillage Site soil monitoring for the previous calendar year. The summary shall also present tabulated Stillage Site monitoring data for the previous calendar year on 3.5” computer diskettes (or submitted separately via e-mail), either in MS-DOS / ASCII format or in another file format acceptable to the Executive Officer (e.g., Microsoft Excel).
10. A summary of groundwater monitoring data for the previous calendar year. The summary shall include
a. Hydrographs showing the groundwater elevation in each approved monitoring well for at least the previous five years. The hydrographs should show groundwater elevation with respect to the elevations of the top and bottom of the screened interval and be presented at a scale of values appropriate to show trends or variations in groundwater elevation. b. Graphs of the laboratory analytical data for all samples taken from each approved well (monitoring and reclamation) within at least the previous five calendar years (as data become available). Each such graph shall plot the concentration of one or more waste constituents over time for a given monitoring well, at a scale appropriate to show trends or variations in water quality. The graphs shall plot each datum, rather than plotting mean values. For any given evaluated constituent, the scale for the background plots shall be the same as that used to plot downgradient data. Separate graphs shall show hydrologic equipotential gradients and equal concentration gradients for evaluated constituents. c. All monitoring analytical data obtained during the previous four quarterly reporting periods, presented in tabular form, as well as 3.5” computer diskettes (or submitted separately via email), either in MS-DOS / ASCII format or in another file format acceptable to the Executive Officer (e.g., Microsoft Excel).
d. A comprehensive discussion of the compliance record, and the result of any corrective actions taken or planned that may be needed to bring the Discharger into full compliance with the waste discharge requirements.
11. A summary of groundwater extraction operations for the previous calendar year. This summary shall address the past year’s groundwater extraction activities and extracted groundwater quality and shall contain all monitoring analytical data obtained during the previous four quarterly reporting periods, presented in tabular form, as well as 3.5” computer diskettes (or submitted separately via e-mail), either in MS-DOS / ASCII format or in another file format acceptable to the Executive Officer (e.g., Microsoft Excel).
12. A summary of biosolids monitoring, including
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM NO. 5-01-254 -13-
CITIES OF FRESNO AND CLOVIS WWTF
FRESNO COUNTY
a. Annual sludge production in dry tons and percent solids. b. A schematic diagram showing sludge handling facilities and solids flow diagram. c. A description of disposal methods, including the following information related to the disposal methods used at the WWTF. If more than one method is used, include the percentage of annual sludge production disposed of by each method i. For landfill disposal, include: (a) the Order numbers of WDRs that regulate the landfill(s) used, (b) the present classifications of the landfill(s) used, and (c) the names and locations of the facilities receiving sludge.
ii. For land application, include: (a) the locations of the site(s), (b) the Order numbers of any WDRs that regulate the site(s), (c) the application rate in lbs/acre/year (specify wet or dry), and (d) subsequent uses of the land.
iii. For incineration, include: (a) the names and location of the site(s) where sludge incineration occurs, (b) the Order numbers of WDRs that regulate the site(s), (c) the disposal method of ash, and (d) the names and locations of facilities receiving ash (if applicable).
iv. For composting, include: (a) the location of the site(s), and (b) the Order numbers of any WDRs that regulate the site(s).
The Annual Report shall discuss the compliance record for the reporting period. If violations have occurred, the report shall also discuss the corrective actions taken and planned to bring the discharge into full compliance with this Order. Reports submitted concerning WWTF performance must also be signed and certified by the chief plant operator. When reports contain laboratory analyses performed by the Discharger and the chief plant operator is not in the direct line of supervision of the laboratory, reports must also be signed and certified by the chief of the laboratory.
The Discharger shall implement this monitoring program on the first day of the month following adoption of this Order. All reports submitted in response to this Order shall comply with the signatory requirements in Standard Provision B.3.
Ordered by:
GARY M. CARLTON, Executive Officer
19 October 2001
(Date)
BLH:jlk:fmc:10/19/01 AMENDED
INFORMATION SHEET
ORDER NO. 5-01-254
CITIES OF FRESNO AND CLOVIS
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
FRESNO COUNTY
The Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility is a wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) that serves the cities of Fresno and Clovis; the Pinedale Water District and Pinedale Utilities District, both of which are within the city limits of Fresno; and some areas within Fresno County not within the city limits of Fresno or Clovis. The cities of Fresno and Clovis are referred to as Discharger. The City of Fresno is responsible for day-to-day WWTF operations, and is referred to as Operator. The WWTF, on property owned by the Operator, originated in 1891 as a 40-acre “sewage farm” for raw sewage disposal. Beginning in 1924, the Operator began extracting groundwater from deep on-site irrigation wells to draw down the shallow water table caused by groundwater mounding under the WWTF disposal ponds1.
The WWTF currently encompasses 3,290 acres and includes two separate treatment plants; 1,660 acres of disposal ponds; about 600 acres of reclamation area; 290 acres of wet-weather effluent disposal area:
and a 145-acre wine stillage disposal area that currently serves Canandaigua Wine Company, a New York corporation. The Operator recently expanded the WWTF property by 480 acres and proposes to convert some of the newly acquired area to disposal ponds and to use the remainder for year-round water reclamation.
The Operator submitted a Report of Waste Discharge in 1996, to support a proposed increase in WWTF discharge flow from 74 to 94 million gallons per day (mgd). Plant 1 is now an 88-mgd-capacity activated sludge treatment plant that includes headworks and primary and secondary clarifiers. Plant 2, which is currently in stand-by mode, is a 6-mgd-capacity trickling filter plant that includes primary and secondary clarifiers. The WWTF currently treats about 68 mgd, or 24,800 million gallons annually (76,000 acre-feet).
The Operator’s January 2001 Title 22 Engineering Report (hereafter Title 22 Report) describes the WWTF as follows:
Influent is pumped from the collection system into the Headworks for screening, flow measurement, and grit removal. The flow from the Headworks is then divided equally among six primary clarifiers. The effluent from the clarifiers converges at the Primary Effluent Splitting Structure. The primary solids are pumped directly into anaerobic digesters. Currently nine are in service, two are being rehabilitated, and one is used as a feed storage structure for the Dewatering facility.
The primary effluent is divided into two trains. The “B” side receives sixty-four percent of the flow and consists of four plug flow type aeration basins in parallel. Each basin consists of five influent cells followed by a large tank. The aeration effluent enters eight rectangular sedimentation basins, also in parallel, whose effluent flows to a network of percolation ponds via a canal system.
1 Loehr, R. C. et al. (1979). Land Application of Wastes. Volume I, Publisher, City.
INFORMATION SHEET – ORDER NO. 5-01-254 -2-
CITIES OF FRESNO AND CLOVIS WWTF
FRESNO COUNTY
“A” side receives thirty-six percent of the primary effluent and consists of four complete mix aeration basins. This aeration effluent enters five final clarifiers.
Solids from these secondary systems are thickened using a combination of five dissolved air floatation units and two gravity belt thickeners. The thickened secondary solids from each unit feed into a common header and the solids are distributed to the digesters.
The feed digester (Digester #1) receives digested biosolids from all digesters on line. This is pumped to the dewatering facility, which contains seven belt filter presses. The dewatered solids are stored in a silo and then shipped by truck to an application site.
The WWTF has an average power demand of 6.3 megawatts (MW). The WWTF is supplied by two sources of power. Feeder A (10 MW) is the primary source of power; Feeder B (5 MW) is a standby source of power. The Operator’s Title 22 Report indicates that a new substation adjacent to the WWTF and owned by the City of Fresno will provide the WWTF’s power supply by May 2001. A second 12 KW supply feeds directly into the WWTF’s switchgear from a separate substation, thereby assuring reliable power. Further, the WWTF has three standby engine generators onsite with capacities of 25 KW (propane), 350 KW (diesel), and 1,600 KW (diesel). The overall onsite standby capacities allows the WWTF to continue to operate process components during a power outage, including the primary treatment units, plus one of the large aeration blowers. The Operator has implemented a computerized maintenance program to monitor equipment data, preventive maintenance, and repairs. Instrumentation, electrical, and mechanical equipment are on a preventive maintenance program that regularly schedules calibration and service of the equipment. Equipment repairs are scheduled on the computerized maintenance program, and the repair data is entered into the computer. The data from the preventive maintenance and repairs has established equipment history to help in the scheduling of repairs with a minimum of equipment downtime and improved equipment reliability.
The Operator reports that 56 significant industrial users discharge waste into the WWTF collection system, including 14 users from the metal finishing categories. Other industrial users discharging into the WWTF include soft drink bottlers, meat packers, food processors, dairy and poultry products processors, plastic manufacturers, wineries, and several linen and industrial laundries. The Discharger originally developed a pretreatment program in conformance with 40 CFR 403. The Board approved the program on 17 June 1984. The Operator has subsequently submitted a revised pretreatment program (dated 6 June 1996), also in conformance with 40 CFR 403, which updates its original submission to bring it in line with current practices. The Operator updated its pretreatment program in 2001, in part, to reflect its latest municipal code and enforcement response plan, incorporate WWTF upgrades, and describe modifications in sampling procedures. Board staff is reviewing the revised pretreatment program for completeness and adequacy. Once the program is deemed complete, staff will submit for Board consideration a proposed Order approving the revised pretreatment program.
Sludge from the WWTF is thickened by dissolved air flotation and gravity belts, anaerobically digested, and dewatered by seven belt filter presses, three of which went on line in July 1993. Prior to 1993, digested sludge was pumped to 62 acres of open earthen basins beds that are no longer in service and the Operator has since constructed additional treatment facilities on the majority of the 62 acre site.
Plant Wells 1001 and 1002, which are in proximity to these former drying beds, have high concentrations of TDS and nitrates.
INFORMATION SHEET – ORDER NO. 5-01-254 -3-
CITIES OF FRESNO AND CLOVIS WWTF
FRESNO COUNTY
The Operator previously stockpiled 100,000 cubic yards of dried sludge at the WWTF. Over 75,000 cubic yards of the stockpiled sludge was classified as “hazardous” waste due to the lead and cadmium concentrations present in it. In July1997, the California State Department of Toxic Substances reclassified the sludge as nonhazardous. The stockpiled sludge was transported to the Fresno Sanitary Landfill in 1998 as part of the landfill’s final closure project.
Effluent Disposal and Reclamation
At the current annual average discharge flow of 68 mgd, the WWTF’s annual discharge flow is 24,820 million gallons (or about 76,000 af). Of this amount, about 4,000 af/yr of effluent is recycled directly, an amount that represents about only five percent of the WWTF’s current annual discharge flow. Onsite effluent recycling effluent currently occurs on 528 acres within the WWTF property, an amount that will reportedly increase to 766 acres (hereafter reclamation area). Area farmers recycle effluent on site under lease agreements with the Operator, as summarized below:
Field No. Lessee Acreage Types of Crops AF used in
1999
1 Quist Dairy 121 Alfalfa, Silage, Cotton, Wheat 175
6B Dan Sousa 160 Wine Grapes, Silage, Alfalfa 462
7B Quist Dairy 117 Cotton, Alfalfa, Silage, Wheat 51
7C Quist Dairy 130 Cotton, Silage, Wheat 12
8* Quist Dairy 238 Cotton, Silage, Alfalfa, Wheat 0
Total 766 Total 700
*Field 8 currently does not have access to recycled water; however, the Operator anticipates that necessary improvements will be made to convey recycled water to the field by 2002.
Off-site effluent recycling currently occurs on 2,770 acres surrounding the WWTF property by growers under separate water reclamation requirements (WRRs), as summarized below:
Field
No.
WRRs
Order No. Reclaimer Acreage Types of Crops
AF used in
1999
2 94-370 Al Coelho Jr. 560 Cotton, Wine Grapes, Alfalfa 502 3 94-369 Golden State Vintners 1,560 Wine Grapes 1,528
6A 94-372 Joe Souza 320 Alfalfa, Silage, Wheat 580
6C 94-367 Myrna Craviero (Dan Souza) 130 Alfalfa, Silage, Wheat 299 7A 94-371 Quist Dairy (Alvin J. Quist) 200 Cotton, Alfalfa, Silage, Wheat 135 Total 2,770 Total 3,044
As indicated above, about 3,700 af of effluent was directly recycled in 1999, an amount equivalent to less than five percent of current WWTF’s annual discharge flow. Of the 72,000 af/yr discharged to the disposal ponds, about 63,400 af/yr (88 percent) percolates to groundwater and 8,600 af/yr (12 percent) is lost through evaporation (i.e., 62 in/yr evaporation from 1,660 acres of disposal ponds). Over the years, INFORMATION SHEET – ORDER NO. 5-01-254 -4-
CITIES OF FRESNO AND CLOVIS WWTF
FRESNO COUNTY
the Operator’s reliance on effluent disposal by percolation has created an extensive groundwater mound (approximately 10-feet high) that persists year-round, ranges in depth from 25 to 61 feet below ground surface (bgs), and extends well beyond the perimeter of the WWTF property. The mounded effluent appears to affect groundwater contours throughout the surrounding township.
The Operator owns and operates a network of 21 groundwater extraction wells on the WWTF property (hereafter reclamation wells). The reclamation wells extract from 150 to 200 feet below ground surface (bgs), operate about 10 months of the year, and discharge about 10 to 40 mgd (or about 15,300 af/yr) to the Houghton Canal and the Dry Creek Canal under an agreement with FID. Order No. 96-054 did not establish numerical or narrative effluent limits for the discharge from the groundwater extraction wells, require any monitoring of the flow or quality of the extracted groundwater, or impose any restrictions on the use of extracted groundwater.
The 1974 agreement between the Operator and FID currently stipulates, in part, that (a) the Operator must discharge into FID canals a minimum of 100,000 af of extracted groundwater during any ten year period; (b) the Operator may discharge a maximum of 30,000 af/yr of extracted groundwater to FID canals; (c) for every acre-foot of extracted groundwater the Operator discharges to FID canals, FID may deliver to the Operator 0.45 af of surface water up to a maximum of 7,600 af/yr. The Operator uses this surface water throughout the City of Fresno for aquifer recharge (i.e., by discharging to groundwater recharge basins situated within the metropolitan area). Most of the surface water delivered to Fresno’s groundwater recharge basins is from the Friant Division of the Central Valley Project (CVP), operated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau). The Operator and FID have signed contracts to purchase up to 135,000 af/yr of CVP surface water from the Bureau.
The Operator normally delivers between 15,000 and 20,000 af/yr to FID canals, an amount that is equivalent to 19 to 25 percent of the current annual discharge flow. Any increase in the discharge of extracted groundwater beyond that stipulated in the 1974 agreement is subject to FID approval.
The Discharger submitted a technical report, Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facilities Master Plan Summary Report (Master Plan), dated November 1996, pursuant, in part, to C&D Order No. 96-055. The Master Plan describes a planning structure to maximize effluent reuse through land-based alternatives, primarily effluent reuse for agriculture. It documents options for off-site effluent reuse/disposal to meet the Discharger’s disposal needs through 2020. The Master Plan presents financial impact analyses and multi-year implementation schedules for each option. These options include
(a) adding about 270 acres of on-site disposal ponds; (b) increasing the amount of groundwater extracted and discharged to FID’s canals to 28,000 to 33,000 af/yr, which is about equal to the capacity of the existing on-site extraction wells; and (c) reclaiming effluent on lands outside of FID’s service area through the development of a partnership among the Operator, FID, Raisin City Water District, Mid-Valley Water District, James Irrigation District, and Tranquillity Irrigation District. According to the Master Plan, negotiations for the reuse project will take up to 18 months to finalize and construction of the reuse project’s infrastructure (e.g., pipelines) will take up to 36 months to complete. The Master Plan further indicates that FID may seek mitigation for delivery of effluent outside of the FID service area. The Discharger has increased its on-site disposal pond acreage, but has yet to implement the Master Plan’s effluent reuse options.
INFORMATION SHEET – ORDER NO. 5-01-254 -5-
CITIES OF FRESNO AND CLOVIS WWTF
FRESNO COUNTY
Calpine Corporation (hereafter Calpine) is planning to construct a new gas-fired turbine in Fresno County (Central Valley Energy Center, hereafter referred to as CVEC). Calpine proposes to pump approximately 7,000 af/yr from the Operator's reclamation wells to provide cooling tower and industrial process water for the CVEC. Once extracted, the recycled water will be dosed with sodium hypochlorite prior to introduction into a 20.5 mile, 30-inch diameter pipeline, which will terminate into two 1.5 million gallon storage tanks at the CVEC site.
The California Department of Health Services (DHS) commented on the tentative WDRs circulated for public comment on 10 April 2001. Among the concerns expressed by DHS was that the Discharger has discharged and will continue to discharge a significant amount of wastewater to groundwater with minimal treatment and inadequate monitoring.
On 23 April 2001, DHS released for public review the first draft of regulations governing projects designed to use recycled water for the purpose of recharging by infiltration or injection of recycled water in a groundwater basin designated in a Water Quality Control Plan, as defined in CWC section 13050(j), for use as a source of domestic water supply. The draft regulations do not specify the hydraulic loading rate that constitutes groundwater recharge. The draft regulations proposed higher levels of treatment (e.g., nutrient removal, filtration) than is typically provided for domestic wastewater disposed of through percolation. The draft regulations also propose to control total nitrogen, regulated contaminants (i.e., those for which Title 22 establishes maximum contaminant levels) and physical characteristics and control of nonregulated contaminants such as total organic carbon (TOC). The draft regulations propose that recycled water rechargers monitor mounded groundwater for TOC, total nitrogen, and pharmaceuticals (e.g., endocrine disrupting chemicals).
In its 10 April 2001 letter, DHS recommends that the Discharger expedite efforts to expand its recycling efforts and curtail discharge to groundwater. In its regulation of this ongoing discharge, DHS recommends that the Board require the Discharger to (a) assess the current status of all private and domestic wells that exist within the 25-square-mile area described in Finding No. 9; (b) monitor domestic supply wells within this area for contaminants to assure they are producing safe water for domestic use and are not adversely impacted by the wastewater the Discharger has discharged to area groundwater; and (c) conduct a comprehensive study to assess the fate and effects of the past and current discharge on the groundwater basin. DHS further recommends that the Board require the Discharger to (a) identify the types of crops grown in the area served by FID canals that receive groundwater extracted by the Operator’s reclamation wells and (b) provide information on the dilution of the extracted groundwater with fresh water prior to irrigation application. If the crop identification reveals that food crops are grown in the subject area, DHS recommends that the Board require the Discharger to
undertake a timely evaluation of the degree of soil treatment provided by the current recharge and extraction operation and a determination of the level of filtration and virus removal treatment provided.
DHS also recommends the Board require the Discharger to provide continuous turbidity monitoring of representative reclamation wells for at least one year.
Stillage Guidelines
INFORMATION SHEET – ORDER NO. 5-01-254 -6-
CITIES OF FRESNO AND CLOVIS WWTF
FRESNO COUNTY
Stillage is the waste material produced by the distillation of wine, pomace, or raisins for fortifying spirits and is the least readily disposal of all winery wastes. In the mid-1940s, the Wine Institute funded a study by Coast Laboratories on wine stillage composition. The study’s 1946 report, The Disposal of Winery Waste, characterized conventional stillage as follows: (a) total solids content average 1.6 percent, about one-third of which is suspended solids, largely yeast; (b) pH range from 3.4 to 4.2; and (c) BOD5 content average 12,500 mg/L.
In 1979, the Wine Institute funded Metcalf & Eddy engineers to survey existing practices of 16 seasonally discharging stillage disposal operations. The study’s 1980 report, Land Application of Stillage Waste: Odor Control and Environmental Effects (hereafter the Wine Institute Study), summarized the results of this study and recommended guidelines for stillage disposal operations to minimize water quality effects and nuisance conditions.
Board Resolution No. 83-105 amended the Basin Plan to prescribe guidelines for the land disposal of stillage wastes from wineries. The guidelines reflect the recommendations of the Wine Institute Study and prescribe minimum operational procedures for two types of stillage disposal (i.e., rapid infiltration and slow infiltration). The maximum application rates and minimum drying times prescribed by the Stillage Guidelines for rapid infiltration are outlined in the following table:
Period of Year
Depth of Stillage
Application
(inches)
Drying Time
(days)
Minimum Land Requirement
(acres per 100,000 gpd of stillage waste)
1 Aug to 30 Sep 3.7 6 7
1 Oct to 30 Nov 3 9 12.3
1 Dec to 1 May 2.5 13 20.6
The values below represent the organic load to land allowed by the Stillage Guidelines for rapid disposal systems. The values assume an average stillage BOD5 concentration of 12,500 mg/L and reflect two different application time periods. The first is the organic load on the actual day of application, while the second is the organic load averaged over the entire application cycle (i.e., including drying days).
BOD5 Loading
Application On day of application Averaged over entire application cycle Period of Year gallons/acre lbs/acre/day lbs/acre/day
1 Aug – 30 Sep 100,000 10,500 1,500
1 Oct – 30 Nov 81,000 8,500 850
1 Dec – 1 May 68,000 7,000 500
Excessive application of stillage waste to land can overload the shallow soil profile, cause anaerobic soil conditions, retard the degradation, stabilization, transformation, and immobilization of waste INFORMATION SHEET – ORDER NO. 5-01-254 -7-
CITIES OF FRESNO AND CLOVIS WWTF
FRESNO COUNTY
constituents, and create objectionable odors that lead to public nuisance. Degradation of organic matter within the soil profile increases the concentration of alkalinity in soil pore water. Anaerobic soil conditions can lead to the dissolution of soil minerals such as calcium and magnesium. Hydraulic overloading flushes waste constituents, the by-products of organic degradation, and dissolved minerals into the soil profile where they will continue to leach into and unreasonably degrade groundwater.
In applying food-processing wastewater to land for biological treatment, loadings of total suspended solids (TSS) typically range from 70 to 200 lbs/acre/day and loadings of BOD5 should not exceed 100 lbs/acre/day to prevent the creation of nuisances, according to EPA’s Pollution Abatement in the Fruit and Vegetable Industry (Publication No. 625/3-77-0007) (hereafter Pollution Abatement). In well-operated land treatment systems, wastewater application is typically followed by several days of rest, according to Pollution Abatement. This management practice maintains aerobic conditions in the soil profile. Slow-rate systems with BOD5 loading rates that occasionally exceed 300 lbs/acre/day have successfully avoided odor problems by using adequate drying times between applications, according to Natural Systems for Waste Management and Treatment, by Sherwood C. Reed and others.
Organic loadings recommended by the Wine Institute Study and allowed by the Stillage Guidelines, while exceeding the loading rates recommended by Pollution Abatement, reflect longstanding disposal practices by stillage disposal operations that discharged on a seasonal basis (e.g., from August to November). The Wine Institute Study rationalized its recommended organic loadings by assuming that 80 percent of stillage BOD5 is contained in suspended solids trapped on the surface leaving 20 percent in soluble compounds to infiltrate the soil profile. The resultant organic loading to the soil profile (as soluble BOD5) calculated at 120 lb/acre/day over the course of the entire application cycle.
The Wine Institute Study also cites work by Jewell and Loehr2, 3 to support organic loads in excess of that recommended by Pollution Abatement, especially for acclimated soils (i.e., those that had been receiving waste for a number of years). Jewell and Loehr monitored the oxygen uptake of bacteria in soils collected from a land application site that had received vegetable processing wastewater. The experiment utilized a Warburg respirator apparatus, which is typically used to determine the oxygen uptake of microbial cells in liquid samples (e.g., 20 to 40 ml). In extrapolating the results of laboratory oxygen uptake experiments to field conditions, Jewell and Loehr concluded that food-processing waste disposal sites with acclimated soils could consume oxygen at rates exceeding 600 lbs/acre/day.
Additionally, Jewell and Loehr concluded that acclimated soils could accommodate organic loads (as chemical oxygen demand) of up to 16,000 lbs/acre/day without suffering prolonged oxygen depletion and nuisance from organic overloading. Key to the rapid degradation of organic wastes applied to land is adequate drying time. While Jewell and Loehr may have identified the oxygen transfer rate in small samples of acclimated soil, their application of these rates to field conditions was premature given the lack of field validation. Further, it appeared that Jewell and Loehr were unconcerned about what leached to groundwater since the waste application sites they examined demonstrated clear and unambiguous 2 Jewell, W. J. and R.C. Loehr (1975) Land Treatment of Food Processing Waste. Presented at the American Society of Agricultural Engineering. Winter Meeting. Chicago. Paper No. 75-2513. 3 Jewell, W. J. et al. (1978) Limitations of Land Treatment of Wastes in the Vegetable Processing Industries. Cornell University.
INFORMATION SHEET – ORDER NO. 5-01-254 -8-
CITIES OF FRESNO AND CLOVIS WWTF
FRESNO COUNTY
evidence that groundwater had been degraded, not only for total dissolved solids but also for organics (as COD).
Stillage is very high in organic nitrogen content compared to other food-processing wastes. Organic nitrogen (as total Kjeldahl nitrogen, or TKN) is primarily retained in the upper two to three feet of the soil profile. Soil bacteria transform organic into inorganic nitrogen (i.e., ammonia, nitrites and nitrates).
Nitrate and nitrite are highly soluble, not bound to the soil, and are readily leached through the vadose zone and into groundwater subsequent to the application of water to the soil.
The Wine Institute Study describes stillage disposal sites as having soil TKN concentrations in excess of 2,500 mg/kg, with concentrations decreasing substantially at depths below two feet and reducing further to background levels at depths of six feet. Groundwater data collected during the Wine Institute Study was minimal and inconclusive regarding nitrogen contamination from stillage disposal operations.
The Stillage Guidelines recommend that stillage application sites be planted with crops, if necessary, to assist in the removal of residual nitrogen concentrations from the soil during periods when it is not used for stillage disposal. At the time of the Wine Institute Study, stillage disposal operations were seasonal, whereas now wineries such as Canandaigua operate and discharge year-round. The Stillage Guidelines further recognize the need to impose more stringent disposal requirements as necessary to comply with water quality objectives. “If necessary” was intended to be predicated on monitoring the buildup of nitrogen in the soil, but has been largely ignored by the industry.
Stillage Site
The Operator owns and operates a 145-acre wine Stillage Site, which consists of a 95-acre portion (SS-1) in operation since 1974 and a 50-acre portion (SS-2) in service since 1998. SS-1 was regulated by Order No. 74-10 until 1996, when regulation of the stillage disposal operation was included in the WWTF’s waste discharge requirements (Order No. 96-054). Currently, the Stillage Site receives stillage waste year round from only one winery, Canandaigua Wine Company, a New York corporation (hereafter Canandaigua).
Recent monitoring data (1996 through 1998) indicates that during the crush season (from August to November), the Operator discharges an average 0.21 mgd of stillage to the 145-acre disposal site (1.0 mgd daily maximum). During the rest of the year, the Operator discharges an average of 0.12 mgd (0.71 mgd daily maximum). The waste is discharged to land without any prior treatment. The Discharger reports that the stillage pipeline is in need of extensive maintenance repairs. The lease agreement between the Discharger and Canandaigua for its discharge of stillage to the Stillage Site expires in 2004. By fall 2003, Canandaigua plans to relocate its stillage operation to its Paul Masson winery in Madera County and cease discharge of stillage to the Stillage Site. The WWTF does not have the treatment capacity to accommodate Canandaigua’s stillage discharge.
In 2000, the Stillage Site received about 79 million gallons of stillage. Peak daily flows occurred in mid-June and ranged from 1.1 to 1.27 mgd. The table below compares year 2000 total monthly stillage discharge flows to those recommended by the Stillage Guidelines and currently permitted for the original 95-acre SS-1:
INFORMATION SHEET – ORDER NO. 5-01-254 -9-
CITIES OF FRESNO AND CLOVIS WWTF
FRESNO COUNTY
Month Amount Discharged (mg)
Maximum Amount
Allowed (mg)1
Jan 6.732 14.26
Feb 6.504 12.88
Mar 5.874 14.26
Apr 3.668 13.8
May 6.14 42.16
Jun 16.91 40.8
Jul 1.113 42.16
Aug 6.771 42.16
Sep 9.857 40.8
Oct 7.665 23.87
Nov 7.534 23.1
Dec 0.64 23.87
Total 79.4 335
1 Value assumes the discharge complies with all other relevant stillage discharge specifications (e.g., no standing stillage after 24 hours of application)
As indicated above, the Operator’s stillage discharge in 2000, in terms of monthly discharge flow, is less than 25 percent of that permitted by the Stillage Guidelines for the original 95-acre SS-1 (assuming the discharge complied with all remaining discharge specifications). In 1998, the Operator reduced the waste loading to the original SS-1 by placing into service the new 50-acre stillage disposal area (SS-2).
The following table compares the water quality from MW-2 that is in the middle of SS-1 and MW-5 (5,400 feet from MW-2) that is in the vicinity of the WWTF disposal ponds. The data show that the Operator’s long-term stillage disposal operation has degraded area groundwater as evidenced by elevated concentrations of TDS, alkalinity, calcium, magnesium, and manganese.
In February and March 1999, the Operator performed laboratory tests to determine the soluble and insoluble fractions of stillage BOD5. Specifically, the Operator split six samples of stillage and analyzed one sample for total suspended solids and total BOD5, centrifuged the other sample at 2000 Constituent Units MW-2 MW-5
Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 1,700 450
Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L 1,600 260
Calcium mg/L 300 46
Magnesium mg/L 200 24
Manganese mg/L 10 0.1
INFORMATION SHEET – ORDER NO. 5-01-254 -10-
CITIES OF FRESNO AND CLOVIS WWTF
FRESNO COUNTY
revolutions per minute for 15 minutes, and analyzed the resulting liquid for suspended solids and BOD5.
The results indicate that almost 90 percent of stillage BOD5 is in soluble form. These results imply that the actual organic loading from the land application of stillage may be appreciably higher than previously thought.
As described previously, the Wine Institute Study assumed that most BOD5 would be retained in surface organic solids and that biological degradation processes would mineralize the majority of the nitrogen, which would be then be biologically converted to nitrogen gas. In reality, most BOD5 in stillage applied to the Stillage Site is soluble and only a small fraction is in the retained organic solids. In July 1992, the Operator tested Stillage Site soils for TKN analysis. The samples were taken at the surface, one foot, and two feet below the surface at six sites. When groundwater monitoring well 2 (MW-2) was drilled in SS-1, the Operator collected soil samples at 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, and 45 feet bgs, and analyzed them for TKN. The Operator found that the majority of TKN occurs within the upper two feet of SS-1 soils, as indicated below:
Depth, ft 0.5 1 2 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
TKN, mg/kg 5,225 2,468 460 114 213 161 101 89 88 55 72 65 The average TKN from 5 to 45 feet is 106 mg/kg. There was no measurable nitrate or nitrite in the soil samples. These findings correspond with the data in the 1980 Wine Institute Study. In the 1992 study, the average TKN concentration was 2,700 mg/kg in the upper two feet of soil in SS-1. Assuming a minimum soil weight of 90 lbs/ft3, there are 21,300 lbs-TKN/acre in the upper two feet in SS-1. The Discharger applied 104,000 lbs TKN to the site in 1998 and 245,000 lbs TKN in 1999. In 1992, based upon the 1998 and 1999 rates of application, there were 9 to 20 years of nitrogen accumulation in the top two feet of soil. Since stillage has been discharged to the site since 1974, the data indicates minimal biodegradation of the applied TKN.
In Finding No. 13 of Order No. 96-054, the Board found that no crops had been grown in the disposal area to aid in nitrogen control. Provision G.7 of Order No. 96-054 required the Operator to “submit a written technical report and schedule on measures to be implemented to provide for nutrient uptake in the stillage disposal area or justify why it should not be necessary.” In its report, Schedule of Measures to be Implemented to Provide for Nutrient Uptake in the Stillage Disposal Area (April 1998), the Discharger investigated the use of Sudan grass for nitrogen uptake from Stillage Site soils. While this report recommended that the Operator plant and harvest crops to reduce the large accumulation of nitrogen in Stillage Site soil, the Operator has not yet initiated systematic cropping and harvesting. The SS-2 area was added in 1998 but has not been planted crops to remove nitrogen. In the report, Technical Memorandum No. 1, Update of Groundwater Quality Conditions (April 1999), groundwater monitoring from MW-2 showed high concentrations of EC and TDS.
INFORMATION SHEET – ORDER NO. 5-01-254 -11-
CITIES OF FRESNO AND CLOVIS WWTF
FRESNO COUNTY
Groundwater Monitoring and Evaluation
Area soils are coarse, well sorted sands with good permeability (i.e., from 0.7 to 1.0 in/hr).
Groundwater underlying the WWTF occurs in an unconfined aquifer at depths ranging from 31 to 60 below ground surface (bgs). Regional groundwater generally moves southwesterly, according to FID groundwater elevation contour maps.
The Operator has one background monitoring well upgradient of the WWTF site, but no downgradient wells off-site. Several of the on-site monitoring wells are adjacent to localized areas of groundwater degradation (hereafter hot spots) such as existing or historic confined animal facilities with plumes that mask the impacts of the discharge on area groundwater. Consequently, the impacts of the discharge upon the chemical characteristics of the regional aquifer are not well defined.
Since 1990, the Operator has been investigating potential impacts on groundwater quality associated with current and past discharges from the WWTF as well as discharges to the 145-acre Stillage Site. It has documented these investigations in the following reports:
" Wastewater Treatment Facility, Phase I Investigation, Groundwater Impacts from Effluent Disposal, June 1991;
" Wastewater Treatment Facility, Phase II Investigation, Groundwater Impacts from Effluent Disposal, February 1993;
" Master Plan Report, Task 700, Technical Memorandum No. 3, Evaluation of Reclamation Operations and Recommended Groundwater Monitoring Program, August 1996; " Update of Groundwater Quality Conditions, Vicinity of Fresno/Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility, July 1998; and
" Technical Memorandum No. 1, Update of Groundwater Quality Condition, April 1999.
The reports contain the following findings. The groundwater mound created by percolating WWTF effluent persists year-round and is less than 20 feet below the bottom of the percolation/disposal ponds.
The Operator’s extraction wells pull from the deep zone aquifer (approximately 200 feet) rather than the shallow zone that is associated with the percolation/disposal ponds (approximately 50 feet). This is reportedly due to low yields associated with pumping from the shallow zone. Groundwater extracted and discharged to FID canals recovers less than 36 percent of the percolated water. Percolated effluent has contributed to increases in constituents such as EC, TDS, sodium, chloride, manganese, and phosphorus and decreases in nitrate concentrations. Impaired groundwater quality is associated with localized on-site plant operations such as the Stillage Site and former dairy sites. Groundwater beneath the former sludge disposal area in the northeastern portion of the WWTF is characterized by high nitrate and EC concentrations. The off-site extent and impact of recharged effluent downgradient of the WWTF is unknown, although the resultant groundwater quality beyond the WWTF boundary is believed to be adequate for agricultural use.
INFORMATION SHEET – ORDER NO. 5-01-254 -12-
CITIES OF FRESNO AND CLOVIS WWTF
FRESNO COUNTY
The reports made the following recommendations. Groundwater extraction needs to be increased to provide increased groundwater/pond bottom separation and to control off-site migration of treated effluent and groundwater affected by on-site chemical sources. The groundwater monitoring network and program should be revised to provide for depth-specific monitoring on-site and off-site and to evaluate future wastewater management actions on water quality beneath and downgradient of the plant.
Chloride, a conservative ion, is known to pass through soil untransformed and relatively uninhibited by the sorption process and thereby is a reliable marker ion for comparing two liquid streams. Staff compiled data from self-monitoring reports for effluent chloride concentrations for the period of January 1997 through June 2000. The Discharger presented staff with mineral analyses collected from extraction wells for the period of January 1989 through June 1999. Staff calculated the mean, variance, and number of samples for each set of data. Staff used the standard normal deviate, z, to compare the mean chloride concentration in the effluent with the mean chloride concentration for the extraction wells. Based upon a calculated z = 1.42, staff concluded that the mean concentration of 74.5 (n=38) mg/L from the reclamation wells was not statistically significantly different from the mean concentration of 77.8 mg/L (n=210) in the effluent.
B
B
A
A
A B
n
s
n
s
X X
z
2 2
#
$
%
The Discharger has designated monitoring well 10A as the shallow zone and monitoring well 10B as the deep zone background water quality. The mean chloride concentration (16.1 mg/L) in the shallow zone was significantly greater (5.19 mg/L) than in the deep zone (z=21.6). The chloride concentration in the effluent and the composite chloride concentration in the extraction wells were significantly greater than in both MW-10A (z=27.6) and MW-10B (z=25.3).
Nitrate was measured in the effluent of reclamation well RW-15 from May 1993 through September 1996. A plot of the data showed an exponential decrease in the nitrate from 9.2 mg/L in May 1993 to a baseline value of 0.6 mg/L in May 1996. An analysis of RW-12 data presented similar results.
Reclamation wells located in proximity to identified hot spots have significantly higher nitrogen concentrations than those with lower nitrogen application rates.
At the proposed discharge flow of 80 mgd (89,600 af/yr) and continued direct reuse of 4,000 af/yr, about 85,600 af/yr will be discharged to the 1,660 acres of disposal ponds, of which 8,600 af/yr (10 percent) will evaporate and 77,000 af/yr (90 percent) will percolate to groundwater. The concentration affect of evaporative losses will cause an 11 percent increase in concentrations of waste constituents in effluent percolating to groundwater. This is illustrated in the mass balance calculation below. (85,600 af/yr) (100 mg/L) = (8,600 af/yr) (0 mg/L) + (77,000 af/yr) (X mg/L) X = 111 mg/L, or 11 percent greater that the concentration discharged to the disposal ponds.
INFORMATION SHEET – ORDER NO. 5-01-254 -13-
CITIES OF FRESNO AND CLOVIS WWTF
FRESNO COUNTY
The table below shows the concentrations of salinity constituents in WWTF effluent, effluent percolating to groundwater, and in four monitoring wells situated in an area removed from dairies or other concentrated sources of waste discharges.
Shallow groundwater Deeper groundwater
Constituent Units
Effluent to
ponds1
Effluent to
groundwater
2 MW 13A3 MW 14A3 MW 13B3 MW 14B3
Chloride mg/L 72 80 70 78 70 82
EC µmhos/cm 780 866 901 781 1,170 902
Sodium mg/L 81 90 78 83 81 92
TDS mg/L 440 488 566 460 742 575
1 Average values based on 2000 monitoring data
2 Estimated at 11% greater than concentration in effluent discharged to disposal ponds 3 Average values based on quarterly monitoring data from April 2000 through May 2001 As indicated above, the concentrations of salinity constituents in groundwater comprised predominately of percolating effluent are comparable to that of WWTF effluent as it is concentrated due to the effect of evaporation.
Water quality data from October 2000 for groundwater extracted from three recently-installed Flowpath™ reclamation wells, which extract groundwater from depths of 80 to 240 feet bgs, indicate the following average concentrations in mg/L: chloride (79), dissolved iron (0.19), dissolved manganese (1.24), total nitrogen (< 2), sodium (76), TDS (490), and total organic carbon (5). With few exceptions (i.e., MW-14A, MW-14B, and MW-15A), manganese concentrations in groundwater extracted from the WWTF’s
monitoring wells are typically less than the detection limit of 0.02 mg/L. In contrast, the average manganese concentration of 1.24 mg/L in groundwater extracted from the Flowpath™ wells is almost 25 times the drinking water standard of 0.05 mg/L.
A reasonable explanation for the low concentrations of nitrate and high concentrations of manganese and total organic carbon in groundwater extracted from reclamation wells is the microbial degradation of organic carbon in percolating effluent. Biological wastewater treatment is the process of dissimilation and assimilation whereby organic compounds are broken down (dissimilation) or incorporated into cell mass (assimilation). The biochemical oxidation of organic carbon compounds to carbon dioxide and water and the conversion of nitrogen to nitrate provide cells energy. These processes occur in an aqueous solution giving the byproducts of carbonic acid and nitric acid.
If effluent percolating to groundwater contains more organic carbon than can be oxidized by the residual oxygen in the effluent, the soil and groundwater beneath the ponds may be an anoxic or oxygen deficient environment. In an aqueous environment under anoxic conditions, nitrate and oxidized forms of manganese and iron substitute for oxygen as a terminal electron acceptor whereby nitrate is reduced to nitrogen and manganese and iron are transformed to reduced forms. The reduced forms of manganese INFORMATION SHEET – ORDER NO. 5-01-254 -14-
CITIES OF FRESNO AND CLOVIS WWTF
FRESNO COUNTY
and iron have a higher solubility product, Ksp, and therefore become more soluble in water. This reduced form dissolves in water and migrates.
Basin Plan
The Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin, Second Edition (hereinafter Basin Plan) designates beneficial uses and contains water quality objectives for all waters of the Basin. Beneficial uses often determine the water quality objectives that apply to a water body. For example, waters designated as municipal and domestic supply must meet the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for drinking waters. The Basin Plan sets forth the applicable beneficial uses (industrial, agricultural, and domestic supply in this instance), procedure for application of water quality objectives, and the process for and factors to consider in allocating waste assimilation capacity. The Basin Plan incorporates plans and policies of the State Water Resources Control Board by reference.
The Houghton and Dry Creek Canals are Valley Floor Waters, according to the Basin Plan. The beneficial uses of Valley Floor Waters are identified in the Basin Plan as agricultural supply, aesthetics, and groundwater recharge. The beneficial uses of underlying ground water are domestic, industrial, and agricultural supply. Dry Creek Canal originates in the City of Fresno within the Tulare Lake Basin and flows seasonally downstream of the WWTF. Houghton Canal flows seasonally downstream of the WWTF and originates within the Tulare Lake Basin at a junction with Dry Creek Canal in the City of Fresno. For irrigation purposes, they carry surface waters from the Kings River and Friant Kern Canal, both waters of the United States. They also carry urban storm runoff and surface waters from upgradient ephemeral streams. Downstream of the WWTF, the known beneficial uses are agricultural supply, aesthetics, and groundwater recharge.
The Basin Plan indicates that degradation of groundwater in the Tulare Lake Basin by salts is unavoidable without a plan for removing the salts from the Basin. In the absence of a valley wide drain to carry salts out of the valley, the Basin Plan indicates that the only other solution is to manage the rate of degradation by minimizing the salt loads to groundwater. The Board implements this policy, in part, by prescribing effluent salinity limits in waste discharge requirements for all discharges to land in the Basin. The Basin Plan’s discharge salinity limit consists of narrative and numerical limits:
The incremental increase in salts from use and treatment must be controlled to the extent possible.
The maximum EC shall not exceed the EC of the source water plus 500 µmhos/cm. When the source water is from more than one source, the EC shall be a weighted average of all sources.
The Basin Plan encourages reclamation and does not consider disposal by evaporation/percolation or discharge to surface waters a permanent disposal solution when the potential exists for reclamation.
Further, the Basin Plan requires that project reports for new or expanded wastewater facilities shall include plans for wastewater reclamation or the reasons why this is not possible.
Antidegradation
The antidegradation directives of section 13000 of the California Water Code require that waters of the State that are better in quality than established water quality objectives be maintained “consistent with INFORMATION SHEET – ORDER NO. 5-01-254 -15-
CITIES OF FRESNO AND CLOVIS WWTF
FRESNO COUNTY
the maximum benefit to the people of the State.” Waters can be of high quality for some constituents or beneficial uses and not others. Policies and procedures for complying with this directive are set forth in the Basin Plan (including by reference State Water Board Resolution No. 68-16, “Statement of Policy With Respect to Maintaining High Quality Waters in California,” or “Antidegradation” Policy).
Resolution 68-16 is applied on a case-by-case, constituent-by-constituent basis in determining whether a certain degree of degradation can be justified. It is incumbent upon the Discharger to provide technical information for the Board to evaluate that fully characterizes:
" all waste constituents to be discharged, the background quality of the uppermost layer of the uppermost aquifer
" the background quality of other waters that may be affected " the underlying hydrogeologic conditions
" waste treatment and control measures
" how treatment and control measures are justified as best practicable treatment and control " the extent the discharge will impact the quality of each aquifer " the expected degradation compared to water quality objectives In allowing a discharge, the Board must comply with CWC section 13263 in setting appropriate conditions. The Board is required, relative to the groundwater that may be affected by the discharge, to implement the Basin Plan and consider the beneficial uses to be protected along with the water quality objectives essential for that purpose. The Board need not authorize the full utilization of the waste assimilation capacity of the groundwater (CWC 13263(b)) and must consider other waste discharges and factors that affect that capacity. The applicable beneficial uses (industrial, agricultural, and domestic supply in this instance), procedure for application of water quality objectives, and the process for and factors to consider in allocating waste assimilation capacity are set forth in the Basin Plan.
This discharge has been occurring for years. Previous conditions of discharge have specified that, except for EC, the discharge, in combination with other sources, shall not cause underlying groundwater to contain waste constituents in concentrations statistically greater than background quality. In the case of EC, the previous Order stipulated that the combined effect of the discharges shall not cause an incremental increase greater than 20 µmhos/cm in EC over the most recent five-year period. Certain waste constituents in municipal wastewater are not fully amenable to waste treatment and control and it is reasonable to expect some impact on groundwater. Some degradation for certain constituents is consistent with maximum benefit to the people of California because the technology, energy, water recycling, and waste management advantages of municipal utility service to the State far outweigh the environmental impact damage of a community that would otherwise be reliant on numerous concentrated individual wastewater systems. Economic prosperity of the Cities of Fresno and Clovis is of maximum benefit to the people of California, and therefore sufficient reason to accommodate increases in wastewater discharge provided terms of reasonable degradation are defined and met. The proposed Order authorizes some degradation consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the State.
INFORMATION SHEET – ORDER NO. 5-01-254 -16-
CITIES OF FRESNO AND CLOVIS WWTF
FRESNO COUNTY
Groundwater monitoring data at this site is insufficient to establish the most appropriate receiving water limits. In addition, as explained elsewhere in this information sheet, certain aspects of waste treatment and control practices have not been and are unlikely to be justified as representative of BPTC.
Reasonable time is necessary to gather specific information about the facility and the site to make informed, appropriate, long-term decisions. This proposed Order, therefore, establishes receiving water limitations to assure protection of the beneficial uses of waters of the State pending the completion of certain tasks and provides time schedules to complete specified tasks. The tasks provide that the Discharger is expected to identify, implement, and adhere to best practicable treatment and control as individual practices are reviewed and upgraded in this process. During this period, degradation may occur from certain constituents, but by interim conditions can never exceed water quality objectives (or background water quality should it exceed objectives) or cause nuisance.
Water quality objectives define the least stringent limits that could apply as water quality limitations for groundwater at this location, except where background quality unaffected by the discharge already exceeds the objective. The values below reflect water quality objectives that must be met to maintain specific beneficial uses of groundwater. Unless natural background for a constituent proves higher, the groundwater quality limit established in proposed Order is the most stringent of the values listed for the listed constituents.
Constituent Units Value
Beneficial
Use Criteria or Justification
Ammonia mg/L 0.5 MUN1
Taste and Odor2
Boron mg/L 0.7 AGR3 Boron senstivity4
Chloride mg/L 106 AGR3 Chloride sensitivity on certain crops irrigated via sprinklers4
142 AGR3
Chloride sensitivity on certain crops4
250 MUN1 Recommended Secondary MCL5
500 MUN1
Upper Secondary MCL5
Conductivity (EC) µmhos/cm 750 AGR3
Salt sensitivity4
900 MUN1
Recommended Secondary MCL5
1,600 MUN1
Upper Secondary MCL5
Iron mg/L 0.3 MUN1
Secondary MCL6
Manganese mg/L 0.05 MUN1
Secondary MCL6
Nitrate as N mg/L 10 MUN1
Primary MCL7
Nitrite as N mg/L 1 MUN1 Primary MCL7
pH pH Units 6.5 to 8.5 MUN Secondary MCL8
Sodium mg/L 69 AGR3 Sodium sensitivity on certain crops4 Total Coliform
Organisms
MPN/100
mL
2.2 MUN1
Basin Plan
Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 450 AGR3 Salt sensitivity4
INFORMATION SHEET – ORDER NO. 5-01-254 -17-
CITIES OF FRESNO AND CLOVIS WWTF
FRESNO COUNTY
Constituent Units Value
Beneficial
Use Criteria or Justification
500 MUN1
Recommended Secondary MCL5
1,000 MUN1 Recommended Upper MCL5
Total Trihalomethanes µg/L 100 MUN1 MCL9
Chloroform µg/L 1.1 MUN1 Narrative Toxicity Criteria10
Bromodichloromethane µg/L 0.27 MUN1
Narrative Toxicity Criteria10
Dibromochloromethane µg/L 0.37 MUN1
Narrative Toxicity Criteria10
Bromoform µg/L 4.3 MUN1
Narrative Toxicity Criteria10
See footnotes next page
1 Municipal and domestic supply
2 Council of the European Union, On the Quality of Water Intended for Human Consumption, Council Directive 98/83/EC (3 November 1998).
3 Agricultural supply
4 Ayers, R. S. and D. W. Westcot, Water Quality for Agriculture, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations – Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 29, Rev. 1, Rome (1985) 5 Title 22, California Code of Regulations (CCR), section 64449, Table 64449-B 6 Title 22, CCR, section 64449, Table 64449-A
7 Title 22, CCR, section 64431, Table 64431-A
8 United States Environmental Protection Agency
9 Title 22, CCR, section 64439
10 California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Cancer Potency Factor as a Drinking Water Level, California Environmental Protection Agency Toxicity Criteria Database
Municipal wastewater contains numerous dissolved inorganic waste constituents (i.e., salts, minerals) that together comprise total dissolved solids (TDS). Each component constituent is not individually critical to any beneficial use. Constituents that are critical are individually listed. The cumulative impact from these other constituents, along with the cumulative affect of the constituents that are individually listed can be effectively controlled using TDS as a generic indicator parameter. Most dissolved inorganic substances in water are in the ionized form and so contribute to a solution’s ability to carry an electrical current, or its “electrical conductivity” (EC). EC varies both with the number and type of ions the solution contains and is strongly temperature dependent. It is standard practice to report a solution’s EC at 25° Celsius (this value is technically called “specific conductance”). Only ions can carry a current, however. Un-ionized species of weak acids or bases will not carry a current, nor will uncharged soluble organic materials, such as ethyl alcohol and glucose, even though these constituents comprise a portion of TDS. Although EC is affected by the nature of the various ions, their relative concentrations, and ionic strength of the water, EC measurements can give a practical estimate of the variations in a solution’s dissolved mineral content. An empirical factor may be developed from simultaneous measurements of TDS and EC that allows for the rapid estimation of TDS from EC measurements.
INFORMATION SHEET – ORDER NO. 5-01-254 -18-
CITIES OF FRESNO AND CLOVIS WWTF
FRESNO COUNTY
Treatment Technology and Control
Given the character of municipal wastewater, secondary treatment technology is generally sufficient to control degradation of groundwater from decomposable organic constituents. Adding disinfection significantly reduces populations of pathogenic organisms, and reasonable soil infiltration rates and unsaturated soils can reduce them further. Total coliform, the indicator parameter for pathogenic organisms, should not be found in groundwater beneath a well-designed, well-operated facility. The Discharger indicates, however, that groundwater extracted from municipal wells occasionally contains detectable concentrations of coliform organisms.
Municipal wastewater typically contains nitrogen in concentrations greater than water quality objectives, which vary according to the form of nitrogen. Degradation by nitrogen can be controlled by an appropriate secondary treatment system (e.g., oxidation ditch), tertiary treatment for nitrogen reduction, and agronomic reuse on harvested crops. The effectiveness varies, but generally best practicable treatment and control should be able to control nitrogen degradation at a concentration well below the water quality objectives.
Waste constituents that are forms of salinity pass through the treatment process and soil profile and effective control of long-term affects relies upon effective source control and pretreatment measures. In the best of circumstances, long-term land discharge of treated municipal wastewater will degrade groundwater with salt (as measured by TDS and EC) and the individual components of salts (e.g., sodium, chloride). Not all TDS constituents pass through the treatment process and soil profile in the same manner or rate. Chloride tends to pass through both rapidly to groundwater. As chloride concentrations in most groundwaters in the region are much lower than in treated municipal wastewater, chloride is a useful indicator parameter for evaluating the extent to which effluent reaches groundwater.
Other indicator constituents for monitoring for groundwater degradation due to recharged effluent include total coliform bacteria, ammonia, total nitrogen, and total trihalomethanes (when the effluent is chlorinated). Chlorine disinfection of effluent causes formation of trihalomethanes, which are priority pollutants. Treatment to reduce these in wastewater generally has not been performed, and little is known at this point on the typical impact on groundwater. Total trihalomethanes (TTHMs) are chlorinated organic materials that are toxic at low concentrations. Common TTHMs include bromoform, bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane, and chloroform. While the State drinking water regulations (i.e., Title 22, CCR, section 64439) establish a maximum contaminant level for TTHMs of 100 µg/L, the actual concentrations at which THMs components are considered “toxic” to humans are much lower (e.g., chloroform’s human health toxicity limit is 1.1 µg/L). The Basin Plan states that groundwaters “shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life associated with designated beneficial uses.”
Boron is another TDS constituent that may occur in wastewater in concentrations greater than groundwater depending on the source water, to the extent residents use cleaning products containing boron, and whether any industrial dischargers utilize boron (e.g., glass production, cosmetics). Still other constituents in treated municipal waste that may pass through the treatment process and the soil INFORMATION SHEET – ORDER NO. 5-01-254 -19-
CITIES OF FRESNO AND CLOVIS WWTF
FRESNO COUNTY
profile include recalcitrant organic compounds (e.g., ethylene glycol, or antifreeze), radionuclides, and pharmaceuticals. Hazardous compounds are not usually associated with domestic wastes and when present are reduced in the discharge to inconsequential concentrations through dilution with domestic waste, treatment, and the implementation of effective pretreatment programs.
A discharge of wastewater that overloads soils with nutrients and organics can result in anaerobic conditions in the soil profile, which in turn creates organic acids and decreases soil pH. Under conditions of low soil pH (i.e., below 5), iron and manganese compounds in the soil can solubilize and leach into groundwater. Discharge of residual sludge to land may also lead to increases in groundwater alkalinity and hardness to concentrations that impair the water’s beneficial uses and contribute to an overall increase in TDS. Overloading soils with nutrients and organics is preventable and does not constitute BPTC as used in Resolution 68-16. Elevated concentrations in groundwater compared to percolating effluent of dissolved iron, dissolved manganese, alkalinity, and hardness are useful indicators to determine whether components of the WWTF with high-strength waste constituents, such as sludge handling facilities, are ineffective in containing waste.
Title 27
Title 27, CCR, section 20380 et seq. (“Title 27”), contains regulations to address certain discharges to land. Title 27 establishes a waste classification system, specifies siting and construction standards for full containment of classified waste, requires extensive monitoring of groundwater and the unsaturated zone for any indication of failure of containment, and specifies closure and post-closure maintenance requirements. Generally, no degradation of groundwater quality by any waste constituent is acceptable.
Discharges of domestic sewage and treated effluent can be treated and controlled to a degree that will not result in unreasonable degradation of groundwater. For this reason, they have been conditionally exempted from Title 27, except for residual sludge and solid waste generated as part of the treatment process [section 20090(a) of Title 27]. The condition requires that the discharge not result in violation of any water quality objective in groundwater.
Treatment and storage facilities for sludge that are part of the WWTF are considered exempt from Title 27 under section 20090(a), under the condition that the facilities not result in a violation of any water quality objective. However, residual sludge (for the purposes of the proposed order, sludge that will not be subjected to further treatment by the WWTF) is not exempt from Title 27. Solid waste (e.g., grit and screenings) that results from treatment of domestic sewage and industrial waste also is not exempt from Title 27. This residual sludge and solid waste are subject to the provisions of Title 27.
Accordingly, the municipal discharge of effluent and the operation of treatment or storage facilities associated with a municipal wastewater treatment plant can be allowed without requiring compliance with Title 27, but only if resulting degradation of groundwater is in accordance with the Basin Plan.
This means, among other things, degradation of groundwater must be consistent with Resolution 68-16 and in no case greater than water quality objectives.
INFORMATION SHEET – ORDER NO. 5-01-254 -20-
CITIES OF FRESNO AND CLOVIS WWTF
FRESNO COUNTY
PROPOSED ORDER TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Discharge Specifications
As in other WDRs orders for municipal discharges recently adopted by the Board, the proposed Order implements a two-phased approach to setting final groundwater limitations. While the Board has determined that some degradation is in the public interest, it cannot yet determine how much due to incomplete data and evaluation of treatment and control measures. In Phase 1 of this ‘implementation approach,’ WDRs orders establish receiving water limitations that assure protection of the beneficial uses of groundwater pending the completion of certain tasks in accordance with a time schedule. In Phase 2, determination of site-specific groundwater limitations to be adopted in WDRs will depend upon the Board’s evaluation of the results of the tasks. The numerical implementation of many Basin Plan narrative water quality objectives in Phase 1, in accord with the procedures prescribed in the Basin Plan, represents the threshold above which there will be adverse impacts on beneficial uses of groundwater (e.g., drinking water MCLs). Since the proposed Order implements existing water quality objectives, the Board is not required to undertake further consideration of the factors in Water Code section 13241, including economic considerations.
The discharge specifications prescribed in this Order for BOD5, TSS, and EC, are based on the Basin Plan. The proposed Order carries over the effluent limitations for BOD5, TSS, settleable solids, and EC from the previous Order. The Basin Plan requires municipal facilities discharging in excess of 1 mgd to provide removal of 80 percent or reduction to 40 mg/L, whichever is more restrictive, of both 5-day BOD and suspended solids. While the current Order prescribes a monthly average daily discharge limit of 40 mg/L for BOD and for TSS, it does not require 80 percent removal. The proposed Order’s WWTF Discharge Specification B.3 implements the Basin Plan’s 80 percent removal requirement. From January 2000 to September 2001, monthly average influent and effluent BOD and suspended solids concentrations indicate that percent removals range from 47 to 94 and average 86 for BOD and range from 64 to 97 and average 90 for suspended solids. The Discharger currently relies on groundwater recharge for effluent disposal. In 2000, the discharge’s monthly average chloride concentration ranged from 59 to 87 mg/L, averaged 70 mg/L, and had a 95% confidence level of 82 mg/L. The Basin Plan establishes a maximum effluent chloride limit of 175 mg/L for discharges to areas that may recharge to good quality groundwater. The previous Order prescribed monthly average and daily maximum chloride discharge limitations of 175 and 205 mg/L, respectively. As discussed later, the proposed Order prescribes a groundwater chloride limitation of 106 mg/L to protect the existing and future beneficial uses of area groundwater. Rather than carrying over the previous Order’s discharge chloride limitations, which, if approached, would result in exceedances of the proposed Order’s groundwater chloride limitation, the proposed Order does not prescribe a discharge chloride limitation. The proposed Order requires the Discharger to conduct a study that establishes appropriate groundwater limitations based on the factual circumstances of the discharge. In lieu of continuing to impose an effluent chloride limitation that may not be protective of groundwater given the present information, Staff is recommending a limit be formulated and proposed for Board consideration after the Discharger completes its groundwater study. The discharge specifications regarding dissolved oxygen and freeboard are consistent with Board policy for the prevention of nuisance conditions, and are applied to all such facilities.
INFORMATION SHEET – ORDER NO. 5-01-254 -21-
CITIES OF FRESNO AND CLOVIS WWTF
FRESNO COUNTY
The proposed Order limits the use of recycled water to flood irrigation of fodder, fiber, seed crops, and of crops such as wine grapes that undergo extensive commercial, physical, or chemical processing before human consumption, and requires the Discharger to comply with the provisions of Title 22. To ensure compliance with Title 22 and Board reclamation policy, the proposed Order requires the Discharger to implement best management practices with respect to effluent reuse (e.g., to reuse effluent at reasonable agronomic rates considering the crop, soil, climate, and irrigation management plan). The setback distances prescribed in Reclamation Specification F.3 are carried over from the previous Order with one exception. While the previous Order required a setback distance of 100 feet for both irrigation and domestic wells, the proposed Order prescribes a setback distance of 150 feet for domestic wells in accordance with Title 22, section 60307(d).
The conditions for sludge, solid waste, and biosolids management proposed in the proposed Order are intended to assure that degradation resulting from the City’s management of sludge is in accordance with the Basin Plan. The proposed Order requires that storage, use and disposal of biosolids comply with the self-implementing federal regulations of 40 CFR 503, which are subject to enforcement by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency not the Board, and the Statewide General Order for the Discharge of Biosolids (Water Quality Order No. 2000-10-DWQ) (or any subsequent document which replaces Order No. 2000-10-DWQ).
In accordance with DHS recommendations described earlier, the proposed Order requires the Discharger to (a) assess the current status of all private and domestic wells that exist within the 25-square-mile area described in Finding No. 9, (b) monitor domestic supply wells within this area for contaminants, and (c) conduct a comprehensive study to assess the fate and effects of the past and current discharge on the groundwater basin. The proposed Order further requires the Discharger to (a) identify the types of crops grown in the area served by FID canals that receive groundwater extracted by the Operator’s reclamation wells and (b) provide information on the dilution of the extracted groundwater with fresh water prior to irrigation application. Because it is likely that food crops are grown or could be grown in the subject
area, the proposed Order requires the Discharger to undertake a timely evaluation of the degree of soil treatment provided by the current recharge and extraction operation and a determination of the level of filtration and virus removal treatment provided.
Regarding the discharge of stillage to the Stillage Site, the proposed Order carries over the previous Order’s specifications for stillage disposal, which were adapted from the Stillage Guidelines. While the Operator has been discharging stillage to SS-1 for decades, it only recently began discharging stillage to SS-2. The groundwater impacts from the Operator’s long-term discharge of stillage appear to be limited to salinity constituents, although there is the potential for nitrate contamination due to the accumulation of organic nitrogen in SS-1 soils. In the event the stillage discharge causes or contributes to exceedances of water quality objectives, the proposed Order has a Provision that allows the Board to reopen the Order to consider adding or revising appropriate stillage discharge specifications or groundwater limitations for the problem constituents.
Canandaigua’s discharge to the Stillage Site is scheduled to cease by fall 2003, and the WWTF does not have the capacity to treat the discharge. While the continued discharge of stillage during the next two years may further degrade area groundwater for salinity, Staff is recommending that the Board allow it INFORMATION SHEET – ORDER NO. 5-01-254 -22-
CITIES OF FRESNO AND CLOVIS WWTF
FRESNO COUNTY
to it be continued in the manner previously permitted, provided the Board requires the Operator to commence regularly planting and harvesting crops in the Stillage Site and to store collected leathers in a manner that will violate Groundwater Limitations. Staff is also recommending that the Board require the Operator to provide more detailed monitoring data on its stillage disposal operation, including data on the quality of soil-pore water under the Stillage Site. The technical report required by Provision H.5 of the proposed Order includes a description of the manner in which the Discharger proposes to monitor the quality of soil pore water beneath the Stillage Site. Vadose zone liquid can be readily sampled via lysimeters. The proposed Order’s Monitoring and Reporting Program identifies the minimum sample size required for listed monitored constituents. The benefits of acquiring soil pore water quality data through vadose zone monitoring justify the costs involved in lysimeter acquisition, installation, sample collection, and laboratory analysis. Analytical results from this effort will be instrumental in evaluating the efficacy of treatment provided by the soil profile within the Stillage Site. Analytical results collected after stillage disposal ceases by January 2004 will monitor the extent to which stillage waste constituents (or their decomposition byproducts) continue to leach through the soil profile, especially in the original 95-acre stillage disposal area (SS-1). As indicated in Finding No. 44, the long-term discharge of stillage to SS-1 has resulted in a massive accumulation of organic nitrogen in the upper two feet of the soil profile. Attenuation of this massive loading through cropping is expected to take numerous years. At such time when SS soil nitrogen content is comparable to background, the Discharger may request termination of vadose zone monitoring. Such a modification in the proposed Order’s Monitoring and Reporting Program can be executed by the Executive Officer.
The proposed Order prescribes groundwater limitations that reflect numerical and narrative water quality objectives (WQOs) for groundwater established in the Basin Plan. The proposed Order requires the discharge not to cause or contribute to exceedances of the groundwater limitations. Designated beneficial uses of area groundwater include municipal (MUN) and agricultural (AGR) supply. The Basin Plan states that “[w]ater quality objectives apply to all waters within a surface or ground water resource for which beneficial uses have been designated, rather than at an intake, wellhead or other point of consumption.” Groundwater WQOs include (1) chemical constituents (including pesticides and radioactivity), (3) salinity, (4) tastes and odors, and (5) toxicity. For groundwaters designated MUN, the Basin Plan establishes numerical WQOs for bacteria and chemical constituents. The latter consists of drinking water maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) in Title 22, sections 64431 (Inorganic Chemicals); 64431 (Fluoride); 64443 (Radioactivity) 64444 (Organic Chemicals); 64449 (Secondary MCLs – Consumer Acceptance Limits); and lead not to exceed 0.015 mg/L.
The total coliform organism limitation of 2.2 MPN/100 mL in Groundwater Limitation G.1.a is based on the Basin Plan’s WQO (i.e., the concentration of TCO over any 7-day period shall be less than
2.2/100 mL). Groundwater Limitation G.1.b prescribes a value of 10 mg/L as total nitrogen to ensure that groundwater nitrate levels will remain at or below the Title 22 primary drinking water MCL for nitrate (45 mg/L as nitrate or 10 mg/L as N). The limitations for chemical constituents prescribed in Groundwater Limitation G.1.c reflect the Title 22 drinking water MCLs. Groundwater Limitation G.2 prescribes limits for boron, chloride, EC, sodium, and TDS to protect existing and future beneficial uses of area groundwater for agriculture. The majority of area agriculture water supply is currently delivered via flood irrigation. Accordingly, it may not be critical to maintain the low salt concentrations in agricultural supply required for sprinkler irrigation. Additionally, the Discharger has implemented best practicable control for salt constituents through its implementation of an effective salinity source control INFORMATION SHEET – ORDER NO. 5-01-254 -23-
CITIES OF FRESNO AND CLOVIS WWTF
FRESNO COUNTY
program.
The proposed Order requires the Discharger to conduct a BPTC evaluation of the discharge (including source control, pretreatment, and treatment). Once it completes its BPTC evaluation, the Discharger may, at its discretion, propose for Board consideration site-specific, constituent-specific limits for salinity constituents (e.g., chloride, EC, sodium, and TDS). In the next Order regulating the discharge, the Board will evaluate the Discharger’s justification of BPTC implementation and its proposed groundwater salinity limitations. It is possible upon further documentation that the resulting degradation from salt can be found consistent with Resolution 68-16. Monitoring data submitted to date for WWTF effluent and groundwater indicates that the discharge will not result in exceedances of the proposed Order’s groundwater limitation for boron of 0.7 mg/L. Staff determined the groundwater limitations for the remaining constituents as follows. The proposed Order prescribes an effluent EC limit of 900 µmhos/cm. Currently, WWTF effluent averages less than 800 µmhos/cm. As described previously, the concentration effect of evaporative losses are such that the concentration of waste constituents in effluent percolating to groundwater is about 11 percent greater than that discharged to disposal ponds. It is reasonable to assume that the relative concentrations of chloride and sodium in WWTF effluent will remained unchanged as the effluent EC approaches the 900 µmhos/cm limitation.
The table below summarizes the derivation of the proposed Order’s groundwater limitations for chloride, EC, sodium, and TDS.
Constituent Units
Current
discharge to
disposal ponds1
Discharge to
disposal ponds at
maximum EC2
Discharge to
groundwater at
maximum EC3
Proposed
Limitation
Chloride mg/L 72 832 91.3 1064
EC µmhos/cm 780 900 990 990
Sodium mg/L 81 942 103 103
TDS mg/L 440 5075 557 560
1 Average values based on 2000 monitoring data
2 Assumes relative concentrations remain unchanged at higher EC concentration 3 Estimated at 11% greater than concentration in effluent discharged to disposal ponds 4 Reflects maximum chloride concentration for chloride-sensitive crops 5 Assumes unchanged ratio of TDS:EC of 440:780 (i.e., TDS = 0.564 * EC) The last two groundwater limitations reflect narrative WQOs contained in the Basin Plan. Groundwater Limitation G.3 implements the Basin Plan’s WQO for taste and odor. The taste threshold for ammonia, a waste constituent in municipal wastewater, is 0.5 mg/L. The limitation of 0.5 mg/L for ammonia ensures that this waste constituent will not adversely affect the beneficial use of area groundwater for human consumption. Lastly, Groundwater Limitation G.4 implements the Basin Plan’s WQO for toxicity.
Monitoring Requirements
Section 13267 of the CWC authorizes the Board to require monitoring and technical reports as necessary to investigate the impact of a waste discharge on waters of the state. In recent years there has been increased emphasis on obtaining all necessary information, assuring the information is timely as INFORMATION SHEET – ORDER NO. 5-01-254 -24-
CITIES OF FRESNO AND CLOVIS WWTF
FRESNO COUNTY
well as representative and accurate, and thereby improving accountability of any discharger for meeting the conditions of discharge. Section 13268 of the CWC authorizes assessment civil administrative liability where appropriate.
The proposed Order prescribes monitoring of discharge BOD5, TSS, pH, and EC. The monitoring of these constituents is necessary to check compliance with discharge specifications. The proposed Order also prescribes monitoring of discharge nitrogen (as nitrite, nitrate, TKN, and total nitrogen), quarterly monitoring of minerals, and semiannual monitoring of metals and priority pollutants for discharges from Plant 1 and Plant 2 (when in operation), and quarterly and annual monitoring of source water quality.
Staff is recommending the Discharger monitor effluent for priority pollutants to evaluate whether there is reasonable potential for the discharge to cause toxicity in groundwater. The source water monitoring, at the request of the Operator, utilizes data compiled in the Operator’s electronic database for DHS reporting requirements. This lessens the financial burden on the Operator and increases the likelihood that source water quality is adequately characterized. Monitoring by the Operator over the years has not revealed any significant radiological waste constituents in either WWTF effluent or area groundwater.
As such, the proposed Order eliminates the monitoring of radiological constituents in the discharge and groundwater.
The previous Order required the Discharger to sample systematically a representative number of disposal ponds at least once every seventh calendar day for dissolved oxygen (DO) and freeboard.
During the two-year period beginning 1 January 1998, the Operator measured pond DO 7,624 times and found the value to be less than 1.0 mg/L for only 14 separate occurrences for a frequency of 0.0018 (0.18%). Therefore, the proposed Order decreases the frequency of pond DO monitoring to an asneeded basis.
Monitoring available freeboard in disposal ponds is necessary for several reasons. It documents compliance Disposal Pond Specification C.4, which requires all ponds to have a minimum of two feet available freeboard. It provides data for detecting reductions in effluent infiltration rates, which may, in turn, signify the need for pond maintenance to restore design infiltration rates. It also provides data that may signify levee damage (i.e., a sudden drop in freeboard may signify leakage caused by burrowing animals). The proposed Order requires the Discharger to (1) inspect pond freeboard of all disposal ponds daily and document all instances of noncompliance with Disposal Pond Specification C.4, which requires all ponds to have a minimum of two feet available freeboard; (2) monitor pond freeboard daily in external disposal ponds; (3) monitor pond freeboard at least once every seventh calendar day in a internal disposal ponds.
The proposed Order prescribes monitoring of stillage waste, including flow, BOD5 (total and soluble), COD (total and soluble), total organic carbon, total nitrogen (nitrate and TKN), phosphorus, TDS, and EC. The monitoring of these constituents is necessary to check compliance with stillage discharge specifications and to monitor constituents that have a potential impact upon groundwater or will potentially create nuisance conditions. Further, the proposed Order requires the Operator to provide detailed descriptions on the manner in which it conducts its stillage discharge operation, perform periodic monitoring of Stillage Site soils, monitor vadose zone water quality, and monitor the quantity and chemical characteristics of groundwater passing under the Stillage Site. This information will be used by the Board to evaluate similar stillage disposal operations elsewhere in the Central Valley Region.
INFORMATION SHEET – ORDER NO. 5-01-254 -25-
CITIES OF FRESNO AND CLOVIS WWTF
FRESNO COUNTY
The proposed Order requires the Discharger to collect composite samples of sludge when it is removed in accordance with EPA's POTW SLUDGE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS GUIDANCE DOCUMENT, AUGUST 1989, and test for arsenic, cadmium, molybdenum, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, and zinc. The proposed Order requires the Discharger to submit an annual summary of sludge discharge operations.
The Title 27 zero leakage protection strategy relies heavily on extensive groundwater and unsaturated zone monitoring to increase a discharger’s awareness of, and accountability for, compliance with the prescriptive and performance standards. With a high volume, concentrated, uncontained discharge to land, monitoring takes on even greater importance. The proposed Order includes monitoring of applied waste quality, application rates, and groundwater.
The proposed Order requires a monitoring well network that effectively measures the quality of groundwater that could be impacted by the discharge. The existing well network monitors the uppermost layer of the aquifer, and data indicate a number of problem areas that call into question some aspects of treatment and control. The proposed Order requires the Discharger to evaluate the uppermost aquifer for a representative zone against which groundwater limitations will be applied. Use of the existing network will continue for the purposes of monitoring the effects of the discharge on the uppermost layer of groundwater until an alternate network suitable for evaluating the effectiveness of BPTC and compliance with Groundwater Limitations is approved by the Executive Officer in accord with the process outlined in the proposed Order.
The proposed Order also requires monitoring of groundwater extracted by the reclamation wells. The proposed Order’s groundwater monitoring requires quarterly sampling from identified monitoring wells for constituents in the discharge that may degrade groundwater quality and for which numerical limitations have been prescribed (e.g., nitrate, total nitrogen, chloride, sodium, etc.). Additional monitored constituents include total organic carbon, general minerals, metals, dissolved oxygen, and oxidation-reduction potential. The last two parameters, which can be readily obtained through the use of hand-held probes during the time of sample collection, provide information to evaluate the extent to which microbial degradation of organic matter has created anoxic or anaerobic conditions (i.e., conditions of very low or no dissolved oxygen). Factual evidence of organic overloading would include the presence of total organic carbon and soluble manganese in extracted groundwater along with very low or no dissolved oxygen and nitrate, and oxidation-reduction potentials corresponding to manganese reduction.
Consistent with the implementation approach taken in the proposed Order, evaluation of compliance with Groundwater Limitations cannot occur until the initiation of the approved representative zone monitoring program. The approved representative zones of the aquifer will be identified in the hydrogeologic investigation described in Provision H.7. Wells must be installed to measure the quality of water within these zones for comparison with Groundwater Limitations as part of the proposed Order.
The proposed Order provides a schedule for proposing, then providing the monitoring network, for these representative zones. Until the network is installed and monitoring initiated, the Board cannot evaluate compliance with Groundwater Limitations.
INFORMATION SHEET – ORDER NO. 5-01-254 -26-
CITIES OF FRESNO AND CLOVIS WWTF
FRESNO COUNTY
In accordance with DHS recommendations described earlier, the proposed Order requires the Discharger to monitor a representative sample of domestic supply wells within the 25-square-mile area encompassed by the mound of percolated effluent. The collected data will be used to determine if these supply wells are producing safe water for domestic use. In addition, the proposed Order requires the Discharger to install continuous turbidity meters on representative reclamation wells and to collect continuous turbidity data for at least one year. Acquisition of turbidity data for groundwater extracted from the Operator’s reclamation wells is essential in determining the quality of percolated effluent that the Operator discharges to FID canals for unrestricted use. To qualify as a “filtered” wastewater pursuant to Title 22, section 60301.320, the groundwater extracted from reclamation wells must not have a turbidity that exceeds an average of 2 NTU within a 24-hour period, 5 NTU more than 5 percent of the time within a 24-hour period, and 10 NTU at any time.
As described previously, the proposed Order requires the Discharger to provide detailed monitoring data on its stillage disposal operation, including water quality data for soil-pore water collected from lysimeters installed in Stillage Site soils.
CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
The City of Fresno certified a final environmental impact report (EIR) dated 31 October 1995 for an expansion in WWTF treatment and disposal capacity in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines.
The expansion project includes (a) increasing Plant 1 treatment capacity to 80 mgd to accommodate urban growth in the Discharger’s service area, (b) discontinuing use of Plant 2 to improve the WWTF’s overall air emissions, reliability, and operations, and (c) constructing an additional 600 acres of infiltration basins (i.e., effluent disposal ponds) to provide disposal capacity for the increased flows and to comply with Board-prescribed pond freeboard requirements. The EIR estimates that, at full build out, the project would discharge an additional 11,200 af/yr of effluent to area groundwater. While the EIR states that the infiltration of effluent over the years has caused concentrations in groundwater of TDS, EC, and sodium to increase, the EIR states that the project would not affect public or private water supplies. The EIR identifies the project’s impact on groundwater as temporary, as the City “shall commit to developing a plan for the reclamation of water infiltrated at the plant by 1997.” The EIR promises that the City “shall continue to develop and implement a reuse program for its treated wastewater to reduce the need for future infiltration basins. The EIR further states that the City “is also developing a reuse program for its treated wastewater to alleviate groundwater conditions under the treatment plant…[to]…mitigate the cumulative effects to water resources to a level of less than significant.”
The project certified by the City of Fresno as described in the EIR differs from the project characterized in the Discharger’s 31 December 1996 Report of Waste of Discharge (RWD). The RWD describes a project that increases Plant 1’s treatment capacity to 88 mgd, continues use of Plant 2, and adds 600 acres of disposal ponds. The increase in amount of effluent percolating from the project described in the RWD is nearly 25,000 af/yr, well over the 11,200 af/yr identified in the EIR. Since submitting the RWD, the Discharger indicates that (a) it plans to treat some industrial flows in Plant 2, as necessary, prior to their full treatment in Plant 1; (b) the 80 mgd specified in the EIR represents the annual monthly average daily discharge flow (i.e., the average of the monthly average daily discharge flow for the INFORMATION SHEET – ORDER NO. 5-01-254 -27-
CITIES OF FRESNO AND CLOVIS WWTF
FRESNO COUNTY
calendar year); and (c) the EIR did not correctly reflect that the Plant 1 would be designed, constructed, and operated to treat a short-term maximum monthly average daily discharge flow of 88 mgd. The additional 8 mgd treatment capacity accommodates seasonal peaks from food-processing industries that generally occur in September.
This Order, in accordance with the terms of the certified EIR, limits treatment and disposal capacity to 80 mgd, and requires the Discharger to implement one or more reuse projects by spring 2004 to recycle an additional 4,200 acre-feet of treated wastewater in addition to that currently either directly or indirectly recycled or is proposed to be recycled by Calpine.
The Board has reviewed the City of Fresno’s EIR for the WWTF expansion project and finds that any potential significant adverse impacts to water quality will be mitigated to insignificant levels or is acceptable due to overriding considerations provided the Discharger complies with the terms in the proposed Order. The proposed Order, in accordance with the terms of the City of Fresno’s certified EIR, limits the WWTF’s annual monthly average daily discharge flow to 80 mgd and its maximum monthly average daily discharge flow to 88 mgd. The proposed Order requires the Discharger to implement by 2004 one or more reuse projects to recycle at least 4,200 af/yr in order to render as temporary the WWTF expansion project’s impacts to groundwater. It further requires the Discharger to evaluate, in consultation with DHS, the discharge’s impact on area groundwater’s use as a domestic and municipal supply.
On 25 March 1998, the City of Fresno adopted a negative declaration (Environmental Assessment 98-03), in accordance with CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines for the discharge of stillage to the 50-acre stillage disposal site (SS-2) adjacent to the existing 95-acre stillage disposal site (SS-1).
Mitigation measures 3 – 15 are identical to Stillage Discharge Specifications C.1 – C.13 from WDRs Order No. 96-054. In its review of this document, the Board, as a responsible agency under CEQA, finds that it does not adequately mitigate the potentially significant adverse impact to groundwater due to the accumulation of nitrogen in stillage disposal area soils, nor does it monitor the fate of waste constituents as it percolates through the upper soil profile. This Order requires the Discharger to commence planting and harvesting crops in the Stillage Site to reduce the nitrogen content in stillage disposal area soils. It also requires the Discharger to implement vadose zone monitoring for waste constituents and their decomposition by-products.
Reopener
The conditions of discharge in the proposed Order were developed based on currently available technical information and applicable water quality laws, regulations, policies, and plans, and are intended to assure conformance with them. However, information is presently insufficient to develop final effluent and groundwater limitations, so the proposed Order contains interim limitations.
Additional information must be developed and documented by the Discharger as required by schedules set forth in the proposed Order. As this additional information is obtained, decisions will be made concerning the best means of assuring the highest water quality possible may that could involve substantial cost. It may be
INFORMATION SHEET – ORDER NO. 5-01-254 -28-
CITIES OF FRESNO AND CLOVIS WWTF
FRESNO COUNTY
appropriate to reopen the Order if applicable laws and regulations change, but the mere possibility that such laws and regulations may change is not sufficient basis for reopening the Order. The CWC requires that waste discharge requirements implement all applicable requirements.
Several other more likely reasons for reconsidering terms of the Order exist, and the Order may be opened for this purpose at the Board’s discretion. For example, Board procedures require periodic review of the effectiveness of requirements at a frequency proportional to the threat the discharge has to water quality with update as appropriate. The Order will definitely be reopened for consideration of BPTC and establishing final numeric groundwater limitations. It is also conceivable that monitoring of compliance may identify a waste constituent, possibly a toxic waste constituent, that violates or threatens to violate groundwater limitations, establishing a need to consider an appropriate numeric effluent limit for that waste constituent.
BLH:jlk:10/19/01 AMENDED
Attachment A
Vicinity Map
WASTE DISCHARGE ORDER NO. 5-01-254
Cities of Fresno and Clovis
Wastewater Treatment Facility
Fresno County
Sections 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, and 33 of T14S R19E
Fresno, CA USGS 15’ Quadrangle
N
Wine Stillage Area
Coelho
S
o
u
s
a
Golden State Vintners
S
o
u
s
a
Quist
132 Acres
Reclamation
159 Acres
Reclamation
160 Acres
Reclamation
158 Acres
Reclamation
75.5 Acres
120 Acres
(not in use)
78.2 Acres
(not in use)
1700 FT
(approximate)
Property Boundary
SS-2
SS-1
10 9
Primary
Clarifiers
Splitter
Clarifiers
Secondary
RAS/WAS
6 7
8 10
11 12
13 AB #8
AB #7
AB #6
AB #5
Aeration
Chambers Blower Building
(Turblex)
8 6
7 5
#1 #3
#4 #2
#1 #2 #3
#4
Primary
Clarifiers
Chlorine
Storage
S ul dge
Pumping
Station
Sludge
Pumping
Station
D 1 D 2
D 3 D 4
D 5 D 6
D 8 D 7
D 9 D 10
D 12 D 11 Blowers
(Hoffman)
SPOB
Heat and
Mixing Build ni g
Headworks
Electrical Main
Gear Box
N
RAS/WAS
AB-1
AB-2
AB-3
AB-4
Influent
Splitter
Sludge
Station #1
Boiler Room
Dissolved Air
Flotation
Thickener
#5
Secondary
Clarifiers
Aeration
Chambers
9 Influent Composite
Sampling Location
Maintenance
Office
Effluent
Canal
Effluent
Canal
Effluent Composite
Sampling Locations
A BA
B
ATTACHMENT B
PLANT 1 DIAGRAMMATIC LAYOUT
WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS ORDER NO 5-01-254
CITIES OF FRESNO AND CLOVIS
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
FRESNO COUNTY
#2 #1
Trickling Filters
#2 #1
Flotator Vacuator
Clarifiers
#2
#1
Control Station
Control Station
Headworks
Access Road
North Ave.
Secondary Clarifiers
N
ATTACHMENT C
PLANT 2 DIAGRAMMATIC LAYOUT
WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS ORDER NO. 5-01-254
CITIES OF FRESNO AND CLOVIS
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
FRESNO COUNTY
ATTACHMENT D
Symbol for Recycle Water Signs
WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS ORDER NO. 5-01-254
CITIES OF FRESNO AND CLOVIS
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
FRESNO COUNTY
TENTATIVE WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS ORDER NO. 5-01-254 FOR
CITIES OF FRESNO AND CLOVIS
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
FRESNO COUNTY
ATTACHMENT E
INFORMATION NEEDS FOR SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PLAN
A. Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF)
1. Describe treatment processes at the wastewater treatment facility.
2. List significant industrial users (SIUs) that discharge to the wastewater treatment facility and describe how SIUs affect sludge production, sludge handling, and biosolids disposal.
3. Indicate whether the WWTF has an adopted source control ordinance or a pretreatment program, and if the latter whether the program is approved by the Board.
4. Indicate whether WWTF accepts septage and, if so, describe septage handling operation facilities.
5. Provide a WWTF site map showing:
a. existing sludge handling facilities (e.g., sludge drying beds and sludge storage areas) b. abandoned sludge handling facilities (if applicable) c. location of groundwater monitoring wells, if any, and groundwater gradient.
B. Sludge Production
1. Provide a schematic diagram showing solids flow and sludge handling operations; include, where applicable, supernatant flow and handling operations.
2. Specify the quantity of sludge expected to annually accumulate in each wastewater treatment process, how it is quantified, and the expected removal frequency.
3. For sludge handling facilities with sludge drying beds:
a. Describe number and size of sludge drying beds.
b. Describe sludge drying bed construction (e.g., liner, leachate collection system). c. If sludge drying beds are not lined, thoroughly describe measures taken to ensure that area groundwater is not adversely affected by sludge drying operations. d. Indicate the expected frequency with which sludge will be applied to and removed from sludge drying beds.
4. Describe how biosolids are transferred to onsite biosolids storage facility (if applicable). If biosolids are removed directly from sludge drying beds, provide a plan that indicates when during the year you expect to dispose of biosolids and explain that whoever is responsible for disposing of your biosolids will be able to remove and dispose it at this time.
TENTATIVE WDRs ORDER NO. 5-01-254 -2-
ATTACHMENT E
INFORMATION NEEDS FOR SLUDGE
MANAGEMENT PLAN
C. Biosolids Characterization
1. Describe proposed sampling procedures by indicating number of samples, sample locations, and sample composition. For reference consult POTW Sludge Sampling an Analysis Guidance Document, published by the EPA Publication No. 833-B-89-100.
2. Describe the methods proposed to meet the necessary levels of pathogen reduction (i.e., Class A or B according to 40 CFR 503.32) for the proposed method of sludge disposal.
3. Describe the methods proposed to meet vector reduction requirements, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 503.33.
D. Biosolids Storage
1. If on-site biosolids storage is used,
a. Describe:
i. Size of biosolids storage area
ii. How frequently it will be used (emergency basis only or routine use) iii. Typical storage duration
iv. Leachate controls
v. Erosion controls
vi. Run-on/runoff controls
b. Indicate measures that will be taken to ensure that area groundwater is not adversely affected by the biosolids storage facility.
c. For biosolids storage facilities that contain biosolids between 1 October and 30 April, describe how facilities are designed and maintained to prevent washout or inundation from a storm or flood with a return frequency of 100 years. d. Provide a map of showing setback distances from (where applicable) i. Property lines
ii. Domestic water supply wells
iii. Non-Domestic water supply wells
iv. Public roads and occupied onsite residences
v. Surface waters, including wetlands, creeks, ponds, lakes, underground aqueducts, and marshes
vi. Primary agricultural drainage ways
vii. Occupied non-agricultural buildings and off-site residences viii. Primary tributary to a waterway or reservoir used for domestic water supply ix. Domestic surface water supply intake
TENTATIVE WDRs ORDER NO. 5-01-254 -3-
ATTACHMENT E
INFORMATION NEEDS FOR SLUDGE
MANAGEMENT PLAN
E. Spill Response Plan
1. Emergency contacts and notification procedures
2. Personal protective equipment requirements
3. Response instructions for
a. spill during biosolids transport
b. storage facility failure
c. when hazardous or other unauthorized material is found F. Method of Disposal
1. Describe and provide the following information related to biosolids disposal method(s). If more than one method will be utilized, include the percentage of annual biosolids production expected to be disposed of by each method.
a. Landfill Disposal
i. Name(s) and location(s) of landfill(s).
ii. Waste discharge requirements order numbers adopted by the Regional Board that regulate the landfill(s).
iii. Present classification of the landfill(s).
iv. Name and telephone number of the contact person at the landfill(s). b. Incineration
i. Name(s) and location(s) of incineration site(s).
ii. Waste discharge requirements order numbers adopted by the Regional Board that regulate the incineration site(s).
iii. Method of disposal of ash from the incineration site(s). iv. Names and locations of facilities receiving ash from the incineration site(s), if applicable.
v. Name and telephone number of the contact person at the incineration site(s). c. Composting
i. Name(s) and location(s) of composting site(s).
ii. Waste discharge requirements order numbers adopted by the Regional Board that regulate the composting site(s).
iii. Name and telephone number of the contact person at the composting site(s). d. Land Application
TENTATIVE WDRs ORDER NO. 5-01-254 -4-
ATTACHMENT E
INFORMATION NEEDS FOR SLUDGE
MANAGEMENT PLAN
i. Ownership of the site(s) where biosolids are applied. ii. Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) of site(s) where biosolids are applied. iii. Waste discharge requirements order numbers adopted by the Regional Board that regulate the biosolids application site(s).
TENTATIVE WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS ORDER NO. 5-01-254 FOR
CITIES OF FRESNO AND CLOVIS
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
FRESNO COUNTY
ATTACHMENT F
STANDARD MONITORING WELL PROVISIONS
Prior to installation of groundwater monitoring wells, the Discharger shall submit a workplan containing at least the information specified in this document. Wells may be installed after the executive officer’s approval of the workplan. Upon installation of the monitoring wells, the Discharger shall submit a report of results, as described below. A registered geologist, certified engineering geologist, or civil engineer registered or certified by the State of California must sign all workplans and reports.
Monitoring Well Installation Workplan
A. General Information:
Monitoring well locations and rationale
Survey details
Equipment decontamination procedures
Health and safety plan
Topographic map showing any existing monitoring wells, proposed wells, waste handling facilities, utilities, and other major physical and man-made features.
B. Drilling Details: describe drilling and logging methods C. Monitoring Well Design:
Casing diameter
Borehole diameter
Depth of surface seal
Well construction materials
Diagram of well construction
Type of well cap
Size of perforations and rationale
Grain size of sand pack and rationale
Thickness and position of bentonite seal and sand pack
Depth of well, length and position of perforated interval D. Well Development:
Method of development to be used
Method of determining when development is complete
Method of development water disposal
E. Surveying Details: discuss how each well will be surveyed to a common reference point F. Soil Sampling (if applicable):
Cuttings disposal method
TENTATIVE WDRs ORDER NO. 5-01-254 -2-
ATTACHMENT F
STANDARD MONITORING WELL PROVISIONS FOR
WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS
Analyses to be run and methods
Sample collection and preservation method
Intervals at which soil samples are to be collected
Number of soil samples to be analyzed and rationale
Location of soil samples and rationale
QA/QC procedures
G. Well Sampling:
Minimum time after development before sampling (48 hours) Well purging method and amount of purge water
Sample collection and preservation method
QA/QC procedures
H. Water Level Measurement:
The elevation reference point at each monitoring well shall be within 0.01 foot. Ground surface elevation at each monitoring well shall be within 0.1 foot. Method and time of water level measurement shall be specified.
I. Proposed time schedule for work.
Monitoring Well Installation Report of Results
A. Well Construction:
Number and depth of wells drilled
Date(s) wells drilled
Description of drilling and construction
Approximate locations relative to facility site(s)
A well construction diagram for each well must be included in the report, and should contain the following details:
Total depth drilled
Depth of open hole (same as total depth drilled if no caving occurs) Footage of hole collapsed
Length of slotted casing installed
Depth of bottom of casing
Depth to top of sand pack
Thickness of sand pack
Depth to top of bentonite seal
Thickness of bentonite seal
Thickness of concrete grout
Boring diameter
Casing diameter
Casing material
Size of perforations
TENTATIVE WDRs ORDER NO. 5-01-254 -3-
ATTACHMENT F
STANDARD MONITORING WELL PROVISIONS FOR
WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS
Number of bags of sand
Well elevation at top of casing
Depth to ground water
Date of water level measurement
Monitoring well number
Date drilled
Location
B. Well Development:
Date(s) of development of each well
Method of development
Volume of water purged from well
How well development completion was determined
Method of effluent disposal
Field notes from well development should be included in report.
C. Well Surveying: provide reference elevations for each well and surveyor’s notes D. Water Sampling:
Date(s) of sampling
How well was purged
How many well volumes purged
Levels of temperature, EC, and pH at stabilization
Sample collection, handling, and preservation methods
Sample identification
Analytical methods used
Laboratory analytical data sheets
Water level elevation(s)
Groundwater contour map
E. Soil Sampling (if applicable):
Date(s) of sampling
Sample collection, handling, and preservation method
Sample identification
Analytical methods used
Laboratory analytical data sheets
CITY OF FRESNO – TERTIARY TREATMENT AND DISINFECTION FACILITY Technical Memorandum
APPENDIX C
NOVA DISK FILTER EVALUATION AT ORANGE COUNTY SOUTH REGIONAL WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY – SAND LAKE ROAD
DISK FILTER EVALUATION AT ORANGE COUNTY
SOUTH REGIONAL WATER RECLAMATION
FACILITY – SAND LAKE ROAD
NOVA WATER DISK FILTER MODEL 1001 - ULTRASCREEN
Introduction – Nova Water Technologies in conjunction with Carter and Verplanck received permission to test the Ultrascreen disk filter at the SLR water reclamation facility on secondary clarifier effluent. The objectives include a real time comparison with the existing Aqua Aerobic disk filters for multiple parameters and the ability to demonstrate compliance with the California State Department of Health Title-22 standards for public access reuse of reclaimed water from municipal sewage.
The comparison with the Aqua filters is being organized and overseen by managerial level county utility staff while the Title-22 documentation is being conducted by Carollo Engineers from their Sarasota, FL office (Sean Poust) and being supported by Dr Keith Bourgeous from the Sacramento, CA office.
Background – The Ultrascreen disk filter is a product originally developed by Nuove Energie located in Vicenza, Italy. Nuove has been involved in liquid/solid separation process equipment for almost 20 years and has teamed with Nova Water for developing applications for the Ultrascreen filter in North America. Since teaming with Nova the Ultrascreen technology has been demonstrated with good results at more than a dozen wastewater facilities including the Orange County NW facility. The Ultrascreen disk filter is available in multiple capacities. The model 1001 represents the smallest standard production unit and has 17 square feet of filtration media.
The key difference in the filtration media used on the Ultrascreen versus the Aqua filter is the material and the weave configuration. The Ultrascreen uses a precision woven stainless steel mesh allowing for precise micron size adjustments for the specific process purpose. The Aqua filter can use several types of media from needle felt to nonwoven nylon or acrylic mounted on a woven backing.
Objectives – For the performance comparison between the Aqua filter and the Nova filter the following major parameters were proposed for data collection and review:
Flow to each filter measured as gpm per square foot of media. Both filters have flow meters installed. The Aqua filter is using a Panametrics brand unit. The Nova filter is using an Endress and Hauser brand mag meter.
Influent NTU which is the same to both filters as the Nova filter draws water from the Aqua feed trough. The influent NTU is being measured by a HACH brand continuous on line turbidimeter.
Effluent NTU measured at the filter discharge for both filters. Both filters are using HACH brand continuous on line turbidimeters.
Measure the volume of backwash reject water produced by both filters. The Aqua filter is using an ABB brand mag flow meter. The Nova filter is using a physical capture tank for reject collection that can hold more than 250 gallons. This can accommodate at least one full 24 hour period of reject collection. These values are being measured and recorded manually and supervised by Carollo Engineers weekly.
The final filter layout is shown below with feed and drain piping and a temporary observation platform. The building in the background houses the VFD’s for the filter drive, the filter feed pump and the backwash pump, the data recorder and the turbidimeter analyzers.
Data Collection – The influent flow rate to the Aqua filter is being recorded by the plant SCADA system. The influent flow to the Nova filter is being recorded by an ABB brand Videographic data recorder. Some typical graphs are included.
The influent turbidity for both filters is being recorded by the same data recorder.
The effluent turbidity for the Aqua filter is being recorded by the plant SCADA system and the ABB data recorder.
The Aqua reject flow meter is being read and recorded manually.
The Nova filter data is being recorded for influent feed gpm, influent NTU, effluent NTU, and backwash pump operating cycles. These are being recorded on the ABB data recorder.
Sample Collection – Samples are being collected by the county plant staff on an established schedule. The influent and effluent for both filters are sampled at approximately the same time and the samples are collected multiple times each day. The Carollo staff has also collected samples from both filters for additional analysis. The Carollo staff will continue collecting samples each Monday for the duration of the Title22 protocol. The county staff is also collecting samples for Carollo to support the Title-22 collection.
Note: Nova Water staff has not collected any of the samples being analyzed by either party for either filter.
Sample Analysis and Results – The lab results from county collected samples will be tabulated and reviewed by county staff. To date Nova Water has not been informed as to any results.
The lab results from Carollo collected samples are being reviewed by Carollo and some of the data has been forwarded to Nova Water for our review. Some of the Carollo data is included in this progress report.
Test Protocol and Schedule – The testing calendar was originally targeted for a March to April time frame. Several factors prevented this from being accomplished. The main issues were electrical and instrumentation. The filter was reliably on line in May and Nova Water began a series of tests to determine possible loading rates, reject rates and particle capture capabilities. The nature of the secondary clarifier effluent suspended particles indicated the need for Nova to apply a filtration mesh with finer weave characteristics. Fortunately this is accomplished fairly easily with the Ultrascreen design but even so there was a lead time required to get the fabric and that caused some additional waiting time.
Once the new mesh was installed (20 micron) the Nova filter was tested again for establishing the basic parameters. Our original goal was to operate at a maximum hydraulic loading rate of 16 gpm per square foot. Both the original 25 micron mesh and the current 20 micron mesh have demonstrated they can meet this hydraulic throughput For the purpose of data collection we have operated the Nova filter initially at 102 gpm average or 6 gpm/sq ft and 5 rpm rotation speed. During this time the Aqua filter was operated at approximately 3 gpm/sq ft.
The second operating point for the Nova filter was 6 gpm/sq ft and 6 rpm rotation speed.
The Aqua filter was operated at approximately 4 gpm/sq ft.
Moving forward into the coming weeks the Nova filter will be increased incrementally up to 16 gpm/sq ft and the Aqua filter is proposed to operate at up to 8 gpm/sq ft.
Observations – To date the filters have been operating well and each design is producing approximately equal results for effluent turbidity as expressed in NTU’s. The Nova filter has so far demonstrated that it can operate at 6 gpm/sq ft continuously over a wide range of influent turbidity values and maintain effluent values of less than 2.0 NTU which is our target for the Title-22 criteria. The Aqua filter has also operated well at the 3-4 gpm/sq ft loading rates.
A typical data recording is shown in the graph below. Both filters are showing the expected responses to significant spikes in influent turbidity. Both filters are performing within expectations. The Nova filter has been able to handle the NTU spikes as effectively as the Aqua filter overall. For the data period covered the Nova filter is operating at approximately double the hydraulic loading rate of the Aqua filter based on readings from the two influent flow meters.
Nova Ultrascreen T-22 & Aqua Aerobic, 6-18-08
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 10:09:0810:19:0810:29:0810:39:0810:49:0810:59:0811:09:0811:19:0811:29:0811:39:0811:49:0811:59:0812:09:0812:19:0812:29:0812:39:0812:49:0812:59:0813:09:0813:19:0813:29:0813:39:0813:49:0813:59:0814:09:0814:19:0514:29:0514:39:0514:49:0514:59:0515:09:0515:19:0515:29:05 TIME
Turbidity (NTU)
Filter Feed = Blue
Nova Effluent = Green
Aqua Effluent = Red
Nova Filter = Approximately 6 gpm / sq. ft.
Aqua Filter = Approximately 3 gpm / sq. ft.
The Nova filter displays a relatively flat effluent turbidity trend when compared to the Aqua filter. The reason for this difference is the pulse wash nature of the Ultrascreen. The duration of backwash for the Ultrascreen is brief and the frequency is more often than the Aqua technology employs. The Ultrascreen uses a pressure washing concept where the Aqua filter is using a vacuum suction approach. Both concepts work and the Aqua backwash frequency can be noted on the chart as a brief increase in turbidity accompanies each of the backwash cycles.
The backwash cycle for the Aqua filter is presently controlled by the filter water elevation above the disks (differential) versus the filter effluent elevation. The Nova filter is being operated at a consistent elevation for initiating the backwash cycle during the testing at SLR.
Note: It is also possible to operate the Nova filter using a PLC with programmed logic that can vary the desired backwash initiation elevation to optimize the filter operation for changing influent condition like flow and turbidity.
Additional turbidity graphic displays are shown below.
Nova Ultrascreen T-22 & Aqua, 6-19-08
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 00:00:5100:09:5100:18:5100:27:51
00:36:5100:45:51
00:54:51
01:03:5101:12:51
01:21:51
01:30:5101:39:51
01:48:51
01:57:51
02:06:51
02:15:51
02:24:5102:33:5102:42:51
02:51:51
03:00:5103:09:51
03:18:5103:27:5103:36:4903:45:49
03:54:49
04:03:4904:12:4904:21:49
04:30:4904:39:4904:48:49
04:57:49
Time
Turbidity (NTU)
Filter Feed = Blue
Nova Filter = Green
Aqua Filter = Red
Nova Filter = Approximately 6 gpm / sq.
ft.
The Nova filter is producing a relatively flat NTU trend line even with variable influent.
Nova Ultrascreen T-22 & Aqua, 6-20-08
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 3.5
4.0 17:30:2517:41:2517:52:2518:03:2518:14:2518:25:2518:36:2518:47:2518:58:2519:09:2519:20:2519:31:2519:42:2519:53:2220:04:2220:15:2220:26:2220:37:2220:48:2220:59:2221:10:2221:21:2221:32:2221:43:2221:54:2222:05:2222:16:2222:27:2222:38:2222:49:2223:00:2223:11:2223:22:2223:33:2223:44:2223:55:20 Time
Turbidity (NTU)
Filter Feed = Blue
Nova Filter = Green
Aqua Filter = Red
Nova Filter = Approximately 6 gpm / sq. ft.
Aqua Filter = Approximately 3 gpm / sq. ft.
Both filters are producing effluent below the Title-22 threshold value of 2.0 NTU.
Nova Ultrascreen T-22 & Aqua, 6-24-08
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 3.5
4.0 4.5
5.0 05:31:2105:43:2105:55:2106:07:2106:19:2106:31:2106:43:2106:55:2107:07:21 07:19:21
07:31:21
07:43:21
07:55:2108:07:18
08:19:18
08:31:18
08:43:18
08:55:1809:07:1809:19:1809:31:1809:43:18
09:55:18
10:07:18
10:19:1810:31:1810:43:1810:55:1811:07:18
11:19:18
11:31:18
11:43:18
11:55:18
12:07:16
12:19:16
Time
Turbidity (NTU)
Filter Feed = Blue
Nova Filter = Green
Aqua Filter = Red
Nova Filter = Approximately 6 gpm / sq. ft.
Aqua Filter = Approximately 3 gpm / sq. ft.
Both filters show response to influent turbidity spike on June 24th around 10 AM.
Backwash and Reject - The pulse backwash concept employed by the Nova filter takes advantage of three principles; media, pressure and elevation. Each is discussed below.
Nova Ultrascreen T-22, 6-18-08
10:09:0810:18:0810:27:0810:36:08
10:45:08
10:54:0811:03:0811:12:08
11:21:0811:30:0811:39:08
11:48:0811:57:0812:06:0812:15:08
12:24:08
12:33:0812:42:08
12:51:08
13:00:08
13:09:08
13:18:08
13:27:08
13:36:08
13:45:08
13:54:08
14:03:08
14:12:0514:21:0514:30:0514:39:0514:48:05
14:57:05
15:06:05
15:15:05
15:24:05
Time
Backwash Cycling
Media – The precision woven stainless steel media provides fine pore size control while presenting a shallow profile to the water being filtered. Particles rejected on the feed side of the media do not penetrate the mesh at any depth as is the design concept employed with cloth filtration. This allows the particles to be separated from the mesh easily when the time comes for backwashing.
Pressure – The original cloth filtration concepts using needle felt employed high pressure washing cycles for removing the captured particles. Once the particles are deeply embedded in the cloth fabric a substantial amount of volume and pressure is required to extract them
The Ultrascreen concept uses the opposite approach. The precision mesh maintains a dynamic film layer of rejected solids at the surface of the media and because there is no significant depth to the media particles are easily washed at low pressure from the outside to the inside using previously filtered water. At SLR we have demonstrated that wash pressures as low as 20 psig can be used for keeping the media clean at an acceptable level for extended periods of time.
Elevation – The Ultrascreen disks are in constant slow rotation during filtration cycles.
The disks are approximately 50% submerged at the maximum normal operating liquid level. This allows the 50% of the disk above the water level elevation to be washed as it rotates above the filter feed well. The filter initiates a backwash cycle when the internal feed water elevation reaches a preset point. This allows the disks to be cleaned when they need to be without hindering the ongoing filtration of continuous influent flow.
During times of low turbidity in the influent water the disks can operate for many minutes without requiring a backwash cycle. Eventually captured particles begin to coat the disk media and headloss increases. When the backwash elevation is reached the wash pump energizes and the disks are washed just long enough to return the headloss to normal. The wash pump shuts off and the process repeats itself.
The dirty water is caught in a simple collection trough and leaves the filter under gravity flow. The entire backwash cycle normally takes 10-15 seconds to complete. The time between backwash cycles is highly variable based on influent turbidity and TSS loading.
The typical cycles at SLR have been 1.5 – 2.0 minutes so far.
Reject – Using the pulse backwash approach the Nova filter has been able to produce reject rates that have been below one quarter of one percent to date. This is well below the reject rates of traditional cloth disk filters.
Note: On larger systems the individual backwash pumps would be replaced by a typical wash water pressure manifold that can feed wash water to all the filters in a given configuration. A simple solenoid controlled valve can operate at each filter to allow backwash water to flow when called for.
Additional backwash graphs and feed flow rate graphs are shown below.
Nova Ultascreen T-22, 6-19-08
00:00:5100:08:5100:16:5100:24:5100:32:5100:40:5100:48:5100:56:5101:04:5101:12:5101:20:5101:28:5101:36:5101:44:5101:52:5102:00:5102:08:5102:16:5102:24:5102:32:5102:40:5102:48:5102:56:5103:04:5103:12:5103:20:5103:28:5103:36:4903:44:4903:52:4904:00:4904:08:4904:16:4904:24:4904:32:4904:40:4904:48:4904:56:49 Time
Backwash Cycling
Typical pulse backwash cycles from June 19th.
Nova Ultrascreen, Backwash 6-20-08
17:30:2517:41:2517:52:2518:03:2518:14:2518:25:25
18:36:25
18:47:25
18:58:25
19:09:2519:20:25
19:31:2519:42:2519:53:22
20:04:2220:15:22
20:26:22
20:37:2220:48:22
20:59:2221:10:22
21:21:22
21:32:22
21:43:2221:54:22
22:05:22
22:16:2222:27:22
22:38:2222:49:22
23:00:22
23:11:22
23:22:2223:33:22
23:44:22
23:55:20
Time
Backwash Cycling
Typical pulse backwash cycles from June 20th.
The influent flow rate has also been data recorded. An example is below. The target flow rate is 102 gpm average for the Nova filter with 17 sq ft of filtration media for a hydraulic loading rate of 6 gpm/sq ft.
Nova Ultrascreen T-22, 6-19-08
97 98
99 100
101
102
103
104
105
106
00:00:5100:09:5100:18:5100:27:5100:36:5100:45:51
00:54:51
01:03:5101:12:5101:21:51
01:30:5101:39:5101:48:51
01:57:5102:06:5102:15:5102:24:5102:33:5102:42:51
02:51:51
03:00:51
03:09:51
03:18:51
03:27:5103:36:4903:45:49
03:54:49
04:03:49
04:12:4904:21:49
04:30:4904:39:49
04:48:4904:57:49
Time
Feed GPM
Particle Counting and Size Distribution - The Carollo testing is also looking at particle size removal and particle size distribution as part of their analytical work. Early test indications from samples suggest there is minimal difference between the cloth filter media and the stainless steel mesh performance in this regard. See the graph below.
In reviewing the graph show above it can be seen that the secondary clarifier is producing effluent with relatively low turbidity. The number of particles being removed by filtration in either filter is minimal until the 9-10 micron particle size range is reached. Both filters show approximately the same particle size distribution on particles smaller than about 9 microns and both filters show good removal of particles larger than 10 microns.
Summary - The significant difference in media selection appears to make little difference in the particle size distribution overall. The dynamic disk operation associated with the Nova filter is allowing the filter to operate at higher hydraulic loading and maintain approximately the same water quality as the cloth filter, 6 gpm/sq ft versus 3 gpm/sq ft for the first two weeks of testing.
The Nova filter so far has produced essentially equivalent turbidity performance compared to the cloth filter technology over a wide range of influent NTU values.
The Nova filter reject rate while operating at 6 gpm/sq ft has been measured in a separate collection vessel on multiple calibration runs and has been measured to be about one tenth of the reject rate of the cloth filter technology.
We also wish to thank Orange County for allowing us to be on site and utilizing their facility for this work.
Engineering Report for the Production,
Distribution and Use of Recycled Water
215138_rpt01.docx Blair, Church & Flynn Consulting Engineers
APPENDIX E
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS
FOR RECYCLED WATER FACILITIES
NO.
DRW-1
DRW-2
DRW-3
DRW-4
DRW-5
DRW-6
DRW-7
DRW-8
DRW-9
DRW-10
DRW-11
DRW-12
DRW-13
DRW-14
DRW-15
DRW-16
DRW-17
DRW-18
DRW-19
DRW-20
DRW-21
DRW-22
DRW-23
RECYCLED WATER STANDARD DRAWINGS
TITLE OF DRAWING
Recycled Water Main Identification
Recycled Water Valve and valve Box
Recycled Water Valve Stem Extension
1" Service Connection & Meter Box Installation
1-1/2" & 2" Service Connection & Meter Box Installation 4" Recycled Water Service
Temporary 2" Recycled Water Blow-off
Recycled Water Blow-off Assembly
Recycled Water 1" or 2" Air Release/Vacuum Breaker Station Recycled Water 4" Air Release/Vacuum Breaker Station
1" or 2" Air Release/Vacuum Breaker Valve Enclosure
Recycled Water Main Separation Requirements
Recycled Water Irrigation Information Sign
Recycled Water Remote Control Irrigation valve Identification Recycled Water Backflow Preventer Identification
Recycled Water Irrigation Box Cover Markings
Recycled Water Irrigation System Clock Marking
General Recycled Water Identification Tag
Recycled Water Landscape Irrigation Head Identification Quick Coupling Valve
Cross Connection Control Test Station
Temporary Potable Water Supply to On-site Recycled Water System Temporary Potable Water Supply to Recycled Water System ~
TRENCH PER STANDARD
DRAWING W-29
RECYCLED WATER MARKING TAPE,
PURPLE (PANTONE 512) WITH
TRACE WIRE
RECYCLED WATER
PIPELINE, SEE NOTE 1
1. RECYCLED WATER PIPELINES SHALL BE COLORED PURPLE (PANTONE 512) AND INTEGRALLY STAMPED "RECYCLED WATER - DO NOT DRINK" ON OPPOSITE SIDES OF THE PIPE.
ALTERNATIVELY, NON- PVC RECYCLED WATER PIPELINES MAY BE MARKED WITH LffiERING ON PURPLE MARKING TAPE BEARING THE CONTINUOUS WORDING "RECYCLED WATER-DO NOT DRINK". THE MARKING TAPE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF SIX INCHES WIDE AND SHALL BE SECURELY ATTACHED DIRECTLY TO THE TOP OF THE PIPELINE EVERY FIVE FEET.
RECYCLED WATER
MAIN IDENTIFICATION
REF. & REV.
JUNE 2014
CITY OF FRESNO
RW-1
.
"'
1 4"
2° x 2" STEEL
SQUARE BAR
r/>7" x 1/4" STEEL
DISC (FLOATS
FREELY ON STEM
2·
SECTION A-A
I SHAFT)
~~. H-+---+lr--~,~~8
I
3 16"
ONE-PIECE
STEM SHAFT
3 16"
1 4"
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
2" O.D. x 1/4"
STEEL DISC
r/>1" HOLE (TYP)
SECTIQN B-B
'J_jc
1-1/2" BLACK~
IRON PIPE u
SECT/ON C-C
I
I
I
I
I
I 3/8" STEEL (TYP)
~~
~
, ·~
2-1/4"
~
I ~
"'
S(CTION D-D
1. EXTENSION STEM SHAFT SHALL BE ROUND OR SQUARE STEEL TUBING OF ONE-PIECE DESIGN (NO PINNED CONNECTIONS OR COUPLINGS PERMITTED).
2. VALVES DEEPER THAN 5' REQUIRE A VALVE STEM EXTENSION.
3. EXTENSION STEMS SHALL NOT BE ATTACHED/BOLTED TO OPERATING NUT OF THE VALVE.
4. VALVE STEM EXTENSION SHALL BE HOT DIP GALVANIZED AFTER FABRICATION IS COMPLETE.
RECYCLED WATER VALVE
STEM EXTENSION
REF. & REV.
JUNE 2014
CITY OF FRESNO
RW-3
R=>
r->-
~
t_:cj
1-3 (/)_
t_:cj t_:cj
~ ~
to s
0 0
:x: t_:cj
1-4 0
z 0 "(/)_ z
1-3 z
!l> t_:cj
~ (")
!l> ;j ~ 0
0 z
z
"-:;o
c:,.,,
z:'l
,.,,
""R>
O:;o
;~
C"l
~ ~
~ s.;
I ~ ~ ~
--·-- ---,..----~•
PURPLE (PANTONE 512) MmR BOX LID
MARKED RECYCLED WATER", SEE NOTE 5
i
RECYCLED WATER IDENllFlCATION TAG
PER STANDARD DRAWING RW-18
MATERIALS SPECIFICATIONS:
A 1 ~" SCH. 40 PIPE
B 1 ~· SUP X 1" MALE ADAPTER (SCH. 80)
C 1 " BRASS COUPLING
D 1" MmR TAILPIECE A. Y. Mc DONALD "NO
LEAD" 74624-22 OR APPROVED EQUAL
E 1-1/4" x 10-3/4• PVC MmR SPOOL (SCH
80)
F 1" ANGLE METER STOP, A.Y. Mc DONALD "NO
LEAD" 74602-22 OR APPROVED EQUAL
G 2"X4" REDWOOD SUPPORT, ONE ON EA. SIDE
OF MmR BOX, OVERHANG ENDS 2"
H 6" THICK %" CRUSHED ROCK WHEN BOX IS
PLACED IN ALLEYS WITH TRASH PICK UP
ONLY. ALL BOXES IN ALLEYS SHALL BE
PLACED PARALLEL TO ALLEY
COMP X COMP 90' ELL, A.Y. Mc DONALD
"NO LEAD" 74761-22 OR APPROVED EQUAL
J lYPE "K" SOFT DRAWN COPPER TUBING
CONTINUOUSLY WRAPPED IN PURPLE MARKING
TAPE OR PURPLE (PANTONE 512)
POLYETHYLENE CTS SDR-9 PE 3406, USE
COMPRESSION JOINTS WITH STAILESS STEEL
INSERT
K 1" CORPORATION STOP A.Y. Mc DONALD "NO
LEAD" 74701-22 OR APPROVED EQUAL
SIDEWALK OR PARKSTRIP
MARK CURB FACE WITH 2• TALL "RW"
ENGRAVED LETTERING
.......
·· .... ""
J
STREET SURFACE~
g~
• 1z ~Si
'--~~~~~~~~~~-VARIES:~~~~~~~~~~--!
NQIES.;_
1. RECYCLED WATER SERVICES SHALL NOT
BE ALLOWED IN DRIVE APPROACH AREAS
AT ANY RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL
LOCATION, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY
APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER.
2. No. 37 "T" CAST IRON TRAFFIC COVER
SHALL BE USED WHEN METER IS LOCATED
IN ALLEYS OR ORNE APPROACH AREAS,
OR BEHIND ROLLED CURBS.
3. ALL COPPER FITTINGS SHALL BE CAMPAK
COMPRESSION-TYPE.
4. FOR PVC RECYCLED WATER MAIN TAPS,
SERVICE SADDLES WITH CIRCUMFERENTIAL
lYPE BANDS SHAPED TO FIT THE ACTUAL
0.0. OF THE PIPE AND HAVING A
MINIMUM BEARING WIDTH OF 3" (1-1/2"
PER BAND) SHALL BE USED. FOR
DUCTILE AND CAST IRON MAINS USE
BRONZE OR DUCTILE IRON SERVICE
SADDLES, WITH BRONZE OR STAINLESS
DOUBLE STRAPS.
.ECYCLED 11 ~WATER MAIN
5. METER BOX SHALL BE OLD CASTLE 816
OR N1 6 BOX WITH CAST-IN CORNER
BRACKETS. USE ARMORCAST
A6000469T -COF LID
6. RECYCLED WATER SERVICES SHALL BE
LOCATED A MINIMUM OF 4' CLEAR OF
POTABLE WATER SERVICES.
~
I
~
~'-..... N a:: ::
t:i:j ~ J--3
t:i:j N :;:c:J
to en
Ot.::cj
>:: =::cJ
1-1 ;:::;
z (") en t:i:j
i-3
> (") ~o :;i::..Z
J--3 z - t:i:j 0 (") z i-3
1-1
0 z
c:..::O
c: l""I
z:'l
rn
...,Pl>
O:;o
~~
n
:;:a ~ 0
~ "!l
;i
~ CJl
r--------PARK STRIP VAR ES------ -.
SIDEWALK
·4 . •• • •4
i
PURPLE (PANTONE 512) METER
BOX LID MARKED "RECYCLED
WATER", SEE NOTE 5
RECYCLED WATER IDENTIFICATION TAG
PER STANDARD DRAWING RW-18
MATERIAi S SPECIFICATIONS·
A 1 ~" SCH. 40 PIPE
B 1 ~· SUP X 1 ~· MALE ADAPTER OR
2" X 2" MALE ADAPTER (SCH. 80)
C 1 ~· OR 2" CAST IRON FLANGE
D 1" FLANGED METER SPOOL (SCH. 80)
13" SPOOL FOR 1 ~· METER
17" SPOOL FOR 2" METER
E 1 ~· OR 2" ANGLE METER STOP, A. Y.
Mc DONALD "NO LEAD" 74602-22 OR
APPROVED EQUAL
F 2"X4" REDWOOD SUPPORT, ONE ON EA. SIDE
OF METER BOX, OVERHANG ENDS 2"
G 6" THICK 14" CRUSHED ROCK WHEN BOX IS
PLACED IN ALLEYS WITH TRASH PICK UP
ONLY. ALL BOXES IN ALLEYS SHALL BE
PLACED PARALLEL TO ALLEY
H COMP X COMP 90° ELL. A. Y. Mc DONALD
"NO LEAD" 74761-22 OR APPROVED EQUAL
I TYPE "K" SOFT DRAWN COPPER TUBING
CONTINUOUSLY WRAPPED IN PURPLE MARKING
TAPE OR PURPLE (PANTONE 512)
POLYETHYLENE CTS SDR-9 PE 3408, USE
COMPRESSION JOINTS WITH STAINLESS STEEL
INSERT
J 1" CORPORATION STOP A. Y. Mc DONALD "NO
LEAD" 74701 - 22 OR APPROVED EQUAL
6" 12·
MARK CURB FACE WITH 2• TALL "RW"
ENGRAVED LETTERING
.. . ...... . .. 4
b~ 1')2
• 1z ~:!
--~-----------VARIESt 'S~ I
~
1. RECYCLED WATER SERVICES SHALL NOT
BE ALLOWED IN DRIVE APPROACH AREAS
AT ANY RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL
LOCATION, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY
APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER
2. No. 37 "T" CAST IRON TRAFFlC COVER
SHALL BE USED WHEN METER IS LOCATED
IN ALLEYS OR DRIVE APPROACH AREAS,
OR BEHIND ROLLED CURBS •
3. ALL COPPER FITTINGS SHALL BE CAMPAK
COMPRESSION-1YPE.
4. POLYETHYLENE PIPE SHALL USE CAMPAK
COMPRESSION-TYPE JOINTS WITH
STAINLESS STEEL INSERT.
5. FOR W SERVICE, METER BOX SHALL BE
ARMORCAST OR APPROVED EQUAL OLD
CASTLE B30 BOX W/ CAST-IN CORNER
BRACKETS ARMORCAST A6001969-COF LID
FOR 1 ~- METER OR OLD CASTLE B36
BOX W/ CAST-IN CORNER BRACKETS &
ARMORCAST A6001947T-COF LID FOR 2"
METER.
,ECYCLED
}j NlATER MAIN
6. FOR PVC RECYCLED WATER MAIN TAPS.
SERVICE SADDLES WITH CIRCUMFERENTIAL
TYPE BANDS SHAPED TO FIT THE ACTUAL
O.D. OF THE PIPE AND HAVING A
MINIMUM BEARING WIDTH OF 3" (1-1/2"
PER BAND) SHALL BE USED. FOR
DUCTILE AND CAST IRON MAINS USE
BRONZE OR DUCTILE IRON SERVICE
SADDLES, WITH BRONZE OR STAINLESS
DOUBLE STRAPS.
7. RECYCLED WATER SERVICES SHALL BE
LOCATED A MINIMUM OF 4' CLEAR OF
POTABLE WATER SERVICES.
FINISH GRADE
RECYCLED WATER IDENTIFICATION
TAG PER STANDARD DRAWING
RW-18
2" x REQUIRED LENGTH COPPER
PIPE TYPE "K" RIGID OR SOFT,
CONTINUOUSLY WRAPPED WITH
APPROVED PURPLE RECYCLED
WATER MARKING TAPE
t:lQIES.;_
PURPLE (PANTONE 512) CHRISTY METER BOX
WITH LID (17" x 30") MARKED WITH THE
WORDS "RECYCLED WATER"
2" CAM AND GROOVE ADAPTER x MIPT
WITH LOCKING DUST CAP
2" COMPRESSION x FIPT BALL
VALVE WITH HANDLE
END CAP WITH 2.5" FIPT
OUTLET
RECYCLED WATER MAIN
1. SET TOP OF METER BOX 2" ABOVE FINISH GRADE.
2. THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TEMPORARY BLOW-OFF FOR THE USE OF TESTING AND FLUSHING OF NEW RECYCLED WATER MAINS ONLY.
3. RESTRAIN ALL JOINTS PER CITY STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS SECTION 21-15.5 TEMPORARY 2" RECYCLED
WATER BLOW-OFF
REF. & REV.
JUNE 2014
CITY OF FRESNO
RW-7
24"
ENCLOSURE TO BE PAINTED
W/ PURPLE PANTONE 512
CAP END OF HINGE
0 0
0 0
2"x2"x1/4"xr LONG STAINLESS
STEEL ANGLE IRON MOUNTING
BRACKETS AND 3"x3/B"
STAINLESS STEEL ANCHOR BOLTS
(3 REQ'D)
0 0
0 0
3/16" STEEL HANDLE WITH
1/2" HOLE FOR PADLOCK
10 GAUGE
WELDED STEEL
CYLINDRICAL
ENCLOSURE
STAINLESS
STEEL
HINGE BAR
V16" STEEL
HANDLE WITH 'It" HOLE 'OR PADLOCK
3/4" GAP
36"
1" OR 2" AIR RELEASE/ VACUUM
BREAKER VALVE ENCLOSURE
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
•
STAINLESS STEEL SLEEVE
WELDED TO STIFFENING
RING AND TO HINGE BAR
REF. & REV. JUNE 2014
10 GAUGE WELDED
STEEL CYLINDRICAL
ENCLOSURE
DOORS SHOWN
PART/All Y OPEN
CONCRETE PAD POURED
AROUND AIR/\IAC RISER
CITY OF FRESNO
RW- 11
RECYCLED WATER MAIN PARALLEL
TO POTABLE WATER MAINS
ZONE "B"
RECYCLED WATER MAIN PARALLEL
TO SEWER MAINS
SPECIAi CONSIRLICTJON REOll!RED FOR RECYCI ED WAJER
ZONE:
"A" NO RECYCLED WATER LINES PARALLEL TO WATER MAINS SHALL
BE PERMITTED IN THIS ZONE WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN
APPROVAL FROM COUNTY, CAUF"ORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
HEALTH AND THE CnY.
"B" RECYCLED WATER MAIN SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF:
1. DUCTILE IRON PIPE WITH HOT DIP BITUMINOUS COATING.
2. DIPPED AND WRAPPED 1/4" lHICK WELDED STEEL PIPE.
3. CLASS 305 PRESSURE RATED PLASTIC WATER PIPE (DR
14 PER AWWA C900) OR EQUIVALENT.
4. REINFORCED CONCRETE PRESSURE PIPE, STEEL
CYLINDER lYPE, PER AWWA (C300 OR C302 OR C303).
"C" A RECYCLED WATER MAIN SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF:
1. DUCTILE IRON PIPE WITH HOT DIP BITUMINOUS COATING.
2. DIPPED AND WRAPPED 1/4" THICK WELDED STEEL PIPE.
3. CLASS 305 PRESSURE RATED PLASTIC WATER PIPE (DR
14 PER AWWA C900) OR EQUIVALENT.
4. REINFORCED CONCRETE PRESSURE PIPE. STEEL
CYLINDER TYPE PER AWWA (C300 OR C302 OR C303).
"D" A RECYCLED WATER MAIN SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF:
1. DUCTILE IRON PIPE WITH HOT DIP BITUMINOUS COATING.
2. DIPPED AND WRAPPED 1/4" WELDED STEEL PIPE.
3. CLASS 200 PRESSURE RATED PLASTIC WATER PIPE (DR
14 PER AWWA C900) OR EQUIVALENT.
4. REINFORCED CONCRETE PRESSURE PIPE STEEL
CYLINDER TYPE, PER AWWA (C300 OR C302 OR C303).
•p• NO RECYCLED WATER MAIN SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED
RECYCLED WATER
RECYCLED WATER MAIN CROSSING
POTABLE WATER MAINS
RECYCLED WATER MAIN CROSSING
SEWER MAINS
BASIC SEPARATION STANDARDS
1. SEPARATION DISTANCE SHALL BE MfASURED FROM
THE NE'AREST OUTSIDE EDGE OF PIPE.
2. WATER MAINS AND SUPPLY LINES OF 24" DIAMETER
OR GREATER MAY CREATE SPECIAL HAZARDS
BECAUSE OF lHE LARGE VOLUMES OF FLOW.
INSTALLATIONS OF WATER MAINS AND SUPPLY LINES
24" DIAMETER OR LARGER MUST BE REVIEWED AND
APPROVED BY THE HEALTH AGENCY AND CnY
ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
REF. &: REV.
JUNE 2014
CITY OF FRESNO
MAIN SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS RW-12
18"
Pto--'dlng ~'• &tNntlal Sflnfc ..
We are conserving
our most valuable
resource by
irrigating with
recycled water.
RECYCLED WATER
DO NOT DRINK
AGUA
NO
RECICLADA
TOME ®
GALVANIZED STEEL POST, U-CHANNEL,
OR BOX POST (MIN 1- 1/2" WIDE),
,, 'Zi<\~\Y>'. ·. . .... ..-\y).\ ...
CLASS 3 CONCRETE
NOTES:
1. ALL AREAS WHERE RECYCLED WATER IS
USED THAT ARE ACCESSIBLE TO THE
PUBLIC SHALL BE POSTED WITH ONE
OR MORE INFORMATION SIGNS IN
CONSPICUOUS LOCATIONS THAT ARE
...... . ,,
. ·.d ,• .. 1
: "" ... . . 4 4·
4 . . • ...
. : .. ..; : .4
. . .. . ..
. ..,:.· " . ...
.. ..
VISIBLE TO THE PUBLIC. . .~· .
• 4 • 4 . . .., ...
.. : . ... .,., : ..
.. 4 ...... •4.
. .. .. .. ·, • 4
4· . ..
: . " : ·~ .. .... 4 .
.. .. . .. : : ·:· A.· • ....
. : .. 4.
. . :4 ':. · ....
2. INFORMATION SIGNS SHALL BE . . ..s : • • :· -1 ..
OR OTHER MATERIALS AS APPROVED
BY CITY OF FRESNO
CONSTRUCTED OF 0.032" THICK · .. .11 • • ••
ALUMINUM AND REINFORCEMENT FRAME I-· .. ::....··_,· 4
....,· °'"··....,·,....,.•·;..,·"7."".1:. 4
-,,;--:. · ~--+---..L----' WITH A PURPLE BACKGROUND AND WHITE LETTERING.
3. SECURE SIGN TO POST WITH VANDAL
PROOF HARDWARE.
8"
RECYCLED WATER
IRRIGATION INFORMATION SIGN
REF. & REV.
JUNE 2014
CITY OF FRESNO
RW-13
PURPLE (PANTONE 512) RECYCLED
WATER VALVE BOX AND LID PER
STANDARD DRAWING RW- 16
RECYCLED WATER REMOTE CONTROL
IRRIGATION VALVE IDENTIFICATION
PURPLE (PANTONE 512)
FLOW CONTROL HANDLE
REF. & REV.
JUNE 2014
RECYCLED WATER TAG
PER STANDARD
DRAWING RW-1 B
CITY OF FRESNO
RW-14
@) AV!SO @)
@)RECYCLED WATER@)
@) DO NOT DRINK @)
@) NO TOME EL AGUA @) a. RECLAMADA @) ~ AVISO
! RECYCLED WATER! ~ DO NOT DRINK ~
@) NO TOME EL AGUA @)
@) RECLAMADA @)
DETAIL "A"
RECYCLED WATER BACKFLOW
PREVENTER IDENTIFICATION
SEE DETAIL "A"
REF. & REV.
JUNE 2014
ADHESIVE
RECYCLED WATER
RISER MARKER,
CHRISTY 51 00
PURPLE RISER
MARKER OR
APPROVED EQUAL
(TYP)
cm OF FRESNO
RW-15
~
PURPLE IRRIGATION BOX
PURPLE (PANTONE 512)
VALVE BOX NAMEPLATE,
CHRISTY SlYLE 3800 OR
APPROVED EQUAL
PURPLE IRRIGATION BOX
0 RECYCLED WATER 0 DO NCJJ DRINK-NO 10w.R
PURPLE (PANTONE 512)
VALVE BOX NAMEPLATE,
CHRISTY STYLE 3800 OR
APPROVED EQUAL
1. ALL RECYCLED WATER IRRIGATION BOXES AND LIDS SHALL BE COLORED PURPLE (PANTONE 512).
2. NAMEPLATE SHALL BE 5.75" LONG AND 1.25" WIDE AND SHALL BE MANUFACTURED IN PURPLE, WITH A UV RESISTANT CO-POLYMER PLASTIC.
3. NAMEPLATE SHALL BE ATTACHED TO VALVE BOX WITH TWO TAMPER-PROOF RIVETS.
RECYCLED WATER IRRIGATION BOX
COVER MARKINGS
REF. & REV.
JUNE 2014
CITY OF FRESNO
RW-16
MARKING DECAL SHALL BE PURPLE
~(PA>ITONE 512) AND SHAL
-
u
-
>--
~ >--
-
u
>--
r 0 '\
0 ====
c::A_.,
.tiQIES.;
INTERIOR OF ENCLOSURE
,
I
ATIENTION
Controller Unit for
Recycled Water .
~
ATENCl6N 'j
.., Unldad Cantraladora del
Agua Recupercdo
4-3/8"
---
(Q)
I
I I I I
I
CA_.,
L BE AFFIXED TO
IRRIGATION SYSTEM
CONTROL ENCLOSURE
1. ALL RECYCLED WATER IRRIGATION CONTROL ENCLOSURES SHALL BE IDENTIFIED WITH A MARKING DECAL.
2. MARKING DECAL SHALL BE BACKED WITH A PERMANENT ACRYLIC ADHESIVE.
3. MARKING DECAL SHALL BE CHRISlY STYLE 4100, OR APPROVED EQUAL.
RECYCLED WATER
IRRIGATION SYSTEM CLOCK MARKING
REF. & REV.
JUNE 2014
CITY OF FRESNO
RW-17
0 RECYCLED WATER
DO NOT DRINK
AVISO AGUA IMPURA
NOTOMAR
3•
FRONT
NOTES:
0 BACK
1. IDENTIFICATION TAGS SHALL INCORPORATE AN INTEGRAL ATTACHMENT NECK AND REINFORCED ATTACHMENT HOLE AND SHALL BE CAPABLE OF WITHSTANDING 180 LBS. OF PULL OUT RESISTANCE.
2. ALL LETTERING SHALL BE HOT-STAMPED IN BLACK AND APPROPRIATE FOR OUTDOOR USAGE.
3. IDENTIFICATION TAG COLOR SHALL BE PURPLE.
4. IDENTIFICATION TAG SHALL BE CHRISTY STYLE #007, OR APPROVED EQUAL
5. IDENTIFICATION TAGS SHALL BE ATTACHED TO GATE VALVES, BALL VALVES, ANGLE STOPS, AND ALL OTHER VALVES IN RECYCLED WATER SERVICE.
6. ATTACH WITH UV RESISTANT ZIP TIES WITH A MINIMUM PULL STRENGTH OF 50 POUNDS.
GENERAL RECYCLED WATER
IDENTIFICATION TAG
REF. & REV.
JUNE 2014
CITY OF FRESNO
RW-18
PURPLE (PANTONE 512)
POP-UP SPRINKLER CAP
POP-UP SPRINKLER
PURPLE (PANTONE 512)
SHRUB ADAPTER SPRAY
HEAD
SHRUB RISER SPRINKLER
RECYCLED WATER LANDSCAPE
IRRIGATION HEAD IDENTIFICATION
PURPLE (PANTONE 512)
ROTARY SPRINKLER
NOZZLE TREE CAP
ROTARY SPRINKLER
REF. & REV.
JUNE 2014
CITY OF FRESNO
RW- 19
.... '\::;/,-.~ ....
RECYCLED WATER
IDENTIFICATION TAG
PER STANDARD
DRAWING RW-18
SECURE LOCK TO ----- SUPPORT WITH HEAVY
DUlY CABLE TIE TO
BE BETTS THOMAS TY525M AND ~,;-\
SELF- LOCKING
TY-RAP CABLE TIE,
OR APPROVED EQUAL
DURA QUICK COUPLER
OUTLET SUPPORT, OR
APPROVED EQUAL
.NQI.ES;_
PIPE SHALL BE PURPLE
(PANTONE 512)
PURPLE (PANTONE 512)
BOX AND LID MARKED
"RECYCLED WATER"
FINISHED GROUND
INSTALL CARSON/BROOKS 910 SERIES
ROUND VALVE BOX, OR APPROVED
EQUAL
INSTALL QUICK COUPLER VALVE (QCV)
WITH PURPLE (PANTONE 512) COVER
FILL WITH PEA GRAVEL
INSTALL BRICK SUPPORT ( 4 MIN.)
1" DURA QUICK COUPLER STANDARD
UNIBODY MODEL 1-A1-1-1 1-12, OR
APPROVED EQUAL
INSTALL SCH 40
PVC TEE OR
ELBOW
\_PVC MAIN
LINE
1. NEW-CONSTRUCTION - ALL QUICK COUPLING VALVES MUST HAVE NON-POTABLE LOCKING PURPLE THERMOPLASTIC RUBBER COVERS.
2. RETROFITS - REPLACE ALL EXISTING QUICK COUPLING VALVES WITH NON- POTABLE LOCKING PURPLE THERMOPLASTIC RUBBER COVERS.
QUICK COUPLING VALVE
REF. & REV.
JUNE 2014
CITY OF FRESNO
RW-20
PIPE SHALL BE PURPLE
(PANTONE 512), OR
CONTINUOUSLY WRAPPED
IN PURPLE MARKING TAPE
3/8" PEA GRAVEL
3/4" BRASS BALL
VALVE WITH CAP
[
RECYCLED
WATER
SERVICE
- ---- ---
SOLVENT WELD FITTINGS
3/4" BRASS BALL
VALVE WITH CAP
CHRISTY FIBRELYTE FL9
1 O" x 17" BOX AND LID.
LID SHALL BE MARKED PER
STANDARD DRAWING
RW-16.
CHRISTY FIBREL YTE FL9
1 O" x 17" BOX AND LID.
LID SHALL BE MARKED PER
STANDARD DRAWING
RW-16.
RECYCLED
WATER
SERVICE
CITY OF FRESNO
CROSS CONNECTION CONTROL
TEST STATION
REF'. & REV.
JUNE 2014
RW- 21
POTABLE WATER
SERVICE PER
STANDARD
DRAWING W- 1
OR W-2
TEMPORARY SUPPLY PIPE PROVIDING
POTABLE WATER TO ON-SITE RECYCLED
WATER SYSTEM
ON-SITE RECYCLED
WATER PIPING
__ 1\AP __ __
\ \ -----RECYCLED WATER i.------ SERVICE PER STANDARD
I DRAWING RW-4 OR
I I RW- 5 (IF RECYCLED
;;:: ;;:: WATER MAIN EXISTS)
w \I/ 11/ w
CLEAR '-./ \ LI ~POTABLE WATER MAIN ) LFUTURE OR INACTIVE <*" :W---- RECYCLED WATER MAIN ~ - ---RW-- ~A~
cAPJ TEMPORARY POTABLE WATER SUPPLY TO ON-SITE RECYCLED NOTE: WATER SYSTEM BEFORE RECYCLED WATER IS AVAILABLE
THIS STANDARD DRAWING IS ONLY
USED WHEN STANDARD DRAWING
RW- 23 IS NOT UTILIZED.
ABANDON AND REMOVE TEMPORARY
ON- SITE POTABLE SUPPLY PIPE
WATER PIPING~ 't---ON- SITE RECYCLED
-· ·-- l I WATER PIPING
REDUCED PRESSURE ;;:: 3::
~~~.~~r"'~ , T
RIGHT ~~ WAY""\ ~ m m ~ • •
REMOVE CAP AND CONNECT
RECYCLED WATER SERVICE TO
ON- SITE RECYCLED WATER PIPING
1-----RECYCLED WATER l SERVICE PER STANDARD
;> ~ DRAWING RW-4 OR _l RW- 5
(-- -:-EAR - - - - - \ I - 'C;O-TAB-LE-WA-TE;::
N) NEW OR NEWLY ACTIVATED
RECYCLED WATER MAIN
RW RW---- --7"
PERMANENT RECYCLED WATER SUPPLY TO ON- SITE RECYCLED
WATER SYSTEM AFTER RECYCLED WATER IS AVAILABLE
TEMPORARY POTABLE WATER SUPPLY
TO ON- SITE RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM
REF. & REV.
JUNE 2014
CITY OF FRE'lNO
RW-22
REDUCED PRESSURE ASSEMBLY
BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE
(SIZE TO MATCH RECYCLED
WATER l.1AlN TO DISTRIBUTION)
TEMPORARY EASEMENT (SIZE
TO BE DETERMINED BY CllY)
10' Cl.FAR
(MIN
TO
DISTRIBUTION
TO
DISTRIBUTION
TO
DISTRIBUTION
RECYCLED WATER
VALVE PER STANDARD
DRAWING RW-2
EXACT LOCATION OF
BACKFLOW PREVENTION
DEVICE TO BE
DETERMINED BY CllY
POTABLE WATER MAIN
LIMITS OF RECYCLED WATER
l.1AlN CONSTRUCTION TO BE
DETERMINED BY CllY
<{RW'--- ---"----'----4-- -- --RW~ ·- --(
~RECYCLED WATER MAIN CAP . '\._FUTURE RECYCLED
(TO CONVEY POTABLE WATER MAIN
WATER)
TEMPORARY POTABLE WATER SUPPLY TO RECYCLED
WATER SYSTEM BEFORE RECYCLED WATER IS AVAILABLE
I _l ___) FROM POTABLE <f- -W- - ~ - - ~ -W- - - \: WATER SYSTEM I \._POTABLE WATER MAIN . l_ t NEW RECYCLED WATER MAIN
.-"'f._
~ RW- - _ _ · · RW FROM RECYCLED ~ · · WATER SYSTEM
RECYCLED WATER MAIN REMOVE CAP AND CONNECT
(TO CONVEY RECYCLED NEW RECYCLED WATER MAIN
WATER)
PERMANENT RECYCLED WATER SUPPLY TO RECYCLED
WATER SYSTEM AFTER RECYCLED WATER IS AVAILABLE
CITY OF FRESNO
TEMPORARY POTABLE WATER SUPPLY
TO RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM
REF. & REV.
JUNE 2014
RW-23
SECTION 33- RECYCLED WATER
FACILITIES DESIGN CRITERIA
Part I - Introduction
33-1 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 277 33-2 Other Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 278 Part II - General Provisions
Section
33-3
33-3.1
33-3.2
33-4
Page
Other Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 Scope...................................................................................... 279 Standard Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 Enforcements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280 Part Ill - Design Criteria
33-5
33-5.1
33-5.2
33-5.3
33-5.4
33-5.5
33-5.6
33-6
33-7
33-8
33-8.1
33-8.2
33-8.3
33-8.4
33-8.5
33-9
33-9.1
33-9.2
33-9.3
33-10
33-11
33-12
33-12.1
33-12.2
33-12.3
33-12.4
33-12.5
33-13
33-13.1
33-13.2
33-13.3
Recycled Water Main Pressures, Capacities and Sizes................... ... 280 Quantity of Recycled Water Flow .................................................... 280 Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280 Velocity ..................................................................................... 280 Head Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280 Hazen-Williams "C"...................................................................... 280 Minimum Recycled Water Main Size . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ... 280 Location of Air Release Valve Assemblies.............................. ..... ..... 281 Location of Blow-Off Assemblies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281 Recycled Water Main Locations .. .. .......... ............... ........ .. .............. 281 Recycled Water Main Locations in Roads or Streets ............................ 281 Curved Recycled Water Main Requirements ...................................... 281 joint Deflection for Curved Recycled Water Main Locations ................... 281 Elbows ....................................................................................... 281 Recycled Water - Water - Sewer Separation .................. .................... 281 Criteria For the Separation ............................................................. 281 Basic Separation Standards ........................................................... 281 Basic Separation Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282 Special Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 282 Alternate Criteria For Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 Procedure for Water, Recycled Water and Sewer System Installations in Subdivisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 Easements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284 Easements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284 Recycled Water Main Location in Easement ........... .................. ......... 284 Where Easements Follow Common Lot Lines . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. 285 Deeds of Easements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285 Dedications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285 Depth of Recycled Water Mains ............................................... .. ..... 285 Basic Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 285 Standard Depths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285 Exceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 286 33-14
33-14.1
33-14.2
33-14.3
33-14.4
33-14.5
33-15
Structural Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. 286 Buried Facilities . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. 286 Other Pipes and Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 286 Flexible Joints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. 286 Thrust Blocks ......................... ...................................................... 286 Mechanical Restrained Joints . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ... 287 Design Criteria for Recycled Water Meters ..... .... .............. ...... .... .. ..... 287 Part IV - Materials
33-16
33-17
33-17.1
33-17.1.1
33-17.2
33-18
33-18.1
33-18.2
33-19
33-19.1
33-19.2
33-19.3
33-19.4
34-1
34-2
34-2.1
34-2.2
34-2.3
34-2.4
34-2.5
34-3
34-3.1
34-3.2
34-3.3
34-4
34-4.1
34-4.2
34-5
34-6
34-6.1
34-6.2
34-6.3
34-6.4
34-6.5
34-6.6
34-6.7
Requirements ............. ........ .. ............ .... ......... ..... ... .... .................. 287 Pipe Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 Ductile Iron Pipe and Ductile Iron Fittings ....... .............. ...... ........ ........ 287 Confined Easements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289 Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Pressure Pipe . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. 289 Valves .............................................. ................... ... ................ ..... 291 Butterfly Valves .. ... ....... ..... ................. ..... ........ .............................. 291 Gate Valves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 293 Appurtenances .......................................... ......... ........................... 294 Blow-off Assemblies for Recycled Water Mains ................................... 294 Air Release Valve Assemblies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ... 295 Recycled Water Service Assemblies (2 inches and smaller) .... ...... .... ..... 295 Valve Service Casing and Lid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . ... 298 SECTION 34 - RECYCLED WATER FACILITIES
Scope...................... ....... .. .. ..................................................... 299 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 299 Quality Control of Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 Quality of Workmanship .. ...... ...... ... .. .. ........ ..... .... .......... ... ....... .... 299 Connections to Existing Facilities .. ........ ............. .. .. ... .... .... ... .... ..... 299 Defective Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 Construction Staking and "Record-Drawings" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Pressure Pipe and Fittings Installation . . . . . . . . . . 300 Scope of Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 Installation . .. . . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . ... . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . .. . ... 300 Tracer Wire with Marking Tape... .... .. ............. .... .. ....... ... ............... 300 Ductile Iron Pressure Pipe and Fittings Installation . . . . . .... ....... .. . . .. .. . ... 301 Scope of Work ........ ...... ... ............................ ............ ....... ..... ...... 301 Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 Valve Casing and Lid Installation ........ .. .......... .... ....... ... . .. .............. 301 Earthwork for Ductile Iron and PVC Pipe Installation ........ ...... ... ... ..... 301 Trench Excavation ....... ............... .... .... .. ... ... ............ ........ .. .......... 301 Trench Bottom ..... .. .... .. .... .... ... .. ............. ...... ......... ... .. . .. ... ... ....... 302 Bell Holes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302 Trench Width . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302 Rock or Hardpan Excavation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 302 Barricades and Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302 Shoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. 303 34-7
34-8
34-8.1
34-8.2
34-8.3
34-9
34-10
34-10.1
34-10.2
Backfilling and Tamping ............................................... ... ..... ....... 303 Testing and Sterilization .............................. ........................... ..... 304 General . . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . .. .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . 304 Field Testing .................................................. ... ...... .................. 304 Sterilization . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . . .. . .. . 305 Signage . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . ... 306 Abandonment . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . 306 General . . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . . .. . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . .. . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . .. . . .. .. . 306 Recycled Water Lines .................................................................. 306 SECTION 33 - RECYCLED WATER FACILITIES DESIGN CRITERIA
PART I - INTRODUCTION
33-1 DEFINITIONS
Unless the particular prov1s1on or context otherwise requires, the definitions and provisions contained in this Section 34 shall govern the construction, meaning and application of words and phrases used in the conditions in this Section 34. The definition of each word or phrase shall constitute, to the extent applicable, the definition of each word or phrase which is derivative from it, or from which it-is a derivative, as the case may be.
"Compression Joint"
"Confined"
"Easement"
"Health Agency"
A push-on joint that seals by means of the compression of a rubber ring or gasket between the pipe and a bell or coupling.
In areas were the hydraulic grade line is above the soffit of the Storm Drain pipe, only watertight joints are allowed and shall comply with Section 61 of the State Standard Specifications.
A recorded document in which the land owner gives the City permanent rights to construct and maintain recycled water mains and/or facilities across private property.
The State Department of Health Services, or the local health officer with respect to a small water system.
"Mechanical Joint"
A joint comprised of pipe spigot, a follower gland (ring), a mechanical joint gasket and the bell of an adjoining pipe, fitting or valve wherein the joint seal is accomplished by tightening a series of bolts and nuts that compress the gasket against the bell recess and the pipe spigot outside diameter.
"Non-potable Water''
"Pantone"
"Pressure Class"
June 2014
Non-potable water is water that may contain objectionable pollution, contamination, minerals, or bacterial agents and is considered unsafe and/or unpalatable for drinking.
A color standard system referenced in the American Water Works Association California-Nevada Section Guidelines for Distribution of Nonpotable Water
277
See definition for "Rated Working Water Pressure" below. "Rated Working Water Pressure"
A pipe classification system based upon internal working pressure of fluid in the pipe, type of pipe material, and the thickness of the pipe wall.
"Recycled Water'' and "Reclaimed Water''
Non-potable ·water that is the treated effluent from a
wastewater treatment facility. The terms are identical and any reference to reclaimed water refers to recycled water and vice versa.
"Restrained Joints"
"Sleeve"
A non-standard or modified push-on or Mechanical Joint that is capable of preventing internal pressures or external forces from causing the joint to separate without the use of thrust blocks.
A protective tube of steel with a wall thickness of not less than one fourth inch into which a pipe is inserted.
"Vertical Separation"
"Water Supplier''
The difference in elevation between the outside bottom of the higher pipe and the outside top of the lower pipe.
Any person who owns or operates a public water system.
33-2 OTHER REQUIREMENTS
Ordinances, requirements, and applicable standards of governmental agencies having jurisdiction within the area served by the Department of Public Utilities shall be observed in the design and construction of recycled water mains and facilities.
Such requirements include, but are not limited to, current revision of the following:
33-2.1 Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, "latest edition, including all applicable supplements, prepared and promulgated by the California Chapter of the American Public Works Assn. and the Associated General Contractors of America."
33-2.2 State Health laws and regulations regulating the separation between water supply, recycled water and sewerage facilities.
33-2.3 State Uniform Plumbing code as adopted by the City of Fresno.
June 2014 278
33-2.4 Road encroachment regulations of the City of Fresno, County, State of California, Fresno Irrigation District, and railroad permits where applicable. 33-2.5 American Water Works Association Standards
33-2.6 Titles 17 and 22 of the State Health and Safety Code regulating cross connection control and back-flow prevention and Chapter 6 of the City of Fresno Municipal Code, regulating cross connections for the City water system.
PART II-GENERAL PROVISIONS
33-3 OTHER REQUIREMENTS
Ordinances, requirements, and applicable standards of governmental agencies having jurisdiction within the area served by the Department of Public Utilities shall be observed in the design and construction of recycled water mains and facilities.
Such requirements include, but are not limited to, current revision of the following:
33-3.1 Scope
The design and construction of recycled water mains, facilities and other appurtenances for the City shall comply with these City Standard Specifications, or permit requirements of various governing bodies, except where specific modifications have been approved by the Engineer, in writing. A tentative plan must be submitted for comment prior to final design. All final Plans submitted by the Developer shall be signed by a registered civil engineer and all Work shall be in accordance with good engineering practice.
33-3.2 Standard Criteria
The City Standard Specifications set forth the procedure for designing and preparing Plans and Specifications for recycled water mains, facilities and appurtenances to be built within the City's recycled water service area. These standards shall include the Specifications on design and installation of ductile iron pipe and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pressure pipe.
Whenever potable water, recycled water and sanitary sewer plans are to be designed and installed under one project, said work shall be shown on the same construction plans. In this case the Developer's engineer shall supply the City the original vellum or mylar for the final record.
June 2014 279
33-4 ENFORCEMENTS
Provisions of these design and construction standards shall be enforced by the Engineer.
PART Ill- DESIGN CRITERIA
33-5 RECYCLED WATER MAIN PRESSURES, CAPACITIES, AND SIZES 33-5.1 Quantity of Recycled Water Flow
Recycled water needs shall be determined from maximum potential population and land use of the area to be served. For design purposes, the design recycled water flow shall equal the peak hour demand. In order to determine the design recycled water flow, the following criteria shall be used, unless otherwise approved by the Engineer.
33-5.2 Pressure
Recycled water mains shall be designed so that service pressures range between 45 and 60 psi.
33-5.3 Velocity
Recycled water mains shall be designed such that the mean velocity does not exceed five (5) feet per second under Maximum Daily Demand flow conditions. 33-5.4 Head Loss
Recycled water mains shall be designed to provide a mean head loss of not more than five (5) feet per thousand feet of pipe under Maximum Daily Demand flow.
33-5.5 Hazen-Williams "C"
Pipe analysis shall be performed by assuming a value of 11 O for Hazen-Williams co-efficient "C".
33-5.6 Minimum Recycled Water Main Size
Recycled water mains shall have an inside diameter of six (6) inches or more.
Four (4) inch mains may be permitted by the Engineer for cul-de-sacs that are 150 feet and shorter when the main serves less than five services.
June 2014 280
33-6 LOCATION OF AIR RELEASE VALVE ASSEMBLIES
Air release valve assemblies shall be located at all points where air pockets may form and at locations shown and/or established by the Engineer. 33-7 LOCATION OF BLOW-OFF ASSEMBLIES
Blow-off assemblies shall be located at low points and dead ends, where sediment may collect. Design class shall be compatible with the pipeline working pressure. 33-8 RECYCLED WATER MAIN LOCATIONS
33-8.1 Recycled Water Main Location in Roads or Streets The centerline of recycled water mains shall be located in public Streets in accordance with Drawing P-41, P-42 and RW-12 of City Standard Drawings. A minimum of four (4) feet of clearance must be maintained between parallel sewer and recycled water lines. Recycled water line locations shall be dimensioned from property line and centerline or section line of the street. 33-8.2 Curved Recycled Water Main Requirements
In curved streets the recycled water main shall not cross the center line, but shall follow the street curvature using join deflections or fittings or as shown on the drawings. Bending of PVC pipe barrels to accomplish horizontal and vertical curves is not permitted.
33-8.3 Joint Deflection for Curved Recycled Water Main
Deflection in joints of pipe shall be as limited by manufacturers recommendation.
33-8.4 Elbows
Elbow shall be placed at locations where coupling deflection would exceed the allowable, as limited by manufacturer's recommendation. 33-8.5 Recycled Water-Water-Sewer Separation
The provisions of State Health Codes shall be met in locating recycled water mains.
33-9 CRITERIA FOR THE SEPARATION
33-9.1 Basic Separation Standards
June 2014 281
The "California Waterworks Standards" set forth the minimum separation requirements for recycled water and water main lines. These Standards, contained in Title 22 California Code of Regulations 64572 specify:
a) Parallel Construction:
The horizontal distance between pressure water mains, recycled water lines and sewer lines shall be at least 4 feet.
b) Perpendicular Construction (crossing):
Pressure water mains shall be at least one foot above sanitary sewer and recycled water lines where these lines must cross.
c) Separation distances specified in a) shall be measured from the nearest edges of the facilities.
d) Common Trench:
Water mains and recycled water lines must not be installed in the same trench. When water and recycled water mains are not adequately separated, the potential for contamination of the water main supply increases. Therefore, when adequate physical separation cannot be attained, an increase in the factor of safety shall be provided by increasing the structural integrity of both the pipe materials and joints. 33-9.2 Basic Separation Standards
Local conditions such as available space, limited slope, existing structure, etc., may create a situation where there is no alternative but to install water mains or recycled water lines at a distance less than required by the Basic Separation Standards. In such cases, alternative construction criteria may be allowed in very special circumstances. Detail shall be submitted to City Engineer and Health Agency for approval prior to construction.
Water mains and supply lines of 24" diameter or greater may create special hazards because of the large volumes of flow. Therefore, installations of water mains and supply lines 24 inches diameter or larger shall be reviewed and approved by the Health Agency and City Engineer prior to construction.
33-9.3 Special Provisions
June 2014
The Basic Separation Standards are applicable under normal conditions for recycled lines and water distribution mains. More stringent requirements may be necessary if conditions, such as, high groundwater exist.
282
New recycled water mains and sewers shall be pressure tested where the conduits are located ten feet apart or less.
In the installation of recycled water or water mains, measures shall be taken to prevent or minimize disturbances of the existing line.
Disturbance of the supporting base of this line could eventually result in failure of this existing pipe.
Special consideration shall be given to the selection of pipe materials if corrosive conditions are likely to exist. These conditions may be due to soil type and/or the nature of the fluid conveyed in the conduit. 33-10 ALTERNATE CRITERIA FOR CONSTRUCTION
When new water mains, new sanitary sewer mains, or other non-potable fluid-carrying pipeline are being installed in existing developed areas, local conditions (e.g., available space, limited slope, existing structures) may create a situation in which there is no alternative but to install water mains, sanitary sewer mains, or other non-potable pipelines at a distance less than that is required by the regulations (Section 64572). In such cases, through permit action, the Engineering Department may approve alternate construction criteria. The alternate approval is allowed under Title 22 California Code of Regulations, Section 64551 (c).
33-11 PROCEDURE FOR WATER, RECYCLED WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM
INSTALLATIONS IN SUBDIVISIONS
a. Installation of all sewer mains, laterals and manholes and backfill. b. Installation of all recycled water mains, services and backfill. c. Installation of all water mains, services and backfill d. Compact all Sewer trenches.
d1 . Make preliminary pressure test. (Optional)
d2. Locate and repair leaks, if any.
d3. Recompact if necessary.
e. Compact all recycled water trenches.
e1. Make preliminary pressure test. (Optional)
e2. Locate and repair leaks, if any.
e3. Recompact if necessary.
f. Compact all water trenches.
f1 . Make preliminary pressure test. (Optional)
f2. Locate and repair leaks, if any.
June 2014 283
f3. Recompact if necessary.
g. Items (d), (e) and (f) may be done simultaneously if conditions permit. h. All trenches shall be identified. Contractor shall also locate and mark Sewer, Water and Recycled water service laterals on curb face when constructed. i. Compaction tests on sewer, water and recycled water taken by City. j. Final air test for sewer and pressure test for water and recycled water, providing all leaks are repaired all compaction tests have been approved. k. Any failure of final tests would require Contractor to reinitiate sequence of work starting with Item (i).
I. The Department of Public Utilities will construct the wet tie to connect to the City's system. This will allow the Contractor to sterilize and flush the newly constructed system. There is often an associated charge for the construction of these wet ties.
m. Flushing recycled water mains shall not be allowed in Street area if it conflicts with sewer and water installations. Often done after compaction tests have passed. Water seeps into trenches and holds up Developer's paving while Street dries out.
n. If storm sewers are to be installed, they shall be constructed first, unless otherwise directed.
33-12 EASEMENTS
Non-metallic pipes may be allowed in Easements which are neither confined or interior Easements.
33-12.1 Easements
The minimum width of a recycled water facility Easement shall be approved by the Engineer.
33-12.2 Recycled Water Main Location in Easement
The recycled water main shall be located 5 feet north or west of the center line of the Easement except where otherwise approved by the Engineer.
June 2014 284
33-12.3 Where Easements Follow Common Lot Lines
The full Easement width shall be on one lot, in such a manner that access to lines will not be obstructed by walls, trees, or permanent improvements. Where this requirement cannot be met without interfering with existing buildings, easements may straddle lot lines, but the recycled water line shall not be located on the lot lines.
33-12.4 Deeds for Easements
Deeds for Easements shall provide for restrictions of permanent construction within the Easement to provide ingress and egress for maintenance. A recent title report will be required prior to acceptance of the Easement. 33-12.5 Dedications
Dedications shall be in accordance with City standard practice. (A) For subdivision tracts the owners of land included within the subdivision shall provide a bill of sale on a form provided by the City. This bill of sale shall be a part of the acceptance of the subdivision.
(8) For other than subdivision tracts, the following shall be conveyed to the City:
(1) A deed of Easement satisfactory to the City for the operation maintenance of the recycled water facilities shall be prepared by a registered engineer or land surveyor, on City Easement forms properly executed by the owners;
(2) A bill of sale to the City for the recycled water mains and appurtenances.
33-13 DEPTH OF RECYCLED WATER MAINS
33-13.1 Basic Requirements
Recycled water mains shall be installed at a depth which shall be in accordance with the applicable ordinances, regulating the separation between water supply and sewerage facilities.
33-13.2 Standard Depths
Minimum depth shall be 42 inches to top of pipe measured from Street or surface above the pipe. Where the natural ground above the pipeline trench June 2014 285
has been over-excavated and/or the pipeline is to be placed in the new embankment, embankment material shall be placed and compacted to an elevation of not less than 3 feet above the top of pipe prior to the trench excavation. Where 42 inches from top of curb cannot be maintained, pipe shall be installed with selected or imported bedding as approved by the Engineer or metallic pipe material shall be used.
33-13.3 Exceptions
Designs not in accordance with City Standard Drawing No. RW-12 shall be submitted to the Engineer for approval together with evidence that it complies with City Standard Drawing No. RW-12.
33-14 STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS
33-14.1 Buried Facilities
All structures and pipe placed underground shall be of sufficient strength to support with an adequate factor of safety the following applicable loads: the backfill, road surfacing, H-20 truck loading with impact, high loading to be specified by the Engineer or as required by permits for crossing State highways, railroad tracks, canals, and streams. Calculations showing factor of safety may be required by the Engineer.
33-14.2 Other Pipes and Structures
Recycled water lines designed to cross under other pipes or structures shall be protected from damage and shall be constructed in order not to endanger the other pipe or structure. Minimum clearance between outside of pipes or between pipes and other structures is 12 inches unless otherwise approved by the Engineer.
33-14.3 Flexible Joints
Flexible joints which will allow for differential settlements or other movement of recycled water pipe, facilities, adjacent pipe and adjacent structures shall be provided where recycled water lines enter encasements or other structures.
Flexible joints shall be within three feet of such structures. Any deviations from these requirements shall require approval from the Engineer. 33-14.4 Thrust Blocks
The use of concrete thrust blocks may be required but will only be allowed when specifically approved in writing by the Engineer.
June 2014 286
33-14.5 Mechanical Restrained Joints
Restrained Joint fittings shall be provided at all tees, crosses, reducers, bends, caps, plugs and valves such that the pipe is fully restrained in any one given direction.
These shall meet Uni-B-13 and ASTM F 1674-96 for PVC and be UUFM approved through 12" for both ductile iron and PVC. The restraint mechanism shall consist of individually activated gripping surfaces to maximize restraint capability. Twist-off nuts, sized the same as the tee-head bolts, shall be used to ensure proper activating of restraining devices. The gland shall be manufactured of ductile iron conforming to ASTM A536-80. The retainer-gland shall have a pressure rating equal to that of the pipe on which it is used through 14" with a minimum safety factor of 2:1 . See City Standard Drawings W-31, W32, W-33, W-34, W-35, W-36 and W-37. Gland shall be Megalug by EBAA Iron, Inc., Uni-Flange by Ford Meter Box Co. Inc., or approved equal.
Push-on Restraint: When it is necessary to restrain push-on joints adjacent to restrained fittings, a harness restraint device shall be used. All harnesses shall have a pressure rating equal to that of the pipe on which it is used through 14".
Harness assemblies including tie bolts shall be manufactured of ductile iron conforming to ASTM A536-80. Harness shall be manufactured by EBAA Iron, Inc., Ford Meter Box Co. Inc., or approved equal.
33-15 DESIGN CRITERIA FOR RECYCLED WATER METERS
The City shall determine the appropriate meter sizes and types, based on the building plumbing plans and the landscape sprinkler plans furnished by the Developer.
PART IV- MATERIALS
33-16 REQUIREMENTS
Materials shall be chosen for their strength, durability and ease of maintenance, with due consideration for dead and live loads, beam strength and resistance to corrosion.
Pipe joints shall be selected to provide sufficient flexibility to adjust to the residual conditions during and after construction.
33-17 PIPE MATERIALS
The following are acceptable materials for recycled water line construction:
33-17.1 Ductile Iron Pipe and Ductile Iron Fittings
Ductile iron pipe and associated fittings shall conform to the applicable sections of the City Standard Specifications.
June 2014 287
June 2014
(a) Fabrication
Ductile iron pipe shall be Pressure Class 350 ductile iron for sizes up to and including 12 inch and Pressure Class 250 ductile iron from 14 inch to 20 inch; complete with all accessories and conforming to ANSl/AWWA C151/A21.51, unless otherwise
indicated on the construction plans. Ductile iron pipe shall be eighteen (18) foot laying lengths.
(b) Joints
Joining of ductile iron pipe shall be with elastomeric-gasket bell ends or couplings. The joints and rubber gaskets shall be in conformance with ANSl/AWWA C111/A21.11.
(c) Inspection and Testing
City at its discretion may inspect the plant facilities, materials, manufacture and testing of the pipe to be furnished by Contractor.
Testing of the pipe to ensure compliance with these Specifications shall be made in accordance with applicable AWWA Standards latest edition. All cost incurred by City for witnessing the manufacture of the pipe and in obtaining test results shall be borne by Contractor furnishing the pipe.
( d) Affidavit of Compliance
City may elect to waive any of the above testing and inspection requirements in which event the Engineer may require the manufacturer to submit affidavits stating that all pipe has been manufactured and tested in accordance with this Specification. ( e) Fittings
All fittings for use with ductile iron pipe shall be ductile iron manufactured in accordance with ANSl/AWWA C110/A21.10 or ANSl/AWWA C153/A21.53. All Mechanical Joint or push-on joint fittings shall be rated for 350 psi working pressure in sizes 4" through 24". Flange fittings shall be rated for 250 psi working pressure. Flange drilling pattern shall be in accordance with ANSl/AWWA C110/A21 .10, or commonly referred to as a 125# drilling pattern.
In accordance with Section 4.3 of ANSl/AWWA C153/A21.53, fittings may be provided with a cement-mortar lining and asphalt 288
coating or fusion bonded epoxy inside and outside. Fusion bonded epoxy shall be in accordance with ANSl/AWWA
C116/A21.16 and shall be applied to interior and exterior surfaces.
All tees and crosses shall have all flanged ends with the exception of blowoff, and pumping connections, which shall have flange by Mechanical Joint or push-on joint ends; reducers shall have flange by Mechanical Joint ends; elbows maybe either Mechanical Joint or flanged ends.
(f) Appurtenances
All appurtenances used in conjunction with the ductile iron pipe shall meet the City Standard Specifications.
(g) Lining and Coating
Unless otherwise approved, the internal surface shall be lined with a uniform thickness of cement mortar and then sealed with a thin asphaltic coating in accordance to AWWA C104.
(h) Encasement
The outside surface shall be protected with purple polyethylene encasement furnished and installed in accordance with AWWA C105.
(i) Marking/Identification
Ductile iron pipe shall be identified and marked in accordance to City Standard Drawing RW-1.
33-17.1.1 Confined Easements
All confined easement construction shall be ductile iron. 33-17.2 Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Pressure Pipe
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pressure pipe shall conform to the applicable sections of the City Standard Specifications.
June 2014
(a) Fabrication
Polyvinyl chloride pressure pipe shall be purple in color, or be installed in a purple sleeve marked "RECLAIMED WATER - DO 289
June 2014
NOT DRINK" the entire length of the pipeline, shall conform to AWWA C-900 latest edition for 12" and smaller and AWWA C905 latest edition for 14" and larger, unless otherwise indicated on the construction Plans.
(b) Joints
Joining of PVC pipe shall be with elastomeric-gasket bell ends or couplings. The bell ends shall be an integral thickened bell end (IB) or an integral Sleeve-reinforced bell end. The bell end joints shall have a minimum wall thickness of the bell or Sleevereinforced bell equal, at all points, to the DR Requirements for the pipe. The minimum wall thickness in the ring groove and bellentry sections shall equal or exceed the minimum wall thickness of the pipe barrel.
If bell ends are not part of the pipe, one PVC coupling, manufactured of the same material and by the same
manufacturer as the pipe, shall be furnished with each length of pipe together with two (2) rubber rings. The coupling shall be designed to ensure a water-tight joint with the pipe. The coupling body and socket shall have a wall thickness equal to the pipe barrel thickness with which the coupling is to be used.
All rubber rings shall be furnished by the pipe manufacturer.
These rubber rings (Elastomeric Gaskets) shall be manufactured to conform with the requirements of ASTM F-4 77.
(c) Hydrostatic Proof-test
Each length of pipe shall be proof-tested at two (2) times its rated Pressure Class for a minimum dwell of five (5) seconds, in accordance with AWWA C900 and C905.
(d) Inspection and Testing
The City, at its discretion, may inspect the plant facilities, materials, manufacture and testing of the pipe to be furnished by Contractor.
Testing of the pipe to ensure compliance with these Specifications shall be made in accordance with applicable AWWA Standards latest edition. All cost incurred by City for witnessing the manufacture of the pipe and in obtaining test results shall be borne by Contractor furnishing the pipe.
290
(e) Affidavit of Compliance
City may elect to waive any of the above testing and inspection requirements in which event the Engineer may require the manufacturer to submit affidavits stating that all pipe has been manufactured and tested in accordance with this Specification. (f) Fittings
All fittings for use with Polyvinyl chloride pipe shall be ductile iron manufactured in accordance with ANSl/AWWA C11 O/A21.1 O or ANSl/AWWA C153/A21.53. All Mechanical Joint or push-on joint fittings shall be rated for 350 psi working pressure in sizes 4" through 24". Flange fittings shall be rated for 250 psi working pressure. Flange drilling pattern shall be in accordance with ANSl/AWWA C110/A21.10, or commonly referred to as a 125# drilling pattern. In accordance with Section 4.3 of ANSl/AWWA C153/A21.53, fittings may be provided with a cement-mortar lining and asphalt coating or fusion bonded epoxy inside and outside.
Fusion bonded epoxy shall be in accordance with ANSl/AWWA C 116/ A21 .16 and shall be applied to interior and exterior surfaces.
All tees and crosses shall have all flanged ends with the exception of blow-off, and pumping connections, which shall have flange by Mechanical Joint or push-on joint ends; reducers shall have flange by Mechanical Joint ends; elbows maybe either Mechanical Joint or flanged ends. A/C to C.1.0.D. (PVC adapter rings may not be used).
(g) Appurtenances
All appurtenances used in conjunction with PVC shall meet the City Standard Specifications.
(h) Detachable Ribbon or Tapes
Because PVC is non-conductive and subject to more damage if struck with excavation equipment, an identification marking tape shall be installed in accordance to City Standard Drawing No. RW-1 . 33-18 VALVES
33-18.1 Butterfly Valves
(a) General
June 2014 291
These Specifications designate the requirements for the manufacture and installation of butterfly valves. The Contractor shall furnish all labor, materials, tools and equipment necessary to install, complete and ready for operation, the valves as shown on the Plans and herein specified. (b) Materials and Workmanship
Butterfly valves shall be of the rubber-seated tight-closing type. They shall meet or exceed AWWA Standard C504 latest revision. All valves must use full AWWA C504 Class 150B valve shaft diameter, and full Class 150B underground-service-operator torque rating throughout entire travel. All valves shall be NSF approved. Valve body shall be high-strength cast iron ASTM A 126 Class B with 18-8 Type 304 stainless steel body seat. Valve vane shall be high-strength cast iron ASTM A48 Class 40, having rubber seat mechanically secured with an integral 18-8 stainless steel clamp ring and 18-8 stainless steel self-locked screws.
Rubber seat shall be full-circle 360 degree seat not penetrated by the valve shaft. Valve shaft shall be one piece, extending full size through the entire valve. Valve shaft shall be 304 stainless steel. Packing shall be 0-ring cartridge designed for permanent duty underground. All exposed cap screws and fasteners on the valve body and flanges shall be Ni-Cad steel or approved equal.
(c) Valve Operations
June 2014
Valve operators shall be of the manual type. The operator shall be totally enclosed, self-locking worm gear or screw type, with adjustable stops to limit disc travel. The number of complete turns of the operator required to rotate this disc 90 degrees shall be approximately the same as an equivalent sized gate valve. All valve operators shall be fully gasketed, weather-proof and factory packed with grease. Operators shall be of the size required for opening and closing the valve against 150 psi water pressure, and shall have a torque rating of not less than shown in AWWA C-504, 1, Class 150-B. Operators for valves located above ground shall have disc-position indicators and a hand-wheel.
Should the difference between the operating nut and the valve cover exceed 50 inches, an extension mast shall be installed so that the operating nut will not exceed 50 inches from the valve cover or ground surface. Buried operators shall be worm gear or screw type and shall be threaded to accommodate a two inch operating nut, and shall include the operating nut, and a 3/4" hex head plated bolt for operating nut holddown. All exposed fastenings shall be specifically designed and suitable for permanent buried service. Input shaft and thread for the operating nut shall be at a right angle to the operating shaft. The input shaft shall 292
extend vertically from the side when the valve is in the horizontal position.
Epoxy shall be applied to all surfaces of valve body and vane to an average minimum thickness of 5 mils, conforming to AWWA C 550 Standards. A primer shall be applied before the coating per the epoxy manufacturer's recommendations. The coating shall be applied to the entire valve body and vane before final assembly.
(d) Valve Ends
Valve ends shall be for Flanged Joint pipe and shall conform to ANSI Giii (AWWA A21.1 1-1972, Class 125) and drilled to ANSI B16.1 for cast iron flanges and flanged fittings, Class 125. Flanges shall be 125# ANSI.
The butterfly valves shall be right closing Class 150-B designed for tight shut off with a maximum differential pressure across the disc of 200 psi.
Valve shafts shall consist of a one-piece unit extending completely through the valve disc.
(e) Valve Boxes, Nuts and Bolts, Gaskets and Marker Posts shall conform to the provisions specified herein for gate valves.
(f) Marking/Identification
Install an identification tag in accordance to City Standard Drawing RW-18.
33-18.2 Gate Valves
(a) General
These Specifications designate the requirements for the manufacture and installation of gate valves. The Contractor shall furnish all labor, materials, tools and equipment necessary to install, complete and ready for operation, the valves as shown on the Plans and herein specified. (b) Materials and Workmanship
June 2014
Gate valves shall be non-rising stem resilient seated type. Valves shall conform to the latest version of AWWA C-509. Valve bodies shall be ductile iron and wedges shall be fully rubber encapsulated.
The stem shall have two 0-rings above the collar and one 0-ring below the collar. Stem seals must be replaceable with the valve under pressure. The stem material shall be stainless steel [ANSl-420], low zinc bronze or manganese bronze. The waterway shall be full size. No 293
cavities or depressions are permitted in the seat area. Valve body and bonnet shall be electrostatically applied, fusion bonded, epoxy coated both inside and out by the valve manufacturer. The coating shall meet the requirements of AWWA C-550 and NSF 61 approved. All valve body and bonnets bolts and nuts shall be type 304 stainless steel.
All valves must be tested by hydrostatic pressure equal to the requirements in the AWWA C-509 specifications prior to shipment.
Tapping gate valve assemblies shall be used only in conjunction with tapping Sleeves and shall be furnished and installed by the Department of Public Utilities.
Nuts and bolts used for bolting flanged-end gate valves to pipeline flanges above ground, shall be hexagonal head machine bolts and hexagonal nuts conforming to ASTM A307, Grade B. All buried flangedend gate valves shall be bolted to the pipe line flanges with Ni-Cad nuts and bolts or approved equal.
(c) Gaskets
Gaskets for flanged-end gate valves shall be right face 1 /8". (d) Valve Ends
Valves may be provided with Mechanical Joint ends, push-on joint ends, flanged ends, Mechanical Joint by flange ends or push-on joint by flange ends.
( e) Marking/Identification
Install an identification tag in accordance to City Standard Drawing RW-18.
33-19 APPURTENANCES
33-19.1 Blow-off Assemblies for Recycled Water Mains
(a) General
June 2014
Blow-off assemblies shall be furnished and installed by the Contractor at the locations shown on the Plans. The Contractor shall furnish all labor, materials, tools and equipment necessary to furnish and install, complete and ready for operation, the assemblies as shown on the plans and herein specified. See City Standard Drawings RW-7 and RW-8. 294
(b) Materials, Fabrication and Installation
(1) Materials Shall be ductile iron and sized as designated on the City Standard Drawings. RW-7 and RW-8 or on the Plans.
(2) Valves Gate valves or butterfly valves for blow-off assemblies shall be as specified herein.
(3) Pipes and Fittings Shall be 6 inch or 8 inch ductile iron and shall conform with the standard for ductile iron pipe water main and fittings. Joints on the recycled water main side of the gate valves shall be flanged. Properly restrained MJ fittings are allowed downstream of the gate valve.
(4) Pipe Sleeves and Lids Shall be used per City Standard Drawing RW-2.
(5) Boxes and Lids Shall be per City Standard Drawings RW-7 and RW-8 or Engineer approved equivalent and marked "Recycled Water". Covers shall be seated flush with the surface of the natural ground or paved surface, such that they may not be damaged by, nor present an obstruction or rough surface to traffic.
33-19.2 Air Release Valve Assemblies
(a) General
Air release valve assemblies shall be furnished and installed by the Contractor at all points where air pockets may form and at the locations shown and/or established in the field by the Engineer. The Contractor shall furnish all labor, materials, tools and equipment necessary to install, complete and ready for operation, the valve assemblies shown on the plans and herein specified. See City Standard Drawing No. RW-9, RW-10, and RW-11.
(b) Materials, Fabrication and Installation
Materials shall be in accordance with City Standard Drawings. The valve shall be a Vent-o-Mat RBX series, Vent- Tech or approved equal. 33-19.3 Recycled Water Service Assemblies (2 inches and smaller) (a) General
Recycled water service assemblies shall be furnished and installed by the June 2014 295
Contractor at the locations shown on Plans or established in the field by the Developer. The Contractor shall furnish all labor, materials, tools and equipment necessary to install, complete and ready for operation, the assemblies as shown on the Plans and herein specified. The Contractor shall perform the installation of the lot services in accordance with the City Standard Drawing Nos. RW-4 and RW-5. The Developer shall provide the City with a Plan showing the "As Built" location of all services.
(b) Materials, Fabrication and Installation
(1) Materials Shall be those designated on the City Standard Drawings RW-4 and RW-5
Service Size
1"
1 %"
2"
Corp. Stop
1"
1 %"
2"
Service Pipe
1"
1 %"
2"
Angle Meter Stop
1"
(2) Pipe and Fittings Service pipe shall be Type K soft copper tubing, or Polyethylene CTS 200 psi SDR-9 PE 3408. Solder fittings shall be soldered with 95% tin I 5% lead or silver solder (pure).
(3) Saddles Service saddles shall be used for all 1 ", 1-1 /2", and 2" taps made on ductile iron and PVC pipe. A circumferential type stainless steel band or bands shaped to fit the actual O.D. of the pipe shall be used. Double strap bands shall provide a minimum bearing width of 1-1 /2 inches per band along the axis of the pipe.
Single strap bands shall provide a minimum bearing width of 3 inches per band along the axis of the pipe. Saddles shall not have lugs that will cut into the pipe when the saddle is tightened.
Saddles are to be Jones, Ford, Mueller or approved equal.
Multiple O.D. range saddles shall not be used.
(4) Service Taps In no case shall a service tap be made in a main closer than 18 inches to a bell coupling joint, or fitting. Service taps shall not be less than two feet apart. Service taps shall be located opposite the service locations so that the service laterals will be perpendicular to the Street centerline. Service tap locations varying more than two feet from the perpendicular must be approved by the Engineer prior to installation. Service taps shall be in accordance with City Standard Drawing Nos. RW-4 and RW-5. Where dissimilar metals are joined, a dielectric connection, approved by the Engineer shall be provided. Hole June 2014 296
June 2014
size drilled in the pipe shall be the same size as the corporation stop. The cutting tool shall be muller cutting type (hole) cutter which will retain the coupon.
Tapping Sleeves and corporation stop valves shall be used for service connections of 2 inches and smaller. For ductile iron recycled water mains, double strap ductile iron service saddles must be used.
(5) Service Boxes
Service casing and covers and meter boxes and covers shall be furnished and installed by the Contractor as shown of City Standard Drawings RW-4 and RW-5. All service casings shall be complete and in place at the time of acceptance of the
subdivision. All services shall be marked by an "RW" clearly visible on the curb face. Minimum size 1 ¥2" X 1 Y2 " maximum 3" X3".
(6) Curb Stops in Driveway
No services in driveway approaches allowed.
(7) Encasement and Identification
Due to the corrosive nature of soils, a protective polyethylene sleeve shall be installed over the copper service line on all sizes from 1" to 2". It must be purple in color, to immediately identify it as non-potable service, and shall encase the service line from the corp stop to the angle meter stop in one continuous piece. It shall be attached to both the corp and the angle meter stop by using PVC tape, duct tape, or other suitable adhesive tape.
297
33-19.4 Valve Service Casing and Lid
Valve Service Casing and Lid Shall conform with City Standard Drawing RW-2.
Covers shall be seated flush with the surface of the natural ground or paved surface such that they may not be damaged by, or present an obstruction or rough surface to traffic. Covers shall have a 9 inch wide and 6 inch thick stabilizing concrete ring constructed when the valve is outside the pavement area. Covers must be painted purple by using Pantone 512.
June 2014 298
SECTION 34- RECYCLED WATER FACILITIES
34-1 SCOPE
These City Standard Specifications are intended to describe the execution and workmanship to be used in construction of a recycled water system operated in the City of Fresno. It is presumed that the Developer or his/her engineer has prepared such general and special Specifications as are necessary to define the nature and location of the Work, contractual arrangements, payment for Work, and any other matters concerning the owner or his/her Contractor. All Street work permits shall be obtained and fees shall be paid by the Developer or Contractor. 34-2 GENERAL
34-2.1 Quality Control of Materials
The quality control of materials shall conform to the applicable sections of the City Standard Specifications as published by the City of Fresno. 34-2.2 Quality of Workmanship
All Work will be done by Persons experienced in the specific Work, under competent supervision and in a first class manner to the Engineer's complete satisfaction. Every precaution shall be taken to prevent foreign material from entering the pipe while it is being placed in the trench. If the pipe-laying crew cannot put the pipe into the trench and in place without getting earth into it, the Engineer may require that before lowering the pipe into the trench a heavy tightly woven burlap bag of suitable size shall be placed over each end and left there until the connection is to be made to the adjacent pipe. During laying operations, no debris, tools, clothing or other materials shall be placed in the pipe. After placing a length of pipe in the trench and completing the jointing operation, in a method approved by the pipe manufacturer, the pipe shall be secured in place with approved backfill material placed under it. At times when pipe laying is not in progress, the open ends of the pipe shall be closed by a watertight plug or other means approved by the Engineer. This provision shall apply during any Work stoppage.
34-2.3 Connections to Existing Facilities
Connections shall be performed by Wastewater Division personnel only. One week notice shall be given before any connection is to be made. 34-2.4 Defective Work
Any defective materials or workmanship which becomes evident within one year after the City assumes responsibility for the completed Work shall be June 2014 299
replaced or repaired without cost to the City. Refusal of the Contractor to correct defective Work which is his/her responsibility will be considered just cause for excluding him/her from performing future Work to be connected to the City's system. Such exclusion does not impair the City's right to bring legal action to correct the deficiencies.
34-2.5 Construction Staking and "Record-Drawings"
Construction stakes will be set parallel to the recycled water main alignment at an offset distance and direction agreed upon with the Contractor but in no case shall construction stakes be offset more than 10 feet. Stakes will be set at no greater interval than 100 feet on straight alignments. For horizontally or vertically curved recycled water mains, the stake intervals shall be 25 feet. For all Street recycled water mains, regardless of alignment or slope, the Developer's engineers shall determine "Record-Drawings" elevations at the top of pipe centerline at each change in pipe grade and shall provide a written record of such elevations to the inspector. The Developer's engineer shall also provide "Record-Drawings" of all main line valve locations and all service stop locations.
34-3 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE (PVC) PRESSURE PIPE AND FITTINGS
INSTALLATION
34-3.1 Scope of Work
The Contractor performing the Work under this Specification shall furnish all labor tools and equipment, which are necessary to install, complete, and ready for operation, the PVC pressure pipe recycled water mains as herein specified and/or as indicated on the contract drawings.
34-3.2 Installation
Installation shall conform to Chapter 7, Installation, of AWWA Standard C605 and AWWA Manual M23. Bending of PVC pipe barrels to accomplish horizontal or vertical curves is not permitted.
34-3.3 Tracer Wire with Marking Tape
Tracer wire used with PVC where called for on the Plans shall be copper wire, Type TW, Size AWG #12 and shall be placed above the PVC recycled water main along with a recycled water marking tape, purple (pantone 512).
The marking tape shall be a minimum of six inches wide and a minimum of 12" but no greater than 24" above the pipeline. See City Standard Drawing No.'s RW-1 and RW-24.
June 2014 300
34-4 DUCTILE IRON PRESSURE PIPE AND FITTINGS INSTALLATION 34-4.1 Scope of Work
The Contractor performing the Work under this Specification shall furnish all labor tools and equipment, which are necessary to install, complete, and ready for operation, the ductile iron pressure pipe recycled water mains as herein specified and/or as indicated on the contract drawings. 34-4.2 Installation
Installation shall conform to AWWA C-600 and Installation of Ductile Iron Pipe and Fittings in AWWA Manual M41.
34-5 VALVE CASING AND LID INSTALLATION
When recycled water mains are installed, casings and lids in Street areas shall be installed in a lowered position below any sub-grade which may be removed or recompacted.
When sub-grade is compacted and base material installed and completed, casing and lids shall be completed in accordance with City Standard Drawing Nos. RW-2, "Recycled Water Valve and Valve Box," and RW-16," Recycled Water Irrigation Box Cover Markings".
Valves located in the sidewalk shall be marked with a 2" X 4" stake so that casings and lids may be brought to finished grade at the time concrete is poured.
Any excavation necessary for valve casing and lid work shall be thoroughly recompacted to the satisfaction of the Engineer. All casings shall be installed in a vertical position. All valve operating nuts shall be free of any dirt or debris and all valves shall be checked to ensure that they are left in a wide open position.
It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to do this Work exactly as specified.
34-6 EARTHWORK FOR DUCTILE IRON AND PVC PIPE INSTALLATION 34-6.1 Trench Excavation
The trench shall be constructed per City Standard Specifications, Section 16, City Standard Drawings P-48 and RW-1. Unless shown otherwise on the Plans a minimum cover of 3.5' is required for mains.
June 2014 301
34-6.2 Trench Bottom
The trench bottom shall be true and even so that the barrel of the pipe will have soil support for its full length. Earth mounds can be used to support the pipe with the Engineer's approval and under his/her direction. 34-6.3 Bell Holes
Bell holes are required for push-on and mechanical joint pipe. While push-on joints require only a small depression beneath each bell to allow pipe to lay flat on the trench bottom, mechanical joints require additional space for operation of a ratchet wrench.
Minor excavations, which are necessary for removing the sling and for assembling the joints, shall be made in advance of the laying crew and filled after these operations are completed.
34-6.4 Trench Width
The trench must be wide enough to permit proper installation of the pipe with room for assembling joints and tamping backfill around the pipe. The trench must be at least 12 inches wider than the outside diameter of the pipe to allow for proper placement, tamping, and compaction of the initial backfill. Per the City Standard Specifications, Section 16, the width of the trench at the top of the pipe shall not be greater than 16 inches more than the outside diameter of the barrel of the pipe to be laid therein. These requirements may be modified by the Engineer or as shown on the Plans.
34-6.5 Rock or Hardpan Excavation
In rock or hardpan excavations it is necessary that the rock or hardpan be removed so that it will not be closer than 4 inches to the bottom and sides of the pipe for sizes up to 24 inches in diameter. This same practice shall be followed should the trench excavation pass through piles of abandoned masonry, large pieces of concrete or other debris. The pipe shall not be permitted to rest on masonry walls, piers, foundations or other unyielding, subterranean structures which may be encountered in the excavation. 34-6.6 Barricades and Safety
The Contractor shall follow all the requirements in Section 7-10.4 of the City Standard Specifications.
June 2014 302
34-6.7 Shoring
In addition to, and consistent with public safety considerations, every precaution for safety must be provided for the workers at the Site. Shoring must comply with Cal-OSHA Standards.
34-7 BACKFILLING AND TAMPING
Backfilling usually follows pipe installation as closely as possible. This protects the pipe from falling materials, eliminates possibility of lifting the pipe due to flooding of open trench, and avoids shifting pipe out of line by cave-ins. The purpose of backfilling is not only to protect the pipe by covering it, but to provide firm, continuous support that will prevent the pipe from settling or resting on the couplings. The essentials of a first class backfilling job shall be as follows:
Provide continuous bedding or support by carefully consolidating approved material under pipe and couplings and between the run of pipe and the trench walls. Provide a cushion on top by hand - placing approved material to at least 12" over the pipe - the balance can then be backfilled by machine.
The first step in providing firm, continuous support for the pipeline is to tamp soil solidly under the pipe and couplings. Tamping can be done with tamping bars to consolidate the backfill material. Hand tamping is best accomplished with damp loamy earth or sand.
The initial backfill material used shall be slightly damp which will pack more solidly under the pipe. This initial backfill is always placed by hand. It shall be shoveled in evenly along both sides of the pipe, making a layer about 4" thick.
Then the tamping bar is used to tamp this soil firmly under the pipe. If more than 4" of soil is shoveled in before tamping, the soil can bridge and fail to go under the pipe. Next, another 4" layer is shoveled in and tamped. This is repeated until the pipe is firmly bedded in compact soil up to the top of the pipe.
Two 6 inch lifts are then used to achieve a 12 inch cover over the pipe. This completes what is called the "initial" backfill, the thoroughly tamped soil which provides a continuous supporting bed for the pipeline. Where clay soil or unstable soil is encountered, the pipe shall be enveloped in a minimum of four inches of sand - then the backfill completed to at least 12" above the pipe with selected material, then dry sand or other suitable materials shall be laid.
The balance of the backfill which is usually placed by machine, need not be as carefully selected as the initial material. Cleanup shall be in accordance with the City Standard Specifications.
June 2014 303
34-8 TESTING AND STERILIZATION
34-8.1 General
The Specifications constituting this section designate the requirements for the procedure, materials, performance, and payment for testing and sterilization of recycled water mains and appurtenances intended for the conveyance of nonpotable water under pressure.
Scope of Work The Contractor shall furnish all labor, material, tools, and equipment, including all chemicals, necessary to perform all operations required to complete the testing and sterilization as herein specified.
34-8.2 Field Testing
(a) Hydrostatic Pressure Test Hydrostatic Pressure test. After the pipe and all appurtenances have been laid and the backfill has been placed and compacted, a hydrostatic pressure test shall be conducted. A hydrostatic test shall be conducted on the entire pipeline for a period of 2 hours at a hydrostatic pressure of 200 psi for Class 200 pipe and 150 psi for Class 150 pipe. In locations where there is a combination of Class 200 and Class 150 pipe, the system testing pressure shall be 150 psi. All valves in the pipeline shall be in the open position during system testing.
(b) Preparation The line shall be filled with water at least 24 hours prior to testing. While filling and immediately prior to testing, all air shall be expelled from the pipeline. Where air valves or other suitable outlets are not available for introducing water or releasing air for test purposes, taps and fittings approved by the Engineer shall be installed and later securely plugged.
(c) Procedure The procedure shall follow those specified in the AWWA Standard C-600 Sec. 5.2 for ductile iron and C-605 Sec. 7.3 for PVC pipe. The pressure in the pipeline shall be pumped up to the specified test pressure. When the test pressure has been reached, the pumping shall be
discontinued until the pressure in the line has dropped 5 psi, at which time the pressure shall again be pumped up to the specified test pressure. This procedure shall be repeated until the end of the test period. At the end of the test period, the June 2014 304
pressure shall be pumped up to the test pressure for the last time. The total quantity of water pumped to maintain pressure shall be measured and compared to the allowable.
(d) Leakage Shall not exceed the amount calculated, using AWWA Standard C-605 for PVC and C-600 for ductile iron. 34-8.3 Sterilization
Prior to pressure testing and prior to acceptance of Work, the entire pipeline including all valves, fitting, hydrants, service laterals, and other accessories shall be sterilized in accordance with AWWA C-601 latest revision. All mains shall be flushed with potable water after completion of construction and prior to disinfection. The Contractor shall provide a sufficient number of suitable outlets at the end(s) of the line(s) being sterilized in addition to those required by the Plans, to permit the main to be flushed with water at a velocity of at least 5.5 feet per second over its entire length. The outlets provided shall meet the requirements for fittings as specified for the type of main constructed.
Temporary blow-offs may be installed during the sterilization and flushing to satisfy these requirements. Drainage facilities shall be constructed such that the water lines cannot be contaminated through the flushing outlet. After flushing, chlorine compound solution made with liquid chlorine, calcium hypochlorite in solution or sodium hypochlorite solution shall be water mixed and introduced into the mains to form a chlorine concentration of approximately 100 ppm or that which will provide a minimum residual of 50 ppm in all parts of the line after 24 hours have elapsed . .
During the sterilization process all valves, hydrants and other accessories shall be operated. After chlorination, the water shall be flushed from the line at its extremities until the replacement water tests are equal chemically and bacteriologically to those of the permanent source of supply. The placing of chlorine capsules or tablets in pipe sections during the laying process will be considered as an acceptable method of sterilization. The chlorine water solutions shall be diluted to a chlorine concentration of not more than 100 ppm and not less than 50 ppm measured in the water lines. The Contractor shall keep adequate chlorine residual testing and indicating apparatus available on the site during the entire sterilization period.
After final flushing, the flushing fitting shall be plugged with devices intended for this purpose at the pressure class of the pipe. Where water main is coated, plugs and outlets shall be similarly coated. Bacteriologic samples of water for the specified bacteriologic test shall be taken from each end of the sterilized main (located downstream of the point of introduction of chlorine disinfectant and at other locations as determined necessary by the Engineer.) Additional samples shall be taken at intermediate points in such a manner that at least June 2014 305
one sample is taken for each 700 feet of main. Bacterial samples will be taken a minimum of 48 hours after the mains have been flushed of all chorine.
The Contractor shall dechlorinate disinfecting water and flushing water if required by the Plans
34-9 SIGNAGE
A sign reading "Recycled Water-Do Not Drink" in English and Spanish, shall be posted at all points where consumption of the water may be attractive to the public, in areas of public use that receive reclaimed water and at all valves, control boxes, and similar features in accordance with City Standard Drawing No RW-13 . This requirement may also apply to sprinkler heads when after-market clip-on purple rings are readily available in accordance with City Standard Drawing No RW-19.
34-10 ABANDONMENT
34-10.1 General
All existing non-potable waterlines or structures that are to be abandoned must be identified in the drawing. In general, abandoned lines that are in service will be replaced with a parallel line of equal or larger size, and the Engineer shall demonstrate in any case that the abandonment does not adversely affect the water system.
34-10.2 Recycled Water Lines
All non-potable water lines to be abandoned shall be entirely filled by pumping concrete into them. The pump mix shall be a mixture sufficiently workable for the purposes intended.
June 2014 306
Southeast Development Area (SEDA)
Specific Plan
Wastewater Technical Study
April 26th, 2023
Prepared for:
City of Fresno, California
Prepared by:
451 Clovis Avenue, Suite 200
Clovis, California 93612
Tel (559) 326-1400
Fax (559) 326-1500
www.bcf-engr.com
Date signed: 04/26/2023
City of Fresno SEDA Specific Plan Program EIR
Wastewater Technical Study Page i
220320_SEDA_Wastewater Tech Study_REV Blair, Church & Flynn Consulting Engineers
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Description and Background ......................................................................... 1
1.2 Summary of Analysis ................................................................................................ 2 CHAPTER 2 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ............................................................................. 4
2.1 General ..................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Federal Regulations .................................................................................................. 4
2.3 State Regulations ..................................................................................................... 5
2.4 Local Regulations ..................................................................................................... 5 CHAPTER 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS ...................................................................................... 9
3.1 Wastewater Collection Infrastructure ........................................................................ 9
3.1.1 General ............................................................................................................... 9
3.1.2 Wastewater Collection ........................................................................................ 9
3.1.3 Wastewater Treatment ........................................................................................ 9
3.1.4 Wastewater Flow ...............................................................................................10
3.1.5 Plan Area ...........................................................................................................11 CHAPTER 4 FUTURE WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ...................................................13
4.1 General ....................................................................................................................13
4.2 General Plan Policies ..............................................................................................13
4.3 Master Plan Improvements ......................................................................................13 CHAPTER 5 SPECIFIC PLAN WASTEWATER ANALYSIS ......................................................15
5.1 General ....................................................................................................................15
5.2 Analysis Methodology ..............................................................................................16
5.3 Analysis Results ......................................................................................................18 CHAPTER 6 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION ...............................................................................22
6.1 SEDA Planning ........................................................................................................22
6.2 Impacts of Significance ............................................................................................22
6.3 Conclusions .............................................................................................................24
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 City of Fresno General Plan Objectives and Policies .................................................. 5 Table 5.1 General Plan–SEDA Equivalent Land Use Classifications for Determination of Wastewater Flow Factors...................................................................................................17 Table 5.2 Wastewater Master Plan Wastewater Flow Coefficients ............................................18 Table 5.3 Comparison of General Plan (GP) and Specific Plan (SP) Anticipated Wastewater Use per Land Use Classification ........................................................................................20 Table 5.4 Summary of Difference between General Plan (GP) and Specific Plan (SP) Anticipated Wastewater Use ..............................................................................................21
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 SEDA Specific Plan Location .................................................................................... 3 Figure 3.1 Existing Fresno Wastewater Collection Facilities......................................................12 Figure 5.1 General Plan Land Use Map for SEDA Plan Area ....................................................15 Figure 5.2 SEDA Proposed Land Use .......................................................................................16 City of Fresno SEDA Specific Plan Program EIR
Wastewater Technical Study Page ii
220320_SEDA_Wastewater Tech Study_REV Blair, Church & Flynn Consulting Engineers
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A – Supporting Calculations
Appendix B – City of Fresno Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update City of Fresno SEDA Specific Plan Program EIR
Wastewater Technical Study Page 1 of 24
220320_SEDA_Wastewater Tech Study_REV Blair, Church & Flynn Consulting Engineers CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description and Background
The City of Fresno (City) is preparing a Specific Plan and Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the Southeast Development Area (SEDA). The SEDA Specific Plan Area (Plan Area), previously known as the Southeast Growth Area (SEGA), is an approximately 9,000-acre area in the southeast portion of the City of Fresno that is formally designated as a growth area in the City of Fresno General Plan (General Plan). The Plan Area is generally bound by the Gould Canal to the north, McCall and Highland Avenues to the east, Jensen and North Avenues to the south, and Locan, Temperance, and Minnewawa Avenues to the west; see Figure 1.1 for the Plan Area’s location.
SEDA was approved for incorporation into the City by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) in 2006, with a number of qualifying provisions, of which included the preparation of a Specific Plan and associated environmental documents before the land could be annexed to the City. Located in Growth Area II, SEDA was planned for development after other infill initiatives from the City’s other planning efforts, and would be developed in phases. The General Plan established two levels of development – the General Plan Horizon and the General Plan Buildout.
The General Plan Horizon is the level of development predicted to occur by the “Horizon Year,” which was established as 2035, in accordance with the General Plan. General Plan Buildout is the level of development characterized by full occupancy of all developable sites in accordance with the General Plan; this was estimated to occur beyond 2035 (defined as past 2050).
As such, the General Plan defined development of SEDA under General Plan Horizon as a portion of the full buildout conditions – specifically, it assumed a residential development capacity of approximately 15,000 dwelling units, one third of the buildout capacity. Accordingly, the residential development capacity of SEDA under General Plan Buildout is approximately 45,000 dwelling units, and the General Plan assumed that the additional 30,000 dwelling units would not be developed until after 2035. However, though the General Plan was analyzed under the General Plan Horizon level, the associated MEIR (Master Environmental Impact Report) analyzed the environmental impacts of the General Plan under the buildout level for the Sphere of Influence (SOI), which encompasses other growth areas, including SEDA.
The Specific Plan for SEDA was developed for the buildout condition of the Plan Area of 45,000 dwelling units, and provides implementation mechanisms for development in the Plan Area that accommodate for increased density and accelerate housing production. As part of the City’s General Plan, SEDA was designated with land use classifications as defined in the General Plan.
The Specific Plan presents alternative land use classifications for SEDA, and seeks to propose how the Plan Area will develop over time to complete buildout conditions with these newly-defined land use categories.
As part of the Specific Plan process, a PEIR needs to be developed to evaluate the impacts associated with the proposed improvements to the Plan Area, and what, if any, mitigation measures are necessary to account for such impacts. This technical study will focus on the impacts of the SEDA Specific Plan on wastewater facilities and the wastewater collection and treatment system proposed for the Plan Area.
City of Fresno SEDA Specific Plan Program EIR
Wastewater Technical Study Page 2 of 24
220320_SEDA_Wastewater Tech Study_REV Blair, Church & Flynn Consulting Engineers
1.2 Summary of Analysis
The City’s General Plan assigned land use classifications to areas located within the SEDA Specific Plan Area. Each land use classification has a set of characteristics assigned to it with respect to a specific utility demand that have been determined and/or calculated by various contributing parties. The SEDA Specific Plan proposes new land use classifications for the Plan Area that may change the area’s characteristics as it relates to utilities, e.g., water demand, wastewater generation, or storm water runoff, when compared to the General Plan. Additionally, some land uses have revised areas, which further alters those characteristics.
Changes in land use can affect a wastewater collection system’s ability to collect, convey, and treat wastewater generated by a city’s residents. New development will require the construction of new wastewater collection facilities including sewer mains, manholes, pump stations, and treatment plants. The City of Fresno’s Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update (Wastewater Master Plan)1 includes a number of proposed capital improvements to account for increased development based on the General Plan buildout conditions. The Wastewater Master Plan includes wastewater flow factors that were developed for each land use classification defined in the General Plan.
This technical study will focus on the analysis of wastewater production in the Plan Area, and how it may change based on Specific Plan development. The analysis to determine the change in wastewater flows involved comparing the total wastewater flow determined for the Plan Area under both the General Plan and Specific Plan land use cases.
At the time of preparation of this study, the City was developing wastewater flow factors for the new SEDA land use classifications. These factors were not available when completing the above stated analysis. Thus, a number of reasonable assumptions were made to correlate Specific Plan land uses with General Plan land uses in order to use the wastewater flow factors established in the Wastewater Master Plan for General Plan land uses.
This technical study focuses on specifically analyzing the change in wastewater generation between the General Plan and the Specific Plan for SEDA in order to assist with the development of mitigation measures as needed.
1 City of Fresno, “Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update,” September 2015.
City of Fresno SEDA Specific Plan Program EIR
Wastewater Technical Study Page 3 of 24
220320_SEDA_Wastewater Tech Study_REV Blair, Church & Flynn Consulting Engineers Figure 1.1 SEDA Specific Plan Location
City of Fresno SEDA Specific Plan Program EIR
Wastewater Technical Study Page 4 of 24
220320_SEDA_Wastewater Tech Study_REV Blair, Church & Flynn Consulting Engineers CHAPTER 2
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
2.1 General
The City of Fresno owns and operates the Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF) as well as the North Fresno Wastewater Reclamation Facility (NFWRF), and owns and maintains the wastewater collection system that serves Fresno and other participating agencies, including the County of Fresno, the City of Clovis, the Pinedale Public Utility District, and the Pinedale Water District. The area served by the City’s wastewater collection system includes residential, commercial, and industrial uses. A majority of the City’s wastewater is collected and conveyed to the RWRF for treatment, with a small portion being treated by the NFWRF. Wastewater service for Clovis is also provided by Fresno facilities and the RWRF, however a small portion of Clovis is served by their own wastewater treatment facility. The Wastewater Management Division (WMD) of the City’s Department of Public Utilities is responsible for the collection, conveyance, treatment, and reclamation of wastewater generated by users in the Fresno-Clovis metropolitan area.
There are a number of federal, state, and local regulations that must be adhered to when planning wastewater facilities, many of which provide guidance and requirements for the handling and management of wastewater flows; several are discussed in the following sections.
2.2 Federal Regulations
Clean Water Act2
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act (CWA), regulates the discharge of pollutants into watersheds throughout the United States. It is the primary federal law regulating and governing water pollution, with the objective of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. The CWA establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants in waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters. Under the CWA, the EPA has implemented pollution control programs, such as setting wastewater standards for industry, and developed national water quality criteria recommendations for pollutants in surface waters. The CWA provides assistance to publicly owned treatment works for the improvement of wastewater treatment and maintenance of wetlands.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System3
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) was established in the CWA to regulate industrial and municipal discharge into waters of the United States; this includes pointsource municipal waste discharges and nonpoint-source storm water runoff. NPDES permits typically identify effluent and receiving water limits on allowable concentrations and/or mass emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge, prohibitions on discharges not specifically allowed under the permit, and provisions that describe required actions by the discharger, including industrial pretreatment, pollution prevention, self-monitoring, and other activities. The NPDES permitting program delegates authority to state governments for implementation through State Water Boards. Wastewater discharge is regulated under the NPDES permit program for 2 Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq. (1972).
3 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), 1972.
City of Fresno SEDA Specific Plan Program EIR
Wastewater Technical Study Page 5 of 24
220320_SEDA_Wastewater Tech Study_REV Blair, Church & Flynn Consulting Engineers direct discharges into receiving waters and by the National Pretreatment Program for indirect discharges to a sewage treatment plant.
2.3 State Regulations
State Water Resources Control Board
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted a General Waste Discharge Requirement (Order No. 2006-0003) in 2006 for all publicly owned sanitary sewer collection systems in California with more than one mile of sewer pipe.4 The order provides a statewide
approach to managing and reducing sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) by requiring public sewer system operators to take all feasible steps to control the volume of waste discharged into the system, and to develop a Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP). The General Waste Discharge Requirement also requires storm sewer overflows to be reported to the SWRCB.
The SWRCB delegates the authority to enforce these requirements to nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) within their own regions. The Central Valley RWQCB issues and enforces NPDES permits in Fresno. Such permits allow the RWQCB to regulate where and how waste is disposed, including the discharge volume and effluent limits of the waste, and monitoring and reporting. Inspections of permitted discharges and monitoring permit compliance is also the responsibility of each RWQCB.
Sanitary District Act of 19235
The Sanitary District Act of 1923 (California Health and Safety Code §6400 et seq.) authorized the formation of sanitation districts and enforces the districts to construct, operate, and maintain facilities for the collection, treatment, and disposal of wastewater. The act was amended in 1949 to allow the districts to also provide solid waste management and disposal services, including refuse transfer and resource recovery.
2.4 Local Regulations
Wastewater management in Fresno is mainly regulated by the Central Valley RWQCB. There are other local authorities, including the City’s WMD, and various regulations and planning documents that assist the City in overseeing wastewater infrastructure management and planning.
Fresno General Plan6
The City’s General Plan contains the following goals, policies, and objectives relevant to the provision of wastewater service and facilities (Table 2.1):
Table 2.1 City of Fresno General Plan Objectives and Policies Relevant to Wastewater Facilities
Objective/Policy
Number Objective/Policy Text
Objective PU-4 Ensure provision of adequate trunk sewer and collector main capacities to serve existing and planned urban development, consistent with the Wastewater Master Plan.
4 State Water Resources Control Board, “Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems,” Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ, May 2006.
5 California Health and Safety Code, §6400 et seq. (1923). 6 City of Fresno, “Fresno General Plan,” December 18, 2014.
City of Fresno SEDA Specific Plan Program EIR
Wastewater Technical Study Page 6 of 24
220320_SEDA_Wastewater Tech Study_REV Blair, Church & Flynn Consulting Engineers Objective/Policy
Number Objective/Policy Text
Policy PU-4-b New Trunk Facilities. Pursue construction of new or replacement sewer trunk facilities or other alternatives consistent with the Wastewater Master Plan to accommodate the uses as envisioned in this General Plan.
Policy NS-4-c System Extension and Cost Recovery. Pursue enlargement or extension of the sewage collection system where necessary to serve planned urban development, with the capital costs and benefits allocated equitably and fairly between the existing users and new users.
Objective PU-5 Preserve groundwater quality and ensure that the health and safety of the entire Fresno community is not impaired by use of private, on-site disposal systems.
Policy PU-5-b Non-Regional Treatment. Discourage, and when determined appropriate, oppose the use of private wastewater (septic) disposal systems, community wastewater disposal systems, or other non-regional sewage treatment and disposal systems within or adjacent to the Metropolitan Area if these types of wastewater treatment facilities would cause discharges that could result in groundwater degradation.
Policy PU-5-c Satellite Facilities. Work with the Regional Water Quality Control Board to ensure that approval of any satellite treatment and reclamation facility proposal is consistent with governing statutes and regulations.
Objective PU-6 Ensure the provision of adequate sewage treatment and disposal by utilizing the Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility as the primary facility, when economically feasible, for all existing and new development within the Metropolitan Area.
Policy PU-6-a Treatment Capacity and Cost Recovery. Prepare for and consider the implementation of increased wastewater treatment and reclamation facility capacity in a timely manner to facilitate planned urban development within the Metropolitan Area consistent with this General Plan. Accommodate increase in flows and loadings from the existing community with the capital costs and benefits allocated equitably and fairly between existing users and new users, as authorized by law.
Policy PU-6-b Consider Capacity in Plan Amendments. Monitor wastewater treatment plant flows and loadings to the extent feasible. Consider the effects on wastewater treatment capacity and availability of potable water when evaluating proposed General Plan amendment proposals, community plans, Specific Plans, neighborhood plans, and Concept Plans.
Objective PU-7 Promote reduction in wastewater flows and develop facilities for beneficial reuse of reclaimed water and biosolids for management and distribution of treated wastewater.
Policy PU-7-a Reduce Wastewater. Identify and consider implementing water conservation standards and other programs and policies to reduce wastewater flows.
Policy PU-7-b Reduce Stormwater Leakage. Reduce storm water infiltration into the sewer collection system, where feasible, through a program of replacing old and deteriorated sewer collection pipeline; eliminating existing stormwater sewer cut-ins to the sanitary sewer system; and avoiding any new sewer cut-ins except when required to protect health and safety.
Policy PU-7-c Biosolid Disposal. Investigate and consider implementing economically effective and environmentally beneficial methods of biosolids handling and disposal.
City of Fresno SEDA Specific Plan Program EIR
Wastewater Technical Study Page 7 of 24
220320_SEDA_Wastewater Tech Study_REV Blair, Church & Flynn Consulting Engineers Objective/Policy
Number Objective/Policy Text
Policy PU-7-d Wastewater Recycling. Pursue the development of a recycled water system and the expansion of beneficial wastewater recycling opportunities, including a timely technical, practicable, and institutional evaluation of treatment, facility siting, and water exchange elements.
Policy PU-7-e Infiltration Basins. Continue to rehabilitate existing infiltration basins, and if determined appropriate, pursue acquiring additional sites for infiltration basins, as needed.
Policy PU-7-f Food and Drink Industry. Ensure adequate provision of facilities for the appropriate management of wastewater from wineries and food processing and beverage facilities, including conformance with Waste Discharge Requirements issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
City of Fresno Municipal Code7
Article 3, “Sewage and Water Disposal,” of Chapter 6, “Municipal Services and Utilities,” of the City of Fresno Municipal Code includes provisions regarding wastewater collection and discharge for the City. The purpose of the Sewage and Water Disposal Ordinance is to ensure the health, safety, and general welfare of citizens, and protect the water quality of water courses, water bodies, and groundwater in accordance with the CWA and the NPDES permitting program, and providing requirements for wastewater collection, conveyance, treatment, and disposal/recycling.
Sewer System Management Plan8
Under the Statewide General Wastewater Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems, the City was required to develop and maintain a Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) to provide a mechanism to properly manage, operate, and maintain all parts of the sanitary sewer system with the goal of reducing and preventing SSOs, which include releases of untreated or partially treated wastewater resulting in public exposure, regardless of whether the wastewater reaches waters of the United States or not, or wastewater backups into buildings and onto private property that are caused by blockages in the City’s portion of the sanitary sewer system. The City’s first SSMP was approved in 2009, and several revisions have been issued since; the latest revision was approved in 2019.
The City’s SSMP must:
• Establish the legal authority to prevent illicit discharges into its sanitary sewer system; • Require that sewers and connections be properly designed and constructed; • Ensure access for maintenance, inspection, or repairs for those portions of the lateral owned or maintained by the City;
• Limit the discharge of fats, oils, and grease and other debris that may cause blockages; and
• Enforce any violation of its sewer ordinances.
City of Fresno Standard Specifications and Plans
The City maintains its own set of standard Specifications and Plans to be followed when designing and constructing City projects. Those related to the collection and conveyance of wastewater include, but are not limited to:
7 City of Fresno Municipal Code, Chapter 6, “Municipal Services and Utilities, Article 3, “Sewage and Water Disposal.” 8 City of Fresno, “Sewer System Management Plan,” 2019.
City of Fresno SEDA Specific Plan Program EIR
Wastewater Technical Study Page 8 of 24
220320_SEDA_Wastewater Tech Study_REV Blair, Church & Flynn Consulting Engineers • Standard Specifications
o Section 17 – Sanitary Sewer Pipe and Appurtenances
• Standard Plans
o Plans S-1 through S-13B
City of Fresno SEDA Specific Plan Program EIR
Wastewater Technical Study Page 9 of 24
220320_SEDA_Wastewater Tech Study_REV Blair, Church & Flynn Consulting Engineers CHAPTER 3
EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 Wastewater Collection Infrastructure
3.1.1 General
The City of Fresno’s wastewater collection system consists of approximately 1,500 miles of gravity sewer lines ranging from 8 inches to 84 inches in diameter, 15 active lift stations, 1.7 miles of force mains, 23,000+ manholes, and 54 junction structures. The area serviced by the City system includes residential, commercial, and industrial users.
3.1.2 Wastewater Collection
The wastewater collection system primarily conveys wastewater via gravity flow from the northeast to the southwest, ultimately to the Fresno-Clovis RWRF. The system consists of pipe of varying materials, with the majority being composed of either vitrified clay pipe (VCP) (56.2% of system piping) or polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe (30.8% of system piping).9
Wastewater collection begins at each user/land type, in which a house branch/service connects the user to the wastewater collection system. The house branches/services (typically 4 to 12 inches in size) will connect to a sewer lateral (collection pipelines, typically 13 to 33 inches in size), which conveys wastewater to a main or trunk sewer (typically 34 inches or larger in size).
Main or trunk sewers collect wastewater from a number of services as they head toward the treatment plant. Manholes are placed within runs of sewer mains at regular intervals to facilitate access for maintenance of the mains, as well as at changes in direction of the sewer main. Lift stations may be located strategically throughout the system to provide the necessary lift when the natural alignment of a gravity pipeline becomes inefficient (e.g., too deep or insufficient slope).
The City has a number of monitoring stations that actively collect and log flow data for the wastewater system. Additionally, the City has many junction structures/special structures that can be used to control flow distribution between downstream sewers. See Figure 3.1 for an overview of the existing wastewater collection system.
3.1.3 Wastewater Treatment
In partnership with the City of Clovis, the City of Fresno owns and operates the Fresno-Clovis RWRF located near the intersection of Jensen and Cornelia Avenues in southwest Fresno. The RWRF receives and treats the majority of domestic, commercial, and industrial wastewater generated within the Cities of Fresno and Clovis, as well as some unincorporated areas of Fresno County. The RWRF is currently operated by the City, who holds responsibility for ensuring regulatory compliance with Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs), and the Central Valley RWQCB Order No. 5-01-254, “Waste Discharge Requirements for Cities of Fresno and Clovis Wastewater Treatment Facility, Fresno County.”
The RWRF has a rated capacity of 88 million gallons per day (MGD), but the average annual flow is approximately 80 MGD.10 The RWRF produces undisinfected secondary-treated wastewater and disinfected tertiary-treated wastewater. The undisinfected secondary-treated wastewater is 9 City of Fresno, “Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update,” September 2015. 10 “Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF).” https://www.fresno.gov/publicutilities/facilitiesinfrastructure/fresno-clovis-regional-wastewater-reclamation-facility-rwrf/.
City of Fresno SEDA Specific Plan Program EIR
Wastewater Technical Study Page 10 of 24
220320_SEDA_Wastewater Tech Study_REV Blair, Church & Flynn Consulting Engineers disposed into on-site disposal ponds and conveyed to farmers for restricted irrigation of non-food crops on agricultural land on surrounding properties. The disinfected tertiary-treated wastewater is delivered through a network of pipelines to various recycled water use areas around the City, mainly to be used for irrigation of landscaping at sites including but not limited to parks, median landscape strips, and cemeteries. The RWRF also owns and operates a number of reclamation wells that extract water from on-site percolation ponds, and discharge into Fresno Irrigation District (FID) canals for irrigation use of farmlands downstream of the RWRF.
The City also owns and operates the NFWRF located in northeast Fresno on the north side of Copper Avenue between Cedar and Maple Avenues. This facility receives and treats wastewater generated within a small area of the City generally bound by Copper, Friant, and Willow Avenues, including wastewater generated from Copper River Ranch. The NFWRF is a tertiary level treatment facility, and the treated wastewater is mainly used for irrigation of the Copper River Country Club and Golf Course. The permitted capacity of the plant is 0.71 MGD average monthly flow and 1.07 MGD maximum daily flow.11
The City treats wastewater via primary (removal of materials that will float or settle) and secondary (biological processes to remove suspended and dissolved solids) treatment, after which it is deposited into infiltration ponds to allow percolation through the soil, serving as another level of treatment. The City operates federally mandated industrial pretreatment programs to prevent the introduction of pollutants into publicly owned treatment works that could impact the collection infrastructure and pass through to receiving waters. Industries are also billed for sewer service depending on the amount of water used or effluent discharged and the strength of their wastewater measured as pounds of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and pounds of total suspended solids (TSS). Reducing the strength of their wastewater to reduce sewerage costs becomes an incentive for industries to improve the water quality of their wastewater effluent.
3.1.4 Wastewater Flow
Generally, wastewater consists of base wastewater flow and wet weather flow. Base wastewater flow is generated by routine water usage in the residential, commercial, business, and industrial sectors of the collection system. Wet weather flow includes storm water inflow, trench infiltration, and wet weather ground water infiltration. Base wastewater flow also includes dry weather groundwater infiltration, which is groundwater that enters the sewer system when the relative depth of the groundwater table is higher than the depth of the pipeline and defects exist in the pipe, such as cracks, misaligned joints, or breaks allowing infiltration into the system. In Fresno, the depth to groundwater table is significant, and therefore dry weather groundwater infiltration has little to no influence on the collection system. For wet weather flow, storm water inflow and trench infiltration comprise the term “Infiltration and Inflow,” also known as I/I. Wet weather flow can also be affected by groundwater infiltration in that the groundwater table elevation may rise during storm events. Though as mentioned, the depth to groundwater level is very large in Fresno, and thus has no noticeable effect on wastewater flow.
Base wastewater flows are diurnal in nature, taking on patterns of generation that depend on the type of use and hours of use. Commercial and industrial patterns typically have higher flows during business hours and lower flows at night, and weekend flow patterns may vary significantly when compared to weekday flows.
I/I affects all sewer systems. Infiltration occurs when storm water slowly seeps into the sewer system by percolating through the soil and entering through defects in the pipes, manholes, and 11 “North Fresno Wastewater Treatment Facility (NFWTF).” https://www.fresno.gov/publicutilities/facilities-infrastructure/north-fresnowastewater-treatment-facility-nfwtf/.
City of Fresno SEDA Specific Plan Program EIR
Wastewater Technical Study Page 11 of 24
220320_SEDA_Wastewater Tech Study_REV Blair, Church & Flynn Consulting Engineers joints. Inflow occurs when storm water rapidly flows into the sewer system through more readily available entrances, such as storm drain cross connections, leaky manhole covers, illegal storm drain connections, and sewer cleanouts. I/I increases the flow volume and peak flows, and can cause overflows if the sewer system is operating at capacity at the time of I/I occurrence. Per the Wastewater Master Plan, though some areas experience higher rates of I/I, the City’s wastewater collection system generally exhibits relatively low I/I as a whole.
3.1.5 Plan Area
Per the Wastewater Master Plan, the Plan Area is currently outside of the City’s sewer service area, and there are little to no existing City wastewater facilities within the area. The City does not provide wastewater collection service to the Plan Area, except in small portions of developed areas; there are a few existing sewer mains that border the Plan Area. It is assumed that most of the Plan Area is unsewered and/or served by septic tank systems. In accordance with Section 6- 303, “Sewer Connection Required,” of the Fresno Municipal Code, all properties within the City’s service area shall be connected to the City’s sanitary sewer system if it is available, and all septic tank/cesspool systems shall be abandoned.12
A sewer system is considered “available” if a sewer main has been constructed and is available for use in a public street, alley, or right-of-way within 100 feet for the first unit plus 50 feet for each additional unit, to be measured along the public street, alley, or right-of-way from the nearest property line to the sewer main. Any existing development within the Plan Area currently served by a septic tank system will be required to connect to the future sewer mains constructed to serve the area within three years after the sewer system becomes available, and pay all associated fees.
12 City of Fresno Municipal Code Chapter 6, “Municipal Services and Utilities,” Article 3, “Sewage and Water Disposal,” §6-303, “Sewer Connection Required.”
City of Fresno SEDA Specific Plan Program EIR
Wastewater Technical Study Page 12 of 24
220320_SEDA_Wastewater Tech Study_REV Blair, Church & Flynn Consulting Engineers Figure 3.1 Existing Fresno Wastewater Collection Facilities City of Fresno SEDA Specific Plan Program EIR
Wastewater Technical Study Page 13 of 24
220320_SEDA_Wastewater Tech Study_REV Blair, Church & Flynn Consulting Engineers CHAPTER 4
FUTURE WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
4.1 General
Future wastewater facilities are included in the City’s Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update. The City’s General Plan includes developmental policies for wastewater facilities for the City of Fresno, including growth areas such as SEDA.
4.2 General Plan Policies
The General Plan discusses aspects of the wastewater collection system as they pertain to development in Fresno. The City is designated as the Regional Sewer Agency for the FresnoClovis Metropolitan Area, and as mentioned, owns, operates, and maintains the wastewater collection system that serves Fresno and other participating agencies, as well as the FresnoClovis RWRF and the NFWRF. The wastewater treatment and reclamation system includes the collection and conveyance of wastewater, treatment of raw wastewater, and management of reclaimed water and biosolids. Aging infrastructure and the need to pursue more advanced levels of reclamation and reuse are factors in long term development/improvements in new growth areas and existing developments. See Table 2.1 for a summary of objectives and policies for wastewater included in the General Plan.
4.3 Master Plan Improvements
The most recent version of the Wastewater Master Plan is the Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update (Wastewater Master Plan), completed in September 2015. The Wastewater Master Plan is intended to be the guiding document in planning and implementing sewer system improvements to accommodate future growth to buildout of the General Plan. The SEDA Plan Area is referred to as an “Area of Change” in the Wastewater Master Plan (specifically as a “New Growth Area”), and is characterized as a growth area that will contribute to an expansion of the service area and increased wastewater flows.13
The Wastewater Master Plan includes in depth analysis of the existing and projected wastewater flows of the City based on the General Plan development buildout conditions, and includes a number of proposed facilities to accommodate future development, including those for the Plan Area.
Per the Wastewater Master Plan, the peak wet weather flow (PWWF) is the highest observed hourly flow that occurs following the design storm event, and that the City’s sewer and lift stations were evaluated based on their capacity to convey this flow, referred to synonymously as the “design flow.” Analysis was also completed for the base wastewater flow. The Wastewater Master Plan indicates that the buildout base wastewater flow will be 129.9 MGD (million gallons per day), and that the PWWF will be 202.4 MGD. The peak dry weather flow (PDWF) was also calculated as 164.7 MGD at buildout. The base wastewater flow, also known as the average dry wastewater flow, will be used for analysis of the General Plan and Specific Plan wastewater capacities presented in this report. The RWRF has a buildout capacity of 88 MGD.
As mentioned, several new sewer pipelines were proposed to accommodate the projected wastewater flows. These consist of a number of proposed sewer mains and related facilities for 13 City of Fresno, “Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update,” September 2015.
City of Fresno SEDA Specific Plan Program EIR
Wastewater Technical Study Page 14 of 24
220320_SEDA_Wastewater Tech Study_REV Blair, Church & Flynn Consulting Engineers the Plan Area, including new trunk sewers, sewer mains, and sewer laterals throughout the SEDA Specific Plan Area, and a satellite treatment/scalping plant with a connection to existing sewer mains to convey wastewater solids to the Fresno-Clovis RWRF. See the Wastewater Master Plan for details on the proposed wastewater improvements within the Plan Area.
The proposed improvements for the Plan Area included in the Wastewater Master Plan were determined based on wastewater modeling and analysis of the General Plan buildout condition, which assumed full development of all developable sites within the General Plan boundary. The Wastewater Master Plan defined its study area boundary as the City’s SOI as defined in the General Plan, which includes all land within the City limits (excluding the RWRF), County islands (unincorporated land surrounded by the city), and lands that are expected to be annexed by the City, which includes the land beyond the outer City limits on all sides. The Wastewater Master Plan study area was intended to include the existing City limits and development that could occur through buildout of the City’s General Plan. The proposed improvements in the Plan Area were developed to accommodate future growth as identified by the hydraulic analysis completed as part of the Wastewater Master Plan.
The land use assumptions in the Wastewater Master Plan were based on the General Plan and projected future developments within the City’s proposed growth boundary. The Wastewater Master Plan includes wastewater flow factors that were established based on the average wastewater flow generated for each existing land use type in Fresno, and calculated from the General Plan land use classifications in gpd/ac (gallons per day per acre). These factors were used to project the estimated wastewater flow through buildout of the City’s General Plan boundary, and were used in the analysis of the Plan Area wastewater generation that will be covered in Chapter 5.
City of Fresno SEDA Specific Plan Program EIR
Wastewater Technical Study Page 15 of 24
220320_SEDA_Wastewater Tech Study_REV Blair, Church & Flynn Consulting Engineers CHAPTER 5
SPECIFIC PLAN WASTEWATER ANALYSIS
5.1 General
The SEDA Specific Plan revised the General Plan buildout land use classifications to new SEDAspecific land use classifications – see Figure 5.1 for the General Plan Land Use Map of the Plan Area, and Figure 5.2 for the SEDA Specific Plan Land Use Map for the chosen alternative for the Plan Area. With changes in land use classifications, the Plan Area will need to be evaluated for impacts to the proposed wastewater collection system due to changes in wastewater generation.
Figure 5.1 General Plan Land Use Map for SEDA Plan Area Source: City of Fresno General Plan, Figure LU-1, December 2014, Figure Updated 3/2/2021 City of Fresno SEDA Specific Plan Program EIR
Wastewater Technical Study Page 16 of 24
220320_SEDA_Wastewater Tech Study_REV Blair, Church & Flynn Consulting Engineers
Figure 5.2 SEDA Proposed Land Use
Source: Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Notice of Preparation, First Carbon Solutions, 02/2022
5.2 Analysis Methodology
The technical analysis of the land use changes in the Plan Area was focused on comparing the change in wastewater flow generation from the General Plan Land Use case to the Specific Plan Land Use case to determine potential impacts to the wastewater collection system and to assist in the development of mitigation measures if necessary. General Plan land use classifications and Specific Plan land use classifications were provided by the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department in the form of GIS (Geographic Information System) and Shape files.
GIS and Shape files were also obtained from the City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities for the existing sewer facilities in Fresno. The GIS and Shape files were georeferenced to the City of Fresno SEDA Specific Plan Program EIR
Wastewater Technical Study Page 17 of 24
220320_SEDA_Wastewater Tech Study_REV Blair, Church & Flynn Consulting Engineers California State Plane Coordinate System, Zone 4, Foot, NAD83 Datum for analysis. This allowed mapping of the land uses to pull information necessary to complete the analysis, including the area of each land use.
The SEDA Specific Plan does not use the same land use classifications as defined in the General Plan, and instead utilizes SEDA-specific land use classifications developed as part of the Specific Plan. At the time of the preparation of this technical study, the City was developing wastewater flow factors for the SEDA-specific land uses as was done for the General Plan land uses; these factors were unavailable during the completion of the analysis for this technical study. However, the SEDA-specific land uses are similar in nature to many of the General Plan land uses, and similarities can be drawn between the two land use categories. Thus, a number of reasonable assumptions were made to determine equivalent General Plan land uses for each SEDA-specific land use in order to utilize the wastewater flow factors for General Plan land uses previously established in the Wastewater Master Plan. See Table 5.1 for the equivalent General Plan land uses established for the SEDA-specific land uses.
The wastewater flow factors taken from the Wastewater Master Plan for each General Plan land use that were used in the analysis have been included in Table 5.2. The GIS files for the General and Specific Plan land uses were used to determine the total areas of each land use classification.
The wastewater flow factors were then multiplied by the area of the corresponding land use classification to determine a total wastewater flow for the Plan Area based on the General Plan and the Specific Plan developments. The total wastewater produced by the Plan Area based on the General Plan case was compared to that of the Specific Plan case, resulting in the total change in wastewater generation for the Plan Area.
Table 5.1 General Plan–SEDA Equivalent Land Use Classifications for Determination of Wastewater Flow Factors
SEDA Specific Plan Land Use
Classifications14
Equivalent General Plan Land Use
Classification15
Residential – Mixed Residential Residential – Urban Neighborhood Residential – Neighborhood Residential Residential – Medium Density Residential – Rural Residential Residential – Low Density Residential – Rural Cluster Residential Residential – Low Density Employment – Office Center Employment – Office
Employment – Flexible Research &
Development
Employment – Business Park/
Regional Business Park
Employment – Institutional Public Facilities – College/School with Park Mixed Use – Regional Center Mixed Use – Regional Mixed Use Mixed Use – Community Center Mixed Use – Corridor/Center Mixed Use Mixed Use – Neighborhood Center Public Facilities – Neighborhood Center Open Space – Flood Control Basin Open Space – Ponding Basin Other Streets/Railroad/Canals/Etc.
14 City of Fresno, “Notice of Preparation of a Program Environmental Impact Report for the Southeast Development Area Specific Plan, Fresno, California,” February 22, 2022.
15 City of Fresno, “Fresno General Plan,” December 18, 2014.
City of Fresno SEDA Specific Plan Program EIR
Wastewater Technical Study Page 18 of 24
220320_SEDA_Wastewater Tech Study_REV Blair, Church & Flynn Consulting Engineers Table 5.2 Wastewater Master Plan Wastewater Flow Coefficients16 Land Use Classification Wastewater Flow Coefficient
(gpd/ac)
Residential
Low Density (1-3 DU/acre) 600
Medium Density (5-12 DU/acre) 1,700
Urban Neighborhood (16-30 DU/acre) 3,500
Employment
Office 1,000
Business Park 800
Regional Business Park 800
Mixed Use
Corridor/Center Mixed Use 2,800
Regional Mixed Use 3,300
Open Space
Open Space 0
Community Park 0
Ponding Basin 0
Public Facilities
Neighborhood Center 1,000
College 700
School with Park 700
Buffer
Buffer (Ag) 50
Other
Street, Rail, Canal, Etc. 0
5.3 Analysis Results
The base wastewater flow for all land uses in the Plan Area was found for both the General Plan and the Specific Plan conditions. The total General Plan base wastewater flow was found to be
9.86 MGD, and the Specific Plan base wastewater flow was found to be 11.32 MGD, resulting in an increase of wastewater flow of approximately 1.46 MGD, or 15%. See Table 5.3 and Table 5.4 for the results of the analysis and a direct comparison of the General Plan and Specific Plan wastewater flows. See Appendix A for a more detailed version of the analysis.
There may be a number of reasons as to why the wastewater flow increased from the General Plan to the Specific Plan. One reason may be that the SEDA boundary increased from that shown in the General Plan, indicated by the increased area of total land uses. As shown in Table 5.4, the total area of the General Plan land uses is 8,253.76 acres, while the total area of the Specific Plan land uses is 8,325.57 acres – an increase of approximately 72 acres. This increase will lend itself to an increase in wastewater generation based on which land uses increased in area. 16 City of Fresno, “Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update,” Table 5.5, “Future BWF Projections,” September 2015.
City of Fresno SEDA Specific Plan Program EIR
Wastewater Technical Study Page 19 of 24
220320_SEDA_Wastewater Tech Study_REV Blair, Church & Flynn Consulting Engineers Another contributor to increased wastewater flows is changes in land use classifications. For the most part, the land use classifications remained fairly similar in nature and category when transitioning from the General Plan to the Specific Plan. However, a few areas of land uses changed to different land uses that have larger wastewater flow factors; these include “Public Facilities – School with Park,” “Buffer,” and some low density residential areas. Per the SEDA Specific Plan land use map, all but one area defined as “School with Park” in the General Plan land use map changed to the SEDA “Neighborhood Center” land use. Similarly, the areas denoted as “Buffer” land use in the General Plan changed to “Rural Cluster Residential” in the SEDA Specific Plan. To a lesser extent, some of the “Low Density” residential areas in the General Plan were changed to residential land uses with higher densities in the Specific Plan. Each of these SEDA land uses have higher wastewater generation rates compared to the General Plan. These combined changes lead to cumulative increases in the wastewater generation of the Plan Area.
Finally, many SEDA land uses increased in area from their General Plan counterparts seemingly due to the elimination of the “Open Space” land uses included in the General Plan for the Plan Area, which totaled approximately 617 acres. As shown in Figure 5.1 and Table 5.3, “Open Space,” and “Community Park,” were removed from the Plan Area, and those areas were absorbed by adjacent land uses, including various residential, mixed use, and employment land uses. Open Space land uses have a wastewater flow factor of 0 gpd/ac per the Wastewater Master Plan; consequently, this means that 617 acres were added to other land uses with larger wastewater flow factors, thereby increasing the total wastewater production of the SEDA Plan Area when compared to the General Plan buildout condition.
City of Fresno SEDA Specific Plan Program EIR
Wastewater Technical Study Page 20 of 24
220320_SEDA_Wastewater Tech Study_REV Blair, Church & Flynn Consulting Engineers Table 5.3 Comparison of General Plan (GP) and Specific Plan (SP) Anticipated Wastewater Use per Land Use Classification
GP Land Use
Classification
Wastewater
Flow
Factor
(GPD/ac)
GP
Area
(ac)
GP Base
Wastewater
(MGD)
SP
Equivalent
Land Use
Classification
Wastewater
Flow
Factor1,2
(GPD/ac)
SP Area
(ac)
SP Base
Wastewater
(MGD)
Residential -
Low Density 600 1,700.92 1.02
Residential -
Rural
Residential
600 2,037.69 1.22
Residential -
Medium
Density
1,700 1,473.32 2.50
Residential -
Neighborhood
Residential
1,700 1,434.91 2.44
Residential -
Urban
Neighborhood
3,500 891.47 3.12
Residential -
Mixed
Residential
3,500 1,026.26 3.59
Employment -
Office 1,000 144.37 0.14 Employment - Office Center 1,000 154.47 0.15 Employment -
Business Park 800 12.78 0.01 Employment -
Flexible
Research and
Development
800 Employment - 1,304.07 1.04
Regional
Business Park
800 1,219.71 0.98
Mixed Use -
Corridor/Center
Mixed Use
2,800 315.41 0.88
Mixed Used -
Community
Center
2,800 273.88 0.77
Mixed Use -
Regional Mixed
Use
3,300 209.77 0.69
Mixed Use -
Regional
Center
3,300 291.71 0.96
Open Space -
Open Space 0 569.53 0.00 N/A 0 0 0.00
Open Space -
Community
Park
0 47.46 0.00 N/A 0 0 0.00
Open Space -
Ponding Basin 0 263.32 0.00 Other - Flood Control Basin 0 265.78 0.00 Public Facilities
- College 700 116.26 0.08
Employment -
Institutional 700 266.02 Public Facilities 0.19
- School with
Park
700 149.77 0.10
Public Facilities
- School with
Park
700 413.45 0.29
Mixed Use -
Neighborhood
Center
1,0003 491.38 0.49
Buffer - Buffer 50 715.04 0.04
Residential -
Rural Cluster
Residential
6004 766.47 0.46
Other -
Street/Rail/
Canal, etc.
0 11.21 0.00 Other 0 12.94 0.00
Totals - 8,253.76 9.86 - - 8,325.57 11.32
1 Wastewater flow factors obtained from Wastewater Master Plan, Table 5.5, “Future BWF Projections.” 2 See Table 5.1 for equivalent GP land use and associated wastewater flow factor used for SP analysis. 3 Wastewater flow factor used for SP Neighborhood Center = GP Public Facilities – Neighborhood Center from Wastewater Master Plan 4 Wastewater flow factor used for SP Rural Cluster Residential = GP Low Density Residential from Wastewater Master Plan City of Fresno SEDA Specific Plan Program EIR
Wastewater Technical Study Page 21 of 24
220320_SEDA_Wastewater Tech Study_REV Blair, Church & Flynn Consulting Engineers Table 5.4 Summary of Difference between General Plan (GP) and Specific Plan (SP) Anticipated Wastewater Use
GP Land Use
Classification
SP Equivalent Land Use
Classification
Usage ∆
(MGD)
Usage ∆
(%)
Residential - Low Density Residential - Rural
Residential 0.20 19.8%
Residential - Medium
Density
Residential - Neighborhood
Residential -0.07 -2.6%
Residential - Urban
Neighborhood
Residential - Mixed
Residential 0.47 15.1%
Employment - Office Employment - Office
Center 0.01 7.0%
Employment - Business
Park Employment - Flexible
Research and
Development
0.06 5.8%
Employment - Regional
Business Park
Mixed Use -Corridor/Center
Mixed Use
Mixed Used - Community
Center -0.12 -13.2%
Mixed Use - Regional Mixed
Use
Mixed Use - Regional
Center 0.27 39.1%
Open Space - Open Space N/A 0.00 0.0%
Open Space - Community
Park N/A 0.00 0.0%
Open Space - Ponding
Basin
Other - Flood Control
Basin 0.00 0.0%
Public Facilities - College
Employment - Institutional 0.00 0.00%
Public Facilities - School
with Park
Public Facilities - School
with Park
Mixed Use - Neighborhood
Center 0.20 69.8%
Buffer - Buffer Residential - Rural Cluster
Residential 0.42 1,186.3%
Other - Street/Rail/ Canal,
etc. Other 0.00 0.0%
Totals - 1.46 15%
City of Fresno SEDA Specific Plan Program EIR
Wastewater Technical Study Page 22 of 24
220320_SEDA_Wastewater Tech Study_REV Blair, Church & Flynn Consulting Engineers CHAPTER 6
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
6.1 SEDA Planning
Improvements within the Plan Area will require modifications to master planned wastewater facilities and infrastructure to account for the increased wastewater flows resulting from the new development as part of the Specific Plan. A draft policy document has been completed for the SEDA Specific Plan (March 2022), which includes updated policies for the Plan Area, and proposed improvements to meet the chosen alternative for development of the area. Included among these are policies directly related to wastewater in the Plan Area17. Refer to the SEDA Specific Plan policy document for details on policies related to recycled water.
6.2 Impacts of Significance
The proposed Specific Plan would result in a significant impact if it would:
1. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable RWQCB.
The Specific Plan proposes a transfer of density from the General Plan conditions to the Specific Plan conditions which will modify the distribution of wastewater generation in the Plan Area from that originally planned. Generally, wastewater generation is predicted to increase as growth occurs, both in the General Plan and this Specific Plan. For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that development of the Plan Area would proceed as described in this study – from the General Plan to the Specific Plan land conditions. As described in the Draft EIR, this will result in new or reoccupied dwelling units and new or repurposed commercial/mixed use space within the Plan Area. Per the proposed Specific Plan, the Plan Area has capacity for 45,000 dwelling units and 5,580 acres of residential space, 1,120 acres of commercial/mixed use space, and 1,820 acres of office/employment space.18
As shown in Table 5.3, there would be an increase in baseline wastewater generation of
1.46 MGD, or 15% when compared to the buildout General Plan conditions. The Plan Area is projected to produce an estimated 11.32 MGD at buildout with Specific Plan land uses compared to 9.86 MGD under the General Plan land uses. Given that the Wastewater Master Plan utilities were designed based on General Plan buildout conditions, a 15% increase would impact associated wastewater treatment requirements and waste discharge requirements, and the impacts would be significant without mitigation.
The City would be required to increase wastewater treatment capacity and obtain revised and/or new waste discharge permits. The polices included in the General Plan and the Wastewater Master Plan would reduce the potential impacts associated with increased wastewater generation and treatment requirements, however these improvements will need to be reevaluated given the projected increase in wastewater generation in the Plan Area. The City shall evaluate the wastewater system at the time that discretionary projects are submitted for approval by the City, and the City shall not approve development that would contribute wastewater to the wastewater treatment system that would exceed 17 City of Fresno, “Southeast Development Area Specific Plan Policy Draft,” March 2022. 18 City of Fresno, “Notice of Preparation of a Program Environmental Impact Report for the Southeast Development Area Specific Plan, Fresno, California,” February 22, 2022.
City of Fresno SEDA Specific Plan Program EIR
Wastewater Technical Study Page 23 of 24
220320_SEDA_Wastewater Tech Study_REV Blair, Church & Flynn Consulting Engineers capacity until additional capacity is provided. The City shall evaluate proposed wastewater treatment improvements provided in the City Wastewater Master Plan and General Plan for potential environmental impacts, and shall construct such improvements prior to exceedance of capacity to accommodate full buildout of the Specific Plan.
2. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
As discussed in Impact 1 above, the implementation of the proposed Specific Plan will result in the need for expansion of the existing wastewater treatment facilities, and new wastewater collection and treatment facilities to serve future land uses in the Plan Area.
Thus, development of the Plan Area could result in significant impacts to the existing wastewater collection and treatment system.
Master planned wastewater treatment facilities and collection infrastructure that may accommodate future development associated with the Specific Plan include19:
• Trunk sewers, sewer mains, sewer laterals, and a satellite treatment/scalping plant.
• Expansion of Fresno-Clovis RWRF wastewater treatment capacity. • Increased size of planned wastewater collection facilities.
As stated, the City will need to increase wastewater treatment capacity and obtain revised and/or new waste discharge permits to accommodate the impacts of the development of the Plan Area. Potential environmental impacts associated with construction of such improvements include but are not limited to: traffic, air emissions, noise, water quality, aesthetics, agricultural resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. The Specific Plan establishes mitigation measures for impacts in these areas associated with construction of expanded or new wastewater collection and treatment facilities. These may include traffic control/management plans to address traffic impacts during construction, various wastewater improvement/rehabilitation plans within the City to improve overall wastewater collection and treatment system conditions, and the reevaluation of wastewater master plan documents.
The City shall evaluate the wastewater system at the time that discretionary projects are submitted for approval by the City, and the City shall not approve development that would contribute wastewater to the wastewater treatment system that would exceed capacity until additional capacity is provided. The City shall evaluate proposed wastewater treatment improvements provided in the City Wastewater Master Plan and General Plan for potential environmental impacts, and shall construct such improvements prior to exceedance of capacity to accommodate full buildout of the Specific Plan. Additionally, consistent with the Sewer System Management Plan, the City shall evaluate the wastewater collection system at the time that discretionary projects are submitted for approval by the City, and the City shall not approve development that would generate additional wastewater and exceed the capacity of a facility until additional capacity is provided. The City shall evaluate proposed wastewater collection improvements provided in the City Wastewater Master Plan and General Plan for potential environmental impacts, and shall construct such improvements prior to exceedance of capacity to accommodate full buildout of the Specific Plan. Without mitigation, the impacts would be significant. 19 City of Fresno, “Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update,” September 2015.
City of Fresno SEDA Specific Plan Program EIR
Wastewater Technical Study Page 24 of 24
220320_SEDA_Wastewater Tech Study_REV Blair, Church & Flynn Consulting Engineers
3. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.
The potential long-term impacts related to wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal requirements of the General Plan versus the Specific Plan differ by 15%, and would result in the need for additional wastewater collection and treatment facilities with significant impacts on the existing wastewater collection and treatment system. As mentioned in Impact 2, impacts would be less than significant if mitigation measures are enacted in the form of construction of master planned utilities, and a reevaluation of said planned facilities to ensure sufficient collection and treatment capacities exist.
6.3 Conclusions
City planning documents, including but not limited to the General Plan and the Wastewater Master Plan, will need to be updated to account for the development of the SEDA, and account for the policies and revisions present in the Specific Plan.
Mitigations for SEDA from the General Plan to the SEDA Specific Plan include:
a) Develop an update to the General Plan
b) Develop an update to the Wastewater Master Plan
c) Construct new wastewater collection infrastructure in the Plan Area d) Expand existing wastewater treatment facilities
e) Construct new wastewater treatment facilities in the Plan Area f) Obtain revised discharge permits from appropriate authorities City of Fresno SEDA Specific Plan Program EIR
Wastewater Technical Study Appendix A
220320_SEDA_Wastewater Tech Study_REV Blair, Church & Flynn Consulting Engineers Appendix A
Supporting Calculations
City of Fresno SEDA Specific Plan Program EIR
Wastewater Technical Study Appendix A
220320_SEDA_Wastewater Tech Study_REV Blair, Church & Flynn Consulting Engineers GP Land Use
Classification Abbrv. Wastewater Flow Factor (GPD/ac) GP Area (ac) GP Base Wastewater (MGD) SP Equivalent Land Use Abbrv. Wastewater Flow Factor (GPD/ac) SP Area (ac) SP Base Wastewater (MGD) Usage ∆ (MGD) Usage ∆ (%) Residential - Low Density RL 600 1,700.92 1.02
Residential - Rural Residential
RR 600 2,037.69 1.22 0.20 19.8%
Residential - Medium Density RM 1,700 1,473.32 2.50
Residential - Neighborhood Residential
NR 1,700 1,434.91 2.44 -0.07 -2.6%
Residential - Urban Neighborhood
RUN 3,500 891.47 3.12
Residential - Mixed Residential
MR 3,500 1,026.26 3.59 0.47 15.1%
Employment - Office O 1,000 144.37 0.14 Employment - Office Center OC 1,000 154.47 0.15 0.01 7.0% Employment - Business Park BP 800 12.78 0.01 Employment - Flexible Research and Development
Employment - F 800 1,304.07 1.04 0.06 5.8% Regional Business Park RBP 800 1,219.71 0.98
Mixed Use -Corridor/Center Mixed Use
CMX 2,800 315.41 0.88
Mixed Used - Community Center
CC 2,800 273.88 0.77 -0.12 -13.2%
Mixed Use - Regional Mixed Use
RMX 3,300 209.77 0.69
Mixed Use - Regional Center
RC 3,300 291.71 0.96 0.27 39.1%
Open Space - Open Space OS 0 569.53 0.00 N/A N/A 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.0% Open Space - Community Park CP 0 47.46 0.00 N/A N/A 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.0% Open Space - Ponding Basin PB 0 263.32 0.00 Other - Flood Control Basin POF 0 265.78 0.00 0.00 0.0% Public Facilities - College C 7,00 116.26 0.08 Employment - Institutional Public Facilities I 700 266.02 0.19 0.00 0.0% - School with Park
P 7,00 149.77 0.10
Public Facilities - School with Park
P 7,00 413.45 0.29
Mixed Use - Neighborhood Center
NC 1,000 491.38 0.49 0.20 69.8%
Buffer - Buffer BUFFER 50 715.04 0.04
Residential - Rural Cluster Residential
RCR 600 766.47 0.46 0.42 1,186.3%
Other - Street/Rail/ Canal, etc.
N/A 0 11.21 0.00 Other N/A 0 12.94 0.00 0.00 0.0%
Totals 8,253.76 9.86 8,325.57 11.32 1.46 15%
City of Fresno SEDA Specific Plan Program EIR
Wastewater Technical Study Appendix B
220320_SEDA_Wastewater Tech Study_REV Blair, Church & Flynn Consulting Engineers Appendix B
City of Fresno Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update inassociationwith
Final•September2015
MASTERPLANUPDATE
WASTEWATERCOLLECTIONSYSTEM
710 W. PINEDALE AVENUE • FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93711 • P. 559.436.6616 • F. 559.436.1191 pw:\\Client\CA\Fresno\8168P00\Deliverables\WWCSMP_TOC
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
MASTER PLAN UPDATE
City of Fresno
September 2015
FINAL
September 18, 2015 September 18, 2015
September 2015 i
pw:\\Client\CA\Fresno\8168P00\Deliverables\WWCSMP_TOC
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE
ES.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................ES-1 ES.2 STUDY AREA ........................................................................................................ES-1 ES.3 SEWER SERVICE AREA......................................................................................ES-3 ES.4 WASTEWATER FLOWS.......................................................................................ES-3 ES.5 CAPACITY EVALUATION AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS........................ES-5 ES.5.1 Project Prioritization ...................................................................................ES-6 ES.6 REHABILITATION AND REPAIR PLAN..............................................................ES-11 ES.7 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN........................................................................ES-11 CHAPTER 1 - BACKGROUND
1.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................1-1
1.2 SEWER SERVICE AREA.........................................................................................1-1
1.3 PREVIOUS MASTER PLAN.....................................................................................1-4
1.4 SCOPE AND AUTHORIZATION ..............................................................................1-4
1.5 REPORT ORGANIZATION ......................................................................................1-5
1.6 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...........................................................................................1-6
1.7 ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS ....................................................................1-6
1.8 REFERENCE MATERIAL.........................................................................................1-8 CHAPTER 2 - STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION
2.1 STUDY AREA ...........................................................................................................2-1
2.2 PLANNING PERIOD.................................................................................................2-1
2.3 CLIMATE...................................................................................................................2-1
2.4 TOPOGRAPHY.........................................................................................................2-1
2.5 LAND USE ................................................................................................................2-2
2.5.1 Existing Wastewater Collection System Service Area Land Use.................2-2
2.5.2 Build Out Wastewater Service Area Land Use.............................................2-2 CHAPTER 3 - FLOW MONITORING PROGRAM
3.1 PERMANENT FLOW MONITORING SITES AND TRIBUTARY AREAS................3-1
3.2 WASTEWATER FLOW COMPONENTS.................................................................3-1
3.2.1 Base Wastewater Flow.................................................................................3-5
3.2.2 Average Annual Flow....................................................................................3-5
3.2.3 Average Dry Weather Flow...........................................................................3-5
3.2.4 Infiltration and Inflow .....................................................................................3-7
3.2.5 Peak Dry Weather Flow................................................................................3-7
3.2.6 Peak Wet Weather Flow (Design Flow) .......................................................3-7
3.3 FLOW MONITORING DATA SUMMARY.................................................................3-7
3.3.1 Base Wastewater Flow Data ......................................................................3-10
3.3.2 Industrial Flow Data ....................................................................................3-10 September 2015 ii
pw:\\Client\CA\Fresno\8168P00\Deliverables\WWCSMP_TOC
3.3.3 Rainfall Data................................................................................................3-10
3.3.4 Wet Weather Flow Data .............................................................................3-13 CHAPTER 4 - COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITIES AND HYDRAULIC MODEL
4.1 COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITIES.......................................................................4-1
4.1.1 Gravity Collection System.............................................................................4-1
4.1.2 Lift Stations ...................................................................................................4-5
4.1.3 Special Structures/Field Reconnaissance....................................................4-5
4.2 HYDRAULIC MODEL UPDATE..............................................................................4-11
4.2.1 Existing Hydraulic Model.............................................................................4-11
4.2.2 Elements of the Hydraulic Model ................................................................4-11
4.2.3 General Model Review................................................................................4-12
4.2.4 Model Wastewater Loads ...........................................................................4-13
4.2.5 Model Scenarios .........................................................................................4-14
4.2.6 Miscellaneous Model Updates....................................................................4-15
4.3 MODEL CALIBRATION ..........................................................................................4-15
4.3.1 Calibration Standards .................................................................................4-17
4.3.2 Macro Calibration........................................................................................4-18
4.3.3 Base Wastewater Flow Calibration.............................................................4-18
4.3.4 Wet Weather Flow Calibration....................................................................4-20
4.3.5 Model Calibration Summary........................................................................4-31 CHAPTER 5 - PLANNING CRITERIA AND DESIGN FLOWS
5.1 GRAVITY SEWERS .................................................................................................5-1
5.1.1 Manning Coefficient (n).................................................................................5-1
5.1.2 Peak Flow Criteria.........................................................................................5-1
5.1.3 Design Velocities and Minimum Slopes .......................................................5-2
5.1.4 Changes in Pipe Size....................................................................................5-3
5.2 LIFT STATIONS AND FORCE MAINS.....................................................................5-3
5.3 DESIGN FLOWS ......................................................................................................5-4
5.3.1 Historic RWRF Flows....................................................................................5-4
5.3.2 Wastewater Unit Flow Factors......................................................................5-4
5.3.3 Existing and Projected Base Wastewater Flow............................................5-8
5.3.4 Existing and Project PDWF ..........................................................................5-8
5.3.5 Design Storm ..............................................................................................5-10
5.3.6 Existing and Projected Peak Wet Weather Flow .......................................5-10 CHAPTER 6 - CAPACITY EVALUATION AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
6.1 CAPACITY EVALUATION ........................................................................................6-1
6.1.1 Gravity Collection System Evaluation...........................................................6-1
6.1.2 Lift Station Evaluation ...................................................................................6-4
6.2 COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS.............................................................6-4
6.2.1 Existing versus Future Improvement ............................................................6-5
6.2.2 Existing System Improvements.....................................................................6-8
6.2.3 Build Out System Improvements ..................................................................6-9
6.2.4 Project Prioritization ....................................................................................6-11 CHAPTER 7 - REHABILITATION AND REPAIR PLAN
7.1 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES........................................................................7-1
7.2 COLLECTION SYSTEM ASSET DATA ...................................................................7-1 September 2015 iii
pw:\\Client\CA\Fresno\8168P00\Deliverables\WWCSMP_TOC
7.2.1 Collection System GIS Data .........................................................................7-1
7.2.2 CCTV Inspection Data ..................................................................................7-1
7.2.3 Previous Reports...........................................................................................7-5
7.2.4 Lift Station Visual Inspection.........................................................................7-6
7.3 COLLECTION SYSTEM ASSET EVALUATION......................................................7-6
7.3.1 Rehabilitation Project Selection Criteria .......................................................7-6
7.3.2 Evaluation Results ........................................................................................7-8
7.4 RECOMMENDED REHABILITATION/REPAIR PLAN...........................................7-14
7.4.1 Primary Recommendations.........................................................................7-16
7.4.2 Secondary Recommendations....................................................................7-17
7.4.3 Prioritization and Scheduling ......................................................................7-18
7.4.4 Recommended Sewer Inspection Plan ......................................................7-18 CHAPTER 8 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
8.1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT COSTS .......................................................8-1
8.2 COST ESTIMATING ACCURACY............................................................................8-1
8.3 CONSTRUCTION UNIT COSTS..............................................................................8-1
8.3.1 Rehabilitation Unit Costs...............................................................................8-1
8.3.2 New or Replacement Unit Costs...................................................................8-3
8.4 PROJECT COSTS AND CONTINGENCIES............................................................8-4
8.4.1 Baseline Construction Costs.........................................................................8-4
8.4.2 Construction Costs Contingency ..................................................................8-5
8.5 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT COSTS .........................................................................8-5
8.5.1 Capital Improvement Cost Summary............................................................8-5
8.5.2 Capital Improvement Implementation...........................................................8-5
8.6 EXISTING VERSUS FUTURE USER COST SHARE..............................................8-6
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A General Plan Land Use Descriptions
APPENDIX B Base Wastewater Flow Calibration
APPENDIX C Wet Weather Flow Calibration
APPENDIX D SIU Flow Data
APPENDIX E Field Reconnaissance Data
APPENDIX F BCF-Project Data Sheets
APPENDIX G BCF-PACP Rating System
APPENDIX H BCF-Point Repairs
APPENDIX I BCF-MOSR Sewer Segments
APPENDIX J BCF-CIP Project Map
LIST OF TABLES
Table ES.1 Current and Projected Wastewater Flows.......................................................5 Table ES.2 Proposed Improvements..................................................................................8 Table ES.3 Summary of Capital Improvement Costs......................................................15 Table 2.1 Study Area Climate .......................................................................................2-1 Table 2.2 Existing Land Use .........................................................................................2-4 Table 2.3 Build Out Land Use.......................................................................................2-5 September 2015 iv
pw:\\Client\CA\Fresno\8168P00\Deliverables\WWCSMP_TOC
Table 3.1 Flow Monitoring Locations ............................................................................3-4 Table 3.2 Base Wastewater Flow Summary...............................................................3-12 Table 3.3 R-Value Summary.......................................................................................3-15 Table 4.1 Collection System Gravity Pipeline Summary ..............................................4-3 Table 4.2 Collection System Gravity Pipeline Material Summary.................................4-4 Table 4.3 Collection System Gravity Pipeline Installation Year Summary ...................4-5 Table 4.4 Wastewater Lift Station Summary ................................................................4-6 Table 4.5 Special Structures.......................................................................................4-10 Table 4.6 BWF Calibration Summary .........................................................................4-21 Table 4.7 WWF Calibration Summary........................................................................4-27 Table 5.1 Maximum Flow Depth Criteria.......................................................................5-2 Table 5.2 Minimum Slope for New Pipes......................................................................5-3 Table 5.3 Historical RWRF Flows.................................................................................5-5 Table 5.4 Wastewater Flow Balance ............................................................................5-7 Table 5.5 Future BWF Projections................................................................................5-9 Table 5.6 Current and Projected Wastewater Flows..................................................5-12 Table 6.1 Proposed Capacity Improvements................................................................6-6 Table 7.1 CCTV Inspection Summary by Pipe Diameter .............................................7-3 Table 7.2 CCTV Inspection Summary by Pipe Material ...............................................7-5 Table 7.3 High Priority PACP Structural Defects Codes ..............................................7-7 Table 7.4 MOSR Overview ...........................................................................................7-8 Table 7.5 Point Repairs.................................................................................................7-9 Table 7.6 MOSR Overview .........................................................................................7-11 Table 7.7 Previously Recommend Rehabilitation Projects.........................................7-14 Table 7.8 Lift Station Condition Survey Results .........................................................7-15 Table 7.9 Proposed Lift Station Improvements ..........................................................7-17 Table 7.10 Rehabilitation Project Prioritization .............................................................7-18 Table 7.11 Phase 1 Sewer Inspection Schedule..........................................................7-21 Table 7.12 Inspection Frequency..................................................................................7-21 Table 8.1 Cured-in-Place Pipe Rehabilitation Unit Costs.............................................8-2 Table 8.2 Lift Station Rehabilitation Unit Costs ............................................................8-3 Table 8.3 Pipe Construction Unit Costs........................................................................8-3 Table 8.5 Summary of Capital Improvement Costs......................................................8-6 Table 8.4 Capital Improvement Projects.......................................................................8-7
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure ES.1 Regional Location Map ....................................................................................2 Figure ES.2 Wastewater Service Area ................................................................................4 Figure ES.3 Collection System Improvements ....................................................................7 Figure ES.4 Priority Point Repairs .....................................................................................12 Figure ES.5 High MOSR Sewers.......................................................................................13 Figure ES.6 Projects from Previous Reports .....................................................................14 Figure 1.1 Regional Location Map .................................................................................1-2 September 2015 v
pw:\\Client\CA\Fresno\8168P00\Deliverables\WWCSMP_TOC
Figure 1.2 Wastewater Service Area .............................................................................1-3 Figure 2.1 Study Area.....................................................................................................2-1 Figure 2.2 Study Area Topography ................................................................................2-1 Figure 2.3 Existing Land Use .........................................................................................2-2 Figure 2.4 Build Out Land Use.......................................................................................2-3 Figure 2.5 Areas of Stability and Areas of Change........................................................2-8 Figure 3.1 Permanent Flow Meter Locations ................................................................3-2 Figure 3.2 Flow Monitoring Locations Schematic ..........................................................3-3 Figure 3.3 Typical Wastewater Flow Components ........................................................3-6 Figure 3.4 Typical Sources of Infiltration and Inflow......................................................3-8 Figure 3.5 Typical Effects of Infiltration and Inflow .......................................................3-9 Figure 3.6 Typical Weekday vs. Weekend Dry Weather Flow Variation (Meter FR06) ..........................................................................................................3-11 Figure 3.7 Example Wet Weather Flow Response (Meter FR06)...............................3-14 Figure 4.1 Existing Wastewater Collection System and Sewer Service Area...............4-2 Figure 4.2 Field Reconnaissance Locations..................................................................4-7 Figure 4.3 Dakota/Millbrook Diversion Curve ................................................................4-9 Figure 4.4 Example HGL Limitations for Overflow Pipelines in H2OMAP Sewer........4-16 Figure 4.5 Example Diurnal Pattern (Meter FR06) ......................................................4-19 Figure 4.6 Example BWF Calibration (Meter FR06)....................................................4-22 Figure 4.7 Example RDII Unit Hydrograph...................................................................4-24 Figure 4.8 Example WWF Calibration (Meter FR06)...................................................4-26 Figure 4.9 RWRF WWF Calibration (April 2012).........................................................4-28 Figure 4.10 RWRF WWF Calibration (March 2011)......................................................4-29 Figure 4.11 WWF Calibration for Meter FR23 ...............................................................4-30 Figure 5.1 10-Year, 24-Hour Design Storm .................................................................5-11 Figure 6.1 Proposed Capacity Improvements................................................................6-2 Figure 7.1 Evaluated vs Unevaluated Sewer Segments ...............................................7-2 Figure 7.2 Priority Point Repairs ..................................................................................7-10 Figure 7.3 High MOSR Sewers....................................................................................7-12 Figure 7.4 Projects From Previous Reports.................................................................7-13 Figure 7.5 Uninspected Corrosion Potential ................................................................7-20 Figure 7.6 Inspection Frequency..................................................................................7-22 September 2015 ES-1
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_ ES Executive Summary
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
MASTER PLAN UPDATE
This executive summary presents a brief background of the City of Fresno (City) wastewater collection system, the need for this master plan update, proposed improvements to mitigate existing system deficiencies, and proposed expansion projects. A summary of capital improvement project costs is included at the end of this chapter.
ES.1 INTRODUCTION
The City was founded in 1872 by the Central Pacific Railroad Company and incorporated in 1885. The City has since grown to over 112 square miles with a population of just under a half million people in the incorporated area. Today, Fresno is the fifth largest city in the state of California. Centrally located, Fresno is the financial, industrial, trade, and commercial capital in the Central San Joaquin Valley. Figure ES.1 presents a location map of the City. The City is the hub of a region rich in heritage, resources, and people.
The City owns and operates the Fresno/Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF), as well as the smaller North Fresno Wastewater Reclamation Facility (NFWRF).
The City owns and maintains a wastewater collection system that serves the City and the other participating agencies: the County of Fresno, the majority of the City of Clovis, the Pinedale Public Utility District, and the Pinedale County Water District.
ES.2 STUDY AREA
The area served by the City is characterized by residential, commercial, and industrial uses within the City limits. While the City has a diverse economy, Fresno County is the nations’ top-ranked agriculture-producing county. There are some agricultural lands within the metropolitan area that are interspersed on larger parcels along the fringe of urbanized area and in between parcels.
There are many open space areas within the City, including Woodward Park and Roeding Park which is home of the Fresno Chaffee Zoo. The main water bodies near the City are located on the outskirts of town. The San Joaquin River runs east and west just to the North of the City limits. The Kings River is about 12 miles east of the City limits and the City diverts water from the river for part of their water supply. The Sierra Nevada Mountains are located about 25 miles east of the City.
395
Stanislaus County
Selma
Dinuba
Sanger
Madera
Clovis
Merced
Tulare
Avenal
Parlier Reedley
Atwater
Visalia
Lindsay
Lemoore
Hanford
Corcoran
Coalinga
Los Banos
Chowchilla
Porterville
Fresno
Sources: Esri, USGS, NOAA
Legend
City of Fresno
Major Roads
Hydrography
Urban Areas
State of California
Fresno 0 10 20
Miles
Figure ES.1
Regional Location Map
Wastewater Collection System
Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
September 2015 ES-3
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_ ES There are four major highways that run through the City which include State Route 99, State Route 168, State Route 41, and State Route 180. State Route 99 connects the major cities in the central valley and runs north and south. State Route 168 heads east out of the City through Clovis and heads to the Sierras to the east. State Route 41 runs north and south which connects to Atascadero in the South and to Yosemite to the north. State Route 180 runs east and west which connects to Mendota to the west and to Kings Canyon National Park to the east.
The City’s proposed Sphere of Influence (SOI), as defined in Fresno General Plan (General Plan) is the study area boundary for this Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update (Master Plan). The Master Plan study area boundary and the SOI are synonymous and will be used interchangeably throughout this report. The Master Plan study area is intended to include the existing City limits and development that could occur through build out of the City’s General Plan. The General Plan Buildout (Buildout) is defined as all developable sites will be fully occupied according to the General Plan.
ES.3 SEWER SERVICE AREA
Figure ES.2 illustrates the City’s current wastewater service area. The City manages and maintains more than 1,500 miles of gravity sewer lines up to 84-inches in diameter, 15 active lift stations, and associated force mains. Nearly all of the wastewater generated within the sewer service area is conveyed to the City’s RWRF for treatment, with the exception of a small amount of flow that is treated at the City’s NFWRF. In addition, the City of Clovis recently constructed its own wastewater treatment facility on the eastern edge of the Clovis City limits (near the intersection of Ashlan Avenue and McCall Avenue), which provides wastewater service for a portion of the City of Clovis. However, most of the flow generated within the City of Clovis is treated at the RWRF.
The land use assumptions in this Master Plan were based on the Fresno General Plan and projected future developments within the City’s proposed growth boundary. Should future planning conditions change from the assumptions stated in this Master Plan (i.e., accelerated growth, more intense developments, etc.), revisions and adjustments to the Master Plan recommendations would be necessary.
ES.4 WASTEWATER FLOWS
In general, wastewater consists of base wastewater flow (BWF) and wet weather flow (WWF). BWF is flow generated by routine water usage in the residential, commercial, business and industrial sectors of the collection system. WWF includes storm water inflow, trench infiltration, and wet weather ground water infiltration.
North Ave
Jensen Ave
California Ave
Whitesbridge Ave/CA 180
Belmont Ave
McKinley Ave
Shields Ave
Ashlan Ave
Shaw Ave
Bullard Ave
Herndon Ave
Nees Ave
Shepherd Ave
Cooper Ave
Grantland Ave
Hayes Ave
Cornelia Ave
Brawley Ave
Marks AveWest Ave
Palm AveBlackstone Ave
First St
Cedar AveChestnut Ave
Willow Ave
Clovis Ave
Fowler Ave
Temperance Ave
Dewolf Ave
Highland AveMcCall Ave
Behymer Ave
RWRF
LS20
LS01
LS02
LS18
LS13
LS03 LS15
LS12
LS14
LS16
LS04
LS10
LS06
LS05
NFWRF
Legend
Existing Wastewater
Collection System
Lift Stations
Special Structures
Pipelines
8" and Smaller
10" - 18"
20" - 36"
Greater than 36"
Streets
Existing Sewer Service Area
City Limits
0 10,000 20,000
Feet
Figure ES.2
Wastewater Service Area
Wastewater Collection System
Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
September 2015 ES-5
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_ ES Peak wet weather flow (PWWF) is the highest observed hourly flow that occurs following the design storm event. The City’s sewers and lift stations were evaluated based on their capacity to convey the “design flow (“design flow” is synonymous to PWWF in this study).
A summary of the existing and build-out BWF and the PWWF is presented in Table ES.1.
The City’s BWF is projected to roughly double from 64.1 million gallons per day (mgd) to 129.9 mgd by build out, whereas the PWWF is projected to increase from 123.9 mgd to about 202.4 mgd by build out (an increase of approximately 63-percent). Therefore, the City’s PWWF to BWF peaking factor is projected to decrease from roughly 1.93 to 1.56, which is relatively low for sanitary sewer collection systems.
Table ES.1 Current and Projected Wastewater Flows
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Year
BWF(1)
(mgd)
PDWF(2)
(mgd)
PDWF
Peaking
Factor
PWWF(3)
(mgd)
PWWF
Peaking
Factor
Existing 64.1 88.5 1.38 123.9 1.93
Build Out 129.9 164.7 1.27 202.4 1.56
Notes:
(1) BWF = Base Wastewater Flow.
(2) PDWF = Peak Dry Weather Flow.
(3) PWWF = Peak Wet Weather Flow.
ES.5 CAPACITY EVALUATION AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
The capacity analysis identified areas in the sewer system where flow restrictions occur or where pipe capacity is insufficient to convey design flows. Sewers that lack sufficient capacity to convey design flows create bottlenecks in the collection system that can potentially cause sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs).
For the existing sewer collection system, the Peak Dry Weather Flow (PDWF) and PWWF were routed through the hydraulic model. In accordance with the established flow depth criteria for sewers during PDWF, pipelines where the maximum depth to full flow depth (d/D) ratio that exceeded 1.0 were flagged. Each pipeline with a maximum d/D in excess of
1.0 was reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine if a capacity improvement project was warranted. Similarly, in accordance with the established flow depth criteria for sewers during PWWF, manholes where the maximum flow to full flow (q/Q) ratio that exceeded
1.15 were flagged. Each pipeline with a maximum q/Q in excess of 1.15 was reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine if a capacity improvement project was warranted.
In general, the City’s collection system has sufficient capacity to convey current PWWFs without exceeding the established flow depth criterion. However, there are a few areas September 2015 ES-6
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_ ES where capacity restrictions lead to flow depths that exceed allowable levels. Following the completion of the existing system analysis, improvement projects and alternatives were identified in order to mitigate existing system pipeline capacity deficiencies.
The build out system analysis was performed in a manner similar to the existing system analysis. The purpose of the build out system evaluation is to verify that the existing system improvements were appropriately sized to convey build out PWWFs, and to identify the locations of sewers that are adequately sized to convey existing PWWFs, but cannot convey build out PWWFs. Additionally, new trunk sewers were added to the hydraulic model and sized to service major growth areas beyond the current City sewer service area.
Figure ES.3 illustrates the improvements recommended to mitigate capacity deficiencies in the existing and future sewer collection system and improvements to accommodate future growth as identified by the hydraulic analysis. Details of each improvement are also provided in Table ES.2.
ES.5.1 Project Prioritization
The majority of improvements listed in Table ES.2 are driven by future development, which consist of new sewers that serve future growth or improvements to existing facilities that are needed to serve future growth. When fully implemented, the capital projects will allow the conveyance of PWWFs to the RWRF during build out conditions.
Prioritizing the required capital improvements for the City’s sewer system is an important aspect of this study. The improvement projects were prioritized based on the following factors:
• Upgrading existing facilities to mitigate current capacity deficiencies and to serve future users
• Building the new trunks necessary to serve future users Improvements to existing facilities will provide sufficient capacity to mitigate existing issues and to convey increased flows resulting from future growth. Future development will require the construction of sewers to serve new users. The projects were grouped into the following phases:
• Phase 1: Years 2014 through 2015
• Phase 2: Years 2016 through 2020
• Phase 3: Years 2021 through 2025
• Phase 4: Years 2026 through 2030
North Ave
Jensen Ave
California Ave
Whitesbridge Ave/CA 180
Belmont Ave
McKinley Ave
Shields Ave
Ashlan Ave
Shaw Ave
Bullard Ave
Herndon Ave
Nees Ave
Shepherd Ave
Cooper Ave
Grantland Ave
Hayes Ave
Cornelia Ave
Brawley Ave
Marks AveWest Ave
Palm AveBlackstone Ave
First St
Cedar AveChestnut Ave
Willow Ave
Clovis Ave
Fowler Ave
Temperance Ave
Dewolf Ave
Highland Ave
McCall Ave
Behymer Ave
RWRF
Central Ave
American Ave
Lincoln Ave
Dickenson Ave
West Lawn Ave
Chateau Fresno AveDel Rey Ave
Bethel Ave
Academy Ave
Madsen Ave
Zediker Ave
Direct Storm Drain
Connections to be Removed
LS20
LS01
LS02
LS18
LS13
LS03 LS15
LS12
LS14
LS16
LS04 LS10
LS06
LS05
NFWRF
D-4
D-1
C-8
D-15
D-17
D-18
D-9C
D-16
D-6B
D-7B
D-8A
D-9A
D-8C
D-6A
D-10A
D-12C
D-10C
D-12A
D-11A
D-22A
D-23B D-11C
D-24A
D-26A
D-22C
D-27A
D-21B
D-10D
D-23A
D-19B
D-25
D-4
C-8 C-8
12''
15''
36''
48''
54'' 60''
8''
10''
30''
18''
12''
12''
8''
12''
12''
60'' 21''
8''
10''
10''
54'' 54''
27''
8''
60''
12''
15''
10''
10''
12''
15''
10''
15''
10''
12''
21''
8''
12''
12''
27''
42''
27''
21''
8''
15''
12''
15''
15''
12''
60''
10''
10''
42''
18''
27'' 15''
8''8''
30'' 18''
10''
27''
18''
30''
30''
42''
42''
42''
10''
10''
10''
10''
24''
24''
24''
8''
15''
15''
D-21B
D-2
D-5
D-20
D-4
D-3
D-2
C-5A
C-1A
C-3 C-2A
GALLO
GALLO
GALLO
C-4
C-5C
C-5B
C-1B
C-7
C-6
C-10 C-10 C-10 C-10 C-2B
D-19A
D-10B
D-24B
D-26B
D-10E
D-14B
D-12B
D-14D
D-21A
D-11B
D-14C
D-22B
D-14A
D-7A
D-9B
D-13
D-8B
D-7C
84''
39''
40''
8''
45''
20''
27''
57''
36''
12''
72''
33''
14''
15''
24''
10''
21''
18''
54''
22''
60''
6''
66''
30''
48''
42''
16''
51''
6''
6''
24''
8''
6''
8''
10''
8''
6''
8''
8''
8''
8''
12''
8''
24''
6''
6''
8''
8''
6''
6''
8''
6''
6''
6''
6''
6''
8''8''
8''
8''
6''
33''
8''
8''
8''
6''
8''
8''
8''
8''
6''
12''
6''
6''
6''
6''
6''
8''
8''
8''
6''
8''
6''
6''
8''
6''
8''
12''
8''
8''
8''
6''
6''
8''
18''
8''
6''
8''
8''
15''
12''
8''
45''
6''
8''
6''
8''
18''
21''
6''
8''
8''
8''
33''
8''
6''
6''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
6''
6''
6''
27''
18''
8''
6''
8''
6''
8''
8''
6''
6''
8''
6''
15''
6''
6''
15''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
6''
6''
6''
60''
10''
8''
6''
8''
66''
8''
6''
8''
6''
8''
8''
8''
6''
6''
10''
8''
6''
8''
72''
18''
8''
10''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
10''
39''
8''
8''
6''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
6''
48''
6''
6''
36''
8''
12''
8''
8''
6''
45''
6''
6''
8''
8'' 8''
8''
8''
18''
8''
12''
8''
8''
6''
6'' 8''
8''
51''
8''
8''
6''
6''
8''
8''
6''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
6''
6''
8''
8''
6''
6''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
6''
8''
10''
8''
8''
8''
6''
6''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
6''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
72''
8''
8''
8''
8''
66''
8''
8''
8''
8''
24''
8''
8''
8''
66''
8''
8''
8''
8''
36''
39''
8''
10''
60''
6''
72''
8''
8''
6''
6''
8''
66''
8''
8''
8''
6''
51''
8''
8''
6''
8''
60''
45''
8''
8''
72''
45'' 8''
6''
6''
72''
24''
6''
6''
8'' 8''
6''
15''
8''
8''
8''
8''
6''
8''
6''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
66''
66''
6''
66''
8''
8''
6''
8''
Legend
Existing Wastewater
Collection System
Lift Stations
Pipelines
8" and Smaller
10" and Larger
Proposed Improvements
Existing System
Future System
Development
Gallo Winery I/I
Reduction Program
Streets
Sphere of Influence
City Limits
Existing Sewer Service Area
0 12,500 25,000
Feet
Figure ES.3
Proposed Collection System
Capacity Improvements
Wastewater Collection System
Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
DRAFT
Table ES.2
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
2015-2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035
(in) (in) (ft) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($)
C-1A Gravity Hammond Avenue Between Blackstone Ave. and Abby St. 20 24 Replace 390 $ 412,000 $ 412,000 7% $ 383,160 $ 28,840 C-1B Gravity Abby Street From Hammond Ave. to La Salle Ave.
Alignment
20 24 Replace 1,322 $ 868,000 $ 868,000 7% $ 807,240 $ 60,760 C-2A Gravity Glenn Avenue From Bremer Ave. to Thomas Ave. 24 27 Replace 391 $ 430,000 $ 430,000 7% $ 399,900 $ 30,100 C-2B Gravity Glenn Avenue From HWY 180 to Voorman Ave. 24 27 Replace 2,580 $ 1,580,000 $ 1,580,000 14% $ 1,358,800 $ 221,200 C-3 Gravity Glenn Avenue / N Street From Voorman Ave. to Tuolumne St. 27 30 Replace 1,530 $ 1,148,000 $ 1,148,000 19% $ 929,880 $ 218,120 C-4 Gravity Monterey Street From Fulton Street to N Street 6 10 Replace 1,812 $ 683,000 $ 683,000 0% $ 683,000 $ - C-5A Gravity Eighth Street From Ventura St. to Woodward Ave. 36 42 Replace 4,717 $ 3,825,000 $ 3,825,000 17% $ 3,174,750 $ 650,250 C-5B Gravity Woodward Avenue From Eighth St. to Orange Ave. 36 42 Replace 629 $ 733,000 $ 733,000 17% $ 608,390 $ 124,610 C-5C Gravity Orange Avenue From Woodward Ave. to California Ave. 36 42 Replace 693 $ 778,000 $ 778,000 17% $ 645,740 $ 132,260 C-6 Gravity Safford Avenue From Producers Dairy to H Street 6 8 Replace 930 $ 329,000 $ 329,000 0% $ 329,000 $ - $ 10,786,000 $ 1,710,000 $ 1,909,000 $ 7,167,000 $ - $ 9,319,860 $ 1,466,140 C-7 Gravity Tuolumne Street/ Van Ness Avenue From N Street to Merced St. 27 30 Replace 1,679 $ 1,228,000 $ 1,228,000 100% $ - $ 1,228,000 C-8 Gravity North Avenue From Polk Ave. Alignment to Fruit Ave. - 60 New 20,857 $ 19,615,000 $ 19,615,000 100% $ - $ 19,615,000 C-9 Gravity North Avenue From Fruit Ave. to Orange Ave. 60 60 Rehab 15,514 $ 15,376,000 $ 15,376,000 100% $ - $ 15,376,000 D-1 Gravity Temperance Avenue From North Ave. to Jensen Ave. - 48 New 5,875 $ 4,805,000 $ 4,805,000 100% $ - $ 4,805,000 D-2 Gravity Temperance Avenue From Jensen Ave. to Tulare St. - 42 New 13,352 $ 10,224,000 $ 10,224,000 100% $ - $ 10,224,000 D-3 Gravity Temperance Avenue From Tulare St. to Olive Ave. - 36 New 4,987 $ 3,508,000 $ 3,508,000 100% $ - $ 3,508,000 D-4 Gravity Temperance/McKinley/DeWolf From Olive Ave. to Shields Ave. - 30 New 13,300 $ 7,970,000 $ 7,970,000 100% $ - $ 7,970,000 D-5 Gravity Shields Ave./Leonard Ave. From DeWolf Ave. to Dakota Ave.
Alignment
- 27 New 4,575 $ 2,397,000 $ 2,397,000 100% $ - $ 2,397,000 D-6A Gravity Jensen Avenue From Temperance Ave. to DeWolf Ave. - 15 New 5,228 $ 2,053,000 $ 2,053,000 100% $ - $ 2,053,000 D-6B Gravity Jensen Avenue From DeWolf Ave. to Leonard Ave. - 12 New 2,732 $ 964,000 $ 964,000 100% $ - $ 964,000 D-7A Gravity Church Avenue From Temperance Ave. to Locan Ave. - 15 New 2,552 $ 1,016,000 $ 1,016,000 100% $ - $ 1,016,000 D-7B Gravity Church Avenue From Locan Ave. to DeWolf Ave. - 12 New 2,729 $ 963,000 $ 963,000 100% $ - $ 963,000 D-7C Gravity Church Avenue From DeWolf Ave. to Leonard Ave. - 8 New 2,673 $ 829,000 $ 829,000 100% $ - $ 829,000 D-8A Gravity California Avenue From Temperance Ave to Locan Ave. - 18 New 2,676 $ 1,137,000 $ 1,137,000 100% $ - $ 1,137,000 D-8B Gravity California Avenue From Locan Ave. to DeWolf Ave. - 15 New 2,670 $ 1,058,000 $ 1,058,000 100% $ - $ 1,058,000 D-8C Gravity California Avenue From DeWolf Ave. to Leonard Ave. - 10 New 2,617 $ 870,000 $ 870,000 100% $ - $ 870,000 D-9A Gravity Butler Avenue From Temperance Ave to Locan Ave. - 18 New 2,617 $ 1,115,000 $ 1,115,000 100% $ - $ 1,115,000 D-9B Gravity Butler Avenue From Locan Ave. to DeWolf Ave. - 15 New 2,611 $ 1,037,000 $ 1,037,000 100% $ - $ 1,037,000 D-9C Gravity Butler Avenue From DeWolf Ave. to Leonard Ave. - 8 New 2,789 $ 862,000 $ 862,000 100% $ - $ 862,000 D-10A Gravity Tulare Street From Temperance Ave. to Locan Ave. - 21 New 2,730 $ 1,237,000 $ 1,237,000 100% $ - $ 1,237,000 D-10B Gravity Tulare Street/DeWolf Avenue From Locan Ave. to Laurel Ave. Alignment - 15 New 4,035 $ 1,586,000 $ 1,586,000 100% $ - $ 1,586,000 D-10C Gravity Laurel Avenue Alignment From DeWolf Ave. to Leonard Ave. - 8 New 2,729 $ 845,000 $ 845,000 100% $ - $ 845,000 D-10D Gravity Locan Ave/ Belmont Ave. From Tulare St. to DeWolf Ave. - 12 New 4,926 $ 1,738,000 $ 1,738,000 100% $ - $ 1,738,000 D-10E Gravity Belmont Avenue From DeWolf Ave. to Leonard Ave. - 10 New 2,554 $ 851,000 $ 851,000 100% $ - $ 851,000 D-11A Gravity Olive Avenue From Temperance Ave. to Locan Ave. - 15 New 2,671 $ 1,058,000 $ 1,058,000 100% $ - $ 1,058,000 D-11B Gravity Olive Avenue From Locan Ave. to DeWolf Ave. - 12 New 2,613 $ 926,000 $ 926,000 100% $ - $ 926,000 D-11C Gravity Olive Avenue From DeWolf Ave. to Leonard Ave. - 8 New 2,617 $ 813,000 $ 813,000 100% $ - $ 813,000 D-12A Gravity McKinley Avenue From DeWolf Ave. to Leonard Ave. - 21 New 2,729 $ 1,237,000 $ 1,237,000 100% $ - $ 1,237,000 D-12B Gravity McKinley Avenue From Leonard Ave. to Thompson Ave. - 18 New 5,103 $ 2,157,000 $ 2,157,000 100% $ - $ 2,157,000 D-12C Gravity Thompson Avenue From McKinley Ave. to Clinton Ave. - 15 New 2,730 $ 1,079,000 $ 1,079,000 100% $ - $ 1,079,000 D-13 Gravity Clinton Avenue From DeWolf Ave. to Leonard Ave. - 10 New 2,492 $ 832,000 $ 832,000 100% $ - $ 832,000 D-14 Gravity North Avenue From Peach Ave. to Temperance Ave. - 36 New 15,787 $ 11,051,000 $ 11,051,000 100% $ - $ 11,051,000 Capital Improvement Phasing
Length Improvement
Cost
Existing
Improvements
Future
Improvements
Reimbursement Category
Existing Improvements
Future
User
Benefit
(%)
Build-Out Improvements
Rehab,
Replace,
or New
Project Type
Capital Improvement Projects
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
City of Fresno
Existing
Diameter
New
Diameter
Existing Improvement Totals
Job No. Description / Limits
P:\213-0242\_Documents\CostEstimate\213242_Capital Improvement Costs.xls 1 of 3 7/23/2014 DRAFT
Table ES.2
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
2015-2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035
(in) (in) (ft) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($)
Capital Improvement Phasing
Length Improvement
Cost
Existing
Improvements
Future
Improvements
Future Reimbursement Category
User
Benefit
(%)
Rehab,
Replace,
or New
Project Type
Capital Improvement Projects
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
City of Fresno
Existing
Diameter
New
Diameter
Job No. Description / Limits
D-15 Gravity Minnewawa Avenue From North Ave. to Annadale Ave. - 12 New 2,730 $ 964,000 $ 964,000 100% $ - $ 964,000 D-16 Gravity Sunnyside Avenue From North Ave. to Annadale Ave. - 15 New 2,611 $ 1,037,000 $ 1,037,000 100% $ - $ 1,037,000 D-17 Gravity Fowler Avenue From North Ave. to Annadale Ave. - 10 New 2,789 $ 922,000 $ 922,000 100% $ - $ 922,000 D-18 Gravity Armstrong Avenue From North Ave. to Annadale Ave. - 8 New 2,671 $ 828,000 $ 828,000 100% $ - $ 828,000 D-19A Gravity Valentine Avenue From Church Ave. to Kearney Frontage - 12 New 3,945 $ 1,389,000 $ 1,389,000 100% $ - $ 1,389,000 D-19B Gravity Valentine Avenue From Kearney Frontage to Madison Ave. - 10 New 1,312 $ 444,000 $ 444,000 100% $ - $ 444,000 D-20 Gravity Brawley Avenue From Church Ave. to Madison Ave. - 8 New 5,303 $ 1,630,000 $ 1,630,000 100% $ - $ 1,630,000 D-21A Gravity Whitesbridge Avenue From Polk Ave. to Blythe Ave. - 12 New 5,271 $ 1,851,000 $ 1,851,000 100% $ - $ 1,851,000 D-21B Gravity Whitesbridge/Brawley Avenue From Blythe Ave. to Nielsen Ave. - 10 New 5,392 $ 1,773,000 $ 1,773,000 100% $ - $ 1,773,000 D-22A Gravity Belmont Avenue From Polk Ave. to Cornelia Ave. - 12 New 2,716 $ 959,000 $ 959,000 100% $ - $ 959,000 D-22B Gravity Belmont Avenue From Cornelia Ave. to Blythe Ave. - 10 New 2,675 $ 887,000 $ 887,000 100% $ - $ 887,000 D-22C Gravity Belmont Avenue From Blythe Ave. to Brawley Ave. - 8 New 2,640 $ 819,000 $ 819,000 100% $ - $ 819,000 D-23A Gravity Olive Avenue From Polk Ave. to Blythe Ave. - 12 New 5,260 $ 1,847,000 $ 1,847,000 100% $ - $ 1,847,000 D-23B Gravity Olive Avenue From Blythe Ave. to Brawley Ave. - 8 New 2,675 $ 829,000 $ 829,000 100% $ - $ 829,000 D-24A Gravity Olive Avenue From Grantland Ave. to Bryan Ave. - 12 New 2,649 $ 937,000 $ 937,000 100% $ - $ 937,000 D-24B Gravity Olive Avenue From Bryan Ave. to Hayes Ave. - 10 New 1973 $ 659,000 $ 659,000 100% $ - $ 659,000 D-25 Gravity McKinley Avenue From Grantland Ave. to Ring Ave. - 10 New 3,603 $ 1,199,000 $ 1,199,000 100% $ - $ 1,199,000 D-26A Gravity Clinton Avenue From Grantland Ave. to Bryan Ave. - 12 New 2,645 $ 936,000 $ 936,000 100% $ - $ 936,000 D-26B Gravity Clinton Avenue From Bryan Ave. to Hayes Ave. - 10 New 2,592 $ 862,000 $ 862,000 100% $ - $ 862,000 D-27A Gravity Shields Avenue From Grantland Ave. to Bryan Ave. - 15 New 2,627 $ 1,042,000 $ 1,042,000 100% $ - $ 1,042,000 D-27B Gravity Shields Avenue From Bryan Ave. to Hayes Ave. - 12 New 2,592 $ 919,000 $ 919,000 100% $ - $ 919,000 $ 125,170,000 -$ $ - -$ $ 125,170,000 $ - $ 125,170,000 NCFWRF-1 Treatment - 6 mgd New - $ 51,106,000 $ 51,106,000 0% $ 51,106,000 $ - NCFWRF-2 Gravity - 36 New 4,042 $ 2,833,000 $ 2,833,000 0% $ 2,833,000 $ - SEGA Treatment - 15 mgd New - $ 77,760,000 $ 77,760,000 100% $ - $ 77,760,000 $ 131,699,000 $ - $ 53,939,000 $ - $ 77,760,000 $ 53,939,000 $ 77,760,000 LS-1 Lift Station - - - - $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ - LS-2 Lift Station - - - - $ 39,000 $ 39,000 $ 39,000 $ - LS-3 Lift Station - - - - $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ - LS-4 Lift Station - - - - $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ - LS-5 Lift Station - - - - $ 96,000 $ 96,000 $ 96,000 $ - LS-6 Lift Station - - - - $ 114,000 $ 114,000 $ 114,000 $ - LS-10 Lift Station - - - - $ 49,000 $ 49,000 $ 49,000 $ - LS-11 Lift Station - - - - $ 160,000 $ 160,000 $ 160,000 $ - LS-12 Lift Station - - - - $ - -$ $ - $ -
LS-13 Lift Station - - - - $ 59,000 $ 59,000 $ 59,000 $ - LS-14 Lift Station - - - - $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ - LS-15 Lift Station - - - - $ 128,000 $ 128,000 $ 128,000 $ - LS-16 Lift Station - - - - $ 72,000 $ 72,000 $ 72,000 $ - LS-18 Lift Station - - - - $ 82,000 $ 82,000 $ 82,000 $ - LS-20 Lift Station - - - - $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ - $ 1,114,000 $ 1,114,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,114,000 $ -
HPPR-1 Point Repair Varies Varies Replace Varies $ 5,800,000 $ 5,800,000 $ 5,800,000 $ - New Facilities
Point Repairs
Lift Stations
Lift Station Totals
250 Priority Point Repairs as determined by City of Fresno personnel Cedar/Dakota, Scalping Plant at Vacant Field Behind Granite Park Dakota, From Treatment Facility to Millbrook Ave.
Temperance, Scalping Plant On Corner of Temperance and North Ave.
West of Jensen and Walnut Avenues
Kearney Boulevard and Marks Avenue
North of Shield and Wilson Avenues
New Facilities Totals
North of Cherry and Muscat Avenues
Riverview Drive and Bluff Avenue
Fort Washington Road and Champlain Drive
Southeast of Perrin Avenue and Champlain Drive
Stratford and Woodlawn Drives
East of Cedar and Copper Avenues
Carnegie and Bullard Avenues
Build-Out Improvement Totals
North of Jackson and University Avenues
East of Carnegie and Alluvial Avenues
North of Haston Avenue and Fountain Way
Northwest of Santa Fe and El Paso Avenues
South of Nielsen and Hughes Avenues
P:\213-0242\_Documents\CostEstimate\213242_Capital Improvement Costs.xls 2 of 3 7/23/2014 DRAFT
Table ES.2
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
2015-2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035
(in) (in) (ft) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($)
Capital Improvement Phasing
Length Improvement
Cost
Existing
Improvements
Future
Improvements
Future Reimbursement Category
User
Benefit
(%)
Rehab,
Replace,
or New
Project Type
Capital Improvement Projects
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
City of Fresno
Existing
Diameter
New
Diameter
Job No. Description / Limits
HPPR-2 Point Repair Varies Varies Replace Varies $ 5,800,000 $ 5,800,000 $ 5,800,000 $ - HPPR-3 Point Repair Varies Varies Replace Varies $ 5,800,000 $ 5,800,000 $ 5,800,000 $ - HPPR-4 Point Repair Varies Varies Replace Varies $ 5,800,000 $ 5,800,000 $ 5,800,000 $ - HPPR-5 Point Repair Varies Varies Replace Varies $ 5,777,000 $ 5,777,000 $ 5,777,000 $ - $ 28,977,000 $ 28,977,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 28,977,000 $ -
R-1A Rehabilitation Varies Varies Rehab Varies $ 2,488,000 $ 2,488,000 $ 2,488,000 $ - R-1B Rehabilitation Varies Varies Rehab Varies $ 2,571,000 $ 2,571,000 $ 2,571,000 $ - R-1C Rehabilitation Varies Varies Rehab Varies $ 2,631,000 $ 2,631,000 $ 2,631,000 $ - R-2 Rehabilitation 2006 Master Plan Project RS03A 24 24 Rehab 3,118 $ 1,126,000 $ 1,126,000 $ 1,126,000 $ - R-3 Rehabilitation 2006 Master Plan Project RS06B 15 15 Rehab 300 $ 92,000 $ 92,000 $ 92,000 $ - R-4 Rehabilitation 2006 Master Plan Project RL02 48 48 Rehab 2,644 $ 2,101,000 $ 2,101,000 $ 2,101,000 $ - R-5 Rehabilitation 2006 Master Plan Project RL11 54 54 Rehab 3,992 $ 3,561,000 $ 3,561,000 $ 3,561,000 $ - $ 14,570,000 $ 14,570,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 14,570,000 $ -
Capitol Improvement Projects Totals $ 312,316,000 $ 46,371,000 $ 55,848,000 $ 7,167,000 $ 202,930,000 $ 107,919,860 $ 204,396,140 Point Repair Totals
Pipe Rehabilitation Totals
Pipe Rehabilitation
250 Priority Point Repairs as determined by City of Fresno personnel 250 Priority Point Repairs as determined by City of Fresno personnel 250 Priority Point Repairs as determined by City of Fresno personnel 249 Priority Point Repairs as determined by City of Fresno personnel 16 high MOSR segments
18 high MOSR segments
23 high MOSR segments
P:\213-0242\_Documents\CostEstimate\213242_Capital Improvement Costs.xls 3 of 3 7/23/2014 September 2015 ES-11
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_ ES The projects were phased based on the best available information for how the City will develop moving forward. The actual implementation of the improvements serving future users ultimately depends on growth. The priorities presented below are estimates, and changes in the City’s planning assumptions or growth projections could increase or decrease the priority of each improvement.
ES.6 REHABILITATION AND REPAIR PLAN
The purpose of the rehabilitation and repair (R&R) plan is to identify sewer infrastructure conditions that pose a current or future threat to regular sewer operations and restore the affected facilities to an acceptable state. Sewer system conditions change over time and require periodic examination to monitor deterioration and determine when rehabilitation efforts are warranted. When sewer condition assessment activities yield signs of significant deterioration, rehabilitation is recommended to prevent operational system failures.
The City has developed and actively maintains a Geographic Information System (GIS) database of their sewer system. This GIS database includes detailed information that was used in the development of this R&R plan. City owned and operated truck mounted closed circuit television (CCTV) units have been used to collect video and condition assessment data for approximately 43 percent (690.5 miles) of the City’s gravity sewer system. The City uses the National Association of Sewer Service Companies (NASSCO) Pipeline Assessment Certification Program (PACP©) evaluation protocols to rate the condition of each CCTV inspected sewer main.
Rehabilitation recommendations have been provided for previously recommended rehabilitation projects, high priority point repairs, high Modified Overall Structural Rating (MDRS) sewers, and sewer lift stations. Figures ES.4 through ES.6 represent the recommended rehabilitation improvements.
ES.7 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
The cost estimates presented in the capital improvement plan (CIP) have been prepared for general master planning purposes and for guidance in project evaluation and implementation. Final costs of a project will depend on actual labor and material costs, competitive market conditions, final project scope, implementation schedule, and other variable factors such as preliminary alignment generation, investigation of alternative routings, and detailed utility and topography surveys.
The capital improvement project costs are based on City bid results for wastewater projects, previous cost studies, interviews with local contractors and our project experience with similar wastewater infrastructure projects throughout the Central Valley. The costs have been adjusted to the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (ENRCCI) 20 City Average of 9,800 for June 2014.
Priority Point Repairs
Wastewater Master Plan Update City of Fresno
Priority Code Code Description Occurrences B Broken 616 BSV Broken Soil Visible 136 BVV Broken Void Visible 139 CH3 Hinge Crack 3 CH4 Hinge Crack 2 D Deformed 33 FH3 Hinge Fracture 2 FH4 Hinge Fracture 1 H Hole 195 HSV Hole Soil Visible 31 HVV Hole Void Visible 28 SMW Missing Wall 4 SMWZ Missing Wall, Surface Damage Not Evident 6 SRC Reinforcement Corroded 35 SRCZ Reinforcement Corroded, Surface Damage Not Evident 1 SRV Reinforcement Visible 6 SRVC Reinforcement Visible, Surface Damage Chemical 1 XP Pipe Collapse 10 Priority Point Repair Total: 1249 MOSR Overview Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update City of Fresno Sewer Condition Range Condition Occurrence Percent of Inspected System Severe DK^ZшϮϬϬ 53 0.43 Critical ϭϬϬчDK^ZфϮϬϬ 33 0.27 Poor ϱϬчDK^ZфϭϬϬ 84 0.68
September 2015 ES-15
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_ ES Cost estimates have been developed to help the City prepare budgeting and scheduling for these projects. The cost estimates included in this master plan are Class 5 estimates as defined by the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) International publication entitled Recommend Practice No. 56R-08. Class 5 estimates are generally prepared on limited design information and subsequently have wide accuracy ranges. A typical Class 5 estimate for a civil engineering project may have an accuracy range as broad as -30 percent to +50 percent, or as narrow as -20 to +30 percent. Class 5 estimates are typically used for evaluation of resource needs, budgeting and capital planning.
The CIP scheduling assigns a fiscal year for each project as a target date for construction.
The CIP scheduling was developed with consideration given to the following:
• Project Prioritization
• Anticipated City Growth Rates and Patterns
• Cost Distribution and Budgeting
• City of Fresno Direction
Short term projects are phased by year through the year 2020 and long-term projects are phased in five year increments beginning in 2020 through 2035.
Rehabilitation projects and capacity projects are given the highest priority needs are and are all scheduled as short term projects to be completed between 2015 and 2020. Each project is itemized by phase in Table ES.3.
The improvements proposed in this study either benefit existing users, or are required to service new development and future users. A summary of the existing and future user cost share for the proposed projects by phase is summarized in Table ES.3.
Table ES.3 Summary of Capital Improvement Costs
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Implementation Phase
Reimbursement
Category
2015-20
($, mill.)
2021-25
($, mill.)
2026-30
($, mill.)
2031-35
($, mill.)
Total
($, mill.)
Existing User 46.3 55.6 6.1 0 108.0
Future User 0.1 0.2 1.1 202.9 204.3
Total 46.4 55.8 7.2 202.9 312.3
Notes:
(1) Costs are based on ENR CCI 20-City Average of 9,800 (June 2014).
September 2015 1-1
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH01 Chapter 1
BACKGROUND
This chapter presents a brief summary of the sanitary sewer system service area, the need for this Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update (Master Plan) and the objectives of the study. A list of abbreviations is also provided to assist the reader in understanding the information presented.
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Fresno (City) was founded in 1872 by the Central Pacific Railroad Company and incorporated in 1885. The City has since grown to over 112 square miles with a population of just under a half million people in the incorporated area. Today, Fresno is the fifth largest city in the state of California. Centrally located, Fresno is the financial, industrial, trade, and commercial capital in the Central San Joaquin Valley. Figure 1.1 presents a location map of the City. The City is the hub of a region rich in heritage, resources, and people.
The City is the Regional Sewer Agency for the Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area (FCMA).
The City owns and maintains a wastewater collection system that serves the City and the other participating agencies: the County of Fresno, the majority of the City of Clovis, the Pinedale Public Utility District, and the Pinedale County Water District. The City also owns and operates the Fresno/Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF), as well as the smaller North Fresno Wastewater Reclamation Facility (NFWRF) scalping plant.
1.2 SEWER SERVICE AREA
Figure 1.2 illustrates the City’s current wastewater service area. The City manages and maintains more than 1,500 miles of gravity sewer lines up to 84-inches in diameter, 15 active lift stations, and associated force mains. Nearly all of the wastewater generated within the sewer service area is conveyed to the City’s RWRF for treatment, with the exception of a small amount of flow that is treated at the City’s NFWRF. In addition, the City of Clovis recently constructed its own wastewater treatment facility on the eastern edge of the Clovis City limits (near the intersection of Ashlan Avenue and McCall Avenue), which provides wastewater service for a portion of the City of Clovis. However, most of the flow generated within the City of Clovis is treated at the RWRF.
The land use assumptions in this Master Plan were based on the Fresno General Plan (General Plan) and projected future developments within the City’s proposed growth boundary. Should future planning conditions change from the assumptions stated in this Master Plan (i.e., accelerated growth, more intense developments, etc.), revisions and adjustments to the Master Plan recommendations would be necessary. 395
Stanislaus County
Selma
Dinuba
Sanger
Madera
Clovis
Merced
Tulare
Avenal
Parlier Reedley
Atwater
Visalia
Lindsay
Lemoore
Hanford
Corcoran
Coalinga
Los Banos
Chowchilla
Porterville
Fresno
Sources: Esri, USGS, NOAA
Legend
City of Fresno
Major Roads
Hydrography
Urban Areas
State of California
Fresno 0 10 20
Miles
Figure 1.1
Regional Location Map
Wastewater Collection System
Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
North Ave
Jensen Ave
California Ave
Whitesbridge Ave/CA 180
Belmont Ave
McKinley Ave
Shields Ave
Ashlan Ave
Shaw Ave
Bullard Ave
Herndon Ave
Nees Ave
Shepherd Ave
Cooper Ave
Grantland Ave
Hayes Ave
Cornelia Ave
Brawley Ave
Marks AveWest Ave
Palm AveBlackstone Ave
First St
Cedar AveChestnut Ave
Willow Ave
Clovis Ave
Fowler Ave
Temperance Ave
Dewolf Ave
Highland AveMcCall Ave
Behymer Ave
RWRF
LS20
LS01
LS02
LS18
LS13
LS03 LS15
LS12
LS14
LS16
LS04
LS10
LS06
LS05
NFWRF
Legend
Existing Wastewater
Collection System
Lift Stations
Special Structures
Pipelines
8" and Smaller
10" - 18"
20" - 36"
Greater than 36"
Streets
Existing Sewer Service Area
City Limits
0 10,000 20,000
Feet
Figure 1.2
Wastewater Service Area
Wastewater Collection System
Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
September 2015 1-4
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH01
1.3 PREVIOUS MASTER PLAN
The City’s previous Wastewater Collection System Master Plan was completed in 2004 by Brown and Caldwell with the assistance of Blair, Church, and Flynn Consulting Engineers (BC&F). The objective of the 2004 Master Plan was to develop a long-range planning document that would assist the City’s staff with managing the collection system capital improvement program and update the impact and connection fees.
One component in this project was the development of a hydraulic model of the collection system and performing a hydraulic assessment for current and future conditions. The model allowed for identification of hydraulic deficiencies in the current collection system and new pipelines to serve new developments as well as development of a capital improvement program that included collection system projects identified during the hydraulic analysis and other projects already identified by the city.
1.4 SCOPE AND AUTHORIZATION
The purpose of this Master Plan is to update the 2004 Master Plan and to identify capacity deficiencies in the sanitary sewer system, develop feasible alternatives to correct these deficiencies, plan the infrastructure that will serve future development projected by the Fresno General Plan, and to develop a rehabilitation and repair plan for the City’s wastewater collection system.
In July 2013, the City approved a professional service agreement with Carollo Engineers, Inc. (Carollo), to prepare this Master Plan Update for the wastewater collection system. The professional services agreement included the following main tasks:
• Task 1 – Project Management and Meetings
• Task 2 – Data Collection and Review
• Task 3 – Wastewater Flow Projections
• Task 4 – Model Review, Evaluation, and Calibration
• Task 5 – Planning Criteria Development
• Task 6 – Rehabilitation/Repair Plan
• Task 7 – System Evaluation and Capital Improvement Plan • Task 8 – Master Plan Report Preparation
Carollo entered into a Subconsultant Agreement with BC&F to assist with the development of certain aspects of this Master Plan, including field reconnaissance, development of the rehabilitation and repair plan, and development of capital cost estimates.
September 2015 1-5
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH01
1.5 REPORT ORGANIZATION
The Master Plan report contains seven chapters, followed by appendices that provide supporting documentation for the information presented in the report. The chapters are briefly described below:
Chapter 1 - Introduction. This chapter presents the need for this Master Plan and the objectives of the study. Lists of abbreviations and reference materials are also provided to assist the reader in understanding the information presented.
Chapter 2 - Study Area Description. This chapter presents a description of the study area, defines the planning horizon for this study, and summarizes the land use classifications.
Chapter 3 - Flow Monitoring Program. This chapter defines the typical components of wastewater in a collection system as they pertain to this Master Plan. The flow monitoring data and results from the flow monitoring program are summarized and discussed.
Chapter 4 - Collection System Facilities and Hydraulic Model. This chapter describes the update and calibration of the City’s collection system hydraulic model. A description of the City’s wastewater collection system, the existing hydraulic model, and an outline of the steps used to update the model are provided. A detailed summary of the hydraulic model calibration steps, standards, and results for both base wastewater flow (BWF) and wet weather flow (WWF) conditions is also provided.
Chapter 5 - Planning Criteria and Design Flows. The capacity of the City’s wastewater collection system was evaluated based on the planning criteria defined in this chapter. The planning criteria address the collection system capacity, gravity sewer pipe slopes, and maximum allowable depth of flow within a sewer. This chapter also summarizes the existing and build out design flows.
Chapter 6 - Capacity Evaluation and Proposed Improvements. This chapter discusses the hydraulic evaluation of the sewer collection system and the proposed projects that correct capacity deficiencies and serve future users.
Chapter 7 – Rehabilitation and Replacement Plan. This Chapter describes the proposed rehabilitation and repair (R&R) plan for the City’s wastewater collection system, and includes the objectives of the plan, the data used to develop the plan, and the evaluation of the City’s collection system assets.
Chapter 8 - Capital Improvement Plan. This chapter presents the capital improvement projects, a summary of the capital costs, and a basic assessment of the possible financial impacts on the City. This chapter presents the recommended capital improvement plan (CIP) for the City collection system and a summary of the capital costs.
September 2015 1-6
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH01
1.6 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Carollo and BC&F wish to acknowledge and thank Mr. Steve Hogg, Assistant Director, Department of Public Utilities; Mr. Kevin Norgaard, Supervising Professional Engineer, Department of Public Utilities; and Mr. Orlando Gonzalez, Engineer, Department of Public Utilities. Their cooperation and courtesy in obtaining a variety of necessary information were valuable components in completing and producing this report.
1.7 ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS
To conserve space and to improve readability, the following abbreviations are used in this report.
°F Degrees Fahrenheit
General Plan Fresno General Plan
AACE Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering AAF Average Annual Flow
ADWF Average Dry Weather Flow
ADS ADS Environmental Services
BCC Baseline Construction Cost
BC&F Flair, Church, and Flynn Consulting Engineers
BRT Bus Rapid Transit
BWF Base Wastewater Flow
Buildout General Plan Buildout
Carollo Carollo Engineers, Inc.
CCTV Closed-Circuit Television
CIP Capital Improvement Plan
CIPP Cured-in-Place Pipe
City City of Fresno
CSUF California State University, Fresno
d/D Flow Depth to Pipe Diameter Ratio
September 2015 1-7
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH01 DWF Dry Weather Flow
ENRCCI Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index
EPS Extended Period Simulation
FCMA Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area
ft/s Feet Per Second
ft2 Square Feet
GIS Geographic Information System
gpd Gallons Per Day
gpd/ac Gallons Per Day Per Acre
gpm Gallons Per Minute
GWI Groundwater Infiltration
HDPE High-Density Polyethylene
HGL Hydraulic Grade Line
I/I Infiltration and Inflow
JPA Fresno-Clovis Regional Sewerage System Joint Powers Agreement Master Plan Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update mgd Million Gallons Per Day
MGP Master Group Polygons
MOSR Modified Overall Structural Rating
MPG Master Group Polygons
MSL Mean Sea Level
n Manning Friction Coefficient
NASSCO National Association of Sewer Service Companies
NCFWRF North Central Fresno Wastewater Reclamation Facility NFWRF North Fresno Wastewater Reclamation Facility
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
September 2015 1-8
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH01 NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
OSR Overall Structural Rating
PACP© Pipeline Assessment and Certification Program
PDWF Peak Dry Weather Flow
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride
PWWF Peak Wet Weather Flow
q/Q Peak Flow to Pipe Capacity Ratio
R&R Rehabilitation and Repair
RDII Rainfall Derived Infiltration and Inflow
ROW Right Of Way
RWRF Regional Water Reclamation Facility
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SEDA Southeast Development Area
SIU Significant Industrial Users
SOI Sphere of Influence
SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow
SWMM Stormwater Management Model
VCP Vitrified Clay Pipe
WaPUG Wastewater Planning Users Group
WWF Wet Weather Flow
1.8 REFERENCE MATERIAL
The following documents were referenced in the preparation of this Master Plan:
• City of Fresno General Plan Update, December 2014.
• City of Fresno CCTV Inspection and Evaluation for Mid-Sized Concrete Sewers, Final, Blair, Church & Flynn, July 2010.
• City of Fresno Evaluation of Large Diameter Wastewater Collection System, Final, Blair, Church & Flynn, 1992-1996.
September 2015 1-9
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH01 • City of Fresno Inspection and Evaluation of Concrete Sewers 12 Inches to 27 Inches in Diameter, Final, Blair, Church & Flynn, July 2001.
• City of Fresno Large Diameter Sewer Evaluation Update, Final, Blair, Church & Flynn, January 2012.
• City of Fresno North Avenue Trunk Sewer Evaluation, Final, Blair, Church, and Flynn, 1990.
• City of Fresno Permanent Flow Monitoring Data, ADS, 2010-2012 • City of Fresno Wastewater Collection System Master Plan, Final, Brown and Caldwell, May 2006.
September 2015 2-1
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH02 Chapter 2
STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION
This chapter presents a description of the study area, defines the planning horizon for the study, and summarizes the land use classifications.
2.1 STUDY AREA
The area serviced by the City of Fresno (City) is characterized by residential, commercial, and industrial uses within the City limits. While the City has a diverse economy, Fresno County is the nations’ top-ranked agriculture-producing county. There are some agricultural lands within the metropolitan area that are interspersed on larger parcels along the fringe of urbanized area and in between parcels.
There are many open space areas within the City, including Woodward Park and Roeding Park which is home of the Fresno Chaffee Zoo. The main water bodies near the City are located on the outskirts of town. The San Joaquin River runs east and west just to the North of the City limits. The Kings River is about 12 miles east of the City limits and the City diverts water from the river for part of their water supply. The Sierra Nevada Mountains are located about 25 miles east of the City.
There are four major highways that run through the City which include State Route 99, State Route 168, State Route 41, and State Route 180. State Route 99 connects the major cities in the central valley and runs north and south. State Route 168 heads east out of the City through Clovis and heads to the Sierras to the east. State Route 41 runs north and south which connects to Atascadero in the South and to Yosemite to the north. State Route 180 runs east and west which connects to Mendota to the west and to Kings Canyon National Park to the east.
The City’s proposed Sphere of Influence (SOI), as defined in Fresno General Plan (General Plan) is the study area boundary for this Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update (Master Plan). The Master Plan study area boundary and the SOI are synonymous and will be used interchangeably throughout this report. The SOI extends beyond the current sewer service area and is approximately 100,240 acres (156.6 square miles). This Master Plan is intended as the guiding document to plan and implement sewer system improvements to accommodate future growth to build out of the General Plan. Figure 2.1 shows the study area boundary and the current City limits.
2.2 PLANNING PERIOD
The Master Plan study area is intended to include the existing City limits and development that could occur through build out of the City’s General Plan. Existing and build out land uses within the study area are discussed in this chapter.
North Ave
Jensen Ave
California Ave
Whitesbridge Ave/CA 180
Belmont Ave
McKinley Ave
Shields Ave
Ashlan Ave
Shaw Ave
Bullard Ave
Herndon Ave
Nees Ave
Shepherd Ave
Cooper Ave
Grantland Ave
Hayes Ave
Cornelia Ave
Brawley Ave
Marks AveWest Ave
Palm AveBlackstone Ave
First St
Cedar AveChestnut Ave
Willow Ave
Clovis Ave
Fowler Ave
Temperance Ave
Dewolf Ave
Highland Ave
McCall Ave
Behymer Ave
RWRF
Central Ave
American Ave
Lincoln Ave
Dickenson Ave
West Lawn Ave
Chateau Fresno AveDel Rey Ave
Bethel Ave
Academy Ave
Madsen Ave
Legend
Sphere of Influence
City Limits
0 12,500 25,000
Feet
Figure 2.1
Study Area
Wastewater Collection System
Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
September 2015 2-3
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH02
2.3 CLIMATE
The City’s study area is characterized by a semi-arid climate with mild, moderately wet winters and hot, dry summers. Table 2.1 summarizes the maximum and minimum monthly temperatures as well as the average monthly precipitation. January is the City’s coldest and wettest month, with an average high temperature of 55.3 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), an average low temperature of 39.3°F, and 2.19 inches of precipitation. July is the City’s hottest month, with an average high temperature of 98.7°F and an average low temperature of 68.1°F. Approximately 87 percent of the annual rainfall occurs between November and May, with an average annual rainfall of 10.73 inches.
Table 2.1 Study Area Climate
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Month
Average
Maximum
Temperature
(ºF)
Average
Minimum
Temperature
(ºF)
Average
Monthly Rainfall
(inches)
January 55.3 39.3 2.19
February 61.0 41.7 2.08
March 68.3 45.8 1.40
April 73.4 49.0 1.05
May 84.4 56.5 0.42
June 92.1 62.4 0.23
July 98.7 68.1 0.01
August 97.2 66.0 0.08
September 90.8 61.3 0.07
October 78.7 52.6 0.62
November 65.0 44.8 0.98
December 55.7 38.4 1.62
Annual 76.7 52.2 10.73
Notes:
(1) Source: Western Regional Climate Center, Fresno Yosemite International Airport, www.wrcc.dri.edu.
2.4 TOPOGRAPHY
The City is located in the center of San Joaquin Valley near the eastern fringe of the Sierra Nevada mountain range. The terrain is flat except for the bluffs near the San Joaquin River.
September 2015 2-4
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH02 The majority of the City is relatively flat with an average elevation of approximately 335 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Figure 2.2 shows the general topography of the study area.
2.5 LAND USE
Land use information is an integral component in determining the amount of wastewater generated within the City. The type of land use in an area will affect the volume and characteristics of the wastewater generation. Therefore, adequately estimating the generation of wastewater from various land use types is important in sizing and maintaining effective sanitary sewer system facilities. Existing land use was utilized to develop the initial estimate of wastewater flows for current conditions. For future flow conditions, the City’s General Plan land use was used.
An important tool for determining land use projections is the City’s General Plan, which guides development within the study area and establishes long-range development policies.
Land use assumptions used in this study area consistent with those for existing and proposed development as published in the General Plan.
2.5.1 Existing Wastewater Collection System Service Area Land Use The City provides wastewater collection service to residents, businesses, and other institutions within its service area, which currently encompasses and area of approximately 61,200 acres or 95.7 square miles. It should be noted that the 95.7 square miles excludes areas within the City limits that are developed but are unsewered (e.g., areas served by septic tanks), land area within the City of Clovis, and undeveloped land outside of the current service area. It does however include some County islands that area not technically within the City limits (e.g., Pinedale). Figure 2.3 shows the City’s existing land use within the current sewer service area. Table 2.2 summarizes the existing sewer service land area by existing land use designation.
The largest land use category is residential, which accounts for approximately 44 percent of the total current service area acreage. Commercial land uses make up approximately 6 percent of the total. Industrial designations comprise 7 percent of the service area. Public land uses account for approximately 8 percent of the service area. Other land uses, such as open space, roads, and vacant land account for the remaining 35 percent of the total service area.
2.5.2 Build Out Wastewater Service Area Land Use
At build out of the General Plan, the City will encompass approximately 100,240 acres (156.6 square miles). Build out is defined as complete development of the General Plan Boundary. Appendix A provides a description of the different land uses associated with the General Plan. The descriptions are excerpts from the General Plan. Figure 2.4 and Table 2.3 show the General Plan land uses.
North Ave
Jensen Ave
California Ave
Whitesbridge Ave/CA 180
Belmont Ave
McKinley Ave
Shields Ave
Ashlan Ave
Shaw Ave
Bullard Ave
Herndon Ave
Nees Ave
Shepherd Ave
Cooper Ave
Grantland Ave
Hayes Ave
Cornelia Ave
Brawley Ave
Marks AveWest Ave
Palm AveBlackstone Ave
First St
Cedar AveChestnut Ave
Willow Ave
Clovis Ave
Fowler Ave
Temperance Ave
Dewolf Ave
Highland Ave
McCall Ave
Behymer Ave
RWRF
Central Ave
American Ave
Lincoln Ave
Dickenson Ave
West Lawn Ave
Chateau Fresno AveDel Rey Ave
Bethel Ave
Academy Ave
Madsen Ave
Legend
Streets
Sphere of Influence
City Limits
Elevation
High : 1.550 Feet
Low : 200 Feet
0 12,500 25,000
Feet
Figure 2.2
Study Area Topography
Wastewater Collection System
Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
North Ave
Jensen Ave
California Ave
Whitesbridge Ave/CA 180
Belmont Ave
McKinley Ave
Shields Ave
Ashlan Ave
Shaw Ave
Bullard Ave
Herndon Ave
Nees Ave
Shepherd Ave
Cooper Ave
Grantland Ave
Hayes Ave
Cornelia Ave
Brawley Ave
Marks AveWest Ave
Palm AveBlackstone Ave
First St
Cedar AveChestnut Ave
Willow Ave
Clovis Ave
Fowler Ave
Temperance Ave
Dewolf Ave
Highland Ave
McCall Ave
Behymer Ave
RWRF
Central Ave
American Ave
Lincoln Ave
Dickenson Ave
West Lawn Ave
Chateau Fresno AveDel Rey Ave
Bethel Ave
Academy Ave
Madsen Ave
Legend
Sphere of Influence
City Limits
Major Streets
Existing Land Use
Residential Rural
Residential Low Density
Residential Medium
Low Density
Residential Medium Density
Residential Medium
High Density
Residential High Density
Residential Mobile Home
Commercial
Industrial
Public Facilities
Open Space
Vacant
0 12,500 25,000
Feet
Figure 2.3
Existing Land Use
Wastewater Collection System
Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
North Ave
Jensen Ave
California Ave
Whitesbridge Ave/CA 180
Belmont Ave
McKinley Ave
Shields Ave
Ashlan Ave
Shaw Ave
Bullard Ave
Herndon Ave
Nees Ave
Shepherd Ave
Cooper Ave
Grantland Ave
Hayes Ave
Cornelia Ave
Brawley Ave
Marks AveWest Ave
Palm AveBlackstone Ave
First St
Cedar AveChestnut Ave
Willow Ave
Clovis Ave
Fowler Ave
Temperance Ave
Dewolf Ave
Highland Ave
McCall Ave
Behymer Ave
RWRF
Central Ave
American Ave
Lincoln Ave
Dickenson Ave
West Lawn Ave
Chateau Fresno AveDel Rey Ave
Bethel Ave
Academy Ave
Madsen Ave
Legend
Major Streets
Build Out Land Use
Residential Low Density
Residential Medium
Low Density
Residential Medium Density
Residential Medium
High Density
Residential Urban
Neighborhood
Residential High Density
Commercial
Industrial
Public Facilities
Mixed Use
Open Space
Agricultural
Downtown Planning Area
CBD
Districts/Centers
Corridor General
Neighbhorhoods
Open Conservation
Public Facility
Sphere of Influence
City Limits
0 12,500 25,000
Feet
Figure 2.4
Build Out Land Use
Wastewater Collection System
Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Table 2.2 Existing Land Use
Table 2.2 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update Table 2.2 City of Fresno
Land Use Area Percent of Total
Land Use Classification (acre) (%)
Residential
Rural Density 1,216 2.0%
Low Density (1-3 DU/acre) 1,138 1.9%
Medium Low Density (3.5 -6 DU/acre) 10,361 16.9%
Medium Density (5-12 DU/acre) 11,143 18.2%
Medium High Density (12-16 DU/acre) 2,039 3.3%
High Density (30-45 DU/acre) 1,316 2.1%
Subtotal 27,212 44.4%
Commercial
Community 604 1.0%
General Heavy 1,054 1.7%
Neighborhood 569 0.9%
Neighborhood Limited 3 0.0%
Office 1,057 1.7%
Professional Services Office 100 0.2%
Regional 218 0.4%
Recreational 119 0.2%
Storage Limited 44 0.1%
Subtotal 3,768 6.2%
Public Facilities
Airport 1,065 1.7%
College 151 0.2%
High school 475 0.8%
Elementary School and High School 141 0.2%
Middle School 233 0.4%
Elementary School and Middle School 188 0.3%
Elementary School 735 1.2%
Special School 42 0.1%
Cemetery 165 0.3%
Church 545 0.9%
Community Activity Center 8 0.0%
Neighborhood Center 5 0.0%
Convention Center 17 0.0%
Fairgounds 90 0.1%
Fire Station 14 0.0%
Government Offices 141 0.2%
County Court House Central Area 14 0.0%
Hospital 137 0.2%
Medical Center 10 0.0%
Convalescent Hospital 64 0.1%
Military 60 0.1%
Mobile Home Park 388 0.6%
Municipal Service Center 37 0.1%
Post Office 23 0.0%
Public Facility 21 0.0%
Public/Quasi-Public Facility 43 0.1%
Pump Station 44 0.1%
Subtotal 4,854 7.9%
Open Space
Open Space 60 0.1%
Recreational Use/Clear Zone 16 0.0%
Ag 233 0.4%
Canal 38 0.1%
Community Park 28 0.0%
Golf Course 597 1.0%
Lake or Pond 54 0.1%
Multi-Use 101 0.2%
Neighborhood Park 212 0.3%
Recreational Park 59 0.1%
Recreational Use 12 0.0%
Regional Park 154 0.3%
Parking 78 0.1%
Pg&e Substation 117 0.2%
Ponding Basin 407 0.7%
Ponding Basin/Park 108 0.2%
Subtotal 2,281 3.7%
Other
Roads/ Canals/ Highways 16,545 27.0%
Vacant 2,303 3.8%
Subtotal 18,848 30.8%
Industrial/Clovis
Light Industrial 2,979 4.9%
Heavy Industrial 1,291 2.1%
Subtotal 4,270 7.0%
Total
Total 61,234 100.0%
Current Sewer Service Area Land Use
Table 2.3 Build Out Land Use
Table 2.3 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update Table 2.3 City of Fresno
Land Use Area Percent of Total
Land Use Type (acre) (%)
Residential
Low Density (1-3 DU/acre) 6,436 6.4%
Medium Low Density (3.5 -6 DU/acre) 12,558 12.5%
Medium Density (5-12 DU/acre) 17,977 17.9%
Medium High Density (12-16 DU/acre) 3,743 3.7%
Urban Neighborhood (16-30 DU/acre) 2,184 2.2%
High Density (30-45 DU/acre) 371 0.4%
Subtotal 43,269 43.2%
Commercial
Main Street 72 0.1%
Community 1,363 1.4%
Recreation 111 0.1%
General Heavy 437 0.4%
Highway & Auto 253 0.3%
Regional 553 0.6%
Neighborhood 0 0.0%
Subtotal 2,790 2.8%
Employment
Office 1,426 1.4%
Professional Services Office 1 0.0%
Business Park 842 0.8%
Regional Business Park 1,817 1.8%
Light Industrial 4,847 4.8%
Heavy Industrial 3,960 4.0%
Subtotal 12,893 12.9%
Mixed Use
Corridor/Center Mixed Use 2,046 2.0%
Regional Mixed Use 956 1.0%
Neighborhood Mixed Use 131 0.1%
Subtotal 3,133 3.1%
Open Space
Recreational Use/Clear Zone 8 0.0%
Recreational Use 339 0.3%
Commercial-Recreational 18 0.0%
Community Park 105 0.1%
Golf Course 985 1.0%
Lake, Pond 86 0.1%
Multi-Use 2,221 2.2%
Neighborhood Park 228 0.2%
Open Space 1,552 1.5%
Recreational Park 222 0.2%
Ponding Basin 1,244 1.2%
Ponding Basin (Park Use) 102 0.1%
Regional Park 561 0.6%
Subtotal 7,670 7.7%
Public Facilities
Public/Quasi-Public Facility 596 0.6%
Public Facility 321 0.3%
Special School 635 0.6%
Elementary School 1,071 1.1%
Elementary & Middle School 62 0.1%
Elementary, Middle, & High School 40 0.0%
Middle School 290 0.3%
Junior High School 34 0.0%
High School 383 0.4%
College 282 0.3%
Cal State University 1,258 1.3%
Airport 928 0.9%
Cemetary 75 0.1%
Church 149 0.1%
Community Activity Center 9 0.0%
Convalescent Hospital 7 0.0%
Fairgrounds 116 0.1%
Fire Station 20 0.0%
Hospital 58 0.1%
Neighborhood Center 5 0.0%
PG&E Substation 141 0.1%
Police Dressing Station 1 0.0%
Water Recharge Basin 288 0.3%
Subtotal 6,770 6.8%
Buffer
Buffer (Ag) 736 0.7%
Subtotal 736 0.7%
Downtown
Central Business District 267 0.3%
Civic Center 37 0.0%
Town Center 55 0.1%
Neighborhood Center 84 0.1%
Chinatown District 29 0.0%
Cultural Arts District 69 0.1%
Corridor General 466 0.5%
Neighborhoods 2,584 2.6%
Special Districts 1,000 1.0%
Public Facility 150 0.1%
Open Conservation 178 0.2%
South Stadium District 120 0.1%
Subtotal 5,039 5.0%
Other
Street, Rail, Canal, Etc. 17,941 17.9%
Subtotal 17,941 17.9%
Total
Total 100,240 100.0%
Build Out Sewer Service Area Land Use
September 2015 2-10
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH02 At build out, the largest land use category is residential, which accounts for approximately 43 percent of the total service area acreage. Commercial land uses make up approximately 3 percent of the total. Employment land uses make up approximately 13 percent, and mixed use areas account for roughly 3 percent of the service area. Public land uses account for approximately 7 percent of the service area. The downtown area, which consists of a mixture of land uses, accounts for 5 percent of the service area. Other land uses, such as open space, roads, and vacant land account for the remaining 26 percent of the total service area.
In general terms, the study area can be grouped into two mains categories in regards to future development/land use. These are “Areas of Stability” and “Areas of Change,” as summarized below:
• Areas of Change: For the purposes of this Master Plan, areas of change are defined as an area within the study area that will contribute to a net increase in wastewater flows into the collection system. These areas are further broken down subcategories, as described below:
– Downtown: A major component of the General Plan is Downtown. The General Plan envisions a new focus on land use and design along major streets and in neighborhoods that support Downtown. This new focus includes proposals for increased density in Downtown itself and vibrant mixed-use centers that will emanate from Downtown (mixed use corridors are described below), extending the reach of and connections with Downtown in all directions. – Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Corridors: The City believes that the BRT corridors proposed in the General Plan offer great opportunities for future growth in form of mixed-use development on sites that are now underutilized or vacant. These areas are assigned a mixed use land use designation, and are targeted for densification in the General Plan. The City provided Carollo with a Geographic Information System (GIS) shape file indicating which areas are targeted for redevelopment in the BRT corridors, as well as the Downtown area. – Infill: For the purposes of this Master Plan, infill is defined as development of existing vacant parcels that lie within the existing wastewater service area.
Development of these vacant areas will increase wastewater flows within the existing collection system, and are therefore targeted as areas of change. – New Growth Areas: There are several planned growths areas within the study area. These areas primarily consist of the Southeast Development Area (SEDA), the West Growth Area, and the Southwest Growth Area. In addition, this Master Plan includes other areas that are within the current City limits, but are not currently developed or otherwise connected to the wastewater collection system (i.e., areas on septic systems), as these areas will also contribute to an expansion of the service area and increased wastewater flows.
September 2015 2-11
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH02 • Areas of Stability: The remaining land use areas within the current sewer service area (not designated as areas of change) are defined as areas of stability for the purposes of this Master Plan. Wastewater flows associated with areas of stability are assumed to remain unchanged at build out of the General Plan.
Figure 2.5 identifies the “Areas of Stability” and “Areas of Change” within the City’s General Plan Boundary.
North Ave
Jensen Ave
California Ave
Whitesbridge Ave/CA 180
Belmont Ave
McKinley Ave
Shields Ave
Ashlan Ave
Shaw Ave
Bullard Ave
Herndon Ave
Nees Ave
Shepherd Ave
Cooper Ave
Grantland Ave
Hayes Ave
Cornelia Ave
Brawley Ave
Marks AveWest Ave
Palm AveBlackstone Ave
First St
Cedar AveChestnut Ave
Willow Ave
Clovis Ave
Fowler Ave
Temperance Ave
Dewolf Ave
Highland Ave
McCall Ave
Behymer Ave
RWRF
Central Ave
American Ave
Lincoln Ave
Dickenson Ave
West Lawn Ave
Chateau Fresno AveDel Rey Ave
Bethel Ave
Academy Ave
Madsen Ave
Legend
Streets
Areas of Change
Existing Sewer Service Area
Sphere of Influence
City Limits
0 12,500 25,000
Feet
Figure 2.5
Areas of Stability and Areas of Change
Wastewater Collection System
Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
September 2015 3-1
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH03 Chapter 3
FLOW MONITORING PROGRAM
This chapter defines the typical components of wastewater in a collection system as they pertain to this Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update (Master Plan). The flow monitoring data and results from the flow monitoring program are summarized and discussed.
3.1 PERMANENT FLOW MONITORING SITES AND TRIBUTARY
AREAS
The City of Fresno (City) has an ongoing contract with ADS Environmental Services (ADS) to perform quarterly quality control on the City’s permanent flow meters. The purpose of the City’s permanent flow monitoring program monitors flows at specific locations in the collection system over an extended period of time. In general, the permanent flow monitors were located to capture flows from various sewer basins within the collection system, and to capture flows from the City of Clovis and a portion of the flow discharged from California State University, Fresno (CSUF). This section defines the typical components of wastewater in a collection system, and summarizes and discusses the flow monitoring data used as part of this study.
A total of 21 open channel flow meters are currently installed in the City’s wastewater collection system at strategic locations. The meter sites were selected by the City to isolate flows in specific areas and subareas in the collection system, and to capture flows from the City of Clovis and Fresno State. The 21 flow monitoring locations, as well as the area tributary to each site, are shown on Figure 3.1. Table 3.1 lists the flow monitoring locations and the diameters for the sewers where the meters were installed. Figure 3.2 provides a schematic illustration of the flow monitoring locations.
3.2 WASTEWATER FLOW COMPONENTS
As a way to help the reader understand the wastewater flow components, this section describes and provides definitions of commonly used terminology in the wastewater collection system analysis and evaluations conducted as part of this project. In general, wastewater consists of base wastewater flow (BWF) and wet weather flow (WWF). BWF is flow generated by routine water usage in the residential, commercial, business and industrial sectors of the collection system.
North Ave
Jensen Ave
California Ave
Whitesbridge Ave/CA 180
Belmont Ave
McKinley Ave
Shields Ave
Ashlan Ave
Shaw Ave
Bullard Ave
Herndon Ave
Nees Ave
Shepherd Ave
Cooper Ave
Grantland Ave
Hayes Ave
Cornelia Ave
Brawley Ave
Marks AveWest Ave
Palm AveBlackstone Ave
First St
Cedar AveChestnut Ave
Willow Ave
Clovis Ave
Fowler Ave
Temperance Ave
Dewolf Ave
Highland AveMcCall Ave
Behymer Ave
RWRF
FR02
FR06
FR23
FR09
FR08
FR15
FR21
FR13
FR01
FR22
FR20
FR19
FR24
FR16
FR11
FR14
FR25
FR12
FR26
FR27 FR10
FR02
FR13
FR22
FR01
FR15
FR09
FR21
FR06
FR16
FR08
FR24
FR11
FR19
FR11
FR23
FR20
FR14
Legend
Flow Monitoring Locations
Fresno Meter
Clovis Meter
CSUF Meter
Pipelines
8" and Smaller
10" and Larger
Streets
Existing Sewer Service Area
Flow Meter Basins
FR01
FR02
FR06
FR08
FR09
FR11
FR13
FR14
FR15
FR16
FR19
FR20
FR21
FR22
FR23
FR24
0 10,000 20,000
Feet
Figure 3.1
Permanent Flow Meter Locations
Wastewater Collection System
Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
RWRF
FR13 FR14
FR24 FR19
FR01
FR12
FR27
FR10
FR20 FR11
FR08FR09
FR23
FR06
FR22
FR15
FR16
FR02
FR21
FR26
FR25
Figure 3.2
Flow Monitoring Locations Schematic
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
LEGEND
FR02
FR26FR25
CITY METER
CLOVIS METER
CSUF METER
DIVERSION/ OVERFLOW
DIVERSION W/CLOSED GATE
POTENTIAL OVERFLOW
FLOW DIRECTION
September 2015 3-4
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH03 Table 3.1 Flow Monitoring Locations
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Meter
Site
Manhole
ID
Pipe
Diameter
(in.) Location Notes
FR01 2345-01 45 Polk Ave. & Olive Ave.
FR02 1346-24 45 Herndon Ave. & Blythe Ave.
FR06 1953-02 36 Ashlan Ave. & Fruit Ave.
FR08 3261-05 48 Chestnut Ave. & Annadale Ave.
FR09 2561-09 39 Chestnut Ave. & Madison Ave.
FR10 1967-46 36 Fowler Ave. near Sussex Way Clovis
FR11 3361-01 66 North Ave. & Maple Ave.
FR12 1362-02 33 Herndon Ave. & Willow Ave. Clovis
FR13 3253-06 51 Fruit Ave. & North Ave.
FR14 3256-11 36 Cherry Ave. & Edgar Ave.
FR15 2853-86 48 California Ave. & Fruit Ave.
FR16 2357-34 30 First St. & Floradora Ave.
FR19 2946-02 66 Church Ave. & Cornelia Ave.
FR20 3249-01 66 North Ave. & Prospect Ave.
FR21 2552-36 42 Fruit Ave. & Nielsen Ave.
FR22 2550-07 45 Marks Ave. & Nielsen Ave.
FR23 2562-21 27 Washington Ave. & Garden Ave.
FR24 3042-07 72 Jensen Ave. & Grantland Ave.
FR25 1760-56 15 Shaw Ave. & Maple Ave. Fresno State, Maple FR26 1362-45 12 Sierra Ave. & Willow Ave. Clovis
FR27 1963-09 27 Peach Ave. & Pontiac Way Clovis
September 2015 3-5
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH03 The other component of BWF is the contribution of dry weather groundwater infiltration (GWI) into the collection system. Dry weather GWI will enter the sewer system when the relative depth of the groundwater table is higher than the depth of the pipeline and when the susceptibility of the sanitary sewer pipe allows infiltration through defects such as cracks, misaligned joints, and broken pipelines. In the City specifically, the depth to the groundwater table is quite deep, and therefore there is little to no influence associated with dry weather GWI into the collection system.
WWF includes storm water inflow, trench infiltration, and wet weather GWI. The storm water inflow and trench infiltration comprise the WWF component termed infiltration and inflow (I/I). The response in the sewer system to rainfall is seen immediately (as with inflow) or within hours after the storm (as with infiltration).
The third element of WWF is GWI, which is not specific to a single rainfall event, but rather to the effects on the sewer system over the entire wet weather season. The depth of the groundwater table rising above the pipe invert elevation causes GWI. Sewer pipes within close proximity to a body of water can be greatly influenced by groundwater effects. As the groundwater table fluctuates over the wet weather season, this fluctuation is seen as a mounding effect in flow monitoring data. As previously mentioned, the depth to groundwater in Fresno is very deep, and so the effect of wet weather GWI is negligible. In fact, wastewater flows, on average, are lowest during the wet weather months in the City.
Figure 3.3 illustrates the various flow components of wastewater in general, which are described in detail in the following sections.
3.2.1 Base Wastewater Flow
The BWF is the flow generated by the City’s customers. The flow has a diurnal pattern that varies depending on the type of use. Commercial and industrial patterns, though they vary depending on the type of use, typically have more consistent higher flows during business hours and lower flows at night. Furthermore, the diurnal flow pattern experienced during a weekend may vary from the diurnal flow experienced during a weekday.
3.2.2 Average Annual Flow
The average annual flow (AAF) is the average flow that occurs on a daily basis throughout the year, including both periods of dry and wet weather conditions.
3.2.3 Average Dry Weather Flow
The Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) is the average flow that occurs on a daily basis during the dry weather season. The ADWF includes the BWF generated by the City’s residential, commercial, and industrial users, plus the dry weather GWI component. For the City, the ADWF and the BWF are synonymous, because dry weather GWI is not a contributor to the City’s collection system. Therefore, throughout the remainder of this Master Plan, the term BWF will be used in place of the term ADWF.
Pl205f1-6825.cdr
Figure 3.3
WASTEWATER
FLOW COMPONENTS
WASTEWATER COLLECTION
SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
CITY OF MODESTO
Base Wastewater Flow
Dry Weather Flow Dry Weather Flow
Infiltration Infiltration
Inflow Inflow
Dry Weather
Ground Water Infiltration
Storm Water Inflow
Trench Infiltration
Ground Water Infiltration
Rainfall
Dependent
Inflow and
Infiltration
Total
Flow
Time (Days)
1234567
NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
Month
Rain
Rainfall Dependent Infiltration and Inflow (RDI/I) ( )
Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF)
Groundwater Infiltration (seasonal mounding)
Flow Rain
Seasonal
Weekly
Flow
Rain
Inflow
Sanitary Dry Weather Flow
Infiltration
Groundwater Infiltration
Inflow
SWI
+
+
=
=
Infiltration
TI RDI/I
Rainfall Dependent
Infiltration & Inflow (RDI/I)
=
Rain
Pl205f1-6825.cdr 3-18
Figure 3.8
TYPICAL WASTEWATER
FLOW COMPONENTS
DISTRICT-WIDE MASTER PLAN
WEST COUNTY WASTEWATER DISTRICT
Note: This figure is not based on flow data specific to the City or this Master Plan
Figure 3.3
Typical Wastewater Flow Components
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
September 2015 3-7
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH03
3.2.4 Infiltration and Inflow
All wastewater collection systems have some I/I, although the characteristics and severity vary by region and individual collection system. Some of the most common sources of I/I are shown on Figure 3.4. Infiltration is defined as storm water flows that enter the sewer system by percolating through the soil and then through defects in pipelines, manholes, and joints.
Examples of infiltration entry points are cracks in pipelines, misaligned joints, and root penetration. Inflow is defined as storm water that enters the sewer system via a storm drain cross connections, leaky manhole covers, or cleanouts. Examples of inflow entry points are roof drain and downspout connections, leaky manhole covers, and illegal storm drain connections.
The adverse effects of I/I entering the sewer system is that it increases both the flow volume and peak flows, as illustrated on Figure 3.5. If too much I/I enters the sewer system such that the sewer system is operating at or above its capacity, sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) could occur. The City’s wastewater collection system exhibits relatively low I/I contribution as a whole, although there are certain areas with relatively high rates of I/I.
3.2.5 Peak Dry Weather Flow
Peak dry weather flow (PDWF) is the highest observed hourly flow in the collection system during the dry weather season. In the case of the City, industrial flows increase significantly during the late summer months. The highest monthly flow rates at the RWRF are typically experienced in the months of August, September, and October. PDWF is used to evaluate the capacity of the collection system.
3.2.6 Peak Wet Weather Flow (Design Flow)
Peak wet weather flow (PWWF) is the highest observed flow that occurs following a design storm event. Wet weather I/I cause flows in the collection system to increase. PWWF is typically used for designing sewers and lift stations. Therefore, the PWWF and the “Design Flow” are synonymous and will be used interchangeably. As with PDWF, PWWF is also used to evaluate the capacity of the collection system.
3.3 FLOW MONITORING DATA SUMMARY
This section summarizes the data obtained and analyzed from the City’s permanent flow monitoring program, including BWF data and wet weather flow data. Data collected from Meter FR06 is presented throughout this and other chapters as an example of the type of data collected from the flow monitoring program. Refer to Appendix B and Appendix C for additional data summaries and other information associated with the remaining meter sites.
Leaky
Building
Lateral
Foundation
Drain
Connected
to Building
Lateral Exfiltration
from
Storm Drain
Sanitary Sewer
LEGEND
Cracked or
Broken Pipe
Red Lettering is Infiltration
Deteriorated or
Misaligned Joint
Faulty Lateral
Connection to
Sanitary Sewer
Illicit Catch
Basin
Connection
Manhole
Cover
with
Holes
Blue Lettering is Inflow
Storm Drain
Deteriorated
Manhole
Faulty
Manhole
Frame/
Chimney
Seal
Root Penetration
Roof
Vent Downspout
Area
Drain
Service Line
Cleanout
(uncapped)
Driveway
Drain Stairwell
Drain
Foundation
Drain
Floor
Drain
Pl205f2-6825.cdr
Figure 3.4
CITY OF MODESTO
TYPICAL SOURCES OF
INFILTRATION AND INFLOW
WASTEWATER COLLECTION
SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
3-21
Figure 3.9
TYPICAL SOURCES OF
INFILTRATION AND INFLOW
DISTRICT-WIDE MASTER PLAN
WEST COUNTY WASTEWATER DISTRICT
Figure 3.4
Tpyical Sources of Infiltration and Inflow
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Trench
Infiltration
Groundwater Infiltration
Inflow
Dry Weather Flow
Sewer Lateral
Flow
13 2 5
days
04 Due to
Infiltration
and Inflow
Average Dry Weather Flow Average Dry Weather Flow
pL205F3-6825.cdr
Figure 3.5
CITY OF MODESTO
EFFECTS OF INFILTRATION
AND INFLOW
WASTEWATER COLLECTION
SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
3-22
Figure 3.10
TYPICAL EFFECTS OF
INFILTRATION AND INFLOW
DISTRICT-WIDE MASTER PLAN
WEST COUNTY WASTEWATER DISTRICT
Figure 3.5
Typical Effects of Infiltration and Inflow
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
September 2015 3-10
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH03
3.3.1 Base Wastewater Flow Data
The City’s permanent flow meters collect depth and velocity data at 5-minute intervals.
Characteristic dry weather 24 hour diurnal flow patterns for each site were developed for each meter based on data available during base flow periods (i.e., in the winter when there is no rainfall). This hourly flow data was then used to calibrate the hydraulic model for the observed dry weather flows during the flow monitoring period.
For Fresno, it was determined, based on a review of the available flow monitoring data and the monthly flows at the RWRF, that the month of January 2013 was the most appropriate time period to select for the determination of BWF at each flow meter. At a few sites, flow monitoring data were not available in January 2013. In these cases, January 2012 was used.
Hourly patterns for weekday and weekend flows vary and are separated to better understand dry weather flow. Carollo used the data from days in January 2013 that were least affected by rainfall to estimate the weekday and weekend dry weather flows. In addition, Carollo prepared estimates for the average weekday and weekend levels and velocities at each site, which are used in BWF calibration. Figure 3.6 illustrates a typical variation of weekday and weekend flow in the City, which is based on the data collection from Meter FR06. Similar graphics associated with the remaining sites are included in Appendix B. Table 3.2 summarizes the BWF at each meter.
3.3.2 Industrial Flow Data
The City has several large significant industrial users (SIUs). Some users have dedicated flow meters, and flow records were available on a monthly basis. For other SIUs, the City provided average flow estimates. A summary of the average flows associated with each SIU is provided in Appendix D.
3.3.3 Rainfall Data
Available rainfall data for the Fresno area were reviewed to identify significant rainfall events that have occurred in recent years. Based on a review of this data, as well as the available flow monitoring data, it was determined that the most significant rainfall events that have occurred in recent years occurred from March 20-21, 2011, and April 11-13, 2012.
Figure 3.6
Example Weekday vs. Weekend
Flow Variation (Meter FR06)
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
Flow (mgd)
Time
Weekday BWF
Weekend BWF
September 2015 3-12
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH03 Table 3.2 Base Wastewater Flow Summary
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Meter
Site
Weekday BWF
(mgd)
Weekend BWF
(mgd)
Overall BWF
(mgd)
Weekend/
Weekday Ratio
FR01 3.70 3.70 3.76 1.05
FR02 8.05 7.73 8.07 1.01
FR06 4.13 4.13 4.12 0.99
FR08 7.66 7.67 7.51 0.93
FR09 5.03 4.86 4.92 0.93
FR10 1.49 1.46 1.49 1.00
FR11 3.58 3.61 3.55 0.97
FR12 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.01
FR13 8.53 8.33 8.36 0.93
FR14 4.06 4.02 4.05 0.99
FR15 6.19 6.07 6.12 0.96
FR16 3.72 3.70 3.72 1.00
FR19 23.15 23.07 22.51 0.90
FR20 29.85 26.96 28.94 0.89
FR21 4.40 4.45 4.42 1.01
FR22 7.46 7.47 7.51 1.02
FR23 1.25 1.26 1.11 0.61
FR24 8.12 8.99 8.15 1.01
FR25 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.96
FR26 0.19 0.19 0.19 1.03
FR27 1.90 1.90 1.91 1.02
September 2015 3-13
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH03
3.3.4 Wet Weather Flow Data
The flow monitoring data was also evaluated to determine how the collection system responds to wet weather events. As mentioned above, the most significant rainfall events in recent years occurred in March 2011 and April 2012. There was limited flow monitoring data available for March 2011, but most of the City’s flow meters had valid data for the April 2012. For this reason, the April 2012 storm was used for model calibration, and the March 2011 storm was used to validate the I/I parameters developed as part of the April 2012 WWF calibration.
Figure 3.7 shows an example of the wet weather response at Meter FR06 during the April 2012 storm. Figure 3.7 illustrates the volume of I/I that entered the system from the collection system upstream of Site FR06. The light blue area is the base sanitary flow while the gray area is the measured flow from the flow monitoring period. As can be seen in the figure, discernible amounts of I/I do enter the system during wet weather events.
The metric typically used to quantify the severity of the system’s I/I is the R-value. The R-value is defined as the percentage of rainfall volume that makes it into the collection system as I/I. Table 3.3 summarizes the calibrated R-values for each flow monitoring basin.
As shown in Table 3.3, the R-Values vary from 0.2-percent in basin FR02 to 1.45 percent in Basin 20. In general, an R-Value of 5 percent or more is usually considered indicative of a significant I/I response. It should be noted that Basin 23 exhibited an R-Value in excess of 5 percent. Based on a review of available data, it appears that the majority of I/I contributions in this basin are associated with the Gallo property (see Section 1.5.4 for more information).
The R-Value for each basin is determined by isolating I/I associated with individual flow monitoring basins (i.e., excluding flow rates from upstream flow monitors) and calculating the ratio of the volume of water that enters the system as I/I versus the volume of rainfall that fell over the flow monitoring basin tributary area.
Figure 3.7
Example WWF Response (Meter FR06)
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
0 1.6
2 4
6 8
10 Rainfall (in/hr)
Flow (mgd)
Measured Flow BWF Rainfall
September 2015 3-15
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH03 Table 3.3 R-Value Summary
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Meter Basin R-Value (%)
FR01 0.40
FR02 0.20
FR06 0.41
FR08 1.30
FR09 1.20
FR10 Note(1)
FR11 1.00
FR12 Note(1)
FR13 1.30
FR14 1.30
FR15 1.20
FR16 0.88
FR19 0.25
FR20 1.45
FR21 0.80
FR22 0.65
FR23(1) 0.75
Gallo Property, Basin 23 75
FR24 0.80
FR25 0.75
FR26 Note(1)
FR27 Note(1)
Notes:
(1) Tributary areas associated with the City of Clovis are not known. Therefore, R-values are not presented in this document.
(2) R-value presented excludes the Gallo Property, which is estimated to have an R-value of roughly 75 percent.
September 2015 4-1
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH04 Chapter 4
COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITIES AND HYDRAULIC MODEL
This Chapter describes the update and calibration of the City of Fresno’s (City’s) collection system hydraulic model. A description of the City’s wastewater collection system, the existing hydraulic model, and an outline of the steps used to update the model are provided. A detailed summary of the hydraulic model calibration steps, standards, and results for both base wastewater flow (BWF) and wet weather flow (WWF) conditions is also provided.
4.1 COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITIES
The City’s collection system consists of gravity sewers, lift stations, associated force mains, and several special structures/flow diversions that collect and convey wastewater to the Fresno/Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF), which is located on Jenson Avenue just west of Cornelia Avenue. In addition, the City operates the North Fresno Wastewater Reclamation Facilities (NFWRF) satellite plant, which serves the Copper River Ranch development, and provides recycled water via irrigation to the Copper River Country Club golf course.
Figure 4.1 presents the City’s collection system, and the current wastewater service area.
The collection system conveys wastewater primarily by gravity flow, generally from the northeast to the southwest, and ultimately to the RWRF. In addition to customers within City limits, the RWRF also serves a majority of flow generated within the City of Clovis, as well as unincorporated County islands within the City. The City of Clovis has four connections to the City collection system. The maximum discharge at each connection is defined by the Fresno-Clovis Regional Sewerage System Joint Powers Agreement (JPA), dated March 3, 1977.
The City’s wastewater collection system has roughly 23,000 manholes, 15 lift stations,
1.7 miles of force mains, and 1,500 miles of gravity sewer pipes (excluding abandoned/out of service and private facilities).
4.1.1 Gravity Collection System
The City’s existing sanitary sewer collection system is comprised of over 1,500 miles of gravity collection system pipe up to 84-inches in diameter, and over 23,000 manholes.
Table 4.1 presents a summary by diameter of the known sewers in the collection system.
This table excludes abandoned and private sewers, as well as sewers associated with the City of Clovis collection system.
North Ave
Jensen Ave
California Ave
Whitesbridge Ave/CA 180
Belmont Ave
McKinley Ave
Shields Ave
Ashlan Ave
Shaw Ave
Bullard Ave
Herndon Ave
Nees Ave
Shepherd Ave
Cooper Ave
Grantland Ave
Hayes Ave
Cornelia Ave
Brawley Ave
Marks AveWest Ave
Palm AveBlackstone Ave
First St
Cedar AveChestnut Ave
Willow Ave
Clovis Ave
Fowler Ave
Temperance Ave
Dewolf Ave
Highland AveMcCall Ave
Behymer Ave
RWRF
LS20
LS01
LS02
LS18
LS13
LS03 LS15
LS12
LS14
LS16
LS04
LS10
LS06
LS05
NFWRF
2561-21
2058-06
2253-15
1961-01
1346-25
2957-22
2652-03
3057-07
3153-01 3056-03
2952-49
2858-101
84''
39''
8''
45''
27''
57''
12'' 72''
33''
15''
24''
10''
21''
18''
54''
60''
6''
66''
36''
30''
48''
42''
16''
51''
6''
6''
6''
45''
8''
12''
18''
6''
8''
12''
8''
6''
8''
72''
10''
8''
15''
15''
12''
8''
24''
66''
6''
8''
10''
10''
8''
12''
8''
10''
8''
10''
8''
10''
66''
60''
8''
66'' 60''
8''
39''
72''
24''
8''
18''
12''
66''
18''
8''
8''
66''
66''
10''
12''
8''
8''
24''
8''
66''
8''
72''
8''
10''
8''
48''
6''
6''
8''
8''
8''
6''
8''
8''
8''
45''
66''
8''
8''
51''
8''
8''
8''
51''
8''
6''
8''
8''
12''
18''
8''
8''
12''
24''
10''
8''
6''
6''
8''
6''
8''
8''
8''
8''
10''
8''
6''
8''
8''
8''
8''
60''
60''
8''
8''
8''
27''
8''
8''
60''
15''
72''
45''
6''
8''
8''
8''
15''
72''
8''
51''
10''
8''
8''
8''
24''
8''
6''
12''
8''
8''
10''
8''
12''
15''
72''
8''
8''
66''
15''
15''
6''
8''
8''
8''
6''
8''
6''
12''
8''
8''
8''
8''
6''
8''
72''
8''
21''
6''
6''
8''
8''
8''
12''
8''
8''
12''
8''
66''
6''
10''
8''
8''
72''
8''
6''
15''
42''
6''
8''
6''
8''
8''
8''
8''
51''
8''
Legend
Existing Wastewater
Collection System
Lift Stations
Special Structures
Pipelines
8" and Smaller
10" - 18"
20" - 36"
Greater than 36"
Streets
Existing Sewer Service Area
City Limits
0 10,000 20,000
Feet
Figure 4.1
Existing Wastewater Collection System
Wastewater Collection System
Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
September 2015 4-3
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH04 As shown in Table 4.1, approximately 72-percent of the system is 8-inches in diameter and smaller, with the majority (46.6-percent) being 8-inches in diameter.
Table 4.1 Collection System Gravity Pipeline Summary
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Diameter
(inches)
Length(1),(2)
(miles)
Percent of
System
(by length)
Diameter
(inches)
Length(1),(2)
(miles)
Percent of
System
(by length)
4 0.02 0.0 33 5.1 0.3
6 386.7 25.7 36 9.4 0.6
8 702.1 46.6 39 8.2 0.5
10 104.2 6.9 40 0.7 0.0
12 71.1 4.7 42 7.3 0.5
14 2.3 0.2 45 13.7 0.9
15 41.9 2.8 46 0.0 0.0
16 2.8 0.2 48 10.2 0.7
18 39.5 2.6 51 3.5 0.2
20 2.6 0.2 54 2.9 0.2
21 16.0 1.1 57 1.1 0.1
22 1.1 0.1 60 9.1 0.6
24 21.0 1.4 66 11.2 0.7
27 11.0 0.7 72 6.6 0.4
30 13.5 0.9 84 1.4 0.1
Total (miles) 1,506 100
Notes:
(1) Source: City of Fresno GIS database
(2) Totals exclude abandoned and private facilities
September 2015 4-4
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH04 Table 4.2 summarizes the gravity collection system by pipe material. As shown in Table 4.2, the majority of the collection system (56-percent) consists of vitrified clay pipe (VCP), and roughly one-third of the collection system (30.8-percent) consists of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe.
Table 4.2 Collection System Gravity Pipeline Material Summary Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Material Abbreviation
Length(1),(2)
(miles)
Percent of
System
(by length)
Asbestos Cement Pipe ACP 6.2 0.4
Armco Plastic Truss APT 5.7 0.4
Closed Profile PVC CCP 1.1 0.1
Cast Iron Pipe CIP 6.3 0.4
Ductile Iron Pipe DIP 4.6 0.3
Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic FRP 0.01 0.0
Polyvinyl Chloride Pipe PVC 464.5 30.8
Reinforced Concrete Lined Pipe RCL 20.2 1.3
Reinforced Concrete Pipe RCP 95.0 6.3
Standard Concrete Pipe SCP 56.0 3.7
Truss Pipe TRS 0.2 0.0
Vitrified Clay Pipe VCP 846.2 56.2
Total -- 1,506.2 100.0
Notes:
(1) Source: City of Fresno GIS database
(2) Totals exclude abandoned and private facilities
(3) Approximately 68.9 miles of pipe have been rehabilitated using a CIPP liner, or 4.6 percent of the system.
Table 4.3 summarizes the gravity collection system by installation year. As shown on Table 4.3, approximately 16-percent of the collection system was originally installed before 1950. Roughly 48-percent of the system was installed between 1950 and 1980 (26-percent of the system was installed in the 1970’s), and the remaining 36-percent of the system was installed since 1980.
September 2015 4-5
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH04 Table 4.3 Collection System Gravity Pipeline Installation Year Summary Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Years
Length(1),(2)
(miles)
Percent of System
(by length)
Unknown 0.1 0.0
Pre 1900 8.8 0.6
1900-1910 7.4 0.5
1911-1920 55.9 3.7
1921-1930 29.0 1.9
1931-1940 25.8 1.7
1941-1950 106.5 7.1
1951-1960 163.1 10.8
1961-1970 179.6 11.9
1971-1980 385.7 25.6
1981-1990 153.0 10.2
1991-2000 196.7 13.1
2001-2010 185.2 12.3
2011-2013 9.4 0.6
Total 1,506.2 100.0
Notes:
(1) Source: City of Fresno GIS database
(2) Totals exclude abandoned and private facilities
4.1.2 Lift Stations
The City operates and maintains 15 active wastewater lift stations throughout the City (excluding private and abandoned lift stations). Figure 4.1 shows the location of each lift station. Table 4.4 summarizes the available design data for each f the City’s active lift stations.
4.1.3 Special Structures/Field Reconnaissance
The City’s collection system includes several important flow diversions, which split average and peak wastewater flows between sewer basins. The City’s previous Collection System Master Plan provided a description of many of the flow diversions. In most cases, these descriptions were deemed sufficient for the purposes of this Master Plan. Supplemental field reconnaissance was also performed by Blair, Church, and Flynn (BC&F) and City staff at seven sites selected by Carollo (Figure 4.2). The sites selected for field reconnaissance September 2015 4-6
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH04 were determined to be complex or otherwise important enough to warrant further investigation. As part of the field reconnaissance, BC&F provided rim elevations, invert elevations, rough estimates for flow splits between outlet pipes, general observations, and photographs for each site (with the exception of the Dakota and Millbrook Structure, which was visually inspected by Carollo Engineers (Carollo)/City staff only).
Table 4.4 Wastewater Lift Station Summary
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Name Location
No. of
Pumps
Capacity
(per pump) Firm
Capacity
(gpm) (mgd) (mgd)
LS01 Jensen and Walnut Avenues 2 750 1.080 1.080
LS02 Marks Avenue and Kearney Boulevard 2 450 0.648 0.648 LS03 Wilson Avenue north of Shields
Avenue
2 250 0.360 0.360
LS04 Riverview Drive and Del Mar Avenue 2 186 0.272 0.272 LS05 Fort Washington Road and Champlain
Drive
2 515 0.742 0.742
LS06 Champlain Drive and Perrin Avenue 2 1545 2.220 2.220 LS10 Stratford Drive and Woodlawn Drive 2 260 0.374 0.374 LS12 Bullard and Carnegie Avenues 2 200 0.288 0.288
LS13 Jackson and University Avenues 2 190 0.272 0.272
LS14 Alluvial and Carnegie Avenues 2 400 0.576 0.576
LS15 Hayston Avenue and Fountain Way 2 400 0.576 0.576
LS16 Santa Fe and Bluff Avenues 2 175 0.252 0.252
LS18 Hughes and Nielson Avenues 2 670 0.959 0.959
LS20 Cherry Avenue south of North Avenue 2 670 0.959 0.959 NFWRF North Fresno WRF 2 440 0.639 0.639
Notes:
(1) Source: Data provided by City Staff.
North Ave
Jensen Ave
California Ave
Whitesbridge Ave/CA 180
Belmont Ave
McKinley Ave
Shields Ave
Ashlan Ave
Shaw Ave
Bullard Ave
Herndon Ave
Nees Ave
Shepherd Ave
Cooper Ave
Grantland Ave
Hayes Ave
Cornelia Ave
Brawley Ave
Marks AveWest Ave
Palm AveBlackstone Ave
First St
Cedar AveChestnut Ave
Willow Ave
Clovis Ave
Fowler Ave
Temperance Ave
Dewolf Ave
Highland AveMcCall Ave
Behymer Ave
RWRF
2058-06
3056-03
2253-15
2561-21
1346-25
2652-03
3057-07
Legend
Field Reconnaissance
Pipelines
8" and Smaller
10" and Larger
Streets
Existing Sewer Service Area
City Limits
0 10,000 20,000
Feet
Figure 4.2
Field Reconnaissance Locations
Wastewater Collection System
Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
September 2015 4-8
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH04 Table 4.5 provides a summary of the major diversions within the collection system, and identifies which of the structures were investigated as part of this Master Plan Update.
Appendix E provides detailed survey data, sketches, and photographs from the site reconnaissance performed by BC&F.
During the base wastewater flow calibration process (see Section 3.4), it was discovered that there was a flow discrepancy in the model for Flow Meters FM16 and FM21. Further investigation revealed that the most likely source of the flow discrepancy was the junction structure located at the intersection of Dakota Avenue and Millbrook Avenue. For this reason, Carollo and City staff performed a site visit at one additional manhole to supplement the field reconnaissance activities performed by BC&F, as described below:
• MH 2058-06, Dakota and Millbrook: During the base wastewater flow calibration process (see Section 4.3.3), it was discovered that there was a flow discrepancy in the model for Flow Meters FM16 and FM21. Further investigation revealed that the most likely source of the flow discrepancy was the junction structure located at the intersection of Dakota Avenue and Millbrook Avenue. The previous Collection System Master Plan indicated that flows into this structure are split roughly 50/50 between a 21-inch diameter sewer that flows south into Basin 16 and a 21-inch sewer that flows west into Basin 21. However, Carollo determined that during base flow conditions, the majority of flow in this structure is routed to the 21-inch pipeline flowing south to Meter FM16. In order to confirm this, Carollo arranged with City staff to perform an additional site investigation of this structure. At the site investigation, it was discovered that a concrete wall has been installed on the 21-inch pipeline flowing to the west, approximately to the halfway depth of the pipe. Therefore, at this structure, low flows are conveyed south. Once flows reach a flow depth to pipe diameter ratio (d/D) of roughly 0.5, flows are split between both pipelines. At the time of the site visit (about 9:30 AM), it was estimated that approximately 10 to 20-percent of the flow into the structure was observed to be diverted west into Basin 21. The majority of the remaining flow continued south to Meter FM16, which was consistent with the flow monitoring data.
A custom flow inflow/outflow diversion curve of this structure was developed using H2OMAP SWMM and input into H2OMAP Sewer. Because H2OMAP SWMM features a more accurate routing engine than H2OMAP Sewer, it was determined that a curve generated from H2OMAP SWMM would be the most appropriate method of simulating this structure. Figure 4.3 shows the custom diversion curve that was developed for this structure. Furthermore, the pipelines downstream of this structure are known capacity issues, and therefore it is critical to simulate the flow splits at this location as accurately as possible.
Figure 4.3
Dakota/Millbrook Diversion Curve
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Wall to half depth of
pipe to west
Low flows conveyed in
21” pipe to the south High flows split
between both pipes
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 0 5 10 15 20 25
Flow Diverted to 21"-West (mgd)
Total Inflow Into Diversion Structure (mgd)
Table 4.5 Special Structures
Wastewater Collection System Master PlanCity of Fresno
Reconn.
Manhole ID Location Model ID Structure Type Flow Description Performed 2858-101 California Ave. and
East Ave.
37421 This structure consists of a 60-inch standard
manhole design with frame and cover, and channelized base.
Under average day conditions, all flow diverts east to the 30-inch pipe with an upstream invert elevation of 275.7 feet However, once the hydraulic grade line reaches 276.5 feet flow will split south to the 21-inch pipe. 2952-49 Church Ave. and
Fruit Ave.
39583 This structure is a cast-in-place, reinforced
concrete structure with a channelized bottom, and the manhole risers are made of brick with cast iron covers.
Flow enters the structure from the east via two new 30-inch pipes. Currently, flow also enters from a 48-inch pipe from the south. Flow exits the structure through an existing 48-inch pipe to the west. The structure had options for installing 2”x12”x4’-4” redwood board gates on the 48- inch pipe exiting the structure; however, due to a blow-out in 2002 flow is no longer prohibited from exiting the structure and continuing westerly in Church Avenue. The structure was repaired in 2003, but the gate was not reinstated. A new gate will need to be constructed such that the flow can be diverted to the south in the 48-inch Fruit Avenue pipeline to North Avenue as originally conceived. 3153-01 Jenson Ave. and
Fruit Ave.
40580 This structure was constructed with
reinforced, cast-in-place concrete. The structure has one 24”x 60” access manhole.
Currently, wastewater entering the structure from the north and east flows south in Fruit Avenue. The north and east are 48-inch pipelines and south is a 51-inch pipeline. There are channels provided to install a gate in this junction structure to block flow from going south to North Avenue, thus forcing flows north to West Church Avenue; however, gates are not currently installed. Therefore, no gates were modeled. 3153-09 Jenson Ave. and
Fruit Ave.
The structure has a standard manhole design with frame and cover for access.
Flow enters the structure from the easterly 48-inch pipeline and currently is diverted south to a 51-inch pipeline in South Fruit Avenue. Having since been plugged andabandoned, this structure was originally constructed with a 48-inch pipeline and radius bend to the north directing flow from West Jensen Avenue north in South Fruit Avenue to West Church Avenue. A 48-inch pipeline was also constructed with a radius bend to the south that allows flow from East Jensen Avenue to travel south in South Fruit Avenue when the gate described above for the structure at manhole 3153-01 is not in place. As mentioned above, this gate is currently not installed and flow is directed south in South Fruit Avenue to West North Avenue. 3506-03 Jenson Ave. and
Cherry Ave.
39753 This structure was constructed with
reinforced, cast-inplace concrete. The structure has two 24”x 50” access manholes.
Flow entering the structure from the north and east is split to the south and west, respectively. The north and south pipelines are 48-inch pipes and the pipelines in theeast and west directions are both 36-inch pipes. An existing manhole is located just outside the junction on the east and the 48-inch pipe passes through this manholebefore entering the junction structure. There are notches provided to install gates in this junction structure for the east 48-inch pipe and the south 36-inch pipe; however, gates are not installed. Under average day conditions, approximately two-thirds of the wastewater flows west and the remaining one-third flows south.
X
3057-07 Highway 99 and
South of Church Ave.
39851 This structure was constructed with
reinforced, cast-in-place concrete. The structure has two 24”x 50” access manholes.
Flow enters the junction structure through a 6’x 3’ single box sewer from the east. Currently, flow exits the structure to northwest and west by a 34” x 54” elliptical sewer and a 36-inch pipe, respectively. Under average day conditions, flow splits approximately in half between the two exiting pipes. There are notches provided to install gates in this junction structure for the northwest elliptical pipe and the west 36-inch pipe. However, gates are not currently in place.
X
2652-03 Whitesbridge Rd.
at Fruit Ave.
33197 This structure was constructed with
reinforced, cast-in-place concrete.
Flow enters the structure through a 42-inch pipe from the north and is split approximately in half between to the south and southwest into a 42-inch pipe and a 33-inch pipe respectively.
X
2957-22 Taylor Ave. and
Church Ave.
39841 The structure was constructed with
reinforced, cast-in-place concrete.
Flow enters the structure from the east via existing 27-inch and 30-inch pipes. Currently, flow exits the structure to the west through a 34” x 53” elliptical sewer pipe. The elliptical sewer pipe curves at a radius of 30 feet to the south into an existing manhole where a 6-inch pipe from the northwest connects. Flow is not split at this structure; the elliptical pipe and radius of this pipe are a unique feature of this collection system and is considered a special structure. 1346-25 Herndon Ave. and
Milburn Ave.
7780 The structure was constructed with
reinforced, cast-in-place concrete. The interior concrete surfaces, except the floor of the structure, are lined with PVC.
Flow enters the junction structure from the north via an existing 45-inch pipe. The flow can be split to the southwest and south to 45-inch pipes. Flow is controlled using two 45” x 45” fabricated, stainless steel slide gates. A 24-inch PVC air jumper connects the junction structure with a manhole located to the west of the structure. Currently, the south slide gate is closed forcing all flow to the southwest into the Grantland Trunk.
X
1961-01 Ashlan Ave. and
Sierra Vista Ave.
18338 Unknown Currently, flow enters the structure from the north via a 12-inch pipe and splits approximately in half to the west and south into a 12-inch and a 15-inch pipe, respectively.
2253-15 McKinley Ave. and
Harrison Ave.
25677 This structure consists of a standard
manhole design with frame and cover, and channelized base.
Under average day conditions, all the flow diverts west to the 21-inch pipe with an upstream invert elevation of 282.8 feet However, once the hydraulic grade line reaches 283.7 feet (0.8 ft depth) flow will split south to the 12-inch pipe.
X
2058-06 Dakota Ave. and
Milbrook Ave.
19985 This structure is a cast-in-place, reinforced
concrete structure with a a 42" diameter manhole cover.
Flow enters the structure from the north and east via a 24-inch and 18-inch pipe, respectively. Currently, flow is split approximately in half to the south and west through two 21-inch pipes.
X
2561-21 Chestnut Ave. and
Washington Ave.
32321 The structure was constructed with
reinforced, cast-in-place concrete.
Flow enters the structure from the north via a 42-inch pipe and can exit south and west into a 42-inch and 21-inch pipe, respectively. The majority of flow exits south inthe 42-inch. Roughly a thrid of the flow is estimated to be conveyed in the 21-inch sewer.
X
September 2015 4-11
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH04
4.2 HYDRAULIC MODEL UPDATE
A sewer collection system model is a simplified representation of the real sewer system.
Sewer system models can assess the conveyance capacity for a collection system. In addition, sewer system models can perform “what if” scenarios to assess the impacts of future developments and land use changes. The City’s collection system hydraulic model was constructed by City staff using a multi-step process utilizing data from a variety of sources.
As part of this Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update (Master Plan Update) project, Carollo reviewed the existing hydraulic model, and updated/expanded upon certain aspects of the model. This section summarizes the hydraulic model review and update process.
4.2.1 Existing Hydraulic Model
The City’s existing hydraulic model was built in-house using the City’s current geographic information system (GIS) database. The hydraulic model was built using the H2OMAP Sewer hydraulic modeling software package, developed by Innovyze (formerly MWH Soft).
H2OMAP Sewer tracks the movement of wastewater flowing through the network over an extended period of time under varying wastewater loading and operating conditions. The extended period simulation (EPS) model implemented in H2OMAP Sewer is a quasidynamic model and is predicated on solving a simplified form of the full 1D Saint-Venant equations neglecting local acceleration. It provides seamless database and GIS interfacing and outputs features for presentations and reports.
The City’s existing H2OMAP Sewer model is an “all-pipe” model. In other words, the model includes all of the City’s active wastewater collection system sewer mains, trunks, interceptors, and lift stations. Not included in the City’s wastewater collection system hydraulic model are the City of Clovis collection system facilities, as well as other private collection system facilities (usually within County islands or other large facilities, such as the California State University Fresno (CSUF) campus or Pinedale).
The existing hydraulic model does include base wastewater loads (flows). However, these loads were reallocated and revised as part of the model update process.
4.2.2 Elements of the Hydraulic Model
The following provides a brief overview of the major elements of the City’s hydraulic model and the required input parameters associated with each:
• Loading Manholes: Sewer manholes, cleanouts, as well as other locations where pipe sizes change or where pipelines intersect are represented by loading manholes in the hydraulic model. Required inputs for loading manholes include diameter, rim elevation, and wastewater loads (dry and wet weather). Loading manholes are also September 2015 4-12
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH04 used to represent locations where flows are split or diverted between two or more downstream links.
• Chamber Manholes: Chamber manholes connects pumps and force mains in the hydraulic model. The only required input parameter for a chamber manhole is elevation.
• Gravity Mains: Gravity sewers are represented as gravity mains in the hydraulic model. Input parameters for pipes include length, friction factor (i.e., Manning’s n for gravity mains, Hazen Williams C for force mains), invert elevations, diameter, and a flow split type and percentage/curve (if the pipeline is directly downstream of an overflow/flow diversion).
• Force Mains: Force mains represent pressure sewers in the model. Required input parameters are diameter, invert elevations, length, and friction factor (i.e., Hazen Williams C).
• Wet Wells: Required input parameters for wet wells include invert elevation, wet well depth, cross section type (e.g., circular or variable area) and wet well cross section (e.g., diameter).
• Pumps: Pumps are included in the hydraulic model as links. Input parameters for pumps include type (fixed capacity, design point, or exponential 3 point curve), pump capacity/head information, and operational controls (on/off set points). • Outlets: Outlets represent areas where flow leaves the system. For sewer system modeling, an outfall typically represents the connection to the influent pump station at a wastewater treatment plant.
• Curves: Curves represent a number of items in the hydraulic model, including rainfall hyetographs, flow split curves, and other miscellaneous items. • Inflows: The following are the two types of wastewater flow sources that can be injected into individual model junctions:
– Loads. Loads simulate base sanitary wastewater flows and represent the average flow. The base flows are multiplied by a pattern that varies the flow temporally. The base flow diurnal patterns are adjusted during the dry weather calibration process.
– Stormwater Flows. Rainfall Derived Infiltration and Inflows (RDII) are applied in the model by assigning a unit hydrograph and a corresponding tributary area to a given loading manhole. The unit hydrographs consists of several parameters that are used to adjust the volume of RDII that enters the system at a given location. These parameters are adjusted during the wet weather calibration process.
4.2.3 General Model Review
In the early stages of the Master Plan Update project, Carollo worked closely with City Staff to gain an understanding of how the model was created. The model was then reviewed September 2015 4-13
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH04 against industry standards, to identify discrepancies, and to determine which aspects of the model could be improved upon.
The model review process consisted of several steps, as described below:
• Step 1: The first step involved in the model review process was to verify that the model data (i.e., inverts, diameters, etc.) were input correctly and that the flow direction, size, and layout of the modeled pipelines were logical. Additionally, the modeled lift stations were also checked to verify that they operated correctly. • Step 2: Review which model nodes were associated with each significant industrial user (SIU) to verify that the flows associated each SIU are injected at the appropriate location in the model. For certain larger SIUs (e.g., Foster Farms, Beef Packers, Gallo), the industrial customer was contacted directly, as necessary, to verify their discharge point into the collection system and to obtain supplemental data. • Step 3: Review pipeline connectivity to determine, in a general sense, how flows are routed through collection system basins, and to identify the locations of potential overflows.
• Step 4: Review the model/GIS facilities database to determine which portions of the existing City limits are currently served and which are not currently connected to the wastewater collection system.
• Step 5: Review the City’s existing “master group polygons” (MGPs), which are used by the hydraulic model to allocate flows from specific parcels within the system to specific model nodes.
• Step 6: Review existing baseline wastewater flows in the existing hydraulic model to determine the need to develop new wastewater flow factors and reallocate the model. • Step 7: Review other miscellaneous model parameters.
In general, the City’s hydraulic model was constructed well and there were very few discrepancies with the physical configuration and invert elevations of the collection system facilities. However, there were some enhancements that were performed to the hydraulic model, which are summarized in the following sections.
4.2.4 Model Wastewater Loads
Determining the quantity of base wastewater flows generated by a municipality and how they are distributed throughout the collection system is a critical component of the hydraulic modeling process. Based on a review of the City’s historical flow monitoring data (see Chapter 3) over the last few years, it was determined that the City’s existing hydraulic model tended to overestimate wastewater flows into the collection system, in some cases by a significant amount. For this reason, it was determined that the model should be reallocated using revised wastewater flow factors.
Various techniques can be used to assign wastewater flows to individual model junctions, depending on the type of data that is available. Adequate estimates of the volume of September 2015 4-14
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH04 wastewater are important in maintaining and sizing sewer system facilities, both for present and future conditions. Baseline wastewater loads were allocated (assigned to specific nodes) in the hydraulic model based on land use data provided by the City and revised wastewater flow factors developed for each land use type (these are described in detail in Chapter 3). The flow coefficients and land use data provides a means to transform a specific land use category into a BWF, as described below:
• Step 1: The City’s service area was broken up into individual loading polygons. The City’s MGPs were used as the City’s loading polygons. Each loading polygon represents the geographic area that contributes flows into a single model node (i.e., trunk system manhole). In an all pipe model, a loading polygon could be as small as a few parcels, or could encompass a particular subdivision or grouping of lots.
In the case of the City, the MGPs were developed to allocate BWFs to “large diameter” pipes only (i.e., 10” and larger), and updating the MGPs to reassign individual loading polygons to small diameter pipes was beyond the scope of this Master Plan. For this reason, although the City’s model is an “all pipe” model, there are only loads allocated to large diameter pipes. The City has indicated that it plans to revise the MGPs in house, at which point the model should be updated and reallocated, either in-house, or with the assistance or guidance of an outside consultant.
• Step 2: The loads were calculated for each loading polygon using the hydraulic model’s “load allocator” tool by multiplying the appropriate flow coefficient by the land use acreage. Load = Land Use Area (ac) x Wastewater Flow Factor (gpd/ac) x conversion factor (mgd/gpd).
• Step 3: Once the load allocator tool assigns BWFs into the hydraulic model, the total flows were reviewed by type (i.e., residential vs. non-residential) to confirm that the load allocator functioned correctly.
• Step 4: The allocated loads were adjusted as necessary during the BWF calibration process (see Section 4.3.3) to closely match the actual BWFs recorded from the City’s permanent flow monitoring data.
4.2.5 Model Scenarios
The City’s existing hydraulic model contained only one scenario (the “BASE” scenario). As part of any master planning project, multiple scenarios are used to simulate different flow conditions, for both current flow conditions and future flow conditions. As part of the model update process, additional model scenarios were added. There are three model calibration scenarios, which usually are not modified by the end user after model calibration is complete. In addition, there are two “evaluation” scenarios for both existing and build out flow conditions. These are the peak dry weather flow (PDWF) condition, and the peak wet weather flow (PWWF) condition. These scenarios are used to identify system deficiencies and to develop capacity improvement projects, and can be used by the City in the future to September 2015 4-15
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH04 run several “what if” scenarios, such as the impact of new developments or land use changes.
4.2.6 Miscellaneous Model Updates
Several other additions/modifications were made to the hydraulic model as part of the model update process, including:
• Information fields were created in the model to identify which flow monitor a group of collection system facilities are associated with (e.g., FR01, FR02, etc.), and database queries/query sets were created for each flow monitoring basin. • Custom diurnal patterns for each flow monitoring basin were created based on the flow data collected from the City’s permanent flow monitoring data. The custom diurnal patterns include both weekday and weekend flow conditions. • Diurnal patterns for the City’s significant industrial users (SIU)s were updated based on available data to include both weekday and weekend flow conditions. For the build out scenario, SIU’s were modeled at their maximum permit capacity. • Diurnal patterns for certain other large facilities (e.g., hospitals) were developed and applied based on typical hourly use patterns.
• Due to the limitations of the H2OMAP Sewer hydraulic modeling package, the hydraulic grade line (HGL) calculations for flow diversions where an overflow pipe is significantly higher than the rim of the main downstream pipeline are inaccurate. An example of this condition is shown on Figure 4.4. Therefore, where an overflow pipeline was significantly higher than the rim of the main pipeline, and it was apparent that no flow would be diverted to the overflow pipeline, the overflow pipeline was deactivated in the model, similar to how loops have been deactivated in the existing hydraulic model. A selection set “Deactivated Overflows” was created to keep track of these the deactivated diversions. No pipelines were deactivated in the model that were deemed to be hydraulically significant. Should the City wish to include the inactivated pipelines, as well as the loops that had been previously deactivated, the City should consider converting to the H2OMAP SWMM or InfoSWMM hydraulic modeling software platform.
4.3 MODEL CALIBRATION
Hydraulic models are built off the best available information regarding the physical attributes and operational conditions of the collection system, most of which are known to a reasonable level of confidence. Even so, there are a number of parameters that are not directly known and cannot be directly measured. For this reason, these parameters must be assumed initially based on typical values and engineering judgment. Every collection system is unique. For this reason, industry standard of care dictates that a model be validated to ensure that the assumptions built into the model are accurate. This validation process is commonly referred to as calibration.
Figure 4.4
Example HGL Limitations for Overflow Pipelines in
H2OMAP Sewer
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
Overflow pipe skews
“adjusted flow depth”
Incorrect HGL Reported
due to Overflow
"Unadjusted" d/D is
reasonable
September 2015 4-17
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH04 The calibration process must be undertaken in any modeling effort. Having an appropriately calibrated model is necessary to provide confidence in all project team members and stakeholders that the results produced by the model are as accurate as possible and defensible.
A model cannot be considered calibrated unless it accurately represents flow conditions that have actually occurred, preferably in the very recent past. This dictates that the model include an “existing” model scenario, which represents the configuration and flow conditions that are currently experienced. Only after the model has been shown to accurately simulate these flow conditions can it be used to simulate hypothetical conditions, such as a design storm event or a build out flow condition.
The intended purpose of the model will dictate how the model is constructed and should be calibrated. For Fresno, flow conditions observed in the flow monitoring data and at the RWRF have demonstrated that it is necessary to calibrate to both dry weather and wet weather flow conditions. Model calibration of the City’s collection system hydraulic model consisted of three main parts, a macro calibration, a base flow calibration, and wet weather flow calibration.
4.3.1 Calibration Standards
The hydraulic model was calibrated in accordance with international modeling standards.
The Wastewater Planning Users Group (WaPUG), a section of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, has established generally agreed upon principles for model verification. The base flow and wet weather calibration focused on meeting the recommendations on model verification contained in the “Code of Practice for the Hydraulic Modeling of Sewer Systems,” published by the WaPUG (WaPUG 2002), as summarized below:
• Base Wastewater Flow Calibration Standards: Base flow calibration should be carried out for two base flow days and the modeled flows and depths should be compared to the field measured flows and depths. Both the modeled and field measured flow hydrographs should closely follow each other in both shape and magnitude.
In addition to the shape, the flow hydrographs should also meet the following criteria as a general guide:
– The timing of flow peaks and troughs should be within one hour. – The peak flow rate should be within the range of ±10 percent – The volume of flow (or the average rate of flow) should be within the range of ±10 percent. If applicable, care should be taken to exclude periods of missing or inaccurate data.
• Wet Weather Calibration Standards: The model simulated flows and depths should be compared to the field measured flows and depths. The flow hydrographs should September 2015 4-18
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH04 closely follow each other in both shape and magnitude, until the flow has substantially returned to dry weather flow rates.
In addition to the shape, the flow hydrographs should also meet the following criteria as a general guide:
– The timing of the peaks and troughs should be similar with regard to the duration of the events.
– The peak flow rates at significant peaks should be in the range of +25 percent to 15 percent and should be generally similar throughout. – The volume of flow (or the average flow rate) should be within the range of +20 percent to -10 percent.
4.3.2 Macro Calibration
The initial calibration process consisted of a macro calibration. Initially, Carollo ran the model under existing BWF conditions and necessary adjustments were made to produce reasonable system flows. Such adjustments include modifications of pipeline connectivity, inverts, facility characteristics, and lift station characteristics.
4.3.3 Base Wastewater Flow Calibration
The BWF calibration process consists of several elements, as outlined below:
• Divide the system into areas tributary to each flow meter. The first step in the calibration process was to divide the City into flow meter tributary areas. Twenty-one tributary areas were created, one for each flow meter from the permanant flow monitoring program. A map showing the locations of each flow monitoring site and their associated tributary area are provided in Chapter 3 along with a schematic of the flow meters.
• Define flow volumes within each area. The next step was to define the flow volumes within each area, which was accomplished in the flow allocation step. • Create diurnal patterns to match the temporal distribution of flow. A diurnal curve is a pattern of hourly multipliers that are applied to the base flow to simulate the variation in flow that occurs throughout the day. In order to match the flows throughout the week, a seven day diurnal pattern was established for each flow meter. The diurnal patterns were initially developed based on the flow monitoring data and adjusted as part of the calibration process until the model simulated flows closely matched the field measured flows. Figure 4.5 shows the calibrated weekday and weekend diurnal patterns for the area tributary to Site FR06. Similar diurnal curves were developed for each of the meters and its tributary area. These additional curves are available in Appendix B.
Figure 4.5
Example Diurnal Patterns (Meter FR06)
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Multiplier
Hour
Weekday
Weekend
September 2015 4-20
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH04 • Adjust model variables to match field measured velocity and flow depths. Once the model simulated flows acceptably matched the field measured flows, the model simulated velocity and flow depth were compared to the field measured velocity and flow depth. Adjustments were made to various model parameters until the modeled and measured velocity and depth closely matched one another. The primary varied parameters for this process are pipeline roughness (Manning’s n) and sediment build up in the pipe, although other parameters can also be adjusted as calibration results are generated.
Manning’s roughness coefficients, or n values, have industry accepted ranges based on a number of variables. Roughness coefficients increase over time depending on the construction methods, installation quality, system maintenance, and other environmental factors. There can be certain factors within the City’s collection system that can result in roughness coefficients which differ from the typical range. For example, pipeline bellies, joint misalignment, cracks, and debris (e.g., root intrusion, etc.) lead to increased turbulence in a pipe, as well as the apparent Manning’s n factor.
If the model is unable to reasonably match the field measured flow depth and velocity without leaving the acceptable range of Manning’s roughness coefficients, further investigation is conducted to help determine the cause of the discrepancy. Some issues that could cause such a discrepancy can include errors in the slope or diameter of a pipeline, downstream blockages, pipeline sags, and, in some cases, influences from downstream lift station operations. This method was not needed on any of the City’s current flow metering points to match flows.
Table 4.6 provides a summary of the BWF calibration using the average and daily peak flow results for both weekday and weekend conditions. As shown in Table 4.6, with the exception of Meter FR24 (which was only very slightly above 10-percent), the model simulated average and peak flows for both weekday and weekend BWF were all within 10- percent. The flow monitoring data associated with meter FR24 was limited and somewhat questionable, so a percent error of only slightly greater than 10-percent was deemed acceptable for this meter.
Appendix B contains a detailed BWF calibration summary sheet for each of the 21 meter sites. Each calibration sheet provides plots that compare the model simulated and field measured flow, velocity, and level data for both weekday and weekend conditions. An example of the dry weather calibration for Site FR06 is shown on Figure 4.6. As shown on Figure 4.6 and in Appendix B, there is excellent overall correlation of the field measured data to the model output results.
4.3.4 Wet Weather Flow Calibration
The WWF calibration enables the hydraulic model to accurately simulate I/I entering the collection system during a large storm. As outlined below, the WWF calibration process consists of several elements:
Table 4.6 BWF Calibration Summary
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Pipe Avg. Peak Avg. Avg. Avg. Peak Avg. Avg. Avg. Peak Avg. Avg. Avg. Peak Avg. Avg. Avg. Peak Avg. Avg. Avg. Peak Avg. Avg.
Meter Diameter Flow Flow Velocity Level Flow Flow Velocity Level Flow Flow Velocity Level Flow Flow Velocity Level Flow Flow Velocity Level Flow Flow Velocity Level Number (in) (mgd) (mgd) (ft/s) (in) (mgd) (mgd) (ft/s) (in) (%) (%) (%) (%) (mgd) (mgd) (ft/s) (in) (mgd) (mgd) (ft/s) (in) (%) (%) (%) (%) (mgd) (mgd) (%) FR01 45 3.701 5.507 3.36 9.3 3.704 5.212 3.06 10.0 0.1% -5.4% -8.9% 7.1% 3.904 5.939 3.39 9.5 3.927 5.766 3.09 10.2 0.6% -2.9% -8.7% 7.3% 3.759 3.768 0.2%FR02 45 8.049 10.996 3.52 15.9 7.726 10.331 3.59 15.1 -4.0% -6.0% 2.0% -4.5% 8.135 12.465 3.51 15.9 7.777 11.659 3.57 15.1 -4.4% -6.5% 1.7% -4.9% 8.074 7.741 -4.1%FR06 36 4.132 5.207 2.59 14.2 4.131 5.050 2.57 13.6 0.0% -3.0% -0.7% -4.0% 4.089 5.758 2.54 14.2 4.118 5.630 2.56 13.5 0.7% -2.2% 1.1% -4.7% 4.120 4.128 0.2%FR08 48 7.661 9.894 4.59 12.3 7.672 10.070 4.24 13.0 0.2% 1.8% -7.7% 5.9% 7.131 9.883 4.52 11.7 7.336 10.727 4.16 12.6 2.9% 8.5% -7.8% 8.1% 7.509 7.576 0.9%FR09 39 5.025 6.285 3.41 12.8 4.860 6.020 3.23 12.4 -3.3% -4.2% -5.4% -2.8% 4.673 6.466 3.31 12.3 4.556 6.325 3.16 12.0 -2.5% -2.2% -4.5% -2.8% 4.925 4.773 -3.1%FR10 0 1.491 2.750 1.16 10.4 1.464 2.697 1.19 10.3 -1.8% -1.9% 2.3% -1.4% 1.496 3.201 1.11 10.0 1.469 3.103 1.15 10.0 -1.8% -3.1% 3.4% -0.7% 1.492 1.465 -1.8%FR11 66 3.582 5.199 2.23 10.3 3.609 4.851 2.16 10.8 0.8% -6.7% -3.3% 4.3% 3.483 5.471 2.24 10.0 3.665 5.539 2.16 10.7 5.2% 1.2% -3.7% 7.0% 3.554 3.625 2.0%FR12 33 1.578 2.513 1.89 8.6 1.579 2.502 1.93 8.5 0.0% -0.4% 1.9% -1.6% 1.590 2.673 1.84 8.7 1.592 2.671 1.91 8.4 0.1% -0.1% 3.9% -2.9% 1.582 1.582 0.0%FR13 51 8.526 10.118 3.29 15.8 8.329 9.611 3.31 16.2 -2.3% -5.0% 0.6% 2.3% 7.951 10.072 3.24 15.2 7.902 9.556 3.26 15.7 -0.6% -5.1% 0.6% 3.6% 8.362 8.207 -1.9%FR14 36 4.058 4.998 2.40 14.4 4.022 4.819 2.25 14.8 -0.9% -3.6% -6.1% 2.9% 4.017 5.367 2.39 14.3 3.762 4.806 2.21 14.2 -6.3% -10.4% -7.8% -0.1% 4.046 3.948 -2.4%FR15 48 6.194 7.184 2.19 18.2 6.071 6.949 2.25 17.5 -2.0% -3.3% 2.7% -3.5% 5.939 7.337 2.17 17.7 5.850 7.075 2.22 17.2 -1.5% -3.6% 2.5% -3.1% 6.121 6.008 -1.9%FR16 30 3.724 4.692 3.34 11.5 3.702 4.463 3.26 11.5 -0.6% -4.9% -2.5% 0.3% 3.708 5.104 3.32 11.5 3.667 4.664 3.24 11.4 -1.1% -8.6% -2.3% -0.5% 3.720 3.692 -0.7%FR19 66 23.147 27.598 4.52 24.1 23.071 27.048 4.89 22.7 -0.3% -2.0% 8.2% -5.8% 20.907 26.800 4.35 22.8 22.057 28.163 4.81 22.1 5.5% 5.1% 10.6% -3.2% 22.507 22.781 1.2%FR20 66 29.854 34.806 4.60 28.6 26.961 31.643 4.71 26.2 -9.7% -9.1% 2.3% -8.3% 26.650 34.503 4.48 26.6 25.500 31.954 4.62 25.4 -4.3% -7.4% 3.1% -4.6% 28.939 26.544 -8.3%FR21 42 4.403 5.596 2.11 15.3 4.451 5.716 2.11 15.4 1.1% 2.1% 0.0% 0.9% 4.454 6.167 2.10 15.4 4.541 6.199 2.11 15.6 1.9% 0.5% 0.7% 0.7% 4.418 4.477 1.3%FR22 45 7.461 9.611 2.90 17.5 7.471 9.230 2.88 17.5 0.1% -4.0% -0.8% 0.0% 7.615 10.754 2.90 17.6 7.650 10.427 2.88 17.6 0.5% -3.0% -0.5% 0.1% 7.505 7.522 0.2%FR23 27 1.251 1.638 2.08 7.5 1.262 1.521 2.20 7.4 0.9% -7.2% 5.5% -1.5% 0.762 1.032 1.94 5.5 0.827 1.469 1.93 5.9 8.5% 42.4% -0.6% 7.6% 1.111 1.138 2.4%FR24 72 8.120 10.599 2.60 16.1 8.987 11.826 2.63 17.3 10.7% 11.6% 0.9% 7.5% 8.216 11.913 2.61 16.1 9.103 13.093 2.63 17.3 10.8% 9.9% 0.8% 7.5% 8.147 9.021 10.7%FR25 15 0.082 0.121 1.11 2.1 0.082 0.121 1.12 2.1 0.1% 0.1% 1.1% 1.0% 0.079 0.134 1.12 2.0 0.079 0.134 1.10 2.1 0.2% -0.1% -2.0% 3.0% 0.081 0.081 0.1%FR26 0 0.190 0.311 0.92 4.9 0.192 0.308 0.91 5.1 1.4% -1.0% -1.1% 2.6% 0.195 0.321 0.93 5.0 0.198 0.322 0.91 5.1 1.3% 0.4% -1.9% 3.3% 0.191 0.194 1.3%FR27 27 1.900 2.558 1.82 12.1 1.900 2.546 1.86 11.1 0.0% -0.5% 2.6% -8.4% 1.935 2.786 1.86 12.1 1.935 2.783 1.86 11.2 0.0% -0.1% 0.1% -7.4% 1.910 1.910 0.0% Notes:1. Source: City of Fresno Permanent Flow Monitoring Data2. Average flow, level, and velocity are calculated from weekday/weekend dry weather flow monitoring data. Maximum flow values are hourly peaks corresponding to either weekend or weekday confitions, as appropriate.3. Percent Difference = (Modeled - Measured)/Measured*100.4. Base Wastewater Flow = (5*Weekday Base Wastewater Flow + 2*Weekend Base Wastewater Flow)/7 Modeled
BWF
Percent
Difference
Weekday Base Wastewater Flow Weekend Base Wastewater Flow Base Wastewater Flow(4) Measured Data(1) Modeled Data(2) Percent Error(3) Measured Data(1) Modeled Data(2) Percent Error(3) Measured
BWF
Figure 4.6
Example BWF Calibration (Meter FR06)
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Flow (mgd)
Hour
Flow Calibration
Measured Flow Modeled Flow
Weekday Weekend
0.01.02.03.04.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Velocity (ft/s)
Hour
Velocity Calibration
Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity
Weekday Weekend
0.05.0 10.015.020.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 Level (in)
Hour
Level Calibration
Measured Level Modeled Level
Weekday Weekend
September 2015 4-23
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH04 • Identify calibration rainfall events. The WWF calibration process consists of running model simulations of historic rainfall events based on data from the City’s permanent flow monitoring program. The goal of any wet weather flow monitoring program is to capture and characterize a system’s response to a significant rainfall event, preferably during wet antecedent moisture conditions. In the case of the City, although there is permanent flow monitoring data available, there were significant data gaps in recent years, and so selection of a calibration rainfall event was limited to periods of time in which sufficient data were available.
The selection of a particular calibration storm or group of storms is based on a review of the flow and rainfall data. In the case of the City, the most significant event in recent years with sufficient data availability to perform an adequate WWF calibration occurred in April 2012, and therefore this storm was used as the basis for WWF calibration. As a validation of the April 2012 WWF calibration, the model was validated to a series of rainfall events that occurred in March 2011 for sites where data was available, and to the hourly influent flow data at the RWRF.
In order to run a model simulation for the both of these rainfall events, the hourly rainfall data were input into the model for these events. Each flow monitoring tributary area, or basin, was assigned a specific rainfall hyetograph, which was calculated for each basin based on available historic rainfall data.
• Define RDII tributary areas. For the WWF calibration, RDII flows are superimposed on top of the BWF. RDII inflows consist of both a unit hydrograph and the total area that is tributary to the model node. The RDII tributary areas were calculated in GIS using the City’s loading polygons (MGPs), excluding any large vacant, open space, or other areas in the system which are not expected to contribute to I/I into the collection system. The tributary area provides a means to transform hourly rainfall depth from the rainfall hyetographs into a rainfall volume. The rainfall volume is transformed into actual RDII flows using the unit hydrograph, as described in the next step. • Create I/I parameter database and modify to match field measured flows. The main step in the WWF calibration process involves creating custom unit hydrographs for each flow monitoring tributary area using the “RTK Method,” which is widely used in collection system master planning. Using the RTK Method, the RDII unit hydrograph is the summation of three separate triangular hydrographs (short term, medium term, and long term), which are each defined by three parameters: R, T, and K. R represents the fraction of rainfall over the sewer shed that enters the collection system; T represents the time to peak of the hydrograph; and K represents the ratio of time to recession to the time to peak. Therefore, there are a total of nine separate variables associated with each unit hydrograph. Figure 4.7 shows the shape of an example unit hydrograph.
The hydrographs utilize the R-Values (percent of rainfall that enters the collection system) calculated for each basin to simulate I/I. The nine variables in each unit hydrograph were initially set based on engineering judgment and then adjusted until the model simulated flows (both peak flows and average flows) matched closely with the field measured flows.
T1 T1K1
T2 T2K2
T3 T3K3
R1I
R2I
R3I
Total RDII Hydrograph
Short Term Hydrograph
Medium Term Hydrograph
Long Term Hydrograph
Figure 4.7
Example RDII Unit Hydrograph
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
September 2015 4-25
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH04 As with the dry weather calibration, the wet weather calibration process compared the meter data with the model output. Comparisons were made for average and peak flows as well as the temporal distribution of flow until flows returned to their baseline levels. According to the WaPUG, a hydraulic model is generally considered to be satisfactorily calibrated to WWF conditions if the modeled peak flows are within +25 percent to -15 percent of the field measured data, and if the average modeled flows are within +20 percent to -10 percent of the field measured data. • Refine model variables to match field measured velocity and flow depths. After the model was considered to be satisfactorily calibrated for wet weather flows, the model simulated velocities and flow depths were checked against the field measured velocities and flow depths during the calibration storms. Refinements were made to the various model parameters so that the modeled and measured velocity and depth closely matched one another. If any adjustments were made to Manning’s n-values or other parameters, the BWF calibration was rechecked as well to make sure that the flow depth and velocities still matched well under BWF conditions.
Appendix C contains a detailed wet weather flow calibration summary sheet for each of the 21 meter sites. Each calibration sheet provides plots that compare the model simulated and field measured flow, velocity, and level data for the calibration storms. An example of the wet weather calibration for Site FR06 is shown on Figure 4.8. Table 4.7 provides a summary of the wet weather flow calibration using the average and peak flow results.
Additionally, Figure 4.9 and Figure 4.10 show a comparison of the modeled and measured flows at the RWRF influent pump station for the April 2012 and March 2011 storms, respectively.
It should be noted that there is a considerable amount of I/I contributed into the collection system in Basin 23 (see Figure 4.11). This basin is relatively small and receives a significant amount of flow from Gallo, an SIU.
For this reason, flow data from Gallo was obtained for the April 2012 storm event. Based on a review of this data, it was confirmed that the majority of the observed I/I flow from Basin 23 appears to be associated with the Gallo property (see Appendix C). Furthermore, the amount of flow observed in Basin 23 during the April 2012 storm event would suggest that under PWWF conditions, there will be significant capacity deficiencies cause immediately downstream of Gallo. For this reason, it is recommended that the City investigate the cause of the excessive rates of I/I associated with the Gallo property, and work with Gallo to identify possible solutions to address the issue.
As shown on Table 4.7, the model simulated average and peak flows at all meter sites were within the acceptable tolerances for at least two of the three calibration storms, and therefore the model was considered calibrated and ready to use for capacity analysis purposes.
Figure 4.8
Example WWF Calibration (Meter FR06)
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
0.00.20.40.60.81.0 0 1.22468
10 Rainfall (in/hr)
Flow (mgd)
Flow Calibration
Rainfall Measured Flow Modeled Flow BWF
0.00.20.40.60.81.0 0 1.2123456
Velocity (ft/s)
Rainfall (in/hr)
Velocity Calibration
Rainfall Measured Velocity Modeled Velocity
0.00.20.40.60.81.0 0 1.25
1015202530
Rainfall (in/hr)
Level (in)
Level Calibration
Rainfall Measured Level Modeled Level
Table 4.7 WWF Calibration Sumnmary
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Pipe Avg. Peak Avg. Avg. Avg. Peak Avg. Avg. Avg. Peak Avg. Avg. Avg. Peak Avg. Avg. Avg. Peak Avg. Avg. Avg. Peak Avg. Avg.
Meter Diameter Flow Flow Velocity Level Flow Flow Velocity Level Flow Flow Velocity Level Flow Flow Velocity Level Flow Flow Velocity Level Flow Flow Velocity Level Number (in) (mgd) (mgd) (ft/s) (in) (mgd) (mgd) (ft/s) (in) (%) (%) (%) (%) (mgd) (mgd) (ft/s) (in) (mgd) (mgd) (ft/s) (in) (%) (%) (%) (%) FR01 45 3.60 5.50 3.40 9.07 4.08 5.81 3.14 10.46 13.2% 5.5% -7.6% 15.4% 4.14 6.64 3.52 9.69 4.28 6.44 3.19 10.72 3.4% -3.0% -9.6% 10.7% FR02 45 8.86 12.72 3.58 16.78 8.64 13.32 3.67 15.98 -2.5% 4.8% 2.6% -4.7% 8.02 13.11 3.22 16.67 8.51 13.68 3.67 15.89 6.1% 4.4% 13.8% -4.7% FR06 36 4.24 7.99 2.52 14.58 4.57 7.80 2.63 14.33 7.8% -2.3% 4.5% -1.7% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- FR08 48 Note 4 Note 4 Note 4 Note 4 9.47 15.58 4.46 14.35 Note 4 Note 4 Note 4 Note 4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- FR09 39 -- -- -- -- 5.73 9.77 3.36 13.48 n/a n/a n/a n/a -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- FR10 0 1.33 2.98 1.19 8.22 1.68 3.26 1.23 10.99 26.1% 9.1% 2.9% 33.7% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- FR11 66 -- -- -- -- 4.16 6.22 2.24 11.45 n/a n/a n/a n/a -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- FR12 33 1.79 4.58 1.89 9.28 2.07 4.65 2.06 9.64 15.6% 1.5% 8.7% 3.8% 2.11 3.82 1.95 10.32 2.09 3.85 2.08 9.75 -0.9% 0.6% 6.6% -5.5% FR13 51 -- -- -- -- 9.28 14.37 3.40 17.04 n/a n/a n/a n/a 10.26 14.43 3.54 17.09 9.62 12.90 3.44 17.40 -6.3% -10.6% -2.7% 1.8% FR14 36 4.36 6.79 2.11 16.88 4.64 7.90 2.32 15.98 6.4% 16.3% 9.7% -5.3% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- FR15 48 6.33 8.27 2.14 18.79 6.57 9.51 2.29 18.25 3.7% 14.9% 6.8% -2.9% 7.57 11.22 2.36 19.89 7.03 9.87 2.33 18.94 -7.2% -12.0% -1.4% -4.8% FR16 30 4.13 6.43 3.29 12.56 4.17 7.46 3.35 12.23 0.8% 16.0% 1.9% -2.7% 3.91 6.18 3.18 12.24 4.24 5.87 3.37 12.37 8.3% -4.9% 6.0% 1.1% FR19 66 22.98 34.12 5.46 20.79 25.38 37.23 4.99 23.80 10.4% 9.1% -8.6% 14.5% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- FR20 66 Note 4 Note 4 Note 4 Note 4 31.07 47.74 4.86 28.24 Note 4 Note 4 Note 4 Note 4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- FR21 42 5.49 9.33 2.13 17.91 5.24 9.03 2.18 16.76 -4.5% -3.3% 2.5% -6.4% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- FR22 45 8.46 12.88 3.02 18.56 8.55 13.45 2.96 18.74 1.1% 4.5% -1.7% 0.9% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- FR23 27 1.46 5.03 2.01 8.22 1.73 4.52 2.29 8.37 18.6% -10.0% 14.0% 1.8% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- FR24 72 Note 4 Note 4 Note 4 Note 4 10.32 15.57 2.72 18.42 Note 4 Note 4 Note 4 Note 4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- FR25 15 0.12 0.32 1.26 2.48 0.11 0.33 1.22 2.48 -3.4% 3.5% -3.1% -0.1% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- FR26 0 0.22 0.67 0.93 5.28 0.25 0.66 0.95 5.91 14.8% -1.5% 2.0% 11.9% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- FR27 27 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Notes:
1. Source: City of Fresno Permanent Flow Monitoring Data
2. Average flow, level, and velocity are calculated from weekday/weekend dry weather flow monitoring data.
3. Base Wastewater Flow = (5*Weekday Base Wastewater Flow + 2*Weekend Base Wastewater Flow)/7
4. "--" indicates that data were not available. "Note 4" indicates that data were available, but with data gaps.
April 13-14, 2012 Storm Event March 20-21, 2011 Storm Event Measured Data(1) Modeled Data(2) Percent Error
(3) Measured Data(1) Modeled Data(2) Percent Error(3)
Figure 4.9
RWRF WWF Calibration (April 2012)
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.4 0 1.6
20406080
100120
Rainfall (in/hr)
Flow (mgd)
Rainfall Influent Meter Flow Modeled Flow BWF
Figure 4.10
RWRF WWF Calibration (March 2011)
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
0.00.20.40.60.8 0 1.0
20406080
100120140
Rainfall (in/hr)
Flow (mgd)
Rainfall Influent Flow Meter Modeled Flow ADWF
Figure 4.11
WWF Calibration for Meter 23
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
0.00.20.40.60.81.0 0 1.2123456
Rainfall (in/hr)
Flow (mgd)
Rainfall Measured Flow Modeled Flow BWF
September 2015 4-31
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH04
4.3.5 Model Calibration Summary
As documented in this section, there is excellent agreement between the field measured and hydraulic model simulated flows, depths, and velocities under both BWF and WWF conditions, and meets the generally accepted standards used to determine the adequacy of model calibration, according to the WaPUG. For this reason, the model is considered calibrated.
September 2015 5-1
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH05 Chapter 5
PLANNING CRITERIA AND DESIGN FLOWS
The capacity of the City of Fresno’s (City’s) wastewater collection system was evaluated based on the planning criteria defined in this chapter. The planning criteria address the collection system capacity, gravity sewer pipe slopes, and maximum allowable depth of flow within a sewer. This chapter also summarizes the existing and build out design flows.
5.1 GRAVITY SEWERS
Gravity sewer pipe capacities are dependent on many factors. The factors include roughness of the pipe, the chosen maximum allowable depth of flow downstream, and limiting velocity and slope. The following sections describe the factors that account for the determination of existing and future pipeline capacities in the City’s collection system.
5.1.1 Manning Coefficient (n)
The manning coefficient 'n' is a friction coefficient that varies with respect to pipe material, size of pipe, depth of flow, smoothness of joints, root intrusion, and other factors. For sewer pipes, the manning coefficient typically ranges between 0.011 and 0.017, with 0.013 being a representative value used for system planning purposes. For this study, the existing manning’s coefficients provided in the hydraulic model were used, and then refined as necessary during model calibration to accurately simulated field measured levels and velocities.
5.1.2 Peak Flow Criteria
The primary criteria used to identify capacity deficient sewers or to size new sewer improvements are the maximum flow depth to pipe diameter ratio (d/D), as well as the peak flow to pipe capacity ratio (q/Q). The d/D value is defined as the depth of flow (d) in a pipe during peak (design) flow conditions divided by the pipe’s diameter (D). The q/Q is defined as the maximum flow rate in a pipe (q) divided by the maximum flow capacity of the pipe (Q). Based on Carollo Engineers, Inc’s (Carollo’s) experience, City staff input, and industry standards, the following criteria were used:
• Flow Depth for Existing Sewers. Peak flow criteria for existing sanitary sewers are established based on a number of factors, including the acceptable risk tolerance of the utility, local standards and codes, and other factors. Using a conservative criterion for evaluating existing sewers may lead to unnecessary replacement of existing pipelines. Conversely, lenient criteria could increase the risk of sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). Ultimately, the maximum allowable peak flow criteria should be established to be as cost effective as possible while at the same time reducing the risk of SSOs to the greatest extent possible.
September 2015 5-2
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH05 For Fresno, it was decided that a maximum q/Q ratio of 1.15 would be used to identify capacity deficient sewers. In other words, a pipeline was considered capacity deficient if the peak flow is 15-percent over capacity. • Flow Depth for New Sewers. When designing sewer pipelines, it is common practice to adopt variable flow depth criteria for various pipe sizes. Design d/D ratios typically range from 0.5 to 0.92, with the lower values typically used for smaller pipes, which may experience flow peaks greater than design flow or blockages from debris, paper, or rags. Table 5.1 summarizes the criteria for the evaluation of existing sewers and for sizing new trunk lines. For pipelines less than 12-inches in diameter the max d/D value is 0.5 or 50 percent of the pipeline depth. Pipelines 12- to 18-inches in diameter, the max d/D is 0.67, and for pipelines larger than 18-inches in diameter the maximum d/D value is 0.75.
Table 5.1 Maximum Flow Depth Criteria
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Maximum Flow Depth for Existing Sewers
Peak Wet Weather Flow: Maximum q/Q = 1.15
Maximum d/D for New Sewers
Pipe Diameter (inches) Maximum d/D Ratio (during Peak Flows) Less than 12 0.50
12 to 18 0.67
Larger than 18 0.75
5.1.3 Design Velocities and Minimum Slopes
In order to minimize the settlement of sewage solids, it is standard practice in the design of gravity sewers to specify that a minimum velocity of two feet per second (ft/s) be maintained when the pipeline is half-full. At this velocity, the sewer flow will typically provide self cleaning for the pipe. Due to hydraulics of a circular conduit, velocity of half-full flow in pipes approaches the velocity of nearly full flow in pipes.
Table 5.2 lists the recommended minimum slopes and their corresponding maximum flows for maintaining self-cleaning velocities (equal to or greater than two ft/s) when the pipe is flowing at its maximum depth (d/D ratio).
September 2015 5-3
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH05 Table 5.2 Minimum Slope for New Pipes
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Pipe
Diameter
(inches)
Minimum Slope(1)(2)
(feet/feet)
Calculated Flow at Maximum d/D(2)(3)
d/D Maximum Flow (mgd)
6 0.0050 0.50 0.127
8 0.0033 0.50 0.226
10 0.0025 0.50 0.353
12 0.0019 0.67 0.796
15 0.0014 0.67 1.24
18 0.0011 0.67 1.79
21 0.0009 0.75 2.84
24 0.0008 0.75 3.70
27 0.0007 0.75 4.68
30 0.0006 0.75 5.79
36 0.0006 0.75 9.65
42 0.0006 0.75 14.56
Notes:
(1) Recommended minimum slope for flows at a velocity greater than or equal to 2 ft/s. (2) Manning’s n = 0.013
(3) Calculated flow is determined using the minimum slope and maximum allowable d/D from Table 3.1.
5.1.4 Changes in Pipe Size
When a smaller sewer joins a large one, the invert of the larger sewer should be lowered sufficiently to maintain the same energy gradient. An approximate method for securing these results is to place the 0.8 depth point of both sewers at the same elevation. For planning purposes and designing new pipes, and in the absence of field data, sewer crowns are typically matched at the manholes.
5.2 LIFT STATIONS AND FORCE MAINS
Industry standard practice is to require that sewage lift stations have sufficient capacity to pump the Peak Dry Weather Flow (PDWF) and Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF) (whichever is greater) with the largest pump out of service (firm capacity).
Force main piping should be sized to provide a minimum velocity of 3 ft/s at the design flow rate of the lift station and no more than 8 ft/s. For the determination of head loss, the Hazen September 2015 5-4
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH05 Williams Equation is used with a C-factor of 110. These factors are typical for sewer system master planning purposes.
5.3 DESIGN FLOWS
This section summarizes the historic flows measured at the Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF) and presents the calculation of the design flows used to model the existing and future sewer collection system.
5.3.1 Historic RWRF Flows
In addition to the flow monitoring data (summarized in Chapter 3), this project reviewed historical influent flow data at the RWRF from 2008 to 2012 to help establish wastewater flow criteria.
Flow data from January 2008 through December 2012 are summarized in Table 5.3.
Table 5.3 lists the average flow at the RWRF for each month from 2007 through 2012. In addition, Table 5.3 summarizes the annual average flow (i.e., the average day flow) and the base wastewater flow (BWF) for each of those years. Flows at the plant have declined since 2008, due to economic conditions, and possibly increased water conservation.
Therefore, based on a review of the historical flow data at the RWRF, the years 2010 through 2012 were determined to be the most appropriate time period to define the “existing” flow condition. As shown in Table 5.3, the annual average flow ranged from
63.2 million gallons per day (mgd) in 2012 to 68.8 mgd in 2008, with a three-year average of 64.7 mgd. The BWF (defined as the average flow during the months of November through July) ranged from 62.6 mgd in 2012 to 68.1 mgd in 2008, with a three year average of 64.1 mgd. For this study, the existing BWF was defined as the three year BWF, which is equal to 64.1 mgd.
5.3.2 Wastewater Unit Flow Factors
In order to develop wastewater flow projections and allocate future flows to the collection system, relationships between land use and wastewater generation were developed. These relationships, called wastewater flow factors are established based on the average wastewater flow generated for each existing land use type. The land use flow coefficients were established to project the estimated BWF through build out of the City’s general plan boundary.
Unit flow factors provide a means to estimate flow per acre for each land use category.
Wastewater unit flow factors are expressed in gallons per day per acre (gpd/ac), applied to land use acreage for calculating average day flow generated from a particular land use. A unit flow factor was developed for each of the City’s existing land use classifications. The resulting flow was entered in the sewer system hydraulic model.
September 2015 5-5
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH05 Table 5.3 Historical RWRF Flows
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Month
RWRF Influent Flow(1) (mgd) 5-Year
Average
(2008-2012)
3-Year
Average
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 (2010-2012)
January 70.0 66.2 62.9 65.9 62.4 65.5 63.7
February 67.4 66.8 64.8 65.1 64.1 65.6 64.7
March 66.0 65.3 64.7 64.2 62.1 64.5 63.7
April 66.8 65.1 66.1 63.1 62.0 64.6 63.7
May 67.5 65.5 64.8 63.3 62.2 64.7 63.4
June 68.7 66.5 65.3 64.3 63.1 65.6 64.2
July 69.7 65.6 65.7 63.5 62.8 65.5 64.0
August 70.7 66.0 67.5 65.3 65.3 67.0 66.0
September 71.6 66.9 68.9 66.5 64.6 67.7 66.6
October 70.9 67.3 68.7 65.9 64.9 67.5 66.5
November 68.7 64.2 67.8 64.8 62.5 65.6 65.0
December 67.6 64.0 68.7 62.8 61.8 65.0 64.4
Average Annual
Flow 68.8 65.8 66.3 64.6 63.2 65.7 64.7
BWF (Nov.-July) 68.1 65.5 65.6 64.1 62.6 65.2 64.1
Minimum Month
Flow 66.0 64.0 62.9 62.8 61.8 63.5 62.5
Maximum
Month Flow 71.6 67.3 68.9 66.5 65.3 67.9 66.9
Notes:
(1) Source: City influent metering records.
Flow factors for residential areas typically range between 250 to 4,000 gallons per day per acre (gpd/ac), and commercial and industrial areas may range from 600 to 3,000 gpd/ac or higher. Open space land uses were assumed to generate negligible amounts of sewage flow. The factors were developed using the following procedure:
• Average flows for each flow metering tributary area were derived from the flow monitoring data (see Chapter 3).
• Flows associated with each of the City’s existing significant industrial users (SIU)s were identified based on meter data provided by the City. A summary of the average flows associated with each SIU is provided in Appendix D. Each SIU was assigned to the appropriate flow metering tributary area and its average flows were subtracted September 2015 5-6
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH05 from the average flows measured during the flow monitoring period. Flows associated with the SIUs were input into the model as “point loads”. • Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS), the acres for each existing land use type contained in each flow monitoring tributary area were calculated, excluding the SIU areas and vacant areas. According to City staff, the City’s vacant land shape file was is out of date. For this reason, Carollo examined and revised the City’s vacant land use database by comparing the vacant land shape file against a recent aerial photograph.
• Preliminary flow factors for each land use type are estimated based on the approximate number of dwelling units per acre, the assumed per capita wastewater generation rates, and the typical number of people per dwelling unit for each land use type.
• The flow factors for each flow metering tributary were then adjusted up or down (balanced) so that the calculated average flows from each tributary match what was measured from the flow monitoring data.
• Once the flow factors for each of the flowmeter tributary areas were balanced, the weighted average of the coefficients for each existing land use type was calculated based on the acreage contribution from each metering tributary area.
The calibrated wastewater flow factors developed for existing land uses are summarized in Table 5.4. A wastewater flow balance was performed to test the accuracy of the flow factor estimates. As with most cities throughout California, residential land use makes up the majority of developed land and wastewater flow. For Fresno, residential customers within the City proper (excluding Clovis) make up approximately 63 percent of the current flow (40.2 million gallons per day [mgd]). Additionally, Fresno’s industrial sector also makes up a significant portion of the City’s current flow. Industrial customers account for 17 percent of the current BWF (11.3 mgd) and a greater percentage in the summer months when industrial flows increase. The City of Clovis flows currently account for 8 percent of the existing flow (5.1 mgd), although the City of Clovis is entitled to discharge up to roughly
8.9 mgd. Commercial customers account for roughly 6 percent of the current flow (3.8 mgd), and other land uses, such as public land use areas, account for the remaining 5 percent of current flow (3.4 mgd).
Table 5.4 Wastewater Flow Balance
Table 5.4 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update Table 5.4 City of Fresno
Wastewater Flow Factor Land Use Area Base Wastewater Flow Land Use Classification (gpd/ac) (acre) (gpd)
Residential
Rural Density 250 1,216 0.30
Low Density (1-3 DU/acre) 600 1,138 0.68
Medium Low Density (3.5 -6 DU/acre) 900 10,361 9.33
Medium Density (5-12 DU/acre) 1,700 11,143 18.94
Medium High Density (12-16 DU/acre) 2,800 2,039 5.71
High Density (30-45 DU/acre) 4,000 1,316 5.26
Subtotal 27,212 40.2
Commercial
Community 800 604 0.48
General Heavy 950 1,054 1.00
Neighborhood 1,660 569 1.06
Neighborhood Limited 1,410 3 0.94
Office 1,000 1,057 0.00
Professional Services Office 800 100 0.08
Regional 800 218 0.17
Recreational 600 119 0.07
Storage Limited 0 44 0.00
Subtotal 3,768 3.8
Public Facilities
Airport 300 1,065 0.32
College 0 151 0.00
High school 700 475 0.33
Elementary School and High School 700 141 0.10
Middle School 700 233 0.16
Elementary School and Middle School 700 188 0.13
Elementary School 700 735 0.51
Special School 700 42 0.03
Cemetery 0 165 0.00
Church 500 545 0.27
Community Activity Center 850 8 0.01
Neighborhood Center 1,000 5 0.00
Convention Center 850 17 0.01
Fairgounds 500 90 0.04
Fire Station 850 14 0.01
Government Offices 1,000 141 0.14
County Court House Central Area 1,500 14 0.02
Hospital 4,000 137 0.55
Medical Center 3,000 10 0.03
Convalescent Hospital 3,000 64 0.19
Military 850 60 0.05
Mobile Home Park 500 388 0.19
Municipal Service Center 1,300 37 0.05
Post Office 1,200 23 0.03
Public Facility 1,200 21 0.03
Public/Quasi-Public Facility 850 43 0.04
Pump Station 0 44 0.00
Subtotal 4,854 3.3
Open Space
Open Space 0 60 0.00
Recreational Use/Clear Zone 0 16 0.00
Ag 0 233 0.00
Canal 0 38 0.00
Community Park 0 28 0.00
Golf Course 150 597 0.09
Lake or Pond 0 54 0.00
Multi-Use 0 101 0.00
Neighborhood Park 0 212 0.00
Recreational Park 0 59 0.00
Recreational Use 0 12 0.00
Regional Park 0 154 0.00
Parking 0 78 0.00
Pg&e Substation 500 117 0.06
Ponding Basin 0 407 0.00
Ponding Basin/Park 0 108 0.00
Subtotal 2,281 0.1
Other
Roads/ Canals/ Highways 16,545 0.00
Vacant 0 2,303 0.00
Subtotal 18,848 0.0
Industrial/Clovis
Light Industrial 620 2,979 1.85
Heavy Industrial 1,160 1,291 1.50
Metered Industrial Users - - 7.95
City of Clovis - - 5.12
Subtotal 4,270 16.4
Total
Total -- 61,234 63.9
Current Sewer Service Area and Existing Land Use
September 2015 5-8
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH05
5.3.3 Existing and Projected Base Wastewater Flow
Developing an accurate estimate of the future quantity of wastewater generated at build out of the collections system is an important step in maintaining and sizing sewer system facilities, for both existing conditions and future developments. In general, the future BWF for build out of the study area was determined by multiplying the wastewater flow factors by the projected land use acreage.
As noted in Chapter 2, the City’s General Plan land use can be broken down into “Areas of Change” and “Areas of Stability.” Areas of Change are generally defined as areas that contribute to a net increase in wastewater flow in the future, and include densification areas (i.e., Downtown, and densification corridors), infill areas (i.e., development of vacant parcels), and new growth areas (i.e., expansion of the wastewater service area).
Wastewater flows associated with the “Areas of Change” were estimated to be 71.8 mgd, which was estimated by multiplying the appropriate wastewater unit flow factor by the land use acreage identified in Table 5.5.
Areas of Stability include the remaining land use areas within the existing sewer service area. The existing BWF associated with these “Areas of Stability” is estimated to be approximately 46.6 mgd, which includes 8.2 mgd of flow from the existing metered industrial customers, but not including the City of Clovis. City of Clovis flows at build out were assumed to be equal to their maximum permit capacity, as well as 3 mgd of additional flow associated with the future Leonard Trunk. In total, the City of Clovis wastewater flows are assumed to be 11.9 mgd at build out.
As shown in Table 5.5, the build out BWF is projected to be approximately 129.9 mgd.
5.3.4 Existing and Project PDWF
The PDWF is the highest hourly flow that occurs during dry weather conditions. In Fresno, the PDWF condition occurs in the late summer when industry is discharging at its maximum rate. Based on a review of the historical RWRF flow data (see Table 5.3), the highest monthly flow rate at the RWRF between 2010 and 2012 was 68.9 mgd (September 2010).
The existing PDWF was derived throughout the system based on the hydraulic modeling results. For the PDWF model run, model flows were increased for each SIU based on the maximum monthly flow for each user (see Appendix C), and the remaining flows were scaled up to match 68.9 mgd (daily average flow). In addition, for the PDWF scenario, the City of Clovis flows were set to their maximum permitted discharge rates. From the modeling results, the existing PDWF is estimated to be 88.5 mgd. The build out PDWF was generated using this approach. At build out, the PDWF is estimated to increase to 164.7 mgd.
Table 5.5 Future BWF Projections
Table 5.5 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update Table 5.5 City of Fresno
Infill Redevelopment Total Infill Redevelopment Total
Land Use Type (gpd/ac) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) Residential
Low Density (1-3 DU/acre) 600 75 0 5,089 5,164 0.0 0.0 3.1 3.1 Medium Low Density (3.5 -6 DU/acre) 900 191 4 2,226 2,421 0.2 0.0 2.0 2.2 Medium Density (5-12 DU/acre) 1,700 264 29 6,990 7,282 0.4 0.0 11.9 12.4 Medium High Density (12-16 DU/acre) 2,800 89 16 531 636 0.2 0.0 1.5 1.8 Urban Neighborhood (16-30 DU/acre) 3,500 63 121 2,001 2,184 0.2 0.4 7.0 7.6 High Density (30-45 DU/acre) 4,000 9 20 252 281 0.0 0.1 1.0 1.1 Commercial
Main Street 800 4 67 0 72 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1
Community 800 106 507 436 1,050 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.8
Recreation 500 0 0 8 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
General 950 73 0 75 147 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1
Highway and Auto 950 31 50 169 250 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2
Regional 800 8 136 186 331 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3
Employment
Office 1,000 217 5 226 448 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
Business Park 800 12 63 743 817 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.7
Regional Business Park 800 28 126 1,662 1,817 0.0 0.1 1.3 1.5 Light Industrial 620 362 2 1,781 2,145 0.2 0.0 1.1 1.3
Heavy Industrial 5,000 148 7 2,368 2,522 0.7 0.0 11.8 12.6 Mixed Use
Corridor/Center Mixed Use 2,800 78 1,139 829 2,046 0.2 3.2 2.3 5.7 Regional Mixed Use 3,300 19 613 321 952 0.1 2.0 1.1 3.1 Neighborhood Mixed Use 2,300 3 112 15 131 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 Open Space
Clear Zone 0 2 0 4 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Commercial-Recreational 0 1 0 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Community Park 0 0 0 40 41 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Flood Control Project 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Golf Course 150 8 0 418 426 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
Lake, Pond 0 0 0 32 32 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Multi-Use 0 46 0 2,053 2,098 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Neighborhood Park 0 17 0 61 79 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Outdoor Environmental Education Area 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Open Space 0 0 0 339 339 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Park 0 11 12 1,441 1,464 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ponding Basin 0 0 0 894 894 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ponding Basin (Park Use) 0 0 15 0 15 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Regional Park 0 44 43 642 729 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Public Facilities
Public/Quasi-Public Facility 850 47 88 535 670 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.6 Special School 700 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Elementary School 700 4 12 236 252 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2
Elementary & Middle School 700 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Elementary, Middle, & High School 700 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Middle School 700 0 17 115 132 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
High School 700 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
College 700 8 0 0 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
School with Park 700 0 0 596 596 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4
Airport 300 0 0 86 86 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cemetary 0 0 0 61 61 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Church 500 12 24 22 58 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Community Activity Center 850 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Convalescent Hospital 3,000 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Fairgrounds 500 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Fire Station 850 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Government Offices 1,000 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Hospital 4,000 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Medical Center 3,000 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Neighborhood Center 1,000 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
PG&E Substation 500 0 0 34 34 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Police Dressing Station 1,200 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Water Recharge Basin 0 0 0 288 288 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Wastewater Treatment Facility 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Buffer
Buffer (Ag) 50 0 0 736 736 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Downtown
Central Business District 7,900 23 244 0 267 0.2 1.9 0.0 2.1 Civic Center 4,000 0 37 0 37 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1
Town Center 5,200 1 54 0 55 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3
Neighborhood Center 3,200 11 72 0 84 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.3
Chinatown District 4,800 5 24 0 29 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1
Cultural Arts District 1,000 13 56 0 69 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 Corridor General 3,400 24 442 0 466 0.1 1.5 0.0 1.6
Downtown Neighborhoods 2,800 101 2,482 0 2,584 0.3 7.0 0.0 7.2 Special Districts 2,000 82 815 0 897 0.2 1.6 0.0 1.8
Public Facility 1,200 0 150 0 150 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2
Open Conservation 0 0 178 0 178 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
South Stadium District 6,900 16 99 0 115 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.8 Other
Street, Rail, Canal, Etc. 0 41 2,035 3,070 5,146 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Infill, Redevelopment Areas, and Growth Areas
Total -- 2,299 9,919 37,614 49,832 3.8 20.7 47.0 71.5
Grand Total BWF at Build Out
Existing BWF from SIUs, mgd: 8.2
City of Clovis (Max Permit + 3 mgd in Leonard Trunk), mgd: 11.9 BWF from Existing "Areas of Stability", mgd: 38.4
BWF from Infill, Redevelopment, and Growth Areas, mgd: 71.5 Grand Total BWF at Build Out: 129.9
BWF by Land Use Type
Current Service Area New Growth
Areas
Current Service Area New Growth
Areas
Wastewater Flow
Coefficient
Land Use Area Totals
September 2015 5-10
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH05
5.3.5 Design Storm
Design storms are rainfall events used to analyze the performance of a collection system under extreme wet weather events. The first step in the development of the design storm is to define its recurrence interval and rainfall duration. The recurrence interval is based on the probability that a given rainfall event will occur or be exceeded in any given year. For example, a “100-year storm” means there is a 1 in 100 chance that a storm as large or larger than this event will occur at a specific location in any year.
Duration is the length of time in which the rainfall occurs. It is an industry standard in California to use the 10-year, 24-hour design storm for analyzing wastewater collection system performance during PWWF conditions. For this reason, this study defines the design storm as a 10-year, 24-hour rainfall event. The 10-year, 24-hour design storm volume is available from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atlas 14, which revealed that a 10-year storm would have a total volume of 2.06-inches.
Once the design storm recurrence interval, duration, and associated rainfall volume have been determined, the next step in defining the design storm is to distribute the total rainfall over duration of the storm. To accomplish this, an industry standard synthetic rainfall distribution (SCS Type 1, developed by the Natural Resource Conservation Service [NRCS]) was used. Figure 5.1 shows the 10-year, 24-hour design storm.
5.3.6 Existing and Projected Peak Wet Weather Flow
The PWWF is the highest observed hourly flow that occurs following the design storm event. Wet weather infiltration and inflow (I/I), which occurs during and after rainfall events, increases flows in the collection system. PWWF is typically used for designing sewers and lift stations. The City’s sewers and lift stations were evaluated based on their capacity to convey the PWWF.
The existing PWWF was derived throughout the system based on the hydraulic modeling results. This was accomplished by routing the 10-year, 24-hour design storm through the hydraulic model, which was calibrated to both dry weather and wet weather conditions.
Detailed information regarding the calibration of the City’s hydraulic model is provided in Chapter 4.
Similar to the existing PWWF, the build out PWWF was derived by routing a 10-year, 24 hour design storm through the hydraulic model. Peak I/I rates for future growth areas (e.g., vacant areas within the existing service area, growth areas outside of the current service area, etc.) were developed based on a peak I/I rate of 370 gpd/ac, based on the peak I/I rates experienced in Basin 2, which is considered the most representative area for new growth within the City.
Figure 5.1
10-Year, 24-Hour Design Storm
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 SCS Type 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1
0.2 0.3
0.4 0.5
0.6 Percent of Rainfall
Hour
10-Year, 24-Hour Rainfall Depth = 2.07 inches
SCS Type 1
September 2015 5-12
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH05 Table 5.6 presents a summary of the existing and build out BWF. In addition to the build out BWF, Table 5.6 includes the existing and build out peak dry weather flow (PDWF) and peak wet weather flow (PWWF). As shown in Table 5.6, the City’s BWF is projected to roughly double from 64.1 mgd to 129.9 mgd by build out. The PDWF is projected to increase from
88.5 mgd to about 164.7 mgd (an increase of approximately 86-percent), and the PWWF is projected to increase from 123.9 mgd to about 202.4 mgd by build out (an increase of approximately 63 percent). Overall, the City’s PWWF to ADWF peaking factor is projected to decrease from roughly 1.93 to 1.56, which is typical for sanitary sewer collection systems. Newer sewers tend to have less I/I response than older areas of the system, primarily due to better construction methods. Furthermore, flow attenuation also tends to dampen out flow peaks as collection systems expand. In addition, a significant portion of the future increase in wastewater flows at the City is associated with densification, which would not include a corresponding increase in I/I.
Table 5.6 Current and Projected Wastewater Flows
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Year
BWF(1)
(mgd)
PDWF(2)
(mgd)
PDWF
Peaking
Factor
PWWF(3)
(mgd)
PWWF
Peaking
Factor
Existing 64.1 88.5 1.38 123.9 1.93
Build Out 129.9 164.7 1.27 202.4 1.56
Notes:
(1) BWF = Base Wastewater Flow.
(2) PDWF = Peak Dry Weather Flow
(3) PWWF = Peak Wet Weather Flow.
September 2015 6-1
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH06 Chapter 6
CAPACITY EVALUATION AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
This chapter discusses the hydraulic evaluation of the sewer collection system and the proposed projects that correct capacity deficiencies and serve future users.
6.1 CAPACITY EVALUATION
This section summarizes the results of the capacity evaluation of the City of Fresno’s (City’s) wastewater collection system, which includes a gravity pipeline capacity evaluation, as well as a lift station capacity evaluation. The evaluation considers both current and projected peak dry weather flow (PDWF) and peak wet weather flow (PWWF) conditions.
6.1.1 Gravity Collection System Evaluation
Following the dry and wet weather flow calibration, which is summarized in detail in Chapter 4, a capacity analysis of the existing and future collection system was performed.
The capacity analysis entailed identifying areas in the sewer system where flow restrictions occur or where pipe capacity is insufficient to convey PDWFs or PWWFs. Sewers that lack sufficient capacity to convey these flows create bottlenecks in the collection system that can potentially cause sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). The sewer system was evaluated based on planning criteria presented in Chapter 5.
Per staff’s request, it is recommended that each identified project be further investigated using temporary flow monitoring during the preliminary design phase of the project. This will not only further define the extent of the determined deficiency, but also allows the designer to have a better understanding of potential bypass flows which will help mitigate problems during the construction phase.
This section discusses the locations of current and projected hydraulic deficiencies resulting from flows exceeding the maximum flow depth criteria.
• PDWF Analysis:
– Existing System. For the existing sewer collection system, the PDWF was routed through the hydraulic model. In accordance with the established flow depth criteria for existing sewers, pipelines where the maximum depth to full flow depth (d/D) ratio that exceeded 1.0 were flagged. Each pipeline with a maximum d/D in excess of 1.0 was reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine if a capacity improvement project was warranted. Some pipelines with very shallow or flats slopes may exceed the 1.0 d/D threshold but only cause minor surcharging. Each of these cases was evaluated to determine the risk of SSO, and some pipeline reaches with slight surcharging were allowed.
The locations of the capacity deficient pipelines for current PDWF conditions are shown on Figure 6.1 in red.
North Ave
Jensen Ave
California Ave
Whitesbridge Ave/CA 180
Belmont Ave
McKinley Ave
Shields Ave
Ashlan Ave
Shaw Ave
Bullard Ave
Herndon Ave
Nees Ave
Shepherd Ave
Cooper Ave
Grantland Ave
Hayes Ave
Cornelia Ave
Brawley Ave
Marks AveWest Ave
Palm AveBlackstone Ave
First St
Cedar AveChestnut Ave
Willow Ave
Clovis Ave
Fowler Ave
Temperance Ave
Dewolf Ave
Highland Ave
McCall Ave
Behymer Ave
RWRF
Central Ave
American Ave
Lincoln Ave
Dickenson Ave
West Lawn Ave
Chateau Fresno AveDel Rey Ave
Bethel Ave
Academy Ave
Madsen Ave
Zediker Ave
Direct Storm Drain
Connections to be Removed
LS20
LS01
LS02
LS18
LS13
LS03 LS15
LS12
LS14
LS16
LS04 LS10
LS06
LS05
NFWRF
D-4
D-1
C-8
D-15
D-17
D-18
D-9C
D-16
D-6B
D-7B
D-8A
D-9A
D-8C
D-6A
D-10A
D-12C
D-10C
D-12A
D-11A
D-22A
D-23B D-11C
D-24A
D-26A
D-22C
D-27A
D-21B
D-10D
D-23A
D-19B
D-25
D-4
C-8 C-8
12''
15''
36''
48''
54'' 60''
8''
10''
30''
18''
12''
12''
8''
12''
12''
60'' 21''
8''
10''
10''
54'' 54''
27''
8''
60''
12''
15''
10''
10''
12''
15''
10''
15''
10''
12''
21''
8''
12''
12''
27''
42''
27''
21''
8''
15''
12''
15''
15''
12''
60''
10''
10''
42''
18''
27'' 15''
8''8''
30'' 18''
10''
27''
18''
30''
30''
42''
42''
42''
10''
10''
10''
10''
24''
24''
24''
8''
15''
15''
D-21B
D-2
D-5
D-20
D-4
D-3
D-2
C-5A
C-1A
C-3 C-2A
GALLO
GALLO
GALLO
C-4
C-5C
C-5B
C-1B
C-7
C-6
C-10 C-10 C-10 C-10 C-2B
D-19A
D-10B
D-24B
D-26B
D-10E
D-14B
D-12B
D-14D
D-21A
D-11B
D-14C
D-22B
D-14A
D-7A
D-9B
D-13
D-8B
D-7C
84''
39''
40''
8''
45''
20''
27''
57''
36''
12''
72''
33''
14''
15''
24''
10''
21''
18''
54''
22''
60''
6''
66''
30''
48''
42''
16''
51''
6''
6''
24''
8''
6''
8''
10''
8''
6''
8''
8''
8''
8''
12''
8''
24''
6''
6''
8''
8''
6''
6''
8''
6''
6''
6''
6''
6''
8''8''
8''
8''
6''
33''
8''
8''
8''
6''
8''
8''
8''
8''
6''
12''
6''
6''
6''
6''
6''
8''
8''
8''
6''
8''
6''
6''
8''
6''
8''
12''
8''
8''
8''
6''
6''
8''
18''
8''
6''
8''
8''
15''
12''
8''
45''
6''
8''
6''
8''
18''
21''
6''
8''
8''
8''
33''
8''
6''
6''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
6''
6''
6''
27''
18''
8''
6''
8''
6''
8''
8''
6''
6''
8''
6''
15''
6''
6''
15''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
6''
6''
6''
60''
10''
8''
6''
8''
66''
8''
6''
8''
6''
8''
8''
8''
6''
6''
10''
8''
6''
8''
72''
18''
8''
10''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
10''
39''
8''
8''
6''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
6''
48''
6''
6''
36''
8''
12''
8''
8''
6''
45''
6''
6''
8''
8'' 8''
8''
8''
18''
8''
12''
8''
8''
6''
6'' 8''
8''
51''
8''
8''
6''
6''
8''
8''
6''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
6''
6''
8''
8''
6''
6''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
6''
8''
10''
8''
8''
8''
6''
6''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
6''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
72''
8''
8''
8''
8''
66''
8''
8''
8''
8''
24''
8''
8''
8''
66''
8''
8''
8''
8''
36''
39''
8''
10''
60''
6''
72''
8''
8''
6''
6''
8''
66''
8''
8''
8''
6''
51''
8''
8''
6''
8''
60''
45''
8''
8''
72''
45'' 8''
6''
6''
72''
24''
6''
6''
8'' 8''
6''
15''
8''
8''
8''
8''
6''
8''
6''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
66''
66''
6''
66''
8''
8''
6''
8''
Legend
Existing Wastewater
Collection System
Lift Stations
Pipelines
8" and Smaller
10" and Larger
Proposed Improvements
Existing System
Future System
Development
Gallo Winery I/I
Reduction Program
Streets
Sphere of Influence
City Limits
Existing Sewer Service Area
0 12,500 25,000
Feet
Figure 6.1
Proposed Collection System
Capacity Improvements
Wastewater Collection System
Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
September 2015 6-3
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH06 – Build Out System. The build out system analysis was performed in a manner similar to the existing system analysis. The purpose of the build out system evaluation is to verify that the existing system improvements were appropriately sized to convey build out PDWFs, and to identify the locations of sewers that are adequately sized to convey existing PDWFs, but cannot convey build out PWWFs. At the time of this Master Plan, there are no known planned future industrial users that will add significant PDWFs to the collection system causing system deficiencies. Should new industrial loads increase in the future, a project-by-project analysis is recommended to assure the collection system has adequate capacity.
• PWWF Analysis:
– Existing System. For the existing sewer collection system, the PWWF was routed through the hydraulic model. In accordance with the established flow depth criteria for existing sewers, manholes where the maximum flow to full flow (q/Q) ratio that exceeded 1.15 were flagged. Each pipeline with a maximum q/Q in excess of 1.15 was reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine if a capacity improvement project was warranted. As with the PDWF analysis, some pipelines with very shallow or flats slopes may exceed the 1.15 q/Q threshold but only cause minor surcharging. In these cases, these pipelines were removed from the list of deficiencies.
In general, the City’s collection system has sufficient capacity to convey current PWWFs without exceeding the established q/Q ratio. However, there are a few areas where wet weather capacity restrictions are present and required mitigation. The location of these capacity deficient pipelines for current PWWF conditions are shown on Figure 6.1 in red.
Following the completion of the existing system analysis, improvement projects and alternatives were identified in order to mitigate existing system pipeline capacity deficiencies. The recommended improvement projects are discussed in greater detail in Section 6.2 and project specific detail sheets will be provided in Appendix F. In accordance with the established planning criteria, new sewer pipelines were sized such that the maximum flow depth to pipe diameter ratio (d/D) did not exceed the values summarized in Chapter 5. In other words, flows in recommended improvements were not allowed to surcharge during PWWF conditions.
– Build Out System. The build out system analysis was performed in a manner similar to the existing system analysis. The purpose of the build out system evaluation is to verify that the existing system improvements were appropriately sized to convey build out PWWFs, and to identify the locations of sewers that are adequately sized to convey existing PWWFs, but cannot convey build out PWWFs. Additionally, new trunk sewers were added to the hydraulic model and sized to service major growth areas beyond the current City sewer service area.
September 2015 6-4
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH06 At build out, the City’s wastewater flows are expected to increase substantially.
As such, there are some areas of the existing collection system that cannot convey the build out PWWF within the established q/Q ratio. These pipelines are shown on Figure 6.1 in orange. The locations of new trunk sewers to service future growth are also shown in green.
6.1.2 Lift Station Evaluation
The City’s hydraulic model includes 15 lift stations that service the major trunk system (typically pipes 10-inches and larger sewers) and smaller developments (less than 10-inch diameter). The hydraulic model does not have flows routed to a majority of these lift stations. However, the lift stations that do have flows allocated to them were determined to have sufficient capacity to convey the existing and future PWWF.
It is recommended that the capacity evaluation be updated when flows allocations within the hydraulic modeling software have been modified such that the capacity of the additional lift station can be evaluated. In addition, the City does not currently collect supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) data for their lift stations. Were feasible, it is recommended that upgrades be performed to allow for proper flow monitoring data acquisition, which will help confirm lift station capacity and monitor lift station performance.
6.2 COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
Figure 6.1 illustrates the proposed sewer improvements required to correct existing deficiencies and to serve future users. Detail maps for each of the proposed improvements are provided in Chapter 8 for clarity. Table 6.1 provides more detail of each improvement.
Both Figure 6.1 and Table 6.1 should be used together to locate the proposed improvement and to gain details of the improvement (length, diameter, street location, etc.). The improvement identification number links the figure and table. The improvements summarized in Table 6.1 use a cross-referenced number system. The columns used in Table 6.1 refer to the following:
• Improvement ID: Assigned unique identifier associated with each improvement project. This is an alphanumeric number that starts with one letter indicating the type of improvement C = Capacity, D = Development, NCFWRF = North Central Fresno Wastewater Reclamation Facility, SEDA = Southeast Development Area Treatment Facility, and each continues with a number indicating different projects. • Type of improvement: Pipelines, lift stations, force mains, and jacked steel casings. • Street Description: Street in which the improvement is proposed. • Limits: Description of the beginning and end of a proposed pipeline project. • Existing Size: This is the size of the existing pipeline/facility. It represents the diameter of the existing pipelines (inches), and the total capacity of lift stations (million gallons per day [mgd]).
September 2015 6-5
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH06 • Proposed Size: This is the size of the proposed improvement. It represents the diameter of the proposed pipelines (inches), and the total capacity of lift stations or plants (mgd). Additionally, for jacked steel casings, the size of the casing as well as the carrier pipe are indicated (inches).
• Replace/New: Indicates whether the proposed improvement is a replacement pipeline, parallel pipeline, or a new facility.
• Length: Estimated length of the proposed improvement (in feet). It should be noted that the length estimates do not account for re-routing the alignment to avoid unknown conditions.
When an increase to capacity is required, existing sewers can be upgraded or a parallel relief sewer can be constructed. For the purposes of this study, unless otherwise stated, we assumed that a capacity deficient sewer would be upgraded to a larger diameter. The upgraded pipeline generally followed the same slope as the existing pipeline, with the exception where survey data revealed negative or flat slopes in an existing alignment.
In essence, there are two alternatives for every trunk sewer project, but the decision to replace or construct a parallel sewer should be made during the preliminary design phase.
During the preliminary design phase, the existing sewer should be inspected by closed circuit television (CCTV) to determine its structural condition. If severely deteriorated, the existing sewer should be upgraded using a replacement pipe. If moderately deteriorated, slip lining or cured-in-place pipe lining can rehabilitate the existing sewer.
The proposed improvements that will serve future users are sized for build-out conditions.
As the City continues to grow, it is recommended that the proposed pipeline diameters be constructed so that the facilities have sufficient capacity for build out conditions. Building a smaller interim project with the plans of upsizing in the future to account for further growth is not recommended due to the extended useful life of the improvements proposed herein.
The proposed pipe diameter represents the ultimate diameter for build out conditions.
6.2.1 Existing versus Future Improvement
An existing deficiency is one where the existing facility’s capacity is insufficient to meet the planning criteria (e.g., pipeline upgrades required to prevent severe surcharging during the design wet weather event) for existing users. If a project was proposed to correct an existing deficiency exclusively, then existing users were assigned 100 percent of the project’s benefit, and therefore, 100 percent of the costs.
Table 6.1 Proposed Collection System Improvements
Collection System Master PlanCity of Fresno
Project Description Project Size
Length
Improv. ID Description/Street Description/Limits Detail Sheet No. (Appendix xx) (in.) (in) (ft) (2014-2020) (2020-2025) (2025-2030) (2030-2035) Existing ImprovementsC-1A Gravity Hammond Avenue Between Blackstone Ave. and Abby St. 1 20 24 Replace 390 x C-1B Gravity Abby Street From Hammond Ave. to La Salle Ave. 2 20 24 Replace 1,619 xC-2A Gravity Glenn Avenue From Brewer Ave. to Thomas Ave. 3 24 27 Replace 390 xC-2B Gravity Glenn Avenue From HWY 180 to Voorman Ave. 4 24 27 Replace 2,594 x C-3 Gravity Glenn Avenue / N Street From Voorman Ave. to Tuolumne St. 5 27 30 Replace 1,343 x C-4 Gravity Monterey Avenue From Fulton Street to N Street 6 6 10 Replace 1,820 xC-5A Gravity Eighth Street From Ventura Ave. to Woodward Ave. 7 36 42 Replace 4,752 xC-5B Gravity Woodward Avenue From Eigth St. to Orange Ave. 8 36 42 Replace 597 xC-5C Gravity Orange Avenue From Woodward Ave. to California Ave. 9 36 42 Replace 707 xC-6 Gravity Safford Avenue From Producers Dairy to H Street 10 6 8 Replace 930 x Build-Out ImprovementsC-7 Gravity Tuolumne Street/ Van Ness Avenue From N Street to Merced Ave. 11 27 30 Replace 1,680 x C-8 Gravity North Avenue From Polk Ave. to Fruit Ave. 12 - 60 New 20,855 xC-9 Gravity North Avenue From Fruit Ave. to HWY 99 13 60 60 Rehab 15,533 xD-1 Gravity Temperance Avenue From North Ave. to Jensen Ave. - - 48 New 5,873 xD-2 Gravity Temperance Avenue From Jensen Ave. to Tulare St. - - 42 New 13,350 xD-3 Gravity Temperance Avenue From Tulare St. to Olive Ave. - - 36 New 4,987 xD-4 Gravity Temperance/McKinley/DeWolf From Olive Ave. to Shields - - 30 New 13,299 xD-5 Gravity Shields Ave./Leonard Ave. From DeWolf Ave. to Leonard Ave. - - 27 New 4,575 xD-6A Gravity Jensen Avenue From Temperance Ave. to DeWolf - - 15 New 5,227 xD-6B Gravity Jensen Avenue From DeWolf Ave. to Leonard Ave. - - 12 New 2,732 xD-7A Gravity Church Avenue From Temperance Ave. to Locan Ave. - - 15 New 2,552 xD-7B Gravity Church Avenue From Locan Ave. to DeWolf Ave. - - 12 New 2,729 xD-7C Gravity Church Avenue From DeWolf Ave. to Leonard Ave. - - 8 New 2,673 xD-8A Gravity Locans Avenue From Temperance Ave to Locan Ave. - - 18 New 2,676 xD-8B Gravity Locans Avenue From Locan Ave. to DeWolf Ave. - - 15 New 2,670 xD-8C Gravity Locans Avenue From DeWolf Ave. to Leonard Ave. - - 10 New 2,492 xD-9A Gravity Butler Avenue From Temperance Ave to Locan Ave. - - 18 New 2,617 xD-9B Gravity Butler Avenue From Locan Ave. to DeWolf Ave. - - 15 New 2,611 xD-9C Gravity Butler Avenue From DeWolf Ave. to Leonard Ave. - - 8 New 2,849 xD-10A Gravity Tulare Street From Temperance Ave. to Locan Ave. - - 21 New 2,730 xD-10B Gravity Tulare Street/DeWolf Avenue From Locan Ave. to DeWolf Ave. - - 15 New 4,034 xD-10C Gravity Laurel Avenue From DeWolf Ave. to Leonard Ave. - - 8 New 2,729 xD-10D Gravity Locan Ave/ Belmont Ave. From Tulare St. to DeWolf Ave. - - 12 New 4,926 xD-10E Gravity Belmont Avenue From DeWolf Ave. to Leonard Ave. - - 10 New 2,554 xD-11A Gravity Olive Avenue From Temperance Ave. to Locan Ave. - - 15 New 2,671 xD-11B Gravity Olive Avenue From Locan Ave. to DeWolf Ave. - - 12 New 2,613 xD-11C Gravity Olive Avenue From DeWolf Ave. to Leonard Ave. - - 8 New 2,617 xD-12A Gravity McKinley Avenue From DeWolf Ave. to Leonard Ave. - - 21 New 2,729 xD-12B Gravity McKinley Avenue From Leonard Ave. to Thompson Ave. - - 18 New 5,103 xD-12C Gravity Thompson Avenue From McKinley Ave. to Clinton Ave. - - 15 New 2,730 xD-13 Gravity Clinton Avenue From DeWolf Ave. to Leonard Ave. - - 10 New 2,492 x Type of
Improv.
Replace/
New
Project Phasing
Existing
Size
Proposed
Size Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
Table 6.1 Proposed Collection System Improvements
Collection System Master PlanCity of Fresno
Project Description Project Size
Length
Improv. ID Description/Street Description/Limits Detail Sheet No. (Appendix xx) (in.) (in) (ft) (2014-2020) (2020-2025) (2025-2030) (2030-2035) Type of Improv. Replace/ New Project Phasing
Existing
Size
Proposed
Size Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
D-14 Gravity North Avenue From Peach Ave. to Temperance Ave. - - 36 New 15,787 x D-15 Gravity Minnewawa From North Ave. to Annadale Ave. - - 12 New 2,729 xD-16 Gravity Sunnyside Avenue From North Ave. to Annadale Ave. - - 15 New 2,610 xD-17 Gravity Fowler Avenue From North Ave. to Annadale Ave. - - 10 New 2,789 xD-18 Gravity Armstrong Avenue From North Ave. to Annadale Ave. - - 8 New 2,671 xD-19A Gravity Valentine Avenue From Church Ave. to Kearney Frontage - - 12 New 3,976 xD-19B Gravity Valentine Avenue From Kearney Frontage to Madison Ave. - - 10 New 1,312 xD-20 Gravity Brawley Avenue From Church Ave. to Madison Ave. - - 8 New 5,415 xD-21A Gravity Whitesbridge Avenue From Polk Ave. to Blythe Ave. - - 12 New 5,336 xD-21B Gravity Whitesbridge/Brawley Avenue From Blythe Ave. to Nelsen Ave. - - 10 New 5,392 xD-22A Gravity Belmont Avenue From Polk Ave. to Cornelia Ave. - - 12 New 2,734 xD-22B Gravity Belmont Avenue From Cornelia Ave. to Blythe Ave. - - 10 New 2,675 xD-22C Gravity Belmont Avenue From Blythe Ave. to Brawley Ave. - - 8 New 2,640 xD-23A Gravity Olive Avenue From Polk Ave. to Blythe Ave. - - 12 New 5,343 xD-23B Gravity Olive Avenue From Blythe Ave. to Brawley Ave. - - 8 New 2,675 xD-24A Gravity Olive Avenue From Grantland Ave. to Bryan Ave. - - 12 New 2,769 xD-24B Gravity Olive Avenue From Bryan Ave. to Hayes Ave. - - 10 New 1,973 xD-25 Gravity McKinley Avenue From Grantland Ave. to Ring Ave. - - 10 New 3,748 xD-26A Gravity Clinton Avenue From Grantland Ave. to Bryan Ave. - - 12 New 2,621 xD-26B Gravity Clinton Avenue From Bryan Ave. to Hayes Ave. - - 10 New 2,592 xD-27A Gravity Shields Avenue From Grantland Ave. to Bryan Ave. - - 15 New 2,775 xD-27B Gravity Shields Avenue From Bryan Ave. to Hayes Ave. - - 12 New 2,592 x New FacilitiesNCFWRF-1 Treatment Cedar/Dakota Reclamation Facility at Vacant Field Behind Granite Park - - 3 mgd New - x NCFWRF-2 Gravity Dakota From Treatment Facility to Millbrook Ave. - - 36 New 4,042 x SEGA Treatment Temperance Reclamation Facility on Corner of Temperance and North Ave. - - 12 mgd New - x September 2015 6-8
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH06 Many of the Master Plan improvements will serve future users, even when an improvement calls for the upgrade of an existing facility. In these cases, an existing sewer or lift station may have sufficient capacity to convey current PWWFs, but as growth continues and more users are added to the system, the increased flow results in capacity deficiencies. These projects, as well as new trunk sewers to extend wastewater collection system service to future growth areas, are future improvements. Future users were assigned 100 percent of the future project’s benefit and 100 percent of the costs.
In some cases, a project is needed to correct an existing capacity deficiency, but is sized to accommodate additional flows from future development. In these cases, the hydraulic modeling results were used to determine the cost breakdown between existing and future users based on the ratio of existing and build out average dry weather flows. More information on the breakdown in cost split between existing and future users and whether a proposed improvement is intended to correct an existing deficiency, to serve a future user, or both, is provided in Chapter 8.
6.2.2 Existing System Improvements
For the majority of the City, the existing wastewater collection system contains sufficient capacity to convey the PDWF and PWWF without exceeding the capacity criteria discussed Chapter 5. There are a few exceptions where existing sewers will need to be replaced by larger diameter sewers, or parallel sewers will need to be constructed to bypass flow around hydraulically deficient sewers. These projects are discussed in this section and details for each are provided in Chapter 8. Detail sheets for individual projects are provided in Appendix F.
• Project 1 – Hammond Avenue and Abby Street Sewers (C-1A and C-1B). This project consists of replacing approximately 2,000 feet of existing 20-inch diameter sewer on Hammond Avenue and Abby Street from Blackstone Avenue to La Salle Avenue with a new 24-inch diameter sewer. This project is required to mitigate surcharged conditions for existing PWWFs. It is recommended that the City perform a flow-monitoring program to confirm the capacity deficiency in this pipeline prior to construction. If the flow-monitoring program determines that the I/I for this pipeline is significantly lower, then this project could possibly be avoided. However, due to the age of this pipeline (over 100 years old) it is recommended that the City develop a program for flow monitoring and inspection in the near future. • Project 2 – Glenn Avenue Sewers (C-2A and C-2B). This project consists of replacing the existing 24-inch diameter sewer on Glenn Avenue, from Brewer Avenue to Voorman Avenue with a new 27-inch diameter sewer. This project is required to mitigate surcharged conditions on the Glenn Avenue sewer for existing PWWFs. It is recommended that the City perform a flow-monitoring program to confirm the capacity deficiency in this pipeline prior to construction. If the flow-monitoring program determines that the I/I for this pipeline is significantly lower, then this project could September 2015 6-9
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH06 possibly be avoided. However, due to the age of this pipeline (over 100 years old) it is recommended that the City develop a program for flow monitoring and inspection in the near future.
• Project 3 – Glenn Avenue Sewer (C-3). This project is required to mitigate existing capacity deficiencies due to PWWF in the 27-inch diameter gravity sewer immediately downstream of Project C-2. The replacement 30-inch sewer extends from Voorman Avenue to Tuolumne Street. It is recommended that the City perform a flowmonitoring program to confirm the capacity deficiency in this pipeline prior to construction. If the flow-monitoring program determines that the I/I for this pipeline is significantly lower, then this project could possibly be avoided. However, due to the age of this pipeline (over 100 years old) it is recommended that the City develop a program for flow monitoring and inspection in the near future. • Project 4 – Monterey Avenue Sewer (C-4). This project mitigates existing capacity deficiencies in the sewer immediately downstream of two medium sized industrial users. The existing 6-inch sewer is capacity deficient during PDWF caused by the two large industrial users directly upstream. This project consists of replacing approximately 1,800 feet of 6-inch diameter pipeline with a new 10-inch diameter sewer on Monterey Avenue from Fulton Street to N Street. • Project 5 – Orange Avenue Trunk Sewers (C-5A, C-5B, and C-5C). The Orange Avenue trunk is a main sewer artery that conveys flows from the City of Clovis, California State University Fresno (CSUF), and a large area of the central section of the City. This project mitigates existing capacity deficiencies during PWWF. This project consists of replacing approximately 6,050 feet of 36-inch diameter pipeline with a new 42-inch diameter sewer on Eighth Street, Woodward Avenue, and Orange Avenue from Ventura Street to California Avenue.
• Project 6 – Safford Avenue Sewer (C-6). The Safford Avenue project consists of replacing approximately 930 feet of existing 6-inch diameter sewer from Producers Dairy to H Street with a new 8-inch diameter sewer. This project is required to mitigate surcharged conditions for existing PDWFs due to the flows from Producers Dairy.
6.2.3 Build Out System Improvements
The following discussion summarizes the new trunk sewers that will serve future users, as well as the locations of existing pipelines that would need to be replaced in order to accommodate build out PWWFs. The locations of the new trunk sewers are conceptual and are likely to change during the design phase. The locations shown are possible alignments based on available information and are intended to assist in the development of probable construction costs. No investigation into the feasibility of these alignments has been conducted. However, an attempt was made to place new trunk sewer alignments within existing streets or other feasible pipeline alignments.
September 2015 6-10
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH06 • Project 7 – Tuolumne Street and Van Ness Avenue Sewers (C-7). . Under current PWWF conditions, the existing 27-inch diameter sewers on Tuolumne Street and Van Ness Avenue from N Street to Merced Avenue experience surcharging. However, the surcharged conditions did not exceed the allowable flow depth criteria and therefore no improvement is required for current PWWFs.
At build out, however, there is a capacity increase seen in this sewer due to redevelopment areas and requires the existing 27-inch sewer to be replaced with a 30-inch sewer.
• Project 8 – North Avenue Trunk (C-8 and C-9). As determined in the previous 2006 Master Plan, the North Avenue trunk is capacity deficient under current PWWF conditions and the existing 66-inch diameter sewers on North Avenue experience surcharging. However, the surcharged conditions did not exceed the allowable flow depth criteria and therefore no improvement is required for existing PWWFs.
However, at build out, a significant increase in flow from new industrial land uses as well as redevelopment causes significant surcharging throughout the North Avenue trunk. The flows exceed the flow depth criteria and create a condition that requires an improvement project.
This proposed improvement project is broken up into two portions. The fist project (C-8) entails constructing a new 60-inch diameter sewer parallel to the existing 66-inch diameter sewer on North Avenue that will tie into the existing 60-inch diameter at Polk Avenue and extend to a new flow diversion structure at Fruit Avenue. The second project (C-9) will require the rehabilitation of the existing abandoned 60-inch diameter sewer on North Avenue from Fruit Avenue to Highway
99. • Project 10 – SEDA North Trunk Sewers (D-1 through D-13). In order to serve the planned growth areas in the Southeast Development Area (SEDA), it is recommended that a new sewer be constructed from 8-inch diameter up to 48-inch diameter. The main 48-inch diameter trunk sewer will extend up Temperance Avenue from the proposed SEDA scalping facility near the intersection of North Avenue and Temperance Avenue. The trunk sewer will extend from the scalping facility sequentially reducing in diameter to the 27-inch diameter sewer at the upstream City of Clovis connection near Leonard Avenue and Shields Avenue. Laterals from the main Temperance trunk are sized from 8-inch, 10-inch, 12-inch, and 15-inch diameter to serve new developments.
• Project 11 – SEDA South Sewers (D-14 through D-18). Similar to project 10, this project involves development improvements stemming from the SEDA. It is recommended that a 24-inch diameter trunk sewer be constructed in North Avenue from Peach Avenue to Armstrong Avenue. This pipeline is sized to convey the PWWF and solids from the SEDA facility and to serve the new developments planned for this area. Arterial laterals from the North Avenue trunk main sized from 8-inch, 10-inch, September 2015 6-11
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH06 12-inch, and 15-inch diameter sewers will be connected to serve planned developments.
• Project 12 – West Fresno Development Sewers (D-19 through D-27). There are a number of planned developments in west Fresno within the existing sphere of influence. This project provides new 8-inch to 15-inch diameter sewers to serve these new planned development areas.
• Project 13 – North Central Fresno Wastewater Reclamation Facility (NCFWRF-1 and NCFWRF -2). The 2010 Fresno Recycled Water Master Plan has identified an alternative to provide recycled water to potential users in the central portion of the City. In this alternative, a satellite treatment facility would be constructed at the CSUF campus (as a demonstration reuse project) or on a parcel of land currently owned by the City at the intersection of Cedar Avenue and Dakota Avenue(Granite Park). The proposed treatment facility would treat 2-4 mgd average daily flow and alleviate a number of deficient pipelines downstream of the diversion. However, if the treatment facility is not constructed to intercept wastewater flows, further investigations is needed to investigate the capacity deficiencies in the Orange Avenue Trunk system. • Project 14 – Southeast Development Area Reclamation Facility (SEDA). Staff has planned for a satellite treatment facility in the southeast portion of the City near North Avenue and Temperance Avenue. This treatment plant would treat all the flow from the new development pipelines in Project 10 and treat between 12-15 mgd average daily flows. If the treatment facility is not constructed and development projects begin to be built, further analysis on the existing downstream pipelines in North Avenue is needed to determine if wastewater capacity is available. • Project 15 – Gallo Direct Storm Drain. During the PWWF analysis, it was determined that a number of pipelines downstream of the Gallo winery facility are experiencing very high peak flows during storm events. After discussion with staff, it was confirmed that Gallo has a direct storm drain connection to the sewer system. It is recommended that this direct connection be removed to eliminate the PWWF surcharging currently present in the downstream pipelines. If the storm drain connection cannot be performed, further analysis shall be performed to determine the required additional capacity for downstream pipelines.
6.2.4 Project Prioritization
The majority of the improvements listed in Table 6.1 are driven by future development, which consist of new sewers that serve future growth or improvements to existing facilities that are needed to serve future growth. When fully implemented, the capital projects will allow the conveyance of PWWFs to the RWRF and satellite plants during build out conditions.
September 2015 6-12
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH06 Prioritizing the required capital improvements for the City’s sewer system is an important aspect of this study. The improvement projects were prioritized based on the following factors:
• Upgrading existing facilities to mitigate current capacity deficiencies and to serve future users
• Building the new trunks necessary to serve future users Improvements to existing facilities will provide sufficient capacity to mitigate existing issues and to convey increased flows resulting from future growth. Future development will require the construction of sewers to serve new users. The projects were grouped into the following phases:
• Phase 1: Years 2014 through 2015
• Phase 2: Years 2016 through 2020
• Phase 3: Years 2021 through 2025
• Phase 4: Years 2026 through 2030
The projects were phased based on the best available information for how the City will develop moving forward. The actual implementation of the improvements serving future users ultimately depends on growth. The priorities presented in Table 6.1 are estimates, and changes in the City’s planning assumptions or growth projections could increase or decrease the priority of each improvement.
September 2015 7-1
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH07 Chapter 7
REHABILITATION AND REPAIR PLAN
This Chapter describes the proposed rehabilitation and repair (R&R) plan for the City of Fresno (City) wastewater collection system. This chapter also includes the objectives of the plan, the data used to develop the plan, and the evaluation of the City’s collection system assets.
7.1 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
The purpose of the R&R plan is to identify sewer infrastructure conditions that pose a current or future threat to regular sewer operations and restore the affected facilities to an acceptable state. Sewer system conditions change over time and require periodic examination to monitor deterioration and determine when rehabilitation efforts are warranted. When sewer condition assessment activities yield signs of significant deterioration, rehabilitation is recommended to prevent operational system failures.
Rehabilitation may include removing and replacing the existing infrastructure, installing a new liner in deteriorated sewer mains, or individual point repairs. Sewer systems also experience blockages for various reasons and require routine maintenance for problem areas. The routine maintenance of sewer systems is crucial and includes cleaning, root removal, obstruction elimination, and other efforts as needed. This rehabilitation and repair plan provides tools for the orderly and timely implementation of rehabilitation projects that will extend the useful life and strengthen the condition of the City’s current wastewater collection system.
7.2 COLLECTION SYSTEM ASSET DATA
7.2.1 Collection System GIS Data
The City has developed and actively maintains a Geographic Information System (GIS) database of their sewer system. This GIS database includes detailed information that was used in the development of this R&R plan. For gravity sewers, key facility attributes available in the GIS data include pipe size, pipe material, installation year, upstream and downstream manhole ID’s, pipe slope, pipeline alignment, and past rehabilitation information.
7.2.2 CCTV Inspection Data
City owned and operated truck mounted closed circuit television (CCTV) units have been used to collect video and condition assessment data for approximately 43 percent (690.5 miles) of the City’s gravity sewer system. The City uses the National Association of Sewer Service Companies (NASSCO) Pipeline Assessment Certification Program (PACP) evaluation protocols to rate the condition of each CCTV inspected sewer main. Figure 7.1 shows inspected and non-inspected sewers as of December 2012.
September 2015 7-3
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH07 Approximately 57 percent (916 miles) of the City’s gravity sewers have not received an initial CCTV inspection. Table 7.1 summarizes the total length of sewer, by pipe diameter, that has been inspected to date by the City. As shown in Table 7.1, sewers that are 6-inch and 8-inch have the highest percent of completed CCTV inspection. Small sewers have relatively low wastewater flows, which is accommodating to the CCTV inspection process.
For sewers larger than 30-inches there is little or no CCTV inspection completed, likely due to the challenges in bypassing the high wastewater flows typical for these large diameter sewer mains.
Table 7.1 CCTV Inspection Summary by Pipe Diameter
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Pipe Diameter
(in)
Inspected Length
(miles)
Total Pipeline
Length (miles)
Percent Inspected to
Date (%)
3 - 0.0 0.0
4 - 0.9 0.0
6 209.9 409.1 51.3
8 371.6 742.4 50.1
10 43.1 110.2 39.1
12 26.8 79.6 33.7
14 0.9 7.9 11.9
15 17.1 43.3 39.5
16 0.9 3.2 27.4
18 7.9 40.0 19.7
20 0.8 2.9 28.8
21 1.4 16.5 8.4
22 0.6 1.3 48.0
24 1.7 21.2 8.1
27 3.4 11.2 30.2
30 2.7 14.5 18.5
33 0.1 6.0 1.8
36 0.1 11.1 0.6
39 0.6 8.2 7.4
September 2015 7-4
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH07 Table 7.1 CCTV Inspection Summary by Pipe Diameter
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Pipe Diameter
(in)
Inspected Length
(miles)
Total Pipeline
Length (miles)
Percent Inspected to
Date (%)
40 - 0.7 0.0
42 - 7.6 0.0
45 0.2 13.7 1.4
46 - 0.3 0.0
48 0.6 10.2 6.2
51 - 3.5 0.0
54 - 5.5 0.0
57 - 1.1 0.0
60 - 15.4 0.0
66 - 11.1 0.0
72 - 6.6 0.0
84 - 1.4 0.0
Total 690.5 1,606.5 43.0
Table 7.2 summarizes the total length of sewers, by material type, within the City that have been inspected. As shown in Table 7.2, cast iron, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), vitrified clay and asbestos cement sewers have the greatest percent of completed CCTV inspections. These pipe materials are generally used for small diameter sewers, which are easier to CCTV than the mid-sized and large diameter sewers.
The PACP standards enable an objective evaluation of the condition of gravity sewers based on a standard and consistent coding system. The Pipeline Assessment and Certification Program (PACP©) coding system allows the user to code structural defects, operational and maintenance (O&M) defects, and construction features/defects. Structural defects are assigned a structural grade that ranges from 1 (minor defect) to 5 (most significant defect). O&M and construction defects are also assigned a grade that ranges from 1 (minor defect) to 5 (most significant defect).
September 2015 7-5
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH07 Table 7.2 CCTV Inspection Summary by Pipe Material
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Pipe Material
Inspected Pipeline
Length (miles)
Total Pipeline
Length (miles)
Percent Inspected
to Date (%)
Asbestos Cement 2.6 6.3 41.6
Cast Iron 4.1 6.4 64.1
Concrete 19.1 64.4 29.7
Concrete Cylinder 1.1 0.0
Ductile Iron 1.3 4.7 28.2
Fiberglass 9.6 0.0
PVC 314.8 503.4 62.5
Reinforced Concrete 8.7 123.7 7.1
Truss 0.2 6.2 3.2
Vitrified Clay 334.1 880.8 37.9
Not Identified 5.5 0.0 N/A
Total 690.5 1,606.5 43.0
The PACP condition grading system uses more than one method to rate the condition of each pipe segment, including a rating that considers the total number of defects within a pipe segment (Overall Rating) and a rating that only considers the most severe defects within a pipe segment (Quick Rating). Appendix G provides a short guidance document that summarizes the PACP rating system.
7.2.3 Previous Reports
Previous evaluations of the City’s system have been conducted and described in the following documents:
• North Avenue Trunk Sewer Evaluation; Final, Blair, Church, & Flynn, 1990. • Evaluation of Large Diameter Wastewater Collection System; Final, Blair, Church, & Flynn, 1992-1996.
• Inspection and Evaluation of Concrete Sewers 12-inches to 27-inches in Diameter; Final, Blair, Church, & Flynn, July 2001.
• Wastewater Collection System Master Plan, Final; Brown and Caldwell, May 2006. • CCTV Inspection and Evaluation for Mid-Sized Concrete Sewers; Final, Blair, Church, & Flynn, July 2010.
September 2015 7-6
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH07 • Large Diameter Sewer Evaluation Update; Final, Blair, Church, & Flynn, January 2012.
These reports identified substantial rehabilitation work for mid-sized and large diameter concrete sewers. Most of the rehabilitation work identified in the previous reports has been completed or is in some stage of design or construction Recommended rehabilitation and repair projects that have not been completed are described in Section 7.3.2.3.
7.2.4 Lift Station Visual Inspection
The sewer system includes 15 submersible-type sewer lift stations, which are owned, operated, and maintained by the City. Figure 4.1 includes the location of each lift station and Table 4.4 identifies their pumping capacities. The lift stations are generally situated on relatively small sites and consist of either duplex or triplex submersible pumps housed in circular wet wells. A limited on-site review of each lift station site was conducted on October 10, 2013 by Blair, Church, & Flynn Consulting Engineers (BC&F) Staff to help identify lift station infrastructure in need of repair or rehabilitation. Wet well, valve vault, and discharge manhole inspections consisted of an above-grade visual observation aided by illumination tools. Available City staff was interviewed on site regarding lift station operation and maintenance.
7.3 COLLECTION SYSTEM ASSET EVALUATION
This section summarizes the criteria used to identify pipelines in need of R&R and the results of the asset evaluation.
7.3.1 Rehabilitation Project Selection Criteria
The priorities for project selection for the R&R Plan begin with sewer segments that are in the most severe state followed by successively less severe sewer mains.
7.3.1.1 High Priority Point Repair Criteria
There are locations within the City’s sewer system where significant structural defects in sewer mains exist. The City has selected the PACP structural defect codes that should be considered for high priority repairs, and are shown in Table 7.3. Sewer mains that were coded with a high priority structural defect code are designated in this report for high priority repair projects.
September 2015 7-7
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH07 Table 7.3 High Priority PACP Structural Defects Codes
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Group Descriptor Modifier Code
Structural
Grade
Crack (C) Hinge (CH3) - CH3 5
Crack (C) Hinge (CH4) - CH3 5
Fracture (F) Hinge (H3) - FH3 5
Fracture (F) Hinge (H4) - FH3 5
Pipe Failures (Silent) Broken (B) - B 3,4,5
Pipe Failures (Silent) Broken (B) Soil Visible (SV) BSV 5 Pipe Failures (Silent) Broken (B) Void Visible (VV) BVV 5 Pipe Failures (Silent) Hole (H) - H 3,4,5
Pipe Failures (Silent) Hole (H) Soil Visible (SV) HSV 5 Pipe Failures (Silent) Hole (H) Void Visible (VV) HVV 5 Collapse (X) Pipe (P) - XP 5
Deformed (Pipe) - D 4,5
Surface Damage
Chemical (S)
Reinforcement
Visible (RV)
C SRVC 5
Surface Damage
Chemical (S)
Reinforcement
Corroded (RC)
C SRCC 5
Surface Damage
Chemical (S)
Missing Wall (MW) C SMWC 5
Surface Damage
Mechanical (M)
Reinforcement
Visible (RV)
M SRVM 5
Surface Damage
Mechanical (M)
Reinforcement
Corroded (RC)
M SRCM 5
Surface Damage
Mechanical (M)
Missing Wall (MW) M SMWM 5
Surface Damage Not
Evident (Z)
Reinforcement
Visible (RV)
Z SRVZ 5
Surface Damage Not
Evident (Z)
Reinforcement
Corroded (RC)
Z SRCZ 5
Surface Damage Not
Evident (Z)
Missing Wall (MW) Z SMWZ 5
7.3.1.2 Modified Overall Structural Rating
The PACP coding system includes an overall structural rating (OSR) that represents a weighted total of all defects coded for each sewer segment. The number of occurrences of September 2015 7-8
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH07 each pipe code is multiplied by the pipe defect grade (1 though 5) to calculate the overall structural rating of the pipe segment.
Per City staff direction, the OSR was modified to eliminate contributions from defect Grades 1 and 2 (minor and minor-moderate defects), resulting in a Modified Overall Structural Rating (MOSR) that was used for the purpose of this Master Plan. Minor and minor to moderate grades were omitted from the overall scores to prevent artificially high scores being created by less significant defects.
The MOSR information in Table 7.4 was developed to provide tools for the categorization of each sewer segment by priority and sorting based on sewer conditions. Analysis of the current City of Fresno sewer system showed MOSR scores varying from 0 to 630. The MOSR range criterion was determined from review of CCTV data that was made available for each inspected sewer segment. General review of the CCTV videos provided insight about the actual sewer conditions of the MOSR sewers and an appropriate range was developed for each condition. The critical and severe conditions were chosen to be rehabilitated as part of the recommended projects within this master plan. Further rehabilitation projects may continue with sewer segments that received a poor rating after the severe and critical sewers are rehabilitated.
Table 7.4 MOSR Overview
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Sewer Condition Range
Severe MOSR ≥ 200
Critical 100 ≤ MOSR < 200
Poor 50 ≤ MOSR < 100
Moderate 25 ≤ MOSR < 50
Average 0 ≤ MOSR < 25
7.3.1.3 Previously Recommended Rehabilitation Projects
Rehabilitation projects recommended in previous reports that have yet to be completed are included as rehabilitation projects in this Master Plan. Section 7.3.2.3 includes a detailed description of these projects.
7.3.2 Evaluation Results
A summary of the evaluation results is presented within this section.
7.3.2.1 High Priority Point Repairs
Sewer main defects requiring high priority point repairs exist at 1,249 locations. Table 7.5 includes the priority codes together with the number of occurrence per code.
September 2015 7-9
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH07 Table 7.5 Point Repairs
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Priority Code Code Description Occurrences
B Broken 616
BSV Broken Soil Visible 136
BVV Broken Void Visible 139
CH3 Hinge Crack 3
CH4 Hinge Crack 2
D Deformed 33
FH3 Hinge Fracture 2
FH4 Hinge Fracture 1
H Hole 195
HSV Hole Soil Visible 31
HVV Hole Void Visible 28
SMW Missing Wall 4
SMWZ Missing Wall,
Surface Damage Not Evident
6 SRC Reinforcement Corroded 35
SRCZ Reinforcement Corroded, Surface Damage Not Evident 1 SRV Reinforcement Visible 6
SRVC Reinforcement Visible, Surface Damage Chemical 1
XP Pipe Collapse 10
Point Repair Total: 1,249
Figure 7.2 shows high priority repair locations. Appendix H provides a summary list of the significant sewer main defects described above and includes information on the type of pipe defect, pipe size, pipe material, upstream and downstream manhole identification numbers, street name and sewer plat area. An initial order of work for the point repairs is also included in Appendix H. The City should review available data and new data as it becomes available and adjust the order of work as necessary.
Priority Point Repairs
Wastewater Master Plan Update City of Fresno
Priority Code Code Description Occurrences B Broken 616 BSV Broken Soil Visible 136 BVV Broken Void Visible 139 CH3 Hinge Crack 3 CH4 Hinge Crack 2 D Deformed 33 FH3 Hinge Fracture 2 FH4 Hinge Fracture 1 H Hole 195 HSV Hole Soil Visible 31 HVV Hole Void Visible 28 SMW Missing Wall 4 SMWZ Missing Wall, Surface Damage Not Evident 6 SRC Reinforcement Corroded 35 SRCZ Reinforcement Corroded, Surface Damage Not Evident 1 SRV Reinforcement Visible 6 SRVC Reinforcement Visible, Surface Damage Chemical 1 XP Pipe Collapse 10 Priority Point Repair Total: 1249 September 2015 7-11
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH07
7.3.2.2 Modified Overall Structural Rating
Sewer mains with a MOSR greater than or equal to 100 meet the criteria developed for rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is expected to be a cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) liner as described in Section 7.4.1.2. A total of 86 pipe segments were identified as having a MOSR greater than 100.
Figure 7.3 shows pipe segments with a high MOSR that are recommended for rehabilitation. Appendix BCF-3 includes each sewer segment MOSR, pipe size, pipe material, upstream and downstream manhole identification numbers, street name and sewer plat area for proposed rehabilitation projects.
As shown in Table 7.6, only 0.7 percent of the sewers that have been inspected received a MOSR in the severe to critical range, and 2.5 percent of the system received a MOSR in the poor to moderate range. The vast majority (96.9 percent) received an average MOSR rating. It should be noted that as older portions of the city are inspected, the percent of the system with a MOSR greater than 25 will likely increase.
Table 7.6 MOSR Overview
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Sewer Condition Range
Condition
Occurrence
Percent of
Inspected System
Severe MOSR ≥ 200 53 0.43
Critical 100 ≤ MOSR < 200 33 0.27
Poor 50 ≤ MOSR < 100 84 0.68
Moderate 25 ≤ MOSR < 50 219 1.77
Average 0 ≤ MOSR < 25 12,010 96.85
7.3.2.3 Previously Recommend Rehabilitation Projects
Five rehabilitation projects identified in the 2006 Wastewater Master Plan remain uncompleted. The rehabilitation projects are identified in the 2006 Wastewater Master Plan as Projects RL11, RS06B, RL02, RS03A and RS04A are summarized in Table 7.7. The project locations can be seen on Figure 7.4.
MOSR Overview Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update City of Fresno Sewer Condition Range Condition Occurrence Percent of Inspected System Severe DK^ZшϮϬϬ 53 0.43 Critical ϭϬϬчDK^ZфϮϬϬ 33 0.27 Poor ϱϬчDK^ZфϭϬϬ 84 0.68
September 2015 7-14
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH07 Table 7.7 Previously Recommend Rehabilitation Projects
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
2006 Master Plan
Project Designation
Pipe Size
(inches)
Rehabilitation
Length (feet)
Type of
Rehabilitation
RS03A 24 3,118 CIPP Liner
RS04A 18-21 4,341 CIPP Liner
RS06B 15 300 CIPP Liner
RL02 48 2,644 CIPP Liner
RL11 48-54 3,992 CIPP Liner
7.3.2.4 Sewer Lift Station Survey Results
The City‘s lift stations were inspected to document existing conditions and make recommendations for rehabilitation. The findings from the inspection are summarized in Table 7.8 for all surveyed locations. Existing liners or coatings were observed to be in some level of distress at all but four of the lift stations inspected and will require liner/coating repair or removal and replacement. Complications with failing liners getting caught in the wet well pumps has been a maintenance issue and can potentially cause damage to the current infrastructure. Lack of liner/coating integrity can allow corrosion and deterioration of substrate materials. During the rehabilitation process, quick connect locations for bypass pumping will be available for some locations on the upstream and downstream side of the wet wells as seen in the available data.
7.4 RECOMMENDED REHABILITATION/REPAIR PLAN
This section summarizes the proposed R&R plan for the City, including a description of the highest priority projects in the “Primary Recommendations” section, and the lower priority projects in the “Secondary Recommendations” section.
All of the proposed projects included in the recommended R&R plan were developed for general master planning purposes based on the best available information provided by the City. For all proposed sewer system rehabilitation and repair projects, the City or its design consultant should conduct a careful review of available or new CCTV video inspection data to verify that there is a defect requiring mitigation and to establish a detailed scope of the remedial work prior to construction.
September 2015
7-15
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH07 Table 7.8 Lift Station Condition Survey Results
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Lift
Station
Existing
Liner
New Liner or
Rehabilitate
Existing Liner
Required
Dedicated
Upstream
Bypass Quick
Connection
Dedicated
Downstream
Bypass Quick
Connection
Adequate Site
Lighting
History of
Odor Control
Complaints
Approximate
Wet Well Area
(ft2
)
LS-01 Y N N N Y N 428
LS-02 Y N N N Y N 226
LS-03 Y N Y N N N 214
LS-04 N Y Y N Y N 754
LS-05 N Y N N Y N 892
LS-06 Y Y Y Y Y N 892
LS-10 N Y N N Y N 339
LS-11 Y Y N N N N 352
LS-12 Y N Y N Y N 434
LS-13 Y Y N N N N 310
LS-14 Y Y N N Y N 434
LS-15 Y Y Y N N N 343
LS-16 Y Y N Y Y N 452
LS-18 Y Y N Y Y N 561
LS-20 Y Y N N N N 855
Notes:
Y = Yes; N = No
September 2015 7-16
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH07
7.4.1 Primary Recommendations
7.4.1.1 High Priority Point Repairs
Sewer system defects requiring high priority point repairs, as described in Sections 7.3.1.1 and 7.3.2.1, pose a threat to the sewer system operations and should be the first projects undertaken by the City. The high priority repairs are generally expected to consist of excavation via conventional open cut methods to gain access to the area of defective pipe, removal and replacement of a small section of pipe, followed by trench backfill and resurfacing. For pipe segments that have several significant point defects in proximity to each other, it may be prudent to install a CIPP liner in lieu of removal and replacement of multiple sections of pipe.
High priority repairs described in Sections 7.3.2 and 7.3.3 should be repaired as outlined in Chapter 8.
7.4.1.2 Sewer Rehabilitation - High MOSR
Sewer mains with a MOSR greater than or equal to 100 should be rehabilitated in order of severity. It is anticipated that the pipe segment rehabilitation would be accomplished with a CIPP liner, but other options such as a slip liner or a high-density polyethylene (HDPE) solid wall pipe liner may be considered.
Sewer rehabilitation using a CIPP liner consists of installing a fabric tube that is impregnated with a thermosetting resin, either by hydrostatic inversion methods or by pulling it into the host pipe and expanding it under hydrostatic head, followed by thermal curing. For pipe diameters less than 12-inches, an air inversion process may be used in lieu of a hydrostatic inversion. The air inversion process is faster and more cost effective. No insertion pit excavation is required under most circumstances, and service connection reinstatement may be done by remote internal methods.
CIPP liner installation is usually a completely trenchless process, requiring no excavation.
However, open cut excavation is sometimes required in localized areas for placement of temporary wastewater bypass pipelines, for manhole construction if the project includes it, or for repair of localized sewer defects.
Sewer mains with a high MOSR as described in Sections 7.3.1.2 and 7.3.2.2 should be rehabilitated as outlined in Chapter 8.
7.4.1.3 Previously Identified Rehabilitation Projects
Sewers previously identified as requiring rehabilitation as described in Section 7.3.2.3 should be rehabilitated.
September 2015 7-17
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH07
7.4.2 Secondary Recommendations
7.4.2.1 Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation
For all lift stations other than Lift Stations Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 12, lift station facilities should be rehabilitated by repair or removal and replacement of distressed liners and coatings. Where necessary, as indicated in Table 7.9, lift station rehabilitation should include lighting improvements to provide adequate lift station lighting. Lift Station No. 11 is in failing condition and requires replacement of the entire lift station.
Table 7.9 Proposed Lift Station Improvements
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
City of Fresno
Lift
Station
Existing Wet
Well Coating
Failure of
Existing Coating
Apply New Wet
Well Coating
Install Site
Lighting
LS-01 Y N N Y
LS-02 Y N Y Y
LS-03 Y N N N
LS-04 N N/A Y Y
LS-05 N N/A Y Y
LS-06 Y Y Y Y
LS-10 N N/A Y Y
LS-11 Y Y N/A N
LS-12 Y N/A N Y
LS-13 Y Y Y N
LS-14 Y Y Y Y
LS-15 Y Y Y N
LS-16 Y Y Y Y
LS-18 Y Y Y Y
LS-20 Y N N N
Notes:
Y = Yes; N = No; N/A = Not Applicable
7.4.2.2 Unlined Sewer Pipe
Certain pipe materials once commonly used in sanitary sewer systems, such as asbestos cement pipe (ACP), reinforced concrete pipe (RCP), standard (non-reinforced) concrete pipe (SCP), and cast iron pipe (CIP), are susceptible to sulfide-related corrosion, often referred to as microbially-induced corrosion (MIC), if they are not otherwise protected against MIC. MIC can ultimately result in complete pipe wall penetration and sewer collapse, particularly in partly full pipes where wastewater chemistry is conducive to MIC September 2015 7-18
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH07 processes. The rate at which MIC occurs can be highly variable, ranging from none at all where the sewer environment is not conducive to MIC processes, to very rapid in an aggressive sewer environment.
Existing sewers where MIC has resulted in a MOSR greater than 100 are included under the corresponding recommendations of this report. Wherever other sewers exist that are susceptible to MIC, the sewer condition should be carefully evaluated during regular or special sewer inspection efforts to determine the extent to which MIC processes are affecting sewer conditions, and the extent to which sewer rehabilitation may be required to halt MIC processes and preserve sewer main integrity. In general, whenever MIC results in an MOSR greater than 100, the affected sewer should be rehabilitated or replaced.
7.4.2.3 Low MOSR
Low MOSR sewers shall be evaluated on a case by case basis by City personnel to determine the correct action necessary. Sewers that have a “poor” rating in Table 7.4 should be evaluated for rehabilitation following the completion of all primary recommendations.
7.4.3 Prioritization and Scheduling
The sewer system rehabilitation work should generally be prioritized such that the most critical defective areas can be addressed first. The scheduling recommendations were derived from the available PACP records provided by the City, on-site inspections and previous reports. Scheduling for the priority repairs and rehabilitation can be seen in Table 7.10 by the appropriate fiscal years. Projects are further divided into phases which are detailed in Chapter 8.
Table 7.10 Rehabilitation Project Prioritization
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
City of Fresno
Priority Project Fiscal Year
1 High Priority Point Repairs 2015-2020
2 Rehabilitation of Sewer with High MOSR 2015-2020
3 Previously Recommend Rehab Projects 2015-2020
4 Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation 2015-2020
7.4.4 Recommended Sewer Inspection Plan
7.4.4.1 Background
Approximately 57 percent (916.0 miles) of the City’s sewers have not been inspected via CCTV and evaluated using the PACP coding system. These areas are shown on Figure 7.1. To properly assess a sewer system, an initial baseline inspection is required.
The baseline inspection together with subsequent inspections enables users to monitor the September 2015 7-19
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH07 changing conditions of each sewer segment. Areas of the sewer systems that have not been inspected should be a high priority and scheduled for video inspection.
The City currently owns three CCTV trucks which are dedicated to sewer system inspections. The current target productivity rate for all three trucks is 60,300 feet per month which is roughly 0.71 percent of the entire system. At this rate, it would take approximately 11 years to survey the entire system. This target requires that all three trucks be in working order and the appropriate staff be available to operate the equipment. The City also has secured funds to purchase an additional CCTV truck that will be dedicated to sewer system inspections. The purchase of this new CCTV truck is imminent. Once the additional truck is secured the City’s productivity rate for four trucks would be 80,400 feet per month, which is roughly 0.95 percent of the entire system.
Prior to CCTV inspection, sewer pipelines should be cleaned of debris to provide a relatively clear path for the tractor mounted camera and potentially uncover any underlying defects. Two cleaning trucks specifically dedicated to aid sewer man inspections are dispatched with the CCTV trucks.
Sewer main inspections can be used to estimate the amount of time needed before pipeline rehabilitation or replacement is required. This can only be accomplished by observing and monitoring the changes between successive inspections. The majority of uninspected pipelines are near the end of their design life or currently exceeding that period. Some of these pipes are probably already in a deteriorated condition and may require immediate maintenance, rehabilitation, repair or replacement.
7.4.4.2 Sewer Inspection: Phase 1 Scheduling
Scheduling for the inspection of sewers is divided into two phases. Phase 1 includes scheduling of work to inspect all sewers that have not had an initial PACP coding system inspection. Once Phase 1 inspections are completed, sewer inspection work should be in accordance with the Phase 2 scheduling. Figure 7.5 includes the limits of uninspected sewers and distinguishes sewers that are susceptible to corrosion from sewers that are not susceptible to corrosion.
For Phase 1 inspections, sewers that are susceptible to corrosions should be inspected first. Sewers that are not susceptible to corrosion should be given second priority in the schedule. Table 7.11 summarizes the length of sewers that have not been inspected.
Based on the City’s expected productivity rate of 80,400 feet per month, the time to complete an initial inspection of sewers that are susceptible to corrosion and not susceptible to corrosion is 0.54 and 4.47 years, respectively.
September 2015 7-21
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH07 Table 7.11 Phase 1 Sewer Inspection Schedule
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
City of Fresno
Sewer Description
Length
(miles)
Time to Complete(1)
(Years)
Susceptible to Corrosion, Not Inspected 98.9 0.54
Not Susceptible to Corrosion, Not Inspected 817.1 4.47
Total 916.0 5.01
Notes:
(1) Based on an inspection rate of 80,400 feet per month.
7.4.4.3 Sewer Inspection: Phase 2 Scheduling
The second phase includes scheduling to provide subsequent inspection of all sewers and should be in accordance with Table 7.12.
Sewer systems shall also be inspected based upon their MOSR as show in Table 7.12.
Elevated MOSR sections shall be monitored to observe existing problems and changing conditions. If a CCTV inspection reveals a section of pipe that has an MOSR greater than 100, the section of pipe should be rehabilitated. Figure 7.6 represents the recommended sewer inspection phasing.
Table 7.12 Inspection Frequency
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
City of Fresno
Sewer Description
Maximum Inspection Frequency Interval
(Years)
Pipe Materials Susceptible to Corrosion 5
Sewers with a MOSR between 50 and 100 5
Pipe Materials Not Susceptible to Corrosion 10
September 2015 8-1
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH08 Chapter 8
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
This chapter describes the development of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). This CIP is a comprehensive plan that incorporates recommended improvements identified in Chapters 6 and 7 of this report.
8.1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT COSTS
The capital improvement project costs are based on City of Fresno (City) bid results for wastewater projects, previous cost studies, interviews with local contractors and our project experience with similar wastewater infrastructure projects throughout the Central Valley.
The costs have been adjusted to the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index 20 City Average of 9,800 for June 2014.
8.2 COST ESTIMATING ACCURACY
Cost estimates have been developed to help the City prepare budgeting and scheduling for these projects. The cost estimates included in this master plan are Class 5 estimates as defined by the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) International publication entitled Recommend Practice No. 56R-08. Class 5 estimates are generally prepared on limited design information and subsequently have wide accuracy ranges. A typical Class 5 estimate for a civil engineering project may have an accuracy range as broad as -30 percent to +50 percent, or as narrow as -20 percent to +30 percent. Class 5 estimates are typically used for evaluation of resource needs, budgeting and capital planning.
8.3 CONSTRUCTION UNIT COSTS
The construction unit costs for sewer infrastructure projects are based on a normal bidding environment and normal construction schedules. Costs for new projects and rehabilitation projects are included.
8.3.1 Rehabilitation Unit Costs
One goal in developing unit costs for pipe rehabilitation was to develop “loaded” unit costs which, when applied to the key elements of the capital improvement projects, would result in an estimated project cost inclusive of all necessary associated incidental and ancillary work. Recent City bid tabulations for sewer rehabilitation projects were primarily used to develop rehabilitation unit costs.
September 2015 8-2
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH08
8.3.1.1 Point Repairs
Point repairs costs include temporary wastewater handling, traffic control, excavation, removal and replacement of up to 15 feet of sewer pipe, backfill, video inspection of repaired line, and surface restoration. Nearly all defects requiring point repairs occur on sewer mains ranging in size from 6 to 15 inches. Between August 2013 and March 2014, the City completed 4 point repair projects for pipe sizes ranging from 4-to 12-inches. The cost for the point repair projects ranged from $15,250 to $16,650 with an average cost of approximately $16,000. Based on these results it appears that the pipe size has little effect on the cost of point repairs for small to medium sized sewer mains. As a result, a cost of $16,000 per point repair is used for point repairs on pipe sizes ranging from 6 to 15 inches.
8.3.1.2 Sewer Main Rehabilitation
For sewer mains with moderate defects throughout, rehabilitation of the entire sewer main is necessary. Sewer main rehabilitation is commonly accomplished via the installation of an internal liner. Sewer main rehabilitation costs are based on cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) liner methods, which is the most common type of liner used for City projects. Bid summaries for 17 recent City CIPP sewer rehabilitation projects, for sewers ranging in size from 6- to 45-inches in diameter, were used to help develop unit costs. See Table 8.1 for estimated sewer main rehabilitation unit costs.
Table 8.1 Cured-in-Place Pipe Rehabilitation Unit Costs Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Item No. Item Description Cost Per Foot ($)
1 6" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation 100
2 8" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation 113
3 10" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation 126
5 12" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation 140
6 15" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation 160
7 18" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation 180
8 21" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation 200
9 24" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation 220
10 27" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation 240
11 30" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation 260
12 36" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation 300
13 42" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation 400
14 45" CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation 470
September 2015 8-3
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH08
8.3.1.3 Lift Station Rehabilitation
Lift Station rehabilitation includes removal and replacement of failed existing wet well coatings or application of wet well coatings to uncoated wet wells. Recent construction cost data for wet well rehabilitation is not available but interviews with two coating contractors were conducted to help determine construction costs. Wet well rehabilitation costs include bypass pumping, interior wet well surface preparation, coating application, and non destructive testing. Estimated wet well rehabilitation unit costs are summarized in Table 8.2.
Table 8.2 Lift Station Rehabilitation Unit Costs
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Item No. Item Description
Cost per square foot
($)
1 Removal of Existing Liner 25
2 Install New Liner 40
3 Bypass Pumping Site Specific
8.3.2 New or Replacement Unit Costs
Unit costs for new or replacement infrastructure are “loaded” unit costs which, when applied to the key elements of the capital improvement projects, would result in an estimated project cost inclusive of all necessary associated incidental and ancillary work. Recent City bid tabulations for new sewer construction projects were primarily used to develop unit costs.
8.3.2.1 New or Replacement Sewer Mains
New or replacement sewer mains range in size from 8- to 60-inches. Bid summaries for 7 recent City new or replacement sewer main projects for sewers ranging in size from 8- to 72-inches in diameter were used to help develop unit costs. See Table 8.3 for estimated sewer main installation unit costs.
Table 8.3 Pipe Construction Unit Costs
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Item No. Item Description
Cost per Foot
($)
1 6" PVC Sewer Pipe 185
2 8" PVC Sewer Pipe 195
3 10" PVC Sewer Pipe 210
5 12" PVC Sewer Pipe 225
September 2015 8-4
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH08 Table 8.3 Pipe Construction Unit Costs
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Item No. Item Description
Cost per Foot
($)
6 15" PVC Sewer Pipe 245
7 18" PVC Sewer Pipe 265
8 21" PVC Sewer Pipe 285
9 24" PVC Sewer Pipe 305
10 27" PVC Sewer Pipe 335
11 30" PVC Sewer Pipe 370
12 36" PVC Sewer Pipe 440
13 42" PVC Lined RCP Sewer Pipe 485
14 48" PVC Lined RCP Sewer Pipe 530
15 54" PVC Lined RCP Sewer Pipe 570
16 60" PVC Lined RCP Sewer Pipe 615
17 66" PVC Lined RCP Sewer Pipe 655
8.3.2.2 Lift Station Replacement
As described in Chapter 7, Lift Station No. 11 is slated for a complete removal and replacement. A unit cost of $110,000 was used for the lift station based on a recently constructed lift station of comparable size and complexity.
8.4 PROJECT COSTS AND CONTINGENCIES
8.4.1 Baseline Construction Costs
Baseline construction costs were developed for all rehabilitation and replacement/new projects. The baseline construction costs for each type of project were developed according to the methods described below.
Rehabilitation Projects:
1. Point Repairs: Determined by multiplying the unit cost by the number of point repairs.
2. Sewer Main Rehabilitation: Determined by multiplying the pipeline length by the CIPP liner unit costs.
3. Pump Station Wet Well Coating (Remove and Replace): Determined by multiplying the wet well interior area by the unit cost for coating removal and replacement together with the unit costs for bypass pumping.
September 2015 8-5
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH08
4. Pump Station Wet Well Coating (Bare Concrete): Determined by multiplying the wet well interior area by the unit cost for wet well coating together with the unit costs for bypass pumping.
New or Replacement Projects:
1. New or Replacement Pipeline: Determined by multiplying the pipeline length by the unit costs for new or replacement pipe.
2. Replacement Lift Station: Determined by using the unit cost described in Section 8.3.2.2.
8.4.2 Construction Costs Contingency
Development of the recommended wastewater construction projects is limited to a master planning level of detail. As such, a 25 percent contingency has been added to all construction project costs to help account for unknown conditions, fluctuations in material prices, changes in the bidding climate and unexpected changes to the scope of the projects.
8.5 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT COSTS
8.5.1 Capital Improvement Cost Summary
The Capital Improvement Cost is the total estimated cost for each project and includes the baseline construction costs (BCC), contingency, engineering, and management costs. The composition of the baseline construction cost is detailed in Section 8.4.1 of this report.
Contingencies are calculated as 25 percent of the baseline construction cost to help account for unknown or changed conditions. The engineering portion of the estimate is 10 percent of the BCC and includes all services normally required to produce construction documents and provide engineering support during bidding and construction phases. This includes the production of plans, specifications, and construction support for each project.
Management is the final portion of the Capital Improvement Cost and is calculated at 10 percent of the BCC. Management costs encompass all administrative expenditures, legal fees, financing, and environmental documents required for construction. The summation of all these components covers the total cost for each project.
8.5.2 Capital Improvement Implementation
The CIP Scheduling assigns a fiscal year for each project as a target date for construction.
The CIP scheduling was developed with consideration given to the following:
• Project Prioritization
• Anticipated City Growth Rates and Patterns
• Cost Distribution and Budgeting
September 2015 8-6
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Fresno/8168P00/Deliverables/WWCSMP_CH08 • City Direction
Short term projects are phased by year through the year 2020 and long-term projects are phased in five year increments beginning in 2020 through 2035.
Rehabilitation projects and capacity projects are given the highest priority needs are and are all scheduled as short term projects to be completed between 2015 and 2020. Each project is itemized by phase in Table 8.5. Appendix J includes a large format figure showing all CIP projects. Appendix F includes detailed project summary sheets for CIP projects scheduled to be completed between 2015 and 2020.
8.6 EXISTING VERSUS FUTURE USER COST SHARE
The CIP includes projects that will benefit existing users and future users. An initial estimate of the project benefit for existing and future users is included in Table 8.4.
Table 8.4 Summary of Capital Improvement Costs
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
City of Fresno
Implementation Phase
Reimbursement
Category
2015-20
($, mill.)
2021-25
($, mill.)
2026-30
($, mill.)
2031-35
($, mill.)
Total
($, mill.)
Existing User 46.3 55.6 6.1 0 108.0
Future User 0.1 0.2 1.1 202.9 204.3
Total 46.4 55.8 7.2 202.9 312.3
Notes:
(1) Costs are based on ENR CCI 20-City Average of 9,800 (June 2014).
Table 8.5
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
2015‐2020 2021‐2025 2026‐2030 2031‐2035
(in) (in) (ft) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($)
C‐1A Gravity Hammond Avenue Between Blackstone Ave. and Abby St. 20 24 Replace 390 $ 412,000 $ 412,000 7% $ 383,160 $ 28,840 C‐1B Gravity Abby Street From Hammond Ave. to La Salle Ave. 20 24 Replace 1,322 $ 868,000 $ 868,000 7% $ 807,240 $ 60,760 C‐2A Gravity Glenn Avenue From Bremer Ave. to Thomas Ave. 24 27 Replace 391 $ 430,000 $ 430,000 7% $ 399,900 $ 30,100 C‐2B Gravity Glenn Avenue From HWY 180 to Voorman Ave. 24 27 Replace 2,580 $ 1,580,000 $ 1,580,000 14% $ 1,358,800 $ 221,200 C‐3 Gravity Glenn Avenue / N Street From Voorman Ave. to Tuolumne St. 27 30 Replace 1,530 $ 1,148,000 $ 1,148,000 19% $ 929,880 $ 218,120 C‐4 Gravity Monterey Street From Fulton Street to N Street 6 10 Replace 1,812 $ 683,000 $ 683,000 0% $ 683,000 $ ‐ C‐5A Gravity Eighth Street From Ventura St. to Woodward Ave. 36 42 Replace 4,717 $ 3,825,000 $ 3,825,000 17% $ 3,174,750 $ 650,250 C‐5B Gravity Woodward Avenue From Eighth St. to Orange Ave. 36 42 Replace 629 $ 733,000 $ 733,000 17% $ 608,390 $ 124,610 C‐5C Gravity Orange Avenue From Woodward Ave. to California Ave. 36 42 Replace 693 $ 778,000 $ 778,000 17% $ 645,740 $ 132,260 C‐6 Gravity Safford Avenue From Producers Dairy to H Street 6 8 Replace 930 $ 329,000 $ 329,000 0% $ 329,000 $ ‐ $ 10,786,000 $ 1,710,000 $ 1,909,000 $ 7,167,000 $ ‐ $ 9,319,860 $ 1,466,140 C‐7 Gravity Tuolumne Street/ Van Ness Avenue From N Street to Merced St. 27 30 Replace 1,679 $ 1,228,000 $ 1,228,000 100% $ ‐ $ 1,228,000 C‐8 Gravity North Avenue From Polk Ave. Alignment to Fruit Ave. ‐ 60 New 20,857 $ 19,615,000 $ 19,615,000 100% $ ‐ $ 19,615,000 C‐9 Gravity North Avenue From Fruit Ave. to Orange Ave. 60 60 Rehab 15,514 $ 15,376,000 $ 15,376,000 100% $ ‐ $ 15,376,000 D‐1 Gravity Temperance Avenue From North Ave. to Jensen Ave. ‐ 48 New 5,875 $ 4,805,000 $ 4,805,000 100% $ ‐ $ 4,805,000 D‐2 Gravity Temperance Avenue From Jensen Ave. to Tulare St. ‐ 42 New 13,352 $ 10,224,000 $ 10,224,000 100% $ ‐ $ 10,224,000 D‐3 Gravity Temperance Avenue From Tulare St. to Olive Ave. ‐ 36 New 4,987 $ 3,508,000 $ 3,508,000 100% $ ‐ $ 3,508,000 D‐4 Gravity Temperance/McKinley/DeWolf From Olive Ave. to Shields Ave. ‐ 30 New 13,300 $ 7,970,000 $ 7,970,000 100% $ ‐ $ 7,970,000 D‐5 Gravity Shields Ave./Leonard Ave. From DeWolf Ave. to Dakota Ave. ‐ 27 New 4,575 $ 2,397,000 $ 2,397,000 100% $ ‐ $ 2,397,000 D‐6A Gravity Jensen Avenue From Temperance Ave. to DeWolf Ave. ‐ 15 New 5,228 $ 2,053,000 $ 2,053,000 100% $ ‐ $ 2,053,000 D‐6B Gravity Jensen Avenue From DeWolf Ave. to Leonard Ave. ‐ 12 New 2,732 $ 964,000 $ 964,000 100% $ ‐ $ 964,000 D‐7A Gravity Church Avenue From Temperance Ave. to Locan Ave. ‐ 15 New 2,552 $ 1,016,000 $ 1,016,000 100% $ ‐ $ 1,016,000 D‐7B Gravity Church Avenue From Locan Ave. to DeWolf Ave. ‐ 12 New 2,729 $ 963,000 $ 963,000 100% $ ‐ $ 963,000 D‐7C Gravity Church Avenue From DeWolf Ave. to Leonard Ave. ‐ 8 New 2,673 $ 829,000 $ 829,000 100% $ ‐ $ 829,000 D‐8A Gravity California Avenue From Temperance Ave to Locan Ave. ‐ 18 New 2,676 $ 1,137,000 $ 1,137,000 100% $ ‐ $ 1,137,000 D‐8B Gravity California Avenue From Locan Ave. to DeWolf Ave. ‐ 15 New 2,670 $ 1,058,000 $ 1,058,000 100% $ ‐ $ 1,058,000 D‐8C Gravity California Avenue From DeWolf Ave. to Leonard Ave. ‐ 10 New 2,617 $ 870,000 $ 870,000 100% $ ‐ $ 870,000 D‐9A Gravity Butler Avenue From Temperance Ave to Locan Ave. ‐ 18 New 2,617 $ 1,115,000 $ 1,115,000 100% $ ‐ $ 1,115,000 D‐9B Gravity Butler Avenue From Locan Ave. to DeWolf Ave. ‐ 15 New 2,611 $ 1,037,000 $ 1,037,000 100% $ ‐ $ 1,037,000 D‐9C Gravity Butler Avenue From DeWolf Ave. to Leonard Ave. ‐ 8 New 2,789 $ 862,000 $ 862,000 100% $ ‐ $ 862,000 D‐10A Gravity Tulare Street From Temperance Ave. to Locan Ave. ‐ 21 New 2,730 $ 1,237,000 $ 1,237,000 100% $ ‐ $ 1,237,000 D‐10B Gravity Tulare Street/DeWolf Avenue From Locan Ave. to Laurel Ave. Alignment ‐ 15 New 4,035 $ 1,586,000 $ 1,586,000 100% $ ‐ $ 1,586,000 D‐10C Gravity Laurel Avenue Alignment From DeWolf Ave. to Leonard Ave. ‐ 8 New 2,729 $ 845,000 $ 845,000 100% $ ‐ $ 845,000 D‐10D Gravity Locan Ave/ Belmont Ave. From Tulare St. to DeWolf Ave. ‐ 12 New 4,926 $ 1,738,000 $ 1,738,000 100% $ ‐ $ 1,738,000 D‐10E Gravity Belmont Avenue From DeWolf Ave. to Leonard Ave. ‐ 10 New 2,554 $ 851,000 $ 851,000 100% $ ‐ $ 851,000 D‐11A Gravity Olive Avenue From Temperance Ave. to Locan Ave. ‐ 15 New 2,671 $ 1,058,000 $ 1,058,000 100% $ ‐ $ 1,058,000 D‐11B Gravity Olive Avenue From Locan Ave. to DeWolf Ave. ‐ 12 New 2,613 $ 926,000 $ 926,000 100% $ ‐ $ 926,000 D‐11C Gravity Olive Avenue From DeWolf Ave. to Leonard Ave. ‐ 8 New 2,617 $ 813,000 $ 813,000 100% $ ‐ $ 813,000 D‐12A Gravity McKinley Avenue From DeWolf Ave. to Leonard Ave. ‐ 21 New 2,729 $ 1,237,000 $ 1,237,000 100% $ ‐ $ 1,237,000 D‐12B Gravity McKinley Avenue From Leonard Ave. to Thompson Ave. ‐ 18 New 5,103 $ 2,157,000 $ 2,157,000 100% $ ‐ $ 2,157,000 D‐12C Gravity Thompson Avenue From McKinley Ave. to Clinton Ave. ‐ 15 New 2,730 $ 1,079,000 $ 1,079,000 100% $ ‐ $ 1,079,000 D‐13 Gravity Clinton Avenue From DeWolf Ave. to Leonard Ave. ‐ 10 New 2,492 $ 832,000 $ 832,000 100% $ ‐ $ 832,000 D‐14 Gravity North Avenue From Peach Ave. to Temperance Ave. ‐ 36 New 15,787 $ 11,051,000 $ 11,051,000 100% $ ‐ $ 11,051,000 Job No. Description / Limits Rehab,
Replace,
or New
Project Type
Capital Improvement Projects
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
City of Fresno
Existing
Diameter
New
Diameter
Existing Improvement Totals
Capital Improvement Phasing
Length Improvement
Cost Existing
Improvements
Future
Improvements
Reimbursement Category
Existing Improvements
Future
User
Benefit
(%)
Build‐Out Improvements
P:\213‐0242\_Documents\CostEstimate\213242_Capital Improvement Costs.xls 1 of 3 12/9/2014 Table 8.5
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
2015‐2020 2021‐2025 2026‐2030 2031‐2035
(in) (in) (ft) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($)
Job No. Description / Limits Rehab,
Replace,
or New
Project Type
Capital Improvement Projects
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
City of Fresno
Existing
Diameter
New
Diameter
Capital Improvement Phasing
Length Improvement
Cost Existing
Improvements
Future
Improvements
Future Reimbursement Category
User
Benefit
(%)
D‐15 Gravity Minnewawa Avenue From North Ave. to Annadale Ave. ‐ 12 New 2,730 $ 964,000 $ 964,000 100% $ ‐ $ 964,000 D‐16 Gravity Sunnyside Avenue From North Ave. to Annadale Ave. ‐ 15 New 2,611 $ 1,037,000 $ 1,037,000 100% $ ‐ $ 1,037,000 D‐17 Gravity Fowler Avenue From North Ave. to Annadale Ave. ‐ 10 New 2,789 $ 922,000 $ 922,000 100% $ ‐ $ 922,000 D‐18 Gravity Armstrong Avenue From North Ave. to Annadale Ave. ‐ 8 New 2,671 $ 828,000 $ 828,000 100% $ ‐ $ 828,000 D‐19A Gravity Valentine Avenue From Church Ave. to Kearney Frontage ‐ 12 New 3,945 $ 1,389,000 $ 1,389,000 100% $ ‐ $ 1,389,000 D‐19B Gravity Valentine Avenue From Kearney Frontage to Madison Ave. ‐ 10 New 1,312 $ 444,000 $ 444,000 100% $ ‐ $ 444,000 D‐20 Gravity Brawley Avenue From Church Ave. to Madison Ave. ‐ 8 New 5,303 $ 1,630,000 $ 1,630,000 100% $ ‐ $ 1,630,000 D‐21A Gravity Whitesbridge Avenue From Polk Ave. to Blythe Ave. ‐ 12 New 5,271 $ 1,851,000 $ 1,851,000 100% $ ‐ $ 1,851,000 D‐21B Gravity Whitesbridge/Brawley Avenue From Blythe Ave. to Nielsen Ave. ‐ 10 New 5,392 $ 1,773,000 $ 1,773,000 100% $ ‐ $ 1,773,000 D‐22A Gravity Belmont Avenue From Polk Ave. to Cornelia Ave. ‐ 12 New 2,716 $ 959,000 $ 959,000 100% $ ‐ $ 959,000 D‐22B Gravity Belmont Avenue From Cornelia Ave. to Blythe Ave. ‐ 10 New 2,675 $ 887,000 $ 887,000 100% $ ‐ $ 887,000 D‐22C Gravity Belmont Avenue From Blythe Ave. to Brawley Ave. ‐ 8 New 2,640 $ 819,000 $ 819,000 100% $ ‐ $ 819,000 D‐23A Gravity Olive Avenue From Polk Ave. to Blythe Ave. ‐ 12 New 5,260 $ 1,847,000 $ 1,847,000 100% $ ‐ $ 1,847,000 D‐23B Gravity Olive Avenue From Blythe Ave. to Brawley Ave. ‐ 8 New 2,675 $ 829,000 $ 829,000 100% $ ‐ $ 829,000 D‐24A Gravity Olive Avenue From Grantland Ave. to Bryan Ave. ‐ 12 New 2,649 $ 937,000 $ 937,000 100% $ ‐ $ 937,000 D‐24B Gravity Olive Avenue From Bryan Ave. to Hayes Ave. ‐ 10 New 1973 $ 659,000 $ 659,000 100% $ ‐ $ 659,000 D‐25 Gravity McKinley Avenue From Grantland Ave. to Ring Ave. ‐ 10 New 3,603 $ 1,199,000 $ 1,199,000 100% $ ‐ $ 1,199,000 D‐26A Gravity Clinton Avenue From Grantland Ave. to Bryan Ave. ‐ 12 New 2,645 $ 936,000 $ 936,000 100% $ ‐ $ 936,000 D‐26B Gravity Clinton Avenue From Bryan Ave. to Hayes Ave. ‐ 10 New 2,592 $ 862,000 $ 862,000 100% $ ‐ $ 862,000 D‐27A Gravity Shields Avenue From Grantland Ave. to Bryan Ave. ‐ 15 New 2,627 $ 1,042,000 $ 1,042,000 100% $ ‐ $ 1,042,000 D‐27B Gravity Shields Avenue From Bryan Ave. to Hayes Ave. ‐ 12 New 2,592 $ 919,000 $ 919,000 100% $ ‐ $ 919,000 $ 125,170,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 125,170,000 $ ‐ $ 125,170,000 NCFWRF‐1 Treatment ‐ 6 mgd New ‐ $ 51,106,000 $ 51,106,000 0% 51,106,000 $ $ ‐ NCFWRF‐2 Gravity ‐ 36 New 4,042 $ 2,833,000 $ 2,833,000 0% 2,833,000 $ $ ‐ SEGA Treatment ‐ 15 mgd New ‐ $ 77,760,000 $ 77,760,000 100% $ ‐ $ 77,760,000 $ 131,699,000 $ ‐ $ 53,939,000 $ ‐ $ 77,760,000 $ 53,939,000 $ 77,760,000 LS‐1 Lift Station ‐ ‐‐ ‐ $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ ‐ LS‐2 Lift Station ‐ ‐‐ ‐ $ 39,000 $ 39,000 $ 39,000 $ ‐ LS‐3 Lift Station ‐ ‐‐ ‐ $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ ‐ LS‐4 Lift Station ‐ ‐‐ ‐ $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ ‐ LS‐5 Lift Station ‐ ‐‐ ‐ $ 96,000 $ 96,000 $ 96,000 $ ‐ LS‐6 Lift Station ‐ ‐‐ ‐ $ 114,000 $ 114,000 $ 114,000 $ ‐ LS‐10 Lift Station ‐ ‐‐ ‐ $ 49,000 $ 49,000 $ 49,000 $ ‐ LS‐11 Lift Station ‐ ‐‐ ‐ $ 160,000 $ 160,000 $ 160,000 $ ‐ LS‐12 Lift Station ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐ $ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ LS‐13 Lift Station ‐ ‐‐ ‐ $ 59,000 $ 59,000 $ 59,000 $ ‐ LS‐14 Lift Station ‐ ‐‐ ‐ $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ ‐ LS‐15 Lift Station ‐ ‐‐ ‐ $ 128,000 $ 128,000 $ 128,000 $ ‐ LS‐16 Lift Station ‐ ‐‐ ‐ $ 72,000 $ 72,000 $ 72,000 $ ‐ LS‐18 Lift Station ‐ ‐‐ ‐ $ 82,000 $ 82,000 $ 82,000 $ ‐ LS‐20 Lift Station ‐ ‐‐ ‐ $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ ‐ $ 1,114,000 $ 1,114,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 1,114,000 $ ‐ HPPR‐1 Point Repair Varies Varies Replace Varies 5,800,000 $ $ 5,800,000 $ 5,800,000 $ ‐ Build‐Out Improvement Totals
North of Jackson and University Avenues
East of Carnegie and Alluvial Avenues
North of Haston Avenue and Fountain Way
Northwest of Santa Fe and El Paso Avenues
South of Nielsen and Hughes Avenues
North of Cherry and Muscat Avenues
Riverview Drive and Bluff Avenue
Fort Washington Road and Champlain Drive
Southeast of Perrin Avenue and Champlain Drive
Stratford and Woodlawn Drives
East of Cedar and Copper Avenues
Carnegie and Bullard Avenues
Cedar/Dakota, Scalping Plant at Vacant Field Behind Granite Park Dakota, From Treatment Facility to Millbrook Ave.