Gilroy City Council
April 3, 2023

March 2023 5-5 City of Gilroy
Sewer System Master Plan
The design flows used in evaluating the capacity adequacy of the sewer collection system are summarized on Table 5.3. The table lists the peak hour flows for dry and wet weather conditions.

PDWF and PWWF used for evaluating the existing collection system were estimated at 8.79 MGD and 13.81 MGD, respectively. The PDWF and PWWF used for designing the General Plan buildout system, including growth, were estimated at 14.66 MGD and 18.95 MGD, respectively.

Agenda Item 9.1 Page 157 of 768
Table 5.3   Design Flows
Sewer System Master Plan
City of Gilroy
Description Peak Dry
Weather Flow
Peak Wet
Weather Flow
(mgd) (mgd)
Existing 8.79 13.81
Buildout 14.66 18.95
Notes:
3/31/2022

1. Flows shown are extracted from sewer system hydraulic model and reflect diurnal flow variations and flow attenuation.

Agenda Item 9.1 Page 158 of 768
March 2023 6-1 City of Gilroy
Sewer System Master Plan
2023 City of Gilroy

6.0 CHAPTER 6 – HYDRAULIC MODEL

DEVELOPMENT
This chapter describes the development and calibration of the City’s sewer collection system hydraulic model. The City’s hydraulic model was used to evaluate the capacity adequacy of the existing system and to plan its expansion to service anticipated future growth.

6.1 HYDRAULIC MODEL SOFTWARE SELECTION
The City’s hydraulic model combines information on the physical characteristics of the sewer collection system (pipelines, manholes, and diversions) and operational characteristics. The hydraulic model then performs calculations and solves series of equations to simulate flows in pipes, including backwater calculations for surcharged conditions.

There are several network analysis software products released by different manufacturers that can equally perform the hydraulic analysis satisfactorily. The selection of a particular software depends on user preferences, the sewer collection system’s unique requirements, and the costs for purchasing and maintaining the software.

The hydraulic modeling software used for evaluating the capacity adequacy of the City’s sewer collection system, InfoSWMM by Innovyze Inc., utilizes the fully dynamic St. Venant’s equation which has a more accurate engine for simulating backwater and surcharge conditions, in addition to having the capability for simulating manifolded force mains. The software also incorporates the use of the Manning Equation in other calculations including upstream pipe flow conditions. The St.

Venant’s and Manning’s equations are discussed in the System Performance and Design Criteria chapter.

6.2 HYDRAULIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT
Developing the hydraulic model included system skeletonization, digitizing and quality control, developing pipe and manhole databases, and sewer loading allocation.

6.2.1 Skeletonization
Skeletonizing the model refers to the process where pipes not essential to the hydraulic analysis of the system are stripped from the model. Skeletonizing the model is useful in creating a system that accurately reflects the hydraulics of the pipes within the system. In addition, skeletonizing the model will reduce complexities of large models, which will also reduce the time of analysis while maintaining accuracy, but will also comply with the limitations imposed by the computer program.

In the City of Gilroy’s case, skeletonizing was necessary to reduce the model from approximately 4,529 pipes extracted from the GIS to 657 pipes. The modeled pipes included pipes 8-inches in diameter and larger, in addition to some critical smaller gravity sewer pipes.

Agenda Item 9.1 Page 159 of 768
March 2023 6-2 City of Gilroy
Sewer System Master Plan
Table 4.1 lists the sewer collection system total length of pipes at 167.8 miles, compared to Table

6.1 listing the total length of modeled pipes at 39.4 miles. Thus, approximately 23.5 percent of the total length of gravity sewers was modeled. The modeled sewer system is shown on Figure 4.1.

6.2.2 Digitizing and Quality Control
The City’s existing sewer collection system was digitized in GIS using serval sources of data and various levels of quality control. The quality control program included the following:
 Sewer System GIS data
 Supplemental field surveys
 Verification figures
 Schematics provided by City staff
After reviewing the available data sources, the hydraulic model was built and verified by City staff.

Using the available sewer collection system data this master plan developed the Sewer collection system in GIS. Resolving discrepancies in data sources was accomplished by graphically identifying identified discrepancies and submitting it to City staff for review and comments. City comments were incorporated in the verified model.

6.2.3 Pipes and Manholes
Computer modeling requires the compilation of large numerical databases that enable data input into the model. Detailed physical aspects, such as pipe size, ground elevation, invert elevations, and pipe lengths contribute to the accuracy of the model.

Pipes and manholes represent the physical aspect of the system within the model. A manhole is a computer representation of a place where sewer flows may be allocated into the hydraulic system, while a pipe represents the conveyance aspect of the sewer flows. In addition, lift station capacity and design head settings were not included into the hydraulic model.

6.2.4 Load Allocation
Load allocation consists of assigning sewer flow to the appropriate manholes (nodes) in the model. The goal is to distribute the loads throughout the model to best represent actual system response.

Allocating loads to manholes within the hydraulic model required multiple steps, incorporating the efficiency and capabilities of GIS and the hydraulic modeling software. Determining the sewer loads was accomplished by using the sewer flow factors developed for this master plan and presented in chapter 3, and parcel data including acreage and land use. The calculated loads were allocated to the nearest manhole that serves the corresponding parcel using the capabilities the hydraulic model has for allocating loads.

Agenda Item 9.1 Page 160 of 768
(feet) (miles)
City Pipes
8" 1,317 0.2
10" 50,278 9.5
12" 38,328 7.3
14" 123 < 0.1
15" 13,686 2.6
18" 43,284 8.2
24" 9,694 1.8
27" 9,847 1.9
30" 914 0.2
42" 5,277 1.0
Total 172,748 32.7
Joint Trunk Pipes1
21" 202 < 0.1
24" 5,679 1.1
27" 4,407 0.8
30" 2,776 0.5
33" 22,132 4.2
42" 246 < 0.1
60" 96 < 0.1
Total 35,537 6.7
Notes:
5/20/2021

1. Indicates Joint Trunk pipelines south of intersection at Fitzgerald Avenue and Monterey Road.

Table 6.1 Modeled Sewer Pipe Inventory
Sewer System Master Plan
City of Gilroy
Pipe Size Length
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 161 of 768
March 2023 6-4 City of Gilroy
Sewer System Master Plan

6.3 MODEL CALIBRATION
Calibration is intended to instill a level of confidence in the flows that are simulated, and it generally consists of comparing model predictions to the 2014 V&A flow monitoring program, and making necessary adjustments.

6.3.1 Calibration Plan
Calibration can be performed for steady state conditions, which model the peak hour flows, or for dynamic conditions (24 hours or more). Dynamic calibration consists of comparing the model predictions to diurnal operational changes in the wastewater flows. The City’s hydraulic model was calibrated for dynamic conditions.

In sewer collection systems, and when using dynamic hydraulic modeling to evaluate the impact of wet weather flows, it is common practice to calibrate the model to the following three conditions:
 Peak dry weather flows on a weekday and a weekend.
 Peak wet weather flows from storm rainfall Event No. 1 (February 26 2014 – February 27 2014).
 Peak wet weather flows from storm rainfall Event No. 2 (February 28 2014 – March 1 2014).

After the model is calibrated to these conditions, it is benchmarked and used for evaluating the capacity adequacy of the sewer collection system, under dry and wet weather conditions.

The hydraulic model is a valuable investment that will continue to prove its worth to the City as future planning issues or other operational conditions surface. It is recommended that the model be maintained and updated with new construction projects to preserve its integrity.

6.3.2 2014 V&A Temporary Flow Monitoring Program
A temporary flow monitoring program was included in this project to validate the existing dry and wet weather flows from each sewer collection basin. The program consisted of installing 11 flow meters, for a period of 20 days, from February 24, 2014 to March 16, 2014. Villalobos and Associates (V&A) was retained to install the flow meters, monitor rainfall, and perform an Infiltration and Inflow analysis. The selected flow monitoring sites are listed on Table 3.4 and shown on Figure 3.5.

The 2014 V&A Flow Monitoring Program captured two rainfall events and included a summary report identifying areas of the City that were most affected by rain dependent infiltration and inflows. The two rainfall events experienced during the flow monitoring period varied in duration and intensity (Table 3.6), and provided an insight into the sewer system response to storm conditions.

Agenda Item 9.1 Page 162 of 768
March 2023 6-5 City of Gilroy
Sewer System Master Plan
During the V&A flow monitoring program; three rain gauges were set up in the City to record storm events during the monitoring period shown on Figure 3.5. Data from the V&A flow monitoring effort, as documented in the 2014 V&A Flow Monitoring Program, was used in this analysis to calibrate the computer hydraulic model to average dry weather flow (ADWF) and peak wet weather flow (PWWF) conditions.

6.3.3 Dynamic Model Calibration
The calibration process was iterative as it involved calibrating each of the 11 flow monitored sites and for three calibration conditions: 1) peak dry weather flow, 2) peak wet weather flows from storm rainfall Event No. 1, and 3) peak wet weather flows from storm rainfall Event No. 2.

The rain events of February 26, 2014 and February 27, 2014 (Event No. 1) and February 28, 2014 and March 01, 2014 (Event No. 2), as listed on Table 3.6, were used to calibrate the hydraulic model to the wet weather conditions. The diurnal curves for each of the 11 sites were extracted from the 2014 V&A Flow Monitoring Program and the data was used for comparison purposes with the hydraulic model predictions. The calibration effort continued until it yielded acceptable results for each site and for each of the three calibration conditions.

The calibration results for each flow monitoring site are documented in Appendix B. These results indicate the calibration effort yielded reasonable comparisons between the flow monitoring data and the hydraulic model predictions at the 11 sites. The calibration results were reviewed and approved by City staff, and representative extracts from Appendix B are shown on Figure

6.1 and Figure 6.2. After the calibration process, the hydraulic model was benchmarked for further analysis and evaluation.

6.3.4 Use of the Calibrated Model
The calibrated hydraulic model was used as an established benchmark in the capacity evaluation of the existing sewer collection system. The model was also used to identify improvements necessary for mitigating existing system deficiencies and for accommodating future growth. The hydraulic model is a valuable investment that will continue to prove its worth to the City as future planning issues or other operational conditions surface. It is recommended that the model be maintained and updated with new construction projects to preserve its integrity.

Agenda Item 9.1 Page 163 of 768
Figure 6.1
Site 1 Calibration
Inside WWTP
Sewer System Master Plan
City of Gilroy
LEGEND
June 29, 2016

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5

0.6 0.7

0.8 0.9
0 1.0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Rain Intensity (in/hr)
Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
Wet Weather Event 2 (02/28/14 - 03/01/14)
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
Dry Weather Flow
Weekday Weekend

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 0 1.0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Rain Intensity (in/hr)
Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
Wet Weather Event 1 (02/26/14 - 02/27/14)
Rain Event
Hydraulic Model
V&A Flow Monitoring
V&A Flow Monitoring
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 164 of 768
Figure 6.2
Site 4 Calibration
W. Luchessa Ave. and Hyde Park Dr.

Sewer System Master Plan
City of Gilroy
LEGEND

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5

0.6 0.7

0.8 0.9
0 1.0
50 100
150
200
250
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Rain Intensity (in/hr)
Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
Wet Weather Event 2 (02/28/14 - 03/01/14)
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
Dry Weather Flow
Weekday Weekend

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 0 1.0
20 40
60 80
100
120
140
160
180
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Rain Intensity (in/hr)
Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
Wet Weather Event 1 (02/26/14 - 02/27/14)
Rain Event
Hydraulic Model
V&A Flow Monitoring
V&A Flow Monitoring June 29, 2016
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 165 of 768
March 2023 7-1 City of Gilroy
Sewer System Master Plan
2023 City of Gilroy

7.0 CHAPTER 7 - EVALUATION AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
This section presents a summary of the sewer collection system capacity evaluation during peak dry weather flows and peak wet weather flows for the existing and buildout development conditions. The recommended sewer collection system improvements needed to mitigate capacity deficiencies are also discussed in this chapter.

7.1 OVERVIEW
The calibrated hydraulic model was used for evaluating the sewer collection system for capacity deficiencies during maximum day dry weather flows (MDDWF) and maximum day wet weather flows (PWWF). Since the hydraulic model was calibrated for dynamic modeling, the analysis duration was established at 24 hours for most analyses.

The criteria used for evaluating the capacity adequacy of the sewer collection system facilities (gravity mains, force mains, and lift stations) were discussed and summarized in the System Performance and Design Criteria chapter.

7.2 EXISTING SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY EVALUATION
The system performance and design criteria summarized, on Table 3.1, was used as a basis to judge the adequacy of capacity for the existing sewer collection system. The design flows simulated in the hydraulic model for existing conditions were summarized on Table 5.3 and they include:
 Existing PDWF = 8.79 MGD
 Existing PWWF = 13.81 MGD
During the peak dry weather simulations, the maximum allowable pipe d/D criteria for new pipes (d/D ratio of 0.75) was used. For existing pipes, the criteria was relaxed to allow a maximum d/D ratio of 0.90 (full pipe capacity) to prevent unnecessary pipe replacements. During the peak wet weather simulations, capacity deficiencies included pipe segments with a hydraulic grade line (HGL) that rises within three feet of the manhole rim elevation.

In general, the hydraulic model indicated that the sewer collection system exhibited acceptable performance to service the existing customers during peak dry weather flows (Figure 7.1) and peak wet weather flows (Figure 7.2), with exceptions noted in the following sections.

Agenda Item 9.1 Page 166 of 768
È
6"
#
"
õ
È
6"
#
"
õ
È
6"
#
"
õ
£¤101
UV152

SUNRISE DR

SANTA TERESA BL

KERN AV

WREN AV

THIRD ST
SECOND
ST

PRINCEVALLE ST
SIXTH
ST
TENTH
ST
UVAS

MURRAY AV
RENZ
LEWIS
ST

MONTEREY ST

GOLDEN GATE AV

FITZGERALD
RD

SANTA TERESA BL

RUCKER AV
BUENA

VISTA AV

CENTER AV

MARCELLA AV

LEAVESLEY RD

SAN YSIDRO AV

BLOOMFIELD AV

FRAZIER LAKE RD

MONTEREY ST

SOUTHSIDE DR

SANTA TERESA BL

SANTA TERESA BL
CASTRO
VALLEY
RD

EAGLE RIDGE DR

CLUB DR
DAY
RD

MANTELLI DR
UV152
UV152
UV25
£¤101
33/18 33
18 12
15 1
1 2
5 10
33 33
18 33 33/24
18 33/24
33/42
33/42
Uvas
Creek
Uvas
Creek
Llagas Creek
Pajaro River
Llagas Creek
Uvas Creek
30 30 27
18 18
33 27
18 10 18
10 15
12 1
12 0
10 10
10 18 18
10 12
15 12 12
15 15
10 LN
10 10 10 10 10
12 18
33 27
10 10
33 12
12 12
30 27
12 15
10 10
8 8
10 10
10 10 10 10
1 18
8 12
12 12 24
2 4
24 24
18 15 18
18 18
10 10
10 10
12 12
15 18
12 18
12 12
18 8
18 12
18 18 18
18 27/18
12 12
18 10
27/18 18
27 10
18 18
27 33/4
18 2
12 12
PARK
DR
SS-1
SS-2
27 24
24 24
.² WWTP
SS-3
36 36
36 Figure 7.1
Existing Modeled Sewer
System Analysis for PDWF
Sewer System Master Plan
City of Gilroy
Updated: September 17, 2021
File Path: P:\xGIS\GIS_Projects\Gilroy\Sewer\200625-MP\GL_Fig7-1_PDWF_091721.mxd 5GIS
0 0.25 0.5 1
Mile
LegendPipe d/D
d/D > 0.9d/D 0.75 - 0.9d/D 0.5 - 0.75
Modeled Gravity Pipes by Size
8" or Smaller10" - 18"24" or Greater
Non-Modeled System
È
6"
#
"
õ Lift Station
Non-Modeled PipesRoadsRailroadsCity LimitsUrban Growth BoundaryRivers & CreeksWaterbodies Agenda Item 9.1

È
6"
#
"
õ
È
6"
#
"
õ
È
6"
#
"
õ
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
£¤101
UV152

SUNRISE DR

SANTA TERESA BL

KERN AV

WREN AV

THIRD ST
SECOND
ST

PRINCEVALLE ST
SIXTH
ST
TENTH
ST
UVAS

MURRAY AV
RENZ
LEWIS
ST

MONTEREY ST

GOLDEN GATE AV

FITZGERALD
RD

SANTA TERESA BL

RUCKER AV
BUENA

VISTA AV

CENTER AV

MARCELLA AV

LEAVESLEY RD

SAN YSIDRO AV

BLOOMFIELD AV

FRAZIER LAKE RD

MONTEREY ST

SOUTHSIDE DR

SANTA TERESA BL

SANTA TERESA BL
CASTRO
VALLEY
RD

EAGLE RIDGE DR

CLUB DR
DAY
RD

MANTELLI DR
UV152
UV152
UV25
£¤101
33/18 33
18 12
15 1
1 2
5 10
33 33
18 33 33/24
18 33/24
33/42
33/42
Uvas
Creek
Uvas
Creek
Llagas Creek
Pajaro River
Llagas Creek
Uvas Creek
30 30 27
18 18
33 27
18 10 18
10 15
12 1
12 0
10 10
10 18 18
10 12
15 12 12
15 15
10 LN
10 10 10 10 10
12 18
33 27
10 10
33 12
12 12
30 27
12 15
10 10
8 8
10 10
10 10 10 10
1 18
8 12
12 12 24
2 4
24 24
18 15 18
18 18
10 10
10 10
12 12
15 18
12 18
12 12
18 8
18 12
18 18 18
18 27/18
12 12
18 10
27/18 18
27 10
18 18
27 33/4
18 2
12 12
PARK
DR
SS-1
SS-2
27 24
24 24
.² WWTP
SS-3
36 36
36 Figure 7.2
Existing Modeled Sewer
System Analysis for PWWF
Sewer System Master Plan
City of Gilroy
Updated: September 17, 2021
File Path: P:\xGIS\GIS_Projects\Gilroy\Sewer\200625-MP\GL_Fig7-2_PWWF_091721.mxd 5GIS
0 0.25 0.5 1
Mile
LegendSurcharging Manholes
!( Surcharging!(
HGL within 3ftof Ground Elevation
Pipe d/D
d/D > 0.9d/D 0.75 - 0.9d/D 0.5 - 0.75
Modeled Gravity Pipes by Size
8" or Smaller10" - 18"24" or Greater
Non-Modeled System
È
6"
#
"
õ Lift Station
Non-Modeled PipesRoadsRailroadsCity LimitsUrban Growth BoundaryRivers & CreeksWaterbodies Agenda Item 9.1

March 2023 7-4 City of Gilroy
Sewer System Master Plan

7.2.1 Existing Maximum Dry Weather Flows Capacity Evaluation The existing dry weather flow analysis indicated that the existing sewer collection system exhibited acceptable performance to service the existing customers during peak dry weather flows, as documented in Figure 7.1, with the following exceptions:
 Welburn Avenue, from Kern Avenue to Wren Avenue. This segment experiences d/D ratios over 0.9.
 Welburn Avenue, from Hannah Street to Church Street. This segment experiences d/D ratios over 0.9.
 Loof Avenue, from Monterey Road to Murray Avenue. This segment experiences d/D ratio between 0.9 and 1.

7.2.2 Existing Maximum Day Wet Weather Flows Capacity Evaluation The wet weather analysis is intended to document the impact of significant rainfall events on the existing system, and to identify the improvements necessary to limit sewer overflows. The design criteria for wet weather events allows pipeline surcharging into the manhole to within three feet of the rim elevation. The existing wet weather flow analysis indicated that the existing sewer collection system exhibited acceptable performance to service the existing customers during peak wet weather flows, as documented in Figure 7.2, with the following exceptions:
 Loof Avenue, from Monterey Road to Forest Street. This segment experiences manhole flooding.
 Welburn Avenue, from Kern Avenue to Wren Avenue. This segment experiences surcharging into the manhole within three feet of the rim elevation.  Forest Street, from Polk Court to Old Gilroy Street. This segment experiences surcharging into the manhole within three feet of the rim elevation.  Old Gilroy Street, from Hanna Street to Monterey Road. This segment experiences surcharging into the manhole within three feet of the rim elevation.  Third Street, from Los Padres Court to Santa Theresa Drive. This segment experiences surcharging into the manhole within three feet of the rim elevation.  Santa Theresa Drive, from Third Street to Fourth Street. This segment experiences surcharging into the manhole within three feet of the rim elevation.

7.3 ULTIMATE BUILDOUT CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS
The system performance and design criteria summarized on Table 3.1, was used as a basis to judge the capacity adequacy of the existing sewer collection system. The design flows simulated Agenda Item 9.1 Page 169 of 768
March 2023 7-5 City of Gilroy
Sewer System Master Plan
in the hydraulic model for the General Plan buildout were summarized on Table 5.3 and they include:
 Buildout PDWF = 14.66 MGD
 Buildout PWWF = 18.95 MGD
Sewer pipelines are recommended to serve future growth inside the City and increase the reliability of the sewer collection system as well. The proposed improvements for the sewer system are listed on Table 7.1. This table lists the master plan assigned improvement number (e.g., WP-1) by different collection basins, along with other relevant information including alignment descriptions, pipe size, and pipe length. The improvement number is further defined in the Capital Improvement Program chapter (Chapter 8). The improvements are described in detail on the following pages and shown of Figure 7.3.

7.3.1 Gravity Main Improvements
This section documents the gravity main improvements. This section documents pipeline improvements within the City of Gilroy sewer collection system service area.

7.3.1.1 Santa Teresa – Long Meadow Subtrunk
This section documents pipeline improvements within the Santa Teresa – Long Meadow Subtrunk.
 SLP-1: Replace existing 10-inch gravity main with a new 12-inch gravity main on Santa Teresa Boulevard, from Sunrise drive to Long Meadow Drive.

7.3.1.2 Welburn Subtrunk
This section documents pipeline improvements within the Welburn Subtrunk.  WP-1: Replace existing 10-inch gravity main with a new 12-inch gravity main on Welburn Avenue, from Chisea Drive to Aspen Way.
 WP-2: Replace existing 10-inch gravity main with a new 12-inch gravity main on Welburn Avenue, from Church Street to Hanna Street.

7.3.1.3 Forest-Swanston Subtrunk
This section documents pipeline improvements within the Forest Swanston Subtrunk.  FP-1: Replace existing 10-inch gravity main with a new 12-inch gravity main on Loof Avenue, from Monterey Road to Forest Avenue.
 FP-2: Replace existing 12-inch gravity main with a new 15-inch gravity main on Forest Street, from Lewis Street to Old Gilroy Street.

Agenda Item 9.1 Page 170 of 768
È
6"
#
"
õ
È
6"
#
"
õ
È
6"
#
"
õ
£¤101
UV152

SUNRISE DR

SANTA TERESA BL

KERN AV

WREN AV

THIRD ST
SECOND
ST

PRINCEVALLE ST
SIXTH
ST
TENTH
ST
UVAS

MURRAY AV
RENZ
LEWIS
ST

MONTEREY ST

GOLDEN GATE AV

FITZGERALD
RD

SANTA TERESA BL

RUCKER AV
BUENA

VISTA AV

CENTER AV

MARCELLA AV

LEAVESLEY RD

SAN YSIDRO AV

BLOOMFIELD AV

FRAZIER LAKE RD

MONTEREY ST

SOUTHSIDE DR

SANTA TERESA BL

SANTA TERESA BL
CASTRO
VALLEY
RD

EAGLE RIDGE DR

CLUB DR
DAY
RD

MANTELLI DR
UV152
UV152
UV25
£¤101
33/18 33
18 12
15 1
1 2
5 10
33 33
18 33 33/24
18 33/24
33/42
33/42
Uvas
Creek
Llagas Creek
Pajaro River
Llagas Creek
Uvas Creek
30 30 27
18 18
33 27
18 10 18
10 15
12 1
12 0
10 10
12 18 18
10 12
15 12 12
15 15
10 LN
10 12 12 10 12
12 18
33 27
10 12
33 12
15 12
30 27
15 15
10 10
8 8
10 10
10 10 10 10
1 18
8 12
12 12 24
2 4
24 24
18 15 18
18 18
10 10
10 10
12 12
15 18
12 18
15 UP-2
15 18
15 18
15 18 21 21
21 27/18
12 12
18 10
27/18 18
27 10
18 18
27 33/4
18 2
12 12
PARK
DR
SS-1
SS-2
27 24
24 24
STP-1
WP-1 WP-1
WP-2
FP-1
FP-2
OP-2
UP-6
15 UP-4
UP-3
TP-1 TP-2
.² WWTP
SS-3
OP-1
12 15
UP-5
Uvas
Creek
1 U
2 P-1
36 36
36 Figure 7.3
Existing Modeled Sewer
System Improvements
Sewer System Master Plan
City of Gilroy
Updated: September 17, 2021
File Path: P:\xGIS\GIS_Projects\Gilroy\Sewer\200625-MP\GL_Fig7-3_Improvements_091721.mxd 5GIS
0 0.25 0.5 1
Mile
Legend
Improvement Pipes
Modeled Gravity Pipes by Size
8" or Smaller10" - 18"24" or Greater
Non-Modeled System
È
6"
#
"
õ Lift Station
Non-Modeled PipesRoadsRailroadsCity LimitsUrban Growth BoundaryRivers & CreeksWaterbodies Note:WP-1 and WP-2 should be completedat the same time, the existing 10-inchin the middle may be reassessed andreplaced depending on pipelinecondition and age.

Agenda Item 9.1

Table 7.1 Schedule of Improvements
Sewer System Master Plan
City of Gilroy
Pipeline Improvements
New/Parallel/
Replace
Diameter Length
(in) (in) (ft)
Gravity Main Improvements
Santa Teresa - Long Meadow Subtrunk
SLP-1 Future Growth Gravity Main Santa Teresa Blvd From Sunrise Dr to Longmeadow Dr 10 Replacement 12 2,025 Welburn Subtrunk
WP-1 Existing Deficiency Gravity Main Welburn Ave From Chiesa Dr to Aspen Wy 10 Replacement 12 1,700 WP-2 Existing Deficiency Gravity Main Welburn Ave From Church St to Hanna St 10 Replacement 12 750 Forest-Swanston Subrunk
FP-1 Existing Deficiency Gravity Main Ioof Ave From Monterey Rd to Forest Ave 10 Replacement 12 1,150 FP-2 Existing Deficiency Gravity Main Forest St From Lewis St to Old Gilroy St 12 Replacement 15 1,875 Old Gilroy Subtrunk
OP-1 Existing Deficiency Gravity Main Old Gilroy St From 75' w/o Railroad St to Railroad St
10 Replacement 12 100
OP-2 Existing Deficiency Gravity Main Old Gilroy St From Railroad St to Forest St 12 Replacement 15 750 Uvas Park Subtrunk
UP-1 Existing Deficiency Gravity Main Uvas Park Dr From 3rd St to 350 ft e/o Santa Barbara Dr - New 12 2,375
UP-2 Future Growth Gravity Main Hoxett St / ROW From Wren Ave to Miller Ave 12 Replacement 18 1,550 UP-3 Future Growth Gravity Main Yorktown Dr From Miller Ave to Greenwich Dr 12 Replacement 18 1,725 UP-4 Future Growth Gravity Main Greenwich Dr From Yorktown Dr to Orchard Dr 12 Replacement 18 575 UP-5 Future Growth Gravity Main Orchard Dr From Greenwich Dr to W 10th St 12 Replacement 18 200 UP-6 Future Growth Gravity Main W 10th St From Orchard Dr to Princevalle St 12 Replacement 18 1,350 Thomas Subtrunk
TP-1 Future Growth Gravity Main London Pl From Monterey Rd to Princevalle St 18 Replacement 21 2,775 TP-2 Future Growth Gravity Main Monterey Rd From Luchessa Ave to London Pl 18 Replacement 21 1,525 6/30/2021
Improv. No. Alignment Limits Existing
Diameter
Improv. Type
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 172 of 768
March 2023 7-8 City of Gilroy
Sewer System Master Plan

7.3.1.4 Old Gilroy Subtrunk
This section documents pipeline improvements within the Old Gilroy Subtrunk.  OP-1: Replace existing 10-inch gravity main with a new 12-inch gravity main on Old Gilroy Street, from approximately 75 feet west of Railroad Street to Railroad Street.  OP-2: Replace existing 12-inch gravity main with a new 15-inch gravity main on Old Gilroy Street, from Railroad Street to Forest Street.

7.3.1.5 Uvas Park Subtrunk
This section documents pipeline improvements within the Uvas Park Subtrunk.  UP-1: Construct a new 12-inch gravity main along Uvas Park Drive, from Third Street to approximately 350 feet east of Santa Barbara Drive.
 UP-2: Replace existing 12-inch gravity main with a new 18-inch gravity main on Hoxett Street and Right of Way, from Wren Avenue to Miller Avenue.  UP-3: Replace existing 12-inch gravity main with a new 18-inch gravity main on Yorktown Drive, from Miller Avenue to Greenwich Drive.
 UP-4: Replace existing 12-inch gravity main with a new 18-inch gravity main on Greenwich Drive, from Yorktown Drive to Orchard Drive.
 UP-5: Replace existing 12-inch gravity main with a new 18-inch gravity main on Orchard Drive, from Greenwich Drive to West Tenth Street.
 UP-6: Replace existing 12-inch gravity main with a new 18-inch gravity main on West Tenth Street, from Orchard Drive to Princevalle Street.

7.3.1.6 Thomas Subtrunk
This section documents pipeline improvements within the Thomas Subtrunk.  TP-1: Replace existing 18-inch gravity main with a new 21-inch gravity main on London Place, from Monterey Road to Princevalle Street.
 TP-2: Replace existing 18-inch gravity main with a new 21-inch gravity main on Monterey Road, from Luchessa Avenue to London Place.

Agenda Item 9.1 Page 173 of 768
March 2023 8-1 City of Gilroy
Sewer System Master Plan
2023 City of Gilroy

8.0 CHAPTER 8 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT

PROGRAM
This chapter provides a summary of the recommended sewer collection system improvements to mitigate existing capacity deficiencies and service future growth. This chapter also presents the cost criteria and methodologies for developing the capacity improvement costs. Finally, a cost allocation analysis, usually used for cost sharing purposes, is also included.

8.1 COST ESTIMATE ACCURACY
Cost estimates presented in the capacity improvement costs were prepared for general master planning purposes and, where relevant, for further project evaluation. Final costs of a project will depend on several factors including the final project scope, costs of labor and material, and market conditions during construction.

The Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE International), formerly known as the American Association of Cost Engineers, has defined three classifications. These classifications are presented in order of increasing accuracy: Order of Magnitude, Budget, and Definitive.
 Order of Magnitude Estimate. This classification is also known as an “original estimate”, “study estimate”, or “preliminary estimate”, and is generally intended for master plans and studies.

This estimate is not supported with detailed engineering data about the specific project, and its accuracy is dependent on historical data and cost indices. It is generally expected that this estimate would be accurate within -30 percent to +50 percent.  Budget Estimate. This classification is also known as an “official estimate” and generally intended for pre-design studies. This estimate is prepared to include flow sheets and equipment layouts and details. It is generally expected that this estimate would be accurate within -15 percent to +30 percent.
 Definitive Estimate. This classification is also known as a “final estimate” and prepared during the time of contract bidding. The data includes complete plot plans and elevations, equipment data sheets, and complete specifications. It is generally expected that this estimate would be accurate within -5 percent to +15 percent.

Costs developed in this study should be considered “Order of Magnitude” and have an expected accuracy range of -30 percent and +50 percent.

Agenda Item 9.1 Page 174 of 768
March 2023 8-2 City of Gilroy
Sewer System Master Plan

8.2 COST ESTIMATE METHODOLOGY
Cost estimates presented in this chapter are opinions of probable construction and other relevant costs developed from several sources including cost curves, Akel experience on other master planning projects, and input from City staff on the development of public and private cost sharing.

Where appropriate, costs were escalated to reflect the more current Engineering News Records (ENR) Construction Cost Index (CCI).

This section documents the unit costs used in developing the opinion of probable construction costs, the Construction Cost Index, the land acquisition costs, and markups to account for construction contingency and other project related costs.

8.2.1 Unit Costs
The unit cost estimates used in developing the Capital Improvement Program are summarized on Table 8.1. Sewer pipeline unit costs are based on length of pipe per chosen diameter. The unit costs are intended for developing the Order of Magnitude estimate, and do not account for site specific conditions, labor or material costs during the time of construction, final project scope, implementation schedule, detailed utility and topography surveys, investigation of alternative routings for pipelines, and other various factors. The capital improvement program included in this report accounts for construction and project-related contingencies as described in this chapter.

8.2.2 Construction Cost Index
Costs estimated in this study are adjusted utilizing the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index (CCI), which is widely used in the engineering and construction industries.

The costs in this Storm Drainage System Master Plan were benchmarked using a 20-City national average ENR CCI of 13,176, reflecting a date of March 2023.

8.2.3 Construction Contingency Allowance
Knowledge about site-specific conditions for each proposed project is limited at the master planning stage; therefore, construction contingencies were used. The estimated construction costs in this master plan include a 30 percent contingency allowance to account for unforeseen events and unknown field conditions.

8.2.4 Project Related Costs
The capital improvement costs also account for project-related costs, comprising of engineering design, project administration (developer and City staff), construction management and inspection, and legal costs. The project related costs in this master plan were estimated by applying an additional 30 percent to the estimated construction costs.

Agenda Item 9.1 Page 175 of 768
Table 8.1 Unit Costs
Sewer System Master Plan
City of Gilroy
Pipelines
Improvement Type Unit Cost
New/Parallel/Replacement
(in) ($/unit length)
8 259
10 289
12 332
15 360
18 389
21 418
24 475
27 535
30 594
36 713
Pipeline Casings
23$ per inch diameter per linear foot
3/28/2023
Notes :

1. Unit costs are based on an ENR CCI Index Value
of 13,176.3 (March 2023).

Pipe
Size
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 176 of 768
March 2023 8-4 City of Gilroy
Sewer System Master Plan

8.3 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
This section documents the capital improvement program, including estimated costs and recommended construction phasing.

8.3.1 Capital Improvement Costs
The Capacity Improvement Program costs for the projects identified in this master plan for mitigating existing deficiencies and for servicing future growth throughout the City are summarized on Table 8.2.

Each improvement was assigned a unique code identifier associated with the improvement pipelines tributary collection basin, and is summarized graphically on Figure 8.1. The estimated construction costs include the baseline costs plus 30 percent contingency allowance to account for unforeseen events and unknown field conditions, as described in a previous section. Capital Improvement Costs include the estimated construction costs plus 30 percent project-related costs (engineering design, project administration, construction management and inspection, and legal costs).

8.3.2 Pipelines
The recommended pipeline improvements are grouped by collection basin and listed on Table

8.2. Each improvement includes a general description of the street alignment and limits as well as existing pipe diameter and length.

The Capital Improvement Program generally includes the following three types of improvements:
 Replacement Pipeline, Existing Capacity Deficiency. An existing pipe is recommended for replacement to mitigate an existing system deficiency. This type of improvement is listed as Existing Capacity Deficiency on Table 8.2. The recommended sizes for these improvements are based on buildout flow requirements.
 Replacement Pipeline, Capacity Deficiency Triggered by Future Development. An existing pipe is recommended for replacement where additional flow due to future development will create a capacity deficiency. This type of improvement is listed as Future Capacity Increase on Table 8.2.
 New Pipeline, Triggered by an Existing Capacity Deficiency. A new pipeline is proposed to mitigate an existing system deficiency. This type of improvement is listed as New – Existing Capacity Deficiency on Table 8.2.

The opinion of probable construction costs, for the projects included in this master plan, are based on the pipe unit costs summarized on Table 8.1.

Agenda Item 9.1 Page 177 of 768
È
6"
#
"
õ
È
6"
#
"
õ
È
6"
#
"
õ
£¤101
UV152

SUNRISE DR

SANTA TERESA BL

KERN AV

WREN AV

THIRD ST
SECOND
ST

PRINCEVALLE ST
SIXTH
ST
TENTH
ST
UVAS

MURRAY AV
RENZ
LEWIS
ST

MONTEREY ST

GOLDEN GATE AV

FITZGERALD
RD

SANTA TERESA BL

RUCKER AV
BUENA

VISTA AV

CENTER AV

MARCELLA AV

LEAVESLEY RD

SAN YSIDRO AV

BLOOMFIELD AV

FRAZIER LAKE RD

MONTEREY ST

SOUTHSIDE DR

SANTA TERESA BL

SANTA TERESA BL
CASTRO
VALLEY
RD

EAGLE RIDGE DR

CLUB DR
DAY
RD

MANTELLI DR
UV152
UV152
UV25
£¤101
33/18 33
18 12
15 1
1 2
5 10
33 33
18 33 33/24
18 33/24
33/42
33/42
Uvas
Creek
Llagas Creek
Pajaro River
Llagas Creek
Uvas Creek
30 30 27
18 18
33 27
18 10 18
10 15
12 1
12 0
10 10
12 18 18
10 12
15 12 12
15 15
10 LN
10 12 12 10 12
12 18
33 27
10 12
33 12
15 12
30 27
15 15
10 10
8 8
10 10
10 10 10 10
1 18
8 12
12 12 24
2 4
24 24
18 15 18
18 18
10 10
10 10
12 12
15 18
12 18
15 UP-2
15 18
15 18
15 18 21 21
21 27/18
12 12
18 10
27/18 18
27 10
18 18
27 33/4
18 2
12 12
PARK
DR
SS-1
SS-2
27 24
24 24
STP-1
WP-1 WP-1
WP-2
FP-1
FP-2
OP-2
UP-6
15 UP-4
UP-3
TP-1 TP-2
.² WWTP
SS-3
OP-1
12 15
UP-5
Uvas
Creek
1 U
2 P-1
36 36
36 Figure 8.1
Captial Improvement
Program
Sewer System Master Plan
City of Gilroy
Updated: September 17, 2021
File Path: P:\xGIS\GIS_Projects\Gilroy\Sewer\200625-MP\GL_Fig8-1_CIP_091721.mxd 5GIS
0 0.25 0.5 1
Mile
Legend
Improvement Pipes
Modeled Gravity Pipes by Size
8" or Smaller10" - 18"24" or Greater
Non-Modeled System
È
6"
#
"
õ Lift Station
Non-Modeled PipesRoadsRailroadsCity LimitsUrban Growth BoundaryRivers & CreeksWaterbodies Note:WP-1 and WP-2 should be completedat the same time, the existing 10-inchin the middle may be reassessed andreplaced depending on pipelinecondition and age.

Agenda Item 9.1

Table 8.2 Capital Improvement Program
Sewer System Master Plan
City of Gilroy
Pipeline Improvements Infrastructure Costs Suggested Cost Allocation Cost Allocation Existing
Diameter
New/Parallel/
Replace
Diameter Length Unit Cost Infr. Cost Existing
Users
Future
Users
Existing
Users
Future
Users
(in) (in) (ft) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) (gpm) (%) (%) ($) ($) Gravity Main Improvements
Santa Teresa - Long Meadow Subtrunk
SLP-1 Gravity Main Santa Teresa Blvd From Sunrise Dr to Longmeadow Dr 10 Replacement 12 2,025 332 671,321 671,400 872,900 1,134,800 954 EDU 61% 39% 689,302 445,498 Subtotal - Santa Teresa - Long Meadow Subtrunk 671,400 872,900 1,134,800 689,302 445,498 Welburn Subtrunk
WP-1 Gravity Main Welburn Ave From Chiesa Dr to Aspen Wy 10 Replacement 12 1,700 332 563,578 563,600 732,700 952,600 Existing Deficiency 90% 10% 861,520 91,080 WP-2 Gravity Main Welburn Ave From Church St to Hanna St 10 Replacement 12 750 332 248,637 248,700 323,400 420,500 Existing Deficiency 91% 9% 384,531 35,969 Subtotal - Welburn Subtrunk 812,300 1,056,100 1,373,100 1,246,051 127,049 Forest-Swanston Subrunk
FP-1 Gravity Main Ioof Ave From Monterey Rd to Forest Ave 10 Replacement 12 1,150 332 381,244 381,300 495,700 644,500 Existing Deficiency 93% 7% 601,483 43,017 FP-2 Gravity Main Forest St From Lewis St to Old Gilroy St 12 Replacement 15 1,875 360 675,064 675,100 877,700 1,141,100 Existing Deficiency 96% 4% 1,093,639 47,461 Subtotal - Forest-Swanston Subrunk 1,056,400 1,373,400 1,785,600 1,695,122 90,478 Old Gilroy Subtrunk
OP-1 Gravity Main Old Gilroy St From 75' w/o Railroad St to Railroad St 10 Replacement 12 100 332 33,152 33,200 43,200 56,200 Existing Deficiency 89% 11% 50,159 6,042 OP-2 Gravity Main Old Gilroy St From Railroad St to Forest St 12 Replacement 15 750 360 270,026 270,100 351,200 456,600 Existing Deficiency 89% 11% 407,516 49,085 Subtotal - Old Gilroy Subtrunk 303,300 394,400 512,800 457,674 55,126 Uvas Park Subtrunk
UP-1 Gravity Main Uvas Park Dr From 3rd St to 350 ft e/o Santa Barbara Dr - New 12 2,375 332 787,352 787,400 1,023,700 1,330,900 Existing Deficiency 39% 61% 517,772 813,128 UP-2 Gravity Main Hoxett St / ROW From Wren Ave to Miller Ave 12 Replacement 18 1,550 389 602,255 602,300 783,000 1,017,900 2,020 EDU 36% 64% 370,355 647,545 UP-3 Gravity Main Yorktown Dr From Miller Ave to Greenwich Dr 12 Replacement 18 1,725 389 670,252 670,300 871,400 1,132,900 1,923 EDU 38% 62% 427,260 705,640 UP-4 Gravity Main Greenwich Dr From Yorktown Dr to Orchard Dr 12 Replacement 18 575 389 223,417 223,500 290,600 377,800 2,152 EDU 38% 62% 145,055 232,745 UP-5 Gravity Main Orchard Dr From Greenwich Dr to W 10th St 12 Replacement 18 200 389 77,710 77,800 101,200 131,600 2,401 EDU 39% 61% 51,307 80,293 UP-6 Gravity Main W 10th St From Orchard Dr to Princevalle St 12 Replacement 18 1,350 389 524,545 524,600 682,000 886,600 3,085 EDU 39% 61% 346,721 539,879 Subtotal - Uvas Park Subtrunk 2,885,900 3,751,900 4,877,700 1,858,470 3,019,230 Thomas Subtrunk
TP-1 Gravity Main London Pl From Monterey Rd to Princevalle St 18 Replacement 21 2,775 418 1,160,665 1,160,700 1,509,000 1,961,700 5,873 EDU 62% 38% 1,224,966 736,734 TP-2 Gravity Main Monterey Rd From Luchessa Ave to London Pl 18 Replacement 21 1,525 418 637,843 637,900 829,300 1,078,100 5,303 EDU 62% 38% 672,095 406,005 Subtotal - Thomas Subtrunk 1,798,600 2,338,300 3,039,800 1,897,061 1,142,739 Total Costs
Subtotal - Santa Teresa - Long Meadow Subtrunk 671,400 872,900 1,134,800 689,302 445,498 Subtotal - Welburn Subtrunk 812,300 1,056,100 1,373,100 1,246,051 127,049 Subtotal - Forest-Swanston Subrunk 1,056,400 1,373,400 1,785,600 1,695,122 90,478 Subtotal - Old Gilroy Subtrunk 303,300 394,400 512,800 457,674 55,126 Subtotal - Uvas Park Subtrunk 2,885,900 3,751,900 4,877,700 1,858,470 3,019,230 Subtotal - Thomas Subtrunk 1,798,600 2,338,300 3,039,800 1,897,061 1,142,739 Total Improvement Costs 7,527,900 9,787,000 12,723,800 7,843,681 4,880,119 3/28/2023
Notes :

1. Cost estimates are based on the Engineering News Record (ENR) construction cost index (CCI) of 13,176 (March 2023).

2. Baseline construction costs plus 30% to account for unforeseen events and unknown conditions.

3. Estimated construction cost plus 30% to cover other costs including: engineering design, project administration (developer and City staff), construction management and inspection, and legal costs.

Capital Improv.

Cost 3
Construction
Trigger
Type of
Improvement
Improv. No. Alignment Limits Baseline Constr.

Costs 1
Estimated Const.

Costs 2
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 179 of 768
March 2023 8-8 City of Gilroy
Sewer System Master Plan
It is assumed that any replacement pipes will be in the same alignment and at the same slope as the existing pipe. However, this study recommends an investigation of the alignment during the pre-design stage of each project.

8.3.3 Construction Triggers
As a part of this Master Planning process, construction triggers were developed in an effort to plan the expansion of the sewer collection system in an orderly manner. The construction triggers for multiple improvements are based on mitigating an existing system deficiency, increasing hydraulic reliability, or continuing improvements currently planned by the City. Other improvements replace existing infrastructure that is not currently deficient but will violate master plan criteria with future development. The construction triggers quantify the amount of additional development that may occur before the improvement becomes necessary.

8.3.4 Construction Phasing
The Capacity Improvement Program was divided into the following phases:
 Near Term – Fiscal Year: This short-term phase consists of improvements for the fiscal years (FY) 2022 through 2023 for improvements that are required to resolve existing deficiencies and other critical pipes in the sewer collection system.  Intermediate Term – Equivalent Dwelling Unit: An equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) construction trigger is provided for improvements designated as capacity increases for future development. This trigger is based on remaining capacity in the existing facility planned for future improvement. The remaining capacity is converted to EDUs assuming 210 gpd/EDU.

8.3.5 Recommended Cost Allocation Analysis
Capacity allocation analysis is needed to identify improvement funding sources, and to establish a nexus between development impact fees and improvements needed to service growth. In compliance with the provisions of Assembly Bill AB 1600, the analysis differentiates between the project needs of servicing existing users and for those required to service anticipated future developments. Table 8.2 lists each improvement and separates the cost by responsibility between existing and future users. The cost responsibility is based on model parameters for existing and future land use, and may change depending on the nature of development.

8.4 JOINT TRUNK CONDITION ASSESSMENT IMPROVEMENTS
The City of Morgan Hill initiated a Joint Trunk Pipeline Condition Assessment Report completed in January 2021 (Appendix C). This Condition Assessment Report was prepared by Water Works Engineers on behalf of the City of Morgan Hill, and summarizes the recommendations for the Joint Trunk sewer main. Improvements within the City of Gilroy’s planning boundaries have been Agenda Item 9.1 Page 180 of 768
March 2023 8-9 City of Gilroy
Sewer System Master Plan
extracted from the report and are documented on Table 8.3 and shown graphically in Appendix C.

The recommended projects were designated as either Emergency condition assessment projects or Intermediate condition assessment projects depending on their specific renewal choice; their costs were provided in the Report prepared by Water Works Engineers and are summarized on Table 8.3. These recommendations were determined as a result of the risk assessment and are intended to mitigate or determine the condition of extreme or high-risk sewer infrastructure within the City’s service area. In order to facilitate the prioritization of the projects included in the risk analysis, each project has been prioritized based on its risk score and condition. Suggested cost allocation between the City of Morgan Hill and City of Gilroy are based on the Morgan Hill – Gilroy Joint Trunk Agreement for multi-segments.

8.5 SUGGESTED PIPELINE REPLACEMENT BUDGET
The suggested pipeline replacement budget alternatives are shown on Figure 8.2, and includes the estimated costs for replacing pipelines by 5-year fiscal periods through the year 2055. The industry recommended goal of pipeline R&R budgets is at 1.0 percent of system pipeline length for 100-year pipeline replacement cycle. The cost estimates are starting from a base rate of 4.2 million dollars per year, with a pipeline replacement rate of 1.0 percent of system length per year, the future costs in 2055 are expected to be approximately 5.1 million dollars per year.

Agenda Item 9.1 Page 181 of 768
Industry Standard Replacement Schedule
Currently Available Budget
$0
$1,000,000$2,000,000$3,000,000$4,000,000$5,000,000$6,000,000 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055
Dollars per year ($)
Year
R&R Budget Alternatives
Figure 8.2
Pipeline Replacement
Budget Alternatives
Sewer System Master Plan
City of Gilroy
July 23, 2021
LEGEND Assumptions:

1. System Growth: 1 miles of new construction per year (based on historical construction)2. All costs in 2021 dollars3. Weighted average pipeline unit cost = $269/foot4. 30% contengency added for estimated construction cost5. 30% contengency added for capital improvement cost Currently Available Budget (Next 10 Years):
$3M/year
Industry Average
Pipe R&R Budgets
Existing Average Budgets at 0.8 % per year
Industry Goal is at 1.0% per year for
100‐year Pipe Replacement Cycle
2021
$ 4.3 M
2025
$ 4.4 M
2030
$ 4.5 M
2035
$ 4.6 M
2040
$ 4.7 M
2045
$ 4.8 M
2050
$ 5.0 M
2055
$ 5.1 M
Agenda Item 9.1

Table 8.3 Joint Trunk Condition Assessment, Cost Estimates Sewer System Master Plan
City of Gilroy
Pipeline Improvements1Infrastructure Costs1
Suggested Cost
Allocation5,6 Cost Allocation
Existing
Diameter
New/Parallel/
Replace
Diameter Length Unit Cost Infr. Cost Gilroy Morgan
Hill Gilroy Morgan Hill
(in) (in) (ft) ($) ($) ($) ($) (%) (%) ($) ($)
Emergency/Immediate Projects - Pipelines3,5
E-1
MH-116 to MH-116A
Gravity Main Leavesley Rd Intersection of South Valley Fwy 33 Open Cut Point Repair 33 35 1,133 39,664 39,700 55,600 50% 50% 27,800 27,800 E-2
MH-145 to MH-146
Gravity Main Camino Arroyo From 1000' n/o Mayock Rd to Mayock Rd 33 Structural CIPP Lining 33 561 493 276,553 276,600 387,200 50% 50% 193,600 193,600 E-3
MH-146 to MH-147
Gravity Main Camino Arroyo From Mayock Rd to 150' ne/o Camino Arroyo 33 Structural CIPP Lining 33 206 493 101,551 101,600 142,200 50% 50% 71,100 71,100 E-4
MH-152 to MH-153
Gravity Main Camino Arroyo From 650' n/o Southside Dr to 325 n/o Southside Dr
33 Structural CIPP Lining 33 393 493 193,735 193,800 271,300 50% 50% 135,650 135,650 E-5
MH-153 to MH-154
Gravity Main Camino Arroyo From 325' n/o Southside Dr to 100' n/o Southside Dr
33 Structural CIPP Lining 33 327 493 161,199 161,200 225,700 50% 50% 112,850 112,850 Subtotal - Emergency Pipeline Projects 772,900 1,082,000 541,000 541,000 Emergency/Immediate Projects - Manholes3,6
E-6 Manhole Various - -
Repair
Raising Buried Manholes
4,533 36,264 36,300 50,800 49% 51% 24,956 25,845
E-7 Manhole Various - -
Rehabilitation
Cementitious Liners
4,533 145,056 145,100 203,100 45% 55% 91,788 111,312
Subtotal - Emergency Manhole Projects 1,727,200 2,417,900 1,198,744 1,219,156 Intermediate Projects - Pipelines4,6
I-1 Gravity Main Various - - Structural CIPP Lining - 24,807 470 11,666,703 11,666,800 16,916,800 50.3% 49.7% 8,502,173 8,414,627 Subtotal - intermediate Pipeline Projects 11,666,800 16,916,800 8,502,173 8,414,627 Total Costs
Subtotal - Emergency Pipeline Projects 772,900 1,082,000 541,000 541,000 Subtotal - Emergency Manhole Projects 1,727,200 2,417,900 1,198,744 1,219,156 Subtotal - intermediate Pipeline Projects 11,666,800 16,916,800 8,502,173 8,414,627 Total Improvement Costs 13,394,000 19,334,700 9,700,917 9,633,783 3/28/2023
Notes :

1. Source of all identified projects, recommended costs, and contingencies are based on City of Morgan Hill, Joint Trunk Pipeline Condition Assessment Report completed by Water Works Engineers on January 2021. The units were escalated to reflect the current ENR CCI of March 2023.

2. To ensure consistency with the Joint Trunk Pipeline Condition Assessment Report , Capital Improvement Costs include a singular contingency markup of 45% for Emergency Projects and 40% for Intermediate Projects.

3. Contingency for Emergency Projects: Baseline construction costs plus 15% general contingency, plus 15% design contingency, plus 15% construction contingency.

4. Contingency for Intermediate Projects: Baseline construction costs plus 10% general contingency, plus 15% design contingency, plus 15% construction contingency.

5. Suggested Cost Allocation based on Morgan Hill-Gilroy Joint Trunk Agreement.

6. Suggested Cost Allocation based on Morgan Hill-Gilroy Joint Trunk Agreement for multi-segments.

Capital Improv.

Cost2,3,4
8 Manholes
32 Manholes
Improvement ID1 Type of
Improvement
Alignment Limits Baseline Constr.

Costs1
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 183 of 768
March 2023 City of Gilroy
Sewer System Master Plan
2023 City of Gilroy

APPENDICES
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 184 of 768
March 2023 City of Gilroy
Sewer System Master Plan
City of Gilroy

APPENDIX A
Sewer Flow Monitoring and Inflow/Infiltration Study, 2014 (V&A)
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 185 of 768

SANITARY SEWER FLOW MONITORING AND

INFLOW / INFILTRATION STUDY
City of Gilroy, CA
May 2014
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 186 of 768

SANITARY SEWER FLOW MONITORING AND

INFLOW / INFILTRATION STUDY
Prepared for
Akel Engineering Group, Inc.
7433 N. First Street, Suite 103
Fresno, CA 93720
Prepared by
May 2014
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 187 of 768

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS, TERMS AND DEFINITIONS ................................................................................... iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ 1 Scope and Purpose ............................................................................................................................ 1 Site Flow Monitoring and Capacity Results ........................................................................................ 1 Basin Inflow and Infiltration Analysis Results ..................................................................................... 4 Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 9 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................10 Scope and Purpose ..........................................................................................................................10 Flow Monitoring Sites........................................................................................................................10 Flow Monitoring Basins.....................................................................................................................10 METHODS AND PROCEDURES.........................................................................................................13 Confined Space Entry .......................................................................................................................13 Flow Meter Installation ......................................................................................................................14 Flow Calculation................................................................................................................................14 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS..................................................................................................................15 Rainfall: Rain Gauge Data ................................................................................................................15 Rain Gauge Triangulation Distribution..............................................................................................17 Rainfall: Storm Event Classification..................................................................................................19 Flow Monitoring: Average Dry Weather Flows .................................................................................21 Flow Monitoring: Peak Measured Flows and Pipeline Capacity Analysis ........................................23 Inflow / Infiltration Analysis: Definitions and Identification ................................................................26 Inflow .............................................................................................................................................26 Infiltration.......................................................................................................................................26 Infiltration Components .................................................................................................................27 Inflow / Infiltration: Analysis Methods................................................................................................29 Inflow / Infiltration: Results ................................................................................................................31 Inflow Results Summary................................................................................................................31 Rainfall-Dependent Infiltration Results Summary .........................................................................34 Groundwater Infiltration Results Summary ...................................................................................37 Combined I/I Results Summary ....................................................................................................40 Inflow / Infiltration: Synthetic Hydrographs .......................................................................................43 Design Storm Development ..........................................................................................................44 Design Storm Response Summary...............................................................................................45 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................46 TABLES
Table 1. Capacity Analysis Summary..................................................................................................... 1 Table 2. I/I Analysis Summary................................................................................................................ 4 Table 3. List of Flow Monitoring Sites...................................................................................................11 Table 4. Flow Monitoring Basin Information .........................................................................................12 Table 5. Rainfall Events Used for I/I Analysis ......................................................................................15 Table 6. Rain Gauge Distribution by Basin ..........................................................................................18 Agenda Item 9.1 Page 188 of 768
Table 7. Dry Weather Flow Summary ..................................................................................................22 Table 8. Capacity Analysis Summary...................................................................................................23 Table 9. Basin Inflow Analysis Summary .............................................................................................31 Table 10. Basin RDI Analysis Summary ..............................................................................................34 Table 11. Basin Combined I/I Analysis Summary ................................................................................40 Table 12. Design Storm I/I Analysis Summary.....................................................................................45

FIGURES
Figure 1. Capacity Summary Bar Graphs: Peaking Factors and Peak d/D Ratios ............................... 2 Figure 2. Peak Measured Flow (Flow Schematic)................................................................................. 3 Figure 3. Inflow Temperature Map (by Rank)........................................................................................ 5 Figure 4. RDI Temperature Map (by Rank)........................................................................................... 6 Figure 5. Basins with Groundwater Infiltration....................................................................................... 7 Figure 6. Combined I/I Temperature Map (by Rank)............................................................................. 8 Figure 7. Site Location Map.................................................................................................................11 Figure 8. Basin Location Map..............................................................................................................12 Figure 9. Typical Installation for Flow Meter with Submerged Sensor................................................14 Figure 10. Rainfall Activity over Flow Monitoring Period.....................................................................15 Figure 11. Rainfall Accumulation Plot..................................................................................................16 Figure 12. Rainfall Inverse Distance Weighting Method .....................................................................17 Figure 13. NOAA Northern California Rainfall Frequency Map...........................................................19 Figure 14. Storm Event Classification (GILRO7).................................................................................20 Figure 15. Sample ADWF Diurnal Flow Patterns ................................................................................21 Figure 16. Average Dry Weather Flow (Flow Schematic) ...................................................................22 Figure 17. Capacity Summary Bar Graphs: Peaking Factors and Peak d/D Ratios ...........................24 Figure 18. Peak Measured Flow (Flow Schematic).............................................................................25 Figure 19. Inflow and Infiltration: Graphical Response Patterns .........................................................27 Figure 20. Typical Sources of Infiltration and Inflow............................................................................28 Figure 21. Sample Infiltration and Inflow Isolation Graph ...................................................................30 Figure 22. Bar Graphs: Inflow Analysis Summary...............................................................................32 Figure 23. Inflow Temperature Map (by Rank)....................................................................................33 Figure 24. Bar Graphs: RDI Analysis Summary..................................................................................35 Figure 25. RDI Temperature Map (by Rank).......................................................................................36 Figure 26. Groundwater Infiltration Sample Figure .............................................................................37 Figure 27. Minimum Flow Ratios vs. ADWF........................................................................................38 Figure 28. Basins with Groundwater Infiltration...................................................................................39 Figure 29. Bar Graphs: Combined I/I Analysis Summary ...................................................................41 Figure 30. Combined I/I Temperature Map (by Rank).........................................................................42 Figure 31. Site 3, Storm Event 1: Synthetic Hydrograph ....................................................................43 Figure 32. 10-Year, 24-Hour Design Storm Values and Profile ..........................................................44

APPENDIX
Appendix A: Flow Monitoring Sites: Data, Graphs, Information Agenda Item 9.1 Page 189 of 768

ABBREVIATIONS, TERMS AND DEFINITIONS USED IN THIS REPORT Table i. Abbreviations
Abbreviation Term
ADWF average dry weather flow
CCTV closed-circuit television
CIP capital improvement plan
CO carbon monoxide
d/D depth/diameter ratio
FM flow monitor
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
GWI groundwater infiltration
H2S hydrogen sulfide
I/I inflow and infiltration
IDM inch-diameter-mile (miles of pipeline multiplied by the diameter of the pipeline in inches)
IDW inverse distance weighting
LEL lower explosive limit
mgd million gallons per day
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
PS pump station
Q flow rate
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
RDI rainfall-dependent infiltration
ROW right of way
RRI rainfall-responsive infiltration
RG rain gauge
SSO sanitary sewer overflow
WEF Water Environment Federation
WRCC Western Regional Climate Center
WWTP wastewater treatment plant
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 190 of 768
Table ii. Terms and Definitions
Term Definition
Attenuation
Flow attenuation in a sewer collection system is the natural process of the reduction of the peak flow rate through redistribution of the same volume of flow over a longer period of time. This occurs as a result of friction (resistance), internal storage and a tendency to reach a steady state along the sewer pipes.

As the flows from the basins combine within the trunk sewer lines, (a) the peaks from each basin will not necessary coincide at the same time, and (b) due to the length and time of travel through the trunk sewers, peak flows will attenuate as the peak flows move downstream. The sum of the peak flows of individual basins upstream will generally be greater than the measured peak flows observed at points downstream.

Average dry
weather flow
(ADWF)
Average flow rate or pattern from days without noticeable inflow or infiltration response. ADWF usage patterns for weekdays and weekends differ and must be computed separately. ADWF can be expressed as a numeric average or as a curve showing the variation in flow over a day. ADWF includes the influence of normal groundwater infiltration (not related to a rain event).

Basin
Sanitary sewer collection system upstream of a given location (often a flow meter), including all pipelines, inlets, and appurtenances. Also refers to the ground surface area near and enclosed by the pipelines. A basin may refer to the entire collection system upstream from a flow meter or exclude separately monitored basins upstream.

Depth/diameter
(d/D) ratio
Depth of water in a pipe as a fraction of the pipe’s diameter. A measure of fullness of the pipe used in capacity analysis.

Design storm
A theoretical storm event of a given duration and intensity that aligns with historical frequency records of rainfall events. For example, a 10-year, 24-hour design storm is a storm event wherein the volume of rain that falls in a 24-hour period would historically occur once every 10 years. Design storm events are used to predict I/I response and are useful for modeling how a collection system will react to a given set of storm event scenarios.

Infiltration and
inflow
Infiltration and inflow (I/I) rates are calculated by subtracting the ADWF flow curve from the instantaneous flow measurements taken during and after a storm event. Flow in excess of the baseline consists of inflow, rainfall-responsive infiltration, and rainfall-dependent infiltration. Combined I/I is the total sum in gallons of additional flow attributable to a storm event.

Infiltration,
groundwater
Groundwater infiltration (GWI) is groundwater that enters the collection system through pipe defects. GWI depends on the depth of the groundwater table above the pipelines as well as the percentage of the system submerged. The variation of groundwater levels and subsequent groundwater infiltration rates is seasonal by nature. On a day-to-day basis, groundwater infiltration rates are relatively steady and will not fluctuate greatly.

Infiltration,
rainfall-dependent
Rainfall-dependent infiltration (RDI) is similar to groundwater infiltration but occurs as a result of storm water. The storm water percolates into the soil, submerges more of the pipe system, and enters through pipe defects. RDI is the slowest component of storm-related infiltration and inflow, beginning gradually and often lasting 24 hours or longer. The response time depends on the soil permeability and saturation levels.

Infiltration,
rainfall-responsive
Rainfall-responsive infiltration (RRI) is storm water that enters the collection system through pipe defects, but normally in sewers constructed close to the ground surface such as private laterals. RRI is independent of the groundwater table and reaches defective sewers via the pipe trench in which the sewer is constructed, particularly if the pipe is placed in impermeable soil and bedded and Agenda Item 9.1 Page 191 of 768
Term Definition
backfilled with a granular material. In this case, the pipe trench serves as a conduit similar to a French drain, conveying storm drainage to defective joints and other openings in the system.

Inflow
Inflow is defined as water discharged into the sewer system, including private sewer laterals, from direct connections such as downspouts, yard and area drains, holes in manhole covers, cross-connections from storm drains, or catch basins. Inflow creates a peak flow problem in the sewer system and often dictates the required capacity of downstream pipes and transport facilities to carry these peak instantaneous flows. Overflows are often attributable to high inflow rates.

Normalization
To run an “apples-to-apples” comparison amongst different basins, calculated metrics must be normalized. Individual basins will have different runoff areas, pipe lengths and sanitary flows. There are three common methods of normalization. Depending on the information available, one or all methods can be applied to a given project:
 Pipe Length: The metric is divided by the length of pipe in the upstream basin expressed in units of inch-diameter-mile (IDM).
 Basin Area: The metric is divided by the estimated drainage area of the basin in acres.
 ADWF: The metric is divided by the average dry weather sanitary flow (ADWF).

Normalization,
inflow
The peak I/I flow rate is used to quantify inflow. Although the instantaneous flow monitoring data will typically show an inflow peak, the inflow response is measured from the I/I flow rate (in excess of baseline flow). This removes the effect of sanitary flow variations and measures only the I/I response:
 Pipe Length: The peak I/I flow rate is divided by the length of pipe (IDM) in the upstream basin. The result is expressed in gallons per day (gpd) per IDM (gpd/IDM).
 Basin Area: The peak I/I flow rate is divided by the geographic area of the upstream basin. The result is expressed in gpd per acre.  ADWF: The peak I/I flow rate is divided by the average dry weather flow (ADWF). This is a ratio and is expressed without units.

Normalization,
GWI
The estimated GWI rates are compared to acceptable GWI rates, as defined by the Water Environment Federation, and used to identify basins with high GWI:
 Pipe Length: The GWI flow rate is divided by the length of pipe (IDM) in the upstream basin. The result is expressed in gallons per day (gpd) per IDM (gpd/IDM).
 Basin Area: The GWI flow rate is divided by the geographic area of the upstream basin. The result is expressed in gpd per acre.  ADWF: The GWI flow rate is divided by the average dry weather flow (ADWF). This is a ratio and is expressed without units.

Normalization,
RDI
The estimated RDI rates at a period 24 hours or more after the conclusion of a storm event are used to identify basins with high RDI:

Agenda Item 9.1 Page 192 of 768
Term Definition
 Pipe Length: The RDI flow rate is divided by the length of pipe (IDM) in the upstream basin. The result is expressed in gallons per day (gpd) per IDM (gpd/IDM).
 Basin Area: The RDI flow rate is divided by the geographic area of the upstream basin. The result is expressed in gpd per acre.  ADWF: The RDI flow rate is divided by the average dry weather flow (ADWF). This is a ratio and is expressed without units.

Normalization,
total I/I
The estimated totalized I/I in gallons attributable to a particular storm event is used to identify basins with high total I/I. Because this is a totalized value rather than a rate and can be attributable solely to an individual storm event, the volume of the storm event is also taken into consideration. This allows for a comparison not only between basins but also between storm events:
 Pipe Length: Total gallons of I/I is divided by the length of pipe (IDM) in the upstream basin and the rainfall total (inches) of the storm event. The result is expressed in gallons per IDM per inch of rain.
 Basin Area (R-Value): Total gallons of I/I is divided by total gallons of rainfall water that fell within the acreage of the basin area. This is a ratio and expressed as a percentage. R-value is described as “the percentage of rainfall that enters the collection system.” Systems with R-values less than 5%1 are often considered to be performing well.
 ADWF: Total gallons of I/I is divided by the ADWF and the rainfall total of the storm event. The result is expressed in million gallons per mgd of ADWF per inch of rain.

Peaking factor
Ratio of peak measured flow to average dry weather flow. This ratio expresses the degree of fluctuation in flow rate over the monitoring period and is used in capacity analysis.

Surcharge
When the flow level is higher than the crown of the pipe, then the pipeline is said to be in a surcharged condition. The pipeline is surcharged when the d/D ratio is greater than 1.0.

Synthetic
hydrograph
A set of algorithms developed to approximate the actual I/I hydrograph. The synthetic hydrograph is developed strictly using rainfall data and response parameters representing response time, recession coefficient and soil saturation.

Weekend/weekday
ratio
The ratio of weekend ADWFs to weekday ADWFs. In residential areas, this ratio is typically slightly higher than 1.0. In business districts, depending on type of service, this ratio can be significantly less than 1.0. 1 Keefe, P.N. “Test Basins for I/I Reduction and SSO Elimination.” 1998 WEF Wet Weather Specialty Conference, Cleveland.

Agenda Item 9.1 Page 193 of 768

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Scope and Purpose
V&A was retained by Akel Engineering Group to perform sanitary sewer flow monitoring, rainfall monitoring, and inflow and infiltration (I/I) analysis within the City of Gilroy, California (City). Flow and rainfall monitoring was performed over a three-week period at eleven open-channel flow monitoring sites within the City. The flow monitoring period began on February 24, 2014, and ended on March 16, 2014. The purpose of this study was to measure sanitary sewer flows at the flow monitoring sites and estimate available sewer capacity and infiltration and inflow (I/I) occurring in the basins upstream from the flow monitoring sites.

Site Flow Monitoring and Capacity Results
Peak measured flows and the corresponding flow levels (depths) are important to understand the capacity limitations of a collection system. Table 1 summarizes the peak recorded flows, levels, d/D ratios, and peaking factors per site during the flow monitoring period. Capacity analysis data is presented on a site-by-site basis and represents the hydraulic conditions only at the site locations; hydraulic conditions in other areas of the collection system will differ.

Table 1. Capacity Analysis Summary
Metering
Site
ADWF
(mgd)
Peak
Measured
Flow
(mgd)
Peaking
Factor
Diameter
(in)
Peak
Level
(in)
Peak
d/D
Ratio
Level
Surcharged
above
Crown (ft)
Site 1 1.04 2.82 2.70 27 12.80 0.47 -
Site 2 1.24 2.21 1.79 25 15.92 0.64 -
Site 3 3.66 6.69 1.83 33 18.22 0.55 -
Site 4 0.13 0.31 2.42 12 2.86 0.24 -
Site 5 0.12 0.41 3.43 10.5 7.10 0.68 -
Site 6 0.07 0.15 2.15 24 3.82 0.16 -
Site 7 0.15 0.26 1.78 10 13.27 1.33 0.3
Site 8 0.29 0.91 3.09 14 6.51 0.47 -
Site 9 3.30 6.49 1.96 33 14.51 0.44 -
Site 10 0.31 0.58 1.88 10.5 6.88 0.66 -
Site 11 0.54 1.11 2.07 17.75 11.39 0.64 -
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 194 of 768
The following capacity analysis results are noted:
 Peaking Factor: Sites 5 and 8 had peaking factors that exceeded typical design threshold limits for the ratio of peak flow to average dry weather flow.  d/D Ratio: Site 7 had a d/D ratio that exceeded the common design threshold for d/D ratio. It should be noted that the peak level that was recorded was not a result of a rainfall event. It was also observed that several sites had recorded peak levels that were not related to rainfall events.

Figure 1 shows bar graphs of the capacity results. Figure 2 shows a schematic diagram of the peak measured flows with peak flow levels.

Figure 1. Capacity Summary Bar Graphs: Peaking Factors and Peak d/D Ratios 2.7 1.8 1.8 2.4 3.4 2.2 1.9 3.1 2.0 2.1 2.2

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 Site FM01Site FM02Site FM03Site FM04Site FM05Site FM06Site FM07Site FM08Site FM09Site FM10Site FM11 Peaking Factor

0.5 0.6

0.6 0.2

0.7 0.2

1.3 0.5

0.4 0.7

0.6 0.0

0.2 0.4

0.6 0.8

1.0 1.2

1.4 Site FM01Site FM02Site FM03Site FM04Site FM05Site FM06Site FM07Site FM08Site FM09Site FM10Site FM11 d/D Ratio
Surcharge
Threshold
Typ. Design
Threshold
Typical
Design
Threshold
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 195 of 768
Figure 2. Peak Measured Flow (Flow Schematic)
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 196 of 768
Basin Inflow and Infiltration Analysis Results
Table 2 summarizes the flow monitoring and I/I results for the 11 flow monitoring basins that were isolated during this study. Infiltration and inflow rankings are shown such that 1 represents the highest infiltration or inflow contribution and 11 represents the least. Basins that ranked 1, 2 or 3 in a category are color coded red. Please refer to the I/I Methods section for more information on inflow and infiltration analysis methods and ranking methods.

Table 2. I/I Analysis Summary
Metering
Basin
ADWF
(mgd)
Peak I/I
Rate
(mgd)
Combined I/I
(gallons)
Inflow
Ranking
RDI
Ranking
Evidence
of High
GWI?
Combined
I/I
Ranking
Basin 1 1.04 1.98 334,600 2 8 No 6
Basin 2 1.24 0.35 153,000 8 T10 No 7
Basin 3 3.66 0.00 483,500 10 1 No 1
Basin 4 0.13 0.14 71,000 6 3 Yes 4
Basin 5 0.12 0.22 135,200 5 4 Yes 3
Basin 6 0.07 0.10 41,700 7 7 Yes 8
Basin 7 0.15 0.20 19,800 3 T10 No 10
Basin 8 0.29 0.84 166,700 1 2 No 2
Basin 9 3.30 n/a 38,400 n/a 5 No 5
Basin 10 0.31 0.40 40,700 4 9 No 11
Basin 11 0.54 0.39 132,700 9 6 No 9
The following inflow/infiltration analysis results are noted:
 Inflow: Basins 1, 7 and 8 ranked highest for normalized inflow contribution.  Rainfall-Dependent Infiltration: Basins 3, 4 and 8 ranked highest for normalized RDI contribution.
 Groundwater Infiltration: Basins 4, 5 and 6 had GWI rates that were above the WEF typical low-to-average ratio, indicating excessive groundwater infiltration.  Combined I/I: Basins 3, 5 and 8 ranked highest for normalized combined I/I contribution.

Figure 3 through Figure 6 show temperature maps of the overall rankings for each inflow and infiltration component.

Agenda Item 9.1 Page 197 of 768

Figure 3. Inflow Temperature Map (by Rank)
Legend
Inflow Ranking
1-2
3-4
5-6
7-8
9-11
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 198 of 768

Figure 4. RDI Temperature Map (by Rank)

Legend
RDI/I Ranking
1-2
3-4
5-6
7-8
9-11
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 199 of 768
Figure 5. Basins with Groundwater Infiltration
Legend
Groundwater Infiltration
Above typical rates
At or below typical rates
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 200 of 768
Figure 6. Combined I/I Temperature Map (by Rank)
Legend
Combined I/I Ranking
1-2
3-4
5-6
7-8
9-11
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 201 of 768
Recommendations
V&A advises that future I/I reduction plans consider the following recommendations:

1. Determine I/I Reduction Program: The City should examine its I/I reduction needs to determine a future I/I reduction program.
a. If peak flows, sanitary sewer overflows, and pipeline capacity issues are of greater concern, then priority can be given to investigate and reduce sources of inflow within the basins with the greatest inflow problems. The highest inflow occurred in Basins 1, 7 and

8. b. If total infiltration and general pipeline deterioration are of greater concern, then the program can be weighted to investigate and reduce sources of infiltration within the basins with the greatest infiltration problems.
i. The highest normalized rainfall-dependent infiltration occurred in Basins 3, 4 and 8. ii. The highest groundwater infiltration occurred in Basins 4, 5 and 6.

2. I/I Investigation Methods: Potential I/I investigation methods include the following:
a. Smoke testing.
b. Mini-basin flow monitoring.
c. Nighttime reconnaissance work to (1) investigate and determine direct point sources of inflow and (2) determine the areas and pipe reaches responsible for high levels of infiltration contribution.

3. I/I Reduction Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: The City should conduct a study to determine which is more cost-effective: (1) locating the sources of inflow and infiltration and systematically rehabilitating or replacing the faulty pipelines or (2) continued treatment of the additional rainfall-dependent I/I flow.

Agenda Item 9.1 Page 202 of 768

INTRODUCTION
Scope and Purpose
V&A was retained by Akel Engineering Group to perform sanitary sewer flow monitoring, rainfall monitoring, and inflow and infiltration (I/I) analysis within the City of Gilroy, California (City). Flow and rainfall monitoring was performed over a three-week period at eleven open-channel flow monitoring sites within the City. The flow monitoring period began on February 24, 2014, and ended on March 16, 2014. The purpose of this study was to measure sanitary sewer flows at the flow monitoring sites and estimate available sewer capacity and infiltration and inflow (I/I) occurring in the basins upstream from the flow monitoring sites, as shown in Figure 8.

Flow Monitoring Sites
Flow monitoring sites are the manholes where the flow monitors were placed. Flow monitoring site data may include the flows of one or many drainage basins. To isolate a flow monitoring basin, an addition or subtraction of flows may be required2. One issue of note is that the flow for the City of Morgan Hill flows south into Gilroy and enters the system through Basin 9. The flow data for this portion of the study was obtained from a flow meter on Harding Way that captures all of Morgan Hill’s flow, is owned by the City of Morgan Hill and is maintained by V&A. Capacity and flow rate information is presented on a site-by-site basis. The locations and other information for the flow monitoring sites are shown in Table 3.

Flow Monitoring Basins
Flow monitoring basins are localized areas of a sanitary sewer collection system upstream of a given location (often a flow meter), including all pipelines, inlets, and appurtenances (Figure 8). The basin refers to the ground surface area near and enclosed by the pipelines3 . A basin may refer to the entire
collection system upstream from a flow meter or may exclude separately monitored basins upstream.

I/I analysis in this report will be conducted on a basin-by-basin basis. For this study subtraction of flows was required to isolate the drainage areas of some flow monitoring basins. Shown in Table 4 are the equations (in which Q refers to flow rate) used to calculate the flow rate results for each basin from the flow rates recorded at the monitoring sites. Detailed descriptions of the individual flow monitoring sites, including photographs, are included in Appendix A. 2 There is error inherent in flow monitoring. Adding and subtracting flows increases error on an additive basis. For example, if Site A has an error of ±10% and Site B has an error of ±10%, then the resulting flow when subtracting Site A from Site B would have an error of up to ±20%.
3 The basin areas (in acres) were provided by Akel Engineering Group.

Agenda Item 9.1 Page 203 of 768
Table 3. List of Flow Monitoring Sites
Metering
Site
Pipe
Dia.
(in)
City GIS
Manhole
Number
Location
Site 1 27 S113DM201 Inside WWTP property 100 ft. west of Influent Pump Station Site 2 25 S102CM201 ROW southeast of Holloway Rd.

Site 3 33 S091CM501 ROW southeast of Holloway Rd.

Site 4 12 S100DM201 W. Luchessa Ave. near Hyde Park Dr.

Site 5 18 S076CM402 Wren Ave. and Uvas Park Dr.

Site 6 24 S064DM205 100 ft. south of west end of 3rd St. on bike path Site 7 10 S079AM401 East end of E. 9th St. near Hwy. 101 offramp Site 8 14 S079AM103 Near northwest end of Renz Ln.

Site 9 33 S048AM401 Behind Nike Outlet Store off Arroyo Circle Site 10 10.5 S047CM207 Welburn Ave. west of Church St.

Site 11 17.75 S037CM307 Intersection of Wren Ave. and Mantelli Dr.

Figure 7. Site Location Map
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 204 of 768
Table 4. Flow Monitoring Basin Information
Flow Metering
Basin
Metering
Basin Size (acres)
Basin Flow
Calculation
Basin 1 1,661 Q1(Basin) = Q1(Site) – Q4(Site) – Q5(Site) – Q6(Site) Basin 2 766 Q2(Basin) = Q2(Site) – Q7(Site) – Q8(Site) – Q10(Site) Basin 3 818 Q3(Basin) = Q3(Site) – Q9(Site)
Basin 4 343 Q4(Basin) = Q4(Site)
Basin 5 888 Q5(Basin) = Q5(Site)
Basin 6 732 Q6(Basin) = Q6(Site)
Basin 7 137 Q7(Basin) = Q7(Site)
Basin 8 566 Q8(Basin) = Q8(Site)
Basin 9 181 Q9(Basin) = Q9(Site) – Q11(Site) – QMorgan Hill Basin 10 456 Q10(Basin) = Q10(Site)
Basin 11 1,014 Q11(Basin) = Q11(Site)
Figure 8. Basin Location Map
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 205 of 768

METHODS AND PROCEDURES
Confined Space Entry
A confined space (Photo 1) is defined as any space that is large enough and so configured that a person can bodily enter and perform assigned work, has limited or restricted means for entry or exit and is not designed for continuous employee occupancy. In general, the atmosphere must be constantly monitored for sufficient levels of oxygen (19.5% to 23.0%) and the absence of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) gas, carbon monoxide (CO) gas, and lower explosive limit (LEL) levels. A typical confined space entry crew has members with OSHA-defined responsibilities of Entrant, Attendant and Supervisor. The Entrant is the individual performing the work. He or she is equipped with the necessary personal protective equipment needed to perform the job safely, including a personal fourgas monitor (Photo 2). If it is not possible to maintain line-of-sight with the Entrant, then more Entrants are required until line-of-sight can be maintained. The Attendant is responsible for maintaining contact with the Entrants to monitor the atmosphere on another four-gas monitor and maintaining records of all Entrants, if there are more than one. The Supervisor develops the safe work plan for the job at hand prior to entering.

Photo 1. Confined Space Entry Photo 2. Typical Personal Four-Gas Monitor
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 206 of 768
Flow Meter Installation
V&A installed eleven Isco 2150 area-velocity flow meters at the metering locations referenced in Table 3. Isco 2150 meters use submerged sensors with a pressure transducer to collect depth readings and an ultrasonic Doppler sensor to determine the average fluid velocity. The ultrasonic sensor emits high-frequency (500 kHz) sound waves, which are reflected by air bubbles and suspended particles in the flow. The sensor receives the reflected signal and determines the Doppler frequency shift, which indicates the estimated average flow velocity. The sensor is typically mounted at a manhole inlet to take advantage of smoother upstream flow conditions. The sensor may be offset to one side to lessen the chances of fouling and sedimentation where these problems are expected to occur. Manual level and velocity measurements were taken during installation of the flow meters and again when they were removed and compared to simultaneous level and velocity readings from the flow meters to ensure proper calibration and accuracy. Figure 9 shows a typical installation for a flow meter with a submerged sensor.

Figure 9. Typical Installation for Flow Meter with Submerged Sensor Flow Calculation
Data retrieved from the flow meter was placed into a spreadsheet program for analysis. Data analysis includes data comparison to field calibration measurements, as well as necessary geometric adjustments as required for sediment (sediment reduces the pipe’s wetted cross-sectional area available to carry flow). Area-velocity flow metering uses the continuity equation, ⋅= AVQ
where Q is the volume flow rate, V is the average velocity as determined by the ultrasonic sensor, and A is the cross-sectional area of flow as determined from the depth of flow. For circular pipe, 














 

 

  −  




 

  −−

 

 

 

 = − − −
D
D d d D
D
D d A 2 1cossin
22 2 1cos
4 1 1
2 ,
where D is the pipe diameter
and d is the depth of flow.

Agenda Item 9.1 Page 207 of 768

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Rainfall: Rain Gauge Data
V&A utilized rain data from three rain gauges maintained by local weather enthusiasts. While V&A performed QA/QC analysis to ensure, to the extent possible, the quality of the rainfall data, it is noted that V&A has no direct control over these gauges.

There was one primary rainfall event spread over several days that was used for infiltration and inflow analysis for this study, as summarized in Table 5. Figure 10 graphically displays the rainfall activity recorded over the flow monitoring period (average of rain gauges). Figure 11 shows the rain accumulation plot of the period rainfall, as well as the historical average rainfall4 in Gilroy during this project duration. Rainfall totals for Gilroy were 121%, 113% and 110% per gauge of historical normal levels during this time period.

Table 5. Rainfall Events Used for I/I Analysis
Rainfall Event
GILRO2
Event Rainfall
(in)
GILRO7
Event Rainfall
(in)
GILRO17
Event Rainfall
(in)
Event 1: February 26, 2014 –
March 2, 2014 3.39 3.27 3.59
Total over Monitoring Period 3.58 3.48 3.82
Figure 10. Rainfall Activity over Flow Monitoring Period 4 Historical data taken from the WRCC (Station 043417 in Gilroy): http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/climsmnca.html Agenda Item 9.1 Page 208 of 768
Figure 11. Rainfall Accumulation Plot
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 209 of 768
Rain Gauge Triangulation Distribution
The rainfall affecting the sanitary sewer collection system basins must be calculated based on the proximity to the rain gauge locations. The mean precipitation for each site was calculated by taking data from the rain gauges and using the inverse distance weighting (IDW) method. IDW is an interpolation method that assumes the influence of each rain gauge location diminishes with distance.

The approximate geographic coordinates of each site were determined and a weighted average was taken of the precipitation data from nearby rain gauge locations.

IDW is performed using the equation
where the weight, w, depends on the distance, d, from the rain gauge to the monitoring site and p, a user-selected power (p > 0). The most common choice of p in hydrological studies of watershed areas is 2. Figure 12 illustrates the IDW method with sample data.

Figure 12. Rainfall Inverse Distance Weighting Method
∑
=
p
p
d
d w 1
1 Agenda Item 9.1 Page 210 of 768
The rain gauge distribution as calculated for each metering site for this project is shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Rain Gauge Distribution by Basin
Metering
Basin
GILRO2
(%)
GILRO7
(%)
GILRO17
(%)
Basin 1 10.7% 18.8% 70.4%
Basin 2 35.5% 37.3% 27.2%
Basin 3 45.4% 26.1% 28.5%
Basin 4 9.6% 15.4% 75.0%
Basin 5 2.4% 15.1% 82.5%
Basin 6 5.5% 59.4% 35.1%
Basin 7 23.8% 29.6% 46.6%
Basin 8 20.2% 43.2% 36.6%
Basin 9 13.5% 72.2% 14.3%
Basin 10 4.7% 79.3% 15.9%
Basin 11 0.6% 98.0% 1.4%
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 211 of 768
Rainfall: Storm Event Classification
It is important to classify the relative size of the major storm event that occurs over the course of a flow monitoring period5
. Storm events are classified by intensity and duration. Based on historical data, frequency contour maps for storm events of given intensity and duration have been developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for all areas within the continental United States. For example, the NOAA Rainfall Frequency Atlas6 classifies a 10-year, 24-hour storm event in Gilroy (at the location of the GILRO7 rain gauge) as 4.42 inches (Figure 13). This means that in any given year, there is a 10% chance that 4.42 inches of rain will fall in any 24-hour period.

Figure 13. NOAA Northern California Rainfall Frequency Map From the NOAA frequency maps, for a specific latitude and longitude, the rainfall densities for period durations ranging from 15 minutes to 60 days are known for rain events ranging from 1-year to 100-year 5 Sanitary sewers are often designed to withstand I/I contribution to sanitary flows for “design” storm events of specific sizes. 6 NOAA Western U.S. Precipitation Frequency Maps Atlas 2, 1973: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/pcpnfreq.html Agenda Item 9.1 Page 212 of 768
intensities. These are plotted to develop a rain event frequency map specific to each rainfall monitoring site. Superimposing the peak measured densities for Event 1 on the rain event frequency plot determines the classification of the storm event, as shown in Figure 14. The rain event that occurred during the flow-monitoring period was classified as a 1-year, 24-hour rainfall event at the GILRO2 and GILRO7 rain gauges. The event actually approached 5-year, 6-hour status at the GILRO2 gauge.

Figure 14. Storm Event Classification (GILRO7)
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 213 of 768
Flow Monitoring: Average Dry Weather Flows
Weekday and weekend diurnal flow patterns differ and can be separated when establishing average dry weather flow rates. Within weekdays, the average dry weather flow (ADWF) patterns for Friday will vary from the Monday through Thursday patterns, particularly in the evening hours as people prepare for the weekend. Similarly, Sunday flow patterns typically vary in the evenings from Saturday flow patterns as people prepare for the work week. Figure 15 illustrates the varying flow patterns within a work week (Site 2 shown).

Figure 15. Sample ADWF Diurnal Flow Patterns
Graphs of the ADWF flow patterns for each site may be found in Appendix A. The overall average dry weather flow (ADWF) is calculated per the following equation:


 

  + ×

 

  + ×

 

  + ×

 

 = − ×
7 1
7 1
7 1
7 4 ADWF ADWF ThuMon ADWFFri ADWFSat ADWFSun ,
Table 7 lists the average dry weather flow (ADWF) recorded during this study for the flow monitoring sites. Figure 16 shows a schematic diagram of the average dry weather flows and flow levels.

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

3.00 3.50
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 00 Flow (mgd)
Hour
Mon - Thurs (mgd) Friday (mgd) Saturday (mgd) Sunday (mgd) Agenda Item 9.1 Page 214 of 768
Table 7. Dry Weather Flow Summary
Monitoring
Site
Mon-Thu
ADWF
(mgd)
Friday
ADWF
(mgd)
Saturday
ADWF
(mgd)
Sunday
ADWF
(mgd)
Overall
ADWF
(mgd)
Site 1 1.04 1.01 1.03 1.07 1.04
Site 2 1.23 1.23 1.27 1.24 1.24
Site 3 3.69 3.58 3.60 3.68 3.66
Site 4 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13
Site 5 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.12
Site 6 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07
Site 7 0.15 0.14 0.16 0.13 0.15
Site 8 0.28 0.27 0.29 0.36 0.29
Site 9 3.15 3.11 3.24 3.30 3.18
Site 10 0.31 0.30 0.31 0.31 0.31
Site 11 0.52 0.52 0.55 0.58 0.54
Figure 16. Average Dry Weather Flow (Flow Schematic)
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 215 of 768
Flow Monitoring: Peak Measured Flows and Pipeline Capacity Analysis Peak measured flows and the corresponding flow levels (depths) are important to understand the capacity limitations of a collection system. The peak flows and flow levels reported are from the peak measurements as taken across the entirety of the flow monitoring period. Peak flows and levels may not correspond to a rainfall event, but instead may be caused due to blockages, grease or roots that cause a backflow condition.

Two key capacity analysis terms are defined as follows:
 Peaking Factor: Peaking factor is defined as the peak measured flow divided by the average dry weather flow (ADWF). A peaking factor threshold value of 3.0 is commonly used for sanitary sewer design.
 d/D Ratio: The d/D ratio is the peak measured depth of flow (d) divided by the pipe diameter (D). A d/D ratio of 0.75 is a common maximum threshold value used for pipe design. The d/D ratio for each site was computed based on the maximum depth of flow from the flow monitoring study.

Table 8 summarizes the peak recorded flows, levels, d/D ratios, and peaking factors per site during the flow monitoring period. Capacity analysis data is presented on a site-by-site basis and represents the hydraulic conditions only at the site locations; hydraulic conditions in other areas of the collection system will differ.

Table 8. Capacity Analysis Summary
Metering
Site
ADWF
(mgd)
Peak
Measured
Flow
(mgd)
Peaking
Factor
Diameter
(in)
Peak
Level
(in)
Peak
d/D
Ratio
Level
Surcharged
above
Crown (ft)
Site 1 1.04 2.82 2.70 27 12.80 0.47 -
Site 2 1.24 2.21 1.79 25 15.92 0.64 -
Site 3 3.66 6.69 1.83 33 18.22 0.55 -
Site 4 0.13 0.31 2.42 12 2.86 0.24 -
Site 5 0.12 0.41 3.43 10.5 7.10 0.68 -
Site 6 0.07 0.15 2.15 24 3.82 0.16 -
Site 7 0.15 0.26 1.78 10 13.27 1.33 0.3
Site 8 0.29 0.91 3.09 14 6.51 0.47 -
Site 9 3.30 6.49 1.96 33 14.51 0.44 -
Site 10 0.31 0.58 1.88 10.5 6.88 0.66 -
Site 11 0.54 1.11 2.07 17.75 11.39 0.64 -
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 216 of 768
The following capacity analysis results are noted:
 Peaking Factor: Sites 5 and 8 had peaking factors that exceeded typical design threshold limits for the ratio of peak flow to average dry weather flow.  d/D Ratio: Site 7 had a d/D ratio that exceeded the common design threshold for d/D ratio. It should be noted that the peak level that was recorded was not a result of a rainfall event. It was also observed that several sites had recorded peak levels that were not related to rainfall events.

Figure 17 shows bar graphs of the capacity results. Figure 18 shows a schematic diagram of the peak measured flows with peak flow levels.

Figure 17. Capacity Summary Bar Graphs: Peaking Factors and Peak d/D Ratios

2.7 1.8 1.8

2.4 3.4

2.2 1.8

3.1 2.0 1.9

2.1 0.0

0.5 1.0

1.5 2.0

2.5 3.0

3.5 4.0
Site FM01Site FM02Site FM03Site FM04Site FM05Site FM06Site FM07Site FM08Site FM09Site FM10Site FM11 Peaking Factor

0.47 0.64

0.55 0.24

0.68 0.16

1.33 0.47 0.44

0.66 0.64

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 1.4
Site FM01Site FM02Site FM03Site FM04Site FM05Site FM06Site FM07Site FM08Site FM09Site FM10Site FM11 d/D Ratio
Surcharge
Threshold
Typ. Design
Threshold
Typical
Design
Threshold
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 217 of 768
Figure 18. Peak Measured Flow (Flow Schematic)
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 218 of 768
Inflow / Infiltration Analysis: Definitions and Identification Inflow and infiltration (I/I) consists of storm water and groundwater that enter the sewer system through pipe defects and improper storm drainage connections and is defined as follows:

Inflow
 Definition: Storm water inflow is defined as water discharged into the sewer system, including private sewer laterals, from direct connections such as downspouts, yard and area drains, holes in manhole covers, cross-connections from storm drains, or catch basins.  Impact: This component of I/I creates a peak flow problem in the sewer system and often dictates the required capacity of downstream pipes and transport facilities to carry these peak instantaneous flows. Because the response and magnitude of inflow is tied closely to the intensity of the storm event, the short-term peak instantaneous flows may result in surcharging and overflows within a collection system. Severe inflow may result in sewage dilution, resulting in upsetting the biological treatment (secondary treatment) at the treatment facility.
 Cost of Source Identification and Removal: Inflow locations are usually less difficult to find and less expensive to correct. These sources include direct and indirect cross-connections with storm drainage systems, roof downspouts, and various types of surface drains.

Generally, the costs to identify and remove sources of inflow are low compared to potential benefits to public health and safety or the costs of building new facilities to convey and treat the resulting peak flows.
 Graphical Identification: Inflow is usually recognized graphically by large-magnitude, shortduration spikes in flow immediately following a rain event.

Infiltration
 Definition: Infiltration is defined as water entering the sanitary sewer system through defects in pipes, pipe joints, and manhole walls, which may include cracks, offset joints, root intrusion points, and broken pipes.
 Impact: Infiltration typically creates long-term annual volumetric problems. The major impact is the cost of pumping and treating the additional volume of water, and of paying for treatment (for municipalities that are billed strictly on flow volume).  Cost of Source Detection and Removal: Infiltration sources are usually harder to find and more expensive to correct than inflow sources. Infiltration sources include defects in deteriorated sewer pipes or manholes that may be widespread throughout a sanitary sewer system.
 Graphical Identification: Infiltration is often recognized graphically by a gradual increase in flow after a wet-weather event. The increased flow typically sustains for a period after rainfall has stopped and then gradually drops off as soils become less saturated and as groundwater levels recede to normal levels.

Figure 19 shows sample graphs indicating the typical graphical response patterns for inflow and infiltration.

Agenda Item 9.1 Page 219 of 768

Figure 19. Inflow and Infiltration: Graphical Response Patterns Infiltration Components
Infiltration can be further subdivided into components as follows:
 Groundwater Infiltration: Groundwater infiltration depends on the depth of the groundwater table above the pipelines as well as the percentage of the system submerged. The variation of groundwater levels and subsequent groundwater infiltration rates is seasonal by nature.

On a day-to-day basis, groundwater infiltration rates are relatively steady and will not fluctuate greatly.
 Rainfall-Dependent Infiltration: This component occurs as a result of storm water and enters the sewer system through pipe defects, as with groundwater infiltration. The storm water first percolates directly into the soil and then migrates to an infiltration point. Typically, the time of concentration for rainfall-related infiltration may be 24 hours or longer, but this depends on the soil permeability and saturation levels.  Rainfall-Responsive Infiltration is storm water which enters the collection system indirectly through pipe defects, but normally in sewers constructed close to the ground surface such as private laterals. Rainfall-responsive infiltration is independent of the groundwater table and reaches defective sewers via the pipe trench in which the sewer is constructed, particularly if the pipe is placed in impermeable soil and bedded and backfilled with a granular material. In this case, the pipe trench serves as a conduit similar to a French drain, conveying storm drainage to defective joints and other openings in the system. This type of infiltration can have a quick response and graphically can look very similar to inflow.

0.00 0.10

0.20 0.30

0.40 0.50

0.60 0.70

0.80 0.90

1.00 Flow (MGD)

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5

0.6 0.7

0.8 0.9

1.0 Rain (in/hr)

0.00 0.05

0.10 0.15

0.20 0.25

0.30 0.35

0.40 0.45

0.50 4-Jun 5-Jun

I/I (MGD)

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5

0.6 0.7

0.8 0.9

1.0 Rain (in/hr)
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Flow (gpm)

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5

0.6 Rain (in/hr)
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
22-Feb 23-Feb
Flow (gpm)

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5

0.6 Rain (in/hr)

0.00 0.10

0.20 0.30

0.40 0.50
Flow (MGD)

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5

0.6 0.7

0.8 0.9

1.0 Rain (in/hr)

0.00 0.05

0.10 0.15

0.20 0.25
17-Dec 18-Dec 19-Dec 20-Dec
Flow (MGD)

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5

0.6 0.7

0.8 0.9

1.0 Rain (in/hr)
Inflow Infiltration Combination I/I
Rainfall
ADWF Flow
Realtime Flow
I/I Flow Rate
Response Pattern
Sharp Spike
Short Duration
Response Pattern
Gradual Increase
Gradual Recession
Response Pattern
Combination of Inflow
and Infiltration
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 220 of 768
Figure 20 illustrates the possible sources and components of I/I.

Figure 20. Typical Sources of Infiltration and Inflow
.
.
.

Downspout
connected
to Lateral
Manhole Cover
with Holes
Cross-connection
from
Storm Catch Basin
Area Drain
connected
to Lateral
Deteriorated
Manhole
Cracked or
Damaged Pipe
Faulty Lateral Connection
to Sanitary Sewer
Exfiltration
from
Storm Sewer
Deteriorated
Lateral
Roof Vent
Tree Root
Penetration
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 221 of 768
Inflow / Infiltration: Analysis Methods
After differentiating I/I flows from ADWF flows, various calculations can be made to determine which I/I component (inflow or infiltration) is more prevalent at a particular site and to compare the relative magnitudes of the I/I components between drainage basins and between storm events, as follows:

Inflow Indicators
Peak I/I Flow Rate: Inflow is characterized by sharp, direct spikes occurring during a rainfall event.

Peak I/I rates are used for inflow analysis7
. After determining the peak I/I flow rate for a given site, and for a given storm event, there are three ways to normalize the peak I/I rates for an “apples-toapples” comparison amongst the different drainage basins:

 Peak I/I Flow Rate per IDM: Peak measured I/I rate divided by length of pipe within the drainage basin, expressed in units of inch-diameter-mile (IDM, miles of pipeline multiplied by the diameter of the pipeline in inches). Final units are gallons per day (gpd) per IDM.  Peak I/I Flow Rate per Acre: Peak measured I/I rate divided by the geographic area of the upstream basin in acres. Units are gpd per acre.
 Peak I/I Flow Rate to ADWF Ratio: Peak measured I/I rate divided by average dry weather flow (ADWF). This is a ratio and is expressed without units.

Infiltration Indicators
Dry Weather Groundwater Infiltration: GWI analysis is conducted by looking at minimum dry weather flow to average dry weather flow ratios and comparing them to established standards to quantify the rate of excess groundwater infiltration. As with inflow, GWI infiltration rates can be normalized by means of pipe length (IDM), basin area (acres), and dry weather flow rates (ADWF).

These methods are discussed in further detail in the Groundwater Analysis section later in this report.

Rainfall-Dependent Infiltration: Infiltration occurring after the conclusion of a storm event is classified as rainfall-dependent infiltration. Analysis is conducted by looking at the infiltration rates at set periods after the conclusion of a storm event. Depending on the particular collection system and the time required for flows to return to ADWF levels, different set periods may be examined to determine the basins with the greatest or most sustained rainfall-dependent infiltration rates.

Combined I/I Indicators
Total Infiltration: The total inflow and infiltration is measured in gallons per site and per storm event.

Because it is based on total I/I volume, it is an indicator of combined inflow and infiltration and is used to identify the overall volumetric influence of I/I within the monitoring basin. As with inflow, pipe length, basin area, and dry weather flow are used to normalize combined I/I for basin comparison:

 Combined I/I Flow Rate per IDM: Total infiltration (gallons) divided by length of pipe (IDM) and divided by storm event rainfall (inches of rain). Final units are gallons per day (gpd) per IDM per inch of rain.
7 I/I flow rate is the realtime flow less the estimated average dry weather flow rate. It is an estimate of flows attributable to rainfall. By using peak measured flow rates (inclusive of ADWF), the I/I flow rate would be skewed higher or lower depending on whether the storm event I/I response occurs during low-flow or high-flow hours.

Agenda Item 9.1 Page 222 of 768
 R-Value: Total infiltration (gallons) divided by the total rainfall that fell within the acreage of that basin (gallons of rainfall). This is expressed as a percentage and is explained as “the percentage of rain that enters the sanitary sewer collection system.” Systems with R-values less than 5%8 are often considered to be performing well.  Combined I/I Flow Rate per ADWF: Total infiltration (gallons) divided by the ADWF (gpd) and divided by storm event rainfall (inches of rain). Final units are million gallons per mgd of ADWF per inch of rain.

Instantaneous flows were plotted against ADWF flows to analyze the I/I response to rainfall events.

Figure 21 illustrates a sample of how this analysis is conducted and some of the measurements that are used to distinguish infiltration and inflow. Similar graphs were generated for the individual flow monitoring sites and can be found in Appendix A.

Figure 21. Sample Infiltration and Inflow Isolation Graph The infiltration and inflow indicators were normalized by basin area and by ADWF in this report. Final rankings were determined by weighting the normalization methods by 51% for ADWF, and 49% for basin area, with ties broken by ADWF. The per-ADWF method is given the tie-break because it is normalized by actual sanitary waste usage. The per-acre method was given the lower weighting because the catchment area per each flow monitoring basin is estimated but requires a thorough hydrologic study to determine the true watershed.
8 Keefe, P.N. “Test Basins for I/I Reduction and SSO Elimination.” 1998 WEF Wet Weather Specialty Conference, Cleveland.

Total I/I – all I/I attributable to rainfall (shaded orange) RDI: sustained response 24 or more hours after rainfall ends
Inflow: Sharp spike response to rainfall
Peak I/I: inflow indicator and used to
compare and rank basins
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 223 of 768
Inflow / Infiltration: Results
Inflow Results Summary
Table 9 summarizes the peak measured I/I flows and inflow analysis results for Storm Event 1, which elicited the highest peak I/I response (refer to the I/I Methods section for more information on inflow analysis methods and ranking procedures). Basins that ranked 1, 2 or 3 in a category are color coded red.

Table 9. Basin Inflow Analysis Summary
Metering
Basin
ADWF
(mgd)
Peak I/I
Rate
(mgd)
Peak I/I per
Acre
(gpd/acre)
Peak I/I per
ADWF
Overall
Inflow
RankingA
Basin 1 0.72 1.98 1,195 (3)
B

2.74 (2) 2
Basin 2 0.49 0.35 453 (5) 0.71 (9) 8
Basin 3 0.36 0.00 0 (10) 0.00 (10) 10
Basin 4 0.13 0.14 410 (6) 1.11 (7) 6
Basin 5 0.12 0.22 248 (8) 1.84 (3) 5
Basin 6 0.07 0.10 130 (9) 1.34 (5) 7
Basin 7 0.15 0.20 1,488 (1) 1.38 (4) 3
Basin 8 0.29 0.84 1,483 (2) 2.85 (1) 1
Basin 99 0.12 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Basin 10 0.31 0.40 870 (4) 1.28 (6) 4
Basin 11 0.54 0.39 386 (7) 0.73 (8) 9
A Ranking of 1 represents most inflow after normalization. B The number in parenthesis shows the ranking within the individual Category.

The following inflow analysis results are noted:
 Basins 1, 7 and 8 ranked highest for normalized inflow contribution.

Figure 22 shows bar graph summaries of the inflow analysis. Figure 23 shows a temperature map summary of the inflow analysis results per basin.
9 Basin 9 was excluded from this analysis. The size of Basin 9 is very small compared to the size of the other basins that are measured through Site 9, most notably the entirety of the City of Morgan Hill collection system. Due to attenuation and dilution occurring, a true peak I/I rate specific for Basin 9 cannot be calculated with any degree of confidence.

Agenda Item 9.1 Page 224 of 768
Figure 22. Bar Graphs: Inflow Analysis Summary
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
Basin 1
Basin 2Basin 3Basin 4Basin 5Basin 6Basin 7Basin 8Basin 9 Basin 10Basin 11
Pk I/I per ACRE

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 Basin 1
Basin 2Basin 3Basin 4Basin 5Basin 6Basin 7Basin 8Basin 9 Basin 10Basin 11
Pk I/I per ADWF
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 225 of 768
Figure 23. Inflow Temperature Map (by Rank)
Legend
Inflow Ranking
1-2
3-4
5-6
7-8
9-11
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 226 of 768
Rainfall-Dependent Infiltration Results Summary
Table 10 summarizes the calculated average RDI flow rate during the low-flow hours immediately following the rainfall event (refer to the I/I Methods section for more information on RDI analysis methods and ranking methods). Basins that ranked 1, 2 or 3 in a category are color coded red.

Table 10. Basin RDI Analysis Summary
Metering
Basin
ADWF
(mgd)
RDI Rate
(mgd)
RDI per Acre
(GPAD)
RDI per
ADWF
RDI
RankingA
Basin 1 0.72 0.048 29 (8)
B
7% (8) 8
Basin 2 0.49 0.000 0 (T10) 0% (T10) T10
Basin 3 0.36 0.181 222 (1) 51% (1) 1
Basin 4 0.13 0.028 82 (3) 22% (4) 3
Basin 5 0.12 0.045 50 (6) 37% (2) 4
Basin 6 0.07 0.011 15 (9) 16% (5) 7
Basin 7 0.15 0.000 0 (T10) 0% (T10) T10
Basin 8 0.29 0.096 169 (2) 33% (3) 2
Basin 9 0.12 0.014 79 (4) 12% (6) 5
Basin 10 0.31 0.019 42 (7) 6% (9) 9
Basin 11 0.54 0.064 63 (5) 12% (7) 6
A Ranking of 1 represents most RDI after normalization. B The number in parenthesis shows the ranking within the individual Category.

The following RDI analysis results are noted:
 Basins 3, 4 and 8 ranked highest for normalized RDI contribution.

Figure 24 shows bar graph summaries of the RDI analysis. A temperature map by overall ranking is shown in Figure 25.

Agenda Item 9.1 Page 227 of 768
Figure 24. Bar Graphs: RDI Analysis Summary
0 50
100
150
200
250
Basin 1
Basin 2Basin 3Basin 4Basin 5Basin 6Basin 7Basin 8Basin 9 Basin 10Basin 11
RDI Rate per ACRE (gal/day-acre)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Basin 1
Basin 2Basin 3Basin 4Basin 5Basin 6Basin 7Basin 8Basin 9 Basin 10Basin 11
RDI Rate per ADWF (%)
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 228 of 768
Figure 25. RDI Temperature Map (by Rank)
Legend
RDI/I Ranking
1-2
3-4
5-6
7-8
9-11
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 229 of 768
Groundwater Infiltration Results Summary
Dry weather (ADWF) flow can be expected to have a predictable diurnal flow pattern. While each site is unique, experience has shown that, given a reasonable volume of flow and typical loading conditions, the daily flows fall into a predictable range when compared to the daily average flow. If a site has a large percentage of groundwater infiltration occurring during the periods of dry weather flow measurement, the amplitudes of the peak and low flows will be dampened10. Figure 26 shows a sample of two flow monitoring sites, both with nearly the same average daily flow, but with considerably different peak and low flows. In this sample case, Site B1 may have a considerable volume of groundwater infiltration.

Figure 26. Groundwater Infiltration Sample Figure
It can be useful to compare the low-to-ADWF flow ratios for the flow metering sites. A site with abnormal ratios, and with no other reasons to suspect abnormal flow patterns (such as proximity to a pump station, treatment facilities, etc.), has a possibility of higher levels of groundwater infiltration in comparison to the rest of the collection system. Figure 27 plots the low-to-ADWF flow ratios against the ADWF flows for the sites monitored during this study. The dotted line shows “typical” low-toADWF ratios per the Water Environment Federation (WEF)11. The following GWI results are noted:
 Basins 4, 5 and 6 had GWI rates that were above the WEF typical low-to-average ratio, indicating excessive groundwater infiltration.

Figure 28 shows a color-coded map of the basins with rates of groundwater infiltration considerably above typical groundwater infiltration standards (as set forth by WEF).

10 In an extreme case, perhaps 0.2 mgd of ADWF flow and 2.0 mgd of groundwater infiltration, the peaks and lows would be barely recognizable; the ADWF flow would be nearly a straight line. 11 WEF Manual of Practice No. 9, “Design and Construction of Sanitary and Storm Sewers.” West County Wastewater District: B1 and A9 Baseline Weekday Flows

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5

0.6 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 00 Hour
Flow N1 (MGD)
Site A9 Site B1
Site B1 Baseline Weekday Flow: 0.30 MGD
Site A9 Baseline Weekday Flow: 0.28 MGD
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 230 of 768
Figure 27. Minimum Flow Ratios vs. ADWF12
12 Due to attenuation, it should be expected that sites with larger flow volumes should not have quite the peak-to-average and low-to-average flow ratios as sites with lesser flow volumes, which is why the WEF typical trend lines slope closer to 1.0 as the ADWF increases, as shown in the figure.
-

0.1 0.2

0.3 0.4

0.5 0.6

0.7 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Minimum to Average Flow Ratio
ADWF (mgd)
Basin 6
Basin 4
Basin 5
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 231 of 768
Figure 28. Basins with Groundwater Infiltration
Legend
Groundwater Infiltration
Above typical rates
At or below typical rates
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 232 of 768
Combined I/I Results Summary
Combined I/I analysis considers the totalized volume (in gallons) of both inflow and rainfall-dependent infiltration over the course of the storm event. Table 11 summarizes the combined I/I results (refer to the I/I Methods section for more information on combined I/I analysis methods and ranking methods).

Basins that ranked 1, 2 or 3 in a category are color coded red.

Table 11. Basin Combined I/I Analysis Summary
Metering
Basin
ADWF
(mgd)
Combined
I/I
(gallons)
R-Value
(%)
Combined I/I
per ADWF
Combined
I/I
RankingA
Basin 1 0.72 334,600 0.32% (6)
B

0.202 (6) 6
Basin 2 0.49 153,000 0.33% (5) 0.140 (8) 7
Basin 3 0.36 483,500 1.01% (1) 0.633 (1) 1
Basin 4 0.13 71,000 0.33% (4) 0.246 (5) 4
Basin 5 0.12 135,200 0.25% (7) 0.496 (2) 3
Basin 6 0.07 41,700 0.09% (11) 0.267 (3) 8
Basin 7 0.15 19,800 0.23% (8) 0.059 (11) 10
Basin 8 0.29 166,700 0.48% (2) 0.252 (4) 2
Basin 9 0.12 38,400 0.36% (3) 0.146 (7) 5
Basin 10 0.31 40,700 0.15% (10) 0.060 (10) 11
Basin 11 0.54 132,700 0.22% (9) 0.116 (9) 9
A Ranking of 1 represents most combined I/I after normalization. B The number in parenthesis shows the ranking within the individual Category The following combined I/I analysis results are noted:
 Basins 3, 5 and 8 ranked highest for normalized combined I/I contribution.

Figure 29 shows bar graph summaries of the combined I/I analysis. A temperature map by overall ranking is shown in Figure 30.

Agenda Item 9.1 Page 233 of 768
Figure 29. Bar Graphs: Combined I/I Analysis Summary

0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

1.0%

1.2%
Basin 1
Basin 2Basin 3Basin 4Basin 5Basin 6Basin 7Basin 8Basin 9 Basin 10Basin 11
R-Value (%)

0.00 0.10

0.20 0.30

0.40 0.50

0.60 0.70
Basin 1
Basin 2Basin 3Basin 4Basin 5Basin 6Basin 7Basin 8Basin 9 Basin 10Basin 11
Combined I/I to ADWF
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 234 of 768
Figure 30. Combined I/I Temperature Map (by Rank)
Legend
Combined I/I Ranking
1-2
3-4
5-6
7-8
9-11
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 235 of 768
Inflow / Infiltration: Synthetic Hydrographs
In order to model design storms, synthetic hydrographs were developed to approximate the actual RDI hydrograph shape in terms of the time to the peak and the recession coefficient. The actual RDI hydrograph was best matched with a synthetic hydrograph by separating the synthetic hydrograph into seven volume components (R1 through R7). The seven components represent different response times to the rainfall event and, therefore, different infiltration or inflow paths into the sewer system. R1 is characterized by a short response time and is assumed to consist of mainly inflow. R7 represents slower response and longer recession times and consists of mostly infiltration. Levels of soil saturation are also considered. Using synthetic hydrograph analysis, appropriate time and recession parameters were estimated by a trial-and-error procedure until a good match was obtained.

For example, the hydrograph and its component hydrographs for Storm Event 1, for Site 3 is shown in Figure 31.

Figure 31. Site 3, Storm Event 1: Synthetic Hydrograph
Rain Realtime I/I Hydrograph
Synthetic Hydrograph R1 Component
R2 Component R3 Component
R4 Component R5 Component
R6 Component R7 Component
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 236 of 768
Design Storm Development
With the I/I response modeled by a synthetic hydrograph, design storms can be applied. This serves two functions: (a) predicted flows are based on the same storm event and are therefore normalized to each other, making for easier and better comparisons, and (b) the resulting I/I flows can be predicted for a design storm event. This helps to calibrate modeling efforts that will determine if the collection system has adequate capacity to handle very large storm events.

V&A used a 10-year, 24-hour design storm for this analysis. Storm events were taken from the NOAA Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the Western United States. Figure 32 summarizes the design storm magnitude and profile. This particular profile distribution also fits the NOAA criterion for 2-hour and 6-hour durations, in addition to the 24-hour duration. 10-Year, 24-
hour Design
Storm
Hour
Inches
of
Rain
1 0.010
2 0.026
3 0.255
4 0.153
5 0.051
6 0.015
7 0.219
8 0.125
9 0.176
10 0.063
11 0.031
12 0.013
13 0.129
14 0.362
15 0.043
16 0.197
17 0.197
18 0.432
19 0.801
20 0.395
21 0.197
22 0.103
23 0.172
24 0.052
Total: 4.22
Figure 32. 10-Year, 24-Hour Design Storm Values and Profile

0.00 0.10

0.20 0.30

0.40 0.50

0.60 0.70

0.80 0.90
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Rainfall (in/hr)
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 237 of 768
Design Storm Response Summary
The 10-year, 24-hour storm event was applied to the synthetic I/I hydrograph components developed for each flow monitoring site. This method produces the best estimated response to the design storm events. These results assume full ground saturation and that the peak I/I flows from the design storm coincide with peak sanitary flows to produce a “worst-case” scenario of peak wet weather flows.

Table 12 summarizes the final results for the design storm on a site-by-site basis.

Table 12. Design Storm I/I Analysis Summary
Metering
Site
Predicted
Peak Dry
Weather
Flow (mgd)
Predicted
Peak I/I
Rate
(mgd)
Predicted
Peak
Flow
(mgd)
Predicted
Total I/I
(gallons)
Site 1 1.50 6.74 8.24 2,251,000
Site 2 1.77 4.01 5.77 1,514,000
Site 3 4.50 7.16 11.67 4,598,000
Site 4 0.21 0.42 0.63 145,000
Site 5 0.21 0.71 0.92 467,000
Site 6 0.11 0.23 0.33 104,000
Site 7 0.23 0.45 0.67 91,000
Site 8 0.53 1.69 2.22 358,000
Site 9 4.31 7.98 12.29 4,080,000
Site 10 0.53 0.70 1.24 153,000
Site 11 0.93 0.78 1.72 290,000
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 238 of 768

RECOMMENDATIONS
V&A advises that future I/I reduction plans consider the following recommendations:

4. Determine I/I Reduction Program: The City should examine its I/I reduction needs to determine a future I/I reduction program.
a. If peak flows, sanitary sewer overflows, and pipeline capacity issues are of greater concern, then priority can be given to investigate and reduce sources of inflow within the basins with the greatest inflow problems. The highest inflow occurred in Basins 1, 7 and

8. b. If total infiltration and general pipeline deterioration are of greater concern, then the program can be weighted to investigate and reduce sources of infiltration within the basins with the greatest infiltration problems.
i. The highest normalized rainfall-dependent infiltration occurred in Basins 3, 4 and 8. ii. The highest groundwater infiltration occurred in Basins 4, 5 and 6.

5. I/I Investigation Methods: Potential I/I investigation methods include the following:
a. Smoke testing.
b. Mini-basin flow monitoring.
c. Nighttime reconnaissance work to (1) investigate and determine direct point sources of inflow and (2) determine the areas and pipe reaches responsible for high levels of infiltration contribution.

6. I/I Reduction Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: The City should conduct a study to determine which is more cost-effective: (1) locating the sources of inflow and infiltration and systematically rehabilitating or replacing the faulty pipelines or (2) continued treatment of the additional rainfall-dependent I/I flow.

Agenda Item 9.1 Page 239 of 768

APPENDIX A
FLOW MONITORING SITES: DATA, GRAPHS, INFORMATION
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 240 of 768
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Monitoring Site:

Location:

Site 1
Inside WWTP property 100’ west of Influent Pump
Station
Temporary Monitoring: February and March, 2014
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring
City of Gilroy
Vicinity Map: Site 1
Data Summary Report
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S1 - 1
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 241 of 768
SITE 1
Site Information
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Pipe Diameter: 27 inches
Baseline Flow: 1.042 mgd
Peak Measured Flow: 2.816 mgd
Flow Sketch
Satellite Map
Street View
Sewer Map
Location: Inside WWTP property 100’
west of Influent Pump Station
Coordinates: 121.5425° W, 36.9860° N
Rim Elevation: 175 feet
Plan View
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S1 - 2
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 242 of 768
SITE 1
Additional Site Photos
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Effluent Pipe
Influent Pipe
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Appendix A, Page S1 - 3 Agenda Item 9.1 Page 243 of 768
SITE 1
Period Flow Summary: Daily Flow Totals
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study

0.000.200.400.600.801.001.201.401.60
2/25
2/27
3/1
3/3
3/5
3/7
3/9
3/11
3/13
3/15
Flow (MGal)

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Rainfall (in/day)

0.000.200.400.600.801.001.201.401.60
2/25
2/27
3/1
3/3
3/5
3/7
3/9
3/11
3/13
3/15

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.5 0.00 5.00.200.400.600.801.001.201.401.60 2/25
2/26
2/27
2/28
3/1
3/2
3/3
3/4
3/5
3/6
3/7
3/8
3/9
3/10
3/11
3/12
3/13
3/14
3/15
3/16

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Total Period Rainfall: 3.72 inchesAvg Period Flow: 1.077 MGal Peak Daily Flow: 1.476 MGal Min Daily Flow: 1.013 MGal13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S1 - 4 Agenda Item 9.1

City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
SITE 1Flow Summary: 2/25/2014 to 3/16/2014

0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.50
Feb 25 (Tue) Feb 26 (Wed) Feb 27 (Thu) Feb 28 (Fri) Mar 1 (Sat) Mar 2 (Sun) Mar 3 (Mon) Mar 4 (Tue) Mar 5 (Wed) Mar 6 (Thu) Flow (mgd)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.2 Rainfall (in/hr)
Rain Flow BLFlow

0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.50
Mar 7 (Fri) Mar 8 (Sat) Mar 9 (Sun) Mar 10 (Mon) Mar 11 (Tue) Mar 12 (Wed) Mar 13 (Thu) Mar 14 (Fri) Mar 15 (Sat) Mar 16 (Sun) Flow (mgd)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.2 Rainfall (in/hr)
Total Period Rainfall: 3.72 inches Avg Flow: 1.077 mgd Peak Flow: 2.816 mgd Min Flow: 0.362 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S1 - 5
Agenda Item 9.1

SITE 1
Baseline Flow Hydrographs
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study

0.000.200.400.600.801.001.201.401.601.802.00
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
Flow (mgd)
Mon-Thurs Friday Saturday Sunday
Time of Day

1.042 mgd
Baseline Flow:
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S1 - 6
Agenda Item 9.1

SITE 1
Site Capacity and Surcharge Summary
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Peak Measured Level: 12.8Peak d/D Ratio: 0.47Pipe Diameter: 27 inches inches
Realtime Flow Levels with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Diameter
05 1015202530
02/25
02/27
03/01
03/03
03/05
03/07
03/09
03/11
03/13
03/15
Level (in)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain (in)
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S1 - 7
Agenda Item 9.1

SITE 1
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
I/I Summary: Event 1
Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

3.00 3.50
02/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/1103/1203/1303/1403/1503/16 Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 2.28 inches
Event 1

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

3.00 02/2803/0103/02
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Event 1 Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 2.28 inches)
Peak Flow: 2.82
PF:
mgd

2.70 Capacity
Peak I/I Rate: 2.37 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
Total I/I: 582,000 gallons
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S1 - 8
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 248 of 768
SITE 1
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/24/2014 to 3/3/2014
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (in)
Lev

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 Velocity (fps)
Vel

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

3.00 3.50
2/24 2/25 2/26 2/27 2/28 3/1 3/2
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 3.51 inches Rain Flow BLFlow
Avg Level: 8.12 in. Peak Level: 12.80 in. Min Level: 5.35 in.

Avg Velocity: 1.70 fps Peak Velocity: 2.37 fps Min Velocity: 1.09 fps Avg Flow: 1.150 mgd Peak Flow: 2.816 mgd Min Flow: 0.395 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S1 - 9
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 249 of 768
SITE 1
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/3/2014 to 3/10/2014
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (in)
Lev

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 Velocity (fps)
Vel

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

3.00 3.50
3/3 3/4 3/5 3/6 3/7 3/8 3/9
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.22 inches Rain Flow BLFlow
Avg Level: 7.87 in. Peak Level: 10.12 in. Min Level: 5.27 in.

Avg Velocity: 1.63 fps Peak Velocity: 2.05 fps Min Velocity: 1.04 fps Avg Flow: 1.052 mgd Peak Flow: 1.777 mgd Min Flow: 0.367 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S1 - 10
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 250 of 768
SITE 1
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/10/2014 to 3/17/2014
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (in)
Lev

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 Velocity (fps)
Vel

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

3.00 3.50
3/10 3/11 3/12 3/13 3/14 3/15 3/16
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Rain Flow BLFlow
Avg Level: 7.83 in. Peak Level: 10.13 in. Min Level: 5.24 in.

Avg Velocity: 1.62 fps Peak Velocity: 2.07 fps Min Velocity: 1.03 fps Avg Flow: 1.040 mgd Peak Flow: 1.801 mgd Min Flow: 0.362 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S1 - 11
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 251 of 768
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Monitoring Site:

Location:

Site 2
ROW southeast of Holloway Road
Temporary Monitoring: February and March, 2014
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring
City of Gilroy
Vicinity Map: Site 2
Data Summary Report
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S2 - 1
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 252 of 768
SITE 2
Site Information
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Pipe Diameter: 25 inches
Baseline Flow: 1.239 mgd
Peak Measured Flow: 2.211 mgd
Flow Sketch
Satellite Map
Street View
Sewer Map
Location: ROW southeast of Holloway
Road
Coordinates: 121.5444° W, 36.9916° N
Rim Elevation: 177 feet
Plan View
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S2 - 2
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 253 of 768
SITE 2
Additional Site Photos
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Effluent Pipe
Influent Pipe
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Appendix A, Page S2 - 3 Agenda Item 9.1 Page 254 of 768
SITE 2
Period Flow Summary: Daily Flow Totals
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study

0.000.200.400.600.801.001.201.401.60
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16
Flow (MGal)

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Rainfall (in/day)

0.000.200.400.600.801.001.201.401.60
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.5 0.00 5.00.200.400.600.801.001.201.401.60 2/24
2/25
2/26
2/27
2/28
3/1
3/2
3/3
3/4
3/5
3/6
3/7
3/8
3/9
3/10
3/11
3/12
3/13
3/14
3/15
3/16

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Total Period Rainfall: 3.61 inchesAvg Period Flow: 1.254 MGal Peak Daily Flow: 1.501 MGal Min Daily Flow: 1.155 MGal13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S2 - 4 Agenda Item 9.1

City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
SITE 2Flow Summary: 2/25/2014 to 3/16/2014

0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.504.00
Feb 25 (Tue) Feb 26 (Wed) Feb 27 (Thu) Feb 28 (Fri) Mar 1 (Sat) Mar 2 (Sun) Mar 3 (Mon) Mar 4 (Tue) Mar 5 (Wed) Mar 6 (Thu) Flow (mgd)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.2 Rainfall (in/hr)
Rain Flow BLFlow

0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.504.00
Mar 7 (Fri) Mar 8 (Sat) Mar 9 (Sun) Mar 10 (Mon) Mar 11 (Tue) Mar 12 (Wed) Mar 13 (Thu) Mar 14 (Fri) Mar 15 (Sat) Mar 16 (Sun) Flow (mgd)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.2 Rainfall (in/hr)
Total Period Rainfall: 3.61 inches Avg Flow: 1.259 mgd Peak Flow: 2.211 mgd Min Flow: 0.375 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S2 - 5
Agenda Item 9.1

SITE 2
Baseline Flow Hydrographs
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study

0.000.501.001.502.002.50
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
Flow (mgd)
Mon-Thurs Friday Saturday Sunday
Time of Day

1.239 mgd
Baseline Flow:
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S2 - 6
Agenda Item 9.1

SITE 2
Site Capacity and Surcharge Summary
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Peak Measured Level: 15.9Peak d/D Ratio: 0.64Pipe Diameter: 25 inches inches
Realtime Flow Levels with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Diameter
05 1015202530
02/25
02/27
03/01
03/03
03/05
03/07
03/09
03/11
03/13
03/15
Level (in)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain (in)
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S2 - 7
Agenda Item 9.1

SITE 2
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
I/I Summary: Event 1
Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

3.00 3.50

4.00 02/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/1103/1203/1303/1403/1503/16 Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 2.27 inches
Event 1

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50
02/2803/0103/02
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Event 1 Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 2.27 inches)
Peak Flow: 2.21
PF:
mgd

1.79 Capacity
Peak I/I Rate: 1.66 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
Total I/I: 380,000 gallons
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S2 - 8
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 259 of 768
SITE 2
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/24/2014 to 3/3/2014
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (in)
Lev

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 Velocity (fps)
Vel

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

3.00 3.50

4.00 2/24 2/25 2/26 2/27 2/28 3/1 3/2
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 3.41 inches Rain Flow BLFlow
Avg Level: 11.43 in. Peak Level: 15.92 in. Min Level: 7.24 in.

Avg Velocity: 1.36 fps Peak Velocity: 1.67 fps Min Velocity: 0.87 fps Avg Flow: 1.278 mgd Peak Flow: 2.211 mgd Min Flow: 0.405 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S2 - 9
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 260 of 768
SITE 2
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/3/2014 to 3/10/2014
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (in)
Lev

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 Velocity (fps)
Vel

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

3.00 3.50

4.00 3/3 3/4 3/5 3/6 3/7 3/8 3/9
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.20 inches Rain Flow BLFlow
Avg Level: 11.28 in. Peak Level: 15.02 in. Min Level: 7.02 in.

Avg Velocity: 1.36 fps Peak Velocity: 1.59 fps Min Velocity: 0.85 fps Avg Flow: 1.254 mgd Peak Flow: 1.988 mgd Min Flow: 0.375 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S2 - 10
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 261 of 768
SITE 2
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/10/2014 to 3/17/2014
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (in)
Lev

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 Velocity (fps)
Vel

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

3.00 3.50

4.00 3/10 3/11 3/12 3/13 3/14 3/15 3/16
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Rain Flow BLFlow
Avg Level: 11.26 in. Peak Level: 14.74 in. Min Level: 7.40 in.

Avg Velocity: 1.34 fps Peak Velocity: 1.58 fps Min Velocity: 0.87 fps Avg Flow: 1.231 mgd Peak Flow: 1.991 mgd Min Flow: 0.422 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S2 - 11
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 262 of 768
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Monitoring Site:

Location:

Site 3
ROW southeast of Holloway Road
Temporary Monitoring: February and March, 2014
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring
City of Gilroy
Vicinity Map: Site 3
Data Summary Report
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S3 - 1
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 263 of 768
SITE 3
Site Information
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Pipe Diameter: 33 inches
Baseline Flow: 3.660 mgd
Peak Measured Flow: 6.693 mgd
Flow Sketch
Satellite Map
Street View
Sewer Map
Location: ROW southeast of Holloway
Road
Coordinates: 121.5464° W, 36.9942° N
Rim Elevation: 179 feet
Plan View
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S3 - 2
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 264 of 768
SITE 3
Additional Site Photos
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Effluent Pipe
Influent Pipe
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Appendix A, Page S3 - 3 Agenda Item 9.1 Page 265 of 768
SITE 3
Period Flow Summary: Daily Flow Totals
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study

0.001.002.003.004.005.006.00
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16
Flow (MGal)

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Rainfall (in/day)

0.001.002.003.004.005.006.00
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.5 0.00 5.01.002.003.004.005.006.00 2/24
2/25
2/26
2/27
2/28
3/1
3/2
3/3
3/4
3/5
3/6
3/7
3/8
3/9
3/10
3/11
3/12
3/13
3/14
3/15
3/16

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Total Period Rainfall: 3.63 inchesAvg Period Flow: 3.810 MGal Peak Daily Flow: 4.815 MGal Min Daily Flow: 3.504 MGal13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S3 - 4 Agenda Item 9.1

City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
SITE 3Flow Summary: 2/25/2014 to 3/16/2014

0.002.004.006.008.00

10.0012.00
Feb 25 (Tue) Feb 26 (Wed) Feb 27 (Thu) Feb 28 (Fri) Mar 1 (Sat) Mar 2 (Sun) Mar 3 (Mon) Mar 4 (Tue) Mar 5 (Wed) Mar 6 (Thu) Flow (mgd)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.2 Rainfall (in/hr)
Rain Flow BLFlow

0.002.004.006.008.00

10.0012.00
Mar 7 (Fri) Mar 8 (Sat) Mar 9 (Sun) Mar 10 (Mon) Mar 11 (Tue) Mar 12 (Wed) Mar 13 (Thu) Mar 14 (Fri) Mar 15 (Sat) Mar 16 (Sun) Flow (mgd)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.2 Rainfall (in/hr)
Total Period Rainfall: 3.63 inches Avg Flow: 3.810 mgd Peak Flow: 6.693 mgd Min Flow: 1.475 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S3 - 5
Agenda Item 9.1

SITE 3
Baseline Flow Hydrographs
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study

0.001.002.003.004.005.006.00
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
Flow (mgd)
Mon-Thurs Friday Saturday Sunday
Time of Day

3.660 mgd
Baseline Flow:
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S3 - 6
Agenda Item 9.1

SITE 3
Site Capacity and Surcharge Summary
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Peak Measured Level: 18.2Peak d/D Ratio: 0.55Pipe Diameter: 33 inches inches
Realtime Flow Levels with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Diameter
05 101520253035
02/25
02/27
03/01
03/03
03/05
03/07
03/09
03/11
03/13
03/15
Level (in)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain (in)
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S3 - 7
Agenda Item 9.1

SITE 3
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
I/I Summary: Event 1
Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period

0.00 2.00

4.00 6.00

8.00 10.00

12.00 02/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/1103/1203/1303/1403/1503/16 Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 2.30 inches
Event 1

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 7.00

8.00 02/2803/0103/02
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Event 1 Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 2.30 inches)
Peak Flow: 6.69
PF:
mgd

1.83 Capacity
Peak I/I Rate: 3.18 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
Total I/I: 1,790,000 gallons
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S3 - 8
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 270 of 768
SITE 3
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/24/2014 to 3/3/2014
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (in)
Lev

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 Velocity (fps)
Vel

0.00 2.00

4.00 6.00

8.00 10.00

12.00 2/24 2/25 2/26 2/27 2/28 3/1 3/2
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 3.43 inches Rain Flow BLFlow
Avg Level: 13.73 in. Peak Level: 18.22 in. Min Level: 9.37 in.

Avg Velocity: 2.63 fps Peak Velocity: 3.13 fps Min Velocity: 1.74 fps Avg Flow: 4.054 mgd Peak Flow: 6.693 mgd Min Flow: 1.565 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S3 - 9
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 271 of 768
SITE 3
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/3/2014 to 3/10/2014
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (in)
Lev

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 Velocity (fps)
Vel

0.00 2.00

4.00 6.00

8.00 10.00

12.00 3/3 3/4 3/5 3/6 3/7 3/8 3/9
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.20 inches Rain Flow BLFlow
Avg Level: 13.20 in. Peak Level: 16.81 in. Min Level: 9.43 in.

Avg Velocity: 2.57 fps Peak Velocity: 3.26 fps Min Velocity: 1.76 fps Avg Flow: 3.767 mgd Peak Flow: 5.905 mgd Min Flow: 1.628 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S3 - 10
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 272 of 768
SITE 3
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/10/2014 to 3/17/2014
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (in)
Lev

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 Velocity (fps)
Vel

0.00 2.00

4.00 6.00

8.00 10.00

12.00 3/10 3/11 3/12 3/13 3/14 3/15 3/16
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Rain Flow BLFlow
Avg Level: 13.25 in. Peak Level: 17.00 in. Min Level: 9.24 in.

Avg Velocity: 2.45 fps Peak Velocity: 2.95 fps Min Velocity: 1.67 fps Avg Flow: 3.608 mgd Peak Flow: 5.677 mgd Min Flow: 1.475 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S3 - 11
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 273 of 768
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Monitoring Site:

Location:

Site 4
W. Luchessa Avenue near Hyde Park Drive
Temporary Monitoring: February and March, 2014
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring
City of Gilroy
Vicinity Map: Site 4
Data Summary Report
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S4 - 1
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 274 of 768
SITE 4
Site Information
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Pipe Diameter: 12 inches
Baseline Flow: 0.126 mgd
Peak Measured Flow: 0.306 mgd
Flow Sketch
Satellite Map
Street View
Sewer Map
Location: W. Luchessa Avenue near
Hyde Park Drive
Coordinates: 121.5638° W, 36.9915° N
Rim Elevation: 196 feet
Plan View
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S4 - 2
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 275 of 768
SITE 4
Additional Site Photos
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Effluent Pipe
Influent Pipe
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Appendix A, Page S4 - 3 Agenda Item 9.1 Page 276 of 768
SITE 4
Period Flow Summary: Daily Flow Totals
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study

0.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.160.18
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16
Flow (MGal)

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Rainfall (in/day)

0.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.160.18
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.5 0.00 5.00.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.160.18 2/24
2/25
2/26
2/27
2/28
3/1
3/2
3/3
3/4
3/5
3/6
3/7
3/8
3/9
3/10
3/11
3/12
3/13
3/14
3/15
3/16

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Total Period Rainfall: 3.74 inchesAvg Period Flow: 0.132 MGal Peak Daily Flow: 0.164 MGal Min Daily Flow: 0.117 MGal13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S4 - 4 Agenda Item 9.1

City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
SITE 4Flow Summary: 2/25/2014 to 3/16/2014

0.000.100.200.300.400.500.60
Feb 25 (Tue) Feb 26 (Wed) Feb 27 (Thu) Feb 28 (Fri) Mar 1 (Sat) Mar 2 (Sun) Mar 3 (Mon) Mar 4 (Tue) Mar 5 (Wed) Mar 6 (Thu) Flow (mgd)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.2 Rainfall (in/hr)
Rain Flow BLFlow

0.000.100.200.300.400.500.60
Mar 7 (Fri) Mar 8 (Sat) Mar 9 (Sun) Mar 10 (Mon) Mar 11 (Tue) Mar 12 (Wed) Mar 13 (Thu) Mar 14 (Fri) Mar 15 (Sat) Mar 16 (Sun) Flow (mgd)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.2 Rainfall (in/hr)
Total Period Rainfall: 3.74 inches Avg Flow: 0.132 mgd Peak Flow: 0.306 mgd Min Flow: 0.035 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S4 - 5
Agenda Item 9.1

SITE 4
Baseline Flow Hydrographs
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study

0.000.050.100.150.200.25
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
Flow (mgd)
Mon-Thurs Friday Saturday Sunday
Time of Day

0.126 mgd
Baseline Flow:
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S4 - 6
Agenda Item 9.1

SITE 4
Site Capacity and Surcharge Summary
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Peak Measured Level: 2.86Peak d/D Ratio: 0.24Pipe Diameter: 12 inches inches
Realtime Flow Levels with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Diameter
02468
101214
02/25
02/27
03/01
03/03
03/05
03/07
03/09
03/11
03/13
03/15
Level (in)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain (in)
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S4 - 7
Agenda Item 9.1

SITE 4
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
I/I Summary: Event 1
Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period

0.00 0.10

0.20 0.30

0.40 0.50

0.60 02/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/1103/1203/1303/1403/1503/16 Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 2.28 inches
Event 1

0.00 0.05

0.10 0.15

0.20 0.25

0.30 0.35
02/2803/0103/02
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Event 1 Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 2.28 inches)
Peak Flow: 0.31
PF:
mgd

2.42 Capacity
Peak I/I Rate: 0.14 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
Total I/I: 71,000 gallons
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S4 - 8
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 281 of 768
SITE 4
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/24/2014 to 3/3/2014
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (in)
Lev

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 Velocity (fps)
Vel

0.00 0.10

0.20 0.30

0.40 0.50

0.60 2/24 2/25 2/26 2/27 2/28 3/1 3/2
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 3.52 inches Rain Flow BLFlow
Avg Level: 1.85 in. Peak Level: 2.86 in. Min Level: 0.94 in.

Avg Velocity: 2.69 fps Peak Velocity: 3.30 fps Min Velocity: 1.85 fps Avg Flow: 0.139 mgd Peak Flow: 0.306 mgd Min Flow: 0.035 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S4 - 9
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 282 of 768
SITE 4
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/3/2014 to 3/10/2014
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (in)
Lev

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 Velocity (fps)
Vel

0.00 0.10

0.20 0.30

0.40 0.50

0.60 3/3 3/4 3/5 3/6 3/7 3/8 3/9
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.22 inches Rain Flow BLFlow
Avg Level: 1.80 in. Peak Level: 2.59 in. Min Level: 1.14 in.

Avg Velocity: 2.68 fps Peak Velocity: 3.17 fps Min Velocity: 1.88 fps Avg Flow: 0.131 mgd Peak Flow: 0.250 mgd Min Flow: 0.050 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S4 - 10
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 283 of 768
SITE 4
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/10/2014 to 3/17/2014
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (in)
Lev

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 Velocity (fps)
Vel

0.00 0.10

0.20 0.30

0.40 0.50

0.60 3/10 3/11 3/12 3/13 3/14 3/15 3/16
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Rain Flow BLFlow
Avg Level: 1.74 in. Peak Level: 2.66 in. Min Level: 1.08 in.

Avg Velocity: 2.67 fps Peak Velocity: 3.34 fps Min Velocity: 1.84 fps Avg Flow: 0.125 mgd Peak Flow: 0.278 mgd Min Flow: 0.044 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S4 - 11
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 284 of 768
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Monitoring Site:

Location:

Site 5
Wren Avenue and Uvas Park Drive
Temporary Monitoring: February and March, 2014
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring
City of Gilroy
Vicinity Map: Site 5
Data Summary Report
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S5 - 1
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 285 of 768
SITE 5
Site Information
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Pipe Diameter: 10.5 inches
Baseline Flow: 0.120 mgd
Peak Measured Flow: 0.410 mgd
Flow Sketch
Satellite Map
Street View
Sewer Map
Location: Wren Avenue and Uvas Park
Drive
Coordinates: 121.5881° W, 37.0010° N
Rim Elevation: 215 feet
Plan View
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S5 - 2
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 286 of 768
SITE 5
Additional Site Photos
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Effluent Pipe
Influent Pipe
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Appendix A, Page S5 - 3 Agenda Item 9.1 Page 287 of 768
SITE 5
Period Flow Summary: Daily Flow Totals
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study

0.000.050.100.150.200.25
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16
Flow (MGal)

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Rainfall (in/day)

0.000.050.100.150.200.25
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.5 0.00 5.00.050.100.150.200.25 2/24
2/25
2/26
2/27
2/28
3/1
3/2
3/3
3/4
3/5
3/6
3/7
3/8
3/9
3/10
3/11
3/12
3/13
3/14
3/15
3/16

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Total Period Rainfall: 3.75 inchesAvg Period Flow: 0.131 MGal Peak Daily Flow: 0.210 MGal Min Daily Flow: 0.107 MGal13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S5 - 4 Agenda Item 9.1

City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
SITE 5Flow Summary: 2/25/2014 to 3/16/2014

0.000.100.200.300.400.500.60
Feb 25 (Tue) Feb 26 (Wed) Feb 27 (Thu) Feb 28 (Fri) Mar 1 (Sat) Mar 2 (Sun) Mar 3 (Mon) Mar 4 (Tue) Mar 5 (Wed) Mar 6 (Thu) Flow (mgd)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.2 Rainfall (in/hr)
Rain Flow BLFlow

0.000.100.200.300.400.500.60
Mar 7 (Fri) Mar 8 (Sat) Mar 9 (Sun) Mar 10 (Mon) Mar 11 (Tue) Mar 12 (Wed) Mar 13 (Thu) Mar 14 (Fri) Mar 15 (Sat) Mar 16 (Sun) Flow (mgd)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.2 Rainfall (in/hr)
Total Period Rainfall: 3.75 inches Avg Flow: 0.132 mgd Peak Flow: 0.410 mgd Min Flow: 0.027 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S5 - 5
Agenda Item 9.1

SITE 5
Baseline Flow Hydrographs
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study

0.000.050.100.150.200.25
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
Flow (mgd)
Mon-Thurs Friday Saturday Sunday
Time of Day

0.120 mgd
Baseline Flow:
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S5 - 6
Agenda Item 9.1

SITE 5
Site Capacity and Surcharge Summary
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Peak Measured Level: 7.1Peak d/D Ratio: 0.68Pipe Diameter: 10.5 inches inches
Realtime Flow Levels with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Diameter
02468
1012
02/25
02/27
03/01
03/03
03/05
03/07
03/09
03/11
03/13
03/15
Level (in)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain (in)
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S5 - 7
Agenda Item 9.1

SITE 5
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
I/I Summary: Event 1
Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period

0.00 0.10

0.20 0.30

0.40 0.50

0.60 02/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/1103/1203/1303/1403/1503/16 Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 2.28 inches
Event 1

0.00 0.05

0.10 0.15

0.20 0.25

0.30 0.35

0.40 0.45
02/2803/0103/02
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Event 1 Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 2.28 inches)
Peak Flow: 0.41
PF:
mgd

3.43 Capacity
Peak I/I Rate: 0.22 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
Total I/I: 135,000 gallons
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S5 - 8
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 292 of 768
SITE 5
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/24/2014 to 3/3/2014
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (in)
Lev

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 1.4

1.6 1.8

2.0 Velocity (fps)
Vel

0.00 0.10

0.20 0.30

0.40 0.50

0.60 2/24 2/25 2/26 2/27 2/28 3/1 3/2
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 3.53 inches Rain Flow BLFlow
Avg Level: 5.22 in. Peak Level: 7.10 in. Min Level: 3.81 in.

Avg Velocity: 0.75 fps Peak Velocity: 1.50 fps Min Velocity: 0.35 fps Avg Flow: 0.149 mgd Peak Flow: 0.410 mgd Min Flow: 0.045 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S5 - 9
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 293 of 768
SITE 5
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/3/2014 to 3/10/2014
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (in)
Lev

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 1.4

1.6 1.8

2.0 Velocity (fps)
Vel

0.00 0.10

0.20 0.30

0.40 0.50

0.60 3/3 3/4 3/5 3/6 3/7 3/8 3/9
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.22 inches Rain Flow BLFlow
Avg Level: 4.90 in. Peak Level: 5.99 in. Min Level: 3.71 in.

Avg Velocity: 0.72 fps Peak Velocity: 1.16 fps Min Velocity: 0.36 fps Avg Flow: 0.130 mgd Peak Flow: 0.261 mgd Min Flow: 0.047 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S5 - 10
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 294 of 768
SITE 5
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/10/2014 to 3/17/2014
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (in)
Lev

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 1.4

1.6 1.8

2.0 Velocity (fps)
Vel

0.00 0.10

0.20 0.30

0.40 0.50

0.60 3/10 3/11 3/12 3/13 3/14 3/15 3/16
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Rain Flow BLFlow
Avg Level: 4.74 in. Peak Level: 5.66 in. Min Level: 3.52 in.

Avg Velocity: 0.66 fps Peak Velocity: 1.06 fps Min Velocity: 0.24 fps Avg Flow: 0.115 mgd Peak Flow: 0.224 mgd Min Flow: 0.027 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S5 - 11
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 295 of 768
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Monitoring Site:

Location:

Site 6
100’ south of west end of 3rd Street on bike path
Temporary Monitoring: February and March, 2014
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring
City of Gilroy
Vicinity Map: Site 6
Data Summary Report
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S6 - 1
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 296 of 768
SITE 6
Site Information
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Pipe Diameter: 24 inches
Baseline Flow: 0.071 mgd
Peak Measured Flow: 0.152 mgd
Flow Sketch
Satellite Map
Street View
Sewer Map
Location: 100’ south of west end of 3rd
Street on bike path
Coordinates: 121.6019° W, 37.0073° N
Rim Elevation: 226 feet
Plan View
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S6 - 2
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 297 of 768
SITE 6
Additional Site Photos
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Effluent Pipe
Influent Pipe
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Appendix A, Page S6 - 3 Agenda Item 9.1 Page 298 of 768
SITE 6
Additional Site Photos
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Lateral
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Appendix A, Page S6 - 4 Agenda Item 9.1 Page 299 of 768
SITE 6
Period Flow Summary: Daily Flow Totals
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study

0.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.10
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16
Flow (MGal)

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Rainfall (in/day)

0.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.10
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.5 0.00 5.00.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.10 2/24
2/25
2/26
2/27
2/28
3/1
3/2
3/3
3/4
3/5
3/6
3/7
3/8
3/9
3/10
3/11
3/12
3/13
3/14
3/15
3/16

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Total Period Rainfall: 3.58 inchesAvg Period Flow: 0.071 MGal Peak Daily Flow: 0.095 MGal Min Daily Flow: 0.061 MGal13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S6 - 5 Agenda Item 9.1

City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
SITE 6Flow Summary: 2/25/2014 to 3/16/2014

0.000.050.100.150.200.25
Feb 25 (Tue) Feb 26 (Wed) Feb 27 (Thu) Feb 28 (Fri) Mar 1 (Sat) Mar 2 (Sun) Mar 3 (Mon) Mar 4 (Tue) Mar 5 (Wed) Mar 6 (Thu) Flow (mgd)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.2 Rainfall (in/hr)
Rain Flow BLFlow

0.000.050.100.150.200.25
Mar 7 (Fri) Mar 8 (Sat) Mar 9 (Sun) Mar 10 (Mon) Mar 11 (Tue) Mar 12 (Wed) Mar 13 (Thu) Mar 14 (Fri) Mar 15 (Sat) Mar 16 (Sun) Flow (mgd)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.2 Rainfall (in/hr)
Total Period Rainfall: 3.58 inches Avg Flow: 0.071 mgd Peak Flow: 0.152 mgd Min Flow: 0.030 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S6 - 6
Agenda Item 9.1

SITE 6
Baseline Flow Hydrographs
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study

0.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.14
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
Flow (mgd)
Mon-Thurs Friday Saturday Sunday
Time of Day

0.071 mgd
Baseline Flow:
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S6 - 7
Agenda Item 9.1

SITE 6
Site Capacity and Surcharge Summary
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Peak Measured Level: 4.05Peak d/D Ratio: 0.17Pipe Diameter: 24 inches inches
Realtime Flow Levels with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Diameter
05 1015202530
02/25
02/27
03/01
03/03
03/05
03/07
03/09
03/11
03/13
03/15
Level (in)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain (in)
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S6 - 8
Agenda Item 9.1

SITE 6
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
I/I Summary: Event 1
Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period

0.00 0.05

0.10 0.15

0.20 0.25
02/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/1103/1203/1303/1403/1503/16 Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 2.21 inches
Event 1

0.00 0.02

0.04 0.06

0.08 0.10

0.12 0.14

0.16 02/2803/0103/02
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Event 1 Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 2.21 inches)
Peak Flow: 0.15
PF:
mgd

2.15 Capacity
Peak I/I Rate: 0.10 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
Total I/I: 42,000 gallons
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S6 - 9
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 304 of 768
SITE 6
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/24/2014 to 3/3/2014
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (in)
Lev

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 1.4
Velocity (fps)
Vel

0.00 0.05

0.10 0.15

0.20 0.25
2/24 2/25 2/26 2/27 2/28 3/1 3/2
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 3.38 inches Rain Flow BLFlow
Avg Level: 3.05 in. Peak Level: 3.82 in. Min Level: 2.40 in.

Avg Velocity: 0.48 fps Peak Velocity: 0.76 fps Min Velocity: 0.28 fps Avg Flow: 0.072 mgd Peak Flow: 0.152 mgd Min Flow: 0.031 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S6 - 10
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 305 of 768
SITE 6
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/3/2014 to 3/10/2014
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (in)
Lev

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 1.4
Velocity (fps)
Vel

0.00 0.05

0.10 0.15

0.20 0.25
3/3 3/4 3/5 3/6 3/7 3/8 3/9
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.20 inches Rain Flow BLFlow
Avg Level: 3.07 in. Peak Level: 3.90 in. Min Level: 2.43 in.

Avg Velocity: 0.45 fps Peak Velocity: 0.75 fps Min Velocity: 0.28 fps Avg Flow: 0.068 mgd Peak Flow: 0.148 mgd Min Flow: 0.030 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S6 - 11
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 306 of 768
SITE 6
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/10/2014 to 3/17/2014
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (in)
Lev

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 1.4
Velocity (fps)
Vel

0.00 0.05

0.10 0.15

0.20 0.25
3/10 3/11 3/12 3/13 3/14 3/15 3/16
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Rain Flow BLFlow
Avg Level: 3.11 in. Peak Level: 4.05 in. Min Level: 2.58 in.

Avg Velocity: 0.47 fps Peak Velocity: 0.69 fps Min Velocity: 0.28 fps Avg Flow: 0.071 mgd Peak Flow: 0.127 mgd Min Flow: 0.034 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S6 - 12
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 307 of 768
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Monitoring Site:

Location:

Site 7
East end of E. 9th Street near Highway 101 offramp
Temporary Monitoring: February and March, 2014
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring
City of Gilroy
Vicinity Map: Site 7
Data Summary Report
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S7 - 1
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 308 of 768
SITE 7
Site Information
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Pipe Diameter: 10 inches
Baseline Flow: 0.148 mgd
Peak Measured Flow: 0.279 mgd
Flow Sketch
Satellite Map
Street View
Sewer Map
Location: East end of E. 9th Street
near Highway 101 offramp
Coordinates: 121.5581° W, 37.0042° N
Rim Elevation: 193 feet
Plan View
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S7 - 2
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 309 of 768
SITE 7
Additional Site Photos
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Effluent Pipe
Influent Pipe
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Appendix A, Page S7 - 3 Agenda Item 9.1 Page 310 of 768
SITE 7
Period Flow Summary: Daily Flow Totals
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study

0.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.160.18
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16
Flow (MGal)

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Rainfall (in/day)

0.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.160.18
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.5 0.00 5.00.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.160.18 2/24
2/25
2/26
2/27
2/28
3/1
3/2
3/3
3/4
3/5
3/6
3/7
3/8
3/9
3/10
3/11
3/12
3/13
3/14
3/15
3/16

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Total Period Rainfall: 3.66 inchesAvg Period Flow: 0.146 MGal Peak Daily Flow: 0.168 MGal Min Daily Flow: 0.096 MGal13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S7 - 4 Agenda Item 9.1

City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
SITE 7Flow Summary: 2/25/2014 to 3/16/2014

0.000.100.200.300.400.500.60
Feb 25 (Tue) Feb 26 (Wed) Feb 27 (Thu) Feb 28 (Fri) Mar 1 (Sat) Mar 2 (Sun) Mar 3 (Mon) Mar 4 (Tue) Mar 5 (Wed) Mar 6 (Thu) Flow (mgd)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.2 Rainfall (in/hr)
Rain Flow BLFlow

0.000.100.200.300.400.500.60
Mar 7 (Fri) Mar 8 (Sat) Mar 9 (Sun) Mar 10 (Mon) Mar 11 (Tue) Mar 12 (Wed) Mar 13 (Thu) Mar 14 (Fri) Mar 15 (Sat) Mar 16 (Sun) Flow (mgd)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.2 Rainfall (in/hr)
Total Period Rainfall: 3.66 inches Avg Flow: 0.147 mgd Peak Flow: 0.279 mgd Min Flow: 0.021 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S7 - 5
Agenda Item 9.1

SITE 7
Baseline Flow Hydrographs
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study

0.000.050.100.150.200.250.30
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
Flow (mgd)
Mon-Thurs Friday Saturday Sunday
Time of Day

0.148 mgd
Baseline Flow:
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S7 - 6
Agenda Item 9.1

SITE 7
Site Capacity and Surcharge Summary
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Surcharged 23.6 inches over crown
Peak Measured Level: 33.6Peak d/D Ratio: 3.36Pipe Diameter: 10 inches inches
Realtime Flow Levels with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Diameter
05 10152025303540
02/25
02/27
03/01
03/03
03/05
03/07
03/09
03/11
03/13
03/15
Level (in)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain (in)
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S7 - 7
Agenda Item 9.1

SITE 7
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
I/I Summary: Event 1
Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period

0.00 0.10

0.20 0.30

0.40 0.50

0.60 02/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/1103/1203/1303/1403/1503/16 Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 2.28 inches
Event 1

0.00 0.05

0.10 0.15

0.20 0.25

0.30 02/2803/0103/02
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Event 1 Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 2.28 inches)
Peak Flow: 0.26
PF:
mgd

1.78 Capacity
Peak I/I Rate: 0.20 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
Total I/I: 20,000 gallons
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S7 - 8
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 315 of 768
SITE 7
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/24/2014 to 3/3/2014
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (in)
Lev

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 1.4

1.6 Velocity (fps)
Vel

0.00 0.10

0.20 0.30

0.40 0.50

0.60 2/24 2/25 2/26 2/27 2/28 3/1 3/2
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 3.45 inches Rain Flow BLFlow
Avg Level: 6.77 in. Peak Level: 13.27 in. Min Level: 2.58 in.

Avg Velocity: 0.63 fps Peak Velocity: 0.96 fps Min Velocity: 0.20 fps Avg Flow: 0.145 mgd Peak Flow: 0.262 mgd Min Flow: 0.043 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S7 - 9
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 316 of 768
SITE 7
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/3/2014 to 3/10/2014
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (in)
Lev

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 1.4

1.6 Velocity (fps)
Vel

0.00 0.10

0.20 0.30

0.40 0.50

0.60 3/3 3/4 3/5 3/6 3/7 3/8 3/9
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.21 inches Rain Flow BLFlow
Avg Level: 14.07 in. Peak Level: 33.62 in. Min Level: 2.68 in.

Avg Velocity: 0.53 fps Peak Velocity: 0.92 fps Min Velocity: 0.06 fps Avg Flow: 0.150 mgd Peak Flow: 0.279 mgd Min Flow: 0.021 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S7 - 10
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 317 of 768
SITE 7
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/10/2014 to 3/17/2014
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (in)
Lev

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 1.4

1.6 Velocity (fps)
Vel

0.00 0.10

0.20 0.30

0.40 0.50

0.60 3/10 3/11 3/12 3/13 3/14 3/15 3/16
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Rain Flow BLFlow
Avg Level: 15.53 in. Peak Level: 31.26 in. Min Level: 8.37 in.

Avg Velocity: 0.41 fps Peak Velocity: 0.78 fps Min Velocity: 0.11 fps Avg Flow: 0.144 mgd Peak Flow: 0.273 mgd Min Flow: 0.035 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S7 - 11
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 318 of 768
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Monitoring Site:

Location:

Site 8
Near northwest end of Renz Lane
Temporary Monitoring: February and March, 2014
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring
City of Gilroy
Vicinity Map: Site 8
Data Summary Report
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S8 - 1
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 319 of 768
SITE 8
Site Information
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Pipe Diameter: 14 inches
Baseline Flow: 0.294 mgd
Peak Measured Flow: 0.910 mgd
Flow Sketch
Satellite Map
Street View
Sewer Map
Location: Near northwest end of Renz
Lane
Coordinates: 121.5571° W, 37.0057° N
Rim Elevation: 191 feet
Plan View
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S8 - 2
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 320 of 768
SITE 8
Additional Site Photos
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Effluent Pipe
Influent Pipe
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Appendix A, Page S8 - 3 Agenda Item 9.1 Page 321 of 768
SITE 8
Period Flow Summary: Daily Flow Totals
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study

0.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.350.400.45
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16
Flow (MGal)

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Rainfall (in/day)

0.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.350.400.45
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.5 0.00 5.00.050.100.150.200.250.300.350.400.45 2/24
2/25
2/26
2/27
2/28
3/1
3/2
3/3
3/4
3/5
3/6
3/7
3/8
3/9
3/10
3/11
3/12
3/13
3/14
3/15
3/16

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Total Period Rainfall: 3.62 inchesAvg Period Flow: 0.311 MGal Peak Daily Flow: 0.412 MGal Min Daily Flow: 0.245 MGal13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S8 - 4 Agenda Item 9.1

City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
SITE 8Flow Summary: 2/25/2014 to 3/16/2014

0.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
Feb 25 (Tue) Feb 26 (Wed) Feb 27 (Thu) Feb 28 (Fri) Mar 1 (Sat) Mar 2 (Sun) Mar 3 (Mon) Mar 4 (Tue) Mar 5 (Wed) Mar 6 (Thu) Flow (mgd)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.2 Rainfall (in/hr)
Rain Flow BLFlow

0.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
Mar 7 (Fri) Mar 8 (Sat) Mar 9 (Sun) Mar 10 (Mon) Mar 11 (Tue) Mar 12 (Wed) Mar 13 (Thu) Mar 14 (Fri) Mar 15 (Sat) Mar 16 (Sun) Flow (mgd)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.2 Rainfall (in/hr)
Total Period Rainfall: 3.62 inches Avg Flow: 0.313 mgd Peak Flow: 0.910 mgd Min Flow: 0.053 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S8 - 5
Agenda Item 9.1

SITE 8
Baseline Flow Hydrographs
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study

0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.70
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
Flow (mgd)
Mon-Thurs Friday Saturday Sunday
Time of Day

0.294 mgd
Baseline Flow:
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S8 - 6
Agenda Item 9.1

SITE 8
Site Capacity and Surcharge Summary
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Peak Measured Level: 6.51Peak d/D Ratio: 0.47Pipe Diameter: 14 inches inches
Realtime Flow Levels with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Diameter
02468
10121416
02/25
02/27
03/01
03/03
03/05
03/07
03/09
03/11
03/13
03/15
Level (in)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain (in)
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S8 - 7
Agenda Item 9.1

SITE 8
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
I/I Summary: Event 1
Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period

0.00 0.20

0.40 0.60

0.80 1.00

1.20 02/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/1103/1203/1303/1403/1503/16 Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 2.25 inches
Event 1

0.00 0.10

0.20 0.30

0.40 0.50

0.60 0.70

0.80 0.90

1.00 02/2803/0103/02
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Event 1 Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 2.25 inches)
Peak Flow: 0.91
PF:
mgd

3.09 Capacity
Peak I/I Rate: 0.84 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
Total I/I: 167,000 gallons
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S8 - 8
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 326 of 768
SITE 8
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/24/2014 to 3/3/2014
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (in)
Lev

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 Velocity (fps)
Vel

0.00 0.20

0.40 0.60

0.80 1.00

1.20 2/24 2/25 2/26 2/27 2/28 3/1 3/2
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 3.41 inches Rain Flow BLFlow
Avg Level: 3.93 in. Peak Level: 6.51 in. Min Level: 2.14 in.

Avg Velocity: 1.99 fps Peak Velocity: 2.89 fps Min Velocity: 0.91 fps Avg Flow: 0.339 mgd Peak Flow: 0.910 mgd Min Flow: 0.070 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S8 - 9
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 327 of 768
SITE 8
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/3/2014 to 3/10/2014
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (in)
Lev

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 Velocity (fps)
Vel

0.00 0.20

0.40 0.60

0.80 1.00

1.20 3/3 3/4 3/5 3/6 3/7 3/8 3/9
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.20 inches Rain Flow BLFlow
Avg Level: 3.54 in. Peak Level: 4.99 in. Min Level: 1.90 in.

Avg Velocity: 1.87 fps Peak Velocity: 2.64 fps Min Velocity: 0.96 fps Avg Flow: 0.283 mgd Peak Flow: 0.583 mgd Min Flow: 0.056 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S8 - 10
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 328 of 768
SITE 8
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/10/2014 to 3/17/2014
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (in)
Lev

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 Velocity (fps)
Vel

0.00 0.20

0.40 0.60

0.80 1.00

1.20 3/10 3/11 3/12 3/13 3/14 3/15 3/16
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Rain Flow BLFlow
Avg Level: 3.68 in. Peak Level: 5.77 in. Min Level: 1.85 in.

Avg Velocity: 1.92 fps Peak Velocity: 2.82 fps Min Velocity: 0.94 fps Avg Flow: 0.311 mgd Peak Flow: 0.742 mgd Min Flow: 0.053 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S8 - 11
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 329 of 768
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Monitoring Site:

Location:

Site 9
Behind Nike Outlet Store off Arroyo Circle
Temporary Monitoring: February and March, 2014
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring
City of Gilroy
Vicinity Map: Site 9
Data Summary Report
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S9 - 1
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 330 of 768
SITE 9
Site Information
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Pipe Diameter: 33 inches
Baseline Flow: 3.304 mgd
Peak Measured Flow: 6.486 mgd
Flow Sketch
Satellite Map
Street View
Sewer Map
Location: Behind Nike Outlet Store off
Arroyo Circle
Coordinates: 121.5649° W, 37.0206° N
Rim Elevation: 202 feet
Plan View
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S9 - 2
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 331 of 768
SITE 9
Additional Site Photos
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Effluent Pipe
Influent Pipe
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Appendix A, Page S9 - 3 Agenda Item 9.1 Page 332 of 768
SITE 9
Period Flow Summary: Daily Flow Totals
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study

0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.00
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16
Flow (MGal)

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Rainfall (in/day)

0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.00
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.5 0.00 5.00.501.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.00 2/24
2/25
2/26
2/27
2/28
3/1
3/2
3/3
3/4
3/5
3/6
3/7
3/8
3/9
3/10
3/11
3/12
3/13
3/14
3/15
3/16

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Total Period Rainfall: 3.52 inchesAvg Period Flow: 3.403 MGal Peak Daily Flow: 4.366 MGal Min Daily Flow: 3.168 MGal13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S9 - 4 Agenda Item 9.1

City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
SITE 9Flow Summary: 2/25/2014 to 3/16/2014

0.001.002.003.004.005.006.007.008.009.00
Feb 25 (Tue) Feb 26 (Wed) Feb 27 (Thu) Feb 28 (Fri) Mar 1 (Sat) Mar 2 (Sun) Mar 3 (Mon) Mar 4 (Tue) Mar 5 (Wed) Mar 6 (Thu) Flow (mgd)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.2 Rainfall (in/hr)
Rain Flow BLFlow

0.001.002.003.004.005.006.007.008.009.00
Mar 7 (Fri) Mar 8 (Sat) Mar 9 (Sun) Mar 10 (Mon) Mar 11 (Tue) Mar 12 (Wed) Mar 13 (Thu) Mar 14 (Fri) Mar 15 (Sat) Mar 16 (Sun) Flow (mgd)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.2 Rainfall (in/hr)
Total Period Rainfall: 3.52 inches Avg Flow: 3.406 mgd Peak Flow: 6.486 mgd Min Flow: 1.224 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S9 - 5
Agenda Item 9.1

SITE 9
Baseline Flow Hydrographs
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study

0.001.002.003.004.005.006.00
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
Flow (mgd)
Mon-Thurs Friday Saturday Sunday
Time of Day

3.304 mgd
Baseline Flow:
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S9 - 6
Agenda Item 9.1

SITE 9
Site Capacity and Surcharge Summary
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Peak Measured Level: 14.5Peak d/D Ratio: 0.44Pipe Diameter: 33 inches inches
Realtime Flow Levels with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Diameter
05 101520253035
02/25
02/27
03/01
03/03
03/05
03/07
03/09
03/11
03/13
03/15
Level (in)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain (in)
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S9 - 7
Agenda Item 9.1

SITE 9
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
I/I Summary: Event 1
Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 7.00

8.00 9.00
02/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/1103/1203/1303/1403/1503/16 Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 2.20 inches
Event 1

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 7.00
02/2803/0103/02
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Event 1 Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 2.20 inches)
Peak Flow: 6.49
PF:
mgd

1.96 Capacity
Peak I/I Rate: 3.75 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
Total I/I: 1,307,000 gallons
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S9 - 8
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 337 of 768
SITE 9
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/24/2014 to 3/3/2014
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (in)
Lev

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 7.0
Velocity (fps)
Vel

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 7.00

8.00 9.00
2/24 2/25 2/26 2/27 2/28 3/1 3/2
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 3.33 inches Rain Flow BLFlow
Avg Level: 11.00 in. Peak Level: 14.51 in. Min Level: 7.24 in.

Avg Velocity: 3.08 fps Peak Velocity: 4.02 fps Min Velocity: 2.11 fps Avg Flow: 3.557 mgd Peak Flow: 6.486 mgd Min Flow: 1.315 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S9 - 9
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 338 of 768
SITE 9
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/3/2014 to 3/10/2014
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (in)
Lev

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 7.0
Velocity (fps)
Vel

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 7.00

8.00 9.00
3/3 3/4 3/5 3/6 3/7 3/8 3/9
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.19 inches Rain Flow BLFlow
Avg Level: 10.74 in. Peak Level: 13.39 in. Min Level: 7.18 in.

Avg Velocity: 3.01 fps Peak Velocity: 3.72 fps Min Velocity: 1.96 fps Avg Flow: 3.356 mgd Peak Flow: 5.323 mgd Min Flow: 1.337 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S9 - 10
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 339 of 768
SITE 9
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/10/2014 to 3/17/2014
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (in)
Lev

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 7.0
Velocity (fps)
Vel

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 7.00

8.00 9.00
3/10 3/11 3/12 3/13 3/14 3/15 3/16
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Rain Flow BLFlow
Avg Level: 10.66 in. Peak Level: 13.61 in. Min Level: 7.01 in.

Avg Velocity: 2.98 fps Peak Velocity: 3.74 fps Min Velocity: 2.04 fps Avg Flow: 3.298 mgd Peak Flow: 5.518 mgd Min Flow: 1.224 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S9 - 11
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 340 of 768
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Monitoring Site:

Location:

Site 10
Welburn Avenue west of Church Street
Temporary Monitoring: February and March, 2014
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring
City of Gilroy
Vicinity Map: Site 10
Data Summary Report
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S10 - 1
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 341 of 768
SITE 10
Site Information
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Pipe Diameter: 10.5 inches
Baseline Flow: 0.310 mgd
Peak Measured Flow: 0.664 mgd
Flow Sketch
Satellite Map
Street View
Sewer Map
Location: Welburn Avenue west of
Church Street
Coordinates: 121.5781° W, 37.0189° N
Rim Elevation: 207 feet
Plan View
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S10 - 2
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 342 of 768
SITE 10
Additional Site Photos
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Effluent Pipe
Influent Pipe
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Appendix A, Page S10 - 3 Agenda Item 9.1 Page 343 of 768
SITE 10
Period Flow Summary: Daily Flow Totals
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study

0.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.350.400.45
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16
Flow (MGal)

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Rainfall (in/day)

0.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.350.400.45
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.5 0.00 5.00.050.100.150.200.250.300.350.400.45 2/24
2/25
2/26
2/27
2/28
3/1
3/2
3/3
3/4
3/5
3/6
3/7
3/8
3/9
3/10
3/11
3/12
3/13
3/14
3/15
3/16

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Total Period Rainfall: 3.51 inchesAvg Period Flow: 0.307 MGal Peak Daily Flow: 0.408 MGal Min Daily Flow: 0.255 MGal13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S10 - 4 Agenda Item 9.1

City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
SITE 10Flow Summary: 2/25/2014 to 3/16/2014

0.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
Feb 25 (Tue) Feb 26 (Wed) Feb 27 (Thu) Feb 28 (Fri) Mar 1 (Sat) Mar 2 (Sun) Mar 3 (Mon) Mar 4 (Tue) Mar 5 (Wed) Mar 6 (Thu) Flow (mgd)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.2 Rainfall (in/hr)
Rain Flow BLFlow

0.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
Mar 7 (Fri) Mar 8 (Sat) Mar 9 (Sun) Mar 10 (Mon) Mar 11 (Tue) Mar 12 (Wed) Mar 13 (Thu) Mar 14 (Fri) Mar 15 (Sat) Mar 16 (Sun) Flow (mgd)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.2 Rainfall (in/hr)
Total Period Rainfall: 3.51 inches Avg Flow: 0.306 mgd Peak Flow: 0.664 mgd Min Flow: 0.063 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S10 - 5
Agenda Item 9.1

SITE 10
Baseline Flow Hydrographs
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study

0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.70
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
Flow (mgd)
Mon-Thurs Friday Saturday Sunday
Time of Day

0.310 mgd
Baseline Flow:
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S10 - 6
Agenda Item 9.1

SITE 10
Site Capacity and Surcharge Summary
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Peak Measured Level: 7.29Peak d/D Ratio: 0.69Pipe Diameter: 10.5 inches inches
Realtime Flow Levels with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Diameter
02468
1012
02/25
02/27
03/01
03/03
03/05
03/07
03/09
03/11
03/13
03/15
Level (in)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain (in)
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S10 - 7
Agenda Item 9.1

SITE 10
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
I/I Summary: Event 1
Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period

0.00 0.20

0.40 0.60

0.80 1.00

1.20 02/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/1103/1203/1303/1403/1503/16 Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 2.18 inches
Event 1

0.00 0.10

0.20 0.30

0.40 0.50

0.60 0.70
02/2803/0103/02
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Event 1 Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 2.18 inches)
Peak Flow: 0.58
PF:
mgd

1.88 Capacity
Peak I/I Rate: 0.40 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
Total I/I: 41,000 gallons
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S10 - 8
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 348 of 768
SITE 10
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/24/2014 to 3/3/2014
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (in)
Lev

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 Velocity (fps)
Vel

0.00 0.20

0.40 0.60

0.80 1.00

1.20 2/24 2/25 2/26 2/27 2/28 3/1 3/2
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 3.32 inches Rain Flow BLFlow
Avg Level: 5.01 in. Peak Level: 6.88 in. Min Level: 3.10 in.

Avg Velocity: 1.62 fps Peak Velocity: 2.36 fps Min Velocity: 0.64 fps Avg Flow: 0.314 mgd Peak Flow: 0.591 mgd Min Flow: 0.066 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S10 - 9
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 349 of 768
SITE 10
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/3/2014 to 3/10/2014
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (in)
Lev

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 Velocity (fps)
Vel

0.00 0.20

0.40 0.60

0.80 1.00

1.20 3/3 3/4 3/5 3/6 3/7 3/8 3/9
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.19 inches Rain Flow BLFlow
Avg Level: 5.16 in. Peak Level: 7.19 in. Min Level: 3.27 in.

Avg Velocity: 1.60 fps Peak Velocity: 2.81 fps Min Velocity: 0.61 fps Avg Flow: 0.324 mgd Peak Flow: 0.664 mgd Min Flow: 0.063 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S10 - 10
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 350 of 768
SITE 10
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/10/2014 to 3/17/2014
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (in)
Lev

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5

4.0 Velocity (fps)
Vel

0.00 0.20

0.40 0.60

0.80 1.00

1.20 3/10 3/11 3/12 3/13 3/14 3/15 3/16
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Rain Flow BLFlow
Avg Level: 5.22 in. Peak Level: 7.29 in. Min Level: 3.16 in.

Avg Velocity: 1.38 fps Peak Velocity: 2.42 fps Min Velocity: 0.61 fps Avg Flow: 0.283 mgd Peak Flow: 0.650 mgd Min Flow: 0.065 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S10 - 11
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 351 of 768
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Monitoring Site:

Location:

Site 11
Intersection of Wren Avenue and Mantelli Drive
Temporary Monitoring: February and March, 2014
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring
City of Gilroy
Vicinity Map: Site 11
Data Summary Report
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S11 - 1
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 352 of 768
SITE 11
Site Information
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Pipe Diameter: 17.75 inches
Baseline Flow: 0.535 mgd
Peak Measured Flow: 1.161 mgd
Flow Sketch
Satellite Map
Street View
Sewer Map
Location: Intersection of Wren Avenue
and Mantelli Drive
Coordinates: 121.5867° W, 37.0234° N
Rim Elevation: 212 feet
Plan View
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S11 - 2
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 353 of 768
SITE 11
Additional Site Photos
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Effluent Pipe
Influent Pipe
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Appendix A, Page S11 - 3 Agenda Item 9.1 Page 354 of 768
SITE 11
Period Flow Summary: Daily Flow Totals
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study

0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.70
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16
Flow (MGal)

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Rainfall (in/day)

0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.70
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.5 0.00 5.00.100.200.300.400.500.600.70 2/24
2/25
2/26
2/27
2/28
3/1
3/2
3/3
3/4
3/5
3/6
3/7
3/8
3/9
3/10
3/11
3/12
3/13
3/14
3/15
3/16

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Total Period Rainfall: 3.45 inchesAvg Period Flow: 0.548 MGal Peak Daily Flow: 0.623 MGal Min Daily Flow: 0.507 MGal13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S11 - 4 Agenda Item 9.1

City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
SITE 11Flow Summary: 2/25/2014 to 3/16/2014

0.000.200.400.600.801.001.201.401.601.80
Feb 25 (Tue) Feb 26 (Wed) Feb 27 (Thu) Feb 28 (Fri) Mar 1 (Sat) Mar 2 (Sun) Mar 3 (Mon) Mar 4 (Tue) Mar 5 (Wed) Mar 6 (Thu) Flow (mgd)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.2 Rainfall (in/hr)
Rain Flow BLFlow

0.000.200.400.600.801.001.201.401.601.80
Mar 7 (Fri) Mar 8 (Sat) Mar 9 (Sun) Mar 10 (Mon) Mar 11 (Tue) Mar 12 (Wed) Mar 13 (Thu) Mar 14 (Fri) Mar 15 (Sat) Mar 16 (Sun) Flow (mgd)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.2 Rainfall (in/hr)
Total Period Rainfall: 3.45 inches Avg Flow: 0.549 mgd Peak Flow: 1.161 mgd Min Flow: 0.142 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S11 - 5
Agenda Item 9.1

SITE 11
Baseline Flow Hydrographs
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study

0.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
Flow (mgd)
Mon-Thurs Friday Saturday Sunday
Time of Day

0.535 mgd
Baseline Flow:
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S11 - 6
Agenda Item 9.1

SITE 11
Site Capacity and Surcharge Summary
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Peak Measured Level: 11.4Peak d/D Ratio: 0.64Pipe Diameter: 17.8 inches inches
Realtime Flow Levels with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Diameter
02468
101214161820
02/25
02/27
03/01
03/03
03/05
03/07
03/09
03/11
03/13
03/15
Level (in)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain (in)
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S11 - 7
Agenda Item 9.1

SITE 11
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
I/I Summary: Event 1
Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period

0.00 0.20

0.40 0.60

0.80 1.00

1.20 1.40

1.60 1.80
02/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/1103/1203/1303/1403/1503/16 Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 2.14 inches
Event 1

0.00 0.20

0.40 0.60

0.80 1.00

1.20 02/2803/0103/02
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Event 1 Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 2.14 inches)
Peak Flow: 1.11
PF:
mgd

2.07 Capacity
Peak I/I Rate: 0.39 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
Total I/I: 133,000 gallons
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S11 - 8
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 359 of 768
SITE 11
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/24/2014 to 3/3/2014
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (in)
Lev

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5
Velocity (fps)
Vel

0.00 0.20

0.40 0.60

0.80 1.00

1.20 1.40

1.60 1.80
2/24 2/25 2/26 2/27 2/28 3/1 3/2
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 3.27 inches Rain Flow BLFlow
Avg Level: 7.63 in. Peak Level: 11.39 in. Min Level: 4.75 in.

Avg Velocity: 1.18 fps Peak Velocity: 1.78 fps Min Velocity: 0.64 fps Avg Flow: 0.563 mgd Peak Flow: 1.107 mgd Min Flow: 0.157 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S11 - 9
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 360 of 768
SITE 11
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/3/2014 to 3/10/2014
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (in)
Lev

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5
Velocity (fps)
Vel

0.00 0.20

0.40 0.60

0.80 1.00

1.20 1.40

1.60 1.80
3/3 3/4 3/5 3/6 3/7 3/8 3/9
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.18 inches Rain Flow BLFlow
Avg Level: 7.36 in. Peak Level: 10.26 in. Min Level: 4.77 in.

Avg Velocity: 1.21 fps Peak Velocity: 1.91 fps Min Velocity: 0.66 fps Avg Flow: 0.551 mgd Peak Flow: 1.161 mgd Min Flow: 0.167 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S11 - 10
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 361 of 768
SITE 11
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/10/2014 to 3/17/2014
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (in)
Lev

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5
Velocity (fps)
Vel

0.00 0.20

0.40 0.60

0.80 1.00

1.20 1.40

1.60 1.80
3/10 3/11 3/12 3/13 3/14 3/15 3/16
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Rain Flow BLFlow
Avg Level: 7.26 in. Peak Level: 10.30 in. Min Level: 4.65 in.

Avg Velocity: 1.18 fps Peak Velocity: 1.79 fps Min Velocity: 0.60 fps Avg Flow: 0.531 mgd Peak Flow: 1.017 mgd Min Flow: 0.142 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page S11 - 11
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 362 of 768
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
Monitoring Site:

Location:

Sites 1+2+3
Sum of Sites 1, 2 and 3 -- total flow entering the
treatment facility
Temporary Monitoring: February and March, 2014
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring
City of Gilroy
Vicinity Map: Sites 1+2+3
Data Summary Report
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page 1+2+3 - 1
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 363 of 768
SITES 1+2+3
Period Flow Summary: Daily Flow Totals
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study

0.001.002.003.004.005.006.007.008.009.00
2/25
2/27
3/1
3/3
3/5
3/7
3/9
3/11
3/13
3/15
Flow (MGal)

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Rainfall (in/day)

0.001.002.003.004.005.006.007.008.009.00
2/25
2/27
3/1
3/3
3/5
3/7
3/9
3/11
3/13
3/15

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.5 0.00 5.01.002.003.004.005.006.007.008.009.00 2/25
2/26
2/27
2/28
3/1
3/2
3/3
3/4
3/5
3/6
3/7
3/8
3/9
3/10
3/11
3/12
3/13
3/14
3/15
3/16

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page 1+2+3 - 2 Agenda Item 9.1

City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
SITES 1+2+3Flow Summary: 2/25/2014 to 3/16/2014

0.002.004.006.008.00

10.0012.0014.0016.00
Feb 25
(Tuesday )
Feb 26
(Wednesday )
Feb 27
(Thursday )
Feb 28
(Friday )
Mar 1
(Saturday )
Mar 2
(Sunday )
Mar 3
(Monday )
Mar 4
(Tuesday )
Mar 5
(Wednesday )
Mar 6
(Thursday )
Flow (mgd)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.2 Rainfall (in/hr)
Rain Flow BLFlow

0.002.004.006.008.00

10.0012.0014.0016.00
Mar 7
(Friday )
Mar 8
(Saturday )
Mar 9
(Sunday )
Mar 10
(Monday )
Mar 11
(Tuesday )
Mar 12
(Wednesday )
Mar 13
(Thursday )
Mar 14
(Friday )
Mar 15
(Saturday )
Mar 16
(Sunday )
Flow (mgd)

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.2 Rainfall (in/hr)
Total Period Rainfall: 3.64 inches Avg Flow: 6.147 mgd Peak Flow: 10.785 mgd Min Flow: 2.522 mgd 13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page 1+2+3 - 3
Agenda Item 9.1

SITES 1+2+3
Baseline Flow Hydrographs
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study

0.001.002.003.004.005.006.007.008.009.00

10.00 0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
Flow (mgd)
Mon-Thurs Friday Saturday Sunday
Time of Day

5.944 mgd
Baseline Flow:
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page 1+2+3 - 4
Agenda Item 9.1

SITES 1+2+3
City of Gilroy
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and I/I Study
I/I Summary: Event 1
Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period

0.00 2.00

4.00 6.00

8.00 10.00

12.00 14.00

16.00 02/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/1103/1203/1303/1403/1503/16 Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 2.29 inches
Event 1

0.00 2.00

4.00 6.00

8.00 10.00

12.00 02/2803/0103/02
Flow (mgd)

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0

1.2 Rain (in/hr)
Event 1 Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 2.29 inches)
Peak Flow: 10.78
PF:
mgd

1.81 Capacity
Peak I/I Rate: 5.92 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
Total I/I: 2,796,000 gallons
13-0053 AEG Gilroy FM and II Rpt.doc Page 1+2+3 - 5
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 367 of 768
Flow Site
Rain Gauge
RG West
RG Southwest
RG Northeast N
Houston
8220 Jones Road, Suite 500
Houston, TX 77065
713.568.9067 Tel
vaengineering.com
Oakland
155 Grand Avenue, Suite 700
Oakland, CA 94612
510.903.6600 Tel
510.903.6601 Fax
San Diego
11011 Via Frontera, Suite C
San Diego, CA 92127
858.576.0226 Tel
Las Vegas
3430 East Russell Road, Suite 316
Las Vegas, NV 89120
702.522.7967 Tel
702.553.4694 Fax
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 368 of 768
March 2023 City of Gilroy
Sewer System Master Plan
City of Gilroy

APPENDIX B
Hydraulic Model Calibration Exhibits
City of Gilroy
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 369 of 768
Figure 6.5
Site 1 Calibration
Inside WWTP
Sewer System Master Plan
City of Gilroy
LEGEND
June 29, 2016

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5

0.6 0.7

0.8 0.9
0 1.0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Rain Intensity (in/hr)
Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
Wet Weather Event 2 (02/28/14 - 03/01/14)
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
Dry Weather Flow
Weekday Weekend

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 0 1.0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Rain Intensity (in/hr)
Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
Wet Weather Event 1 (02/26/14 - 02/27/14)
Rain Event
Hydraulic Model
V&A Flow Monitoring
V&A Flow Monitoring
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 370 of 768
Figure 6.6
Site 2 Calibration
ROW se/o Holloway Rd.

Sewer System Master Plan
City of Gilroy
LEGEND

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5

0.6 0.7

0.8 0.9
0 1.0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Rain Intensity (in/hr)
Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
Wet Weather Event 2 (02/28/14 - 03/01/14)
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
Dry Weather Flow
Weekday
Weekend

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 0 1.0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Rain Intensity (in/hr)
Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
Wet Weather Event 1 (02/26/14 - 02/27/14)
Rain Event
Hydraulic Model
V&A Flow Monitoring
V&A Flow Monitoring June 29, 2016
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 371 of 768
Figure 6.7
Site 3 Calibration
ROW se/o Holloway Rd.

Sewer System Master Plan
City of Gilroy
LEGEND

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5

0.6 0.7

0.8 0.9
0 1.0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Rain Intensity (in/hr)
Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
Wet Weather Event 2 (02/28/14 - 03/01/14)
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
Dry Weather Flow
Weekday Weekend

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 0 1.0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Rain Intensity (in/hr)
Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
Wet Weather Event 1 (02/26/14 - 02/27/14)
Rain Event
Hydraulic Model
V&A Flow Monitoring
V&A Flow Monitoring
June 29, 2016
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 372 of 768
Figure 6.8
Site 4 Calibration
W. Luchessa Ave. and Hyde Park Dr.

Sewer System Master Plan
City of Gilroy
LEGEND

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5

0.6 0.7

0.8 0.9
0 1.0
50 100
150
200
250
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Rain Intensity (in/hr)
Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
Wet Weather Event 2 (02/28/14 - 03/01/14)
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
Dry Weather Flow
Weekday Weekend

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 0 1.0
20 40
60 80
100
120
140
160
180
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Rain Intensity (in/hr)
Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
Wet Weather Event 1 (02/26/14 - 02/27/14)
Rain Event
Hydraulic Model
V&A Flow Monitoring
V&A Flow Monitoring June 29, 2016
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 373 of 768
Figure 6.9
Site 5 Calibration
Wren Ave. and Uvas Park Dr.

Sewer System Master Plan
City of Gilroy
LEGEND

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5

0.6 0.7

0.8 0.9
0 1.0
50 100
150
200
250
300
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Rain Intensity (in/hr)
Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
Wet Weather Event 2 (02/28/14 - 03/01/14)
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
Dry Weather Flow
Weekday Weekend

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 0 1.0
50 100
150
200
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Rain Intensity (in/hr)
Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
Wet Weather Event 1 (02/26/14 - 02/27/14)
Rain Event
Hydraulic Model
V&A Flow Monitoring
V&A Flow Monitoring
June 29, 2016
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 374 of 768
Figure 6.10
Site 6 Calibration
sw/o 3rd S.t and Santa Teresa Blvd.

Sewer System Master Plan
City of Gilroy
LEGEND

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5

0.6 0.7

0.8 0.9
0 1.0
20 40
60 80
100
120
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Rain Intensity (in/hr)
Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
Wet Weather Event 2 (02/28/14 - 03/01/14)
0 20
40 60
80 100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
Dry Weather Flow
Weekday
Weekend

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 0 1.0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Rain Intensity (in/hr)
Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
Wet Weather Event 1 (02/26/14 - 02/27/14)
Rain Event
Hydraulic Model
V&A Flow Monitoring
V&A Flow Monitoring June 29, 2016
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 375 of 768
Figure 6.11
Site 7 Calibration
E. 9th St. and Highway 101 Off-ramp
Sewer System Master Plan
City of Gilroy
LEGEND

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5

0.6 0.7

0.8 0.9
0 1.0
20 40
60 80
100
120
140
160
180
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Rain Intensity (in/hr)
Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
Wet Weather Event 2 (02/28/14 - 03/01/14)
0 50
100
150
200
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
Dry Weather Flow
Weekday
Weekend

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 0 1.0
20 40
60 80
100
120
140
160
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Rain Intensity (in/hr)
Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
Wet Weather Event 1 (02/26/14 - 02/27/14)
Rain Event
Hydraulic Model
V&A Flow Monitoring
V&A Flow Monitoring
June 29, 2016
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 376 of 768
Figure 6.12
Site 8 Calibration
Renz Ln. and Highway 101 On-ramp
Sewer System Master Plan
City of Gilroy
LEGEND

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5

0.6 0.7

0.8 0.9
0 1.0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Rain Intensity (in/hr)
Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
Wet Weather Event 2 (02/28/14 - 03/01/14)
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
Dry Weather Flow
Weekday Weekend

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 0 1.0
50 100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Rain Intensity (in/hr)
Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
Wet Weather Event 1 (02/26/14 - 02/27/14)
Rain Event
Hydraulic Model
V&A Flow Monitoring
V&A Flow Monitoring June 29, 2016
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 377 of 768
Figure 6.13
Site 9 Calibration
Behind Nike Outlet off Arroyo Circle
Sewer System Master Plan
City of Gilroy
LEGEND

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5

0.6 0.7

0.8 0.9
0 1.0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Rain Intensity (in/hr)
Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
Wet Weather Event 2 (02/28/14 - 03/01/14)
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
Dry Weather Flow
Weekday Weekend

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 0 1.0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Rain Intensity (in/hr)
Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
Wet Weather Event 1 (02/26/14 - 02/27/14)
Rain Event
Hydraulic Model
V&A Flow Monitoring
V&A Flow Monitoring June 29, 2016
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 378 of 768
Figure 6.14
Site 10 Calibration
Welburn Ave. and Church St.

Sewer System Master Plan
City of Gilroy
LEGEND

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5

0.6 0.7

0.8 0.9
0 1.0
50 100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Rain Intensity (in/hr)
Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
Wet Weather Event 2 (02/28/14 - 03/01/14)
0 100
200
300
400
500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
Dry Weather Flow
Weekday
Weekend

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 0 1.0
50 100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Rain Intensity (in/hr)
Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
Wet Weather Event 1 (02/26/14 - 02/27/14)
Rain Event
Hydraulic Model
V&A Flow Monitoring
V&A Flow Monitoring June 29, 2016
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 379 of 768
Figure 6.15
Site 11 Calibration
Wren Ave. and Mantelli Dr.

Sewer System Master Plan
City of Gilroy
LEGEND

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5

0.6 0.7

0.8 0.9
0 1.0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Rain Intensity (in/hr)
Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
Wet Weather Event 2 (02/28/14 - 03/01/14)
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
Dry Weather Flow
Weekday Weekend

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 0 1.0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Rain Intensity (in/hr)
Flow (gpm)
Time (hr)
Wet Weather Event 1 (02/26/14 - 02/27/14)
Rain Event
Hydraulic Model
V&A Flow Monitoring
V&A Flow Monitoring June 29, 2016
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 380 of 768
March 2023 City of Gilroy
Sewer System Master Plan

APPENDIX C
Joint Trunk Condition Assessment Report
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 381 of 768
City of Morgan Hill
Joint Trunk Pipeline
Condition Assessment Report - DRAFT
Date: January 2021
Prepared by: Water Works Engineers
Anthony Baltazar, P.E.

Table of Contents
0 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 4 1 Purpose for Investigation ............................................................................................................................ 7 2 Project Approach/Methodology.................................................................................................................. 7

2.1 Risk Prioritization Methodology .......................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Field Assessment Role in Risk Prioritization...................................................................................... 13

2.3 City Master Plan Role in Risk Prioritization ....................................................................................... 14

2.4 Location Criteria Forms Role in Risk Prioritization ............................................................................ 14 3 Summary of Field Assessment................................................................................................................... 15

3.1 Investigation Procedures................................................................................................................... 15

3.2 Summary of Work Completed........................................................................................................... 17

3.3 Summary of Findings......................................................................................................................... 20 4 Summary of Manhole Location Criteria Forms ......................................................................................... 50 5 Summary of City Master Plan.................................................................................................................... 50

5.1 Capital Improvement Projects........................................................................................................... 50

5.2 Pipe Capacity Rating Data.................................................................................................................. 52

5.3 Flow Volume Rating........................................................................................................................... 52 6 Risk Prioritization Results.......................................................................................................................... 53

6.1 Probability Rating and Criteria .......................................................................................................... 53

6.2 Consequence Rating and Criteria ...................................................................................................... 57

6.3 Overall Risk Rating............................................................................................................................. 62 7 Proposed Repair, Rehabilitation, and/or Replacement (RRR) Alternatives.............................................. 68

7.1 Pipelines ............................................................................................................................................ 68

7.2 Manholes........................................................................................................................................... 74 8 Unit Cost for Each RRR Alternative............................................................................................................ 75

8.1 Pipelines ............................................................................................................................................ 75

8.2 Manholes........................................................................................................................................... 76 9 RRR Alternatives Assignment .................................................................................................................... 76

9.1 Pipelines ............................................................................................................................................ 76

9.2 Manholes........................................................................................................................................... 82 10 Proposed Improvement Project Bundling/Phasing & Analysis ................................................................. 84

10.1 “All-at-Once” Approach..................................................................................................................... 85

10.2 Phasing Approach.............................................................................................................................. 86 Agenda Item 9.1 Page 382 of 768
11 O&M Recommendations........................................................................................................................... 86 12 Construction Cost Estimates...................................................................................................................... 86 13 Recommended Project.............................................................................................................................. 87 14 Potential Constraints of Recommended Methodology............................................................................. 89

14.1 Permits............................................................................................................................................... 89

14.2 Environmental Considerations.......................................................................................................... 89

14.3 Utility Coordination ........................................................................................................................... 89 15 Appendices................................................................................................................................................ 90 List of Appendices

15.1 Appendix A – Summary of Pipeline Work Completed

15.2 Appendix B – Pipeline Structural Quick Ratings

15.3 Appendix C – Pipeline Maintenance Quick Ratings

15.4 Appendix D – Pipeline Overall Risk Ratings

15.5 Appendix E – Cost Estimate for Structural CIPP Lining & JT-P2 through JT-P9 – All-at-Once

15.6 Appendix F – Cost Estimate for Structural CIPP Lining & JT-P2 through JT-P9 – Phased

15.7 Appendix G – Recommended Emergency/Immediate Projects

15.8 Appendix H – Recommended Intermediate Projects

16.9 Appendix I – Mapbook, Pipeline Inspection Findings List of Tables
Table 1: Structural/O&M Condition Rating Determination .......................................................................................9 Table 2: Pipe Capacity Rating Determination.......................................................................................................... 10 Table 3: Weighting Factors for Probability Criteria................................................................................................. 10 Table 4: Probability Rating Determination.............................................................................................................. 10 Table 5: Flow Volume Rating Determination .......................................................................................................... 11 Table 6: Proximity to Waterways Rating Determination ........................................................................................ 12 Table 7: Public Impact Rating Determination.......................................................................................................... 12 Table 8: O&M Access and Safety Rating Determination......................................................................................... 12 Table 9: Weighting Factors for Consequence Criteria............................................................................................. 13 Table 10: Consequence Rating Determination........................................................................................................ 13 Table 11: Abandoned Inspection Summary ............................................................................................................ 17 Table 12: Pipelines Not Inspected........................................................................................................................... 18 Table 13: Manholes Not MACP Inspected............................................................................................................... 19 Table 14: Nonexistent Manholes............................................................................................................................. 19 Table 15: Pipelines with Grade 5 Structural Defects............................................................................................... 21 Table 16: Pipelines with Grade 4 Structural Defects as Highest Severity ............................................................... 21 Table 17: Pipelines with Grade 3 Structural Defects as Highest Severity ............................................................... 21 Table 18: Pipelines with Grade 2 Structural Defects as Highest Severity ............................................................... 22 Table 19: Pipelines with Grade 1 Structural Defects as Highest Severity ............................................................... 24 Table 20: Pipelines with Grade 5 Maintenance Defects ......................................................................................... 26 Table 21: Pipelines with Grade 4 Maintenance Defects as Highest Severity.......................................................... 26 Agenda Item 9.1 Page 383 of 768
Table 22: Pipelines with Grade 3 Maintenance Defects as Highest Severity.......................................................... 26 Table 23: Pipelines with Grade 2 Maintenance Defects as Highest Severity.......................................................... 26 Table 24: Pipelines with Infiltration Defect Observations....................................................................................... 31 Table 25: Pipelines with Lateral Connections.......................................................................................................... 33 Table 26: Manholes with Grade 5 Structural Defects............................................................................................. 35 Table 27: Manholes with Grade 4 Structural Defects as Highest Severity.............................................................. 37 Table 28: Manholes with Grade 3 Structural Defects as Highest Severity.............................................................. 37 Table 29: Manholes with Grade 2 Structural Defects as Highest Severity.............................................................. 38 Table 30: Manholes with Grade 1 Structural Defects as Highest Severity.............................................................. 40 Table 31: Manholes with Grade 5 O&M Defects..................................................................................................... 42 Table 32: Manholes with Grade 3 O&M Defects as Highest Severity ..................................................................... 42 Table 33: Manholes with Grade 2 O&M Defects as Highest Severity ..................................................................... 43 Table 34: Manholes with Grade 1 O&M Defects as Highest Severity ..................................................................... 46 Table 35: Manholes with Infiltration Defect Observations..................................................................................... 46 Table 36: Buried Manholes...................................................................................................................................... 47 Table 37: City GIS and Field Assessment Findings Discrepancies............................................................................ 48 Table 38: Probability Rating & Criteria for Inspected Pipelines.............................................................................. 53 Table 39: Probability Rating & Criteria for Pipelines Not Inspected ....................................................................... 57 Table 40: Consequence Rating & Criteria for Inspected Pipelines.......................................................................... 58 Table 41: Consequence Rating & Criteria for Pipelines Not Inspected................................................................... 62 Table 42: Overall Risk Rating by Rank for Inspected Pipelines................................................................................ 63 Table 43: Overall Risk Rating by Rank for Pipelines Not Inspected......................................................................... 67 Table 44: Pipeline RRR Alternatives Assignment..................................................................................................... 78 Table 45: Pipelines with Structural Defects Requiring Immediate Rehabilitation.................................................. 82 Table 46: Pipelines with I&I Defects Requiring Immediate Rehabilitation ............................................................. 82 Table 47: Manhole RRR Alternatives Assignment................................................................................................... 82 Table 51: Cost Estimate Comparison....................................................................................................................... 87 Table 52: Recommended Emergency/Immediate Projects..................................................................................... 87 Table 53: Recommended Immediate/Intermediate Projects ................................................................................. 88 Agenda Item 9.1 Page 384 of 768
0 Executive Summary
This Condition Assessment Report (Report) was prepared by Water Works Engineers (WWE) on behalf of the City of Morgan Hill (City) in an effort to summarize the condition assessment performed, and the resultant recommendation(s), for the JTP sanitary sewer trunk main. After collecting condition assessment data on roughly 61,807 linear feet of trunk main, a review/analysis was performed on the data in conjunction with a capacity analysis based on the City’s Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP), October 2017. A Risk Prioritization Methodology was employed for all pipelines to determine their Overall Risk Rating, which is used to determine the recommended path forward for rehabilitating the trunk main. Multiple Repair, Rehabilitation, and Renewal (RRR) alternative methodologies (Section 7) were explored as options to address the trunk main’s varying structural degradation and capacity constraints. In particular, two methodologies were considered as viable for various components of the overall project: Structural Cured-in-Place-Pipe (CIPP) Lining (Section 7.1.2.2) and Spray Coating (Section 7.1.2.3). From a constructability standpoint, Microtunneling (Section 7.1.3.3) was considered as a viable alternative for replacement of the existing line but has a significant cost impact when compared with other alternatives. Also from a constructability standpoint, Pipe Bursting (Section 7.1.3.2) was considered as a viable alternative for replacement of the existing line but is considered infeasible due to the structurally degraded portions of the JTP trunk main being reinforced concrete pipe material. By analyzing these alternative methodologies side-by-side with the viable capacity projects from the City’s SSMP, two project bundles/approaches (Section 10) were formed with an emphasis on risk reduction, feasibility/constructability, consistent and accurate cost estimating taking into account identified project constraints, and cost efficiencies.

The results of the condition assessment analysis formed the basis for recommending rehabilitation for the reinforced concrete pipe segments along the trunk main. The Overall Risk Rating for each pipeline was determined on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being a relatively low risk and 5 being a high risk of failure. A majority of the trunk main pipelines have Overall Risk Ratings of 5 or 4. The following summarizes the number of pipelines that fall under each value for the Overall Risk Rating.

Table i: Executive Summary Overall Risk Rating Summary
Overall Risk Rating Number of Pipelines
5 57
4 30
3 35
2 38
1 8
Two alternatives were developed and analyzed. These included improvements to address existing and future buildout planning horizon capacity related problems identified in the SSMP(i.e. capacity improvement projects JTP2 through JT-P9) combined with improvements required to address emergency (0-2 year), immediate (2-5 year) and intermediate (2-15 year) condition deficiencies identified during the project field work. An intermediate project to address significant existing structural deficiencies is recommended be constructed within the next 2- Agenda Item 9.1 Page 385 of 768
years. To address the remainder of the capacity and condition deficiencies, two phasing approaches were analyzed.
“All-at-Once” assumed all of the condition deficiencies and existing and future buildout planning horizon capacity deficiencies (i.e. JT-P2 through JT-P9) would be constructed within a 5-year period as a single immediate/intermediate project.
“Phased” assumed all of the condition deficiencies and existing and future buildout planning horizon capacity deficiencies (i.e. JT-P2 through JT-P9) would be constructed over a 5 to 15-year period as a multi-phased intermediate project. This approach required additional emergency/immediate improvements (i.e. crown spraying of lines with capacity deficiencies that are being phased).

The following summarizes the cost estimate for each by project bundle.

Table ii: Executive Summary Project Alternatives Cost Estimate Summary Approach Project Bundle Emergency /
Immediate Project
Immediate /
Intermediate Project
Total Project Cost*
All-atOnce
Structural CIPP Lining
& JT-P2 through JT-P9
(Appendix E)
$0.84 Million
(0-2 years)
$32.8 Million
(2-5 years)
$47.1 Million
Phased
Structural CIPP Lining
& JT-P2 through JT-P9
(Appendix F)
$1.1 Million
(0-2 years)
$28.3 Million
(2-5 years)
$5.8 Million
(5-15 years)
$47.8 Million
*All presented 2021 dollars rounded to the nearest $100,000, including design and construction contingencies.

The recommended project bundle for the JTP trunk main is summarized below. It should be noted that the recommendation for completing the capacity improvement projects JT-P2 through JT-P9 is based on the results of the SSMP. The capacity project’s efficacy should be confirmed through flow monitoring during the design phase to verify the proposed pipe diameters.

Structural CIPP Lining & JT-P2 through JT-P9 – All-at-Once The “Emergency/Immediate Projects” (0-2 years) include the following:
• Structural CIPP lining and/or open cut replacement of the pipelines found to be in need of point repairs (see Appendix G)
• Manhole RRR activities (as discussed in Section 9.2)
The “Intermediate Projects” (2-5 years) include the following:
• Structural CIPP lining of all assigned pipelines (see Section 9.1 and Appendix H) • Capacity Improvement Projects JT-P2 through JT-P9
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 386 of 768
This project bundle assumes the City is able to obtain the necessary funding to perform the various projects within 5 years (exclusive of engineering design and permitting, which is assumed to be 1 year), with anticipated substantial completion of all improvements in 2027. The “Emergency/Immediate Projects” are recommended to be completed by Year 2, with the “Intermediate Projects’ recommended to be completed by Year 5. The Total Construction Cost Opinion for this project bundle is $47.1 Million. However, if the City is unable to take this approach, a “Phased” approach has also been explored in this Report (see Section 10.2). While more expensive overall than the project bundle explained above, this approach allows the City to “space out” the requisite funding over a span of about 15 years.

Agenda Item 9.1 Page 387 of 768
1 Purpose for Investigation
The City aims to complete cyclical condition assessment(s) of its wastewater collection assets by identifying system deficiencies, developing rehabilitation and replacement recommendations to repair those deficiencies, and create a prioritized capital program to construct the improvements. The City’s Joint Trunk Pipeline (JTP) conveys wastewater from a large portion of the City’s collection system infrastructure, and eventually discharges its flow to the South County Regional Wastewater Authority (SCRWA) Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The JTP starts near the intersection of Monterey Rd and California Ave, turning west and then south along Harding Ave, through various agricultural fields in San Martin, through the City of Gilroy, and terminating at the SCRWA WWTP.

The goal of the condition assessment project is to inspect the trunk sewer main to determine its physical condition and determine if there are structural and/or maintenance deficiencies that require repair, rehabilitation, replacement and/or O&M enhancements to maintain level of service consistent with City requirements. Once/if pipelines are identified as having structural and/or maintenance deficiencies, they are evaluated to determine the appropriate renewal/maintenance activity to address the issue(s) and lessen the potential risk of failure. Pipeline renewal denotes any activity that is taken to renew or increase the serviceable life of an asset. Pipeline renewal can be accomplished in various ways, including repair (i.e. localized repair of individual defects that affect a small portion of the overall line segment), rehabilitation (i.e. activities that address defects along the entire line segment but leave the host pipe in place), and replacement (i.e. activities that replace the defective line segment with an entirely new pipeline). Maintenance activities aim to improve operation and knowledge of the sewer trunk main and allow the City to better maintain the sewer infrastructure through activities like periodic cleaning.

Maintenance activities can encompass various methods such as heavy cleaning (i.e. remove debris/dirt from pertinent line segments), closed-circuit television (CCTV) inspection (i.e. CCTV of line segments not completed as part of this project), and adding access (i.e. adding manholes to portions of the alignment to allow for future access).

This Report contains a summary of the results of the condition assessment performed and the engineering analysis WWE utilized to determine the preferred methodology for the rehabilitation of the JTP wastewater trunk main.

Each pipeline segment is prioritized by need for repair, rehabilitation, and/or replacement (RRR) based on a risk prioritization methodology, which is explained in more detail in Section 2 below. 2 Project Approach/Methodology

2.1 Risk Prioritization Methodology
The risk prioritization methodology utilized by WWE produces an Overall Risk Rating for each pipeline segment that can then be used to rank each asset in order of their calculated risk of failure. The Overall Risk Rating is determined using two separate ratings: Probability Rating and Consequence Rating. Figure 1 below shows the Risk Rating Matrix used to determine the Overall Risk Rating. The orange box with a thick black outline denotes a pipeline that has a Probability Rating of 4 and a Consequence Rating of 3, resulting in an Overall Risk Rating of 4 as shown in the legend. In general, pipelines with a high probability of failure represent a higher risk. The risk associated with pipelines that have serious consequences of failure can be mitigated if the probability of failure is low.

Agenda Item 9.1 Page 388 of 768
Figure 1: Risk Rating Matrix

2.1.1 Probability Rating
The Probability Rating is based on three criteria:
• Structural Condition Rating
• O&M Condition Rating
• Pipe Capacity Rating

2.1.1.1 Structural Condition Rating
The Structural Condition Rating is based on the structural observations obtained during the CCTV inspections.

Each observation (e.g. cracks, fractures, breaks, holes, etc.) is assigned an individual defect grade ranging from 1 to 5, with 5 being the most severe. These structural observations are used to calculate the pipeline’s Total Structural Score. The Total Structural Score for a pipeline is calculated through the summation of three terms, as described below:
• The highest structural observation defect grade multiplied by 100. • The sum of the structural observation defect grades.
• The average structural observation defect grade per unit length of the pipeline multiplied by 100.

The resultant Total Structural Score is then used to determine the pipeline’s Structural Condition Rating, as shown in Table 1 below.

Agenda Item 9.1 Page 389 of 768
Table 1: Structural/O&M Condition Rating Determination
Total Structural/O&M Score Structural/O&M Condition Rating < 150 1
150 – 249.9 2
250 – 349.9 3
350 – 449.9 4
> 450 5
For example, assume a pipeline that is 438.9 feet in length has a high structural observation defect grade of 3.

Also assume the sum of its structural observation defect grades is 43. The pipeline’s Total Structural Score would be calculated as follows:
• (3 x 100) = 300
• 43
• 100 x (43 / 438.9) = 9.797
o Total Structural Score = 300 + 43 + 9.797 = 352.797
This pipeline’s Total Structural Score would then be rounded up to the nearest whole number (i.e. 353). As Table 1 shows, the pipeline’s Structural Condition Rating would be 4.

2.1.1.2 O&M Condition Rating
The O&M Condition Rating is determined exactly the same way as the Structural Condition Rating, except the O&M observation data for the pipeline is used instead. For the same pipeline described above, assume the highest O&M observation defect grade is 2 and the sum of its O&M observation defect grades is 23. The pipeline’s Total O&M Score would be calculated as follows:
• (2 x 100) = 200
• 23
• 100 x (23 / 438.9) = 5.24
o Total O&M Score = 200 + 23 + 5.24 = 228.24
This pipeline’s Total O&M Score would then be rounded up to the nearest whole number (i.e. 229). As Table 1 shows, the pipeline’s O&M Condition Rating would be 2.

2.1.1.3 Pipe Capacity Rating
The Pipe Capacity Rating is based on the pipeline’s depth-to-diameter (d/D) value during existing peak wet weather flow (PWWF) conditions. The City’s hydraulic modeling results for the existing peak wet weather flow scenario are utilized for determining each pipeline’s d/D value. A pipeline’s Pipe Capacity Rating is determined according to Table 2 below.

Agenda Item 9.1 Page 390 of 768
Table 2: Pipe Capacity Rating Determination
d/D Value Pipe Capacity Rating
< 0.60 1

0.60 – 0.6999 2

0.70 – 0.7499 3

0.75 – 0.90 4
> 0.90 5
Pipelines that are flowing at or near hydraulic capacity are more likely to cause a sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) in the case of a total or partial blockage or structural failure. For the same pipeline previously described, assume its d/D value is 0.65 under the “Existing PWWF” modeling scenario. As Table 2 shows, the pipeline’s Pipe Capacity Rating would be 2.

2.1.1.4 Total Probability Score
The Total Probability Score for a given pipeline is the summation of the three probability criteria after each criterion has been multiplied by their associated weighting factor. Table 3 below summarizes the weighting factors for all three of the probability criteria.

Table 3: Weighting Factors for Probability Criteria
Probability Criteria Weighting Factor
Structural Condition Rating 5
Pipe Capacity Rating 3
O&M Condition Rating 2
Continuing with the same pipeline from above, its Total Probability Score would be calculated as follows:
• (Structural Condition Rating = 4) x (Weighting Factor = 5) = 20 • (Pipe Capacity Rating = 2) x (Weighting Factor = 3) = 6 • (O&M Condition Rating = 2) x (Weighting Factor = 2) = 4 o Total Probability Score = 20 + 6 + 4 = 30
The Total Probability Score is then translated into the Probability Rating according to Table 4 below.

Table 4: Probability Rating Determination
Total Probability Score Probability Rating
10 – 16 1
17 – 24 2
25 – 32 3
33 – 40 4
41 – 50 5
Therefore, the hypothetical pipeline’s Total Probability Score of 30 translates to a Probability Rating of 3.

Agenda Item 9.1 Page 391 of 768

2.1.2 Consequence Rating
The Consequence Rating is based on four criteria:
• Flow Volume Rating
• Proximity to Waterways Rating
• Public Impact Rating
• O&M Access and Safety Rating

2.1.2.1 Flow Volume Rating
The Flow Volume Rating is based on the pipeline’s maximum flow volume during current PWWF conditions. Each pipeline’s maximum flow value is taken from the City’s hydraulic modeling results for the “Existing PWWF” scenario. In the absence of model results, the pipeline’s existing diameter will be used instead. The probability of failure (i.e. SSO) is not more likely in a pipeline solely because it conveys more flow volume than another.

However, a failure in a pipeline with larger flow volumes will result in more damages, higher cleanup costs, and is more likely to cause Category 1 SSOs. A pipeline’s Flow Volume Rating is determined according to Table 5 below.

Table 5: Flow Volume Rating Determination
Flow Volume (MGD) Pipe Diameter (in) Flow Volume Rating < 0.25 < 10 1

0.25 – 1.05 10 – 13 2

1.05 – 3.15 14 – 23 3

3.15 – 7.20 24 – 35 4
> 7.20 > 35 5
Assuming the same hypothetical pipeline had a maximum flow volume of 1.75 MGD, its corresponding Flow Volume Rating would be 3.

2.1.2.2 Proximity to Waterways Rating
The Proximity to Waterways Rating is based on the distance from the pipeline’s US manhole to drainages (i.e. to storm drain inlets and/or waterways). A major focus of the California State Water Resources Control Board’s General Waste Discharge Requirements is to reduce the occurrence of SSOs, particularly SSOs that affect waterways of the United States. Any sewage spill to a waterway immediately becomes a Category 1 SSO, and is likely to draw fines or other enforcement action for the responsible agency. Therefore, proximity of assets to waterways is another significant factor in the criticality of failure. A pipeline’s Proximity to Waterways Rating is determined according to Table 6 below.

Agenda Item 9.1 Page 392 of 768
Table 6: Proximity to Waterways Rating Determination
Location – Proximity to Waterways Proximity to Waterways Rating US SSMH > 2500 ft to waterway 1
US SSMH > 2500 ft to waterway & < 500 ft to storm drain inlet 2 US SSMH < 2500 ft to waterway 3
US SSMH < 2500 ft to waterway & < 500 ft to storm drain inlet 4 US SSMH < 1000 ft to waterway 5
Assuming the same hypothetical pipeline is less than 2500 feet from the nearest waterway and less than 500 feet from the nearest storm drain inlet, its corresponding Proximity to Waterways Rating would be 4.

2.1.2.3 Public Impact Rating
The Public Impact Rating is based on the distance from the pipeline to public areas such as farms, parks, schools, hospitals, and other densely populated locations. A pipeline’s Public Impact Rating is determined according to Table 7 below.

Table 7: Public Impact Rating Determination
Location – Public Impact Public Impact Rating
> 1000 feet from public facilities, limited public traffic, limited economic impact 1
Within 1000 feet of public facilities, moderate public traffic, moderate economic impact
3 Within 100 feet of public facilities, significant public traffic, significant economic impact, high construction cost 5
Assuming the same hypothetical pipeline is within 1000 feet of an elementary school, its corresponding Public Impact Rating would be 3.

2.1.2.4 O&M Access and Safety Rating
The O&M Access and Safety Rating is based on the ability to access the pipeline for O&M or repair work as well as the ability for O&M staff or contractors to safely perform the work. A pipeline’s Public Impact Rating is determined according to Table 8 below.

Table 8: O&M Access and Safety Rating Determination
Location – O&M Access and Safety O&M Access and Safety Rating In roadway, residential street 1
In roadway, arterial roadway 2
Not in roadway, can access with truck 3
Not in roadway, must walk equipment to site 4
Not in roadway, no safe working area, under buildings 5 Assuming the same hypothetical pipeline is in an arterial roadway, its corresponding O&M Access and Safety Rating would be 2.

Agenda Item 9.1 Page 393 of 768

2.1.2.5 Total Consequence Score
The Total Consequence Score for a given pipeline is the summation of the four consequence criteria after each criterion has been multiplied by their associated weighting factor. Table 9 below summarizes the weighting factors for all four of the consequence criteria.

Table 9: Weighting Factors for Consequence Criteria
Consequence Criteria Weighting Factor
Flow Volume Rating 4
Proximity to Waterway Rating 3
Public Impact Rating 2
O&M Access and Safety 1
Continuing with the same pipeline from above, its Total Consequence Score would be calculated as follows:
• (Flow Volume Rating = 3) x (Weighting Factor = 4) = 12 • (Proximity to Waterway Rating = 4) x (Weighting Factor = 3) = 12 • (Public Impact Rating = 3) x (Weighting Factor = 2) = 6 • (O&M Access and Safety = 2) x (Weighting Factor = 1) = 2 o Total Consequence Score = 12 + 12 + 6 + 2 = 32
The Total Consequence Score is then translated into the Consequence Rating according to Table 10 below.

Table 10: Consequence Rating Determination
Total Consequence Score Consequence Rating
10 – 16 1
17 – 24 2
25 – 32 3
33 – 40 4
41 – 50 5
Therefore, the hypothetical pipeline’s Total Consequence Score of 32 translates to a Consequence Rating of 3.

This pipeline’s Consequence Rating of 3 and Probability Rating of 3 equates to an Overall Risk Rating of 3 according to Figure 1.

The following sections discuss how the aforementioned criteria are collected for their use in the risk prioritization methodology.

2.2 Field Assessment Role in Risk Prioritization
During the field assessment of the JTP, data for two of the criteria are collected. The CCTV inspections provide the structural and O&M defect observations that are used to determine the Structural Condition Rating and the O&M Condition Rating of each pipeline. The inspections also provide the diameter of each pipeline, which is used to determine the Flow Volume Rating in the absence of maximum flow volume data from the model results. The procedures of the CCTV inspections are discussed in more detail in Section 3.1 below.

Agenda Item 9.1 Page 394 of 768

2.3 City Master Plan Role in Risk Prioritization
The City’s Sewer System Master Plan contains a capacity assessment that provides the information needed to determine the Pipe Capacity Rating and Flow Volume Rating for the pipelines. Specifically, the model scenario titled “Existing PWWF” was utilized to determine the d/D values needed for the Pipe Capacity Rating and the maximum flow values needed for the Flow Volume Rating. It should be noted that Ultimate Buildout PWWF values contained in the Master Plan are projected to be higher than existing values. However, when assessing an individual pipe’s risk of failure as it pertains to this Report, the pipe’s current conditions are utilized so as to not overestimate the asset’s probability/consequence of failure should future conditions be used. A more detailed discussion of the City’s Master Plan can be found in Section 5 below.

2.4 Location Criteria Forms Role in Risk Prioritization Location Criteria Forms filled out during the field assessment provide the information needed to determine the Proximity to Waterways Rating, Public Impact Rating, and O&M Access and Safety Rating. A more detailed discussion of the Location Criteria Forms can be found in Section 4 below.

Agenda Item 9.1 Page 395 of 768
3 Summary of Field Assessment

3.1 Investigation Procedures

3.1.1 Pipelines
Water Works Engineers (WWE) was retained to coordinate the inspection efforts and conduct the condition assessment of the JTP wastewater trunk main . WWE teamed with Professional Pipe Services (Pro-Pipe), a division of Hoffman Southwest Corporation, to perform the cleaning and CCTV inspection of the identified sewer trunk main. Cleaning and inspection work began on October 12th, 2019 and continued until March 2020, at which time Santa Clara County issued a Shelter in Place Order due to public health concerns regarding COVID-19. While a majority of the pipeline inspection work was completed in this timeframe, the remaining pipeline work was completed in October 2020. Due to the location of the JTP along farmland and roads with regular traffic, as well as higher wastewater flows during the day, virtually all cleaning and inspection work was conducted at night.

Various methods of flow control were utilized along the JTP trunk main to provide a larger view of the pipeline segments by lowering water level in the inspected segment. The “plug and release” method was utilized whereby a plug was inserted to completely stop flow while crew members monitored upstream surcharging to ensure no spills occurred. Another method utilized in pipe segments with larger amounts of flow involved inserting “flowthrough” plugs, which allow much smaller amounts of wastewater flow to pass through and into the pipe segment being inspected.

Cleaning activities were conducted with a Vac-Con Recycler combination sewer cleaner to perform highvelocity/vacuum cleaning (HVVC) of the sewer trunk pipeline segments before CCTV inspections were completed.

The Recycler machine allows for the reuse of water in the debris tank for cleaning purposes, leading to reduction in occurrences of tank refilling during working hours and increased efficiency. Cleaning of the sewer trunk pipelines was conducted before inspections to:
1) Increase the probability that the CCTV camera would be able to traverse the pipeline and not be slowed or stopped by debris so a complete inspection could be performed; and 2) Provide the CCTV camera an unobstructed view of the pipeline interior so that structural defects (e.g. cracks, fractures) could be assessed.

This method may limit the ability of the assessment to document maintenance related problems (e.g. debris, grease, roots) since pre-cleaning by design has the potential to remove or reduce some of these potential deficiencies. However, assessing the structural condition of the pipeline was prioritized above the maintenance condition for this project because it was assumed that the pipes were more likely to fail due to a structural issue than a blockage since the pipelines were to be cleaned as part of this project.

CCTV inspections were conducted using the IBAK Panoramo scanner technology. The IBAK Panoramo 3D Optoscanner incorporates the use of two high-resolution digital cameras in the front and rear sections of the housing, with 185° wide-angle lenses and parallel-mounted xenon flashlights capable of 360° spherical images.

The Panoramo system captures 100% of the pipeline interior and is delivered with a virtual 3D reader that enables the reviewer to see the entire pipe interior from any angle. Additionally, the virtual 3D reader provides a flat-view Agenda Item 9.1 Page 396 of 768
component that enables the reviewer to make accurate measurements of features/observations and to more easily assess the changes in observations along the pipeline to identify trends. Hyperlinks to the inspection files were included in an ESRI GIS shapefile of the inspected pipelines so the virtual 3D reader could be opened for a specific pipeline from a map environment for easy access.

Observations and defects were collected during the inspection work and coded using the National Association of Sewer Service Companies (NASSCO) Pipeline Assessment and Certification Program (PACP) standards. Version 7.0 of the PACP Reference Manual was used for coding. The intent of the NASSCO PACP is to provide a means to accurately assess underground infrastructure using tools and procedures that can serve as a national standard. A benefit of the NASSCO PACP is it includes a Condition Grading System that provides pipe ratings to quantitatively describe the condition of a pipeline that can be used to compare it to ratings of other pipelines. The PACP Quick Rating uses a four-character alphanumeric score based on the number of defects with the highest severity grade and the number of defects of the next highest severity grade for a given pipeline. Quick Ratings for both structural and maintenance conditions were applied to all of the pipelines inspected as part of this project. Quick Ratings are formulated as follows:

1. The first character is the highest severity grade occurring along the pipe segment.

2. The second character is the total number of occurrences of that highest severity grade. If the total number is greater than 9, then alphabetic characters are assigned as follows: A – 10-14; B – 15-19; C – 20-24; etc.

3. The third character is the next highest severity grade occurring along the pipe segment.

4. The fourth character is the total number of occurrences of the severity grade derived in Step 3 above.

This follows the same rules as the character is Step 2.

WWE reviewed each pipeline inspected as part of this project, with particular attention to pipelines that had Quick Ratings (Structural and Maintenance) indicating PACP Grade 5 and Grade 4 defects. WWE evaluated potential renewal/maintenance activities for each pipeline so that no pipeline inspected as part of this project will have defect(s) more severe than a Grade 3 once the activities are completed. The findings from the condition assessment and a discussion of the potential renewal/maintenance activities can be found below in Section 3.3.1 and Section 7.1, respectively.

3.1.2 Manholes
Manhole inspection work began on March 4th, 2020 and continued until March 18th, 2020. As was the case for the pipeline inspection work, Santa Clara County issued a Shelter in Place Order due to public health concerns regarding COVID-19. Similar to the pipeline work, manhole inspections were conducted at night.

CCTV manhole inspections were conducted using the IBAK Panoramo Si 3D Optical Manhole Scanner. The Si captures 100% of the entire manhole cavity for review in a virtual 3D reader, which can be utilized in flat-view for measuring inverts, defects, etc. It also has the capability to be exported as a point cloud into AutoCAD. Hyperlinks to the inspection files were included in an ESRI GIS shapefile of the inspected manholes so the virtual 3D reader could be opened for a specific manhole from a map environment for easy access.

Agenda Item 9.1 Page 397 of 768
Observations and defects were collected during the inspection work and coded using the NASSCO Manhole Assessment and Certification Program (MACP) standards. Level 2 MACP coding was performed using Version 7.0 of the PACP Reference Manual. Many of the defects found in pipelines are also found in manholes, therefore PACP defect codes are used where applicable for the Level 2 MACP inspections.

WWE reviewed each manhole inspected as part of this project, with particular attention to manholes that had Structural Quick Ratings indicating Grade 5 and Grade 4 defects. WWE evaluated potential renewal activities for each manhole so that no manhole inspected as part of this project will have defect(s) more severe than a Grade 3 once the activities are completed. The findings from the condition assessment and a discussion of the potential renewal activities are found below in Section 0 and Section 7.2, respectively.

3.2 Summary of Work Completed

3.2.1 Pipeline Cleaning/Inspection
The JTP trunk main consists of approximately 62,006 linear feet of sewer pipe as it pertains to this project.

Cleaning was performed on each pipeline prior to commencement of CCTV inspection, which were performed on almost every pipe segment along the trunk main (i.e. 61,807 LF, or 99%, of trunk main was inspected). It is the opinion of the WWE that there is sufficient inspection data to warrant the recommendation of projects to address the deteriorating condition of certain portions of the JTP trunk main.

The following CCTV inspections were abandoned due to the stated reasoning provided in Table 11 below. • MH-116_MH-116A: The entirety of this pipeline was able to be inspected by performing a reverse inspection from the opposite direction until the same joint seal was reached. • MH-155_MH_156: As the last pipeline along the trunk main, the water level during the time of inspection was too high for a complete CCTV inspection to be performed.

Table 11: Abandoned Inspection Summary
Date Pipeline Facility ID US Manhole DS Manhole Cleaning? Reason for Abandonment
12/10/2019 MH-116_MH-116A MH-116 MH-116A YES
Joint Seal Blocking
Path
(reverse setup
completed total
pipe inspection
length)
01/16/2020 MH-155_MH-156 MH-155 MH-156 YES
Camera Underwater
(missing
approximately 163
LF of estimated
263LF of total
pipeline length due
to excessive water
level)
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 398 of 768
Table 12 below summarizes the three siphon pipelines (on Wren Ave, north of La Primavera Way) that were not inspected during the field assessment. A brief explanation of why the pipe segments were unable to be inspected is described in Table 12, with a more detailed explanation of what was performed provided below. • Pro-Pipe set up the bypass pumping system, with the intent to install a flow-through plug at MH-90 and connect the bypass pump to the plug in order to reroute the sewage around the siphon pipe segments.

Cleaning was then to be performed on both siphon barrels before eventually running the CCTV camera through the barrels in a relatively dry condition.
• Pro-Pipe rented a variety of flow-through plugs with the recognition that getting a 24” plug into these relatively small manholes was going to be difficult, especially given the configuration of the siphon inlet.

The bypass pump manufacturer recommended that the connection size of the flow-through portion of the plug be 8” in diameter to achieve full capacity, however the 24”/8” flow-through plug was very rigid and the manholes are not big enough to get the plug into the line. Pro-Pipe was able to get a 6” flowthrough plug into the line, however the bypass operation was limited by the smaller diameter pipe and the system started to surcharge, thereby not allowing sufficient time to complete the CCTV inspection before Pro-Pipe was forced to remove the plug entirely. • Pro-Pipe was able to clean both the 12” and 18” siphon barrels, and while doing so were able to visually inspect the siphon inlet manhole configuration where the two barrels split. Roughly 85% of the wastewater flow and almost all of the debris was going through the lower 12” barrel, which had significant levels of debris that Pro-Pipe was able to remove with multiple cleaning passes. The 18” barrel inlet is configured at a higher elevation than the 12” barrel, thereby resulting in a lower amount of flow (~15%) and very little debris. Pro-Pipe was able to successfully clean and remove the debris in the 18” barrel. • Pro-Pipe also found during the visual inspection that there was no indication of pipe degradation at the pipe inlets. Refer to Section 11.2 later in this report for WWE’s recommendation(s) regarding the siphon barrel pipe segments.

Table 12: Pipelines Not Inspected
Pipeline
Facility ID
US Manhole
(USMH)
DS Manhole
(DSMH)
Length
(ft)* Reason for No Inspection
MH-90_MH-91 MH-90 MH-91 47 Due to the relatively small size of the manhole openings, the flow-through plug
with sufficient capacity to allow for CCTV
inspection was unable to be installed.

The largest flow-through plug that was
successfully installed was unable to
convey enough bypassed flow, resulting
in the upstream system surcharging too
quickly to allow for inspection.

MH-91_MH-92 MH-91 MH-92 99
MH-92_MH-93 MH-92 MH-93 56
*Total length of pipe segment based on estimated GIS lengths Agenda Item 9.1 Page 399 of 768

3.2.2 Manhole Inspection
There are a total of 169 manholes along the JTP trunk main, of which 150 (88.7%) were MACP inspected. Table 13 below summarizes the manholes that were not inspected as part of this project. The reasoning behind the inability to inspect each manhole is also provided.

Table 13: Manholes Not MACP Inspected
Manhole Facility ID Reason for No MACP Inspection
MH-66 Unable to locate
MH-71 Unable to safely access in garlic fields without crop damage
MH-72 Unable to safely access in garlic fields without crop damage
MH-85 Unable to confirm exact manhole
MH-91 Intermediate siphon manhole, unable to inspect
MH-92 Intermediate siphon manhole, unable to inspect
MH-127 Unable to locate under grass/landscaping
MH-128 Unable to locate under grass/landscaping
MH-137 Unable to locate manhole
MH-138 Unable to locate manhole
MH-138A Unable to locate manhole, potentially paved over MH-142A Unable to locate manhole, under gravel road
MH-142B Unable to locate manhole, under gravel road
MH-151 Unable to access locked cover
MH-152 Unable to access locked cover
MH-153 Unable to access locked cover
MH-154 Unable to access locked cover
MH-155 Unable to access locked cover
MH-156 Unable to access locked cover
The manholes listed below in Table 14 seemingly do not exist after the inspection work was completed and reviewed, even though they were initially included in the City’s original system GIS data. A description of the location where each manhole was originally believed to exist is also provided.

Table 14: Nonexistent Manholes
Nonexistent Manhole Facility ID Original Location Description MH-45 On Harding Ave north of intersection of Highland Ave and Harding Ave
MH-49 On Highland Ave west of intersection of Highland Ave and Harding Ave
MH-124 Grass Area west of Arroyo Cir near Hometown Buffet (7950 Arroyo Cir, Gilroy, CA 95020)
MH-129 Grass area west of Arroyo Cir near Kaiser Medical Center (7520 Arroyo Cir, Gilroy, CA 95020)
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 400 of 768

3.3 Summary of Findings
This section reviews the findings of the inspection work and subsequent condition assessment. The section is broken down into four further sections. The first section reviews the structural/O&M/construction observations found during the pipeline inspections, while the second section reviews the structural/O&M observations found during the manhole inspections. The third section reviews the manholes that were unable to be found during the inspections and are thought to be buried (i.e. under grass/landscaping, gravel, road, etc.). The fourth section reviews differences along the alignment between the City’s GIS and field assessment findings.

3.3.1 Pipeline Inspection Findings
This section provides a summary of the pipeline observations made during the inspection phase. As previously explained in Section 2.1.1, these pipeline observations are used in the risk prioritization methodology. Figures summarizing the Structural Quick Rating and O&M Quick Rating for each pipeline inspected as part of this project are included in Appendix B and Appendix C, respectively. See Table 38 and Table 39 in Section 6 for the pipelines’ Structural and O&M Condition Ratings. A more detailed view of the pipeline inspections performed and the defect observations found during the field assessment can be found in Appendix I in Section 15.9.

3.3.1.1 Structural Observations
The structural defect codes listed in the tables below are the PACP codes applied to the observed structural defects. The number in parentheses indicates the number of occurrences of that code. There may also be continuous stretches of the codes, which will have the linear footage indicated. A condensed list of codes and their associated descriptions is provided below. The tables are sorted on the Structural Quick Rating column so the pipelines with the largest count of the highest severity defects are listed in descending order from the top of the table. Refer to the PACP Reference Manual Version 7.0 for additional detailed information about these and other PACP codes.
• SMW – Missing Wall (Grade 5)
• SRP – Reinforcement Projecting (Grade 5)
• SRV – Reinforcement Visible (Grade 4)
• SAM – Aggregate Missing (Grade 4)
• FM – Fractures, Multiple (Grade 4)
• SAP – Aggregate Projecting (Grade 3)
• FL – Fracture, Longitudinal (Grade 3)
• FS – Fracture, Spiral (Grade 3)
• CM – Cracks, Multiple (Grade 3)
• JAM – Joint Angular Medium (Grade 3)
• CL – Crack Longitudinal (Grade 2)
• CS – Crack Spiral (Grade 2)
• FC – Fracture Circumferential (Grade 2)
• SAV – Aggregate Visible (Grade 2)
• SSS – Surface Spalling (Grade 2)
• CC – Crack Circumferential (Grade 1)
• SRI – Roughness Increased (Grade 1)
• SSC – Spalling of Coating (Grade 1)
It should be noted that the linear footage provided for the continuous stretches of a defect might be the total sum of multiple continuousstretches along the pipe segment. For example, a single pipe segment may have 2 separate 10-foot stretches of continuous Spiral Fractures (FS) that would be described as having 20 feet of this particular defect.

Agenda Item 9.1 Page 401 of 768
Table 15 below lists the pipelines along the JTP trunk main that have a Grade 5 structural defect. These pipelines are shown as red pipelines in Appendix B.

Table 15: Pipelines with Grade 5 Structural Defects
Pipeline Facility ID Structural Quick Rating Most Severe PACP Observations MH-116_MH-116A 544B (1) SMW, (1) SRP, 10 LF of continuous SMW Table 16 lists the pipelines that have a Grade 4 defect as the most severe structural defect on the line. These pipelines are shown as orange pipelines in Appendix B.

Table 16: Pipelines with Grade 4 Structural Defects as Highest Severity Pipeline Facility ID Structural Quick Rating Most Severe PACP Observations MH-60_MH-61 4331 16 LF of continuous FM
MH-135_MH-136 422R (1) SRV, (1) SAM
MH-142B_MH-142C 4138 (1) FM
MH-143_MH-144 4132 (1) FM
Table 17 lists the pipelines that have a Grade 3 defect as the most severe structural defect on the line. These pipelines are shown as yellow pipelines in Appendix B.

Table 17: Pipelines with Grade 3 Structural Defects as Highest Severity Pipeline Facility ID Structural Quick Rating Most Severe PACP Observations MH-142F_MH-143 372Z (4) CM, (3) SAP
MH-116A_MH-117 372E (1) SAP, 28 LF of continuous SAP
MH-147_MH-148 352M (3) SAP, (2) CM
MH-139_MH-140 342Z (3) CM, (1) FL
MH-142C_MH-142D 342N (4) FL
MH-153_MH-154 342L (3) SAP, (1) FL
MH-59_MH-60 3411 (4) FL
MH-151_MH-152 332Z (2) CM, (1) SAP
MH-117_MH-118 332G (3) SAP
MH-137_MH-138 332D (1) SAP, 10 LF of continuous SAP
MH-142A_MH-142B 332C (2) FL, (1) CM
MH-53_MH-54 3321 (1) CM, (1) FL, (1) FS
MH-131_MH-132 322Z (2) SAP
MH-126_MH-127 322S (2) CM
MH-142E_MH-142F 322L (2) CM
MH-110_MH-111 322G (1) FL, (1) CM
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 402 of 768
Pipeline Facility ID Structural Quick Rating Most Severe PACP Observations MH-146_MH-147 322G (1) CM, (1) SAP
MH-145_MH-146 322C (1) FL, (1) SAP
MH-7_MH-9 3225 (1) CM, (1) JAM
MH-100_MH-101 312O (1) FS
MH-152_MH-153 312N (1) SAP
MH-97A_MH-98 312L (1) FL
MH-112_MH-113 312L (1) CM
MH-142D_MH-142E 312L (1) CM
MH-88_MH-89 312K (1) FS
MH-95_MH-96 312F (1) CM
MH-138_MH-138A 312F (1) SAP
MH-113_MH-114 312I (1) CM
MH-149_MH-150 312B (1) SAP
MH-32_MH-33 3127 (1) FL
MH-3_MH-5 3126 (1) FS
MH-5_MH-7 3126 (1) FS
MH-16_MH-18 3126 (1) JAM
MH-44_MH-48 3125 (1) FL
MH-70_MH-71 3124 (1) FL
MH-24_MH-26 3122 (1) CM
MH-21_MH-21A 3121 (1) FS
MH-61_MH-62 3100 (1) FL
Table 18 lists the pipelines that have a Grade 2 defect as the most severe structural defect on the line. These pipelines are shown as blue pipelines in Appendix B.

Table 18: Pipelines with Grade 2 Structural Defects as Highest Severity Pipeline Facility ID Structural Quick Rating Most Severe PACP Observations MH-140_MH-141 2Z1V (10) CL, (3) SAV, (1) CC, 850 LF of continuous SAV MH-128_MH-130 2Y1U (10) CL, (2) CS, (1) SAV, (1) SSS, 586 LF of continuous SAV
MH-150_MH-151 2X1W (7) CL , (2) SAV, 595 LF of continuous SAV MH-107_MH-108 2W1U (2) CL, (1) SAV, 585 LF of continuous SAV MH-125_MH-126 2T1O (5) CL, (1) CS, (1) FC, (1) SAV, 486 LF of continuous SAV
MH-106_MH-107 2T13 532 LF of continuous SAV
MH-105_MH-106 2S1R (3) CL, (1) FC, (1) SAV, 479 LF of continuous SAV MH-111_MH-112 2R12 490 LF of continuous SAV
MH-133_MH-134 2Q1R (2) SAV, 458 LF of continuous SAV
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 403 of 768
Pipeline Facility ID Structural Quick Rating Most Severe PACP Observations MH-115_MH-116 2P1P (1) CL, (1) SAV, 416 LF of continuous SAV MH-101_MH-102 2P1D (3) CL, (1) CS, (1) FC, 408 LF of continuous SAV MH-98_MH-99 2O1O (3) SAV, (2) SSS, (2) CS, (2) CL, 363 LF of continuous SAV, 10 LF of continuous SSS
MH-134A_MH-135 2N1U (4) SAV, 373 LF of continuous SAV
MH-109_MH-110 2M1R (3) SAV, (3) CL, (1) CS, 319 LF of continuous SAV MH-118_MH-119 2M1O (3) SAV, (1) CL, (1) FC, 341 LF of continuous SAV MH-123_MH-125 2M1N (2) CL, (1) SAV, 342 LF of continuous SAV MH-104_MH-105 2L1K (4) CL, (2) SAV, 311 LF of continuous SAV MH-127_MH-128 2K1Z (3) CL, (3) CS, (3) SAV, (1) FC, 248 LF of continuous SAV
MH-96_MH-96A 2K1L (2) CL, (1) SSS, 293 LF of continuous SAV MH-89_MH-90 2G1H (2) CL, (2) SAV, (1) CS, 174 LF of continuous SAV MH-103_MH-104 2G1G 217 LF of continuous SAV
MH-148_MH-149 2G1F (1) CS, 192 LF of continuous SAV, 24 LF of continuous CL
MH-141_MH-142 2D1O (7) CL, (4) SAV, 73 LF of continuous SAV MH-138A_MH-139 2D1I (1) CL, (1) SAV, 113 LF of continuous SAV MH-96A_MH-97 2D1C (2) SSS, 120 LF of continuous SAV
MH-122_MH-123 2D16 (8) SAV, (3) CL, (1) FC, 76 LF of continuous SAV MH-94_MH-95 2D00 130 LF of continuous SAV
MH-99_MH-100 2D00 (2) SAV, (1) CL, (1) CS, 115 LF of continuous SAV MH-97_MH-97A 2C00 120 LF of continuous SAV
MH-102B_MH-103 2B1B 91 LF of continuous SAV
MH144_MH-145 2B1A (3) SAV, (2) CL, 54 LF of continuous CL MH-130_MH-131 2A1V (3) SAV, (1) CL, 37 LF of continuous SAV MH-121_MH-122 2A1F (8) SAV, 25 LF of continuous SAV
MH-26_MH-27 2A11 (9) CL, (1) CS
MH-119_MH-120 2912 (6) SAV, (2) FC, (1) CL
MH-33_MH-36 2900 (8) CL, (1) CS
MH-108_MH-109 281C (1) CL, (1) SAV, 28 LF of continuous SAV MH-142_MH-142A 281A (1) CL, 33 LF of continuous SAV
MH-102_MH-102A 2812 (1) CL, (1) SAV, 28 LF of continuous SAV MH-114_MH-115 261L (3) SAV, (2) CS, (1) CL
MH-29_MH-32 2611 (5) CL, (1) CS
MH-120_MH-121 251A (3) SAV, (1) CL, (1) FC
MH-64_MH-65 2500 (4) CL, (1) CS
MH-132_MH-133 241S (3) CL, (1) SAV
MH-87_MH-88 2400 (4) CL
MH-93_MH-94 2400 (1) FC, 17 LF of continuous SAV
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 404 of 768
Pipeline Facility ID Structural Quick Rating Most Severe PACP Observations MH-77_MH-78 2311 (3) CL
MH-11_MH-15 2300 (2) CL, (1) FC
MH-42_MH-44 2300 (2) CL, (1) CS
MH-55_MH-56 2300 (3) CL
MH-18_MH-21 2211 (2) CL
MH-9_MH-11 2200 (2) CL
MH-15_MH-16 2200 (1) CL, (1) CS
MH-21A_MH-24 2200 (2) CL
MH-27_MH-29 2200 (2) CL
MH-38_MH-40 2200 (2) CL
MH-56_MH-57 2200 (2) CL
MH-71_MH-72 2200 (1) CL, (1) CS
MH-102A_MH-102B 211B (1) FC
MH-134_MH-134A 211A (1) SAV
MH-136_MH-137 211A (1) SAV
MH-73_MH-74 2112 (1) CL
MH-36_MH-38 2100 (1) SAV
MH-40_MH-41 2100 (1) CL
MH-34_MH-35 2100 (1) CL
MH-39A_MH-43 2100 (1) CL
MH-86_MH-87 2100 (1) CL
MH-154_MH-155 2100 5 LF of continuous SAV
MH-155_MH-156 2100 (1) CL
MH-54_MH-55 2100 (1) CL
MH-57_MH-58 2100 (1) CL
MH-68_MH-69 2100 (1) CL
MH-50_MH-51 2100 (1) CL
MH-51_MH-52 2100 (1) CL
MH-52_MH-53 2100 (1) CL
MH-65_MH-66 2100 (1) CL
Table 19 lists the pipelines that have a Grade 1 defect as the most severe structural defect on the line. These pipelines are shown as cyan pipelines in Appendix B.

Table 19: Pipelines with Grade 1 Structural Defects as Highest Severity Pipeline Facility ID Structural Quick Rating Most Severe PACP Observations MH-80_MH-81 1100 (1) CC
MH-63_MH-64 1100 (1) CC
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 405 of 768

3.3.1.2 O&M Observations
The O&M defect codes listed in the tables below are the PACP codes applied to the observed O&M defects. The number in parentheses indicates the number of occurrences of that code. There may also be continuous stretches of the codes, which will have the linear footage indicated. A condensed list of codes and their associated descriptions is provided below. Refer to the PACP Reference Manual Version 7.0 for additional detailed information about these and other PACP codes.
• IGB – Infiltration Gusher, Barrel (Grade 5)
• RMB – Roots Medium, Barrel (Grade 4)
• IRB – Infiltration Runner, Barrel (Grade 4)
• IR – Infiltration Runner (Grade 4)
• MCU – Miscellaneous, Camera Underwater (Grade 4)
• RMJ – Roots Medium, Joint (Grade 3)
• DAGS – Deposits Attached, Grease (1-10%: Grade 2)
• DSZ – Deposits Settled, Other (1-10%: Grade 2)
• DSF – Deposits Settled, Fine (Grade 2)
• DSGV – Deposits Settled, Gravel (Grade 2)
• DNF – Deposits Ingress, Fine (Grade 2)
• DAE – Deposits Attached, Encrustation (1-10%: Grade 2) • DSC – Deposits Settled, Hard/Compacted (Grade 2)
• IW – Infiltration Weeper (Grade 2)
• DAR – Deposits Attached, Ragging (Grade 2)
• OBS – Obstruction Built Into Structure (Grade 2)
• ISSRB – Intruding Sealing Material Sealing Ring Broken (Grade 2) • ISSR – Intruding Sealing Material Sealing Ring (Grade 2) • RFB – Roots Fine, Barrel (Grade 2)
• OBR – Obstruction Rocks (Grade 2)
• RFJ – Roots Fine, Joint (Grade 1)
• IS – Infiltration Stain (Grade N/A)
o IS defects are described in the NASSCO PACP Manual as follows: “No moisture present during the inspection but a watermark indicates water has entered in the past.” It should be noted that the linear footage provided for the continuous stretches of a defect might be the total sum of multiple continuous stretches along the pipe segment. For example, a single pipe segment may have 2 separate 10-foot stretches of continuous DAGS defect that would be described as having 20 feet of this particular defect.

Table 20 lists the pipeline(s) in the trunk main that has a Grade 5 O&M defect. This pipeline is shown as a red pipeline in Appendix C.

Agenda Item 9.1 Page 406 of 768
Table 20: Pipelines with Grade 5 Maintenance Defects
Pipeline Facility ID Maintenance Quick Rating Most Severe PACP Observations MH-153_MH-154 512A (1) IGB
Table 21 lists the pipelines that have a Grade 4 defect as the most severe O&M defect on the line. These pipelines are shown as orange pipelines in Appendix C.

Table 21: Pipelines with Grade 4 Maintenance Defects as Highest Severity Pipeline Facility ID Maintenance Quick Rating Most Severe PACP Observations MH-145_MH-146 422Z (2) IRB
MH-155_MH-156 4200 (2) MCU
MH-152_MH-153 412Z (1) IR
MH-146_MH-147 412P (1) IRB
MH-120_MH-121 412L (1) RMB
Table 22 lists the pipelines that have a Grade 3 defect as the most severe O&M defect on the line. These pipelines are shown as yellow pipelines in Appendix C.

Table 22: Pipelines with Grade 3 Maintenance Defects as Highest Severity Pipeline Facility ID Maintenance Quick Rating Most Severe PACP Observations MH-121_MH-122 312Z (1) RMJ
Table 23 lists the pipelines that have a Grade 2 defect as the most severe O&M defect on the line. These pipelines are shown as blue pipelines in Appendix C.

Table 23: Pipelines with Grade 2 Maintenance Defects as Highest Severity Pipeline Facility ID Maintenance Quick Rating Most Severe PACP Observations MH-15_MH-16 2Z1M 781 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-32_MH-33 2Z1C 995 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-16_MH-18 2Z16 (1) DSZ, 1013 LF of continuous DAGS, 444 LF of continuous DAE
MH-19_MH-20 2Z16 (1) DAE, 1027 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-118_MH-119 2Z16 (3) ISSRB, (1) IW, 909 LF of continuous DAGS MH-128_MH-130 2Z15 (1) IW, (1) SSS, (1) DAR, 1171 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-35_MH-37 2Z15 763 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-126_MH-127 2Z13 (7) OBR, (5) DAR, (3) IW, (1) DSZ, 1011 LF of continuous DAGS, 495 LF of continuous DAE
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 407 of 768
Pipeline Facility ID Maintenance Quick Rating Most Severe PACP Observations MH-139_MH-140 2Z13 (1) IW, 1150 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-64_MH-65 2Z13 1154 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-143_MH-144 2Z13 (6) DAR, 962 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-113_MH-114 2Z13 696 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-140_MH-141 2Z12 1148 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-65_MH-66 2Z12 1144 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-25_MH-28 2Z12 1077 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-23_MH-25 2Z12 1010 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-127_MH-128 2Z12 1009 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-131_MH-132 2Z12 (8) ISSRB, (1) ISSR, 957 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-86_MH-87 2Z12 990 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-33_MH-36 2Z12 (3) IW, 943 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-72_MH-73 2Z12 835 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-130_MH-131 2Z11 (1) DAR, (1) DSGV, 1180 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-122_MH-123 2Z11 1060 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-24_MH-26 2Z11 1015 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-87_MH-88 2Z11 1014 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-105_MH-106 2Z11 1011 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-9_MH-11 2Z11 (3) DSGV, 961 LF of continuous DAGS, 22 LF of continuous DSF
MH-30_MH-31 2Z11 988 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-28_MH-30 2Z11 879 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-101_MH-102 2Z11 (1) IW, 840 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-141_MH-142 2Z11 804 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-123_MH-125 2Z11 783 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-100_MH-101 2Z11 (3) DAR, (2) ISSRB, 781 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-18_MH-21 2Z00 (1) DSGV, (1) DSF, 1021 LF of continuous DAGS, 881 LF of continuous DAE, 12 LF of
continuous DSGV
MH-10_MH-12 2Z00 (2) DSZ, 880 LF of continuous DAGS, 439 LF of continuous DSF
MH-150_MH-151 2Z00 (23) DAR, 1205 LF of continuous DAGS MH-37_MH-39 2Z00 1205 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-151_MH-152 2Z00 (30) DAR, 1199 LF of continuous DAGS MH-107_MH-108 2Z00 1180 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-51_MH-52 2Z00 1175 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-50_MH-51 2Z00 1163 LF of continuous DAGS
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 408 of 768
Pipeline Facility ID Maintenance Quick Rating Most Severe PACP Observations MH-42_MH-44 2Z00 (2) IW, 1097 LF of continuous DAGS, 40 LF of continuous DSGV
MH-134A_MH-135 2Z00 (1) DAR, 1111 LF of continuous DAGS MH-44_MH-48 2Z00 (3) IW, 1102 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-26_MH-27 2Z00 1096 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-106_MH-107 2Z00 1085 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-55_MH-56 2Z00 1068 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-61_MH-62 2Z00 1062 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-58_MH-59 2Z00 (2) DAR, 1059 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-56_MH-57 2Z00 1057 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-43_MH-46 2Z00 (1) DAR, 1046 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-53_MH-54 2Z00 1045 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-39A_MH-43 2Z00 1044 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-142F_MH-143 2Z00 (9) DAR, (6) IW, (1) DSGV, 1042 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-59_MH-60 2Z00 (2) DAR, 1038 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-60_MH-61 2Z00 1036 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-57_MH-58 2Z00 1035 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-4_MH-6 2Z00 1028 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-36_MH-38 2Z00 (1) DSGV, 1005 LF of continuous DAGS, 16 LF of continuous DSGV
MH-132_MH-133 2Z00 (1) DAE, (1) DAR, 1019 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-17_MH-19 2Z00 1018 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-34_MH-35 2Z00 1009 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-21_MH-21A 2Z00 499 LF of continuous DAE, 499 LF of
continuous DAGS
MH-125_MH-126 2Z00 (1) IW, 991 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-31_MH-34 2Z00 986 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-52_MH-53 2Z00 985 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-62_MH-63 2Z00 984 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-111_MH-112 2Z00 (1) DAR, 973 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-5_MH-7 2Z00 971 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-133_MH-134 2Z00 970 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-67_MH-68 2Z00 965 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-68_MH-69 2Z00 965 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-76_MH-77 2Z00 965 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-3_MH-5 2Z00 (1) DAR, (1) DSGV, 964 LF of continuous
DAGS
MH-75_MH-76 2Z00 964 LF of continuous DAGS
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 409 of 768
Pipeline Facility ID Maintenance Quick Rating Most Severe PACP Observations MH-29_MH-32 2Z00 (2) IW, 962 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-74_MH-75 2Z00 (1) DAGS, 961 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-109_MH-110 2Z00 960 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-8_MH-10 2Z00 952 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-54_MH-55 2Z00 939 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-6_MH-8 2Z00 938 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-78_MH-79 2Z00 914 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-38_MH-40 2Z00 (1) DAR, 905 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-79_MH-80 2Z00 893 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-115_MH-116 2Z00 (1) DSZ, (1) ISSRB, 883 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-27_MH-29 2Z00 (1) DSC, 881 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-83_MH-84 2Z00 873 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-84_MH-85 2Z00 868 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-82_MH-83 2Z00 863 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-77_MH-78 2Z00 862 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-73_MH-74 2Z00 855 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-71_MH-72 2Z00 839 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-70_MH-71 2Z00 837 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-80_MH-81 2Z00 823 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-48_MH-50 2Z00 810 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-85_MH-85A 2Z00 790 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-14_MH-17 2Z00 752 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-135_MH-136 2Z00 (1) DAR, 750 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-98_MH-99 2Z00 (3) DSGV, (1) DAR, (1) DAGS, 742 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-112_MH-113 2Z00 (2) DAR, (1) DSZ, 726 LF of continuous DAGS MH-114_MH-115 2Z00 (2) DAR, 666 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-138_MH-138A 2Z00 (16) ISSRB, (5) ISSR, 607 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-142C_MH-142D 2Y00 664 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-88_MH-89 2Y00 663 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-104_MH-105 2Y00 652 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-97A_MH-98 2X00 (1) IW, (1) DAR, 632 LF of continuous DAGS MH-96_MH-96A 2X00 (4) DAGS, (1) IW, 611 LF of continuous DAGS MH-63_MH-64 2W00 618 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-102_MH-102A 2W00 600 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-142E_MH-142F 2W00 (8) DAR, (1) RFB, 560 LF of continuous DAGS MH-117_MH-118 2V00 (1) DAR, 595 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-81_MH-82 2T00 538 LF of continuous DAGS
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 410 of 768
Pipeline Facility ID Maintenance Quick Rating Most Severe PACP Observations MH-22_MH-23 2S11 505 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-21A_MH-24 2S00 (1) DSZ, 514 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-20_MH-22 2R12 490 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-142B_MH-142C 2Q11 (3) DAR, 442 LF of continuous DAGS MH-89_MH-90 2Q00 464 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-138A_MH-139 2Q00 (1) DAR, 445 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-103_MH-104 2Q00 (4) IW, 434 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-147_MH-148 2Q00 (14) DAR, 393 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-110_MH-111 2P00 (3) ISSRB, 407 LF of continuous DAGS MH-95_MH-96 2O00 (2) DAGS, 410 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-116_MH-116A 2O00 (3) ISSR, (3) ISSRB, (3) DAR, (1) DAGS, 352 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-148_MH-149 2O00 (2) DAR, 385 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-119_MH-120 2N00 (1) RFB, 393 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-66_MH-67 2N00 386 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-69_MH-70 2N00 385 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-137_MH-138 2L00 (1) DSZ, 328 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-116A_MH-117 2K00 (2) DAR, (3) ISSRB, (1) ISSR, 289 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-142D_MH-142E 2K00 (3) DAR, 295 LF of continuous DAGS MH-94_MH-95 2I00 (1) DAGS, 259 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-96A_MH-97 2I00 250 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-99_MH-100 2I00 (2) DAGS, 235 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-11_MH-15 2I00 (3) DSGV, (1) DSZ, (1) DNF, 232 LF of
continuous DAGS
MH-108_MH-109 2H11 237 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-7_MH-9 2H00 (1) DSZ, 139 LF of continuous DAGS, 101 LF of continuous DSF
MH-97_MH-97A 2H00 (1) IW, 239 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-142A_MH-142B 2H00 236 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-39_MH-39A 2F00 188 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-102B_MH-103 2F00 187 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-149_MH-150 2F00 (5) DAR, 149 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-13_MH-14 2D00 144 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-102A_MH-102B 2D00 (1) DAR, 129 LF of continuous DAGS MH-134_MH-134A 2C11 98 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-144_MH-145 2C00 113 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-142_MH-142A 2C00 (1) DAR, 109 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-136_MH-137 2C00 108 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-85A_MH-85B 2A00 66 LF of continuous DAGS
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 411 of 768
Pipeline Facility ID Maintenance Quick Rating Most Severe PACP Observations MH-2_MH-4 2A00 64 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-46_MH-47 2800 43 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-93_MH-94 2600 34 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-12_MH-13 2600 26 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-85B_MH-86 2200 14 LF of continuous DAGS
MH-1_MH-3 2100 (1) DSGV
MH-47_MH-48 2100 (1) DAGS
MH-41_MH-42 2100 (1) OBS (flow meter)
Table 24 lists the pipelines that have infiltration PACP defects. Looking at this data, the four pipelines with an infiltration and inflow (I&I) defect of severity grade 4 or 5 warrant consideration for rehabilitation to address the defect. Refer to Section 9.1 for the recommended rehabilitation activity for these defects. Besides these 4 pipelines, there does not seem to be evidence of widespread or significant I&I defects along the trunkline. A majority of the defects are “IS – Infiltration Stain”, which do not indicate an immediate risk for I&I flow entry to the collection system. “IS” defects are described in the NASSCO PACP Manual as follows: “No moisture present during the inspection but a watermark indicates water has entered in the past.” Table 24: Pipelines with Infiltration Defect Observations Pipeline Facility ID Maintenance Quick Rating Infiltration PACP Observation(s) MH-153_MH-154 512A (1) IGB
MH-145_MH-146 422Z (2) IRB
MH-146_MH-147 412P (1) IRB
MH-152_MH-153 412Z (1) IR
MH-142F_MH-143 2Z00 (6) IW
MH-103_MH-104 2Q00 (4) IW
MH-33_MH-36 2Z12 (3) IW, (2) IS
MH-126_MH-127 2Z13 (3) IW, (2) IS
MH-44_MH-48 2Z00 (3) IW
MH-29_MH-32 2Z00 (2) IW
MH-42_MH-44 2Z00 (2) IW
MH-118_MH-119 2Z16 (1) IW, (6) IS
MH-128_MH-130 2Z15 (1) IW, (5) IS
MH-139_MH-140 2Z13 (1) IW, (3) IS
MH-101_MH-102 2Z11 (1) IW, (1) IS
MH-96_MH-96A 2X00 (1) IW
MH-97_MH-97A 2H00 (1) IW
MH-97A_MH-98 2X00 (1) IW
MH-125_MH-126 2Z00 (1) IW
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 412 of 768
MH-32_MH-33 2Z1C (3) IS, 106 LF of continuous IS
MH-19_MH-20 2Z16 (6) IS
MH-35_MH-37 2Z15 (5) IS
MH-16_MH-18 2Z16 (4) IS
MH-15_MH-16 2Z1M (3) IS
MH-113_MH-114 2Z13 (3) IS
MH-20_MH-22 2R12 (2) IS
MH-23_MH-25 2Z12 (2) IS
MH-25_MH-28 2Z12 (2) IS
MH-127_MH-128 2Z12 (2) IS
MH-131_MH-132 2Z12 (2) IS
MH-140_MH-141 2Z12 (2) IS
MH-22_MH-23 2S11 (1) IS
MH-24_MH-26 2Z11 (1) IS
MH-28_MH-30 2Z11 (1) IS
MH-30_MH-31 2Z11 (1) IS
MH-100_MH-101 2Z11 (1) IS
MH-108_MH-109 2H11 (1) IS
MH-121_MH-122 312Z (1) IS
MH-122_MH-123 2Z11 (1) IS
MH-123_MH-125 2Z11 (1) IS
MH-130_MH-131 2Z11 (1) IS
MH-134_MH-134A 2C11 (1) IS
MH-141_MH-142 2Z11 (1) IS

3.3.1.3 Pipelines with Lateral Connections
A total of thirty-four (34) lateral, or “tap”, connections acrosssixteen (16) different pipelines were observed during the CCTV inspections. The PACP codes used to make the observations for the lateral connections, and their associated NASSCO descriptions, are provided below. Table 25 lists the pipelines that were observed to have lateral connections, along with pertinent information regarding the connections themselves. • TF – Factory Made Tap Connection
o The tap connection appears to be a “purpose-made or pre-formed pipe fitting that was built into the sewer during construction.”
• TFA – Active Factory Made Tap Connection
o The tap connection appears to be a “purpose-made or pre-formed pipe fitting that was built into the sewer during construction.” The tap connection is considered active if it was obviously contributing flow to the pipeline during the inspection. However, use of another PACP code denoting a tap connection does not mean that the connection is not active. It simply means that while the CCTV camera was inspecting the tap connection, no activity was observed.

Agenda Item 9.1 Page 413 of 768
• TB – Break-in/Hammer Tap Connection
o The tap connection appears to be a rough hole that “has been made in the wall of the sewer main with a lateral pipe inserted into it without the use of a fitting for connecting and sealing the lateral pipe.”
• TBA – Active Break-in/Hammer Tap Connection
o The tap connection appears to be a rough hole that “has been made in the wall of the sewer main with a lateral pipe inserted into it without the use of a fitting for connecting and sealing the lateral pipe.” The tap connection is considered active if it was obviously contributing flow to the pipeline during the inspection. However, use of another PACP code denoting a tap connection does not mean that the connection is not active. It simply means that while the CCTV camera was inspecting the tap connection, no activity was observed. • TS – Saddle Tap Connection
o The tap connection appears to be “a special fitting used to connect and seal the lateral pipe to the inside or outside wall of the sewer main, typically found on lateral connections that have been made after the sewer main was installed, or on installed pipelines that will not accommodate a factory made tap.”
• TSA – Active Saddle Tap Connection
o The tap connection appears to be “a special fitting used to connect and seal the lateral pipe to the inside or outside wall of the sewer main, typically found on lateral connections that have been made after the sewer main was installed, or on installed pipelines that will not accommodate a factory made tap.” The tap connection is considered active if it was obviously contributing flow to the pipeline during the inspection. However, use of another PACP code denoting a tap connection does not mean that the connection is not active. It simply means that while the CCTV camera was inspecting the tap connection, no activity was observed.

Table 25: Pipelines with Lateral Connections
Pipeline Facility ID PACP
Observation Lateral Diameter (in) Clock Position Distance from USMH (ft) MH-94_MH-95 TS 4 2 122.9
MH-95_MH-96
TS 4 1 168.7
TS 4 9 139.4
TS 4 2 138.9
TS 4 2 48.6
MH-96_MH-96A
TB 4 2 5.5
TB 4 10 48.4
TB 4 3 51.5
TB 4 3 59.1
TB 4 11 79.9
TB 4 3 113.7
TB 4 10 171.1
TB 4 3 191.3
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 414 of 768
TB
43 280.4
MH-96A_MH-97 TB
42 27.2
TB410 74.5
MH-97_MH-97A TB4 10 39.9
MH-97A_MH-98
TB43 144.2
TB43 192.1
TB42 269.4
TB42 313
MH-98_MH-99
TB42 75.1
TB42 120.2
TB41 199.4
MH-100_MH-101 TBA 109 31.5
MH-106_MH-107 TSA4 12 26.3
MH-111_MH-112 TB62 100.9
MH-114_MH-115 TFA69 2.1
MH-134A_MH-135TF81 272.1
MH-152_MH-153 TS
8 11 383.4
TS8 11 315.7
MH-59_MH-60 TB6 11233.9
MH-60_MH-61 TF6 11 126.1
MH-62_MH-63 TBA62 476.9
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 415 of 768

3.3.2 Manhole Inspection Findings

3.3.2.1 Structural Observations
The structural defect codes listed in the tables below are the MACP codes applied to the observed structural defects. The number in parentheses indicates the number of occurrences of that code. There may also be continuous stretches of the codes, which will have the linear footage indicated. A condensed list of codes and their associated descriptions is provided below. The tables are sorted on the Structural Quick Rating column so the manholes with the largest count of the highest severity defects are listed in descending order from the top of the table. Refer to the PACP Reference Manual Version 7.0 for additional detailed information about these and other MACP codes.
• SMW – Missing Wall (Grade 5)
• HVV – Hole Void Visible (Grade 5)
• JOL – Joint Offset Large (Grade 5)
• SRV – Reinforcement Visible (Grade 5)
• Frame Offset Distance
o >4”: Grade 5
o 1”-4”: Grade 3
o <1”: Grade 1
• Cover/Frame Fit (Oversized): Grade 5
• SAM – Aggregate Missing (Grade 4)
• Cover Condition
o Corroded: Grade 4
o Sound: Grade 1
• Frame Seal Condition
o Cracked/Loose: Grade 4
o Missing: Grade 3
o Sound: Grade 1
• CM – Crack Multiple (Grade 3)
• FL – Fracture Longitudinal (Grade 3)
• SAP – Aggregate Projecting (Grade 3)
• LFW – Lining Feature Wrinkled (Grade 2)
• CC – Crack Circumferential (Grade 2)
• CL – Crack Longitudinal (Grade 2)
• CS – Crack Spiral (Grade 2)
• MMS – Missing Mortar Small (Grade 2)
• SAV – Aggregate Visible (Grade 2)
• SRI – Roughness Increased (Grade 1)
• Adjustment Ring Condition (Sound): Grade 1
• Frame Condition (Sound): Grade 1
Table 26 below lists the manholes along the trunk main that have a Grade 5 structural defect.

Table 26: Manholes with Grade 5 Structural Defects
Manhole Facility ID Structural Quick Rating Most Severe MACP Observations MH-123 5341 (3) SRV
MH-130 5341 (3) SRV
MH-75 5331 (2) SRV, (1) SMW
MH-79 5241 (1) JOL, Frame Offset Distance = 7”
MH-29 5231 (2) SRV
MH-41 5231 (2) SRV
MH-87 5231 (2) SRV
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 416 of 768
Manhole Facility ID Structural Quick Rating Most Severe MACP Observations MH-147 5226 (2) SRV
MH-146 5224 (2) SRV
MH-68 5223 (1) HVV, Cover/Frame Oversized
MH-120 5222 (1) SRV, Cover/Frame Oversized
MH-55 5141 (1) SRV
MH-70 5141 (1) SRV
MH-99 5132 (1) SRV
MH-32 5131 (1) SMW
MH-122 5131 (1) SRV
MH-97A 5131 (1) SRV
MH-102A 5131 (1) SRV
MH-109 5129 (1) SRV
MH-150 5128 Cover/Frame Oversized
MH-139 5128 (1) SRV
MH-90 5127 Cover/Frame Oversized
MH-64 5127 (1) SRV
MH-102B 5127 (1) SRV
MH-94 5127 (1) SMW
MH-148 5126 Cover/Frame Oversized
MH-101 5126 (1) SRV
MH-81 5125 Cover/Frame Oversized
MH-60 5125 (1) SRV
MH-144 5125 (1) SRV
MH-126 5124 Cover/Frame Oversized
MH-16 5124 (1) SMW
MH-93 5124 (1) SRV
MH-36 5124 (1) SMW
MH-15 5121 Cover/Frame Oversized
MH-119 5121 (1) SRV
The particular JOL defect found for MH-79 was found to be so severe that WWE/Pro-Pipe decided that immediate attention was deserved from the City. Subsequently, the City’s repair crew promptly went out on June 18th, 2020 and performed a point repair on the JOL defect. Therefore, this report will not recommend a corrective action for this particular defect.

Table 27 below lists the manholes that have a Grade 4 defect as the most severe structural defect on the line.

Agenda Item 9.1 Page 417 of 768
Table 27: Manholes with Grade 4 Structural Defects as Highest Severity Manhole Facility ID Structural Quick Rating Most Severe MACP Observations MH-4 4324 (3) SAM
MH-149 4131 (1) SAM
MH-78 4131 Seal Condition Loose
MH-21A 4131 Cover Condition Corroded
MH-131 412B Seal Condition Loose
MH-52 412A Seal Condition Loose
MH-54 412A Seal Condition Loose
MH-56 412A Seal Condition Loose
MH-74 412A Seal Condition Loose
MH-57 4129 Seal Condition Loose
MH-96 4129 Seal Condition Cracked
MH-73 4129 Seal Condition Loose
MH-53 4128 Seal Condition Loose
MH-51 4127 Seal Condition Loose
MH-58 4127 Seal Condition Loose
MH-59 4127 Seal Condition Loose
MH-100 4127 Seal Condition Cracked/Loose
MH-80 4127 Seal Condition Loose
MH-69 4126 Seal Condition Loose
MH-18 4124 Seal Condition Cracked
MH-135 4124 Cover Condition Corroded
MH-33 4122 Seal Condition Cracked
MH-31 4121 (1) SAM
Table 28 below lists the manholes that have a Grade 3 defect as the most severe structural defect on the line.

Table 28: Manholes with Grade 3 Structural Defects as Highest Severity Manhole Facility ID Structural Quick Rating Most Severe MACP Observations MH-24 3222 (1) CM, (1) SAP
MH-5 312A (1) CM
MH-98 312A (1) FL
MH-83 3128 Seal Condition Missing
MH-121 3128 (1) CM
MH-105 3128 (1) CM
MH-61 3126 (1) CM
MH-7 3125 (1) FL
MH-125 3124 Frame Offset Distance = 2”
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 418 of 768
Manhole Facility ID Structural Quick Rating Most Severe MACP Observations MH-84 3123 (1) CM
MH-97 3123 (1) CM
MH-6 3122 (1) CM
MH-86B 3122 (1) CM
MH-22 3121 (1) CM
MH-96A 3121 (1) CM
Table 29 below lists the manholes that have a Grade 2 defect as the most severe structural defect on the line.

Table 29: Manholes with Grade 2 Structural Defects as Highest Severity Manhole Facility ID Structural Quick Rating Most Severe MACP Observations MH-133 2A15 (6) CL, (4) SAV
MH-108 2A15 (6) SAV, (4) CL
MH-134 2A15 (6) SAV, (4) CL, (2) CC, (1) MMS
MH-67 2A14 (7) CL, (6) SAV
MH-136 2A14 (7) SAV, (3) CL
MH-76 2A14 (5) CL, (5) SAV
MH-116 2A14 (6) SAV, (5) CL
MH-27 2914 (5) SAV, (3) CL, (1) CC
MH-107 2914 (6) SAV, (3) CL
MH-142D 2814 (4) SAV, (2) CC, (1) CL, (1) CS
MH-88 2814 (3) CL, (3) SAV, (2) CC
MH-110 2814 (5) SAV, (2) MMS, (1) CL
MH-114 2814 (5) SAV, (2) CL, (1) CC
MH-117 2814 (4) SAV, (2) CL, (2) CC
MH-142 2715 (5) SAV, (1) CC, (1) CL
MH-143 2715 (5) SAV, (2) CL
MH-118 2715 (6) SAV, (1) CL
MH-145 2715 (5) SAV, (1) CL, (1) CC
MH-14 2714 (6) SAV, (1) CC
MH-116A 2714 (7) SAV
MH-102 2714 (4) SAV, (2) CL (1) CC
MH-63 2714 (4) SAV, (2) CL, (1) MMS
MH-13 2714 (5) SAV, (2) CL
MH-106 2714 (5) SAV, (2) CL
MH-115 2714 (5) SAV, (1) CL, (1) CC
MH-112 2615 (5) SAV, (1) CL
MH-82 2615 (3) SAV, (3) CL
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 419 of 768
Manhole Facility ID Structural Quick Rating Most Severe MACP Observations MH-103 2614 (4) CL, (2) SAV
MH-11 2614 (5) SAV, (1) CC
MH-9 2614 (5) SAV, (1) CC
MH-77 2614 (4) SAV, (2) CL
MH-111 2614 (4) SAV, (2) CL
MH-8 2614 (3) SAV, (3) CC
MH-132 2614 (4) SAV, (2) CL
MH-3 2516 (5) SAV
MH-17 2515 (2) SAV, (1) MMS, (1) CL, (1) CC
MH-1 2515 (4) SAV, (1) CL
MH-140 2515 (4) SAV, (1) CC
MH-62 2515 (5) SAV
MH-113 2514 (3) SAV, (1) CL, (1) CC
MH-141 2514 (4) SAV, (1) CL
MH-142F 2514 (4) SAV, (1) CC
MH-134A 2416 (3) SAV, (1) CC
MH-19 2415 (2) SAV, (2) CC
MH-142E 2414 (4) SAV
MH-12 2414 (3) SAV, (1) CC
MH-2 2414 (4) SAV
MH-104 2414 (1) CC, (1) CL, (1) MMS, (1) SAV
MH-65 2315 (2) SAV, (1) CL
MH-95 2315 (2) CC, (1) SAV
MH-42 2314 (2) CC, (1) SAV
MH-21 2314 (3) SAV
MH-44 2314 (3) SAV
MH-26 2314 (3) SAV
MH-38 2314 (2) CL, (1) SAV
MH-86 2314 (2) MMS, (1) CL
MH-40 2314 (2) CC, (1) LFW
MH-10 2218 (1) CL, (1) CC
MH-85A 2215 (2) SAV
MH-142C 2215 (1) SAV, (1) CC
MH-46 2215 (2) CC
MH-89 2215 (2) SAV
MH-28 2214 (1) CL, (1) SAV
MH-30 2214 (1) SAV, (1) CC
MH-34 2214 (1) SAV, (1) CC
MH-35 2214 (1) CL, (1) CC
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 420 of 768
Manhole Facility ID Structural Quick Rating Most Severe MACP Observations MH-47 2214 (2) CC
MH-25 2115 (1) CC
MH-20 2114 (1) CC
MH-48 2114 (1) CC
MH-39 2114 (1) SAV
MH-43 2114 (1) CC
MH-50 2114 (1) SAV
Table 30 below lists the manholes that have a Grade 1 defect as the most severe structural defect on the line.

Table 30: Manholes with Grade 1 Structural Defects as Highest Severity Manhole Facility ID Structural Quick Rating Most Severe MACP Observations MH-39A 1500
Cover Condition Sound, Adjustment Ring
Condition Sound, Frame Condition Sound, Seal
Condition Sound, Frame Offset Distance = 0”,
MH-23 1400
Cover Condition Sound, Frame Condition Sound,
Seal Condition Sound, Frame Offset Distance =
0”
MH-37 1400
Cover Condition Sound, Frame Condition Sound,
Seal Condition Sound, Frame Offset Distance =
0”
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 421 of 768

3.3.2.2 O&M Observations
The O&M defect codes listed in the tables below are the PACP codes applied to the observed O&M defects. The number in parentheses indicates the number of occurrences of that code. A condensed list of codes and their associated descriptions is provided below. Refer to the PACP Reference Manual Version 7.0 for additional detailed information about these and other PACP codes.
• OBI – Obstruction Intruding Through Wall (Grade 5)
• Cover/Frame Fit
o Oversized: Grade 5
o Good: Grade 1
• Frame Seal Condition
o Cracked/Loose/Offset/Missing: Grade 3
o Sound: Grade 1
• Pipe Connection Condition
o Defective: Grade 3
o Sound: Grade 1
• Frame Seal Inflow
o Stained: Grade 2
o None: Grade 1
• OBS – Obstruction Built into Structure
o Chimney/Cone & Wall (30-100%): Grade 2
• RFB – Roots Fine Barrel
o Channel: Grade 2
o Chimney/Cone & Wall/Bench: Grade 1
• DAR – Deposits Attached, Ragging
o Chimney/Cone & Wall: Grade 1
o Bench (<30%): Grade 1
o Channel (1-10%): Grade 1
• DSC – Deposits Settled Hard/Compacted
o Bench (<30%): Grade 1
• DSF – Deposits Settled, Fine silt/sand
o Bench (<30%): Grade 1
• DSGV – Deposits Settled Gravel
o Bench (<30%): Grade 1
• DSZ – Deposits Settled, Other
o Bench (<30%): Grade 1
• IS – Infiltration Stain (Grade 1)
• ISJ – Infiltration Stain Joint (Grade 1)
• ISZ – Intruding Sealing Material Other (Grade 1)
• OBN – Obstruction Construction Debris
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 422 of 768
o Bench (<30%): Grade 1
• OBP – Obstruction External Pipe or Cable
o Chimney/Cone & Wall (<30%): Grade 1
• RFC – Roots Fine Connection (Grade 1)
• RFJ – Roots Fine Joint (Grade 1)
• RMB – Roots Medium Barrel
o Chimney: Grade 1
• RMC – Roots Medium Connection
o Wall: Grade 1
• RMJ – Roots Medium Joint
o Cone & Wall: Grade 1
• Cover Insert Condition (Sound): Grade 1
• Frame Condition (Sound): Grade 1
• Chimney I/I (None): Grade 1
Table 31 below lists the manholes in the JTP trunk main that have a Grade 5 O&M defect.

Table 31: Manholes with Grade 5 O&M Defects
Manhole Facility ID Maintenance Quick Rating Most Severe MACP Observations MH-68 5121 Cover/Frame Oversized
MH-120 5121 Cover/Frame Oversized
MH-32 5121 (1) OBI
MH-150 5121 Cover/Frame Oversized
MH-90 5121 Cover/Frame Oversized
MH-148 5121 Cover/Frame Oversized
MH-81 5121 Cover/Frame Oversized
MH-126 5121 Cover/Frame Oversized
MH-15 5121 Cover/Frame Oversized
MH-119 5121 (1) OBI
MH-149 5121 (1) OBI
MH-133 5121 (1) OBI
MH-28 5121 (1) OBI
Table 32 below lists the manholes that have a Grade 3 defect as the most severe O&M defect on the line.

Table 32: Manholes with Grade 3 O&M Defects as Highest Severity Manhole Facility ID Maintenance Quick Rating Most Severe MACP Observations MH-18 3122 Seal Condition Cracked
MH-123 3121 Seal Condition Loose
MH-130 3121 Seal Condition Loose
MH-79 3121 Seal Condition Loose/Offset
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 423 of 768
Manhole Facility ID Maintenance Quick Rating Most Severe MACP Observations MH-55 3121 Seal Condition Cracked/Loose
MH-70 3121 Seal Condition Loose
MH-122 3121 Pipe #4 Condition Defective (Root Intrusion) MH-78 3121 Seal Condition Loose
MH-131 3121 Seal Condition Loose
MH-52 3121 Seal Condition Loose
MH-54 3121 Seal Condition Loose
MH-56 3121 Seal Condition Loose
MH-74 3121 Seal Condition Loose
MH-57 3121 Seal Condition Loose
MH-96 3121 Seal Condition Cracked
MH-73 3121 Seal Condition Loose
MH-53 3121 Seal Condition Loose
MH-51 3121 Seal Condition Loose
MH-58 3121 Seal Condition Loose
MH-59 3121 Seal Condition Loose
MH-100 3121 Seal Condition Cracked/Loose
MH-80 3121 Seal Condition Loose
MH-69 3121 Seal Condition Loose
MH-33 3121 Seal Condition Cracked
MH-83 3121 Seal Condition Missing
MH-14 3121 Pipe #2 Condition Defective (Blocked)
MH-116A 3121 Pipe #3 Condition Defective (Protruding)
Table 33 below lists the manholes that have a Grade 2 defect as the most severe O&M defect on the line.

Table 33: Manholes with Grade 2 O&M Defects as Highest Severity Manhole Facility ID Maintenance Quick Rating Most Severe MACP Observations MH-42 2215 (1) OBS, Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-39A 2215 (1) OBS, Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-21A 211A Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-134A 211A Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-65 211A Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-21 211A Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-16 2119 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-93 2119 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-24 2119 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-17 2119 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 424 of 768
Manhole Facility ID Maintenance Quick Rating Most Severe MACP Observations MH-113 2119 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-142E 2119 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-44 2119 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-64 2118 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-102B 2118 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-103 2118 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-29 2117 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-60 2117 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-144 2117 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-5 2117 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-84 2117 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-22 2117 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-27 2117 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-142 2117 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-143 2117 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-11 2117 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-1 2117 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-140 2117 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-26 2117 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-75 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-41 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-147 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-146 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-97A 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-94 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-36 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-31 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-121 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-7 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-96A 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-67 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-136 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-142D 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-118 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-102 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-112 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-9 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-141 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-142F 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 425 of 768
Manhole Facility ID Maintenance Quick Rating Most Severe MACP Observations MH-19 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-12 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-38 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-86 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-85A 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-30 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-34 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-35 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-47 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-25 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-20 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-48 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-23 2116 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-99 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-102A 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-4 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-98 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-125 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-6 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-86B 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-88 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-145 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-63 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-82 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-77 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-111 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-62 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-2 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-95 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-40 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-10 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-142C 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-39 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-43 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-50 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-37 2115 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-87 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-109 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-139 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 426 of 768
Manhole Facility ID Maintenance Quick Rating Most Severe MACP Observations MH-101 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-135 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-105 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-61 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-97 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-108 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-134 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-76 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-116 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-107 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-110 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-114 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-117 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-13 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-106 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-115 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-8 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-132 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-104 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-46 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
MH-89 2114 Frame Seal Inflow Stained
Table 34 below lists the manholes that have a Grade 1 defect as the most severe O&M defect on the line.

Table 34: Manholes with Grade 1 O&M Defects as Highest Severity Manhole Facility ID Maintenance Quick Rating Most Severe MACP Observations MH-3 1700
Cover/Frame Fit Good, Cover Insert Condition
Sound, Frame Condition Sound, Seal Condition
Sound, Frame Seal Inflow None, Chimney I/I
None, Pipe Connection Condition(s) Sound
Table 35 lists the manholes that have infiltration MACP defects. Looking at this data, there does not seem to be evidence of potentially significant infiltration and inflow (I&I).

Table 35: Manholes with Infiltration Defect Observations Manhole Facility ID Maintenance Quick Rating Infiltration PACP Observation(s) MH-21A 1500 (3) IS
MH-93 1400 (1) IS
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 427 of 768
Manhole Facility ID Maintenance Quick Rating Infiltration PACP Observation(s) MH-16 1300 (1) IS
MH-17 1300 (3) ISJ
MH-143 1300 (2) IS
MH-12 1200 (1) IS
MH-14 1200 (2) IS
MH-84 1200 (2) IS
MH-118 1200 (2) IS
MH-142D 1200 (1) IS
MH-144 1200 (1) IS
MH-146 1200 (1) IS
MH-111 1100 (1) IS
MH-102 1100 (1) IS

3.3.3 Buried Manholes
During the field assessment, there were found to be multiple instances along the JTP trunkline where the manhole was unable to be found and is assumed to be buried. Table 36 below lists the manholes that are believed to be buried, along with a description of their estimated locations.

Table 36: Buried Manholes
Manhole Facility ID Pipeline Diameter (in) Location Description MH-66 24”
South of Fitzgerald Ave, located in a ditch that straddles the property line between the residential homes to the west and the farmland to the east
MH-127 36”
Located underneath the grass/landscaping on the western side of Arroyo Circle, near 7700 Arroyo Circle, Gilroy, CA 95020
MH-128 36”
Located underneath the grass/landscaping on the western side of Arroyo Circle, near 7520 Arroyo Circle, Gilroy, CA 95020
MH-137 36” Located on the southern side of Renz Lane, west of 850 Renz Lane, Gilroy, CA 95020
MH-138 36” Located underneath the grass/landscaping south of Renz Lane/MH-137, west of 850 Renz Lane and north of SR-152
MH-138A 36”
Located underneath parking lot pavement of the Gilroy
Crossing shopping mall, near southwest corner of Mimi’s Café at 6935 Camino Arroyo, Gilroy, CA 95020
MH-142A 36” Located underneath gravel/dirt road, south of Holloway Road
MH-142B 36” Located underneath gravel/dirt road, south of Holloway Road and MH-142A
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 428 of 768

3.3.4 Differences between City GIS and Field Assessment Findings During the field assessment, discrepancies between the City’s wastewater collection system configuration in GIS and WWE’s field assessment findings were found. Table 37 below lists the differences for the associated assets.

Table 37: City GIS and Field Assessment Findings Discrepancies Asset Facility ID Discrepancy Description
MH-45;
MH-44_MH-48
MH-45 does not exist; because the manhole does not exist, new pipeline MH44_MH-48 was created MH-49;
MH-48_MH-50
MH-49 does not exist; because the manhole does not exist, new pipeline MH48_MH-50 was created MH-124;
MH-123_MH-125
MH-124 does not exist; because the manhole does not exist, new pipeline MH123_MH-125 was created MH-129;
MH-128_MH-130
MH-129 does not exist; pipeline is split into two separate pipelines in City GIS due to MH-129; because the manhole does not exist, new pipeline MH128_MH-130 was created MH-21A;
MH-39A;
MH-85A;
MH-85B;
MH-96A;
MH-97A;
MH-102A;
MH-102B;
MH-116A;
MH-134A;
MH-138A;
MH-142A;
MH-142B;
MH-142C;
MH-142D;
MH-142E;
MH-142F
Manholes not in City GIS
MH-21_MH-21A;
MH-21A_MH-24;
MH-39_MH-39A;
MH-39A_MH-43;
MH-85_MH-85A;
MH-85A_MH-85B;
MH-85B_MH-86;
MH-96_MH-96A;
MH-96A_MH-97;
MH-97_MH-97A;
MH-97A_MH-98;
MH-102_MH-102A;
MH-102A_MH-102B;
Pipelines not in City GIS that were created based on the new manholes found and described in the row above
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 429 of 768
Asset Facility ID Discrepancy Description
MH-102B_MH-103;
MH-116_MH-116A;
MH-116A_MH-117;
MH-134_MH-134A;
MH-134A_MH-135;
MH-138_MH-138A;
MH-138A_MH-139;
MH-142_MH-142A;
MH-142A_MH-142B;
MH-142B_MH-142C;
MH-142C_MH-142D;
MH-142D_MH-142E;
MH-142E_MH-142F;
MH-99 Manhole actually located about 128 feet south of City GIS location MH-100 Manhole actually located about 37 feet southwest of City GIS location MH-106 Manhole actually located about 75 feet southeast of City GIS location MH-110 Manhole actually located about 46 feet southeast of City GIS location Pipelines/manholes from
MH-119 to MH-128
Manhole locations, and by extension pipe lengths/locations, differ significantly from original City GIS data
Pipelines from MH-142 to
MH-152
Manhole locations, and by extension lengths/locations/alignments, differ from original City GIS data
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 430 of 768
4 Summary of Manhole Location Criteria Forms
Manhole Location Criteria Forms were completed for manholes along the JTP trunkline. The forms include space for a sketch of the area surrounding the manhole under inspection. The sketches typically include any surrounding streets, other known utilities, and/or buildings of importance. The likely drainage path of an SSO emanating from the manhole to the nearest storm drain inlet or waterway was drawn when identifiable. The bottom half of the form is comprised of three location descriptions of the manhole. These three location descriptions are the Proximity to Waterways Rating, Public Impact Rating, and O&M Access and Safety Rating previously described in Section 2.1.2. When determining a pipeline’s Consequence Rating, the US manhole’s three location criteria ratings are used. See Table 40 in Section 6 for the ratings for the trunk main pipelines. 5 Summary of City Master Plan
In October of 2017, Akel Engineering Group (AKEL) completed the Sewer System Master Plan (SSMP) for the City, which included a capacity assessment of the City’s wastewater collection system and the JTP trunk main. In this section, WWE has summarized the pertinent capacity improvement(s) recommended by AKEL. How the capacity improvement(s) help to direct and prioritize the recommended RRR alternative proposed in this Report is discussed in more detail in Section 9.1 and Section 10. This section also includes discussion on the model results data used for determining the Pipe Capacity Rating and the Flow Volume Rating for the pipelines.

5.1 Capital Improvement Projects
AKEL’s modeling approach to criterion for assessing capacity performance of existing pipes allowed for depth to diameter (d/D) ratios up to 90 percent, even though the City’s maximum d/D ratio for newly designed pipes is 0.7.

WWE generally agrees with this stance, in that “the criterion for existing pipes is relaxed in order to maximize the use of the existing pipes before costly pipe improvements are required.” AKEL recommended a total of nine (9) improvement projects pertaining to the JTP trunk main, all but one of which consists of constructing a new relief trunk. The improvement project titled JT-P1 is an upsizing replacement of an existing section of the JTP from 21” to 30”, which appears to have already been constructed (i.e. pipe segment MH-48_MH-50, located on Highland Avenue from Harding Avenue and then west along JTP trunk main for about 400 linear feet). Figure 2 below is an excerpt of Table 7.1 from AKEL’s SSMP, which shows brief descriptions of the improvements JT-P2 through JT-P9.

Figure 2: Excerpt of Table 7.1 from AKEL SSMP
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 431 of 768
Figure 3 below is an excerpt of Figure 7.4 from the AKEL SSMP, which shows the locations of the proposed improvement projects (i.e. JT-P2 through JT-P9).

Figure 3: Excerpt of Figure 7.4 from AKEL SSMP
The JTP improvement projects JT-P2 through JT-P9 make up a large portion of the Joint Relief Trunk that was initially identified in the City’s 2002 Master Plan, and its necessity has been confirmed since then through more recent studies.

Agenda Item 9.1 Page 432 of 768
To estimate the total project costs shown in Figure 2 above, AKEL applied a contingency of 15% to construction costs. AKEL estimated various costs as the 15% of the total construction cost with contingency. These costs include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Unforeseen events
• Unknown conditions
• Project Administration
• Construction Management and Inspection
• Legal Costs

5.2 Pipe Capacity Rating Data
The City’s SSMP capacity assessment results provide the data needed to determine the Pipe Capacity Ratings for the pipelines as previously discussed in Section 2.1.1. The results of the model scenario “Existing PWWF” were used to determine the d/D values. Please refer to Table 38 and Table 39 in Section 6 for the Pipe Capacity Ratings for the trunk main pipelines.

5.3 Flow Volume Rating
Lastly, the City’s SSMP capacity assessment results were also utilized to determine the Flow Volume Ratings for the pipelines as previously discussed in Section 2.1.2. The results of the model scenario “Existing PWWF” were used to determine the maximum flow values. Please refer to Table 38 and Table 39 in Section 6 for the Flow Volume Ratings for the trunk main pipelines.

Agenda Item 9.1 Page 433 of 768
6 Risk Prioritization Results
In this section, all of the various criteria previously discussed in Section 2.1.1 and Section 2.1.2 are assigned for each pipe segment (both comprehensively for those segments that were CCTV’ed and for only those criteria where we have data for segments where CCTV was not able to be conducted). For the pipelines that were not CCTV inspected, the Structural and O&M Condition Ratings had to be assumed, thereby resulting in assumed values for Total Probability Score, Probability Rating, and the Overall Risk Rating. For these pipelines, the Structural and O&M Condition Ratings are chosen by looking at the nearby US and/or DS pipelines that were CCTV inspected and assuming the lowest Quick Rating applies. This was chosen as the methodology for pipelines not CCTV inspected because it is not desirable to overestimate the severity and frequency of defect observations, which would likely lead to recommended repair/rehabilitation that might not have been necessary had CCTV inspection been performed.

For a visual representation of each pipeline’s Overall Risk Rating, see Appendix Din Section 15.4.

6.1 Probability Rating and Criteria
Table 38 below lists the three probability criteria, Total Probability Score, and Probability Rating for the trunk main pipelines that were CCTV inspected. It should be noted that the pipelines are listed from US to DS along the alignment.

Table 38: Probability Rating & Criteria for Inspected Pipelines Pipeline Facility ID
Structural
Condition
Rating
Pipe Capacity
Rating
O&M
Condition
Rating
Total
Probability
Score
Probability
Rating
MH-1_MH-3 1 1 2 12 1
MH-2_MH-4 1 1 3 14 1
MH-3_MH-5 3 1 5 28 3
MH-4_MH-6 1 1 5 18 2
MH-5_MH-7 3 1 5 28 3
MH-6_MH-8 1 1 5 18 2
MH-7_MH-9 3 1 3 24 2
MH-8_MH-10 1 1 5 18 2
MH-9_MH-11 2 1 5 23 2
MH-10_MH-12 1 1 5 18 2
MH-11_MH-15 2 1 4 21 2
MH-12_MH-13 1 1 3 14 1
MH-13_MH-14 1 1 3 14 1
MH-15_MH-16 2 1 5 23 2
MH-14_MH-17 1 1 5 18 2
MH-16_MH-18 3 1 5 28 3
MH-17_MH-19 1 1 5 18 2
MH-18_MH-21 2 1 5 23 2
MH-19_MH-20 1 1 5 18 2
MH-21_MH-21A 3 1 5 28 3
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 434 of 768
Pipeline Facility ID
Structural
Condition
Rating
Pipe Capacity
Rating
O&M
Condition
Rating
Total
Probability
Score
Probability
Rating
MH-20_MH-22 1 1 5 18 2
MH-21A_MH-24 2 1 5 23 2
MH-22_MH-23 1 1 5 18 2
MH-24_MH-26 3 1 5 28 3
MH-23_MH-25 1 1 5 18 2
MH-26_MH-27 2 1 5 23 2
MH-25_MH-28 1 1 5 18 2
MH-27_MH-29 2 1 5 23 2
MH-28_MH-30 1 1 5 18 2
MH-29_MH-32 2 1 5 23 2
MH-30_MH-31 1 1 5 18 2
MH-32_MH-33 3 1 5 28 3
MH-31_MH-34 1 1 5 18 2
MH-33_MH-36 2 1 5 23 2
MH-34_MH-35 2 1 5 23 2
MH-36_MH-38 2 1 5 23 2
MH-35_MH-37 1 1 5 18 2
MH-37_MH-39 1 1 5 18 2
MH-38_MH-40 2 2 5 26 3
MH-40_MH-41 2 2 1 18 2
MH-39_MH-39A 1 1 3 14 1
MH-41_MH-42 1 1 2 12 1
MH-42_MH-44 2 2 5 26 3
MH-39A_MH-43 2 1 5 23 2
MH-44_MH-48 3 3 5 34 4
MH-43_MH-46 1 1 5 18 2
MH-46_MH-47 1 1 3 14 1
MH-47_MH-48 1 1 2 12 1
MH-48_MH-50 1 1 5 18 2
MH-50_MH-51 2 5 5 35 4
MH-51_MH-52 2 5 5 35 4
MH-52_MH-53 2 3 5 29 3
MH-53_MH-54 3 1 5 28 3
MH-54_MH-55 2 1 5 23 2
MH-55_MH-56 2 1 5 23 2
MH-56_MH-57 2 1 5 23 2
MH-57_MH-58 2 1 5 23 2
MH-58_MH-59 1 1 5 18 2
MH-59_MH-60 3 1 5 28 3
MH-60_MH-61 4 2 5 36 4
MH-61_MH-62 3 1 5 28 3
MH-62_MH-63 1 1 5 18 2
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 435 of 768
Pipeline Facility ID
Structural
Condition
Rating
Pipe Capacity
Rating
O&M
Condition
Rating
Total
Probability
Score
Probability
Rating
MH-63_MH-64 1 3 5 24 2
MH-64_MH-65 2 5 5 35 4
MH-65_MH-66 2 5 5 35 4
MH-66_MH-67 1 5 4 28 3
MH-67_MH-68 1 5 5 30 3
MH-68_MH-69 2 5 5 35 4
MH-69_MH-70 1 5 4 28 3
MH-70_MH-71 3 5 5 40 4
MH-71_MH-72 2 5 5 35 4
MH-72_MH-73 1 5 5 30 3
MH-73_MH-74 2 4 5 32 3
MH-74_MH-75 1 3 5 24 2
MH-75_MH-76 1 4 5 27 3
MH-76_MH-77 1 3 5 24 2
MH-77_MH-78 2 2 5 26 3
MH-78_MH-79 1 2 5 21 2
MH-79_MH-80 1 2 5 21 2
MH-80_MH-81 1 2 5 21 2
MH-81_MH-82 1 2 5 21 2
MH-82_MH-83 1 1 5 18 2
MH-83_MH-84 1 1 5 18 2
MH-84_MH-85 1 2 5 21 2
MH-85_MH-85A 1 1 5 18 2
MH-85A_MH-85B 1 1 3 14 1
MH-85B_MH-86 1 1 2 12 1
MH-86_MH-87 2 1 5 23 2
MH-87_MH-88 2 1 5 23 2
MH-88_MH-89 5 1 5 38 4
MH-89_MH-90 4 1 5 33 4
MH-93_MH-94 2 1 3 19 2
MH-94_MH-95 3 3 4 32 3
MH-95_MH-96 5 1 4 36 4
MH-96_MH-96A 5 1 5 38 4
MH-96A_MH-97 3 1 4 26 3
MH-97_MH-97A 3 1 4 26 3
MH-97A_MH-98 5 1 5 38 4
MH-98_MH-99 5 2 5 41 5
MH-99_MH-100 3 1 4 26 3
MH-100_MH-101 5 1 5 38 4
MH-101_MH-102 5 1 5 38 4
MH-102_MH-102A 2 1 5 23 2
MH-102A_MH-102B 2 1 3 19 2
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 436 of 768
Pipeline Facility ID
Structural
Condition
Rating
Pipe Capacity
Rating
O&M
Condition
Rating
Total
Probability
Score
Probability
Rating
MH-102B_MH-103 3 1 4 26 3
MH-103_MH-104 4 5 5 45 5
MH-104_MH-105 5 1 5 38 4
MH-105_MH-106 5 1 5 38 4
MH-106_MH-107 5 1 5 38 4
MH-107_MH-108 5 1 5 38 4
MH-108_MH-109 3 1 4 26 3
MH-109_MH-110 5 1 5 38 4
MH-110_MH-111 4 1 5 33 4
MH-111_MH-112 4 1 5 33 4
MH-112_MH-113 5 1 5 38 4
MH-113_MH-114 5 1 5 38 4
MH-114_MH-115 3 1 5 28 3
MH-115_MH-116 5 1 5 38 4
MH-116_MH-116A 5 1 4 36 4
MH-116A_MH-117 5 1 4 36 4
MH-117_MH-118 5 1 5 38 4
MH-118_MH-119 5 1 5 38 4
MH-119_MH-120 2 1 4 21 2
MH-120_MH-121 2 1 5 23 2
MH-121_MH-122 3 1 5 28 3
MH-122_MH-123 3 2 5 31 3
MH-123_MH-125 5 1 5 38 4
MH-125_MH-126 5 1 5 38 4
MH-126_MH-127 5 1 5 38 4
MH-127_MH-128 5 1 5 38 4
MH-128_MH-130 5 1 5 38 4
MH-130_MH-131 4 1 5 33 4
MH-131_MH-132 5 1 5 38 4
MH-132_MH-133 3 1 5 28 3
MH-133_MH-134 5 1 5 38 4
MH-134_MH-134A 2 1 3 19 2
MH-134A_MH-135 5 1 5 38 4
MH-135_MH-136 5 2 5 41 5
MH-136_MH-137 2 3 3 25 3
MH-137_MH-138 5 1 4 36 4
MH-138_MH-138A 5 1 5 38 4
MH-138A_MH-139 3 4 5 37 4
MH-139_MH-140 5 2 5 41 5
MH-140_MH-141 5 2 5 41 5
MH-141_MH-142 4 2 5 36 4
MH-142_MH-142A 3 4 3 33 4
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 437 of 768
Pipeline Facility ID
Structural
Condition
Rating
Pipe Capacity
Rating
O&M
Condition
Rating
Total
Probability
Score
Probability
Rating
MH-142A_MH-142B 4 4 4 40 4
MH-142B_MH-142C 5 4 5 47 5
MH-142C_MH-142D 5 4 5 47 5
MH-142D_MH-142E 5 4 4 45 5
MH-142E_MH-142F 5 4 5 47 5
MH-142F_MH-143 5 4 5 47 5
MH-143_MH-144 5 1 5 38 4
MH-144_MH-145 3 1 3 24 2
MH-145_MH-146 5 2 5 41 5
MH-146_MH-147 5 1 5 38 4
MH-147_MH-148 5 5 5 50 5
MH-148_MH-149 4 1 4 31 3
MH-149_MH-150 4 1 4 31 3
MH-150_MH-151 5 2 5 41 5
MH-151_MH-152 5 2 5 41 5
MH-152_MH-153 5 3 5 44 5
MH-153_MH-154 5 1 5 38 4
MH-154_MH-155 2 1 1 15 1
MH-155_MH-156 2 5 4 33 4
Table 39 below lists the three probability criteria, Total Probability Score, and Probability Rating for the trunk main pipelines that were not CCTV inspected. It should be noted that the pipelines are listed from US to DS along the alignment.

Table 39: Probability Rating & Criteria for Pipelines Not Inspected Pipeline Facility ID
Structural
Condition
Rating
Pipe Capacity
Rating
O&M
Condition
Rating
Total
Probability
Score
Probability
Rating
MH-90_MH-91 2 1 2 17 2
MH-91_MH-92 2 1 2 17 2
MH-92_MH-93 2 1 2 17 2

6.2 Consequence Rating and Criteria
Table 40 below lists the four consequence criteria, Total Consequence Score, and Consequence Rating for the trunk main pipelines that were CCTV inspected. It should be noted that the pipelines are listed from US to DS along the alignment.

Agenda Item 9.1 Page 438 of 768
Table 40: Consequence Rating & Criteria for Inspected Pipelines Pipeline Facility ID
Flow
Volume
Rating
Public
Impact
Rating
Proximity to
Waterways
Rating
O&M
Access and
Safety
Rating
Total
Consequence
Score
Consequence
Rating
MH-1_MH-3 4 5 1 1 30 3
MH-2_MH-4 4 5 1 1 30 3
MH-3_MH-5 3 5 1 1 26 3
MH-4_MH-6 4 5 1 1 30 3
MH-5_MH-7 3 5 1 1 26 3
MH-6_MH-8 4 5 1 1 30 3
MH-7_MH-9 3 5 1 1 26 3
MH-8_MH-10 4 5 1 1 30 3
MH-9_MH-11 3 5 1 1 26 3
MH-10_MH-12 4 5 1 1 30 3
MH-11_MH-15 4 5 1 1 30 3
MH-12_MH-13 4 5 1 1 30 3
MH-13_MH-14 4 5 1 1 30 3
MH-15_MH-16 4 3 1 1 26 3
MH-14_MH-17 4 3 1 1 26 3
MH-16_MH-18 4 3 1 1 26 3
MH-17_MH-19 4 3 1 1 26 3
MH-18_MH-21 4 3 1 1 26 3
MH-19_MH-20 4 3 1 1 26 3
MH-21_MH-21A 4 3 1 1 26 3
MH-20_MH-22 4 3 1 1 26 3
MH-21A_MH-24 4 3 1 1 26 3
MH-22_MH-23 4 3 1 1 26 3
MH-24_MH-26 4 1 1 1 22 2
MH-23_MH-25 4 1 1 1 22 2
MH-26_MH-27 4 3 1 1 26 3
MH-25_MH-28 4 3 1 1 26 3
MH-27_MH-29 4 5 1 1 30 3
MH-28_MH-30 4 5 1 1 30 3
MH-29_MH-32 4 5 1 1 30 3
MH-30_MH-31 4 5 1 1 30 3
MH-32_MH-33 4 5 1 1 30 3
MH-31_MH-34 4 5 1 1 30 3
MH-33_MH-36 4 3 1 1 26 3
MH-34_MH-35 4 3 1 1 26 3
MH-36_MH-38 4 5 1 1 30 3
MH-35_MH-37 4 5 1 1 30 3
MH-37_MH-39 4 5 1 1 30 3
MH-38_MH-40 4 5 1 1 30 3
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 439 of 768
Pipeline Facility ID
Flow
Volume
Rating
Public
Impact
Rating
Proximity to
Waterways
Rating
O&M
Access and
Safety
Rating
Total
Consequence
Score
Consequence
Rating
MH-40_MH-41 4 5 1 1 30 3
MH-39_MH-39A 3 5 1 1 26 3
MH-41_MH-42 4 5 1 1 30 3
MH-42_MH-44 4 5 1 1 30 3
MH-39A_MH-43 3 5 1 1 26 3
MH-44_MH-48 5 5 1 1 34 4
MH-43_MH-46 3 5 1 1 26 3
MH-46_MH-47 3 3 1 1 22 2
MH-47_MH-48 5 3 1 1 30 3
MH-48_MH-50 5 3 1 1 30 3
MH-50_MH-51 5 5 2 1 37 4
MH-51_MH-52 5 5 2 4 40 4
MH-52_MH-53 5 5 2 3 39 4
MH-53_MH-54 5 5 2 3 39 4
MH-54_MH-55 5 5 1 3 36 4
MH-55_MH-56 5 5 1 3 36 4
MH-56_MH-57 5 5 1 3 36 4
MH-57_MH-58 5 5 1 3 36 4
MH-58_MH-59 5 5 1 4 37 4
MH-59_MH-60 5 5 1 1 34 4
MH-60_MH-61 5 5 1 1 34 4
MH-61_MH-62 5 5 1 1 34 4
MH-62_MH-63 5 5 1 1 34 4
MH-63_MH-64 5 5 1 1 34 4
MH-64_MH-65 5 5 1 1 34 4
MH-65_MH-66 5 5 1 3 36 4
MH-66_MH-67 5 5 1 3 36 4
MH-67_MH-68 5 5 1 4 37 4
MH-68_MH-69 5 5 1 4 37 4
MH-69_MH-70 5 5 1 4 37 4
MH-70_MH-71 5 5 1 3 36 4
MH-71_MH-72 5 5 1 4 37 4
MH-72_MH-73 5 5 1 4 37 4
MH-73_MH-74 5 5 2 4 40 4
MH-74_MH-75 5 5 2 3 39 4
MH-75_MH-76 5 5 1 3 36 4
MH-76_MH-77 5 5 1 4 37 4
MH-77_MH-78 5 5 1 3 36 4
MH-78_MH-79 5 5 1 3 36 4
MH-79_MH-80 5 5 1 4 37 4
MH-80_MH-81 5 5 1 4 37 4
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 440 of 768
Pipeline Facility ID
Flow
Volume
Rating
Public
Impact
Rating
Proximity to
Waterways
Rating
O&M
Access and
Safety
Rating
Total
Consequence
Score
Consequence
Rating
MH-81_MH-82 5 5 1 1 34 4
MH-82_MH-83 5 5 1 1 34 4
MH-83_MH-84 5 5 1 3 36 4
MH-84_MH-85 5 5 1 3 36 4
MH-85_MH-85A 5 1 4 1 35 4
MH-85A_MH-85B 5 3 4 1 39 4
MH-85B_MH-86 5 3 4 1 39 4
MH-86_MH-87 5 3 4 1 39 4
MH-87_MH-88 5 5 5 1 46 5
MH-88_MH-89 5 5 5 1 46 5
MH-89_MH-90 5 3 5 1 42 5
MH-93_MH-94 5 1 5 1 38 4
MH-94_MH-95 5 1 5 1 38 4
MH-95_MH-96 5 1 5 1 38 4
MH-96_MH-96A 5 1 5 1 38 4
MH-96A_MH-97 5 3 5 1 42 5
MH-97_MH-97A 5 3 5 1 42 5
MH-97A_MH-98 5 3 4 1 39 4
MH-98_MH-99 5 3 4 1 39 4
MH-99_MH-100 5 5 4 1 43 5
MH-100_MH-101 5 5 4 1 43 5
MH-101_MH-102 5 5 4 3 45 5
MH-102_MH-102A 5 5 4 3 45 5
MH-102A_MH-102B 5 5 4 3 45 5
MH-102B_MH-103 5 5 4 3 45 5
MH-103_MH-104 5 5 2 1 37 4
MH-104_MH-105 5 5 4 1 43 5
MH-105_MH-106 5 5 4 1 43 5
MH-106_MH-107 5 5 2 1 37 4
MH-107_MH-108 5 3 2 1 33 4
MH-108_MH-109 5 3 1 2 31 3
MH-109_MH-110 5 3 1 2 31 3
MH-110_MH-111 5 3 1 2 31 3
MH-111_MH-112 5 3 1 2 31 3
MH-112_MH-113 5 3 2 2 34 4
MH-113_MH-114 5 3 2 2 34 4
MH-114_MH-115 5 3 2 2 34 4
MH-115_MH-116 5 3 2 2 34 4
MH-116_MH-116A 5 5 2 2 38 4
MH-116A_MH-117 5 5 2 2 38 4
MH-117_MH-118 5 5 2 2 38 4
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 441 of 768
Pipeline Facility ID
Flow
Volume
Rating
Public
Impact
Rating
Proximity to
Waterways
Rating
O&M
Access and
Safety
Rating
Total
Consequence
Score
Consequence
Rating
MH-118_MH-119 5 5 2 2 38 4
MH-119_MH-120 5 3 2 1 33 4
MH-120_MH-121 5 3 2 1 33 4
MH-121_MH-122 5 3 2 1 33 4
MH-122_MH-123 5 3 2 1 33 4
MH-123_MH-125 5 3 2 2 34 4
MH-125_MH-126 5 3 2 3 35 4
MH-126_MH-127 5 1 2 3 31 3
MH-127_MH-128 5 1 2 3 31 3
MH-128_MH-130 5 1 2 3 31 3
MH-130_MH-131 5 1 1 3 28 3
MH-131_MH-132 5 1 3 3 34 4
MH-132_MH-133 5 3 5 3 44 5
MH-133_MH-134 5 3 2 1 33 4
MH-134_MH-134A 5 3 2 1 33 4
MH-134A_MH-135 5 3 2 3 35 4
MH-135_MH-136 5 3 2 1 33 4
MH-136_MH-137 5 3 2 1 33 4
MH-137_MH-138 5 3 2 1 33 4
MH-138_MH-138A 5 3 2 3 35 4
MH-138A_MH-139 5 3 2 1 33 4
MH-139_MH-140 5 3 2 1 33 4
MH-140_MH-141 5 3 2 1 33 4
MH-141_MH-142 5 3 2 1 33 4
MH-142_MH-142A 5 5 2 1 37 4
MH-142A_MH-142B 5 5 2 3 39 4
MH-142B_MH-142C 5 5 2 3 39 4
MH-142C_MH-142D 5 5 2 3 39 4
MH-142D_MH-142E 5 5 2 3 39 4
MH-142E_MH-142F 5 5 2 3 39 4
MH-142F_MH-143 5 5 2 3 39 4
MH-143_MH-144 5 5 2 3 39 4
MH-144_MH-145 5 5 2 3 39 4
MH-145_MH-146 5 5 2 3 39 4
MH-146_MH-147 5 5 2 3 39 4
MH-147_MH-148 5 5 2 3 39 4
MH-148_MH-149 5 5 2 3 39 4
MH-149_MH-150 5 5 2 3 39 4
MH-150_MH-151 5 5 2 3 39 4
MH-151_MH-152 5 5 2 3 39 4
MH-152_MH-153 5 5 2 3 39 4
Agenda Item 9.1 Page 442 of 768
Pipeline Facility ID
Flow
Volume
Rating
Public
Impact
Rating
Proximity to
Waterways
Rating
O&M
Access and
Safety
Rating
Total
Consequence
Score
Consequence
Rating
MH-153_MH-154 5 5 2 3 39 4
MH-154_MH-155 5 5 2 3 39 4
MH-155_MH-156 5 5 2 3 39 4
Table 41 below lists the four consequence criteria, Total Consequence Score, and Consequence Rating for the trunk main pipelines that were not CCTV inspected. It should be noted that the pipelines are listed from US to DS along the alignment.