Page | 0
0 | Page
2019
Wo
od Rodgers
6/11/2019
City of Oakland
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis
This page left intentionally blank
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis i | Page
CITY OF OAKLAND TRASH
CAPTURE DEVICE HYDRAULIC
ANALYSIS
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis ii | Page
This page left intentionally blank
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis iii | Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CITY:
City of Oakland Department of Public Works, Bureau of Design and Construction 250 Frank H Ogawa Plaza, Ste 4314
Oakland, CA 94612
Jeff Roubos, P.E Civil Engineer, Watershed and Stormwater Management
CONSULTANT TEAM:
Wood Rodgers Inc.
180 Grand Avenue, Suite 775
Oakland, CA 94612
Dan Matthies, P.E., C.F.M. Principal Engineer, Consultant Principal-in-Charge Cheng Soo, P.E., C.F.M. Associate Engineer, Consultant Project Manager Camila Correa Engineer, Civil Engineer
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis iv | Page
This page left intentionally blank
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis v | Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................................. iii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................................. vi LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................................... vi 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 2 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 3 CRITERIA ................................................................................................................................................................... 1
3.1 Trash Capture ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2
3.2 Hydraulic Performance .................................................................................................................................................. 2 4 STUDY AREAS ......................................................................................................................................................... 4 5 DATA COLLECTION, SITE RECONNAISANCE & SITE SELECTION .................................................... 7
5.1 Site 1 –Mandela Parkway and 24th St ..................................................................................................................... 9
5.2 Site 2 – 45th Avenue & San Leandro Street ..................................................................................................... 13
5.3 Site 3 – 47th Avenue & UPRR ................................................................................................................................... 14
5.4 Site 4 – 85th Avenue and G Street ........................................................................................................................... 15
5.5 Site 5 – Stonehurst Outfall ......................................................................................................................................... 22 6 HYDRAULIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................... 27
6.1 Trash Capture Devices ................................................................................................................................................ 27
6.2 Design Flows .................................................................................................................................................................... 27
6.2.1 Trash Capture .......................................................................................................................................................... 27
6.2.2 Hydraulic Impacts ................................................................................................................................................. 27
6.3 Hydraulic Models ........................................................................................................................................................... 28
6.3.1 CDS ............................................................................................................................................................................... 28
6.3.2 DSBB ............................................................................................................................................................................ 31
6.3.3 Storm Flow ................................................................................................................................................................ 32
6.4 Results & Recommended Device.......................................................................................................................... 33
6.4.1 Results ......................................................................................................................................................................... 33
6.4.2 Recommended Devices .................................................................................................................................... 47
6.5 Additional Improvements ........................................................................................................................................... 48
6.6 Clogging Analysis........................................................................................................................................................... 51
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis vi | Page
7 TRASH CAPTURE SIZING ................................................................................................................................ 52 8 ENGINEERING COST ESTIMATE .................................................................................................................. 53 9 Design and Construction Schedules ......................................................................................................... 54 10 RECOMMENDATION ......................................................................................................................................... 55
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 – Trash Capture Areas and Loading ................................................................................................................... 4 Table 2 – Trash Capture Areas and Design Flows .................................................................................................... 28 Table 3 – Trash Capture Hydraulic Result Summary .............................................................................................. 46 Table 4 – Trash Capture Recommendation .................................................................................................................. 47 Table 5 – Hydraulic Results with Additional Improvements............................................................................... 48 Table 6 – Trash Capture Clogging and Head Loss ................................................................................................... 51 Table 7 – Trash Capture Loading, Model and Maintenance .............................................................................. 52 Table 8 – Cost Estimate ............................................................................................................................................................. 53 Table 9 – Design and Construction Schedules .......................................................................................................... 54 Table 10 – Trash Capture Loading, Model and Maintenance ........................................................................... 55
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Site Locations and Drainage Areas (City Pipe=Green, ACPWA Pipe=Orange) ......................... 5 Figure 2 - Mandela and 24th EBMUD Water Utility Map ................................................................................................ 9 Figure 3 - Mandela and 24th Access Structure and Pipe Inside Photos............................................................. 10 Figure 4 - Mandela and 24th EBMUD Water Utility Map ............................................................................................. 11 Figure 5 – Mandela and 24th Gas and Electric Utility Map ........................................................................................ 12 Figure 6 – Site 2 As-Built Plan (CB-362) .............................................................................................................................. 14 Figure 7 – Site 3 As-Built Plan (CB-333) .............................................................................................................................. 15 Figure 8 – Site 3 As-Built Plan (UC-2421) ............................................................................................................................ 16 Figure 9 – Site 3 As-Built Section (UC-2421) ..................................................................................................................... 17
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis vii | Page
Figure 10 - 85th Avenue and G Street Access Structure and Pipe Inside Photos .......................................... 18 Figure 11 – 85th and G Electric Utility Map ......................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 12 – 85th and G Gas Utility Map ................................................................................................................................. 20 Figure 13 - 85th and G EBMUD Water Utility Map .......................................................................................................... 21 Figure 14 – Stonehurst Creek Outfall Pipe and Channel Photos ........................................................................... 23 Figure 15– Stonehurst Electric Utility Map ......................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 16 – Stonehurst Gas Utility Map ............................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 17 - Stonehurst EBMUD Water Utility Map ......................................................................................................... 26 Figure 18 – CDS Trash Capture ICM Schematic (in red) ........................................................................................... 30 Figure 19 –DSBB Trash Capture ICM Schematic (in red) ......................................................................................... 31 Figure 20 – Storm Flow Screen Trash Capture ICM Schematic (in red) ........................................................... 32 Figure 21- Site 1 (Mandela & 24th) CDS Water Quality Flow Pipe Profile .......................................................... 34 Figure 22- Site 1 (Mandela & 24th) DSBB Water Quality Flow Pipe Profile ....................................................... 34 Figure 23 - Site 1 (Mandela & 24th) CDS 2-year Pipe Profile (Clean Facility) ................................................... 35 Figure 24 - Site 1 (Mandela & 24th) DSBB 2-year Pipe Profile (Clean Facility) ................................................ 35 Figure 25 – Site 2 (45th & San Leandro) CDS Water Quality Flow Pipe Profile ............................................. 36 Figure 26 – Site 2 (45th & San Leandro) DSBB Water Quality Flow Pipe Profile .......................................... 36 Figure 27 – Site 2 (45th & San Leandro) CDS 2-year Pipe Profile (Clean Facility) ....................................... 37 Figure 28 – Site 2 (45th & San Leandro) DSBB 2-year Pipe Profile (Clean Facility) .................................... 37 Figure 29 - Site 1 (Mandela & 24th) DSBB with Downstream Upsized Pipe 2-year Pipe Profile (Clean Facility) ................................................................................................................................................................................. 49
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis | Page
This page left intentionally blank
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 1 | Page
1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Oakland (City) is required by its Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (Permit) with the State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to demonstrate compliance with discharge prohibitions through timely implementations of control measures and other actions to reduce trash loads from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4). This requirement, under Provision C.10 of the Permit, defines a schedule for implementation that requires 80 percent implementation by July 1, 2019 and 100 percent implementation by July 1, 2022.
The City began developing storm sewer large trash capture designs around 2010. As of 2019, approximately 10 trash capture facilities have been designed and constructed. A few new trash capture facilities are being analyzed in this study and considered for construction in the near future.
The purpose of this study is to provide an assessment of the proposed trash capture facilities with respect to hydraulic impacts and to maintenance; and to provide recommendations for improvements to mitigate any adverse impacts for design storms before the existing storm sewer system floods the streets.
2 REFERENCES
The references collected and used for this study are as follows:
1. California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRS NPDES), November 19, 2015.
2. City of Oakland, Storm Drainage Design Standards, Updated October 2014
3. Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program, C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance, October 2017.
4. Ettie Street Pump Station Watershed Storm Water Treatment Feasibility Study, Caltrans District 4 & City of Oakland, June 19, 2017.
5. Laboratory Testing of Gross Solids Removal Facilities, Caltrans, May 2005.
6. San Francisco Bay Tidal Datums and Extreme Tides Study Final Report, Fe bruary 2016, AECOM
3 CRITERIA
The trash capture facilities will need to meet the minimum performance for trash capture as required in the Permit. Also, due to the obligations of the City of Oakland and Alameda County, the devices will need to installed in a manner that prevents hydraulic impacts to the drainage systems,
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 2 | Page
or to at least minimizes the impacts to a point that still meets the City’s and County’s drainage system level of service requirements.
3.1 Trash Capture
In order to identify the trash capture performance requirements, the following is taken from the “California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRS NPDES)”, November 19, 2015:
A full capture system is any single device or series of devices that traps all particles retained by a 5 mm mesh screen and has a design treatment capacity of not less than the peak flow rate resulting from a one-year, one-hour, storm in the sub-drainage area or designed to carry at least the same flow as the storm drain connected to the inlet. The device(s) must also have a trash reservoir large enough to contain a reasonable amount of trash safely without overflowing trash into the overflow outlet between maintenance events.
See Section 7 for more detail.
3.2 Hydraulic Performance
In order to identify the threshold for determining if the hydraulic impacts are acceptable or not, both the City of Oakland and the Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (District) storm drainage system criteria were investigated.
See Section 6 from more detail.
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 3 | Page
This page left intentionally blank
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 4 | Page
4 STUDY AREAS
There are four watersheds analyzed in this study for proposed large trash capture facilities .
1. Ettie Street
2. Peralta Creek (Line F)
3. Elmhurst Creek (Line M)
4. Stonehurst Creek (Line N)
Five sites were identified within these four watersheds based on the storm sewer network systems.
Table 1 – Trash Capture Areas and Loading
Site Watershed Location Drainage
Area (ac)
Loading
(cu.ft/year)1
Caltrans
ROW (ac) 2
1 Ettie Street Mandela & 24th 610 3,209 16.8
2 Peralta Creek 45th & San Leandro 1,679 2,647 65.7
3 Peralta Creek 47th & UPRR 751 1,203 29.5
4 Elmhurst Creek G and 85th 802 3,342 6.5
5 Stonehurst Creek Stonehurst Outfall 739 2,741 40.7
The Ettie Street Watershed drains to an 800 cfs pump station owned and operated by Alameda County Public Works Agency (ACPWA) while most of the upstream storm sewer systems are owned and operated by the City of Oakland. Site 1 is located at the intersection of Mandela Parkway and 24th Street and has one of the highest trash reduction potential based on the high loading volume per year estimate in the table above and has relatively low Caltrans’s right-of-way (ROW) areas within its drainage area.
The Peralta Creek (Line F) Watershed is subject to tidal influence with Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) at 6.6 feet, NAVD88 and has large, networked (looped) storm sewer systems upstream that collect smaller drainage areas from Courtland Creek (Line G) , 54th Avenue Creek (Line H) and Seminary Avenue Drain (Line I). Site 2 is located at the intersection of 45th Avenue and San Leandro Street along Peralta Creek storm sewer system, and Site 3 is located at the intersection of 47th Avenue and UPRR along Courtland Creek storm sewer system. The upstream storm sewer systems at these two locations are owned and operated by both ACPWA and the City of Oaklan d with ACPWA owns most of the larger (greater than 36”) systems. Site 2 has relatively low trash reduction potential based on the loading volume per year estimate in the table above but has the
1 EOA Inc. estimate on May 8, 2019
2 EOA Inc. estimate on May 8, 2019
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 5 | Page
highest Caltrans’s ROW areas within its drainage area. Site 3 has the lowest trash reduction potential based on the loading volume per year estimate in the table above and has relatively low Caltrans’s ROW areas within its drainage area.
The Elmhurst Creek (Line M) Watershed is subject to tidal influence with MHHW at 6.7 feet, NAVD88 and it has shallow and relatively flat storm sewer systems. Site 4 is located at the intersection of G and 85th Street on a shallow City storm sewer system. The City’s system connects to an ACPWA storm sewer system at the downstream before discharging to Elmhurst Creek. Site 4 has the highest trash reduction potential based on the loading volume per year estimate in the table above but has the lowest Caltrans’s ROW areas within its drainage area.
The Stonehurst Creek (Line N) Watershed is above tidal influence. Site 5 is located at the downstream end of ACPWA’s storm sewer system discharging into Stonehurst Creek. Site 5 has relatively high trash reduction potential based on the loading volume per year estimate in the table above and has relatively high Caltrans’s ROW areas within its drainage area.
The figure below shows the 5 site locations and their corresponding watershed areas. The green storm sewers belong to the City and the orange storm sewers belong to ACPWA.
Figure 1 – Site Locations and Drainage Areas (City Pipe=Green, ACPWA Pipe=Orange)
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 6 | Page
This page left intentionally blank
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 7 | Page
5 DATA COLLECTION, SITE RECONNAISANCE &
SITE SELECTION
Data collected and used to size the trash capture facilities in this study are from ACPWA, the City, CDS trash capture manufacturer Contech, DSBB trash capture manufacturer BioClean , and Storm Flo Screen trash capture manufacturer Roscoe Moss.
Site reconnaissance was performed at the four sites to:
1. Confirm tidal influence
2. Inspect and assess sediment and trash conditions
3. Confirm structure integrity and dimensions
Some sites were inaccessible because of missing manholes or access hatches and the next closest available manholes or access hatches were inspected. A camera was lowered from the street level with an extension pole to photograph the storm sewer interior conditions. Storm sewer inverts and dimensions were verified with tape measurements relative to the street level.
With the collected data and information above, a trash capture location was selected and optimized for each site. The locations were optimized based on the following criteria:
1. Minimize tidal influence
2. Minimize hydraulic impacts
3. Stay within City or County easement/ ROW
4. Avoid Caltrans’s or Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) easement/ ROW (need encroachment permits and maintenance agreement)
5. Avoid major utility conflicts from PG&E and EBMUD
6. No in-channel facility except at pipe outfall or significant open channel upstream (Regional Board)
Trash capture facilities should be away from tidal influence above the Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) elevation to meet the Regional Board’s requirement of passing water quality flows at all times. Designing a facility below MHHW will risk not fulfilling the Regional Board’s requirement because the facility will not pass water quality flow effectively when storms coincide with MHHW.
Tides higher than MHHW will flood the facility and create maintenance nuisances by flushing trash away from the facility and upstream to the storm sewer system.
Trash capture facilities should be placed at storm sewer systems with moderate to steep hydraulic grade line slopes (HGL slope) to minimize hydraulic impacts to the upstream systems. Trash capture facilities located at systems with mild HGL slopes will propagate head loss farther upstream than those systems with moderate to steep HGL slopes and result in reduced pipe capacity.
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 8 | Page
Trash capture facilities should be constructed and maintained by within the City or ACPWA easement or ROW. The facilities located within the City’s properties should have higher priority than those within ACPWA’s properties. The City will need to develop a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with ACPWA to assume responsibility to maintain the facilities if they were constructed within the ACPWA properties.
Caltrans’s or Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) easement/ ROW are to be avoided for trash capture facilities because these locations typically need encroachment permits and maintenance agreements which can be a lengthy process to get approval.
Major utility conflicts from PG&E and EBMUD should be avoided in trash capture facility selection process because these conflicts will take at least one year to relocate the utilities and often time delay the construction schedule.
The collected data, site reconnaissance findings, and site selection criteria considered are described for each site in the following sections.
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 9 | Page
5.1 Site 1 –Mandela Parkway and 24th St
A site (No. 1 in the figure) was investigated and proposed at the intersection of Mandela Parkway and Grand Avenue prior to this study. We reanalyzed the location and determined that it is not suitable for a trash capture facility because of frequent flooding issues due to limited pipe capacity (less than 5-year design storm). Installing a trash capture facility at the location will further exacerbate the existing flooding and create maintenance issues when the flood water brings the collected debris/ trash to the ground surface. The original proposed location also has a smaller contributing watershed of 385 acres, and has no access from the ground to inspect the condition of the system.
Another location (No. 2 in the figure) was considered further downstream at the intersection of Mandela Parkway and 24th Street to minimize the hydraulic impact as discussed further in Section 6, to increase the contributing watershed to 610 acres, and with verified sound pipe structur al integrity.
See the preliminary 5-year floodplain map and site relocation in the figure below.
Figure 2 - Mandela and 24th EBMUD Water Utility Map
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 10 | Page
The following data were collected for site selection and hydraulic impact analysis.
1. 2011 Parcels and ACPWA’s Easements
2. ACPWA’s 2016 LiDAR DEM
3. ACPWA’s hydrologic and hydraulic models
4. City’s Sewer Map (storm drains and sanitary sewer pipes)
5. EBMUD and PG& E utilities maps
6. Contech’s CDS design
The proposed site was observed with shallow, slow-flowing water, structurally sound pipes and access structure, and a sediment/debris free condition.
Figure 3 - Mandela and 24
th Access Structure and Pipe Inside Photos
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 11 | Page
Figure 4 - Mandela and 24th EBMUD Water Utility Map
Based on the EBMUD water utility map provided by the City, there are no potable water distribution (black) or recycled distribution systems (magenta) within the site location.
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 12 | Page
Figure 5 – Mandela and 24th Gas and Electric Utility Map
Based on the PG&E gas and electric utilities map provided by the City, ther e are no service lines, distribution mains and transmission mains (green, blue, magenta, yellow, red) within the site location.
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 13 | Page
5.2 Site 2 – 45th Avenue & San Leandro Street
The following data were collected for site selection and hydraulic impact analysis.
1. 2011 Parcels and ACPWA’s Easements
2. ACPWA’s 2016 LiDAR DEM
3. ACPWA’s hydrologic and hydraulic models
4. ACPWA’s storm sewer as-builts (CB-362)
5. City’s Sewer Map (storm sewer and sanitary sewer pipes) No EBMUD or PG&E utility maps were obtained for Site 2.
No site reconnaissance was performed at Site 2.
ACPWA’s storm sewer 1974 as-builts (CB-362) was georeferenced (rubber sheeted) to aerial imagery for preliminary utility conflict screening. No utility conflicts were identified.
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 14 | Page
Figure 6 – Site 2 As-Built Plan (CB-362)
5.3 Site 3 – 47th Avenue & UPRR
The following data were collected for site selection and hydraulic impact analysis.
6. 2011 Parcels and ACPWA’s Easements
7. ACPWA’s 2016 LiDAR DEM
8. ACPWA’s hydrologic and hydraulic models
9. ACPWA’s storm sewer as-builts (CB-333)
10. City’s Sewer Map (storm sewer and sanitary sewer pipes) No EBMUD or PG&E utility maps were obtained for Site 3.
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 15 | Page
No site reconnaissance was performed at Site 3. ACPWA’s storm sewer 1971 as-builts (CB-333) was georeferenced (rubber sheeted) to aerial imagery for preliminary utility conflict screening. A 6- inch sanitary sewer pipe and 6-inch water pipe were found in the vicinity of the site location.
Figure 7 – Site 3 As-Built Plan (CB-333)
5.4 Site 4 – 85th Avenue and G Street
The following data were collected for site selection and hydraulic impact analysis.
1. 2011 Parcels and ACPWA’s Easements
2. ACPWA’s 2016 LiDAR DEM
3. ACPWA’s hydrologic and hydraulic models
4. ACPWA’s storm sewer 1946 as-builts (UC-2421)
5. City’s Sewer Map (storm sewer and sanitary sewer pipes)
6. Contech’s CDS design
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 16 | Page
7. PG&E and EBMUD 2019 utilities map
ACPWA’s storm sewer 1946 as-builts (UC-2421) was georeferenced (rubber sheeted) to aerial imagery for preliminary utility conflict screening.
Figure 8 – Site 3 As-Built Plan (UC-2421)
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 17 | Page
Figure 9 – Site 3 As-Built Section (UC-2421)
A 2” gas line, 8” water line, and 33” sanitary sewer crossing were identified from the as-built plans crossing the 11.5’ x 5.5’ RCB. The 2” gas and 8” water lines were further investigated with 2019 PG&E and EBMUD utility maps and found no records of the utilities crossing the RCB near the proposed trash capture site, see Figure 11 and Figure 12 . The sanitary sewer line was confirmed in our site reconnaissance by inspecting the access hatch to the northeast of the RCB.
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 18 | Page
There was no access hatch or manhole found around the proposed site location and we inspected the access hatch further upstream at the intersection of 85th Avenue and G Street. The proposed site was observed with relatively fast-moving shallow water, structurally sound pipes and access structure, and a sediment/debris free condition.
Figure 10 - 85th Avenue and G Street Access Structure and Pipe Inside Photos
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 19 | Page
Figure 11 – 85th and G Electric Utility Map
Overhead Conductor
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 20 | Page
Figure 12 – 85th and G Gas Utility Map
Based on the PG&E gas and electric utilities map provided by the City, there are no service lines, distribution mains and transmission mains (green, blue, magenta, yellow, red) within the site location.
Semi High Pressure
Distribution Gas Main
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 21 | Page
Figure 13 - 85th and G EBMUD Water Utility Map
Based on the EBMUD water utility map provided by the City, there are no potable water distribution (black) or recycled distribution systems (magenta) within the site location.
Potable Water
Service Line
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 22 | Page
5.5 Site 5 – Stonehurst Outfall
The following data were collected for site selection and hydraulic impact analysis.
1. 2011 Parcels and ACPWA’s Easements
2. ACPWA’s 2016 LiDAR DEM
3. ACPWA’s hydrologic and hydraulic models
4. ACPWA’s channel 1947 as-builts (UD-153)
5. City’s Sewer Map (storm sewer and sanitary sewer pipes)
6. PG&E and EBMUD 2019 utilities map
ACPWA’s channel 1947 as-builts (UD-153) was georeferenced (rubber sheeted) to aerial imagery for preliminary utility conflict screening.
A 12” RCP was found about 40’ downstream of the outfall structure based on the as -built and the latest APCWA GIS database indicates another 24” RCP lateral storm sewer. Both storm sewers were verified in our site reconnaissance.
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 23 | Page
The proposed site was observed with relatively fast-moving shallow water, structurally sound pipes and concrete channel, and a moderate to heavy sediment/debris condition.
Figure 14 – Stonehurst Creek Outfall Pipe and Channel Photos
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 24 | Page
Figure 15– Stonehurst Electric Utility Map
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 25 | Page
Figure 16 – Stonehurst Gas Utility Map
Based on the PG&E gas and electric utilities map provided by the City, there are no service lines, distribution mains and transmission mains (green, blue, magenta, yellow, red) within the site location.
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 26 | Page
Figure 17 - Stonehurst EBMUD Water Utility Map
Based on the EBMUD water utility map provided by the City, there are no potable water distribution (black) or recycled distribution systems (magenta) within the site location.
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 27 | Page
6 HYDRAULIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
A hydraulic impact analysis was conducted in order to determine the effects of the proposed trash capture system on the main function of the storm sewers. Because each of the possible trash capture facilities can meet the trash capture requirements, aside from space considerations, the hydraulic impact analysis was the most instrumental factor in selecting the trash capture device.
6.1 Trash Capture Devices
Three trash capture devices: 1) Contech’s Continuous Deflective Separation (CDS), 2) BioClean’s Debris Separating Baffle Box (DSBB), and 3) Roscoe Moss’s Storm Flo Screen trash capture facilities were considered and analyzed for each site for hydraulic performance, mainly head loss.
The Storm Flo Screen was not selected or modeled at Sites 1 to 4 because o f its large footprint requirement within street ROW makes construction of the facility infeasible, and it is not effective at locations subject to tidal influence or high backwater effects (like Sites 1 to 4). CDS and DSBB were not selected or modeled at Site 5 because they generally have higher head loss than Storm Flo Screen, and the site has sufficient space being at the pipe outfall to Stonehurst Creek. Sites 1 to 4 were analyzed with CDS and DSBB for hydraulic impacts.
6.2 Design Flows
6.2.1 Trash Capture
Section C10.a.iii of the MRS NPDES Permit states that the LTC facilities must have a “design treatment capacity of not less than the peak flow rates resulting from a one- year, one-hour, storm in the sub-drainage area”.
The Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program, C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance further describes the design storm requirement – “The permit also allows the use of 0.2 inches/hour as one of the three alternative methods regardless of the results from calculating values from local rainfall depths”.
Dynamic hydrologic and hydraulic models from ACPWA were used to develop the water quality one-year, one-hour flow for large trash capture device sizing. The models were calibrated to the Dec 2014 historical storm and used the latest ACPWA Design Manual s tandards. The dynamic models provide more realistic and accurate hydraulic performance of the facility than simplified hand calculations or Rational Method by accounting for pipe storage, flow routing, backwater effects, and pipe diversion.
6.2.2 Hydraulic Impacts
The existing storm sewer systems within the study areas have 2- to 10-year conveyance capacity and, hence, 2-year 24-hour, 5-year 24-hour, and 10-year 24-hour design storms were used to
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 28 | Page
analyze the proposed trash capture system hydraulic impacts for storm drainage. The 25-year 24- hour City design storm was not analyzed because most of the existing systems within the study areas have less than 25-year capacity. In addition, a 100-year 24-hour design storm was used to analyze channel hydraulic performance at Site 5.
The design storm that produces flows just before (below) where the system starts flooding the streets was used as the target for analysis. Additional improvements will be proposed to mitigate post-trash capture system hydraulic impacts to the existing condition as described in the next section.
The design flows in the table below are the results from the dynamic models .
Table 2 – Trash Capture Areas and Design Flows
Site Location Drainage
Area (ac)
Water Quality
Flow (cfs)
Peak Flow, cfs
(Design Storm)
1 Mandela & 24th 610 80 345 (2-year)
2 45th & San Leandro 1,679 95 750 (2 year)
3 47th & UPRR 751 38 220 (2 year)
4 G and 85th 802 48 490 (5-year)
5 Stonehurst Outfall 739 51 630 (100-year)
6.3 Hydraulic Models
The pre- and post-trash capture conditions at each site were analyzed using an InfoWorks ICM one- and two-dimensional model to assess the hydraulic impact of the facility. Detailed hydraulic features within each type of the facilities were modeled explicitly to account for the limitation and true performance in both low and high flow conditions.
6.3.1 CDS
The internal head loss coefficient for the CDS unit was requested from Contech but it is not available because it was considered proprietary information. We made an assumption that the head loss coefficient, K factor, was 5 times the inlet orifice velocity for the passing water quality flow. DSBB head losses were based on standard hydraulic coefficients from the calculation provided by BioClean. Storm Flo Screen head loss and performance were based on the Caltrans’s laboratory testing data, see Reference 4.
A schematic diagram of the post CDS trash capture ICM model is shown in the following figure.
The major components of a CDS facility are a diversion weir, CDS unit with screen, and inlet/outlet flumes, and they were modeled explicitly using ICM Weir, Pipe, and Orifice Objects respectively.
During low flows (up to the 1-year design water quality flow), storm water is routed through the
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 29 | Page
CDS unit. A short ICM Pipe Object was used and its downstream discharge coefficient was set to a factor of 5 to represent the inlet flume and CDS unit performance. When the flow exceeds the capacity of the CDS unit, storm water will overtop the overspill weir b isecting the diversion box. The overspill weir was modeled with an ICM Weir Object and the weir length was optimized to reduce the head loss to the existing condition for the target storm before the storm sewer system flood ed the streets. The incoming pipe exit coefficient and outgoing pipe entrance coefficient were set to
0.5 and 0.25 respectively. A standard incoming pipe exit coefficient of 1.0 and outgoing pipe entrance coefficient of 0.5 are for water transition in and out of stagnant water body, and they are considered too conservative for this application where design high flow is flowing through the facility with reduced but yet a relatively high velocity.
The input parameters for the ICM objects were translated from the plans as shown in the following figure. The plan is from a design drawing for a similar size CDS facility and markup s in red were provided for determining the overtopping weir length, weir elevation, and orifice attributes.
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 30 | Page
Figure 18 – CDS Trash Capture ICM Schematic (in red)
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 31 | Page
6.3.2 DSBB
A schematic diagram of the post DSBB trash capture ICM model is shown in the following figure.
The major components of a DSBB facility are a screen, overtop weir, and wall bottom opening, and they were modeled explicitly using an ICM Screen, Weir, and Gate Objects respectively. During low flow up to the 1-year design water quality flow, storm water is routed through the screen and go through the wall bottom opening. When the flow exceeds the capacity of the screen, storm water will overtop the screen in addition to the through screen flow and exit through the wall bottom opening and the overtop weir at the downstream side of the facility. The overtop weir height was optimized to reduce the head loss to the existing condition for the target storm before the storm sewer system flooded the streets. The incoming pipe exit coefficient and outgoing pipe entrance coefficient were set to 0.5 and 0.25 respectively to be conservative.
Figure 19 –DSBB Trash Capture ICM Schematic (in red)
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 32 | Page
6.3.3 Storm Flow
A schematic diagram of the post Storm Flow Screen trash capture ICM model is shown in the following figure. The major components of a Storm Flow Screen facility are a screen ed (perforated) pipe, and overtop weir, and they were modeled explicitly using an ICM Pipe, and Weir Objects respectively. During low flow up to the 1-year design water quality flow, storm water is routed through the screened pipe. When the flow exceeds the capacity of the screened pipe, storm water will overtop the weir and exit through the downstream drainage facility. The overtop weir height and screened pipe size were optimized to reduce the head loss to the existing condition for the target storm before the storm sewer system flooded the streets. The incoming pipe exit coefficient was set to 0.5.
Figure 20 – Storm Flow Screen Trash Capture ICM Schematic (in red)
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 33 | Page
6.4 Results & Recommended Device
6.4.1 Results
As described in the Hydraulic Model section, ICM models were run for pre- and post-trash capture conditions (clean condition), and facilities were then further optimized to mitigate the clogged condition for the target peak design storms (typically 5-year or smaller events). The resulting profiles at the five sites for the water quality flow and peak design storm flow are shown in the figures below.
The red line along the pipe profile shows the hydraulic grade line (HGL) for pre -trash capture condition, and the blue line along the pipe profile shows the HGL for post-trash capture condition.
The ground profile is shown in brown.
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 34 | Page
Figure 21- Site 1 (Mandela & 24th) CDS Water Quality Flow Pipe Profile Figure 22- Site 1 (Mandela & 24th) DSBB Water Quality Flow Pipe Profile WQ Pre Trash Capture HGL
WQ Post Trash Capture HGL
WQ Pre Trash Capture HGL
CDS
DSBB
WQ Post Trash Capture HGL
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 35 | Page
Figure 23 - Site 1 (Mandela & 24th) CDS 2-year Pipe Profile (Clean Facility)
Figure 24 - Site 1 (Mandela & 24th) DSBB 2-year Pipe Profile (Clean Facility)
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 36 | Page
Figure 25 – Site 2 (45th & San Leandro) CDS Water Quality Flow Pipe Profile
Figure 26 – Site 2 (45th & San Leandro) DSBB Water Quality Flow Pipe Profile WQ Post Trash Capture HGL
WQ Pre Trash Capture HGL
CDS
WQ Pre Trash Capture HGL
DSBB
WQ Post Trash Capture HGL
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 37 | Page
Figure 27 – Site 2 (45th & San Leandro) CDS 2-year Pipe Profile (Clean Facility)
Figure 28 – Site 2 (45th & San Leandro) DSBB 2-year Pipe Profile (Clean Facility)
DSBB
2-yr Post Trash Capture HGL
2-yr Pre Trash Capture HGL
2-yr Pre Trash Capture HGL
2-yr Post Trash Capture HGL
CDS
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 38 | Page
Figure 24 – Site 3 (47th & UPRR) CDS Water Quality Flow Pipe Profile
Figure 24 – Site 3 (47th & UPRR) DSBB Water Quality Flow Pipe Profile WQ Post Trash Capture HGL
WQ Pre Trash Capture HGL
CDS
WQ Post Trash Capture HGL
WQ Pre Trash Capture HGL
DSBB
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 39 | Page
Figure 25 – Site 3 (47th & UPRR) CDS 2-year Pipe Profile (Clean Facility)
Figure 26 – Site 3 (47th & UPRR) DSBB 2-year Pipe Profile (Clean Facility)
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 40 | Page
Figure 27 – Site 4 (85th & G) CDS Water Quality Flow Pipe Profile
Figure 28 – Site 4 (85th & G) DSBB Water Quality Flow Pipe Profile
WQ Post Trash Capture HGL
WQ Pre Trash Capture HGL
CDS
WQ Post Trash Capture HGL
WQ Pre Trash Capture HGL
DSBB
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 41 | Page
Figure 29 – Site 4 (85th & G) CDS 2-year Pipe Profile (Clean Facility)
Figure 30 – Site 4 (85th & G) DSBB 2-year Pipe Profile (Clean Facility)
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 42 | Page
Figure 31 – Site 4 (85th & G) CDS 5-year Pipe Profile (Clean Facility)
Figure 32 – Site 4 (85th & G) DSBB 5-year Pipe Profile (Clean Facility)
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 43 | Page
Figure 33 – Site 5 (Stonehurst Outfall) Storm Flow Water Quality Flow Pipe Profile
Figure 34 – Site 5 (Stonehurst Outfall) 2-year Pipe Profile (Clean Facility) WQ Post Trash Capture HGL
WQ Pre Trash Capture HGL
Storm Flow
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 44 | Page
Figure 35 – Site 5 (Stonehurst Outfall) 5-year Pipe Profile (Clean Facility)
Figure 36 – Site 5 (Stonehurst Outfall) 10-year Pipe Profile (Clean Facility)
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 45 | Page
Figure 37 – Site 5 (Stonehurst Outfall) 100-year Pipe Profile (Clean Facility)
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 46 | Page
The hydraulic result summary table below shows the pre- and post-trash capture flows, head losses through the trash capture facilities, upstream hydraulic HGLs, and upstream flooding conditions if any.
Table 3 – Trash Capture Hydraulic Result Summary
Site Conditions Improvement
Conditions
Flow
(cfs)
Head
Loss (ft)
Upstream HGL
(ft. NAVD88)
Upstream
Flooding
1 1-yr 1-hr WQ Pre 115 0.0 -3.7 No
Post-CDS 60 2.6 -1.04 No
Post-DSBB 90 0.4 -3.3 No
2-yr 24-hr Pre 345 0.02 5.2 No
Post-CDS 350 0.6 5.63 No
Post-DSBB 330 0.5 6.0 No
2 1-yr 1-hr WQ Pre 80 0.01 15.2 No
Post-CDS 80 1.8 17.1 No
Post-DSBB 80 0.7 15.9 No
2-yr 24-hr Pre 750 0.06 21.1 No
Post-CDS 680 4.3 24.3 Yes
Post-DSBB 685 4.2 24.2 Yes
3 1-yr 1-hr WQ Pre 40 0.02 9.5 No
Post-CDS 40 1.5 10.9 No
Post-DSBB 40 0.4 9.8 No
2-yr 24-hr Pre 220 0.03 16.8 No
Post-CDS 220 0.8 16.9 No
Post-DSBB 220 0.8 17.0 No
4 1-yr 1-hr WQ Pre 50 0.05 8.5 No
Post-CDS 50 1.3 9.8 No
Post-DSBB 50 0.5 9.0 No
2-yr 24-hr Pre 330 0.1 11.9 No
Post-CDS 330 1.9 13.6 No
Post-DSBB 330 1.5 13.3 No
5-yr 24-hr Pre 490 0.1 15.5 Yes
Post-CDS 440 2.8 17.1 Yes
5-yr 24-hr Post-DSBB 460 2.4 17.0 Yes
5 1-yr 1-hr WQ Pre 50 0.1 16.4 No
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 47 | Page
Table 3 – Trash Capture Hydraulic Result Summary
Post-
StormFlow 50 0.9 17.2 No
2-yr 24-hr Pre 270 0.2 19.0 No
Post-
StormFlow 270 0.4 19.2 No
5-yr 24-hr Pre 470 0.3 20.4 No
Post-
StormFlow 470 0.5 20.6 No
10-yr 24-hr Post-
StormFlow 540 0.6 21.1 No
Pre 540 0.4 20.9 No
100-yr 24-hr Pre 630 No
Post-
StormFlow 630 0.7 21.6 No
6.4.2 Recommended Devices
The pros and cons of the analyzed trash capture types were summarized based on the hydraulic impacts from the result table above, and the recommended types are bolded for further analysis in the following sections.
Table 4 – Trash Capture Recommendation
Site Location
Trash
Capture
Type
Pro Con
1 Mandela &
24th CDS • Low design storm head
loss
• Higher WQ head loss
• CDS unit about 30 ft deep
DSBB • Low WQ head loss • Higher Maintenance with
multiple compartments
2 45th & San
Leandro CDS • • Higher WQ head loss
DSBB
• Low WQ head loss
• Lower improvement cost
to mitigate design storm
head loss
• Higher Maintenance with
multiple compartments
3 47th &
UPRR CDS • • Higher WQ head loss
DSBB • Low WQ head loss • Higher Maintenance with
multiple compartments
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 48 | Page
4 G and 85th CDS • • Higher WQ head loss
DSBB
• Low WQ head loss
• Lower improvement cost
to mitigate design storm
head loss
• Higher Maintenance with
multiple compartments
5 Stonehurst
Outfall
Storm
Flow
• Low head losses for WQ
to 100-year flow • Large footprint
CDS and DSBB have similar performance at Site 1 with insignificant pros and cons, and both types are suitable for the site.
6.5 Additional Improvements
With the recommended trash capture device, the hydraulic impacts to the HGL for each site were mitigated by adding improvements.
These additional improvements are proposed in order to match the existing hydraulic performance as close as possible as summarized in the table below.
Table 5 – Hydraulic Results with Additional Improvements Site Design Peak Flow
(Storm Frequency)
Recommended
Trash Capture Additional Improvements Head
Loss (ft)
Upstream
HGL (ft.
NAVD88)
1 345 cfs (2-year) (Existing) 0.0 5.2
DSBB N/A 0.5 6.0
DSBB 4’x4’ RCB Bypass 0.3 5.8
DSBB Upsize 680’ downstream
96” RCP to 10’x8’ RCB 0.5 5.5
2 750 cfs (2-year) (Existing) 0.06 21.1
DSBB N/A 4.2 24.2
DSBB Offline 0.1 21.1
4 490 cfs (5-year) (Existing) 0.0 15.5
DSBB N/A 2.4 17.0
DSBB Offline 0.0 15.5
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 49 | Page
Figure 38 - Site 1 (Mandela & 24th) DSBB with Bypass 2-year Pipe Profile (Clean Facility)
Figure 29 - Site 1 (Mandela & 24th) DSBB with Downstream Upsized Pipe 2-year Pipe Profile (Clean Facility)
2-yr Post Trash Capture with
Bypass HGL
2-yr Pre Trash Capture HGL
DSBB
2-yr Post Trash Capture HGL
2-yr Pre Trash Capture HGL
DSBB
Upsized to 10’x8’ RCB
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 50 | Page
Figure 40 – Site 2 (45th & San Leandro) Offline DSBB 2-year Pipe Profile Figure 41 – Site 4 (85th & G) Offline DSBB 5-year Pipe Profile (Clean Facility) 2-yr Post Trash HGL
2-yr Pre Trash Capture HGL
Offline DSBB
5-yr Post Trash HGL
5-yr Pre Trash Capture HGL
Offline DSBB
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 51 | Page
6.6 Clogging Analysis
A sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the impacts of maintenance activities to the trash capture facility. The frequency and effectiveness of maintenance activities will determine the trash capture facility clogging condition. The design and analysis should account for the worst- case maintenance scenario for peak design flow to avoid total dependency on maintenance crews for immediate flood response. The worst-case maintenance scenarios were modeled by removing water quality flow discharge features such as CDS units, screens for DSBB and screen pipes for Storm Flow Screen assuming that they are completely clogged. The head loss and upstream HGLs with or without clogging factors are summarized in the table below.
The overspill diversion weir dimensions should be further optimized in the design phase if the City would like to reduce the head loss through the facility and to match the existing condition hydraulic performance.
Table 6 – Trash Capture Clogging and Head Loss
Site Design
Storm
Trash
Capture Type Additional Improvements
Head Loss-
Clean Facility
(ft)
Head Loss-
100% Clogged
Facility (ft)
1 2-year DSBB 0.5 0.6
DSBB 4’x4’ RCB Bypass 0.3 0.3
DSBB Upsize 680’ downstream
96” RCP to 10’x8’ RCB 0.5 0.5
2 2-year DSBB 4.2 4.8
DSBB Offline 0.1 0.1
3 2-year DSBB 0.7 0.8
4 5-year DSBB 2.4 2.7
DSBB Offline 0.7 0.7
5 100-year Storm Flow
Screen 0.7 0.7
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 52 | Page
7 TRASH CAPTURE SIZING
The recommended trash capture type for each site was further categorized by selecting a model or sizing the extent to capture anticipated trash volume (loading) with a reasonable annual maintenance frequency. The model numbers and Storm Flow Screen length will need to be confirmed by manufactures prior to design.
Table 7 – Trash Capture Loading, Model and Maintenance
Site Location Drainage
Area (ac)
Loading
(cu.ft/year)3 Type/Model Maintenance
Frequency (time/year)
1 Mandela & 24th 610 3,209 DSBB/11-24 3-4
2 45th & San Leandro 1,679 2,647 DSBB/11-24 3-4
3 47th & UPRR 751 1,203 DSBB/11-26 2-3
4 G and 85th 802 3,342 DSBB/11-24 3-4
5 Stonehurst Outfall 739 2,741 Storm Flow
Screen/30”-220ft 4
3 EOA Inc. estimate on May 8, 2019
Trash Capture Device Hydraulic Analysis 53 | Page
8 ENGINEERING COST ESTIMATE
The engineering cost estimates are based on contractors’ bids from Trash Capture Devices in the Vicinity of Meekland Avenue and Loma Verde Drive, in San Lorenzo, Alameda County, California, 2019, and Large Trash Capture Device Installation Project Phase VI, City of San Jose, California, 2018.
Additional improvements were estimated based on Construction Ebidboard contractor bid history.
Table 8 – Cost Estimate
Site Recommended
Trash Capture
Additional
Improvements
Construction
Costs Soft Costs 30%
Contingency Total
1 DSBB N/A $1.4M $0.4M $0.5M $2.4M
DSBB 4’x4’ RCB
Bypass $1.6M $0.5M $0.6M $2.7M
DSBB
Upsize 680’
downstream
96” RCP to
10’x8’ RCB
$4.2M $1.3M $1.6M $7.1M
2 DSBB N/A $0.9M $0.3M $0.3M $1.5M
DSBB Offline $1.0M $0.3M $0.4M $1.7M
3 DSBB $0.9M $0.2M $0.3M $1.4M
4 DSBB N/A $0.9M $0.2M $0.3M $1.4M
DSBB Offline $1.0M $0.3M $0.3M $1.6M
5 Storm Flow
Screen $3.0M $0.9M $1.2M $5.1M
*Notes: Construction Costs = Trash Capture+ Additional Improvements Soft Costs = Design, Project Management, Construction Management, Traffic Control Total = Construction Costs + Soft Costs + 30% Contingency
The soft costs and 30% contingency are based on the local construction climate per the City’s input.
¬«880
¬«880
MartinLutherKing Jr
Maritime
Mandela
& 24th
City of
Oakland
City of
Emeryville
§¨¦
80 §¨¦
80 §¨¦880
§¨¦
80 §¨¦
80 §¨¦580
§¨¦
580
§¨¦980
¬«123
¬«123
¬«
24 ¬«
880
¬«880
Yerba
Buena
20th
40th
Market
Maritime
Mandela
Brush
5th
24th
7th
Grand
18th
Macarthur
123
35th
Union
Mandela
32nd
Grand
8th
Hollis
Peralta
Telegraph
Broadway
14th
Broadway
Hollis
MartinLutherKing Jr
7th
Northgate
7th
Maritime
Peralta
Peralta
Telegraph
Harrison
Clay
Union
5th
14th
Market
Adeline
Webster
Castro
14th
Mandela
Market
Ettie Street
10'x6'
4.5'x3'
4.5'x3'
4.5'x3'
4.5'x3'
5'x3.17'
5.67'x3.58'
5'x3.17'
6.33'x4'
10'x6'
10'x6'
4.5'x4.5'
10'x6'
10'x6'
45"
69"
42"
33"
96"
60"
108"
33"
84"
36"
33"
42"
48"
36 66"
36"
54"
72"
33"
42"
57"
42"
33"
33"
36"
54"
66"
33"
33"
42"
60"
33"
33"
58"
72"
54"
66"
51" 33"
36"
66"
36"
54"
57"
33"
66"
42"
48"
60"
39"
54"
36"
60"
54"
36"
33"
42"
54"
54"
60"
33"
60"
54"
36"
33"
54"
36"
72"
48"
54"
39"
45"
36"
33"
39"
69"
54"
33"
54"
33"
54"
36"
54"
33"
42"
33"
36"
42"
33"
36"
54"
45"
58"
108"
58"
54"
42"
45"
42"
36"
33"
51"
36"
60"
36"
54"
72"
54"
36"
84"
48"
42"
33"
33"
39"
33"
48"
66"
33"
36"54"
36 42"
66"
66"
48"
33"
36"
33"
42"
51"
39"
36"
45"
33"
33"
36"
36"
36"
33"
42"
66"
36"
33"
54"
36"
42"
33"
45"
42"
42"
51"
54"
51"
45"
36"
57"
60"
48"
39"
45"
96"
78"
78"
45"
66"
72"
58"
72" 78"
66"
60"
96"
66"
72"
96"
60"
66"
54"
39"
48"
84"
96"
69"
54"
66"
78"
69"
58"
58"
78"
42"
48"
54"
60"
\\woodrodgers.loc\ProductionData\Jobs-Oak\Jobs\1986_OaklandTrashCaptureAnalysis\OaklandTrashCaptureAnalysis\GIS\Tasks\Report\Exhibit_Site1.mxd; 6/10/2019; ccorrea Legend
!! Pump Station
Gravity Main - Modeled
City of Oakland
Alameda County
Drainage Area
City of Oakland
Large Trash
Capture Study
Site 1
Watershed Map
Alameda County, California
June, 2019
0 2,0001,000
Feet
NORTH
PRELIMINARY
EXHIBIT 1
Vicinity Map
1 Mandela & 24th 610 16.8 CDS/ DSBB 5.4 4.9 No 80 345 (2-year) $2.7M Additional
Trash
Reduction %
Known
Major
Utility
Conflicts
Water
Quality Flow
(cfs)
Peak Flow, cfs
(Design
Storm)
Total
Cost
Site Location
Drainage
Area (ac)
Caltrans ROW
Treated (ac)
Devices
Type(s)
Total Trash
Reduction %
§¨¦880
§¨¦580
¬«185
¬«185
¬«185
¬«185
International
106th
Callan
185
98th
Macarthur
Macarthur
San Leandro
Macarthur
Bancroft
Macarthur
185
Golf
Links
Dutton Macarthur
Estudillo
Bancroft
106th
San Leandro
106th
SanLeandro
Macarthur
Bancroft
International
14th
98th
Bancroft
98th
City of
Oakland
City of
San Leandro
5.5'x2'
10'x5'
10'x5'
10'x5'
10'x5'
5'x3.5'8.5'x3.5'
5'x3.5'
4.5'x2.25'
10'x5'
5'x3.5'
10'x5'
5.5'x2'
4.5'x2.25'
6'x2'
5.5'x2'
4.5'x3'
8.5'x3.5'
11.5'x4.5'
10'x5'
11.5'x5.5'
10'x5' 4.5'x2.25'
8'x8'
5.5'x3'
5.5'x3'
6.33'x4'
7'x3.5'
8.5'x3.5'
5.5'x3'
8'x3.5'
7'x3.5'
5.5'x3'
8'x8'
7'x3.5'
8'x8'
7'x4'9.5'x6.75'
9.5'x6.75'
48"36"
48"
36"
36"
36"
60"
48"
36"
36"
36"
33"
36"
36"
36"
36"
66"
33"
36"
36"
48"
33"
36"
33"
33"
33"
42"
54"
54" 60"
36"
48"
36"
36"
60"
36"
60"
42"
42"
60"
60"
36"
48"
66"
66"
36"
36"
36"
36"
66"
54"
36"
66" 36"
36"36"
42"
36"
42"
36"
33"
66"
33"
54"
36"
42"
60"
66"
33"
36"
66"
36"
36"
33"
33"
48"
60"
36"
48"
66"
33"
36"
33"
33"
66"
48"
66"
48"
48" 48"
87"
87"
60"
48"
60"
87"
Stonehurst
Outfall
\\woodrodgers.loc\ProductionData\Jobs-Oak\Jobs\1986_OaklandTrashCaptureAnalysis\OaklandTrashCaptureAnalysis\GIS\Tasks\Report\Exhibit_Site5.mxd; 6/10/2019; ccorrea Legend
!! Pump Station
Gravity Main - Modeled
City of Oakland
Alameda County
Drainage Area
City of Oakland
Large Trash
Capture Study
Site 5
Watershed Map
Alameda County, California
June, 2019
0 2,0001,000
Feet
NORTH
PRELIMINARY
EXHIBIT 2
Vicinity Map
Stonehurst Channel
9.5'x6.75'
5 Stonehurst Outfall 739 40.7 Storm Flow 4.3 4.2
Storm
Drains
51 630 (100-year) $5.1M
Additional
Trash
Reduction %
Known
Major Utility
Conflicts
Water
Quality
Flow (cfs)
Peak Flow,
cfs (Design
Storm)
Total
Cost
Site Location
Drainage
Area (ac)
Caltrans
ROW Treated
(ac)
Devices
Type(s)
Total Trash
Reduction %