ii. Records documenting steps and/or remedial actions undertaken by enrollee, using all available information, to comply with section D.7 of the SSS WDRs. iii. Records documenting how all estimate(s) of volume(s) discharged and, if applicable, volume(s) recovered were calculated.
3. Records documenting all changes made to the SSMP since its last certification indicating when a subsection(s) of the SSMP was changed and/or updated and who authorized the change or update. These records shall be attached to the SSMP.
4. Electronic monitoring records relied upon for documenting SSO events and/or estimating the SSO volume discharged, including, but not limited to records from:
i. Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems ii. Alarm system(s)
iii. Flow monitoring device(s) or other instrument(s) used to estimate wastewater levels, flow rates and/or volumes.
F. CERTIFICATION
1. All information required to be reported into the CIWQS Online SSO Database shall be certified by a person designated as described in subsection J of the SSS WDRs. This designated person is also known as a Legally Responsible Official (LRO). An enrollee may have more than one LRO.
2. Any designated person (i.e. an LRO) shall be registered with the State Water Board to certify reports in accordance with the CIWQS protocols for reporting.
3. Data Submitter (DS): Any enrollee employee or contractor may enter draft data into the CIWQS Online SSO Database on behalf of the enrollee if authorized by the LRO and registered with the State Water Board. However, only LROs may certify reports in CIWQS.
4. The enrollee shall maintain continuous coverage by an LRO. Any change of a registered LRO or DS (e.g., retired staff), including deactivation or a change to the LRO’s or DS’s contact information, shall be submitted by the enrollee to the State Water Board within 30 days of the change by calling (866) 792-4977 or e-mailing [email protected].
5. A registered designated person (i.e., an LRO) shall certify all required reports under penalty of perjury laws of the state as stated in the CIWQS Online SSO Database at the time of certification.
CERTIFICATION
The undersigned Clerk to the Board does hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of an order amended by the Executive Director of the State Water Resources Control Board.
117
CONTACT INFORMATION | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
FINAL | DECEMBER 2021
Appendix C
CONTACT INFORMATION
118
119
CONTACT INFORMATION | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
FINAL | DECEMBER 2021 | C-1
Table C.1 Contact Information
Position Name Phone Email
Public Works Director/ City Engineer Chris Lamm 831-438-5854 [email protected] Wastewater Division Manager Kati King 831-438-0732 [email protected] Senior Wastewater Operator Are Soto 831-438-0732 [email protected] Wastewater Operator Gunnar
Dibenedetto 831-438-0732
Wastewater OperatorGrade I Tyler Hebard 831-438-0732 [email protected] Wastewater OperatorGrade I Justin Granados 831-438-0732 [email protected] Source Control Inspector Josephine
Fleming 831-706-7384 [email protected]
Environmental Compliance Inspector Sheila Peck -- [email protected] Civil Engineer Chris Lamm 831-438-5854 [email protected] Engineering Associate Kimarie Jones 831-438-5854 [email protected] Engineering Associate Athena Cheung 831-438-5854 [email protected] 120
121
2021 INSPECTION PROGRAM | SSMP | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
FINAL | DECEMBER 2021
Appendix D
2021 INSPECTION PROGRAM
122
123
LIFT STATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY FINAL | DECEMBER 2021
Appendix E
LIFT STATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT
124
125
City of Scotts Valley
SSMP and Sewer Master Plan
Technical Memorandum 1
LIFT STATION CONDITION
ASSESSMENT
DRAFT | February 2020
126
127
City of Scotts Valley
SSMP and Sewer Master Plan
Technical Memorandum 1
LIFT STATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT
DRAFT | February 2020
This document is released for the
purpose of information exchange review
and planning only under the authority of
Eric T. McGrath, February 17, 2020,
California PE License No. 47588.
128
129
LIFT STATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT | TM 1 | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY DRAFT | FEBRUARY 2020 | i
Contents
Technical Memorandum 1 - LIFT STATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1-1
1.1 Introduction 1-1
1.2 Condition Assessment Overview 1-1
1.2.1 Assessed Stations 1-1
1.2.2 Assessment Team 1-3
1.2.3 Available Information 1-3
1.2.4 Assessment Procedure 1-3
1.3 Assessment Observations and Findings 1-4
1.3.1 General Findings 1-4
1.3.2 Bethany 1-5
1.3.3 Carbonera 1-8
1.3.4 Glen Canyon 1-12
1.3.5 Granite Creek 1-14
1.3.6 Montevalle 1-17
1.3.7 Sunset Terrace 1-21
1.3.8 Suzanne Lane 1-24
1.4 Summary and Next Steps 1-27
Tables
Table 1.1 Lift Stations Overview 1-4
Table 1.2 Bethany Lift Stations Asset List 1-5
Table 1.3 Carbonera Lift Stations Asset List 1-8
Table 1.4 Glen Canyon Stations Asset List 1-12
Table 1.5 Granite Creek Stations Asset List 1-15
Table 1.6 Montevalle Stations Asset List 1-18
Table 1.7 Sunset Terrace Lift Station Asset List 1-21
Table 1.8 Suzanne Lane Lift Station Asset List 1-24
Figures
Figure 1.1 Lift Station Map 1-2
130
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | TM1 | LIFT STATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT ii | FEBRUARY 2020 | DRAFT
-This Page Intentionally Left Blank131
LIFT STATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT | TM 1 | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY DRAFT | FEBRUARY 2020 | iii
Abbreviations
ATS automatic transfer switch
Carollo Carollo Engineers, Inc.
CIP capital improvement project
City City of Scotts Valley
SSMP Sewer System Management Plan
SSO sewer overflow
TM Technical Memorandum
VFDs frequency drives
132
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | TM1 | LIFT STATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT iv | FEBRUARY 2020 | DRAFT
-This Page Intentionally Left Blank133
LIFT STATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT | TM 1 | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY DRAFT | FEBRUARY 2020 | 1-1
Technical Memorandum 1
LIFT STATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT
This technical memorandum (TM) presents a summary of the visual condition assessment of the City’s sewer lift stations for the City of Scotts Valley (City) Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) and Sewer Master Plan project. This TM is the basis for the improvement recommendations presented in the City’s SSMP report.
1.1 Introduction
Carollo conducted a visual condition assessment of the City’s seven existing lift stations to supplement the hydraulic and capacity evaluations of the sewer system. The condition assessment of the lift stations had two primary objectives:
• Assess the physical condition of the equipment and structures of each station and identify any potential code violations.
• Develop condition-related improvement projects for the existing lift stations.
The findings from the condition assessment are included in the 20-year capital improvement program (CIP) that combines capacity and condition related improvements required to provide adequate sewer system service to existing and future City customers through buildout of the City’s general plan.
1.2 Condition Assessment Overview
The condition assessment team was tasked with identifying current deficiencies and condition issues related to concrete structures, pipes, valves, gates, pumps, motors, electrical equipment, station configuration, and station appurtenances based on visual observations and input from City staff. The assessment was performed only on station components which were readily visible at the time of the assessment. Therefore, the City’s force mains were not included in the assessment. The focus of the condition assessment was to identify capital improvement projects and develop the general funding requirement over the 20-year planning period. The assessment was intended as a high-level screening for significant issues, not a comprehensive condition evaluation of all facility components and maintenance needs.
1.2.1 Assessed Stations
The visual condition assessment was conducted on January 30 and 31, 2019. Assessments were performed on the following seven lift stations:
• Bethany.
• Carbonera.
• Glen Canyon.
• Granite Creek.
• Montevalle.
• Sunset Terrace.
• Susan Lane.
134
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | TM1 | LIFT STATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1-2 | FEBRUARY 2020 | DRAFT
Figure 1.1 is a map of the assessed lift stations.
Figure 1.1 Lift Station Map
135
LIFT STATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT | TM 1 | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY DRAFT | FEBRUARY 2020 | 1-3
1.2.2 Assessment Team
The assessment was conducted by Carollo Engineers, Inc.’s (Carollo) condition assessment lead, David Baranowski, and civil engineer specializing in water and wastewater, Eric McGrath. The team was accompanied by the City’s former Superintendent of Wastewater Operations, Jason Daniels, and other members of the City’s operations staff.
1.2.3 Available Information
Background information about each station was provided by City staff. Prior to visiting the stations, the Carollo team met with City staff to learn the background of each station and to learn about any problems or deficiencies at each station from an operational perspective.
Additional information provided included:
• Photographs of available station as-built drawings.
• Photographs of pump nameplates.
• Copies of purchase orders.
• Handwritten notes from City staff of pump specs.
No list of assets was available prior to the assessment. The Carollo team documented the major assets while at each site. A list of assets is included with the findings for each station.
1.2.4 Assessment Procedure
The assessment team separated their assessment findings and recommendations into three aspects of the station.
• Condition and operation of equipment
- This includes any pumps, motors, piping, valves, flow meters, electrical equipment, instrumentation and controls, backup generators, and other miscellaneous equipment at the station.
• Condition of structures and buildings
- This includes any wet wells, dry well valve and meter vaults, buildings, roofs, and hatches.
• Condition of the site and grounds
- This includes any pavement or concrete, perimeter fencing or walls, and security features. This also includes findings related to safety of the City staff and public, potential code violations, and concerns of flooding.
The assessment team applied the following 1 to 5 scoring system to rate each of these aspects for each lift station.
• 1 (Excellent) – New or like new condition, no past or present issues, no improvements expected to be needed in the next 20 years.
• 2 (Good) – Good condition, relatively new installation or construction, no current issues, no improvements needed for the next 10 years.
• 3 (Fair) - Acceptable condition, past issues have been addressed, improvements expected in next 10 years.
• 4 (Below Average) – Undesired condition, noteworthy past or present issues, needs improvements in near future, at or beyond its expected life but still operational. 136
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | TM1 | LIFT STATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1-4 | FEBRUARY 2020 | DRAFT
• 5 (Poor) – Unacceptable condition, severe past or present issues, needs immediate replacement or rehabilitation.
The condition scoring system is based on the judgement of the assessment team and relative to other wastewater facilities both within and outside of the City.
1.3 Assessment Observations and Findings
This section contains the key observations and condition findings for each lift station. Table 1.1 summarizes the basic information for each station.
Table 1.1 Lift Stations Overview
Lift Station Name Pump Information Approximate Construction Year Bethany 2 submersibles (10 hp) 1972 (2001 upgrade)
Carbonera 3 submersibles (10 hp) 1984 (2006 upgrade)
Glen Canyon 2 submersibles (7.5 hp) 1984
Granite Creek 2 submersibles (23 hp) 1971
Montevalle 2 submersibles (15 hp) 1998
Sunset Terrace 2 submersibles (5 hp) 2004
Suzanne Lane 2 submersibles (5 hp) Unknown
Notes:
(1) Based on discussions with City staff and information provided by the City.
1.3.1 General Findings
Some findings applied to all or most lift stations. Rather than repeat these findings for each station, they are listed here.
• All of the lift stations are near a stream, creek, or waterway. If a sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) ever occurred at any of the lift stations, the overflow would spill into the waterway very quickly. No stations have a containment berm or other means to contain or divert flow. However, the operators report there has not been an SSO at a lift station in the last 10 years. The stations do not appear to be vulnerable to flooding. • There are no inlet manholes at the lift stations, with the exception of the Carbonera Lift Station. Without an inlet manhole, it is very difficult to set up temporary bypass pumping for maintenance work or for constructing wet well improvements. • The lift stations are lacking flow meters on the discharge pipe (except Carbonera) and pressure gauges. These devices provide useful information such as recording flow and evaluating pump performance.
• There are no provisions at any of the lift station to combat rags and other materials that get into the wet well. A grinder unit might be beneficial for those lift station that experience rags or debris buildup in the wet well. Staff use a chopper pump on occasion at specific stations that sometimes experience clogging. • Site lighting needs to be improved at the lift stations. Many stations have no lighting, and a few have minimal lighting. Operators report that evening or night callouts require the use of the lights of their trucks in order to see while performing work. 137
LIFT STATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT | TM 1 | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY DRAFT | FEBRUARY 2020 | 1-5
• None of the lift stations have wash-down water. Wash down water is useful for cleaning up the site and cleaning the pumps prior to bringing them back to the shop for servicing.
Additional findings about each station are included in the following sections.
1.3.2 Bethany
The Bethany Lift Station is located in a relatively
remote area south of the parking lot for the
Baymonte Early Childhood Learning Center on
Bethany Drive. The station is located adjacent to
Carbonera Creek in the northern portion of the
service area. An aerial image of the station is
shown in Photo 1.1.
The station was originally constructed in 1972 (per
the date on the record drawings) and a repair and
upgrade project was completed in 2001 (per the
date on the record drawings). The recent
construction of a new facility affected the station
flows and the adjacent hillside.
Table 1.2 lists the major assets at the lift station. Photo 1.2 to Figure 1.8 are photos of the lift station.
Table 1.2 Bethany Lift Stations Asset List
Lift Station Areas Major Assets
Site/Grounds • Chain-link perimeter fence.
• Light pole.
Structures • Wet well (with hatch and safety grating).
Mechanical Equipment • Submersible pump 1.
• Submersible pump 2.
• Discharge piping with check valves and air release valve. • Wet well exhaust fan.
Electrical Equipment • Control panel (with portable generator hookup). • Standby generator.
The findings from the condition assessment are included in the following sections.
1.3.2.1 Site and Structures
• The site suffers from drainage issues leading to sand and leaves entering the site under the fence. The recent construction left the adjacent hillside bare, which has resulted in sand and dirt washing onto the site. Staff have put sandbags along parts of the fence to keep out some of the debris, but more is needed. A berm or curb is needed to eliminate the drainage problem.
• There is yard lighting on the site, but it is not known if it works. The light may be an alarm light. Better lighting is needed at this station because it is relatively isolated. • Staff noted that there was an odor complaint for this station. The complaint came from a resident near the force main discharge manhole. Prior to this, there hadn’t been an Photo 1.1 - Bethany Lift Station Aerial
138
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | TM1 | LIFT STATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1-6 | FEBRUARY 2020 | DRAFT
odor complaint in years, and staff believe this may be due to increased flows from a new discharger upstream of the lift station. The addition of chemical odor control may be necessary if this persists.
• The wet well was coated with an elastomeric coating in 2001. The lining is bubbling throughout the wet well. The lining likely needs to be repaired to ensure it is providing the needed protection.
• The safety grating in the wet well has corrosion. The paint is peeling off in some areas and the corrosion is visible under the pain in other areas. Repair or replace the grating.
Photo 1.2 - Entrance and Perimeter Fence Photo 1.3 - Wet Well Interior Photo 1.4 - Safety Grate Corrosion
Photo 1.5 - Perimeter Sandbags
1.3.2.2 Mechanical and Electrical Equipment
• The pumps, appurtenances, and discharge piping are in good condition. Most of the pump hardware was replaced in 2001.
• The wet well has an exhaust fan to draw out air. This is the only station that has this exhaust fan. This fan is not shown on the 2001 drawings, but a vent pipe is shown on the drawings that does not exist on the top of the wet well. This exhaust fan was either added after 2001 or was a change from the drawings to replace the vent pipe. Based on the corrosion of the safety grating, it isn’t providing the necessary airflow to vent the wet well. Replace the fan with a larger unit.
• This lift station has had the pump discharge check valves changed out with the ValMatic Surge Buster check valves. 139
LIFT STATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT | TM 1 | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY DRAFT | FEBRUARY 2020 | 1-7
• This lift station has an air release valve on the pump discharge (the only lift station with one).
• There is a knife gate valve on the pump discharge that has provided operational challenges in the past.
1.3.2.3 Electrical Equipment
• There is a hookup for a trailer mounted generator for use if the on-site engine generator is not operational.
• The engine generator shows evidence of rodents chewing on the insulation. • There is no automatic transfer switch (ATS) at this lift station but needs one because it is the farthest lift station from the City’s headquarters at the WWTP and therefore the response time to this station is higher than at the other lift stations.
Photo 1.6 - Wet Well and Discharge Piping Photo 1.7 - Control Panel Photo 1.8 - Exhaust Fan
140
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | TM1 | LIFT STATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1-8 | FEBRUARY 2020 | DRAFT
1.3.2.4 Recommended Improvements
The following improvements are recommended for this station based on the observations noted above.
• Repair or replace safety grating.
• Repair or reapply wet well liner.
• Install site lighting.
• Install site perimeter curb or berm to prevent spills from leaving the site. • Replace vent fan.
• Replace or rehabilitate standby generator and install automatic transfer switch. • Install flow meter and pressure gauges.
1.3.3 Carbonera
The Carbonera Lift Station is located in a business park at the end of El Pueblo Road. The station is in between a commercial building, the Santa Cruz Ranch RV Resort,
and Carbonera Creek. An image of the station is shown
in Photo 1.9.
The station was originally constructed in 1978 (per the date on the record drawings for the El Pueblo pump
station). However, a major upgrade in 2006 replaced
most of the equipment (per the date on the record
drawings). This is the only lift station with three pumps.
Table 1.3 lists the major assets at the lift station. Figure
1.11 to Figure 1.20 are photos of the lift station.
Table 1.3 Carbonera Lift Stations Asset List
Lift Station Areas Major Assets
Site/Grounds • Chain-link perimeter fence.
• Light pole.
Structures • Wet well (with hatch and safety grating).
Mechanical Equipment • Submersible pump 1.
• Submersible pump 2.
• Submersible pump 3.
• Discharge piping with check valves and air release valve.
Electrical Equipment • Control panel (with portable generator hookup and automatic transfer switch).
• Standby generator.
• Flow meter.
Photo 1.9 - Carbonera Lift Station
141
LIFT STATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT | TM 1 | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY DRAFT | FEBRUARY 2020 | 1-9
The findings from the condition assessment are included in the following sections.
1.3.3.1 Site and Structures
• The site and structures were upgraded in 2006. They are all in good condition. • The wet well is T-LOCK® lined and in good condition. It has a double leaf wet well access hatch system with fall protection grating. The paint on the safety grating is peeling and is covered in deposits.
• The station’s location makes it prone to odor complaints. There is no odor control system at the site. However, staff were not aware of any odor complaints. The vent pipe coming out of the wet well is blind flanged. This may be trapping the odors in the wet well but is also exposing the equipment to potentially corrosive environment. The paint on the safety grating is peeling off and corrosion has started to form. • This site has a single light pole over the control panel. This light likely does not provide enough light to see inside the wet well.
• The site suffers from leaf deposition within the fenced area due to the number of trees surrounding the area. Staff noted that the building’s landscapers inadvertently blow leaves onto the site. The leaves also fall onto the site. A cover over the station and a curb around the perimeter should alleviate the problem. Staff currently don’t have enough time to clean up the leaves.
Photo 1.10 - Site Fencing and Light Photo 1.11 - Blind Flange on Vent Pipe Photo 1.12 - Grating Peeling Paint Photo 1.13 - Wet Well Interior 142
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | TM1 | LIFT STATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1-10 | FEBRUARY 2020 | DRAFT
1.3.3.2 Mechanical Equipment
• The pumps were replaced in 2006 and are in good condition. No issues were noted by staff. This is the only station with three pumps.
• The site is adjacent to an RV park and is prone to rags. If ragging becomes a consistent issue, replacing one or more pumps with a chopper would address the issue. • The discharge piping, check valves, and isolation vales were also replaced in 2006 and are in good condition. The discharge piping has connections to allow for bypassing pumping.
Photo 1.14 - Discharge Piping Photo 1.15 - Flow Meter and Bypass Connection
1.3.3.3 Electrical Equipment
• The installation year of the control panels is not known. They do not appear to be from the 2006 station upgrade. The control panels are in fair condition. • The control panels contain Mission Control equipped for remote monitoring and control.
This is the only station with this equipment. If it proves beneficial, this system will be rolled out to the rest of the stations.
• The station has a standby generator. The generator was installed in 2006 and includes an automatic transfer switch. The station also includes a hookup for a trailer mounted generator.
• During the site visit, the pumps cycled on/off frequently. The pumps are not equipped with variable frequency drives (VFDs). VFDs would allow the pumps to cycle less frequently, which should extend the life of the pumps.
• The station has a flow meter.
143
LIFT STATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT | TM 1 | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY DRAFT | FEBRUARY 2020 | 1-11
Photo 1.16 - Control Panels Photo 1.17 - Mission Control System Photo 1.18 - Standby Generator Photo 1.19 - Flow Meter
1.3.3.4 Recommended Improvements
The following improvements are recommended for this station based on the observations noted above.
• Install containment around site to prevent spill from leaving the site and leave from entering the site.
• Fix wet well ventilation pipe.
• Repair wet well safety grating and recoat.
• Install more site lighting.
• Replace the control panel.
144
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | TM1 | LIFT STATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1-12 | FEBRUARY 2020 | DRAFT
1.3.4 Glen Canyon
The Glen Canyon Lift Station is located along Glen
Canyon Road, across the street from the Camp Evers
Fishing Park. There are no residents located near this
lift station. An image of the station is shown in Photo
1.20. The station was originally constructed around 1984 (per the date on the record drawings). Table 1.4 lists
the major assets at the lift station. Photo 1.21 to
Photo 1.25 are photos of the lift station
Table 1.4 Glen Canyon Stations Asset List
Lift Station Areas Major Assets
Site/Grounds • Chain-link perimeter fence.
Structures • Wet well (with hatch).
Mechanical Equipment • Submersible pump 1.
• Submersible pump 2.
Electrical Equipment • Control panel (with portable generator hookup). • Standby generator.
The findings from the condition assessment are included in the following sections.
1.3.4.1 Site and Structures
• The site is adjacent to the property line of a residents and about 100 feet from a house.
Across the street is Carbonera Creek. The site has no containment and a spill could have multiple impacts.
• The wet well is unlined and in fair condition but starting to degrade. Some concrete aggregate was observed in the interior walls of the wet well. Resurfacing and recoating is likely needed in the next few years.
• The wet well has no ventilation system. There is a relatively large fall from the inlet pipe to the water surface elevation, which is likely to cause the release of sewer gases. • The site has a single light, mounted to the control panel. This would only provide light on the panel, nowhere else on site. More lighting is needed. • There are existing power and telephone lines directly over the lift station. Staff indicated that these do not hinder pump removal and reinstallation. However, this may need to be verified against current safety regulations to ensure staff are not working in dangerous conditions.
Photo 1.20 - Glen Canyon Lift Station
145
LIFT STATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT | TM 1 | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY DRAFT | FEBRUARY 2020 | 1-13
Photo 1.21 - Lift Station Site Photo 1.22 - Wet Well
1.3.4.2 Mechanical Equipment
• The station has two submersible pumps. The pumps are likely original (Staff were not aware of any pump replacements). These pumps were submerged during the visit and their condition was not observed. However, based on their age, they likely need to be replaced. The guide rails had moderate corrosion.
• Staff indicated that this lift station suffers from rags and FOG more than the other stations. Chopper pumps should be considered when the pumps are replaced. • The discharge piping and valves are located in the wet well and are not easily accessible.
The discharge piping is buried outside of the wet well with no means to bypass or connect temporary pumping.
Photo 1.23 - Pump Guide Rails
1.3.4.3 Electrical Equipment
• The control panel is original to the site but parts have been upgraded, such as the Mission Control system. The panel is in fair to poor condition and likely need to be replaced based on its age.
• The generator is also original (1989 date of manufacture). The generator appeared in to be in fair condition. Staff did not have input on the operation of the generator or when it was last tested. Based on its age, the generator likely needs to be replaced in the coming years.
146
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | TM1 | LIFT STATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1-14 | FEBRUARY 2020 | DRAFT
• The generator is activated with a manual transfer switch (there is no automatic transfer switch [ATS]). And there is a hookup for a trailer mounted engine generator to power the lift station.
• There is no flow meter or pressure gauges on the discharge piping.
Photo 1.24 - Control Panel Photo 1.25 - Generator
1.3.4.4 Recommended Improvements
The following improvements are recommended for this station based on the observations noted above:
• Replace the pumps, rails, and discharge piping. Move the piping above ground and install a bypass connection, flow meter, and pressure gauges. • Resurface and coat the interior of the wet well. Install a ventilation system and safety grating.
• Install better site lighting.
• Replace the control panel.
• Replace or rehabilitate standby generator and install automatic transfer switch. • Install containment around site to prevent spill from leaving the site.
1.3.5 Granite Creek
The Granite Creek lift station is located at the end
of Traci Court. The station is located between two
homes on a cul-de-sac. An image of the station is
shown in Photo 1.26.
The station was originally constructed around 1971
(per the date on the record drawings). Some
upgrades have been made to the station since, but
no additional drawings were found.
Table 1.5 lists the major assets at the lift station.
Photo 1.26 to Photo 1.33 are photos of the lift
station
Photo 1.26 - Granite Creek Lift Station
147
LIFT STATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT | TM 1 | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY DRAFT | FEBRUARY 2020 | 1-15
Table 1.5 Granite Creek Stations Asset List
Lift Station Areas Major Assets
Site/Grounds • Perimeter fence.
Structures • Wet well (with hatch).
• Valve vault.
Mechanical Equipment • Submersible pump 1.
• Submersible pump 2.
• Chemical dosing system (pump and tank) for odor control.
Electrical Equipment • Control panel (with portable generator hookup). • Standby generator.
The findings from the condition assessment are included in the following sections.
1.3.5.1 Site and Structures
• The station is located in between two residential homes. There is very limited parking in front of the station. It is the only station with odor control facilities which was installed in response to a complaint for the adjacent residence. Behind the station is a heavily wooded area that includes a creek. A spill at this site would likely flow toward the creek. • The wet well appeared in good condition. The uncoated concrete didn’t have any spalling or surface deterioration. The wet well hatch appeared in good condition as well.
Roots have entered through pipe penetrations.
• The wet well opening is at grade (not raised) and has no fall protection around it. • The wet well does not have a vent. However, the valve vault drains into the wet well, which may act like a vent. The corrosion was much more noticeable in the valve vault.
The valve vault concrete appeared in good condition.
• The site does not have any lighting.
• The site is very crowded. There is no room for additional equipment. Access to the generator and control panels is limited.
Photo 1.27 - Wet Well Photo 1.28 - Wet Well (Alternate View)
1.3.5.2 Mechanical Equipment
• The station has two submersible pumps. The pumps might be original (Staff were not aware of any pump replacements). These pumps were submerged during the visit and 148
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | TM1 | LIFT STATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1-16 | FEBRUARY 2020 | DRAFT
their condition was not observed. The guiderails looked as if they were replaced, which likely means the pumps are not original.
• Staff indicated that FOG accumulation is an issue. The station sees very limited flow.
Installing a chopper pump may resolve this issue.
• The discharge piping passes through a valve vault that includes two check valves and isolation valves. The piping includes a bypass connection. The piping in the vault appeared in below average condition. It is likely original equipment and replacement should be considered. The vault drains to the wet well and likely accumulates gases from the wet well, which is causing the pipes and valves to corrode. • A Sul-Free chemical injections system is used for odor control. The system only operates during summer. Staff believe it was installed about ten years ago. The system was in good condition and no operational issues were reported by staff.
Photo 1.29 – Pump Guide Rails Photo 1.30 - Discharge Piping/Valve Vault Photo 1.31 - Chemical Injection
System
1.3.5.3 Electrical Equipment
• The control panel is original and in below average condition. The Hand/Off/Auto switch for pump 2 is broken. The entire panel should be replaced. • This lift station is scheduled to get the Mission Control system installed. 149
LIFT STATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT | TM 1 | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY DRAFT | FEBRUARY 2020 | 1-17
• The standby generator appeared in good condition. No issues were noted. The installation year of the generator was not found. Opening of the generator panels is limited by the perimeter fence.
Photo 1.32 - Control Panel Photo 1.33 - Generator
1.3.5.4 Recommended Improvements
The following improvements are recommended for this station based on the observations noted above.
• Add wet well ventilation system and install safety grating. • Cut roots in wet well.
• Install site lighting.
• Replace discharge piping and valves.
• Install a flow meter and pressure gauges.
• Install automatic transfer switch for the standby generator. • Install containment around site to prevent spill from leaving the site. • Replace control panel.
1.3.6 Montevalle
The Montevalle lift station is in the Montevalle
community. The lift station is down a maintenance
road, in a wooded area behind the homes. An
image of the station is shown in Photo 1.34.
The station was originally constructed in 1998 (per
the date on the record drawings). Table 1.6 lists the
major assets at the lift station. Photo 1.35 to Photo
1.42 are photos of the lift station
Photo 1.34 - Montevalle Lift Station
150
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | TM1 | LIFT STATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1-18 | FEBRUARY 2020 | DRAFT
Table 1.6 Montevalle Stations Asset List
Lift Station Areas Major Assets
Site/Grounds • Chain-link perimeter fence.
Structures • Wet well (with hatch).
• Valve vault.
Mechanical Equipment • Submersible pump 1.
• Submersible pump 2.
Electrical Equipment • Control panel (with portable generator hookup). • Standby generator.
The findings from the condition assessment are included in the following sections.
1.3.6.1 Site and Structures
• This lift station is very close to a creek and is very vulnerable to spilling into the creek if a sanitary sewer overflow occurred at the lift station.
• The wet well is in poor condition. The concrete is cracked around the hatch and the interior concrete surface is deteriorating. The wet well lacks safety grating or fall protection.
• The wet well lacks a ventilation system.
• The valve vault has steel plates for a lid and lack a locking mechanism. The vault doesn’t have a drain and was noticeably wet during the visit. This likely is contributing to the corrosion of metal in the vault.
• The site has a single pole with a light, but staff believe the light is for alarms, not for working at the site. The area the station is in is poorly lit and more adequate lighting is needed for working at this station.
Photo 1.35 - Perimeter Fence Photo 1.36 - Wet Well
151
LIFT STATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT | TM 1 | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY DRAFT | FEBRUARY 2020 | 1-19
Photo 1.37 - Wet Well Hatch
1.3.6.2 Mechanical Equipment
• One of the submersible pumps was replaced last year. The installation date of the other pump is unknown, but likely original. The pumps were submerged during the visit and their condition was not observed. Based on age, the second pump is likely in need of replacement.
• Staff noted that this lift station occasionally suffers from rag problems. A chopper pump might solve this problem.
• The valves in the valve vault are heavily corroded. However, the check valves are scheduled to be replaced with Surge Buster valves because the force main is steeply sloped.
• The inlet piping includes a gravity line and a force main line (from a private lift station) in a casing pipe suspended over a creek. This is configuration is very vulnerable to a break or leak from external factors like falling rocks or trees, which would cause a sewer spill.
The City should work with the private lift station owners to identify possible solutions to reduce the risk of an overflow at this location.
Photo 1.38 - Inlet Piping Suspended Over Creek Photo 1.39 - Valve Vault 152
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | TM1 | LIFT STATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1-20 | FEBRUARY 2020 | DRAFT
Photo 1.40 - Wet Well Guide Rails
1.3.6.3 Electrical Equipment
• The control panel is original. It appears in fair to below average condition. It will likely need to be replaced in the next few years.
• The Mission Control system has been installed in this lift station. • The standby generator appears to be in below average condition. The age is unknown, but it is likely original. Plan to replace the generator in the next few years.
Photo 1.41 - Control Panel Photo 1.42 - Standby Generator 153
LIFT STATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT | TM 1 | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY DRAFT | FEBRUARY 2020 | 1-21
1.3.6.4 Recommended Improvements
The following improvements are recommended for this station based on the observations noted above.
• Replace valve vault lid and install a vault drain.
• Repair wet well interior surface and coat.
• Install a wet well ventilation system and safety grating. • Install site lighting.
• Replace one submersible pump with a chopper submersible pump. • Work with the private lift station landowners to identify potential solutions to replace or reconfigure the inlet piping off the suspended pipe over the creek to reduce the risk of an overflow.
• Replace or rehabilitate standby generator and install automatic transfer switch. • Replace control panel.
• Install containment around site to prevent spill from leaving the site. • Install a flow meter and pressure gauges.
1.3.7 Sunset Terrace
The Sunset Terrace lift station is located alongside
Sunset Terrace. The station does not have a
dedicated site, it is blocked from traffic by a few
bollards. The station serves a few homes in the area
and, according to staff, could be bypassed by a
gravity main if a neighboring resident would allow
an easement through their property. An image of
the station is shown in Photo 1.43.
The station was originally constructed in 2004 (per
the date on the record drawings). Table 1.7 lists the
major assets at the lift station. Photo 1.43 to Photo
1.48 are photos of the lift station.
Table 1.7 Sunset Terrace Lift Station Asset List
Lift Station Areas Major Assets
Site/Grounds • Bollards.
Structures • Wet well (with hatch and safety grating).
• Valve vault.
Mechanical Equipment • Submersible pump 1.
• Submersible pump 2.
Electrical Equipment • Control panel (with portable generator hookup).
The findings from the condition assessment are included in the following sections.
1.3.7.1 Site and Structures
• This lift station could be abandoned if the City could get an easement from the adjacent property owner for a gravity line. However, about 40 feet section of the gravity pipeline would have to be double contained and suspended over a creek or culvert. According to Photo 1.43 - Sunset Terrace Lift Station
154
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | TM1 | LIFT STATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1-22 | FEBRUARY 2020 | DRAFT
staff, at the time of construction, the City tried to secure the necessary easement from the landowner for a gravity line but were unsuccessful. The landowner has since deceased, and the City could try again to request from the people who inherited the property an easement for the gravity line.
• This station is located adjacent to a culvert and is located within a drainage channel. • The station has no perimeter fence, site lighting, or parking for work trucks. Although the road is not heavily trafficked, this presents the potential for unsafe working conditions for staff. There are limited or no options to improve this, given the location of the station.
• The wet well is coated and is in good condition. The hatch includes a safety grating. • The valve vault is in good condition.
Photo 1.44 - Lift Station Site Photo 1.45 - Wet Well
Photo 1.46 - Valve Vault
1.3.7.2 Mechanical Equipment
• The station has two submersible pumps, original to the station. The pumps were submerged during the visit and their condition was not observed. The guiderails appeared in good condition.
• The check valves and discharge piping appeared in good condition. The pipes may be made of stainless steel.
155
LIFT STATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT | TM 1 | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY DRAFT | FEBRUARY 2020 | 1-23
Photo 1.47 - Guard Rails
1.3.7.3 Electrical Equipment
• The control panel is in fair condition. No issues were noted by staff. The telecommunication line is unreliable due to rodents. The Mission Control system will soon be installed at this station, according to staff.
• There is no engine generator on site or portable generator hookup. There is no way to power this station during an outage. However, staff noted that this station didn’t run for three days during a recent power outage. Due to the low flows, the station didn’t spill.
Photo 1.48 - Control Panel
1.3.7.4 Recommended Improvements
The following improvements are recommended for this station based on the observations noted above.
• Further investigate the ability to bypass this station with a gravity main. 156
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | TM1 | LIFT STATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1-24 | FEBRUARY 2020 | DRAFT
• Install site lighting.
• Install portable generator hookup.
• Install containment around site to prevent spill from leaving the site. • Install a flow meter and pressure gauges.
1.3.8 Suzanne Lane
The Suzanne Lane lift station is located in a cul-desac at the end of Suzanne Lane. The station is behind a hedge of shrubs, in between two
residential driveways. The station serves a few
residences in this neighborhood. An image of the
station is shown in Photo 1.49.
Record drawings could not be found for this
station. The installation year is unknown, but it is
likely in the 1980s or 1990s. Table 1.8 lists the
major assets at the lift station. Photo 1.49 to Photo
1.54 are photos of the lift station.
Table 1.8 Suzanne Lane Lift Station Asset List
Lift Station Areas Major Assets
Site/Grounds • n/a
Structures • Wet well (with hatch).
Mechanical Equipment • Submersible pump 1.
• Submersible pump 2.
• Discharge piping with check valves and air release valve. • Wet well exhaust fan.
Electrical Equipment • Control panel (with portable generator hookup). • Standby generator.
The findings from the condition assessment are included in the following sections.
1.3.8.1 Site and Structures
• The station has no perimeter fence. Hedges block the station from view from the street. • Staff noted they found rocks in the wet well and they believe it is from kids throwing rocks down the vent pipe. The site needs some kind of barrier to prevent vandalism. • The wet well interior concrete is in good condition. The wet well lacks fall protection. • The wet well is vented by a PVC goose neck sticking out of the top. The pipe is damaged and needs to be fixed or replaced.
• The access hatch to the wet well is sticky, is hard to open, and has a poor lock mechanism. The hatch should be replaced.
• The only lighting at the site is from a streetlamp. Dedicated site lighting is needed.
Photo 1.49 - Suzanne Lane Lift Station
157
LIFT STATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT | TM 1 | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY DRAFT | FEBRUARY 2020 | 1-25
Photo 1.50 - Lift Station Site
Photo 1.51 - Wet Well
Photo 1.52 - Wet Well Vent
1.3.8.2 Mechanical Equipment
• The station has two submersible pumps, believed to be original to the station. The pumps were submerged during the visit and their condition was not observed. The guiderails appeared in fair condition with minor corrosion at the top. Staff indicated that the pumps work well and they don’t know of any issues with them. • The discharge piping and valves are located in the wet well. These appeared to be in fair to below average condition. These are difficult to access and would be better to be in an adjacent vault or above ground.
158
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | TM1 | LIFT STATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT 1-26 | FEBRUARY 2020 | DRAFT
Photo 1.53 - Pumps and Guard Rails
1.3.8.3 Electrical Equipment
• The control panel appears to be original to the site. The panel is in fair condition and no issues were noted by staff. The lift station is scheduled to receive Mission Control system soon.
• There is no on-site engine generator, but there is a hookup for a portable generator.
Photo 1.54 – Control Panel
1.3.8.4 Recommended Improvements
The following improvements are recommended for this station based on the observations noted above.
• Install a perimeter fence or block wall to prevent vandalism. • Replace wet well hatch, install safety grating, and replace or fix vent pipe. • Relocate the discharge valves from the wet well into a separate vault and provide a connect for bypass pumping.
159
LIFT STATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT | TM 1 | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY DRAFT | FEBRUARY 2020 | 1-27
• Install a flow meter and pressure gauges.
• Install site lighting.
1.4 Summary and Next Steps
Table 1.9 summarizes the overall condition of each station based on the recommended improvements from the previous section. Overall, the Montevalle Lift Station showed the most significant improvements needs of the seven lift stations that were assessed. The overall condition of this lift station was rated as a 5 (poor). Improvements at this lift station should be implemented as soon as possible. The Bethany and Glen Canyon lift stations were rated 4 (below average). The City should consider implementing improvements at these lift stations in the near term as well. The remaining lift stations were rated to be in fair condition (3) and projects for these stations could be prioritized after the implementation of improvement projects at Montevalle, Bethany, and Glen Canyon.
Table 1.9 Lift Stations Condition Summary and Cost Estimates Lift Station Name Overall Condition Score Recommended Improvement Implementation Timeline
Bethany 4 (Below Average) Near Term
Carbonera 3 (Fair) Intermediate Term
Glen Canyon 4 (Below Average) Near Term
Granite Creek 3 (Fair) Intermediate Term
Montevalle 5 (Poor) Immediate
Sunset Terrace 3 (Fair) Intermediate Term
Suzanne Lane 3 (Fair) Intermediate Term
Notes:
(1) Condition scores per 3.2.4
It should be noted that not all of the recommendations for a particular lift station need to be implemented as part of a single project. As part of the capital improvement plan (CIP) task, Carollo will work with the City to break up/bundle the project recommendations at each lift station into individual CIP projects, which can be phased according to the availability of City funding.
160
161
HOT SPOTS | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
FINAL | DECEMBER 2021
Appendix F
HOT SPOTS
162
163
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
Collection System Hot Spots
for
Sewer Master Plan Study and
Sewer System Management Plan
STREET MANHOLE NUMBER
208 Southwood E6-016
215-221 Southwood - 290' E8-058…059
25 Sunset Terrace - street and
driveway 325'/140' F8-022…E8-023 & F8-022…E8-021
123 Sunset Terrace F8-050…049…048…046
Bay Photo C6-014
Butler Lane - 360' behind Scotts
Valley Market E7-073…074
Cabernet Court F7-052
Cristal Oaks C7-078
Hidden Oaks - 590' C7-016…C7-021…C6-016…C6-000
North Navarra at Sucinto - 550' F8-004…011…012
Oak Tree Villa - 400' C5-006…007…not on map
Scott Court/Club Drive - 170'/550' F7-005…007 & F7-004…005…006 South Navarra at Buttermilk - 550' E7-023…024…025
Willis & Grace - 475' E7-041…043…044…049
Willow Pond - 220'/325'/175' C5-003…006 & C5-002…003 & C6-009…C5-001…002 Bethany Loop 225' G7-056…059…060
Dollar Store 111' C6-081…080
San Augustine & Maeve Court N/A
164
165
EQUIPMENT AND REPLACEMENT PART INVENTORY | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY FINAL | DECEMBER 2021
Appendix G
EQUIPMENT AND REPLACEMENT PART
INVENTORY
166
167
EQUIPMENT INVENTORY | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
FINAL | DECEMBER 2021 | G-1
Table G.1 Equipment Inventory
Equipment Quantity Notes
Vacuum/hydro-jet truck 1
Trailer Mounted generator 1 Compatible with electrical hook-ups at lift stations
168
169
OVERFLOW EMERGANCY RESPONSE PLAN | SSMP | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY FINAL | DECEMBER 2021
Appendix H
OVERFLOW EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN
170
171
City of Scotts Valley
Sewer System Management Plan
OVERFLOW EMERGENCY RESPONSE
PLAN
FINAL | December 2021
172
173
City of Scotts Valley
Sewer System Management Plan
OVERFLOW EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN
FINAL | December 2021
174
175
OVERFLOW EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY DRAFT | DECEMBER 2021 | i
pw://Carollo/Documents/Error! Unknown document property name./Error! Unknown document property name.
Contents
Section 1 - Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Technical Definitions of an SSO 1
1.3 Objectives 2
1.4 Key Personnel 2
1.5 Safety Provisions 2
1.6 Organization 3
Section 2 - Regulatory Requirements 3
Section 3 - Overflow Response Procedures 4
3.1 Receipt of Information Regarding an SSO 4
3.2 Dispatch of Response Crews to Site of Sanitary Sewer Overflow 4
3.2.1 Dispatching Duties 6
3.2.2 Crew Instructions and Work Orders 6
3.2.3 Preliminary Assessment of Damage to Private and Public Property 6
3.2.4 Field Supervision and Inspection 6
3.2.5 Coordination with Hazardous Material Response 7
3.2.6 Crowd Control, Traffic Diversion, and Other Emergency Operations 7
3.3 Overflow Correction, Containment, and Clean-Up 7
3.3.1 Responsibilities of Response Crew upon Arrival 8
3.3.2 Initial Measures for Containment 8
3.3.3 Additional Measures Under Potentially Prolonged Overflow Conditions 8
3.3.4 Cleanup 9
3.3.5 Water Quality Sampling 9
3.4 Follow-up Activities 10
3.5 Overflow Report 10
Section 4 - Regulatory Agency Notification Plan 10
Section 5 - Reporting Requirements 15
5.1 Initial Reporting 15
5.2 SSO Reports 15
5.3 No-Spill Certification 19
176
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | OVERFLOW EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN ii | DECEMBER 2021 | FINAL
5.4 Collection System Questionnaire 19
5.5 SSO Technical Report 19
Section 6 - Public Notification 20
Section 7 - Distribution and Maintenance of OERP 20
7.1 Submittal and Availability of OERP 20
7.2 Review and Update of OERP 20
Appendices
Appendix C Contact information
Tables
Table 1 Notification, Reporting, Monitoring, and Record Keeping Requirements 12 Table 2 SSO Report – Summary 17
Figures
Figure 1 SSO Notification and Response Flow Chart 5
Figure 2 Notification, Reporting, and Monitoring Requirements Flow Chart 14 177
OVERFLOW EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY FINAL | DECEMBER 2021 | iii
Abbreviations
Cal OES California Office of Emergency Services
CCTV closed circuit television
City City of Scotts Valley
CIWQS California Integrated Water Quality System
County Health Santa Cruz Environmental Health Services
LRO Legally Responsible Official
MRP Sanitary Sewer Systems Order No. WQ 2013-0058-EXEC
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Program
OERP Overflow Emergency Response Plan
PLSD Private Lateral Sewage Discharge
Questionnaire Collection System Questionnaire
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SCADA supervisory control and data acquisitions
SCHMIT Santa Cruz Hazardous Materials Incident Team
SSMP Sewer System Management Plan
SSOs Sanitary Sewer Overflows
SVFD Scotts Valley Fire District
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
WDRs State General Waste Discharge Requirements
178
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | OVERFLOW EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN iv | DECEMBER 2021 | FINAL
-This Page Intentionally Left Blank179
OVERFLOW EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | CITY OF TORRANCE
FINAL | DECEMBER 2021 | 1
Section 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs) are overflows from sanitary sewer systems of domestic, commercial, or industrial wastewater. SSOs often cause a public nuisance, particularly when raw untreated wastewater is discharged to areas with high public exposure, such as streets or surface waters used for drinking, fishing, or body contact recreation. SSOs may pollute surface or ground waters, threaten public health, adversely affect aquatic life, and impair the recreational use and aesthetic enjoyment of surface waters.
In an effort to reduce SSOs in the State of California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), as part of State General Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) Order No. 2006 0003, has established that all municipalities and districts with over one mile of sanitary sewer pipelines develop a Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP). The WDR was amended by Amending Monitoring and Reporting Program for Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems Order No. WQ 2013-0058-EXEC (MRP). As part of the requirements for the completion of an SSMP, the SWRCB has required that municipalities and districts develop a site-specific Overflow Emergency Response Plan (OERP).
1.2 Technical Definitions of an SSO
An SSO is defined as any overflow, release, discharge, or diversion of untreated or partially treated wastewater from a sanitary sewer system. There are four categories of SSOs as established by the WDR and MRP:
• Category 1: Discharges of untreated or partially treated wastewater of any volume resulting from an enrollee’s sanitary sewer system failure or flow condition that:
- Reach surface water and/or reach a drainage channel tributary to a surface water; or - Reach a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) and are not fully captured and returned to the sanitary sewer system or not otherwise captured and disposed of properly. Any volume of wastewater not recovered from the MS4 is considered to have reached surface water unless the storm drain system discharges to a dedicated storm water or groundwater infiltration basin (e.g., infiltration pit, percolation pond).
• Category 2: Discharges of untreated or partially treated wastewater of 1,000 gallons or greater resulting from an enrollee’s sanitary sewer system failure or flow condition that do not reach surface water, a drainage channel, or a MS4 unless the entire SSO discharged to the storm drain system is fully recovered and disposed of properly. • Category 3: All other discharges of untreated or partially treated wastewater resulting from an enrollee’s sanitary sewer system failure or flow condition. 180
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | OVERFLOW EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN 2 | DECEMBER 2021 | FINAL
• Private Lateral Sewage Discharge (PLSD): Discharges of untreated or partially treated wastewater resulting from blockages or other problems within a privately owned sewer lateral connected to the enrollee’s sanitary sewer system or from other private sewer assets. PLSDs that the enrollee becomes aware of may be voluntarily reported to the California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) Online SSO Database.
1.3 Objectives
This report is intended to serve as a City of Scotts Valley (City) specific OERP. The primary objectives of the OERP are to protect public health and the environment and to establish procedures to streamline and optimize the City’s SSO response activities. Additional objectives of the OERP are as follows:
• Establish a formalized SSO reporting procedure for City staff to follow in the event of any SSO, regardless of its size.
• Provide appropriate customer service.
• Protect collection system personnel.
• Minimize the risk of enforcement actions against the City. • Protect the collection system and all appurtenances.
• Protect private and public property beyond the collection system.
This plan should be updated and modified as necessary to more closely reflect operating conditions and changes that may occur in SSO response and remediation procedures.
Additionally, this plan has been developed to meet the WDRs and SWQCB requirements. This plan shall not supersede existing standard operating procedures, unless otherwise specified by the City’s Legally Responsible Official (LRO) or designated representative.
1.4 Key Personnel
The report contains references to specific City personnel as applicable to overflow response procedures. References are made to job titles, rather than individual names. The purpose of this is to simplify the process of updating the document as staff changes occur. Appendix C of the SSMP contains a list of the key personnel identified in the OERP and their contact information.
This list should be updated as necessary.
1.5 Safety Provisions
When responding to the reported location of a potential SSO, City staff may encounter emergency situations requiring immediate action. Specific actions to be taken will vary greatly depending on the type of overflow and its underlying cause (e.g., main blockage, lift station failure, etc.). While swift action may be required to mitigate the negative impacts associated with an overflow, it is important to perform these actions in a safe and competent manner that is consistent with existing standard operating procedures. 181
OVERFLOW EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | CITY OF TORRANCE
FINAL | DECEMBER 2021 | 3
1.6 Organization
The key elements of the OERP are addressed individually as follows:
• Section 1: Introduction.
• Section 2: Regulatory Requirements.
• Section 3: Overflow Response Procedure.
• Section 4: Regulatory Agency Notification Plan.
• Section 5: Report Requirements.
• Section 6: Public Notification.
• Section 7: Distribution and Maintenance of OERP.
Section 2
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
The WDRs specify that an OERP include, at a minimum, the following:
1. Proper notification procedures so that the primary responders and regulatory agencies are informed of all SSO in a timely manner.
2. A program to ensure an appropriate response to all overflows.
3. Procedures to ensure prompt notification to appropriate regulatory agencies and other potentially affected entities (e.g., health agencies, Regional Water Boards, water suppliers, etc.) of all SSOs that potentially affect public health or reach the waters of the State in accordance with the monitoring reporting program, the California Water Code, other State Law, and other applicable Regional Water Board WDR or National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Program (NPDES) permit requirements. The SSMP should identify the officials who will receive immediate notification.
4. Procedures to ensure that appropriate staff and contractor personnel are aware of and follow the Emergency Response Plan and are appropriately trained.
5. Procedures to address emergency operations, such as traffic and crowd control and other necessary response activities.
6. A program to ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to contain and prevent discharge of untreated or partially treated wastewater to waters of the United States and to minimize or correct any adverse impact of the environment resulting from the SSOs, including such accelerated or additional monitoring as may be necessary to determine the nature and impact of the discharge.
The MRP amended the WDR that impact the OERP the by:
1. Time sensitive requirements depending on the overflow category.
2. Complete a Technical Report requirement for SSOs ≥ 50,000 gallons does require a “Detailed location map illustrating all water quality sampling points.”
3. Implement a Water Quality Monitoring Program to assess impacts of all SSOs greater than 50,000 gallons reaching surface waters.
182
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | OVERFLOW EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN 4 | DECEMBER 2021 | FINAL
Section 3
OVERFLOW RESPONSE PROCEDURES
This section presents a strategy for City staff to mobilize labor, materials, tools, and equipment to mitigate any condition, which may cause or contribute to an SSO. The plan considers a wide range of potential system failures that could create an overflow to surface waters, land, or buildings.
3.1 Receipt of Information Regarding an SSO
An overflow may be detected by the general public, departments, through routine maintenance activities, or by others. This section summarizes the various ways in which City staff may become aware of a potential SSO, and how the information is documented and transferred to the appropriate City personnel.
Calls from the general public regarding potential overflows within the City limits are generally received through the Public Works Department 831-438-5854 during normal business hours or the Police Dispatch at 911 during non-business hours. To effectively respond to calls regarding potential SSOs, the dispatchers should begin a SSO Field Report (see Attachment 1) to document all relevant information regarding the potential spill from the caller. This includes in general, the following:
• Time and date call was received.
• Specific location (street address, cross street).
• Description of problem.
• Time possible overflow was noticed by the caller.
• Caller’s name and phone number.
• Observations of the caller (e.g., odor, duration, back, or front of property). • Other relevant information that will enable the responding investigator and crews, if required, to quickly locate, assess, and stop the overflow.
Until verified by response crew the report of a possible spill should not be referred to as a “sanitary sewer overflow.”
In addition to receiving notifications through calls, the City’s lift station are equipped with supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA). These systems send early warnings of potential backups caused by power outages or high-level conditions.
3.2 Dispatch of Response Crews to Site of Sanitary Sewer Overflow Failure of any element within the City’s sewer system that threatens to cause or causes a SSO will trigger an immediate response to isolate and correct the problem. Crews and equipment shall be available to respond to any SSO location and be dispatched to the site of a reported SSO immediately. Also, additional maintenance and contract personnel shall be “on call” should extra crews be needed. The notification and response procedure flow chart is shown in Figure 1. 183
OVERFLOW EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | CITY OF TORRANCE
FINAL | DECEMBER 2021 | 5
Figure 1 SSO Notification and Response Flow Chart
184
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | OVERFLOW EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN 6 | DECEMBER 2021 | FINAL
3.2.1 Dispatching Duties
Dispatchers should receive notification of SSOs as outlined in Section 3.1 and dispatch the appropriate crews and resources as required. Dispatching duties are normally performed by either the Public Works Department during normal work hours, or the Police Department during any hours.
3.2.2 Crew Instructions and Work Orders
Response crews should receive notification from the designated dispatcher noted in Section
3.2.1. The dispatcher will inform the Wastewater Division of all pertinent information regarding the spill. Response crews should receive instructions regarding appropriate materials, supplies, and equipment needed by the most senior Wastewater Division employee when notification is received. A response crew will consist of all available wastewater operators. The most senior operator that responses to the potential SSO will be acting response lead. In the event that additional assistance is needed, the Maintenance Division personnel may be dispatched through the designated dispatcher.
All employees being dispatched to the site of a SSO shall proceed immediately to the site of the overflow. Any delays or conflicts in assignments must be immediately reported to the dispatcher for resolution.
Response crews should report their findings, including possible damage to private and public property, to the dispatcher immediately upon making their investigation. If the Senior Wastewater Operator has not received findings from the field crew within a reasonable amount of time, he shall contact the response crew to determine the status of the investigation. The Senior Wastewater Operator shall also refer all pertinent information to the next shift, including any details of the problems described by customers.
3.2.3 Preliminary Assessment of Damage to Private and Public Property The focus of the field response is to resolve the problem in an efficient manner and to protect the public health and welfare. The response crews should use discretion in assisting individual tenants/property owners as reasonably as they can for SSOs in sewers not owned or maintained by the City. The City should be aware that it could face increased liability for any further damages inflicted to private property during such assistance. Appropriate still photographs and video footage, if possible, should be taken of the outdoor area of the SSO and impacted area in order to thoroughly document the nature and extent of impacts. Available photographs are to be forwarded to the appropriate department below for filing with the SSO Field Report.
3.2.4 Field Supervision and Inspection
The response lead will act as superior to spill response, if necessary, to verify that the provisions of this overflow response plan and other directives are met. The Senior Wastewater Operator is responsible for confirming that the SSO Field Report is completed and that the available information is forwarded to the Wastewater Division Manager for review and eventual reporting to the SWRCB and other applicable regulatory as established in the WDR. The Wastewater Division Manager is also responsible for coordinating with the Public Works Director, and other necessary parties to certify all SSO reports submitted to the SWRCB. 185
OVERFLOW EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | CITY OF TORRANCE
FINAL | DECEMBER 2021 | 7
3.2.5 Coordination with Hazardous Material Response
In the event that the spill may contain hazardous material or is unknown the dispatcher or response crew must contact the Scotts Valley Fire District (SVFD) and/or Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Services (County Health) since these agencies act as the primary responders in the case of hazardous material spills. The Santa Cruz Hazardous Materials Incident Team (SCHMIT) will in the assist in the identification of the substance. Hazardous waste disposal companies are notified by SCHMIT as needed to assist in the recovery of the spilled material.
Upon arrival of SCHMIT, the response crew will take direction from the person with the lead authority of that team and from theResponse Lead. Only when that authority determines it is safe and appropriate for the response crew to proceed or assist with SSO response actions can they then proceed with containment (as needed), clean-up activities, and correction. These actions, however, may be performed by a hazardous material contractor, depending on the size and nature of the event.
3.2.6 Crowd Control, Traffic Diversion, and Other Emergency Operations Should an SSO be of such a size or at such a location as to cause major disruptions to the flow of traffic at any point in the City, the responding crew shall notify the dispatcher as soon as possible. The dispatcher will then coordinate with the appropriate staff to set up a traffic diversion to move motorists away from the SSO location.
Steps should be taken to barricade off the site of an SSO to eliminate the potential of large crowds to inhibit the response crew’s ability to effectively work. If necessary, additional assistance may be required (from the City’s Police Department).
3.3 Overflow Correction, Containment, and Clean-Up
SSOs of various volumes occur from time to time, in spite of concerted prevention efforts. Spills may result from blocked sewers, pipe failures, or mechanical malfunctions, among other natural or man-made causes. The City should be ready to respond upon notification and confirmation of an overflow. This section describes specific actions to be performed by the crews during an SSO.
The objectives of these actions are:
• To protect public health, environment, and property from sewage overflows and restore surrounding area back to normal as soon as possible.
• To establish perimeters and control zones with appropriate traffic cones and barricades, vehicles or use of natural topography (e.g., hills, berms). • To promptly notify appropriate regulatory agencies.
• To contain the SSO to the maximum extent possible including preventing the discharge of sewage into surface waters.
• To minimize the City’s exposure to any regulatory agency penalties and fines.
An important issue with respect to an emergency response is to make sure that the temporary actions necessary to divert flows and repair the problem do not produce a problem elsewhere in the system. For example, repair of a force main could require the temporary shutdown of the pump station and diversion of the flow at an upstream location. If the closure is not handled properly, sewage system back-ups may create other overflows. 186
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | OVERFLOW EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN 8 | DECEMBER 2021 | FINAL
Although the City is staffed with individuals capable of responding efficiently to overflows, the City does not currently own the equipment necessary to fully mitigate large SSOs that occur. For this reason, the SCHMIT typically contracts with a Hazardous Material Contractor when conditions warrant such assistance.
3.3.1 Responsibilities of Response Crew upon Arrival
It is the responsibility of the first personnel who arrive at the site of an SSO to protect the health and safety of the public by mitigating the impact of the overflow to the extent possible. Should the overflow not be the responsibility of the City, but there is imminent danger to public health, public or private property, or to the quality of waters of the United States, then prudent emergency action should be taken until the responsible party assumes responsibility and provides actions. Upon arrival at an SSO, the response crew should do the following:
• Isolate and secure all sources of spill materials to mitigate the spill volume, such as securing any bathrooms that may be added to the spill.
• Determine the cause of the overflow, e.g., sewer line blockage, pump station mechanical or electrical failure, sewer line break, etc. • Identify and request, if necessary, assistance or additional resources to correct the overflow or to assist in the determination of its cause. • Determine if private property is impacted.
• Take immediate steps to stop the overflow if possible (e.g., relieve pipeline blockage, manually operate pump station controls, repair pipe, etc.). Extraordinary steps may be considered where overflows from private property threaten public health and safety (e.g., an overflow running off of private property into the public right-of-way). • Notify the response team for guidance on how to proceed. • Request additional personnel, materials, supplies, or equipment that will expedite and minimize the impact of the overflow.
3.3.2 Initial Measures for Containment
The response crew shall initiate measures to contain the overflowing sewage and recover sewage that has already been discharged. An SSO spill volume estimate packet is included in Attachment 2. Appropriate steps should be taken to minimize the impact to public health or the environment, including the following:
• Determine the immediate destination of the overflow (e.g., storm drain, street curb gutter, body of water, creek bed, etc.).
• Identify and request the necessary materials and equipment to contain or isolate the overflow, if not readily available.
• Take immediate steps to contain the overflow (e.g., block or bag storm drains, divert into downstream manhole, etc.).
3.3.3 Additional Measures Under Potentially Prolonged Overflow Conditions In the event of a prolonged sewer line blockage or a sewer line collapse, a determination should be made to set up a portable by-pass pumping operation around the obstruction. This may require the City to seek assistance from an outside contractor. 187
OVERFLOW EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | CITY OF TORRANCE
FINAL | DECEMBER 2021 | 9
• Appropriate measures shall be taken to determine the proper size and number of pumps required to effectively handle the sewage flow.
• Continuous or periodic monitoring of the by-pass pumping operation shall be implemented as required.
• Regulatory agency issues shall be addressed in conjunction with emergency repairs.
3.3.4 Cleanup
Sewer overflow sites are to be thoroughly cleaned after an overflow. No readily identified residue (e.g., sewage solids, papers, rags, plastics, rubber products) is to remain. Appropriate cleanup actions that shall be addressed, as applicable. In some cases, the City may utilize the services of an outside contractor for cleanup and disinfection. Actions that could be performed during cleanup:
• Where practical, the area is to be thoroughly flushed and cleaned of any sewage or wash-down water. Solids and debris are to be flushed, swept, raked, picked-up, and transported for proper disposal.
• Where appropriate, the overflow site is to be disinfected and deodorized. • Where sewage has resulted in ponding, the pond should be pumped dry and the residue disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations and policies. • If a pond area contains sewage, which cannot be pumped dry, it may be treated with bleach. If sewage has discharged into a body of water that may contain fish or other aquatic life, bleach or other appropriate disinfectant should not be applied and the California Department of Fish and Game should be contacted for specific instructions. • Use of portable aerators may be required where complete recovery of sewage is not practical and where severe oxygen depletion in existing surface water is expected. • The overflow site is to be secured to prevent contact by members of the public until the site has been thoroughly cleaned. Posting, if required, should also be undertaken.
3.3.5 Water Quality Sampling
In the event of a Category 1 SSO in which 50,000 gallons or more sewage is reaches surface water the City is required to complete an SSO Technical Report. One of the major components of this report is water quality monitoring. The MRP requires that the agency to conduct a water quality sampling within 48-hours after the initial SSO notification.
Even when not required by the MRP, when possible the City recommends that first responders collect samples of the spilled. If the overflow reaches surface waters samples should be taken on the receiving waters to evaluate the potential impact on water quality. Samples are collected from the location(s) most likely to be impact by the overflow and from the receiving waters.
When samples are taken, the responsible staff will coordinate with a certified laboratory to analyze the collected samples and will facilitate the sample delivery. The delivered samples are analyzed for total coliform, fecal coliform, and enterococcus and other constituents if applicable.
It is City policy that a second round of samples are collected within 24-hours of the first sample collection or the overflow is contained. If the second round of samples indicate elevated levels of sewage constituents in the receiving waters, then the City will continue to sample the receiving waters every 24-hours until it returns back to normal levels. 188
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | OVERFLOW EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN 10 | DECEMBER 2021 | FINAL
3.4 Follow-up Activities
Once the clean-up is completed, the incident is reviewed and any appropriate measures to prevent recurrence must be implemented. The following summarizes some ofthe follow-up activities that the City might perform:
• If the SSO was caused by a blockage, the City will schedule a closed circuit television (CCTV) Inspection of the sewer to verify that the blockage was removed. • If the SSO was avoidable by preventive maintenance, the City may adjust the maintenance activities for that sewer. For instance, the City may increase the cleaning frequency for a sewer that are susceptible to grease build-up. • If the SSO was caused by factors outside the City’s control, such as vandalism, steps are still taken to minimize recurrence by strengthen security. For instance, lock down manhole covers, increase surveillance, and/or request neighborhood assistance in reporting vandalism or unauthorized dumping.
The City actively updates policies and procedures as appropriate to prevent recurrence of accidental spills are due to procedural errors by City’s staff or contractors.
3.5 Overflow Report
An SSO Field Report shall be completed by response crews and designated staff. The Senior Wastewater Operator and response lead (if applicable) are charged with preparing the SSO Field Report. The Senior Wastewater Operator is responsible for confirming that the SSO Field Report is completed and that the available information is forwarded to the Wastewater Division Manager where it is used to complete the SSO Report for the eventual reporting to the SWRCB and other applicable regulatory as established in the WDR. The Wastewater Division Manager is also responsible for coordinating with the Public Works Director, and other necessary parties to certify all SSO reports submitted to the SWRCB. Information regarding the SSO that is required in the SSO Report discussed in Section 5.
Section 4
REGULATORY AGENCY NOTIFICATION PLAN
This section summarizes the procedures that City staff shall follow to provide formal notice to the appropriate regulatory agencies as necessary in the event of an SSO. Agency notifications shall be performed in parallel with other internal notifications. The procedures for providing notification of an SSO to the media are presented in a later Section. Internal notification and mobilization of personnel are detailed in Section 3.0.
The regulatory agency that must be notified if an SSO occurs varies depending on the type of discharge. Likewise, the time frame in which the appropriate agencies must be notified depends on the type of discharge. The MRP defines three types of SSOs, as summarized in Section 1.2 of this OERP. Table 1 summarizes the notification, reporting, water quality monitoring, and record keeping time frames that are required by the MRP. The MRP changed the call notification requirement for California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) as described in Table 1. 189
OVERFLOW EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | CITY OF TORRANCE
FINAL | DECEMBER 2021 | 11
When Cal OES is notified the City does not have to notify the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Services since Cal OES already notifies these agencies when a spill notification is received. Until a certified SSO Report is submitted to CIWQS, the City shall update Cal OES regrading substantial changes to the estimated volume of untreated or partially treated sewage and any substantial changes to known impacts.
190
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | OVERFLOW EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN 12 | DECEMBER 2021 | FINAL
Table 1 Notification,Reporting, Monitoring, and Record Keeping Requirements Element Requirements Method
Notification
• Within two (2) hours of becoming aware of any Category 1 SSO greater than or equal to 1,000 gallons discharged to surface water or spilled in a location where it probably will be discharged to surface water, notify the Cal OES and obtain a notification control number.
• If Cal OES notification is not required then within two (2) hours of becoming aware of any spills notify Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Services. • If Cal OES notification is not required then within two (2) hours of becoming aware of any spills notify RWQCB.
• If sewer spill reaches waterbody notify CA Department of Fish and Game • Call Cal OES at:
- (800) 852-7550
• Call County Health:
- (831) 454-2022
• Call RWQCB:
- (805) 542-4649
• Call CA Department of Fish and
Game:
- (831) 649-2870
Reporting
• Category 1 SSO: Submit draft report within three (3) business days of becoming aware of the SSO and certify within 15 calendar days of SSO end date. • Category 2 SSO: Submit draft report within three (3) business days of becoming aware of the SSO and certify within 15 calendar days of the SSO end date. • Category 3 SSO: Submit certified report within 30 calendar days of the end of month in which SSO the occurred.
• SSO Technical Report: Submit within 45 calendar days after the end date of any Category 1SSO in which 50,000 gallons or greater are spilled to surface waters. • “No Spill” Certification: Certify that no SSOs occurred within 30 calendar days of the end of the month or, if reporting quarterly, the quarter in which no SSOs occurred.
• Collection System Questionnaire: Update and certify every 12 months. • Enter data into the CIWQS Online
SSO Database, certified by
enrollee’s Legally Responsible
Official(s).
191
OVERFLOW EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | CITY OF TORRANCE
FINAL | DECEMBER 2021 | 13
Water Quality
Monitoring
• Conduct water quality sampling within 48 hours after initial SSO notification for Category 1 SSOs in which 50,000 gallons or greater are spilled to surface waters.
• Water quality results are required to be uploaded into CIWQS for Category 1 SSOs in which 50,000 gallons
or greater are spilled to surface waters.
Record
Keeping
• SSO event records.
• Records documenting SSMP implementation and
changes/updates to the SSMP.
• Records to document Water Quality Monitoring for SSOs of 50,000 gallons or greater spilled to surface waters.
• Collection system telemetry records if relied upon to document and/or estimate SSO Volume.
• Self-maintained records shall be available during
inspections or upon request.
Notes:
(1) Source: State of California, Water Resources Control Board Order No. WQ 2013-0058-EXEC. 192
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | OVERFLOW EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN 14 | DECEMBER 2021 | FINAL
Figure 2 Notification, Reporting, and Monitoring Requirements FlowChart 193
OVERFLOW EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | CITY OF TORRANCE
FINAL | DECEMBER 2021 | 15
Section 5
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The City is responsible for preparing and submitting various types of reports in order to maintain compliance. The time frame and receiving agency in which the appropriate report is discussed in Section 4 of the OERP. The required report and mandatory information will vary depending on the type of discharge. These reports should be prepared by the dispatcher, response crews, and designated City staff. The reports are submitted and certified (if required) by the LRO.
5.1 Initial Reporting
During a Category 1 SSO where 1,000 or more gallons of sewage reach surface waters or has the potential to reach surface water. The City is required to call Cal OES within two (2) hours of the incident to get issued a notification control number. Before being issued a notification control number the City might be asked to provide information on the spill.
To prevent delays in the process the following spill information should be collected:
1. Name of person notifying Cal OES and direct return phone number.
2. Name of the agency causing the SSO.
3. Provide the on-scene point of contact and their contact information so they can be reached in the field.
4. Provide the date and time when the City became aware of the SSO.
5. SSO incident location (address, city, state, and zip code).
6. Is the SSO contained or ongoing?
a. If contained, the estimated SSO volume discharged.
b. If ongoing, the estimated SSO discharge rate.
7. Description of the incident. If known, include causes of the SSO.
8. Are there known impacts of the SSO.
a. Surface water, if applicable, name of the impacted surface water. b. Drinking water supply was impacted or may be impacted. c. Are there any other known impacts?
5.2 SSO Reports
In the event of an SSO the City must prepare and submit SSO Report(s) to CIWQS Online SSO Database. The required time frames and mandatory information for an SSO Report depends on the SSO Category as defined in Section 1.2. The number of submittals and the mandatory information for each submittal varies depending on the Category of SSO. Table 2 summarizes the mandatory information for SSO Report submittals depending on the Category of SSO. The City may submit one SSO Report if one SSO event results in multiple appearance point in a sewer system.
194
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | OVERFLOW EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN 16 | DECEMBER 2021 | FINAL
The City may amend a certified SSO Report within 120 calendar days after the SSO end date by amending the report or by adding an attachment to the certified SSO Report in the CIWQS Online SSO Database. After 120 days, in order to amend a certified SSO Report the City must submit a request to the SSO Program Manager. The request must include justification for why the additional information was not available prior to the end of the 120 days. 195
OVERFLOW EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | CITY OF TORRANCE
FINAL | DECEMBER 2021 | 17
Table 2 SSO Report – Summary
Information to Report Category 1
– Draft
Category 1 –
Certified
Category 2
– Draft
Category 2
– Certified
Category 3
– Certified
SSO Contact Information: Name and telephone number of enrollee contact person who can answer specific questions about the SSO being reported.
SSO Location Name.
Location of the overflow event (SSO) by entering GPS coordinates. If a single overflow event results in multiple appearance points, provide GPS coordinates for the appearance point closest to the failure point and describe each additional appearance point in the SSO appearance point explanation field.
Whether or not the SSO reached surface water, a drainage channel, or entered and was discharged from a drainage structure.
Whether or not the SSO reached a municipal separate storm drain system. Whether or not the total SSO volume that reached a municipal separate storm drain system was fully recovered.
Estimate of the SSO volume, inclusive of all discharge point(s). Estimate of the SSO volume that reached surface water, a drainage channel, or was not recovered from a storm drain.
Estimate of the SSO volume recovered (if applicable). Number of SSO appearance point(s).
Description and location of SSO appearance point(s). If a single sanitary sewer system failure results in multiple SSO appearance points, each appearance point must be described.
SSO start date and time.
Date and time the City was notified of, or self-discovered, the SSO. Estimated operator arrival time.
For spills greater than or equal to 1,000 gallons, the date and time Cal OES was called. 196
CITY OF TORRANCE | OVERFLOW EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN
18 | DECEMBER 2021 | FINAL
Information to Report Category 1 –
Draft
Category 1 –
Certified
Category 2
– Draft
Category 2 –
Certified
Category 3 –
Certified
For spills greater than or equal to 1,000 gallons, the Cal OES control number. Description of SSO destination(s).
SSO end date and time.
SSO causes (mainline blockage, roots, etc.).
SSO failure point (main, lateral, etc.).
Whether or not the spill was associated with a storm event. Description of spill corrective action, including steps planned or taken to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the overflow; and a schedule of major milestones for those steps.
Description of spill response activities.
Spill response completion date.
Whether or not there is an ongoing investigation, the reasons for the investigation and the expected date of completion.
Whether or not a beach closure occurred or may have occurred as a result of the SSO.
Whether or not health warnings were posted as a result of the SSO. Name of beach(es) closed and/or impacted. If no beach was impacted, NA shall be selected.
Name of surface water(s) impacted.
If water quality samples were collected, identify parameters the water quality samples were analyzed for. If no samples were taken, NA shall be selected. If water quality samples were taken, identify which regulatory agencies received sample results (if applicable). If no samples were taken, NA shall be selected.
Description of methodology(ies) and type of data relied upon for estimations of the SSO volume discharged and recovered.
SSO Certification: Upon SSO Certification, the CIWQS Online SSO Database will issue a final SSO identification (ID) number. 197
OVERFLOW EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY FINAL | DECEMBER 2021 | 19
5.3 No-Spill Certification
If there are no SSOs during a calendar month, the City must certify a “No-Spill” certification statement to CIWQS Online SSO Database. The “No Spill” certification statement must be submitted within 30 calendar days of the month with no spill by the LRO. If there is a reported PLSD the City may certify a “No-Spill” certification for that month.
5.4 Collection System Questionnaire
The MRP requires all enrollees must complete a Collection System Questionnaire (Questionnaire), which provides the SWRCB with system specific information related to the City’s collection system. The enrollee shall complete and certify the Questionnaire at least every 12 months to facilitate program implementation, compliance assessment, and enforcement response. The Questionnaire is available on CIWQS Online SSO Database.
5.5 SSO Technical Report
In the event of a Category 1 SSO in which 50,000 gallons or more sewage is reaches surface water the City is required to complete an SSO Technical Report. One of the major components of this report is water quality monitoring. The MRP requires that the agency to conduct a water quality sampling within 48-hours after the initial SSO notification. The City must submit the SSO Technical Report to CIWQS within 45 calendar dates of the SSO end date. At a minimum,an SSO Technical Report shall include the following:
1. Causes and Circumstances:
a. Explanation of how and when the SSO was discovered.
b. Diagram showing the SSO failure point, appearance point(s), and final destination(s).
c. State the methodology and available data used to calculate the approximate sewage volume and, if applicable, the approximate sewage volume recovered. d. Description of the cause(s) of the SSO.
e. Copies of original response crew records used to document the SSO. f. Historical maintenance records for the failure location.
2. Response:
a. Narrative of all actions taken by the City to eliminate the spill in chronological order. b. Explanation of how the OERP was implemented during the response respond. c. List the final corrective action(s) completed and, if applicable, the planned actions to be completed with a schedule.
3. Water Quality Monitoring:
a. Description of all water quality sampling activities conducted including analytical results and evaluation of the results.
b. Detailed location map illustrating all water quality sampling points. 198
CITY OF TORRANCE | OVERFLOW EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN
20 | DECEMBER 2021 | FINAL
Section 6
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
When an overflow has been confirmed and is a threat to public health, actions should be taken, if necessary, to notify the public in accordance with this section. For confirmed overflows in the sewer system requiring notification:
• Notify the residents in close proximity to the spill or impacted areas with door hangers. • If applicable, post signs along impacted surface water.
Section 7
DISTRIBUTION AND MAINTENANCE OF OERP
This plan was prepared in conjunction with and is an important element of the City’s SSMP. As such, the OERP should be periodically reviewed and modified as necessary to reflect operational and policy changes. Audits of the plan should also be performed in conjunction with the larger SSMP program audits, as outlined in Chapter 11 of the SSMP.
7.1 Submittal and Availability of OERP
Copies of the OERP and any amendments should be distributed to all of the departments, divisions, and personnel that are heavily involved with the SSMP or OERP programs. All other personnel who may become incidentally involved in responding to overflows should be familiar with the OERP. A program to train such personnel on the provisions of this plan should also be established by the City.
7.2 Review and Update of OERP
The City is ultimately responsible for keeping the OERP up to date. The OERP should be reviewed at a predefined time interval for outdated material and should be updated whenever:
• Specified by the LRO or their designated representative. • The SSMP plan audit indicates that material needs to be revised or added. • Responsibilities of personnel involved in SSO response, mitigation or reporting change for various reasons.
• Governing laws, rules or regulations change.
199
CONTACT INFORMATION | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
FINAL | DECEMBER 2021
Appendix C
CONTACT INFORMATION
200
201
CITY OF TORRANCE | OVERFLOW EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN
DECEMBER 2021 | FINAL
Table C.3 Contact Information
Position Name Phone Email
Public Works Director/ City
Engineer Chris Lamm 831-438-5854 [email protected] Wastewater Division Manager Kati King 831-438-0732 [email protected] Senior Wastewater Operator Are Soto 831-438-0732 [email protected] Wastewater Operator Gunnar
Dibenedetto 831-438-0732
Wastewater OperatorGrade I Tyler
Hebard 831-438-0732 [email protected]
Wastewater OperatorGrade I Justin
Granados 831-438-0732 [email protected]
Source Control Inspector Josephine
Fleming 831-706-7384 [email protected]
Environmental Compliance
Inspector Sheila Peck -- [email protected]
Civil Engineer Chris Lamm 831-438-5854 [email protected] Engineering Associate Kimarie
Jones 831-438-5854 [email protected]
Engineering Associate Athena
Cheung 831-438-5854 [email protected]
202
203
SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW FIELD REPORT | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY DRAFT | FEBRUARY ͮͬͮͭ
Attachment 1
SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW FIELD REPORT
204
205
1 SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW FIELD REPORT
FOR OFFICIAL USE:
DATE: CALL RECEIVED: AM/PM
RECEIVED BY: CALLER’S NAME:
CALLER’S PHONE NUMBER:
CALLER’S ADDRESS:
SSO APPEARANCE POINT(S):
LOCATION OF OVERFLOW: CROSS ST:
GPS COORDINATE(S):
TIME DISPATCHED: WORK ORDER NO.:
CREW FIELD LEAD:
NAMES OF CREW MEMBERS DISPATCHED:
DESCRIPTION OF COMPLAINT:
FIELD REPORT (FOR RESPONSE CREW USE):
TIME ARRIVED AT SITE: CREW:
TIME OVERFLOW STARTED: TIME OVERFLOW STOPPED:
OVERFLOW DURATION: MIN. OVERFLOW FLOW: GAL/MIN
UPSTREAM MH#: DOWNSTREAM MH#:
206
2 SIZE OF LINE: LENGTH OF LINE:
FINDINGS:
COMPLETE REMAINDER OF FORM IF AN OVERFLOW HAS OCCURRED:
DESCRIBE CAUSE OF OVERFLOW:
DESCRIBE CLEANUP METHOD AND HOW OVERFLOW VOLUME WAS DETERMINED:
REACHED SURFACE WATER: YES NO
NAME OF SURFACE WATER(S) IMPACTED:
ESTIMATED TOTAL SSO VOLUME: GALLONS
ESTIMATED SSO VOLUME RECOVERED: GALLONS
ESTIMATED SSO VOLUME REACHED SURFACE WATER: GALLONS
NOTE: IF THE ESTIMATED SSO VOLUME REACHED SURFACE WATER IS GREATER THAN 50,000 GALLONS A TECHNICAL REPORT AND WATER QUAILITY MONITORTING IS REQUIRED.
TYPE OF PROBLEM:
207
3 PICTURES TAKEN: YES NO
SAMPLES TAKEN: YES NO IF YES SEE [INSERT]
DESCRIBE PROPERTY DAMAGE AND AFFECTED AREA:
SIGN POSTED: YES NO BARRICADED: YES NO
NEIGHBORS NOTIFIED: YES NO
REGULATORY AGENCIES NOTIFIED:
OES YES NO DATE/TIME SPILL #
RWQCB YES NO DATE/TIME
COUNTY HEALTH YES NO DATE/TIME
OTHER YES NO DATE/TIME
CONTACTS/DETAILS:
FOLLOWUP MEASURES:
208
4 WORK ORDER NO:
FREQUENCY OF EXISTING PM PROGRAM:
LAST DATE PM WAS PERFORMED:
RECOMENDATIONS ON HOW TO PREVENT FUTURE PROBLEMS:
REPORT COMPLETED BY: DATE:
209
5 WATER QUAILITY SAMPELING:
DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLING ACTIVITES CONDUCTED:
SAMPLE LOG NO:
SAMPLES TAKEN BY:
SAMPLE LOCATION(S):
PARAMETERS TESTED:
SAMPLES TESTED BY:
SAMPLES SEND DATE: SAMPLES SENT BY:
SAMPLE RESULTS RECEIVE
DATE:
REGULATORY AGENCIES
THAT RECEIVED SAMPLE
RESULTS:
210
6 SKETCH OF AREA: (Include manholes, intersections, location of stoppage, etc.) ATTACH MAP: (Include manholes, intersections, location of stoppage, etc.) 211
7 ATTACH PHOTOS AS AVAILABLE
212
213
SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW FIELD REPORT | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY DRAFT | FEBRUARY 2021
Attachment 2
SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW FIELD REPORT
214
215
METHODS FOR ESTIMATING SPILL VOLUME| OERP| CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY FINAL | DECEMBER 2021
METHODS FOR ESTIMATING SPILL VOLUME
A variety of approaches exist for estimating the volume of a sanitary sewer spill. This attachment documents the three methods that are most often employed. The person preparing the estimate should use the method most appropriate to the sewer overflow in question and use the best information available.
Method 1 : Eyeball Estimate
The volume of small spills can be estimated using an “eyeball estimate”. To use this method imagine the amount of water that would spill from a bucket or a barrel. A bucket contains 5 gallons and a barrel contains 50 gallons. If the spill is larger than 50 gallons, try to break the standing water into barrels and then multiply by 50 gallons. This method is useful for contained spills up to approximately 200 gallons.
Method 2 : Measured Volume
The volume of most small spills that have been contained can be estimated using this method.
The shape, dimensions, and the depth of the contained wastewater are needed. The shape and dimensions are used to calculate the area of the spills and the depth is used to calculate the volume.
Step 1 Sketch the shape of the contained sewage (see Figure 1).
Step 2 Measure or pace off the dimensions.
Step 3 Measure the depth at several locations and select an average.
Step 4 Convert the dimensions, including depth, to feet.
Step 5 Calculate the area in square feet using the following formulas:
Rectangle: Area = length (feet) x width (feet)
Circle: Area = diameter (feet) x diameter (feet) x 3.14 Triangle: Area = base (feet) x height (feet) x 0.5
Step 6 Multiply the area (square feet) times the depth (in feet) to obtain the volume in cubic feet.
Step 7 Multiply the volume in cubic feet by 7.5 to convert it to gallons 216
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | OERP | METHODS FOR ESTIMATING SPILL VOLUME 2 | DECEMBER 2021 | FINAL
Figure 1 Common Shapes and Dimensions
Method 3 : Duration and Flowrate
Calculating the volume of larger spills, where it is difficult or impossible to measure the area and depth, requires a different approach. In this method, the separate estimates are made of the duration of the spill and the flowrate. The methods of estimating duration and flowrate are:
Duration: The duration is the elapsed time from the time the spill started to the time that the flow was restored.
Start time: The start time is sometimes difficult to establish. Here are some approaches:
• Local residents can be used to establish start time. Inquire as to their observations. Spills that occur in rights-of-way are usually observed and reported promptly. Spills that occur out of the public view can go on longer. Sometimes observations like odors or sounds (e.g. water running in a normally dry creek bed) can be used to estimate the start time. • Changes in flow on a downstream flowmeter can be used to establish the start time.
Typically, the daily flow peaks are “cut off” or flattened by the loss of flow. This can be identified by comparing hourly flow data during the spill event with flow data from prior days.
• Conditions at the spill site change over time. Initially there will be limited deposits of toilet paper and other sewage solids. After a few days to a week, the sewage solids form a light-colored residue. After a few weeks to a month, the sewage solids turn dark. The quantity of toilet paper and other materials of sewage origin increase over time. These observations can be used to estimate the start time in the absence of other information.
Taking photographs to document the observations can be helpful if questions arise later in the process.
217
METHODS FOR ESTIMATING SPILL VOLUME| OERP| CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY FINAL | DECEMBER 2021
• It is important to remember that spills may not be continuous. Blockages are not usually complete (some flow continues). In this case, the spill would occur during the peak flow periods (typically 10:00 to 12:00 and 13:00 to 16:00 each day). Spills that occur due to peak flows in excess of capacity will occur only during, and for a short period after, heavy rainfall.
End time: The end time is usually much easier to establish. Field crews on-site observe the “blow down” that occurs when the blockage has been removed. The “blow down” can also be observed in downstream flowmeters.
Flow Rate: The flowrate is the average flow that left the sewer system during the time of the spill. There are three common ways to estimate the flowrate:
• The San Diego Manhole Flowrate Chart: This chart, included as Figure 2, shows sewage flowing from manhole covers at a variety of flowrates. The observations of the field crew can be used to select the appropriate flowrate from the chart. If possible, photographs are useful in documenting basis for the flowrate estimate. • Flowmeter: Changes in flows in downstream flowmeters can be used to estimate the flowrate during the spill.
• Counting Connections: Once the location of the spill is known, the number of upstream connections can be determined from the sewer maps. Multiply the number of connections by 200 to 250 gallons per day per connection or 8 to 10 gallons per hour per connection.
For example: 22 upstream connections x 9 gallons per hour per connection = 198 gallons per hour / 60 minutes per hour
= 3.3 gallons per minute
Spill Volume: Once duration and flowrate have been estimated, the volume of the spill is the product of the duration in hours or days and the flowrate in gallons per hour or gallons per day.
For example:
Spill start time = 11:00
Spill end time = 14:00
Spill duration = 3 hours
3.3 gallons per minute X 3 hours X 60 minutes per hour
= 594 gallons
218
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | OERP | METHODS FOR ESTIMATING SPILL VOLUME 2 | DECEMBER 2021 | FINAL
219
FOG CONTROL PROGRAM | SSMP | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
FINAL | DECEMBER 2021
Appendix I
EXAMPLE FOG OUTREACH MATERIAL
220
221
To recycle small batteries, simply
seal the batteries in a clear Ziploc
bag and place the items on top
(not inside) of your recycling bin.
A Publication for GreenWaste Recovery Customers in the City of Scotts Valley
WASTELINE
City of Scotts Valley GreenWaste Recovery
Fall 2021
Residential Organics
Recycling is Coming
in 2022
Recycle
Household
Batteries
We at GreenWaste “Think Differently” and appreciate your suggestions and comments. Please call us today and let us know how we are doing at (800) 665-2209 or (831) 768-9505, or visit us on the web at www.greenwaste.com Remittance Address:
GreenWaste Recovery, P.O. Box 11089, San Jose, CA 95103-1089 Organic waste emits 20% of the state's methane, a climate superpollutant 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Organics like food scraps, yard trimmings, paper, and cardboard make up half of what California's dump in landfills making organics the third largest source of methane in California. Through a new residential organics recycling program, food scraps and yard trimmings organic material will be diverted from the landfill and processed into mulch and fertilizer.
The City of Scotts Valley and GreenWaste Recovery are working hard to develop this new organics recycling program. When a start date is determined, more information will be sent out to you with program guidelines and how to participate. Look for information coming to your mailbox soon.
222
Printed on 55% recycled 30% post-consumer waste paper.
Fats, Oils & Grease (FOG)
Clog Sewers: Scrape It,
Can It,Trash It
Cooking fats, oils, and grease (FOG) are the leading causes of sewer pipe clogs. When poured down sinks, drains, or toilets, FOGs eventually cool, harden, and build up on the inner walls of sewer lines. As sewage flow is restricted, it can back up in your home, on your property, or even in the street.
Bulky Item Pickup
Large items such as refrigerators and furniture can be picked up at your curb for a small fee. Contact Customer Service at (831) 768-9505 or [email protected] to schedule an appointment.
• Cooking oils
(includes deep
frying oils)
• Olive oil
• Butter, margarine
• Shortening
• Lard
• Salad dressings
• Sauces, gravies
• Meat fats
• Milk, cream, ice
cream
• Marinades
• Sandwich spreads
Protect your pipes and your home.
Don't let items like these down your drains: What You Can Do: Scrape It, Can It, Trash It After cooking, let your fats, oils, and grease cool. For small amounts of FOG, scrape or wipe the pan. For larger amounts, scrape it into a covered disposable container. Either way, throw the by-product into your trash and never down the drain.
Holiday Pickup
SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY Schedule 21 20 21
27 29 30
22 22
31 23
23 1
24 24
25 25
26 19
26 28
27 DECEMBER
JANUARY
SUNDAY
SUNDAY
MONDAY
MONDAY
TUESDAY
TUESDAY
WEDNESDAY
WEDNESDAY
THURSDAY
THURSDAY
FRIDAY
FRIDAY
SATURDAY
SATURDAY
NOVEMBER
Collection does NOT occur on New Year's Day
(Jan. 1), Thanksgiving Day (4th Thursday in Nov.) or
Christmas Day (December 25). If an observed holiday
falls on a regular collection day, collection for the
remainder of the week will be delayed by one day.
Thursday, November 25th we will be closed and the
collection will be delayed one day for the remaining
route days.
Christmas Day and New Year's Day fall on Saturday,
which does not cause a service disruption this year.
GreenWaste will pick up your undecorated holiday tree on your regular collection day from January 3-21, 2022. You do not need to call to schedule a pickup.
Please remove the stand, cut the tree to approximately 6-foot lengths, and place curbside before 7 AM on your regular collection day. Flocked trees (fake snow) are NOT accepted.
Recycle Holiday Trees
223
SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN | SSMP | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY FINAL | DECEMBER 2021
Appendix J
SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY
ASSURANCE PLAN
224
225
City of Scotts Valley
Sewer System Management Plan
SYSTEM EVALUATION AND
CAPACITY ASSURANCE
FINAL | December 2021
226
227
Sewer System Management Plan
SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE
PLAN
FINAL | December 2021
228
229
SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY FINAL | DECEMBER ͮͬͮͭ | i
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/Scotts Valley/ͭͭͮͯͰAͬͬ/Deliverables/RPTͬͮ/SSMP_Appendix J.docx Contents
Section 1 - Introduction 1
ͭ.ͭ Background ͭ
ͭ.ͮ Scope and Authorization ͱ
ͭ.ͯ Regulatory Requirements ͱ
ͭ.Ͱ Purpose Ͳ
ͭ.ͱ Report Organization Ͳ
Section 2 - Service Area, Land Use, and Population 6
ͮ.ͭ Service Area Ͳ
ͮ.ͮ Planning Period ͳ
ͮ.ͯ Land Use ͳ
ͮ.Ͱ Future Connections ͭͭ
ͮ.ͱ Population ͭͱ
Section 3 - Evaluation Criteria 16
ͯ.ͭ Design Storm ͭͲ
ͯ.ͮ Gravity Sewer Criteria ͭͳ
ͯ.ͮ.ͭ Manning Coefficient (n) ͭͳ
ͯ.ͮ.ͮ Peak Flow Depth Criteria ͭͳ
ͯ.ͮ.ͯ Design Velocities and Minimum Slopes ͭʹ
ͯ.ͯ Lift Station and Force Main Criteria ͭʹ
Section 4 - Wastewater Flows 18
Ͱ.ͭ Historical Wastewater Flows ͮͮ
Ͱ.ͮ Temporary Flow Monitoring Program ͮͮ
Ͱ.ͮ.ͭ Dry Weather Flow Data ͮͱ
Ͱ.ͮ.ͮ Rainfall Data ͮͲ
Ͱ.ͮ.ͯ Wet Weather Flow Data ͮͲ
Ͱ.ͯ Estimated Wastewater Flows ͮͳ
Ͱ.ͯ.ͭ Existing Wastewater Flows ͮʹ
Ͱ.ͯ.ͮ Wastewater Flow Factors ͮʹ
Ͱ.ͯ.ͯ Future Wastewater Flows ͮʹ
Ͱ.ͯ.Ͱ Existing and Future Flow Summary ͯͭ
230
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN ii | DECEMBER 2021 | FINAL
Section 5 - Collection System Facilities and Hydraulic Model 31
5.1 Wastewater Collection System Overview 31
5.2 Hydraulic Model Development 35
5.2.1 Selected Hydraulic Modeling Software 35
5.2.2 Elements of a Hydraulic Model 35
5.2.3 Hydraulic Model Construction 36
5.2.4 Wast ewater Load Allocation 36
5.3 Model Calibration 36
5.3.1 Calibration Standards 37
5.3.2 Dry Weather Calibration 37
5.3.3 Wet Weather Calibration 41
5.3.4 Calibration Summary 45
Section 6 - Capacity Evaluation 45
Section 7 - Recommended Projects 49
7.1 Capacity Projects 49
7.2 Rehabilitation Projects 53
7.3 Programs 53
7.4 Project Prioritization 54
Section 8 - Capital Improvement Program 54
8.1 Cost Estimating Accuracy 54
8.2 Baseline Construction Unit Costs 54
8.3 Project Costs and Contingencies 55
8.3.1 Baseline Construction Cost 55
8.3.2 Estimated Construction Cost 55
8.3.3 Capital Improvement Cost 56
8.4 Capital Improvement Implementation 56
Tables
Table 1 Land Use 7
Table 2 Servic e Area Population Summary 15
Table 3 Historical Average Dry Weather Flow 22
Table 4 Average Dry Weather Flow Summary in MGD 26
231
SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY FINAL | DECEMBER 2021 | iii
Table 5 Wet Weather Flow Data Summary 27
Table 6 Wet Weather Flow Data Summary 27
Table 7 Wastewater Flow Factor by Land Use 28
Table 8 Vacant and Underutilized Parcels - ADWF 29
Table 9 Planned Projects ADWF 30
Table 10 Existing and Future Wastewater Flows 31
Table 11 Gravity Sewer Baseline Construction Unit Costs 55 Table 12 Capital Improvement Program Summary 57
Figure
Figure 1 Sanitary Sewer Service Area 3
Figure 2 General Plan Land Use 9
Figure 3 Future Connections 13
Figure 4 Servic e Area Population 16
Figure 5 Design Storm Pattern – 10-Year, 24-Hour 17
Figure 6 Typical Wastewater Flow Components 19
Figure 7 Typical Sources of Infiltration and Inflow 20
Figure 8 Typical Effects of Infiltration and Inflow 21
Figure 9 Flowmeter Locations and Meter Basins 23
Figure 10 Flowmeter Schematic 25
Figure 11 Rainfall Monitoring – Average of Rain Gauges 26 Figure 12 Existing Wastewater Collection System 33
Figure 13 Sample Diurnal Pattern – Basin 7 38
Figure 14 Sample DWF Calibration Sheet – Basin 7 39
Figure 15 Sample WWF Calibration Sheet – Basin 8 43
Figure 16 Sample Illustration of Backwater Effects in a Sewer 46 Figure 17 Existing Capacity Deficiencies 47
Figure 18 Proposed Capacity Improvements 51
232
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN iv | DECEMBER 2021 | FINAL
-This Page Intentionally Left Blank233
SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY FINAL | DECEMBER 2021 | v
Abbreviations
AACE The Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering AAF average annual flow
ac acre
ADWF average dry weather flow
AMBAG Association of Monterey County Government
BWF base wastewater flow
CAD computer-aided drawing
Carollo Carollo Engineers, Inc.
CIP Capital Improvement Plan
City City of Scotts Valley
DU dwelling units
DWF dry weather flow
ENR CCI Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index fps feet per second
General Plan General Plan Update
GIS geographic information system
gpcd gallons per capita per day
gpd/AC gallons per day per acre
GWI groundwater infiltration
HGL hydraulic grade line
I/I infiltration/inflow
LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission
Mg million gallons
mgd million gallons per day
NASSCO National Association of Sewer Service Companies
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NRCS The Natural Resources Conservation Service
PACP Pipeline Assessment Certification Program
PWWFs peak wet weather flows
RDII Rain Derived Infiltration and Inflow
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SEACAP System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan
SSMP Sewer System Management Plan
SSOs sanitary sewer overflows
SWMM Storm Water Management Model
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
234
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN vi | DECEMBER 2021 | FINAL
USEPAs United State Environmental Protection Agency's
V&A V&A Consulting Engineers, Inc.
WaPUG Wastewater Planning Users Group
WDR Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ
WRF Water Reclamation Facility
WWF wet weather flow
235
SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY FINAL | DECEMBER 2021 | 1
Section 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The City of Scotts Valley (City) is primarily a residential community with a considerable amount of office, warehouse, and research and development in the commercial sector. The City covers roughly 4.6 square miles within Santa Cruz County, approximately 30 miles south of downtown San Jose and six miles north of the City of Santa Cruz. The City’s population is estimated to be 12,145 in 2020.
The City provides sewer services to customers within the city limits, as shown on Figure 1.
Collectively, the City’s wastewater collection and conveyance system includes approximately 47 miles of gravity sewers, and seven lift stations. The City’s collection system discharges to and is treated at the Scotts Valley Water Reclamation Facility (WRF). 236
237
GLEN
WOOD
DR
BEAN
C
R
EEK RD
PA ULSWEET
R
D
BRANCIFORTE
D
R
MT HERMON
RD
GLEN
C
A
NYON
R
D
SCOTTS VALLEY DR
V
NI E HILLRD
LOCKH
A
R
T
G
U LCH
RD
SIMS RD
M
Y STERY
SP
O
T
R
D
G
RA
NITE
C
R
EEK
RD
BEAN CREE
K
RD
GRAHAM
HILL RD
LOC K HART
GUL CH
RD
O
0 1,300 2,600
Feet
Disclaimer: Features shown in this
figure are for planning purposes and
represent approximate locations.
Engineering and/or survey accuracy
is not implied.
Data Sources: City of Scotts Valley Draft
General Plan. Santa Cruz County Parcel
Data.
SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY Legend
Service Area
City Limits
Parcel
Major Road
Stream
Lake
Figure 1 Sanitary Sewer Service Area
238
239
SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY FINAL | DECEMBER 2021 | 5
1.2 Scope and Authorization
On September 5, 2018 the City approved a professional service agreement with Carollo Engineers, Inc. (Carollo) to prepare this Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP), which included the following main tasks:
• Project Management and Meetings.
• Data Collection and Background Review.
• Temporary Flow Monitoring Program.
• Land Use Analysis.
• Wastewater Flow Projections.
• Hydraulic Model Construction and Calibration.
• Capacity Analysis and Recommended Projects.
• Prioritized CCTV Inspection Plan and Phase 1 Inspection. • Lift Station Condition Assessment.
• Develop 20-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
• Develop Sewer System Management Plan.
1.3 Regulatory Requirements
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulate the management, operation, and maintenance of the sanitary sewer systems. The Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ (WDR) requires that the City prepare and implement a CIP) that will provide hydraulic capacity for peak dry weather flows (DWFs) as well as the appropriate design storm or wet weather event. The SSMP must address, at the minimum, the following:
D.13. (viii) System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan: The Enrollee shall prepare and implement a capital improvement plan that will provide hydraulic capacity of key sanitary sewer system elements for dry weather peak flow conditions, as well as the appropriate design storm or wet weather event. At a minimum, the plan must include:
(a) Evaluation: Actions needed to evaluate those portions of the sanitary sewer system that are experiencing or contributing to an SSO discharge caused by hydraulic deficiency. The evaluation must provide estimates of peak flows (including flows from SSOs that escape from the system) associated with conditions similar to those causing overflow events, estimates of the capacity of key system components, hydraulic deficiencies (including components of the system with limiting capacity) and the major sources that contribute to the peak flows associated with overflow events;
(b) Design Criteria: Where design criteria do not exist or are deficient, undertake the evaluation identified in (a) above to establish appropriate design criteria; and (c) Capacity Enhancement Measures: The steps needed to establish a short- and long-term CIP to address identified hydraulic deficiencies, including prioritization, alternatives analysis, and schedules. The CIP may include increases in pipe size, I/I reduction programs, increases and redundancy in pumping capacity, and storage facilities. The CIP shall include an implementation schedule and shall identify sources of funding. 240
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN 6 | DECEMBER 2021 | FINAL
(d) Schedule: The Enrollee shall develop a schedule of completion dates for all portions of the CIP developed in (a)-(c) above. This schedule shall be reviewed and updated consistent with the SSMP review and update requirements as described in Section D. 14.
1.4 Purpose
The City recognizes the importance of preventing sewage spills to protect surface waters and to safeguard public health and safety. This System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan (SECAP) was developed to achieve this purpose and conforms to the requirements of the WDRs, as well as other applicable regulations. Specific activities and procedures to implement the various programs related to the sanitary sewer system by City staff are described, which were developed to properly manage, operate, and maintain the collection system and reduce and/or eliminate sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) to the extent possible.
1.5 Report Organization
This SECAP report contains seven sections, followed by appendices that provide supporting documentation for the information presented in the report. The sections are organized as follows:
• Section 1 - Introduction.
• Section 2 - Planning Area.
• Section 3 - Evaluation Criteria.
• Section 4 - Wastewater Flows.
• Section 5 - Collection System Facilities and Hydraulic Model. • Section 6 - Capacity Evaluation.
• Section 7 - Recommended Projects.
• Section 8 - Capital Improvement Program.
Section 2
SERVICEAREA, LAND USE, AND POPULATION
This section presents a discussion of the City’s service area characteristics, land use classifications, and historical and projected population trends.
2.1 Service Area
The City’s existing General Plan was last updated in 1994. Many changes have occurred in the City over since the development of the 1994 General Plan1. The City is in the process of updating General Plan Update2 (General Plan) with a 2040 planning horizon. The Draft General Plan’s planning area encompasses approximately 8.3 square miles that consist of area within the City limits and the unincorporated lands that may be annexed to the City. A sphere of influence study was commissioned by the Santa Cruz County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for 1 1994 General Plan 2 Final Draft General Plan
241
SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY FINAL | DECEMBER 2021 | 7
the City. A sphere of influence differs from a planning area because it is the probable ultimate physical boundary and service area of the City’s jurisdiction. Figure 1 illustrates the City’s sanitary sewer service area.
2.2 Planning Period
This SECAP is intended to serve as a guiding document for the planning and implementation of sanitary sewer system improvements to accommodate future growth within the study area through the year 2040. The planning horizon is consistent with the City's Draft General Plan. The population and land use projections included in the Draft General Plan are summarized in later sections and set the foundation for the wastewater flow projections.
2.3 Land Use
Land use information is an integral component in defining the amount of wastewater generated within the service area. Therefore, adequately estimating wastewater flows from various land use types is important in sizing and maintaining the wastewater system facilities. An important tool for determining land use projections is the City’s Draft General Plan Land Use3 . The land use
assumptions provided in Draft General Plan were used for the purpose of this SECAP. The Draft General Plan identifies 16 land use categories. Figure 2 shows the land use according to the City’s Draft General Plan. As shown in Table 1, there are approximately 1,759 acres connected to the sewer collection system service area connected to the existing collection system.
Table 1 Land Use
Land Use Type Connected
Area (ac)
Unconnected
Area (ac)
Total Area
(ac)
Mountain Residential 0 1,022 1,022
Rural Residential 156 1,065 1,220
Estate Residential 198 291 489
Low Density Residential 244 59 303
Medium Density Residential 401 22 423
Medium High Density Residential 175 3 177
High Density Residential 86 1 88
Very High Density Residential 25 2 26
Light Industrial 116 20 136
Heavy Industrial 0 180 180
Research and Development 24 7 31
Professional Commercial 13 7 20
Service Commercial 118 27 145
Shopping Center 34 0 34
Public/Quasi Public 170 44 213
Open Space 0 777 777
Total 1,759 3,526 5,285
Notes:
(1) Source: City of Scotts Valley Draft General Plan.
(2) Source: City of Scotts Valley GIS Data.
3 General Plan Land Use
242
243
BEAN
C
REEK R D
BRANCIFORTEDR
MTHERMON RD
GLEN CANYON RD
SCOTTS VALLEY DR
LO
CKHART
G
U LCH
R
D
GLEN
WOOD
DR
SIMS RD
GRAHAM
HILL
RD
MY S T ERY
SPO
T R
D
GRAN ITECREEK
R
D
PA UL
S WEET
R
D
BEAN CRE EK
R D
EAST ZAY ANTE RD
V
NI E H
LI L RD
LOCKHART
GULCH
RD
CONFERENCE DR
U
PPER
PARK R
O
D
CEANST
EXT
O
0 1,550 3,100
Feet
Disclaimer: Features shown in this
figure are for planning purposes and
represent approximate locations.
Engineering and/or survey accuracy
is not implied.
Data Sources: City of Scotts Valley Draft
General Plan. Santa Cruz County Parcel
Data.
SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY Legend
City Limits
Parcel
Major Road
Stream
Lake
Figure 2 General Plan Pland Use
Land Use
Very High Density Residential
High Density Residential
Medium High Density Res.
Medium Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Estate Residential
Rural Residential
Mountain Residential
Professional Commercial
Service Commercial
Shopping Center
Heavy Industrial
Research and Development
Light Industrial
Open Space
Public/Quasi Public
244
245
SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY FINAL | DECEMBER 2021 | 11
2.4 Future Connections
Future connections consist of known information provided by the City of potential future developments/customers that could connect to the sanitary sewer collection system by 2040.
Potential future connections consist of underutilized parcels, vacant parcels, and planned developments. It was assumed that developed parcels within the service area not currently connected to the sewer system (i.e., septic parcels) would not be connected in the future. Areas currently served by septic systems are located in remote areas that cannot be cost effectively served by the sanitary sewer system. The City’s Draft General Plan identified approximately 44 acres of underutilized parcels and 24 acres of vacant parcels within the service area, Table 8 provides details on the acreage by land use type. In addition, the City identified future development plans within the service area that consisted of approximately 149 acres of residential land use and 42 acres of non-residential land use, details on these developments is provided in Table 9. Figure 3 shows the locations of future connections within the service area. 246
247
Marriott
Residences
Inn
12 Blake Lane
Pinnacle View
Meadow Way
The Grove
4803 Scotts Valley Drive
Gateway South
Retail Store
33 Polo Heights
Erba
Lane
440
Kings Village
Road
The Cove
Polo Ranch
1440 Center
Nashua Drive 1 Hacienda
Drive
251 Kings
Village Road Town 4627 Scotts Valley Drive
Center
260 Mount
Hermon Road 22 Blake Lane
The Terrace
Oak Creek Park
- Mixed Use Development
Polo Affordable Site
Valley
Gardens
Four Points by Sheraton
BEAN
C
REEK RD
MT HERMON
RD
BRA
N
C FI ORTE DR
SCOTTS VALLEY DR
GLEN CA
NYON
R
D
LOCK
HART
G
U
LCH
RD
GLEN
WO
O
D
D
R
GRANITE
CREE
K
R
D
BEANCREEK
RD
GRAHAM
HILL
RD
MYSTERY
SPOT
RD
O
0 1,150 2,300
Feet
Disclaimer: Features shown in this
figure are for planning purposes and
represent approximate locations.
Engineering and/or survey accuracy
is not implied.
Data Sources: City of Scotts Valley Draft
General Plan. Santa Cruz County Parcel
Data.
SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY Legend
Vacant
Underutilized
City Limits
Parcel
Major Road
Stream
Lake
Figure 3 Future Connections
Land Use
Very High Density Residential
High Density Residential
Medium High Density Res.
Medium Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Estate Residential
Rural Residential
Mountain Residential
Professional Commercial
Service Commercial
Shopping Center
Heavy Industrial
Research and Development
Light Industrial
Open Space
Public/Quasi Public
248
249
SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY FINAL | DECEMBER 2021 | 15
2.5 Population
This section summarizes the City's historic and projected population within the system's service area. Table 2 summarizes the City's historical population from 2010 to 2019. As shown in Table 2, the City's population has fluctuated, but had an overall increase of approximately four percent.
Historic population estimates for the City's service area were developed using the 2010 US Census Data for 2010, as well as the California Department of Finance for the years 2011 through 2019. Figure 4 shows the historic and projected population.
Future growth in the City was estimated using the Draft General Plan which cites the 2018 Regional Growth Forecast estimates Scotts Valley study (Regional Growth Forecast) by Association of Monterey County Governments (AMBAG). This SECAP assumes that the City’s population will grow based on AMBAG’s Regional Growth Forecast, as summarized in Table 2.
The projected population is estimated to increase by 336 residents within the planning period (by year 2040).
Table 2 Service Area Population Summary
Year Population(1)(2)
2010 11,580
2011 11,655
2012 11,745
2013 11,846
2014 11,972
2015 12,136
2016 12,189
2017 12,199
2018 12,162
2019 12,082
2020 12,145
2025 12,214
2030 12,282
2035 12,348
2040 12,418
Notes:
(1) Source: California Department of Finance - Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011- 2019 with 2010 Census Benchmark.
(2) Source: AMBAG 2018 Regional Growth Forecast estimates Scotts Valley. 250
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN 16 | DECEMBER 2021 | FINAL
Figure 4 Service Area Population
Section 3
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Capacity analysis of the wastewater collection system was performed in accordance with the criteria established in this section. These criteria are consistent with industry best practices.
3.1 Design Storm
Design storms are rainfall events used to analyze the performance of a collection system under extreme wet weather events. The City’s design storm was routed through the collection system model to determine peak wet weather flows (PWWFs), as described in Section 6. The first step in the development of the design storm is to define its recurrence interval and rainfall duration. The recurrence interval is based on the probability that a given rainfall event will occur or be exceeded in any given year. For example, a “100-year storm” means there is a 1-in-100 chance that a storm as large as or larger than this event will occur at a specific location in any year.
Duration is the length of time in which the rainfall occurs. It is industry standard in California to use the 10-year, 24-hour design storm for analyzing wastewater collection system performance during PWWF conditions. The 10-year, 24-hour design storm volume is 7.72 inches as documented on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atlas 14.
Once the design storm recurrence interval, duration, and associated rainfall volume have been determined, the next step in defining the design storm is to distribute the total rainfall over duration of the storm. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Type 1 rainfall distribution was used. Figure 5 shows the 10-year, 24-hour design storm. 251
SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY FINAL | DECEMBER 2021 | 17
Figure 5 Design Storm Pattern – 10-Year, 24-Hour
3.2 Gravity Sewer Criteria
Sewer pipe capacities are dependent on many factors, including roughness of the pipe, the maximum allowable depth of flow, and minimum velocity.
3.2.1 Manning Coefficient (n)
The Manning coefficient 'n' is a friction coefficient and varies with respect to pipe material, size of pipe, depth of flow, smoothness of pipe and joints. For sewer pipes, the Manning coefficient typically ranges between 0.011 and 0.017, with 0.013 being a typical value used for sewer system planning.
3.2.2 Peak Flow Depth Criteria
The primary criterion used to identify pipeline capacity deficiencies or to size new sewer improvements is the peak flow depth criteria. Based on Carollo’s experience, City staff input, and industry standards.
• Flow Depth Criteria for Existing Sewers: Maximum flow depth criteria for existing sanitary sewers are established based on a number of factors, including the acceptable risk tolerance of the utility and local standards and codes. Using a conservative flow depth criteria when evaluating existing sewers may lead to unnecessary replacement of existing pipelines. Conversely, lenient flow depth criteria could increase the risk of SSOs.
Ultimately, the maximum allowable flow depth criteria should be established to be as cost-effective as possible while at the same time reducing the risk of SSOs to the greatest extent possible. For the City, existing pipelines were flagged if the pipe surcharged within five (5) feet within the manhole rim.
2.01 0
0.5 1
1.5 2
2.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Rainfall (inches/hour)
Hour
252
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN 18 | DECEMBER 2021 | FINAL
System bottlenecks raise the hydraulic grade line of upstream sewers, leading to backwater conditions. The greater the capacity deficiency, the higher water levels will surcharge upstream of the bottleneck pipeline (or pipelines). The hydraulic model is used to identify “backwater” pipelines in order to isolate which specific pipelines are the actual root causes of the capacity deficiency. Capital projects are proposed to provide greater flow capacity for the deficient sewers, which eliminates the backwater conditions that cause surcharging.
• Flow Depth Criteria for New Sewers: When sizing new sewer pipelines, it is common practice to adopt different flow depth criteria for various pipe sizes. Design d/D ratios typically range from 0.5 to 0.92, with the lower values typically used for smaller pipes, which may experience flow peaks greater than design flow or blockages from debris, paper, or rags. A maximum allowable d/D ratio of 0.92 for all new sewers. • Small Diameter Pipe: The recommended minimum sewer main diameter is 8 inches.
When a small diameter pipe needs to be replaced, it is recommended that it be upsized to at least 8 inches in diameter.
3.2.3 Design Velocities and Minimum Slopes
To minimize the settlement of sewage solids, it is industry standard to specify a minimum velocity of 2 fps be maintained. At this velocity, the sewer flow will provide self-cleaning of the pipe.
3.3 Lift Station and Force Main Criteria
Industry standard practice is to require that sewage lift stations have sufficient capacity to pump peak flows with the largest pump out of service (firm capacity). Force main piping should be sized to provide a minimum velocity of 3 feet per second (fps) at the design flow rate of the lift station and no more than 8 fps. For the determination of head loss, the Hazen-Williams equation is used with a C-factor of 110, which is typical for sewer system master planning purposes.
Section 4
WASTEWATER FLOWS
This section describes and provides definitions of commonly used terminology in the wastewater collection system analysis and evaluations conducted as part of this project. Wastewater flows vary according to the season. DWF or base flow is flow generated by routine water usage in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors of the collection system.
Another component of DWF is the contribution of dry weather groundwater infiltration (GWI) into the collection system. Dry weather GWI will enter the sewer system when the relative depth of the groundwater table is higher than the depth of the pipeline and when the susceptibility of the sanitary sewer pipe allows infiltration through defects such as cracks, misaligned joints, and broken pipelines. Figure 6 illustrates the various flow components of wastewater in general, which are described in detail in the following sections. 253
SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY FINAL | DECEMBER 2021 | 19
Wet weather flow (WWF) includes storm water inflow, trench infiltration, and GWI. The storm water inflow and trench infiltration comprise the WWF component termed infiltration/inflow (I/I). The response in the sewer system to rainfall is seen immediately (as with inflow) or within hours after the storm (as with infiltration).
Figure 6 Typical Wastewater Flow Components
• Base Wastewater Flow. The base wastewater flow (BWF) is the flow generated by the City’s customers independent of wet weather influences. BWF is estimated by measuring flows during dry weather conditions. The flow has a diurnal pattern that varies depending on the type of use. Commercial and industrial patterns, though they vary depending on the type of use, typically have more consistent higher flows during business hours and lower flows at night. Furthermore, the diurnal flow pattern experienced during a weekend may vary from the diurnal flow experienced during a weekday.
• Average Annual Flow. The average annual flow (AAF) is the average flow that occurs on a daily basis throughout the year, including both periods of dry and wet weather conditions.
• Average Dry Weather Flow. The average dry weather flow (ADWF) is the average flow that occurs on a daily basis during the dry weather season. The ADWF includes the BWF generated by the City’s residential, commercial, and industrial users, plus the dry weather GWI component.
• Peak Wet Weather Flow. PWWF is the highest observed flow that occurs following a design storm event. Wet weather I/I cause flows in the collection system to increase.
PWWF is typically used for designing sewers, lift stations, and some unit processes in a treatment plant. Therefore, the PWWF and the “Design Flow” are synonymous and will be used interchangeably throughout this report.
254
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN 20 | DECEMBER 2021 | FINAL
• Groundwater Infiltration. GWI is the result of extraneous water entering the sewer system through defects in pipes and manholes. GWI is related to the condition of the sewer pipes, manholes, and groundwater levels. GWI may occur throughout the year, although rates are typically higher in the late winter and early spring. Dry weather GWI (or base infiltration) cannot easily be separated from BWF by flow measurement techniques. Therefore, dry weather GWI is typically grouped with BWF. • Rain Derived Infiltration and Inflow (RDII). Infiltration is defined as storm water flows that enter the sewer system by percolating through the soil and then through defects in pipelines, manholes, and joints. Examples of infiltration entry points are cracks in pipelines, misaligned joints, and root penetration. Inflow is defined as storm water that enters the sewer system via storm drain cross connections, leaky manhole covers, or cleanouts. Examples of inflow entry points are roof drain and downspout connections, leaky manhole covers, and illegal storm drain connections. Some of the most common sources of RDII are shown on Figure 7. The adverse effects of RDII entering the sewer system are that it increases both the flow volume and peak flows, as illustrated on Figure 8.
Figure 7 Typical Sources of Infiltration and Inflow
255
SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY FINAL | DECEMBER 2021 | 21
Figure 8 Typical Effects of Infiltration and Inflow
256
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN 22 | DECEMBER 2021 | FINAL
4.1 Historical Wastewater Flows
Before discussing existing and future flows that were developed for this SECAP, it is important to first take a look at historical flows and trends over the last several years. The City provided historical WRF flow data at for years 2014, 2015, 2017, and 2018. The data provided included daily influent and effluent flow data from the WRF. For the purpose of this SECAP, historical ADWF is based on the measured effluent flow data because the influent flow data includes a return flow stream from the WRF. In addition ADWF was calculated using June, July, and August WRF effluent flow data.
Table 3 summarizes the historical ADWF and population for the City which was used to calculate historical per capita wastewater generation within the City service area. The City's per capita wastewater flow has varied, from 56.9 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) to 61.5 gpcd. The historical per capita wastewater flows are consistent over this period.
For planning purposes, it was assumed that a per capita flow of 59.0 gpcd would be used for existing and future flow projections. The per capita flow was calculated using the average per capita flow for years 2014, 2017, and 2018. The 2015 per capita flow was not included in this because the WRF flow data was incomplete.
Table 3 Historical Average Dry Weather Flow
Year Population(1) ADWF(2)(3) (mgd) Per Capita Flow (gpcd) 2014 11,972 0.736 61.5
2015 12,136 0.691(4) 56.9
2017 12,199 0.701 57.5
2018 12,162 0.707 58.1
Average 59.0(5)
Notes:
(1) Source: California Department of Finance - Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011- 2019 with 2010 Census Benchmark.
(2) Source:
(3) ADWF calculated using June, July, and August WRF effluent flow data. (4) 2015 flow data missing starting August through December. (5) 2015 not included in the average per capita flow calculation because the WRF flow data incomplete.
4.2 Temporary Flow Monitoring Program
As part of the SSMP development process, a temporary flow monitoring program was conducted by V&A Consulting Engineers, Inc. (V&A) to assist in the development of design flow criteria, and to correlate actual sewer system flows to the hydraulic model predicted flows. Flow monitoring data are used to calibrate the wastewater collection system hydraulic model for DWF and WWF. The Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and Inflow/Infiltration Study is included in Attachment 1 for reference.
The primary purpose of flow monitoring is establish baseline flows, peak flow conditions during rainfall events, and quantify to I/I. The 2019 flow monitoring period was conducted from January 31, 2019 to May 2, 2019 at eight monitoring sites selected by Carollo. Figure 9 illustrates the flowmeter locations and grouped basins. The meter sites were selected to best model the sewer areas and multiple sub-areas within the sewer system. The City meter basins were grouped to multiple flow splits in the interceptor system. Figure 10 is a schematic representation of the flowmeter sites.
257
")
=
)"
=
)"
=
)"
=
)"
=
")
=
)"
=
g`g`
g`g`g`
g`
g`
g`
WWTP
GLENWOO
D
D
R
BEAN
C
R
EEK RD
PA ULSWEET
R
D
BRANCIFORTE
D
R
MT HERMON
RD
GLEN
C
A
NYON
R
D
SCOTTS VALLEY DR
V
NI E HILLRD
LOCKH
A
R
T
G
U LCH
RD
SIMS RD
M
Y STERY
SP
O
T
R
D
G
RA
NITE
C
R
EEK
RD
BEAN CREE
K
RD
GRAHAM
HILL RD
LOC K HART
GUL CH
RD
FM-1
FM-2
FM-3
FM-4
FM-5
FM-7
FM-6
FM-8
O
0 1,300 2,600
Feet
Disclaimer: Features shown in this
figure are for planning purposes and
represent approximate locations.
Engineering and/or survey accuracy
is not implied.
Data Sources: City of Scotts Valley Draft
General Plan. Santa Cruz County Parcel
Data.
SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY Legend
g` Flow Meter
WWTP WRF
")
= Lift Station
Force Main
Gravity Sewer
Service Area
City Limits
Parcel
Major Road
Stream
Lake
Figure 9 Flow Meter Locations and Meter Basins
Meter Basin
Basin 1
Basin 2
Basin 3
Basin 4
Basin5
Basin 6
Basin 7
Basin 8
WRF
WWTP g`g`
g` g` g` SCOTTS VALLEY
DR
MT HERMON RD
FM-1
FM-2
FM-3 FM-4
FM-5
Detail A
Detail A
258
259
SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY FINAL | DECEMBER 2021 | 25
Figure 10 Flowmeter Schematic
4.2.1 Dry Weather Flow Data
The flow monitoring period, depth and velocity data were collected at each meter at 15-minute intervals. Characteristic dry weather 24-hour diurnal flow patterns for each site were developed based on the hourly data. This hourly flow data was then used to calibrate the hydraulic model for ADWF. A summary of the ADWF, calculated by V&A, for each flow monitoring site is presented in Table 4. The flow data indicated that the average weekday flows were generally similar to the average weekend flows; however, the diurnal patterns occasionally differed. For this study, the weekday and weekend flow averages and diurnal patterns were used for calibration and analysis.
The total ADWF for the City was estimated to be 0.76 million gallons per day (mgd) using the flow monitoring data and removing the influent flows.
260
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN 26 | DECEMBER 2021 | FINAL
Table 4 Average Dry Weather Flow Summary in MGD
Basin Mon.-Thur. Fri. Sat. Sun. Overall
Basin 1 0.017 0.017 0.018 0.018 0.017
Basin 2 0.075 0.076 0.078 0.078 0.076
Basin 3 0.662 0.676 0.661 0.686 0.667
Basin 4 0.05 0.048 0.061 0.063 0.053
Basin 5 0.42 0.422 0.393 0.397 0.413
Basin 6 0.103 0.102 0.105 0.111 0.104
Basin 7 0.053 0.055 0.054 0.056 0.054
Basin 8 0.109 0.11 0.113 0.12 0.111
System 0.754 0.769 0.757 0.782 0.761
Notes:
(1) Source: Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and Inflow/Infiltration Study (July 2019).
4.2.2 Rainfall Data
Two gauges within the City were used during the 2019 flow monitoring period. The cumulative rainfall during the 2019 flow monitoring period averaged 24.7 inches. There were three significant rainfall events that were captured. Figure 11 illustrates the average rainfall data for all the rain gauges. In general, the average of rain gauges of the City measured higher rainfall totals.
Figure 11 Rainfall Monitoring – Average of Rain Gauges
4.2.3 Wet Weather Flow Data
Flow monitoring data was also evaluated to determine how the collection system responds to wet weather events. As mentioned above, two wet weather events were captured during the flow monitoring period. These events caused a sufficient I/I response to be used for I/I analysis.
Table 5 provides a summary of the I/I measured from 2019 flow monitoring period for the monitoring basin.
261
SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY FINAL | DECEMBER 2021 | 27
Table 5 Wet Weather Flow Data Summary
Basin ADWF (mgd) Total I/I (MG) Total I/I per ADWF per
inch of Rain
Basin 1 0.017 0.190 0.45
Basin 2 0.076 1.889 1.02
Basin 3 0.201 1.707 0.35
Basin 4/5 0.251 2.809 0.45
Basin 6 0.05 1.596 1.27
Basin 7 0.054 5.567 4.13
Basin 8 0.111 5.580 2.01
System 0.761 19.338 1.03
Notes:
(1) Source: Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and Inflow/Infiltration Study (July 2019).
Table 6 Wet Weather Flow Data Summary
Basin ADWF (mgd) Peak Measured Flow
(mgd) Peaking Factor
Basin 1 0.017 0.14 8.24
Basin 2 0.076 0.41 5.39
Basin 3 0.667 2.41 3.61
Basin 4 0.053 0.19 3.58
Basin 5 0.413 1.62 3.92
Basin 6 0.104 0.79 7.60
Basin 7 0.054 0.45 8.33
Basin 8 0.111 0.57 5.14
System 0.761 2.96 3.89
Notes:
(1) Source: Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and Inflow/Infiltration Study (July 2019).
4.3 Estimated Wastewater Flows
Wastewater flow rates can be expressed in several ways. Typically, wastewater flow rates are expressed in terms average flow per capita, an average flow rate per dwelling unit, or average flow rate per gross or net land use area. For planning purposes, years 2020 and 2040 where chosen to represent existing and future conditions, respectively. The following sections will discuss how these wastewater flows were developed.
262
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN 28 | DECEMBER 2021 | FINAL
4.3.1 Existing Wastewater Flows
The existing ADWF was estimated using a population based method because little development has occurred between 2018 and 2020 the service area. Thus the existing ADWF was estimated using a per capita flow of 59 gpcd and the estimated population of 12,145. This equates to an estimated existing ADWF of 0.72 mgd. The existing PWWF was derived throughout the system based on the hydraulic modeling results. This was accomplished by routing the 10-year, 24-hour design storm through the hydraulic model, which was calibrated to both dry weather and wet weather conditions. The estimated existing PWWF is 5.40 mgd.
4.3.2 Wastewater Flow Factors
The existing wastewater flows and connected parcels were used to develop wastewater flow factors. Wastewater flow rates were developed in terms of the average flow per area by land use type, in the units of gallons per day per acre (gpd/ac). Table 7 summarizes the average flow per area for each of the land use.
Table 7 Wastewater Flow Factor by Land Use
Land Use
Connected
Parcels
Area (ac)
Underutilized
Parcels Area
(ac)
Average
Wastewater
Flow Factor
(gpd/ac)
ADWF
(mgd)
Rural Residential 156 0 20 0.003
Estate Residential 198 0 70 0.014
Low Density Residential 244 0 130 0.032
Medium Density Residential 399 1 400 0.160
Medium High Density Residential 174 0 750 0.130
High Density Residential 86 0 1,100 0.095
Very High Density Residential 17 7 1,500 0.031
Light Industrial 106 10 600 0.066
Research and Development 24 0 450 0.011
Professional Commercial 13 0 500 0.007
Service Commercial 89 27 500 0.051
Shopping Center 34 0 500 0.017
Public/Quasi Public 166 0 600 0.100
Total 1,706 44 0.717
4.3.3 Future Wastewater Flows
The AMBAG growth estimates show minimal population growth through 2040. Applying the population based method yields a future ADWF of 0.73 mgd. However, for the purpose of the SECAP the future ADWF estimated using a combination of average flow rate per gross or net land use area, and average flow rate per dwelling units. 263
SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY FINAL | DECEMBER 2021 | 29
As discussed in Section 2, the City’s Draft General Plan identified vacant and underutilized parcels. Using the wastewater flow rates developed in Table 7, future ADWF from vacant and underutilized parcels and is summarized in Table 8. The development of all vacant and underutilized land would increase system-wide ADWF by 0.02 mgd. The analysis assumed that developed parcels not currently connected to the sewer system (i.e., septic parcels) would not be connected in the future. In addition, underutilized parcel’s future flows are half of the typical wastewater flow rate.
In addition, the City’s Draft General Plan and website identified planned projects that could connect to the system in the near future. Commercial and residential plans where the number dwelling units (DU) was not identified in the plan used the same method as vacant and underutilized parcels to calculate future ADWF. If a residential development plans contained proposed DU, then the number of dwelling units was multiplied by 155 gpd-DU to estimate future ADWF. Table 9 summarizes known projects ADWF. The development of all planned projects would increase system-wide ADWF by 0.12 mgd.
The land based methodology yields a future ADWF of 0.84 mgd. The land use based methodology yields a more conservative planning assumption than the population method for future ADWF, thus the land use method was used.
Table 8 Vacant and Underutilized Parcels - ADWF
Land Use
Vacant
Area(1)
(ac)
Underutilized
Area(1) (ac)
Wastewater
Flow Factor
(gpd/ac)
ADWF(2)
(gpd)
Rural Residential 4 0 20 70
Low Density Residential 6 0 130 760
Medium Density Residential 1 1 400 410
Medium High Density Residential 3 0 750 1,990
Very High Density Residential 0 7 1,500 5470
Light Industrial 1 10 600 3,550
Professional Commercial 2 0 500 770
Service Commercial 7 27 500 10,250
Public/Quasi Public 2 0 600 910
Total 24 44 24,180
Notes:
(1) Source: City of Scotts Valley Draft General Plan
(2) ADWF = (Vacant Area x Wastewater Flow Factor) + (Underutilized Area x Wastewater Flow / 2) 264
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN 30 | DECEMBER 2021 | FINAL
Table 9 Planned Projects ADWF
Development Dwelling
Units (DU) Area (ac)
ADWF
Rate
(gpd/unit)
Unit ADWF
(gpd)
Residential
33 Polo Heights 2 1.71 155 gpd/DU 310
Erba Lane 13 1.03 155 gpd/DU 2,020
Polo Ranch 40 83.44 155 gpd/DU 6,200
Town Center Residential 254 17.00 155 gpd/DU 39,370
Valley Gardens 7.19 400 gpd/ac 2,880
251 Kings Village Road 2.03 400 gpd/ac 810
Nashua Drive 3 0.336 155 gpd/DU 470
Various Sites 10 155 gpd/DU 1,550
12 Blake Lane 3 155 gpd/DU 470
22 Blake Lane 4 0.42 155 gpd/DU 620
440 Kings Village Road 84 20.90 155 gpd/DU 13,020
4803 Scotts Valley Drive 6 0.58 155 gpd/DU 930
4627 Scotts Valley Drive 19 0.93 155 gpd/DU 2,950
The Grove 50 4.31 155 gpd/DU 7,750
Oak Creek Park Apartments 52 1.03 155 gpd/DU 8,060
Pinnacle View 20 1.91 155 gpd/DU 3,100
TheCove Townhome 25 2.35 155 gpd/DU 3,880
The Terrace Residential 20 2.49 155 gpd/DU 3,100
Meadow Way 4 1.039 155 gpd/DU 620
Non-Residential
1 Hacienda Drive 0.48 500 gpd/ac 240
4803 Scotts Valley Drive 0.40 500 gpd/ac 200
Four Points by Sheraton 1.62 500 gpd/ac 810
Gateway South Retail Store 17.62 500 gpd/ac 8,810
Marriott Residences Inn 2.48 500 gpd/ac 1,240
Oak Creek Park Commercial 2.52 500 gpd/ac 1,260
1440 Center 0.68 600 gpd/ac 410
Town Center Commercial 13.83 500 gpd/ac 6,910
The Cove Commercial 0.54 500 gpd/ac 270
260 Mount Hermon Road 1.52 500 gpd/ac 760
Total 609 190.38 119,020
Similar to the existing PWWF, the future PWWFs were derived by routing a 10-year, 24 hour design storm through the hydraulic model. Peak I/I rates for future growth within the existing City service area were developed based on a peak RDII rate of 1,000 gpd/ac. The estimated future PWWF is projected to be 5.78 mgd.
265
SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY FINAL | DECEMBER 2021 | 31
4.3.4 Existing and Future Flow Summary
Table 10 presents a summary of the estimated existing and future ADWF and PWWF. As shown in Table 10, the City’s ADWF is projected to increase from 0.72 mgd to 0.86 mgd by 2040, whereas the PWWF is projected to increase from 5.40 mgd to about 5.78 mgd by 2040.
Therefore, the City’s PWWF to ADWF peaking factor is projected to decrease from roughly 7.5 to
6.7. This is typical, as newer sewers tend to have less RDII response than older areas of the system, primarily due to better construction methods. Furthermore, flow attenuation also tends to dampen out flow peaks as collection systems expand.
Table 10 Existing and FutureWastewater Flows
Year Estimated ADWF
(mgd)
Estimated PWWF
(mgd)
Peaking Factor
(PWWF/ADWF)
2020 (Existing) 0.72 5.40 7.5
2040 (Future) 0.86 5.78(1) 6.7
Change 0.14 0.38 --
Notes:
(1) PWWF was estimated using a peak RDII of 1,000 gpd/ac.
Section 5
COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITIES AND
HYDRAULIC MODEL
This section describes the development and calibration of the City’s wastewater collection system hydraulic model. This model was used to identify the sewer system’s capacity deficiencies and to develop improvements to correct those deficiencies.
5.1 Wastewater Collection System Overview
The City-owned collection system consists of approximately 47 miles of gravity sewers, and seven lift stations according to the geographic information system (GIS) database developed for the purpose of the SSMP. The GIS database is based on the City’s computer-aided-drawing (CAD) database. Figure 12 presents the City's existing collection system. 266
267
")
=
)"
=
)"
=
)"
=
)"
=
")
=
)"
=
WWTP
BEA
N
CREEK RD
BRANCIFORTE DR
GLENWOOD
DR
MT HERMON
RD
SCOTTS VALLEY DR
LOCK
H
ART
G
U
LCH RD
SIMS RD
MYSTE
R
Y SP
OT
RD
G
RANITE
C
REEK
RD
PAU L SWEET
RD
V
NI E H LI L
RD
BEAN CREEK
RD
GLEN
CANYON RD
GRAHAM
HILL
RD
I VNE
HILL
RD
O
0 1,300 2,600
Feet
Disclaimer: Features shown in this
figure are for planning purposes and
represent approximate locations.
Engineering and/or survey accuracy
is not implied.
Data Sources: City of Scotts Valley Draft
General Plan. Santa Cruz County Parcel
Data.
SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY Legend
WWTP WRF
")
= Lift Station
Force Main
Gravity Sewer
Service Area
City Limits
Parcel
Major Road
Stream
Lake
Figure 12 Existing Wastewater Collection System
268
269
SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY FINAL | DECEMBER 2021 | 35
5.2 Hydraulic Model Development
A wastewater collection system model is a simplified representation of the real sewer system.
Sewer system models can assess the conveyance capacity for a collection system. Also, sewer system models can perform “what if” scenarios to assess the impacts of additional flows or modifications to the collection system.
5.2.1 Selected Hydraulic Modeling Software
It was agreed that InfoSWMM, by Innovyze, would be used to assemble the City’s hydraulic model. InfoSWMM is a fully dynamic, geospatial wastewater and stormwater modeling and management software application, which is built to run within the ESRI ArcGIS software platform. The hydraulic modeling engine for the InfoSWMM software package uses the United State Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA's) Storm Water Management Model (SWMM), which is widely used throughout the world for planning, analysis, and design related to stormwater runoff, combined sewers, sanitary sewers, and other drainage systems. InfoSWMM routes flows through the model using the Dynamic Wave method, which solves the complete Saint Venant, one dimensional equations of fluid flow.
5.2.2 Elements of a Hydraulic Model
The following provides an overview of the elements of a hydraulic wastewater model and the required input parameters associated with each:
• Junctions:Sewer manholes, cleanouts, as well as other locations where pipe sizes change or where pipelines intersect are represented by junctions in the hydraulic model.
Required inputs for junctions include rim elevation, invert elevation, and surcharge depth (used to represent pressurized systems). Junctions are also used to represent locations where flows are split or diverted between two or more downstream links. • Pipes: Gravity sewers and force mains are represented as pipes in the hydraulic model.
Input parameters for pipes include length, friction factor (e.g., Manning’s n for gravity mains, Hazen Williams C for force mains), invert elevations, diameter, and whether or not the pipe is a force main.
• Storage Nodes: For sewer system modeling, storage nodes typically are used to represent lift station wet wells (although other storage basins, etc. can be modeled as storage nodes). Input parameters for storage nodes include invert elevation, wet well depth, and wet well cross section.
• Pumps: Pumps are included in the hydraulic model as links. Input parameters for pumps include pump curves and operational controls.
• Outfalls: Outfalls represent areas where flow leaves the system. For sewer system modeling, an outfall typically represents the connection to the influent pump station or headworks of a wastewater treatment plant.
• Rain Gauges: Rain gauges are input into the hydraulic model to simulate historical or theoretical hourly rainfall events.
• Inflows: The following are the three types of wastewater flow sources that can be injected into individual model junctions (and storage nodes):
270
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN 36 | DECEMBER 2021 | FINAL
- External: External inflows can represent any number of flows into the collection system, such as metered flow data or groundwater inflow. External inflows are applied to a specific model junction by applying a baseline flow value and a pattern that varies the flow by hour, day, or month of the year. - Dry Weather: Dry weather inflows simulate base sanitary wastewater flows and represent the average flow. The DWFs can be multiplied by up to four patterns that vary the flow by month, day, hour, and day of the week (e.g., weekday or weekend).
The dry weather diurnal patterns are adjusted during the dry weather calibration process.
- Rainfall Derived Infiltration and Inflow: RDII flows are applied in the model by assigning a unit hydrograph and a corresponding tributary area to a given junction.
The unit hydrographs consists of several parameters that are used to adjust the volume of RDII that enters the system at a given location. These parameters are adjusted during the wet weather calibration process.
5.2.3 Hydraulic Model Construction
The City’s hydraulic model combines information on the physical and operational characteristics of the wastewater system, and performs calculations to solve a series of mathematical equations to simulate flows in pipes. The hydraulic model was developed based on available data collected from the City’s available data and appropriate assumptions.
Computer modeling requires gathering information of the sewer system, such as pipe diameters, lengths; invert elevations at the upstream and downstream manholes, pipe slope, manhole rim elevations, and wet well dimensions.
To construct the model, the wastewater collection system pipes, manholes, and lift stations were digitized in a GIS format. The GIS platform allows physical attribute data for each pipeline and manhole to be stored in a database file that integrates with the hydraulic modeling software. Known pipe, manhole, and lift station characteristics were input into the GIS database and imported into the hydraulic model.
5.2.4 Wastewater Load Allocation
Adequately estimating the volume of wastewater for a particular area or building is an important process in maintaining and sizing sewer system facilities, both for present and future conditions.
For the City, dry weather wastewater loads were calculated for each parcel and then assigned to the appropriate model node. The loads were calculated in the GIS software program by multiplying the appropriate flow coefficient in Table 7 by the parcel’s area. The hydraulic model’s load allocation feature assigned the calculated ADWF to the appropriate node in the sewer system model.
5.3 Model Calibration
Hydraulic model calibration is a crucial component of the hydraulic modeling effort. Calibrating the model to match data collected during the flow monitoring program ensures the most accurate results possible. The calibration process consists of calibrating to both dry and wet weather conditions.
271
SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY FINAL | DECEMBER 2021 | 37
The calibration process consists of calibrating to both dry and wet weather conditions. For this project, both DWF and WWF monitoring were conducted. DWF calibration ensures an accurate depiction of BWF generated within the study area. The WWF calibration consists of calibrating the hydraulic model to a specific storm event to quantify the peak and volume of I/I into the sewer system. The amount of I/I is essentially the difference between the WWF and DWF components.
5.3.1 Calibration Standards
The hydraulic model was calibrated in accordance with international modeling standards. The Wastewater Planning Users Group (WaPUG), a section of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, has established generally agreed upon principles for model verification. The dry weather and wet weather calibration focused on meeting the recommendations on model verification contained in the “Code of Practice for the Hydraulic Modeling of Sewer Systems,” published by the WaPUG (WaPUG 2002), as summarized below:
• Dry Weather Calibration Standards: Dry weather calibration should be carried out for two dry weather days and the modeled flows and depths should be compared to the field measured flows and depths. Both the modeled and field measured flow hydrographs should closely follow each other in both shape and magnitude.
In addition to the shape, the flow hydrographs should also meet the following criteria as a general guide:
- The timing of flow peaks and troughs should be within one hour. - The peak flow rate should be within the range of ±10 percent. - The volume of flow (or the average rate of flow) should be within the range of ±10 percent. If applicable, care should be taken to exclude periods of missing or inaccurate data.
• Wet Weather Calibration Standards: The model simulated flows should be compared to the field measured flows. The flow hydrographs for both events should closely follow each other in both shape and magnitude, until the flow has substantially returned to DWF rates. In addition to the shape, the flow hydrographs should also meet the following criteria as a general guide:
- The timing of the peaks and troughs should be similar with regard to the duration of the events.
- The peak flow rates at significant peaks should be in the range of +25 percent to -15 percent and should be generally similar throughout. - The volume of flow (or the average flow rate) should be within the range of +20 percent to -10 percent.
5.3.2 Dry Weather Calibration
The DWF calibration consists of several elements: 1) dividing the sewer system into areas tributary to each of the flowmeter stations; 2) defining the flow volumes within each area; and 3) creating diurnal patterns to match the temporal distribution of flow. The diurnal curve is the variation of flow throughout the day.
272
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN 38 | DECEMBER 2021 | FINAL
The first step in the calibration process was to divide the City service area into flowmeter tributary areas. Eight tributary areas were created, as summarized in Section 4.2. The next step was to define the flow volumes within each area, which was accomplished in the flow-loading step. Diurnal curves based on the flow monitoring data were created for nodes tributary to a specific flowmeter. Figure 13 displays the weekday and weekend diurnal curves for Basin 7.
Similar diurnal curves were developed for each of the meters and its tributary area. These additional curves are available in Attachment 2.
Figure 13 Sample Diurnal Pattern – Basin 7
The calibration process compared the meter data with the model output. Comparisons were made using calibration sheets. A sample calibration sheet of the DWF calibration for Basin 7 is presented in Figure 14. This figure shows the measured flow at the meter versus the model predicted flows over a 24-hour period. The remaining DWF calibration plots are provided in Attachment 2. As shown in Attachment 2, the correlation between the modeled and the measured results is good.
273
SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY FINAL | DECEMBER 2021 | 39
Figure 14 Sample DWF Calibration Sheet – Basin 7
274
275
SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY FINAL | DECEMBER 2021 | 41
5.3.3 Wet Weather Calibration
The WWF calibration enables the hydraulic model to accurately measure I/I entering a sewer system during a large storm. WWF calibration consists of two steps: 1) determining a rainfall event that characterizes the most significant impact on the sewer system facilities, preferably during wet antecedent soil moisture conditions; and 2) creating a database of I/I parameters for this rainfall event. The 2019 February and March rainfall events, were used to characterize the system’s response to wet weather events. The hydraulic model was calibrated to these series of rainfall events.
The wet weather calibration process involves creating custom unit hydrographs for each flowmeter tributary. The hydrographs utilize the R-Values (percent of rainfall that enters collection system) to simulate I/I. The R-Values are input into the model and the parameters are adjusted until the peak I/I rate measured during the flow monitoring program are simulated for each of the series of rainfall events. Figure 15 illustrates the results for the wet weather calibration for Basin 8. The remaining WWF calibration plots are provided in Attachment 3. As shown in Attachment 3, the correlation between the modeled and the measured results is good. 276
277
SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY FINAL | DECEMBER 2021 | 43
Figure 15 Sample WWF Calibration Sheet – Basin 8
278
279
SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY FINAL | DECEMBER 2021 | 45
5.3.4 Calibration Summary
The calibration results indicate the model predicts conditions similar to those observed in the field. Within a few isolated areas of the model, there are some discrepancies, but the overall collection system is very well represented in the model.
Section 6
CAPACITY EVALUATION
This section discusses the hydraulic evaluation of the wastewater collection system and the proposed projects that correct capacity deficiencies.
Following the DWF and WWF calibration, a capacity analysis of the City’s collection system was performed. For the existing sewer collection system, a 10-year, 24-hour design storm was routed through the hydraulic model to simulate PWWF conditions, or design flow. In accordance with the established flow depth criteria for existing sewers, manholes where the maximum hydraulic grade line (HGL) is within five feet of the manhole rim. Sewers that lack sufficient capacity to convey design flows could produce backwater effects in the collection system and potentially cause SSOs.
Note that the pipelines that surcharge within five feet of the manhole rim are not necessarily deficient. In some cases, a surcharged condition within a given pipeline is due to backwater effects created by a downstream bottleneck (i.e. upstream surcharging is caused by downstream pipeline deficiencies). An illustration of backwater effects is shown on Figure 16. For this reason, the hydraulic model was used to identify the pipeline segments that are capacity deficient (i.e., not subject to backwater conditions).
In general, the City’s collection system has sufficient capacity to convey current PWWFs without exceeding the established flow depth criterion. However, there were areas of the collection system that surcharged within five feet of the manhole rim. These are shown on Figure 17 in red.
Replacing a capacity limited (bottleneck) sewer will allow for higher peak flows to be carried to downstream sewers. In some cases, this increase in peak flow overwhelms the downstream sewers, which creates additional deficiencies. This process was then repeated for following improvement projects to ensure new capacity deficiencies, if any, were developed. 280
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN 46 | DECEMBER 2021 | FINAL
Figure 16 Sample Illustration of Backwater Effects in a Sewer Following the completion of the existing system analysis, improvement projects and alternatives were identified in order to mitigate existing system pipeline capacity deficiencies. The recommended improvement projects are discussed in greater detail in Section 7.1. In accordance with the established planning criteria, new sewer pipelines were sized such that the maximum d/D does not exceed the new pipe design criteria summarized in Section 3 under future 2040 PWWF conditions.
The analysis of the future system was performed in a manner similar to the existing system analysis. The purpose of the future system evaluation is to verify that the existing system improvements were appropriately sized to convey future PWWFs, and to identify the locations of sewers that are adequately sized to convey existing PWWFs, but cannot convey future 2040 PWWFs.
Future 2040, the City's wastewater flows are expected to increase by 0.38 mgd, under PWWF conditions. As such, there were no additional areas in the existing collection system that were identified as being capacity deficient under 2040 PWWF conditions. 281
")
=
)"
=
GRANITE CREEK RD
SCOTTS VALLEY DR
GLE
N
WOOD
DR
O
0 300 600
Feet
Disclaimer: Features shown in this
figure are for planning purposes and
represent approximate locations.
Engineering and/or survey accuracy
is not implied.
Data Sources: City of Scotts Valley Draft
General Plan. Santa Cruz County Parcel
Data.
SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY Legend
Flood
Freeboard 5 ft
Exceeds
Backwater
")
= Lift Station
Manhole
Force Main
Gravity Sewer
Service Area
City Limits
Parcel
Major Road
Stream
Lake
Figure 17 Existing Capacity Deficiencies
282
283
SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY FINAL | DECEMBER 2021 | 49
Section 7
RECOMMENDED PROJECTS
This section discusses the proposed projects that correct capacity deficiencies as well as rehabilitation recommendations.
7.1 Capacity Projects
Figure 18 illustrates the proposed capacity improvements required to correct existing deficiencies caused by deficiencies within the City’s system. The proposed pipeline diameter is also shown on the figures with a project ID. The project ID in Figure 18 correlate with the capacity improvement project descriptions below.
• Old El Pueblo Road (Project GM-1). This project includes replacing approximately 580 feet of 6-inch diameter gravity sewer along Old El Pueblo Road. The flow within the gravity sewer along Navarra Drive and Green Hills Road could cause manholes to overflow under PWWF conditions. It is recommended that the existing pipeline be replaced with a 10-inch diameter pipeline. By upsizing the gravity sewer along Old El Pueblo Road the downstream system is able mitigate a bottleneck and increase capacity along the flow split.
• Scotts Valley Drive Diversion with Study (Project GM-2). This project includes constructing a diversion structure and approximately 60 feet of 10-inch diameter of new gravity sewer along Scotts Valley Drive. The flow within the 10-inch diameter gravity sewer along Scotts Valley Drive causes upstream manholes to overflow under PWWF conditions. It is recommended that the City construct a diversion structure that diverts flow from the 10-inch diameter gravity sewer to the parallel 18-inch diameter gravity sewer. An additional study is recommended to determine the optimal location for this project.
• East of Highway 17 (Project GM-3A). This project includes constructing approximately 1,220 feet of 10-inch diameter gravity sewer east of Highway 17 between Navarra Drive and Meadow Way. The flow along the 10-inch diameter gravity sewer causes upstream manholes to surcharge within three feet of the manhole rim. It is recommended that the existing pipeline be replaced and upsized with a 12-inch diameter pipeline. • East of Highway 17 - Creek Crossing (Project GM-3B). This project includes constructing approximately 300 feet of 10-inch diameter gravity sewer that crosses Carbonera Creek east of Highway 17. The flow along the 10-inch diameter gravity sewer causes upstream manholes to surcharge within three feet of the manhole rim. It is recommended that the existing pipeline be replaced with a 12-inch diameter pipeline. 284
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN 50 | DECEMBER 2021 | FINAL
• Glenwood Drive (Project GM-4). This project includes constructing approximately 730 feet of 10-inch diameter gravity sewer along Glenwood Drive between Vine Hill School Road and Scotts Valley Drive. The flow within the 10-inch diameter sewer cause upstream manholes to surcharge within three feet if the manhole rim under PWWF conditions. It is recommended that the existing pipeline be replaced with a 12-inch diameter pipeline.
285
")
=
GRANITE CREEK RD
GLENWOOD DR
SCOTTS VALLEY DR
SAN AUGUSTINE WY
BEL A RI DR
CLUB DR
VICTOR SQUARE
GRACE WY
SHERMAN DR
HACIENDA DR
TUSCANY
CT
CASA WY
MEADOW WY
NASHUA DR
UNNAMED
F RED
CT
WILLIS RD
DRIVEWAY
SO NAVARRA DR
BLUE
HILLS CT
YORK RD
SANTA'S VILLAGE RD
RAMP
HARVEST
LN
CROSS ST
ENTERPRISE
WY
BUTL ER LN
THOMSON LN
KERRY
CT
PIONEER LN
VINE HILL SCHOOL RD
DRIVE W A Y
SRAMEKLN
DELL WY
JOHNSTON WY
SOUTHWOOD DR
EL PUEBLORD
HIDDEN DR
DRIVEWAY
TECHNOLOGY CI
JANIS WY
GREEN HILLS RD
SANDRAYA HEIGHTS RD
STATE HWY 17
ZINFANDEL CI
GM-02
10''
GM-03
12'' GM-03
12''
G
M-0
4 12''
GM-01
10''
O
0 300 600
Feet
Disclaimer: Features shown in this
figure are for planning purposes and
represent approximate locations.
Engineering and/or survey accuracy
is not implied.
Data Sources: City of Scotts Valley Draft
General Plan. Santa Cruz County Parcel
Data.
SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY Legend
Capacity Project
Secondary Project
")
= Lift Station
Manhole
Force Main
Gravity Sewer
Service Area
City Limits
Parcel
Major Road
Stream
Lake
Figure 18 Proposed Capacity Improvements
286
287
SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY FINAL | DECEMBER 2021 | 53
7.2 Rehabilitation Projects
The following summarizes rehabilitation and replacement related programs developed based on existing and future condition assessments:
• Gravity Sewer Renewal Program (Project RR-1). This program consists of annual rehabilitation and replacement of gravity sewers necessary to maintain proper operation of existing facilities. The exact projects are unknown at this time and will be identified using inspection data collected from the ongoing and future inspection programs (Project PR-1). For planning purposes the City should make the goal of completing approximately 0.4 miles (0.8 percent of the system) renewal projects annually. • Lift Station Renewal Projects (Projects RR-2 through RR-8). These projects consist of rehabilitation and replacement of lift station assets based on the condition of that asset developed during the 2019 Lift Station Condition Assessment. The lift station asset projects were grouped into three priorities (one being the highest priority). It was assumed that Priority one and two projects will occur in Phase 1 of the CIP, while priority three projects will occur during Phase 2 of the CIP. See Attachment 4 for more details in regards to the lift station renewal projects for each priority for each lift station. - Bethany Lift Station Renewal (Project RR-2).
- Glen Canyon Lift Station Renewal (Project RR-3).
- Granite Creek Lift Station Renewal (Project RR-4).
- Montevalle Lift Station Renewal (Project RR-5).
- Sunset Terrace Lift Station Renewal (Project RR-6).
- Suzanne Lane Lift Station Renewal (Project RR-7).
- Carbonero Lift Station Renewal (Project RR-8).
7.3 Programs
The following summarizes programs that helps the City meet requirements established by the SSMP and make informed decisions necessary to make decisions maintain proper operation of existing facilities.
• Inspection Program (Project PR-1). This inspection program consists of CCTV inspection of the collection system. The City should use the National Association of Sewer Service Companies (NASSCO) Pipeline Assessment Certification Program (PACP) rating system to score each pipeline. These inspections and conditions will be used to decide the method and prioritize the annual pipeline renewal pipeline projects (RR-1). The City is currently implementing the first stages of this program as part of the development of this SSMP, and will continue to implement the program in the future as part of an ongoing CCTV inspection program.
• Flow Monitoring Program (Project PR-2). This program consists of a flow monitoring program that should be completed for the prior to the SSMP Update (Project PR-4) for the SECAP.
• SSMP Update (Project PR-3). This program consists of updating the SSMP every five years as required by WDR.
288
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN 54 | DECEMBER 2021 | FINAL
7.4 Project Prioritization
The improvement projects outlined in this report are prioritized based on their urgency to mitigate existing deficiencies. It is recommended that improvements to mitigate existing deficiencies be constructed as soon as possible. The implementation phases are separated into four phases that are in five year increments for the CIP starting in year 2022 through year 2041.
Section 8
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
This section presents the recommended CIP for the City sewer system, a summary of the capital costs, and a basic assessment of the possible financial impacts on the City. The CIP is based on the evaluation of the City’s sewer system, as detailed in the recommended projects described in the previous Section 7.
The capacity upgrades and projects to accommodate future growth set the foundation for the City’s sewer system CIP. The cost estimates presented in this study are opinions developed from bid tabulations, cost curves, information obtained from previous studies, and Carollo experience on other projects. The costs are based on an Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (ENR CCI) for San Francisco of 13,110 (February 2021).
8.1 Cost Estimating Accuracy
The cost estimates presented in the CIP have been prepared for general planning purposes and for guidance in project evaluation and implementation. Final costs of a project will depend on actual labor and material costs, competitive market conditions, final project scope, implementation schedule, and other variable factors such as: preliminary alignment generation, investigation of alternative routings, and detailed utility and topography surveys.
The Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) defines an Order of Magnitude Estimate, deemed appropriate for master plan studies, as an approximate estimate made without detailed engineering data. It is normally expected that an estimate of this type would be accurate within plus 50 percent to minus 30 percent. This section presents the assumptions used in developing order of magnitude cost estimates for recommended facilities.
8.2 Baseline Construction Unit Costs
The construction costs are representative of sewer system facilities under normal construction conditions and schedules. Costs have been estimated for public works construction, either as new construction in existing developed areas. Pipeline unit costs are listed in Table 11. The construction cost estimates are based upon these unit costs. The unit costs are for “typical” field conditions with construction in stable soil at a depth ranging between 10 to 15 feet. 289
SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY FINAL | DECEMBER 2021 | 55
Table 11 Gravity Sewer Baseline Construction Unit Costs Diameter (inches) Unit Cost(1) ($/foot)
8 195
10 200
12 210
15 230
18 245
21 310
24 340
Notes:
(1) Source: ENR CCI of 13,110 for San Francisco February 2021.
8.3 Project Costs and Contingencies
Project cost estimates are calculated based on elements, such as the project location, size, length, and other factors. Allowances for project contingencies consistent with an “Order of Magnitude” estimate are also included in the project costs prepared as part ofthis study, as outlined in this section.
8.3.1 Baseline Construction Cost
This is the total estimated construction cost, in dollars, of the proposed improvement. Pipeline and lift station Baseline Construction Costs were developed using the following criteria:
• Pipeline: Calculated by multiplying the estimated length by the unit cost. • Lift Stations: Calculated by using the total capacity in the cost curve equation.
8.3.2 Estimated Construction Cost
Contingency costs must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis because they will vary considerably with each project. Consequently, it is appropriate to allow for uncertainties associated with the preliminary layout of a project. Such factors as unexpected construction conditions, the need for unforeseen mechanical items, and variations in final quantities are a few of the items that can increase project costs for which it is wise to make allowances in preliminary estimates. To assist the Port in making financial decisions for these future construction projects, contingency costs will be added to the planning budget as percentages of the total construction cost, divided into two categories: Estimated Construction Cost and Capital Improvement Cost.
Since knowledge about site-specific conditions of each proposed project is limited at the planning stage, a 30 percent contingency was applied to the Baseline Construction Cost to account for unforeseen events and unknown conditions. A 30 percent contingency to account for unknown site conditions such as poor soils, unforeseen conditions, environmental mitigations, and other unknowns is typical for planning projects. The Estimated Construction Cost for the proposed sewer system improvement consists of the Baseline Construction Cost plus the 30 percent construction contingency.
290
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN 56 | DECEMBER 2021 | FINAL
8.3.3 Capital Improvement Cost
Other project construction contingency costs are divided into three subcategories, totaling
27.5 percent: 10 percent engineering, 10 construction management, and 7.5 percent project administration. Engineering services associated with new facilities include preliminary investigations and reports, ROW acquisition, foundation explorations, preparation of drawings and specifications during construction, surveying and staking, sampling of testing material, and start-up services. For this study, engineering costs are assumed to equal 10 percent of the Estimated Construction Cost.
Construction phase professional services covers such items as construction management, engineering services, materials testing, and inspection during construction. The cost of these items can also vary, but for the purpose of this study, it is assumed that construction phase professional services expenses will equal approximately 10 percent of the Estimated Construction Cost.
Finally, there are project administration costs, which cover such items as legal fees, environmental/CEQA compliance requirements, financing expenses, administrative costs, and interest during construction. The cost of these items can also vary, but for the purpose of this Master Plan, it is assumed that project administration costs will equal 7.5 percent of the Estimated Construction Cost.
The Capital Improvement Cost is the total of the Estimated Construction Cost (including contingency) plus the other costs discussed in the previous paragraphs. As shown in the following sample calculation of the Capital Improvement Cost, the total cost of all project construction contingencies (construction, engineering services, construction management, and project administration) is 65.75 percent of the Baseline Construction Cost. Note that contingencies were not applied to land acquisition costs. Calculation of the 65.75 percent is the overall mark-up on the baseline construction cost to arrive at the capital improvement cost. It is not an additional contingency.
Example:
Baseline Construction Cost $1,000,000
Construction Contingency (30%) $300,000
Estimated Construction Cost $1,300,000
Engineering Cost (10%) $130,000
Construction Management (10%) $130,000
Project Administration (7.5%) $97,500
Capital Improvement Cost $1,657,500
8.4 Capital Improvement Implementation
As discussed in Section 7, the CIPs are prioritized based on their urgency to mitigate existing deficiencies and for servicing anticipated growth. It is recommended that improvements to mitigate existing deficiencies be constructed as soon as possible.
The implementation of projects are separated into four phases that are in five year increments.
Table 12 summarizes the project costs by phase for the proposed projects discussed in Section 7.
A detailed CIP Table is included in Attachment 5.
291
SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY FINAL | DECEMBER 2021 | 57
Table 12 Capital Improvement Program Summary
Project ID Project Name
Total Project Cost(1)(2)(3)(4)
($, million)
CIP Cost by Phase(1)(2)(3)(4) ($,million)
Phase 1
(2022-26)
Phase 2
(2027-21)
Phase 3
(2032-36)
Phase 4
(2037-41)
GM-1 Old El Pueblo Road $0.19 $0.19 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
GM-2 Scotts Valley Drive Diversion with Study $0.05 $0.05 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 GM-3A East of Highway 17 $0.42 $0.42 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
GM-3B East of Highway 17 - Creek Crossing $0.28 $0.28 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 GM-4 Glenwood Drive $0.25 $0.25 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
RR-1 Gravity Sewer Renewal Program $12.00 $2.10 $3.30 $3.30 $3.30 RR-2 Bethany Lift Station Renewal $0.32 $0.29 $0.03 $0.00 $0.00 RR-3 Glen Canyon Lift Station Renewal $0.42 $0.41 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 RR-4 Granite Creek Lift Station Renewal $0.16 $0.16 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 RR-5 Montevalle Lift Station Renewal $0.52 $0.52 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 RR-6 Sunset Terrace Lift Station Renewal $0.12 $0.12 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 RR-7 Suzanne Lane Lift Station Renewal $0.12 $0.11 $0.01 $0.00 $0.00 RR-8 Carbonero Lift Station Renewal $0.02 $0.02 $0.01 $0.00 $0.00 PR-1 Inspection Program $0.60 $0.15 $0.15 $0.15 $0.15
PR-2 Flow Monitoring Program $0.28 $0.07 $0.07 $0.07 $0.07 PR-3 SSMP Update $1.20 $0.30 $0.30 $0.30 $0.30
Total $16.96 $5.44 $3.88 $3.82 $3.82
Annual $0.85 $1.09 $0.78 $0.76 $0.76
Notes:
(1) ENR San Francisco Construction Cost Index for February 2021 is 13,110. (2) Estimated Construction Cost includes a 30% contingency of the baseline construction cost. (3) Total project costs includes a 10% markup for engineering, a 10% markup for construction management and a 7.5% markup for project administration of the estimated construction cost. (4) Total Mark-Up is 65.8% of the baseline construction costs. 292
293
SEWER FLOW MONITORING AND INFLO/INFILTRATION STUDY| CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY DRAFT | FEBRUARY ͮͬͮͭ
Attachment 1
SANITARY SEWER FLOW MONITORINGAND
INFLOW/INFILTRATION
294
295
City of Scotts Valley
Sewer Flow Monitoring and Inflow/Infiltration Study
Prepared for: Carollo Engineers, Inc.
100 West Liberty, Suite 740
Reno, NV 89501
Draft Report Date: July 2019
Prepared by:
V&A Project No. 18-0162
296
In the promotion of environmental consciousness, this document is designed to be printed double-sided, if at all.
V&A strives to do all it can to be a green company. Think twice before printing. Reduce. Reuse. Recycle. 297
Table of Contents
| i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 1 Scope and Purpose ........................................................................................................................... 1 Monitoring Sites ................................................................................................................................ 1 Rainfall Monitoring ............................................................................................................................ 3 Site Flow Monitoring and Capacity Results ........................................................................................ 4 Infiltration and Inflow Analysis .......................................................................................................... 6 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 8 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 9
1.1 Scope and Purpose ............................................................................................................... 9
1.2 Flow Monitoring Sites and Sewerage Basins ......................................................................... 9 2 Methods and Procedures ................................................................................................................ 13
2.1 Confined Space Entry ......................................................................................................... 13
2.2 Flow Meter Installation ....................................................................................................... 14
2.3 Flow Calculation ................................................................................................................. 15
2.4 Measurement Error and Uncertainty ................................................................................... 16 Flow Addition versus Flow Subtraction ................................................................... 16
2.5 Average Dry Weather Flow Determination ........................................................................... 18
2.6 Flow Attenuation ................................................................................................................. 19
2.7 Inflow / Infiltration Analysis: Definitions and Identification ................................................. 20 Inflow / Infiltration Analysis: Definitions and Identification .................................... 20 Infiltration Components ......................................................................................... 21 Impact and Cost of Source Detection and Removal ................................................ 21 Graphical Identification of I/I ................................................................................. 22 Analysis Metrics ..................................................................................................... 22 Normalization Methods .......................................................................................... 23 3 Results and Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 24
3.1 Rainfall Monitoring ............................................................................................................. 24 Rain Gauge Locations ............................................................................................ 24 Flow Study Rainfall Data ........................................................................................ 24 Regional Rainfall Event Classification .................................................................... 26 Rain Gauge Triangulation Distribution .................................................................... 30 298
Table of Contents
ii | V&A Project No. No. 18-0162 Carollo Scotts Valley Flow Monitoring and I/I Report
3.2 Flow Monitoring .................................................................................................................. 32 Average Flow Analysis ............................................................................................ 32 Peak Measured Flows and Pipeline Capacity Analysis ............................................ 34
3.3 Inflow and Infiltration: Results ............................................................................................ 37 Preface .................................................................................................................. 37 RDI/I Analysis Plan (RDI and Combined I/I) ............................................................ 38 RDI/I Analysis Plan (Inflow) .................................................................................... 39 Inflow Results Summary ......................................................................................... 41 Rainfall Dependent Infiltration Results Summary ................................................... 44 Combined I/I Results ............................................................................................ 47 Groundwater Infiltration Results Summary ............................................................. 50 4 Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 53 Appendix A Flow Monitoring Sites: Data, Graphs, Information ................................................................. 1 Tables
Table ES-1. List of Monitoring Sites ......................................................................................................... 1 Table ES-2. Capacity Analysis Summary .................................................................................................. 4 Table ES-3. I/I Analysis Summary ............................................................................................................ 6 Table 1-1. List of Monitoring Locations.................................................................................................... 9 Table 1-2. Isolated Flow Monitoring Basin Characteristics..................................................................... 10 Table 3-1. Summary of Rainfall Data ..................................................................................................... 25 Table 3-2. Rainfall Event Classification ............................................................................................... 27 Table 3-3. Rain Gauge Distribution per Monitoring Site ......................................................................... 31 Table 3-4. Dry Weather Flow.................................................................................................................. 32 Table 3-5. Capacity Analysis Summary .................................................................................................. 34 Table 3-6. Results and Rankings of Inflow Analysis ............................................................................... 41 Table 3-7. Results and Rankings of RDI Analysis ................................................................................... 44 Table 3-8. Combined I/I Analysis Summary ........................................................................................... 47 299
Table of Contents
| iii
Figures
Figure ES-1. Map of Flow Monitoring Sites – Overall ............................................................................... 2 Figure ES-2. Rainfall Over Monitoring Period, Average of 2 Rain Gauges ................................................. 3 Figure ES-3. Peak Measured Flow Schematic .......................................................................................... 5 Figure ES-4. Combined I/I Results Temperature Map Summary .............................................................. 7 Figure 1-1. Map of Flow Monitoring Sites – Overall ............................................................................... 11 Figure 1-2. Map of Flow Monitoring Basins ............................................................................................ 12 Figure 2-1. Typical Installation for ISCO 2150 Flow Meter with Submerged Sensor ............................... 14 Figure 2-2. Sample ADWF Diurnal Flow Patterns ................................................................................... 18 Figure 2-3. Attenuation Illustration ........................................................................................................ 19 Figure 2-4. Typical Sources of Infiltration and Inflow ............................................................................. 20 Figure 2-5. Sample Infiltration and Inflow Isolation Graph ..................................................................... 22 Figure 3-1. Rainfall Monitoring – Average of Rain Gauges ..................................................................... 24 Figure 3-2. Rainfall Accumulation Plot ................................................................................................... 25 Figure 3-3. NOAA Northern California Rainfall Frequency Map .............................................................. 26 Figure 3-4. Rainfall Event Classification – 30-Day Period (North RG) .................................................... 28 Figure 3-5. Rainfall Event Classification – 1-Day Period (North RG) ....................................................... 28 Figure 3-6. Rainfall Event Classification – 30-Day Period (South RG) .................................................... 29 Figure 3-7. Rainfall Event Classification – 1-Day Period (South RG) ...................................................... 29 Figure 3-8. Rainfall Inverse Distance Weighting Method ....................................................................... 30 Figure 3-9. Average Dry Weather Flow Schematic .................................................................................. 33 Figure 3-10. Peaking Factors................................................................................................................. 35 Figure 3-11. Capacity Summary: Max d/D Ratios .................................................................................. 36 Figure 3-12. Peak Measured Flow Schematic ........................................................................................ 36 Figure 3-13. Collection System Daily Flows Bar Graph........................................................................... 37 Figure 3-14. I/I Isolation (Feb 1 – Mar 15), Site 3 ................................................................................. 38 Figure 3-15. I/I Isolations for Inflow, Site 3 ........................................................................................... 39 Figure 3-16. I/I Hydrograph, Site 2, Storm Event 2 ................................................................................ 40 Figure 3-17. Bar Graphs: Inflow Analysis Summary ............................................................................... 42 Figure 3-18. Temperature Map: Inflow Final Basin Rankings ................................................................. 43 Figure 3-19. Bar Graphs: RDI Analysis Summary ................................................................................... 45 Figure 3-20. Temperature Map: RDI Final Basin Rankings..................................................................... 46 Figure 3-21. Bar Graphs: Total I/I Analysis Summary ............................................................................ 48 Figure 3-22. Temperature Map: Combined I/I Final Basin Rankings ...................................................... 49 Figure 3-23. Groundwater Infiltration Sample Figure ............................................................................. 50 Figure 3-24. Minimum Flow Ratios vs ADWF .......................................................................................... 51 Figure 3-25. Basins with Groundwater Infiltration ................................................................................. 52 Photo Log
Photo 2-1. Confined Space Entry ........................................................................................................... 13 Photo 2-2. Typical Personal Four-Gas Monitor ....................................................................................... 13 300
Table of Contents
iv | V&A Project No. No. 18-0162 Carollo Scotts Valley Flow Monitoring and I/I Report Abbreviations and Acronyms
Abbreviation Abbreviationbbreviation bbreviations/Acronyms s/Acronyms s/Acronyms Definition DefinitionDefinition Definition ADWF ........................................Average Dry Weather Flow AVG............................................Average
CCTV .........................................Closed-Circuit Television CDEC .........................................California Data Exchange Center CIP ............................................Capital Improvement Plan CO .............................................Carbon Monoxide CWOP ........................................Citizen Weather Observing Program DIA. ...........................................Diameter d/D............................................Depth/Diameter Ratio FT. .............................................Feet
FM .............................................Flow Monitor GPD ...........................................Gallons per Day GPM ..........................................Gallons per Minute GWI ...........................................Groundwater Infiltration H2S ...........................................Hydrogen Sulfide IN. .............................................Inch
I/I ..............................................Inflow and Infiltration IDM ...........................................Inch-Diameter Mile IDW ...........................................Inverse Distance Weighting LEL ............................................Lower Explosive Limit MAX. ..........................................Maximum
MGD ..........................................Million Gallons per Day MIN. ..........................................Minimum
NOAA .........................................National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration N/A............................................Not applicable PF ..............................................Peaking Factor PS .............................................Pump Station Q ...............................................Flow Rate RDI ............................................Rainfall-Dependent Infiltration RG .............................................Rain Gauge SSO ...........................................Sanitary Sewer Overflow V&A ...........................................V&A Consulting Engineers, Inc.
WEF ...........................................Water Environment Federation WRCC ........................................Western Regional Climate Center 301
Table of Contents
| v
Terms and Definitions
Term Definition DefinitionDefinition Definition
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 is expressed as a numeric average and may include 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 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 rainfalldependent infiltration. Total I/Iis 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 that is submerged. The variation of groundwater levels and subsequent groundwater infiltration rates is seasonal by nature. On a day-today basis, groundwater infiltration rates are relatively steady and will not fluctuate greatly.
Infiltration,
rainfalldependent
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 stormrelated infiltration and inflow, beginning gradually and often lasting 24 hours or longer.
The response time depends on the soil permeability and saturation levels.
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.
Peak Wet
Weather Flow
The highest daily flow during and immediately after a significant storm event. Includes sanitary flow, infiltration and inflow.
Peaking factor
(PF)
PF is the 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 surchargedsurcharged surcharged condition. The pipeline is surcharged when the d/D ratio is greater than 1.0.
Synthetic
hydrograph
A set of algorithms has been 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. 302
Executive Summary
| 1
Executive Summary
Scope and Purpose
V&A Consulting Engineers (V&A) has completed sanitary sewer flow monitoring and rainfall monitoring with I/I analysis within the City of Scotts Valley (City) collection system. Flow and rainfall monitoring was performed over a period of over 3 months from January 31, 2019 to May 2, 2019. Open-channel flow monitoring was performed at 8 sites. There were three general purposes of this study.
1. Establish the baseline sanitary sewer flows at the flow monitoring sites
2. Establish the peak flow condition during the rainfall events and estimate available sewer capacity.
3. Quantify inflow/ infiltration (I/I) at the applicable flow monitoring sites.
Monitoring Sites
The flow monitoring site locations were selected and approved by the City and are listed in Table ES-1 and shown in Figure ES-1 and Figure ES-2.
Table ESTable ES Table ES- Table ES-1. List of . List of . List of . List of Monitoring Sites Monitoring Sites Monitoring Sites Monitoring
Site Monitored Pipe
Pipe
Diameter
(in)
Location
Site 1 Southwest Inlet 10 In Treatment Plant, inside gate Site 2 East Inlet 10 In Treatment Plant, behind parked car Site 3 Northwest Inlet 17/18* In Integrity Automotive parking lot, behind gate Site 4 East Inlet 10 Sidewalk near Bubbles Laundromat
Site 5 East Inlet 18 Whispering Pines Drive, west of Mt Hermon Road Site 6 Northeast Inlet 10 Scotts Valley Drive, south of Ball Drive Site 7 North Inlet 10 Glenwood Drive, north of Hacienda Drive Site 8 North Inlet 10 In bushes between S Navarraq Drive and Highway 17 * Pipe measured 17” diameter above water line due to pipe corrosion and surface mortar expansion. Underneath the water line the pipe measured 18”. The 18” diameter value (typically wetted) was used for the flow calculations. The 17” diameter value (worst case) was used for capacity analysis.
303
Executive Summary
2 | V&A Project No. No. 18-0162 Carollo Scotts Valley Flow Monitoring and I/I Report Figure ES- Figure ES igure ESFigure ES-1. Map of Flow Monitoring Sites . Map of Flow Monitoring Sites . Map of Flow Monitoring Sites –Overall Overall Overall 304
Executive Summary
| 3
Rainfall Monitoring
The cumulative precipitation for the rain gauges was approximately 15% greater than the historical precipitation for the duration of the flow monitoring. There were several rainfall events during the monitoring period. The three largest rainfall events were defined as shown in Figure ES-2, noting the following items:
Event 2 was classified as the strongest rainfall event during the season and was classified as a 1-year, 8-hour rainfall event at the South Rain Gauge
Figure ES Figure ES-2. Rainfall . Rainfall . Rainfall . Rainfall Over Monitoring Period, Average of Over Monitoring Period, Average of Over Monitoring Period, Average of 2Rain Gauges Rain Gauges Rain Gauges The following items are noted relevant to the storm events used for I/I analyses:
All three rainfall events elicited strong I/I responses and were evaluated for I/I analysis in this study.
Inflow: Events 2 and 3 had the highest intensity rainfall that fell at the start of each event; peak Inflow I/I rates could be evaluated as inflow with minimal RDI interference. RDI: RDI is typically taken as the average I/I flow rate measured at a project-specific time, RDI typically 24 hours, after the rainfall event has concluded. There were three opportune times after Events 1, 2 and 3 RDI measurements:
February 7, 19 and March 12, 2019 were all days 24-hour clear of, but following the strong rainfall events of Events 1, 2 and 3, respectively.
Combined I/I: To attribute full capture of totalized volume of RDI/I to a storm event, it is Combined I/I ombined I/I necessary for flows to return to baseline flow levels. For Scotts Valley, this only occurs at the end of the flow study. The most accurate determination of combined I/I for this study was to measure total I/I not per storm event, but across the entirety of the study.
0.0 0.1
0.2 0.3
0.4 0.5
0.6 0.7
0.8 0.9
1.0 30-Jan
1-Feb3-Feb5-Feb7-Feb9-Feb
11-Feb13-Feb15-Feb17-Feb19-Feb21-Feb23-Feb25-Feb27-Feb
1-Mar3-Mar5-Mar7-Mar9-Mar
11-Mar13-Mar15-Mar17-Mar19-Mar21-Mar23-Mar25-Mar27-Mar29-Mar31-Mar 2-Apr4-Apr6-Apr8-Apr
10-Apr12-Apr14-Apr16-Apr18-Apr20-Apr22-Apr24-Apr26-Apr28-Apr30-Apr 2-May
Rain (inches per hour)
Total Rainfall over Period: 24.7 inches
Event 1:
7.77 inches
Event 2:
5.32 inches
Event 3:
7.99 inches
305
Executive Summary
4 | V&A Project No. No. 18-0162 Carollo Scotts Valley Flow Monitoring and I/I Report Site Flow Monitoring and Capacity Results
Peak measured flows and the hydraulic grade line data (flow depths) are important to understand the capacity limitations of a collection system. The following capacity analyses terms are defined as follows:
Peaking Factor Peaking F eaking FPeaking Factor: Peaking factor is defined as the peak measured flow divided by the average dry weather flow (ADWF). Peaking factors are influenced by many factors including size and topography of tributary area, flow attenuation, flow restrictions, characteristics of I/I entering the collection system, and hydraulic features such as pump stations.
For this report, peaking factors are reported and PF > 5 are highlighted in RED1; however, the City should refer to City standards when evaluating peaking factors. Peaking factor data should be used at the discretion of the City Engineer.
d/D Ratio: The d/D ratio is the peak measured depth of flow (d) divided by the pipe diameter d/D Ratio /D Ratiod/D Ratio (D). The d/D ratio for each site was computed based on the maximum depth of flow for the study. Standards for d/D ratio vary from agency to agency, but typically range between d/D ≤
0.5 and d/D ≤ 0.75.
For this report, d/D ratios > 1.0 (surcharged) are highlighted in RED; however, the City should refer to City standards when evaluating d/D ratios, to be used at the discretion of the City Engineer.
Table ES-2 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 ESTable ES Table ES- Table ES-2. Capacity Analysis Summary . Capacity Analysis Summary . Capacity Analysis Summary Monitoring
Site
ADWF
(MGD)
Peak
Measured
Flow
(MGD)
Peaking
Factor
Pipe
Diameter, D
(IN)
Peak
Measured
Depth (IN)
Max
d/D
Ratio
Surcharge
above pipe
crown(FT)
Site 1 0.017 0.14 8.2 10 4.26 0.43 n/a
Site 2 0.076 0.41 5.4 10 4.01 0.40 n/a
Site 3 0.667 2.41 3.6 17* 18.65 1.10 0.14
Site 4 0.053 0.19 3.5 10 2.01 0.20 n/a
Site 5 0.413 1.62 3.9 18 4.05 0.23 n/a
Site 6 0.104 0.79 7.5 10 7.29 0.73 n/a
Site 7 0.054 0.45 8.4 10 6.59 0.66 n/a
Site 8 0.111 0.57 5.1 10 3.71 0.37 n/a
System 0.761 2.96 3.9 - - - -
* Pipe measured 17” diameter above water line due to pipe corrosion and surface mortar expansion. Underneath the water line the pipe measured 18”. The 18” diameter value (typically wetted) was used for the flow calculations. The 17” diameter value (worst case) was used for capacity analysis.
1 WEF Manual of Practice FD-6 and ASCE Manual No. 62 suggests typical peaking factor ratios range between 3 and 4, with higher values possibly indicative of pronounced I/I flows. 306
Executive Summary
| 5
The following capacity analysis results are noted:
Peaking Factors Peaking Factors eaking Factors
Sites 3, 4, and 5 had peaking factors below 5.
Sites 2 and 8 had peaking factors between 5 and 7.
Sites 1, 6 and 7 had peaking factors above 7.
d/D Ratio: d/D Ratio: /D Ratio: d/D Ratio:
Only Site 3 reached a surcharge condition. This condition was reached during a temporary backflow condition reached during the February 13, 2019 peak-intensity rain event, but did not occur during the other rainfall events.
Figure ES-3 shows a schematic diagram of the peak measured flows with peak flow levels.
Figure ES- Figure ES igure ESFigure ES-3. Peak Measured Flow . Peak Measured Flow . Peak Measured Flow Schematic SchematicSchematic Schematic 307
Executive Summary
6 | V&A Project No. No. 18-0162 Carollo Scotts Valley Flow Monitoring and I/I Report Infiltration and Inflow Analysis
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. The basin 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 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. Basin 4/5 is the addition of the flows of Sites 4 and 5 as the upstream flows (from Sites 6 and 8) can go to either Site 4 or Site 5. With no way to isolate these basins, the flows are combined and treated as one basin for the purposes of the I/I analysis.
I/I results were taken from all three rainfall events and across the entirety of the study. Table ES-3 summarizes the I/I results for this study. The “Top 3” basins for each category have been shaded in RED. Please refer to the I/I Methods section for more information on inflow and infiltration analysis RED methods and ranking methods.
Table ESTable ES Table ES- Table ES-3. I/I Analysis Summar . I/I Analysis Summar . I/I Analysis Summary Basin ADWF
(mgd)
Inflow
Rate a
(mgd)
RDI
Rate b
(mgd)
Combined I/I c
(gallons) R-Value
Overall
Inflow
Rank
Overall
RDI
Rank
Combined
I/I
Rank
Excessive
GWI?
Basin 1 0.017 0.009 0.001 190,000 0.37% 7 6 6 No
Basin 2 0.076 0.082 0.022 1,889,000 1.07% 6 5 4 No
Basin 3 0.201 1.063 0.009 1,707,000 0.48% 2 7 7 No
Basin 4/5 0.251 0.517 0.082 2,809,000 1.01% 5 4 5 No
Basin 6 0.050 0.351 0.028 1,596,000 1.35% 1 2 3 Yes
Basin 7 0.054 0.243 0.079 5,567,000 2.39% 3 1 1 Yes
Basin 8 0.111 0.294 0.059 5,580,000 2.53% 4 3 2 Yes
System 0.761 1.507 0.001 19,338,000 1.35% - - - -
a Average from Events 2 and 3. b Average from Events 1, 2 and 3. c Total I/I over entirety of flow monitoring period.
The following inflow/infiltration analysis results are noted:
Inflow: Basins 3, 6, and 7 ranked highest for normalized inflow contribution. Inflow Rainfall- Rainfall ainfallRainfall-Dependent Infiltration Dependent Infiltration Dependent Infiltration: Basins 6, 7, and 8 ranked highest for normalized RDI contribution. The RDI rates measured for this study may be even higher than reported due to high groundwater calculated in these three basins.
Combined I/I: Basins 6, 7, and 8 ranked highest for normalized combined I/I contribution. Combined I/I ombined I/I Groundwater Infiltration: Sites 6, 7, and 8 had GWI rates considerably higher than other sites Groundwater Infiltration roundwater Infiltration and typical standards. Since the GWI rates were measured at the end of the flow monitoring study, possibly before flows had receded to true ADWF levels, it is possible that the reported ADWF rates are inflated due to this excessive GWI component. This also may indicate that the 308
Executive Summary
| 7
RDI rates reported for these three basins are higher than reported due to the elevated ADWF values used within the RDI calculation.
Figure ES-4 illustrates a temperature map summary of the normalized combined I/I results. Additional temperature maps can be found in Section 3.3.
Figure ES Figure ES-4. Combined Combined Combined Combined I/IResults Temperature Results Temperature Results TemperatureMap Summary Summary Summary 309
Executive Summary
8 | V&A Project No. No. 18-0162 Carollo Scotts Valley Flow Monitoring and I/I Report Recommendations
V&A advises that future I/I reduction plans consider the following recommendations:
1. Master Plan and Model Implementation: This study focuses on inflow and infiltration generation; Master Plan and Model Implementation aster Plan and Model Implementation however, the capacity deficiencies of the collection system may be of greater concern relative to I/I response during peak wet weather events. The City may wish to have a model designed and/or a master plan study conducted to determine the overall needs of the City relative to I/I. Or simply, the study results can be used to update the master plan and compare with previous model assumptions and flow monitoring results.
2. Determine I/I Reduction Program: The City should examine its I/I reduction needs to determine Determine I/I Reduction Program etermine I/I Reduction Program their needs and goals for 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 occurs in Basins 3, 6, and 7. 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. The highest combined I/I, highest RDI and elevated GWI occurs in Basins 6, 7, and 8.
3. I/I Investigation Methods: Potential I/I investigation methods include the following: I/I Investigation Methods /I Investigation Methods a. Smoke testing can be effective for locating sources of inflow. Smoke testing can be considered for Basins 3, 6 and 7 which had the highest normalized inflow rates. b. Mini-basin or sub-basin flow monitoring can be used to better determine the distribution of I/I within a particular sub-basin. Basins 6, 7, and 8 may be good candidates mini-basin flow monitoring to better locate the distribution of inflow and infiltration within these basins. c. Night-time I/I reconnaissance can be conducted within basins with high RDI rates to better determine on a pipe reach by pipe reach basis where the RDI is occurring within particular subbasin. This method may be utilized to determine candidate neighborhoods for potential CIP projects to mitigate and reduce I/I within the collection system. Night-time I/I reconnaissance could be considered for Basins 6, 7, and 8.
4. I/I Reduction Cost Effective Analysis I/I Reduction Cost Effectiv /I Reduction Cost Effective Analysise Analysis e Analysis: The City should conduct a study to determine which is more cost-effective: (1) locating the sources of inflow/infiltration and systematically rehabilitating or replacing the faulty pipelines; or (2) continued treatment of the additional rainfall dependent I/I flow.
310
Introduction
| 9
1 Introduction
1.1 Scope and Purpose
V&A Consulting Engineers (V&A) was retained by Carollo Engineers (Carollo) to perform sanitary sewer flow monitoring and rainfall monitoring with I/I analysis within the City of Scotts Valley (City) collection system. Flow and rainfall monitoring was performed over a period of over 3 months from January 31, 2019 to May 2, 2019. Open-channel flow monitoring was performed at 8 sites. There were three general purposes of this study.
1. Establish the baseline sanitary sewer flows at the flow monitoring sites
2. Establish the peak flow condition during the rainfall events and estimate available sewer capacity.
3. Quantify inflow/ infiltration (I/I) at the applicable flow monitoring basins.
1.2 Flow Monitoring Sites and Sewerage Basins
Flow monitoring sites are identified as the manholes where the flow monitors were secured and the pipelines wherein the flow sensors were placed. Capacity analysis and flow rate information is presented on a site-by-site basis.
The flow monitoring site locations were selected by Carollo and approved by the City. Information regarding the flow monitoring locations are listed in Table 1-1 and illustrated in Figure 1-1. Detailed descriptions of the individual flow monitoring sites, including photographs, are included in Appendix A.
Table 1 Table 1-1. List of Monitoring Locations . List of Monitoring Locations . List of Monitoring Locations Monitoring
Site Monitored Pipe
Pipe
Diameter
(in)
Location
Site 1 Southwest Inlet 10 In Treatment Plant, inside gate Site 2 East Inlet 10 In Treatment Plant, behind parked car Site 3 Northwest Inlet 17/18* In Integrity Automotive parking lot, behind gate Site 4 East Inlet 10 Sidewalk near Bubbles Laundromat
Site 5 East Inlet 18 Whispering Pines Drive, west of Mt Hermon Road Site 6 Northeast Inlet 10 Scotts Valley Drive, south of Ball Drive Site 7 North Inlet 10 Glenwood Drive, north of Hacienda Drive Site 8 North Inlet 10 In bushes between S Navarraq Drive and Highway 17 * Pipe measured 17” diameter above water line due to pipe corrosion and surface mortar expansion. Underneath the water line the pipe measured 18”. The 18” diameter value (typically wetted) was used for the flow calculations. The 17” diameter value (worst case) was used for capacity analysis.
311
Introduction
10 | V&A Project No. No. 18-0162 Carollo Scotts Valley Flow Monitoring and I/I Report Flow monitoring site data may include the flows of one or many drainage 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. The basin 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 may exclude separately monitored basins upstream, requiring basin isolation (subtraction of upstream flows). The I/I analysis results will be presented on an isolated basin basis. The basins, basin attributes and basin isolation equations are listed in Table 1-2 and shown in Figure 1-2. Basin 4/5 Basin 4/5: Basin 4/5 is the addition of the flows of Sites 4 and 5 as the upstream flows (from Sites 6 and 8) can go to either Site 4 or Site 5. With no way to isolate these basins, the flows are combined and treated as one basin for the purposes of the I/I analysis. System: System flows and analyses were conducted to provide an overall reference for the City System collection system as a whole. System flows were determined as the sum of Sites 1, 2, and 3.
Table 1 Table 1-2. Isolated Flow Monitorin . Isolated Flow Monitorin . Isolated Flow Monitoring Basin Characteristics g Basin Characteristics g Basin Characteristics Isolated Basin Flow Isolation
Calculation Area (Acres)
Basin 1 = Q1 77
Basin 2 = Q2 267
Basin 3 = Q3 – (Q4 + Q5) 533
Basin 4/5 = (Q4 + Q5) - (Q6 + Q8) 416
Basin 6 = Q6 – Q7 174
Basin 7 = Q7 342
Basin 8 = Q8 325
System = Q1 + Q2 + Q3 2,134
312
Introduction
| 11
Figure1-1. Map of Flow Monitoring Sites . Map of Flow Monitoring Sites . Map of Flow Monitoring Sites –Overall Overall Overall 313
Introduction
12 | V&A Project No. No. 18-0162 Carollo Scotts Valley Flow Monitoring and I/I Report Figure 1-2. Map of Flow Monitoring Basins Map of Flow Monitoring Basins Map of Flow Monitoring Basins 314
Methods and Procedures
| 13
2 Methods and Procedures
2.1 Confined Space Entry
A confined space (Photo 2-1) 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 23.5%), and the presence 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 four-gas monitor (Photo 2-2). 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 using another four-gas monitor and maintaining records of all Entrants, if there is more than one. The Supervisor is responsible for developing the safe work plan for the job at hand prior to entering.
Photo 2-1. Confined Space Entry Photo 2-2. Typical Personal Four-Gas Monitor Monitor Monitor
315
Methods and Procedures
14 | V&A Project No. No. 18-0162 Carollo Scotts Valley Flow Monitoring and I/I Report
2.2 Flow Meter Installation
V&A installed 8 Teledyne ISCO area-velocity flow meters for temporary metering within the collection system. 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 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 2-1 shows a typical installation for a flow meter with a submerged sensor.
Figure 2-1. Typical Installation for ISCO 2150 Flow Meter with Submerged Sensor Typical Installation for ISCO 2150 Flow Meter with Submerged Sensor Typical Installation for ISCO 2150 Flow Meter with Submerged Sensor 316
Methods and Procedures
| 15
2.3 Flow Calculation
Data retrieved from the flow meters 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, ( ) T −⋅=⋅= AAvAvQ S
where Q : volume flow rate
v: average velocity as determined by the ultrasonic sensor A: cross-sectional area available to carry flow
AT: total cross-sectional area with both wastewater and sediment AS: cross-sectional area of sediment.
For circular pipe,
−
−−
= −
− −
D
D d
d
D
D
D d
A
W
W
W
T
2 1cossin
22 2
1cos
4 1 1
2
−
−−
= −
− −
D
D d
d
D
D
D d
A
S
S
S
S
2 1cossin
22 2
1cos
4 1 1
2 where dW: distance between wastewater level and pipe invert dS: depth of sediment
D: pipe diameter
317
Methods and Procedures
16 | V&A Project No. No. 18-0162 Carollo Scotts Valley Flow Monitoring and I/I Report
2.4 Measurement Error and Uncertainty
For traditional engineering applications, measurement “error” is explained as a difference between a computed, estimated, or measured value and the generally accepted true or theoretically correct value.
It can also be thought of as a difference between the desired and the actual performance of equipment.
For equipment, error is usually expressed as a percentage relative to accuracy (i.e., “…the velocity sensor has an accuracy of ±2% of the reading…”).
However, for this study and flow monitoring applications, the cause of the measurement difference is important, and a distinction will be made between the equipment not performing to industry standards (“error”) and expected inaccuracies (“uncertainty”) associated with monitoring technology limitations.
Gauging “error” “error” “error” occurs when the equipment is not performing to industry standards. This can occur as a result of the following common categories of conditions that can be encountered at a wastewater monitoring site.
Malfunctioning equipment (i.e. a sensor is damaged, battery life ends, or a desiccant canister becomes saturated)
Improper equipment choice or maintenance (i.e. the selected gauging equipment technologies are incompatible with hydraulic conditions within the sewer, or excessive gravel deposits are allowed to accumulate around the sensors without being removed) Improper equipment calibration (i.e. depth and/or velocity measurements are incorrectly taken within the sewer, or equipment is allowed to drift out of calibration) Field conditions within the sewer, (i.e. foaming at the water surface that “blinds” an ultrasonic depth sensor, or toilet paper catching and accumulating on a combination sensor, blinding the acoustic Doppler velocity meter)
For flow monitoring applications, gauging “uncertainty” “uncertainty” “uncertainty” is used to describe and quantify the expected inaccuracies that result from the limitations of the technologies that utilize indirect measurements to quantify wastewater flow.
It is important to try and install flow meters in “ideal” flow conditions. Ideal flow conditions are generally defined by as laminar flow in a straight-through, constant-slope pipeline with no disturbances (elbows, tees, hydraulic shifts, etc.) 10 diameters upstream and 5 diameters downstream from the flow monitoring location. If ideal flow conditions are met, then an expected uncertainty of final flow calculation from an open-channel flow meter may be approximately ±5%. For many situations, ideal flow conditions cannot be met, and uncertainties increase.
Flow Addition versus Flow Subtraction
Due to the uncertainties involved in subtracting flows of similar magnitudes, the addition of flows at multiple monitoring sites is usually preferred over subtraction of flows. Subtraction becomes an issue especially when the flow difference from the subtraction falls within the measurement uncertainty range of the two larger flow data sets (i.e. subtracting a large flow from another large flow to obtain a small difference).
This concept is best demonstrated per the following example:
1. Meter A measures 2.00 MGD of flow and has an expected uncertainty of ±5%, thus the uncertainty range of the flow measurement is ±0.10 MGD. 318
Methods and Procedures
| 17
2. Meter B measures 2.50 MGD of flow and has an expected uncertainty of ±6%, thus the uncertainty range of the flow measurement is ±0.15 MGD.
3. Meter C measures 0.50 MGD of flow and has an expected uncertainty of ±8%, thus the uncertainty range of the flow measurement is ±0.04 MGD.
Scenario 1Scenario 1 Scenario 1 Scenario 1–Flow Addition Flow Addition Flow Addition Meter A + Meter B = 2.00 MGD (±0.10) + 2.50 MGD (±0.15) = 4.50 MGD (±0.25) Overall uncertainty = ±0.25 / 4.50 = ±5.6%
For flow addition, the final uncertainty is essentially a weighted average of the component uncertainties.
Scenario Scenario Scenario 2 Scenario 2 –Flow Subtraction, Large Flow less Small Flow Flow Subtraction, Large Flow less Small Flow Flow Subtraction, Large Flow less Small Flow Meter B - Meter C = 2.50 MGD (±0.15) - 0.50 MGD (±0.04) = 2.00 MGD (±0.19) Overall uncertainty = ±0.19 / 2.00 = ±9.5%
For flow subtraction, the final uncertainty will always be greater than the component uncertainties.
When subtracting a small flow from a large flow, the resulting uncertainties can still be manageable.
Scenario Scenario Scenario 3 Scenario 3–Flow Subtraction, Large Flow less a similarly Large Flow Flow Subtraction, Large Flow less a similarly Large Flow Flow Subtraction, Large Flow less a similarly Large Flow Meter B - Meter A = 2.50 MGD (±0.15) – 2.00 MGD (±0.10) = 0.50 MGD (±0.25) Overall uncertainty = ±0.25 / 0.50 = ±50%
When subtracting a similarly sized flow rates, the resulting uncertainties may not be manageable. In this example, an uncertainty of ±50% may be considered unacceptable for confident analyses.
Scenario 3 is a very “real-world” situation. The uncertainties for Meter A and Meter B are extremely reasonable (indeed, most flow monitoring service providers would be extremely pleased with true meter uncertainties of ±5% to ±6%). However, the reality of the math is clear, and the above example demonstrates the concept of flow subtraction and compounding or inflating uncertainty ranges.
The following points are emphasized in relation to the items of this section:
For subtraction of flows, the overall uncertainty can be an inflated value that far exceeds the component uncertainties.
The smaller the resultant flow from the subtraction equation, the larger the percentage uncertainty.
Whenever possible, basins flows should be directly measured, rather than calculated as a subtraction of two or more flow meters.
If flow subtraction cannot be avoided, it is better to have the magnitudes of the component flows be as dissimilar as possible.
319
Methods and Procedures
18 | V&A Project No. No. 18-0162 Carollo Scotts Valley Flow Monitoring and I/I Report
2.5 Average Dry Weather Flow Determination
For this study, four distinct average dry weather flow curves were established for each site location:
Mondays – Thursdays
Fridays
Saturdays
Sundays
Flows for many sites differ on Friday evenings compared to Mondays through Thursdays. Starting around 7 pm, the flows are often decreased (compared to Monday through Thursday). Similarly, flow patterns for Saturday and Sunday were also separated due to their unique evening flow pattern. This type of differentiation can be important when determining I/I response, especially if a rain event occurs on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday evening.
Figure 2-2 illustrates a sample of varying flow patterns within a typical dry week2.
Figure 2 Figure 2-2. Sample ADWF Diurnal Flow Patterns . Sample ADWF Diurnal Flow Patterns . Sample ADWF Diurnal Flow Patterns ADWF curves are taken from “Dry Days”, when RDI had the least impact on the baseline flow. The overall average dry weather flow (ADWF) was calculated per the following equation:
+ ×
+ ×
+ ×
= − ×
7 1
7 1
7 1
7 4
ADWF ADWF ThuMon ADWF Fri ADWF Sat ADWF Sun
,
2 Holiday flows can be extremely variable. Christmas flows are different from Thanksgiving flows and different from MLK Day flows. V&A does not establish ADWF curves for holidays unless required for I/I analysis, which was not the case for this project.
A “typical” holiday (Monday holidays like MLK Day, Presidents’ Day, Memorial Day and Labor Day) can be roughly estimated as a weighted average of 80% Sunday flow and 20% Mon-Thu Flow.
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 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-Thu Friday Saturday Sunday
320
Methods and Procedures
| 19
2.6 Flow 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 diffusion along the sewer pipes. Fluids are constantly working towards equilibrium. For example, a volume of fluid poured into a static vessel with no outside turbulence will eventually stabilize to a static state, with a smooth fluid surface without peaks and valleys. Attenuation within a sanitary sewer collection system is based upon this concept. A flow profile with a strong peak will tend to stabilize towards equilibrium, as shown in Figure 2-3.
Figure 2 Figure 2-3. Attenuation Illustration . Attenuation Illustration . Attenuation Illustration Within a sanitary sewer collection system, each individual basin will have a specific flow profile. As the flows from the basins combine within the trunk sewer lines, the peaks from each basin will (a) not necessarily coincide at the same time, and (b) due to the length and time of travel through the trunk sewers, peak flows will attenuate prior to reaching the treatment facility. The sum of the peak flows of the individual basins within a collection system will usually be greater than the peak flows observed at the treatment facility.
Time
Flow
Time
Flow
Time
Vol. X Volume Y
Volume X = Volume Y
321
Methods and Procedures
20 | V&A Project No. No. 18-0162 Carollo Scotts Valley Flow Monitoring and I/I Report
2.7 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 / Infiltration Analysis: Definitions and Identification Inflow: Storm water inflow is defined as water discharged into the sewer system, including Inflow 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. Infiltration: Infiltration is defined as water entering the sanitary sewer system through defects Infiltration nfiltrationInfiltration in pipes, pipe joints, and manhole walls, which may include cracks, offset joints, root intrusion points, and broken pipes.
Figure 2-4 illustrates the possible sources and components of I/I.
Figure 2 Figure 2-4. Typical Sources of Infiltration and Inflow Typical Sources of Infiltration and Inflow Typical Sources of Infiltration and Inflow 322
Methods and Procedures
| 21
Infiltration Components
Infiltration can be further subdivided into components as follows:
Groundwater Infiltration: Groundwater infiltration depends on the depth of the groundwater Groundwater Infiltration roundwater Infiltration 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- Rainfall ainfallRainfall-Dependent Infiltration Dependent Infiltration 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- Rainfall ainfallRainfall-Responsive Infiltration Responsive Infiltration 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.
Impact and Cost of Source Detection and Removal
Inflow: Inflow
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.
Infiltration: Infiltration: nfiltration:
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.
323
Methods and Procedures
22 | V&A Project No. No. 18-0162 Carollo Scotts Valley Flow Monitoring and I/I Report Graphical Identification of I/I
Inflow is usually recognized graphically by large-magnitude, short-duration spikes immediately following a rain event. 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. Realtime flows were plotted against ADWF to analyze the I/I response to rainfall events. Figure 2-5 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 2 Figure 2-5. Sample Infiltration and Inflow Isolation Graph Sample Infiltration and Inflow Isolation Graph Sample Infiltration and Inflow Isolation Graph Analysis Metrics
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:
Inflow – Inflow –Peak I/I Flow Rate Peak I/I Flow Rate 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 analysis. 3 Groundwater Infiltration Groundwater Infiltration roundwater Infiltration(GWI): 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.
Rainfall- Rainfall ainfallRainfall-Dependent Infiltration Dependent Infiltration Dependent Infiltration(RDI): RDI Analysis is conducted by looking at the infiltration rates at set periods after the conclusion of a storm event. Depending on the particular
3 I/I flow rate is the real time 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. 324
Methods and Procedures
| 23
collection system and the time required for flows to return to ADWF levels, different periods may be examined to determine the basins with the greatest or most sustained rainfalldependent infiltration rates. Combined I/I: Combined I/I ombined I/I: The combined inflow and infiltration is measured in gallons per site and per storm event. Because it is based on combined I/I volume, it is used to identify the overall volumetric influence of I/I within the monitoring basin.
Normalization Methods
There are three ways to normalize the I/I analysis metrics for an “apples-to-apples” comparison amongst the different drainage basins:
per-ADWF: The metric is divided by the established average dry weather flow rate and typically expressed as a ratio. Peaking Factors are examples of using ADWF to normalize data from different sites.
per-IDM: The metric is divided by length of pipe (IDM [inch-diameter mile]) contained within the upstream basin. Final units typically are gallons per day (gpd) per IDM. per-ACRE: The metric is divided by the acreage of the upstream basin. Final units typically are gallons per day (gpd) per ACRE.
The infiltration and inflow indicators were normalized by the per-ADWF and per-ACRE methods in this report and these results will be shown in the following I/I analysis results sections. IDM information was not available for this project. For the purposes of basin rankings, the following weighting decisions are given:
per-ADWF: The majority of the flow monitoring sites had consistent ADWF curves and the sites were well distributed throughout the system. Per-ADWF metrics will be assigned 51% weighting towards final rankings.
per-ACRE: The metering basin boundaries are clearly defined and basin acreages are known.
Due to varying topography, the per-ACRE analysis values will be assigned 49% weighting towards final rankings.
325
Results and Analysis
24 | V&A Project No. No. 18-0162 Carollo Scotts Valley Flow Monitoring and I/I Report 3 Results and Analysis
3.1 Rainfall Monitoring
Rain Gauge Locations
V&A analyzed rainfall data from two National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Citizen Weather Observer Program (CWOP) rain gauges4, allowing for solid coverage over the collection system.
The locations and labeling convention used for the three rain gauges can be seen in Figure 1-1.
Flow Study Rainfall Data
There were numerous main rainfall events that elicited solid I/I responses over the flow monitoring period, illustrated in Figure 3-1. The three largest rainfall events were evaluated for I/I analysis.
Table 3-1 shows the duration and precipitation of each rainfall event for each rain gauge. Figure 3-2 shows the rain accumulation plot of the period rainfall, as well as the historical average rainfall5 in the City during this project duration. The cumulative precipitation for the rain gauges was approximately 15% greater than the historical precipitation for the duration of the flow monitoring.
Figure 3 Figure 3-1. Rainfall . Rainfall . Rainfall . Rainfall Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring –Average of Rain Gauges Average of Rain Gauges Average of Rain Gauges
4 The NOAA CWOP members send data from their private weather stations to the NOAA MADIS server; the data undergoes QAQC and then is distributed. While V&A has no direct control over these gauges, V&A performed additional QAQC on the data before using it for analysis.
5 Historical data taken from the WRCC (Station 40673 in Ben Lomond): http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/climsmnca.html
0.0 0.1
0.2 0.3
0.4 0.5
0.6 0.7
0.8 0.9
1.0 30-Jan
1-Feb3-Feb5-Feb7-Feb9-Feb
11-Feb13-Feb15-Feb17-Feb19-Feb21-Feb23-Feb25-Feb27-Feb
1-Mar3-Mar5-Mar7-Mar9-Mar
11-Mar13-Mar15-Mar17-Mar19-Mar21-Mar23-Mar25-Mar27-Mar29-Mar31-Mar 2-Apr4-Apr6-Apr8-Apr
10-Apr12-Apr14-Apr16-Apr18-Apr20-Apr22-Apr24-Apr26-Apr28-Apr30-Apr 2-May
Rain (inches per hour)
Total Rainfall over Period: 24.7 inches
Event 1: 7.71
inches
Event 2:
5.33 inches
Event 3:
7.99 inches
326
Results and Analysis
| 25
Table 3 Table 3-1. Summary of Rainfall Data Summary of Rainfall Data Summary of Rainfall Data Rain
Gauge
Rain Event 1
Jan 30 – Feb 10,
2019 (in)
Rain Event 2
February 12 – 17,
2019 (in)
Rain Event 3
Feb 26 – March 10,
2019 (in)
Season
Total
(in)
North 7.67 5.30 8.40 25.06
South 7.75 5.35 7.58 24.33
Average:Average: Average: 7.71 5.33 7.99 24.70
Figure 3 Figure 3-2. Rainfall Accumulation Plot Rainfall Accumulation Plot Rainfall Accumulation Plot
0.0 5.0
10.0 15.0
20.0 25.0
30.0 30-Jan
6-Feb
13-Feb20-Feb27-Feb
6-Mar
13-Mar20-Mar27-Mar
3-Apr
10-Apr17-Apr24-Apr
1-May
Rain (inches)
RG North Rainfall
RG South Rainfall
Historical Average
21.6 25.1
24.3 327
Results and Analysis
26 | V&A Project No. No. 18-0162 Carollo Scotts Valley Flow Monitoring and I/I Report Regional Rainfall Event Classification
It is important to classify the relative size of a major storm event that occurs over the course of a flow monitoring period6. Rainfall 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 NOAA for all areas within the continental United States (Figure 3-3).
Figure 3 Figure 3-3. NOAA Northern California Rainfall Frequency Map NOAA Northern California Rainfall Frequency Map NOAA Northern California Rainfall Frequency Map For example, the NOAA Rainfall Frequency Atlas7 classifies a 10-year, 24-hour storm event at the North rain gauge location as 7.75 inches. This means that in any given year, at this specific location, there is a 10% chance that 7.75 inches of rain will fall in any 24-hour period.
From the NOAA frequency maps, for a specific latitude and longitude, the rainfall densities for period durations ranging from 1 hour to 20 days are known for rain events ranging from 1-year to 10-year intensities. These are plotted to develop a rain event frequency map specific to each rainfall monitoring site. Superimposing the peak measured densities for the rainfall events on the rain event frequency plot determines the classification of the rainfall event. Table 3-2 shows the peak classifications for
6 Sanitary sewers are often designed to withstand I/I contribution to sanitary flows for specific-sized “design” storm events. 7 NOAA Western U.S. Precipitation Frequency Maps Atlas 14, Volume 6, 2011:
ftp://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/pub/hdsc/data/sw/ca10y24h.pdf
328
Results and Analysis
| 27
each rain event at each rain gauge location. Figure 3-4 through Figure 3-7 illustrate the rain event classification plots per each rain gauge location. The following items are noted:
Event 2 was the highest classified rainfall event during this study, as a 1-year, 8-hour storm event at the South rain gauge.
Event 2 was classified as a less than 1-year, 4-day storm event despite sustained rainfall that lasted for several days.
Event 1, which was used primarily for inflow analysis, was classified as a less than 1-year, 24- hour storm event.
Since Event 1, 2, and 3 occurred close to each other, the whole monitoring period was classified as a 1.8-year, 60-day storm event at the South rain gauge.
Table 3 Table 3-2. Rainfall Event Classification Rainfall Event Classification Rainfall Event Classification Rain EventRain Event Rain Event Rain Event DurationDuration Duration Duration RG NorthRG North RG North RG North RG SouthRG South RG South RG South Rain Event 1 Rain Event 1
January 30 – February 10, 2019
Peak
(12 – 24 Hour) <1-yr, 24-hr <1-yr, 24-hr
4 - Day <1-yr, 4-day <1-yr, 4-day
Rain Event 2 Rain Event 2
February 12 – 17, 2019
Peak
(12 – 24 Hour) <1-yr, 24-hr 1-yr, 8-hr
4 - Day <1-yr, 4-day <1-yr, 4-day
Rain Event 3 Rain Event 3
February 26 – March 10, 2019
Peak
(12 – 24 Hour) <1-yr, 24-hr <1-yr, 24-hr
4 - Day <1-yr, 4-day <1-yr, 4-day
Flow Monitoring Period Flow Monitoring Period
January 30, 2019 – May 2, 2019 60-Day 1.5-yr, 60-day 1.8-yr, 60-day
329
Results and Analysis
28 | V&A Project No. No. 18-0162 Carollo Scotts Valley Flow Monitoring and I/I Report Figure 3 Figure 3-4. Rainfall Event Classific Rainfall Event Classific Rainfall Event Classification –30-DayPeriod ( Period (Period ( Period (NorthRG) Figure 3 Figure 3-5. Rainfall Event Classification Rainfall Event Classification Rainfall Event Classification –1-DayPeriod ( Period (Period ( Period (NorthRG) 1 2
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 Inches of Rain
Season
1/30/19 - 2/10/19
2/12/19 - 2/19/19
2/24/19 - 3/11/19
1-day 2 3 4 7-day 10-day 15-day 20-day 30-day
1 2
5 10
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 Inches of Rain
1/30/19 - 2/10/19
2/12/19 - 2/19/19
2/24/19 - 3/11/19
1-hr 2-hr 3-hr 6-hr 12-hr 24-hr
330
Results and Analysis
| 29
Figure 3 Figure 3-6. Rainfall Event Classification Rainfall Event Classification Rainfall Event Classification –30-DayPeriod ( Period (Period ( Period (SouthRG) Figure 3 Figure 3-7. Rainfall Event Classification Rainfall Event Classification Rainfall Event Classification –1-Day Period ( Period (Period ( Period (SouthRG) 1 2
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 Inches of Rain
Season
1/30/19 - 2/10/19
2/12/19 - 2/17/19
2/26/19 - 3/10/19
1-day 2 3 4 7-day 10-day 15-day 20-day 30-day
1 2
5 10
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 Inches of Rain
1/30/19 - 2/10/19
2/12/19 - 2/17/19
2/26/19 - 3/10/19
1-hr 2-hr 3-hr 6-hr 12-hr 24-hr
331
Results and Analysis
30 | V&A Project No. No. 18-0162 Carollo Scotts Valley Flow Monitoring and I/I Report 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 sites’ upstream basin 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 center of an upstream basin8 is identified, and a weighted triangulated average is taken of the precipitation data from nearby rain gauge locations.
The IDW function is as follows:
∑
=
p
p
d
d dweight
1 1
)( , where: d = distance p = power (p > 0)
The value of p is user defined. The most common choice for hydrological studies of watershed areas is p = 2.
Figure 3-8 illustrates the IDW method with sample data. The rain gauge distribution as calculated for each flow monitoring basin is shown in Table 3-3.
Figure 3 Figure 3-8. Rainfall Inverse Dist Rainfall Inverse Dist Rainfall Inverse Distance Weighting Method ance Weighting Method ance Weighting Method
8 Note that the full basin upstream of the site was used instead of the isolated basins as the rain data will be compared to the flow at each site
Basin Boundary
332
Results and Analysis
| 31
Table 3 Table 3-3. Rain Gauge Distribution per Monitoring . Rain Gauge Distribution per Monitoring . Rain Gauge Distribution per MonitoringSite Monitoring
Site RG North RG South
Site 1 6.5% 93.5%
Site 2 0.5% 99.5%
Site 3 58.6% 41.4%
Site 4 50.0% 50.0%
Site 5 77.3% 22.7%
Site 6 93.4% 6.6%
Site 7 97.0% 3.0%
Site 8 86.6% 13.4%
333
Results and Analysis
32 | V&A Project No. No. 18-0162 Carollo Scotts Valley Flow Monitoring and I/I Report
3.2 Flow Monitoring
Average Flow Analysis
Average dry weather flow (ADWF) curves were established during dry days when I/I had the least impact on the baseline flow. Table 3-4 summarizes the dry weather flow data measured for this study. ADWF curves for each site can be found in Appendix A. Figure 3-9shows a flow schematic of the average daily flows and levels.
Table 3 Table 3-4. Dry Weather Flow . Dry Weather Flow . Dry Weather Flow Monitoring
Site
Mon-Thu
ADWF
(MGD)
Friday
ADWF
(MGD)
Saturday
ADWF
(MGD)
Sunday
ADWF
(MGD)
Overall
ADWF
(MGD)
Site 1 0.017 0.017 0.018 0.018 0.017
Site 2 0.075 0.076 0.078 0.078 0.076
Site 3 0.662 0.676 0.661 0.686 0.667
Site 4 0.050 0.048 0.061 0.063 0.053
Site 5 0.420 0.422 0.393 0.397 0.413
Site 6 0.103 0.102 0.105 0.111 0.104
Site 7 0.053 0.055 0.054 0.056 0.054
Site 8 0.109 0.110 0.113 0.120 0.111
System 0.754 0.769 0.757 0.782 0.761
The following ADWF analysis results are noted (refer to Figure 3-9 on the following page):
All sites were less than 50% full (less than 0.5 d/D) during ADWF conditions. None of the flow monitoring sites had sediment during the site visits. 334
Results and Analysis
| 33
Figure 3 Figure 3-9. Average Dry Weather Flow Schemati . Average Dry Weather Flow Schemati . Average Dry Weather Flow Schematic 335
Results and Analysis
34 | V&A Project No. No. 18-0162 Carollo Scotts Valley Flow Monitoring and I/I Report Peak Measured Flows and Pipeline Capacity Analysis
Peak measured flows and the hydraulic grade line data (flow 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 or occur at the same time.
The following capacity analysis terms are defined as follows:
Peaking Factor: Peaking factor is defined as the peak measured flow divided by the average dry Peaking Factor eaking Factor weather flow (ADWF). Peaking factors are influenced by many factors including size and topography of tributary area, flow attenuation, flow restrictions, characteristics of I/I entering the collection system, and hydraulic features such as pump stations.
For this report, peaking factors are reported and PF > 5 are highlighted in RED9; however, the City should refer to City standards when evaluating peaking factors. Peaking factor data should be used at the discretion of the City Engineer.
d/D Ratio: The d/D ratio is the peak measured depth of flow (d) divided by the pipe diameter d/D Ratio /D Ratiod/D Ratio (D). The d/D ratio for each site was computed based on the maximum depth of flow for the study. Standards for d/D ratio vary from agency to agency, but typically range between d/D ≤
0.5 and d/D ≤ 0.75.
For this report, d/D ratios > 1.0 are highlighted in RED; however, the City should refer to City standards when evaluating d/D ratios, to be used at the discretion of the City Engineer.
Table 3-5 summarizes the peak recorded flows, levels, d/D ratios, and peaking factors per site during the flow monitoring period. Results of note have been shaded in RED. Capacity analysis data are 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 3 Table 3-5. Capacity Analysis Summary . Capacity Analysis Summary . Capacity Analysis Summary Monitoring
Site
ADWF
(MGD)
Peak
Measured
Flow
(MGD)
Peaking
Factor
Pipe
Diameter, D
(IN)
Peak
Measured
Depth (IN)
Max
d/D
Ratio
Surcharge
above pipe
crown(FT)
Site 1 0.017 0.14 8.2 10 4.26 0.43 n/a
Site 2 0.076 0.41 5.4 10 4.01 0.40 n/a
Site 3 0.667 2.41 3.6 17* 18.65 1.10 0.14
Site 4 0.053 0.19 3.5 10 2.01 0.20 n/a
Site 5 0.413 1.62 3.9 18 4.05 0.23 n/a
Site 6 0.104 0.79 7.5 10 7.29 0.73 n/a
Site 7 0.054 0.45 8.4 10 6.59 0.66 n/a
Site 8 0.111 0.57 5.1 10 3.71 0.37 n/a
System 0.761 2.96 3.9 - - - -
* Pipe measured 17” diameter above water line due to pipe corrosion and surface mortar expansion. Underneath the water line the pipe measured 18”. The 18” diameter value (typically wetted) was used for the flow calculations. The 17” diameter value (worst case) was used for capacity analysis.
9 WEF Manual of Practice FD-6 and ASCE Manual No. 62 suggests typical peaking factor ratios range between 3 and 4, with higher values possibly indicative of pronounced I/I flows. 336
Results and Analysis
| 35
The following capacity analysis results are noted:
Peaking Factors Peaking Factors eaking Factors
Sites 3, 4, and 5 had peaking factors below 5.
Sites 2 and 8 had peaking factors between 5 and 7.
Sites 1, 6 and 7 had peaking factors above 7.
d/D Ratio: d/D Ratio: /D Ratio:d/D Ratio:
Only Site 3 reached a surcharge condition. This condition was reached during a temporary backflow condition reached during the February 13, 2019 peak-intensity rain event, but did not occur during the other rainfall events.
Figure 3-10 and Figure 3-11 show bar graph summaries of the peaking factors and d/D ratios, respectively. Figure 3-12 shows the schematic diagram of the peak measured flows in each section with peak flow levels.
Figure 3 Figure 3-10. Peaking Factors Peaking Factors Peaking Factors 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
Site 1Site 2Site 3Site 4Site 5Site 6Site 7Site 8
System
Peaking Factor
PF = 5
337
Results and Analysis
36 | V&A Project No. No. 18-0162 Carollo Scotts Valley Flow Monitoring and I/I Report Figure 3 Figure 3-11. Capacity Summary: Max d/D Ratios Capacity Summary: Max d/D Ratios Capacity Summary: Max d/D Ratios Figure 3 Figure 3-12. Peak Measured Flow Schematic Peak Measured Flow Schematic
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 Site 1Site 2Site 3Site 4Site 5Site 6Site 7Site 8
d/D Ratio
SurchargedSurcharged Surcharged
338
Results and Analysis
| 37
3.3 Inflow and Infiltration: Results
Preface
Every collection system is different; it can be helpful to review the overall flow monitoring data from an overall, system-wide perspective so as to determine the proper course of action for inflow and infiltration analyses.
Flow meters were installed after a series of rain events in January 2019 (measuring approximately 7.29 inches10), when soil saturation levels were generally high and rain dependent infiltration had not fully cleared the system. Referring to Figure 3-13, system-wide flows were approximately at 114% of ADWF levels when the flow meters were installed. Additionally, it is observed that the rain events of February and March kept flow levels and I/I rates high. Full recession to baseline flows did not occur until the very end of the flow monitoring period in early May.
Figure 3 Figure 3-13.Collection System Collection System Collection SystemDaily Flows Bar Graph Daily Flows Bar Graph Daily Flows Bar Graph Based on this overall system view, a plan for properly analyzing the different components of infiltration and inflow can be properly developed.
10 Per www.accuweather.com
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 0.0 5.0
0.5 1.0
1.5 2.0
2.5 31-Jan-19
4-Feb-198-Feb-19
12-Feb-1916-Feb-1920-Feb-1924-Feb-1928-Feb-19
4-Mar-198-Mar-19
12-Mar-1916-Mar-1920-Mar-1924-Mar-1928-Mar-19
1-Apr-195-Apr-199-Apr-19
13-Apr-1917-Apr-1921-Apr-1925-Apr-1929-Apr-19
Rainfall (inches)
Daily Flows (gallons x 10
6 )
System Daily Flows Daily Rainfall ADWF
Start of flow
monitoring
period, Jan 31:
114% of ADWF
End of flow
monitoring
period
Days for RDI
Determination
339
Results and Analysis
38 | V&A Project No. No. 18-0162 Carollo Scotts Valley Flow Monitoring and I/I Report RDI/I Analysis Plan (RDI and Combined I/I)
I/I analyses are presented on a basin-by-basin basis. Items relevant to the analysis in this study are noted below and referenced in Figure 3-14 below in regards to RDI and Combined I/I. The Inflow Analysis plan is addressed in the following section:
I/I Isolation: I/I isolation curves are developed for various storm events by which various I/I Isolation /I Isolation metrics are analyzed and normalized for I/I analysis. The I/I flow rate is the real-time flow less the estimated average dry weather flow rate (shown below as the RED line). RDI: RDI is typically taken as the average I/I flow rate measured at a project-specific time, RDI typically 24 hours, after the rainfall event has concluded. There were three opportune times over the flow monitoring period to take RDI measurements: February 7, 19 and March 12, 2019, were all days 24-hour clear of, but following strong rainfall events (refer to Figure 3-13 and Figure 3-14).
Combined I/I: The totalized volume (in gallons) of both inflow and RDI over the course of a Combined I/I ombined I/I rainfall event (shown in Figure 3-14 as the orange area). To attribute full capture of totalized volume of RDI/I to a storm event, it is necessary for flows to return to baseline flow levels. For Scotts Valley, this only occurs at the end of the flow study. The most accurate determination of combined I/I for this study is to measure total I/I not per storm event, but across the entirety of the study.
0.00 0.50
1.00 1.50
2.00 2.50
3.00 2/12/22/32/42/52/62/72/82/9
2/102/112/122/132/142/152/162/172/182/192/202/212/222/232/242/252/262/272/28 3/13/23/33/43/53/63/73/83/9
3/103/113/123/133/14
Flow (MGD)
0.00 0.20
0.40 0.60
0.80 Rain (in/hr)
Figure 3 Figure 3-14. I/I Isolation I/I IsolationI/I Isolation I/I Isolation(Feb 1 –Mar15), Site 3 Total I/I
(area shaded orange)
RDI: Avg. RDI Rate
for Analysis
340
Results and Analysis
| 39
RDI/I Analysis Plan (Inflow)
Items relevant to the inflow analysis in this study are noted below:
Inflow: Inflow is usually recognized graphically by large-magnitude, short-duration spikes Inflow immediately following a rain event. The peak inflow rate is the highest spike in the isolated I/I hydrograph immediately following the evaluated rainfall event. Preferred Scenario: To most appropriately isolate inflow from RDI, the most preferable scenario Preferred Scenario referred Scenario is for strong intensity rainfall to occur at the beginning of a storm event before the influence and interference of RDI. For example at Site 3, even though Event 1 caused the highest peak RDI/I rate, this peak rate was not suitable for inflow analysis due to a heavy RDI influence. In contrast, for Events 2 and 3, high intensity rainfall fell at the start of each event, and peak inflow could be evaluated with minimal RDI interference (Figure 3-15). Seasonal GWI rates entering the storm event are also adjusted to better isolate inflow from infiltration interference.
Figure 3 Figure 3-15. I/I Isolation I/I IsolationI/I Isolation I/I Isolations for Inflow or Inflowor Inflow or Inflow, Site 3 Pump Stations: Sites 1, 2, 4, and 8 were influenced by upstream or downstream pump station Pump Stations ump Stations operations. Measuring rates of inflow of flow monitoring sites that are in the immediate proximity of pump stations can present several problems. RDI and Total I/I analyses are valid as they consider I/I rates over time. Peak inflow being an instantaneous point measurement is more difficult to determine.
If the upstream flows consist primarily of a single pump station, the peak rate of flow may not necessarily increase as flows are largely dictated by pumping capacity. However, the frequency of pumping cycles may increase, indicating I/I into the pump station Best practices are to examine the data on a more microscopic level and make appropriate engineering judgments. Figure 3-16 illustrates a more detailed look at inflow for Site 2 during Event 2.
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 2/012/022/032/042/052/06
Flow (MGD)
2/122/132/142/152/162/172/18
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 2/262/272/283/01
Rain (in/hr) ain (in/hr)
Peak inflow rate, not suitable for analysis;
heavily influenced by RDI from start of event
Event 1 Event 1 Event 2 Event 3
Peak inflow rates with minimal RDI influence;
suitable for analysis
341
Results and Analysis
40 | V&A Project No. No. 18-0162 Carollo Scotts Valley Flow Monitoring and I/I Report Figure 3 Figure 3-16. I/IHydrograph, Site Hydrograph, Site Hydrograph, Site 2, Storm Event , Storm Event , Storm Event 2 Using the traditional method, the wet peak I/I response is not differentiated from typical peak flow “noise” that is present for flows measured in close proximity to a pump station. To account for this regularly occurring pump station noise, inflow is calculated as the difference between the peak I/I rates measured during the storm event less the difference of the typical dry-weather peaks caused by pump station operations.
These differing pump station metrics are examined on a site-by-site, storm-by-storm basis. Outliers could exist due to pumping operations and are eliminated. V&A carefully regarded specific inflow idiosyncrasies when performing the inflow analyses for these sites; however, the reviewing Engineer should utilize inflow results at his/her discretion.
0.00 0.20
0.40 0.60
0.00 0.80
0.05 0.10
0.15 0.20
0.25 0.30
0.35 0.40
2/122/132/142/152/162/172/18
Flow (MGD)
Rain (in/hr)
Dry peak
Wet peak
Difference attributed to INFLOW
342
Results and Analysis
| 41
Inflow Results Summary
Inflow is storm water discharged into the sewer system through direct connections such as downspouts, area drains, cross-connections to catch basins, etc. These sources transport rain water directly into the sewer system and the corresponding flow rates are tied closely to the intensity of the storm. This component of I/I often causes 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.
Per the RDI/I analysis plan, inflow results were taken from Rainfall Events 2 and 3. Table 3-6 and Figure 3-17 summarize the peak measured inflow and inflow analysis results for the relevant flow monitoring basins. Figure 3-18 shows a temperature map summary of the inflow analysis results per basin. The “Top 3” basins for each category have been shaded in RED. The following inflow results are noted:
Basins 3, 6, and 7 had the highest normalized peak I/I rates, an indicator of high inflow upstream from the flow monitoring basin.
Table 3 Table 3-6. Results and Ranking Results and Ranking Results and Rankings of Inflow Analysis s of Inflow Analysis s of Inflow Analysis Basin ADWF
(mgd)
AREA
(acres)
Inflow Rate
(mgd)
Inflow per
ADWF
(ratio)
[Event
Ranking]
Inflow per
ACRE
(gpd/acre)
[Event
Ranking]
Final
Inflow
Ranking Event
2 Event
3 Avg.
Basin 1 0.017 77 0.011 0.006 0.009 0.50 [7] 113 [7] 7
Basin 2 0.076 267 0.124 0.040 0.082 1.08 [6] 307 [6] 6
Basin 3 0.201 533 0.620 1.507 1.063 5.30 [2] 1,995 [2] 2 Basin 4/5 0.251 416 0.000 1.034 0.517 2.06 [5] 1,243 [3] 5 Basin 6 0.050 174 0.257 0.446 0.351 6.99 [1] 2,020 [1] 1 Basin 7 0.054 342 0.254 0.233 0.243 4.52 [3] 711 [5] 3
Basin 8 0.111 325 0.290 0.297 0.294 2.64 [4] 903 [4] 4
System 0.761 2,134 1.461 1.553 1.507 1.98 706
343
Results and Analysis
42 | V&A Project No. No. 18-0162 Carollo Scotts Valley Flow Monitoring and I/I Report Figure 3 Figure 3-17. Bar Graphs: Bar Graphs: Bar Graphs: Inflow Analysis Inflow Analysis Inflow Analysis Summary Summary Summary
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Basin 1Basin 2Basin 3
Basin 4+5
Basin 6Basin 7Basin 8
System
Pk I/I per ADWF
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
Basin 1Basin 2Basin 3
Basin 4+5
Basin 6Basin 7Basin 8
System
Pk I/I per ACRE (gpd/ACRE)
System
Average
System
Average
344
Results and Analysis
| 43
Figure 3 Figure 3-18. Temperature Map: Temperature Map: Temperature Map: Inflow Final Basin Final Basin Final Basin Final Basin Rankings RankingsRankings Rankings 345
Results and Analysis
44 | V&A Project No. No. 18-0162 Carollo Scotts Valley Flow Monitoring and I/I Report Rainfall Dependent Infiltration Results Summary
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.
Increased flows into the sanitary sewer system are usually tied to groundwater levels and soil saturation levels. Infiltration sources transport rain water into the system indirectly; flow levels in the sanitary system increase gradually, are typically sustained for a period after rainfall has stopped, and then gradually decrease as soils become less saturated and as groundwater levels recede to normal.
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).
Per the RDI/I analysis plan, the RDI rate used for comparative analysis was measured as the average I/I rate from three different time periods immediately following strong rainfall events (February 7, 19 and March 12, 2019).
Table 3-7 and Figure 3-19 summarize the captured RDI flow rates. Figure 3-20 shows a temperature map. The “Top 3” basins for each category have been shaded in RED. The following RDI results are noted:
Basins 6, 7, and 8 had the highest normalized RDI rates, an indicator of high RDI upstream from the flow monitoring basin.
Table 3 Table 3-7. Results and Rankings of RDI Analysis Results and Rankings of RDI Analysis Results and Rankings of RDI Analysis Basin ADWF
(mgd)
AREA
(acres)
RDI Rate
(mgd)
Inflow per
ADWF
(ratio)
[Event
Ranking]
Inflow per
ACRE
(gpd/acre)
[Event
Ranking]
Final
RDI
Event 1 Event 2 Event 3 Avg. Ranking
Basin 1 0.017 77 0.000 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.07 [6] 16 [7] 6 Basin 2 0.076 267 0.030 0.015 0.019 0.022 0.28 [5] 81 [5] 5 Basin 3 0.201 533 0.000 0.027 0.000 0.009 0.05 [7] 17 [6] 7 Basin 4/5 0.251 416 0.078 0.069 0.099 0.082 0.33 [4] 197 [2] 4 Basin 6 0.050 174 0.060 0.025 0.000 0.028 0.56 [2] 163 [4] 2 Basin 7 0.054 342 0.078 0.088 0.071 0.079 1.47 [1] 231 [1] 1 Basin 8 0.111 325 0.066 0.050 0.061 0.059 0.53 [3] 181 [3] 3 System 0.761 2,134 0.246 0.277 0.253 0.001 0.34 121
346
Results and Analysis
| 45
Figure 3 Figure 3-19. Bar Graphs: RDI Bar Graphs: RDI Bar Graphs: RDIAnalysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Summary Summary Summary
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 Basin 1Basin 2Basin 3
Basin 4+5
Basin 6Basin 7Basin 8
System
RDI per ADWF
0 50
100
150
200
250
Basin 1Basin 2Basin 3
Basin 4+5
Basin 6Basin 7Basin 8
System
RDI per ACRE (gpd/ACRE)
System
Average
System
Average
347
Results and Analysis
46 | V&A Project No. No. 18-0162 Carollo Scotts Valley Flow Monitoring and I/I Report Figure 3 Figure 3-20. Temperature Map: RDI Temperature Map: RDI Temperature Map: RDIFinal Basin Rankings Final Basin Rankings Final Basin Rankings 348
Results and Analysis
| 47
Combined I/I Results
Combined I/I analysis considers the totalized volume (in gallons) of both inflow and rainfall-dependent infiltration over the course of a storm event. Per the RDI/I analysis plan, given that flows did not recess to baseline flows until the very end of the flow study, combined I/I analysis for this study measured total I/I across the entirety of the study.
Table 3-8 summarizes the combined I/I flow results. The “Top 3” overall rankings for this analysis have been shaded in RED. Figure 3-21 shows the bar graph results of the per Basin total I/I analysis. A temperature map is shown in Figure 3-22.
The following total I/I results are noted:
Basin 6, 7, and 8 had the highest normalized total I/I rates, an indicator of high inflow and raindependent infiltration upstream from the flow monitoring basin.
Table 3 Table 3-8. Combined I/I Analysis Summary . Combined I/I Analysis Summary . Combined I/I Analysis Summary Basin ADWF
(mgd)
AREA
(acres)
Total I/I
(gallons)
Total I/I per ADWF
per inch -rain
[Event Ranking]
R-Value
(% of I/I in
collection system,
per ACRE)
[Event Ranking]
Final
Total I/I
Ranking
Basin 1 0.017 77 190,000 0.45 [6] 0.37% [7] 6
Basin 2 0.076 267 1,889,000 1.02 [4] 1.07% [4] 4
Basin 3 0.201 533 1,707,000 0.35 [7] 0.48% [6] 7
Basin 4/5 0.251 416 2,809,000 0.45 [5] 1.01% [5] 5
Basin 6 0.050 174 1,596,000 1.27 [3] 1.35% [3] 3
Basin 7 0.054 342 5,567,000 4.13 [1] 2.39% [2] 1
Basin 8 0.111 325 5,580,000 2.01 [2] 2.53% [1] 2
System 0.761 2,134 19,338,000 1.03 1.35%
349
Results and Analysis
48 | V&A Project No. No. 18-0162 Carollo Scotts Valley Flow Monitoring and I/I Report Figure 3 Figure 3-21. Bar Graphs: Total I/I Bar Graphs: Total I/I Bar Graphs: Total I/IAnalysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Summary Summary Summary
0.37%
1.07%
0.48%
1.01%
1.35%
2.39%
2.53%
1.35%
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
Basin 1Basin 2Basin 3
Basin 4+5
Basin 6Basin 7Basin 8
System
Total I/I per ACRE (R-Value)
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 3.5
4.0 4.5
Basin 1Basin 2Basin 3
Basin 4+5
Basin 6Basin 7Basin 8
System
Total I/I per ADWF (MG / ADWF / In)
System
Average
System
Average
350
Results and Analysis
| 49
Figure 3-22. Temperature Map . Temperature Map . Temperature Map: Combined I/I mbined I/Imbined I/I mbined I/IFinal Basin Rankings Final Basin Rankings Final Basin Rankings 351
Results and Analysis
50 | V&A Project No. No. 18-0162 Carollo Scotts Valley Flow Monitoring and I/I Report 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 dampened11. Figure 3-23 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 3 Figure 3-23. Groundwater Infiltration Sample Figure Groundwater Infiltration Sample Figure 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 3-24 plots the low-to-ADWF flow ratios12 against the ADWF flows for the relevant flow monitoring sites. The brown dashed line shows “typical” low-to-ADWF ratios per the Water Environment Federation (WEF). Figure 3-25 shows a color-coded map of the basins with rates of groundwater infiltration considerably above typical groundwater infiltration standards (as set forth by WEF).
11 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. 12 The Minimum to Average flow ratio is calculated by taking the minimum flow and dividing by the ADWF value (using the MonThu ADWF curve).
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
352
Results and Analysis
| 51
Figure3-24. Minimum Flow Ratios vs ADWF Minimum Flow Ratios vs ADWF13 The following GWI results are noted:
The following sites had GWI rates higher than typical standards:
Sites 6, 7, and 8 had GWI rates considerably higher than other sites and typical standards.
13 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. This is why the WEF typical trend line’s slope is 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 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80
Minimum to Average Flow Ratio
ADWF (mgd)
WEF Typical Low- WEF Typical Low-to-Average Ratio Average Ratio Site 8 Site 6
Site 7
353
Results and Analysis
52 | V&A Project No. No. 18-0162 Carollo Scotts Valley Flow Monitoring and I/I Report Figure 3 Figure 3-25. Basins with Groundwater Infiltration . Basins with Groundwater Infiltration . Basins with Groundwater Infiltration 354
Recommendations
| 53
4 Recommendations
V&A advises that future I/I reduction plans consider the following recommendations:
1. Master Plan and Model Implementation: This study focuses on inflow and infiltration generation; Master Plan and Model Implementation aster Plan and Model Implementation however, the capacity deficiencies of the collection system may be of greater concern relative to I/I response during peak wet weather events. The City may wish to have a model designed and/or a master plan study conducted to determine the overall needs of the City relative to I/I. Or simply, the study results can be used to update the master plan and compare with previous model assumptions and flow monitoring results.
2. Determine I/I Reduction Program: The City should examine its I/I reduction needs to determine Determine I/I Reduction Program etermine I/I Reduction Program their needs and goals for 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 occurs in Basins 3, 6, and 7. 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. The highest combined I/I, highest RDI and elevated GWI occurs in Basins 6, 7, and 8.
3. I/I Investigation Methods: Potential I/I investigation methods include the following: I/I Investigation Methods /I Investigation Methods a. Smoke testing can be effective for locating sources of inflow. Smoke testing can be considered for Basins 3, 6 and 7 which had the highest normalized inflow rates. b. Mini-basin or sub-basin flow monitoring can be used to better determine the distribution of I/I within a particular sub-basin. Basins 6, 7, and 8 may be good candidates mini-basin flow monitoring to better locate the distribution of inflow and infiltration within these basins. c. Night-time I/I reconnaissance can be conducted within basins with high RDI rates to better determine on a pipe reach by pipe reach basis where the RDI is occurring within particular subbasin. This method may be utilized to determine candidate neighborhoods for potential CIP projects to mitigate and reduce I/I within the collection system. Night-time I/I reconnaissance could be considered for Basins 6, 7, and 8.
4. I/I Reduction Cost Effective Analysis: The City should conduct a study to determine which is more I/I Reduction Cost Effective Analysis /I Reduction Cost Effective Analysis cost-effective: (1) locating the sources of inflow/infiltration and systematically rehabilitating or replacing the faulty pipelines; or (2) continued treatment of the additional rainfall dependent I/I flow.
355
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Sites: Data, Graphs, Information
| A-1
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Sites: Data,
Graphs, Information
356
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Monitoring Site: onitoring Site:
Location:Location: Location:
Site 1
In Treatment Plant, inside gate
January 30 - May 03, 2019
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring
Carollo | Scotts Valley, California
Vicinity Map: Site 1
Data Summary Report
| Site 1 - 1
357
SITE 1
Site Information
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Measured Pipe Diameter: easured Pipe Diameter: 10 inches ADWF: 0.017 mgd
Peak Measured Flow: 0.143 mgd
Flow Sketch
Satellite Map
Street View
Sewer MapSewer Map Sewer Map
Location:Location: Location: In Treatment Plant, inside gate Rim Elevation (Earth): 505 feet
Coordinates: 122.0267° W, 37.0411° N
Expected Pipe Diameter: 10 inches
Sediment:Sediment: Sediment: None
| Site 1 - 2
358
SITE 1
Additional Site Photos
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Effluent Pipe
Monitored South Influent Pipe
| Site 1 - 3
359
SITE 1
Additional Site Photos
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information West Influent Pipe
| Site 1 - 4
360
SITE 1
Period Flow Summary: Daily Flow Totals
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.0000.0050.0100.0150.0200.0250.030
1/31
2/2
2/4
2/6
2/8
2/10
2/12
2/14
2/16
2/18
2/20
2/22
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16
3/18
3/20
3/22
3/24
3/26
3/28
3/30
4/1
4/3
4/5
4/7
4/9
4/11
4/13
4/15
4/17
4/19
4/21
4/23
4/25
4/27
4/29
5/1
Flow (M Gal)
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Rainfall (in/day)
Realtime Holiday Rainfall ADWF
0.0000.0050.0100.0150.0200.0250.030
1/31
2/2
2/4
2/6
2/8
2/10
2/12
2/14
2/16
2/18
2/20
2/22
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16
3/18
3/20
3/22
3/24
3/26
3/28
3/30
4/1
4/3
4/5
4/7
4/9
4/11
4/13
4/15
4/17
4/19
4/21
4/23
4/25
4/27
4/29
5/1
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Realtime Weekend
0.0000.0050.0100.0150.0200.0250.030
1/31
2/2
2/4
2/6
2/8
2/10
2/12
2/14
2/16
2/18
2/20
2/22
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16
3/18
3/20
3/22
3/24
3/26
3/28
3/30
4/1
4/3
4/5
4/7
4/9
4/11
4/13
4/15
4/17
4/19
4/21
4/23
4/25
4/27
4/29
5/1
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Realtime Weekday
Total Rainfall: 24.26 inches otal Rainfall: 24.26 inches Avg Daily Flow: 0.020 MGal Peak Daily Flow: 0.026 MGal Min Daily Flow: 0.016 MGal Avg Daily Flow: 0.020 MGal Peak Daily Flow: 0.026 MGal Min Daily Flow: 0.016 MGal | Site 1 - 5
361
SITE 1
Flow Summary: 1/31/2019 to 2/28/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16
Jan 31
(Thu)
Feb 01
(Fri)
Feb 02
(Sat)
Feb 03
(Sun)
Feb 04
(Mon)
Feb 05
(Tue)
Feb 06
(Wed)
Feb 07
(Thu)
Feb 08
(Fri)
Feb 09
(Sat)
Feb 10
(Sun)
Feb 11
(Mon)
Feb 12
(Tue)
Feb 13
(Wed)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain fall ( in /h r)
Rain Flow AD WF
0.000.020.040.060.080.100.12
Feb 14
(Thu)
Feb 15
(Fri)
Feb 16
(Sat)
Feb 17
(Sun)
Feb 18
(Mon)
Feb 19
(Tue)
Feb 20
(Wed)
Feb 21
(Thu)
Feb 22
(Fri)
Feb 23
(Sat)
Feb 24
(Sun)
Feb 25
(Mon)
Feb 26
(Tue)
Feb 27
(Wed)
Feb 28
(Thu)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain f all (in /h r)
Period Rainfall: 15.21 inches Period Avg Flow: 0.021 mgd Period Peak Flow: 0.143 mgd Period Min Flow: 0 | Site 1 - 6
362
SITE 1
Flow Summary: 3/1/2019 to 3/31/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.000.020.040.060.080.100.12
Mar 01
(Fri)
Mar 02
(Sat)
Mar 03
(Sun)
Mar 04
(Mon)
Mar 05
(Tue)
Mar 06
(Wed)
Mar 07
(Thu)
Mar 08
(Fri)
Mar 09
(Sat)
Mar 10
(Sun)
Mar 11
(Mon)
Mar 12
(Tue)
Mar 13
(Wed)
Mar 14
(Thu)
Mar 15
(Fri)
Mar 16
(Sat)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain fall ( in /h r)
Rain Flow AD WF
0.000.020.040.060.080.100.12
Mar 17
(Sun)
Mar 18
(Mon)
Mar 19
(Tue)
Mar 20
(Wed)
Mar 21
(Thu)
Mar 22
(Fri)
Mar 23
(Sat)
Mar 24
(Sun)
Mar 25
(Mon)
Mar 26
(Tue)
Mar 27
(Wed)
Mar 28
(Thu)
Mar 29
(Fri)
Mar 30
(Sat)
Mar 31
(Sun)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain f all (in /h r)
Period Rainfall: 8.15 inches Period Avg Flow: 0.019 mgd Period Peak Flow: 0.062 mgd Period Min Flow: 0 | Site 1 - 7
363
SITE 1
Flow Summary: 4/1/2019 to 5/2/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.000.020.040.060.080.100.12
Apr 01
(Mon)
Apr 02
(Tue)
Apr 03
(Wed)
Apr 04
(Thu)
Apr 05
(Fri)
Apr 06
(Sat)
Apr 07
(Sun)
Apr 08
(Mon)
Apr 09
(Tue)
Apr 10
(Wed)
Apr 11
(Thu)
Apr 12
(Fri)
Apr 13
(Sat)
Apr 14
(Sun)
Apr 15
(Mon)
Apr 16
(Tue)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain fall ( in /h r)
Rain Flow AD WF
0.000.020.040.060.080.100.12
Apr 17
(Wed)
Apr 18
(Thu)
Apr 19
(Fri)
Apr 20
(Sat)
Apr 21
(Sun)
Apr 22
(Mon)
Apr 23
(Tue)
Apr 24
(Wed)
Apr 25
(Thu)
Apr 26
(Fri)
Apr 27
(Sat)
Apr 28
(Sun)
Apr 29
(Mon)
Apr 30
(Tue)
May 01
(Wed)
May 02
(Thu)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain f all (in /h r)
Period Rainfall: 0.89 inches Period Avg Flow: 0.019 mgd Period Peak Flow: 0.071 mgd Period Min Flow: 0 | Site 1 - 8
364
SITE 1
Average Dry Weather Flow Hydrographs
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.0000.0050.0100.0150.0200.0250.0300.0350.040
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)
M on-Thurs Friday SaturdaySaturday Saturday Sunday
Time of Day
0.017 mgd
ADWF:
| Site 1 - 9
365
SITE 1
Site Capacity and Surcharge Summary
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Peak Measured Level: 4.26 Peak Measured Level: eak Measured Level:
Peak d/D Ratio: 0.43Pipe Diameter: 10 inches
inches
Realtime Flow Levels with Rainfall Data over Peak Level Period Diameter
75% d/D
50% d/D
02468
10 12
01/30
02/01
02/03
02/05
02/07
02/09
02/11
02/13
02/15
02/17
02/19
02/21
02/23
02/25
02/27
03/01
03/03
Level (in)
03/05
03/07
03/09
03/11
03/13
03/15
03/17
03/19
03/21
03/23
03/25
03/27
03/29
03/31
04/02
04/04
04/06
04/08
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.02.22.42.62.83.0 Rain (in/hr) | Site 1 - 10
366
SITE 1
I/I Summary: Event #1 RDI
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period
0.00 0.02
0.04 0.06
0.08 0.10
0.12 0.14
0.16 01/3102/0102/0202/0302/0402/0502/0602/0702/0802/0902/1002/1102/1202/1302/1402/1502/1602/1702/1802/1902/20 Flow (mgd) low (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 5.49 inches
Event #1 RDI
0.00 0.01
0.02 0.03
0.04 0.05
0.06 0.07
0.08 0.09
0.10 02/0102/0202/0302/0402/0502/0602/0702/08
Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Event #1 RDI Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 5.49 inches)
0.092
3.15 Peak Flow:Peak Flow: Peak Flow:
PF:
Peak Level:
mgd
in
5.26 d/D Ratio:d/D Ratio: d/D Ratio: 0.32
CapacityCapacity Capacity
RDI: 0.000 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
| Site 1 - 11
367
SITE 1
I/I Summary: Event #2 INFLOW
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period
0.00 0.02
0.04 0.06
0.08 0.10
0.12 02/1102/1202/1302/1402/1502/1602/1702/1802/1902/2002/2102/2202/2302/2402/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/11 Flow (mgd) low (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 5.33 inches
Event #2 INFLOW
0.00 0.01
0.02 0.03
0.04 0.05
0.06 0.07
0.08 02/1202/1302/1402/1502/1602/1702/18
Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Event #2 INFLOW Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 5.33 inches)
0.068
3.25 Peak Flow:Peak Flow: Peak Flow:
PF:
Peak Level:
mgd
in
3.89 d/D Ratio:d/D Ratio: d/D Ratio: 0.33
CapacityCapacity Capacity
Peak I/I Rate: 0.048 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
| Site 1 - 12
368
SITE 1
I/I Summary: Event #2 RDI
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period
0.00 0.02
0.04 0.06
0.08 0.10
0.12 02/1102/1202/1302/1402/1502/1602/1702/1802/1902/2002/2102/2202/2302/2402/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/11 Flow (mgd) low (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 5.33 inches
Event #2 RDI
0.00 0.01
0.02 0.03
0.04 0.05
0.06 0.07
0.08 02/1202/1302/1402/1502/1602/1702/1802/1902/2002/2102/2202/2302/2402/2502/26 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Event #2 RDI Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 5.33 inches)
0.068
3.25 Peak Flow:Peak Flow: Peak Flow:
PF:
Peak Level:
mgd
in
3.89 d/D Ratio:d/D Ratio: d/D Ratio: 0.33
CapacityCapacity Capacity
RDI: 0.002 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
| Site 1 - 13
369
SITE 1
I/I Summary: Event #3 INFLOW
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period
0.00 0.02
0.04 0.06
0.08 0.10
0.12 02/2102/2202/2302/2402/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/1103/1203/1303/1403/1503/1603/1703/1803/1903/2003/21 Flow (mgd) low (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 2.26 inches
Event #3 INFLOW
0.00 0.01
0.02 0.03
0.04 0.05
0.06 02/2602/2702/2803/01
Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Event #3 INFLOW Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 2.26 inches)
0.06 3.09
Peak Flow:Peak Flow: Peak Flow:
PF:
Peak Level:
mgd
in
3.26 d/D Ratio:d/D Ratio: d/D Ratio: 0.31
CapacityCapacity Capacity
Peak I/I Rate: 0.048 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
| Site 1 - 14
370
SITE 1
I/I Summary: Event #3 RDI
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period
0.00 0.02
0.04 0.06
0.08 0.10
0.12 02/2102/2202/2302/2402/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/1103/1203/1303/1403/1503/1603/1703/1803/1903/2003/21 Flow (mgd) low (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 7.66 inches
Event #3 RDI
0.00 0.01
0.02 0.03
0.04 0.05
0.06 0.07
02/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/1103/1203/1303/1403/1503/1603/1703/1803/1903/20 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Event #3 RDI Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 7.66 inches)
0.06 3.14
Peak Flow:Peak Flow: Peak Flow:
PF:
Peak Level:
mgd
in
3.54 d/D Ratio:d/D Ratio: d/D Ratio: 0.31
CapacityCapacity Capacity
RDI: 0.001 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
| Site 1 - 15
371
SITE 1
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
1/28/2019 to 2/4/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.02
0.04 0.06
0.08 0.10
0.12 0.14
0.16 1/28 1/29 1/30 1/31 2/1 2/2 2/3
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 4.52 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 4.52 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 1.26 in. Peak Level: 3.22 in. Min Level: 0.75 in. Avg Level: 1.26 in. Peak Level: 3.22 in. Min Level: 0.75 in.
Avg Velocity: 0.88 fps Peak Velocity: 1.46 fps Min Velocity: 0.20 fps Avg Flow: 0.023 mgd Peak Flow: 0.143 mgd Min Flow: 0.003 mgd | Site 1 - 16
372
SITE 1
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/4/2019 to 2/11/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.02
0.04 0.06
0.08 0.10
0.12 2/4 2/5 2/6 2/7 2/8 2/9 2/10
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 3.21 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 3.21 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 1.25 in. Peak Level: 3.05 in. Min Level: 0.75 in. Avg Level: 1.25 in. Peak Level: 3.05 in. Min Level: 0.75 in.
Avg Velocity: 0.77 fps Peak Velocity: 1.24 fps Min Velocity: 0.10 fps Avg Flow: 0.020 mgd Peak Flow: 0.068 mgd Min Flow: 0.001 mgd | Site 1 - 17
373
SITE 1
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/11/2019 to 2/18/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.02
0.04 0.06
0.08 0.10
0.12 2/11 2/12 2/13 2/14 2/15 2/16 2/17
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 5.33 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 5.33 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 1.25 in. Peak Level: 3.25 in. Min Level: 0.77 in. Avg Level: 1.25 in. Peak Level: 3.25 in. Min Level: 0.77 in.
Avg Velocity: 0.82 fps Peak Velocity: 1.12 fps Min Velocity: 0.28 fps Avg Flow: 0.021 mgd Peak Flow: 0.068 mgd Min Flow: 0.007 mgd | Site 1 - 18
374
SITE 1
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/18/2019 to 2/25/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.02
0.04 0.06
0.08 0.10
0.12 2/18 2/19 2/20 2/21 2/22 2/23 2/24
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.01 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 0.01 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 1.24 in. Peak Level: 3.13 in. Min Level: 0.75 in. Avg Level: 1.24 in. Peak Level: 3.13 in. Min Level: 0.75 in.
Avg Velocity: 0.80 fps Peak Velocity: 1.13 fps Min Velocity: 0.34 fps Avg Flow: 0.021 mgd Peak Flow: 0.063 mgd Min Flow: 0.006 mgd | Site 1 - 19
375
SITE 1
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/25/2019 to 3/4/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.02
0.04 0.06
0.08 0.10
0.12 2/25 2/26 2/27 2/28 3/1 3/2 3/3
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 4.41 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 4.41 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 1.27 in. Peak Level: 3.14 in. Min Level: 0.76 in. Avg Level: 1.27 in. Peak Level: 3.14 in. Min Level: 0.76 in.
Avg Velocity: 0.77 fps Peak Velocity: 1.17 fps Min Velocity: 0.22 fps Avg Flow: 0.021 mgd Peak Flow: 0.062 mgd Min Flow: 0.006 mgd | Site 1 - 20
376
SITE 1
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/4/2019 to 3/11/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.02
0.04 0.06
0.08 0.10
0.12 3/4 3/5 3/6 3/7 3/8 3/9 3/10
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 3.26 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 3.26 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 1.35 in. Peak Level: 2.98 in. Min Level: 0.93 in. Avg Level: 1.35 in. Peak Level: 2.98 in. Min Level: 0.93 in.
Avg Velocity: 0.70 fps Peak Velocity: 1.02 fps Min Velocity: 0.16 fps Avg Flow: 0.020 mgd Peak Flow: 0.049 mgd Min Flow: 0.003 mgd | Site 1 - 21
377
SITE 1
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/11/2019 to 3/18/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.02
0.04 0.06
0.08 0.10
0.12 3/11 3/12 3/13 3/14 3/15 3/16 3/17
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.01 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 0.01 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 1.31 in. Peak Level: 3.01 in. Min Level: 0.80 in. Avg Level: 1.31 in. Peak Level: 3.01 in. Min Level: 0.80 in.
Avg Velocity: 0.68 fps Peak Velocity: 0.98 fps Min Velocity: 0.13 fps Avg Flow: 0.019 mgd Peak Flow: 0.049 mgd Min Flow: 0.005 mgd | Site 1 - 22
378
SITE 1
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/18/2019 to 3/25/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.02
0.04 0.06
0.08 0.10
0.12 3/18 3/19 3/20 3/21 3/22 3/23 3/24
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 1.47 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 1.47 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 1.23 in. Peak Level: 3.06 in. Min Level: 0.68 in. Avg Level: 1.23 in. Peak Level: 3.06 in. Min Level: 0.68 in.
Avg Velocity: 0.66 fps Peak Velocity: 0.98 fps Min Velocity: 0.18 fps Avg Flow: 0.017 mgd Peak Flow: 0.058 mgd Min Flow: 0.004 mgd | Site 1 - 23
379
SITE 1
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/25/2019 to 4/1/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.02
0.04 0.06
0.08 0.10
0.12 3/25 3/26 3/27 3/28 3/29 3/30 3/31
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 1.27 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 1.27 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 1.34 in. Peak Level: 3.14 in. Min Level: 0.80 in. Avg Level: 1.34 in. Peak Level: 3.14 in. Min Level: 0.80 in.
Avg Velocity: 0.65 fps Peak Velocity: 0.95 fps Min Velocity: 0.11 fps Avg Flow: 0.019 mgd Peak Flow: 0.049 mgd Min Flow: 0.003 mgd | Site 1 - 24
380
SITE 1
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
4/1/2019 to 4/8/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.02
0.04 0.06
0.08 0.10
0.12 4/1 4/2 4/3 4/4 4/5 4/6 4/7
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.73 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 0.73 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 1.33 in. Peak Level: 2.97 in. Min Level: 0.91 in. Avg Level: 1.33 in. Peak Level: 2.97 in. Min Level: 0.91 in.
Avg Velocity: 0.60 fps Peak Velocity: 0.98 fps Min Velocity: 0.12 fps Avg Flow: 0.017 mgd Peak Flow: 0.053 mgd Min Flow: 0.006 mgd | Site 1 - 25
381
SITE 1
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
4/8/2019 to 4/15/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.02
0.04 0.06
0.08 0.10
0.12 4/8 4/9 4/10 4/11 4/12 4/13 4/14
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 1.46 in. Peak Level: 4.26 in. Min Level: 0.71 in.
Avg Velocity: 0.58 fps Peak Velocity: 0.93 fps Min Velocity: 0.04 fps Avg Flow: 0.019 mgd Peak Flow: 0.053 mgd Min Flow: 0.002 mgd | Site 1 - 26
382
SITE 1
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
4/15/2019 to 4/22/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.02
0.04 0.06
0.08 0.10
0.12 4/15 4/16 4/17 4/18 4/19 4/20 4/21
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.16 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 0.16 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 1.44 in. Peak Level: 3.62 in. Min Level: 0.92 in. Avg Level: 1.44 in. Peak Level: 3.62 in. Min Level: 0.92 in.
Avg Velocity: 0.61 fps Peak Velocity: 0.96 fps Min Velocity: 0.10 fps Avg Flow: 0.019 mgd Peak Flow: 0.051 mgd Min Flow: 0.005 mgd | Site 1 - 27
383
SITE 1
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
4/22/2019 to 4/29/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.02
0.04 0.06
0.08 0.10
0.12 4/22 4/23 4/24 4/25 4/26 4/27 4/28
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 1.48 in. Peak Level: 3.83 in. Min Level: 0.93 in.
Avg Velocity: 0.59 fps Peak Velocity: 0.96 fps Min Velocity: 0.12 fps Avg Flow: 0.020 mgd Peak Flow: 0.051 mgd Min Flow: 0.004 mgd | Site 1 - 28
384
SITE 1
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
4/29/2019 to 5/6/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.02
0.04 0.06
0.08 0.10
0.12 4/29 4/30 5/1 5/2 5/3 5/4 5/5
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 1.50 in. Peak Level: 4.17 in. Min Level: 0.90 in.
Avg Velocity: 0.61 fps Peak Velocity: 1.13 fps Min Velocity: 0.12 fps Avg Flow: 0.021 mgd Peak Flow: 0.071 mgd Min Flow: 0.005 mgd | Site 1 - 29
385
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Monitoring Site: onitoring Site:
Location:Location: Location:
Site 2
In Treatment Plant, behind parked car
January 30 - May 03, 2019
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring
Carollo | Scotts Valley, California
Vicinity Map: Site 2
Data Summary Report
| Site 2 - 1
386
SITE 2
Site Information
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Measured Pipe Diameter: easured Pipe Diameter: 10 inches ADWF: 0.076 mgd
Peak Measured Flow: 0.411 mgd
Flow Sketch
Satellite Map
Street View
Sewer MapSewer Map Sewer Map
Location:Location: Location: In Treatment Plant, behind parked car
Rim Elevation (Earth): 505 feet
Plan ViewPlan View Plan View
Coordinates: 122.0256° W, 37.0410° N
Expected Pipe Diameter: 10 inches
Sediment:Sediment: Sediment: None
| Site 2 - 2
387
SITE 2
Additional Site Photos
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Effluent Pipe
Monitored Influent Pipe
| Site 2 - 3
388
SITE 2
Period Flow Summary: Daily Flow Totals
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.0000.0200.0400.0600.0800.1000.1200.1400.1600.180
1/31
2/2
2/4
2/6
2/8
2/10
2/12
2/14
2/16
2/18
2/20
2/22
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16
3/18
3/20
3/22
3/24
3/26
3/28
3/30
4/1
4/3
4/5
4/7
4/9
4/11
4/13
4/15
4/17
4/19
4/21
4/23
4/25
4/27
4/29
5/1
Flow (M Gal)
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Rainfall (in/day)
Realtime Holiday Rainfall ADWF
0.0000.0200.0400.0600.0800.1000.1200.1400.1600.180
1/31
2/2
2/4
2/6
2/8
2/10
2/12
2/14
2/16
2/18
2/20
2/22
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16
3/18
3/20
3/22
3/24
3/26
3/28
3/30
4/1
4/3
4/5
4/7
4/9
4/11
4/13
4/15
4/17
4/19
4/21
4/23
4/25
4/27
4/29
5/1
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Realtime Weekend
0.0000.0200.0400.0600.0800.1000.1200.1400.1600.180
1/31
2/2
2/4
2/6
2/8
2/10
2/12
2/14
2/16
2/18
2/20
2/22
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16
3/18
3/20
3/22
3/24
3/26
3/28
3/30
4/1
4/3
4/5
4/7
4/9
4/11
4/13
4/15
4/17
4/19
4/21
4/23
4/25
4/27
4/29
5/1
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Realtime Weekday
Total Rainfall: 24.20 inches otal Rainfall: 24.20 inches Avg Daily Flow: 0.097 MGal Peak Daily Flow: 0.160 MGal Min Daily Flow: 0.065 MGal Avg Daily Flow: 0.097 MGal Peak Daily Flow: 0.160 MGal Min Daily Flow: 0.065 MGal | Site 2 - 4
389
SITE 2
Flow Summary: 1/31/2019 to 2/28/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.000.100.200.300.400.500.60
Jan 31
(Thu)
Feb 01
(Fri)
Feb 02
(Sat)
Feb 03
(Sun)
Feb 04
(Mon)
Feb 05
(Tue)
Feb 06
(Wed)
Feb 07
(Thu)
Feb 08
(Fri)
Feb 09
(Sat)
Feb 10
(Sun)
Feb 11
(Mon)
Feb 12
(Tue)
Feb 13
(Wed)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain fall ( in /h r)
Rain Flow AD WF
0.000.100.200.300.400.500.60
Feb 14
(Thu)
Feb 15
(Fri)
Feb 16
(Sat)
Feb 17
(Sun)
Feb 18
(Mon)
Feb 19
(Tue)
Feb 20
(Wed)
Feb 21
(Thu)
Feb 22
(Fri)
Feb 23
(Sat)
Feb 24
(Sun)
Feb 25
(Mon)
Feb 26
(Tue)
Feb 27
(Wed)
Feb 28
(Thu)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain f all (in /h r)
Period Rainfall: 15.16 inches Period Avg Flow: 0.111 mgd Period Peak Flow: 0.411 mgd Period Min Flow: 0 | Site 2 - 5
390
SITE 2
Flow Summary: 3/1/2019 to 3/31/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.000.100.200.300.400.500.60
Mar 01
(Fri)
Mar 02
(Sat)
Mar 03
(Sun)
Mar 04
(Mon)
Mar 05
(Tue)
Mar 06
(Wed)
Mar 07
(Thu)
Mar 08
(Fri)
Mar 09
(Sat)
Mar 10
(Sun)
Mar 11
(Mon)
Mar 12
(Tue)
Mar 13
(Wed)
Mar 14
(Thu)
Mar 15
(Fri)
Mar 16
(Sat)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain fall ( in /h r)
Rain Flow AD WF
0.000.100.200.300.400.500.60
Mar 17
(Sun)
Mar 18
(Mon)
Mar 19
(Tue)
Mar 20
(Wed)
Mar 21
(Thu)
Mar 22
(Fri)
Mar 23
(Sat)
Mar 24
(Sun)
Mar 25
(Mon)
Mar 26
(Tue)
Mar 27
(Wed)
Mar 28
(Thu)
Mar 29
(Fri)
Mar 30
(Sat)
Mar 31
(Sun)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain f all (in /h r)
Period Rainfall: 8.15 inches Period Avg Flow: 0.095 mgd Period Peak Flow: 0.319 mgd Period Min Flow: 0 | Site 2 - 6
391
SITE 2
Flow Summary: 4/1/2019 to 5/2/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.000.100.200.300.400.500.60
Apr 01
(Mon)
Apr 02
(Tue)
Apr 03
(Wed)
Apr 04
(Thu)
Apr 05
(Fri)
Apr 06
(Sat)
Apr 07
(Sun)
Apr 08
(Mon)
Apr 09
(Tue)
Apr 10
(Wed)
Apr 11
(Thu)
Apr 12
(Fri)
Apr 13
(Sat)
Apr 14
(Sun)
Apr 15
(Mon)
Apr 16
(Tue)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain fall ( in /h r)
Rain Flow AD WF
0.000.100.200.300.400.500.60
Apr 17
(Wed)
Apr 18
(Thu)
Apr 19
(Fri)
Apr 20
(Sat)
Apr 21
(Sun)
Apr 22
(Mon)
Apr 23
(Tue)
Apr 24
(Wed)
Apr 25
(Thu)
Apr 26
(Fri)
Apr 27
(Sat)
Apr 28
(Sun)
Apr 29
(Mon)
Apr 30
(Tue)
May 01
(Wed)
May 02
(Thu)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain f all (in /h r)
Period Rainfall: 0.88 inches Period Avg Flow: 0.085 mgd Period Peak Flow: 0.253 mgd Period Min Flow: 0 | Site 2 - 7
392
SITE 2
Average Dry Weather Flow Hydrographs
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.0000.0500.1000.1500.2000.250
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)
M on-Thurs Friday SaturdaySaturday Saturday Sunday
Time of Day
0.076 mgd
ADWF:
| Site 2 - 8
393
SITE 2
Site Capacity and Surcharge Summary
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Peak Measured Level: 4.01 Peak Measured Level: eak Measured Level:
Peak d/D Ratio: 0.40Pipe Diameter: 10 inches
inches
Realtime Flow Levels with Rainfall Data over Peak Level Period Diameter
75% d/D
50% d/D
02468
10 12
01/30
02/01
02/03
02/05
02/07
02/09
02/11
02/13
02/15
02/17
02/19
02/21
02/23
02/25
02/27
03/01
03/03
Level (in)
03/05
03/07
03/09
03/11
03/13
03/15
03/17
03/19
03/21
03/23
03/25
03/27
03/29
03/31
04/02
04/04
04/06
04/08
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.02.22.42.62.83.0 Rain (in/hr) | Site 2 - 9
394
SITE 2
I/I Summary: Event #1 RDI
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 01/3102/0102/0202/0302/0402/0502/0602/0702/0802/0902/1002/1102/1202/1302/1402/1502/1602/1702/1802/1902/20 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 5.48 inches
Event #1 RDI
0.00 0.05
0.10 0.15
0.20 0.25
0.30 0.35
0.40 0.45
02/0102/0202/0302/0402/0502/0602/0702/08
Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Event #1 RDI Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 5.48 inches)
0.411
3.92 Peak Flow:Peak Flow: Peak Flow:
PF:
Peak Level:
mgd
in
5.40 d/D Ratio:d/D Ratio: d/D Ratio: 0.39
CapacityCapacity Capacity
RDI: 0.030 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
| Site 2 - 10
395
SITE 2
I/I Summary: Event #2 INFLOW
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 02/1102/1202/1302/1402/1502/1602/1702/1802/1902/2002/2102/2202/2302/2402/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/11 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 5.33 inches
Event #2 INFLOW
0.00 0.05
0.10 0.15
0.20 0.25
0.30 0.35
0.40 0.45
02/1202/1302/1402/1502/1602/1702/18
Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Event #2 INFLOW Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 5.33 inches)
0.390
4.01 Peak Flow:Peak Flow: Peak Flow:
PF:
Peak Level:
mgd
in
5.13 d/D Ratio:d/D Ratio: d/D Ratio: 0.40
CapacityCapacity Capacity
Peak I/I Rate: 0.280 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
| Site 2 - 11
396
SITE 2
I/I Summary: Event #2 RDI
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 02/1102/1202/1302/1402/1502/1602/1702/1802/1902/2002/2102/2202/2302/2402/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/11 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 5.33 inches
Event #2 RDI
0.00 0.05
0.10 0.15
0.20 0.25
0.30 0.35
0.40 0.45
02/1202/1302/1402/1502/1602/1702/1802/1902/2002/2102/2202/2302/2402/2502/26 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Event #2 RDI Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 5.33 inches)
0.390
4.01 Peak Flow:Peak Flow: Peak Flow:
PF:
Peak Level:
mgd
in
5.13 d/D Ratio:d/D Ratio: d/D Ratio: 0.40
CapacityCapacity Capacity
RDI: 0.015 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
| Site 2 - 12
397
SITE 2
I/I Summary: Event #3 INFLOW
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 02/2102/2202/2302/2402/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/1103/1203/1303/1403/1503/1603/1703/1803/1903/2003/21 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 2.21 inches
Event #3 INFLOW
0.00 0.05
0.10 0.15
0.20 0.25
0.30 0.35
0.40 02/2602/2702/2803/01
Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Event #3 INFLOW Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 2.21 inches)
0.36 3.76
Peak Flow:Peak Flow: Peak Flow:
PF:
Peak Level:
mgd
in
4.68 d/D Ratio:d/D Ratio: d/D Ratio: 0.38
CapacityCapacity Capacity
Peak I/I Rate: 0.255 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
| Site 2 - 13
398
SITE 2
I/I Summary: Event #3 RDI
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 02/2102/2202/2302/2402/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/1103/1203/1303/1403/1503/1603/1703/1803/1903/2003/21 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 7.6 inches
Event #3 RDI
0.00 0.05
0.10 0.15
0.20 0.25
0.30 0.35
0.40 02/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/1103/1203/1303/1403/1503/1603/1703/1803/1903/20 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Event #3 RDI Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 7.60 inches)
0.36 3.76
Peak Flow:Peak Flow: Peak Flow:
PF:
Peak Level:
mgd
in
4.68 d/D Ratio:d/D Ratio: d/D Ratio: 0.38
CapacityCapacity Capacity
RDI: 0.019 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
| Site 2 - 14
399
SITE 2
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
1/28/2019 to 2/4/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 3.5
4.0 4.5
5.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 1/28 1/29 1/30 1/31 2/1 2/2 2/3
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 4.52 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 4.52 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 2.04 in. Peak Level: 3.25 in. Min Level: 1.14 in. Avg Level: 2.04 in. Peak Level: 3.25 in. Min Level: 1.14 in.
Avg Velocity: 1.84 fps Peak Velocity: 2.77 fps Min Velocity: 1.11 fps Avg Flow: 0.116 mgd Peak Flow: 0.285 mgd Min Flow: 0.027 mgd | Site 2 - 15
400
SITE 2
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/4/2019 to 2/11/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 3.5
4.0 4.5
5.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 2/4 2/5 2/6 2/7 2/8 2/9 2/10
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 3.21 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 3.21 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 2.14 in. Peak Level: 3.92 in. Min Level: 1.38 in. Avg Level: 2.14 in. Peak Level: 3.92 in. Min Level: 1.38 in.
Avg Velocity: 1.89 fps Peak Velocity: 2.80 fps Min Velocity: 1.26 fps Avg Flow: 0.124 mgd Peak Flow: 0.411 mgd Min Flow: 0.039 mgd | Site 2 - 16
401
SITE 2
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/11/2019 to 2/18/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 3.5
4.0 4.5
5.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 2/11 2/12 2/13 2/14 2/15 2/16 2/17
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 5.33 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 5.33 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 2.08 in. Peak Level: 4.01 in. Min Level: 1.34 in. Avg Level: 2.08 in. Peak Level: 4.01 in. Min Level: 1.34 in.
Avg Velocity: 1.90 fps Peak Velocity: 2.88 fps Min Velocity: 0.97 fps Avg Flow: 0.123 mgd Peak Flow: 0.390 mgd Min Flow: 0.028 mgd | Site 2 - 17
402
SITE 2
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/18/2019 to 2/25/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 3.5
4.0 4.5
5.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 2/18 2/19 2/20 2/21 2/22 2/23 2/24
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.01 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 0.01 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 1.86 in. Peak Level: 2.98 in. Min Level: 1.22 in. Avg Level: 1.86 in. Peak Level: 2.98 in. Min Level: 1.22 in.
Avg Velocity: 1.65 fps Peak Velocity: 2.55 fps Min Velocity: 0.98 fps Avg Flow: 0.091 mgd Peak Flow: 0.244 mgd Min Flow: 0.024 mgd | Site 2 - 18
403
SITE 2
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/25/2019 to 3/4/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 3.5
4.0 4.5
5.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 2/25 2/26 2/27 2/28 3/1 3/2 3/3
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 4.38 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 4.38 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 2.01 in. Peak Level: 3.76 in. Min Level: 1.28 in. Avg Level: 2.01 in. Peak Level: 3.76 in. Min Level: 1.28 in.
Avg Velocity: 1.75 fps Peak Velocity: 2.85 fps Min Velocity: 0.94 fps Avg Flow: 0.104 mgd Peak Flow: 0.356 mgd Min Flow: 0.016 mgd | Site 2 - 19
404
SITE 2
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/4/2019 to 3/11/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 3.5
4.0 4.5
5.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 3/4 3/5 3/6 3/7 3/8 3/9 3/10
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 3.23 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 3.23 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 1.86 in. Peak Level: 3.16 in. Min Level: 1.25 in. Avg Level: 1.86 in. Peak Level: 3.16 in. Min Level: 1.25 in.
Avg Velocity: 1.82 fps Peak Velocity: 2.63 fps Min Velocity: 1.17 fps Avg Flow: 0.099 mgd Peak Flow: 0.279 mgd Min Flow: 0.024 mgd | Site 2 - 20
405
SITE 2
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/11/2019 to 3/18/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 3.5
4.0 4.5
5.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 3/11 3/12 3/13 3/14 3/15 3/16 3/17
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.01 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 0.01 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 1.82 in. Peak Level: 2.89 in. Min Level: 1.12 in. Avg Level: 1.82 in. Peak Level: 2.89 in. Min Level: 1.12 in.
Avg Velocity: 1.71 fps Peak Velocity: 2.40 fps Min Velocity: 0.89 fps Avg Flow: 0.090 mgd Peak Flow: 0.231 mgd Min Flow: 0.023 mgd | Site 2 - 21
406
SITE 2
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/18/2019 to 3/25/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 3.5
4.0 4.5
5.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 3/18 3/19 3/20 3/21 3/22 3/23 3/24
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 1.47 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 1.47 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 1.77 in. Peak Level: 3.10 in. Min Level: 0.99 in. Avg Level: 1.77 in. Peak Level: 3.10 in. Min Level: 0.99 in.
Avg Velocity: 1.66 fps Peak Velocity: 2.65 fps Min Velocity: 0.74 fps Avg Flow: 0.086 mgd Peak Flow: 0.280 mgd Min Flow: 0.015 mgd | Site 2 - 22
407
SITE 2
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/25/2019 to 4/1/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 3.5
4.0 4.5
5.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 3/25 3/26 3/27 3/28 3/29 3/30 3/31
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 1.28 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 1.28 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 1.99 in. Peak Level: 3.20 in. Min Level: 1.19 in. Avg Level: 1.99 in. Peak Level: 3.20 in. Min Level: 1.19 in.
Avg Velocity: 1.65 fps Peak Velocity: 2.47 fps Min Velocity: 0.81 fps Avg Flow: 0.097 mgd Peak Flow: 0.259 mgd Min Flow: 0.000 mgd | Site 2 - 23
408
SITE 2
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
4/1/2019 to 4/8/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 3.5
4.0 4.5
5.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 4/1 4/2 4/3 4/4 4/5 4/6 4/7
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.72 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 0.72 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 1.96 in. Peak Level: 3.24 in. Min Level: 1.16 in. Avg Level: 1.96 in. Peak Level: 3.24 in. Min Level: 1.16 in.
Avg Velocity: 1.63 fps Peak Velocity: 2.26 fps Min Velocity: 0.66 fps Avg Flow: 0.096 mgd Peak Flow: 0.253 mgd Min Flow: 0.018 mgd | Site 2 - 24
409
SITE 2
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
4/8/2019 to 4/15/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 3.5
4.0 4.5
5.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 4/8 4/9 4/10 4/11 4/12 4/13 4/14
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 1.93 in. Peak Level: 3.16 in. Min Level: 1.04 in.
Avg Velocity: 1.55 fps Peak Velocity: 2.27 fps Min Velocity: 0.41 fps Avg Flow: 0.089 mgd Peak Flow: 0.247 mgd Min Flow: 0.009 mgd | Site 2 - 25
410
SITE 2
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
4/15/2019 to 4/22/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 3.5
4.0 4.5
5.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 4/15 4/16 4/17 4/18 4/19 4/20 4/21
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.16 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 0.16 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 1.83 in. Peak Level: 3.12 in. Min Level: 0.93 in. Avg Level: 1.83 in. Peak Level: 3.12 in. Min Level: 0.93 in.
Avg Velocity: 1.49 fps Peak Velocity: 2.41 fps Min Velocity: 0.45 fps Avg Flow: 0.083 mgd Peak Flow: 0.247 mgd Min Flow: 0.008 mgd | Site 2 - 26
411
SITE 2
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
4/22/2019 to 4/29/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 3.5
4.0 4.5
5.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 4/22 4/23 4/24 4/25 4/26 4/27 4/28
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 1.81 in. Peak Level: 3.07 in. Min Level: 0.85 in.
Avg Velocity: 1.48 fps Peak Velocity: 2.32 fps Min Velocity: 0.53 fps Avg Flow: 0.079 mgd Peak Flow: 0.243 mgd Min Flow: 0.000 mgd | Site 2 - 27
412
SITE 2
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
4/29/2019 to 5/6/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 3.5
4.0 4.5
5.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 4/29 4/30 5/1 5/2 5/3 5/4 5/5
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 1.79 in. Peak Level: 3.19 in. Min Level: 0.98 in.
Avg Velocity: 1.47 fps Peak Velocity: 2.36 fps Min Velocity: 0.65 fps Avg Flow: 0.076 mgd Peak Flow: 0.242 mgd Min Flow: 0.010 mgd | Site 2 - 28
413
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Monitoring Site: onitoring Site:
Location:Location: Location:
Site 3
In Treatment Plant, behind gate
January 30 - May 03, 2019
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring
Carollo | Scotts Valley, California
Vicinity Map: Site 3
Data Summary Report
| Site 3 - 1
414
SITE 3
Site Information
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Measured Pipe Diameter: easured Pipe Diameter: 17 inches ADWF: 0.667 mgd
Peak Measured Flow: 2.408 mgd
Flow Sketch
Satellite Map
Street View
Sewer MapSewer Map Sewer Map
Location:Location: Location: In Treatment Plant, behind gate Rim Elevation (Earth): 505 feet
Plan ViewPlan View Plan View
Coordinates: 122.0266° W, 37.0423° N
Expected Pipe Diameter: 18 inches
Sediment:Sediment: Sediment: None
| Site 3 - 2
415
SITE 3
Additional Site Photos
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Effluent Pipe
Monitored Northwest Influent Pipe
| Site 3 - 3
416
SITE 3
Additional Site Photos
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information West Influent Pipe
| Site 3 - 4
417
SITE 3
Period Flow Summary: Daily Flow Totals
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.0000.2000.4000.6000.8001.0001.2001.4001.600
1/31
2/2
2/4
2/6
2/8
2/10
2/12
2/14
2/16
2/18
2/20
2/22
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16
3/18
3/20
3/22
3/24
3/26
3/28
3/30
4/1
4/3
4/5
4/7
4/9
4/11
4/13
4/15
4/17
4/19
4/21
4/23
4/25
4/27
4/29
5/1
Flow (M Gal)
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Rainfall (in/day)
Realtime Holiday Rainfall ADWF
0.0000.2000.4000.6000.8001.0001.2001.4001.600
1/31
2/2
2/4
2/6
2/8
2/10
2/12
2/14
2/16
2/18
2/20
2/22
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16
3/18
3/20
3/22
3/24
3/26
3/28
3/30
4/1
4/3
4/5
4/7
4/9
4/11
4/13
4/15
4/17
4/19
4/21
4/23
4/25
4/27
4/29
5/1
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Realtime Weekend
0.0000.2000.4000.6000.8001.0001.2001.4001.600
1/31
2/2
2/4
2/6
2/8
2/10
2/12
2/14
2/16
2/18
2/20
2/22
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16
3/18
3/20
3/22
3/24
3/26
3/28
3/30
4/1
4/3
4/5
4/7
4/9
4/11
4/13
4/15
4/17
4/19
4/21
4/23
4/25
4/27
4/29
5/1
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Realtime Weekday
Total Rainfall: 25.06 inches otal Rainfall: 25.06 inches Avg Daily Flow: 0.855 MGal Peak Daily Flow: 1.434 MGal Min Daily Flow: 0.662 MGal Avg Daily Flow: 0.855 MGal Peak Daily Flow: 1.434 MGal Min Daily Flow: 0.662 MGal | Site 3 - 5
418
SITE 3
Flow Summary: 1/31/2019 to 2/28/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.50
Jan 31
(Thu)
Feb 01
(Fri)
Feb 02
(Sat)
Feb 03
(Sun)
Feb 04
(Mon)
Feb 05
(Tue)
Feb 06
(Wed)
Feb 07
(Thu)
Feb 08
(Fri)
Feb 09
(Sat)
Feb 10
(Sun)
Feb 11
(Mon)
Feb 12
(Tue)
Feb 13
(Wed)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain fall ( in /h r)
Rain Flow AD WF
0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.50
Feb 14
(Thu)
Feb 15
(Fri)
Feb 16
(Sat)
Feb 17
(Sun)
Feb 18
(Mon)
Feb 19
(Tue)
Feb 20
(Wed)
Feb 21
(Thu)
Feb 22
(Fri)
Feb 23
(Sat)
Feb 24
(Sun)
Feb 25
(Mon)
Feb 26
(Tue)
Feb 27
(Wed)
Feb 28
(Thu)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain f all (in /h r)
Period Rainfall: 15.73 inches Period Avg Flow: 0.969 mgd Period Peak Flow: 2.408 mgd Period Min Flow: 0 | Site 3 - 6
419
SITE 3
Flow Summary: 3/1/2019 to 3/31/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.50
Mar 01
(Fri)
Mar 02
(Sat)
Mar 03
(Sun)
Mar 04
(Mon)
Mar 05
(Tue)
Mar 06
(Wed)
Mar 07
(Thu)
Mar 08
(Fri)
Mar 09
(Sat)
Mar 10
(Sun)
Mar 11
(Mon)
Mar 12
(Tue)
Mar 13
(Wed)
Mar 14
(Thu)
Mar 15
(Fri)
Mar 16
(Sat)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain fall ( in /h r)
Rain Flow AD WF
0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.50
Mar 17
(Sun)
Mar 18
(Mon)
Mar 19
(Tue)
Mar 20
(Wed)
Mar 21
(Thu)
Mar 22
(Fri)
Mar 23
(Sat)
Mar 24
(Sun)
Mar 25
(Mon)
Mar 26
(Tue)
Mar 27
(Wed)
Mar 28
(Thu)
Mar 29
(Fri)
Mar 30
(Sat)
Mar 31
(Sun)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain f all (in /h r)
Period Rainfall: 8.40 inches Period Avg Flow: 0.886 mgd Period Peak Flow: 1.950 mgd Period Min Flow: 0 | Site 3 - 7
420
SITE 3
Flow Summary: 4/1/2019 to 5/2/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.50
Apr 01
(Mon)
Apr 02
(Tue)
Apr 03
(Wed)
Apr 04
(Thu)
Apr 05
(Fri)
Apr 06
(Sat)
Apr 07
(Sun)
Apr 08
(Mon)
Apr 09
(Tue)
Apr 10
(Wed)
Apr 11
(Thu)
Apr 12
(Fri)
Apr 13
(Sat)
Apr 14
(Sun)
Apr 15
(Mon)
Apr 16
(Tue)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain fall ( in /h r)
Rain Flow AD WF
0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.50
Apr 17
(Wed)
Apr 18
(Thu)
Apr 19
(Fri)
Apr 20
(Sat)
Apr 21
(Sun)
Apr 22
(Mon)
Apr 23
(Tue)
Apr 24
(Wed)
Apr 25
(Thu)
Apr 26
(Fri)
Apr 27
(Sat)
Apr 28
(Sun)
Apr 29
(Mon)
Apr 30
(Tue)
May 01
(Wed)
May 02
(Thu)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain f all (in /h r)
Period Rainfall: 0.93 inches Period Avg Flow: 0.720 mgd Period Peak Flow: 1.420 mgd Period Min Flow: 0 | Site 3 - 8
421
SITE 3
Average Dry Weather Flow Hydrographs
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.0000.2000.4000.6000.8001.0001.200
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)
M on-Thurs Friday SaturdaySaturday Saturday Sunday
Time of Day
0.667 mgd
ADWF:
| Site 3 - 9
422
SITE 3
Site Capacity and Surcharge Summary
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Surcharged 1.7 inches over crown
Peak Measured Level: 18.7 Peak Measured Level: eak Measured Level:
Peak d/D Ratio: 1.10Pipe Diameter: 17 inches
inches
Realtime Flow Levels with Rainfall Data over Peak Level Period Diameter
75% d/D
50% d/D
05 10
152025
01/30
02/01
02/03
02/05
02/07
02/09
02/11
02/13
02/15
02/17
02/19
02/21
02/23
02/25
02/27
03/01
03/03
Level (in)
03/05
03/07
03/09
03/11
03/13
03/15
03/17
03/19
03/21
03/23
03/25
03/27
03/29
03/31
04/02
04/04
04/06
04/08
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.02.22.42.62.83.0 Rain (in/hr) | Site 3 - 10
423
SITE 3
I/I Summary: Event #1 RDI
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period 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
01/3102/0102/0202/0302/0402/0502/0602/0702/0802/0902/1002/1102/1202/1302/1402/1502/1602/1702/1802/1902/20 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 5.66 inches
Event #1 RDI
0.00 0.50
1.00 1.50
2.00 2.50
02/0102/0202/0302/0402/0502/0602/0702/08
Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Event #1 RDI Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 5.66 inches)
2.172
9.13 Peak Flow:Peak Flow: Peak Flow:
PF:
Peak Level:
mgd
in
3.26 d/D Ratio:d/D Ratio: d/D Ratio: 0.54
CapacityCapacity Capacity
RDI: 0.216 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
| Site 3 - 11
424
SITE 3
I/I Summary: Event #2 INFLOW
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period 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
02/1102/1202/1302/1402/1502/1602/1702/1802/1902/2002/2102/2202/2302/2402/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/11 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 5.49 inches
Event #2 INFLOW
0.00 0.50
1.00 1.50
2.00 2.50
3.00 02/1202/1302/1402/1502/1602/1702/18
Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Event #2 INFLOW Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 5.49 inches)
2.408
18.65 Peak Flow:Peak Flow: Peak Flow:
PF:
Peak Level:
mgd
in
3.61 d/D Ratio:d/D Ratio: d/D Ratio: 1.10
CapacityCapacity Capacity
Peak I/I Rate: 1.326 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
| Site 3 - 12
425
SITE 3
I/I Summary: Event #2 RDI
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period 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
02/1102/1202/1302/1402/1502/1602/1702/1802/1902/2002/2102/2202/2302/2402/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/11 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 5.49 inches
Event #2 RDI
0.00 0.50
1.00 1.50
2.00 2.50
3.00 02/1202/1302/1402/1502/1602/1702/1802/1902/2002/2102/2202/2302/2402/2502/26 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Event #2 RDI Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 5.49 inches)
2.408
18.65 Peak Flow:Peak Flow: Peak Flow:
PF:
Peak Level:
mgd
in
3.61 d/D Ratio:d/D Ratio: d/D Ratio: 1.10
CapacityCapacity Capacity
RDI: 0.259 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
| Site 3 - 13
426
SITE 3
I/I Summary: Event #3 INFLOW
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period 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
02/2102/2202/2302/2402/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/1103/1203/1303/1403/1503/1603/1703/1803/1903/2003/21 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 2.38 inches
Event #3 INFLOW
0.00 0.20
0.40 0.60
0.80 1.00
1.20 1.40
1.60 1.80
2.00 02/2602/2702/2803/01
Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Event #3 INFLOW Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 2.38 inches)
1.79 8.40
Peak Flow:Peak Flow: Peak Flow:
PF:
Peak Level:
mgd
in
2.69 d/D Ratio:d/D Ratio: d/D Ratio: 0.49
CapacityCapacity Capacity
Peak I/I Rate: 1.507 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
| Site 3 - 14
427
SITE 3
I/I Summary: Event #3 RDI
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period 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
02/2102/2202/2302/2402/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/1103/1203/1303/1403/1503/1603/1703/1803/1903/2003/21 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 7.96 inches
Event #3 RDI
0.00 0.50
1.00 1.50
2.00 2.50
02/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/1103/1203/1303/1403/1503/1603/1703/1803/1903/20 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Event #3 RDI Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 7.96 inches)
1.95 8.40
Peak Flow:Peak Flow: Peak Flow:
PF:
Peak Level:
mgd
in
2.92 d/D Ratio:d/D Ratio: d/D Ratio: 0.49
CapacityCapacity Capacity
RDI: 0.233 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
| Site 3 - 15
428
SITE 3
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
1/28/2019 to 2/4/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.50
1.00 1.50
2.00 2.50
3.00 3.50
1/28 1/29 1/30 1/31 2/1 2/2 2/3
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 4.66 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 4.66 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 5.94 in. Peak Level: 9.13 in. Min Level: 3.15 in. Avg Level: 5.94 in. Peak Level: 9.13 in. Min Level: 3.15 in.
Avg Velocity: 2.99 fps Peak Velocity: 3.69 fps Min Velocity: 1.92 fps Avg Flow: 1.017 mgd Peak Flow: 1.931 mgd Min Flow: 0.263 mgd | Site 3 - 16
429
SITE 3
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/4/2019 to 2/11/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.50
1.00 1.50
2.00 2.50
3.00 3.50
2/4 2/5 2/6 2/7 2/8 2/9 2/10
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 3.30 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 3.30 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 5.84 in. Peak Level: 8.56 in. Min Level: 3.82 in. Avg Level: 5.84 in. Peak Level: 8.56 in. Min Level: 3.82 in.
Avg Velocity: 3.04 fps Peak Velocity: 4.10 fps Min Velocity: 1.96 fps Avg Flow: 1.004 mgd Peak Flow: 2.172 mgd Min Flow: 0.350 mgd | Site 3 - 17
430
SITE 3
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/11/2019 to 2/18/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.50
1.00 1.50
2.00 2.50
3.00 3.50
2/11 2/12 2/13 2/14 2/15 2/16 2/17
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 5.49 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 5.49 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 6.15 in. Peak Level: 18.65 in. Min Level: 3.72 in. Avg Level: 6.15 in. Peak Level: 18.65 in. Min Level: 3.72 in.
Avg Velocity: 3.06 fps Peak Velocity: 3.86 fps Min Velocity: 1.97 fps Avg Flow: 1.081 mgd Peak Flow: 2.408 mgd Min Flow: 0.364 mgd | Site 3 - 18
431
SITE 3
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/18/2019 to 2/25/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.50
1.00 1.50
2.00 2.50
3.00 3.50
2/18 2/19 2/20 2/21 2/22 2/23 2/24
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.01 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 0.01 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 5.48 in. Peak Level: 7.11 in. Min Level: 3.45 in. Avg Level: 5.48 in. Peak Level: 7.11 in. Min Level: 3.45 in.
Avg Velocity: 2.68 fps Peak Velocity: 3.46 fps Min Velocity: 1.68 fps Avg Flow: 0.822 mgd Peak Flow: 1.366 mgd Min Flow: 0.267 mgd | Site 3 - 19
432
SITE 3
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/25/2019 to 3/4/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.50
1.00 1.50
2.00 2.50
3.00 3.50
2/25 2/26 2/27 2/28 3/1 3/2 3/3
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 4.57 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 4.57 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 5.83 in. Peak Level: 8.40 in. Min Level: 3.42 in. Avg Level: 5.83 in. Peak Level: 8.40 in. Min Level: 3.42 in.
Avg Velocity: 2.96 fps Peak Velocity: 3.79 fps Min Velocity: 1.72 fps Avg Flow: 0.979 mgd Peak Flow: 1.950 mgd Min Flow: 0.266 mgd | Site 3 - 20
433
SITE 3
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/4/2019 to 3/11/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.50
1.00 1.50
2.00 2.50
3.00 3.50
3/4 3/5 3/6 3/7 3/8 3/9 3/10
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 3.40 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 3.40 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 5.97 in. Peak Level: 8.27 in. Min Level: 4.02 in. Avg Level: 5.97 in. Peak Level: 8.27 in. Min Level: 4.02 in.
Avg Velocity: 3.08 fps Peak Velocity: 3.63 fps Min Velocity: 2.10 fps Avg Flow: 1.039 mgd Peak Flow: 1.777 mgd Min Flow: 0.407 mgd | Site 3 - 21
434
SITE 3
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/11/2019 to 3/18/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.50
1.00 1.50
2.00 2.50
3.00 3.50
3/11 3/12 3/13 3/14 3/15 3/16 3/17
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.01 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 0.01 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 5.42 in. Peak Level: 7.36 in. Min Level: 3.50 in. Avg Level: 5.42 in. Peak Level: 7.36 in. Min Level: 3.50 in.
Avg Velocity: 2.75 fps Peak Velocity: 3.48 fps Min Velocity: 1.87 fps Avg Flow: 0.826 mgd Peak Flow: 1.392 mgd Min Flow: 0.308 mgd | Site 3 - 22
435
SITE 3
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/18/2019 to 3/25/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.50
1.00 1.50
2.00 2.50
3.00 3.50
3/18 3/19 3/20 3/21 3/22 3/23 3/24
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 1.52 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 1.52 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 5.29 in. Peak Level: 6.72 in. Min Level: 3.32 in. Avg Level: 5.29 in. Peak Level: 6.72 in. Min Level: 3.32 in.
Avg Velocity: 2.71 fps Peak Velocity: 3.56 fps Min Velocity: 1.82 fps Avg Flow: 0.789 mgd Peak Flow: 1.238 mgd Min Flow: 0.265 mgd | Site 3 - 23
436
SITE 3
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/25/2019 to 4/1/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.50
1.00 1.50
2.00 2.50
3.00 3.50
3/25 3/26 3/27 3/28 3/29 3/30 3/31
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 1.29 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 1.29 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 5.15 in. Peak Level: 6.86 in. Min Level: 3.44 in. Avg Level: 5.15 in. Peak Level: 6.86 in. Min Level: 3.44 in.
Avg Velocity: 2.91 fps Peak Velocity: 3.73 fps Min Velocity: 1.92 fps Avg Flow: 0.819 mgd Peak Flow: 1.341 mgd Min Flow: 0.299 mgd | Site 3 - 24
437
SITE 3
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
4/1/2019 to 4/8/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.50
1.00 1.50
2.00 2.50
3.00 3.50
4/1 4/2 4/3 4/4 4/5 4/6 4/7
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.76 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 0.76 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 4.95 in. Peak Level: 6.43 in. Min Level: 3.18 in. Avg Level: 4.95 in. Peak Level: 6.43 in. Min Level: 3.18 in.
Avg Velocity: 2.79 fps Peak Velocity: 3.68 fps Min Velocity: 1.84 fps Avg Flow: 0.746 mgd Peak Flow: 1.282 mgd Min Flow: 0.254 mgd | Site 3 - 25
438
SITE 3
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
4/8/2019 to 4/15/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.50
1.00 1.50
2.00 2.50
3.00 3.50
4/8 4/9 4/10 4/11 4/12 4/13 4/14
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 4.86 in. Peak Level: 6.24 in. Min Level: 3.04 in.
Avg Velocity: 2.78 fps Peak Velocity: 3.52 fps Min Velocity: 1.71 fps Avg Flow: 0.727 mgd Peak Flow: 1.137 mgd Min Flow: 0.220 mgd | Site 3 - 26
439
SITE 3
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
4/15/2019 to 4/22/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.50
1.00 1.50
2.00 2.50
3.00 3.50
4/15 4/16 4/17 4/18 4/19 4/20 4/21
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.17 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 0.17 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 4.89 in. Peak Level: 7.14 in. Min Level: 2.78 in. Avg Level: 4.89 in. Peak Level: 7.14 in. Min Level: 2.78 in.
Avg Velocity: 2.72 fps Peak Velocity: 3.58 fps Min Velocity: 1.53 fps Avg Flow: 0.721 mgd Peak Flow: 1.420 mgd Min Flow: 0.189 mgd | Site 3 - 27
440
SITE 3
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
4/22/2019 to 4/29/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.50
1.00 1.50
2.00 2.50
3.00 3.50
4/22 4/23 4/24 4/25 4/26 4/27 4/28
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 4.70 in. Peak Level: 6.11 in. Min Level: 2.59 in.
Avg Velocity: 2.77 fps Peak Velocity: 3.71 fps Min Velocity: 1.67 fps Avg Flow: 0.701 mgd Peak Flow: 1.196 mgd Min Flow: 0.170 mgd | Site 3 - 28
441
SITE 3
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
4/29/2019 to 5/6/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.50
1.00 1.50
2.00 2.50
3.00 3.50
4/29 4/30 5/1 5/2 5/3 5/4 5/5
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 4.92 in. Peak Level: 6.35 in. Min Level: 2.98 in.
Avg Velocity: 2.59 fps Peak Velocity: 3.42 fps Min Velocity: 1.50 fps Avg Flow: 0.694 mgd Peak Flow: 1.194 mgd Min Flow: 0.197 mgd | Site 3 - 29
442
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Monitoring Site: onitoring Site:
Location:Location: Location:
Site 4
Sidewalk near Bubbles Laundromat
January 30 - May 03, 2019
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring
Carollo | Scotts Valley, California
Vicinity Map: Site 4
Data Summary Report
| Site 4 - 1
443
SITE 4
Site Information
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Measured Pipe Diameter: easured Pipe Diameter: 10 inches ADWF: 0.053 mgd
Peak Measured Flow: 0.187 mgd
Flow Sketch
Satellite Map
Street View
Sewer MapSewer Map Sewer Map
Location:Location: Location: Sidewalk near Bubbles
Laundromat
Rim Elevation (Earth): 510 feet
Plan ViewPlan View Plan View
Coordinates: 122.0262° W, 37.0431° N
Expected Pipe Diameter: 10 inches
Sediment:Sediment: Sediment: None
| Site 4 - 2
444
SITE 4
Additional Site Photos
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Effluent Pipe
Monitored Influent Pipe
| Site 4 - 3
445
SITE 4
Period Flow Summary: Daily Flow Totals
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.0000.0100.0200.0300.0400.0500.0600.0700.0800.090
1/31
2/2
2/4
2/6
2/8
2/10
2/12
2/14
2/16
2/18
2/20
2/22
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16
3/18
3/20
3/22
3/24
3/26
3/28
3/30
4/1
4/3
4/5
4/7
4/9
4/11
4/13
4/15
4/17
4/19
4/21
4/23
4/25
4/27
4/29
5/1
Flow (M Gal)
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Rainfall (in/day)
Realtime Holiday Rainfall ADWF
0.0000.0100.0200.0300.0400.0500.0600.0700.0800.090
1/31
2/2
2/4
2/6
2/8
2/10
2/12
2/14
2/16
2/18
2/20
2/22
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16
3/18
3/20
3/22
3/24
3/26
3/28
3/30
4/1
4/3
4/5
4/7
4/9
4/11
4/13
4/15
4/17
4/19
4/21
4/23
4/25
4/27
4/29
5/1
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Realtime Weekend
0.0000.0100.0200.0300.0400.0500.0600.0700.0800.090
1/31
2/2
2/4
2/6
2/8
2/10
2/12
2/14
2/16
2/18
2/20
2/22
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16
3/18
3/20
3/22
3/24
3/26
3/28
3/30
4/1
4/3
4/5
4/7
4/9
4/11
4/13
4/15
4/17
4/19
4/21
4/23
4/25
4/27
4/29
5/1
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Realtime Weekday
Total Rainfall: 24.66 inches otal Rainfall: 24.66 inches Avg Daily Flow: 0.055 MGal Peak Daily Flow: 0.083 MGal Min Daily Flow: 0.028 MGal Avg Daily Flow: 0.055 MGal Peak Daily Flow: 0.083 MGal Min Daily Flow: 0.028 MGal | Site 4 - 4
446
SITE 4
Flow Summary: 1/31/2019 to 2/28/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.350.400.45
Jan 31
(Thu)
Feb 01
(Fri)
Feb 02
(Sat)
Feb 03
(Sun)
Feb 04
(Mon)
Feb 05
(Tue)
Feb 06
(Wed)
Feb 07
(Thu)
Feb 08
(Fri)
Feb 09
(Sat)
Feb 10
(Sun)
Feb 11
(Mon)
Feb 12
(Tue)
Feb 13
(Wed)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain fall ( in /h r)
Rain Flow AD WF
0.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.350.400.45
Feb 14
(Thu)
Feb 15
(Fri)
Feb 16
(Sat)
Feb 17
(Sun)
Feb 18
(Mon)
Feb 19
(Tue)
Feb 20
(Wed)
Feb 21
(Thu)
Feb 22
(Fri)
Feb 23
(Sat)
Feb 24
(Sun)
Feb 25
(Mon)
Feb 26
(Tue)
Feb 27
(Wed)
Feb 28
(Thu)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain f all (in /h r)
Period Rainfall: 15.55 inches Period Avg Flow: 0.055 mgd Period Peak Flow: 0.187 mgd Period Min Flow: 0 | Site 4 - 5
447
SITE 4
Flow Summary: 3/1/2019 to 3/31/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.350.400.45
Mar 01
(Fri)
Mar 02
(Sat)
Mar 03
(Sun)
Mar 04
(Mon)
Mar 05
(Tue)
Mar 06
(Wed)
Mar 07
(Thu)
Mar 08
(Fri)
Mar 09
(Sat)
Mar 10
(Sun)
Mar 11
(Mon)
Mar 12
(Tue)
Mar 13
(Wed)
Mar 14
(Thu)
Mar 15
(Fri)
Mar 16
(Sat)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain fall ( in /h r)
Rain Flow AD WF
0.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.350.400.45
Mar 17
(Sun)
Mar 18
(Mon)
Mar 19
(Tue)
Mar 20
(Wed)
Mar 21
(Thu)
Mar 22
(Fri)
Mar 23
(Sat)
Mar 24
(Sun)
Mar 25
(Mon)
Mar 26
(Tue)
Mar 27
(Wed)
Mar 28
(Thu)
Mar 29
(Fri)
Mar 30
(Sat)
Mar 31
(Sun)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain f all (in /h r)
Period Rainfall: 8.15 inches Period Avg Flow: 0.060 mgd Period Peak Flow: 0.175 mgd Period Min Flow: 0 | Site 4 - 6
448
SITE 4
Flow Summary: 4/1/2019 to 5/2/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.350.400.45
Apr 01
(Mon)
Apr 02
(Tue)
Apr 03
(Wed)
Apr 04
(Thu)
Apr 05
(Fri)
Apr 06
(Sat)
Apr 07
(Sun)
Apr 08
(Mon)
Apr 09
(Tue)
Apr 10
(Wed)
Apr 11
(Thu)
Apr 12
(Fri)
Apr 13
(Sat)
Apr 14
(Sun)
Apr 15
(Mon)
Apr 16
(Tue)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain fall ( in /h r)
Rain Flow AD WF
0.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.350.400.45
Apr 17
(Wed)
Apr 18
(Thu)
Apr 19
(Fri)
Apr 20
(Sat)
Apr 21
(Sun)
Apr 22
(Mon)
Apr 23
(Tue)
Apr 24
(Wed)
Apr 25
(Thu)
Apr 26
(Fri)
Apr 27
(Sat)
Apr 28
(Sun)
Apr 29
(Mon)
Apr 30
(Tue)
May 01
(Wed)
May 02
(Thu)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain f all (in /h r)
Period Rainfall: 0.96 inches Period Avg Flow: 0.052 mgd Period Peak Flow: 0.181 mgd Period Min Flow: 0 | Site 4 - 7
449
SITE 4
Average Dry Weather Flow Hydrographs
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.0000.0200.0400.0600.0800.1000.1200.140
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)
M on-Thurs Friday SaturdaySaturday Saturday Sunday
Time of Day
0.053 mgd
ADWF:
| Site 4 - 8
450
SITE 4
Site Capacity and Surcharge Summary
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Peak Measured Level: 2.01 Peak Measured Level: eak Measured Level:
Peak d/D Ratio: 0.20Pipe Diameter: 10 inches
inches
Realtime Flow Levels with Rainfall Data over Peak Level Period Diameter
75% d/D
50% d/D
02468
10 12
01/30
02/01
02/03
02/05
02/07
02/09
02/11
02/13
02/15
02/17
02/19
02/21
02/23
02/25
02/27
03/01
03/03
Level (in)
03/05
03/07
03/09
03/11
03/13
03/15
03/17
03/19
03/21
03/23
03/25
03/27
03/29
03/31
04/02
04/04
04/06
04/08
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.02.22.42.62.83.0 Rain (in/hr) | Site 4 - 9
451
SITE 4
I/I Summary: Event #1 RDI
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period
0.00 0.05
0.10 0.15
0.20 0.25
0.30 0.35
0.40 0.45
01/3102/0102/0202/0302/0402/0502/0602/0702/0802/0902/1002/1102/1202/1302/1402/1502/1602/1702/1802/1902/20 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 5.55 inches
Event #1 RDI
0.00 0.02
0.04 0.06
0.08 0.10
0.12 0.14
0.16 0.18
0.20 02/0102/0202/0302/0402/0502/0602/0702/08
Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Event #1 RDI Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 5.55 inches)
0.187
2.01 Peak Flow:Peak Flow: Peak Flow:
PF:
Peak Level:
mgd
in
3.53 d/D Ratio:d/D Ratio: d/D Ratio: 0.20
CapacityCapacity Capacity
RDI: 0.003 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
| Site 4 - 10
452
SITE 4
I/I Summary: Event #2 INFLOW
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period
0.00 0.05
0.10 0.15
0.20 0.25
0.30 0.35
0.40 0.45
02/1102/1202/1302/1402/1502/1602/1702/1802/1902/2002/2102/2202/2302/2402/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/11 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 5.32 inches
Event #2 INFLOW
0.00 0.02
0.04 0.06
0.08 0.10
0.12 0.14
0.16 0.18
02/1202/1302/1402/1502/1602/1702/18
Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Event #2 INFLOW Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 5.32 inches)
0.160
1.74 Peak Flow:Peak Flow: Peak Flow:
PF:
Peak Level:
mgd
in
3.01 d/D Ratio:d/D Ratio: d/D Ratio: 0.17
CapacityCapacity Capacity
Peak I/I Rate: 0.083 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
| Site 4 - 11
453
SITE 4
I/I Summary: Event #2 RDI
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period
0.00 0.05
0.10 0.15
0.20 0.25
0.30 0.35
0.40 0.45
02/1102/1202/1302/1402/1502/1602/1702/1802/1902/2002/2102/2202/2302/2402/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/11 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 5.32 inches
Event #2 RDI
0.00 0.02
0.04 0.06
0.08 0.10
0.12 0.14
0.16 0.18
02/1202/1302/1402/1502/1602/1702/1802/1902/2002/2102/2202/2302/2402/2502/26 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Event #2 RDI Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 5.32 inches)
0.160
1.74 Peak Flow:Peak Flow: Peak Flow:
PF:
Peak Level:
mgd
in
3.01 d/D Ratio:d/D Ratio: d/D Ratio: 0.17
CapacityCapacity Capacity
RDI: 0.003 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
| Site 4 - 12
454
SITE 4
I/I Summary: Event #3 INFLOW
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period
0.00 0.05
0.10 0.15
0.20 0.25
0.30 0.35
0.40 0.45
02/2102/2202/2302/2402/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/1103/1203/1303/1403/1503/1603/1703/1803/1903/2003/21 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 2.57 inches
Event #3 INFLOW
0.00 0.02
0.04 0.06
0.08 0.10
0.12 0.14
0.16 0.18
02/2602/2702/2803/01
Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Event #3 INFLOW Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 2.57 inches)
0.17 1.72
Peak Flow:Peak Flow: Peak Flow:
PF:
Peak Level:
mgd
in
3.16 d/D Ratio:d/D Ratio: d/D Ratio: 0.17
CapacityCapacity Capacity
Peak I/I Rate: 0.108 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
| Site 4 - 13
455
SITE 4
I/I Summary: Event #3 RDI
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period
0.00 0.05
0.10 0.15
0.20 0.25
0.30 0.35
0.40 0.45
02/2102/2202/2302/2402/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/1103/1203/1303/1403/1503/1603/1703/1803/1903/2003/21 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 8.04 inches
Event #3 RDI
0.00 0.02
0.04 0.06
0.08 0.10
0.12 0.14
0.16 0.18
0.20 02/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/1103/1203/1303/1403/1503/1603/1703/1803/1903/20 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Event #3 RDI Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 8.04 inches)
0.18 1.96
Peak Flow:Peak Flow: Peak Flow:
PF:
Peak Level:
mgd
in
3.31 d/D Ratio:d/D Ratio: d/D Ratio: 0.20
CapacityCapacity Capacity
RDI: 0.002 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
| Site 4 - 14
456
SITE 4
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
1/28/2019 to 2/4/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.05
0.10 0.15
0.20 0.25
0.30 0.35
0.40 0.45
1/28 1/29 1/30 1/31 2/1 2/2 2/3
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 4.54 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 4.54 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 1.12 in. Peak Level: 1.70 in. Min Level: 0.84 in. Avg Level: 1.12 in. Peak Level: 1.70 in. Min Level: 0.84 in.
Avg Velocity: 2.12 fps Peak Velocity: 4.62 fps Min Velocity: 0.72 fps Avg Flow: 0.050 mgd Peak Flow: 0.146 mgd Min Flow: 0.012 mgd | Site 4 - 15
457
SITE 4
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/4/2019 to 2/11/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.05
0.10 0.15
0.20 0.25
0.30 0.35
0.40 0.45
2/4 2/5 2/6 2/7 2/8 2/9 2/10
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 3.19 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 3.19 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 1.16 in. Peak Level: 2.01 in. Min Level: 0.82 in. Avg Level: 1.16 in. Peak Level: 2.01 in. Min Level: 0.82 in.
Avg Velocity: 2.26 fps Peak Velocity: 4.17 fps Min Velocity: 0.85 fps Avg Flow: 0.057 mgd Peak Flow: 0.187 mgd Min Flow: 0.013 mgd | Site 4 - 16
458
SITE 4
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/11/2019 to 2/18/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.05
0.10 0.15
0.20 0.25
0.30 0.35
0.40 0.45
2/11 2/12 2/13 2/14 2/15 2/16 2/17
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 5.32 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 5.32 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 1.15 in. Peak Level: 1.74 in. Min Level: 0.67 in. Avg Level: 1.15 in. Peak Level: 1.74 in. Min Level: 0.67 in.
Avg Velocity: 2.35 fps Peak Velocity: 4.32 fps Min Velocity: 0.81 fps Avg Flow: 0.056 mgd Peak Flow: 0.160 mgd Min Flow: 0.011 mgd | Site 4 - 17
459
SITE 4
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/18/2019 to 2/25/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.05
0.10 0.15
0.20 0.25
0.30 0.35
0.40 0.45
2/18 2/19 2/20 2/21 2/22 2/23 2/24
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.01 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 0.01 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 1.14 in. Peak Level: 1.60 in. Min Level: 0.88 in. Avg Level: 1.14 in. Peak Level: 1.60 in. Min Level: 0.88 in.
Avg Velocity: 2.27 fps Peak Velocity: 4.35 fps Min Velocity: 0.80 fps Avg Flow: 0.054 mgd Peak Flow: 0.140 mgd Min Flow: 0.013 mgd | Site 4 - 18
460
SITE 4
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/25/2019 to 3/4/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.05
0.10 0.15
0.20 0.25
0.30 0.35
0.40 0.45
2/25 2/26 2/27 2/28 3/1 3/2 3/3
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 4.57 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 4.57 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 1.16 in. Peak Level: 1.72 in. Min Level: 0.84 in. Avg Level: 1.16 in. Peak Level: 1.72 in. Min Level: 0.84 in.
Avg Velocity: 2.32 fps Peak Velocity: 4.27 fps Min Velocity: 0.77 fps Avg Flow: 0.058 mgd Peak Flow: 0.167 mgd Min Flow: 0.011 mgd | Site 4 - 19
461
SITE 4
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/4/2019 to 3/11/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.05
0.10 0.15
0.20 0.25
0.30 0.35
0.40 0.45
3/4 3/5 3/6 3/7 3/8 3/9 3/10
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 3.48 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 3.48 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 1.19 in. Peak Level: 1.83 in. Min Level: 0.79 in. Avg Level: 1.19 in. Peak Level: 1.83 in. Min Level: 0.79 in.
Avg Velocity: 2.39 fps Peak Velocity: 4.34 fps Min Velocity: 0.45 fps Avg Flow: 0.061 mgd Peak Flow: 0.166 mgd Min Flow: 0.007 mgd | Site 4 - 20
462
SITE 4
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/11/2019 to 3/18/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.05
0.10 0.15
0.20 0.25
0.30 0.35
0.40 0.45
3/11 3/12 3/13 3/14 3/15 3/16 3/17
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.01 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 0.01 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 1.25 in. Peak Level: 1.96 in. Min Level: 0.82 in. Avg Level: 1.25 in. Peak Level: 1.96 in. Min Level: 0.82 in.
Avg Velocity: 2.58 fps Peak Velocity: 4.40 fps Min Velocity: 0.66 fps Avg Flow: 0.071 mgd Peak Flow: 0.175 mgd Min Flow: 0.009 mgd | Site 4 - 21
463
SITE 4
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/18/2019 to 3/25/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.05
0.10 0.15
0.20 0.25
0.30 0.35
0.40 0.45
3/18 3/19 3/20 3/21 3/22 3/23 3/24
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 1.47 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 1.47 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 1.19 in. Peak Level: 1.80 in. Min Level: 0.86 in. Avg Level: 1.19 in. Peak Level: 1.80 in. Min Level: 0.86 in.
Avg Velocity: 2.42 fps Peak Velocity: 4.32 fps Min Velocity: 0.87 fps Avg Flow: 0.061 mgd Peak Flow: 0.163 mgd Min Flow: 0.014 mgd | Site 4 - 22
464
SITE 4
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/25/2019 to 4/1/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.05
0.10 0.15
0.20 0.25
0.30 0.35
0.40 0.45
3/25 3/26 3/27 3/28 3/29 3/30 3/31
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 1.19 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 1.19 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 1.06 in. Peak Level: 1.63 in. Min Level: 0.83 in. Avg Level: 1.06 in. Peak Level: 1.63 in. Min Level: 0.83 in.
Avg Velocity: 2.24 fps Peak Velocity: 4.27 fps Min Velocity: 0.77 fps Avg Flow: 0.047 mgd Peak Flow: 0.131 mgd Min Flow: 0.012 mgd | Site 4 - 23
465
SITE 4
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
4/1/2019 to 4/8/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.05
0.10 0.15
0.20 0.25
0.30 0.35
0.40 0.45
4/1 4/2 4/3 4/4 4/5 4/6 4/7
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.78 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 0.78 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 1.06 in. Peak Level: 1.54 in. Min Level: 0.69 in. Avg Level: 1.06 in. Peak Level: 1.54 in. Min Level: 0.69 in.
Avg Velocity: 2.25 fps Peak Velocity: 4.29 fps Min Velocity: 0.69 fps Avg Flow: 0.047 mgd Peak Flow: 0.141 mgd Min Flow: 0.011 mgd | Site 4 - 24
466
SITE 4
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
4/8/2019 to 4/15/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.05
0.10 0.15
0.20 0.25
0.30 0.35
0.40 0.45
4/8 4/9 4/10 4/11 4/12 4/13 4/14
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 1.15 in. Peak Level: 1.77 in. Min Level: 0.87 in.
Avg Velocity: 2.33 fps Peak Velocity: 4.35 fps Min Velocity: 0.87 fps Avg Flow: 0.055 mgd Peak Flow: 0.173 mgd Min Flow: 0.014 mgd | Site 4 - 25
467
SITE 4
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
4/15/2019 to 4/22/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.05
0.10 0.15
0.20 0.25
0.30 0.35
0.40 0.45
4/15 4/16 4/17 4/18 4/19 4/20 4/21
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.17 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 0.17 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 1.19 in. Peak Level: 1.68 in. Min Level: 0.87 in. Avg Level: 1.19 in. Peak Level: 1.68 in. Min Level: 0.87 in.
Avg Velocity: 2.34 fps Peak Velocity: 4.07 fps Min Velocity: 0.76 fps Avg Flow: 0.058 mgd Peak Flow: 0.156 mgd Min Flow: 0.012 mgd | Site 4 - 26
468
SITE 4
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
4/22/2019 to 4/29/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.05
0.10 0.15
0.20 0.25
0.30 0.35
0.40 0.45
4/22 4/23 4/24 4/25 4/26 4/27 4/28
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.01 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 0.01 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 1.16 in. Peak Level: 1.93 in. Min Level: 0.78 in. Avg Level: 1.16 in. Peak Level: 1.93 in. Min Level: 0.78 in.
Avg Velocity: 2.14 fps Peak Velocity: 4.15 fps Min Velocity: 0.63 fps Avg Flow: 0.052 mgd Peak Flow: 0.181 mgd Min Flow: 0.009 mgd | Site 4 - 27
469
SITE 4
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
4/29/2019 to 5/6/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.05
0.10 0.15
0.20 0.25
0.30 0.35
0.40 0.45
4/29 4/30 5/1 5/2 5/3 5/4 5/5
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 1.06 in. Peak Level: 1.57 in. Min Level: 0.74 in.
Avg Velocity: 1.95 fps Peak Velocity: 4.14 fps Min Velocity: 0.59 fps Avg Flow: 0.042 mgd Peak Flow: 0.128 mgd Min Flow: 0.008 mgd | Site 4 - 28
470
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Monitoring Site: onitoring Site:
Location:Location: Location:
Site 5
Whispering Pines Drive, west of Mt Hermon Road
January 30 - May 03, 2019
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring
Carollo | Scotts Valley, California
Vicinity Map: Site 5
Data Summary Report
| Site 5 - 1
471
SITE 5
Site Information
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Measured Pipe Diameter: easured Pipe Diameter: 18 inches ADWF: 0.413 mgd
Peak Measured Flow: 1.620 mgd
Flow Sketch
Satellite Map
Street View
Sewer MapSewer Map Sewer Map
Location:Location: Location: Whispering Pines Drive, west of Mt Hermon Road
Rim Elevation (Earth): 511 feet
Plan ViewPlan View Plan View
Coordinates: 122.0259° W, 37.0430° N
Expected Pipe Diameter: 18 inches
Sediment:Sediment: Sediment: None
| Site 5 - 2
472
SITE 5
Additional Site Photos
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Effluent Pipe
Monitored East Influent Pipe
| Site 5 - 3
473
SITE 5
Additional Site Photos
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information South Influent Pipe
| Site 5 - 4
474
SITE 5
Period Flow Summary: Daily Flow Totals
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.0000.2000.4000.6000.8001.0001.200
1/31
2/2
2/4
2/6
2/8
2/10
2/12
2/14
2/16
2/18
2/20
2/22
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16
3/18
3/20
3/22
3/24
3/26
3/28
3/30
4/1
4/3
4/5
4/7
4/9
4/11
4/13
4/15
4/17
4/19
4/21
4/23
4/25
4/27
4/29
5/1
Flow (M Gal)
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Rainfall (in/day)
Realtime Holiday Rainfall ADWF
0.0000.2000.4000.6000.8001.0001.200
1/31
2/2
2/4
2/6
2/8
2/10
2/12
2/14
2/16
2/18
2/20
2/22
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16
3/18
3/20
3/22
3/24
3/26
3/28
3/30
4/1
4/3
4/5
4/7
4/9
4/11
4/13
4/15
4/17
4/19
4/21
4/23
4/25
4/27
4/29
5/1
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Realtime Weekend
0.0000.2000.4000.6000.8001.0001.200
1/31
2/2
2/4
2/6
2/8
2/10
2/12
2/14
2/16
2/18
2/20
2/22
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16
3/18
3/20
3/22
3/24
3/26
3/28
3/30
4/1
4/3
4/5
4/7
4/9
4/11
4/13
4/15
4/17
4/19
4/21
4/23
4/25
4/27
4/29
5/1
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Realtime Weekday
Total Rainfall: 24.66 inches otal Rainfall: 24.66 inches Avg Daily Flow: 0.580 MGal Peak Daily Flow: 1.095 MGal Min Daily Flow: 0.384 MGal Avg Daily Flow: 0.580 MGal Peak Daily Flow: 1.095 MGal Min Daily Flow: 0.384 MGal | Site 5 - 5
475
SITE 5
Flow Summary: 1/31/2019 to 2/28/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.000.501.001.502.002.50
Jan 31
(Thu)
Feb 01
(Fri)
Feb 02
(Sat)
Feb 03
(Sun)
Feb 04
(Mon)
Feb 05
(Tue)
Feb 06
(Wed)
Feb 07
(Thu)
Feb 08
(Fri)
Feb 09
(Sat)
Feb 10
(Sun)
Feb 11
(Mon)
Feb 12
(Tue)
Feb 13
(Wed)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain fall ( in /h r)
Rain Flow AD WF
0.000.501.001.502.002.50
Feb 14
(Thu)
Feb 15
(Fri)
Feb 16
(Sat)
Feb 17
(Sun)
Feb 18
(Mon)
Feb 19
(Tue)
Feb 20
(Wed)
Feb 21
(Thu)
Feb 22
(Fri)
Feb 23
(Sat)
Feb 24
(Sun)
Feb 25
(Mon)
Feb 26
(Tue)
Feb 27
(Wed)
Feb 28
(Thu)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain f all (in /h r)
Period Rainfall: 15.55 inches Period Avg Flow: 0.692 mgd Period Peak Flow: 1.543 mgd Period Min Flow: 0 | Site 5 - 6
476
SITE 5
Flow Summary: 3/1/2019 to 3/31/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.000.501.001.502.002.50
Mar 01
(Fri)
Mar 02
(Sat)
Mar 03
(Sun)
Mar 04
(Mon)
Mar 05
(Tue)
Mar 06
(Wed)
Mar 07
(Thu)
Mar 08
(Fri)
Mar 09
(Sat)
Mar 10
(Sun)
Mar 11
(Mon)
Mar 12
(Tue)
Mar 13
(Wed)
Mar 14
(Thu)
Mar 15
(Fri)
Mar 16
(Sat)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain fall ( in /h r)
Rain Flow AD WF
0.000.501.001.502.002.50
Mar 17
(Sun)
Mar 18
(Mon)
Mar 19
(Tue)
Mar 20
(Wed)
Mar 21
(Thu)
Mar 22
(Fri)
Mar 23
(Sat)
Mar 24
(Sun)
Mar 25
(Mon)
Mar 26
(Tue)
Mar 27
(Wed)
Mar 28
(Thu)
Mar 29
(Fri)
Mar 30
(Sat)
Mar 31
(Sun)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain f all (in /h r)
Period Rainfall: 8.15 inches Period Avg Flow: 0.607 mgd Period Peak Flow: 1.620 mgd Period Min Flow: 0 | Site 5 - 7
477
SITE 5
Flow Summary: 4/1/2019 to 5/2/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.000.501.001.502.002.50
Apr 01
(Mon)
Apr 02
(Tue)
Apr 03
(Wed)
Apr 04
(Thu)
Apr 05
(Fri)
Apr 06
(Sat)
Apr 07
(Sun)
Apr 08
(Mon)
Apr 09
(Tue)
Apr 10
(Wed)
Apr 11
(Thu)
Apr 12
(Fri)
Apr 13
(Sat)
Apr 14
(Sun)
Apr 15
(Mon)
Apr 16
(Tue)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain fall ( in /h r)
Rain Flow AD WF
0.000.501.001.502.002.50
Apr 17
(Wed)
Apr 18
(Thu)
Apr 19
(Fri)
Apr 20
(Sat)
Apr 21
(Sun)
Apr 22
(Mon)
Apr 23
(Tue)
Apr 24
(Wed)
Apr 25
(Thu)
Apr 26
(Fri)
Apr 27
(Sat)
Apr 28
(Sun)
Apr 29
(Mon)
Apr 30
(Tue)
May 01
(Wed)
May 02
(Thu)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain f all (in /h r)
Period Rainfall: 0.96 inches Period Avg Flow: 0.452 mgd Period Peak Flow: 1.032 mgd Period Min Flow: 0 | Site 5 - 8
478
SITE 5
Average Dry Weather Flow Hydrographs
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.0000.1000.2000.3000.4000.5000.6000.7000.800
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)
M on-Thurs Friday SaturdaySaturday Saturday Sunday
Time of Day
0.413 mgd
ADWF:
| Site 5 - 9
479
SITE 5
Site Capacity and Surcharge Summary
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Peak Measured Level: eak Measured Level: 4.05
Peak d/D Ratio: 0.23Pipe Diameter: 18 inches
inches
Realtime Flow Levels with Rainfall Data over Peak Level Period Diameter
75% d/D
50% d/D
02468
10 1214161820
01/30
02/01
02/03
02/05
02/07
02/09
02/11
02/13
02/15
02/17
02/19
02/21
02/23
02/25
02/27
03/01
03/03
Level (in)
03/05
03/07
03/09
03/11
03/13
03/15
03/17
03/19
03/21
03/23
03/25
03/27
03/29
03/31
04/02
04/04
04/06
04/08
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.02.22.42.62.83.0 Rain (in/hr) | Site 5 - 10
480
SITE 5
I/I Summary: Event #1 RDI
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period
0.00 0.50
1.00 1.50
2.00 2.50
01/3102/0102/0202/0302/0402/0502/0602/0702/0802/0902/1002/1102/1202/1302/1402/1502/1602/1702/1802/1902/20 Flow (mgd) low (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 5.55 inches
Event #1 RDI
0.00 0.20
0.40 0.60
0.80 1.00
1.20 1.40
1.60 1.80
02/0102/0202/0302/0402/0502/0602/0702/08
Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Event #1 RDI Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 5.55 inches)
1.544
3.75 Peak Flow:Peak Flow: Peak Flow:
PF:
Peak Level:
mgd
in
3.73 d/D Ratio:d/D Ratio: d/D Ratio: 0.21
CapacityCapacity Capacity
RDI: 0.279 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
| Site 5 - 11
481
SITE 5
I/I Summary: Event #2 INFLOW
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period
0.00 0.50
1.00 1.50
2.00 2.50
02/1102/1202/1302/1402/1502/1602/1702/1802/1902/2002/2102/2202/2302/2402/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/11 Flow (mgd) low (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 5.32 inches
Event #2 INFLOW
0.00 0.20
0.40 0.60
0.80 1.00
1.20 1.40
1.60 02/1202/1302/1402/1502/1602/1702/18
Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Event #2 INFLOW Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 5.32 inches)
1.481
3.72 Peak Flow:Peak Flow: Peak Flow:
PF:
Peak Level:
mgd
in
3.58 d/D Ratio:d/D Ratio: d/D Ratio: 0.21
CapacityCapacity Capacity
Peak I/I Rate: 0.710 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
| Site 5 - 12
482
SITE 5
I/I Summary: Event #2 RDI
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period
0.00 0.50
1.00 1.50
2.00 2.50
02/1102/1202/1302/1402/1502/1602/1702/1802/1902/2002/2102/2202/2302/2402/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/11 Flow (mgd) low (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 5.32 inches
Event #2 RDI
0.00 0.20
0.40 0.60
0.80 1.00
1.20 1.40
1.60 02/1202/1302/1402/1502/1602/1702/1802/1902/2002/2102/2202/2302/2402/2502/26 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Event #2 RDI Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 5.32 inches)
1.481
3.72 Peak Flow:Peak Flow: Peak Flow:
PF:
Peak Level:
mgd
in
3.58 d/D Ratio:d/D Ratio: d/D Ratio: 0.21
CapacityCapacity Capacity
RDI: 0.228 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
| Site 5 - 13
483
SITE 5
I/I Summary: Event #3 INFLOW
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period
0.00 0.50
1.00 1.50
2.00 2.50
02/2102/2202/2302/2402/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/1103/1203/1303/1403/1503/1603/1703/1803/1903/2003/21 Flow (mgd) low (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 2.57 inches
Event #3 INFLOW
0.00 0.20
0.40 0.60
0.80 1.00
1.20 1.40
02/2602/2702/2803/01
Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Event #3 INFLOW Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 2.57 inches)
1.31 3.59
Peak Flow:Peak Flow: Peak Flow:
PF:
Peak Level:
mgd
in
3.17 d/D Ratio:d/D Ratio: d/D Ratio: 0.20
CapacityCapacity Capacity
Peak I/I Rate: 1.021 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
| Site 5 - 14
484
SITE 5
I/I Summary: Event #3 RDI
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period
0.00 0.50
1.00 1.50
2.00 2.50
02/2102/2202/2302/2402/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/1103/1203/1303/1403/1503/1603/1703/1803/1903/2003/21 Flow (mgd) low (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 8.04 inches
Event #3 RDI
0.00 0.20
0.40 0.60
0.80 1.00
1.20 1.40
1.60 1.80
02/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/1103/1203/1303/1403/1503/1603/1703/1803/1903/20 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Event #3 RDI Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 8.04 inches)
1.62 4.05
Peak Flow:Peak Flow: Peak Flow:
PF:
Peak Level:
mgd
in
3.92 d/D Ratio:d/D Ratio: d/D Ratio: 0.23
CapacityCapacity Capacity
RDI: 0.230 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
| Site 5 - 15
485
SITE 5
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
1/28/2019 to 2/4/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
1/28 1/29 1/30 1/31 2/1 2/2 2/3
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 4.54 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 4.54 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 2.43 in. Peak Level: 3.75 in. Min Level: 1.12 in. Avg Level: 2.43 in. Peak Level: 3.75 in. Min Level: 1.12 in.
Avg Velocity: 7.42 fps Peak Velocity: 8.80 fps Min Velocity: 4.89 fps Avg Flow: 0.716 mgd Peak Flow: 1.475 mgd Min Flow: 0.163 mgd | Site 5 - 16
486
SITE 5
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/4/2019 to 2/11/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
2/4 2/5 2/6 2/7 2/8 2/9 2/10
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 3.19 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 3.19 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 2.51 in. Peak Level: 3.74 in. Min Level: 1.26 in. Avg Level: 2.51 in. Peak Level: 3.74 in. Min Level: 1.26 in.
Avg Velocity: 7.58 fps Peak Velocity: 9.15 fps Min Velocity: 5.72 fps Avg Flow: 0.752 mgd Peak Flow: 1.543 mgd Min Flow: 0.205 mgd | Site 5 - 17
487
SITE 5
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/11/2019 to 2/18/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
2/11 2/12 2/13 2/14 2/15 2/16 2/17
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 5.32 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 5.32 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 2.57 in. Peak Level: 3.72 in. Min Level: 1.27 in. Avg Level: 2.57 in. Peak Level: 3.72 in. Min Level: 1.27 in.
Avg Velocity: 7.60 fps Peak Velocity: 8.81 fps Min Velocity: 5.37 fps Avg Flow: 0.785 mgd Peak Flow: 1.481 mgd Min Flow: 0.191 mgd | Site 5 - 18
488
SITE 5
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/18/2019 to 2/25/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
2/18 2/19 2/20 2/21 2/22 2/23 2/24
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.01 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 0.01 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 2.18 in. Peak Level: 3.17 in. Min Level: 0.98 in. Avg Level: 2.18 in. Peak Level: 3.17 in. Min Level: 0.98 in.
Avg Velocity: 6.68 fps Peak Velocity: 8.09 fps Min Velocity: 4.34 fps Avg Flow: 0.554 mgd Peak Flow: 1.075 mgd Min Flow: 0.108 mgd | Site 5 - 19
489
SITE 5
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/25/2019 to 3/4/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
2/25 2/26 2/27 2/28 3/1 3/2 3/3
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 4.57 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 4.57 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 2.47 in. Peak Level: 4.05 in. Min Level: 1.05 in. Avg Level: 2.47 in. Peak Level: 4.05 in. Min Level: 1.05 in.
Avg Velocity: 7.22 fps Peak Velocity: 8.43 fps Min Velocity: 4.49 fps Avg Flow: 0.711 mgd Peak Flow: 1.620 mgd Min Flow: 0.128 mgd | Site 5 - 20
490
SITE 5
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/4/2019 to 3/11/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3/4 3/5 3/6 3/7 3/8 3/9 3/10
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 3.48 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 3.48 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 2.53 in. Peak Level: 3.33 in. Min Level: 1.38 in. Avg Level: 2.53 in. Peak Level: 3.33 in. Min Level: 1.38 in.
Avg Velocity: 7.53 fps Peak Velocity: 8.45 fps Min Velocity: 5.91 fps Avg Flow: 0.752 mgd Peak Flow: 1.208 mgd Min Flow: 0.247 mgd | Site 5 - 21
491
SITE 5
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/11/2019 to 3/18/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3/11 3/12 3/13 3/14 3/15 3/16 3/17
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.01 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 0.01 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 2.17 in. Peak Level: 3.42 in. Min Level: 0.94 in. Avg Level: 2.17 in. Peak Level: 3.42 in. Min Level: 0.94 in.
Avg Velocity: 6.67 fps Peak Velocity: 8.01 fps Min Velocity: 4.53 fps Avg Flow: 0.544 mgd Peak Flow: 1.100 mgd Min Flow: 0.108 mgd | Site 5 - 22
492
SITE 5
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/18/2019 to 3/25/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3/18 3/19 3/20 3/21 3/22 3/23 3/24
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 1.47 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 1.47 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 2.09 in. Peak Level: 3.06 in. Min Level: 0.77 in. Avg Level: 2.09 in. Peak Level: 3.06 in. Min Level: 0.77 in.
Avg Velocity: 6.43 fps Peak Velocity: 7.65 fps Min Velocity: 4.26 fps Avg Flow: 0.500 mgd Peak Flow: 0.946 mgd Min Flow: 0.079 mgd | Site 5 - 23
493
SITE 5
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/25/2019 to 4/1/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3/25 3/26 3/27 3/28 3/29 3/30 3/31
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 1.19 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 1.19 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 2.20 in. Peak Level: 3.12 in. Min Level: 1.03 in. Avg Level: 2.20 in. Peak Level: 3.12 in. Min Level: 1.03 in.
Avg Velocity: 6.59 fps Peak Velocity: 7.76 fps Min Velocity: 4.46 fps Avg Flow: 0.549 mgd Peak Flow: 0.990 mgd Min Flow: 0.125 mgd | Site 5 - 24
494
SITE 5
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
4/1/2019 to 4/8/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
4/1 4/2 4/3 4/4 4/5 4/6 4/7
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.78 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 0.78 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 2.04 in. Peak Level: 3.13 in. Min Level: 0.96 in. Avg Level: 2.04 in. Peak Level: 3.13 in. Min Level: 0.96 in.
Avg Velocity: 6.36 fps Peak Velocity: 7.94 fps Min Velocity: 4.26 fps Avg Flow: 0.483 mgd Peak Flow: 1.032 mgd Min Flow: 0.107 mgd | Site 5 - 25
495
SITE 5
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
4/8/2019 to 4/15/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
4/8 4/9 4/10 4/11 4/12 4/13 4/14
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 1.99 in. Peak Level: 2.99 in. Min Level: 0.75 in.
Avg Velocity: 6.29 fps Peak Velocity: 7.58 fps Min Velocity: 3.39 fps Avg Flow: 0.467 mgd Peak Flow: 0.905 mgd Min Flow: 0.063 mgd | Site 5 - 26
496
SITE 5
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
4/15/2019 to 4/22/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
4/15 4/16 4/17 4/18 4/19 4/20 4/21
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.17 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 0.17 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 1.94 in. Peak Level: 3.01 in. Min Level: 0.35 in. Avg Level: 1.94 in. Peak Level: 3.01 in. Min Level: 0.35 in.
Avg Velocity: 6.13 fps Peak Velocity: 7.72 fps Min Velocity: 2.70 fps Avg Flow: 0.446 mgd Peak Flow: 0.864 mgd Min Flow: 0.016 mgd | Site 5 - 27
497
SITE 5
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
4/22/2019 to 4/29/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
4/22 4/23 4/24 4/25 4/26 4/27 4/28
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.01 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 0.01 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 1.90 in. Peak Level: 2.97 in. Min Level: 0.60 in. Avg Level: 1.90 in. Peak Level: 2.97 in. Min Level: 0.60 in.
Avg Velocity: 5.92 fps Peak Velocity: 7.43 fps Min Velocity: 2.56 fps Avg Flow: 0.423 mgd Peak Flow: 0.869 mgd Min Flow: 0.037 mgd | Site 5 - 28
498
SITE 5
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
4/29/2019 to 5/6/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
4/29 4/30 5/1 5/2 5/3 5/4 5/5
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 1.94 in. Peak Level: 2.97 in. Min Level: 0.59 in.
Avg Velocity: 5.96 fps Peak Velocity: 7.57 fps Min Velocity: 2.35 fps Avg Flow: 0.433 mgd Peak Flow: 0.932 mgd Min Flow: 0.031 mgd | Site 5 - 29
499
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Monitoring Site: onitoring Site:
Location:Location: Location:
Site 6
Scotts Valley Drive, south of Ball Drive
January 30 - May 03, 2019
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring
Carollo | Scotts Valley, California
Vicinity Map: Site 6
Data Summary Report
| Site 6 - 1
500
SITE 6
Site Information
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Measured Pipe Diameter: easured Pipe Diameter: 10 inches ADWF: 0.104 mgd
Peak Measured Flow: 0.785 mgd
Flow Sketch
Satellite Map
Street View
Sewer MapSewer Map Sewer Map
Location:Location: Location: Scotts Valley Drive, south of Ball Drive
Rim Elevation (Earth): 560 feet
Plan ViewPlan View Plan View
Coordinates: 122.0156° W, 37.0500° N
Expected Pipe Diameter: 10 inches
Sediment:Sediment: Sediment: None
| Site 6 - 2
501
SITE 6
Additional Site Photos
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Effluent Pipe
Monitored Northeast Influent Pipe
| Site 6 - 3
502
SITE 6
Additional Site Photos
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Northwest Influent Pipe
Southeast Abandoned Pipe
| Site 6 - 4
503
SITE 6
Period Flow Summary: Daily Flow Totals
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.0000.0500.1000.1500.2000.2500.3000.3500.4000.4500.500 1/31
2/2
2/4
2/6
2/8
2/10
2/12
2/14
2/16
2/18
2/20
2/22
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16
3/18
3/20
3/22
3/24
3/26
3/28
3/30
4/1
4/3
4/5
4/7
4/9
4/11
4/13
4/15
4/17
4/19
4/21
4/23
4/25
4/27
4/29
5/1
Flow (M Gal)
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Rainfall (in/day)
Realtime Holiday Rainfall ADWF
0.0000.0500.1000.1500.2000.2500.3000.3500.4000.4500.500 1/31
2/2
2/4
2/6
2/8
2/10
2/12
2/14
2/16
2/18
2/20
2/22
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16
3/18
3/20
3/22
3/24
3/26
3/28
3/30
4/1
4/3
4/5
4/7
4/9
4/11
4/13
4/15
4/17
4/19
4/21
4/23
4/25
4/27
4/29
5/1
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Realtime Weekend
0.0000.0500.1000.1500.2000.2500.3000.3500.4000.4500.500 1/31
2/2
2/4
2/6
2/8
2/10
2/12
2/14
2/16
2/18
2/20
2/22
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16
3/18
3/20
3/22
3/24
3/26
3/28
3/30
4/1
4/3
4/5
4/7
4/9
4/11
4/13
4/15
4/17
4/19
4/21
4/23
4/25
4/27
4/29
5/1
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Realtime Weekday
Total Rainfall: 25.00 inches otal Rainfall: 25.00 inches Avg Daily Flow: 0.182 MGal Peak Daily Flow: 0.465 MGal Min Daily Flow: 0.084 MGal Avg Daily Flow: 0.182 MGal Peak Daily Flow: 0.465 MGal Min Daily Flow: 0.084 MGal | Site 6 - 5
504
SITE 6
Flow Summary: 1/31/2019 to 2/28/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.90
Jan 31
(Thu)
Feb 01
(Fri)
Feb 02
(Sat)
Feb 03
(Sun)
Feb 04
(Mon)
Feb 05
(Tue)
Feb 06
(Wed)
Feb 07
(Thu)
Feb 08
(Fri)
Feb 09
(Sat)
Feb 10
(Sun)
Feb 11
(Mon)
Feb 12
(Tue)
Feb 13
(Wed)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain fall ( in /h r)
Rain Flow AD WF
0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.90
Feb 14
(Thu)
Feb 15
(Fri)
Feb 16
(Sat)
Feb 17
(Sun)
Feb 18
(Mon)
Feb 19
(Tue)
Feb 20
(Wed)
Feb 21
(Thu)
Feb 22
(Fri)
Feb 23
(Sat)
Feb 24
(Sun)
Feb 25
(Mon)
Feb 26
(Tue)
Feb 27
(Wed)
Feb 28
(Thu)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain f all (in /h r)
Period Rainfall: 15.84 inches Period Avg Flow: 0.267 mgd Period Peak Flow: 0.785 mgd Period Min Flow: 0 | Site 6 - 6
505
SITE 6
Flow Summary: 3/1/2019 to 3/31/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.90
Mar 01
(Fri)
Mar 02
(Sat)
Mar 03
(Sun)
Mar 04
(Mon)
Mar 05
(Tue)
Mar 06
(Wed)
Mar 07
(Thu)
Mar 08
(Fri)
Mar 09
(Sat)
Mar 10
(Sun)
Mar 11
(Mon)
Mar 12
(Tue)
Mar 13
(Wed)
Mar 14
(Thu)
Mar 15
(Fri)
Mar 16
(Sat)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain fall ( in /h r)
Rain Flow AD WF
0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.90
Mar 17
(Sun)
Mar 18
(Mon)
Mar 19
(Tue)
Mar 20
(Wed)
Mar 21
(Thu)
Mar 22
(Fri)
Mar 23
(Sat)
Mar 24
(Sun)
Mar 25
(Mon)
Mar 26
(Tue)
Mar 27
(Wed)
Mar 28
(Thu)
Mar 29
(Fri)
Mar 30
(Sat)
Mar 31
(Sun)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain f all (in /h r)
Period Rainfall: 8.15 inches Period Avg Flow: 0.173 mgd Period Peak Flow: 0.430 mgd Period Min Flow: 0 | Site 6 - 7
506
SITE 6
Flow Summary: 4/1/2019 to 5/2/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.90
Apr 01
(Mon)
Apr 02
(Tue)
Apr 03
(Wed)
Apr 04
(Thu)
Apr 05
(Fri)
Apr 06
(Sat)
Apr 07
(Sun)
Apr 08
(Mon)
Apr 09
(Tue)
Apr 10
(Wed)
Apr 11
(Thu)
Apr 12
(Fri)
Apr 13
(Sat)
Apr 14
(Sun)
Apr 15
(Mon)
Apr 16
(Tue)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain fall ( in /h r)
Rain Flow AD WF
0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.90
Apr 17
(Wed)
Apr 18
(Thu)
Apr 19
(Fri)
Apr 20
(Sat)
Apr 21
(Sun)
Apr 22
(Mon)
Apr 23
(Tue)
Apr 24
(Wed)
Apr 25
(Thu)
Apr 26
(Fri)
Apr 27
(Sat)
Apr 28
(Sun)
Apr 29
(Mon)
Apr 30
(Tue)
May 01
(Wed)
May 02
(Thu)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain f all (in /h r)
Period Rainfall: 1.02 inches Period Avg Flow: 0.114 mgd Period Peak Flow: 0.236 mgd Period Min Flow: 0 | Site 6 - 8
507
SITE 6
Average Dry Weather Flow Hydrographs
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.0000.0200.0400.0600.0800.1000.1200.1400.1600.1800.200 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)
M on-Thurs Friday SaturdaySaturday Saturday Sunday
Time of Day
0.104 mgd
ADWF:
| Site 6 - 9
508
SITE 6
Site Capacity and Surcharge Summary
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Peak Measured Level: 7.29 Peak Measured Level: eak Measured Level:
Peak d/D Ratio: 0.73Pipe Diameter: 10 inches
inches
Realtime Flow Levels with Rainfall Data over Peak Level Period Diameter
75% d/D
50% d/D
02468
10 12
01/30
02/01
02/03
02/05
02/07
02/09
02/11
02/13
02/15
02/17
02/19
02/21
02/23
02/25
02/27
03/01
03/03
Level (in)
03/05
03/07
03/09
03/11
03/13
03/15
03/17
03/19
03/21
03/23
03/25
03/27
03/29
03/31
04/02
04/04
04/06
04/08
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.02.22.42.62.83.0 Rain (in/hr) | Site 6 - 10
509
SITE 6
I/I Summary: Event #1 RDI
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 0.90
01/3102/0102/0202/0302/0402/0502/0602/0702/0802/0902/1002/1102/1202/1302/1402/1502/1602/1702/1802/1902/20 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 5.6 inches
Event #1 RDI
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 0.90
02/0102/0202/0302/0402/0502/0602/0702/08
Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Event #1 RDI Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 5.60 inches)
0.785
7.15 Peak Flow:Peak Flow: Peak Flow:
PF:
Peak Level:
mgd
in
7.55 d/D Ratio:d/D Ratio: d/D Ratio: 0.72
CapacityCapacity Capacity
RDI: 0.138 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
| Site 6 - 11
510
SITE 6
I/I Summary: Event #2 INFLOW
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 0.90
02/1102/1202/1302/1402/1502/1602/1702/1802/1902/2002/2102/2202/2302/2402/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/11 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 5.32 inches
Event #2 INFLOW
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 02/1202/1302/1402/1502/1602/1702/18
Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Event #2 INFLOW Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 5.32 inches)
0.726
7.29 Peak Flow:Peak Flow: Peak Flow:
PF:
Peak Level:
mgd
in
6.97 d/D Ratio:d/D Ratio: d/D Ratio: 0.73
CapacityCapacity Capacity
Peak I/I Rate: 0.495 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
| Site 6 - 12
511
SITE 6
I/I Summary: Event #2 RDI
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 0.90
02/1102/1202/1302/1402/1502/1602/1702/1802/1902/2002/2102/2202/2302/2402/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/11 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 5.32 inches
Event #2 RDI
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 02/1202/1302/1402/1502/1602/1702/1802/1902/2002/2102/2202/2302/2402/2502/26 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Event #2 RDI Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 5.32 inches)
0.726
7.29 Peak Flow:Peak Flow: Peak Flow:
PF:
Peak Level:
mgd
in
6.97 d/D Ratio:d/D Ratio: d/D Ratio: 0.73
CapacityCapacity Capacity
RDI: 0.113 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
| Site 6 - 13
512
SITE 6
I/I Summary: Event #3 INFLOW
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 0.90
02/2102/2202/2302/2402/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/1103/1203/1303/1403/1503/1603/1703/1803/1903/2003/21 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 2.84 inches
Event #3 INFLOW
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 02/2602/2702/2803/01
Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Event #3 INFLOW Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 2.84 inches)
0.56 5.77
Peak Flow:Peak Flow: Peak Flow:
PF:
Peak Level:
mgd
in
5.41 d/D Ratio:d/D Ratio: d/D Ratio: 0.58
CapacityCapacity Capacity
Peak I/I Rate: 0.446 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
| Site 6 - 14
513
SITE 6
I/I Summary: Event #3 RDI
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 0.90
02/2102/2202/2302/2402/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/1103/1203/1303/1403/1503/1603/1703/1803/1903/2003/21 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 8.37 inches
Event #3 RDI
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 02/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/1103/1203/1303/1403/1503/1603/1703/1803/1903/20 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Event #3 RDI Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 8.37 inches)
0.56 5.77
Peak Flow:Peak Flow: Peak Flow:
PF:
Peak Level:
mgd
in
5.41 d/D Ratio:d/D Ratio: d/D Ratio: 0.58
CapacityCapacity Capacity
RDI: 0.071 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
| Site 6 - 15
514
SITE 6
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
1/28/2019 to 2/4/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 3.5
4.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 0.90
1/28 1/29 1/30 1/31 2/1 2/2 2/3
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 4.56 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 4.56 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 4.38 in. Peak Level: 7.15 in. Min Level: 2.28 in. Avg Level: 4.38 in. Peak Level: 7.15 in. Min Level: 2.28 in.
Avg Velocity: 2.25 fps Peak Velocity: 2.91 fps Min Velocity: 1.44 fps Avg Flow: 0.345 mgd Peak Flow: 0.778 mgd Min Flow: 0.096 mgd | Site 6 - 16
515
SITE 6
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/4/2019 to 2/11/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 3.5
4.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 0.90
2/4 2/5 2/6 2/7 2/8 2/9 2/10
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 3.18 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 3.18 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 4.17 in. Peak Level: 7.13 in. Min Level: 2.99 in. Avg Level: 4.17 in. Peak Level: 7.13 in. Min Level: 2.99 in.
Avg Velocity: 2.10 fps Peak Velocity: 2.99 fps Min Velocity: 1.65 fps Avg Flow: 0.297 mgd Peak Flow: 0.785 mgd Min Flow: 0.151 mgd | Site 6 - 17
516
SITE 6
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/11/2019 to 2/18/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 3.5
4.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 0.90
2/11 2/12 2/13 2/14 2/15 2/16 2/17
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 5.32 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 5.32 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 4.04 in. Peak Level: 7.29 in. Min Level: 3.05 in. Avg Level: 4.04 in. Peak Level: 7.29 in. Min Level: 3.05 in.
Avg Velocity: 2.21 fps Peak Velocity: 2.76 fps Min Velocity: 1.42 fps Avg Flow: 0.298 mgd Peak Flow: 0.725 mgd Min Flow: 0.148 mgd | Site 6 - 18
517
SITE 6
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/18/2019 to 2/25/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 3.5
4.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 0.90
2/18 2/19 2/20 2/21 2/22 2/23 2/24
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.01 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 0.01 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 3.17 in. Peak Level: 4.09 in. Min Level: 2.18 in. Avg Level: 3.17 in. Peak Level: 4.09 in. Min Level: 2.18 in.
Avg Velocity: 1.97 fps Peak Velocity: 2.48 fps Min Velocity: 1.34 fps Avg Flow: 0.192 mgd Peak Flow: 0.326 mgd Min Flow: 0.086 mgd | Site 6 - 19
518
SITE 6
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/25/2019 to 3/4/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 3.5
4.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 0.90
2/25 2/26 2/27 2/28 3/1 3/2 3/3
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 4.71 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 4.71 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 3.18 in. Peak Level: 5.77 in. Min Level: 2.12 in. Avg Level: 3.18 in. Peak Level: 5.77 in. Min Level: 2.12 in.
Avg Velocity: 2.22 fps Peak Velocity: 2.67 fps Min Velocity: 1.56 fps Avg Flow: 0.218 mgd Peak Flow: 0.563 mgd Min Flow: 0.087 mgd | Site 6 - 20
519
SITE 6
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/4/2019 to 3/11/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 3.5
4.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 0.90
3/4 3/5 3/6 3/7 3/8 3/9 3/10
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 3.66 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 3.66 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 3.11 in. Peak Level: 4.75 in. Min Level: 2.20 in. Avg Level: 3.11 in. Peak Level: 4.75 in. Min Level: 2.20 in.
Avg Velocity: 2.30 fps Peak Velocity: 2.60 fps Min Velocity: 2.05 fps Avg Flow: 0.217 mgd Peak Flow: 0.420 mgd Min Flow: 0.121 mgd | Site 6 - 21
520
SITE 6
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/11/2019 to 3/18/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 3.5
4.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 0.90
3/11 3/12 3/13 3/14 3/15 3/16 3/17
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.01 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 0.01 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 2.56 in. Peak Level: 3.38 in. Min Level: 1.90 in. Avg Level: 2.56 in. Peak Level: 3.38 in. Min Level: 1.90 in.
Avg Velocity: 2.18 fps Peak Velocity: 2.47 fps Min Velocity: 1.83 fps Avg Flow: 0.157 mgd Peak Flow: 0.242 mgd Min Flow: 0.087 mgd | Site 6 - 22
521
SITE 6
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/18/2019 to 3/25/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 3.5
4.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 0.90
3/18 3/19 3/20 3/21 3/22 3/23 3/24
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 1.47 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 1.47 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 2.44 in. Peak Level: 3.34 in. Min Level: 1.70 in. Avg Level: 2.44 in. Peak Level: 3.34 in. Min Level: 1.70 in.
Avg Velocity: 2.13 fps Peak Velocity: 2.61 fps Min Velocity: 1.53 fps Avg Flow: 0.144 mgd Peak Flow: 0.261 mgd Min Flow: 0.068 mgd | Site 6 - 23
522
SITE 6
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/25/2019 to 4/1/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 3.5
4.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 0.90
3/25 3/26 3/27 3/28 3/29 3/30 3/31
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 1.13 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 1.13 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 2.51 in. Peak Level: 3.17 in. Min Level: 1.94 in. Avg Level: 2.51 in. Peak Level: 3.17 in. Min Level: 1.94 in.
Avg Velocity: 2.16 fps Peak Velocity: 2.62 fps Min Velocity: 1.40 fps Avg Flow: 0.151 mgd Peak Flow: 0.241 mgd Min Flow: 0.078 mgd | Site 6 - 24
523
SITE 6
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
4/1/2019 to 4/8/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 3.5
4.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 0.90
4/1 4/2 4/3 4/4 4/5 4/6 4/7
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.81 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 0.81 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 2.38 in. Peak Level: 3.21 in. Min Level: 1.81 in. Avg Level: 2.38 in. Peak Level: 3.21 in. Min Level: 1.81 in.
Avg Velocity: 2.05 fps Peak Velocity: 2.46 fps Min Velocity: 1.37 fps Avg Flow: 0.133 mgd Peak Flow: 0.236 mgd Min Flow: 0.074 mgd | Site 6 - 25
524
SITE 6
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
4/8/2019 to 4/15/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 3.5
4.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 0.90
4/8 4/9 4/10 4/11 4/12 4/13 4/14
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 2.38 in. Peak Level: 3.18 in. Min Level: 1.81 in.
Avg Velocity: 1.82 fps Peak Velocity: 2.47 fps Min Velocity: 1.34 fps Avg Flow: 0.119 mgd Peak Flow: 0.211 mgd Min Flow: 0.058 mgd | Site 6 - 26
525
SITE 6
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
4/15/2019 to 4/22/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 3.5
4.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 0.90
4/15 4/16 4/17 4/18 4/19 4/20 4/21
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.18 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 0.18 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 2.32 in. Peak Level: 3.13 in. Min Level: 1.66 in. Avg Level: 2.32 in. Peak Level: 3.13 in. Min Level: 1.66 in.
Avg Velocity: 1.71 fps Peak Velocity: 2.16 fps Min Velocity: 1.30 fps Avg Flow: 0.109 mgd Peak Flow: 0.197 mgd Min Flow: 0.051 mgd | Site 6 - 27
526
SITE 6
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
4/22/2019 to 4/29/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 3.5
4.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 0.90
4/22 4/23 4/24 4/25 4/26 4/27 4/28
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.02 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 0.02 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 2.26 in. Peak Level: 3.08 in. Min Level: 1.61 in. Avg Level: 2.26 in. Peak Level: 3.08 in. Min Level: 1.61 in.
Avg Velocity: 1.66 fps Peak Velocity: 2.11 fps Min Velocity: 1.11 fps Avg Flow: 0.102 mgd Peak Flow: 0.192 mgd Min Flow: 0.041 mgd | Site 6 - 28
527
SITE 6
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
4/29/2019 to 5/6/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 3.5
4.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 0.90
4/29 4/30 5/1 5/2 5/3 5/4 5/5
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 2.21 in. Peak Level: 3.05 in. Min Level: 1.45 in.
Avg Velocity: 1.65 fps Peak Velocity: 2.10 fps Min Velocity: 1.26 fps Avg Flow: 0.099 mgd Peak Flow: 0.178 mgd Min Flow: 0.041 mgd | Site 6 - 29
528
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Monitoring Site: onitoring Site:
Location:Location: Location:
Site 7
Glenwood Drive, north of Hacienda Drive
January 30 - May 03, 2019
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring
Carollo | Scotts Valley, California
Vicinity Map: Site 7
Data Summary Report
| Site 7 - 1
529
SITE 7
Site Information
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Measured Pipe Diameter: easured Pipe Diameter: 10 inches ADWF: 0.054 mgd
Peak Measured Flow: 0.454 mgd
Flow Sketch
Satellite Map
Street View
Sewer MapSewer Map Sewer Map
Location:Location: Location: Glenwood Drive, north of
Hacienda Drive
Rim Elevation (Earth): 624 feet
Plan ViewPlan View Plan View
Coordinates: 122.0056° W, 37.0640° N
Expected Pipe Diameter: 10 inches
Sediment:Sediment: Sediment: None
| Site 7 - 2
530
SITE 7
Additional Site Photos
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Effluent Pipe
Monitored North Influent Pipe
| Site 7 - 3
531
SITE 7
Additional Site Photos
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information West Influent Pipe
| Site 7 - 4
532
SITE 7
Period Flow Summary: Daily Flow Totals
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.0000.0500.1000.1500.2000.2500.300
1/31
2/2
2/4
2/6
2/8
2/10
2/12
2/14
2/16
2/18
2/20
2/22
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16
3/18
3/20
3/22
3/24
3/26
3/28
3/30
4/1
4/3
4/5
4/7
4/9
4/11
4/13
4/15
4/17
4/19
4/21
4/23
4/25
4/27
4/29
5/1
Flow (M Gal)
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Rainfall (in/day)
Realtime Holiday Rainfall ADWF
0.0000.0500.1000.1500.2000.2500.300
1/31
2/2
2/4
2/6
2/8
2/10
2/12
2/14
2/16
2/18
2/20
2/22
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16
3/18
3/20
3/22
3/24
3/26
3/28
3/30
4/1
4/3
4/5
4/7
4/9
4/11
4/13
4/15
4/17
4/19
4/21
4/23
4/25
4/27
4/29
5/1
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Realtime Weekend
0.0000.0500.1000.1500.2000.2500.300
1/31
2/2
2/4
2/6
2/8
2/10
2/12
2/14
2/16
2/18
2/20
2/22
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16
3/18
3/20
3/22
3/24
3/26
3/28
3/30
4/1
4/3
4/5
4/7
4/9
4/11
4/13
4/15
4/17
4/19
4/21
4/23
4/25
4/27
4/29
5/1
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Realtime Weekday
Total Rainfall: 25.10 inches otal Rainfall: 25.10 inches Avg Daily Flow: 0.114 MGal Peak Daily Flow: 0.256 MGal Min Daily Flow: 0.051 MGal Avg Daily Flow: 0.114 MGal Peak Daily Flow: 0.256 MGal Min Daily Flow: 0.051 MGal | Site 7 - 5
533
SITE 7
Flow Summary: 1/31/2019 to 2/28/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.000.100.200.300.400.500.60
Jan 31
(Thu)
Feb 01
(Fri)
Feb 02
(Sat)
Feb 03
(Sun)
Feb 04
(Mon)
Feb 05
(Tue)
Feb 06
(Wed)
Feb 07
(Thu)
Feb 08
(Fri)
Feb 09
(Sat)
Feb 10
(Sun)
Feb 11
(Mon)
Feb 12
(Tue)
Feb 13
(Wed)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain fall ( in /h r)
Rain Flow AD WF
0.000.100.200.300.400.500.60
Feb 14
(Thu)
Feb 15
(Fri)
Feb 16
(Sat)
Feb 17
(Sun)
Feb 18
(Mon)
Feb 19
(Tue)
Feb 20
(Wed)
Feb 21
(Thu)
Feb 22
(Fri)
Feb 23
(Sat)
Feb 24
(Sun)
Feb 25
(Mon)
Feb 26
(Tue)
Feb 27
(Wed)
Feb 28
(Thu)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain f all (in /h r)
Period Rainfall: 15.92 inches Period Avg Flow: 0.164 mgd Period Peak Flow: 0.454 mgd Period Min Flow: 0 | Site 7 - 6
534
SITE 7
Flow Summary: 3/1/2019 to 3/31/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.000.100.200.300.400.500.60
Mar 01
(Fri)
Mar 02
(Sat)
Mar 03
(Sun)
Mar 04
(Mon)
Mar 05
(Tue)
Mar 06
(Wed)
Mar 07
(Thu)
Mar 08
(Fri)
Mar 09
(Sat)
Mar 10
(Sun)
Mar 11
(Mon)
Mar 12
(Tue)
Mar 13
(Wed)
Mar 14
(Thu)
Mar 15
(Fri)
Mar 16
(Sat)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain fall ( in /h r)
Rain Flow AD WF
0.000.100.200.300.400.500.60
Mar 17
(Sun)
Mar 18
(Mon)
Mar 19
(Tue)
Mar 20
(Wed)
Mar 21
(Thu)
Mar 22
(Fri)
Mar 23
(Sat)
Mar 24
(Sun)
Mar 25
(Mon)
Mar 26
(Tue)
Mar 27
(Wed)
Mar 28
(Thu)
Mar 29
(Fri)
Mar 30
(Sat)
Mar 31
(Sun)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain f all (in /h r)
Period Rainfall: 8.14 inches Period Avg Flow: 0.117 mgd Period Peak Flow: 0.269 mgd Period Min Flow: 0 | Site 7 - 7
535
SITE 7
Flow Summary: 4/1/2019 to 5/2/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.000.100.200.300.400.500.60
Apr 01
(Mon)
Apr 02
(Tue)
Apr 03
(Wed)
Apr 04
(Thu)
Apr 05
(Fri)
Apr 06
(Sat)
Apr 07
(Sun)
Apr 08
(Mon)
Apr 09
(Tue)
Apr 10
(Wed)
Apr 11
(Thu)
Apr 12
(Fri)
Apr 13
(Sat)
Apr 14
(Sun)
Apr 15
(Mon)
Apr 16
(Tue)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain fall ( in /h r)
Rain Flow AD WF
0.000.100.200.300.400.500.60
Apr 17
(Wed)
Apr 18
(Thu)
Apr 19
(Fri)
Apr 20
(Sat)
Apr 21
(Sun)
Apr 22
(Mon)
Apr 23
(Tue)
Apr 24
(Wed)
Apr 25
(Thu)
Apr 26
(Fri)
Apr 27
(Sat)
Apr 28
(Sun)
Apr 29
(Mon)
Apr 30
(Tue)
May 01
(Wed)
May 02
(Thu)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain f all (in /h r)
Period Rainfall: 1.04 inches Period Avg Flow: 0.066 mgd Period Peak Flow: 0.117 mgd Period Min Flow: 0 | Site 7 - 8
536
SITE 7
Average Dry Weather Flow Hydrographs
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.0000.0100.0200.0300.0400.0500.0600.0700.0800.0900.100 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)
M on-Thurs Friday SaturdaySaturday Saturday Sunday
Time of Day
0.054 mgd
ADWF:
| Site 7 - 9
537
SITE 7
Site Capacity and Surcharge Summary
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Peak Measured Level: 6.59 Peak Measured Level: eak Measured Level:
Peak d/D Ratio: 0.66Pipe Diameter: 10 inches
inches
Realtime Flow Levels with Rainfall Data over Peak Level Period Diameter
75% d/D
50% d/D
02468
10 12
01/30
02/01
02/03
02/05
02/07
02/09
02/11
02/13
02/15
02/17
02/19
02/21
02/23
02/25
02/27
03/01
03/03
Level (in)
03/05
03/07
03/09
03/11
03/13
03/15
03/17
03/19
03/21
03/23
03/25
03/27
03/29
03/31
04/02
04/04
04/06
04/08
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.02.22.42.62.83.0 Rain (in/hr) | Site 7 - 10
538
SITE 7
I/I Summary: Event #1 RDI
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 01/3102/0102/0202/0302/0402/0502/0602/0702/0802/0902/1002/1102/1202/1302/1402/1502/1602/1702/1802/1902/20 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 5.62 inches
Event #1 RDI
0.00 0.05
0.10 0.15
0.20 0.25
0.30 0.35
0.40 0.45
0.50 02/0102/0202/0302/0402/0502/0602/0702/08
Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Event #1 RDI Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 5.62 inches)
0.454
6.59 Peak Flow:Peak Flow: Peak Flow:
PF:
Peak Level:
mgd
in
8.44 d/D Ratio:d/D Ratio: d/D Ratio: 0.66
CapacityCapacity Capacity
RDI: 0.078 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
| Site 7 - 11
539
SITE 7
I/I Summary: Event #2 INFLOW
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 02/1102/1202/1302/1402/1502/1602/1702/1802/1902/2002/2102/2202/2302/2402/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/11 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 5.32 inches
Event #2 INFLOW
0.00 0.05
0.10 0.15
0.20 0.25
0.30 0.35
0.40 0.45
02/1202/1302/1402/1502/1602/1702/18
Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Event #2 INFLOW Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 5.32 inches)
0.393
5.84 Peak Flow:Peak Flow: Peak Flow:
PF:
Peak Level:
mgd
in
7.30 d/D Ratio:d/D Ratio: d/D Ratio: 0.58
CapacityCapacity Capacity
Peak I/I Rate: 0.254 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
| Site 7 - 12
540
SITE 7
I/I Summary: Event #2 RDI
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 02/1102/1202/1302/1402/1502/1602/1702/1802/1902/2002/2102/2202/2302/2402/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/11 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 5.32 inches
Event #2 RDI
0.00 0.05
0.10 0.15
0.20 0.25
0.30 0.35
0.40 0.45
02/1202/1302/1402/1502/1602/1702/1802/1902/2002/2102/2202/2302/2402/2502/26 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Event #2 RDI Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 5.32 inches)
0.393
5.84 Peak Flow:Peak Flow: Peak Flow:
PF:
Peak Level:
mgd
in
7.30 d/D Ratio:d/D Ratio: d/D Ratio: 0.58
CapacityCapacity Capacity
RDI: 0.088 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
| Site 7 - 13
541
SITE 7
I/I Summary: Event #3 INFLOW
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 02/2102/2202/2302/2402/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/1103/1203/1303/1403/1503/1603/1703/1803/1903/2003/21 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 2.92 inches
Event #3 INFLOW
0.00 0.05
0.10 0.15
0.20 0.25
0.30 0.35
02/2602/2702/2803/01
Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Event #3 INFLOW Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 2.92 inches)
0.31 5.40
Peak Flow:Peak Flow: Peak Flow:
PF:
Peak Level:
mgd
in
5.83 d/D Ratio:d/D Ratio: d/D Ratio: 0.54
CapacityCapacity Capacity
Peak I/I Rate: 0.233 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
| Site 7 - 14
542
SITE 7
I/I Summary: Event #3 RDI
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 02/2102/2202/2302/2402/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/1103/1203/1303/1403/1503/1603/1703/1803/1903/2003/21 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 8.46 inches
Event #3 RDI
0.00 0.05
0.10 0.15
0.20 0.25
0.30 0.35
02/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/1103/1203/1303/1403/1503/1603/1703/1803/1903/20 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Event #3 RDI Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 8.46 inches)
0.31 5.40
Peak Flow:Peak Flow: Peak Flow:
PF:
Peak Level:
mgd
in
5.83 d/D Ratio:d/D Ratio: d/D Ratio: 0.54
CapacityCapacity Capacity
RDI: 0.071 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
| Site 7 - 15
543
SITE 7
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
1/28/2019 to 2/4/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 1/28 1/29 1/30 1/31 2/1 2/2 2/3
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 4.56 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 4.56 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 3.97 in. Peak Level: 6.59 in. Min Level: 2.19 in. Avg Level: 3.97 in. Peak Level: 6.59 in. Min Level: 2.19 in.
Avg Velocity: 1.48 fps Peak Velocity: 1.85 fps Min Velocity: 1.06 fps Avg Flow: 0.198 mgd Peak Flow: 0.454 mgd Min Flow: 0.069 mgd | Site 7 - 16
544
SITE 7
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/4/2019 to 2/11/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 2/4 2/5 2/6 2/7 2/8 2/9 2/10
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 3.18 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 3.18 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 3.60 in. Peak Level: 5.96 in. Min Level: 2.73 in. Avg Level: 3.60 in. Peak Level: 5.96 in. Min Level: 2.73 in.
Avg Velocity: 1.42 fps Peak Velocity: 1.92 fps Min Velocity: 1.12 fps Avg Flow: 0.164 mgd Peak Flow: 0.416 mgd Min Flow: 0.099 mgd | Site 7 - 17
545
SITE 7
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/11/2019 to 2/18/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 2/11 2/12 2/13 2/14 2/15 2/16 2/17
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 5.32 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 5.32 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 3.84 in. Peak Level: 5.84 in. Min Level: 2.85 in. Avg Level: 3.84 in. Peak Level: 5.84 in. Min Level: 2.85 in.
Avg Velocity: 1.54 fps Peak Velocity: 1.86 fps Min Velocity: 1.27 fps Avg Flow: 0.194 mgd Peak Flow: 0.393 mgd Min Flow: 0.112 mgd | Site 7 - 18
546
SITE 7
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/18/2019 to 2/25/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 2/18 2/19 2/20 2/21 2/22 2/23 2/24
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.01 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 0.01 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 3.10 in. Peak Level: 3.89 in. Min Level: 2.46 in. Avg Level: 3.10 in. Peak Level: 3.89 in. Min Level: 2.46 in.
Avg Velocity: 1.38 fps Peak Velocity: 1.64 fps Min Velocity: 1.12 fps Avg Flow: 0.129 mgd Peak Flow: 0.199 mgd Min Flow: 0.082 mgd | Site 7 - 19
547
SITE 7
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/25/2019 to 3/4/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 2/25 2/26 2/27 2/28 3/1 3/2 3/3
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 4.75 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 4.75 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 3.24 in. Peak Level: 5.40 in. Min Level: 2.32 in. Avg Level: 3.24 in. Peak Level: 5.40 in. Min Level: 2.32 in.
Avg Velocity: 1.43 fps Peak Velocity: 1.72 fps Min Velocity: 1.15 fps Avg Flow: 0.143 mgd Peak Flow: 0.314 mgd Min Flow: 0.073 mgd | Site 7 - 20
548
SITE 7
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/4/2019 to 3/11/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 3/4 3/5 3/6 3/7 3/8 3/9 3/10
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 3.72 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 3.72 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 3.21 in. Peak Level: 4.58 in. Min Level: 2.50 in. Avg Level: 3.21 in. Peak Level: 4.58 in. Min Level: 2.50 in.
Avg Velocity: 1.53 fps Peak Velocity: 1.78 fps Min Velocity: 1.16 fps Avg Flow: 0.151 mgd Peak Flow: 0.269 mgd Min Flow: 0.100 mgd | Site 7 - 21
549
SITE 7
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/11/2019 to 3/18/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 3/11 3/12 3/13 3/14 3/15 3/16 3/17
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.01 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 0.01 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 2.71 in. Peak Level: 3.42 in. Min Level: 2.11 in. Avg Level: 2.71 in. Peak Level: 3.42 in. Min Level: 2.11 in.
Avg Velocity: 1.39 fps Peak Velocity: 1.68 fps Min Velocity: 1.10 fps Avg Flow: 0.108 mgd Peak Flow: 0.177 mgd Min Flow: 0.065 mgd | Site 7 - 22
550
SITE 7
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/18/2019 to 3/25/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 3/18 3/19 3/20 3/21 3/22 3/23 3/24
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 1.47 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 1.47 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 2.45 in. Peak Level: 3.07 in. Min Level: 1.96 in. Avg Level: 2.45 in. Peak Level: 3.07 in. Min Level: 1.96 in.
Avg Velocity: 1.38 fps Peak Velocity: 1.59 fps Min Velocity: 1.10 fps Avg Flow: 0.093 mgd Peak Flow: 0.133 mgd Min Flow: 0.055 mgd | Site 7 - 23
551
SITE 7
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/25/2019 to 4/1/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 3/25 3/26 3/27 3/28 3/29 3/30 3/31
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 1.11 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 1.11 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 2.54 in. Peak Level: 3.13 in. Min Level: 2.03 in. Avg Level: 2.54 in. Peak Level: 3.13 in. Min Level: 2.03 in.
Avg Velocity: 1.48 fps Peak Velocity: 1.63 fps Min Velocity: 1.22 fps Avg Flow: 0.105 mgd Peak Flow: 0.146 mgd Min Flow: 0.070 mgd | Site 7 - 24
552
SITE 7
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
4/1/2019 to 4/8/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 4/1 4/2 4/3 4/4 4/5 4/6 4/7
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.82 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 0.82 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 2.27 in. Peak Level: 2.83 in. Min Level: 1.87 in. Avg Level: 2.27 in. Peak Level: 2.83 in. Min Level: 1.87 in.
Avg Velocity: 1.39 fps Peak Velocity: 1.56 fps Min Velocity: 1.18 fps Avg Flow: 0.084 mgd Peak Flow: 0.117 mgd Min Flow: 0.054 mgd | Site 7 - 25
553
SITE 7
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
4/8/2019 to 4/15/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 4/8 4/9 4/10 4/11 4/12 4/13 4/14
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 2.10 in. Peak Level: 2.68 in. Min Level: 1.59 in.
Avg Velocity: 1.35 fps Peak Velocity: 1.63 fps Min Velocity: 1.11 fps Avg Flow: 0.073 mgd Peak Flow: 0.115 mgd Min Flow: 0.043 mgd | Site 7 - 26
554
SITE 7
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
4/15/2019 to 4/22/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 4/15 4/16 4/17 4/18 4/19 4/20 4/21
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.19 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 0.19 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 1.93 in. Peak Level: 2.60 in. Min Level: 1.34 in. Avg Level: 1.93 in. Peak Level: 2.60 in. Min Level: 1.34 in.
Avg Velocity: 1.23 fps Peak Velocity: 1.49 fps Min Velocity: 0.75 fps Avg Flow: 0.060 mgd Peak Flow: 0.107 mgd Min Flow: 0.022 mgd | Site 7 - 27
555
SITE 7
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
4/22/2019 to 4/29/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 4/22 4/23 4/24 4/25 4/26 4/27 4/28
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.02 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 0.02 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 1.81 in. Peak Level: 2.59 in. Min Level: 1.32 in. Avg Level: 1.81 in. Peak Level: 2.59 in. Min Level: 1.32 in.
Avg Velocity: 1.19 fps Peak Velocity: 1.47 fps Min Velocity: 0.76 fps Avg Flow: 0.053 mgd Peak Flow: 0.099 mgd Min Flow: 0.022 mgd | Site 7 - 28
556
SITE 7
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
4/29/2019 to 5/6/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 4/29 4/30 5/1 5/2 5/3 5/4 5/5
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 1.79 in. Peak Level: 2.50 in. Min Level: 1.32 in.
Avg Velocity: 1.22 fps Peak Velocity: 1.52 fps Min Velocity: 0.81 fps Avg Flow: 0.054 mgd Peak Flow: 0.093 mgd Min Flow: 0.023 mgd | Site 7 - 29
557
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Monitoring Site: onitoring Site:
Location:Location: Location:
Site 8
In Bushes between S Navarraq Drive and Highway 17
January 30 - May 03, 2019
Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring
Carollo | Scotts Valley, California
Vicinity Map: Site 8
Data Summary Report
| Site 8 - 1
558
SITE 8
Site Information
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Measured Pipe Diameter: easured Pipe Diameter: 10 inches ADWF: 0.111 mgd
Peak Measured Flow: 0.569 mgd
Flow Sketch
Satellite Map
Street View
Sewer MapSewer Map Sewer Map
Location:Location: Location: In Bushes between S Navarraq Drive and Highway 17
Rim Elevation (Earth): 595 feet
Plan ViewPlan View Plan View
Coordinates: 122.0074° W, 37.0551° N
Expected Pipe Diameter: 10 inches
Sediment:Sediment: Sediment: None
| Site 8 - 2
559
SITE 8
Additional Site Photos
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Effluent Pipe
Monitored North Influent Pipe
| Site 8 - 3
560
SITE 8
Additional Site Photos
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Northeast Influent Pipe
| Site 8 - 4
561
SITE 8
Period Flow Summary: Daily Flow Totals
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.0000.0500.1000.1500.2000.2500.3000.3500.400
1/31
2/2
2/4
2/6
2/8
2/10
2/12
2/14
2/16
2/18
2/20
2/22
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16
3/18
3/20
3/22
3/24
3/26
3/28
3/30
4/1
4/3
4/5
4/7
4/9
4/11
4/13
4/15
4/17
4/19
4/21
4/23
4/25
4/27
4/29
5/1
Flow (M Gal)
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Rainfall (in/day)
Realtime Holiday Rainfall ADWF
0.0000.0500.1000.1500.2000.2500.3000.3500.400
1/31
2/2
2/4
2/6
2/8
2/10
2/12
2/14
2/16
2/18
2/20
2/22
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16
3/18
3/20
3/22
3/24
3/26
3/28
3/30
4/1
4/3
4/5
4/7
4/9
4/11
4/13
4/15
4/17
4/19
4/21
4/23
4/25
4/27
4/29
5/1
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Realtime Weekend
0.0000.0500.1000.1500.2000.2500.3000.3500.400
1/31
2/2
2/4
2/6
2/8
2/10
2/12
2/14
2/16
2/18
2/20
2/22
2/24
2/26
2/28
3/2
3/4
3/6
3/8
3/10
3/12
3/14
3/16
3/18
3/20
3/22
3/24
3/26
3/28
3/30
4/1
4/3
4/5
4/7
4/9
4/11
4/13
4/15
4/17
4/19
4/21
4/23
4/25
4/27
4/29
5/1
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0 Realtime Weekday
Total Rainfall: 25.01 inches otal Rainfall: 25.01 inches Avg Daily Flow: 0.172 MGal Peak Daily Flow: 0.370 MGal Min Daily Flow: 0.081 MGal Avg Daily Flow: 0.172 MGal Peak Daily Flow: 0.370 MGal Min Daily Flow: 0.081 MGal | Site 8 - 5
562
SITE 8
Flow Summary: 1/31/2019 to 2/28/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.80
Jan 31
(Thu)
Feb 01
(Fri)
Feb 02
(Sat)
Feb 03
(Sun)
Feb 04
(Mon)
Feb 05
(Tue)
Feb 06
(Wed)
Feb 07
(Thu)
Feb 08
(Fri)
Feb 09
(Sat)
Feb 10
(Sun)
Feb 11
(Mon)
Feb 12
(Tue)
Feb 13
(Wed)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain fall ( in /h r)
Rain Flow AD WF
0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.80
Feb 14
(Thu)
Feb 15
(Fri)
Feb 16
(Sat)
Feb 17
(Sun)
Feb 18
(Mon)
Feb 19
(Tue)
Feb 20
(Wed)
Feb 21
(Thu)
Feb 22
(Fri)
Feb 23
(Sat)
Feb 24
(Sun)
Feb 25
(Mon)
Feb 26
(Tue)
Feb 27
(Wed)
Feb 28
(Thu)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain f all (in /h r)
Period Rainfall: 15.84 inches Period Avg Flow: 0.216 mgd Period Peak Flow: 0.569 mgd Period Min Flow: 0 | Site 8 - 6
563
SITE 8
Flow Summary: 3/1/2019 to 3/31/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.80
Mar 01
(Fri)
Mar 02
(Sat)
Mar 03
(Sun)
Mar 04
(Mon)
Mar 05
(Tue)
Mar 06
(Wed)
Mar 07
(Thu)
Mar 08
(Fri)
Mar 09
(Sat)
Mar 10
(Sun)
Mar 11
(Mon)
Mar 12
(Tue)
Mar 13
(Wed)
Mar 14
(Thu)
Mar 15
(Fri)
Mar 16
(Sat)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain fall ( in /h r)
Rain Flow AD WF
0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.80
Mar 17
(Sun)
Mar 18
(Mon)
Mar 19
(Tue)
Mar 20
(Wed)
Mar 21
(Thu)
Mar 22
(Fri)
Mar 23
(Sat)
Mar 24
(Sun)
Mar 25
(Mon)
Mar 26
(Tue)
Mar 27
(Wed)
Mar 28
(Thu)
Mar 29
(Fri)
Mar 30
(Sat)
Mar 31
(Sun)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain f all (in /h r)
Period Rainfall: 8.15 inches Period Avg Flow: 0.182 mgd Period Peak Flow: 0.463 mgd Period Min Flow: 0 | Site 8 - 7
564
SITE 8
Flow Summary: 4/1/2019 to 5/2/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.80
Apr 01
(Mon)
Apr 02
(Tue)
Apr 03
(Wed)
Apr 04
(Thu)
Apr 05
(Fri)
Apr 06
(Sat)
Apr 07
(Sun)
Apr 08
(Mon)
Apr 09
(Tue)
Apr 10
(Wed)
Apr 11
(Thu)
Apr 12
(Fri)
Apr 13
(Sat)
Apr 14
(Sun)
Apr 15
(Mon)
Apr 16
(Tue)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain fall ( in /h r)
Rain Flow AD WF
0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.80
Apr 17
(Wed)
Apr 18
(Thu)
Apr 19
(Fri)
Apr 20
(Sat)
Apr 21
(Sun)
Apr 22
(Mon)
Apr 23
(Tue)
Apr 24
(Wed)
Apr 25
(Thu)
Apr 26
(Fri)
Apr 27
(Sat)
Apr 28
(Sun)
Apr 29
(Mon)
Apr 30
(Tue)
May 01
(Wed)
May 02
(Thu)
Flow ( mgd)
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Rain f all (in /h r)
Period Rainfall: 1.02 inches Period Avg Flow: 0.123 mgd Period Peak Flow: 0.280 mgd Period Min Flow: 0 | Site 8 - 8
565
SITE 8
Average Dry Weather Flow Hydrographs
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information
0.0000.0200.0400.0600.0800.1000.1200.1400.1600.1800.200 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)
M on-Thurs Friday SaturdaySaturday Saturday Sunday
Time of Day
0.111 mgd
ADWF:
| Site 8 - 9
566
SITE 8
Site Capacity and Surcharge Summary
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Peak Measured Level: 3.71 Peak Measured Level: eak Measured Level:
Peak d/D Ratio: 0.37Pipe Diameter: 10 inches
inches
Realtime Flow Levels with Rainfall Data over Peak Level Period Diameter
75% d/D
50% d/D
02468
10 12
01/30
02/01
02/03
02/05
02/07
02/09
02/11
02/13
02/15
02/17
02/19
02/21
02/23
02/25
02/27
03/01
03/03
Level (in)
03/05
03/07
03/09
03/11
03/13
03/15
03/17
03/19
03/21
03/23
03/25
03/27
03/29
03/31
04/02
04/04
04/06
04/08
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.02.22.42.62.83.0 Rain (in/hr) | Site 8 - 10
567
SITE 8
I/I Summary: Event #1 RDI
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 01/3102/0102/0202/0302/0402/0502/0602/0702/0802/0902/1002/1102/1202/1302/1402/1502/1602/1702/1802/1902/20 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 5.6 inches
Event #1 RDI
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 02/0102/0202/0302/0402/0502/0602/0702/08
Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Event #1 RDI Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 5.60 inches)
0.517
3.53 Peak Flow:Peak Flow: Peak Flow:
PF:
Peak Level:
mgd
in
4.65 d/D Ratio:d/D Ratio: d/D Ratio: 0.35
CapacityCapacity Capacity
RDI: 0.066 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
| Site 8 - 11
568
SITE 8
I/I Summary: Event #2 INFLOW
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 02/1102/1202/1302/1402/1502/1602/1702/1802/1902/2002/2102/2202/2302/2402/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/11 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 5.32 inches
Event #2 INFLOW
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 02/1202/1302/1402/1502/1602/1702/18
Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Event #2 INFLOW Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 5.32 inches)
0.569
3.71 Peak Flow:Peak Flow: Peak Flow:
PF:
Peak Level:
mgd
in
5.12 d/D Ratio:d/D Ratio: d/D Ratio: 0.37
CapacityCapacity Capacity
Peak I/I Rate: 0.401 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
| Site 8 - 12
569
SITE 8
I/I Summary: Event #2 RDI
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 02/1102/1202/1302/1402/1502/1602/1702/1802/1902/2002/2102/2202/2302/2402/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/11 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 5.32 inches
Event #2 RDI
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 02/1202/1302/1402/1502/1602/1702/1802/1902/2002/2102/2202/2302/2402/2502/26 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Event #2 RDI Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 5.32 inches)
0.569
3.71 Peak Flow:Peak Flow: Peak Flow:
PF:
Peak Level:
mgd
in
5.12 d/D Ratio:d/D Ratio: d/D Ratio: 0.37
CapacityCapacity Capacity
RDI: 0.050 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
| Site 8 - 13
570
SITE 8
I/I Summary: Event #3 INFLOW
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 02/2102/2202/2302/2402/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/1103/1203/1303/1403/1503/1603/1703/1803/1903/2003/21 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 2.84 inches
Event #3 INFLOW
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 02/2602/2702/2803/01
Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Event #3 INFLOW Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 2.84 inches)
0.49 3.43
Peak Flow:Peak Flow: Peak Flow:
PF:
Peak Level:
mgd
in
4.43 d/D Ratio:d/D Ratio: d/D Ratio: 0.34
CapacityCapacity Capacity
Peak I/I Rate: 0.391 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
| Site 8 - 14
571
SITE 8
I/I Summary: Event #3 RDI
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period Baseline and Realtime Flows with Rainfall Data over Monitoring Period
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 02/2102/2202/2302/2402/2502/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/1103/1203/1303/1403/1503/1603/1703/1803/1903/2003/21 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rainfall: 8.37 inches
Event #3 RDI
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 02/2602/2702/2803/0103/0203/0303/0403/0503/0603/0703/0803/0903/1003/1103/1203/1303/1403/1503/1603/1703/1803/1903/20 Flow (mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Event #3 RDI Detail Graph
Storm Event I/I Analysis (Rain = 8.37 inches)
0.49 3.43
Peak Flow:Peak Flow: Peak Flow:
PF:
Peak Level:
mgd
in
4.43 d/D Ratio:d/D Ratio: d/D Ratio: 0.34
CapacityCapacity Capacity
RDI: 0.061 mgd
Inflow / Infiltration
| Site 8 - 15
572
SITE 8
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
1/28/2019 to 2/4/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 1/28 1/29 1/30 1/31 2/1 2/2 2/3
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 4.56 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 4.56 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 2.05 in. Peak Level: 3.22 in. Min Level: 1.29 in. Avg Level: 2.05 in. Peak Level: 3.22 in. Min Level: 1.29 in.
Avg Velocity: 3.90 fps Peak Velocity: 4.66 fps Min Velocity: 2.77 fps Avg Flow: 0.210 mgd Peak Flow: 0.455 mgd Min Flow: 0.079 mgd | Site 8 - 16
573
SITE 8
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/4/2019 to 2/11/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 2/4 2/5 2/6 2/7 2/8 2/9 2/10
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 3.18 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 3.18 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 2.22 in. Peak Level: 3.53 in. Min Level: 1.51 in. Avg Level: 2.22 in. Peak Level: 3.53 in. Min Level: 1.51 in.
Avg Velocity: 3.98 fps Peak Velocity: 4.76 fps Min Velocity: 3.10 fps Avg Flow: 0.237 mgd Peak Flow: 0.517 mgd Min Flow: 0.109 mgd | Site 8 - 17
574
SITE 8
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/11/2019 to 2/18/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 2/11 2/12 2/13 2/14 2/15 2/16 2/17
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 5.32 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 5.32 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 2.41 in. Peak Level: 3.71 in. Min Level: 1.46 in. Avg Level: 2.41 in. Peak Level: 3.71 in. Min Level: 1.46 in.
Avg Velocity: 4.09 fps Peak Velocity: 4.82 fps Min Velocity: 3.12 fps Avg Flow: 0.275 mgd Peak Flow: 0.569 mgd Min Flow: 0.103 mgd | Site 8 - 18
575
SITE 8
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/18/2019 to 2/25/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 2/18 2/19 2/20 2/21 2/22 2/23 2/24
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.01 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 0.01 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 1.73 in. Peak Level: 2.53 in. Min Level: 1.15 in. Avg Level: 1.73 in. Peak Level: 2.53 in. Min Level: 1.15 in.
Avg Velocity: 3.56 fps Peak Velocity: 4.36 fps Min Velocity: 2.63 fps Avg Flow: 0.149 mgd Peak Flow: 0.295 mgd Min Flow: 0.067 mgd | Site 8 - 19
576
SITE 8
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
2/25/2019 to 3/4/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 2/25 2/26 2/27 2/28 3/1 3/2 3/3
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 4.71 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 4.71 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 2.04 in. Peak Level: 3.43 in. Min Level: 1.18 in. Avg Level: 2.04 in. Peak Level: 3.43 in. Min Level: 1.18 in.
Avg Velocity: 3.91 fps Peak Velocity: 4.67 fps Min Velocity: 2.76 fps Avg Flow: 0.207 mgd Peak Flow: 0.493 mgd Min Flow: 0.066 mgd | Site 8 - 20
577
SITE 8
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/4/2019 to 3/11/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 3/4 3/5 3/6 3/7 3/8 3/9 3/10
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 3.66 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 3.66 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 2.20 in. Peak Level: 3.30 in. Min Level: 1.66 in. Avg Level: 2.20 in. Peak Level: 3.30 in. Min Level: 1.66 in.
Avg Velocity: 4.00 fps Peak Velocity: 4.74 fps Min Velocity: 3.27 fps Avg Flow: 0.232 mgd Peak Flow: 0.463 mgd Min Flow: 0.133 mgd | Site 8 - 21
578
SITE 8
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/11/2019 to 3/18/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 3/11 3/12 3/13 3/14 3/15 3/16 3/17
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.01 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 0.01 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 1.78 in. Peak Level: 2.50 in. Min Level: 1.26 in. Avg Level: 1.78 in. Peak Level: 2.50 in. Min Level: 1.26 in.
Avg Velocity: 3.64 fps Peak Velocity: 4.20 fps Min Velocity: 2.77 fps Avg Flow: 0.157 mgd Peak Flow: 0.286 mgd Min Flow: 0.076 mgd | Site 8 - 22
579
SITE 8
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/18/2019 to 3/25/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 3/18 3/19 3/20 3/21 3/22 3/23 3/24
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 1.47 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 1.47 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 1.74 in. Peak Level: 2.47 in. Min Level: 1.21 in. Avg Level: 1.74 in. Peak Level: 2.47 in. Min Level: 1.21 in.
Avg Velocity: 3.60 fps Peak Velocity: 4.19 fps Min Velocity: 2.69 fps Avg Flow: 0.151 mgd Peak Flow: 0.277 mgd Min Flow: 0.069 mgd | Site 8 - 23
580
SITE 8
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
3/25/2019 to 4/1/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 3/25 3/26 3/27 3/28 3/29 3/30 3/31
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 1.13 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 1.13 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 1.87 in. Peak Level: 2.58 in. Min Level: 1.38 in. Avg Level: 1.87 in. Peak Level: 2.58 in. Min Level: 1.38 in.
Avg Velocity: 3.67 fps Peak Velocity: 4.20 fps Min Velocity: 2.82 fps Avg Flow: 0.169 mgd Peak Flow: 0.294 mgd Min Flow: 0.085 mgd | Site 8 - 24
581
SITE 8
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
4/1/2019 to 4/8/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 4/1 4/2 4/3 4/4 4/5 4/6 4/7
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.81 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 0.81 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 1.68 in. Peak Level: 2.48 in. Min Level: 1.30 in. Avg Level: 1.68 in. Peak Level: 2.48 in. Min Level: 1.30 in.
Avg Velocity: 3.55 fps Peak Velocity: 4.12 fps Min Velocity: 2.80 fps Avg Flow: 0.141 mgd Peak Flow: 0.254 mgd Min Flow: 0.079 mgd | Site 8 - 25
582
SITE 8
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
4/8/2019 to 4/15/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 4/8 4/9 4/10 4/11 4/12 4/13 4/14
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 1.64 in. Peak Level: 2.49 in. Min Level: 1.20 in.
Avg Velocity: 3.48 fps Peak Velocity: 4.09 fps Min Velocity: 2.70 fps Avg Flow: 0.134 mgd Peak Flow: 0.280 mgd Min Flow: 0.072 mgd | Site 8 - 26
583
SITE 8
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
4/15/2019 to 4/22/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 4/15 4/16 4/17 4/18 4/19 4/20 4/21
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.18 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 0.18 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 1.49 in. Peak Level: 2.20 in. Min Level: 0.92 in. Avg Level: 1.49 in. Peak Level: 2.20 in. Min Level: 0.92 in.
Avg Velocity: 3.39 fps Peak Velocity: 4.08 fps Min Velocity: 2.56 fps Avg Flow: 0.114 mgd Peak Flow: 0.228 mgd Min Flow: 0.047 mgd | Site 8 - 27
584
SITE 8
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
4/22/2019 to 4/29/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 4/22 4/23 4/24 4/25 4/26 4/27 4/28
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Total Weekly Rainfall: 0.02 inches otal Weekly Rainfall: 0.02 inches Rain Flow ADWF Avg Level: 1.41 in. Peak Level: 2.32 in. Min Level: 0.57 in. Avg Level: 1.41 in. Peak Level: 2.32 in. Min Level: 0.57 in.
Avg Velocity: 3.25 fps Peak Velocity: 4.02 fps Min Velocity: 2.20 fps Avg Flow: 0.103 mgd Peak Flow: 0.232 mgd Min Flow: 0.019 mgd | Site 8 - 28
585
SITE 8
Weekly Level, Velocity and Flow Hydrographs
4/29/2019 to 5/6/2019
Appendix A
Flow Monitoring Site Reports: Data, Graphs, Information 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Level (i n)
Lev
0.0 1.0
2.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
6.0 7.0
8.0 Vel ocity (fps)
Vel
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 4/29 4/30 5/1 5/2 5/3 5/4 5/5
Flow ( mgd)
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 Rain (in/hr)
Rain Flow ADWF
Avg Level: 1.56 in. Peak Level: 2.45 in. Min Level: 0.78 in.
Avg Velocity: 3.38 fps Peak Velocity: 4.04 fps Min Velocity: 2.27 fps Avg Flow: 0.122 mgd Peak Flow: 0.256 mgd Min Flow: 0.029 mgd | Site 8 - 29
586
<V&A Project No. 18-0162>
1000 Broadway
Suite 320
Oakland, CA 94607
510.903.6600
510.903.6601, Fax
587
DRY WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION| CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
DRAFT | FEBRUARY ͮͬͮͭ
Attachment 2
DRY WEATNER FLOW CALIBRATION
588
589
DRY WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
Flow Monitoring Site 1, Dry Weather Flow Calibration
Location: In Treatment Plant, inside gate
Pipeline Diameter: 10''
City Manhole ID: none
Model Pipe ID: P-354
Flow Monitor Location
Model Calibration Summary
(mgd) (mgd) (in) (ft/s) (mgd) (mgd) (in) (ft/s) (%) (%) (%) (%)
0.02 0.03 1.4 0.66 0.02 0.03 0.8 1.25 0.0% -2.6% -41.3% 90.5%
0.02 0.03 1.4 0.66 0.02 0.03 0.8 1.25 0.0% -2.6% -41.3% 90.5%
0.02 0.03 1.4 0.66 0.02 0.03 0.8 1.25 0.0% -2.6% -41.3% 90.5% dited to 3 dec. places 0.02 0.03 1.4 0.66 0.02 0.03 0.8 1.25 0.0% -2.6% -41.3% 90.5%
0.02 0.03 1.4 0.65 0.02 0.03 0.8 1.24 -0.2% -14.3% -41.1% 90.7%
0.02 0.03 1.4 0.66 0.02 0.03 0.8 1.24 0.1% -10.2% -40.8% 87.1%
0.02 0.03 1.4 0.67 0.02 0.03 0.8 1.26 0.2% 5.8% -40.9% 89.1%
0.02 -- 1.4 0.66 0.02 -- 0.8 1.25 -0.1% -- -41.3% 90.5%
0.02 -- 1.4 0.67 0.02 -- 0.8 1.25 0.1% -- -40.9% 88.1%
0.02 -- 1.4 0.66 0.02 -- 0.8 1.25 0.0% -- -41.2% 89.8%
Notes:
(1) Source: V&A Temporary Flow Monitoring Program (January 31, 2019 through May 2, 2019) (2) Peak flow is the hourly average hourly peak flow, which was derived based on the 15-minute flow data from V&A. (3) Percent Error = (Modeled - Measured) /Measured x 100 (4) ADWF = (5xWeekday Average + 2xWeekend Average)/7
DRAFT | FEBRUARY 2021
Avg.
Level Avg. Vel. Avg. Flow Avg. Vel. Avg. Level
Sat.
Sun.
Summary
Peak
Flow(2)
Mon.
Tues.
Wed.
Measured Data(1) Modeled Data
Avg.
Flow
Day
Peak
Flow(2)
Weekend
ADWF(4)
Percent Error(3)
Avg.
Flow
Peak
Flow
Avg.
Level Avg. Vel.
Weekday
Thur.
Fri.
Mon
0 24 48 72 96 120 144
0.00 0.01
0.02 0.03
0.04 Flow (mgd)
Days
Flow Calibration
Modeled Flow
Measured Flow
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Hourly Multiplier
Hour
Weekday Diurnal Pattern
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Hourly Multiplier
Hour
Weekend Diurnal Pattern
0 24 48 72 96 120 144
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 Velocity (ft/s)
Days
Velocity Calibration
Modeled Velocity
Measured Velocity
0 24 48 72 96 120 144
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 Level (in)
Days
Level Calibration
Modeled Level
Measured Level
Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun
590
DRY WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
Flow Monitoring Site 2, Dry Weather Flow Calibration
Location: In Treatment Plant, behind parked car
Pipeline Diameter: 10''
City Manhole ID: none
Model Pipe ID: P-379
Flow Monitor Location
Model Calibration Summary
(mgd) (mgd) (in) (ft/s) (mgd) (mgd) (in) (ft/s) (%) (%) (%) (%)
0.08 0.13 1.8 1.56 0.08 0.12 2.0 1.49 0.3% -9.3% 7.9% -4.5%
0.08 0.13 1.8 1.56 0.08 0.12 2.0 1.49 0.3% -9.3% 7.9% -4.5%
0.08 0.13 1.8 1.56 0.08 0.12 2.0 1.49 0.3% -9.3% 7.9% -4.5% dited to 3 dec. places 0.08 0.13 1.8 1.56 0.08 0.12 2.0 1.49 0.3% -9.3% 7.9% -4.5%
0.08 0.13 1.8 1.57 0.08 0.12 2.0 1.49 0.1% -4.6% 8.7% -4.7%
0.08 0.16 1.8 1.58 0.08 0.14 2.0 1.50 -0.1% -12.8% 8.2% -5.3%
0.08 0.15 1.8 1.57 0.08 0.14 2.0 1.49 0.2% -3.6% 9.2% -5.1%
0.08 -- 1.8 1.56 0.08 -- 2.0 1.49 0.3% -- 8.0% -4.5%
0.08 -- 1.8 1.58 0.08 -- 2.0 1.49 0.1% -- 8.7% -5.2%
0.08 -- 1.8 1.57 0.08 -- 2.0 1.49 0.2% -- 8.2% -4.7%
Notes:
(1) Source: V&A Temporary Flow Monitoring Program (January 31, 2019 through May 2, 2019) (2) Peak flow is the hourly average hourly peak flow, which was derived based on the 15-minute flow data from V&A. (3) Percent Error = (Modeled - Measured) /Measured x 100 (4) ADWF = (5xWeekday Average + 2xWeekend Average)/7
DRAFT | FEBRUARY 2021
Weekend
ADWF(4)
Percent Error(3)
Avg.
Flow
Peak
Flow
Avg.
Level Avg. Vel.
Weekday
Thur.
Fri.
Sat.
Sun.
Summary
Peak
Flow(2)
Mon.
Tues.
Wed.
Measured Data(1) Modeled Data
Avg.
Flow
Day
Peak
Flow(2)
Avg.
Level Avg. Vel. Avg. Flow Avg. Vel. Avg. Level
0 24 48 72 96 120 144
0.00 0.05
0.10 0.15
0.20 Flow (mgd)
Days
Flow Calibration
Modeled Flow
Measured Flow
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Hourly Multiplier
Hour
Weekday Diurnal Pattern
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Hourly Multiplier
Hour
Weekend Diurnal Pattern
0 24 48 72 96 120 144
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
Velocity (ft/s)
Days
Velocity Calibration
Modeled Velocity
Measured Velocity
0 24 48 72 96 120 144
0 1
2 3
4 Level (in)
Days
Level Calibration
Modeled Level
Measured Level
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun
591
DRY WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
Flow Monitoring Site 3, Dry Weather Flow Calibration
Location: In Treatment Plant, behind gate
Pipeline Diameter: 18''
City Manhole ID: C7-002
Model Pipe ID: P-85
Flow Monitor Location
Model Calibration Summary
(mgd) (mgd) (in) (ft/s) (mgd) (mgd) (in) (ft/s) (%) (%) (%) (%)
0.66 1.00 4.8 2.71 0.66 1.01 4.8 2.68 0.2% 0.8% -1.4% -1.1%
0.66 1.00 4.8 2.71 0.66 1.01 4.8 2.68 0.2% 0.8% -1.4% -1.1%
0.66 1.00 4.8 2.71 0.66 1.01 4.8 2.68 0.2% 0.8% -1.4% -1.1% dited to 3 dec. places 0.66 1.00 4.8 2.71 0.66 1.01 4.8 2.68 0.2% 0.8% -1.4% -1.1%
0.68 1.09 4.8 2.79 0.68 1.03 4.8 2.69 0.1% -5.2% -0.2% -3.3%
0.66 1.05 4.7 2.73 0.66 1.06 4.7 2.66 -0.3% 0.3% 0.1% -2.5%
0.69 1.07 4.7 2.74 0.69 1.10 4.8 2.70 0.0% 2.6% 1.5% -1.4%
0.66 -- 4.8 2.72 0.67 -- 4.8 2.68 0.2% -- -1.2% -1.6%
0.67 -- 4.7 2.73 0.67 -- 4.8 2.68 -0.1% -- 0.8% -2.0%
0.67 -- 4.8 2.73 0.67 -- 4.8 2.68 0.1% -- -0.6% -1.7%
Notes:
(1) Source: V&A Temporary Flow Monitoring Program (January 31, 2019 through May 2, 2019) (2) Peak flow is the hourly average hourly peak flow, which was derived based on the 15-minute flow data from V&A. (3) Percent Error = (Modeled - Measured) /Measured x 100 (4) ADWF = (5xWeekday Average + 2xWeekend Average)/7
DRAFT | FEBRUARY 2021
Weekend
ADWF(4)
Percent Error(3)
Avg.
Flow
Peak
Flow
Avg.
Level Avg. Vel.
Weekday
Thur.
Fri.
Sat.
Sun.
Summary
Peak
Flow(2)
Mon.
Tues.
Wed.
Measured Data(1) Modeled Data
Avg.
Flow
Day
Peak
Flow(2)
Avg.
Level Avg. Vel. Avg. Flow Avg. Vel. Avg. Level
0 24 48 72 96 120 144
0.0 0.4
0.8 1.2
1.6 Flow (mgd)
Days
Flow Calibration
Modeled Flow
Measured Flow
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 2.2
2.4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Hourly Multiplier
Hour
Weekday Diurnal Pattern
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 2.2
2.4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Hourly Multiplier
Hour
Weekend Diurnal Pattern
0 24 48 72 96 120 144
0 1
2 3
4 Velocity (ft/s)
Days
Velocity Calibration
Modeled Velocity
Measured Velocity
0 24 48 72 96 120 144
0 2
4 6
8 Level (in)
Days
Level Calibration
Modeled Level
Measured Level
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun
592
DRY WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
Flow Monitoring Site 4, Dry Weather Flow Calibration
Location: Sidewalk near Bubbles Laundromat
Pipeline Diameter: 10''
City Manhole ID: C7-032
Model Pipe ID: P-913
Flow Monitor Location
Model Calibration Summary
(mgd) (mgd) (in) (ft/s) (mgd) (mgd) (in) (ft/s) (%) (%) (%) (%)
0.05 0.08 1.2 2.24 0.05 0.08 1.1 2.18 0.2% 0.0% -2.9% -2.7%
0.05 0.08 1.2 2.24 0.05 0.08 1.1 2.18 0.2% 0.0% -2.9% -2.7%
0.05 0.08 1.2 2.24 0.05 0.08 1.1 2.18 0.2% 0.0% -2.9% -2.7% dited to 3 dec. places 0.05 0.08 1.2 2.24 0.05 0.08 1.1 2.18 0.2% 0.0% -2.9% -2.7%
0.05 0.08 1.1 2.10 0.05 0.07 1.1 2.15 0.0% -5.5% -2.4% 2.3%
0.06 0.10 1.2 2.42 0.06 0.10 1.2 2.28 0.3% 3.2% 4.3% -5.7%
0.06 0.11 1.2 2.51 0.06 0.11 1.2 2.30 0.1% -5.0% 5.8% -8.2%
0.05 -- 1.1 2.21 0.05 -- 1.1 2.17 0.2% -- -2.8% -1.7%
0.06 -- 1.2 2.47 0.06 -- 1.2 2.29 0.2% -- 5.0% -7.0%
0.05 -- 1.2 2.28 0.05 -- 1.1 2.20 0.2% -- -0.5% -3.4%
Notes:
(1) Source: V&A Temporary Flow Monitoring Program (January 31, 2019 through May 2, 2019) (2) Peak flow is the hourly average hourly peak flow, which was derived based on the 15-minute flow data from V&A. (3) Percent Error = (Modeled - Measured) /Measured x 100 (4) ADWF = (5xWeekday Average + 2xWeekend Average)/7
DRAFT | FEBRUARY 2021
Weekend
ADWF(4)
Percent Error(3)
Avg.
Flow
Peak
Flow
Avg.
Level Avg. Vel.
Weekday
Thur.
Fri.
Sat.
Sun.
Summary
Peak
Flow(2)
Mon.
Tues.
Wed.
Measured Data(1) Modeled Data
Avg.
Flow
Day
Peak
Flow(2)
Avg.
Level Avg. Vel. Avg. Flow Avg. Vel. Avg. Level
0 24 48 72 96 120 144
0.00 0.05
0.10 0.15
0.20 Flow (mgd)
Days
Flow Calibration
Modeled Flow
Measured Flow
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Hourly Multiplier
Hour
Weekday Diurnal Pattern
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Hourly Multiplier
Hour
Weekend Diurnal Pattern
0 24 48 72 96 120 144
0 1
2 3
4 5
Velocity (ft/s)
Days
Velocity Calibration
Modeled Velocity
Measured Velocity
0 24 48 72 96 120 144
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 Level (in)
Days
Level Calibration
Modeled Level
Measured Level
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun
593
DRY WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
Flow Monitoring Site 5, Dry Weather Flow Calibration
Location: Whispering Pines Drive, West of Mt. Hermon Road Pipeline Diameter: 18''
City Manhole ID: C7-028
Model Pipe ID: P-893
Flow Monitor Location
Model Calibration Summary
(mgd) (mgd) (in) (ft/s) (mgd) (mgd) (in) (ft/s) (%) (%) (%) (%)
0.42 0.68 1.9 6.00 0.42 0.63 2.1 5.48 0.0% -7.1% 8.0% -8.7%
0.42 0.68 1.9 6.00 0.42 0.63 2.1 5.48 0.0% -7.1% 8.0% -8.7%
0.42 0.68 1.9 6.00 0.42 0.63 2.1 5.48 0.0% -7.1% 8.0% -8.7% dited to 3 dec. places 0.42 0.68 1.9 6.00 0.42 0.63 2.1 5.48 0.0% -7.1% 8.0% -8.7%
0.42 0.69 2.0 6.06 0.42 0.63 2.1 5.49 0.2% -8.7% 6.4% -9.5%
0.39 0.67 1.9 5.90 0.40 0.62 2.0 5.36 0.7% -7.3% 8.4% -9.1%
0.40 0.64 1.9 5.77 0.40 0.62 2.0 5.38 0.1% -2.8% 7.8% -6.8%
0.42 -- 1.9 6.01 0.42 -- 2.1 5.48 0.0% -- 7.7% -8.9%
0.40 -- 1.9 5.84 0.40 -- 2.0 5.37 0.4% -- 8.1% -8.0%
0.41 -- 1.9 5.96 0.41 -- 2.1 5.45 0.1% -- 7.8% -8.6%
Notes:
(1) Source: V&A Temporary Flow Monitoring Program (January 31, 2019 through May 2, 2019) (2) Peak flow is the hourly average hourly peak flow, which was derived based on the 15-minute flow data from V&A. (3) Percent Error = (Modeled - Measured) /Measured x 100 (4) ADWF = (5xWeekday Average + 2xWeekend Average)/7
DRAFT | FEBRUARY 2021
Weekend
ADWF(4)
Percent Error(3)
Avg.
Flow
Peak
Flow
Avg.
Level Avg. Vel.
Weekday
Thur.
Fri.
Sat.
Sun.
Summary
Peak
Flow(2)
Mon.
Tues.
Wed.
Measured Data(1) Modeled Data
Avg.
Flow
Day
Peak
Flow(2)
Avg.
Level Avg. Vel. Avg. Flow Avg. Vel. Avg. Level
0 24 48 72 96 120 144
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
Flow (mgd)
Days
Flow Calibration
Modeled Flow
Measured Flow
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Hourly Multiplier
Hour
Weekday Diurnal Pattern
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
2.0 2.2
2.4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Hourly Multiplier
Hour
Weekend Diurnal Pattern
0 24 48 72 96 120 144
0 2
4 6
8 10
Velocity (ft/s)
Days
Velocity Calibration
Modeled Velocity
Measured Velocity
0 24 48 72 96 120 144
0 1
2 3
4 Level (in)
Days
Level Calibration
Modeled Level
Measured Level
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun
594
DRY WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
Flow Monitoring Site 6, Dry Weather Flow Calibration
Location: Scotts Valley Drive, South of Ball Drive
Pipeline Diameter: 10''
City Manhole ID: none
Model Pipe ID: P-1509
Flow Monitor Location
Model Calibration Summary
(mgd) (mgd) (in) (ft/s) (mgd) (mgd) (in) (ft/s) (%) (%) (%) (%)
0.10 0.15 2.3 1.67 0.10 0.15 2.3 1.66 0.5% -0.7% 1.5% -0.9%
0.10 0.15 2.3 1.67 0.10 0.15 2.3 1.66 0.5% -0.7% 1.5% -0.9%
0.10 0.15 2.3 1.67 0.10 0.15 2.3 1.66 0.5% -0.7% 1.5% -0.9% dited to 3 dec. places 0.10 0.15 2.3 1.67 0.10 0.15 2.3 1.66 0.5% -0.7% 1.5% -0.9%
0.10 0.15 2.2 1.70 0.10 0.15 2.3 1.65 0.5% -0.2% 2.7% -3.2%
0.11 0.17 2.3 1.69 0.10 0.16 2.3 1.66 -0.5% -2.2% 0.6% -1.6%
0.11 0.17 2.3 1.70 0.11 0.17 2.4 1.69 0.0% -1.2% 1.1% -0.6%
0.10 -- 2.3 1.68 0.10 -- 2.3 1.66 0.5% -- 1.8% -1.4%
0.11 -- 2.3 1.69 0.11 -- 2.3 1.68 -0.3% -- 0.9% -1.1%
0.10 -- 2.3 1.68 0.10 -- 2.3 1.66 0.3% -- 1.5% -1.3%
Notes:
(1) Source: V&A Temporary Flow Monitoring Program (January 31, 2019 through May 2, 2019) (2) Peak flow is the hourly average hourly peak flow, which was derived based on the 15-minute flow data from V&A. (3) Percent Error = (Modeled - Measured) /Measured x 100 (4) ADWF = (5xWeekday Average + 2xWeekend Average)/7
DRAFT | FEBRUARY 2021
Weekend
ADWF(4)
Percent Error(3)
Avg.
Flow
Peak
Flow
Avg.
Level Avg. Vel.
Weekday
Thur.
Fri.
Sat.
Sun.
Summary
Peak
Flow(2)
Mon.
Tues.
Wed.
Measured Data(1) Modeled Data
Avg.
Flow
Day
Peak
Flow(2)
Avg.
Level Avg. Vel. Avg. Flow Avg. Vel. Avg. Level
0 24 48 72 96 120 144
0.00 0.05
0.10 0.15
0.20 Flow (mgd)
Days
Flow Calibration
Modeled Flow
Measured Flow
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Hourly Multiplier
Hour
Weekday Diurnal Pattern
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Hourly Multiplier
Hour
Weekend Diurnal Pattern
0 24 48 72 96 120 144
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 Velocity (ft/s)
Days
Velocity Calibration
Modeled Velocity
Measured Velocity
0 24 48 72 96 120 144
0 1
2 3
4 Level (in)
Days
Level Calibration
Modeled Level
Measured Level
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun
595
DRY WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
Flow Monitoring Site 7, Dry Weather Flow Calibration
Location: Glenwood Drive, North of Hacienda Drive
Pipeline Diameter: 10''
City Manhole ID: F7-013
Model Pipe ID: P-587
Flow Monitor Location
Model Calibration Summary
(mgd) (mgd) (in) (ft/s) (mgd) (mgd) (in) (ft/s) (%) (%) (%) (%)
0.05 0.08 1.8 1.19 0.05 0.07 1.8 1.20 0.2% -7.0% 0.1% 0.7%
0.05 0.08 1.8 1.19 0.05 0.07 1.8 1.20 0.2% -7.0% 0.1% 0.7%
0.05 0.08 1.8 1.19 0.05 0.07 1.8 1.20 0.2% -7.0% 0.1% 0.7% dited to 3 dec. places 0.05 0.08 1.8 1.19 0.05 0.07 1.8 1.20 0.2% -7.0% 0.1% 0.7%
0.06 0.08 1.9 1.20 0.06 0.08 1.8 1.22 0.2% -2.9% -1.0% 1.5%
0.05 0.08 1.8 1.20 0.05 0.08 1.8 1.21 -0.2% 0.4% -1.0% 0.9%
0.06 0.09 1.9 1.20 0.06 0.08 1.8 1.23 0.1% -8.9% -0.6% 1.9%
0.05 -- 1.8 1.19 0.05 -- 1.8 1.20 0.2% -- -0.1% 0.9%
0.06 -- 1.8 1.20 0.06 -- 1.8 1.22 0.0% -- -0.8% 1.4%
0.05 -- 1.8 1.20 0.05 -- 1.8 1.21 0.1% -- -0.3% 1.0%
Notes:
(1) Source: V&A Temporary Flow Monitoring Program (January 31, 2019 through May 2, 2019) (2) Peak flow is the hourly average hourly peak flow, which was derived based on the 15-minute flow data from V&A. (3) Percent Error = (Modeled - Measured) /Measured x 100 (4) ADWF = (5xWeekday Average + 2xWeekend Average)/7
DRAFT | FEBRUARY 2021
Weekend
ADWF(4)
Percent Error(3)
Avg.
Flow
Peak
Flow
Avg.
Level Avg. Vel.
Weekday
Thur.
Fri.
Sat.
Sun.
Summary
Peak
Flow(2)
Mon.
Tues.
Wed.
Measured Data(1) Modeled Data
Avg.
Flow
Day
Peak
Flow(2)
Avg.
Level Avg. Vel. Avg. Flow Avg. Vel. Avg. Level
0 24 48 72 96 120 144
0.00 0.02
0.04 0.06
0.08 0.10
Flow (mgd)
Days
Flow Calibration
Modeled Flow
Measured Flow
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Hourly Multiplier
Hour
Weekday Diurnal Pattern
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Hourly Multiplier
Hour
Weekend Diurnal Pattern
0 24 48 72 96 120 144
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 Velocity (ft/s)
Days
Velocity Calibration
Modeled Velocity
Measured Velocity
0 24 48 72 96 120 144
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 Level (in)
Days
Level Calibration
Modeled Level
Measured Level
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun
596
DRY WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
Flow Monitoring Site 8, Dry Weather Flow Calibration
Location: In bushesh between S. Navarraq Drive and Highway 17 Pipeline Diameter: 10''
City Manhole ID: E7-011
Model Pipe ID: P-1322
Flow Monitor Location
Model Calibration Summary
(mgd) (mgd) (in) (ft/s) (mgd) (mgd) (in) (ft/s) (%) (%) (%) (%)
0.11 0.16 1.6 3.45 0.11 0.15 1.5 3.18 0.0% -7.1% -5.1% -7.8%
0.11 0.16 1.6 3.45 0.11 0.15 1.5 3.18 0.0% -7.1% -5.1% -7.8%
0.11 0.16 1.6 3.45 0.11 0.15 1.5 3.18 0.0% -7.1% -5.1% -7.8% dited to 3 dec. places 0.11 0.16 1.6 3.45 0.11 0.15 1.5 3.18 0.0% -7.1% -5.1% -7.8%
0.11 0.15 1.6 3.46 0.11 0.15 1.5 3.19 0.1% 2.4% -4.5% -7.6%
0.11 0.16 1.7 3.50 0.11 0.16 1.5 3.22 0.2% 0.6% -7.3% -8.0%
0.12 0.17 1.7 3.55 0.12 0.17 1.6 3.28 -0.2% -1.1% -6.6% -7.6%
0.11 -- 1.6 3.45 0.11 -- 1.5 3.18 0.0% -- -5.0% -7.7%
0.12 -- 1.7 3.52 0.12 -- 1.6 3.25 0.0% -- -6.9% -7.8%
0.11 -- 1.6 3.47 0.11 -- 1.5 3.20 0.0% -- -5.5% -7.8%
Notes:
(1) Source: V&A Temporary Flow Monitoring Program (January 31, 2019 through May 2, 2019) (2) Peak flow is the hourly average hourly peak flow, which was derived based on the 15-minute flow data from V&A. (3) Percent Error = (Modeled - Measured) /Measured x 100 (4) ADWF = (5xWeekday Average + 2xWeekend Average)/7
DRAFT | FEBRUARY 2021
Weekend
ADWF(4)
Percent Error(3)
Avg.
Flow
Peak
Flow
Avg.
Level Avg. Vel.
Weekday
Thur.
Fri.
Sat.
Sun.
Summary
Peak
Flow(2)
Mon.
Tues.
Wed.
Measured Data(1) Modeled Data
Avg.
Flow
Day
Peak
Flow(2)
Avg.
Level Avg. Vel. Avg. Flow Avg. Vel. Avg. Level
0 24 48 72 96 120 144
0.00 0.05
0.10 0.15
0.20 Flow (mgd)
Days
Flow Calibration
Modeled Flow
Measured Flow
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Hourly Multiplier
Hour
Weekday Diurnal Pattern
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Hourly Multiplier
Hour
Weekend Diurnal Pattern
0 24 48 72 96 120 144
0 1
2 3
4 5
Velocity (ft/s)
Days
Velocity Calibration
Modeled Velocity
Measured Velocity
0 24 48 72 96 120 144
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 Level (in)
Days
Level Calibration
Modeled Level
Measured Level
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun
597
WET WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
DRAFT | FEBRUARY ͮͬͮͭ
Attachment 3
WET WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION
598
599
WET WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
Site 1 Wet Weather Calibration
Location: In Treatment Plant, inside gate
Pipeline diameter: 10''
City Manhole ID: none
Model Pipe ID: P-354
Silt Level at Site: none''
DRAFT | FEBRUARY 2021
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 0.90
0.00 1.00
0.01 0.02
0.03 0.04
0.05 0.06
0.07 0.08
0.09 0.10
1/31 2/1 2/2 2/3 2/4 2/5 2/6 2/7 2/8 2/9 2/10 2/11 2/12 2/13 2/14 2/15 2/16 2/17 2/18 2/19 2/20 2/21 2/22 2/23 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 3/17 3/18 3/19 Rain (inches/15-minutes)
Flow (mgd)
Flow Calibration
Rain ADWF Measured Data Modeled Data
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.0 0.80
0.5 1.0
1.5 2.0
2.5 3.0
3.5 4.0
1/31 2/1 2/2 2/3 2/4 2/5 2/6 2/7 2/8 2/9 2/10 2/11 2/12 2/13 2/14 2/15 2/16 2/17 2/18 2/19 2/20 2/21 2/22 2/23 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 3/17 3/18 3/19 Rain (inches/15-minutes)
Velocity (ft/s)
Velocity Calibration
Rain Measured Data Modeled Data
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0 0.80
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 1/31 2/1 2/2 2/3 2/4 2/5 2/6 2/7 2/8 2/9 2/10 2/11 2/12 2/13 2/14 2/15 2/16 2/17 2/18 2/19 2/20 2/21 2/22 2/23 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 3/17 3/18 3/19 Rain (inches/15-minutes)
Level (inches)
Level Calibration
Rain Measured Data Modeled Data
600
WET WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
Site 2 Wet Weather Calibration
Location: In Treatment Plant, behind parked car
Pipeline diameter: 10''
City Manhole ID: none
Model Pipe ID: P-379
Silt Level at Site: none''
DRAFT | FEBRUARY 2021
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 0.90
0.0 1.00
0.1 0.2
0.3 0.4
0.5 1/31 2/1 2/2 2/3 2/4 2/5 2/6 2/7 2/8 2/9 2/10 2/11 2/12 2/13 2/14 2/15 2/16 2/17 2/18 2/19 2/20 2/21 2/22 2/23 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 3/17 3/18 3/19 Rain (inches/15-minutes)
Flow (mgd)
Flow Calibration
Rain ADWF Measured Data Modeled Data
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.0 0.80
0.5 1.0
1.5 2.0
2.5 3.0
3.5 4.0
4.5 5.0
1/31 2/1 2/2 2/3 2/4 2/5 2/6 2/7 2/8 2/9 2/10 2/11 2/12 2/13 2/14 2/15 2/16 2/17 2/18 2/19 2/20 2/21 2/22 2/23 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 3/17 3/18 3/19 Rain (inches/15-minutes)
Velocity (ft/s)
Velocity Calibration
Rain Measured Data Modeled Data
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0 0.80
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 1/31 2/1 2/2 2/3 2/4 2/5 2/6 2/7 2/8 2/9 2/10 2/11 2/12 2/13 2/14 2/15 2/16 2/17 2/18 2/19 2/20 2/21 2/22 2/23 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 3/17 3/18 3/19 Rain (inches/15-minutes)
Level (inches)
Level Calibration
Rain Measured Data Modeled Data
601
WET WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
Site 3 Wet Weather Calibration
Location: In Treatment Plant, behind gate
Pipeline diameter: 18''
City Manhole ID: C7-002
Model Pipe ID: P-85
Silt Level at Site: none''
DRAFT | FEBRUARY 2021
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.0 0.80
0.5 1.0
1.5 2.0
2.5 3.0
3.5 4.0
4.5 5.0
1/31 2/1 2/2 2/3 2/4 2/5 2/6 2/7 2/8 2/9 2/10 2/11 2/12 2/13 2/14 2/15 2/16 2/17 2/18 2/19 2/20 2/21 2/22 2/23 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 3/17 3/18 3/19 Rain (inches/15-minutes)
Flow (mgd)
Flow Calibration
Rain ADWF Measured Data Modeled Data
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.0 0.80
1.0 2.0
3.0 4.0
5.0 6.0
7.0 8.0
1/31 2/1 2/2 2/3 2/4 2/5 2/6 2/7 2/8 2/9 2/10 2/11 2/12 2/13 2/14 2/15 2/16 2/17 2/18 2/19 2/20 2/21 2/22 2/23 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 3/17 3/18 3/19 Rain (inches/15-minutes)
Velocity (ft/s)
Velocity Calibration
Rain Measured Data Modeled Data
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0 0.80
5 10
15 20
1/31 2/1 2/2 2/3 2/4 2/5 2/6 2/7 2/8 2/9 2/10 2/11 2/12 2/13 2/14 2/15 2/16 2/17 2/18 2/19 2/20 2/21 2/22 2/23 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 3/17 3/18 3/19 Rain (inches/15-minutes)
Level (inches)
Level Calibration
Rain Measured Data Modeled Data
602
WET WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
Site 4 Wet Weather Calibration
Location: Sidewalk near Bubbles Laundromat
Pipeline diameter: 10''
City Manhole ID: C7-032
Model Pipe ID: P-913
Silt Level at Site: none''
DRAFT | FEBRUARY 2021
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.00 0.80
0.02 0.04
0.06 0.08
0.10 0.12
0.14 0.16
0.18 0.20
1/31 2/1 2/2 2/3 2/4 2/5 2/6 2/7 2/8 2/9 2/10 2/11 2/12 2/13 2/14 2/15 2/16 2/17 2/18 2/19 2/20 2/21 2/22 2/23 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 3/17 3/18 3/19 Rain (inches/15-minutes)
Flow (mgd)
Flow Calibration
Rain ADWF Measured Data Modeled Data
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.0 0.80
1.0 2.0
3.0 4.0
5.0 6.0
7.0 8.0
1/31 2/1 2/2 2/3 2/4 2/5 2/6 2/7 2/8 2/9 2/10 2/11 2/12 2/13 2/14 2/15 2/16 2/17 2/18 2/19 2/20 2/21 2/22 2/23 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 3/17 3/18 3/19 Rain (inches/15-minutes)
Velocity (ft/s)
Velocity Calibration
Rain Measured Data Modeled Data
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.0 0.80
0.5 1.0
1.5 2.0
2.5 3.0
3.5 4.0
1/31 2/1 2/2 2/3 2/4 2/5 2/6 2/7 2/8 2/9 2/10 2/11 2/12 2/13 2/14 2/15 2/16 2/17 2/18 2/19 2/20 2/21 2/22 2/23 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 3/17 3/18 3/19 Rain (inches/15-minutes)
Level (inches)
Level Calibration
Rain Measured Data Modeled Data
603
WET WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
Site 5 Wet Weather Calibration
Location: Whispering Pines Drive, West of Mt. Hermon Road Pipeline diameter: 18''
City Manhole ID: C7-028
Model Pipe ID: P-893
Silt Level at Site: none''
DRAFT | FEBRUARY 2021
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.0 0.80
0.5 1.0
1.5 2.0
2.5 1/31 2/1 2/2 2/3 2/4 2/5 2/6 2/7 2/8 2/9 2/10 2/11 2/12 2/13 2/14 2/15 2/16 2/17 2/18 2/19 2/20 2/21 2/22 2/23 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 3/17 3/18 3/19 Rain (inches/15-minutes)
Flow (mgd)
Flow Calibration
Rain ADWF Measured Data Modeled Data
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.0 0.80
2.0 4.0
6.0 8.0
10.0 12.0
14.0 16.0
1/31 2/1 2/2 2/3 2/4 2/5 2/6 2/7 2/8 2/9 2/10 2/11 2/12 2/13 2/14 2/15 2/16 2/17 2/18 2/19 2/20 2/21 2/22 2/23 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 3/17 3/18 3/19 Rain (inches/15-minutes)
Velocity (ft/s)
Velocity Calibration
Rain Measured Data Modeled Data
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0 0.80
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 1/31 2/1 2/2 2/3 2/4 2/5 2/6 2/7 2/8 2/9 2/10 2/11 2/12 2/13 2/14 2/15 2/16 2/17 2/18 2/19 2/20 2/21 2/22 2/23 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 3/17 3/18 3/19 Rain (inches/15-minutes)
Level (inches)
Level Calibration
Rain Measured Data Modeled Data
604
WET WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
Site 6 Wet Weather Calibration
Location: Scotts Valley Drive, South of Ball Drive
Pipeline diameter: 10''
City Manhole ID: none
Model Pipe ID: P-1509
Silt Level at Site: none''
DRAFT | FEBRUARY 2021
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.0 0.80
0.2 0.4
0.6 0.8
1.0 1.2
1.4 1.6
1/31 2/1 2/2 2/3 2/4 2/5 2/6 2/7 2/8 2/9 2/10 2/11 2/12 2/13 2/14 2/15 2/16 2/17 2/18 2/19 2/20 2/21 2/22 2/23 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 3/17 3/18 3/19 Rain (inches/15-minutes)
Flow (mgd)
Flow Calibration
Rain ADWF Measured Data Modeled Data
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.0 0.80
1.0 2.0
3.0 4.0
5.0 6.0
7.0 8.0
1/31 2/1 2/2 2/3 2/4 2/5 2/6 2/7 2/8 2/9 2/10 2/11 2/12 2/13 2/14 2/15 2/16 2/17 2/18 2/19 2/20 2/21 2/22 2/23 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 3/17 3/18 3/19 Rain (inches/15-minutes)
Velocity (ft/s)
Velocity Calibration
Rain Measured Data Modeled Data
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0 0.80
2 4
6 8
10 12
1/31 2/1 2/2 2/3 2/4 2/5 2/6 2/7 2/8 2/9 2/10 2/11 2/12 2/13 2/14 2/15 2/16 2/17 2/18 2/19 2/20 2/21 2/22 2/23 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 3/17 3/18 3/19 Rain (inches/15-minutes)
Level (inches)
Level Calibration
Rain Measured Data Modeled Data
605
WET WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
Site 7 Wet Weather Calibration
Location: Glenwood Drive, North of Hacienda Drive
Pipeline diameter: 10''
City Manhole ID: F7-013
Model Pipe ID: P-587
Silt Level at Site: none''
DRAFT | FEBRUARY 2021
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.0 0.80
0.1 0.2
0.3 0.4
0.5 0.6
0.7 0.8
0.9 1.0
1/31 2/1 2/2 2/3 2/4 2/5 2/6 2/7 2/8 2/9 2/10 2/11 2/12 2/13 2/14 2/15 2/16 2/17 2/18 2/19 2/20 2/21 2/22 2/23 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 3/17 3/18 3/19 Rain (inches/15-minutes)
Flow (mgd)
Flow Calibration
Rain ADWF Measured Data Modeled Data
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.0 0.80
0.5 1.0
1.5 2.0
2.5 3.0
3.5 4.0
1/31 2/1 2/2 2/3 2/4 2/5 2/6 2/7 2/8 2/9 2/10 2/11 2/12 2/13 2/14 2/15 2/16 2/17 2/18 2/19 2/20 2/21 2/22 2/23 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 3/17 3/18 3/19 Rain (inches/15-minutes)
Velocity (ft/s)
Velocity Calibration
Rain Measured Data Modeled Data
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0 0.80
2 4
6 8
10 12
1/31 2/1 2/2 2/3 2/4 2/5 2/6 2/7 2/8 2/9 2/10 2/11 2/12 2/13 2/14 2/15 2/16 2/17 2/18 2/19 2/20 2/21 2/22 2/23 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 3/17 3/18 3/19 Rain (inches/15-minutes)
Level (inches)
Level Calibration
Rain Measured Data Modeled Data
606
WET WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
Site 8 Wet Weather Calibration
Location: In bushesh between S. Navarraq Drive and Highway 17 Pipeline diameter: 10''
City Manhole ID: E7-011
Model Pipe ID: P-1322
Silt Level at Site: none''
DRAFT | FEBRUARY 2021
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
0.0 0.800
0.1 0.2
0.3 0.4
0.5 0.6
0.7 0.8
0.9 1.0
1/31 2/1 2/2 2/3 2/4 2/5 2/6 2/7 2/8 2/9 2/10 2/11 2/12 2/13 2/14 2/15 2/16 2/17 2/18 2/19 2/20 2/21 2/22 2/23 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 3/17 3/18 3/19 Rain (inches/15-minutes)
Flow (mgd)
Flow Calibration
Rain ADWF Measured Data Modeled Data
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
0.0 0.800
1.0 2.0
3.0 4.0
5.0 6.0
7.0 8.0
1/31 2/1 2/2 2/3 2/4 2/5 2/6 2/7 2/8 2/9 2/10 2/11 2/12 2/13 2/14 2/15 2/16 2/17 2/18 2/19 2/20 2/21 2/22 2/23 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 3/17 3/18 3/19 Rain (inches/15-minutes)
Velocity (ft/s)
Velocity Calibration
Rain Measured Data Modeled Data
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
0 0.800
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
1/31 2/1 2/2 2/3 2/4 2/5 2/6 2/7 2/8 2/9 2/10 2/11 2/12 2/13 2/14 2/15 2/16 2/17 2/18 2/19 2/20 2/21 2/22 2/23 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 3/17 3/18 3/19 Rain (inches/15-minutes)
Level (inches)
Level Calibration
Rain Measured Data Modeled Data
607
LIFT STATION DETAIL CAPTIAL IMPROVEMENT COSTS| CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY DRAFT | FEBRUARY ͮͬͮͭ
Attachment 4
LIFT STATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
COST
608
609
Lift Station Recommendation Priority
All
SSO containment berm or means of catchment 1
Inlet Manholes, except carbonera 1
Discharge flowmeters/Pressure Gauges, except carbonera 1 Influent Grinders 3
Site lighting 2
Wash down water infrastructure 3
Bethany
Replace safety grating 3
Remove and Replace Wetwell Liner 1
Install site perimeter curb to prevent SSO leaving site 3 Replace vent fan 3
Generator and electric equipment upgrades 2
Flowmeter and pressure gauge install 1
Inlet Manholes are approximatley 9 to 10 feet deep x 2 for both influent pipes 1 Site clearing and grubbing (leaves/dirt) 3
Carbonero
Containment curb around site, approximatley 100' 3
Fix wet well ventilation pipe 2
Repair wet well safety grating and recoat 2
Site lighting 2
Replace the control panel, they're in "fair" condition 2 Site clearing and grubbing (leaves/dirt) 3
Glen Canyon
Replace the pumps (with chopper pumps) 1
Replace discharge piping (move it to above ground) 1
Add flowmeter and pressure gauges 1
Install liner on wet well 1
Install ventilization system 2
Site lighting 2
Replace control panel 2
Replace standby generator and add auto transfer switch 2 Containment curb 3
Inlet Manholes, invert is approx 5 feet deep 1
Granite Creek
Wet well ventiliation system 2
Install safety grating 3
Cut roots in wet well 1
Epoxy Line 1
Install site lighting 2
Replace discharge piping and valves 1
Install Auto Transfer switch 2
containment curb 3
Replace and isntall new control panel 2
Inlet Manholes, invert assume 6 feet 1
610
Lift Station Recommendation Priority
Montevalle
Replace valve vault lid and isntall a vault drain 3
Repair wet well interior surface, coat with epoxy liner 1 Install wet well ventilization system and safety grating 2 Install site lighting 2
Replace one submersible pump with chopper sub pump 2
Reconfigure the inlet piping suspended over creek 1
Replace or rehab standby generator 2
Install Auto Transfer switch 2
Replace control panel 2
containment curb 3
Install flow meter and pressure gauge 1
Inlet manhole, invert assume 6 feet 1
Sunset Terrace
Install Site LIghting 2
Install Portable generator hookup 2
Containment curb, approximately 75' 3
Flowmeter and pressure gauges 1
Inlet manhole, invert assume 8 feet x 2 for both influent pipes 1 Suzanne Lane
Install permiter fence 3
replace wet well hatch 3
install safety grating 3
replace/repair vent pipe 2
relocate discharge valves from wet well into sepreate vault 1 Provide a connection for bypass pumping 1
Install flow meter and pressure gauge 1
Site lighting 2
Inlet manhole, invert assume 6 feet (no records) 1
611
SEWER SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY DRAFT | FEBRUARY ͮͬͮͭ
Attachment 5
SEWER SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM
612
613
City of Scotts Valley
Sewer System Management Plan
SEWER SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project ID Project Name
GM-1 Old El Pueblo Road 6-in 10-in 580-ft $ 192,000 $ 192,000 $ - $ - $ - GM-2 Scotts Valley Drive Diversion with Study -- 10-in 60-ft $ 45,000 $ 45,000 $ - $ - $ - GM-3A East of Highway 17 10-in 12-in 1220-ft $ 424,000 $ 424,000 $ - $ - $ - GM-3B East of Highway 17 - Creek Crossing 10-in 12/24-in 300-ft $ 282,000 $ 282,000 $ - $ - $ - GM-4 Glenwood Drive 10-in 12-in 730-ft $ 254,000 $ 254,000 $ - $ - $ - RR-1 Gravity Sewer Renewal Program Varies Varies 7.6 miles $ 12,003,000 $ 2,103,000 $ 3,300,000 $ 3,300,000 $ 3,300,000 RR-2 Bethany Lift Station Renewal -- -- -- $ 323,000 $ 293,000 $ 30,000 $ - $ - RR-3 Glen Canyon Lift Station Renewal -- -- -- $ 415,000 $ 413,000 $ 2,000 $ - $ - RR-4 Granite Creek Lift Station Renewal -- -- -- $ 160,000 $ 157,000 $ 3,000 $ - $ - RR-5 Montevalle Lift Station Renewal -- -- -- $ 523,000 $ 520,000 $ 3,000 $ - $ - RR-6 Sunset Terrace Lift Station Renewal -- -- -- $ 117,000 $ 115,000 $ 2,000 $ - $ - RR-7 Suzanne Lane Lift Station Renewal -- -- -- $ 118,000 $ 105,000 $ 13,000 $ - $ - RR-8 Carbonero Lift Station Renewal -- -- -- $ 23,000 $ 18,000 $ 5,000 $ - $ - PR-1 Inspection Program -- -- 46 miles $ 600,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 PR-2 Flow Monitoring Program -- -- -- $ 280,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 PR-3 SSMP Update -- -- -- $ 1,200,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 CIP Total $16,959,000 $5,441,000 $3,878,000 $3,820,000 $3,820,000 Notes:
(1) ENR San Francisco Construction Cost Index for February 2021 is 13,110. (2) Estimated Construction Cost includes a 30% contingency of the baseline construction cost. (3) Total project costs includes a 10% markup for engineering, a 10% markup for construction management and a 7.5% markup for project administration of the estimated construction cost. (4) Total Mark-Up is 65.8% of the baseline construction costs.
Existing
Size/Typ
e
Proposed
Size/Type
CIP Cost
Estimate(1)(2)(3)(4)
($)
Proposed
Amount
Phase 1
(2022-2026)
Phase 2
(2027-2031)
Phase 3
(2032-2036)
Phase 4
(2037-2041)
CIP Cost by Phase ($)
614
615
SSMP NOTES LOG | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
FINAL | DECEMBER 2021
Appendix K
SSMP NOTES LOG
616
617
SSMP NOTES LOG | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
FINAL | DECEMBER 2021 | J-1
Table K.1 SSMP Notes Log
Date
SSMP Element
and Section Description of Change/Revision Made Submitted By Notes:
(1) Additional documents can be attached following the SSMP Notes Log table. 618
619
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
FINAL | DECEMBER 2021
Appendix L
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
620
621
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS | SSMP | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
FINAL | DECEMBER 2021 | L-1
Table L.1 Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) Events by Cause Year Roots Debris FOG
Capacity
Related
Pipe
Failure Other Total
2014 1 1 1 1 0 0 4
2015 1 1 0 0 0 0 2
2016 1 1 0 0 0 0 2
2017 0 0 0 0 1 2 3
2018 2 0 0 0 1 0 3
2019 0 0 2 1 0 1 4
2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 5 3 3 2 2 3 18
Note:
Abbreviation: fats, oil, and grease (FOG)
Figure L.1 Sanitary Sewer OverflowEvents (SSO) Events by Cause 0 1
2 3
4 5
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Number of Occurrences
Roots Debris FOG Capacity Related Pipe Failure Other
622
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | SSMP | PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
L-2 | DECEMBER 2021 | FINAL
Table L.2 Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) Events by Size
Year
< 100
gallons
100 - 500
gallons
501 - 1,000
gallons
>1,000
gallons Total Spills
2014 3 1 0 0 4
2015 1 1 0 0 2
2016 0 2 0 0 2
2017 0 2 0 1 3
2018 1 2 0 0 3
2019 2 0 0 2 4
2020 0 0 0 0 0
Total 7 8 0 3 18
Figure L.2 Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) Events by Size 0 1
2 3
4 5
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
SSO Events
< 100 100 - 500 gallons 501 - 1,000 gallons >1,000 gallons 623
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS | SSMP | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
FINAL | DECEMBER 2021 | L-3
Table L.3 Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) Volume by Year
Year
Volume Spilled onto
Land (gallons)
Volume Spilled into
Surface Water
(gallons)
Total Spill Volume
(gallons)
2014 50 530 580
2015 155 0 155
2016 150 50 200
2017 21,750 350 22,100
2018 50 600 650
2019 2,050 2,205 4,255
2020 0 0 0
Total 24,205 3,735 27,940
FigureL.3 Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) Volume by Year
0 5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Voume of SSO (gal)
Volume Spilled onto Land Volume Spilled into Surface Water 624
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY | SSMP | PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
L-4 | DECEMBER 2021 | FINAL
Table L.4 Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) Event by Type
Year Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Total SSOs
2014 3 0 1 4
2015 0 0 2 2
2016 1 0 1 2
2017 2 1 0 3
2018 2 0 1 3
2019 2 1 1 4
2020 0 0 0 0
Total 10 2 6 18
Figure L.4 Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) Event by Type
0 1
2 3
4 5
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Number of Occurrences
1 2 3
625
RESOLUTION APPROVAL SSMP | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
FINAL | DECEMBER 2021
Appendix M
RESOLUTION APPROVAL SSMP
626
627
CERTIFICATION | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
FINAL | DECEMBER 2021
Appendix N
CERTIFICATION
628
629
SSMP CHANGE LOG | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
FINAL | DECEMBER 2021
Appendix O
SSMP CHANGE LOG
630
631
SSMP CHANGE LOG | CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
FINAL | DECEMBER 2021 | O-1
Table O.1 SSMP Change Log
Date SSMP Element
and Section Description of Change/Revision Made Change Authorized By Notes:
(1) Additional documents can be attached following the SSMP Change Log table. 632
633