Resolution No. 10-49 CITY OFTIGARD, OREGON
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 10- L/
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CITY OF TIGARD'S SANITARY SEWER MASTER PLAN
WHEREAS, the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan supports the Comprehensive Plan and the Tigard City Council
long range objectives;and
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard owns and operates the sanitary sewer system and;
WHEREAS, it is a best management practice to conduct a capacity evaluation to ensure that sewage is not
released to the environment because of inadequate capacity;and
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard, in conjunction with Clean Water Services, undertook an analysis of current
sanitary sewer facilities, capacity, deficiencies,and makes recommendations for future needs; and
WHEREAS, the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan was recently completed; and
WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, the plan before the Council adequately and accurately identifies current and future sanitary sewer
facility needs in Tigard;and
WHEREAS the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan, dated May 2010,is hereby adopted.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that:
SECTION 1: The Sanitary Sewer Master Plan dated May 2010 (Exhibit A)is hereby adopted.
SECTION 2: Staff is directed to implement the projects recommended by the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan.
SECTION 3: Staff is further directed to work with Clean Water Services on funding, prioritizing, and
implementing the recommended projects.
SECTION 4: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage.
PASSED: This I c/ day of f�m'6�010.
r City of Tigard
ATTEST:
7�C/ zAk �, 1
City Ye-corder- City of Tigard
RESOLUTION NO. 10 - zlq
Page 1
• • •D
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
1 Rcnirrinn
1 xto �'•
1 syn
xp
xso x`r
6
RYI
Wu
vv
�n-
'55
�xFf I'11�� Y�. ul♦
1
q, Irt 1011 ..
:x •41
i. Yq xp
W11
I'M
1-
Inv w'!5n i� I,:IFr(hnegr
I nl•_ Ino 11.
>u
W E5i TUST 'II
ASS OIIAi ES �a Ir. yr rl
I�ryI 1)Illllalrl -
{
WEST YOSI
"Cl
June 25, 2010
Mr. Greg Berry
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard OR 97223
SUBJECT: City of Tigard Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
Dear Mr. Berry:
We are pleased to provide the attached final Sanitary Sewer Master Plan. The Master Plan
documents a multi-year process that has defined the major wastewater collection system capacity
needs for the foreseeable future. The master planning process involved both City staff and Clean
Waster Services staff. This document therefore reflects a significant accumulation of knowledge
regarding the collection system and provides a solid foundation for understanding capacity and
capital improvement funding needs.
It is our hope that the Master Plan is a valuable tool in your infrastructure planning and
management activities. The information is presented in a format intended to provide ready access
to the details of the analysis, including existing capacities, projection of future flows, and the
nature of future capacity limitations and needs. The plan includes larger format maps giving an
effective visual presentation of the findings, as well as individual project data sheets that provide
a handy summary of the specifics for each project.
Many individuals contributed to the success of the Master Plan project. We appreciate in
particular the contributions of you and your staff.
Thank you for the opportunity to serve the City of Tigard. PRop,
GI NCFe `o
ti
Sincerely, 121
WEST YOST ASSOCIATES OR GON
2ae,b
Jef ey D. Pelz Bruce. G. West
P�t2ES:r#-30
Vice President Principal
enclosures
cc: Andy Braun, Clean Water Services
8100 Nyberg S'reeL Suite 200 Tudolln,Oregon 97062 Phone 503 692.3223 Fox 503.692.3224 www�:le,lyw cam
TIGARD
City of Tigard
Sanitary Sewer
Master Plan
May 2010
WEST YOST
'�
ASSOCIATES
C dmmx F"m..,,
517-03-06-14
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................ES-1
REGULATORY SETTING.......................................................................................................ES-1
OVERVIEW OF MASTER PLANNING PROCESS...............................................................ES-3
SANITARYFLOWS.................................................................................................................ES-3
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................ES-4
NEXTSTEPS ............................................................................................................................ES-8
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................1-1
SETTING AND STUDY AREA................................................................................................. 1-1
PURPOSE OF THE MASTER PLAN ....................................................... ............................... 1-3
OVERVIEW OF PLANNING PROCESS .................................................................................. 1-4
SUMMARY OF THE REPORT.................................................................................................. 1-5
NEXTSTEPS .............................................................................................................................. 1-5
CHAPTER 2. LAND USE AND SANITARY FLOW............................................................2-1
STUDYAREA............................................................................................................................2-1
LAND USE ASSIGNMENTS.....................................................................................................2-1
LAND USE PHASING................................................................................................................2-4
UNIT FLOW FACTORS.............................................................................................................2-4
Aggregate ADWF Rates for Model Input................................................................................2-7
ADWF Factors Calibration for Existing (2006) Flows............................................................2-7
Flow Factors for Future Growth..............................................................................................2-9
SPECIAL CASE INDUSTRIAL FLOWS (WET INDUSTRIES)............................................2-13
CURRENT AND PROJECTED SANITARY FLOW ..............................................................2-13
Existing Flow Comparison at Treatment Plants....................................................................2-17
Equivalent Population by Treatment Plant Service Area ......................................................2-18
FutureSanitary Flows............................................................................................................2-19
CHAPTER 3. HYDRAULIC MODEL....................................................................................3-1
MODELOVERVIEW.................................................................................................................3-1
Land Use and Sanitary Flow Input Processing........................................................................3-2
Diurnal Sanitary Flow Patterns................................................................................................3-3
Wet Weather(I&I)Parameters................................................................................................3-3
Service Area Boundaries..........................................................................................................3-4
Collection System Information................................................................................................34
OutputProcessing....................................................................................................................3-6
SANITARY FLOW CALIBRATION.........................................................................................3-6
WET WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION................................................................................3-9
RECOMMENDED FUTURE MODEL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES...............................3-11
CHAPTER 4. COLLECTION SYSTEM EVALUATION....................................................4-1
West Yost—May 2010 i City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
EVALUATION CRITERIA........................................................................................................4-1
Hydraulic Evaluation Criteria..................................................................................................4-1
HGL Priority Ranking System.................................................................................................4-2
I&I Abatement Criteria............................................................................................................4-5
MODELING RESULTS FOR EXISTING COLLECTION SYSTEM.......................................4-5
Recommended Improvement Timing......................................................................................4-7
Recommended Projects............................................................................................................4-7
Backwater................................................................................................................................4-7
"No Project"Designation ........................................................................................................4-8
I&I Abatement Projects...........................................................................................................4-8
MASTER PLAN PROJECT DATA SHEETS ..........................................................................4-11
CHAPTER 5. SYSTEM MAINTENANCE PROGRAM.......................................................5-1
MAINTENANCE PRACTICES..................................................................................................5-1
OTHER MAINTENANCE POLICIES AND PRACTICES.......................................................5-3
STAFFING ..................................................................................................................................5-4
SYSTEM PRESERVATION.......................................................................................................5-4
COMMERCIAL STREET PROJECT.........................................................................................5-4
CHAPTER 6. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN...............................................................6-1
SUMMARY OF COSTS .............................................................................................................6-1
BASIS OF THE COST ESTIMATES.........................................................................................6-1
SDCALLOCATION...................................................................................................................6-2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT COST SHARING ........................................................................6-2
APPENDIX A: Oregon Water Quality Standards (excerpt)
APPENDIX B: Detailed Land Use and Development Condition Data
APPENDIX C: Aggregate Unit Wastewater Flow Rate by Service Area
APPENDIX D: General Flow Data Analysis Approach (Excerpt from the
1995 Collection System Needs Analysis Report)
APPENDIX E: Flow Monitoring Data Analysis
(I&I Analysis; Chapter 4 from the 2000 MP)
APPENDIX F: Modeling "Project.des" Criteria Files (Durham Model)
APPENDIX G: Dry Weather Flow Calibration Results
APPENDIX H: Technical Memo—Durham Model Calibration within Tigard
APPENDIX I: Summary of Gravity Sewer Capital Improvement Project Costs
APPENDIX J: Cost Basis for Planning (from District Master Plan)
APPENDIX K: Clean Water Services Performance and Reporting Standards
West Yost—May 2010 11 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
List of Tables
Table ES-1. Implied Population for Durham AWWTF Service Area
(2006 Model and Buildout Model).........................................................................ES-4
Table ES-2. Capital Improvement Plan.....................................................................................ES-7
Table 2-1. Land Use Categories and Definitions.........................................................................2-3
Table 2-2. Unit Flow Factors for ADWF.....................................................................................2-5
Table 2-3. Derivation of Composite Unit Flow Factor for Growth Areas Upstream of
Tigard with Non-Specific Land Use Assignment.....................................................2-10
Table 2-4. Wet Industries Modeled as Point Flows...................................................................2-13
Table 2-5. Modeled Sanitary Flow vs. Treatment Plant ADWF...............................................2-17
Table 2-6. Implied Population for Treatment Plant Service Areas............................................2-18
Table 2-7. Implied Population for Treatment Plant Service Areas—2015 Development
Conditions .................................................................................................................2-19
Table 2-8. Implied Population for Treatment Plant Service Areas—Buildout Development
Conditions .................................................................................................................2-20
Table 3-1. Land Use Layer Input Parameters..............................................................................3-2
Table 3-2. Summary of Modeled Pipe Lengths...........................................................................3-5
Table 4-1. Definition of Hydraulic Grade Line Ranking.............................................................4-4
Table 4-2. Surcharged Segments with"No Project'Designation...............................................4-9
Table 5-1. Summary of Sewer Maintenance Practices................................................................ 5-1
Table 6-1. Capital Improvement Program...................................................................................6-3
West Yost—May 2010 lil City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
List of Figures
FigureES-1.Study Area............................................................................................................ ES-2
Figure1-1.Study Area.................................................................................................................. 1-2
Figure 2-1. Land Uses and Model Service Areas........................................................................2-2
Figure 2-2. Percent Developed: 2015 ..........................................................................................2-6
Figure 2-3. Map Excerpt Illustrating Tax-lot Based on Land Use Data......................................2-8
Figure 2-4. Flow Meter Locations and Modeled I&I Rates.......................................................2-11
Figure 2-5. Land-use Category Components Used for Future Land Use Areas........................2-12
Figure 2-6. Aggregate Modeled Flow Rates, Existing Conditions............................................2-14
Figure 2-7,Aggregate Modeled Flow Rates, 2015 Conditions.................................................2-15
Figure 2-8. Aggregate Modeled Flow Rates, Buildout Conditions...........................................2-16
Figure 3-1. Modeled vs Metered Hourly Flow Comparison at MH
(10740 (D015)Dry Period—August 2006 .................................:..............................3-7
Figure 3-2. Dry Weather Calibration Plot Example—Tigard Study Area...................................3-8
Figure 3-3. Wet Weather Calibration Plot Example—Tigard Study Area................................3-10
Figure 4-1. Graphical Illustration of Hydraulic Grade Line Ranking Criteria............................4-3
Figure 4-2. Potential I & I Abatement Project Areas...................................................................4-6
West Yost—May 2010 iv City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
List of Plates (Large Folded Maps)
Plate 1. City of Tigard Buildout Modeling Results and Improvements
Plate 2. City of Tigard 2015 Modeling Results and Improvements
(See PDF file on attached CD)
Plate 3. City of Tigard Existing Conditions Modeling Results and Improvements
(See PDF file on attached CD)
West Yost—May 2010 v City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Tigard (City) provides sanitary sewer service to over 47,000 residents through a
cooperative agreement with Clean Water Services (District). The Durham Advanced Wastewater
Treatment Facility (AWWTF) operated by the District treats all wastewater from Tigard and
discharges to the Tualatin River. Under the City's agreement with the District, the City maintains
and operates collection system gravity sewers smaller than 24-inches in diameter. The City holds
overall responsibility for planning public infrastructure needed by existing and planned residents
and businesses, and thereby shares responsibility for overall wastewater collection system
planning with the District.
Figure ES-1 shows the current City limits and adjacent areas, the current Urban Growth Boundary
(UGB), and the current District boundary. In addition, Figure ES-1 depicts the study area
boundary for this Sanitary Sewer Master Plan (Master Plan), which defines the area for which
wastewater collection system capacity needs have been evaluated. Figure ES-1 also depicts the
Sewer Reimbursement Districts established by the City to fund certain improvements.
This Master Plan provides a prediction of current and future wastewater flows, and identifies the
pipeline and pump station improvements needed to serve the project study area. The major topics
covered in this Executive Summary include:
• Regulatory Setting
• Overview of Master Planning Process
• Sanitary Flows
• Conclusions and Recommendations
• Next Steps
REGULATORY SETTING
Oregon Water Quality Standards, administered by the Department of Environmental Quality, set
forth two conditions restricting sanitary sewer overflows based on bacterial standards for waters
of the State. The standards generally prohibit raw sewage discharges to waters of the State, except
during a storm event greater than the one-in-five-year, 24-hour duration storm during the period
of November 1 through May 21, and during a storm event greater than the one-in-ten-year,
24-hour duration storm during the period of May 22 through October 31. The regulations do not
prescribe a required methodology for planning collection system capacity improvements. This
Master Plan applies to City collection system planning the same planning practices employed by
the District in its recently adopted master plan update. This document includes recommendations
for additional efforts to further evaluate the anticipated actions needed to ensure conformance to
the Oregon Water Quality Standards.
West Yost—May 2010 ES-1 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
S
{ b6
ui 'Ns fr tt _ i �• g g
,M
E • a ..4 € a. E4 a w"ks s a E +,q.
gx
moil
as
'"^ ; •' }t. _- � s -fir .�' at •�\�.� ,
Te b F t`
b w�l
WIN 24 me s
+`e arra $ �6 0� �vV..r.mx •
LU
.•x..me � C �' I ja � Q
• e �.r b •i....r;7:a 4.� d
r•. a °i me t'"g � F- <
TKT
U1WLL W �LIu0 i 111
w,-�,.d,a•on,Ma,a..,-�.wm�...„.�.as,�.�.�„�4n.au,��.�«. .,..,.,.M..,.,,�n.wumv
OVERVIEW OF MASTER PLANNING PROCESS
The first step in the Master Plan update process was to establish a study area that encompasses the
area of the City's responsibility for providing sewer service. The City's Master Plan employs the
District's computer model of the sanitary sewer system. The model was recently updated first by
adding 10-inch diameter and larger sewers constructed subsequent to the District's last update, and
then by adding conceptual future trunk sewers extending into the growth areas.None of the District's
planned sewer extensions are within the Tigard study area; however, flows from outlying growth
areas will impact District trunk sewers that traverse the City.
The basis of sanitary flows simulated in the model was updated to reflect current land use
information on a parcel-by-parcel basis. The land use update was based on information provided
by the City and other member agencies, or by Metro in areas upstream of Tigard sewers where
city-specific land use information was not available. Sanitary flows from significant industrial
discharges (including process flows) were updated using current flow records and permit flow
limits. Sanitary flows from all other areas were obtained by application of sanitary flow factors on
a parcel-by-parcel basis based on the land-use category assigned to the parcel. This work resulted
in estimates of current-day sanitary flows and projections of future flows.
Flow metering tailored to assess wet weather infiltration and inflow (I&I)within the Tigard study
area was conducted in 2007 through 2009. This data allowed for a more detailed calibration of the
peak wet weather flows simulated in the computer model.
Following completion of these updates, the computer model was used to simulate existing and
future flow conditions within the sanitary sewer system, and to identify those locations where the
existing pipe capacity may not be adequate. For each identified location, a ranking system was
used to determine where improvements are warranted. The necessary improvements, along with
future extensions of the collection system, were then described and documented to serve as a
guide for annual capital improvement planning and extension of service to growth areas.
SANITARY FLOWS
The land use-based flow predictions of the computer model do not explicitly use population as a
basis. However, the population implicit in the modeled wastewater flows may be estimated from
the modeled average dry weather flow (ADWF). Specifically, by assuming a fixed flow per
person value (67 gallons per person per day, in the case of this Master Plan), the portion of the
modeled ADWF attributed to residential uses can be translated into an approximate population.
The aggregate flow at the Durham AWWTF is not directly relevant to City sewer planning since
the plant serve substantial areas outside the City's study area. However, the estimated implied
population for the year 2006 and buildout conditions at the Durham AWWTF help characterize,
for future comparisons, the collection system planning that served as the basis of the City's
Master Plan. Therefore, Table ES-1 summarizes the total acreage and flow, the residential portion
of flow, and an estimated population value for the treatment plant based on the residential portion
of flow.
West Yost—May 2010 ES-3 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
Table ES-1. Implied Population for Durham AWWTF Service Area
(2006 Model and Buildout Model)
Approximate
Modeled Modeled Population
Service Total Modeled Residential Based on
Modeled Area ADWF, Portion(a) of Residential
Condition Acreage mgd ADWF, mgd ADWF
2006 21,911 19.0 12.2 181,5801'1 (e)
Buildout 27,325 38.7 22.2 331,100ro1
Current (2009): Not
City of Tigard 7,600(`) estimated') 3.2(b) 47,460
:]
(a) Includes all residential land use categories and mixed use commercial categories.
(b) Estimated based on a wastewater generation rate of 67 gallons per capita per day.
(c) This approximate value is about two percent lower than the reported population for 2004 of
185,887,based on previous facilities planning by the District,indicating a good correlation
between the modeled average flow and actual population.
(d) Based on 11.8 square miles within the City limits.
(e) Modeled service areas are based on pipe configurations and therefore cross City limits.
Modeled flows from inside and outside the City are intermingled so a separate estimate for
total ADWF exclusive to the city was not developed.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The findings of this Master Plan are presented in Chapters 4, 5 and 6 of this report. The contents
of these three chapters are summarized as follows:
Chanter 4. Collection System Evaluation
Chapter 4 presents the modeling results and recommended improvements for existing
gravity sewer facilities. A ranking condition based on modeled flow versus capacity
for each modeled pipe is illustrated on large format maps (Plates 1 through 3). Each
improvement is described and depicted on a Project Data Sheet. The various
Project Data Sheets are included at the end of Chapter 4. A Sample Project Data
Sheet is included in this Executive Summary.
Chanter 5. System Maintenance Program
Chapter 5 provides an overview of current City maintenance practices.
Maintenance performance standards are summarized. The chapter includes a
recommendation to initiate an asset management program for the wastewater
collection system in order to determine long-term funding needs for preserving the
integrity of the collection system.
West Yost—May 2010 ES-4 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
SAMPLE PROJECT DATA SHEET
PROJECT-Shore Drive Trunk
Project ID: D-530
Base Construction Cost 193.000 INOTES Available data indicates this Is an 04nch sewer at Substandard elope(0.002 Nfl);slope and diameter should be field valiffed. Location: Runs northeast from north of Amu St.
Modeled existing peak flows significantly exceed capacity,although outflows are not predicted.The tributary area is substantial,
and addnonel 8-inch sewve upstream of MH 58224 to Wfton Ave.and possibly beyond may be similarly impacted because they Treatment Plant Basin: Dome.
COntggencY(30%) 5],900 cant'much drink flow present in the modeled segments.Upstream sewers should be evaluated beside creating,Prellminery designJurisuction: Trak
Consbuclum Budget Amount 251000 for this project. LocaVRe final: -
Eingindaring It A (25%) act, 0 Brief DescriDtlon: UDslak-1,050 X of 6-inch diameter sanitary sewer to 12-mch
diameter sanitary sewer.
Capital hipprovement Cost Total-; 310,000
In flet ruled.ENP CCI=bea i—c a.oris...I NWeT5 11—
Bede
Rating On P
eaking
Goand(Wll,n
Retro Existing Capacity.
Peak Flows, tl HGL Renk DU,esizeiameter.
Unit st Cost(WA,
Model ManhelOSM Diameter, Existing Capacfly, Exlsti0g ter, Depth, Length. Lost Lentingenry),
8 ID UBM GSMH Incase SIO a 0.d 008 2015 BuiMOul E Jis 212 BUHE inches fl fl $ Unit $
6121 58224 aR82 8 0.0020 0.% 0,73 0.]5 0.]9 Ib IS HE 16,4 239 180 fl 45,000 Special Considerations NA
8119 2]262 58900 8 0.0020 0.35 0,]I 0.]5 O.7B IS Ib IS 19.6 272 208 X 56.000
811] 58900 58588 8 O.OWD 0.35 0.]3 0.75 0,79 IS Ib Ib 18.0 334 186 ft 82,000 .
8002 58588 13085 8 0.0020 0.35 0.73 0.75 )]9 Ib IS IS 9,6 203 14] fl 30,000 (
2 5 r?MEPLK9R. nNrpu pR
1 D•336 tae ss vY
38§8 tfi135�-�805� �g 2rvOFR LILT s
139ad .r-r
P00 ryt 82 136]6._. _
FIELD ci9 (a3 13977
9 r Q` ...
N. .1(PMVOR 262
)e tyP 9Po 13B1fi ��_
t aX6ULN $ . .
136]5
.
970 Fy<gKEdr,
_ `\
FGRINGLu ( 1387M
lAU(\Mdc .0.59 259 r 136
5]es9 € 'i
-edm eu =Rp �1 �KATl IPW dTSo
M-. �^om.�m♦ I2. .2 ;✓: > .21085 5869E
zloae A
Pro Set Driver
❑ ReeldentialdeveloVmentlirman I
❑ Indostrialdevelopment
❑ High Ill
Pum,stallen upgreds
WEST YOST
' 0 s
A550CIATE3
West Yost-May 2010 City ofTigak
517,0MIS-14 Surmor,Seaer Matter Plun
Chapter 6. Capital Improvement Cost Summary
Chapter 6 provides a capital improvement program (CIP) summarizing the
recommended projects and estimated costs. Costs are allocated to either the City,
the District, or both in accordance with the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA).
A preliminary allocation of costs to be funded by system development charges is
also included.
Table ES-2 presents a summary of costs for the planned projects. The costs account for upsizing
in existing gravity sewers needed to accommodate anticipated growth, as well as infiltration and
inflow abatement for the Commercial Street area. Project cost estimates exclude land acquisition,
financing, and inflation. The costs include a 30 percent contingency based on the level of
planning, as well as a 25 percent allowance for engineering and administration. Costs are
presented in current dollars for late 2009, but do not likely fully capture the effects of unusual
economic conditions and bidding climates that can dramatically affect construction costs.
The conceptual alignments and preliminary sizing presented herein for upsizing existing facilities
will be refined through the normal planning and design processes. It is understood that the City
and the District will conduct additional project-specific planning and design activities, and in the
future will periodically update their respective master plans. Through these activities, the City
may identify collection system improvements different from, or in addition to, those presented in
this report or the District's plan. Differences could arise from more detailed alignment studies,
additional flow analysis and calibration, or identified non-capacity-related deficiencies.
Differences between City and District planning will be considered through the work of the CIP
Prioritization Committee. Differing master planning conclusions regarding the need for, priority
of, or description of a project will be resolved through review of prior analyses and
documentation of actual flows.
West Yost—May 2010 ES-6 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
Table ES-2. Capital Improvement Program
Planned Total Capital Cost,dollars
Approximate Pipe All Fin Sources District Share City Share
Length, Diameter, Near-Tenn FLture SDC SDC
Project ID Description feet inches Projects Projects Funded I Local Funded Local
I&I Commercial St.Area(Tributary to MH 19993,NW of Hwy 99W;see Figure 2A); 4,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Abatement approximately 100 acres;area may be adjusted based on condition assessment data. Assume
$40,000/acre,including contingency,eng.and admin.(2 year budget)
Commercial Correct sag from MH 19987 to 19988(City MH SS02AO 10 to-012);identified by City staff. 358 10 90,000 90,000
Street Sag Consider upsizing per Table 4-2 of this master plan;however,upsizing a single segment will
have little benefit;recommended as part of more extensive replacement.
D-120 East Tigard Trunk(replacement,u size from 12-inch) 1,470 15 351,000 156,000 195,000
D-t 30 72nd Avenue Lateral(divert Flow to Bonita Trunk at 72nd Ave.;cost represents an allowance) 60 10 200,000. - 200,000
D-330 Scholl Trunk(replacement,u size from 27-inch);serves growth outside City of Tigard 3,343 42 4,100,000 2,800,000 1,300,000
D-335 Scholl Tmnk(replacement,u size from 27-inch);serves growth outside City of Tigard 1,853 42 2,160,000 1,370,000 790,000
D-340 Metzger-Interceptor(replacement,upsize from 30-inch) 714 36 353,000 151,000 1 202,000
D-350/351 Elmwood Lateral/Locust Street Re-Rome(redirects portion of flow from existing 21-inch) 6,330 18/21 1,983,000 1,360,000 623,000
Note: District Project.Diameter and length is for relief sewer,parallel to existing. SDC split at
percentage based on Appendix I.
D-410 SW Katherine Lateral(replacement,u size from 12-inch) 1,465 15 389,000 175,000 214,000
D-525 128th Avenue Lateral(replacement,u size from 8-inch) 1,175 10 320,000 143,000 177,000
D-530 Shore Drive Trunk(replacement,u size from 8-inch) 1 1,048 1 12 314,000 207,000 107,000
Total(including one year of annual budget line-items 3,411,000 10,849,000 5,681,000 4,915,000 681,000 2,983,000
Notes:
(1)Costs include 30%Project Contingency and 25°,o Engineering&Administration
(2)Costs for Special Considerations included.
(3)Totals are rounded.
(4)Project descuphons based on model calibration for Tigard area subsequent to Clean Water Services Sanitary Sewer MasterPlan.
West Yost-May 2010 City of Tigard
517-I3-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
NEXT STEPS
The City's ongoing sanitary sewer system management and planning activities will build on the
analysis and conclusions of this Master Plan. These activities may include the following:
1. I&I Analysis in the Downtown (Commercial Street) Area: Significant infiltration
and inflow from the area tributary to the Commercial Street sewer is evident from
flow metering. This Master Plan includes a recommended I&I abatement project
for the area based on the tributary area boundary. Additional field work within the
downtown area, such as smoke testing, could help identify the areas most likely to
contribute excessive I&I, and might reveal point sources of inflow that could be
corrected relatively easily.
2. Evaluation of Additional Wet Weather Conditions: Regulatory requirements are
changing with respect to sanitary sewer overflows and the theoretical wet weather
conditions considered to be adequate for assessing the likelihood of outflows.
Additional modeling using more severe simulated storms could be used in a
sensitivity analysis to determine what additional facilities may have risk of
outflows under the larger storms.
3. Prioritization of Collection System Improvements: The City participates in the
District-wide CIP Prioritization Committee, and through that committee will implement a
priority ranking system for collection system improvements.This Master Plan focuses on
capacity,relative to existing and anticipated flows,which is an important consideration in
the project ranking process. The ranking should also take into account other factors
important to the City, such as opportunities to combine sewer improvements with other
infrastructure replacements or redevelopment,maintenance needs, structural repair needs,
and basin infiltration and inflow rehabilitation.Prioritization is dynamic.This Master Plan
will be used as a tool during the periodic project prioritization procedures.Over the course
of time,projects identified herein may be modified or eliminated, and additional projects
may be added.
4, Collection System Model Refinement: The City anticipates that the District will
maintain and upgrade the collection system model because it must reflect the influence
of many areas outside the City's planning area. A number of recommended model
refinement activities are under consideration by the District. Model refinement in
response to facility construction and development, or to take advantage of evolving
modeling technologies and data improvements, may be warranted. This Master Plan
relied heavily on collection system configuration data compiled in the 1990s for the
District, supplemented by data from recent projects. Improved and updated data are
identified on a regular basis.
5. Periodic Master Plan Updates: Periodic updates to the Master Plan are anticipated,
with the next update anticipated in 2015. Such updates will be necessary to refine
sizing and conceptual alignments for long-term projects, and to reflect evolving
planning. Significant land use changes or additional calibration work could trigger the
need for special studies or accelerate the need for a full update.
West Yost—May 2010 ES-8 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
6. System Preservation Program: The oldest portions of the City's collection system
have reached a life of nearly 60 years. As the system ages beyond the 50-year mark,
structural failures should be expected with increased frequency. Some sewers will last
100 years or more without failures, while others could fail much sooner. Over time,
the City will need to fund ongoing renewal and replacement to preserve the structural
integrity of the collection system. An asset management program that uses TV
inspection data already being collected and information about pipe age and material
should be used to predict the long-term funding needs for system preservation.
West Yost—May 2010 ES-9 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
This Master Plan reflects ongoing planning for the sanitary sewer system serving the City. This
chapter provides an overview of the contents of the Master Plan report. The major elements of
this chapter include:
• Setting and Study Area
• Purpose of the Master Plan
• Overview of Planning Process
• Summary of the Report
• Next Steps
SETTING AND STUDY AREA
The City has a population of 47,4601, and is home to a mix of residential neighborhoods and
commercial enterprises. Incorporated in 1961, Tigard encompasses 11.8 square miles and is
located 10 miles southwest of Portland, Oregon. Tigard is a member of Clean Water Services
(District), a sanitary and storm sewer service district serving 122 square miles, primarily in urban
Washington County, but including small portions of Portland, Lake Oswego, Multnomah and
Clackamas Counties. The District provides wastewater treatment, and also constructs and
maintains the larger diameter (24-inch and larger) sewers serving the City. All wastewater
generated in the City flows to the Durham Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility (AWWTF)
located at 16580 SW 85th Avenue in Tigard. The Durham AWWTF discharges to the Tualatin
River. District service areas adjacent to the City share the collection system and treatment
facilities serving the City. Figure 1-1 shows the current City limits and adjacent areas, the current
Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), and the current District boundary in the vicinity of the City. In
addition, Figure 1-1 depicts the study area boundary for this Master Plan, which defines the area
for which wastewater collection system capacity needs have been evaluated.
Figure 1-1 also depicts the Sewer Reimbursement Districts established by the City to fund certain
improvements.
1 Certified population on July 1,2009.Population Research Center,Portland State University;December 15,2009.
West Yost—May 2010 1-1 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
d e �,Ad4dnM
e b
i Mc«na ��. Wn ktl isVim n s Ri aX MDnpnn s i
J� YWslrMle sWTMaxsz bpp"� "° 3W wv. r 00q �x ryas y r Mnikr sl 3' mrRe m
hmW €jtl✓' MYM' Mm°rvelwmn AIR ♦•fie �s� 9ryR
' Mx Re MFad Re Meewe Sn ._. Bdrcrton �.
0 9
" •'1Y. °s I< ¢ i li T w x Mv.+. eyi 4 P q
AI LdW�n �MndHMI& : I Y1uYMa A % MINhn 61 j
9W Wdw2A u• _m ; x ? 1 WItBw Y I.i PoMI ex
bx e.m x°'nn P e`Y.R
x �L ✓ C „� aw ldnYx `A�.7M Wad ♦ f, r.s
N A /.�!• 7
so a4mddY A+'C esF
awe ° _ .—
y 4 ss sx ✓ � �I��jf My a sw,
ul Io.,d,. i'i M3nr,n°"°e '.,.M 1y��na Sr IM vr.51 .Pim.' .,cede 5W9bunsr
3n.vn•^r""«X Rdy - Igr..E, ,
M%yp b .^r4M XNYpe 31 SW 9llphdAdd,A, °w(W51
•DI ,-H „_ �3 'n d'S N'Rd 5n xnrorK adRye e
a
z yy 9 9 Ra
BW xnn..,d br d wP � Qy 1 Rpl.0.
.ft?L pm•D: *Y Wad 6 wd �;. a. ryh W Mor En
oN Nrn4 5 �. 4
t
e 5wms. � �s I yr d xdrdn.,dxde.
5n fl r ak c - 3k FMy r R 31 endd
_ _ I ■ «r sl dw tm. .5 s 's `wJ <n n
1 L x m ,�tl v..o wYr
x W�^T9YM�1"
°. Bono, y b
9. Y 3 l f
°s M x w e.. J sr ^cA rt 5n o ° �Y vxx""D. F ''ay a Oewxgo ry cw°RA
ar ' mW
VhbI,Vol co
e P Y 4 a y We 3h lns MpeNpd.D' _ Smna Re % I A, ^ .<arn da
y In S oYY f u s MYa.u.I
i 'a
a I
xm 41;'�.� �J lge`T4%�j n I Msli xXxsdp' S :< � d C Lmn.Os,,ddRA
iI I I SW ' •4Y W } s ; Moe Mg
MYkeTn& r N Ot p< xti^B• a *d,l xdblm Em§ztl Re
qky : l•I,a�'' J su nq^Inew : snxm., 3 2' . 0rva-
Ednm to q _ f. BIna C)ry Msdmmna 01 s' sx Ames -la Ye q� .sa'�n�✓W�x Yb[rws�s tl0'
gf 8 aW Ddrhm Re j
WRAFTIO/D9/09 a .wr.v.. . 9W a.S W NIp1 r*.1 �x%pr�i ..Tsteie BlA{
CITY OF TIGARD I� 1 y igs I _ s add d xeo ad.MaEE•
■ SANITARY SEWER MASTER PLAN vRd - ? �� awp Wm `d a e R�� +°od• `.d01
FIGURE 1-1 STUDYAREA " / —•� e�Reddy ""
ss vr.adxm dr,� I y ,r :+ od,
� 10C' 4
M Ye A.,,I, : WesrNTa We
On n Add,,
5. dAdd,, Sr
�d ___ u. 1W b:b mPe�nglxtin ,9 .,.,� Yy,.m Re " eerewddexr h
°4x Wxdu < ry RM1WhARe
.s
�fl. ........� ° D.5 DIs.nmwp Drd Yn m'uenr Dr s,
�smn _rd u. >e �Mllea •^.w <.+.r � .xrosao WnA. �A"
CA ltlrp;, R"
Relatively recent rule making has produced standards that provide a regulatory setting for
collection system master planning. Oregon Water Quality Standards administered by the
Department of Environmental Quality set forth two conditions restricting sanitary sewer
overflows based on bacterial standards for waters of the State. The full text of the relevant
standards is provided in Appendix A. The standards generally prohibit raw sewage discharges to
waters of the State, except during a storm event greater than the one-in-five-year, 24-hour
duration storm during the period of November 1 through May 21, and during a storm event
greater than the one-in-ten-year, 24-hour duration storm during the period of May 22 through
October 31. The regulations do not prescribe a required methodology for planning collection
system capacity improvements. This Master Plan is based on the methodologies used by the
District for its March 2009 master plan update. The City should continue to work with the District
as measures to further evaluate and conform to the Water Quality Standards are identified.
PURPOSE OF THE MASTER PLAN
The principal purpose of the Master Plan is to provide a capacity assessment of the wastewater
collection facilities serving Tigard. A key objective of the capacity assessment is to identify
physical improvements needed to reduce the risk of unintended discharges (sanitary sewer
overflows, SSOs) as flows increase over time. In addition, this Master Plan documents the City's
maintenance practices and budgetary needs with respect to the wastewater collection system.
The City has an interest in collection system capacity available to support existing residences and
businesses, as well as anticipated growth in and around the City. This Master Plan therefore
includes a review and prioritization of the capacity in sewers of all sizes within the City limits.
Current planning work by the District prioritizes improvements District-wide. The City's Master
Plan builds on the results of the District's March 2009 master plan update (District 2009 SMPU)
and indentifies priorities based on the City's specific needs.
This Master Plan report provides a guide for system improvement planning to accommodate
future growth based on certain predicted fixture land use conditions and flows. This work has
relied upon collection system and land use information provided by the City and a number of
adjacent public agencies who are members of the District, as well as previous collection system
planning work. The Master Plan identifies the location, sizing, and planning level estimates of
project costs for capacity improvements needed in 10-inch and larger diameter gravity sewers
serving the City. The physical condition of existing facilities has not been evaluated and it is not
the intent of the analysis to identify any capacity limitations resulting from physical defects,
which are monitored and addressed through routine maintenance activities. However, the Master
Plan summarizes the City's maintenance program.
The facility improvements identified in this Master Plan represent the outcome of an analysis using a
number of necessary planning assumptions. Planning is an ongoing process that includes additional
data gathering, changes in predictions of future conditions, and changes in planned growth patterns.
Therefore, this Master Plan provides a basis for planning future facilities that should be revisited,
updated,and refined over time as new or better information becomes available.
West Yost—May 2010 1-3 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
OVERVIEW OF PLANNING PROCESS
The master planning process was initiated by establishing a study area that encompasses areas of
anticipated growth in and around Tigard that will need to be accommodated within the
foreseeable future. The District's updated computer model of the sanitary sewer system was used
as the basis of the Tigard Master Plan because it includes flows from outside the City that impact
facilities within the City. The model includes sewers constructed subsequent to the last District
master plan update, as well as conceptual future trunk sewers extending into the growth areas
outside of Tigard. Previously un-modeled pump stations have also been incorporated into the
model, although these pump station do not directly serve the City.
The basis of sanitary flows simulated in the model was updated to reflect current land use
information on a parcel-by-parcel basis. The land use update was based on information provided
by the City and other District member agencies, or by Metro where city-specific land use
information was not available. Sanitary flows including process flows from significant industrial
discharges were updated using current flow records and permit limits provided by the District.
Sanitary flows from all other areas were obtained by application of sanitary flow factors on a
parcel-by-parcel basis based on the land-use category assigned to the parcel. This work resulted in
updated sanitary flow estimates and projections. For Tigard, modeled sanitary flow sub-basins
were reviewed and refined from previous modeling to provide a more detailed allocation of flows
to sewers within the City.
Finally,wet weather infiltration and inflow estimates were updated from previous District master
planning assumptions in two ways. First, modeled I&I flows were reduced in upstream areas
outside the City where rehabilitation projects have been completed. Second, the model was
calibrated to better predict I&I from tributary areas within the City using flow-monitoring data
specifically collected for that purpose. The model therefore, incorporates a more refined
prediction of wet weather flows based on an improved calibration.
The computer model was then used to simulate existing and future flow conditions within the
sanitary sewer system, and to identify those locations where the existing pipe capacity may not be
adequate. For each identified location, a ranking system was used to determine where
improvements are warranted. The necessary improvements were then described and documented
to serve as a guide for annual capital improvement planning.
City staff was interviewed to identify current maintenance practices, and an overview of the
City's maintenance program is included in the Master Plan.
The wet weather calibration results were used to identify areas where I&I abatement through
comprehensive lining or replacement projects may be cost effective. Effective I&I abatement
would address the mainline sewers (typically within the street right of way), as well as the service
laterals serving each building, within a given project area. Repairs and replacements to address
structural deterioration due to aging of the system are conducted on an ongoing as-needed basis.
Therefore, specific, significant replacements or modifications other than the I&I abatement
projects were not identified.
West Yost—May 2010 1-4 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
SUMMARY OF THE REPORT
The report includes the following chapters:
Chapter 1 Introduction.
Chapter 2 Land Use and Sanitary Flow, describing the basis of the modeled sanitary
flows.
Chapter 3 Hydraulic Model, describing the hydraulic model including the basis of wet
weather flow simulation and comparison of modeled flows to measured
flows.
Chapter 4 Collection System Evaluation, presenting modeling results for existing
gravity sewer facilities. The resulting flow vs. capacity condition rankings
for each modeled pipe are illustrated on large format maps (Plates 1 through
3). Descriptive information is provided on project data sheets.
Chapter 5 System Maintenance Program.
Chapter 6 Capital Improvement Cost Summary, including an estimated allocation of
costs to the City (vs. the District), and service charges (vs. system
development charges).
NEXT STEPS
The City's ongoing sanitary sewer system management and planning activities will build on the
analysis and conclusions of this Master Plan. These activities may include the following:
1. I&I Analysis in the Downtown(Commercial Street)Area: Significant infiltration and
inflow from the area tributary to the Commercial Street sewer is evident from flow
metering. This Master Plan includes a recommended I&I abatement project for the
area based on the tributary area boundary. Additional field work within the downtown
area, such as smoke testing, could help identify the areas most likely to contribute
excessive I&I, and might reveal point sources of inflow that could be corrected
relatively easily.
2. Evaluation of Additional Wet Weather Conditions: Regulatory requirements are
changing with respect to sanitary sewer overflows and the theoretical wet weather
conditions considered to be adequate for assessing the likelihood of outflows.
Additional modeling using more severe simulated storms could be used in a sensitivity
analysis to determine what additional facilities may have risk of outflows under the
larger storms.
West Yost—May 2010 1-5 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
3. Prioritization of Collection System Improvements: The City participates in the
District-wide CII'Prioritization Committee, and through that committee will implement a
priority ranking system for collection system improvements.This Master Plan focuses on
capacity,relative to existing and anticipated flows,which is an important consideration in
the project ranking process. The ranking should also take into account other factors
important to the City, such as opportunities to combine sewer improvements with other
infrastructure replacements or redevelopment,maintenance needs, structural repair needs,
and basin infiltration and inflow rehabilitation. Prioritization is dynamic. This Master Plan
will be used as a tool during the periodic project prioritization procedures. Over the course
of time,projects identified herein may be modified or eliminated, and additional projects
may be added.
4. Collection System Model Refinement: The City anticipates that the District will
maintain and upgrade the collection system model because it must reflect the influence
of many areas outside the City's planning area. A number of recommended model
refinement activities are under consideration by the District. Model refinement in
response to facility construction and development, or to take advantage of evolving
modeling technologies and data improvements, may be warranted. This Master Plan
relied heavily on collection system configuration data compiled in the 1990s for the
District, supplemented by data from recent projects. Improved and updated data are
identified on a regular basis.
5. Periodic Master Plan Updates: Periodic updates to the Master Plan are anticipated,
with the next update anticipated in 2015. Such updates will be necessary to refine
sizing and conceptual alignments for long-term projects, and to reflect evolving
planning. Significant land use changes or additional calibration work could trigger the
need for special studies or accelerate the need for a full update.
6. System Preservation Proeram: The oldest portions of the City's collection system
have reached a life of nearly 60 years. As the system ages beyond the 50-year mark,
structural failures should be expected with increased frequency. Some sewers will last
100 years or more without failures, while others could fail much sooner. Over time,
the City will need to fund ongoing renewal and replacement to preserve the structural
integrity of the collection system. An asset management program that uses TV
inspection data already being collected and information about pipe age and material
should be used to predict the long-term funding needs for system preservation.
West Yost—May 2010 1-6 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
CHAPTER 2. LAND USE AND SANITARY FLOW
This chapter describes how land use and growth projections were used to estimate existing and
future average sanitary flows, This Master Plan implemented a land use analysis based on tax
lots. The following topics are included:
• Study Area
• Land Use Assignments
• Land Use Phasing
• Unit Flow Factors
• Special Case Industrial Flows (Wet Industries)
• Current and Projected Sanitary Flow
STUDY AREA
The study area for the Master Plan includes the current City limits. Figure 1-1, presented in the
previous chapter, depicts the boundary of the study area used for this Master Plan. Wastewater
flows from areas outside the study area were based on the modeling described in the District's
master plan update of March 2009.
LAND USE ASSIGNMENTS
Flow inputs for sewer modeling under various development conditions were based on existing
and planned land use. The City provided planning maps in electronic format depicting the
planned uses for Tigard. These data were used in conjunction with files showing vacant areas
from Metro's Regional Land Information System (RLIS) database downloaded in Arcview GIS
format from Metro's website in August 2007. For consistency with District-wide master planning,
the City's Comprehensive Plan land use designations were each translated into one of the
26 Metro land use categories based on the land use category definitions. The resulting land use
data, in the form of a shape file, contains tax lot polygons with City-provided land use
assignments translated into equivalent Metro land use categories.
Land use categories were assigned to all tax lot polygons within the study area (i.e. vacant and
non-vacant). The resulting land use shape file was used to represent conditions at buildout in the
study area, or "100 percent developed." Figure 2-1 depicts the buildout land use designations
serving as the basis for this Master Plan. The Comprehensive Plan categories and the equivalent
Metro categories used for this Master Plan are listed in Table 2-1. The figure also depicts the
model service area polygons that are used to assign flows to individual model input points
(nodes), as further described in Chapter 3.
West Yost—May 2010 2-1 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
i
y _ � �.° '' 9 z y axaan.. e d z � ' { m,mc• � °{+ 4 °
IT
IT
.uax,
rummo. _ Jr tl nrcruv w %
'aw
a Y �
g _
act - a ice., Amy,n••row„„�
iIpe
nYW1a A
4
.l `..
C �Y
xa Fp`tl} pF �y»
ed
aoaAvr tanerog w % 40. s d 'x°er
' CITY5"'OF TIGARD m x Y - s s a
e SANITARY SEWER MASTER PLAN = r,�* a' ,E, ' am°
RGURE 24 LAND USES&MODEL 'Is" - ��� �
SERWCEAREAS
5
Land use
ono ® Pamafted lndustn , .. �, a 2' d" ^' s g a p a;F' �"•°aom
O Modal Samioe Area
Project Study Area 4 < « ww
Tgard Gib Limit _ 3 f& i �""•r .,Sc �p
Y X «..w...,ww«.«w.w« � u� a �• � [s F "^ � � ton �' .h.n9�B "
ea
°i e�
F rlw E .w.rea spwmam € ¢ i � w„ r'
krm a�wrraar .m1"L
Table 2-1.Land Use Categories and Definitions
City Comprehensive Plan Designations Equivalent Metro Designation Used for Sewer Master Planning Purposes(l)
Code Description Code Category Name Description
L Low Density Residential SFR2 Single Family 2 Detached housing with minimum lot sizes ranging from 12,000 to 20,000 sq feet. [3.6 to 2.2
units per acre or fewer]
M Medium Density Residential SFR3 Single Family 3 Detached housing with minimum lot sizes ranging from 8,500 to 12,000 sq feet. [5.1 to 3.6
units per acre or fewer]
MH Medium-High Density MFRI Multi Family 1 Housing and or duplex.townhouse and attached single-family structures allowed outright.
Residential Maximum net allowable densities range from 2 to 25 units per acre,with height limits usually
set at 2 1/2 to 3 stories.
H High Density Residential MFR2 Multi Family 2 Housing accommodating densities ranging from 25 to 50 units per acre.Buildings may ezcee
three stories in height.
CC Community Commercial MUCI Mixed Use Center I Combines residential and employment usesin town centers,main streets and corridors.
MUE Mixed Use Employment MUC2 Mixed Use Center 2 Combines residential and employment uses.in light rail station areas and regional centers.
MUE-1 Mixed Use Employment 1
MUE-2 Mixed Use Employment 2
MUR-1 Mixed Use Residential)
MUR-2 Mixed Use Residential
MUG Mixed Use Commercial MUC3 Mixed Use Center 3 Combines residential and employment uses in central city locations.Mixed use is weighted
toward residential development.
PI Public Institution PF Public Facilities Public facilities.
OS Open Space POS Parks and Open Space Parks and open space.
CBD Central Business District CC Central Commercial Allows a full range of commercial activities typically associated with central business
districts.More restrictive than general commercial in the case of large lot and highway
oriented uses,but usually allows multi-story development
CO
evelo mentCG General Commercial CG General Commercial Larger scale commercial districts,often with a more regional orientation for providing
services.Businesses offering a wide variety of goods and services are permitted and include
highway and strip commercial zones.
CN Neighborhood Commercial CN Neighborhood Small scale commercial districts permitting retail and service activities such as grocery stores
Commercial and laundromats supporting the local residential community.Floor space and/or lot size is
usually limited from 5,OOO to 10,000 square feet.
CP Professional Commercial CO Office Commercial Districts accommodating a range of business,professional and medical office facilities,
typically as a buffer between residential areas and more intensive uses.
IH Heavy Industrial IH Heavy Industrial Districts permitting light industrial and more intensive industrial activities such as bottling,
limited chemical processing,heavy manufacturing and similar uses. (Significant wastewater
dischargers(wet industries)are modeled as special case point loads based on permitted flows.
IL Light Industrial IL Light Industrial Districts permitting warehousing and light processing and fabrication activities.May allow
some commercial activities. (Significant wastewater dischargers(wet industries)are nmdele
as special case point loads based on permitted flows.)
Notes'.
(1) Within the model,the Metro category designation and the associated flow factor was used for initial flow estimates.A calibration factor was then applied to all
sanitary flow projections based on flow metering data to adjust for vanations within the land rise categories.Code selection is per the Metro database provided to West Yost.
West Yost-May 2010 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
LAND USE PHASING
Master Plan evaluations include development conditions representing the year 2006 (at times referred
to as "existing"), the year 2015, and buildout. To create a land use shape file representing existing
conditions, the land use data representing buildout uses described above was intersected with data
from Metro identifying vacant tax lots. All tax lots without a"vacant" assignment (i.e. "Non-vacant"
or"Occupied")were included as developed for use in modeling existing conditions.
The interim year 2015 development condition was created by applying a"Growth Fraction"to the
vacant tax lot acreage. The Growth Fraction applied to a given vacant tax lot corresponds to
City-reviewed interim growth rates by land use type and geographical location developed by the
District for their 2000 master plan update, with supplemental adjustments made for this Master
Plan per City and District input. In particular, it was necessary to assign a predicted percentage of
buildout development to each new growth area not previously included in the modeled service
area. It was also necessary to adjust previously modeled growth rates such that the existing
conditions matched current data rather than the previously modeled prediction of current
conditions. For the 2015 condition, it was necessary to verify that the updated existing condition
level of development did not exceed the predicted 2015 condition, or to adjust the 2015 condition
where this occurred. The resulting Growth Fractions (percent developed) are consistent with those
developed for the District 2009 SMPU. Figure 2-2 shows the assumed range of percent developed
at 2015 as a composite value for each modeled service area. Appendix B provides detailed land
use data for all three development conditions for each land use area depicted on Figure 2-2.
Appendix B also includes the resultant numerical percentage developed for each land use area by
category for the modeled 2006 and 2015 conditions.
UNIT FLOW FACTORS
Unit factors for average dry weather flow (ADWF) used in this Master Plan are identical to those
developed for the District 2009 SMPU. The unit flow factors were originally based upon a
regression analysis of sewer flow metering data conducted by HDR Engineering in the 1990's,
subsequently used for the District's 2000 master plan update, and most recently adapted for the
District's 2009 SMPU. Dwelling unit densities for each land use category were translated into a
gallons per acre flow rate using the per capita-based unit flow factors based on the HDR study
and the population density assumption from the District's 2000 update (2.4 capita/DU). The
resulting per-acre unit flow factors developed for the residential categories are expressed in terms
of gallons per day per net developed acre (gpd/acre). Table 2-2 presents the unit ADWF factors
used for future growth areas in this Master Plan.
z The District's 2000 Sewer Master Plan Update references the 1999 Collection System .Needs Analysis Report by
HDR Engineering for the 2.4 capita per dwelling unit population density assumption. The value was confirmed by
the District for use in the District's.2009 SMPU.
West Yost—May 2010 2-4 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
Table 2-2. Unit Flow Factors for ADWF
Land Use Category Dwelling Unit Density(DU/acre)
Unit CapitaPopulation Unit ADWF
City Metro Designation Used for Flow Factor, Density('), Factor,
Designation Used for Modeling Min Max Planning gpd/cap Capita/DU gpd/acre
L SFR-2 2.2 3.63 3.6 67.0 (2) 2.4 584
M SFR3 3.6 5.12 5.1 67.0 (2) 2.4 824
MH MFRl 2.0 25 21.20) 83.3 (2) 2.4 4,240 (4)
H MFR2 25 50 47.10) 83.3 (2)1 2.4 9,420 (4)
CC MUCl 14.10) 87.0(2) 2.4 2,944 (4)
MUE MUC2 25.90) 87.0 (2) 2.4 5,408 (4)
MUE-1
MUE-2
MUR-1
MUR-2
MUC MUC3 25.9('> 87.0 (2) 2.4 5,408 (4)
PI PF 3,659 (4)
L
POS 0 (4)
CC 3,659 (4)
CG 3,659 (4)
CN 3,659 (4)
CO3,659 (4)IH 1,500 IL 1,500
Notes: (1)Target density from Metro's 1999 Urban Growth Report Update.
(2)Factor used in the District's 2009 SMPU,based on that used in the District's 2000 master plan update.
(3)Assumed population densities confirmed by District for use in the District's 2009 SMPU.
(4)Unit Flow Factor consistent with that used in the District's 2000 master plan update.
(5)Significant wastewater dischargers(wet industries)are modeled as special case point loads based on permitted flows.
West Yost-May 2010 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
D,dRD,Rp
ay
peyotl
.¢ f ••, 9 w 'aw'' SW AF¢e bl o FEARo n
P.,, �P
\• Beaserfon - a se.m
�Portia lla�a 5W M4.•6, „"� s4
sill
so
aide",
'^
- FONaNA�fi, gc .p C .e ell M spill,
w Nu
2• .,I .,, E�
�
T: a
E m u
f •v �y,Ol r.- - ..J _ _ Si MENSINI6T Sw
r 'ma4^51 Sw5 evemonI
41
o,
ro a
aTF, rvFa A V"' M a / Fe
g.
p r A,J' �? _<XnXM Iib IXmy
.n Bl 1 A MNe
as.M1 K
•, _ -. _ _ „ �. y 4A' EgRP"
_ MELg09E6T__s TILE p'�p
a v. ez. ,•,
All
vo M 5 fioUN!N
'f3' .Lake oaby
" P"ue^pa:O
° ve., °n, h Oswego c§d,;pa _
ULL en NRo _ F CPR1"P,+. S"NiY 0YV pYe moe` eJo_-
ills
edi so
..., �� �� �. ✓�,P < �'R, ofleRe DpDvo
AnkeOkwego
nC �o
_ .. .. ,.. ¢ King City" "`�. �,. L�Qy. .-. �kosseess,
-fiEEF9ENo qp WE4•PP 5l (ASp86WIMFE 0.o
CITY OF TIGARD oRar-r:srs9,sa ., u ,M f aall J s,_
• w SANITARY SEWER MASTER PLAN g E p ° d z ° Lmeo�rzLoc+
FIGURE 2-2 PERCENT DEVELOPED: 2015 g / s
N, a"% ,
Wpeveo"ea <, Durham41
= �i vyo 3 um
_t* E 0.
>' 0)o ms -¢o nova .:eb, ✓osl I Trvgo •.. - sl
moo,oa M,oea '+' 7Laladn '.,nor aN."al se oo-
d w mx ., www II ti .a r t p i
is
,rb ,�o WNv ZP.
e nmiM n¢uuM, Z, m.nm 0. 0.35 OS ..., -- ... _ _.. q.
SOS
$ Qrns punaw,.,e.ry ' Miles r.. a- .-.., o ,., _ Pia' ••• � me qp ;M.!Is$e "
The factor used for existing uses in the industrial categories (IL and IH) is 1,500 gpd/acre,
reflecting the District staff s experience with industrial dischargers throughout the District. The
factor of 1,500 gpd/acre is intended to allow for a variety of industrial uses other than industries
considered to be significant dischargers in terms of wastewater volume(wet industries). Permitted
process flows for two wet industries in Tigard are explicitly accounted for in the model as point
flows. In addition, a factor of 500 gpd/acre was adopted to account for non-process sanitary flows
generated by domestic uses on the tax lots occupied by the wet industries. This additional factor
accounts for flows that are discharged separately from the wet industries' permitted discharges
and are therefore not metered or included in the permitted flow records. Additional information
regarding industrial flow assumptions is provided later in this chapter.
The unit ADWF factors are based on net acreage, that is, they must be applied only to the net
developed acreage within the study area, excluding roads, habitat corridors, etc. As previously
discussed, a land use category is assigned to each tax lot. In developed areas, tax lot boundaries
exclude roads and some of the habitat areas. In undeveloped areas, tax lot polygons include, by
definition, lands that will ultimately be dedicated to non-wastewater producing areas such as roads.
Figure 2-3 is an excerpt of the tax lot-based land use data used in this Master Plan. White areas on
the figure are indicative of areas in the GIS data set that do not contain tax lot polygons and are
therefore excluded from acreage computations for a given sewer shed area. In the "Developed
Area", roads, major highways, railways, and other corridors are excluded from the tax lot
polygons and therefore the tax lot acreage in these areas is considered to be the net acreage. In the
"Future Growth Area" (FGA) on Figure 2-3, the tax lot polygons represent the gross area, which
must be converted to net acreage before applying wastewater flow factors. A Net/Gross Acreage
Factor must be applied. A Net/Gross Acreage Factor of 0.87 was used to estimate the net acreage
for FGAs. The factor was selected based on a sampling of actual net to gross acreage ratios
computed for various locations within the Metro GIS data set.
Aggregate ADWF Rates for Model Input
Flow inputs to the HYDRA model were developed by grouping tax lot polygons into larger land use
polygons (LU polygons). For each LU polygon, an aggregate unit flow factor was developed for
residential and non-residential flow. The aggregated unit flow factor represents the total ADWF
divided by the net developed acreage for a given category. Therefore, each LU polygon has a unique
aggregate flow factor representing the particular mix of land uses within that polygon.
ADWF Factors Calibration for Existing (2006)Flows
Flow records were used to calibrate the aggregate ADWF factors for the Existing Conditions
Model. Data from the following sources were used for calibrations:
• Data collected at various metering locations within the collection system during the
month of August 2006 (representing dry weather conditions).
• Additional data from meters within the City for the 2007 dry season.
• ADWF data collected at the Durham AWWTF in 2005.
West Yost—May 2010 2-7 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
Figure 2-3. Map Excerpt Illustrating Tax-lot Based on Land Use Data
T
him
f ?
-futume
,
Groff
El f4j
�r
T_ 9
LI lees 1
mi
llf t
r
Net/Gross Acreage Factor
=0.87 applied to acreage
in future growth areas to
Net Acreage (roads, obtain Net Acreage
corridors, etc. not (accounts for future roads,
"- T corridors,i
etc.)
in data set). )
West Yost—May 2010 2-8 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
Figure 2-4 shows the flow meter and treatment plant locations where data used to calibrate the
ADWF factors were collected. The figure also shows the results of the wet weather calibration,
which are discussed further in Chapter 3. The calibration results of the District's study were
incorporated into the modeling for this Master Plan for contributing areas outside the study area.
As described further in Chapter 3, the HYDRA model uses service areas (model SA polygons) to
allocate flow from the LU polygons to specific model nodes. Calibration factors were developed
for each SA polygon and applied to the land-use based ADWF for existing development. The
calibrated ADWFs computed for currently non-vacant tax lots were held constant for the 2015
and Buildout flows. Note that the calibration factors were not applied to currently undeveloped
(vacant) tax-lots, and non-vacant tax lots with the Residential Rural Future Urban (RRFU) or
Farms-Forest(FF) land use designation.
The HYDRA model was used iteratively to refine the calibration factors, incorporating the effects
of the input flow hydrographs and travel time within the system. Subsequent to completion of the
District 2009 SMPU, additional dry weather data was used to further calibrate sanitary flows
within Tigard. This was accomplished by adjusting the RES_ACTIVE and VIS ACTIVE
parameters in the HYDRA model for Tigard. The results of the extensive ADWF calibration
process are documented in Chapter 3 of this Master Plan.
Flow Factors for Future Growth
Future flows from areas with defined land use categories other than RRFU or FF were projected
using the flow factors listed in Table 2-2. No calibration factor was applied to future growth
areas, which allows for conservative projection of flows. The factors were applied to the net
acreage, based on the assumed net to gross acreage ratio of 0.87.
Some of the areas planned for growth outside of the study area do not have defined fixture land
use categories. Those areas are currently designated as RRFU or FF, and will ultimately be
included the sanitary sewer service area. Flows from these areas affect sewers that convey flows
through Tigard. These areas will generate flows commensurate with a mix of residential and
commercial uses, so a single composite unit ADWF factor was developed to project fixture flows.
The composite unit factor is based on the assumption that currently undeveloped areas without
defined land uses will develop with a mix of land uses similar to existing developed portions of
the Clean Water Services service area. Table 2-3 summarizes the derivation of the composite unit
ADWF factor, as prepared for the District's 2009 SMPU. Average acreage quantities were
computed for each land use category used in the District's master plan, using all LU polygons.
For example, there is an average of 12.9 acres of the CC land use category in all LU polygons.
The ADWF associated with 12.9 acres of the CC land use is based on a factor of 3,659 gpd/acre,
and totals 47,111 gpd. Similarly, the corresponding factor from Table 2-2 was applied to the
average acreage quantity for each of the categories. The average acreage and the resulting flow
quantity for each category (based on the average acreage) were then summed, resulting in a total
flow quantity of 1,369,462 gpd, and a land area of 455.8 acres. The resulting composite flow
factor is 3,005 gpd/acre, the quotient of the flow quantity sum divided by the sum of the acreages.
For planning purposes, a 25 percent factor of safety was added to the derived composite factor,
resulting in a rounded value of 3,800 gpd/acre. This value was used as the unit ADWF flow factor
for future flows from growth areas without defined land uses.
West Yost—May 2010 2-9 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
Table 2-3.Derivation of Composite Unit Flow Factor for
Growth Areas Upstream of Tigard with Non-Specific Land Use Assignment
Metro Land
Use Average Percentage Flow Category Flow Pe
Category Average Acres Used of Total Factor, Average Acre,
ID Acres(') For Analysis Acreage(') gpd/acre Flow Factor Basis gpd
CC 12.9 12.9 3% 3,659 47,111
CG 15.2 15.2 3% 3,659 55,668
CN 4.6 4.6 1% 3,659 16,856
CO 7.8 7.8 2% 3,659 Derived from 28,674
FF 21.6 0% 0 factors used in -
IA 20.8 20.8 5% 1,500 previous modeling 31,208
113 28.9 28.9 6% 11500 43,299
IL 26.2 26.2 6% 1,500 39,371
IMU 31.4 31.4 7% 1,500 47,168
MFRl 14.6 14.6 3% 4,020 Derived using 58,585
MFR2 12.4 12.4 3% 8,040 Metro maximum 99,448
MFR3 9.0 9.0 2% 16,080 target densities and 145,361
MFR4 12.2 12.2 3% 24,120 previous modeling 293,471
MUC1 5.4 5.4 1% 2,267 assumption(;) 12,266
MUC2 24.3 24.3 5% 4,165 101,179
MUC3 18.8 18.8 4% 4,165 78,312
PF 19.1 19.1 4% 3,659 Derived from 69,905
POS 11.4 11.4 3% 0 factors used in -
RRFU 16.5 0% 32 previous modeling 527
SFRI 15.4 15.4 3% 350 5,395
SFR2 35.8 35.8 8% 584 Derived using 20,901
SFR3 37.1 37.1 8% 824 Metro maximum 30,532
SFR4 31.8 31.8 7% 1,078 target densities and 34,216
SFRS 26.0 26.0 6% 1,274 previous modeling 33,055
SFR6 19.4 19.4 4% 1,751 assumptions(') 34,038
SFR7 15.3 15.3 3% 2,802 42,917
Totals 455.8 100% 1,369,462
Computed Composite Flow Factor: 3,005 g d/acre
Recommended Flow Factor for
RRFU&FF Land Use
Designations(°): 3,800 d/acre
Notes:
(1)Average acres of the listed Land Use category over all Land Use polygons within District.
(2)Total Net Land Use polygon acreage.
(3)Previous modeling assumed 2.4 capita per dwelling unit and 67 gpd/capita.
(4)Includes 25 percent factor of safety.
West Yost-May 2010 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
``), City of PONantl area_.
1i '""" � ,5' I 1A mod letl as fixed Input
.s+ t 'm.. I i o p 1 1
Per Aah Creek
I& Study
� L
r
90 i
< � 66
+._ 7
a254
100pdln
"
1700
J s
Y
z
90la< ` 1400 - - •", '+w't
„. j
°
(317) r ...... yr
Doe
t _ ,... ..
APdla<
a.
i Coaavnolasm•
CITY OF TIGARD
r • SANITARY SEWER MASTER PLAN
FIGURE 2d: FLOW METER LOCATIONS Rao
i AND MODELED IBI RATES - :" Avala a - i ,e . 1 _gym
i -
Peln Cau9a ®GIrorGM llman 1 - n+^r' 5 s "'� �� y°
qq - wnemnwwrr ,x< swloan _ `•,..•22345
{ — Plm;s.mury sr.<� t Do46 AWWfF
10 + wnm .gym
Figure 2-5. Land-use Category Components Used for Future Land Use Areas
8%
I
7%
6%
i
i
I
4% -
3% — — 1
I
I
1%
i
I
0%
Z O N 0 (D
U ? U LL p tY 0Y U W U LL j o- [ifj LL g K W W
U) N N N N N a)
West Yost—May 2010 2-12 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
SPECIAL CASE INDUSTRIAL FLOWS (WET INDUSTRIES)
Flows from wet industries represent an important component of the flow projections used to
predict capacity needs. Table 2-4 lists the industries modeled as special case dischargers,
including the modeled existing flow and their predicted future flows. The table also lists the
manhole number into which flow from the industry is injected.
Table 2-4.Wet Industries Modeled as Point Flows
Average Flow, mgd
Existing Buildout Injection
Industry Name (2006) 2015(a) Buildout(b) Plus(c) Manhole
Fiskars Group II 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.020 10432
Williams Controls 0.000 0.013 0.025 0.050 10432
a) 2015 flows were assumed to be the smaller of 125 percent of existing flows and the pennitted flows.
For industries with zero existing (2006) flow, the 2015 flows were assumed to be 25 percent of
permitted flows.
(b) Buildout flows were assumed to be the larger of 2015 flows and 50 percent of the permitted flows.
(0 Permitted flows were assumed for Buildout Plus conditions.
CURRENT AND PROJECTED SANITARY FLOW
The HYDRA model computes flow inputs for model service areas by intersecting LU polygons
with sewer sub-shed Service Area polygons (SA polygons). Although the two sets of polygons
are independent and do not need to coincide,the boundaries of LU polygons in the updated model
generally correspond to boundaries of the SA polygons. Exceptions occur in areas where SA
polygon boundary adjustments were made subsequent to development of the LU polygons. Land
use data may be compiled for LU polygons within each of the individual land use categories used
to specify existing and future uses. Land use data may be compiled for SA polygons within three
broad categories: residential, commercial, and industrial. Appendix B provides a record of the
detailed land use assumptions and development conditions that serve as the basis for the sanitary
flow projections used in this Master Plan.
Figures 2-6 through 2-8 illustrate the resultant aggregate flow rates by modeled land use area for
existing, 2015, and buildout conditions. The specific unit flow rates for each land use area
resulting from the unique aggregation of land uses are provided in Appendix C. The following
flow-related topics are presented in the District's 2009 SMPU to illustrate the correlation between
total modeled sanitary flows and actual flows and population. Even though the following
discussion pertains to the entire District service area, the discussion in its entirety is relevant to
the City's Master Plan because it validates the methodologies used to estimate dry weather flows.
• Existing Flow Comparison at Treatment Plants
• Equivalent Population by Treatment Plant Service Area
• Future Sanitary Flows
West Yost—May 2010 2-13 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
Rum
•. � - � 51Y A!!n 51 �I.Vl00.PfEPR4�„ �
9ROCNMM'5i �� 1 • t
Beaverton1 `°�. I k' :3"qA•n
,a
W 1 ! Portland So Mmr S' 4e
o °t�
es•�•'•' _' I .v rw sw
b 1
3Wpebtryp Sl
^P I NW+9e E� SW SISM anb�
v p MAN."
�d N f' E,
ica„a M„n'
1 Tigard."'" i
—•� � �` Lake
t sA p,. Rae w Oswego r,�} IDRn
111N 11
H Mp 9„ °'
r
? d j +�L•—i p' hake Oswego
a` n
i^King Cit, e �„e<2 v” . ' TO,01.p9
CITY OF TIGARD DRAFT 10/09/09
SANITARY SEWER MASTER PLAN 1. _ i r / 14,
s a c ino,
FIGURE 2.6 AGGREGATE MODELED FLOW RATES, ' ' �•� ! ° °'E M Dok
EXISTING CONDITIONS
omutlry.AWJF Yw.Y.,p,.9wn=m Li Durham
" ,r Ro aus
hialatin 4J =+e D R a ar
u,a ae
�nm.s �.,,. ,.._., �esw"`..- O ,4 _Hlf ns m,pe �
III,RID,
-_ - - G try nom 0 Swy A,4e+NFR '^Et'i'aM-HR, .
R.,Evr..c F -v Q 1
hVM�A"1
HM
SWA'rrte 51 2nvtoPS FE^P>tiR0 r;i
fa
Beaverton { ~,�`•v,` �,�-II, d
f,`I irl j Portland
DISSI 5W,
51
___ srexxusox.er SW 51
- HWrp 51 SW 51<A^<roon 5!
ne N SVf eav¢.. � ^Rn� / + Eye• �
,p % ISI.
9
O l
I
Tigard.a __j A,.
• � � wx^e E. � l ke 'Itits _
�mveq
4`pr
1
IS
wIII RIDI RD, `
a � 0
.
,j l •�•s/'� _ N hake Oswego
w
a e
pS
IS
Gf'
I Y
w
r w ..
a Xing City If hn� R ,� -. ^'
SANITARY .ARLL
H IGARD RAFT IO/09/09 j�.� A`
I ESP>I0.E H M@E[PL�
SEWER MASTER PLAN 1 �� s
FIGURE 2-7 AGGREGATE MODELED FLOW RATES,
2015 CONDITIONS
ew�9P°rwm.nw+F rw.F,¢w,.aoel•e+• �.�� Durham
NVflllIS f n Mgr.QAe E' Y!
®t mi 5 n J - a We4a M
I yA}Q .,,,rnr RE
NOMA
�A.tl n4 Ym9
Q e°emW ......JMR¢¢ c,H, snier.s IS R�
mum c
Wwr
v - i xry owX I R ; e
a SWA%Kpg.I�TWYL00.5fEPR1 RP
.3. - Beaverton (+`�'�.` �•�./. .�1 ,,.L,a s; kr' °'°wa Aa
j) j Iortland " ^•
pyl c:.«ss sE!
s"� I j usY •V Fanm3A SW
'_ • iwry
,M
- s1F _ _srePXExeax Si SWSI
/ � N�Xage L 6W SIe9Mmon5t
Y � E'er _eff ..�SRFR4 N hal.,
13
oj „i�r•"a j w'� ��nR d+ awuo3 nRm.a
j . . Tigard
— mElnosE re. ^o(.
5 �f
Ea
a
i
m.
LaMe cam,y 'wo
i ( 3
e $ �. fL.�.I ..,.ROE 3, IF
Oawego�QPr, Aa .
4 a JX.airy Ro - I w I w,� � IRRI FL�wEaB- ap r
Gake Oswego v'
Kingcity� ou,X.mvo i, oev ary 1,11 oLmX ,pg,'p
-'j I EA MJ. Llrt.Y
DRAFT10/091" IE ERr0.0. FErvrre�EEFv
= CITY OF TIGARD
$ SANITARY SEWER MASTER PLANy
e l Sdol
v 1
FIGURE 2.8 AGGREGATE MODELED FLOW RATES, ' "— �'�• % ! I z �'ERLao
S I r�.�..f £ flO eX reo a4m°� SW -o Pre:kph
3 BUILDOUT CONDITIONS 1 =
�A10
Durham
e "'o M
_ w y vN
rv..mnM.aO eXJ Tualatin L"q...A>vnl pol rennewww ee °I
MA
4_ o a.3
.. ` Yh•n�IIM^eh �� ..�r.�w Miles I 1 11.11 11.... " _ I11
Existing Flow Comparison at Treatment Plants
As noted above, the following discussion is relevant to the City's Master Plan as it validates the
modeling methodologies used to assess flow conditions in Tigard.
The sanitary flow projection is used in the model to simulate dry weather conditions with the
minimum influence from rainfall dependent infiltration and inflow, or seasonal infiltration associated
with high groundwater. In general, the modeled dry weather sanitary flow represents typical
summertime flows, although they may also be compared to the seasonal average dry weather flow
(May through October). For the purposes of this Master Plan, the modeled sanitary flows are
compared to ADWF for the four treatment plants operated by the District. Collection system flow
monitoring from August was used to calibrate the sanitary flow factors,but as noted below, the flow
at the treatment plants predicted using the calibrated dry weather model closely match recent ADWF
records at the treatment plants. Table 2-5 presents the comparison of modeled flows to ADWF
reported for the Forest Grove,Hillsboro,Rock Creek,and Durham plants.
The West Basin Facilities Plan completed in 2007 (West Yost, 2007) summarized recent flow
data for the Forest Grove and Hillsboro treatment plants. Technical Memorandum No. 1.3,
Wastewater Flows and Loads Analysis for the Rock Creek facility plan (Carollo, 2007) and
Technical Memorandum No. 1.3, Flow and Loads Analysis for the Durham AWWTF Facility
Plan (CH2MHill) summarized flows for their respective plants. The ADWF reported for each of
the facilities are listed in Table 2-5, along with the modeled sanitary flow for each facility.
Table 2-5. Modeled Sanitary Flow vs. Treatment Plant ADWF(')
Modeled Reported
Model Average Treatment
Treatment Link Sanitary Plant
Plant GID Flow,MGD ADWF, MGD
FH
rest Grove 5303 2.53 2.4
sboro 5302 4.31 4.0
Rock Creek 5304 24.2 24.2
Durham 5301 19.0 17.9
(a) ADWF is average dry weather flow reported within the past three years, as noted in text. Modeled
average sanitary flows represents a dry weather(August) flows with minimal influence from
precipitation,based on modeled land uses current for 2006.
As shown in the table, there is generally good correlation at the treatment plants for dry weather
conditions. In general, the modeled existing sanitary flows for the collection system are
conservative (slightly higher than the treatment plant ADWF for the same area). It should be
noted that the calibration year for dry weather flows (2006) includes one or more years of growth
since the treatment plant flow values were reported, which likely resulted in flow increase for
some or all of the basins. Further analysis of the modeled peak dry and wet weather flows relative
to metered conditions throughout the collection system and at the treatment plants is presented in
Chapter 3 of this Master Plan.
West Yost—May 2010 2-17 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
Equivalent Population by Treatment Plant Service Area
Average sanitary flow may be converted to population using either an aggregate per capita flow
rate (e.g., 100 gpd/person) that accounts for commercial, industrial, and other non-residential
flows, or by segregating estimated residential flows from non-residential flows and dividing by a
per-capital residential flow factor. The former method can be misleading if non-residential flows
are disproportionate to residential flows as compared to the basis of whatever factor is used. The
latter methodology better reflects the specific land uses of the particular area. The sanitary flow
projections developed for the updated model segregate residential and non-residential flows;
therefore the latter method was used.
The estimated average residential flow is based on a per-capita value of 67 gallons per capita per
day, multiplied by a factor of 2.4 residents per dwelling unit, and then by the number of dwelling
units for the area in question. The total residential flow for each treatment plant service area,
along with the implied population,based on 67 gpd/person, is listed in Table 2-6 for each of three
development conditions. The table also includes the estimated population from recent treatment
plant facility plans. Treatment plant facilities planning is based on projections of total population
for the basin. In contrast, collection system modeling must be based on flows that are distributed
throughout the basin, and ideally, conservative for any given location in the collection system.
Table 2-6. Implied Population for Treatment Plant Service Areas
Approximate
Modeled Total ADWF Modeled Population(b)
Service (modeled - Residential Based on Reported
Treatment Area 2006), Portion(a) of Residential Population(`)
Plant Acreage mgd ADWF,mgd ADWF (2004)
Forest Grove 3,162 2.53 0.830 12,380 15,368
Hillsboro 4,987 4.31 2.32 34,550 34,564
Rock Creek 24,805 24.2 15.7 234,070 232,942
Durham 21,911 19.0 12.2 181,580 185,887
(a) Includes all residential land use categories and mixed use commercial categories.
(b) Estimated based on a wastewater generation rate of 67 gallons per capita per day.
(c) Source: West Basin Facilities Plan,Table 1-4;West Yost Associates,July 2007.
Modeled flows are not explicitly based on population, so the comparison in the preceding table is
only provided as verification that the modeled sanitary flows are reasonable. Based on this
comparison, it is concluded that the modeled sanitary flows for existing conditions are a valid
basis for collection system modeling.
West Yost—May 2010 2-18 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
City of Tigard Service Area Population and Flow. Within the model, individual service
subareas are based on the configuration of the sanitary sewers and therefore, cross City
limits. Modeled flows from inside and outside the city are intermingled so a separate
estimate for total ADWF exclusive to the city was not developed. Of the total population
served by the Durham plant, a population of 47,460 is attributed to the City, based on the
certified population estimate for July 2009 from the Population Research Center, Portland
State University. Using the same 67 gpd per capita applied above, the residential portion
of flow from Tigard may be estimated as 3.2 mgd. Commercial ADWF would be in
addition to the estimate for the residential portion.
Future Sanitary Flows
Projections of future sanitary flows are based on predicted land uses for vacant lands, as well as
assumptions about special case wet industry dischargers. The flow factors listed in Table 2-2
served as the basis for predicting future flows from vacant areas. Flow factors were applied to an
estimated net acreage. Net acreage was estimated using the factor of 0.87 multiplied by the gross
tax lot acreage to allow for roads, habitat corridors, and other areas that do not produce
wastewater. No calibration factor was applied to future flows from areas that are currently vacant.
As noted above, flows for the interim 2015 development condition are based on detailed
assumptions regarding the anticipated percentage of land developed in each service area.
Tables 2-7 and 2-8 list the resulting flow for each treatment plant basin for the 2015 and buildout
development conditions, respectively. Flows are expressed in terms of ADWF. The residential
portion of the projected ADWF is used to estimate an approximate future population for each
basin, although population is not used as a basis of flow projections for the collection system. As
noted, this discussion pertains to the entire District service area, but is relevant to the City's
Master Plan because it validates the methodologies used.
Table 2-7. Implied Population for Treatment Plant
Service Areas—2015 Development Conditions
Modeled Approximate
Modeled Total Residential Population(b)
Service Modeled Portion(a) Based on
Area ADWF, of ADWF, Residential
Treatment Plant Acreage mgd mgd ADWF
Forest Grove 21297 3.44 1.07 16,000
Hillsboro 4,9511°1 8.53 3.66 54,600
Rock Creek 26,524 34.0 15.8 235,800
Durham 22,882 25.6 12.5 186,600
Note:
(a) Includes all residential land use categories and mixed use commercial categories.
(b) Estimated based on a wastewater generation rate of 67 gallons per capita per day.
(c) Reduced from existing condition to reflect re-routing of North Plains flow to
Rock Creek basin.
West Yost--May 2010 2-19 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
Table 2-8. Implied Population for Treatment Plant
Service Areas—Buildout Development Conditions
Modeled Approximate
Modeled Total Residential Population(b)
Service Modeled Portion(a) Based on
Area ADWF, ofADWF, Residential
Treatment Plant Acreage mgd mgd ADWF
Forest Grove 2,991 5.43 2.12 31,600
Hillsboro 7,526 14.1 8.13 121,300
Rock Creek 32,974 57.2 34.5 515,100
Durham 27,325 38.7 22.2 331,100
Note:
(a) Includes all residential land use categories and mixed use commercial categories.
(b) Estimated based on a wastewater generation rate of 67 gallons per capita per day.
West Yost—May 2010 2-20 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
CHAPTER 3. HYDRAULIC MODEL
The computer model used to simulate various flow conditions in the City's collection system was
first developed in the 1990s and then refined for the District's 2000 and 2009 SMPU. The current
master plan update included an update of the sanitary flow values and distribution based on
current land use planning, extensive additions to the modeled existing pipelines to include
additional smaller diameter sewers and recent construction, the inclusion of all District pump
stations in the model, and development of plans to extend sewer service into anticipated growth
areas. For the City's Master Plan, peak wet weather flows were modeled for selected rainfall
patterns and calibrated to actual flow conditions observed at flow meters throughout the study
area. This chapter addresses the following topics:
• Model Overview
• Sanitary Flow Calibration
• Wet Weather Flow Calibration
• Recommended Future Model Development Activities
MODEL OVERVIEW
The District collection system is modeled as four independent systems, with each model
terminating at one of the four treatment plants: Durham, Forest Grove, Hillsboro and Rock Creek.
The model includes facilities maintained by the District as well as the City. Tigard is entirely
within the Durham model area. The model includes all existing gravity sewers 10 inches and
larger and selected 8-inch sewers, all diversions or flow splits within the modeled pipe system,
and all District pump stations and force mains.
The hydraulic model is based on a series of spreadsheet tools used to allocate flows and define
I&I parameters throughout the service area and generate input files, the Hydra® modeling
software by Pizer, Inc., and spreadsheet tools used to interpret the output data. The spreadsheet
tools are generally independent of the Hydra software, although database fields (column
headings) used in some of the spreadsheets directly correlate to Hydra input and output database
fields. The model includes the following key components:
• Land Use and Sanitary Flow Input Processing
• Diurnal Sanitary Flow Patterns
• Wet Weather (I&I)Parameters
• Service Area Boundaries
• Collection System Information
• Output Processing
West Yost—May 2010 3-1 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
Land Use and Sanitary Flow Input Processing
Sanitary flow inputs to the model are based on land uses, flow factors, and point flow (special
case) inputs. The land-use based flow inputs are cataloged in the land use layer or database
serving as Hydra modeling input data. A new land use layer (consisting of LU polygons and
associated data) was created for the model update, based on the data and process described in
Chapter 2 of this Master Plan.
Hydra offers some flexibility in how the land use layer is used to represent land uses and flow
generation rates. The model update is tax-lot based, and therefore the land use layer was used
differently from the previous model. Table 3-1 shows the required input elements or"fields", and
the correlation between how those elements were used in the previous model and how they are
now used in the updated model. The two methodologies both result in a land use database that
defines sanitary flows for the Hydra modeling software. As was the case in the previous model, a
single land use layer was created for all four of the District's sanitary basins.
Table 3-1. Land Use Layer Input Parameters
Hydra Input Use Implemented through Spreadsheet Tools
Field Previous Model Updated Mode
Res Pop Residential population Residential acreage
Res_Cpc Flow Factor(per capita) Flow Factor(per acre)
Percentage of Residential Population Percentage of Residential Acreage
that contributes to the sanitary sewer that contributes to the sanitary
Res Active system sewer system
The name of the diurnal curve that The name of the diurnal curve that
represents the hourly distribution of represents the hourly distribution
Res—Diu Residential flow of Residential flow
Vis Pop [not used] Non Residential acreage
Vis_Cpc [not used] Flow Factor(per acre)
Percentage of Non Residential
Acreage that contributes to the
Vis—Active [not used] sanitary sewer system
The name of the diurnal curve that
represents the hourly distribution
Vis—Diu [not used] of Non Residential flow
Com Vol Commercial/Industrial Flow (gpd) [not used]
Percentage of Commercial/Industrial
customers that contributes to the
Com Active sanitary sewer system [not used]
The name of the diurnal curve that
represents the hourly distribution of
Com Diu Commercial/Industrial flow [not used]
West Yost—May 2010 3-2 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
The land use layer database was populated using a series of spreadsheet tools adapted from those
developed by PMA Engineering for the previous model update. The initial steps in the process are
now tax-lot based, so the spreadsheets are very large, requiring significant computing power to
manage efficiently. This drawback is offset by the benefit of detailed tracking of land use
assumptions, and the ability to apply specific changes to planned land uses in the future.
Chapter 2 of this Master Plan describes the processes implemented in the spreadsheets.
Diurnal Sanitary Flow Patterns
Hydra uses sanitary flow hydrographs (diurnal curves) to simulate the pattern of sanitary flows
entering the collection system over the course of a day. The shape of the diurnal curve is related
to the particular land use mix generating the flow. As with previous modeling, diurnal curve
assignments were largely adopted from the 1995 Collection System Needs Analysis databases.
Where new land use areas were added to the model, the land use mixture was used to assign
appropriate diurnal curves in accordance with documentation provided in the 1995 report.
Previous and current modeling was based on the 1995 diurnal curves representing median
weekday conditions. Appendix D provides an excerpt from the 1995 Collection System Needs
Analysis Report, which describes the general approach used for flow data analysis in 1995, and
the specific approach to deriving dry-season unit flow rates and diurnal curves. Much of the text
provided in Appendix D has been superseded; however, the discussion of diurnal curve
assignment is relevant.
Wet Weather (I&I) Parameters
The model simulates wet weather flows by adding infiltration and inflow components to the
sanitary flow. The I&I flows are recorded in a separate flow file that must be referenced during
the model run to simulate the wet weather conditions. The wet weather analysis is based on
rainfall produced by the 24-hour storm with a 5-year recurrence interval (the "5-yr, 24-hr
Storm"). The rainfall pattern is superimposed on the collection system, and resulting I&I flows
are generated based on the"defect"parameters assigned to each service area.
Appendix E (Chapter 4 of the District's 2000 SMPU) provides a detailed description of the
process used to develop the I&I parameters for the Durham model. With the exception of areas
where I&I abatement activities have occurred, the same I&I parameters were used in both the
previous and current model for existing service areas outside the City's study area. In areas where
abatement projects have been completed, I&I parameters were adjusted to '/z of the previously
modeled rate, or 1,650 gpd/acre, whichever is greater. For growth areas, previous modeling was
based on I&I parameters that approximated an I&I rate of 1,650 gpd/acre, in accordance with the
methodology presented in the appendix. This adjustment should be verified through flow
monitoring and adjusted by the District in the future as additional information becomes available.
West Yost—May 2010 3-3 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
Service Area Boundaries
Service areas, or sanitary sewer subbasins, define the geographical area that contributes flow to
each flow input point in the model. Modeled sanitary flows are generated by intersecting the land
use layer with the service area layer to create a flow (*.FLO) file. Each service area is assigned to
a particular model node, as recorded in the service area database (SE *.dbfJ file. Nodes are
identified by a G_ID value created by Hydra, as well as the District manhole number. The service
area database also includes the service area acreage, and the delay time for sanitary flow to reach
the modeled collection system input node.
As part of the model update process, modifications were made to some of the previously modeled
service area polygons and their respective points of connection. Where pipes and pump stations
were added to the model, it was necessary to create multiple services areas out of one or more
existing service areas in order to properly distribute flows along the added pipeline. Additional
collection system mapping beyond what was available for the previous model update made it
possible to refine some of the service area boundaries where information was previously limited.
As part of the calibration process for the Tigard study area, the services areas upstream of each
flow meter were reviewed and refined. Service areas are depicted on Figure 2-1.
Collection System Information
The District's previous sewer model served as the basis for the updated model. City staff
provided additional record information to correct and updated the model data where discrepancies
were identified.
Summary of Modeled Collection System Elements
The model incorporates gravity sewers, pump stations, force mains (pressure sewers), and
siphons. Table 3-2 summarizes the length of sewers included in the Durham models, and within
the Hillsboro study area. The model includes pipelines that are outside of the study area, but are
tributary to the collection system serving the City.
Modeling Design Criteria
A file named Project.des contains design criteria used by Hydra to define modeling parameters
related existing and proposed (design) pipes, manholes, force mains, diurnal curves, diversion
curves and pump station data. A separate design file was used for each of the four basin models.
The file relevant to the Durham model is provided as Appendix F.
West Yost—May 2010 3-4 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
Table 3-2. Summary of Modeled Pipe Lengths
Length of
Modeled GIS Pipe
Diameter, Existing Data(O
inches Sewers ft Len th ft
Unknown 102,753
4 1,086
6 -- 273
8 31,474 686,571
10 24,117 20,392
12 16,666 7,015
15 6,564 2,493
18 2,868 320
20 -- 192
21 3,872 3,928
24 5,022 5,097
27 5,845 5,542
30 5,969 6,260
36 2,459 2,459
42 4,592 4,592
60 23,763 23,629
66 364 364
72 884 --
Totals,Tigard
Study Area 134,459 872,966
(1)Reflects content of District GIS sewer pipe data
within the Study Area boundary for the Tigard Master
West Yost-May 2010 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
Output Processing
Hydra produces average and peak flow predictions for each segment of pipe in the model. In
addition, Hydra uses an approximation method to provide a rough estimate of the hydraulic grade
line (HGL), which is the level to which water would rise in manholes under the modeled flow
condition. The current Master Plan classifies the hydraulic condition of each pipeline segment by
comparing the predicted HGL to the ground surface elevation as a measure of the risk of outflows.
The HGL ranking is generated in a spreadsheet that uses the HGL value, other elevation
information, and the relative slope of the HGL to assign a ranking category. Results of the HGL
ranking can be expressed in tabular form using a two character code, and graphically using color
coding. The HGL ranking is applied as described in Chapter 4 to define the need for
recommended improvements.
SANITARY FLOW CALIBRATION
Chapter 2 of this Master Plan describes the basis of the sanitary flows used in the model. For
existing conditions, initial modeling results indicated that the adopted flow factors are
conservatively high when compared to existing dry weather conditions. In consultation with
District staff, West Yost Associates (West Yost) developed calibration factors to adjust the
existing condition flows such that the dry weather modeling results were comparable to flows
observed in August 2006. August was selected as a month with minimum influence from
precipitation events (i.e.,minimum I&I).
Further calibration of sanitary flows was performed for the Tigard study area, as described in
Appendix H.
The results of the dry weather calibration process may be reviewed graphically by plotting the
modeled output hydrograph at each meter location with actual flow data. This comparison
illustrates the correlation between modeled and metered flows that results from the ADWF
calibration factors as well as application of the diurnal flow input patterns used in the model.
Appendix G presents the calibration results from meters throughout the District, other than those
meters within the Tigard Master Plan study area. Appendix H includes dry weather calibration
plots for the City's study area. Figures 3-1 and 3-2 provide examples of calibration verification
plots found in the appendices, one for the Durham model outside the study area, and one within
the study area,respectively. As illustrated in the figures, the calibration provided good correlation
between modeled and metered flows. Appendix C1 lists the ADWF calibration factors applied to
the land-use polygons for the overall Durham model calibration.
West Yost—May 2010 3-6 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
Figure 3-1
City of Tigard Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
Modeled vs Metered Hourly Flow Comparison at MH 10740 (13015)
0.45 Dry Period -August 2006
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
E
3
0
0.2
0.15
0.1
Modeled Hourly Flow
0.05 f Metered Hourly Flow Weekend
+Metered Hourly Flow Weekday
0 ,
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Hour
Source: District 2009 SMPU
Figure 3-2. Dry Weather Calibration Plot Example—Tigard Study Area
2007 Dry Season Flow Comparison - Meter 19970 - Durham
0.8 0.7
-
f
0.6
iI
0.s
3 0.4 —,
U.
0.3 I
I � I
0.2
0.1
I i I
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour
—Modeled Flow —MeteredFlowJ
West Yost—May 2010 3-8 City of Tigard
517.03.06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
WET WEATHER FLOW CALIBRATION
West Yost, with PMA Engineering, developed a wet weather calibration for the Tigard study
area. PMA's work is documented in a Technical Memorandum, "Durham Model Calibration
within the City Subsystem" (Appendix H). The calibration generated parameters that produced
modeling results closely matching metered flows measured during a major storm that occurred in
December 2007. Figure 3-3 is an example of the calibration verification plots that are presented in
Appendix H, illustrating very good correlation between modeled and metered flows for the
December 2007 storm. West Yost then ran the Hydra model for the 5-yr, 24-hr storm. Figure 2-4
in the previous chapter of this Master Plan shows the resulting I&I rate for each metered sub-area,
based on the calibrated model.
By inspection, the calibration process appears to be reasonably accurate based on a review of the
flow metering and modeling results for the meter at MH 21142 on Hunziker Road. By inspection
of Figure 20 in Appendix H, it is observed that peak I&I rates on the order of 1.1 to 1.3 cfs
(0.7 mgd to 0.8 mgd) occurred on December 2 and December 3, 2007. Had an I&I peak of
0.8 mgd coincided with the modeled sanitary peak of 0.4 mgd (0.6 cfs), total peak flows as high
as 1.3 mgd could have occurred as a result of the December 1-5, 2007 storm. The modeled peak
wet weather flow at MH 21142 is 1.25 mgd for the 5-year, 24-hour event.
The December 2007 storm events may be characterized by comparison to the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration Atlas Maps (NOAA Alias 2, Volume X) and the Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT) Hydrology Manual. The Dec. 2007 storm event was quite
a large event in terms for volume (4.91 inches at the Durham rain gauge, 5.53 inches at the
Beaverton rain gauge, and 2.24 inches at the King City rain gauge). For the rainfall captured at
the Durham and Beaverton rain gauges, the maximum 24-hour rainfall volume significantly
exceeded the 5-year, 24-hour volume for Tigard (3.0 inches). However, the recorded maximum
intensities at the three gauges (0.24 inches/hour, 0.19 inches/hour, and 0.18 inches/hour,
respectively) were lower than the 5-year peak hour intensity based on ODOT
(0.52-0.57 inches/hour).
For the remainder of the Durham model area outside the City, I&I parameters developed for the
District's 2000 master plan update were used in the current Master Plan to model peak wet
weather flows. Additional calibration activities may be warranted in the future. It is apparent that
the current Master Plan methodology may not fully assess flow conditions that could occur late in
the wet season with significant rainfall antecedent to the 5-yr, 24-hr storm. It is recommended that
additional wet weather conditions be evaluated by the District to determine if additional I&I
calibration is warranted and to determine whether or not additional improvements are needed to
comply with state water quality standards.
West Yost—May 2010 3-9 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
Figure 3-3. Wet Weather Calibration Plot Example—Tigard Study Area
Metered vs. Modeled Flow -Tigard Meter 19980-December 1-5, 2007
.. _ --_ I_ i - - --- ---- ------- 1.0
- i
i
0.9
1 100.6
Delta Peak Flow=3% !
::Delta Volume=-8% i 1 0.7 0.
0.8 y
0.6
c 0.6 0.5 t i
0.4
0.4 0.3
0.20.2i
0.1
0.0 010.0
0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20
Hour
Rainfall —Meter Flow —Model Flow Rapid Infiltration Inflow —Sanitary Infiltration
L — -- — ----- -- _— _- . — - - --. —.. --
Rest Yost—May 2010 3-10 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 SanitarySewer Master Plan
RECOMMENDED FUTURE MODEL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
The following model development activities are under consideration by the District to improve
model accuracy and reliability as a planning tool:
1. Evaluate additional wet weather conditions to determine if additional I&I calibration is
warranted and to determine whether or not additional improvements are needed to
comply with state water quality standards.
2. Proceed with an evaluation of available modeling software packages to determine
whether or not the use of software other than Hydra would be beneficial.
3. Conduct a comprehensive review of service area boundaries using the most up to date GIS
data. Recent update efforts outside the City have not included a comprehensive review of
the service area boundaries used to allocate flow to individual model nodes. Significant
improvements in available data,as well as a significant amount of infill development has
occurred since much of the current model was first developed. Accuracy of the sanitary
flow allocation, as well as the acreage-based I&I predictions would be improved by a
thorough review and refinement of the service area boundaries.
4. Conduct a comprehensive review of pipeline alignments using the most up to date GIS
data. The District's 2009 SMPU added a significant number of facilities to the model.
However,much of the current model remains based on the pipeline alignments
developed through the previous two modeling efforts. An overlay of the model with
the current GIS reveals a substantial number of locations where the modeled pipeline
alignments deviate from the alignments documented in the GIS. These deviations are
unlikely to have any substantive effect on planning conclusions; however, the District
will consider bringing the modeled pipe system up to date with the best available data
so that the modeled system can be more accurately depicted on report figures and
maps used as planning tools.
West Yost—May 2010 3-11 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
CHAPTER 4. COLLECTION SYSTEM EVALUATION
The purpose of this chapter is to present the results of modeling for the Tigard collection system.
Modeling results are presented in tabular and graphic form. Each segment of pipe experiencing a
capacity exceedance under the predicted condition is assigned a priority ranking based on an
analysis of the predicted HGL. The presence or absence of a need for an improvement or for
additional evaluation is identified in each instance of a modeled capacity exceedance.
This chapter presents the following topics relevant to the collection system evaluation:
• Evaluation Criteria
• Modeling Results for Existing Collection System
• Project Data Sheets
EVALUATION CRITERIA
The collection system model generates a peak flow for each link of the modeled system, estimates
the hydraulic conditions resulting from that peak flow and predicts a HGL. Where the peak flow
exceeds the gravity flow (un-surcharged) capacity of a pipeline, surcharging is predicted and the
estimated HGL is above the crown of the pipe. Surcharging can affect the HGL in upstream
pipes, even if those upstream pipes have adequate capacity to convey the flow without
surcharging.
Within the model, certain hydraulic evaluation criteria are applied to predict the HGL under each
flow condition analyzed. Outside the model, the HGL information is used to rank sewers and
identify a need for capacity improvements. Independent of the model, various areas have been
identified for rehabilitation to reduce I&I. The criteria and methods used in the analysis are
documented as follows:
• Hydraulic Evaluation Criteria
• HGL Priority Ranking System
• I&I Rehabilitation Criteria
Hydraulic Evaluation Criteria
The collection system model uses flows based on estimated average sanitary flows derived from
unit flow rates imposed on a diurnal curve to generate peak sanitary flows, and 5-year, 24-hour
storm event response I&I contributions from each sanitary basin. If allowed to do so, the model
shifts or "shuffles" the storm event such that the peak I&I rate coincides with the peak sanitary
rate. Such shuffling is not used when comparing actual flows to flows modeled for a specific
historical storm. However, the model is allowed to perform the shuffling when future flows and
pipe capacity needs are being predicted.
West Yost—May 2010 4-1 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
For planning purposes, all model runs assumed the current modeled I&I rates will continue to occur,
even if I&I abatement is performed in the future. The assumption that no further reductions will occur
is conservative for the localized areas where future abatement projects do result in I&I reductions.
No other safety factor (other than the shuffling of storm flows and the assumption regarding
future rehabilitation results) was applied for the purposes of evaluating the existing collection
system under the hypothetical storm condition, nor for sizing replacement sewers inadequate to
carry the predicted future flows. However, ultimate peak flows used to size future trunk sewer
extensions incorporated an I&I allowance in addition to the modeled flows such that the"design"
flow included 4,000 gpd/acre of I&I from future growth areas. All analyses assumed weekday
flow patterns. This methodology is consistent with the District's 2009 SMPU.
Existing pipe capacities and replacement sewer sizing were calculated within Hydra based on the
following criteria:
Manning's equation(applicable to steady, uniform flow)
Manning's n coefficient=0.013
Minimum velocity= 2.3 ft/sec where feasible
Maximum depth of flow to pipe diameter ratio (d/D)= 0.8
These parameters and Hydra's pipe sizing algorithm result in velocities of 2 ft/see with the pipe
flowing %2 full (or full). Replacement pipe sizing is considered approximate. For planning
purposes, it was assumed that sewers would be replaced, matching existing grades. Actual grades
and sizing must be determined during design, such that field constraints that affect final grades
are taken into consideration and the pipe size is adequate to convey the design flow.
Routing delays that occur in the small-diameter collection system piping were computed using an
average velocity of 1.5 fps based on previous modeling assumptions. These delay times are
computed by Hydra using the distance between the centroid of the service area and the injection
point to calculate an average travel time.
HGL Priority Ranking System
Sewer system improvements and the phasing of those improvements were defined based on
analysis of the peak HGL. Previous District planning has used a ranking system to determine the
severity of surcharging within the gravity sewers. The ranking system was developed as part of
the 1995 Collection System Needs Analysis. The HGL ranking criteria are summarized in Table 4-
1, and illustrated in Figure 4-1. The HGL freeboard is the difference between the HGL elevation
and the ground elevation. A significance test is used to determine if the difference between the
slope of the HGL and the pipe slope is significant, indicating that the predicted peak flow
significantly exceeds the gravity flow capacity of the pipeline.
West Yost—May 2010 4-2 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
Figure 4-1. Graphical Illustration of Hydraulic Grade Line Ranking Criteria
Increase in HGL (dh) is Significant (Rank"xS")
if(dh*100/L >a*(D+v^2/2g))
Shallow HGL<3.Oft below ground (Rank"HS"or"HH")
Deep HGL > 10.Oft below ground
(Rank"DS" or"DH")
Intermediate HGL Range
10' <HGL> 3' below ground
Ground Elevation (Rank"IS" or"IH")
----- j— Hydraulic Grade Line(HGL)
— -- Top of Pip
Diameter=D
MH up Length= L MH down
Source: Clean Water Services 2000 Sewer Master Plan Update
West Yost—May 2010 4-3 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
An HGL rank other than "OK" was assigned to each surcharged pipe segment, regardless of
whether or not the surcharging results from a capacity exceedance in the given segment, or from a
downstream capacity exceedances generating a backwater condition in the given segment, or
both. However, pipe segments that have adequate capacity but are surcharged due to a
downstream limitation are differentiated from pipes with inadequate capacity. Only pipe
segments with a capacity exceedance, or surrounded by upstream and downstream segments with
capacity exceedances, were considered for improvement.
Table 4-1.Definition of Hydraulic Grade Line Ranking
Rank Description Improve? HGL Freeboard
LS HGL daylights with significant HGL Yes Less than zero feet
increase
(HGL elevation> ground elevation)
LH HGL daylights Yes Less than zero feet
(HGL elevation>ground elevation)
HS High HGL with significant HGL increase Yes Between 0 and 3 feet
HH High HGL Yes Between 0 and 3 feet
IS Intermediate HGL with significant HGL Yes Between 3 and 10 feet
Increase
IH Intermediate HGL NOW Between 3 and 10 feet
DS Deep HGL with significant HGL increase No Greater than 10 feet
DH Deep HGL No Greater than 10 feet
OK No surcharging No HGL is within pipe
crown
(a) Cumulative effects over long runs of pipe must be considered, and may trigger an improvement.
The ranking procedure was used to identify the need for potential collection system
improvements. The identification of improvements also took into consideration factors such as:
• Cumulative surcharging in the"IH" category approaching three feet of freeboard
• The relative impact of modeled I&I where limited calibration has been performed
• The presence of apparent anomalous pipe invert or diameter data
• District or City staff reports that actual flows are substantially less than predicted by
the model
These factors were considered as improvements were defined. For example, long runs of pipes
with a "IH" ranking can produce a significant cumulative surcharge, and therefore may warrant
an improvement even though most instances of the "IH" ranking do not warrant an improvement.
West Yost—May 2010 4-4 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
I&I Abatement Criteria
The District's 2000 master plan update documented the following three categories for classifying
potential rehabilitation areas:
Category 1: Includes areas with peak I&I rates greater than 4,000 gpd/acre, which is
considered to be high extraneous flow. These areas are candidates for a
complete abatement program, including mainline lining, service lateral
replacement, and sealing of other system features.
Category 2: Includes areas with peak rates greater than 2,500 gpd/acre and less than
4000 gpd/acre, or an intermediate level of extraneous flow. These areas are
candidates for an abatement program that would be potentially less
aggressive than the Category 1 areas.
Category3: Includes areas with less than 2,500 gpd/acre, and are considered to below
extraneous flow areas not requiring I&I abatement.
MODELING RESULTS FOR EXISTING COLLECTION SYSTEM
Modeling results for buildout, 2015, and existing conditions are represented on Plates 1 through
3, respectively. Plates 2 and 3 are provided as electronic files accompanying this Master Plan to
avoid excessive use of paper and plotting costs. Plate 1 is provided as a folded map, as well as an
electronic file. The HGL condition in each modeled segment is color coded on the maps. Light
blue highlighting has been applied where the surcharging is the result only of a backwater effect
and not a capacity exceedance in the indicated segment.
West Yost—May 2010 4-5 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
ROENRO.4Y - a�n�••. /
___ awERTrso I I .. e°/ —_ -. — dp/ •�' "g_xuu��y
P'
i NS AM
I
a
e SN
B
nelamee bel=m b0 anemebh
tl were.
w0 m r g
�z�. Pm9wa0anA:aicHland Sky H9n 1811w 16 '� ���elle o
ea[HIAIwraY99W.
x
ST
yy�y
le,
• 6� MOVMPIN RO - W Q
.'.Y r_5 qN41 11
le I
AnI Rc
DRAFT 10109/09 (.J "' I `m wEs, .pO J EexmEE 0
t CITY OF TIGARD — �� s --
SANITARY SEWER MASTER PLAN 'p
FIGURE 4-2 POTENTIAL I& I ABATEMENT ♦ j i, +oR
PROJECT AREAS
3 Legend _ • .. _ ea(
R •~R9ard GH llmi ~r..�.sr.s�w 0 0�9 0.6 '� +
L.J
5 -16114 W]eF.e /
� 161zsoomeom ar=a
'nom...' �A91ea N105R9
oONEOf P
Recommended Improvement Timing
In general, pipeline replacement and upsizing has been recommended where the HGL ranking is
"IS" or worse. These surcharging conditions represent a significant risk of outflow. Each such
condition is highlighted on Plates 1 through 3, according to the timing of the identified need.
Improvement timing is defined as follows:
Existing These projects are needed soon to address existing capacity issues. Verification
of flows and project planning should be initiated within the next year.
2015 These projects are anticipated to be needed based on the growth anticipated
by 2015. Development assumptions should be compared with actual
development over the course of the next five years, and project planning
should initiated when necessary to allow adequate time for design and
construction prior to major flow increases in the upstream area.
Buildout These projects would be needed sometime after 2015, given the growth
assumptions applied in this Master Plan.
Recommended Projects
Detailed information about each recommended project is provided in Appendix I and the Project
Data Sheets located at the end of this chapter. Appendix I lists the basis of the planning level cost
estimate for each project. The Project Data Sheets list the current and projected flows, HGL
ranking, existing lengths and diameters, the upsize diameter, as well as a brief project description
and planning level cost. The costs presented in this Master Plan are based on very limited
information. Actual costs could very substantially due to changing market conditions, materials
costs, and field conditions that are not apparent at this level of planning. Recommended diameters
are based on a slope assumed to equal the slope of the existing pipeline. Final design will
determine the actual slope and diameter necessary to convey the anticipated flow, which is
identified as the"Buildout+Flow" in Appendix I.
The Project Data Sheets show a conceptual alignment for replacement facilities. In most cases,
the alignment follows the existing pipeline, unless additional planning or design work is already
underway for the particular project. Alternative alignments will be considered for each project in
subsequent planning and design phases. Grouping and phasing of individual projects may also
occur as the projects are more fully defined.
Backwater
Some pipelines with significant surcharging do not have an identified improvement. These
segments are identified on Plates 1 through 3 with light blue highlighting. Backflow conditions
generated by downstream capacity deficiencies can produce severe surcharging in sewers that
have adequate capacity. Therefore, upsizing a pipeline affected by backwater will not
substantially reduce surcharging,unless the affected pipe also has its own capacity deficiency.
West Yost—May 2010 4-7 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
"No Project"Designation
Some modeled sewer segments with an "IS" or worse HGL ranking have been identified on
Plates 1 through 3 with a "No Project' designation, highlighted in olive green. Each of these
segments is assigned a name corresponding to the name of the sewer segment or a nearby
geographical feature. A detailed description of the justification for the"No Project"designation is
provided in Table 4-2 for each indicated segment.
In most cases, the "No Project" designation indicates that the predicted level of surcharging is
relatively minor, even though it technically meets the criterion for the "IS" category or worse.
Some single, relatively short segments that technically meet the IS criteria but are not considered
significant capacity deficiencies are left unlabeled on the Plates because they have been deemed
insignificant based a review of the model results. These segments are generally included in
Table 4-2 as well.
I&I Abatement Projects
The District's previous master plan(2000) identified areas within Tigard with elevated I&I, using
the I&I abatement criteria described earlier in this chapter. The District 2009 SMPU relied on the
previous designations of elevated I&I areas, with updates reflecting those areas where I&I
abatement projects have already been implemented. No I&I abatement project has been
completed within Tigard since the elevated I&I areas were identified in the previous District
master plan.
The decision to perform I&I abatement must take into consideration the actual impacts of the
elevated I&I. Reductions in I&I result in decreased operating cost at treatment plants and pump
stations. Reductions may also relieve downstream capacity problems within the collection system,
and reduce the risk of outflows. The benefit of potential reductions in I&I through abatement
activities must be weighed against the cost.
Obvious, single point inflow sources are the least expensive sources of I&I to correct. However, no
localized, significant source of inflow is known to existing in Tigard, and the District's experience
indicates that most successful I&I abatement will require comprehensive sewer mainline and lateral
replacements or lining. Costs are generally expected to be proportional to area within the abatement
project boundary.Therefore,the highest priority abatement projects(after localized, significant inflow
sources are identified and corrected) should be areas with the apparent highest I&I rates, and located
upstream of current or predicted future capacity-limited sewers.
The size of the abatement area is first assumed to equal the size of the tributary area upstream of
the flow metering location where the elevated I&I rates were observed. This assumption produced
the results depicted on Figure 2-4 (in Chapter 2 of this Master Plan), and the updated regions of
elevated I&I depicted on Figure 4-2. An abatement area boundary may be refined using additional
flow metering or field observations, and knowledge of the relative age and condition of sewers in
particular sub-regions within the meter tributary area.
West Yost—May 2010 4-8 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
Table 4-2. Surcharged Segments with "No Project" Designation
HGL Rank
Manhole Nos. "No Project" Map Model
Up_Dn Designation Existing 2015 Buildout G_ID Basin Notes
09493 09494 89th Ave Lateral OK IS IS
09494_09495 89th Ave Lateral OK IS IS Predicted surcharge is less than 1 ft at buildout. Flows and
09495_09496 89th Ave Lateral OK OK OK surcharging should be monitored periodically to verify no
09496_09487 89th Ave Lateral OK OK IS project is needed.
09487 09446 89th Ave Lateral OK OK IH
Predicted peak flow surcharging would be minimal(less than 3
ft above pipe crown in a 12 ft deep manhole)in the absence of
backwater effect,even though predicted peak flow exceeds
11705 11706 Summerfield Trunk IS IS Is 1458 DR pipe capacity in this single segment.
19693_19692 Hiteon Trunk IS IH IH Predicted surcharge is insignificant(less than 3 inches)at
19692_19691 Hiteon Trunk OK IS IS buildout.
Predicted peak flow surcharging is minimal(up to 4 inches at
19983 19984 Commercial Street IH IH IH 1414 DR buildout,well under 4 inches in most segments). Modeled
19984_19985 Commercial Street Is IS IS 1599 DR allocation of service area was refined for Tigard Sewer Master
19985 19986 Commercial Street OK OK OK 1588 DR Plan. Upstream I&I abatement is recommended. Upsizing
19986 19987 Commercial Street IH IH Is 1589 DR should be considered if a need for structural rehabilitation is
19987_19988 Commercial Street Is IS IS 1600 DR identified in the future.
Predicted peak flow surcharging is minimal(less than 3 inches
21098 21075 Leror�'Tigard Trunk IS IS IS 1556 DR at buildout).
West Yost-May 2010 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
It is anticipated that I&I abatement projects will be conducted on an ongoing basis throughout the
District. The City's highest priority abatement area is the area tributary to the flow meter at
MH 19993 (see Figure 2-4). This region is a newly added region in Category 3 (I&I greater than
4,000 gpd/acre). Furthermore, the portion of the region located northwest of Highway 99W is
known to be older and in poorer condition than the area southeast of the highway. As a rough
estimate, concentrating 90 percent of the I&I greater than 2,000 gpd/acre on approximately half
the acreage tributary to the flow meter (corresponding to the area northwest of Highway 99W),
the apparent peak I&I rate from the northwest sub-region would be about 7,000 gpd/acre. Finally,
a number of downstream sewers, including the City's Commercial Street sewer (see Plate 1) and
the Fanno Interceptor, are subject to surcharging during peak wet weather events. The portion of
the area tributary to MH 19993 that lies northwest of the highway is therefore the City's highest
priority I&I abatement area.
A second priority I&I abatement area would be the area tributary to MH 11706 (see Figure 2-4).
The Tualatin Interceptor is downstream and subject to future surcharging as flows increase,which
is expected to create backwater condition in the Summerfield Trunk (see Plate 1). Metering
indicates the average design-storm I&I rate would be about 4,200 gpd/acre for this area, placing it
just over the threshold for Category 3. Therefore, periodic monitoring, and possibly additional
investigation to further define the sources of I&I are warranted in lieu of scheduling a large-scale
abatement project at this time.
Two other areas of Category 2 I&I (upstream of MH 58900 and MH 19980) contribute to the
need for sewer upsizing projects described in this Chapter. However, these two areas are large,
and unless smaller, more severe I&I source areas could be identified for more focused abatement
projects it is unlikely that I&I abatement would be a cost effective alternative to the recommend
upsizing projects.
In summary, one I&I abatement project is included in the CIP presented in Chapter 6. The project
includes a portion of the area upstream of MH 19993. For planning purposes, it assumed that one
half of the total area tributary to the subject manhole would be included in the abatement project.
West Yost—May 2010 4-10 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
CHAPTER 4
MASTER PLAN PROJECT DATA SHEETS
PROJECT-East Tigard Trunk
Project ID: D-120
Base Construa,n Cost 216,000 NOTES: These 124ch segments are a capacity R9d liim LdT/ing flows ham an upstream 15-men trunk with greater slope and capacity. Location t Rbns tram east of Portland and Weslem Railroad lowa d Hunziker
Algnment falls. put...a ortek remain,A SensMive habUt cast redo,mlgM be jostled mrit post x 2).but such a factor has 6t.
not been epplied, Treatment Plant Basin: IN
Contingency(3D%) 85,000 Junsdidion: Thimal
Construction Budget Amount 280,000 LacalMegional:
Engineering a Administration(25%) 70000 I Brief Description: Upslze-1p]0 flat 12-inch diameter sturdy,sewe,to l S ,,h
diameter sanitary sewer.
Capital Improvement Cost Tote/': 360,05-
.k-r.. pes. rasel]nGlles,Weremba-
Base
Condition BYMOW ConsWdion
Rating Edwin" Full-'[p. eakplpe PFlows, d HGL Rank Peeking UpSKe Ung cast pan,
Madel Manhole lDs Diameter. Existing Capacity. Eosling Ratio, Diameter. Depth, Le0gM. Cost Contingency),
G ID USMFLDSMHinches Sloe m tl 2008 2015 Bulgout EAstin 2015 Bugdom PH/ADWF inches 0 fl 3 Unit $
1433 2107421142 12 0.0070 2.00 1.25 1./1 1]3 IH IH IH 3.2 15 10.0 124 173 fl 21,000 6pecial Comsideralions: NA
1434 2114221143 12 0.0030 1.20 1.25 1.41 1.I2 IH IS HS 3.2 15 9.1 280 162 fl 42,000 On ct in Unit Costs)
1435 21143 21144 12 0.0030 1.28 1,45 1]1 2,03 IB I IS I HS 1 3.1 15 ].0 328 147 fl 48,000
1436 21144 21145 12 0.0030 1.24 1.45 1.I1 2.03 16 1 IS I HS 1 3.1 15 5.5 344 137 fl 41000 1050 2101.
1437 21145 1146 12 0.0050 1.85 1.65 1.I1 2.03 OK IH H6 3.1 15 515 301 137 fl 54,000 `�., v 190, 210 ,56953
1430 21146 21147 12 0.0020 0.92 1.45 1.]1 2.03 IS IS IS 3.1 15 6.0 25 141 fl 4000 Y..? �. *a
55002
14290 19992 10]2 '• 0$0
14200 y - A a}y zq
,uzn' ,a •.,tog. +m-�aj
inwa1aSSe9pe7 o S ti.o2,
074 af
1523Bi .2,600 .y� 4s
„2 Q00 W
li4aID,809
112, Y 144
G '
7yLan.,t/Gp�, 211
04
wv503
Y9en 2444 4
e uune a.�sMan Rw• ••• 1302A 131
0 91
Pmiect Driver
E ResidernatIcevelopment(inaree I
E Irltlustnaldevekpmenl
E Highs[
E Pump stationupgrade
WEST YOSi
ASS OCIALFS
Wcd Yost-May 2010 Cin ofTigaN
517-03-06-14 Sanitaa stave,Master Plan
PROJECT-East Tigard Trunk
Project ID: D-130
Base Construction Cost 151,000 NOTES: Model output date identity this lateral as the'22nd Ave.lateral The opsin:em portion of the lateml is on SW 72nd Avenue,The Location Runs from east of Portland and Western Railroad toward Hunziker
pradlctetl surchoo,ng occurs on SW Bonita Road,parallel to the Bonita Trunk. Bonita Trunk has atl,MM capacity to St.
mmodate buildont PWWF from the 72nd Ave.lateral. Project includes cora oolbn of a new manhole in the Bonita Trunk and Treatment Plant Basin: HS
Contin enc 30% 45,000 a connecting link at 72nd Avenue.Link may be a sumhage reNM,or oompletediversion.pending field inspections and prellmIDary Jurisdiction: Tigard!
Construction Budget Amount 200,000 design evaluations.if 72nd Ave.lateral is abandoned on Bonita Road.four to eight commercial laterals and moecior sewers would LocalfRegional:
Engineering B Administration(25%) S%DMD need to Ea re-routed to the BOONS Trunk,which is approximately to ft deeper than the 72nd Ave lateral.A more detaaed distribution Brief Description: Upsies-1.120 fl of 10-1nc0 diametersaniur,rewerto 124nch
of flows would mou0 In less predicted surcharging.although pipe capacity could sill be exceeded;therefore,the is clas5ltled as diameter sanflary,Sewer.
Capital lififirproverment Cost Toi 260,000 lower anninte.fohnnor ro merit.
'R.-r—dad ENR CCI=6603avmgeorNCl4e¢,lAwem[er3Ma
d
Corrosion Summit, C
Ratan Uning Fu&pipe Peak Flows, d HGL Rank PaakinpMig
Unit
Model ManOole Do Diameter, Existing Capacity. Eusting Ratio. h, Length, Cost C ,
G ID USMH DSMH inehe5 Sloe Red 008 2015 Buikout Fastin 2015 dual PHIADWFfl 3 Unit
1352 211]921ISO
10 0.0030 0]5 0.90 1.04 1.11 HS H6 H6 3] 36] 125 fl SpecialConsitlerations: NA
1353 21led 21101 10 0.0030 0.]5 0.90 104 1.11 IB IS IS 3.] 350 148 fl Omluded in Unit Casts1354 21181 1102f0 0.0350 2.65 0.90 1.04 1.10 OK OK OK 3.] 140 140 a 1355 2110221183 10 00100 1.42 0.90 1.04 1.10 OK OK OK 3J 221 125 a TECH CENTER oa0'261356 2110310663 10 0.5030 10.08 0.90 1.04 1.10 OK OK OK 3.] 0 35 149 fl '. - t9gy2
aP 59e 1002]
lt]5
5 211]6
2119 o-211E8 211]] 2C tppBrS
21195 591 r 1M31T 10431 p 1811]I61t91
2110]
N 1 y21199 11]9 _ tba3 1p''3 tfi1t9.
1W8
1185
aaee��ee.aa)) 2 1'g 10431
. 0
1 r{f14'P'
y IS
TE
g.naa
.. =e forOR ELel
ee�smrv.•n.,,,,,,ni � CPRDINAL LN
Proud Drive
❑ Reeldielal development)in area I
❑ Industdaldevelopment
❑ Hgh N
❑ Pump stallonupgratle
WEST TOSS
A.aSOCIAT FS
West Yo9t-Ma32010 Cap'ofTigmd
517-0346-14 Samoan,Sewn Master Plan
PROJECT-Scholl Trunk
Project ID: D-330
Base CousWMion Cost 2.520000 NOTES: Triggered by flaw from me Roy Rogers and Bartows Road Trunk Smooth areas. Lopmen: Runsalmg greenbelt on north side of Summer Lake,beMpan
t3th Are.and 121 st Ave.
Treatment Plant Basin: DuOam
COMin9ency(30%) 758.000 Junsdide T'aN
construction BtA19 A WOUnt 3,276.000 LacaVRe ionW: Re i00d1
Engimperug&Adminflatratean(25%) glo on. Brief Descdpeon: Upslae-3,350 ft of 27-Inch diameter sanperysewer to 42-inch
diameter sanitary sewer.
Capital Improvement Cost Totaro: 4,100,000
Cad-Pe'ENR Gm-8603 av ,on Gtlea.tbvemev-
Brise
[!�ff
Pead,d.tft Lonsthym E#sting FuILPIpe Peak Fbws.md HGL Rank Peeking Upsize Unit Cost(w/oModel Manhole 105Diameter. Existing Capacity. Evening Ralla, Diameter Depth, Length. Cost, contingency)G ID USMH DSMHinches Sloe d (2006 2015 Buildout Existlo 2015 Buildout PH/ADVVF Inohes ft It E Unit $
t0I8 1308513864 2] 0.0020 9.6] 6A2 7.84 10.13 OK OK IH 3.3 42 10.2 ]30 746 R 247,000 Special Lonskleretions: Parallel tont stre6m bed of Summer LakelFenno CreekiMutary
1045 13064130a3 3) 0.0020 0.99 6.42 ].eb 10.12 OK OK IH 3.3 42 12.8 329 801 fl 263,000
1044 1308313082 2) 0.0030 10.75 6.80 7.91 10.43 OK OK IH 3.3 42 12.5 115 801 R 92.000
1043 1380213081 2) 0.0020 8.09 6.60 ].91 10.63 OK. OK IH 3.3 42 166 117 07) ft 103,000 - -
1042 1386113000 2] 0.003D 10.14 7.56 6.80 11.34 OK OK DH 3.5 42 19.0 164 925 ft 170,900 S �O� AN I.n on
1081 13860 13079 2) 0.0030 10.50 L54 8.]9 11.33 OK OK IH 3.5 42 13.4 135 812 ft 110,090 335 Rl"�
104D 13079 13070 2) 0.0020 9.01 7.56 6]9 11.53 OK OK IH 3.5 42 13.9 255 822 ft 210000 D- 805 - JO.
1039 138]8 tJ6)) 27 0,00]0 19.06 ].56 0.]9 11.32 OK OK IH ].5 42 12.9 igo
.5 802 M1 152.000 13 513HM Ot.ALhpll`l _ NORTH eppOi9
1030 13577 13875 27 O.OD20 8.97 7.54 0.]9 1181 OK OK IH 9.5 42 8.1 405 ]04 fl 285,000 yI
B13860 -
1037 13876 13875 27 O.OD20 8.97 7.53 8.70 1180 OK OK IN 3.3 42 6.8 S80 680 ft 250,000 't38Tg
1036 130]5 138]4 2] 0.0020 9.90 7.64 8.90 11.43 OK OK HH 3.5 42 6.0 226 882 ft 150,0002 t3B78--NIMYIaWtt _
10% 13676138]) 2] O.OP20 9.66 ).64 49D 11.42 OK OK HH 3.5 62 7.2 328 686 ft 225.000 k13BT1 OYI
2] 8.9D 11.41 OK OK 13 3.5 62 9.4 349 ]32 fl 255,000 -`�O, 9YNMER ST 262 e0r 224 15876 � 9UNMERCREaiOR
79
n1f/8f13.75
13ok
mom„ 0^136T3 168]2
E nµa�e 12]b(14939 3L' 16930:
14037
lillillit e..u..
- D-410
.«.�^ {.. 19314 '99729989
a- z
Preiecl Dtiver
❑ Residential development[in area I
❑ Indushaddevelopment
❑ High 1/1
Pump station upgrade
WfSI TOSi
G.SOCiAT II
West Ycem-Ma32010 Cin of Tigard
510-03-06-14 Sodium,Swver Master Plan
PROJECT-Scholl T2nnk
Project ID: D-335
Base Cinhruchon Cosl 1328000 NOTED: Triggered by flow'am Roy Rogers and Barrows Road Trunk gmwlT areas. Location: Rusalong non
Lee,
side of Fenno Greek amiably draining to Summer
Lake,between Barrows Rtl,and 1301M1 Ave.
Treatment Plant Basin: Dumam
Cant (30%) 398.00 Jurisdiction. Tried!
Con3tNcfon Butlget Amount 1728000 LocaVRe'nal: Refined
Engineering a hat (25%) Brief Desertion: Uprce-1660It o12]-inch diameter Smarary sewer to 42-iauh
tllameter sanitary sewer.
Capital Improvement Coe Tate/o: 2160,000
111 Cvsl rounbE.ENa CCI•9672 average e1t000ky Nwembe�20W
Base
GonOfllon Builtloul Construction
Rat EMSting Full-pipe Peek Flows, d HGL Renk Peaking UpslZe Unit Cost(w/o
Model ManM1ole lDs Diameter, sting Capsert, Fx eIm, Ratie, Diameter, Depth, Length, Cost, Contingency),
G ID U6MH DSMH orches Sloe tl 008 2015 BuiMout Etls( 2015 Builtlou( PHIADVUF inrnes ft fl 8 Unit $
1029 13868 13867 27 0.0010 ]]4 5.52 6.71 9.15 OK OKME
42 8,6 329 710 fl 234,000 Special Consideration: Eyelids Faro Creek trade,drani to Summer Lake,
1028 laser 16379 21 0.0010 7.58 5.52 6.71 9.15 On OK 42 8,1 112 704 ft 79,000
1081 163]916238 27 0.0020 ].8] 5.56 8.]s 9.19 OK OK 42 11.5 39 ]]d R 30.000 I704 a
1060 1823813666 2] 00010 ].4] 458 6.75 9.19 OK OK 42 -Ti-6 231 ]]5 fl 1]9,000 �"✓crvp0poq
1027 13%613865 27 0.0010 7.50 5.56 8]5 9.19 OK OK 42 ].] 401 896 fl 2]9000 QPN ?.g1026 1368513064 2] 0.0010 ].50 5.56 6.]4 9.18 OK OK 62 8.0 458 ]09 fl 322,000 /2ryol S '�Nq1025 1386413885 2] 0.0010 ].54 555 8]d 9.1] OK OK 42 9.1 283 726 ft 205000 HDYKBBFARpffi £ a
P -
6 SGS_
axL Y�
6a 1 236 B D"335 Best 3
... ''�' sae,0-330 la..
-�"?rEawMN� 138ri 39]91
716ar M 900 y 9m 138I0'i
yH 13en-
° fA € iw'. SBN�mt ° 202 190 I�y
9]9
La9.ne : d
4 h"M
m ¢a AOR ]B �NL6rrEaR
nil
a-ar� -e Ye..x.ar 'YRMM' R
7258
ALCONR15eO
Praised Driver
❑ Resitlantiiltlevelopment lin area
❑ Industraidevlloment
❑ HghlB
❑ Pump station upgrade
WE51 Y03i
014� ■
IAi ES
West Yost-May 2010 Cin ofTgard
Sriury Saver Mester Plan
51]-0346-Id
PROJECT-Metzger Interceptor
Project 1D: D-340
Base Cmeenclion Cost 217,000 NOTES: Surcharging in these segments ecembates upstream surcbar,ing In segments wltb marginal capacity. Location: Runs weM from 89d Ave.Lateral to Farm,Creek mammon,
Treatment Plant Basin: Durham
Contingency(30%) 65,100 JubsEldbn: T aN
Constmction Budget Amount 202.000 LocalMegional: Regional
Engineer,A Adm06tration(25%) 70.500 Brief Description. Upslae-720 IT of 30-inch diameter sanitary sewer to 36-inch
diameter sanitary sewer.
Capitallmprovemenresist 353.000
(1)calnWe..ENR CLI=9603 wenpe.1 ad clli-nwembrtCondihV9
ass Rating ton Buildout LCost(W.n
Rahn Existing Ful4pipe Peek FlovS, tl HGL Rank Peaking Upsize Unil Cosass
Model ManM1ale lDo Diameter, Existing Capacity, Existing Ratio, Diameter, Depth, Length. Cosy, Contingency).
G ID USMH DSMH inches Sloe mod 008 2015 1 Buildout Usturp, 2015 Bul l PHIADM inches i 8 It 5 Unit 3
1004 10691_106921 1 1 30 0.0010 7.07 13.]1 16.95 15.66 IS IS IS 8.2 36 8.0 240 301 fl 72,000 Special Conslderatil NA
1005 10692 10693 30 0.0030 14.00 13.]1 14.95 15.66 I IS I6 8.2 38 1 8.9 395 302 it 119,000
'-Tom 1W9310694 30 0.0040 16.87 13.70 1 1♦.94 1 15.68 OK OK OK 8.2 36 11.1 67 323 fl 22,000 dM48 _ _ ,.UaKST
1007 1069410696 30 0.1690 109.28 13.]0 14.94 15.66 OK OK OK 8.3 38 12.0 12 331 fl 4000
' - lgxfio 217 waa
101. •10251L 0 0909948 WPS
10252 a WX169467
tons `lU 6 9B
oaepl t 9
Cfi8
N Tailroppleg" nwuxnwlasr�
� 217
668 VOgiX owxOT0.S
TlgRr -
34 G' x
ueana ¢ •�ORp �� ' q
.. �•n LLmISW _
aaMer�� »acorn AX4a F}
Pmied Driver
❑ Residentieldevelopmentlineme I
❑ Industtlaldevelopment
❑ High l4
❑ Pumpsta0pnuWrade
YOST
k ,PAO
s
ASSOCIATES
West Yost-May2010 Ce of Tigard
5174)3-06-14 Singer,Saver Master Plpn
PROJECT-Elmwood Lateral
Project ID: D-350 & D-351
Bass Construction Cost 1,220,000 NOTES: In lieu of replacement,excess Oovrs in Ufa sewer wig be nonmetal to anew sewer on Locust Street.Pipeline cables substantial lel Location: Runsfmmeaslo"'o"ThePLto just east of Landau Pl.
horn C8y of reflood service areas.
TreaVnenl Plant Basin: DUTam
Contingent, 388,000 i : T-
gdrtl
Cpnstuat,on Budget Amon1.586000 LocaDeraal
Enpne n B Administration(25%) ...... Bref Desphipton:
The future Locust StreetH.Mideroute wild probl peak Buildout flours
aom this sewer and alleWete capacity problems.
Capital Improvement Coat Tata': 1,9¢1408
11)enat-dw.ENR CLI=eW]aveng al IDCltiee,-awe 3rd
Beae
Contlilion BuidOW
Construction
Retin Ezsting Full-pipe Peak Flows.pd HGLRank Peakng Upsize Unil Dust(w/o
Model ManM1olers Diameter, Ex¢tin9 Capacey, Exlztinp Ratio, Diameter. Depth, Length, Cost, Oontingenbo
G ID USMH SMH IncM1es Sloe m tl 2006 2015 Builtlout Existin 2015 Bu9tloN PH/AOMff IncM1es fl fl 9 Unit S
DSS0 SIdead Consideration: NA
848 05043 05040 12 O.OBJO 6.63 4.80 4.05 5.02 OK OK OK 14.5 21 ].9 124 fl
849 05044 05045 12 0.0820 SJS 460 4.85 502 OK OK OK 14.5 21 ].2 312 fl 164 -.,-- l E65�P6EW
850 0504505048 12 00620 573 4.60 4.85 5.02 OK IH IN 14.5 21 1J0 126 fl - -? •&Suara
851 0504805050 12 00580 5.55 4B0 4.05 5.02 LH LH LH 14.5 21 1J6 250 fl - 185 `o6H9p K z
852 05050 05078 12 0.0300 4.00 4.60 4.85 402 LS LS US 14.5 21 6.9 102 fl �� _ 255as' 'S n w 31 H
653 05076 050]] 12 0.450 4.91 4.68 4.95 5.13 LH LH LS 14.1 21 6.] 143 fl - �� -o65P1 . RRR s
854 e50ii 05085 12 0.0410 4.68 4.88 4.85 5.13 LH LS LS 14.1 21 6.i 214 - fl
855 05006 05088 12 0.0210 3.36 4.88 4.95 5,12 IS LS LS 14.1 21 BA 104 fl 10 tE2 00302 - s etsRFD
856 05000 05089 12 0.0280 344 4.60 4.95 5.12 LS LS L8 14.1 21 8.i 148 fl BORp6R95r 101 - S� C• t
85] 05089 05100 12 0.0090 2]6 4.88 4.85 5,12 LS LS LS 14.1 21 6.3 312 fl _ TURnn
850 OS1O0 05101 12 0.0090 2.1H 4.i3 5.01 5,18 LS LS LS 14.0 21 B.6 196 - fl lkllntA_N ST
859 05101 05104 12 0.0090 2.16 4.3 5.01 5.18 LS LS LS 14.0 21 6.8 310 fl ww�� �: - 4 S• '�
880 05104 05105 12 0,0120 2.50 4.73 500 5.18 S LS LS 14.0 21 6.3 183 fl r`CORAt sr 25691 pp80
861 0510508610 12 0.0120 2.49 4.90 5.19 5.9] LS LS LS 13.5 21 ].5 349 - fl 28J60�- _. -5M,_v '_
Da51 Locust Street Re out
B]3 08618 06818 15 0.0052 3.03 8.02 005 8.28 LS S L6 40 21 82 181 fl 255Y la, i
874 00818 08619 15 0.0055 311 B.O2L8.018.288]5 06619 06620 15 0.0054 3.08 6.0228 LS LS L6 4A 21 ].T 1i2 fl8]6 0882008821 15 0.005430] 8.02 .28 LS LS LS 4A 21 ].3 228 fl8ii 0662108820 15 0.0054 ]0] 8.02 .28 LS LS LS 4.4 21 100 4008]8 066260662] 15 0.00543.08 8.02 .28 LS LS LS 4A 21 10.2 219 fle]9 0882]06828 15 0.0053 3.08 8.02 .28 LS LS LS 4A 21 ].2 145 fl 4r�m..e.e880 06628 06833 15 00054 100 8.02 .28 LS LS LS 4A 21 10.8 255 - fl - °°`° s eST
881 08833 06634 15 0.00503.W 8.02 .28 LS LS LS 4.421 10.8 2]6 - fl882 0663408635 15 0.0152 5.16 8.02 .28 LS LS LS 4.4 21 90 $30 - fl - _ ^•e••^+ _ eet:Y
eLual6ireet RenolM e.v..en-
05043 4,80 4,85 5.02 - 21 10.0 8,330 1 W fl 1.220.000 �^ m. 31047
". 31048
Proiael Driver
❑ Reskientlaldevelopmenl)inams I
❑ Industfialdevelopment
❑ H19hN
❑ Pump Slationup9retle
WEST YOST
' 0 a
ASSOCIAiE9
West Yost-May 2010 Cin oEM,ard
51743-06-14 San.,sena Master Plan
PROJECT-SW Katherine Lateral
Project ID: D-410
Base Construction Cost 239,000 NOTES: Surcharging at 20151s about 13-Incbes or less In a0 segments,and predicted Increase Inflow through 20151s insign?cent. Location: Runs on Katherine St.from 122nd CLlo east oHlBq Ave.
Bu klout Oows are expeded to Increase less than 10%over Odsting,and would produce 18 inches of surcbeging or less.Monitor
future flows to determine if project is necessary. Treatment Plant Basin: named,
COutingency(30%) ]1,]00 Jurisdiction Tigard
OOnstmction Budget Amount 311,000 L.c.111c,dual'.
Engineering B Administrator(25%) ]],000 Brief Desar tom Ups¢a-1,470 fl of 12-inch diameter sands,sewer to 15-inch
diameter serge,sewer.
Capital Impravement Cost Tof lu: 359,000
(1)Cost Ylrs E.ENa eCl-.1.,..a..130 CMe4 h....mr,oss
Base
Condition Buiedout Const.d,.a
Ratting
Existing Fulita, Peak Flows,md HOL Rank Peaking Indent. Unit Cost(wlo
Model Manhole Ins O!ameter, F's1Mg Oapacky, E'sting Ratio, Diameter. Depth. Length. Cost, Cuutingency),
G ID USMH inc
DSMH hes Slope m tl 2008 2015 Buildout Exrdlog 2015 I Buildout PHIADWF Inches fl fl S Unit 6
1106 19975 19974 t2 0.0040 1.41 1.]2 1.]] 1.84 I6 I6 I6 5.2 15 10.1 265 169 fl 45,000 Special Consitlerelions: NA
1105 199]4199]3 12 0.0130 2.67 A]3 1]> 1.04 OK OK IH 5.2rl5 dizo
]4 139 1 10000
1104 199]3199]2 12 0.0090 2.TJ 1]2 1.77 1.88 OK IH IH 5.25 227 143 fl1103 19972199]1 12 0.0010 0.]0 1.]2 1.]] 1.04 ISIS IS 5.25 33 160 fl 5,000 13870
1102 199]1199]0 12 0.0050 1.60 1.72. 1.]] 1.04 IH I6 I6 5.25 152 169 at 26000 Q.__ SUMMeaCgE811101 199]019969 12 0.0050 1.63 1.]2. 1.]] 1.84 IH I6 IS 5.15 385 181 fl ]0000 "? 130 `�Q1100 1896919968 12 0.0050 1.63 1.81 1,85 1.93 HS HS HS 5.15 329 156 a 51,000 BLAKE pq. -
13873 136]2 2106321084
[ 127541408. 14936brg0936
R D-41O m9ye•�wv e.
' 19g7 9°M1 s7't�is9se' �'
4+ I 6,7pMHS
^rTrERINE ST ]6 '
9975 59ID956863 H93(I
v J 77 LYwv 6r 6.V4e4 1493214931
5 517
`n,mmv mr 2f 085 5 Edema m
ANNST .g•5a131
321088 - 1 58667
$7513
=Send ev evw VWPIHJ(e w,119340
L'59340
ERROLSI
_ MEN ST 656862 _
cud a wa.�xn� FONNEn sf
PreIect Driver
11Reormati.1d.-lopmenllinarea I
❑ industrial development
❑
High In
❑ Pump station upglam
WEST
OST
Ikbo YT
ASSOCIAI
I
West Yost-May 2010 Cu,o£Tiasrd
517-03-06-14 Santoro SeworMoster Plan
PROJECT-Shore Drive Trunk
Project ID: D-525
Ease Construction Oort 197,000 NOTES: Pipe line is routed IT mug Summer Lake Park.and ws5e5 narrow gonion of Summer Lake PoM.Predicted surchaMing is Lordadmi: Runs confused ham naflh m Amu Sl.
siBnflcant in relativey shagow I<10 fl deep)segment.
Treatment Plant Basin: Durham
Contingency(30%) 59,100 Jluisdldio¢ T eN
ConsWGion Budget Amount 259,000 Lo..VRegional:
Engineering S Administrator(25%) 04.000 Brief Doudoption', Ups¢e-1.180It S8iodf diameter Sanitary sewer1010-inch
diameter sanitary sewer.
Capital lmpruaemerrt Cost TOLaA'4 320,000
(t)ce4 mnciar.ENR CCI+B W$rvwp."ic Cale,Novemeer Mae
I
Condition Ballarat
Retro Existing F.1-pup. Peak Flaws, d HOL Rank Pea.. Upsize Unit
Model Manhole IDS Diameteq Existing Capacity, Existing Retia, Diameter, Depth, Length. Cost,
G ID USM DSMH inches Sloe tl 006 2015 8uilaout Edstin 2015 Bugtlout PHIADd inches h fl $ Unit
1109 19979 19980 8 0.0150 0.90 0.110 0.93 0.85 LH LH LH ].5 10 19.0 364 195 flSpecial Considerations: NA
1110 1998019981 8 0.0050 0.58 090 0.93 0.85 LS LS LS 7.5 10 6.9 142 115 fl
1111 1998119082 B 0.0050 0.53 0.90 O.B3 0.95 HIS HE LE 7.4 10 11.1 345 141 fl
1112 1998213801 8 0.0100 0.00 0.80 0.93 0.94 DS DS I6 ].4 10 10.5 324 181 fl IL149EBEAse.,
2 bM FALN01 5MIXa 0R
1 9se_ -335 3665J24
aa5 ee rm try+ s'
] 1ss3e��.. s69 --
ivend
900 qh 962
Ee vlELo c. fN IU777
N y�I.NY F2 91 ~3.
0e' 109 S. Fw 13016 O
. 'e9X9VRv N EMp - .•rytF ,I 139]5
Mf9NE 0R
FERNp.LN aI
Mc 9
813
x w 5]959
Le9en d199]4
_ eY Ie l BATXERINF ei i 94
2101dm8
21039 y
Protect Doer
❑ Resldenfialdevelopmenl[iommur 1
❑ Indushieldeyelopment
❑ High Ill
❑ Pump station upgrade
WEST YOST
A
'� s
ASSOCIATES
West Yost-Mar 2010
CimofTan
il
51]03-06-14
$anil¢n'$cwer ModerPPlan
PROJECT-Shore Drive Trunk
Project ID: D-530
Base ConsW viion Coat 193 000 NOTE6'. Available tlala indicates iMs is an 8-inch sewer at substantleN slope(0.002 Nfl);slope entl tliamatersllouW be feltl mMletl. Location: Runs northeast from north of Amu 61.
Motleled existing Deak flaws sgnifcanily exceed capeciry,although oWgows are not predicted.The tributary area is subslanllal,
and additional 8-inch sewers upstream of MH 58224 to Wfton Ave.and possibly beyond may be similarly impacted because they Treatment Plant Basin: Durham
Contingency(30%) 57,900 catrymuchoftheflowprestrain the modeled segments.Upsbeamsewen should be evaluated before ordning preliminarydesgn Jurisdiction: Tam
Construction Budget Amount Sit- forthis project LoGUReglonal:
E i 'A (25%) Brief Description: Upslze-1,050 It of B-Inch diameter sanitary sewer to 12-Inch
diameter aanitary sewer.
Capital kt rovement Cost Toh : 310000
I,).-s I...a.ENRLCI.are2 even..o120811e.--w—
Common
&(yl �,fing
0u0tloul ConsWcticn
Foll-Pge Peak Ff...md HGLRdnk Peaking Upsize Unit cost(W.
Model Manhole los Utdrg Coocfty, Eftbng Ratio. Diameter. Depth, Length, CoA, Contingency).
G ID USMH DSMH filo e m tl 006 2015 Bulkout EkstM 2015 Buildout PH/ADWF inches fl fl 8 Unit S8121 502245]2620.0020 0.35 0.]3 0.75 0.79 IS I6 He V 12 i8A 239 188fl 45.000 6pecial Cohsltlemtions: Nq
8119 2]282 SB900D0020 0.35 0. 0.]5 0]9 IS I6 IS 4.] i2 19.4 2]2 208 ft 58,000
811] 5890D 58588D.0020 0.35 0.73 D.75 0.]9 IS IS IS 4.1 12 M%0 334 188 ft 62.000Bo02 58500130850A020 0.35 0.]3 0.]5 0]9 I6 I6 Ifi 4.] 12 B.6 ZW 14] ft 30.000
2 -'rMEPtA� MON DP
1Jd 0�335 ue es c4 �g 5
aj 0 3 fib 16238 ��65� 5 ceER LIC
S 13 t]"0
- 90g H 9e]e--
az IS .
ccl6Eo coq y :�O
N. so',non
22I f99 980 t 13876 0
I� +sHeum I, we°P a r... YMlF 7§11
�I,RyLillll, Felalnol.nT/g9MVIS
B R<nxs oa % ]di
`
s�
UUP O SBO 259 130 ,
fu W :•' ._ ^' 57859
HEW he to cm, Le
IF
w. ym emmn nru rn .� � _ Y_v: -21005 57490,
• 5149T
21090 6
Pro act Driver
❑
Roadembiddevainpurravot[strom I
❑ lodustdaldevelopment
❑
High N
Pump station uprose
WEST YOSi
ASSOCIAi ES
West Yo#-May 2010 Citv ofTiprd
517-03-0aniMm
6-id S5mM
ver mer Plan
CHAPTER 5. SYSTEM MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
The City conducts maintenance and repair activities in accordance with the IGA with the District.
The City is responsible for maintenance of gravity sewers less than 24 inches in diameter, and the
District maintains sewers 24 inches in diameter and larger. Under the IGA, the District has
adopted maintenance performance standards that govern the minimum nature and extent of
maintenance practices to be performed by the City.
The City's sanitary sewer maintenance program is summarized in the following sections:
• Maintenance Practices
• Other Maintenance Policies and Practices
• Staffing
• System Preservation
• Commercial Street Project
MAINTENANCE PRACTICES
Standards defining what maintenance activities are required and their frequency are included in the
IGA. The standards are provided in Appendix K of this Master Plan,reflecting changes adopted in the
spring of 2010. Selected standards are summarized in Table 5-1, along with relevant information
regarding the City's current practices. The practices described in Table 5-1 apply to gravity sewers
smaller then 24 inches in diameter. Larger lines are maintained by the District.
Table 5-1. Summary of Sewer Maintenance Practices
Maintenance Performance
Practice Standards Additional Details Regarding City Practices
Line Cleaning Routine cleaning Approximately eight locations require weekly cleaning
at least once to address grease build-up, about 13 locations are
every four years. cleaned every 6 months, and about five additional
More frequent locations are cleaned on an annual schedule. The
cleaning on lines remainder of the system is cleaned at least once every
in poor condition four years.
and in problem It is noted that TV inspections are required on a seven
areas. year cycle, and that cleaning is required for effective
TV inspection; therefore the actual cleaning frequency
will average at least once every 3.5 years.
Typical annual cleaning production is between 250,000
and 290,000 feet,which would result in a frequency
approaching three years.
West Yost—May 2010 5-1 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
Table 5-1. Summary of Sewer Maintenance Practice, cont'd...
Maintenance Performance
Practice Standards Additional Details Regarding City Practices
Line Repairs Dig and replace Minor repairs are performed by City staff and major
failing sewers as repairs are performed by a contractor.
needed Structural repairs to the portion of service laterals
within the public right-of-way are performed by the
City.
Line Joint Sealing As needed,then Joint sealing is not typically needed.
repeated every 5
to 10 years
Manhole Top As needed at a
Adjustments to rate of 2 per day
Grade
Manhole Sealing As needed at a Sealing activities are performed either by the District
rate of 1 per day, with special sealing equipment, or by the City where
repeated as quick-set cement provides a suitable repair.
needed
Manhole Repairs As needed, no
defined standard
Root Control Provide a list of
locations needed
either mechanical
or chemical root
removal to the
District.
Television Every seven years City conducts inspections on a cycle to provide
Inspection of at a rate of 2,500 inspection of each line at least every seven years. A
Public Sewers feet per day. grade is assigned to each sewer segment, based on the
National Association of Sewer Service Companies
(NASSCO) grading system.
Television No defined City requests residents notify City of blockages. City
Inspection of standard for inspects laterals within the right-of-way, and on private
Service Laterals laterals on private property to the extent the portion outside of the right of
(Private laterals on property,which way can be viewed with City equipment. City
private property are the reimburses homeowners where a private company has
and within the responsibility of performed an inspection and discovered a blockage
public right-of- the owner. For within the right-of-way.
way) portion with
public right-of-
way, inspect and
repair as needed.
West Yost—May 2010 5-2 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
Table 5-1. Summary of Sewer Maintenance Practice, cont'd...
Maintenance Performance
Practice Standards Additional Details Regarding City Practices
Other Non-routine As needed, no The most notable City work is stream bank
Maintenance defined standard stabilization which has been necessary in two locations
within the past two years. Stabilization is required
where erosion threatens to undermine and damage a
sewer, and is anticipated to be required at least as
frequently in the future.
Off-road Manhole N/A City annually inspects the condition of off-road
Inspection,Posting manholes, ensures they are adequately marked with a
and Brushing post, and clears brush to provide access.
Access Road N/A City annually maintains four roads that provide access
Maintenance to off-road sewer manholes.
Protruding Tap N/A When lateral taps are found to be protruding into the
Repair main line, they are cut to eliminate the potential
obstruction.
In addition to the items listed in Table 5-1, the City is also responsible for ensuring that new and
replacement sewers are constructed to industry standards, requiring post-construction acceptance
inspections of new sewers, requiring a one-year warrantee inspection of new sewers, responding
to customer reports, and responding to sewer emergencies. A report summarizing City sewer
maintenance activities is prepared each year and provided to the District.
OTHER MAINTENANCE POLICIES AND PRACTICES
Funding: Sewer maintenance activities are funded through the Sewer Operating Fund. The Sewer
Operating Fund is supported by user charges, which are collected by the City. A significant
portion of the collected charges are distributed to the District to cover operating costs at the
Durham AWWTF and for maintenance of 24-inch and larger sewers. The City also has an
agreement with the City of Lake Oswego to provide maintenance for a small area east of I-5.
FOG Program: The District is developing and implementing a fats, oils, and grease (FOG)
program, which the City will support and participate in. Initially, the District is inventorying
existing grease interceptors and sources of FOG. The City will work together with the District to
conduct public outreach and educational programs aimed at increasing the frequency and
effectiveness of grease interceptor maintenance and otherwise reducing the quantity of FOG
disposed of in the collection system. The goal of the program is to reduce the likelihood of
FOG-related maintenance problems and blockages. Currently, areas with many restaurants tend to
require more frequent sewer cleaning due to the build of grease, so the FOG program could
potentially reduce maintenance costs.
West Yost—May 2010 5-3 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
Extensions to Un-sewered Areas: Over the past 15 years the City has had a goal of extending
the collection system to all un-sewered area within the City to eliminate septic tank systems. To
date all but about 100 lots have been connected.
STAFFING
Sewer maintenance is allocated five full-time equivalent maintenance crew positions plus one full
time supervisor. This staffing represents one half of the total staffing shared between sewer
operations and stormwater operations.
SYSTEM PRESERVATION
The Master Plan analysis did not include an assessment of system preservation needs.
Nevertheless, the City needs to implement a program to provide for the long-term renewal and
replacement of sewer facilities. Most of the system is 50 years old or less. The oldest portions are
about 59 years old. Over the next 50 years, as the system age begins to exceed 50 years, structural
deterioration and failures should be anticipated with increasing frequency.
It is recommended that the City initiate a condition assessment and asset management program.
The program should begin with an inventory of the system age. System age and the results of the
routine TV inspections should then be used to predict replacement needs and quantify this
long-term liability. The asset management program can then be used to define funding needs for
long-term system preservation based on the condition assessment.
COMMERCIAL STREET PROJECT
City maintenance crews have identified a significant sag in the sewer on Commercial Street
between City manholes SS02AO10 and SS02AO12 (District manholes 19987 and 19988). Sags
require increased frequency of cleaning, and tend to obscure the pipe interior from effective
inspection. Such low points in a run of pipe are generally due to post-construction settlement, and
can lead to solids deposition and increased risk of blockage and overflow. Therefore, the City is
planning a construction project to correct the sag by rebuilding a portion of the subject sewer
segment,up to its full length of 358 feet if necessary.
The subject segment is part of a line that has minor capacity limitations. City staff has also
reported frequent surcharging in the sewer, which is thought to result primarily from backwater
conditions produced by surcharging in downstream sewers. As noted in Table 4-2 of this Master
Plan, consideration should be given to installing a larger diameter sewer in place of the existing
10-inch sewer. However, upsizing a single segment will have minimal benefit and is not
recommended unless a more extensive replacement and upsizing project is implemented.
Therefore, the maintenance project to address the sag should be based on maintaining the existing
10-inch diameter sewer. Depending on the required frequency of cleaning to maintain adequate
flow conditions, the City may find correction of the Commercial Street sag to be a relatively high
priority. The project is included in the CIP in Chapter 6 as a near-term project.
West Yost—May 2010 5-4 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
CHAPTER 6. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
This chapter provides a summary of the cost information presented in Chapters 4 and 5. In
addition, capital costs for gravity sewer upsizing projects are allocated to system development
charges. The chapter is organized under the following headings:
• Summary of Costs
• Basis of the Cost Estimates
• SDC Allocation
• Capital Improvement Cost Sharing
SUMMARY OF COSTS
Projects and their associated costs are summarized in Table 6-1, the CIP, at the end of this
chapter. The CIP includes the relative priority of each improvement. It includes recommended
improvements to existing 10-inch and larger gravity sewers to increase their capacity, regardless
of the funding source, as well as the top priority I&I abatement projects and an annual budget for
critical but non-emergency structural repairs.
The CIP establishes relative priority for sanitary sewer improvement projects for the City. Each
project is also assigned to one of the three development phases defined in Chapter 4 (existing, 2015,
and buildout). This Master Plan does not establish a specific schedule for the projects, which will
be determined through the work of the City/District CIP Committee and annual CIP development
by the City. In the event that prioritization with other District projects and the resultant schedule
doesn't meet the City's anticipated needs, the City may elect to advance specific projects sooner
than determined by the committee.
For existing gravity sewers requiring upsizing, the CIP lists the total length, range of diameters,
and replacement costs for each project. Costs include allowances for contingencies, engineering,
and administration. Where apparent by inspection of aerial photography, the costs include
adjustments for special construction considerations such as major highway crossings, rail
crossings, or construction in sensitive habitat areas. Additional costs associated with unique field
conditions would be accounted for in the contingencies. The Project Data Sheets at the end of
Chapter 4 provide detailed information about each planned improvement to existing gravity
sewers. The table indicates the estimated cost share allocated to system development charges,
based on the calculations described later in this chapter.
BASIS OF THE COST ESTIMATES
Unit costs are based on limited information appropriate for use in master planning. A variety of
factors will affect actual costs, including as yet unidentified field conditions that affect the
difficulty of construction. General economic conditions, as well as construction materials market
conditions and bidding climate can also dramatically affect cost. More detailed documentation of
the basis of the master planning cost estimates is provided in Appendix J which was developed
for the District's 2009 SMPU.
West Yost—May 2010 6-1 City of Tigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
Total capital costs include a contingency allowance of 30 percent, which is intended to reflect the
level of planning. As more detailed project information is developed and the estimate of
construction cost is refined, this contingency may be appropriately reduced for a given project.
Other project costs such as engineering, construction management, City or District administration
costs associated with the project, legal costs, and environmental compliance costs are incorporated in
an allowance of 25 percent of the estimated construction cost plus the contingency allowance. Land
acquisition and financing costs are not explicitly included in the capital cost estimate and must be
accounted for during the budgeting process if expected to be significant.
All costs presented in Table 6-1 are based on an Engineering News Record (ENR) 20 cities
average Construction Cost Index of 8,600. It is important that these costs be adjusted to reflect the
ENR index at the time of construction.
SDC ALLOCATION
For each gravity sewer replacement to provide additional capacity, the construction cost has been
apportioned in part to system development charges (SDCs). The allocation attributes costs to
SDCs proportional to the capacity provided in excess of current capacity. The percentage increase
in total gravity flow (un-surcharged) capacity provided by the replacement sewer represents the
SDC share of capacity.
Example: An existing 10-inch sewer will be replaced with a 12-inch sewer.
The full-pipe, un-surcharged capacity of the 10-inch sewer is 0.90 mgd.
The full-pipe, un-surcharged capacity of the new 12-inch sewer is 1.44 mgd.
The SDC allocation of cost would be 37.5 percent, as follows:
(1.44—0.90)- 1.44 x 100%= 37.5%
This calculation is performed on a link-by-link basis (see Appendix I). The cost is then summed
for the given improvement. The overall ratio of total SDC allocation to total cost for the given
project may be used to determine the final SDC share once actual final costs are known.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT COST SHARING
Capital costs listed in Table 6-1 are allocated to either the City or the District. In accordance with
the current IGA, the City is responsible for the capital cost of installing or repairing sewers up to
24 inches in diameter, and the District is responsible for the capital cost of 24-inch and larger
sewers. Capital costs for I&I abatement will be shared 50 percent by the District and 50 percent
by the City,provided that the abatement includes replacement of laterals.
West Yost—May 2010 6-2 City of Tigard.
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
Table 6-1. Capital Improvement Program
Planned Total Capital Cost,dollars
Approximate Pipe All Funding Sources District Share Cit Share
Length, Diameter, Near-Term Future SDC SDC
Project ID Description feet inches Projects Projects Funded Local Funded I Local
I&I Commercial St.Area(Tributary to MH 19993,NW of Hwy 99W;see Figure 2A); 4,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Abatement approximately 100 acres;area may be adjusted based on condition assessment data. Assume
$40,000/acre,including contingency,eng.and admin.(2 year budget)
Commercial Correct sag from MH 19987 to 19988(City MH SS02AO 10 to-012);identified by City staff. 358 10 90,000 90,000
Street Sag Consider upsizing per Table 4-2 of this master plan;however,upsizing a single segment will
have little benefit;recommended as part of more extensive replacement.
D-120 East Tigard Truck(replacement,upsize from 12-inch) 1,470 15 351,000 156,000 195,000
D-130 72nd Avenue Lateral(divert flow to Bonita Trunk at 72nd Ave.;cost represents an allowance) 60 10 200,000 200,000
D-330 Scholl Trunk(replacement,upsize from 27-inch);serves growth outside City of Tigard 3,343 42 4,100,000 2,800,000 1,300,000
D-335 Scholl Trunk(replacement,upsize from 27-inch);serves growth outside City of Tigard 1,853 42 2,160,000 1,370,000 790,000
D-340 Metzger Interce for(replacement,a size from 30-inch) 714 36 353,000 151,000 202,000
D-350/351 Elmwood Lateral, Locust Street Re-Route(redirects portion of flow from existing 21-inch) 6,330 18/21 1,983,000 1,360,000 623,000
Note: District Project.Diameter and length is for relief sewer,parallel to existing. SDC split at
percentage based on A endix I.
D-410 SW Katherine Lateral(replacement,upsize from 12-inch) 1,465 15 389,000 175,000 214,000
D-525 128th Avenue Lateral(replacement,upsize from 8-inch 1,175 10 320,000 143,000 177,000
D-530 Shore Drive Trunk(replacement,upsize from 8-inch) 1,048 12 314,000 207,000 107,000
Total(including one year of annual bud et line-items 3,411,000 10,849,000 5,681,000 4,915,000 681,000 2,983,000
Notes:
(1)Costs include 30%Project Contingency and 2510 Engineering&Administration.
(2)Costs for Special Considerations included.
(3)Totals me rounded.
(4)Project descriptions based on model calibration for Tigard area subsequent to Clean Water Services Sanitary Sewer Master Plan.
West Yost-May 2010 City of Tigard
517-13-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
CITY OF ARD
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
Appendices
H q V ^ %4
w.e
}Ix WV v:J
tll 9ry Vny ,IA
Y WI
y y
.,.1 .il
,41
vu .«
v' /fe:u erinn �wi 1n
ax. nrf
u:n
11'4
call tial
11 . YM. Ir11(IIi1111f
NII nll
Mal Itl •�<
flV x.V
KS• `114
xgl Vla
H11
+V
Ar:
If.
ya 1.1 �i
rxl qa
rl 806
11 an
11111
wl `I
13
nq
arl
IUIx
I(r 11
... IUIa L At
ure w'i 5a` i L.A� 0,
o lino ull � .el
i mll {, Nine(ifr
.0
WEST YOST 'w
k!t
A S S O C I A T E S uMlti� Inulalin
APPENDIX A
Oregon Water Quality Standards (excerpt)
The Oregon Administrative Rules containing OARS filed through June 13 20081
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
WATER POLLUTION
DIVISION 41 (excerpts)
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS: BENEFICIAL USES,
POLICIES, AND CRITERIA FOR OREGON
340-041-0009
Bacteria
(6) Sewer Overflows in winter: Domestic waste collection and treatment facilities are prohibited
from discharging raw sewage to w aters of the State during the period of Nove mber 1 through
May 21, except during a storm event greater than the one-in-five-year, 24-hour duration storm .
However, the following exceptions apply:
(a) The Commission may on a case-by-case basis approve a bacteria control management plan to
be prepared by the permittee, for a basin or specified geographic area which describes hydrologic
conditions under which the numeric bacteria criteria would be waived. These plans will identify
the specific hydrologic conditions, identify the public notification and edu cation processes that
will b e followed to inform the public about an event and the pl an, describe the water quality
assessment conducted to determ ine bacteria sour ces and loads associated with the specified
hydrologic conditions, and describe the bacteria control program that is being implemented in the
basin or specified geographic area for the identified sources;
(b) Facilities with separate sanitary and storm sewers existing on January 10, 1996, and which
currently ex perience s anitary sewe r overf lows due to inf low and inf iltration pro blems, in ust
submit an acceptable plan to the Department at the first permit renewal, which describes actions
that will be taken to assure compliance with the discharge prohibition by January 1, 2010. Where
discharges occur to a receiving stream with sensitive beneficial uses,the Departm ent in ay
negotiate a more aggressive schedule for discharge elimination;
(c) On a case-by-case basis, the beginning of winter in ay be defined as October 15, if the
permittee so requests and demonstrates to the Department's satisfaction that the risk to beneficial
uses, including water contact recreation, will not be increased due to the date change.
(7) Sewer Overflows in summer: Dom estic wa ste collection and treatm ent facilities are
prohibited f rom discharging raw sewage to wa ters of the State durin g the period of May 22
http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS 300/OAR 340/340 041.html
1
through October 31, except during a storm event greater than the one-in-ten-year, 24-hour
duration storm. The following exceptions apply:
(a) For facilities with combined sanitary and storm sewers, the Comm ission may on a case-by-
case basis approve a bacteria control management plan such as that described in subsection (6)(a)
of this rule;
(b) On a case-by-case basis,the beginning of summer may be defined as June I if the permittee
so requests and dem onstrates to the Departm ent's satisfaction that the risk to beneficial uses,
including water contact recreation, will not be increased due to the date change;
(c) For discharge sources whose permit identifies the beginning of summer as any date from May
22 through May 31: If the perm ittee dem onstrates to th e Departm ent's satisfaction that an
exceedance occurred between May 21 and June I because of a sewer overflow, and that no
increase in risk to beneficial uses, including water contact recreation, o ccurred because of the
exceedance, no violation may be triggered, if the storm associated with the overflow was greater
than the one-in-five-year, 24-hour duration storm.
2
APPENDIX B
Detailed Land Use and Development Condition Data
Table B-1.Detailed Land Use and Development Condition Data-Existing Conditions(2006)
ffi_. V -.-. ._:: _______ _ ....N. .II.Rx__ __ a1R__ - _ a _ _
vm..�io BIRa a- ?c a FF 1x
eIFR IR: "o,'"o,' xIF RI `-OIC _ 111. 11 9U0 RRFt SRI FR` SML1__ -. .r�ai .o. )R9
171
33
4nzz1
n - -
an
144
9W1
a]i
1] 17
4,21q
08
313
4:4)15
fi3 ui
0-7
414
112
_]4
V
M
m
4.99:
149I.elyt1 O44f1 _
-
1-4 117
661
129 11
11
118 1)'4
]<1
West Yost-May 2010 P.,I of4 Ciry ofTiSad
517-03-04-14 Soniml+SI—Mas.,Plaa
Table B-1.Detailed Land Use and Development Condition Data-Existing Conditions(2006)
................. 'n�
--------MAH-------wx— --------- ... ...... -----------------------—m. to
—1— .................... ----------—
s.IV Ito 'L !A IL NIFRI M111 la�l IXI 'I I,1 la�. PF ote Rota. V 11 11s, atal s. so. T9..
T9..
a�l Is
to,
Ifs
ato� �11
116
31 7
1,5
134 -
IM
M.) 1 741
IJI
141 771 I�V I I
,a, I to 97 1 11, 1 1
I as 1,aa 24
V, 11�13 I
"1 117 45 111 111 1 1
Va
I I al, - I 145 ll,
12 181 -
PS151
4. a W14 11 1
Ota
M} PA9
,It
Ia,
Is, 1 11 1�1
I a,
san I I t. t a,
I t10, 17 1 tI
Is 146 1�11 I 1�1
2s. 1 29 2 1 1 1 1 1
III 1�1 V 1 4 11 1,
21 R t,I
a. SPI
]534634 0 IN,I�a RV3� 4161 1 54 12 Z 11� I If",
�II7
I an, a 11
I-a,
I Is
all 141
Is I
4. 411
IiS
t
West Yost-Mal 2GIO Ps,,a 2 of4 On,IfT,.M
117-03-06-14 Sanitaii SeyvarMagar Plan
Table B-1.Detailed Land Use and Development Condition Data-Existing Conditions(2006)
Co........... .......... ....... ------------------------sl,:-------—-------- ---- -SOPA------------------------- ------------------------ ................................
IO Mew.tt (G11 cl, F., IF I.I I., MFR4 Islet I'll, IR", PF N15 0.RF I SMI 1W s1s's 14R1
M it 2
19 111
,F.
,Is
Is 11 1 ol
it 321
.7 1.
- II I'll t9 I
00151
214
IsI 1811 Is IF
Is l
ol ep SE
1.Is I Is,, 3 1 .11,
,Is 11 ..I�
".3
FFo 1 4
Ili 41 1
4s4 -il -
40 1 -
4Fs 111 11� 111
,no aonl
467 111
- It 1 17,2
18 l s 4 F7 I,I
I'sIdF - -
411 711
412 "1
41i
114 "1
416 "1 114
"I �57
sit
Ill F.7 Is
411 -1 s F's,
4221 111 1 FA 141
113 1
2
41�
0 114
4.
2
lo
o Fox ItI
Is
4o6 00105 127 F,, I
411 Is, 6 iron 1 N7 - -W- -
Is, 2 U
114
IF
517 1 —1 1
InOly
West Yost-Mn 2010 Plot,3.174 Cin ofT,,.Fcl
117-tF'-(F6-14 So.IF.,so—,M.,.rPlo.
Table B-1.Detailed Land Use and Development Condition Data-Existing Conditions(2006)
I'll Cnq..
........ ......... ......... ........ .......... .... . ---- --------
-----------------------------------
c" Fli 1
IN IL IMI: M ,lal 11.11 ancl all" In!,13 11 N.� R. 111, 1., l. Sim il I�l sl�
5!M "71
5� 116
7d an)
35
11 7
527 n." Ill
5_1 124 PI 411
f1 142 1 0
I)3 143
"I I 1, 22 1 4 71
"I l, 767
j n515 1 41
SA
141W "1
Sd
55, UOmI 4,n
Is, 641 111
9 l I
sei 111 1
IN249
---
U61U LV
595 152
117
$In
w,,I1y.%-Mnl20I0 final,4 of 4 cith ofmgand
117-03-06-14 Sanlftil,SCIVUr MoinCr Plan
Table B-IA.Percent of Buildout Development-Existing Conditions(2006)
L,M I., �M a. 'aS a,_ ------ --------- ---------------- ---
........ ......... -------------------- .......ML---------------------------
1� Is 1. FL 11aj MFR 11"1 In 11 tv t"s R11T 1IR11 s., SFR1 11R1 'a, I'x, SERA
ta
,a
�4
40 1
47
a,
saW. at�
51
11 111. al'
33
14 10'
taPa
laa�� a.
a,
a, 101.
2M
Inrt
1% "1
107IOM. I 1.-
P.
ln�
110 sal.
n, I Ins,
114
fe
n,
Wcat Yost-May 2010 P.,I of4 Cit,afM,aA
517-03-Ofi-14 Sannan Server Maswr Plan
Table B-IA.Percent of Buildout Development-Existing Conditions(2006)
lentlty Cn. C ________ _________ RM.R11 ___0.VR _ _ __ _ _ __
_ Ml ,fS'_
Poh mN M.ve tt' (G CY CO FF IA IH 11, �IN MFRI NIR• slfR.a MI RI MVC '.L 111r1 PF P�15 RRFl SFRI�� RI.SFR: R. ffR! "IMFRS � GFRY 1F0.9
13:
127
I1
n6 IOW IUM vP.
OR•.
Ir5
IJ(.
Idly
IU
IN IOOae.
41 w. IW°° IOVi
W:
146
4i
151
ISM1
IS] 1.
IU V.
Is, - - - - - - - - -
m,
�..
a. w
61•: IOM.
N p
- llpSU'e
W°
Lfi
IOM.
ve
West Yost-Ms,2010 Pzec 2vf4 Circ of Tigard
512.04-06-I4
Sanilan Srncr Master Plan
Table BI Percent of Buildout Development-Existing Conditions(2006)
N-11 mnoI
_II_( _ RAI:RN 0.40. _ ._-_ _ _ _._N_I_____\l:Rl_ _ ___
.C.... ...... ..... .......... ... .. .. ..._...... .:.._..._ ...:..........:.. . . ... ... ... ... .. ..
N M+w.CC Ff IX IL INI1 41FR1 MIR! MFlU MFRI
ol. I Po'.
Y
I Mr.
,xJ 7 101P.
W.
IQM. Pk
Ioil'. IJY:
IP e
Jol
Y1J
ues Ion•. - - - - - - -
um - 1".
-
aeTM
411
415
loo'.
+v a
4.
u� -
i
411
Iom:
GM:
u% Io
4w lo, - - - - - - -
W.
mM.
114
Wa Yost-May 2010 Pa,3 ofd Oh ofTI
517-03-06-14 S.ha,&,e,Me",,Plan
Table B-IA.Percent of Buildout Development-Existing Conditions(2006)
.......... - - r&
ImJLx P,
.... .
. . I Iagg� irr 'm soo, a;YFsi
...... w, va, .11, MIRE ri34 NalC, 's
P0,ID M—cc
SII N•
1N,
Sll
SN
An
555 -
591 IPY.
51
51�
o"
15 —176-1
—Tr—
Wr,,Yost-May 2010 Past 4 of 4 Cit'of Tigard
Sark,sr—,Mr'I.,Plan
SI]-03-!16-14
Table 8-2.Detailed Land Use and Development Condition Data-2015
-'"c, co "r:F 'ili f1 R ' urxls'""nlaz- Irren me _- -�u cz )1m re "F-e."s- arem slxl"" aax - -stA""" metas " 'sra - - sax§:"
u�
OnM
If
11444
215
1'
5) §701 ez v d
51 n
WO
a.
96
VE
nal
10,
101 V)5
u.
In, j
)l! lu3 47
3,11
"1 1144
1 I
wast Yost-Mav 2010 Pa,I.of9 Ciel ofTignad
517-03-06-I4 Sanital,Sever Masiw Plan
Table B-2.Detailed Land Use and Development Condition Data-2015
1.ars,11 1� I Ill IL ga, are I - i'a rs —.......:....... P, ....
----------IN...... .................... _ _---:................... lilTI.I......:...... - -----
-------- ------ - T- lgal onal Iliall Melia .11, sales all, en" ag-ri CI:. FIA] 1., 1. gas, llRA
'a -
la— a i
nTy
'a
rt
121
122
los 0 all
127 0 a04
Itsi I
Ia,
ts
re
132 in a Ile
III
ItA I"I u I
I a
119 as
all Ir I le 1 111
IV
710 8 Ja
145 - I ss a, 111
146 r 5e il"
147 Is I "in
19i
s,,
4 13
14
sl
- 141
1-4
n 7
ral.
Ill, r 1 0 146 1"1
lia a., 711 LB] Ola "I
ll� 4 r4 17'
M
24 14 al� j I 4l i
al
!s
14
PL�1:71"21,47:1MI 4SEn
0'a
P Et7
21
West Yost-Me,2010 Pa,2 o1 Car ef7o'gol
517-03-06-14 Sanitan Server Mager Plan
Table B-2.Detailed Land Use and Development Condition Data-2015
Ril�H. ........ ........... ......... -- -
------- -wd t., MIsl 'Iss "F� I Is, s.y tfAt 4R<
16
,is O1Fls, IOlMgi
iN
411
It,
"1 14,
11 4 19ll
1,s
t, 411
ILI
I Is 7
12 4 2i I lIs
4
3P1 1
st 2
,5 0
2 59
st 7
Is, -
"I Is t
,Is, 552
t" 199
sl� "I . .. ...
'so so I
t" 0"9 411
4�t s
402
11l - - - E -------T-
04
4M _Is,
Pi
220 j-- t 0134 SJJ
- -------- Is
410
"I
412
114
4�1
317 t
417 H3 is i
Cs 9i! IIs
4sl
421 �s I
423
os
421 s�,
4�
144
3pn
Wcst Yost-Mav 20 10 Page 3 of, C.,ofTi,,std
517-413-06-14 SaLlItao ScV,MaSWr P1211
Table B-2.Detailed Land Ilse and Development Condition Data-2015
....... -M ful lsPl . ...... ------ -- still
-- ------- ------------- --- 111.3 till. .11�1 li`�� ,,,6 Is, a.'r SM S., I'lli 11�
'k-I cu c()
457
,Is
oll, 1'7
oil sol
47(—
ns
511 st4l
llJ 12
515 482 14 uPo
t 14
)IP 19E
Is
114 l.5 -w5
151
An
12 4
is o
lo, I Is 12o
164 Is I
Is.7
217
nen
It I
51, 141
1. . I - ------ ------
'41 t74
o5o
M, 5Pe
say
or
$1, I'll, 228
114
141 t lo
sw
I Is
3 t I
'51 1 Is
lsos I
51, Is,
"7nv
is
24 9
I It I
17, 1 4 so 21 1
W"o Yost-May 2010 Ps,c 4 of5 Cal fTiss,if
517-0.06-14 Sanitan Sc,I,M.,s.,Pj.
Table B-2.Detailed Land Use and Development Condition Data-2015
.......... W-------- ----------- ......
�,�nxl. I-atR --MI-M4
147
131,
51,
Wcn Yost-Mav 2010 Page 5 of CipofTpd
Table B-2A.Percent of Buidout Development-2015
------------ ro-------------------- ......... ..... RM.AH..... R 1R -scIo It ors
ra'r- sons,C(7 CO 1. 'i It to —IF "Itt,
Is ite.,
10
to
Is
Is
Irs"
to.
50
!W6
31 %
51 ItV.
51
11 100'.
IAti
so
7�
,I ot. ete"
QoI. -— I.,
to ta,'. M1.
94
Is lee.
eI.
ims 51. 1
M4WI' e"-
T.
M.
pb
oat'.
M.
1.
le 1w.
IIl
IH
III
West Yost-Mr,2010 page I of, Cim of Tigard
517A3-06-14 Sati..'S—o'M.,PI..
Table B-2A.Percent of Buidout Development-2015
1 .,l ofN,Ldlill l t
T mJ Q� ---------------------------- ......c,
-------------------------------- ---
-----------
Dov mIU M.e ett CO'
A lI 11. Mt NFR MFRS AIFA. MFRS MI CI \I C3 A1C`) Pf MS RRrt SCRI Satl SF0.o SITn [FRS AF0.1
Ib
141
Ms
IPy. IOP.
141
I.
141
col.
7"
loo.. oe,
Z14
Te
za
le, IW,
211 1
Nat Yost-Mae 2010 Paga 2 of 5 Cin' fTgaoJ
517-03-06-14 soulo,Sm,—M..,Phl
Table B-2A.Percent of Buidout Development-2015
............
lo" lo, ............... or Ila7
------ I., RwFL! a., 1,,,I SFR4 ol�
2�
"I naw.
wi lowa
low.
a. Io, low.
"I low.
low�
low. Now* llw� wo. 11...
111, 31, now.
a'.
17�
now.
low. low.
low. lrw.no lows
wo low. lor.
"o.. low. I now.
low.
"I low. low. low. 1 11
117 low. low.
1. llw� lop�
lo, - - - - - - - - - now.
or now,
110,
4w OW*
offw
4. lowe ol
49 w%
�lo Ov.
412
al� lwr�
"I low.
410 law. lo% low.
417 low,
4o law.
aw, ill
aw. lot
4.
low.
425 low.
4. low,
low. low.
410 low. Ili
421
412
w.-
W`nt Yost-Mas 2010 Pa,,t 3 of5 Co,of Tigard
£17-05-06-IJ smijtan&Nycr Mastur Plan
Table B-2A.Percent of B.ido.t Development-2015
CIS FPS IR II IMI R\I.RX MFR) w-ki--- 4�i s e11W sm ----I-A I
-w-
2,. 1w.
4�J
514
RI
4 Rn
Poe
oo
sm
sn
lo,
szl
sze
szn
117
Ao W4
I.N
HZ Ime.
v,
lov.
9v-
SSn
117W W.55>
14�6 11
iooi.
$64
I Woe
E Elm
We,,YvI-Mm,2010 Page 4 ofS Cite of Tigard
5174)3L6-14
Table B-2A.Percent of Buidout Development-2015
1-0,- ........IRII ------------
....................Mt-- ......................
-
W¢ My MI. "I:. 111�11 o RRru r. M-1 11 Ma9
ol.
SM
WestYost-May 2010 P.,Sdf3 CihofTigard
517-03-06-14 Smlitan Sova W,.,Pl.0
Table B-3.Detailed Land Use and Development Condition Data-Buildout
--- ------- Aar A - vI II SCP1 Ill P
Pd mIU Ns m.CCco c� 06- ins Is, Ist'll 1. suv�l sl. .0 stv,
Bi In.11
ln
st�
702
Is
Is
In I's
Is
41 In,
IS
0 41 51
53
I LI sIl In,
7 1,1 is 2
s7 4411
s Is 196
a5.9 Is 1 491 i's 7 s
54
69 z
14 1's s
It,
tno, 07
26
o 7111 I's
PIS
NIS
lig
In
sl�
422
I's
ssl�
573
I's
no
2st
n 1'4 11 1 In
on� I In
,In 114
110 ssll
3 sj
un wu
14,
150
Wilst Yost-Ma}2010 P's I cf5 Cin offignod
517413416-14 S.ant,,sn—M.,.,PI..
Table B-3.Detailed Land Use and Development Condition Data-Buildout
------- --------------------- ----- ---- .............
iGt 5481 1. lvs9
117 -
119
121 179
o 197 412
5,1 1
U2 111" I's
Vl
104
44$
�12 118
------
0
712
ue
11 2 4 11
17
143 "1 411
14"
Isl 141
],1 172
4 11
uz
111 171
4 6�
451
Z14 114 1 11
14
4-� 6 11 470
SE311 1 4-11 21 jl �,l
W.a Yost-Ma"20 10 Pa,c 2 Of5 CiII,ofTigaM
517-03,0&14 SnnidnS,,,,M.Il.,Pilin
Table B-3.Detailed Land Use and Development Condition Data-Buildout
C CG M CU ........ ..- -.1.......................
ni--- --w V- ryf clRl Ina 1., .11. a., 91,
syn D Nartn CC :iwa�- Ir i
274 1 0 141 1
a,
ao
0001, 1 a
14� 16
al,
ID toOotl
sZV
In 67$
la 1did .51 4a I—
Iln
a 19 1
iIa
15 1
a.
03 845 111
"'
"'0
�52
3,g
'23
'9
a
a m 21 11
"I
2.36
44 9
a,I
4al
6 1�
4al —
all
�4
4al
4�1 05 al
RII
ill
411
all is!
411
Sid
1+9
all
417
al�
4.
2
a
a,
411
a..
la—
Wngy.,,M.,2010 p4c 3 of> Circ of7i,ard
M7-01-06-14 Saajaap& MaACr Plan
Table B-3.Detailed Land Use and Development Condition Data-Buildout
... .... .. ...
T 1, 111 IL NIRI `.IFRi 1�1 1. Muci _"M
........---------- I- 4-K 4w,_ -MR7sFRa SF R9
109
4�2 12 3
12,
3,4
3 3i
II
114
411 _ A514 1
5 31
I
Z14
141 111 0"11
71
?IZ
.
6i
141
�41
I Ell
141
I., Io
1A
51�
10
ItI
594
$R4
1�7
56A _ 411
Wcst YosE-May 2010 P.,hof 5 Cinofflgad
517U34y(,-14 Sa.lWn Smear Ma,,,,Pl.v
Table B-3.Detailed Land Use and Development Condition Data-Buildout
OJ--- -------
MFR4-I-- -1 1 1�-- --- --- - --j-.a;o .-
md_m; -I.- In --L- IL Mt,cl
bo 47
4.06 EaI
Wi
SP1 111
SYS
u
wcstvost-Mae20IO N,5.f5 ca,.ff.-W
517-03-116-14 Sanit,Sever Ma9crPlan
APPENDIX C
Aggregate Unit Wastewater Flow Rate by Service Area
Table C-1.Average Dry Weather Flows by Land Use Area-Existing Conditions(2006)
Rexitlenlial MI%.J tic Cammnvnl (1Pn No¢Ainidmlwl Tnlnla Aowoale
_lIJ'A} N.I Anil Fl..
I.mlJ llae CaliM1inliooa 1I'llimm No 1)i,I.... I)FI¢..m AD'T. Fun.[
PM....M Ful.. o ,I, A,- ADNT,00111 Ami 1P.:4.n-.J g1ll mNJm6tl plane
31 155 J6]. -' 1101 N_ 5]i 011102 1769
24 419 910 192 111010 1.92 0X110 53]
25 1!11 IOS 5 5 25
2" 049 12 2].3 It ULaM .15 OWJV 4.19
2' 1.1X1 'p$
$] 0.49 1146 0.1110 1 18] 0OWO I1i4
29 11 J9 83.2 U.(I Iis 6'.6 IU . ]12
1, 049 21x9 001100 1 . 1]6 60il 742
31 OA9 140.] iNot 14; 1 l 00.1 612
9$ 049 164 OIgLO 166 IIs OIlvj 142
St 049 1194 i)WI 691 678 011011 "42
id 049 6i: 00000 911 915 0W00 04X10
101 :4901.68 619 0.0068 1,098
?6 1110 9
155 I]I 0.17 151 00019 1098
51 151 4470 u- 0145 439 094; 1911
4s 146 1119 247 100456 349 00416 1'.69
100 LBfi 546 Ilfu]9 516 00,179 11198
40 100 422 0.WI 011010 0901 00010 1,,19
41 054 ]fit slit OOISi 164 00183 503
46 100 132 1100. 220 3ID 0000 152
47 054 111 497 0/1029 4]] 0.0029 597
49 1 m 1454 457 0012] 1 s2 00004 553 00220 :91
W 054 Il.8 10.1 L0Il93 114 00682 124 00756 608
51 1.W 5110 212 1100N 419 .(s.4 44.7 00091 204
52 0.49 V7 493 ooM 492 01,242 49;
53 049 1190 252 OD135 253 0065 Y+]
54 049 1993 068, 0,X1111 199 O,g115 199 00016 199
51 1 V 19]' 172 0,0;50 110 0.11011 555 .1-1 71 00546
61 IOO 191 5.84 I.5 II, 00064 1098
62 100 1410 284 011511 264 00311 1.098
I1, 4j,1 9,10 110099 1l4 11:1i 11191
N 154 IO]= 5.1: 0n161 513 00.x1 s9]
115 054 IIBI 00NI 215 Il 1, 211 0 13 597
69 084 811] 33 3 '0,166 00366 1098
70 100 fi3, 8111 1010 s 3 00230 2503
91 100 10'9 307 0015 559 34,1 111085 248
72 100 1660 236 Iloilo 815 1110088 IOA 0A05 911
43 IW 41111 '(,3 031.'1 0530 ].36 60181 2"1
81 111`1 %I 9.Is 1,00.8 1.18 061198 1.068
84 II)(I 1451 1'7 002114 178 1,,1457 8& 443 1161 1492
85 191 70 414 11,11454 414 111154 LU98
86 054 (1111 289 018117 2 89 00017 597
95 I.W 2369
9, IIt) 17i
97 1IA1 2766 11 WA 297 297 000'.1 151
99 1 YI 1712 9116 00034 i06 00034 109X
100 IAO 3195 0..1 869 00002 869 11,.1 405
I01 I'1 662 0997 0997
102 1 C) X710 319 211
to, I00 2142 660 660
004 Ins 1346
105 100 1.1 Of., 234 234 00005 202
1.. LW 1122 218 00616 00909 249 0:OLi6 2.558
107 100 95, 148 001110 155 00608 589 00618 1.049
108 I W 6(,1 4,. 000It 134 Lit 00014 218
109 100 15 12] 00145 911 01w 11), 0.115 1054
110 100 210.5 1 1i 00088 117 00001 466 00089 191
III Ito 7i I 112 0011q 142 11.95 324 000,94 1217
112 IW 1390 0618 0.02 0618 0018 277
115 1 W 151.8 191 :0358 128 ]I9 00258 358
114 1.05 1,,1 145 0.140 14.5 OW40 217
115 IMI W53 457 "Ill; 0.946 551 0X113
8
116 Is1. 751 145 .11139i 21.5 011169 36,0 110412 1,2)
is 1. ]59 154 1I✓14i Bill 281 116143 -Ss 118 IAO 1800 Il 1 ll 8.111 911 OO1I] 'S8
119 IU 1222 11'13.1 4411 110119 122 11Ufl-0 912
121 100 31.1 146 111xa0 11171 10.] 0.40 _'94
121 115 150x 31 J 10357 33 00397 199
122 11v 3II ISG 00.3 15- n0za 3s] 00319 c15
123 IA: lav 00069 SSF 307 un069 236
5•n
134 1111 9' 1 1i1 011116 N1 oA0il 2]0
_ n 196
12, 100 191 Ii I On036 1a5 149 00036 243
126 100 191.2 1]i i'w48 o",xv, 17; 09048 3]]
127 100 4s,211 313 in08] V.13S 311 0003] 275
128 IW 4;,1 25.3 0'481 lot 4 0 153 3)1 11 64
0132 1.1
129 IIXI 171, 219 .0 104 01114 341 011180 527
130 10 I'll '15 S 00]95 4(2
191 I. 7s 112 00440 6R 0005§ iiID11 11491 2,125
Is IIW 714 35 0016 01 9,49 192 391 OI2 873
IW 14 1 1 00117 3"0 O.IW11)412971
I Int 546 11112 2043
101
134 I. 1016 119 U 01;i0 9'1] 1 4 11.3 i 251.
I.3 1310 1211 162 00045 112 17?4 0.45 259
I.6 1 W 847 332 110093 - - - -2 0]092 277
139 Iw 438 397 folio 27' ::1.,1 492
I.a 100 x17 182 rano 251 Lal O 15 244
139 100 1]9' 147 '1119 352 UU(Ws 62. ,1fAll 12] will 1154
140 1 W --Ti,I1 142 ^0081 147 0.81 554
141 100 658 332 i, 10 9(n- 00106 11.7 00116 810
14E 100 1115 i3] 0.::.91 33] 1.0091 2]]
141 lao 1253 6],0 Of330 Sn 0008, 726 n-04O: 555
144 100 1261 156 10061 8]5 1.zzs 5 00195 8 o,z1 2153
145 IM 469 26,5 0:108 Ii85 0W05 030 28] 11.05 465
146 110 Yi4 10,9 pV50 0.19; OW76 ISO 128 00055 179
110 1602 192 0.03]4 SRS OW]6 10.1 0..162 140 0.091E 1,184
10] (S.i 1211 Ul1f0i 2 litio 9 184 Six 01,1:; I.I]1
West Yost-May 2010. Pose I:f 3 City of TigOrd
517-03-06-14 Sanitary$Ower Master Plot
Table C-1.Average Dry Weather Flows by Land Use Area-Existing Conditions(2006)
Re.iJmlml 11-0 the 100101,11011 Wtu Non-RvnlJaminl Tomli A4preanle
Ap➢T Nel Unit Flma
I.nllJ llw 1,1313'01 Nn llpelr Nel llpsli Net Up:¢ Ilpgr< ApP`F. I'ea
PUIr an ID Fn. Arimae Aerc AO\V4',rod An 'DPT..nsit _ I MPM1.not Ama nSJ IJ io
144 III LOA 7&1 nips. 8'k, 00221 11141 1].` 011310 1,'31a
150 11"1 1316 Ill nnio 181 00199 314 00942 1088
151 11y 1OG4 280 OnH'11 211.5 I'2=6 485 00597 1.222,
152 106 1529 211 .11658 4 5 1.rlo4 260 00119 434
is, 100 a6? 415 00011 413 00011 297
154 loo IIo5 914 0005 914 0093 277
155 100 1957 355 1.,a 355 00098 277
156 IAO ISa6 226 0ofs; 226 Demi 277
til loo 1126 807 1OIC -II oma,: 152 00229 Isn
167 0.54 109.2 I. Inose 60004 00.0 597
Ing 054 1551 319 OOILI it 00190 7
-ttl2 100 1183 .17 001120 897 00920 LW9
201 IAI 2092 870 00914 130 00994 1,0]9
204 IW 1233 5}9 00li8 559 00118 2-,a
205 IW 1.1 37i 0.147 2a4 0MA e0.1 0,14] 2447
soo IW 882 682 0.1]5 112 794 01]5 2,103
207 069 965 0.146 0( 1 0.146 00004 5,1 O.IW 503 O.I to 2,in,
I. 1W 712 2H2 Oo]3 320 00]25 22:4
209 Ito 94.s 160 0'1411 4./'9 20.7 01.11 1,Is,
210 100 1374 95.3 0410 418 01107 lI5 .1500 In 0421 3201
212 IW 1410 1186 025, 9tl6 0.3: 2��6%
213 100 1170 260 O.W-F 2111 6.WM1 2K8
214 100 119.1 13.9 002'-fi 176 110451 1111 I on 71i 0(1]]7 1490
215 100 111 11(),3 0155 276 fill 0,155 21=,
218 068 Ili2 OOq?3 II IXI00 II In",I nf10110 261 1111571 '61 (105.3 2199
29 095 H] 855 1 11112 If_11 0(its 219 00187 612 11lrs. IID7
2211 ILL I.I'l 1:6 "V 496 0.12i 154 55.5 n02 :'8
222 1 W 12 U 165 19 7 00217 474 0.127 26]e
222 IW 16&11 1 1$18 480 1.21 519 L!Lis, 158 0377 2332
221 IW IIIIF 0273 .012 11920 0101, 114 U"11] 126 110142 1.121
224 IN 1193 328 0024] 328 00247 ]55
226 160 1021 ]72 0111,15 64.6 10354 711 0Wit 529
231 1(IJ 61.7 619 00679 617 1111679 1.1110
232 f154 1199 0'IV f1.6Li1ll OW85 11NOO 547
235 014 770 73 1113 114 11.0410 597
216 IAO 69 1 547 .nion 54_7 11I1611p 1006
346 1(to 1392 2011 00932 181 00111 3a1 II M85 1.279
147 IAO 3660 986 001J 156 0WW 114 00414 863
371 054 189 184 OW2i Itl6 OW25 112
372 032 Int a2 OAIN, 242 ition iA`g
373 134 1148 1511 0oa21 750 10,21 Ifi9H
374 1 W 1593 16 a 00506 4 19 o MN6 n 0 6 0552 1-146
is Ito 1267 1s 6021,: il 0Wo, 51i 2W1, 401
i76 IW ila al 0Wr4 I owa( N0 00120 59]
3n Ino 534 ael ,0494 am lI: 11.411 Iw6
178 ton I's 215 00. 211 o0(Mo 277
:79 loo 1243 967 0248 259 0002, 1»3 Oz]I 2,12,
5,0 ton 1162 616 .054o 133 0nD9 354 00392 to O.I26 1144
581 IW 13].5 321 00945 32.1 10645 2^IO
582 I,W I0e2 0.269 OOWZ 887 00974 81, 11)J71 IIW
5,5 100 111] 902 0WL OWNOWN 902 (003 2]]
986 I W 459 226 012i 1"_' 00215 421 0mis ao2
9H9 1 I 2ia.2 2.14 OLLW "2 011117 PI 0061, 1011,
ill I.to I,a 2 189 "'Iso 331 00364 520 09"44 1,431
106 815 247 00261 433 0Mn2 680 012, 1063
ill I on I04 192 .0414 15.7 00144 9`A 00:51 �itl
395 100 re0 l,1 0Oill 220 0.0191 ul 1)n5n2 517
111 Ino 472 q 5 10152 2(2 01124 Is On9-, 2.497
17 1 o ssl 119 IIsn' 0x197 3211 1.083 27
355
Inn eta Ij ol29 Toi82 1111, 6.239 N2
399 111, -61 18� 11 1.15
24 9 . 1 1nm
18, 1
1.0 2]]
4W 6 '6U 352 60112 9.1? 454 0112 247
401 IIn1 71ri 228 11376 661 Illl 172 292 1 11 is IYSY
4n2 11q Im..i 419 00116 25.5 573 001111 2113
4Ji I3j 5J5 25.1 00150 25.1 00151 597
JG4 11'0 1_'_S 932 0.0851 322 )Sts
40s 1"1 286 00259 23.6 I, " 1.098
763 -
4U5 Ii1%, ,i,1 1 71, .114 17J 'PoinLOBS BHA O1 dJ "190
X17 Im 29,7 M OIS 12fi .0138 2'0 0.172 4417
1
415 100 1-,11 111 .11565 .61 12, OIL fib 441
419 In] 111 7]l 0053] 0.31119 861 0,0041 112 It Ill 1101
II'llto Ii, 542 O.li9 541 1199 2569
411 100 13x9 2A.ft OOIIFU 769 0.198 21.53 1206 1.944
412 092 2551 255 0200 255 0290 Loss
413 1ta 21ia 111 0122 111 0122 Lion
414 IW 721 151 .211 151 10236 1.100
415 1^.11 :2) 212 00213 212 60293 I.I OI
416 055 1517 124 OOi19 H] .302 150 0,934 210
417 100 are 113 00291 it2� I I 1 00291 2511
418 I W L4fi sit 00239 911 0Win 21568
420 1.W 622 269 0n359 107 00275 2111 387 01635 1440
421 lis 479 240 00744 1Z9 29i 0'744 2$41
422 IM 14x3 Ilii ,11141 126 0.123 12] 0127 .17
429 IIV - 216 Oil 245 IITL
424 IV 171 143 OW41 142 11141 271
425 IOV ]fa Iz 011:4 I1- .0134 277
4y: too 241 249 O6:M9 21.9 0ON, ]2]
421 110 'i I9i 005114 Sn6 n2 00054 231
428 100 118 144 O904a 11 It nano 244 00150 n14
4Y' IW 1100 112 .nm1 - - - Iu 0.6051 277
4311 I0 6-1 61z 01918 O.Ir:I - 642 O W18 273.
432 10n In7] 9]3 n.Im 9'3 Doe 479H
44, 1 W 11;1 1160 X60 999 031140 999 11004H 4].9
449 051 1914 11111 199 IVpIR Iv:9 00(g7 152
457 1 I
West Yost-Mat 3010 Page 2 of 3 City of Tigard
51]-03-06-14 Saint,Sesser Master Plan
Table C-1.Average Dry Weather Flows by Land Use Area-Existing Conditions(2006)
Revdmnul I. Cnt G-Gil ULn NarzReeuWunxl Totoll APWepelu
,DPT Net Unit Fla,
LmW 1Itt hFbmt [Lux Na llpnn Ill....1pai Na 1),l 01111 ADUP. Pnn
Pula on In Fav n Au ,rn n N3NF ere mpd A 9)W, d AD'NE mi, Am. m J ,3 Gv
45! 1181 YAe SSc Ou61J 55:'r ODER L9R
0e
466 049 4i 121 LL0152 4,2] 1 0025 "I 110117 iW`
467 161 144 L15 Dtg9t -it UW91 351
470 049 274 1 1 1,1021 216 6111 0W21 942
480 161 J.:O 365 01116.4 931 11_0165 456 00327 "/15
512 140 1339 134 0,230 134 0290 069
513 148 594 160 00055 433 0,0071 602 00131 IPA
501 049 1085 542 o1a49 9z6 'YL .0041] u4v s06
515 a49 147 155 11167 412OW60 141 54.0 00128 9]2
516 L 161 6it 60445 fl04 3931 00445 1.153
517 IFI 362 149 0.67 931 0411. 243 G:.11 275
518 IFI 26% I]I 110314 19l 04000 191 G]2I4 1,122
519 161 '76 3RR 00431 971 001]2 ARI 00513 1,019
520 161 119'1 2976 00218 24.8 702918 878
521 lbl 16BA' lM2 UA412 90Wu 9fNNiJ 382 00.173 I,IS'
5429 161 6611 562 00161 15.1 00266 515 00428 834
523 16) 2110 142 OA387 142 00387 2,728
524 161 130,5 28.1 90.135 21.1 Solis 471
525 16i 414 476 011212 4?6 00212 446
526 161 1598 3113 1'0141 31.7 00141 446
527 1111 %5 362 Mill 36.2 00161 446
528 ltil 129] 172 01 ill 0831 IflG 00422 2,341
529 161 12,l 3182 :'0219 367 JI: 00219 524
530 161 581 13.3 1333 137 00096 ]02
531 161 152 319.9 00279 125 7111168 524 011447 854
532 1 209 14 G 7176 I,1 116 'It', 399
1 ;5,0 12,0 .1199 262 146 G.AlI 61,
534 1^.1 368 534 0)-173 248 302 piIJl 574
535 049 4115 471 11W19 24 110134 296 ¢p193 fiq
536 049 323 282 0-0152 281 00152 1
537 .49 435 399 .0116 30.9 D01P 11
536 049 556 914 11 GGG1 809 00101 1.25
539 148 657 6 0 110 04
215 Iy1 24' 211 00411 291¢2
51, 1"1 1176 6.10 1101"6 611, 00196 3111
541 111 521 31 8 0.,13160 1 Y5 4G i 11.17 1124
542 ili 644 Int 002NI 155 11.11 2,12 LL4:38 277 G1"] 117G
543 049 1 54o GGG2J 5411 111.211 511
Sit, G49 4P_ 105 G4131 1.1 011121 144 GG152 IM.1
145 111 451 111 O W2fi 110 OA040 ]42 0W1. 974 1.11 94G
146 G4 ,'I1 22. 002'1. 0555 011103 235 00263 I"I
147 1149 517 Ill G1247 170 0.011 nF 11026 111
54. 049 Ill 156 OG447 00447 1155
55
149 11 It W, It OOIR 611 071'171 118 11.0145 619
5511 Ills ii I211 11.88 E9R UOGRR 1,255
551 Goa 1515 261 0012. Ill 00323 1,255
5R 11h 0187 316 0m9I 316 nw9S 1355
554 041 71'1 253 DD1n 13 D1UV 1.255
554 GJ9 01 1112 627 11Wito1111 G OaWI OODW 157 Dolls111102 798
555 049 1010. 14 070292 641 OW80 225 1 102 44
551 OAY 117'. 0142 11901 901 0,0113 415 0011) 1.251
55] t .158 110211 172 OAIM:O 370 00211 571
55. 161 557 l916 fI.01YY 415 00634 474 110X43 1776
55L 1 711 635 110382 is 772 10182 491
560 1.61 SFI 432 110143 9:98 00176 532 0.0369 694
561 161 lo].] 18..3 07',.7 183 a
I4fi562 161 665 240 00248 2411 1..7f6 161 81G l"t 0107 840 1.275`64 161 9:1 :96 00212 430 44.1 618S65 161 2039 11.0126 3'8 254 495"1 149 ]93 528 0GoG 264 00466 712 1,195$n 100 51]
511 049 2]1 OW05. 5.13 631 -151569 1149 99' IG1 110482 305 1.2555]8 G49 426 4.R OOD57 42 Itis583 GA9 Illi 111 OA14 121 1:2555114 161 1157 186 GOWe 175 ILG722 361 3154H0,
3 60275 IIN(W 5 = LIGI28] 0I2i5
7I'In J.2
J GGGIO I7It 394 1,it 253
1149 657 ]116 00119 152 110190 I 1 11 11W32 282 011292 I.D36
West Yost-Flay 2010 Page 3 of3 City ofTigard
517-03-06-14 Sanitary sl'G,Master Plan
Table C-2.Average Dry Weather Flows by Land Use Area-2015
Residemiol Miad Use Commercial Odin Non-Residenlid Tocols gig�eime
No, Unit Flow
Land Usc Net Upslteam Net Upslr Nel Upstream Upetieam ADWF. Fast
PakgonlD Acres ADWF.mgd Ants ea ADWF,mid Aires ADWF.med Anes mod ipdacm
21 5]5 00102 575 00102 1769
24 4766 0.0010 0 766 0.0010 1343
25 2.10 0.0199 2,10 0.0199 9500
26 1.10 00104 1.10 00104 9.426
27
29 0.15') 0 W0 058] 00069 074] 0.0071 9.500
29 636 00242 (3 9134) 2.54 0.0242 9.511D
30 1.76 00067 (1058p 0.705 0.0069 9,500
31 779 00296 14011671 00063 3,78 0,0359 9500
32 3,66 0009 (2 1953) 146 00139 9,500
3-1 478 0 023 (40649) U.W00 200 00257 9.500
34 D 000 00000 366 0.0348 166 0.0348 9,500
35 7.05 O068 7.05 00068 9(A
36 9.14 0.0017 9.14 0.0017 182
37 429 0743 429 0743 1.731
38 )4,7 00436 247 oW36 1.769
39 346 0.0379 346 00379 1,098
40 235 0.0837 23.5 U,0837 3;561
41 344 0.0183 31+4 OOUQ 503
46 737 0.0280 737 00280 3sOO
47 858 0,0168 858 D0168 1355
49 457 00127 982 00094 555 0GRo 397
50 10.1 00073 121 00942 131 0.102 772
51 282 1 00008 419 00084 G.7 00001 204
52 49.2 0.0242 49.2 00242 493
51 25.2 0.0135 252 OOIiS 537
54 11.686 001101 199 00015 199 00016 8
5] 58,7 0178 120 00017 63118 0.183 124 1 1363 2.932
61 .584 00064 5M 00064 1,098
62 284 011311 28,4 0.0311 I'm
63 9.04 0.0090 9.04 0.0099 1.098
64 5.13 0,0031 5.13 0,0031 597
65 0.0067 0.0000 233 DWi9 2.,3 00139 598
69 313 40366 333 00366 1,098
70 8.98 00230 898 00230 2,563
71 30] 00085 359 00000 343 0.0085 248
72 236 00007 803 0.0088 10.4 O.W)5 913
82 ]03 0.0181 736 00.4 11.0181 1255
13 12.6 0.0098 126 0 D698 7T/
84 22] OU204 1].8 00457 384 44.3 00661 LIZ
95 4)A 00154 414 0W34 11198
86 289 00017 2.89 00017 59]
95 116 0,80 116 0,880 7600
96 163 00062 129 0OJ88 145 0.05511 =200
97 0129 4.32 1o164 383 11.145 3800
99 122 0,0034 1,22 00034 2.744
100 M6 0.1414 11203 OW02 108 00,106 3,749
101 32.1 0.122 32.1 0.122 3,800
102
103 460 0.175 460 0.1]5 3.800
104 942. 0512 00.2 0.512 5429
105 312 0.118 163 0333 100 1,05 5,429
106 248 0,0636 0.0909 249 00636 2558
107 3.48 ODOIO 609 00687 64,4 11,0697 1,082
108 4.98 0.0014 1,66 6,65 00014 208
109 189 0.0152 91.1 OJDO 110 0115 1.049
110 693 00088 397 00001 466 00089 191
111 182 003W 158 00152 34,0 0.0451 132`)
112 0618 OUWz 0018 D002 277
113 59.1 0.258 13.1 722 00259 357
114 I45 0.0040 14.5 OAHU 2A
115 5.94 0.0021 0,946 6.89 O,OMI 300
116 14.5 0.023 21,5 0.0169 360 O.W62 L282
117 15.4 00043 130 284 00043 150
118 331 0.0017 816 413 00317 768
119 73.2 0.0331 490 00539 122 008M 712
120 116 00040 0,171 149 00040 274
121 310 00397 31.0 00397 1,279
122 153 00115 187 0.0205 34.0 0.0320 942
123 2].l 0.0082 5,57 32.7 0.0082 251
124 309 0,0086 0,796 317 COW 270
125 13.1 0.01136 3,14 162 00036 223
126 173 OOOJB 0.0048 123 000!8 27T--
127 317 8,01190 0.864 328 00090 276
128 233 00280 138 00152 37.1 0.M32 1,164
129 Yet 00066 104 0D114 341 00180 527
130 205 00095 205 11 l095 462
131 172 P0.0440 971 00059 269 011499 1,85]
132 35] 00168 949 192 471 11,0412 873133 141 00117 390 162 548 0,112 2,043
134 119 UMO33 O.W7 129 011033 256
135 I6A 110045 1.12 174 00045 259
136 332 00092 332 11..92 277
13] 27] 00130 271 00130 4]2
138 182 o005D251 20.7 DOOM139 958 OWJ5 252 900 OWII 130 0,130 1.001
140 14:7 O.1., 14.7 0.0081 554
141 3.52 Dnot 0 9,63 110106 13,1 0011fi 880
002 33] 0009"+ 337 00093 277
143 67.3 0.021 5.63 0084 1 729 QM05 555
West Yost-May 2010
517-03-06-I4 P.,I of? City fT,,wd
SaniWn swwr Maser Plan
Table C-2.Average Dry Weather Flows by Land Use Area-2015
MiIDPOW Mimed UU Com tial OIIm Non-R<sidnvial To 0, Agy,.Ic
Nel Uan FImr
Lantl Use Net VVs0e0n NeI UVSIreom NetUOT. UVmxam ADWF. Fonor.
POP],P. 160 Aarca ADWF.mgd Acrea ADWF.and Ams ADWE.,d Anes mid d'ii-
H4 156 Dom 825 0,225 197 0.0216 123 0.262 2,136
145 277 00115 195 00026 1108 300, 00141 459
146 109 Og13D 0193 00005 1.50 126 0.0035 2TJ
142 213 00286 5.45 0.0076 10.1 060062 36,9 OW24 1.151
148 1211 DOW 232 00059 184 536 0D063 1.171
149 764 0,0089 860 00221 145 17.] 00310 Ip53
150 133 11.0143 18.1 aOM 314 0,0342 1,099
151 280 00371 20.5 00226 483 00592 1,229
152 21,1 D0058 4,95 00054 26.0 00113 434
153 4.13 00011 4.13 DDo 11 277
154 9.14 00025 9,14 00@5 2n
155 355 0.01198 355 00098 2]]
156 zx6 0.0063 226 000(3 277
157 802 u0D47 711 00183 Is2 u0229 1511
162 DODM 0.0000 0.0004 00000 597
168 319 00190 319 00190 597
202 837 0.0920 833] 00920 1099
203 870 00934 820 00934 1.073
204 539 0.008 539 00138 2.568
205 57.3 0.14] 284 00000 60.1 0147 244]
206 682 0.177 112 214 01]] 2229
207 0146 0.0DO3 0.146 00004 x48 0.109 55.1 0110 1993
208 29.2 OD]34 3.79 320 00734 2,289
209 160 00411 469 207 01011 1,986
210 95.8 0.410 418 O.IIM 323 00000 132 11421 3,181
212 986 0,253 986 0253 2,568
213 26.0 0.11668 260 0.0666 2.568
214 465 00450 U,6 0.0451 204 0.0654 84,5 00855 [,ml
215 603 0 2086 632 0.155 2452
218 00058 0.60000 00061 0DODO 26.1 00573 26.1 0.05]3 2199
219 8.59 0002] 330 O.OB46 227 00187 W2 D.IM 1651
no 4.36 00088 496 0.123 534 59.3 O.G2 2226
221 277 0105 197 060217 474 0.127 2670
222 !33 Ong 43.0 Oy821 526 00571 159 03]] 2.372
223 028 00012 DAN Door 146 00117 158 00141 898
224 328 O.ON7 328 11.0247 755
226 732 00023 (210 00354 713 0.0377 5
29
231 61,7 00671 017 0.0679 1100
232 00083 0.0000 00083 0,0000 547
2315 Ti4 0.0438 734 00438 597
236 552 00619 552 D.W19 16122
346 25.1 0.0362 183 0.0154 434 00516 1189
347 105 110451 16.1 0.0000 121 U.W51 373
371 186 00576 186 0.0x76 3,093
372 24.2 LLU266 242 O.U266 1.098
373 75D 0082 750 0.0823 1.098
374 368 00506 419 0.0046 410 00552 1.346
375 419 O,D233 958 0.0005 51.3 0,0238 463.
376 123 0.0034 279 0.0086 200 00120 597
377 283 0.0494 5.14 334 0M94 1,08
378 215 0.0060 215 0.0060 277
379 96,7 0248 4,87 00028 IU2 0251 2,468
380 61,6 0,0540 132 0.0339 45,9 00667 121 0.155 1,281
381 321 D0645 32.1 0(16{5 2.010
382 0269 00005 887 00974 89.0 00979 L100
385 9,02 0W25 OWN 0.0000 902 DDU25 27
386 226 D0123 195 0.0215 421 00338 802
389 262 00009 552 00607 578 00616 1065
391 189 0.1380 33.1 O.W64 520 0.0744 1,431
393 247 0.0261 433 0M62 690 2073 1063
394 792 00414 IS] 04144 DID O,Os5, 588
395 906 00391 28.1 00413 119 00803 677
396 37.8 OD96D 262 00024 40.4 011984 2.437
397 33,0 00094 0D187 0.0001 330 0,0095 288
398 68.4 0oris 0,M52 0DIX10 68.5 Dong 348
3911 183 00051 183 00051 2]]
404 362 00112 120 482 00112 233
401 ll8 0.0376 669 OD172 295 O.D548 Lfl59
402 41.8 0,0116 153 572 0.0116 213
403 25.1 110150 21.1 00150 597
404. 373 00353 37.3 00353 948
405 236 OU259 23.6 0.0259 I'm
406 713 00511 171 00188 884 0,0699 790
407 257 0158 220 0N93 279 0206 739
408 111 00566 172 128 00566 HI
409 77,7 00537 253 00650 8.63 0.0041 112 0.123 1.101
410 54,2 039 542 0139 2568
411 28.8 0,0080 769 0198 106 0206 1944
412 255 0,280 255 0.280 1098
413 111 0.12 IN 0.122 1,098
414 IAI 00166 I5.1 0.0166 1,100
415 228 0034 229 0.0233 1.021
416 12.4 0.11318 139 0302 152 0,334 2.205
417 11.3 0,0291 191 34,4 00291 955
419 931 44239 172 110 00239 2,167
420 2.'9 00359 ID] 00275 2.14 388 0063 1,637
421 290 0.0744 0349 293 0.0744 2537
422 - 163 0.0042 134 0.123 135 0,127 932
4ZI 1 233,6 O,D466 0905 24.5 00011, 267
424 1 143 1 LLD.D 1 143 LLD041 277
Wag Yost-May 2010
517-03-06-14 Pap 2 of 3 City ofTig.M
SPIDW,Sesror Mager Plan
Table C-2.Average Dry Weather Flows by Land Use Area-2015
Reslda isl Meld UU C.nonaslvl Chhe,Nay-Rroidonvl Totals ,gSVmBvm
Net Unil Floss
Land Use Nei UVaMmn No,UVrveam Nei UVSMam Upsalsm ADNF, Facro,.
PolvpalD Aai'ex ADWF.in&d Aean ADWF.m6tl Aci'es ADWF mbd Acres m8tl Gdacrt
425 12.3 0.0034 123 0OM4 2]]
426 249 00069 249 0.0069 2]]
427 19,3 0,o054 386 23.2 0.1.54 231
428 14A 000!0 IOD 00110 24,4 OU150 614
429 11.3 00031 113 OW31 2]]
430 6.3E 0.0018 0.30) 663 00018 264
432 923 (s 107 973 0.107 1.098
448 541 0.206 915 0338 146 0.544 3,733
449 174 00661 251 00065 199 0.0]2] 3.650
45]
458 559 OW14 559 00614 1 LOW
466 12 1 00152 4.E7 O.OD23 163 00174 1.067
467 205 1 00091 553 00038 26.0 00129 498
WO 385 00(121 2.16 6.01 00021 342
480 365 00163 931 00465 458 0W27 715
512 134 0237 134 0237 1,769
513 169 00055 6233 000621 G02 OD131 2.180
514 502 0.0049 92.6 977 00049 51
515 155 00067 482 00WD 140 343 00128 372
516 312 00445 804 393 00445 1,133
519 14.9 00067 9.31 00000 24.3 0.0067 275
518 17.1 00214 1.92 00000 19.1 OD214 1,122
519 36.8 0.0331 971 O.D172 466 00503 LDN
520 248 00219 248 00218 878
521 382 0.0442 00065 00000 382 OIM2 1.157
52 362 0ol(ll 15.1 00266 513 00428 834
an 142 0 03R 142 00387 2,728
524 28.1 00135 Nrl 00135 424
525 476 0.0212 476 110212 446
526 31] 0.0141 31.7 0.0141 446
527 362 0.0161 362 00161 446
528 172 0,0422 0833 180 (1.0422 2.341
529 3862 00219 367 410 00219 524
530 13.3 0my6 0333 137 00096 702
531 39.9 00224 127 00177 526 0M56 867
532 14.0 0.0062 1.63 15 0 00062 1 399
533 120 0.0040 262 14.6 00090 617
534 534 0.0173 248 20004 30.2 001]] 587
535 4.71 00459 249 0,0134 b.6 0.0193 651
53(. 282 00152 282 0,0152 537
537 32.5 00224 325 00224 692
538 841 00119 841 00119 1.419
539 670 0.0215 144 0,0249 211 00463 2,192
540 610 0.0156 610 00196 3,205
541 38,8 11,0660 L86 4o.E 00660 1.624
542 102 0.0290 153 0.6,33 2.12 0608 27.7 0,0961 9070
543 5.40 00029 540 0,0029 537
S. 10-5 0.0131 389 00021 144 a 015 Lefil
545 262 0W26 33 70 01446 3.42 0.0018 914 00091 930
546 228 0.D2tl6 1 0.555 0.0003. 233 1 00289 1,238
547 196 00247 1 1 7 0.0009 213 00256 1,198
548 356 OW47 35,6 00447 1,255
549 116 00114 6.11 0.0031 17.7 0.0145 819
5506`J8 0.088 6.98 00088 1S55
551 161 0,028 26.1 0.0,328 1,255
552 316 0,6397 31.6 0.(139] 1.255
553 253 0 031 253 0,0317 1,255
554 6.40 0 000 927 0,0116 0.9001 0.000 15_7 00175 798
555 161 0,0022 641 OOD80 ES 00102 454
556 0,142 OWN 901 00111 915 00114 1,251
557 353 00211 1?2 O.Owl 370 00211 571
558 6.16 0.0199 413 0o634 474 0.0833 1,756
559 625 00382 138 ]],2 (1.0382 495
560 432 00193 998 00176 53,2 1 0.0369 6%
561 18.3 11082 183 0,01182 446
562 240 00248 240 00248 1 1,037
563 ".a 0.107 840 0107 1275
564 39,6 0.0272 4.57 0003 442 D0275 623
565 222 060120 359 D,OOID 257 0.0146 566
566 528 0.11480 26.4 00466 79.2 0.0946 1,195
567
568 6.11 0019 3r 9.24 0.019 203
569 30.5 0.038E 305 00382 1255
578 452 00057 452 0,0057 1,255
583 15.1 001X9 15.1 00189 1.255
584 18.6 0,0668 175 00722 36.1 0.139 3854
585 25.0 00276 0(1306 25.1 00276 LIN
586 28.7 00360 2%.7 00,160 1.255
587 ]51 0.0417 731 00417 555
590 224 00010 170 00013 394 0.U033 842
591 706 90069 15.2 OA190 1 595 O0032 282 00292 LD36
West Yost-May 2010
517-03-06-14 Page 3 of 3 City ofTi,,d
Sanio n Seder MasterPlan
Table C-3.Average Dry Weather Flows by Land Use Area-Buildout.
R aidccnrl Mimed USc CeracrocIal OILee Non-aevidenXnl Totals A88e<8ele
NetUnit Flo,'
I.-d Use Nel U9sv Net UPnm suc Net UVeueam U".as
ADWF. Fun
Set".lD Aeresea111 ADNP wBd Acres ADWF.m6d Anee ADWF,a,d Acres
mad 8Fd'asm
21 259 0.0832 25.9 0.0837 3LX
24 396 0119 39.6 0.119 2998
25 14p 0129 34,0 0.129 3.800
26 702 0167 702 0.267 3,299
27 741 0282 ]42 0182 3,800
28 0159 00006 252 0.0925 2s9 00981 '3,X00
29 335 0,127 335 (1.12] 3,8(10
30 222 0M43 339 0,129 561 0213 3800
31 49A 0188 240 0,0910 734 027) 3800
32 30.3 6.115 303 0.115 3.800
33 216 0.0935 134 00510 380 0.145 3.800
34 0966 00037 20.5 O.OA9 21.5 00816 3,800
35 8.73 O.ONX X,2 00068 M
36 5X,4 0.127 SXp 0.127 2180
3] 41] 0808 47 0808 1,807
38 - - - 112 0363 112 0363 3342
39 454 0 077454 00777 1,710
40 235 00937 235 0.083] 3,561
41 615 00X96 61.5 00&%6 1.459
46 421 0160 00029 00000 42.1 0160 3.800
47 138 00359 138 0,0359 2 OO
49 52,8 0.0168 149 00094 675 00262 388
50 10,7 OPOOt 185 0327 196 0,337 V23
51 102 0W51 4504 1 0.0094 560 0.9135 240
52 660 .0.60 660 11.09110 1,302
53
424 00602 42,4 0,0502 1,421
54 0.686 0.0001 199 00015 199 11.0016 7.97
57 123 0441 4,81 00123 697 0193 198 0647 3.2]3
61 5.84 0.0064 5 84 00064 1.09
62 692 0.181 (.92 DISI 2,6119
633 904 00099 9N 00099 IG98
64 100 00193 100 0.0193 I'm
-
65 00075 00000 118 0362 118 O.i62 3,057
69 532 0.109 532 0.109 2,654
70 Its 0.0354 us 00354 3,141
71 311.7 0,0045 3.59 0.01100 343 0.0085 248
72 236 00007 X.03 0.0088 104 0.0095 913
82 7,03 110181 7.36 144 00181 1255
Si- 224 0M55 224 00455 20.5
84 227 0,02N 968 0149 3-89 63,3 0169 2.171
85 41.9 O.N72 419 0048 1.129
86 9.66 0.0265 966 00265 2745
95 232 O to 232 0Se0 3X0(1
96 12,6 00477 123 0.0488 25A 00965 3,800
97 674 0256 4,32 0,0164 71.7 11212 3.800
99 135 0,487 135 0,487 3,601
100 250 00951 115 ON16 36.5 0137 3741
IN 662 0252 662 0252 3,800
102 or 2.18 573 2.18 3.800
103 15X 0.601 158 0601 3,800
IN 00003 OOD00 135 1 0.512 135 0.512 3,800
IN 571 0217 250 0.949 307 1.17 3,800
106 25;1 0,0671 (1OIN 255 0.0671 2630
10] 348 0ONO 75,7 D0994 792 MOO 1.268
IOI 4.98 00014 256 7,54 00014 183
109 19.9 11.0194 106 (1.155 126 0075 1.386
IN 693 DINS 399 0.091 469 0 Q08 190
111 192 00341 12.2 0.0152 3f4 -(TM--92 1.355
112 0.929 00004 44.5 454 00004 7]]
113 672 00304 165 837 0.0304 364
114 145 00040 145 0.0040 277
115 737 00029 150 887 00029 327
116 149 0.0309 374 0D224 523 0,0534 1,020
117 15.4 0,0043 110 284 0ON3 150
118 33.1 0,11317 8.16 413 0,017 768
119 732 00331 490 0.0539 122 00870 712
120 14.8 0,11042 0171 15.0 0UN2 280
121 31.1 0,0398 31.1 00398 1,282
122 15,3 00115 18.7 00207 340 00321 945
123 294 00095 557 35.0 (1,0095 2T3
124 309 00086 2,41 00086 257
125 13.1 00076 4]9 17,9 0,0036 203
126 173 0ON9 0574 18.1 00W9 2T3
127 32X 001196 264 355 It 0096 270
124 24,2 0,02X5 138 00152 380 00437 1,149
129 217 001166 104 0.0114 34,1 00180 527
130 201 00095 20.5 0.0095 462
131 623 0,299 163. 0.0059 78.7 02% '3.739
132 359 00169 949 0,0244 409 49,4 0,0412 834
133. NO 00120 393 0102 235 563 0114 2022
134 12.8 00all 192 147 00038 259
135 162 00045 1.12 174 00045 259
136 332 0)0092 332 00092 277
137 29,2 00150 292 00150 512
138 21.1 0(1(167 3.66 248 0OW7 272
139 127 0.105 25.2 0.0645 27.2 0.0352 180 0203. 1,141
ND 147 0M81 14.7 O.W81 554
141 352 00010 963O,OIOfi 13.1 O,011fi 880
142 33] 00093 ii] 0.0093 277
I4J l+`).5 0I13J4 5.63 00084 ]5.1 00418 556
West Van-Ma}2010 Page I of Cit}of Tigard
517-03416-14 Savile,,Smau'Mestn'Plan
Table C-3.Average Dry Weather Flows by Land Use Area-Buildout
ReederOm Mixed Use Commercial 011-Non-Rceida..is[ Tcodv kgg¢gme
NoUnll Flux
Lanil4c Nel Uysvenm Net UVxve- Nm u,temm titim'm ADNF. rti.,
Po15'gon ID . ADWF.mgd lots ADWF.mgd Acrcf ADWF.Mgd Aana m8d d.....
144 156 1 0,0160 AJ.5 0225 224 0.0216 125 0.262 2.0117
145 302 1 00148 2.15 00034 211? 352 0.01112 Sift
146 13.0 0.0043 0193 WDOS 3.24 165 OOO4g 289
147 26.7 0,03T1 545 O.0076 10.1 00062 42i 00515 12]8
148 Ifig 0.0006 2.32 00059 306 209 0.0066 929
149 774 00090 8,83 00233 243 19.0 0.0323 1,700
ISO 137 00156 1111 0 N 317 O.w53 1.118
151 283 403X3 205 00226 08 00608 1,246
152 211 U.00SB 495 00054 260 0.0113 434
133 4.13 O.WII 4.13 00011 277
154 9.14 00025 4.14 0.0025 279
155 86,0 00101 360 0,0101 281
156 2.30 00065 n.0 00065 282
137 8.07 00047 232 00194 154 0W41. 1.565
167 52,3 0191 523 0.191 3,659
168 53:1 DM66 53.1 0.0)66 1820
202 - - - - 837 00920 837 20920 1099
21G - - - 117 02115 IIJ 0105 IJ43
2M 539 00138 539 00138 2.568
205 83S 0299 3,51 000'25 870 0291 3348
2% 77.0 0.225 112 AA2 0525 2.546
207 0.147 0.000"i 0147 0,0004 1.32 0.171 635 0.172 2,703
2118 423 0149 3N 46.1 1!149 3,241
209 214 0.0702 469 26.1 00702 2,6')2
210 95,8 0410 4.68 0.11134 36,9 11.0168 137 11,440 3,2115
212 111 0.353 239 00874 141 0441 3,126
213 45,1 0170 45.1 O.UO '3.770
214 465 0.0350 22.5 0.104 325 0.0054 108 0.145 1,346
215 756 0238 5.17 80.8 0139 2941
219 00058 DOOM 0INI 0.0000 36.6 0.149 38,6 0.149 3.838
219 RR 00029 33M 0.6893 423 0.162 847 0254 3,002
220 4.86 11011' 533 0.137 5.34 636 0.142 2322
221 277 0105 375 00867 652 0192 2$39
222 677 11 Mo 45,6 00927 547 0ONO 168 11,437 2603
223 7.61 00701 18 0,0085 146 00117 25.5 00903 3,537
224 370 0.04111 37.11 WADI Itw
226 732 00023 1 64.9 00322 722 0NOS 560
231 617 090679 617 00679 1.100
232 00083 D000o 00083 0ONO 547
235 770 00571 "0 0.0571 742
236 63.1 00908 63.1 0.0908 1440
346 29.1 00532 217 00160 50.8 0.0692 1361
347 1115 DM51 280 U.IIIIIIU 133 00451 339
371 307 6.102 30.7 0.102 3,315
372 48.0 0.114 480 0.114 2367
373 111 0713 111 0213 1.926
374 38.5 0.0523 4.19 D046 427 00569 1332
375 41.9 00234 9,58 0NM 515 0D239 464
376 12.4 00040 103 00177 23.7 00217 957
377 410 0.100 128 53.9 0.100 1,863
370 217 000(,1 217 DOOM 280
3T) 115 0347 9.34 0.0028 124 0.350 2.813
3110 698 00887 132 00339 532 0.0743 136 09197 1445
381 323 00655 323 00655 2.026
382 129 00049 287 00974 900 0.102 1.136
385. 902 0.11025 Most 0,1X100 9,02 0,002.1 277
386 226 00123 195 0 02 15 421 00338 AO2
389 3.13 0,0012 552 0.0607 56.3 1109619 1D61
391 18.9 00320 33.8 00389 52.7 11.0708 1,459
393 247 00261 56.8 0.0497 915 00759 930
394 821 DDNO 18.3 0.0144 105 00604 573
395 103 00463 330 0.0413 136 00876 644
396 446 0.129 2,62 00024 472 1 0131 1 2:776
397 3'.2 0.0096 21`I 00001 55.1 1 00097 1 176
398 684 110238 1798 1 00000 862 D11219 276
399 12.3 00051 183 0.0051 277
400 516 00292 244 76.0 0.0292 3114
401 233 00398 669 00172 30.0 Weis, LAW
402 44.8 00133 197 645 0.0133 207
403 $9.5 (1118 59.5 0118 1.985
404 122 0311 122 0311 2,537
405 23.6 00259 236 00259 1,0)B
406 744 00529 17.1 00188 91,5 00717 793
407 272 11.176 220 (1 W83 294 0224 763
408 137 00715 113 156 0.0X5 459
409 103 00682 372 0229 312 0.0209 IJI 0.226 1323
410 619 0.181 61.9 0.181 2921
411 33,2 0D105 102 0332 135 1 0.342 1 2536
412 255 0.280 255 0.280 1.098
413 111 0.122 )11 0.122 I'M
414 15.1 0.0166 15.1 0.0166 LIDO
4U 228 0.0233 228 00233 1,021
416 125 0.0323 139 0.302 152 D335 2.207
417 678 0334 1991 868 0334 3,&19
418 120 00383 172 07 0.0383 2M7
420 210 00467 292 0.128 395 - 62.2 0 17 2805
421 312 0.08(,4 1.48 32.7 0.08(rl 2.615
422 1.63 00042 147 0.170 142 DIN 1.173
423 241 00068 0905 250 00069 272
424 143 u0N0 143 00040 277
West Yom-Ma}2010 Pse 2.1`3 CO)ofTlgard
517413416.14 Snn10m&-i Maan PIN
Table C-3.Average.Dry Weather Flows by Land Use Area-Buildout
Residcmial Mimd Use Com tial Other Non-Re[idaRial Te lis g8gsegalc
Net Unit Flax
Land Use Net Upete Net UPsv Net Upstream UpNeem ADWF. Faclos.
Pch ID Acres att ADWF m6d Acresea ADWF mad Acres ADWF.,ngd Acres mgd 5d,e.
425 12,3 0,01134 12.3 0.0034 277
426 249 00069 24.9 00069 2T!
427 IY3 OOD54 3.86 2'32 (1,0054 231
428 144 00040 10.0 0,0110 244 00150 614
429 11.3 0,6031 113 00031 2]]
430 6,72 0.0020 0]1] ].44 0002(1 267
432 108 0.145 IN (1.145 1345
448 166 0.633 132 0,49D ID8 112 3](4
449 619 0235 132 0,497 193 0732 M82
457 30,9 0.113 309 0.113 3.659
458 568 00848 5fi9 0.0648 1.140
466 122' 00160 427 0.0023 165 (1.0183 1.111
467 407 00260 438 0015] 94.4 00417 494
470 405 0Mtl 2.16 6.21 00029 466
480 367 0.0164 9,31 00165 460 00329 714
512 134 0.237 134 0337 1.769
513 169 00055 433 0.0077 602 00131 2.180
514 526 00060 926 97.9 00060 61.0
515 159 00084 482 00060 140 347 00144 415
516 314 0.0446 9.74 412 0 M46 1084
517 14.9 0,0(167 931 (1 WO 243 0 NO 275
518 172 0@14 192 00000 19.1 0)214 1,119
519 454 110390 991 00172 55.1 11,(652 1,003
520 264 00227 26,4 00227 861
521 389 OW54 e(AW 0000 589 110454 1,168
522 394 Oolso 15.1 00266 544 00446 820
523 W.2 O.03R] 142 00387 2,728
524 43.1 00222 43.1 00222 516
525 49.0 00215 480 00215 447
526 339 O.D154 331l 00154 454
527 362 00161 362 00161 446
528 175 00424 il$33 183 (10424 2316
529 54.2 0.015 591 599 00315 526
530 15.5 0.0108 614 21.6 0%08 502
531 42.1 00292 33.1 0.017] ]52 0,0469 624
532 14,7 O,W67 6.15 209 0(10.7 320
533 14.1 00102 3.011 172 00102 596
534 534 001733 248 00004 302 001]] 587
535 4,71 000>9 37.0 11'P209 31 7 M268 847
536 373 00493 375 00493 1312
537 325 00224 325 O.1224 692
538 8.41 00119 841 0.0119 1,419
539 6.70 00215 27.2 0,01a 33.9 (1,0472 1391
540 6.10 D0196 6,10 00196 3,206
541 390 110670 186 4(1,9 0,0670 I639
542 102 00290 160 0.0667 2.12 00038 283 00995. 3,56
543 540 0OD29 540 0.0029 537
544 10.5 0.0131 3el 00021 144 00152 1.061
545 661 0.0195 445 00087 404 00018 15.1 0.0300 1990
546 22,8 00286 0774 0.0011 23.6 0.0297 1,260
547 19.6 00247 170 0.0009 213 0.0256 1,198
548 357 0 N4 35.7 (1.0449 1,259
549 120 00132 129 0.0067 249 00198 T28
550 6:M 0.0099 698 00088 1.255
551 26.1 0 M 26.1 00328 1,255
552 32.1 0'422 32.1 00422 1.316
553 253 00317 253 4(1317 1255
554 6,411 0,0009 927 00116 00001 1 0.0000 15,7 0,0125 798
555 163 00023 641 00080 22.] 0.0103 455
556 0.142 00001 967 00149 981 0.0150 1,531
557 35,5 (10213 1.72 000011 37.2 00213 571
558 616 00199 413 0.0634 474 00833 1,756
559 655 0 W67 14.1 A6 00467 588
560 48.1 011221 998 00176 581 003,18 684
561 18.3 001182 18 3 00082 446
562 30.2 0,05115 302 00508 1.684
563 P.4.o 0.10 x40 0.107 1275
564 437 0,0302 282 00027 72,11 00329 458
565 236 00135 141 0.0020 377 00155 411
566 529 00484 26A 0,D466 793 00950 I'
567 100 00025 100 ODM5 250
568 852 0.0121 Is(I 221 OD121 447
569 30.5 0.0382 505 00382 1,255
578 472 O,W68 472 00068 1.433
583 15.1 0.0189 15.1 11.0189 1,255
584 20.8 00761 176 00731 384 0,1411 3,882
585 302 00313 00306 303 40312 1.033
586 39.1 00380 29.1 00380 1308
SN] "A 00609 84.8 00609 718
590 662 00036 7.17 0.009fi 13S 00131 952
591 706 OlIM9 153 O.0W 5.95 110032 21st 0@92 I,UD6
wee,Vosl-Ma 2010 Par3 of3 City of Ti4 and
517-03-06-14 Saniw,Sct.ul'Masmr Plan
APPENDIX D
General Flow Data Analysis Approach (Excerpt from the 1995
Collection System Needs Analysis Report)
APPENDIX B-2
DRY SEASON FLOW DATA ANALYSIS
EXCERPT FROM
1995 COLLECTION SYSTEM NEEDS ANAL I SIS REPORT
DRY-SEASON FLOW DATA ANALYSIS
Excerpt from Section 4 of the 1995 Collection System Needs Analysis Report
Prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc.
GENERAL APPROACH
To conduct a collection system analysis, there are three basic flow components that must be
evaluated and characterized:
• Dry Weather Flow (DFW) is the collection system base flow or the sanitary flow
component. Typically, this base flow has consistent, predictable daily and weekly flow
patterns. These flow patterns are dictated by the land use contributing to the flow.
• Wet Weather Infiltration (WWI) is assumed to be a constant flow during the wet weather
season. WWI is site specific and depends on the ground water elevation and the physical
condition of the collection system. Infiltration into the collection system is only possible in
sewers and laterals with defects such as cracks and open joints.
• Storm-Related Infiltration and Inflow (SRI/I) is infrequent flow that is closely correlated
to specific storm events in the service area. The storm-related infiltration portion is caused
by pipe defects coupled with temporary changes in the ground water elevation resulting from
a storm. Storm-related inflow results from interconnections between the storm and sanitary
sewer collection systems, or direct inflows into the sewer system through manholes and
broken pipes. Isolating storm-related infiltration from inflows is difficult; however, the flow
response time to a storm event is significantly shorter for inflows than for infiltration, and is
typically used as an indicator parameter.
For USA's collection system, these flow components were defined by analyzing flow data
collected at 123 monitoring stations and rainfall data collected at 14 locations throughout the
study area. The general approach to the flow data analysis (shown in Figure 4-1) included the
following steps:
• Dry Weather Data Analysis. Unit flow factors for average dry weather flow (ADWF) and
diurnal flow curves were developed for model input.
• Wet Weather Data Analysis. The WWI flow component was assessed using flow data on
non-storm days (i.e., flow data that is not influenced by a specific storm event).
• Storm-Related Flow Data Analysis. Storm-related flow responses were analyzed to
determine the volume and pattern of flow into the collection system.
.4ppB-2 Flow Data.bial�sisE:xcerptdoc 1
• Unit Flow Generation Factors Development. A set of unit flow factors was developed
based on the ADWF, WWI and SRIII data. These factors were used to extrapolate flow
conditions for unmonitored basins and for future conditions.
• Plant Influent Analysis. Flow records from the treatment plants were analyzed to define
wet and dry weather seasons for the above analysis. The records also were used to determine
the average dry and wet weather flows and hourly flow patterns for model calibration
purposes.
• Point Source Flow Contributions. Point source flows, such as large industries, were
identified and site-specific data were collected. These data were used to define average daily
flows and diurnal flow patterns for point sources.
The following discussion outlines the methods used to analyze flow data, identify flow
characteristics, and predict specific hydraulic conditions that will occur in the collection system.
Analysis of Flow Monitor Data --
Figure 4-2 is a schematic flow diagram of the analytical procedure used to analyze the DWF
data. There are two components to this procedure: analysis of ADWFs, and definition of diurnal
curves.
Average Dry Weather Flow --
The ADWF data from the flow monitoring stations were combined in a single database, which
included land use data for each monitored basin. The land use data, extracted from the Block
Group Database, are expressed in terms of development units, either dwelling units (DU) or
1,000 square foot of commercial and industrial development. The land use information is
divided into IS land use categories.
The objective of the analysis was to define the unit flow factors to be used to generate flow
assignments for the collection system model. These unit flow factors predict the wastewater
contribution per development unit for each land use category (e.g., the land use factor for
weekday flogs from the Single Family Residential No. 1 (SFRI) category is approximately 143
gpd/DU). Using multiple regression analysis, units flow factors for both weekday and weekend
flows were defined for each land use category. These are summarized in Table 4-1.
,IPPB-277ce pcta:lnncYsrsacerptdoc 2
Table 4-1. Unit Flow Factors for ADWF Assignment
Population Weekday Unit Flow Weekend Unit Flow
Land Use Category Density Factors Factors
Acronym Description (cape` Median STD° Median STD' Units
SFRI Single Family Residential 2.4 160 14.46 171 14.07 gpd/DU
0-3/acre)
SFR2 Single Family Residential 2.4 160 14.46 171 14.07 gpd/DU
(3-4/acre)
SFR3 Single Family Residential 2.4 160 14.46 171 14.07 gpd/DU
(4-6/acre)
MFR1 Multi Family Residential 2.3 200 1808 213 17.58 gpd/DU
(2-25/acre
MFR2 Multi Familv Residential 2.3 200 18.08 213 17.58 gpd/DU
(>25,acre)
RR Rural Residential 2.3 160 14 46 171 14.07 gpdfDU
CN Neighborhood n.a. 84 21.66 65 21.05 gpd/1000 sf
Commercial
CG General commercial n.a 84 21.66 65 21.05 d/1000 sf
CC Central Commercial n,a, 84 21.66 65 21.05 d/1000 sf
CO Office Commercial n.a. 84 21.66 65 21.05 1000 sf
U, Li ht Industry n.a. 84 21.66 65 21.05 d/1000 sf
IMU Multi-use Industrial n.a. 84 21.66 65 21.05 d/1000 sf
IHHeavy Industrial n.a. 168 43.3 130 42.1 d/1000 sf
PF Public Facilities' n.a.
NZ Not Zoned,Areasn a.
Notes:
1)Excluding identified "wet" industries.
2)Public facilities with significant inflow should be treated as point inflows.
3)Not zoned areas such as highway right of ways.
4) Standard deviation.
5)Assumed target population densities from demographics study.
App F1__ Fin),.Data_inahwi Ewerpr_doc 3
The correlation between the recorded and predicted flows using the unit flow factors for the flow
monitor basins is illustrated in Figure 4-3. The following assumptions were made in the unit
flow factor analysis:
• 1992 flow monitoring data were used to match the 1992 land use/demographic data.
• All single-family residential categories, including the rural residential land use categories,
were grouped together as category SFR.
• All multiple family categories were grouped together as category MFR.
• All commercial, light industrial and multi-use industrial categories were grouped together
and called CO/M.
• Trial runs proved that a better correlation can be obtained by assuming a SFR to MFR unit
flow factor ratio of 1.25, and a CO/IL to III (heavy industrial) flow factor ratio of 2.0. These
ratios correspond to typical observed ratios in other collection systems.
• Flow contributions from "wet" industries were deducted from the total basin flows, but the
development area for the particular industry was not deducted from the land use database.
This approach was adopted by assuming that the "wet" flow is a process-related flow, and
that the industry still contributes to the base ADWF.
• In the multiple regression analysis, it was assumed that all cross correlation between factors
was negligible.
Diurnal Flow Patterns --
Diurnal flow patterns are defined as a dimensionless hourly flow with a daily average of 1,0.
Diurnal flow is calculated by dividing the hourly flow by the average flow for that day. The
approach for defining typical diurnal flow patterns is shown in Figure 4-2. The objectives of the
analysis were to categorize the flow patterns according to land use, and to define the anticipated
variation in the peak flow conditions. An analysis of the diurnal curves at USA's subbasin
monitoring stations indicated that four basic curve patterns occur. These are illustrated in Figure
4-4 for average weekday and weekend conditions.
The factors most likely to influence diurnal curve patterns are basin size, basin configuration and
land use. A comparison of data for the four curve types shown in Figure 4-4 proved land use to
be the predominant factor, which is consistent with previous experience classifying diurnal
curves. Four land use parameters were used to define the relationship between land use and
diurnal curve type. These parameters were then used to assign curve types to subbasins for
which monitoring data were not available.
_1ppB-2Fo+r4
The following is a description of the land use parameters and their influence on the diurnal curve
pattern:
• Ratio of Single Family Residential to Multi-Family Residential (SFR/MFR). Experience
showed that basins with a higher ratio of single family residential dwelling units to multi-
family residential units are likely to have higher morning peaks and lower mid-afternoon
lows.
• Ratio of Residential Dwellings to Commercial and Industrial Development
(RES/COM). Basins with higher RES/COM ratios proved to have higher morning peaks
and lower mid-aftemoon lows.
• Ratio of Industrial to Commercial Development (IND/COM). Basins with high ratios of
industrial to commercial development in combination with low RES/COM ratios proved to
have relatively flat diurnal curves.
• Industrial Development per Acre (EqD/acre). Basins with IND/acre values of more than
1,000 ftZ/acre in combination with low RES/COM values proved to have very flat curves.
This illustrates a predominantly industrial flow component.
Table 4-2 summarizes information for each curve type with respect to diurnal peak and land use
characteristics. Figure 4-5 summarizes information on the land use parameter ratios for each
curve type.
Table 4-2. Diurnal Curve Category Definitions
Diurnal Curve Category
Parameter Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4
Weeklv Peak 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.to 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.
Occurrence Time 8:00 a.m. 8:00 a.m. 5:00 a.m. to 11:00
Weekdav Peak 1.75 to 2.2 150 to 1.75 1.25 to 1.50 1.10 to 1.50
SFR/MFR >2 >2 <2 N/A
RES/COM 2 to 20 >20 2 to 20 <2
IND/COM <3 <3 <3 >3
IND/acre <1 <1 <1 >1
Other Characteristics Low early Medium early Medium early High early
morning and morning and mid- morning and mid- morning low and
mid-aftemoon aftemoon lows. afternoon lows. almost no mid-
lows. afternoon low
:.ppd-2 Flow Data.-lna4sisErcerptdnc 5
Diurnal Curve Peaking Factor Adjustments --
The curves shown in Figure 4-4 represent average diurnal flow patterns from the drainage basins.
When combined with the ADWF from the basins, they simulate ADWF conditions in the
collection system. However, for collection system evaluation purposes, flow conditions other
than the average daily flows (e.g., maximum-day flows) may be needed. To simulate these flow
conditions, the peaking factor for the diurnal curves must be adjusted. This was accomplished
by preparing a log-normal distribution analysis on the peaking factors for each diurnal curve
category to predict the maximum-day peaking factor(the 99.7 percentile). Based on this analysis,
each value in the diurnal curve was adjusted proportionately to increase the steepness of the
curve, while maintaining a unit average daily flow.
A second adjustment was to calibrate the diurnal curves for the individual collection systems. In
this step, the steepness of the diurnal curves within a particular collection system (such as Forest
Grove) was adjusted to match the observed diurnal flow pattem at the downstream treatment
plant. This step was necessary to calibrate the flow patterns generated from "typical" curves to
the basin-wide characteristics of the particular collection system.
Two additional diurnal curve adjustments were considered, a lag time adjustment and a basin
size adjustment. The lag time adjustment could be applied to compensate for the time of
concentration between the point of entry and the flow monitor station. In the model, flow is
routed into the furthest upstream point in the collection system. This results in a lag between the
observed flows and the model prediction. The diurnal curve timing can be corrected to
compensate for the lag time. However, a lag in the diurnal curve will not influence the design
flows predicted by the model. Therefore, the lag time adjustment was not considered essential
and was ignored.
The average size of the sanitary service area used in the model is smaller than that of the flow
monitoring basins. It is expected that the diurnal curve peak at the point of entry for the smaller
service area will be higher than what is observed at the downstream flow monitor. An evaluation
of the influence of basin size on the peaking factors showed that the increase is relatively small.
It was concluded that if such an adjustment were needed, it would be incorporated in the
calibration adjustment factor. Thus, no separate basin size adjustment was applied.
App B-?hlow Dntn.9na)�Yrs Rrcerpr.duc
Hourly Wet aned Dry Daily Average acct
Hour y Rainfall Data Weather Flow Data Hourly Plant Influent
Data
Estimate Dry Weather Analyze Daily Influent
Unit Inflow Rates and Data and Define Dry
Diurna!Flow Patterns and Wel Periods
`J7 IF
Estimate Wet Weather Determine Dry and
Infiltration for Non- Extraneous Plant
storm Days Inflow Conditions
ID Storms and Stoma Determine Typical
Related Inflow a^d Hourly Plant Influent
Rairdall Data Patterns
Analyze ADWF,WWI
and SRI/I and Define
Flow Generation
Factors
Use Flow Generation
Factors and Plant
Inflow Data for MODEL
Calibration
SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM OF THE GENERAL DATA ANALYSIS APPROACH
Appendix B-2
Figure 4-1
Demographic Dry Weather
Data Flow Data
Extract Demographics Ext-act Data From USA
Dal From
RUS GIS and Reformat Data
Data for Each to Matrix Fo•mai in
Flow MonIlor Basin Spreacsheel=_
Get Peaking Factor Calculate Calculate Average Dry
Information from Unft Dimensionless Weather Flow per Basin
Diurnal Flow Data Unit Hydrographs
Generate Flow and Calculate ADWF for
Outrun paNr ms,% Each Year and for
Dtslribubun Parameters Diumal Unil
for Each Basin Type Hyd mgraph Figures Weekdays and
Weekends
Categorize Basin Develop Unit Flow
Develop Spreatlsheet According to Factors per Land Use
with Diumal Curves for Dimensionless Plow Category Usirg Muhiple
Basin Types Patterns Regression
Allow for Diemal Curve Define Basin"ypes Allow for Flow
Allow for D toy Selected Based on Flow Assignmort for Selected
Adjustment
Occurrence tment Frequencies Pattern and Occurrence Fren:�encies
Land Use
Allow to,Diumal Curve Allow for Adj istment
of Flow Faders to
Adjustment for System Calibrate to Plant
Calibration to Plant Influonf Conditions
Influent Conditions
F
ormal Hydrograph Assign Unit Fbw,Factors
ata for Export to a to Ff_7gow,Fa
YDRA'Design"Fite Database File
SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM FOR THE DRY WEATHER FLOW DATA ANALYSIS
Appendix B-2
Figure 4-2
5
2
o • • •° 100°io Correlation
• ° • ® Predicted Flows
O0.5 • ° R=0:78.
LL �° ® • c............................................:
a •
� 0.2
® ® • •
®
• % s
� ° ,off• s
0.1
•
0.05
0.02
0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10
(a) COMPARISON BETWEEN OBSERVED AND PREDICTED WEEKDAY FLOWS
USING GENERATED UNIT FLOW FACTORS
10 -
5
2 •09,
® s ®°�® ® 100% Correlation
1 • I --------
3 • • ° • • Predicted Flows
U- 0.5 : • • R=0.79.
0.2
® ® gr0 0
0.1 ® —
0.05
f
0.02 r
0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10
(b) COMPARISON BETWEEN OBSERVED AND PREDICTED WEEKEND FLOWS
USING GENERATED UNIT FLOW FACTORS
Appendix B-2
Figure 4-3
F-
2.5
Type 1
Type 2
2.0
r-
� � J Type4
1.5
o 1.0 A --
0.5
0.0
0 6 12 18 24
Time of Day
(a) AVERAGE WEEKDAY UNIT DIURNAL FLOW CURVES FOR BASIN TYPES
2.5
Type 1
Type 2
2.0
Al ,
Type 4
1.5 _
LL 1.0
0.5 r:7!
11131 11
0.0
0 6 12 18 24
Time of Day
(b) AVERAGE WEEKEND UNIT DIURNAL FLOW CURVES FOR BASIN TYPES
Appendix B-2
Figure 4-4
APPENDIX E
Flow Monitoring Data Analysis (I&I Analysis;
Chapter 4 from the 2000 MP)
4. Flow Monitoring Data Analysis
The update and analysis of flow monitoring data focused on defining input parameters to the
Hydra defects database for each of the basin models. Previous collection system evaluations
developed inflow/infiltration hydrographs outside of the Hydra software that were injected into
the sewer system as point flows. Therefore, a new approach to wet-season data analysis was
needed to convert flow-monitoring information into Hydra Defecls.dbf file inputs. Dry-season
flow monitoring data were also updated, but only for the purpose of separating base sanitary
flows from wet-season flow data. This chapter describes the methods used to define extraneous
flows and to estimate system responses for the 5-year 24-hour design storm.
4.1. Approach
The approach to generating inflow and infiltration focused on setting up Hydra's Defecisdbf
database for each of the four basin models. Two I/I components were modeled: average wet
season infiltration (WWI) and storm-responsive inflowlinfiltration (SRI). The average wet
seasonal rate was modeled using the WET Q parameter, which is input in gallons per day. The
latter was modeled using the rapid infiltration parameters as follows:
• RAP AREA field: Area in square feet that generates stormwater, which enters the system
through major defects. The model imposes a rainfall hyetograph (contained in a storm or
*.STO file) onto this area to compute a stormwater runoff volume.
• RAP BEGIN field: Beginning hour when SRI is "seen" by the system relative to the
beginning of the storm.
• RAP AfAX field: Time between maximum rainfall intensity and maximum rapid infiltration
response.
• RAP ENI?field: Time from the ending of the storm to the end of significant infiltration.
.Rapid infiltration is normally delayed behind the rainfall and will continue to contribute flow to
the sewer system after the storm has ended. The beginning, maximum and ending times and the
storm hyetograph form the SRI hydrograph shape.
P.MA Engineering 4-1 July 2001
FlowMoniroring Data Analysis
The Hydra defects database also provides a method for simulating direct storm flow into the
system (STO fields). However, storm inflow from direct connections to the sewer system, such
as roof drains, is difficult to separate from storm-responsive infiltration in analyzing flow
monitoring data. Generally, it is necessary to obtain sufficient field information on direct-
connection problems to justify the use of storm inflow parameters. In addition, the flow
monitoring data indicates that there is generally a lag between rainfall and SRI. Therefore, the
quantification of direct storm inflow was not included in this analysis.
Recently collected flow data (since that used in the 1995 work), along with hourly rainfall, was
added to the flow monitoring data analysis worksheets. The current analysis of flow monitoring
data more closely relates rainfall to SRI response than previous planning efforts.
Defects databases were set up for the four treatment plant basins based on the flow monitoring
data analysis results. Also, unique Defects.dbf files were needed for the buildout condition, since
the service areas that were added (e.g. URAs) will only contribute VI and sanitary flow when
developed.
These data analysis procedures resulted in a revised definition of defect flows, and were closely
related to USA's 5-year 24-hour design storm. Figure 4-1 shows the location of USA's
temporary flow monitors that were installed between 1990 and 1997.
4.2. Design Storm Criterion
USA's NPDES permit requires that the Agency control sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) in
response to a 5-year event. SSOs include flow bypassed at the treatment plant, overflows to
streams, flooded manholes and basement backups. Recent mandates by the Environmental
Protection Agency have identified a receiving water-quality based approach to determining SSO
control criteria. However, an SSO-control criterion is already included in USA's NPDES permit
that defines the control level and compliance schedule.
PMA Engineering 4-2 July 2001
Flow Monitoring Data Analysis
The 1995 work adopted a statistical approach to UI analysis that equated the peak 5-year
response to a 20-percent frequency, or 80-percentile probability. The approach used in this
analysis involves a more literal interpretation of the 5-year 24-hour storm response. In addition,
a comprehensive review of the flow-monitoring data revealed that the meters did not always
capture flows in response to significant rainfall events. This is because the meters were moved
throughout the collection system, so the flow monitoring periods for one meter may not have
coincided with the period for another located nearby. These types of inconsistencies presented
problems in implementing a statistical approach to wet-season data analysis. Instead,
representative wet-season SRI events were selected for each monitor and analyzed. Those events
caused by rainfall events approximating the 5-year 24-hour storm, which is shown in Figure 4-2,
were selected for characterizing rapid infiltration parameters. This is a synthetic rainfall event
and was not derived specifically from rainfall records for the Washington County area.
Synthetic rainfall events derived from regional NOAA parameters are generally less
representative than events derived from local rainfall data.
An important consideration in screening the SRI representative events was antecedent
conditions. In this case, the presence of wet antecedent conditions refers to the decay of the SRI
response during the wet season. For instance, certain monitors show a long response to rainfall.
So if a rainfall event occurs within one or two days, the SRI response may not have receded
between events. This was found to be especially true in the Rock Creek system, due to the
presence of a layer of clay soils that causes groundwater to be perched for long periods of time.
Determining input parameters to the defects database would be different for various design storm
and antecedent conditions. The Hydra model input files are prepared from the monitoring data,
and should reflecx the system response that approximates the selected design event. The sewer
system will respond differently under wet versus dry antecedent conditions, and under a 3-month
versus a 5-year storm. Based on a comprehensive review of the available data, the USA
collection system exhibits a significantly greater response to wet antecedent conditions.
PMA Engineering 4-4 July 2001
Flow Monitoring Data Analysis
Figure 4-2. 5-Year 24-Hour Design Storm
0.6 — --
0.5 — —
Total Depth=3.05 inches
Maximum Intensity= 0.51 nches/hour
o Average Intensity=0.13 inches/hour
0.4 — -
d
,c
U
0.3 —._
d
c
c
0.2
sfOY
0.1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (hours)
These issues were presented to USA staff for consideration. Based on USA staff and consultant
discussions, it was decided that USA's 5-year 24-hour design storm would be used, and that the
SRI events selected for establishing the rapid infiltration parameters would assume dry
antecedent conditions (during the wet season) to the degree possible. Therefore, SRI events
nested within long periods of rainfall were not used as representative of the design condition
response.
4.3. Data Collection and Update
4.3.1. Seasonality
An analysis of seasonality was conducted in order to separate dry- from wet-season flows, for
data added to the flow monitoring data analysis spreadsheets. The analysis method was adopted
from the 1995 work, and involves creating a mass plot for each treatment plant and then
identifying inflection points on the graph. The inflection points are an indication of increases
and decreases in 1/I flow contribution. Only recent treatment plant flows (from 1996) were
analyzed. Previous definitions of dry- and wet-season changes were used for the years 1.990-
1995. The resulting mass plots are included in Appendix C-1, and season definition dates are
summarized in Table 4-1.
4.3.2. Flow Data Update and Worksheet Templates
In order to facilitate the data update process, Excel worksheet templates and instructions were
prepared for converting the 1995 Lotus worksheets. Flow and rainfall data collected since that
time were added, and worksheet calculations were modified. USA staff developed procedures to
convert and transpose flow and rainfall data from the flow monitor and rainfall records stored on
the main computer system to the spreadsheets. Appendix C-2 contains the spreadsheet templates
and instructions, and a brief memorandum providing additional details on the analysis process.
Figure 4-3 is an overview of the wet-season data analysis process, and was partially adopted
from the 1995 Collection System Needs Analysis.
PMA Engineering 4-6 July 2001
Flow Monitoring Data Analysis
Table 4-1. Unified Sewers e Agency Flow Monitoring Season Definition
Treatment Year Dry Season Wet Season Wet Season Dry Season
Plant End Start End Start
Durham 1990-1991 11-Nov-90 12-Nov-90 23-May-91 24-May-91
1991-1992 29-Oct-91 30-Oct-90 08-May-92 09-May-92
1992-1993 20-Nov-92 21-Nov-92 06-May-93 07-May-93
1993-1994 05-Dec-93 06-Dec-93 14-Apr-94 15-Apr-94
1994-1995 24-Oct-94 25-Oct-94 27-Mar-95 28-Mar-95
1995-1996 09-Nov-95 10-Nov-95 26-May-96 27-May-95
1996-1997 14-Nov-96 15-Nov-96 27-Mar-97 28-Mar-97
1997-1998 10-Nov-97 ll-Nov-97 05-Apr-98 06-Apr-98
1998-1999 28-Nov-98 29-Nov-98 17-Apr-99 18-Apr-99
Rock Creek 1990-1991 09-Nov-90 10-Nov-90 25-May-91 26-May-91
1991-1992 15-Nov-91 16-Nov-9'1 12-Ma_y-92 13-May-92
1992-1993 28-Oct-92 29-Oct-92 28-Apr-93 I 29-Apr-93
1993-1994 07-Dec-93 08-Dec-93 27-Apr-94 28-Apr-94
1994-1995 24-Oct-94 25-Oct-94 01-Apr-95 02-Apr-95
1995-1996 08-Nov-95 09-Nov-95 28-May-96 29-May-95
1996-1997 17-Nov-96 I8-Nov-96 27-Mar-97 28-Mar-97
1997-1998 09-Nov-97 10-Nov-97 27-Mar-98 28-Mar-98
1998-1999 18-Nov-98 19-Nov-98 28-Apr-99 29-Apr-99
Forest Grove 1990-1991 28-Nov-90 29-Nov-90 18-Apr-91 19-Apr-91
1991-1992 14-Nov-91 15-Nov-91 02-May-92 03-May-92
1992-1993 28-Oct-92 29-Oct-92 16-Jun-93 17-Jun-93
1993-1994 28-Nov-93 29-Nov-93 21-Apr-94 22-Apr-94
1994-1995 24-Oct-94 25-Oct-94 19-May-95 20-May-95
1995-1996 08-Nov-95 09-_Nov-95 02-Jun-96 03-Jun-96
1996-1997 17-Nov-96 18-Nov-96 26-Maar-96 27-Mar-96
1997-1998 16-Nov-97 17-Nov- 7 17-Apr-98 18-Apr-98
1998-1999 20-Nov-98 21-Nov-98 22-Apr-99 23-Apr-99
Hillsboro 1990-1991 28-Nov-90 29-Nov-90 23-May-91 24-May-91
m1991-1992 15-Nov-91 16-Nov-91 02-May-92 03-May-92
1992-1993 19-Nov-92 20-Nov-92 12-Mav-93 13-May-93
1993-1994 05-Dec-93 06-Dec-93 11:Mar-94 12-Mar-94
1994-1995 24-Oct-94 25-Oct-94 25-Mar-95 26-Mar-95
1995-1996 07-Nov-95 08-Nov-95 24-Mav-96 25-May-95
1996-1997
1996-1997 15-Nov-96 116-Nov-96 27-Mai- 7 T28 11ar7
1997-1998 09-Nov-U7 1 lt1 Nny W, 27-Mar-99 8 vl is g
1998-1999 I4-fNQ"-98 �I Nnv-438 ' 2$-Apr 99 2<y Apr 94
Shaded dates indicate that values for Rock Creek WWTP were used due to
data inconsistencies.
PMA Engineering 4-7 July 2001
Plow jVfonitoring Data Analysis
Raw Wet Season Flow
Data& 1995 Lotus
Files
Dry Weather Flow Date
Analysis
Reformat Raw and
1995 Data to
Excel Format
Estimate Typical Dry
Weather Flow
Conditions
Extraneous Fiow=
Wet Flow-Dry Flow
Extraneous YES
Flows <= 0 All Discard the Day
Day?
NO
Hourly Rainfall Data
for Basin
Did It
NO
Rain The Day or the Use Day in WWI
Previous Day? Estimate for Basin
YES
Select Da As"Storrs" Assign WWI
Y Estimate to Monitored
Day for SRI Analysis Basins& System
Average to Others
SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM FOR WET-SEASON INFILTRATION DATA ANALYSIS
Partially adopted from the 1995 Collection System Analysis Figure 4-3
4.3.3. Sewer Rehabilitation Flow Data
Flow monitors that collected data downstream of sewer rehabilitation areas were subdivided
according to rehabilitation project schedules. Based on construction dates provided by USA staff,
the monitoring data were separated into "before" and "after" rehabilitation project periods.
Table 4-2 summarizes the rehabilitation monitors and dates when work was completed.
Table 4-2. Summary of Sewer Rehabilitation Monitors
Rehabilitation
Monitor Project Scope and Date of Work
F005 Forest Grove Mains completed October 1993; Laterals summer 1995
D033 Cedar Hills Mains and laterals began November 1991 and
completed summer 1995
B003 Banks Mains completed spring 1995; laterals summer 1999
H004 Hillsboro IMains completed June 1995; no lateral rehabilitation
FOO I Cornelius ,Mains completed spring 1995;laterals summer 1999
In addition to those listed in the table, there were numerous temporary flow monitors set up in
the rehabilitation project collection systems, These data were not used primarily because the
flow monitoring data were collected only before or after the completion of construction but not
both, and would therefore not provide for an analysis of JA reduction. Most of the monitoring
periods were also relatively short. For these reasons, and because a detailed analysis of sewer
rehabilitation effectiveness was not part of the project scope,the temporary monitoring data were
not used.
As shown in Table 4-2 rehabilitation construction was mostly accomplished in phases, which
presented difficulties in separating and analyzing the flow data, and in determining effectiveness.
Use of rehabilitation monitoring data is discussed further in Section 4.4.
4.3.4. Monitor Selection
Based upon a thorough review of all available data, a few of the monitors were eliminated from
further analysis due to siting or data inconsistency problems. For instance, meter D035 was
located on a cross-connection between the Beaverton Lateral and the Fanno Creek Interceptor, so
it measured only flow diverted from the Beaverton Lateral and does not have a definitive
PMA Engineering 4-9 July 2001
Flow Monitoring Data Analysis
collection area. Other monitors such as D013B, D027A and D029A, were eliminated for data
inconsistency reasons or because there were numerous upstream diversions such that the
collection area could not be defined. The matrix in Appendix C-3 was created from USA's flow
monitoring site database, and was enhanced to refine monitor site locations and provide a record
of data use.
4.3.5. Monitor Overlap and Data Concurrency
One of the objectives in improving the system characterization of 1/1 flows was to separate flow
data for overlapping meters. This would allow for a more accurate 1/I definition for service areas
between monitor sites, but requires that monitoring periods be concurrent for the meters that
have been installed in sequence. For instance, monitor D017A collects 801 acres and overlaps
the 496-acre area of D017B. If the records for D017B could be subtracted from D017A, then the
residual data could be used to define UI rates for the 305-acre area between the meter sites.
Worksheets were set up to sort all monitoring periods of record for the dry and wet seasons.
Based on a review of the results, it was concluded that the majority of records for overlapping
meters lacked concurrency. A significant amount of data would have been eliminated in order to
subtract flow records and improve the characterization of M in areas between meter sites.
The only exception was for monitors R002A and R00213, which were installed on parallel lines.
Although the monitoring periods for these meters were not entirely concurrent, the coincident
flows were added together to generate a dataset that could be analyzed. Otherwise, these
monitors would have been eliminated from the analysis.
4.3.6. Flow Monitor Basin Definition
Flow monitor collection areas were re-defined by USA staff using sewer and parcel information
in the Agency's GIS. To the degree possible, the monitor basins were delineated to include only
developed areas, since it is the existing sewer collection system that generates M flow.
Unfortunately, area definitions were based on current parcel and sewer information, which were
related to flows collected between 1990 and 1997 This meant that the area-flow relationships
were not as accurate for the older flow monitoring data.
PMA Engineering 4-10 July 2001
Flow Monitor ng Data Analysis
The basins that extend into the Portland system were especially difficult to define because USA
has no sewer information in its GIS. Although most of these service areas were removed from
the model due to the construction of the Fanno Creek Pumping Station, the monitor basins still
needed to be defined, since the area computations were necessary to characterize flows collected
at downstream monitors.
The results generated by USA staff'were compared to the monitor acreages used in the 1995
work, and to the sum of the 1995 service areas upstream of each monitor. In many cases, the
1995 areas for these monitors, or the total area of Hydra service areas collecting to the monitors
was used. In other cases, the "working" collection system and service area maps were used to
make adjustments.
For the purposes of defining monitor collection areas and overlapping monitors, a spreadsheet
was created to compare monitoring areas from various sources and to tabulate overlapping meter
areas. This table is presented in Appendix C-4,
4.3.7. Representative Monitor Assignments
There are many approaches for quantifying and simulating UI. The method used for analyzing
the USA collection system assigns I/I rates to service areas that are connected to the modeled
sewer system. The 1995 work assigned a representative monitor to each service area, and
unmonitored areas were assigned typical values based on the monitored areas. This approach
was adopted for the 2000 Master Plan Update. However, a review of the 1995 monitor
assignments indicated a need for refinement.
The first step was to prepare a table of Hydra service areas within monitor basins. This table was
used to compare areas computed by USA, and to assign defect database input values to the
service areas. Defect flow parameters (seasonal infiltration and storm-responsive infiltration)
were assigned to the service areas on this basis. The tables included in Appendix C-5 were used
for this purpose.
PMA Engineering 4-11 July 2001
Flow Monitoring,Data Analysis
4.3.8. Data Quality and Consistency Issues
The following summarizes issues relating to the flow monitoring data available for use in
preparing this 2000 Master Plan Update
• Rainfall data were missing for critical periods for which wet-season flow data were collected.
Adjacent rain gauges were used to fill in for missing periods where possible, but it appears
that there are periods when several gauges were off-line. Accurate, representative rainfall is
critical in the analysis of wet weather data, since it is used to determine the difference
between non-storm (WWI) and storm-related (SRI) infiltration, and to derive relationships
between rainfall and SRI.
• The flow data worksheets are set up to define a storm day as having at least 0.2 inches of rain
on that day or the prior day. Based on a review of the data, it appears that different areas of
the system exhibit different SRI recession patterns. That is, some areas take longer than
others for the SRI portion of the hydrograph to become insignificant. A uniform storm-day
criterion was used for all monitors because of data reliability and consistency issues.
• The amount of flow data that have been collected concurrently is limited. Ideally, all of the
monitors should be running concurrently so that records for overlapping monitors can be
subtracted. This is the only way to accurately quantify VI rates for areas in-between
monitors. Dry- and wet-season monitoring periods were analyzed for all monitors to
determine whether there was enough concurrency to difference records.
• Dry-season flows are subtracted from wet-season flows in order to determine 1/1 quantities.
For each year of wet-season data, weekday and weekend dry-season flows are required. This
is because dry-season flows will change over time as development occurs and changes to the
sewer system take place. In many cases, average annual dry-season flows had to be
estimated due to the lack of data.
• Measuring the sewered area upstream of the monitors was difficult. A measured collection
area is necessary to compute unit III rates in terms of gallons per acre per day. The high rate
of development in Washington County over this period of time has significantly changed the
collection system.
• The portable monitors previously used by USA had data compilation limitations. Once the
pipe surcharged, the monitor continued to record depth above the crown of the pipe and did
PMA Engineering 4-12 July 2001
Flow Monitoring Data Analysis
not have the ability to differentiate surcharge from gravity flow, thus giving erroneous values
under surcharged conditions. The Badger meters installed at the permanent sites have the
ability to differentiate between these two conditions.
• Several of the monitors have significant diversions upstream, and were therefore eliminated
from the analysis.
An attempt was made to account for such problems by carefully selecting representative events.
Unfortunately, characterizing SRI inputs to the model relies heavily on the larger wet-season,
events(during which the monitor manholes may be surcharged), because the design event is also
large (a 5-year, 24-hour storm). Additional issues and recommendations are provided in
Appendix C-8.
4.4. Definition of Wet-Season and Storm-Responsive Infiltration
Within the wet-season data worksheets, the two M components are separated: the average wet
season rate (WWI) and the storm-responsive component (SRI), which is hydrographic. From the
SRI dataset, representative "events" were selected for plotting. From these graphs, parameters
were estimated that would approximate the system response to a 5-year 24-hour storm.
The following summarizes the method used to derive defect database parameters:
1. It was concluded that the flow datasets are not sufficiently consistent to allow for a statistical
analysis. Therefore, the analysis of wet-season SRI was based on selected events
representative of the design storm and antecedent conditions.
2. Two components of the Hydra defects database were used to model 1/I flows. First, the
WET Q field, entered in gallons per day, was used to simulate average wet-season 14. These
values were taken from Section 3 of the wet-season spreadsheets, which averages IR flows
for non-storm days. Second, the rapid infiltration method was used to simulate SRI. The
fields required are RAP AREA, RAP BEG, RAP MAX and RAP END. The RAP AREA is
the equivalent area of paved surface in square feet that would result in a total volume of rapid
infiltration for SRI defects. The RAP BEG, RAP MAX and RAP END are the times from
the start, peak and ending times of the storm to the corresponding times of the rapid
PMA Engineering 4-13 July 1001
Flow Monitoring Data Analysis
infiltration response. A storm hyetograph is also set up in a *.STO file. The storm "rains" on
the rapid infiltration area and generates an infiltration volume that is distributed according to
the pattern defined by the beginning, maximum and ending times.
3. Graphs of SRI flows versus rainfall were prepared to define the timing pattern of SRI flows
and to derive relationships between rainfall and SRI volume. The latter was used to compute
RAP_AREA for each monitor and the former for establishing RAP—REG, RAP MAX and
RAP END hours. The rapid area is the volume of the SRI flow divided by depth of rainfall
that caused the SRI response. A ratio was then computed that is the rapid area divided by the
monitored basin area. This ratio was then used to determine the rapid area for each service
area (sanitary subbasin) in the model.
4. For each service area, a representative monitor was selected, and the characteristics of that
monitor were assigned to the service area.
Test runs of this approach were made for selected areas within the Forest Grove. The method
appeared to work well, although the resulting model hydiographs exhibited less fluctuation than
the monitoring data.
4.4.1. Example Monitor Data Analysis
This section provides specific examples of the methods used derive average season and rapid
infiltration, or SRI, parameters. Monitor DOOIC, which has a collection area of 968 acres, was
selected as an example. A representative rapid infiltration event for monitor D033, which
collected flows from the Cedar Hills rehabilitation project, is also provided.
There are five sections to the wet-season worksheets:
Section 1: Raw wet-season flow monitoring data for a particular monitor location.
Section 2: The "residual' total flow data. Values in this section are computed from the
raw monitor data less the flows for the upstream monitor or monitors, if appropriate.
Section 3: Wet-season inflow and infiltration rates, or WWI. These are the total
monitored flow rates less dry-season flow, using the average yearly flow rate and the dry-
season diurnal curve. Storm days are also separated from non-storm days in this section.
PMA Engineering 4-14 July 2001
Flow Monitoring Data Analysis
Section 4: Storm-responsive UI flows. SRI flows are computed in this section from the
Section 3 values less the average WWI rate for"storm" days.
Section 5: Hourly rainfall. Hourly rainfall is necessary to develop relationships between
SRI flows and rainfall, and to define"storm" days.
Appendix C-2 contains further documentation on the flow data worksheets.
Average Wet Season Infiltration
Table 4-3 presents an excerpt from Section 3 of the wet-season flow worksheet for DOOIC. As
shown in Table 4-3, the infiltration rate for this monitor is relatively low at 50 gallons per acre
per day (gpad). This 50-gpad value was then assigned to the subbasins represented by this
monitor, specifically, service area Nos. 8 and 105 in the Durham system.
Records identified as "Storm" days are considered to be rapid infiltration "events" and are
further analyzed in Section 4 of the worksheets. The WWI rate is subtracted from the hourly UI
values in Section 3, leaving only the rapid infiltration flows.
Storm-Responsive Infiltration
Table 4-4 presents an excerpt from Section 4 of the data analysis worksheet for monitor DOOIC,
which includes only rapid infiltration hydrographs. The representative days selected for further
review and analysis are highlighted in blue. For each of these events, graphs of SRI flow (in
gpm) and rainfall (in inches) versus time were prepared and are included in each worksheet.
Values shown as "<O" in this section are the result of subtracting the average seasonal WW1
from the flows in Section 3. If the value was negative or zero, this identifier was used, The 80th
percentile calculations are for information purposes only, and are based on the non-zero values in
Section 4.
PMA Engineering 4-15 July 2001
Flow Monitoring Data Analysis
Table 4-3. Example Wet Season Infiltration Calculations for DOO1C
USA Wet Weather E.timate l VI
Basin: D001C
Dry Weather MonNor: D001C
ADWF M.,Fto tlArea AVERAGE WWI
Year 19911 1992 1 1994 1 1985 1997 est Total 1 968.0 acres Avem a VI 33.7 c m
Weekda 245.1 339.8 2MI0 288.2 315.0 Residual 968.0 acres Sttl.Do,. 30.6 m
Weekend 265.4 349.9 290,0 288.8 320.0 (Use estimated area) Avera a 91 1 50 gpad
Und.4DWF W.ekdav 0.708 0.534 0.490 0.501 0.460 0.5170988 1.651 1.580 1382 1.289 4.194 1104 1.060 1.00D 0.980 0.958 1.014 1.113 1.153 1.155 1.123 1.103 0.943 Storm Limit
Un8.4DWF Weekend 0.]19 0.nz 0.479 0.451 0.453 0482 0.584 0.037 1.194 1.496 1.611 1,550 1.429 1.293 1.190 1.101 1081 1.088 1.131 1.130 1.101 1.078 1.035 0.902 D.20 in/tla
SECTION 3-INFLOW AND INFILTRATION COMPONENT(MI SRI m
Day of Time of De Hourly VVWI5Rl
Det. Year Week 0 1 1 2 3 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 16 20 21 22 23 Avera a Indl,ator
06-DEC-91 1991 THU NA NA NA NA NAL 75 52.3 78.2 17.1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 11.0 23.8 NA 15.1 NA NA NA Storm
MMC-91 1991 FRI NA 8.1 87 26.9 40.9 83.4 167.0 199.7 166.7 172.1 156.0 153.0 130.9 142.4 190.7 100.3 105.5 113.6 102.9 62.719.1 24.1 19.2 22.8 Storm
07 DOF H 1991 SAT 41.7 61.9 65.4 71.0 46.5 49.1 412 33.2 84.2 70.6 82.3 53 3 276 18.0 0.5 14.5 37.1 80.8 27.6 4.3 NA NA NA NA Storm
OB-DEC-91 1991 SUN NA 10.2 5.8 87 2.5 NA NA NA NA NA 5.3 19.5 SITS 23.1 25.7 20.6 18.2 26.8 NA 30,2 14.5 14.1 NA NA Storm
09-DEC-91 1991 MON NA 2.0 NA NA NA 4.2 37.1 69.8 6.5 NA 24.8 14.4 NA 13.8 NA NA NA NA NA 5.5 NA 5.2 NA NA 7.6 1.0
10-DEC-91 1991 TUF NA NA NA NA NA NA 96.1 226] 48.6 NA N4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 15.4 1.0
11-OE091 1991 WED NA NA NA NA NA NA 41.1 50.5 12.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 4.3 16
12-DEC-91 1991 THU NA NA NA NA NA NA 34.3 52.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 36 1.0
13-DEC-91 1991 FRI NA NA NA NA NA NA 10.4 30.7 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 17 1,0
14-DED-91 1981 SAT NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 295 48.2 10.1 0.5 NA NA NA NA 27.6 8.9 NA NA NA NA NA 5.2 1.0
15-DEC-111 1991 SUN NA NA NA NA NA NA N4 NA NA NA 15.5 14.3 153 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.9 1.0
16-DE641 1991 MON NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 12.8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.5 1.0
17-DE"I 1891 TUE NA NA NA NA NA NA 55.3 173.9 6.8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 9.8 1.0
11-Nov-84 1899 FRI 127 14.8 10.8 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2.1 52.8 72.9 480 39,8 39.8 43.2 26.9 30.0 18.5. 8.1 NA NA 21 B6 17.9 1.0
12-Nov-94 1994 SAT 293 29.0 16.8 14.7 3.9 10.1 We 25.4 68.0 447 681 647 62.1 633 67.5 42.2 439 32.9 30.9 44.5 11B 8.5 NA NA 33.3 1.0
13-Ni 1994 SUN 7.1 14.1 24.7 21.9 25.9 14.6 NA NA NA NA 35] SSB 55.2 60.3 50.6 ]L2 37.0 63.1 360 51.1 527 40.2 18.3 3.8 30.9 1.0
141,1.44 1994 MON NA NA NA NA NA NA 14.6 31.8 NA 20.5 NA NA 13.2 NA NA NA NA NA 17.7 30.0 40.4 9.6 NA 4.6 6 1.0
16-Nov-94 1994 TUE NA NA 20.7 33.8 $6.2 62.2 192.6 299.9 124.2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 23.7 435 59.8 52.8 56.0 31.3 43.4 1.0
16-Nov,94 1994 WED 21.8 31.8 56.1 61.3 71.2 906 87.3 99.2 123.5 82.3 21.4 43.9 60.8 63.0 52:9 47-1 74.8 80.3 87.4 112.5 115.3 78.3 34.9 92.6 72.5 1.0
17-Nov-94 1994 THU 113.4 85.6 86.4 66.6 71.0 103.9 135.6 104.9 66.9 35.6 75.5 65.4 586 46.0 62.3 37.4 546 72.8 64.5 527 77.6 66.3 42.2 503 70.7 1.0
18-Nov-94 1994 FRI 46.5 48.0 448 25.3 36,8 64.9 84.1 38.3 32.5 19.3 23.2 33.2 235 7.9 19.0 35.1 43.5 36.6 16.8 297 92 NA NA 12.1 Stone
13Nav-94 1994 SAT 34.3 32.1 31.4 15.1 18.6 21.7 34.7 47.6 48.6 13.7 30.5 17.8 32.6 44.8 38.2 42.1 49.5 478 65.2 72.1 109.0 87.9 53.8 72.8 Stone
2ONov-94 1984 SUN 68.1 61.4 548 38.5 30.9 191 NA NA 2.6 29.2 85.9 61.6 447 20.4 $2.1 55.0 29.5 492 43.5 64.2 50.1 12.1 3.4 NA Storm
21-Nov-94 1994 MON NA 3.D NA NA NA 6.4 NA NA NA NA NA NA 4.1 10.1 0.3 9.5 15.1 NA 12.6 15.4 19.2 22.8 16.9 NA 59, 1.0
22-Nov-94 1994 TUE NA NA 43 2.9 1.8 97 131.3 255.9 102.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 13.4 18.1 13.2 12.9 N4 23.6 1.0
23-Nov-94 1994 WED NA 21.2 19.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA 33.0 7.9 NA NA NA NA Do 05 NA NA 2.6 33.9 136 14.3 45.4 Storrs
24-Nov-94 1994 THU 62.3 71.0 80.5 270 $0.5 21.3 NA NA NA 87A 194.9 233.2 231.7 154.0 131.5 105.3 584 17.9 NA NA - 27.8 15.6 NA 18.5 Stoma
26-Nov-94 1994 FRI 97.8 118.9 99.2 75.4 84.3 72.3 NA NA NA 145.3 166.9 188.1 1688 1295 109.5 125.7 125.6 140.0 107.1 1065 126.9 122.5 134.9 187.9 Storm
26-Nov-94 1994 SAT 219.1 230.1 227,2 197.1 165.1 167.9 183.2 1605 224.7 207.0 211.1 227.0 206.7 203.2 161.0 141.7 144.7 159.5 154.4 1342 135.1 68.2 80.5 95.6 Stam
27-Nov-94 1984 SUN '105.2 115.2 114.5 87.5 684 939 $1.7 37.$ 37,1 36.5 43.2 96.9 88,6 120.0 1]2.9 179.2 184.3 170.2 153.1 134.2 121.4 199.3 115.6 116.7 109.3 16
28-1,1w-94 1994 MON 112.8 115.7 133.4 97.6 108.8 11111 139.7 174.4 133.6 119.8 125.2 85.1 83.4 93AI 83.1 64.8 57.3 62.D 71.5 38,2 06.2 61.3 58.1 46.0 96.8 16
2 oY-94 1994 TUE 203 25.8 32.1 137 12.0 45.2 166.8 280.2 124.2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5.4 15.6 31.4 755 70.1 587 556 43,6 44.8 1.0
3ONov-94 1994 WED 21.6 205 16.1 8.7 18.9 26,4 74.9 112.4 1074 80.4 99.8 132.9 166.3 206.3 270.8 390.7 469.3 377:3 336.8 293.5 280.9 248.0 2322 210.1 Storm
01-D.94 1994 THU 2482 2486 220.6 184.4 193.9 189.4 21DA 190.8 135.2 122.1 137,7 143.9 129.8 103.9 71.7 58.1 62.0 63.6 73.0 94.8 117.8 115.5 1143 95.5 Storm
02-De,94 1994 FRI 88.3 96.4 88.3 63.4 71.3 977 125.0 88.1 87.5 63.4 50.5 66.5 59.8 73.4 75.6 82.4 94.2 61.5 78.0 67.0 57.4 18.0 40.4 58.5 73.4 1.0
03-Dii 1994 SAT 95.0 768 67.1 INA 53.4 503 53.6 59.3 792 54.6 73.4 92.0 96.2 92.8 68.6 88.2 91.5 113.5 74.1 47,01 41.11 346 27.7 45.2 68.4 1.0
04-Deo-94 1994 SUN 60.5
53,91 593 38.8 28.0 167 6.1 NA 13.91 13.5 38.8 61.2 50,0 525 50.7 77.8 60.8 63.5 53.5 6111 61.7672 638 28.9 45.0 7.0
05-Dec-94 1994 MON 1 21.0 26.2 21.4 8.4 22.2 397 56.1 87 17.8 20.7 17.6 164 30.5 21.9 11.8 16.5 22.1 26.0 28.1 29.3 36.7 24.3 22.8 15.1 23.4 1.0
06-0ec-94 1994 TUE 25.3 30.6 44.1 38.3 395 56.3 140.8 144.1 55.2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 8.8 26.3 52.2 525 767 NA NA NA Storm
07-O.194 1994 WED NA NA NA NA 11.4 53.3 62.3 174 6.6 NA 1.0 27.1 0.6 40.8 22.1 16.9 20.8 235 20.3 16.0 14.8 3.3 13.2 25.0Storm
IG-Nov961885 FRI 2.0 0.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Storm
11-Nov-95 1995 SAT 257.3 282.3 2400 144.6 114.2 217.2 283.4 298.6 335.8 424.5 282.1 2998 235.4 210.0 237.4 158.0 81.8 77.0 75.9 87.7 578 44.D 41.4 46.8 Storm
12-Nov-95 1995 SUN 71.1 82.5 76.4 58.5 313A 20.6 NA NA NA NA NA NA 6.3 11.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA INA I0.8 NA 7.0 Storm
Table 4-4. Example Rapid Infiltradon Calculations for OOO1C
USA Storrnwater Related III(SRI)
Basin: D001C
BO-H Paroeltlle SRI j pm 151.0
BO I H PerceOtile SRIi a• I 225
DAILY RAINFALL(inches)
Rel, On Prevloae Previous
Date Gee Day Day 2 Days I SECTION 4-STORM RELATED IIIERI m
RVR 0.001 0.00 Time of Day Lady
RVR 0.00 0.00 D 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 7 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1820 21 221 23 Averz e
05-Dac91 RVR 0.58 0.18 <0 <0 <0 e0 1<0 <p 18.7 445 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 10 <0 <0 <0 <0 6 <0 1<0 <0 2.6
OS-Dec-91 RVR 090 0,58 <0 <0 <0 <0 7.2 49.7 133.3 166.0 133.1 138.4 122.3 119.3 1051 108.7 157.1 67.1 71.9 BDA 89.2 29,1 10 c0 <0 <0 64.9
07-0e 1 RVR 0.24 098 8.0 283 327 37.4 12.8 15.4 7.6 <0 50,6 36.9 287 19.7 <0 <0 <0 <0 3.41 26.9 10 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 12.9
08-Dec-91 RVR 0.02 D.24 <0 <0 <D <0 <D m <0 N <0 <0 <0 <0 33.8 <D <0 <0 <0 1<0 <0 <a <0 <0 <0 <0 1.4
09-De 91 RVR 0.05 002 0.0
10-D"1 RVR 0.01 0.05 OA
11-Dec-91 RVR 0.04 0.01 0,0
12-D.91 RVR 0.00 0.09 0.0
13-Deo-91 RVR 0.00 0.00 0.0
I4D.91 RVR 000 0.00 0.0
15-D.91 RVR 000 0001 0.0
16-D.91 RVR 0.01 0.00 Be
17Dec-91RVR 0.00 0.01 0.0
11-Nov-B4 RVR D.Nj 0.14 0.0
12-Nov-94 RVR 0.081 0.04 0.0
13-Nov-94 RVR 0.021 0.08 0.0
I4Nw-94 RVR 0.WI 0.02 0.0
15-Nov-94 RVR 0.201 0.00 0.0
16-Nov-94 RVR DA1 0.20 0.0
17-Nw54 RVR 0.06 0.11 0.0
18-N 9-94 RVR 0.38 0.06 11.8 14.4 11.2- <0 3.1 31.2 30.4 4.6 10 <D <D <0 <D <0 <0 1.4 9.8 2.9 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 5.0
19-Nw-94 RVR 0.80 0.38 0.7 <0 <0 <0 <D <D 1.0 14.0 14.9 <D <0 <0 <0 11.1 4.6 8.5 1S9 14.1 31.6 38.4 75.3 34.2 19.9 39.1 13.5
20-Nov-94 RVR am 0.80 34.5 27.8 21.2 4.9 10 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 52.2 27.9 11.0 <0 186 21.3 10 15.5 9.8 30.6 16.5 <0 <0 <0 12.1
21-Noy,-94 RVR 0.01 0.02 0.0
22-Nw-94 RVR 0.00 0.01 0.0
23-Nov-94 RVR 0.22 0.00 <0 <0 N <D <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <a <0 <0 <0 0.3 <0 <0 11.7 0.5
24-Nw-94 RVR 0.27 022 28.8 37.3 269 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 53.4 161.2 199.5 198.0 120.3 97.8 71.6 24.7 <0 <0 <0 <0 <D <D <D 42.5
25-Now-94 RVR D.28 0.27 64.1 85.2 65.5 41.7 507 38.6110 <0 <0 111.6 135.2 154.4 135.1 95.8 75.8 92.0 922 105.3 73.5 71E247
88.8 101.2 154.3 80.3
28-Now94 RVR 0.04 0.28 185.5 186.6 163.6 163.4 131.4 134.2 128.8 126.9 191.0 173.4 177.5 183.3 173.1 188.6 127.3 108.1 111,0 125.8 120.7 100 39.8 48.6 61.9 136.5
27-Nov-94 RVR 0.14 0.04 0.0
20-Nov-94 RVR 0.01 0.14 0.0
29-Nw-94 RVR 0.05 0.01 0.0
30-Nov-94 RVR 1.55 0,05 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <c 41.3 78.6 ?31 qt-] 66' 99.2 132.5 174.6 2371 35',0 435.6 343.8 303.1 259 214.4 128.'_ 1]6.4 145,3
31-D.94 RVR 0.98 1.55 211E 214.9 187.0 160.7 150.2 1558 '76.6 165.1 10 ` 6 104.0 110.2 96.0 702 28.0 24.4 28.3 300 393 61 81.8 80.5 61.6 1052
02-0eo-94 RVR 0.07 0.09 0.0
D3Dec 94 RVR 0.00 0.07 0.0
D4-Deo-94 RVR 0.00 0.00 DA
O5-Deo-94 RVR 000 O.W 0.0
0ED 94 RVR 0."e7 000 <0 <D 10.4 4.6 5,8 22.5 107.2 110.5 216 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 cp <D <0 e9 18.6 18 <0 07-D 94 RVR 0.01 0.27 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 19.7 28.6' <0 <0 <0 <0 <D <D 7.1 <) <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 2.3
10Noy-05CHR 0.68 0.25 <0 <0 <0 <0 eo - <0. <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <p <C <0 10 <0 <0 <0 q <0 <0 0.0
11-Nov-95 CHR 1.88 0.68 2236 2406 2066.4 110E 80.5 1836 249.8 264.9 302.1 50.6 246.4 266.2 2017 195.4 203.7 '.24.4 48.1 423 42.3 L±D 24.2 10.3 7.7 13.0 155.2
12-Nw-95 CHR 0.18 1.88 ':A 48.E 42.7 34;8 47 <D <0 <0 <p <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <0 <D c9 <0 <0 <0 7.0
21-Feb-97 RVR 0.00 0.02 0.0
22-Fe1,4)7 RVR 0.00 0-00 0.0
23-Fe1,97 RVR 0.00 0.00 0.0
24-Feb-97 RVR 0.00 0.000.0
Ell=25-Fab-87 RVR 0.13 0.00 D.0
For illustration purposes, the November 30-December 1, 1994 rapid infiltration event was
selected from the DOO1C records. This event produced 1.56 inches of rainfall over 16 hours.
Figure 4-4 and Table 4-5 illustrate the bydrographs and summary data for this event. Figure 4-4
shows the total, dry season sanitary and rapid infiltration hydrographs. Table 4-5 lists the data
used to plot the hydrograph and shows the computations used to review the event and estimate
defect parameters, including total volumes, maximum hourly rates, duration, volumes, rapid
infiltration area, and ratio of rapid area to monitored area.
The rapid infiltration area, which is specific to an event, is the volume under the SRI curve
divided by the volume of rain. The rapid-infiltration area is divided by the monitor area to
compute the ratio. This ratio was then applied to each subbasin represented by monitor DOO1C.
For instance, infiltration characteristics for service are No. 8 in the Durham system are
represented by monitor D001C. The area of service No. 8, which is 198.65 acres, is multiplied
by a ratio of 0.0082, yielding an estimated rapid infiltration area of 70,955 square feet. This
value was then entered into the RAP AREA field of Hydra defects database.
Figure 4-5 and Table 4-6 illustrate the analysis of a representative event for monitor D033,
located downstream of the Cedar Hills rehabilitation project.
Estimates for the rapid infiltration timing (RAP_BEG, RAP MAX and RAP END hours) were
also taken from the plots. In most cases, both the rapid area ratio and timing were estimated
from multiple events, since no single event exactly represents the 5-year 24-hour design event
response.
This procedure required an intensive review of the flow monitoring data as well as engineering
judgement. It also closely related rainfall to rapid-infiltration response. Because the project
scope did not include a complete calibration effort for the models, a data analysis method was
needed that would provide reasonable estimates of defects database inputs.
PMA Engineering 4-18 July 2001
Flow Monitoring Data Analysis
Figure 4-4. Monitor D001 C - November 30-December 1, 1994 Event
1.00
800
0.90
700 -
0.80
600 —
0.70
500 - 0.60
a
Cl)
� 400 ,� - - -- �
0.40 a
300 - 1
0.3D
200
0.20
i
100 0.10
0.00
0
5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17
Hour
>�Rainfall K*.;�Total Flow "- Base Dry Season Flow —Rapid Infiltration
Table 4-5. 'Representative SRI Event Computations for DOO1C
Event 3 November 30-December 1,1994
Hour Total DWI SRI Rain
5 , 176.3 149.9 a0 0,04
6 363.8 288.9 41.3 0.09
Z591.2 478.7 78.8 0.08
8 565.6 458.2 73.8 0.09
9 484.0 403.7 46.7 0.08
10 473.6 373.8 66.1 0.17
11 479.0 346.2 99.2; 0.11
12 i 486,3 i 320.0 132.6 0.13
13 E 515.8_ 307.5 174.6, 0.14
14 560.9 290.1 237.1 0.17
_ 15 669.1 278.4 357.0 0.30
16 747.5 278.2 435.6 0.05
_ 17 671.4 294.1 343.6 0.00
_ 18 _ 659.6 322.8 303.1 0.00
19� 628.1 334.51 259.9 0.00
20 615.7 334.81 247.3 0.02
21 573.7 325.61 214.4 0.01
22 552.2 320.0' 1985. 0.00
23 483.6 273,51 176.4 0.07
0 _ 453.5 205.31 214.5 0.00
1 403.5 154.91 214.9 0.00
2 362.8 142.2 187.0 0.01
3 329.6 145.21 150.7 0.00
4 327.3 _ 133.51 160.2 0.00
5 339.3 149.9 155.8 0.00
6 -----499.3 288.91 176.8 0.00
7 677.5 478.71 165.1 f 0.00
8 1 593.3 458.2 101.5 0.00
_ 9 1 525.8 403.7 88.5 0.00
10 511.4 373.8 104.0 0.00
11 490.1 346.2 110.21 0.00
12 449.7 320.0 96.01 0.00
13411.4 307.5 70.21 0.00
14 361.8 290.1 38.01 0.00
15 336.5 278.4 _24.4 0.00
16 340-21, S 28.3 0.00
17 357.7 294.1, 30.0 _ 0.00
18 t 395.8 322.8 0.0 0.00
Totals (cu.ft.lin.) I 44938 1.56
_ Max (gpmlgpad) _T _ 435.6, 648
Rain Duration (hours) 16
Adjusted Volume (cu.ft.) 44938
Rapid Area(sq.ft.) 345675
Ratio of Rapid vs.
Monitor Area 0.00K
Figure 4-5. Monitor D033 - November 10-12, 1995 Event
1.00
700
0.90
i
600 - —
0.80
0.60 a
— v
400
E
0,50
R
� c
300 — 0.40
0.30
200 -
d
0.20
100
\ 0.10
0.00
p
7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 1 3 5 7
Hour
M Rainfall .44Total Flow *,*+Base Dry Season Flow —Rapid Infiltrati
Table 4-6. Representative SRI Event Computations for D033
Event 4 November 10-12, 1995
Hour Total DWF SR! Rain
71 189.01 195.021 t 0.01
B
203-01 177.45 _ 0.00
9 185.3 16623 4.9 0.05
10 1 229.21 160.93 53.41 0.03
11 233.51 149,90 6721 0.02
_ 12 233.8 142.33 74.0 0.02
13 214.7 136.37 6U.11 0.02
14 1 232.0 1 129.33 63.4 0,10
_ 15 _ 2778 128.09 130.4 0.02
16 271.3 134.14 118.6 _0.02
17 241.3. 148.44 76.2 0.01
18 249.0 163.42 71.0 0.02
19 _242.7 -16�4 901 63.4 _ 0.03
20 269.7 163.961 12 0.01
21 ; 245.5 160.80 69.8 j 0.01
22 209.2 148.23 44.41 _0.09
23 226,61 112.03 93.0 0.22
0 _ 310.4 64.76198.8_ 0.21
_ 1 342.51 4759 _ 250.7 0.18
2 368.51 39,84 265.71 04
3 307.0 36.48 228.11 _0.10
-- 4 _ 294.8 37.29214.9 0.19
5 352.71 44.07 265.01 0.28
6 470.21 63.28 360.3 0.28
7 580.3 94.40 434.41 0.25
8 _� 641.71u .142.11 440.7 0.11
9 652.11 175.72 412.81 0.10
10 658.6F 180.82 412.71 0.02
11 1 616.81 169-65 383.8 0.02
12 353.0 154.47 337.71 0.05
_ 13 "457.013418
311,81 0.02
14 265.1 0.01
238.6 0.00
16 419.71 127.85 235.1 0:01
17 _ _ 381 OF 129.38 194.6 0.00
18 392.0 136.77 197.1 0.00
19 367.2 142.57 165.6 0.00
20 -3-,i-33 '-1-4300. 141.2 0.01
21 _ 3360 137.99 141.7_ 0.00
22 x12.0 125.10 130.6 0.00
23 286.3 101.94 131;6 0.00
0 254.6-6-4-76 43
. 1 .0_0.00
_ 1 _ 220.1 47.59 128.41 0.00
2 205.5 39.84 122.7; 0.00
3 _' 191A 36.48 112.5 _ 0.00
_
4 180.3 37.29 900.5 0.00
-- 5 -176.4 44.07 88.7 0,00
6 _ 177.9 63 28V 68A 0.00
7 190.6 94401 44.7 0.00
Totals (cu.ft.lin. 66483 2.55
Max(gpm!gpad) 440.7! 3340
Rain Duration(hours 33
Adjusted Volume(cu.ft.) _ 66483
Rapid Area(sq.ft.) 312495
Ratio of Rapid vs.
Monitor Area 0.0378 fl
Sewer Rehabilitation Areas
As previously mentioned, flow monitoring records for sewer rehabilitation areas were divided
into "before" and "after" periods. USA had previously analyzed the effectiveness of these
projects for a sample set of rainfall events. The results indicated that sewer main rehabilitation
would reduce WWI and SRI rates by 50 percent, and that service lateral rehabilitation would
yield a reduction of 80 percent during those events. USA's reduction estimates were based
largely on storms more frequent than a 5-year return period.
The available flow data for significant rainfall events (e.g. 2-3 inches of total depth) suggests that
reduction rates are lower. However, due to data quality problems, USA's reduction ratios were
used in estimating defects database parameters for rehabilitated service areas.
4.4.2. Summary of Hydra Defect Parameters
Based on the analysis of the flow monitoring data, estimated values were summarized in a table,
which is presented in Appendix C-6, This table was linked to tables defining representative flow
monitors and defect parameters for each service area, which are in Appendix C-7. The latter data
were then copied into the defects database files.
For unmonitored subbasins within the Durham and Rock Creek systems, typical values were
computed from the monitored basins, as shown on the Appendix C-6 table. For undeveloped
areas, a total peak unit rate of 1650 gpad was used (300 gpad for WWI and 1350 gpad for peak
SRI), which was adopted in part from the 1995 Collection System Needs Analysis.
The 1995 analysis suggested a value of 1850 gpad (500 gpad for WWI and 1350 gpad for peak
SRI) for undeveloped areas. The 500-gpad rate represented an 80-percentile value. For this
study, only average WWI rates were computed. In order to achieve consistency between the two
analyses, the 300-gpad rate computed during the 1995 work was used. Rapid infiltration
parameters were defined to approximate the 1350-gpad value,
PMA Engineering 4-23 July 2001
Flow Monitoring Data Analysis
4.4.3. Verification of Approach to Modeling Defects
The model verification process only involved a check on the rapid infiltration characterization
method to ascertain whether the procedure would yield reasonable results. The models were not
calibrated. Fest runs were completed for selected locations and events. Figures 4-6 and 4-7
present graphical results for test runs completed for selected events from monitors DOOIC and
F008, respectively.
In the case of monitor D001C, the accuracy of the results depend on the accuracy of defect inputs
for the upstream meters DOOIA, DOOM and D005, as well as the simulation of the Barnes Road
diversion to the Rock Creek system, In addition, the modeled hydrograph peak occurs several
hours after the metered peak flow. This problem occurs at many of the flow monitors, primarily
because defect characteristics were based on monitors with collection areas that are generally
larger than the service areas (sanitary subbasins). The average collection area of the monitors
used for this analysis is approximately 920 acres, while the average service area (excluding
additional buildout areas) is 100 acres. A few of the monitor basins are thousands of acres in
size. Resolving these problems is the purpose of calibration.
A calibration process would involve selecting representative events throughout the service area,
and adjusting the rapid infiltration parameters so that a reasonable match is achieved. The Hydra
databases include "tweak" fields for this purpose. For instance, model calibration would have
included adjusting the RAP hours so that metered and modeled hydrographs would
approximately match. Various rainfall/SRI events would be required, since the monitoring
periods were not concurrent.
4.5. Defects Databases
The results of the flow monitoring data analysis was used to set up defects databases for each
treatment plant basin model, based upon the tables in Appendix C-7. The databases vary
between planning years 2000-2010 versus buildout. For instance, if a service area is currently
undeveloped but will become developed at buildout then the defects databases will have no IJ
contribution until buildout for that service area.
PMA Engineering 4-24 July 2001
Flow Monitoring Data Analysis
Chapter 5 describes the review of USA's III design characteristics based on the results of the
defect characterization, and Chapter 6 presents an evaluation of rehabilitation needs.
PMA Engineering 4-25 July 2001
Flow Monitoring Data Analysis
Figure 4-6. Monitor D001C - November 30-December 1, 1994 Event
Modeled versus Metered Rapid Infiltration
1.8 - 1.00
0.90
1.6 - -
0.80
1.4
1.2
0.70
0.60 a
m
t
u
0.50
o0.8
c_
0.40 0:
0.6 -- I -
0.30
0.4 - _ 0.20
0.2 - 0.10
0.0 0.00
5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17
Hour
M Rainfall Modeled Rapid Infiltration —Measured Rapid Infiltration]
Figure 4-7. Monitor F008 - November 18-20, 1996 Event
Modeled versus Metered Rapid Infiltration
1.00
12.0
11.0 —� - _ 0.90
10.0 - ---- 0.60
0.70
8.0
0.60
m
7.0 -
0.50
=
6.0 - - .. -- - M
0 e
E R
5.0 0.40 a
4,0 - — - 0.30
3.0 _
0.20
2,0 - — --
MO
1.0 —
0.00
0.0 .
13 15 17 19 21 23 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 1 3 5 7 9 11
Hour
�M Rainfall' Modeled Rapid Infiltration —Measured Rapid Infiltration
APPENDIX F
Modeling "Project.des" Criteria Files (Durham Model)
Project.Des for Durham Basin Project_DR.des
! DESIGN FILE FOR CLEAN WATER SERVICES MASTER PLAN MODEL (07/2008)
! SYSTEM FACTORS AND DESIGN CRITERIA
! MODIFIED FROM USA 1999 MASTER PLAN UPDATE (01/2001)
! DESIGN PIPE DATA
! (Mininum velocity changed to 2.0 fps from 1995 value)
[DPI]
Default=0.013 8 8 7 2.3 0.0010 0.8 120 0
! DESIGN PIPE PRESSURE DATA
[PRE]
Default=100 0 5 0 0
! EXISTING PIPE DATA
[EPI]
Default=0.013 2 0.9 0 0 0
! MANHOLE DEFAULT DATA
[MAN]
Default=2 4 4 0
! DIURNAL CURVES
! Unit Diurnal Curves for weekdays/Weekends
! by Basin Type & confidence Level
! originally generated March 3, 1995
[DIU]
Default=1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
! Basin Type 1 - Weekday Diurnal Hydrograph - Median
DIU_1WDMed=0.51 0.28 0.21 0.21 0.24 0.41 1.25 2.20 1.97 1. 57 1.37 1.20 1.02 0.93
0.82 0.80 0.84 0.98 1.19 1.34 1.36 1.33 1.20 0.87
! Basin Type 2 - weekday Diurnal Hydrograph- Median
DIU_2WDMed=0.58 0.39 0.31 0.29 0.31 0.52 1.21 1.77 1.60 1.40 1.31 1.19 1.08 1.02
0.95 0.91 0.95 1.06 1.21 1.28 1.28 1.24 1.14 0.88
! Basin Type 3 - weekday Diurnal Hydrograph - Median
DIu_3WDMed=0.59 0.40 0.32 0.29 0.29 0.43 0.98 1.63 1.60 1.44 1.37 1.27 1.15 1.06
0.99 0.94 0.96 1.05 1.19 1.27 1.28 1.25 1.15 0.89
! Basin Type 4 - weekday Diurnal Hydrograph - Median
DIU_4WDMed=0.55 0.41 0.35 0.31 0.32 0.39 0.70 1.15 1.30 1.43 1.53 1.44 1.36 1.30
1.26 1.16 1.12 1.13 1.16 1.16 1.18 1.10 1.01 0.79
! Basin Type 1 - weekend Diurnal Hydrograph - Median
DIu_1WEMed=0.59 0.38 0.26 0.22 0.22 0.25 0.37 0.72 1.29 1.78 1.94 1.80 1. 56 1.35
1.19 1.14 1.12 1.14 1.20 1.26 1.24 1.20 1.07 0.85
! Basin Type 2 - Weekend Diurnal Hydrograph - Median
Diu_2WEMed=0.65 0.47 0.37 0.32 0.31 0.34 0.48 0.81 1.31 1.65 1.73 1.62 1.44 1.29
1.17 1.10 1.09 1.12 1.17 1.21 1.23 1.17 1.05 0.86
! Basin Type 3 - weekend Diurnal Hydrograph - Median
DIU_3WEMed=0.69 0.52 0.42 0.37 0.35 0.37 0.47 0.73 1.15 1.53 1.66 1. 59 1.44 1.29
1.18 1.13 1.10 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.22 1.18 1.09 0.91
! Basin Type 4 - weekend Diurnal Hydrograph - Median
DIu_4WEMed=0.73 0.58 0.48 0.41 0.41 0.42 0.50 0.70 1.02 1.45 1. 57 1.57 1.44 1.35
1.21 1.17 1.10 1.10 1.13 1.14 1.12 1,08 1.01 0.83
Page 1
! DIVERSION DETAILS Project_DR.des
[DIV]
! Diversion 1522 Basin DR Name: Barnes Rd Diversion
!Previous model DR01522_Divn= 0.00/0.00 2.33/1.25 5.06/2.71 7.99/4.28
10.11/5.42 10.69/5.67 11.24/5.92 11.77/6.15 12.51/6.48 13.21/6.80
15.70/7.94
DR01522_Divn= 0.00/0.00 2.33/0 5.06/0 7.99/0 10.11/0 10.69/0 11.24/0
11.77/0 12.51/0 13.21/0 15.70/0
! Diversion 13862 Basin DR Name: Fairfield Diversion
DR13862_Divn= 0.00/0.00 0.58/0.30 2.14/1.06 4.27/1.93 5.82/2.12
6.82/2.13 9. 58/2.14 11.57/2.15 13.21/2.16 17.10/2.20 20.18/2.23
22.81/2.26 25.15/2.29
! Diversion 18554 Basin DR Name: SW Lombard Diversion #2
DR18554_Divn= 0.00/0.00 5.87/3.20 14.77/8.96 24.54/15.35 46.81/35.18
67.54/55.01 77. 53/63.97 82.23/68.09 90.90/75.66 98.81/82.54 112.96/94.81
125.52/105.67
! Diversion 18571 Basin DR Name: 5th St Diversion
DR18571_Divn= 0.00/0.00 0.15/0.15 0.71/0.53 3.24/1.70 6.28/3.16
7.61/3.99 10.57/6.71 12.91/8.71 14.84/10.33 18.05/12.98 20.75/15.17
23.13/17.09
! Diversion 18828 Basin DR Name: SW Lombard Diversion #1
DR18828_Divn= 0.00/0.00 0.39/0.13 2.30/0.70 5.73/1.46 10.02/2.54
15.29/3.81 20.77/5.02 28.78/6.35 34.05/7.08 35.42/7.74 41.25/9.96
46.30/11.76
! Diversion 20606 Basin DR Name: SW 5th St Diversion
DR20606_Divn= 0.00/0.00 1.66/0.00 3.77/0.00 6.92/0.00 7.48/0.00
7.98/0.00 8.44/0.00 8.87/0.00 9.27/0.00 9.65/0.00 10.02/0.00
10.70/0.00 11.63/0.00
REM-DR20606_Divn=0.00/0.00 1.66/0.56 3.77/1.54 6.92/3.31 7.48/3.36
7.98/3.40 8.44/3.45 8.87/3. 50 9.27/3.54 9.65/3.59 10.02/3.63
10.70/3.72 11.63/3.84
! Diversion 20760 Basin DR Name: Sherwood Rd Diversion
DR20760_Divn= 0.00/0.00 0.44/0.01 1.73/0.16 3.65/0.46 5.49/0.83
5.99/1.19 6.28/1.39 6.54/1. 57 6.78/1.72 7.12/1.94 7.44/2.13
8.54/2.77 9.02/3.03
! Diversion 20834 Basin DR Name: Tektronix Diversion
DR20834_Divn= 0.00/0.00 2.45/0. 51 8. 54/1.74 14.99/3.11 16.25/3.32
19.58/3.84 22.42/4.31 24.93/4.72 27.21/5.11 29.32/5.46 31.28/5.80
34.88/6.41 39.67/7.24
! CWS Diversion 20834 Tektronix Diversion, Basin DR, Name: Hocken Diversion
DR-Div-Hock= 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.14 2.82 0. 58 6.12 1.25 10.11 2.07 14.23
2.91 17.74 3.63 18.15 3.71 42.88 7.76 44.32 8.01 49.67 8.92 54.50
9.75
DR_DIV_BERK=0.000 0.000 0. 500 0.130 1.000 0.250 2.000 0. 500 3.000 0.750 4.000 1.000
5.000 1.000 20.000 1.000
! CWS Diversion 20911 Basin DR Name: Tektronix PS Diversion from City of
Beaverton
DR_Div_Tek=0.000 0.000 7.200 0.000 7.900 1.300 10.000 3.000
! Diversion 20911 Basin DR Name: Tektronix PS Diversion
DR2091]-Divn= 0.00/0.00 1.00/1.00 2.00/2.00 2.32/2.32 2.52/2.32
3.06/2.32 4.51/2.32 5.11/2.32 5.97/2.32 6.66/2.32 7.26/2.32
8.04/2.32 8.73/2.32
! CWS Diversion 18571 5th St Diversion Basin DR Name: Alger Diversion
DR_Div-Alger=0.000 0.000 0.340 0.000 1.340 0.000 3.060 0.260 5.350 0.950 8.360 2.670
18.120 7.070
Page 2
Project_DR.des
1 CWS Diversion 20834 Tektronix Diversion, Basin DR, Name: Hocken Diversion
DR-Div-Hock= 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.14 2.82 0.58 6.12 1.25 10.11 2.07 14.23
2.91 17.74 3.63 18.15 3.71 42.88 7.76 44.32 8.01 49.67 8.92 54.50
9.75
DEFAULT=0.000 0.000 20.000 0.000 40.000 0.000 60.000 0.000 80.000 0.000 100.000
0.000
! PUMPING STATIONS
! Pumping station Configurations
! command paragraphs named according to USA pumping station number
! Pumping station numbers used as manhole numbers in the model
[PUM]
! Upper Tualatin/sherwood (DR)
11664_PumpDR=1 1554 0 5.79 1 1554 0 5.79
1 Beaverton PS (DR)
12681-PumpDR=2 28.3 0 1.3 2 28.3 0 1.3
1 SW Bull Mtn. (DR)
15068_PumpDR=1 665.2 0 4.01 1 712.7 0 4.01
! Cipole (DR)
17795_PumpDR=1 296.6 0 1.29 1 346.8 0 1.29
! Tektronix (DR)
! (total station rating of3250 gpm)
27865_PumpDR=2 1830.0 771.0 5.0 2 2096.0 771.0 2.2
PUM_DEFAULT=2 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Page 3
APPENDIX G
Dry Weather Flow Calibration Results
PRELIMINARY
Clean Water Services District Sanitary Sewer Master Plan 11/16/2007
Modeled vs Metered Hourly Flow Comparison at MH 10740 (D015)
0.45 Dry Period -August 2006
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
E
3
0
0.2
0.15
0.1
Modeled Hourly Flow
0.05 —� Metered Hourly Flow We
—�Metered Hourly Flow Weekday
0
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Hour
PRELIMINARY
Clean Water Services District Sanitary Sewer Master Plan 11/16/2007
Modeled vs Metered Hourly Flow Comparison at MH 6551 (D021)
1.6 Dry Period -August 2006
1.4 -
1.2
1
a
E
£3 0.8
0
LL
0.6
0.4
0.2 —+—Modeled Hourly Flow
f Metered Hourly Flow Weekend
—A Metered Hourl,:F
Flow Weekday
0
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Hour
PRELIMINARY
Clean Water Services District Sanitary Sewer Master Plan 11/1612007
Modeled vs Metered Hourly Flow Comparison at MH 12557(D030)
1.6 - — _ Dry Period -August 2006
1.4 --
1.2 -
0.8
.41.20.8
0
u.
0.6
0.4
0.2 F�mt Modeled Hourly Flow
t Metered Hourly Flow Weekend
—�—Metered Hourly Flow Weekday
0
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Hour
PRELIMINARY
Clean Water Services District Sanitary Sewer Master Plan 11/16/2007
Modeled vs Metered Hourly Flow Comparison at MH 12430 (D032A)
3.5 Dry Period -August 2006
3
2.5
-o 2
rn
E
3
_o
1.5
1
0.5 Modeled Hourly Flow
* Metered Hourly Flow Weekend
—�Metered Hourly Flow Weekday
0
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Hour
PRELIMINARY
Clean Water Services District Sanitary Sewer Master Plan 11/16/2007
Modeled vs Metered Hourly Flow Comparison at MH 14366 (D045)
0.09 Dry Period -August 2006
I
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
E
3
0
LL 0.04
0.03
0.02
+Modeled Hourly Flow
0.01 Metered Hourly Flow Weekend
—�—Metered Hourly Flow Weekday
0 -
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Hour
PRELIMINARY
Clean Water Services District Sanitary Sewer Master Plan 11/16/2007
Modeled vs Metered Hourly Flow Comparison at MH 11719 (D046)
6 Dry Period -August 2006
5
4
a
rn
E 3
3
0
LL
2
1
tModeled Hourly Flow
t Metered Hourly Flow Weekend
t Metered Hourly Flow Weekday
0
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Hour
PRELIMINARY
Clean Water Services District Sanitary Sewer Master Plan 11/16/2007
Modeled vs Metered Hourly Flow Comparison at MH 10483 (D049)
18 Dry Period -August 2006
61412 16 --
14 --
12
10
E
3
0
� 8
6
4
+Modeled Hourly Flow
2 f Metered Hourly Flow Weekend
—A Metered Hourly Flow Weekday
0
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Hour
PRELIMINARY
Clean Water Services District Sanitary Sewer Master Plan 11/16/2007
Modeled vs Metered Hourly Flow Comparison at MH 23064(DOSO)
_— __ Dry Period -August 2006
1.2
1
8 0.8
rn
E
3
0
" 0.6
0.4
0.2 -
Modeled Hourly Flow
F Metered Hourly Flow Weekend
—+—Metered Hourly Flow Weekday
0
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Hour
APPENDIX H
Technical Memo - Durham Model Calibration Within Tigard
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
City of Tigard Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
PMA Engineering/215 W 4th Street, Suite 202/Vancouver WA 98660/(360)993-0635
TO: Jeff Pelz,P.E., Project Manager, West Yost&Associates
FROM: Paula M.Arsenault,P.E.,PMA Engineering
COPIES: Andy Braun, P.E., Capital Program Manager, Clean Water Services
DATE: June 18,2009
PROJECT: Tigard Sewer Master Plan
SUBJECT: Durham Model Calibration within the City of Tigard Subsystem
OVERVIEW OF EVALUATION
The purpose of this effort was to calibrate the City of Tigard subsystem within the Durham Hydra
model to current conditions and reflecting the flow meter data that were collected by Clean Water
Services(CWS)at 11 temporary sites throughout the City system. This was to improve the accuracy
of the model in predicting wet-weather flows during design storm conditions. West-Yost &
Associates (consultant for updating CWS's Sanitary Sewer Master Plan) will use the model to
identify needs for relief and replacement sewers to develop a Master Plan for the City of Tigard.
PMA obtained the current version ofthe Durham model from WYA and made significant corrections
and additions to the sewersheds (SE Layer), and then calibrated the Tigard collection system to
current dry-and wet-weather conditions. Laterals in the City subsystem were calibrated only where
temporary flow meters were installed. The meter installation sites were selected by the City and
WYA to isolate and characterize potential capacity issues.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Available Flow Meter Data
There were several temporary monitor locations on within the City of Tigard subsystem where dry-
and wet-season data were collected between early 2007 and January 2008. Installation dates varied
between February and May 2007,and removal dates were in early January 2008. Table 1 identifies
the flow meter locations for which hourly data were available. In addition,hourly rainfall data were
obtained for the District's rain gages DPR,LTR and MTR.
PMA Engineering ]
Tigard Calibration Tech Memo 06-18-2009.doc
Table 1. Temporary Flow Monitor Sites in the City of Tigard Collection System
Manhole Diameter Direction
No. Install Location inches From MH
06634 Elmwood off SW 82nd 15in MH#6634 15 Downstream
11706 Dover Ct off SW 108th 21 in M11#1 1706 21 Upstream
14284 Hall Blvd at Hemlock loin MH#14284 10 Upstream
19970 Katherine 12inMH#19970 12 Upstream
19980 Summerlake Park E l Oin MH019980 10 Upstream
19993 Commercial St 15in MH#19993 15 Upstream
21142 Hunziker Rd 12in MH#21142 12 Upstream
21192 Bonita Ct A is 1 Din MH#21192 10 IDownstrearn
wnstream
22345 Durham Plant 15in MH#22345 15 m
56579 Ironwood Loo 18in MH#56579 18
58900 Summerlake Park W 8in MH#58900 8
Flow Data Analysis
The flow data files were initially reviewed to remove negative values, partial days of data and
periods when instrument or level adjustments caused significant flow changes or erroneous data.
The date and time formatting was revised and rainfall data were added to the flow data files. Flow
and rainfall data were then copied into and processed in a wet-season data template similar to that
developed during the 2000 Master Plan Update effort. The spreadsheet template contains macros
that transpose the data and update named ranges and equations.
Monthly graphs of the hourly flow and rainfall data were generated in order to review the data and to
define the dry-season period for each meter. The periods selected as representing dry-season
conditions (generally non-storm days from mid-July to early September, depending on data
availability) were then moved to a dry-season spreadsheet tool in which average weekday and
weekend flows, and the diurnal pattern are computed. The average weekday and weekend dry-
season hydrographs were copied into the wet-season spreadsheet tool wherein the infiltration and
inflow(1/I)was separated from the base sanitary flow,and seasonal infiltration was separated from
rainfall-dependent infiltration and inflow(RDII). The spreadsheet includes calculations for average
wet-season infiltration rates that are the initial inputs to the WET_Q field of the Defects database.
West Yost&Associates developed a complex spreadsheet tool to generate sanitary flow injections to
the model. Essentially,a land use polygon(LU Layer)was generated for each sewershed(SE Layer)
included in the original (CWS Master Plan Update)model. WYA determined the land use within
each LU polygon based on parcel data obtained from Metro and the constituent cities. Where
available,parcel data from the cities were used and the city land use codes were converted to Metro
land use codes to create a uniform coding system.
Rather than using a population-based flow-generation method as was the case for the 2000 Master
Plan Update effort, WYA set up the LU database to employ an area-based unit flow method. The
RES POP and VIS_POP fields in the LU database contain developed residential and non-residential
developed area,respectively,and the RES—CPC and VIS_CPS fields contain unit flows in gallons
PMA Engineering 2
Tigard Calibration Tech Memo 06-18-2009.doc
per acre per day(gpad). The 2007 flow meter data for the Tigard sites were not analyzed to modify
the flow factors developed by WYA. Instead, only the percent actives (RES—ACTIVE and
VIS_ACTIVE)were adjusted during calibration.
The flow monitor summary data table(DR Monitor DefectSummmy.xls)was modified to include the
2007 Tigard temporary flow meter sites. This spreadsheet is linked to a spreadsheet,DR Wet Season
Z-I Inputs.xls that computes inputs to the M defects database, DefectWE.dbf representing M for
existing land use and population conditions. The IR inputs in the spreadsheet tool values are copied
to the database. All calibration adjustments are made in the spreadsheets rather than using the
TWEAK factors in the Defects database.
MODEL REFINEMENTS
All of the 2007 temporary flow meter locations were added to the model AutoCAD drawing in order
to determine if pipe additions or sewershed subdivisions were required. Manhole 56579,where a
meter was location,was missing from the model and corrected as per the District's GIS information.
Extensive corrections and additions (46 new polgons)were made to the sewershed layer using an
AutoCAD map of the District's pipe network(converted from and ArcV iew Shape file)and a tax lot
drawing provided by WYA. Sewershed connections were checked and corrected as needed. SE
Layer modifications focused on the branches were flow meters were located. For sewersheds
contributing to the 11 temporary meters,the representative meter assignments were modified in the
spreadsheet tool DR Monitor Defect Summaryxls.
Given the significant changes to the SE Layer, the LU Layer polygon boundaries are no longer
consistent with the sewershed boundaries.
Flow meters 06634 and 21142 collected flow from the City of Portland sewer systems. However,
GIS data for the Portland collection system is not included in the District's Shape files. Therefore,
the sewersheds on the eastern edge of the Tigard collection system were not modified.
MODEL CALIBRATION
This task involved multiple components that improved model accuracy in the Tigard subsystem.
Calibration to dry-season conditions was performed prior to calibrating the model to selected wet-
weather storm events. This is because errors in modeling sanitary flows would be carried forth into
the analysis of storm event flows. Once the model was calibrated to dry-season conditions, wet-
season calibration involved adjusting inputs to the Defects database from which 111 flows are injected
to the model. The model was calibrated to a selected storm event as requested by WYA with moist
antecedent conditions.
Dry-Season Calibration
An iterative process was used to calibrate the model whereby model inputs were adjusted,the model
was ran and the results graphed such that the model was calibrated to within a reasonable level of
accuracy. This calibration process involved adjusting sanitary flow quantities(percent active values
PMA Engineering 3
Tigard Calibration Tech Memo 06-18-2009.doc
only) and diurnal patterns. In addition,monitor-specific diurnal curves were created to achieve a
better match between metered and modeled hydrograph shapes where needed. The four diurnal
curves representing median weekday conditions that were developed for the 1995 Collection System
Needs Analysis were used in addition to the monitor-specific diurnal curves.
The results of the dry-season calibration process are presented in Figures 1 to 12. Modeled peak
flows were all within 10 percent ofinetered values. A comparative graph is presented for permanent
meter site D046 for verification purposes since WYA had previously completed an approximate
calibration of the Durham model. This meter was not used for wet-weather calibration.
Wet-Season Model Calibration
Per WYA's request,the model was calibrated to a 5-day period from December 1-5,2007. This was
a significant event wherein approximately 5 inches ofrainfall occurred over the simulation period as
recorded at gages DPR,LTR and RVR. (Gage MTR was out of service). Hyetographs for this event
are presented in Figure 13. This series of events was preceded by approximately 1 inch of rainfall
from November 26-30,most ofwhich fell between November 26-28,so antecedent conditions were
moist.
Calibration was achieved by modifying Defects database inputs,running the model and graphing the
results in an iterative fashion to achieve a reasonable match between metered and modeled flows for
the selected event.
Hourly rainfall and flow meter data were used, and the modeling time step was 30 minutes. This
level of refinement in the model time step and flow date was sufficient given the fact that the vast
majority of RDII is rainfall-dependent infiltration rather than inflow, which suggest there are pipe
and lateral defects as opposed to defects such as cross-connections and illicit private property
connections. The flow meter data also suggests that areas of the Tigard collection system are in need
of rehabilitation.
Calibration results are presented in Figures 14-24. At meter 06634,the velocity dropped out prior to
the storm peak,but based on the meter data at other sites,a reasonable estimate was achieved by the
model. At meters 14284, 21142 and 21192, the metered peak flows spiked in a manner that was
inconsistent with the rainfall pattem, so the model results represent an estimated peak flow and
pattern. Elsewhere,the model compared reasonably with the metered flows.
At meters 22345 and 56579, extraneous flow contributions were sustained at a high rate for an
unusually long period of time, suggesting significant defects in the collection area upstream. It is
possible that meter 56579 could be influenced by backwater from the Fanno Creek Interceptor,
which was not included in this calibration work. Meter 22345 in the Durham Drive Lateral,
however,is well above the ground elevation of the Upper Tualatin Interceptor and Durham W WTP
influent structure to which this lateral connects.
PMA Engineering 4
Tigard Calibration Tech Memo 06-18-2009.doc
FIGURES
Figure 1. 2007 Dry Season Flow Comparison-06634-Durham
Figure 2.2007 Dry Season Flow Comparison- 11706 -Durham
Figure 3. 2007 Dry Season Flow Comparison- 14289-Durham
Figure 4. 2007 Dry Season Flow Comparison- 19970-Durham
Figure 5.2007 Dry Season Flow Comparison - 19980-Durham
Figure 6.2007 Dry Season Flow Comparison- 19993 -Durham
Figure 7. 2007 Dry Season Flow Comparison -21142-Durham
Figure 8.2007 Dry Season Flow Comparison-21192-Durham
Figure 9.2007 Dry Season Flow Comparison-22345-Durham
Figure 10.2007 Dry Season Flow Comparison-56579-Durham
Figure 11.2007 Dry Season Flow Comparison-58900-Durham
Figure 12.2007 Dry Season Flow Comparison-D046-Durham
Figure 13.Rain Gage Data for December 1-5,2007 Storm
Figure 14.Metered vs. Modeled Flow-Tigard Meter 06634-December 1-5,2007
Figure 15. Metered vs. Modeled Flow -Tigard Meter 11706-December 1-5,2007
Figure 16.Metered vs. Modeled Flow-Tigard Meter 14294-December 1-5,2007
Figure 17.Metered vs.Modeled Flow- Tigard Meter 19970-December 1-5,2007
Figure 18. Metered vs.Modeled Flow -Tigard Meter 19980-December 1-5,2007
Figure 19. Metered vs.Modeled Flow -Tigard Meter 19993-December 1-5,2007
Figure 20. Metered vs. Modeled Flow -Tigard Meter 21142-December 1-5,2007
Figure 21.Metered vs. Modeled Flow -Tigard Meter 21192-December 1-5,2007
Figure 22.Metered vs.Modeled Flow-Tigard Meter 22345-December 1-5,2007
Figure 23.Metered vs.Modeled Flow-Tigard Meter 56579-December 1-5,2007
Figure 24.Metered vs. Modeled Flow -Tigard Meter 58900 -December 1-5,2007
PMA Engineering 5
Tigard Calibration Tech Memo 06-18-2009.doc
Figure 1
2007 Dry Season Flow Comparison - Meter 06634 - Durham
T ; 7 �
0.6
I i
0.5
� I
U
o.a
o I ;
M 0.3
0.2
I
0.1
I
0.0 -
1
.0 -1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour
----Modeled Flow —Mete red Flow
PMA Engineering
Tigard Calibration Tech Memo 06-18-2009.doc
Figure 2
2007 Dry Season Flow Comparison- Meter 11706 - Durham
TT-- —
0.8
# M
0.7
l 0.6
j
0.5 �
1 0.4 --
0.3
0.2
0.1 -
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour
—Modeled.Row —Metered Row
PMA Engineering 7
Tigard Calibration Tech Memo 06-18-2009.doe
Figure 3
2007 Dry Season Flow Comparison . Meter 14284- Durham
0.50 --
0.451-71-717-
- -- —FT-T-17- 11
- T _ _
1
0.40 —
0.35
0.30
I I
0.25 I
a 0.20
0.15AJ�—d
i
i
0.10
I i j
0.05
0.00 .
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour
F Modeled Row Metered Flow
PMA Engineering $
Tigard Calibration Tech Memo 0648-2009.doc
Figure 4
2007 Dry Season Flow Comparison - Meter 18970 - Durham
�— I
0.7 I i —7 T'._
0.6
0.5
3
0.4
o
0.3
I
0.2
i
0.1
0.0 j
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour
L — —Modeled Flow —Metered Row
PMA Engineering 9
Tigard Calibration Tech Memo 06-18-2009.doc
Figure 5
2007 Dry Season Flow Comparison -Meter 19980 - Durham
0.35
i I
0.30 -
0.25 --
ffi 0.20
0 0.15
LL
0.10
0.05
0.00 .
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour
�I
—Modeled Flow —Metered Flow
PMA Engineering 10
Tigard Calibration Tech Memo 06-18-2009.doc
Figure 6
2007 Dry Season Flow Comparison -Meter 19993- Durham
0.7 -- ..- — — — -- -
0.6 11T
0.5
0.4 -
� i I
0 0.3
LL
i
0.2
i
0
I I
0.0.1 I I
1 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour
Modeled Flow —Metered Flow
PMA Engineering ]]
Tigard Calibration Tech Memo 06-18-2009,doc
Figure 7
2007 Dry Season Flow Comparison - Meter 21142 - University City
i
0.7 —
0.6 I - —
� ( I I
I
0.4
� I
0.2
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 157
16 1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour
i
—Modeled flow —Metered Row
PMA Engineering 12
Tigard Calibration Tech Memo 06-18-2009.doc
Figure 8
2007 Dry Season Flow Comparison -Meter 21192 - Durham
0.4
0.4 -
0.3 -
0 0.2 —
r
0.2
0.1
0.1 T
0.0
i
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour
---Modeled Row —Metered Flow1
PMA Engineering 13
Tigard Calibration Tech Memo 06-18-2009.doc
Figure 9
2007 Dry Season Flow Comparison - Meter 22345 - Durham
0.6
T-F-T
0.5 '
0.4 r
0.3
o '
0.2
0.1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour
F—Modeled Row —Metered Flow
PMA Engineering 14
Tigard Calibration Tech Memo 06-18-2009.doe
Figure 10
!Y— _ - _ l
2007 D Season Flow Comparison - Meter 56679 -Durham
1.6
1
I i
1.4 -
1.2
c 0.8
ILL 0.6
0.4
I
i I
0.2
ET
0.0 .
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 110 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour
L F-—Modeled Flow —Metered Flow
PMA Engineering 15
Tigard Calibration Tech Memo 06-18-2009.doc
Figure 11
2007 Dry Season Flow Comparison - Meter 58900-Durham
0.35 — — — 7T----F, 7_—_._ _ _
EI
0.30
1 —
I-
0.25 -
0.20 �– I
o I
I I
I �
3
C
LL 0.15 –
i i 1
010
0.05
S I I I I
0.00
I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 110 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour
—Modeled Flow —Metered Flow
PMA Engineering 16
Tigard Calibration Tech Memo 06-78-2009.doc
Figure 12
2007 Dry Season Flow Comparison - Meter D046- Durham
9.0 — -- --r- — 7
7.0
6.o
5.0
3 �
0
4.0
U.
3.0 T
2.0
1.0
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour
I
- Modeled Flow —Metered Flow
PMA Engineering 17
Tigard Calibration Tech Memo 06-18-2009.doc
Figure 13
Rain Gauge Data for December 1.5, 2007 Storm
DPR=4.81"/LTR=4.33"IMTR=No Data/RVR=5.53"
0.30 - ----------------_._.—... ----- li
0.25
I
LI
0.20 -
ai
0.15 — - - - - ----- - -- -- - - -- -
c �
2, 0.10
0
x
0.06 - -- - - - - - - - -
I 0.00 . I
14 18 22 2 6 10 14 18 22 2 6 10 14 18 22 2 6 10
Hour
DPR� LTR RVR
PMA Engineering 18
Tigard Calibration Tech Memo 06-18-2009.doc
Figure 14
Metered vs. Modeled Flow -Tigard Meter 06634-December 1-5, 2007
7.0e o
_ ... ..
from Ash Creek Sewersheds
aty Dropout-High RDII f
6.0 i_ i I 0.8
Delta Peak Flow=2% i 0.8
Delta Volume=2% FF
�
5.0 0.7
d
4.0 r 0.6
o 30. 0.5
LL L
0.4
2.0 0.3
c_
0.2
0.1
0.0 0.0
0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20
Hour
Rainfall —Meter Flow —Model Flow —Rapid Infiltration —Inflow —Sanitary Infiltration —
PMA Engineering 19
Tigard Calibration Tech Memo 06-18-2009.doc
Figure 15
Metered vs. Modeled Flow -Tigard Meter 11706-December 1.5, 2007
3.0 --- --- - —-- —- ------ - 1.0
_ -T' --�f i- ---Ir - 0.8
2.5
De@a peak Flow=3% 0.8
Delta Volume=0°h
2.0 0.7
0,6
1.5
UAI
G
u j 0.4
1.0 , p
0.3 e
I
0.2
0.6
I
�.rLj
0.1
IAIM I
0.0 0.0
0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20
Hour
ta•Rainfall —Meter Flow —Model Flow —Rapid Infiltration —Inflow Sanitary Infitratlon
PMA Engineering 20
Tigard Calibration Tech Memo 06-18-2009.doc
Figure 16
Metered vs. Modeled Flow -Tigard Meter 14284-December 15, 2007
Unexplained Peak Flow Spikes_
2.5 --- - 1.0
T ,- �- -� T -- -� -�
I 0.9
i
0.8
' W
I
0.7 D:
1.5
, 0,6 �
3 I
0.5
LL 1.0 I— —r 0.4
' I � 0.3
I I m
0.5 0.2
0.1
.l ..
o.o ' 0.0
0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 160
2 0 4 8 12 16 20
Hour
IIIIIIIIIIIIiRainfall —Meter Flow —Model Flow —Rapidlnfikration —Inflow —Sanitary Infiltration
PMA Engineering 21
Tigard Calibration Tech Memo 06-18-2009.doc
Figure 17
Metered vs. Modeled Flow-Tigard Meter 19970 -December 1.5, 2007
2.5 — - - —T - 1.0
2.0 r o.8
Delta Peak Flow=-6%
Delta Volume=o% I 0.7 0
u- 1.0 rkoa
'vv
1 0.3
05
i
0.2
i
j
I OA ,
0.0 0.0
0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20
Hour
[•Rainfall —Meter Row —Model Flow —Rapid Infiltration —Inflow —Sanitary Infiltration
PMA Engineering 22
Tigard Calibration Tech Memo 06-18-2009.doc
Figure 18
Metered vs. Modeled Plow -Tigard Meter 19980-December 1.5, 2007
1.2 — --T 1.0 j
-' -T - - -
yr
7.0
Delta Peak Flow=3% 0.6
Delta Volume=-8°b
0.8 1 I 0.7 O
N
co
! 0.6
c 0.6 0.5
LL
1 0.4
0.4 _
0.38��,i if\�Y!
=_
0.2
0.2
0.1
L i
"' ' I
AA
0.0 0.0
0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20
Hour
Rainfall —Meter Row —Model Flow —RapidInfiltration —Inflow —Sanitary Infiltration '
PMA Engineering 23
Tigard Calibration Tech Memo 06-18-2009.doc
Figure 19
Metered vs. Modeled Flow -Tigard Meter 19993-December 1-6, 2007
2.6 - - - - � — _ . 1.0
I
0.9
2.0 - ! 0.8
Delta Peak Flow=-2%
Delta Volume=-13°k 0.7 j
m
1.5 --- - 0.6
i
j 0.5
I
_o z _r
M 1.0
0.4 •-
0.3
0.6 0.2
i � � ; I i 0.1 i
0.0 1 AV11,1. I .- 0.0
0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20
Hour
Rainfall —Meter Flow Model ROW —RapidInfiltration —Inflow —Sanitary InflltrationJ
PMA Engineering 24
Tigard Calibration Tech Memo 06-18-2009.doc
Figure 20
Metered vs. Modeled Flow-Tigard Meter 21142-December 1.5, 2007
Incomplete Meter Data -Peak Flow Spike Does Not Correspond to Rainfall Pattern
2.0 r -- - ------ - 1.0
r--, - 1 - _
0.9
1.6
0.8
1.4 a
1.2 0.6
1.0
tR
3
I I
u- 0.8 -- 0.4c
-
0.6 _
0.3
OA 0.2 0:
I I ,
L
0.2 0.1
0.0 T ( 11 11 0.0
0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20
Hour
i
1111111111I Rainfall —Meter Flow —Model Flow —Rapid Infiltration —Inflow —SanitaryInfiltratio__n
L — _
PMA Engineering 25
Tigard Calibration Tech Memo 06-18-2009.doc
Figure 21
Metered vs. Modeled Flow -Tigard Meter 21192-December 15, 2007
Suspect Meter Data -Incomplete -Peak Flow Spike Does Not Correspond to Rainfall
1.8
- I — --��T- — — �--�-- 1.0
1.6 —I
0"
1.4 0.8
i Tj
1.2 0.7 p
�
1.0 0.6 m
o 0.8 i 0.5 r
u 0.4
0.6 j -
[T7 In 0.3 c
0.4 I
0.2
0.2
I
L I �� I �� i i ' I 0.7
0.0
0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20
Hour
iiiiiiiiiiiiRaInfall —Meter Flow —Model Flow —Rapid Infiltration —Inflow —Sanitary Infiltration
PMA Engineering 26
Tigard Calibration Tech Memo 06-18-2009,doc
Figure 22
Metered vs. Modeled Flow -Tigard Meter 22345 December 1-5, 2007
Sustained Rainfall—Dependent Infiltration or Meter Problems
1.4 ... - - --i- — — -� .-- r -T--- -- 1.0
1A i 0.9
1.2
Delta Peak Flow=-10%
Delta Volume=-21% 0.8
I I
1.0 — 0.7 p
I N
0.5
0.6 L
u. 0.4
� I
0.4 0.3
I j
0.2
0.2 -
i r l �� to II 11 0.1
0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8. 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20
Hour
I
I
ti RatnfaII —Meter Flow —Model Flow —RapidInfiltration —Inflow —Sanitary Infiltration'
PMA Engineering 27
Tigard Calibration Tech Memo 06-18-2009.doc
Figure 23
Metered vs. Modeled Flow -Tigard Meter 56579-December 1.5, 2007
6.9 Sustained Rainfall-Dependent Infiltration 1 0
--— 1
0.9
5.0 T11I
Delta Peak Flow=4% 0.8
44 Delta Volume=-28% 0.7
i
I - 0.6
i 0
3.0 0.5
o
V_ 0.4
2.0
m
I I I 0.3 r
1.0 `` 0.2
0.1
0.0 0.0
0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20
Hour
I - I
ti Rairdall —Meter Flow —Model Flow —Rapid Inflltration —Inflow Sanitary Infiltration
I--
PMA Engineering 28
Tigard Calibration Tech Memo 06-18-2009.doc
Figure 24
1.0 Metered vs. Modeled Flow -Tigard Meter 58900-December 1-5, 2007
I
1.0
0.9 0.9
0.8 Delta Peak Flow=-2°k
Delta Volume=-5% 1 I 0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6 - m
i 0.6
CI
3 0.5 ' ' � ! I � �
_0
U- 0.4
0.4 -
0.3 3 m
0
! 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0
0.0
0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20
Hour
I Rainfall=—Meter Flow —Model Flow —Rapid Infiltration —Inflow —Sanitary Infiltration
PMA Engineering 29
Tigard Calibration Tech Memo 06-18-2009.doe
APPENDIX I
Summary of Gravity Sewer Capital Improvement Project Costs
Appendix I.Summary of Gravity Sewer Capital Improvement Project Costs
Paek Wel Weaths, peak Wel`AbNear
4.,ua y. pon'on 07
E861iM N19ipe 120081 Re ry 1m9 3015 bNtlyNm Bul[eu Mu9e Unq 8C m Tera Bon GY RtyLcasneN Impte.Bmenl 30C
Motlel Al.air Nna Obm.er Ien9N, C ry. Fbw, opaoy. To
geaq EOUI Fbrv. BuitlnN ♦Fbw ReummentleB OpN Cos �R pl r.r (R k k..M-W TOW Prajev'1 c=a N tlin
ProW10 oil Timin 6 in Gi L9lerelMme cne p Bb e E m B R m E Fkry tl m B Oameter,Nidaea fl EftF Co rc b eM a $ fiwl 6 m pC a e,5 nl
0130 E In 1433 210]6 211 d3 EaNT aN hunk m12a IN OWIW 2.W iZr 0]5 - tAt 11 1R 15 10.0 11 21,449 2],071 NBe6 3@ q3%
0.1'. EasNn 634 31113 21143 Esal T mtl Trunk 12 0-07%0 115 135 Olkl 141 1.)2 1]21S 41 182 42,0450-1N Eneti 1435 31143 21166 1:4 ertl Trwk 12 OW'ap 130 1b 171 2N 203 15 1q) !B.Rb fi2639 >063'H01ID Eti,ti 1436 211N 21165 E9NT artl Tank 13 340 0.00300 114 165 111203 203 IS 13] 4717] fit 326 ]6556 2H 0.125 ELsli 193) 2111E 211< East i'eN Trurk 12 391 no. 1.W 145 020 - lin 2'13 203 5.5 13] 53618 WA3 07,12 2% 40%0.130 EMslin 1434 114] EaNT' rB TrIeN 12 25 a'. Iq5 1]1 3.N 20] 60 .alit 5](9 51% 2"9C�
on.ioW 2f1at2 'A]0 O92 is 161 315133 x0U 569 ]5o]tS 187 d5% 1581¢3
0.133 RWtlnW 1046 13.05 13984 Mll innN Z/ 330 OW2W ➢W Bd2 3:0. 6.10 ).64 10.13 2191 42 102 ]q0 24600) 320050 401[63 3907 6)% 366122
0337 BNtlaul 1045 139.4 138.1 BCFall trunk 2) 3H OW2W 093 643 2`+5 0.918 ].R4 10.12 2191 43 128 0% 203.4. a4A5 4
.330 BUIISCN 1060 1 E2 133a2 SCM1oll Trwk 2] 115 0.WU0 10)5 685 L'11 42 13.0 Po1 92,0-8 11 EB8 148610 35.W )pF d,KaO
03.30 BuiyM 1043 13892 13901 bcM1011 Tank 2] I1] OOOatlD 989 6W 322 0,2N ],91 0.43 830 4T 166 Bra 1@,614 1:'3398 1%.74] 68% 115.>23
0.370 BUMnu 1W2 13801 136M lark Trunk 2] 1M an. 1.19 1. 11 4,914 - 900 i1.. 2.113 .1 190 5 1]0,131 III,15] 2]6,48 3560 726. 197]10
0.10 BW6aW iMt 139801.9]9 cM1el TunF 37 1Y+ la. ).5q 3.% 58n P]9 11.33 2312 42 34 F12 iW5B1 143,08 18069 3560 7p% 135,5`]
.330 BWSnW 1. 138]9 138]0 3:X¢11 Trunk Z! 35fi 3Yp 4.01 )64 2.27 0.]S - o.0. 1133 2].12 43 139 BZT 3%,510 2]3.3W 3900W 290] 225535
0."m Bultlout 1039 138>81%>) SCM1.11 trunk ti I.,. 1a. 1. 2.55 4080 B]9 11)2 p.tf 02 129 But
1520Y 190,1 ]12 36W 1]7,552
4.33 BWtlout 1039 IN7]139]6 6cM1oll trunk 2] 0.00".W 9^] ].54 fA0 2751 8.]9 1 0,10 42 0.1 )01 1951. 3]0]18 2assino5 39N an, 320:fi2
0.]30 BUAtloN 103] fY]6 130]5 6cM1011Trunk 2] dW OOOz00 897 ]:9 144 2]'a T. 1130 n 42 68 600 ,R$ ...on 419,616 39.0 Won
0.3]0 QulWaul 1036 13876 lvai SCFeII Trink P 3M a= 990 ].P4 225 1.T - also 11 43 2320 N 6o Me 14.714 q1. 2N.205 .3-7 1W.454
0.3]0 B.nyoN I., 1173 4M1.IITUM 2) 320 0.00N0 as,202 - 890 1142 2116 d2 7
2 6M 224 B66 -9_49 3.537 390 24.1.1
0.U0. BwltloN 3013 13973 9uM1Ok TruN 27 349 a. 9W 19] B% 23.15 42 9.q 733 255,441 :32,0'9 ins. 23.07 ::77927
oJ30 T01N 10.N ]]N 7 d 3�5 11N zato.OBO ],0]6,079 109;090 6B%
P3Y Buibaut 1029 38.1.SG] $cMll trunk 3] 320 O.W1p3 ).)d <52 Zy2 6251 - 6.]1 9.15 21.32 43 fl4 ]10 23J,6W D33)M .79,681 30.55 335EE6]
.336 Buktloul 10]0 1386!1[3]9 SCM1011 innk 3) 112 I OWiW ]fib 552 2.fli 3,9Y9 fi.71 1 916 1 21. 42 i 91 i Rq i 7¢849 1 102504 1 1.130 1 .1 1 BOM2
BugarN IMI 16379 112'6 c1r111-1 1' ]q BW >e] 5`5 231 4424 615 9,19 211] 42 115 )]4 30,1]9 .0,2.1 40.0397n
.335 Bulltloul 1080 18236 Ilas, 3µW Tank 2] 331 ]4] `M 91 3.Y5 675 9.19 21.34 43 IT. 1. 1]9.0]3 23214 230%3 20.56 W4 185,ID1
0.116 BµWON 103] 13B581W65 bcM1ol Tladr 2] 401 000100 ]50 bfi6 194 3.11) - 6]5 019 2121 4 i] 6M 219.227 352.5 053,]. 21a.W W% ZM;R/
0.3]6 filipoW Ib26 1W 13.4 S:IwITuh 27 qY 000100 ).So 556 1W 3,76 B]0 910 31.14 41 6.0 ]0] 3Z1,1W 416&18 523$10 255 64% 332500
0.3;5 BUMae9 t0E 13%41Y86 6021 Turll 3] OWI. ).54 ;55 3.810 B.1] 21.% 62 9.1 726 2Vi,d)4 2)11] 3338% 255 8]% 21111
0.]]5 To1J 185] 1. 674 1.3¢,610 1,3],19] 4,158992 6]% 1,]10,806
4340 Ell IOW 39.
0591293 NrvC nlNerte m ]0 24o O.W1N 7.0 1].]1 - - - 14.Y5 156 1566 3B BB 3M ]22N ¢3414 11]392 1J83 da% 554]0
0140 Etlati f0li 129212% M@ rMIMe or ]0 395 0.23W LairOSB 75 6 15fi6 15.% 35 09 302 119119 165,9] 194.W6 23W 40% ]8,243
Od40 i Fanno Creek.41- ]0 6] OfNOW 15@] 13]0 318 8.21 14.94 1;fib 15, l0 111 31,624 111 35,138 2].25 N4 13.Y11
0'AO EtaB 127 1IX19410596 FannOCreek lNerlw ]p 12 415900 126 13>p 95,5) 10.11 1490 156 ISM J5 120 1920 �41. BIS] IP.13 8P% 2.q q
0.lW TMaI 714 F 7,x,l .11 ]S;OX q]Ye 1505)6
I}.gp Earn 048 OSW305p. Elmwcltl neral 12 124 0083W 9W 0.W x.6 3,BM d 503 602 21 7,9 1W 214>4 '11,61] b,iK "49 .%
o-2p Elven 0:�n
044 pso6 E1m::eaa L.bW a 312 6.:rop 575 6. 1.10 zzle - aM =.pz 5pz a lz 104 •v14W ] r 9x.5: 649 nu �z,za
EUNI WS a' Elm.-aLanaaa f2 125 0.0.52W S>3 4.W fe0 21 az - OM soz sm zltA0 3m n iZI 4669 aA9 7a% 3618]Etlatl 48 O+Y.iO Elm wotl WleM , Bo;151 ]559] 94056 "NM ]7% ]].22350EdN 05976 EI1�:��Jtaeal 13 102 02pW 100 AW Oc5 , 75%7 30191 1]]3 n%350EMn ]6 OWR Elm,votl lateral 12 0..500 491 013 .0 4,. 51' 5. 11 ]0,310 4260 21.11 71% 33,215
ENsti 1 wa Ts Elms.tl ter91 12 0.0400 0.M 695 513 21 6.] 101 $fi59 50,E-k 550'Jg8 Elmo�.a lelarel 12 2W 0.03100 135 0.69 _ 63573313
run. EVNm .OSM3 Elmwora Wlertl 2 1R 0.02@10 3]q AM 21 512 5.12 07 1% 37117 4],434 1650 PY 36677EiPi .9305100 Elm.+otl Laleal 12 312 0.2W2 216 4M _ 5.12 5.13 21 6.3 1R W ]3,16390$ 971 ]0% 70,140ENN002101 -rtl LakW t2 190 0.29J. 210 0.]3 518 518 1 627] 5]617 )B% N00>
Ev,Y 01 21 W Imwootl Lalerzl 13 310 W 215 0]3 - 5.18 v.18 21 68 82 56169 7391437 )8% 71193
EpN 04 2105 Elm''.il lalerl 13 1M p1�2W 3.SB 6)3 . .121B3 178 33,510 02261 52829EUN 120616 dlaterel 13 399 249 qqp v.3) 53] 31 25 MG61 04,5. 105]25 1911 ]B% 82,2W
TeW E6n. x81 OMAo 5 16 54 M6 )09.411 006,199 70% .0Z
.351 ENnI 873 6516 Og18 Elmr.ra LdaN I6 025W ].2 6% - - 5.19 ;3] 5.]] 31 63 102 2676] 4.5,197 all 32032
021 E.. 8]0 W18 Tanta EI.,r.11-11 15 150 Oo20p 311 0% - 528 546 536 21 B.1 141 28,.9 1,95 46,619 ].4l E"' 25315
0.351 EUMi 8]6 X19 0220 Elmrrra lateral 15 1R 0.0200 12 69] - ;zB 346 645 21 2] 32.9 03.105 ,Mt 124 Sh 6.296
0.351 P.1in 878 OM3024xi Elmv.oaa Lalertl 15 128 OOOWO 3N 4 7 - 520 5.48 S4B 21 13 iM 4332 54,.3 M,6] 134 W% 39,313
W51 Eeatln 8]] 06210630 Elma.ora laM1nl s Mp O.AISW ].0] 69] 519 SK 5.06 21 100 26 82318 12.2 131601 ]24 53% ]8,042
e]B 2626.51 Elmvrootl LNere1 IS 319 OWSfa 3M 0.9] - 6.2] SA6 606 21 102 20] 4;3171 58,891 73614 ].20 9]% 4,241
061 Eusnn 079 2fi2]VE28 Elmv.nrl Lalml 10 146 O.P5.W 36 /9] 5.3] S.M 516 2. )3 ia0 aE,92 30,00 4l]i] ).� !8% 35,203
021 EVN .3 0628 Wil] EYneaotl Leterel 15 Ig 09 300 4.97 5.1 Sq6 SAB 21 10.8 211 R..9% 73.]99 %,W] 124 SR 216
0351 EueO M1 0631 0.14 ElmwoW W.nl 15 P6 001£110 30 606 - - 5]e S6 556 31 108 311 :8,250 75.725 94,.6 724 SB% F441
0.61 EtiNln 482 my WE Elmwrna lateral 15 3.0 0.01500 6,16 SO6 0.0 1]8 538 656 ,50 21 90 IW 65317 84,913 106.1 d0 1259 59% 61•,609
0-151 Tolp 316 472114 a1].)49 -Us 56% 441]1
CdfO Butltloul i. 194]5 1%]4 SW Ka11e0rcleleral 12 265 0262 1.91 172 1.R 109 IHd 15 If]i .,6E T2M6 214 4]% 33]70
Od10 Bu9tlrul 1105 1Vs]01.]3 6W KatM1Mne Lateral IZ ]d 00136 2J] I.R 0.95 1,814 1.]7 180 B4 15 15.] 123 10,266 16.2 0.]8 7,323
O4p BNWOW 1100 197]19372 SW It.lM1erme Lalrnl 13 4] OOP3W 223 1.73 051 9R 1.77 00 184 13 6.3 12,348 43,.2 5265 J% 441 2226
0-010 &11Nou1 1103 19.21%71 GV:KatFO7Ne Lalerzl 12 33 0.00100 p.]0 fi)2 1.)] 1.84 194 15 89 1. 6174 in, 0.6/9 1.32 4!6
W10 BNIBON 1102 1.%71 1Ri)0 9W KalM1erme talent 12 152 00200 1.66 1.]2 1 189 3'ec% 41,02 N% 0651
6410 but 1101 %!0 1%69 6W ttelM1enne ylvel 13 305 p.Wp 1.W 1.]2 _ 1.]7 18! 15 120 101 113859' 295 4fiM 50115
West Yost-Mar,Mill
517-03-0616
Page 1 of
Ciry pt, Plan
Sanitary Sever Master Plan
Appendix 1.Summary of Gravity Sewer Capital Improvement Project Costs
axwelwaalk� p.axwn n.afl,e,
Eavfn9 Bass Corti Gapatllya, 'Aii—I
Ed61M9 Fi14piPo Im461 RunalnFq Ier.Fy 2415 9uly Nea Euibe�e wea9e VNI tW WrSlmNon[061 xplaumam Imprpve— a.
M11MN ManMea We 6mieler LeyIF, LeWax1Y, Flow. Cpaaily, EDIh Fin Edla Flw. iii ♦Flw, RerommeMeE 0.epM1, LaN. (PephameM:v✓f (RrylaaemeN:w' iWal Prgxl 1310m�1e1, PIIW,di, ImprmemeM
eG 14 CIPT G 10 4n Ialanl Xame 61 Flew,m 1M1F .E na),3 C.A.E S4C C«I,3
OAIO BuiNwl 1100 1M69 19308 SW Ynirydlne LaleM 13 a (A] 1 fid 1 of as, 19J 1.93 P me115'rc 155 51,302 fp.692 BJ.365 285 d5% 3].191
OA18 ielel tA66 ]39,]]6 311,106 300902 65X 1] 600
OSE EUN 1103 199]01R3B0 129M1gn 1abM 0 4410 096 090 0.05 1115 093 489 f9.e 135i ]4,959 i 92,241 115.301 1.T3 9<% 51.193
OSE Eda4 1110 199E019_.AI 12&M1q
Evµ gy a Labal L'a, B 1Q 400A0 OSB 090 4fa93 495 Y 10 69 115 i61K 21.RJ MS]9 1.00 dYi 11 P4
05b 12FlM144f44 0.9 494 A3 1 om 4aF" 11 10 1 1 M. 1.CO 4)fi ]]2BI
OS25 ENatin 1112 404 493 M,6]1 ]B.BID Aa.525 1.93 430N
O195 inial 1.115 196680 350,686 ]iB6M 65% View
0530 Etlstin 8121 56229 SR62 Iem13I iin e1 FA6 Ins B 233 000200 435 4]3 4]5 4]5 4>3 12 18B K'J)3 SB.Z3 ]23/ d>9R
1x539 Eutirt NEnIN ]:h 0 2R 400ND 035 4>3 OY. 4]9 12 AB 56,998 Yf,d3f 91796 1.03
05A EpH1ry emll 61a4m a EMii T][6 3N 4W• 4J5 4]J - - 4?9 12 IB0. I05 619]] W.5N 1W.]12 tOJ 084. tl31V
Ob90 ErhMr. eW2 he 13Yd6 La4ral6faNn al Enli ]iC5 0 20J O.QYdO 436 4i3 0.i5 0.]9 O.N 12 A6 1d] 29,]K 90.]34 IB,dI] 1.03 66T
OS30 TMnI 1,M6 1 iNe 354065 x3.601 86!:
Taal 17427 63X a211
West Yost-May 2010
'17-03-06-14 Page 2 oft City of Tigard
S....n Y Sewer Master Fla.
APPENDIX J
Cost Basis for Planning (from District Master Plan)
w E $ r rosy PROF�es,�
ASSOCIATES 735
f nn.ul�wg hv:,Q vn.v, '
OREGON
C® JOS i 3,LO¢�' �'^w
PET ��
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM EXPIRES:I2 3r ra
DATE: March 30, 2009 Project No.: 517-03-06-14
TO: Andy Braun
Clean Water Services District
FROM: Jeff Pelz Reviewed By: Ron Berry
Curie Peterson, R.C.E. #73588
SUBJECT: Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update—Cost Basis for Planning
The purpose of this technical memorandum (TM) is to present the basis of estimating
planning-level costs for capital improvements identified in the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
Update. This TM documents the sources of unit costs used for the cost estimates, how the
estimates are applied to sewer model output and/or post analysis to estimate construction costs,
the level of contingencies and other costs applied to construction costs to estimate total planning-
level project costs, and the method of apportioning system development charges (SDC). Finally,
this TM conveys a request for the District's review of unit costs used for cost estimating purposes
within the Master Plan Update, in light of the District's recent construction experiences as well as
the District's long-term budgeting policies and practices. The cost basis for planning and the
request for District input are presented under the following headings:
• Gravity Sewer Costs
• Pump Station Costs
• Force Main Costs
• Construction Contingency and Other Markup Costs
• SDC Allocation of Costs
• Requested Feedback
81C M l ERe�i SJ . i t:. '�:ee . ;. _ -o�.32i:: Fm 5�z_62
Technical Memorandum
March 30, 2009
Page 2
GRAVITY SEWER COSTS
The collection system model generates a peak flow for each link of the modeled system, estimates
the hydraulic conditions resulting from that peak flow, and predicts a hydraulic grade line (HGL).
The HGL inf ormation is used to rank sewers and identify needed capacity improvem ents.
Improvements are based on pipe replacement for existing sewers and construction of new sewers
in growth areas. Costs take into effect sewe r depth, diam eter, manholes and service laterals
spaced at typical intervals and t ypical utility conflicts expected along b oth collector and arterial
roads in urban areas. It is understood that al ternative alignm ents may be evaluated during
preliminary design and will be compared with th e m aster plan on the basis of costs and other
factors. The purpose of the in aster plan is to identify the need for a given specific project, define
an apparent cost-effective conceptual alignment based on very lim ited information, and establish
a reasonable basis for predicting the project cost.
Construction cost data from the 2000 Sewer Master Plan Update by PMA Engineering is used as
the basis of gravity s ewer unit cc sts. The sub ject report s tater that th e unit cos is are "pipe-in-
place" costs which include manholes, service laterals, and typical utility conflict avoidance but do
not include project contingencies or other costs such as engineering and administration. Cost data
from PMA is indexed to the Decent her 1999 E ngineering News Record 20-cities Average
Construction Cost Index (ENR CCI — 6167), For th a current Master Plan Update,the unit costs
have been escalated based on the Novem her 2008 index(E NR CCI = 8602). Unit construction
costs for gravity sewers are presented in Table 1.
PUMP STATION COSTS
Pump station construction costs for both new pump stations and improvements needed to existing
pump stations are discussed belo w. For design,them ost cost effective improvement must be
determined on a case-by-case basis at each pump station through a more de tailed analysis than
that used for planning. However, for the purposes of the in aster plan, screening criteria were
developed to recommend improvements to existing pump stations based on the in agnitude of the
anticipated flow increase. W here the predicte d buildout flow exceeds the pum p station firm
capacity by up to 200%, the recommended improvem ent is listed as an upgrade. In these
instances, it is assum ed that the pum p station capacity can b e increased by replacing mechanical
and electrical equipment without significant structural modifications.
Where the flows are exp ected to exceed th e pump station capacity by in ore than double the firm
capacity, complete replacement is recommended as the improvement. On Figure 1, construction
costs are plotted against"firm" pumping capacity for recent pump station projects within Oregon
and Northern California. A best-fit curve of th e data is shown for reference, but is not
recommended for planning-level cost estimates because of the wide v ariation in data. Rather, for
the cas e of estim ating pum p station replacem ent costs, a planning cost curve is plotted to
encompass the upper end of the cost data points and is used for pl anning level cost estim ates to
prevent underestim ation of pump s tation cost s. A in inimum construction cost of$500,000 is
assumed for the smallest stations.
West Yost Associates 517-03-06-14tm
Table 1.Unit Costs for Gravity Sewers,S/LF
Diameter.Inches
Depth to Invert,
fl 6 8 10 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 % 42 48 54 60 72 78 84 1 96 108 120
4 74 86 98 110 127 144 160 177 199 219 257 911 - - - - - -
5 81 92 105 117 134 151 168 185 208 228 266 321 382 448 - - - - -
6 85 98 110 123 141 158 175 193 216 236 275 331 393 45B 529 - - - -
7 89 102 116 128 147 165 183 201 224 245 285 341 404 469 541 670 - - - -
8 96 109 121 134 154 172 190 209 232 253 294 352 415 481 553 683 769 856 - - -
9 102 116 128 142 161 179 198 216 240 262 303 362 425 492 565 697 783 873 1,031 - -
10 109 123 135 149 168 187 205 224 249 270 313 372 436 504 578 711 797 888 1.048 1,218
11 114 127 141 155 175 194 213 232 257 279 322 382 447 515 590 725 812 903 1,064 1,236 1;417
12 119 133 146 160 181 201 220 240 265 287 331 392 458 527 602 739 826 918 1 081 1,254 1,435
13 124 138 152 166 188 208 228 248 273 296 341 402 468 538 614 753 841 934 1097 1,272 1,455
14 130 144 158 173 195 215 235 256 281 304 350 412 479 $573
62] 766 855 949 1,114 1,290 1,475
15 134 149 163 179 202 222 243 263 290 313 359 422 490 639 780 869 964 1,131 1.308 1 494
16 141 155 170 186 209 229 250 271 298 322 369 432 501 651 794 884 979 1,147 1,326 1514
17 146 162 177 191 215 237 258 279 306 330 378 443 512 663 808 898 994 1,164 1344 1 53418 152 169 184 198 222 244 265 287 314 339 387 453 522 676 822 913 1009 1,180 1,362 1,55419 159 174 190 205 229 251 273 295 322 347 397 463 533 688 836 927 1024 1,197 1380 1 57320 166 181 197 212 236 258 280 303 331 356 406 473 544 700 849 942 1,039 1,214 1398 1,59321 506 523 538 554 577 601 623 646 675 700 750 817 890 048 1,198 1,292 i391 1,565 1,752 1 94722 529 544 561 576 600 624 646 669 699 724 775 843 916 1 075 1227 1,321 1,421 1597 1,785 1,98223 550 566 562 598 622 646 669 692 722 748 800 868 942 103 1256 1,351 1,451 1629 1,819 2,01724 570 587 604 620 644 669 692 716 746 772 824 894 966 ,130 1,285 t361 1,462 1,661 1 852 2,05225 591 608 625 642 667 692 715 739 769 796 849 919 994 ,158 1,314 1,411 1512 1693 1,885 2,08726 612 630 647 664 689 ]14 738 762 793 820 874 944 1,020 1185 1,343 1,440 1,543 1,725 11919 2,122
27 635 651 670 6% 711 737 761 785 816 843 898 970 1.045 1,12] 1,213 1,372 1 4]0 1,5]3 1,]57 1,952 2,156
28 6% 674 690 708 134 ]60 784 609 840 867 923 995 1,0]2 1 154 1241 1,401 1 500 1603 1,]88 1,985 2,191
29 676 695 713 730 756 782 807 832 864 891 948 1021 1098 1,181 1,268 1430 1,530 1,634 1820 2,018 2,225
30 697 716 734 752 778 805 830 855 887 915 972 1046 1,124 1,208 1,296 1 1,459 1 1,559 1,664 1852 2,052 2,261
Notes:
1.Costs are for construction only and do not include Engineering 8 Administration and Contingencies.
2.Costs of manholes and service laterals are assumed to be included in unit costs.
3.Soume costs are Rom Clean Water Services'2000 Sewer Master Plan Update by PMA Engineering,dated August 2001.Costs escalated to November 2008(ENR CCI=8602).
WYA-March 2009 Clean Water Services District
517-03-06-14 Snniiaq Sewer Master Plan Update
Technical Memorandum
March 30, 2009
Page 4
Similarly, for estimating pump station upgrade costs, a planning cost curve is plotted on Figure 1
to encompass the upper end of upgrade cost data points and is used to prevent under estimation of
pump station upgrade costs.
For reference, Figure I includes upper and lower bounds of costs based on those published in
"Pumping Station Design", 2nd Ed. by Sanks for new wastewater pump stations with submersible
pumps. All historical cost data on Figure 1 is adjusted to current(November 2008) costs using the
20 cities average ENR CCI.
FORCE MAIN COSTS
In this in aster plan, existing force in ains ar e generally recomm ended for im provement whe n
anticipated flow velocities would exceed 9 f eet per second under the predicted peak flow
conditions. The type of im provement (replacement versus paralleling) was selected based upon
existing force main length, diameter, and the anticipated peak flow in the force main. It should be
noted that the type of improvem ent(replacement versus paralleling) as sumed for planning is a
preliminary recommendation based upon very lim ited information. A more detailed com parison
of force main alternatives (including a condition assessment)will be completed on a case-by-case
basis during the design phase to analyze the interre lation between the characteristics of available
pumping equipm ent and headloss system curves in force in ains to determ ine the optim al
combination of pump station and force main improvements.
WYA typically estimates the construction cost of force main improvements to range between $10
and $15 per inch diam eter per foot of length (e.g. the unit construc tion cost for 10 inch diam eter
force main would range from $100 to $150 per lineal foot). For this cost range,the unit cost value
of$10 per inch diam eter per foot of length is used for"easy" construction conditions, such as
construction in an open field without the need for asphalt patching of trenches, utility conflict
avoidance, or traffic control,wh ereas the value of$15 per inch di ameter per foot length is used
for"difficult' construction conditions, such as construction with high traffic control requirements
and/or with dense utility conflict avoidance needs. For this master plan, a value of$12 per inch
diameter per foot of length is used reflecting a typical level of construction difficulty. The unit
cost includes typical utility avoidance, sewage ai r relief valves,repaving saw-cut trench areas in
existing streets, and moderate traffic control during construction.
CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY AND OTHER MARKUPS
Unit costs are based on lim ited information appropriate for use in in aster planning. A variety of
factors will affect actual costs, including as yet unidentified fi eld conditions that affect the
difficulty of construction. General economic conditions, as well as construction materials, market
conditions and bidding climate can also dramatically affect cost.
Total estimated capital costs include a contingency allowance of 30%,which is intended to reflect
a"planning level' of project development. As a given project becomes more defined through the
design process, this contingency allowance may be appropriately reduced.
West Yost Associates 517-03-06-14tm
12.0
/ Adjusted Cost
Pmem Data Capacity
a ec $Milken
/
Completed Now or Replacement Pumps ions
/ 1. South Air on 63N Portland,OR 2004 0.6 1.22
/ 2. South Ai an 661M1 Portland,OR 2004 0.4 0.44
:q 3. Ma s River Corvallis,OR 2002 6.6 2.16
4. Bmoklane Corvallis,OR 2003 120 2.18
10 0 5. Creswell Wry Creswell,OR 2004 TO 0.88
6. Hartaw Rd. S nn field,OR 2007 15.1 3.15
7. Weataiae Intercepter Labanan,OR 2001 16.0 1.98
GOQU� / 8. SSSD W WTF Ka rmth Fara,OR 2001 11.0 1.76
o io/ 9. Leisure Town Rd. acaviTe CA 1996 8.6 2.72
3 - 10. Vaca Valve Ph (Vacaville CA 1996 3.9 1.23
� NO1E 1 - - 11. Horse Creek(Vacaville,CA 1999 3.3 1.66
\at'e -
12. System 9 San uineai Stockton,CA 2004 10.5 3.09
0 80 R - 13. stem90rione Stockton,OA 2004_j_4.5 2.10
Z=
14. Lower Tualatin(Tualatin,OR 2008 26.5 10.40
�, Un9gpc`11 em teles u maea
15. Aloha p3 U rade Hillsobore,OR 2000 15.0 1.24
o / ���i\UOYj�C �/ : 16. Saum Creek U rade Tualatiq OR 2000 0.5 0.36
17. RC Ranch U grade Hillsboro,OR 2000 0.9 0.44
a.
Planning or Pre desi nEstimates Future Pre acts)
L Re4 77Rive,
U radal SM1enwod, ) 2000 6.8 1.22
19. River Plm rade Plain,
O ) 2000 4.3 0.70
m 6.0 20. North Plates`(North Plein,, R) 2008 5.3 2.88
O 21. Dawson Water (i sbom,OR) 2008 24.9 7.00
� Note 3 111 rtes.w.rerservee.299a teat BaBmam
o
E /
N
E / Note 1.
s w 0 "Best-(It"curve of cost data Reolacement Costs C....cautions
:
F m f Construction Cost,$=4,200 x FC A2+375,000x FC+900,000
6 > 4.0 (applicable range:0 mad<FC<=30 mgtl)
u =140,000x FC+4,200,000
�' 30o�e C�n�n (applicable range:FC>30 read)
9 ` 20 i 2 • de \N _ where,FC means"Firm Capacity'In read
S m j • UP�:a _ _ Note 2.
a q i U grade Without Con----y)- ConswctionC Cosrade Cost. t, •1200 xsFC A2+120,000x FC+300,000
• • / 7 _--_P (applicable range:0 mgd<FC<=30 mgtl)
2.0 f ' _ =80,000x FC+450,000
( o Note 2
a f • (applicable range:FC>30 mgtl)
1 �Q // _ - Note 3. Range of Costs from Sanks"Pumping Station Design",2nd Ed.,
r� • �•Ib" • Figure 29-3 ('Yimt'capacity of submersible pumps)
ISG_" 15 Note 4. Historical Costs from Completed Pump Stations and banks ars
2 12, - adjusted to ENR 20 Cities Average CCI for November 2008(CCI=8602)
0.0 1
s 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
Z
Firm Capacty(mgtl)
i
-y Figure 1.Wastewater Pump Station Planning Costs
March 2009 Clean Water Services
517-03-06-14 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update
Technical Memorandum
March 30, 2009
Page 6 (revised, August 2009)
Other project costs such as en gineering, construction in anagement, District adm inistration costs
associated with the project, legal costs, and en vironmental compliance costs are in corporated in
an allowance of 25%of the es timated construction cost plus the contin gency allowance. Land
acquisition and financing costs are not explicitly included in the capital cost estimate and must be
accounted for during the budgeting process if expected to be significant.
SDC ALLOCATION OF COSTS
For each gravity sewer replacement that will provide additional capacity to accommodate growth,
the construction cost has been apportioned in pa rt to system developm ent charges (SDCs). The
allocation to SDCs is proportional to the capacity provided in excess of current capacity. Where a
project is needed, the percentage increase in total gravity flow(un-surcharged) capacity provided
by the replacement sewer,represents the SDC share of capacity.
Example: An existing l0-inch sewer will be replaced with a 12-inch sewer.
The full-pipe, un-surcharged capacity of the 10-inch sewer is 0.90 mgd.
The full-pipe, un-surcharged capacity of the new 12-inch sewer is 1.44 mgd.
The SDC allocation of cost would be 37.5%, as follows:
(1.44—0.90)= 1.44 x 100%=37.5%
This calculation is perform ed on a link-by-li nk basis, and then summ ed for the given
improvement. The overall ratio of total SDC allocation to total cost for the given project in ay be
used to determine the final SDC share once actual final costs are known.
JDP:nmp
West Yost Associates 517-03-06-14tm
APPENDIX K
Clean Water Services Performance and Reporting Standards
CleanWater Services
Our commitment is clear.
Sanitary, Storm and Surface Water Management
Performance and Reporting Standards
(Attachment A)
R&O 07-46
R&O 08-21
R&O 09-21
October 23, 2007 Version R&O 7-46 Plus 2008 Amendments in R&O 8-21 Plus 2009
Amendments in R&O 09-21;
Scanned R&O's are available on Clean Water Services website
Att A-Sanitary, Storm and Surface Water Management
Performance and Reporting Standards Page 1
R&O 07-46 10/23/07;plus amendments R&O 08-21 06/25/08 and R&O 09-21 07/14/09
I. Field Operations Services
A. Collection Systems Maintenance Programs
1. Sanitary Line Cleaning
Activity:........................................................................................Routine,Small Lines
Facility Description:.......................All public sanitary sewer lines up to 18" in diameter
Maintenance Standard:................ ........................At least 35%of the system annually,
.....................................................................and every line cleaned at least every 4 years
Recommended Maintenance Frequency:....Good slope and condition--3 to 4 year freq.
Poor slope or older lines-- 1 to 2 year frequency
Problem areas--Up to weekly
Performance Benchmark:.....................................................................3,212 feet per day
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:.................................Sewer-jet truck, crew of 2
Special Notes and Requirement......................................................As needed in the field
Activity:........................................................................................Routine,Large Lines
Facility Description:.....................All public sanitary sewer lines 21"to 24"in diameter
Maintenance Frequency: ............6-year frequency,problem areas more often as needed
Performance Benchmark:.....................................................................3,212 feet per day
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:..........................Sewer-jet truck,crew of 2 or 3
Special Notes and Requirement........................................................As needed in the field
Activity:.......................................................................................................Non routine
Facility Description:.......... ................................All public sanitary sewer lines,all sizes
Maintenance Frequency: .................. ...............................................................As needed
Performance Benchmark:.............................................Non routine,no defined standard
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:............Sewer-jet truck,crew of 2.or as needed
Special Notes and Requirement:.....................................................As needed in the field
Measurement Criteria;...............................Footage and cubic yards of material removed
2. Storm Line Cleaning
Activity:..............................................................................................................Routine
Facility Description:....................All storm pipelines meeting criteria of Exh A Sec LB
Maintenance Standard:...........................................At least 25%of the system annually,
......................................................................and every line cleaned at least every 6 years
Recommended Maintenance Frequency:....Good slope and condition--5 to 6 year freq.
Poor slope or older lines-- 1 to 4 year frequency
Problem areas--Up to weekly
Performance Benchmark:.....................................................................2,370 feet per day
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:..............Combination cleaner truck,crew of 2
Special Notes and Requirement:......................................................As needed in the field
Measurement Criteria:..................Footage cleaned and cubic yards of material removed
Activity:.......................................................................................................Non routine
Facility Description:...................All storm pipe lines meeting criteria of Exh A Sec LB
Maintenance Frequency: ........................ .........................................................As needed
Performance Benchmark:............................................Non routine,no defined standard
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:...............Combination cleaner buck,crew of 2
Special Notes and Requirement:........... .........................................As needed in the field
Measurement Criteria:..................Footage cleaned and cubic yards of material removed
3. Sanitary Manhole Maintenance
Att A-Sanitary, Storm and Surface Water Management
Performance and Reporting Standards Page 2
R&O 07-46 10/23/07;plus amendments R&O 08-21 06/25/08 and R&O 09-21 07/14/09
Activity:................................................................................................Adjust to Grade
Facility Description:..................................................All public sanitary sewer manholes
Maintenance Frequency: ............................ ............................... ..................As needed
Performance Benchmark:............ ........ ......................................... ...................2 per day
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:............Crew truck,compressor, crew of 2 or 3
Special Notes and Requirement:.....................................................As needed in the field
Measurement Criteria:.............. .........................................................Number completed
Activity:...............................................................................................................Sealing
Facility Description:.................................................All public sanitary sewer manholes
Maintenance Frequency: .............................. .....Initially as needed,repeat as needed
Performance Benchmark:...................................................................................I per day
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:Crew truck and Manhole sealing van,crew of 4
Special Notes and Requirement:......Use of automated sealing equipment recommended
Measurement Criteria:........................................................................Number completed
Activity:................................................................................................................Repair
Facility Description:..................................................All public sanitary sewer manholes
Maintenance Frequency: ..................................................................................As needed
Performance Benchmark:.............................................Non routine,no defined standard
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:.......... ...............Crew truck,and crew of 2 or 3
Special Notes and Requirement:..................Coordination with other local gov.agencies
Measurement Criteria:............................................................................Number repaired
4. Storm Manhole Maintenance
Activity:................................................................................................Adjust to Grade
Facility Description:.................... ..............................All public storm system manholes
Maintenance Frequency: ................................................................. ...........As needed
Performance Benchmark:............................................................................I to 2 per day
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:....................Crew truck,compressor,crew of 2
Special Notes and Requirement:...............................................................................None
Measurement Criteria:...........................................................................Number adjusted
Activity:................................................................................................................Repair
Facility Description:...................................................All public storm system manholes
Maintenance Frequency: ... ...... ....................................................................As needed
Performance Benchmark:.............................................Non routine,no defined standard
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:.................................Crew truck,.crew of 2 or 3
Special Notes and Requirement:...............................................................................None
Measurement Criteria:........................................... ................................Number repaired
5. Root Control—Sanitary Lines/Infrastructure
Activity:........................................................................................................Mechanical
Facility Description:......................All public sanitary sewer lines under 24"in diameter
Maintenance Frequency: ................................................ I to 5 year frequency as needed
Performance Benchmark:..,................................ ......................No standard,non-routine
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:.................................Sewer Jet truck,crew of 2
Special Notes and Requirement:................... ................. .........As needed in the field
Measurement Criteria:.............................................................................Footage cleaned
Activity:...........................................................................................................Chemical
Facility Description:......................All public sanitary sewer lines under 24" in diameter
Maintenance Frequency: ..........................3 to 5 years in sewer lines with root problems
Performance Benchmark:...................................................................-2,000 feet per day
All A-Sanitary, Storm and Surface Water Management
Performance and Reporting Standards Page 3
R&O 07-46 10/23/07;plus amendments R&O 08-21 06/25/08 and R&O 09-21 07/14/09
Equipment&Crew Recommendation:....Root foaming trailer,sewerjet truck crew of 2
Special Notes and Requirement:............................... Special chemical handling required
Unit Costs for Estimating:.......... ........... ..................................As needed in the field
Measurement Criteria:.............-....................... ......... ......._...................Footage treated
6. Root Control— Storm Lines/Infrastructure
Activity:........................................................................................................Mechanical
Facility Description:....................All storm pipelines meeting criteria of Exh A Sec LB
Maintenance Frequency: ................................................ 1 to 5 year frequency as needed
Performance Benchmark:..........................................................No standard,non-routine
Equipment&Crew Recommendation:.....Comb, cleaner,or Sewer Jet Truck,crew of 2
Special Notes and Requirement:.....................................................As needed in the field
Measurement Criteria:.......................... . ............ ...................................Footage cleaned
Activity:...........................................................................................................Chemical
Facility Description:............................ Not currently approved for use in storm systems
Maintenance Frequency: ....................................................... ..................................None
Performance Benchmark:.........................................................................................None
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:.................................. ...............................None
Measurement Criteria:................. ................................. ..........................Footage treated
7. TV Inspection—Sanitary
Activity:........................................................................................Routine,Small Lines
Facility Description:.......................All public sanitary sewer lines up to 15"in diameter
Maintenance Frequency: ...............................7-year frequency,problem lines as needed
Performance Benchmark:.....................................................................2,114 feet per day
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:.................TV van,self-propelled color camera
crew of 2(1 person crew in residential areas possible)
Special Notes and Requirement: ...............Need to closely coordinate with line cleaning
Measurement Criteria:.............................................................. ..................Footage TV'd
Activity:........................................................................................Routine,Large Lines
Facility Description:.....................All public sanitary sewer lines 18"to 24"in diameter
Maintenance Frequency: ...............................7-year frequency,.problem lines as needed
Performance Benchmark:............................. ........ ..............................2,114 feet per day
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:................TV van,self-propelled color camera,
long TV cable, crew of 2 to 3
Special Notes and Requirement: ...............Need to closely coordinate with line cleaning
Measurement Criteria:........ ............................................................... ........Footage TV'd
Activity:.........................................................................................Routine,Trunklines
Facility Description:................... ...All public sanitary sewer lines over 24"in diameter
Maintenance Frequency: ...............................9-year frequency,problem lines as needed
Performance Benchmark:.................. ............................. ....................2,114 feet per day
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:.......................................TV van, color camera,
camera float,long TV cable,crew of 2 to 3
Special Notes and Requirement: ...............Need to closely coordinate with line cleaning
Measurement Criteria:................................................................................Footage TV'd
Activity:......................................................................................................Non Routine
Facility Description:...........................................All public sanitary sewer lines,all sizes
Maintenance Frequency: ..................... ............................................................As needed
Performance Benchmark:.............................................Non routine,no defined standard
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:....TV van, self propelled color camera or float,
crew of 1 to 3 as needed,cleaner truck if line requires cleaning
Att A-Sanitary, Storm and Surface Water Management
Performance and Reporting Standards Page 4
R&O 07-46 10123/07;plus amendments R&O 08-21 06/25/08 and R&O 09-21 07/14/09
Special Notes and Requirement:......................................................................... .....None
Measurement Criteria:.......................... .................. ...................................Footage TV'd
Activity:...........................................................................Post construction acceptance
Facility Description:..................................... .....All public sanitary sewer lines, all sizes
Maintenance Frequency: ...............................Prior to acceptance of public storm system
Performance Benchmark:................................. .... .. ............ ....................................N/A
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:....................................................................N/A
Special Notes and Requirement:...............................................................................None
Measurement Criteria:............................................ ....... ............. ..............Footage TV'd
Activity;...............................................................................................I-Year warranty
Facility Description:...........................................All public sanitary sewer lines,all sizes
Maintenance Frequency: ................. Within 2 months before end of maintenance period
Performance Benchmark:...................... ......... 1,900 feet per day after lines are cleaned
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:................................................. ......................._
TV van,self propelled color camera
crew of 2,cleaner truck if line requires cleaning
Special Notes and Requirement:...............................................................................None
Measurement Criteria:.......................................... ......................................Footage TV'd
Activity:.............................................................................................................Laterals
Facility Description:...................................................................Private property laterals
MaintenanceFrequency: .................................................. ................................................
Not done routinely as a part of District program,non-routine only
Performance Benchmark:.............................................Non routine,no defined standard
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:__........................................Mini-camera van
and/or self-launching camera system
Special Notes and Requirement:.............. ............. ......... ..... ..................................None
Measurement Criteria:.................................................................................Number TV'd
8. TV Inspection - Storm
TV Inspection Standard: See Sanitary Sewer TV Standard
Activity:..............................................................................................................Routine
Facility Description:.......................................................................All public storm lines
Maintenance Frequency: ...............................8-year frequency,problem lines as needed
Performance Benchmark:.....................................................................1,575 feet per day
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:...........................................................................
TV van,self-propelled color camera,adjustable height platform, crew of 2
Special Notes and Requirement:................Need to closely coordinate with line cleaning
Measurement Criteria:.......................................................................... ......Footage TV'd
Activity:......................................................................................................Non Routine
Facility Description:....................All storm pipelines meeting criteria of Exh A Sec LB
Maintenance Frequency: ..................................................................................As needed
Performance Benchmark:................................ ............Non routine,no defined standard
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:...................................................._....................
TV van,self-propelled color camera,
adjustable height platform,crew of 2,cleaner truck if line requires cleaning
Special Notes and Requirement:...... .................................................................................
Measurement Criteria:.................................................................................Footage TV'd
Activity:...........................................................................Post construction acceptance
Facility Description:.......................................................................All public.storm lines
Att A-Sanitary, Storm and Surface Water Management
Performance and Reporting Standards Page 5
R&O 07-46 10/23/07;plus amendments R&O 08-21 06/25/08 and R&O 09-21 07/14/09
Maintenance Frequency: ... ...........................Prior to acceptance of public storm system
Performance Benchmark:....... .................. .............................................................._N/A
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:............................ .......................................NIA
Special Notes and Requirement:........_.....................................................................None
Measurement Criteria:................................. ...............................................Footage TV'd
Activity:...............................................................................................I-Year warranty
Facility Description:.......................................................................All public storm lines
Maintenance Frequency: .................Within 2 months before end of maintenance period
Performance Benchmark:.................................1,700 feet per day after lines are cleaned
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:............................................... ..................None
TV van,self-propelled color camera,adjustable height platform,
crew of 2,cleaner truck if line requires cleaning
Special Notes and Requirement%.......................................................................................
Measurement Criteria:.................... ...........................................................Footage TV'd
9. General TV Standards
a. All TV inspections shall follow NASSCO-PACP standards,and procedures. All TV
operators shall be certified to use this rating system.
b. Inspections shall be performed using a software suite that allows the capture of digital
video,still images in real time,and the recording of observation locations. All
observations shall be entered on an electronic log sheet and cross-referenced with their
occurrence in the video.
C. Quality—Under normal circumstances,the pipe to be inspected shall be recently cleaned
prior to inspection to allow all defects to be recorded during the inspection. Fog in the
pipe that limits the view during the inspection is not acceptable. The camera lighting
shall allow a clear picture up to five pipe diameter lengths away for the entire periphery
of the sewer,and the lighting.shall be adjusted to eliminate hot spots.
d. Direction—Under normal circumstances,the TV inspection shall start at the upstream
manhole and proceed downstream.The direction of flow shall be clearly marked on the
video screen and the electronic log form.
e. TV footage measurement--The TV inspection system shall be equipped to measure the
length of each segment. The video counter shall be zeroed at the beginning of each new
video inspection,and at any intermediate manhole.
f Camera--The CCTV camera shall record in color and shall be capable of panning the
lens through a 360-degree are about the vertical axis and tilting it at least 90 degrees to
the longitudinal axis. For pipes larger than 6 feet in diameter,the equipment shall have a
zoom feature capable of providing general views looking along the pipe up to five pipe
diameter lengths away,and close up views of features.
g. Clean Water Services manhole and feature numbers shall be used on all reports. Where
inspections are performed by a City or contractor,the reports shall use CWS numbering
or unique facility numbers consistent with GIS data transferred to the District in
accordance with Section ILC .
h. Digital Recordings— Video format shall be Mpegl with a frame size of 320x240,a
frame rate of 29.97 or 30 frames per second and a bit-rate of 1150 kbps. The
information shall be written to a DVD or other data digital transfer device along with a
report that has digital links to the survey data. These links shall provide direct access to
portions of the reach showing the chosen defect or pipe condition.
Att A-Sanitary, Storm and Surface Water Management
Performance and Reporting Standards Page 6
R&O 07-46 10/23/07;plus amendments R&O 08-21 06/25/08 and R&O 09-2107/14109
i. Still Photographs--During CCTV inspections,still digital color photos shall be taken of
major defects and to document typical conditions within any reach. The photographs
shall be in JPEG format,stored on DVD's or other digital storage medium. The digital
photograph files shall be accessible directly from the defect log.
j. Delivery of Work Product—For Cities or contractors doing the TV program,completed
TV inspection video,still pictures,and inspection reports that comply with the standards
of this section shall be delivered to the District every two weeks,or as agreed to by the
District and City.
10. Inspection, Maintenance& Repair of Trunk-lines & Lines in Stream Corridors
Activity:...................................................................................................TV Inspection
Facility Description:............................................ ........Public sewer lines 24"and larger
Maintenance Frequency: ..................................................... ..................7-year frequency
Performance Benchmark:.......................... .................................... .....3,000 feet per day
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:.........................................................................-
2
ecommendation:.........................................................................-
2 or 3 person crew depending on access
TV truck with large transport and high capacity reel.
Special Notes and Requirement:........................... .....................Contracted and in-house
Measurement Criteria:............................................. ............................Footage inspected
Activity:.......................................................Surface Inspection,replace manhole lids
Facility Description:..............................................Public sewer lines in stream corridors
Maintenance Frequency: .............................. ................................. 1 to 2-year frequency
Performance Benchmark:......................................................................6000 feet per day
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:.....................................Pickup truck,crew of 2
Special Notes and Requirement:......................................................... ............................-
Normally
equirement:......................................................................................-
Normally combined with Marker Post activity.
Activity includes removing manhole covers and
visually inspecting interior from the surface. Time includes marker post activity.
Measurement Criteria:............... .........................Footage inspected,manholes inspected.
Activity:....................................................................................................Marker Posts
Facility Description:.................Public sewer lines in stream corridors and remote areas
Maintenance Frequency: .................... ...............................................Replace as needed
Performance Benchmark:.................... ...................... ............... .....................20 per day
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:........................................Crew truck,crew of 2
Special Notes and Requirement...Normally combined with Surface Inspection activity.
Measurement Criteria:........................................................Number installed or repaired
Activity:......................................................................................Install self-closing lids
Facility Description:.....................................................Public sewer lines 24"and larger
Maintenance Frequency: ..................................................................................As needed.
Performance Benchmark:............... ...................... ......Non routine,no defined standard
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:........... ............... ........Crew truck,crew of 2
Special Notes and Requirement:................................... ...........................................None
Measurement Criteria:.........................................................Number installed or repaired
Activity:............................................................................................................Cleaning
Facility Description:..... ...................................... ........Public sewer lines 24"and larger
Maintenance Frequency: .........................5-year frequency,more often in problem areas
Performance Benchmark:.............................................Non-routine,no defined standard
Equipment and Crew Recommendation: Sewer Jet truck,'Parachute"winch,crew of 3
Special Notes and Requirement:...............................................................................None
Measurement Criteria:..................Footage cleaned and cubic yards of material removed
An A-Sanitary, Storm and Surface Water Management
Performance and Reporting Standards Page 7
R&O 07-46 10/23/07;plus amendments R&O 08-21 06/25/08 and R&O 09-21 07/14/09
Activity:................................................................................................................Repair
Facility Description:.....................................................Public sewer lines 24"and larger
Maintenance Frequency: ..................................................................................As needed
Performance Benchmark:............... .............................Non routine,no defined standard
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:...........................................................................
Construction or repair equipment as needed,crew size as needed
Special Notes and Requirement:... ....................... ...................................................None
Measurement Criteria:............................................................................Number repaired
11. Siphon Maintenance - Sanitary
Activity:....................................................................................................Clean siphons
Facility Description:............................. .......................All public sanitary sewer siphons
Maintenance Frequency: ........................................Annual,more often in problem areas
Performance Benchmark:........ ................... ................Non routine,no defined standard
Equipment.and Crew RecommendatiomCombination Cleaner or Sewer Jet truck,crew of 3
Special Notes and Requirement:...............................................................................None
Measurement Criteria:................Number cleaned and cubic yards of material removed
12. Customer Response and Investigation - Sanitary
Activity: ..........................................................Customer Response and Investigation
Facility Description:............................................. .....All public sanitary sewer facilities
Maintenance Frequency: ............. ....................... ........ .............. ....................As needed
Performance Benchmark:................... .........................Non routine,no defined standard
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:...........................................................................
Pickup truck,crew of 1. Crew of 2 for remote areas
Special Notes and Requirement:..................................... ............ ...........................None
Measurement Criteria:......................................... .................. ........Number of responses
13. Emergency Response - Sanitary
Activity:.......................................................................................Emergency Response
Facility Description:.................................................-All public sanitary sewer facilities
Maintenance Frequency: ...................................................... ..........................As needed
Performance.Benchmark:.............................................Non routine,no defined standard
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:.................. ..................... ........................None
Sewer Jet truck,crew of 2,additional equipment and crew as needed
Special Notes and Requirement:.......................................................................................
Measurement Criteria:................................................. ...................Number of responses
14. Laterals in Public Right of Way - Sanitary
Activity:.....................................................................................................Investigation
Facility Description:................................ Private laterals as defined in District R&O
Maintenance Frequency: ......... ........................................................................As needed
Performance Benchmark:.............................................Non routine,no defined standard
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:.......................... ....... ..............See TV Activity
Special Notes and Requirement:............................. ...................... .........................None
Measurement Criteria:.......................... ..........................................Number investigated
Activity:................................................................................................................Repair
Facility Description:......................................Private laterals as defined in District R&O
Maintenance Frequency: ................ .......................As needed due to structural failure
Performance Benchmark:...................... ......................Non routine,no defined standard
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:............. .............................................................
Construction equipment as needed,crew as needed
Special Notes.and Requirement:.................................................................... ...................
Alt A-Sanitary, Storm and Surface Water Management
Performance and Reporting Standards Page 8
R&O 07-46 10/23/07;plus amendments R&O 08-21 06/25/08 and R&O 09-21 07/14/09
Property owner responsible for demonstrating defect is in public R/W
and that it is a structural failure
Measurement Criteria:............................................................................Number repaired
15. Other Non-routine Work- Sanitary
Activity:.................................................................................Other Non-routine Work
Facility Description:............................ ......................All public sanitary sewer facilities
Maintenance Frequency: ................... ..............................................................As needed
Performance Benchmark:.............................................Non routine,no defined standard
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:............. ................................... ........As needed
Special Notes and Requirement:.................................. .................. .........................None
Measurement Criteria:...............................................................................Hours of work
16. Catch Basins - Storm
Activity:............................................................................................................Cleaning
Facility Description:............... .......................................Public catch basins—with sump
Maintenance Frequency: ............. ...........Once per year,problem areas more frequently
Performance Benchmark:.................... ...........................................Sumped-30 per day
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:...............Combination cleaner truck,crew of 2
Special Notes and Requirement:............... ...............................................................None
Measurement Criteria:.................Number cleaned and cubic yards of material removed
Activity:............................................................................................................Cleaning
Facility Description:............ ..............Public catch basins—no sump(flow through)
Maintenance Frequency: .........................Once per year,problem areas more frequently
Performance Benchmark:........................ .............................. ...Un-sumped-80 per day
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:...........................................................................
Inspect as a part of line cleaning,or 2 person crew with a pick-up truck or B-10
Special Notes and Requirement:........................................................................................
Clean catch basins with debris,otherwise just inspect
Measurement Criteria:.................Number cleaned and cubic yards of material removed
17. Water Quality Manholes—Storm
Activity:............................................................................................................Cleaning
Facility Description:.........................................................Public water quality manholes
Maintenance Frequency: .........................Twice per year or more frequently as required
Performance Benchmark:.................................................................................10 per day
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:...............Combination cleaner truck,crew of 2
Special Notes and Requirement:.............. ................................................................None
Measurement Criteria:.................Number cleaned and cubic yards of material removed
18. Surface Retention/Detention Facility (W ater quality and qu antity facilities, no t
including filter vault facilities)—Storm
Activity:..............................................................................................................Mowing
Facility Description:..............................................................................Large open areas
Maintenance Frequency: ..................................................................4 to 6 times per year
Performance Benchmark:..................... . .....................................5 to 9 facilities per day
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:...........................................................................
Crew truck,trailer,riding mower,crew of I or 2
Special Notes and Requirement:...................All routine functions done at the same time
Measurement Criteria:.........................................................................Hours and acreage
Activity:..........................................................................................................Trimming
Facility Description:.........................................................Confined,small,or steep areas
Maintenance Frequency: ....................... ..........................................4 to 6 times per year
Alt A-Sanitary, Storm and Surface Water Management
Performance and Reporting Standards Page 9
R&O 07-46 10/23/07;plus amendments R&O 08-21 06/25/08 and R&O 09-21 07/14/09
Performance Benchmark:........................................................ ....5 to 9 facilities per day
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:........................................................ ..................
Crew truck,trailer,weed eater,walk-behind mower,crew of 1 or 2
Special Notes and Requirement:.._................All routine functions done at the same time
Measurement Criteria:.........................................................................Hours and footage
Activity:..........................................................................................Spraying herbicides
Facility Description:.........................Fence-lines,perimeters,not for contact with water
Maintenance Frequency: ................................................. 1 to 3 times per year as needed
Performance Benchmark:................................. .......................10 to 12 facilities per day
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:..........................Crew truck,sprayer,crew of 1
Special Notes and Requirement:........................................................................................
Special chemical handling required. All routine functions done at the same time
Measurement Criteria:.........................................................Acreage and gallons sprayed
Activity:.................................................................................Levee/Bank maintenance
Facility Description:..........................................................Levees,banks,retaining walls
Maintenance Frequency: ............................................ ..................Non-routine as needed
Performance Benchmark:..........................................................No standard,non-routine
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:..........Construction equipment,crew as needed
Special Notes and Requirement:........................................................................................
Measurement Criteria:....._................,....................................................Number repaired
Activity:..................................................................................Inlet/outlet maintenance
.
Facility Description:.............................................................Inlets,outlets,grates,sumps
Maintenance Frequency: ...................................................................Clean once per year
Performance Benchmark:..................................................................................................
10 to 20 per day with equipment access,3 to 5 per day no equipment access
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:...............Combination cleaner truck,crew of 2
Special Notes and Requirement:...............................................................................None
Measurement Criteria:..............................Number maintained and cubic yards removed
Activity.:..............................................................................................Garbage removal
Facility Description:..................................................................................Treatment area
Maintenance Frequency: ...............................................................Non-routine as needed
Performance Benchmark:..........................................................No standard,non-routine
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:........................................Crew truck,crew of 1
Special Notes and Requirement:...................... ........................................................None
Measurement Criteria:.......... ................................................................Facilities cleaned
Activity:........................................................................Silt/debris removal/Coring out
Facility Description:..................................................................................Treatment area
Maintenance Frequency: ..............................................................5 to 10 years as needed
Performance Benchmark:..........................................................No standard,non-routine
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:..........Construction equipment,crew as needed
Special Notes and Requirement:...............................................................................None
Measurement Criteria:....................................Number cleaned and cubic yards removed
Activity:..........................................................................................................Inspection
Facility Description:.................... ...............................................................Entire facility
Maintenance Frequency: .........................................4 times per year during rainy season
Performance Benchmark:............................................. ...............5 to 9 facilities per day
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:.....................................Pickup truck,crew of 1
Special Notes and Requirement:...............................................................................None
Measurement Criteria:...... ................................................Number of facilities inspected
Att A-Sanitary, Storm and Surface Water Management
Performance and Reporting Standards Page 10
R&O 07-46 10/23/07;plus amendments R&O 08-21 06/25/08 and R&O 09-21 07/14/09
Activity:...................................................................................Watering and fertilizing
Facility Description:.............................. ................ ............ ....... ...............Planted areas
Maintenance Frequency: ...................................................................................................
Watering-weekly to monthly in summer as needed
Fertilizing- 1 or 2 times per year as needed to establish plants(first two years)
Performance Benchmark:.,............................. .........................No Standard,non-routine
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:........................Pickup truck,sprayer,crew of 1
Special Notes and Requirement:........................................................................................
Only fertilize outside of the treatment area,and when needed to establish plantings
Measurement Criteria:..................Number of facilities and acreage watered or fertilized
Activity:...................................................................................Planting and replanting
Facility Description:...................................................Areas requiring increased planting
Maintenance Frequency: ...............................................................Non-routine as needed
Performance Benchmark:..........................................................No standard,non-routine
Equipment.and Crew Recommendation:..................................................... .....................
Crew truck,trailer,hydroseeder,crew of 2 or as needed
Special Notes and Requirement:...............................................................................None
Measurement Criteria:..............................................._Number of facilities and acreage
Activity:.......................................................................Reshaping and Reconstructing
Facility Description:................................................................Areas requiring upgrading
Maintenance Frequency: ...............................................................Non-routine as needed
Performance Benchmark:..........................................................No standard,non-routine
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:..........Construction equipment,crew as needed
Special Notes and Requirement:......................... ....................................................NOne
Measurement Criteria:.......................................................................Nurnber of facilities
19. Filter Vault Maintenance
Activity:.....................................................................................Filter Vault Inspection
Facility Description:........................Publicly maintained proprietary treatment facilities
Maintenance Frequency: ............................2 times/year until buildout;yearly thereafter
Performance Benchmark:...... ............... ................................................I facility per day
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:.....................Combination cleaner,3-man crew
Special Notes and Requirement:............................. ..........................................................
...........................................Include removing at least 1 canister cover to determine load
Measurement Criteria:.......................................................................Number of facilities
Activity:...........................................................................................Filter Replacement
Facility Description:........................Publicly maintained proprietary treatment facilities
Maintenance Frequency: .....................................Yearly,or as determined by inspection
Performance Benchmark:.......................................................................24 filters per day
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:............ .......Combination cleaner,3-man crew
Special Notes and Requirement:..............................................................................None
Measurement Criteria:...........................................................................Number of filters
20. Customer Response and Investigation—Storm
Activity: ..........................................................Customer Response and Investigation
Facility Description:....................All storm pipelines meeting criteria of Exh A Sec LB
Maintenance Frequency: .................... ............................................................As needed
Performance Benchmark:... .....................................Non routine,no defined standard
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:...........................................................................
Pickup truck,crew of 1. Crew of 2 for remote areas
Special Notes and Requirement:...............................................................................None
21. Emergency Response and Storm Patrol— Storm
Alt A-Sanitary, Storm and Surface Water Management
Performance and Reporting Standards Page 11
R&O 07-46 10/23/07;plus amendments R&O 08-21 06/25/08 and R&O 09-21 07/14/09
Activity:.......................................................................................Emergency Response
Facility Description:....................All storm pipelines meeting criteria of Exh A Sec 1.B
Maintenance Frequency: .......................... .......................................................As needed
Performance Benchmark:.............................................Non routine,no defined standard
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:...........................................................................
Combination cleaner truck, crew of 2,additional equipment and crew as needed
Special Notes and Requirement:...............................................................................None
Measurement Criteria:................................................................. ...Number of responses
Att A-Sanitary, Storm and Surface Water Management
Performance and Reporting Standards Page 12
R&O 07-46 10/23/07;plus amendments R&O 08-21 06/25/08 and R&O 09-21 07/14/09
22. Washington County Roadside Ditch Program—Storm
Activity:..................................................................................................Remove Debris
Facility Description:....................................................Roadside ditches in County roads
MaintenanceFrequency: ...................................................................................................
Major roads--Once each 5 Years
Minor roads--Once each 8 Years
Performance Benchmark:.....................................................................1,200 feet per day
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:............................................................. .............
2 dump necks,trackhoe,crew truck,crew of 4,flaggers as needed
Special Notes and Requirement:.................Performed as funded by Country Road Fund
Measurement Criteria:........ ...........................Footage cleaned and cubic yards removed
Activity:...................................................................................................Hydro-seeding
Facility Description:....................................................Roadside ditches in County roads
Maintenance Frequency: ....................................................................Following cleaning.
Performance Benchmark:................................................................15,000 sq.ft.per day
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:..........,.......Crew truck,hydroseeder,crew of 2
Special Notes and Requirement:.................Performed as funded by Country Road Fund
Measurement Criteria:........................._................. .......... ....... ............Acreage treated
Activity:.................................................................................................Ditch armoring
Facility Description:....................................... ............Roadside ditches in County roads
Maintenance Frequency: ................... ......Following cleaning,in highly erodeable areas
Performance Benchmark:............ .............................................................400 ft.per day
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:........................................................ ..................
Dump truck,trackhoe,crew truck,crew of 4,flaggers as needed
Special Notes and Requirement:.................Performed as funded by Country Road Fund
Measurement Criteria:.................... .....................................................Footage protected
Activity:..................................................................Clean roadside pipes and culverts
Facility Description:...................................Roadside pipes and culverts in County roads
Maintenance Frequency: ............... ............ ........... ............. ...........................................
Major Roads-once each 5 years
Minor Roads-once each 8 years
Performance Benchmark:..........................................................No standard,non-routine
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:...............Combination cleaner truck,crew of 2
Special Notes and Requirement:.................Performed as funded by Country Road Fund
Measurement Criteria:.................................................Footage and cubic yards removed
23. Washington County Roadside Pipes and Culverts—Storm
Activity:...................................................Repair/replace roadside pipes and culverts
Facility Description:............... ..................Roadside pipes and culverts in County roads
Maintenance Frequency: ..........................................................No standard,non-routine
Performance Benchmark:.............................................Non routine,no defined standard
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:..........Construction equipment,crew as needed
Special Notes and Requirement:.................Performed as funded by Country Road Fund
Measurement Criteria:._................................... .............Number repaired or replaced
Activity:..........................................................Install new roadside pipes and culverts
Facility Description:..............................................County roads without curb and gutter
Maintenance Frequency: ........ ......................................................................Non-routine
Performance Benchmark:.............................................Non routine,no defined standard
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:..........Construction equipment,crew as needed
All A-Sanitary, Storm and Surface Water Management
Performance and Reporting Standards Page 13
R&O 07-46 10/23107;plus amendments R&O 08-21 06/25/08 and R&O 09-2107/14/09
Special Notes and Requirement:................ Performed as funded by Country Road Fund
Measurement Criteria:..................... ...... .... .........................................Number installed
Activity:................Remove roadside pipes and culverts;re-establish roadside ditch
Facility Description:................................. .... ... ........................................County roads
Maintenance Frequency: ............ ................................ .................................Non-routine
Performance Benchmark:.............................................Non routine,no defined standard
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:..........Construction equipment,crew as needed
Special Notes and Requirement:.................Performed as funded by Country Road Fund
Measurement Criteria:...................................... ......... ....Footage of ditch re-established
24. Street Sweeping—Storm
Activity:..............................................................................................................Routine
Facility Description:...................................................................Public streets with curbs
Maintenance Frequency: ................................................................
Local streets-Once per month
Downtown areas-Up to weekly as needed
Performance Benchmark:......... ..............................15.6 curb miles per day per sweeper
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:...........................................................................
Regenerative air sweeper or equivalent water quality sweeper. Crew of 1
It is a requirement that the sweeping speed be 4 to 7 mph
Mechanical sweeper is not acceptable for this activity.
Sweeper must be equipped with an independent recording device that
records speed while sweeping(broom activated,pickup head down,blower
on),miles swept,and hours swept. Operator supplied data is not sufficient
Special Notes and Requirement: .............................. ...............................................None
Measurement Criteria:...............................Curb miles swept and cubic yards of material
Activity:.......................................................................................................Non routine
Facility Description:.......................................................... .........................Public streets
Maintenance Frequency: ...............................................................................Non-routine
Performance Benchmark:.................................... ........Non routine,no defined standard
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:...........................................................................
Regenerative air or mechanical sweeper,crew of I
Special Notes and Requirement: ..............................................................................None
Measurement Criteria:...............................Curb miles swept and cubic yards of material
Activity:...................................................................................Related to leaf program
Facility Description:...................................................Public streets in leaf pick-up areas
Maintenance Frequency: .............................................................Following leaf machine
Performance Benchmark:...................... ........................................20 curb miles per day
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:.................Regenerative air sweeper,crew of 1
Special Notes and Requirement:...............................................................................None
Measurement Criteria:...............................Curb miles swept and cubic yards of material
25. Street Sweeping/Leaf Program Material Processing and Disposal—Storm
Activity:..................................................................................Material Transportation
Facility Description:.................................. ..................Sweeping and leaf program areas
Maintenance Frequency: ...............................................Replace drop box once per week
Performance Benchmark:............................. .....................l to 1-1/2 hours per drop box
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:........ .........................Hook-lift truck,crew of 1
Special Notes and Requirement:....................... .......................................................None
Measurement Criteria:
Cubic yards of material transported and member of boxes hauled
Att A-Sanitary, Storm and Surface Water Management
Performance and Reporting Standards Page 14
R&O 07-46 10/23/07;plus amendments R&O 08-21 06/25/08 and R&O 09-21 07/14/09
Activity:....................................................................................Processing and Sorting
Facility Description:......... ........................................................Material processing yard
Maintenance Frequency: ............................................................. Sort material as needed
Performance Benchmark:......... .......................................-......................200 cy.Per day
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:.......... ........Vibrating screen,loader,crew of 1
Special Notes and Requirement:_............................................................................None
Measurement Criteria:................................................Cubic yards of material processed
Activity:.............................................................................................................Disposal
Facility Description:..................................................................Material processing yard
Maintenance Frequency: ............... ........................................__......................As needed
Performance Benchmark:......................................................................... 1 hour per load
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:...........................................................................
Hook-lift truck,Dump truck,loader,crew of 1
Special Notes and Requirement:............................. .................................................None
Measurement Criteria:...................Cubic yards of material and number of boxes hauled
26. Creek and Stream Maintenance—Storm
Activity:................................................................................................Debris Removal
FacilityDescription:......... .............................................................. ............................
Public creeks and streams and those that affect public systems if not maintained
Maintenance Frequency: ............................................................. .................Non-routine
Performance Benchmark:.............................................Non routine,no defined standard
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:..........Construction equipment,crew as needed
Special Notes and Requirement:......................................... .....................................None
Measurement Criteria:........................................... Number of locations and cubic yards
Activity:.................................................................................Planting and Restoration
FacilityDescription:........................................ ...............................................................-
Public creeks and streams and those that affect public systems if not maintained
Maintenance Frequency: ...............................................................................Non-routine
Performance Benchmark:.............................................Non routine,no defined standard
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:...........................................................................
Crew truck,trailer,hydroseeder,crew as needed
Special Notes and Requirement:...............................................................................None
Measurement Criteria:... ............ ...................Number of locations and acreage restored
Activity:.............................................................................................Bank stabilization
FacilityDescription:..........................................................................................................
Public creeks and streams and those that affect public systems if not maintained
Maintenance Frequency: ...............................................................................Non-routine
Performance Benchmark:.............................................Non routine,no defined standard
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:..........Construction equipment,crew as needed
Special Notes and Requirement:..................................................................... .........None
Measurement Criteria:..... .................... ...........................................Number of locations
Activity:...............................................................Garbage/Nuisance/Hazard removal
FacilityDescription:..........................................................................................................
Public creeks and streams and those that affect public systems if not maintained
Maintenance Frequency: ..................... ...............__......................................Non-routine
Performance Benchmark:.............................................Non routine,no defined standard
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:...............................Crew truck,crew as needed
Special Notes and Requirement:...............................................................................None
Measurement Criteria:..........................Number of locations and cubic yards of material
Att A-Sanitary, Storm and Surface Water Management
Performance and Reporting Standards Page 15
R&O 07-46 10/23/07;plus amendments R&O 08-21 06/25/08 and R&O 09-21 07/14/09
27. Leaf Program—Storm
Activity:...............................................................................Formal curbside program
Facility Description:.................................................... ...........High leaf generation areas
Maintenance Frequency: ...............................Every 2 weeks,4 times total in leaf season
Performance Benchmark:............................................................. 75 cubic yards per day
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:..............Leaf machine,2 leaf trucks,crew of 3
Special Notes and Requirement:........................................................................................
Send notice to affected area giving guidelines
of how to put leaves in street for pick-up
Measurement Criteria:.........................................Curb miles and cubic yards of material
Activity:.........................................................................................Increased Recycling
Facility Description:................................................................High leaf generation areas
Maintenance Frequency: ..................................Double frequency of recycle can pick-up
Performance Benchmark:.................... .......... ..........................Contracted with recycler
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:.........................................................Contracted
Special Notes and Requirement:......................... ..............................................................
Negotiate extra pick-up of recycle can with garbage hauler through the leaf season
Measurement Criteria:............................Number of pickups and cubic yards of material
Activity:...................................................................................................Leaf drop day
Facility Description:............................High school,public works yard,other open areas
Maintenance Frequency: .....................1 to 4 times per year as needed in the leaf season
Performance Benchmark:..........................................................No standard,non-routine
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:...........................................................................
2 to 4 dump trucks,backhoe or trackhoe,crew as needed
Special Notes and Requirement:
Crew removes leaves from plastic bags. Can be run with voluntary food donation.
Measurement Criteria:.................. ..............Number of days and cubic yards of material
28. Catch Basin and Storm Line Material Processing and Disposal—Storm
Activity:....................................................................................Processing and Sorting
Facility Description:..................................................................Material processing yard
Maintenance Frequency: ..................................................................................As needed
Performance Benchmark:............................................. ............No standard,non-routine
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:.....................Loader to turn material, crew of 1
Special Notes and Requirement:..Material must be de-watered to pass "paint-filter"test
Measurement Criteria:................................................................Cubic yards of material
Activity:.............................................................................................................Disposal
Facility Description:...............................................................................Certified landfill
Maintenance Frequency: ..................................................................................As needed
Performance Benchmark:......................................................................... 1 hour per load
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:..Hook-lift truck,dump truck,loader,crew of 1
Special Notes and Requirement:..................................................... ...... ..................None
Measurement Criteria:.....................................Cubic yards and number of boxes hauled
29. Culvert Maintenance—Storm
Activity:...................................................................................................Clean culverts
Facility Description:.............................Culverts under 36" crossing under public streets
Maintenance Frequency: .................................. .. ........................... .............Non-routine
Performance Standard: .................................................Non routine,no defined standard
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:...........................................................................
Combination cleaner truck or dragline, loader,and dump trucks,crew as needed
Special Notes and Requirement:..................... .......... ..................................... ........None
AttA-Sanitary, Storm and Surface Water Management
Performance and Reporting Standards Page 16
R&O 07-46 10/23/07;plus amendments R&O 08-21 06/25/08 and R&O 09-21 07/14/09
Measurement Criteria:................................Number cleaned and cubic yards of material
30. Other Non routine Work—Storm
Activity:.................................................................................Other Non-routine Work
Facility Description:..............................................All storm facilities listed in this R&O
Maintenance Frequency: ..................................................................................As needed
Performance Benchmark:.............................................Non routine,no defined standard
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:..........................................................As needed
Special Notes and Requirement:....................... ...................... .. .............................None
Measurement Criteria:....................................................Hours and number of locations -
31. Vector Control - Sanitary
Activity;...............................................................................................Chemical baiting
Facility Description:.................................................. ......All public sanitary sewer lines
Maintenance Frequency: As needed
Performance Benchmark:.............................................Non routine,no defined standard
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:.................... ........ Sewerjet truck,crew of 2
Special Notes and Requirement:......................Control of small rodents(rats,mice,etc.)
Measurement Criteria:....... ......................................................................................None
32. Vector Control - Storm
Activity:...............................................................Mosquito Control(West Nile Virus)
Facility Description:...All public sumped catch basins and facilities with ponding water
Maintenance Frequency: As specified by product
Performance Benchmark:.......................................................... 100 catch basins per day
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:.....................................Pickup truck,crew of 2
Special Notes and Requirement:...............................................................................None
Measurement Criteria:................................Number of catch basins and facilities treated
Activity:...................................................................Beavers,Nutria and beaver dams
Facility Description:Public creeks and streams and those that affect public systems if not
.........................................................................................................................maintained
Maintenance Frequency: Non Routine
Performance Benchmark:.........................................................................................None
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:.....................................Pickup truck,crew of 2
Special Notes and Requirement:..........Response depends on circumstance and includes
trapping,
................................................................................Relocation,dam removal,and others
Measurement Criteria:.....................................................................Number of responses
Activity:..............................................................................................................Rodents
Facility Description:..... .................................................................All public storm lines
Maintenance Frequency: Non Routine
Performance Benchmark:_......................................................................................None
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:.....................................Pickup truck,crew of 2
Special Notes and Requirement:............ ................Trapping is normally the only option
.......Generally chemical baiting is not allowed in the storm system unless the product is
approved
Measurement Criteria:.....................................................................Number of responses
33. Access Road Maintenance—Sanitary and Storm
All A-Sanitary, Storm and Surface Water Management
Performance and Reporting Standards Page 17
R&O 07-46 10/23/07;plus amendments R&O 08-21 06/25/08 and R&O 09-21 07/14/09
Activity:......................Grading,Paving,Vegetation Control,General Maintenance
Facility Description:..........Roads within or leading to public sanitary or storm facilities
Maintenance Frequency: As needed
Performance Benchmark:.............................................Non routine,no defined standard
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:................... .....Equipment and crew as needed
Special Notes and Requirement:.............Level of maintenance determined by condition
...........................Review easement document to determine maintenance responsibilities
MeasurementCriteria:....................................-........................................................None
34. Utility Locates— Sanitary and Storm
Activity:.................................................................................................Utility Locating
Facility Description:............................All underground public storm and sanitary sewer
...........facilities,and private sanitary sewer and storm laterals in the public right of way
Maintenance Frequency: As requested
Performance Benchmark:.................Locates marked as required by State locating rules
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:...........................Pickup truck or car, crew of 1
Special Notes and Requirement:.............Must be a member of Oregon One Call System
................................................................Must comply with Oregon utility locating rules
Measurement Criteria:................_..................................Compliance with locating rules
B. Local Collection System Repairs
1. Sanitary Line Major and Minor Repairs
Activity:......................................................................................................................Dig
Facility Description:......................All public sanitary sewer lines under 24"in diameter
Maintenance Frequency: ................................................ ..............................As Required
Performance Benchmark:.............................................Non routine,no defined standard
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:
Standard construction equipment(backhoe,trackhoe,dump truck,shoring,etc.),
crew size as needed
Special Notes and Requirement:.................. .......................... .................................None
Measurement Criteria: .......................... ............................................Number completed
Activity:...........................................................................................................Link Pipe
Facility Description:......................All public sanitary sewer lines under 24"in diameter
Maintenance Frequency: ................................................................................As required
Performance Benchmark:..................................................... ......................3 to 5 per day
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:..................................Link pipe van,crew of 2
Special Notes and Requirement:.............................. ................................................None
Measurement Criteria:.............................................. ............................Number installed
Activity:...............................................................................................................Sealing
Facility Description:......................All public sanitary sewer lines under 24"in diameter
Maintenance Frequency: ........Initial sealing as needed,repeated 5 to 10 year frequency
Performance Benchmark:............................................300 feet per day tested and sealed
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:...............................Joint sealing van,crew of 2
Special Notes and Requirement:.............Requires special material storage and handling
Measurement Criteria:........................... ....................................Number of joints sealed
Activity:..........................................................................................................Re-Lining
Including pipe bursting,slip-lining or epoxy-liner installation
Facility Description:......................All public sanitary sewer lines under 24"in diameter
Maintenance Frequency: ..... ..........................................................................As required
Performance Benchmark:...........................50 to 500 feet per day depending on method
Att A-Sanitary, Storm and Surface Water Management
Performance and Reporting Standards Page 18
R&O 07-46 10/23/07;plus amendments R&O 08-21 06/25/08 and R&O 09-21 07/14/09
Equipment and Crew Recommendation: .......................................... Varies with method
Special Notes and Requirement:...............................................................................None
Measurement Criteria:..........................................................................................Footage
2. Sanitary Capital Improvement and Rehabilitation Projects
Activity:......................................................................................................................Dig
Facility Description:......................All public sanitary sewer lines under 24"in diameter
Maintenance Frequency: ................................................................................As required
Performance Benchmark:...Normally installed by competitive bid w/private contractor
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:..........................................................................
Standard construction equipment(backhoe,trackhoe,dump truck,shoring,etc.),
crew size as needed
Special Notes and Requirement:.......................................................... ....................None
Measurement Criteria:.... ...................................................................Number completed
Activity:....................................................................................Rehabilitation Projects
Facility Description:.....................All public sanitary sewer lines under 24"in diameter
Maintenance Frequency: ....................................................... ....As required
......................
Performance Benchmark:..........................Competitive to private contractor installation
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:............. ....................................................None
Standard construction equipment(backhoe,trackhoe,.dump truck,shoring,etc.),
crew as needed
Special Notes and Requirement:........................................................................................
Measurement Criteria:.............................Footage and Number of Laterals Rehabilitated
3. Storm Line Major and Minor Repairs
Activity:......................................................................................................................Dig
Facility Description:....................All storm pipelines meeting criteria of Exh A Sec LB
Maintenance Frequency: ...............................................................................As Required
Performance Benchmark:.............................................Non routine,no defined standard
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:
Standard construction equipment(backhoe,trackhoe,dump truck,shoring,etc.),
crew size as needed
Special Notes and Requirement:..............................--............................................None
Measurement Criteria:............................................................................Number repaired
Activity:...........................................................................................................Link Pipe.
Facility Description:....................All storm pipelines meeting criteria of Exh A Sec 1.B
MaintenanceFrequency: ................................................................................As required
Performance Benchmark:............................................................................3 to 5 per day
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:........ ..........................Link pipe van,crew of 2
Special Notes and Requirement:................................................................... ...........None
Measurement Criteria:...........................................................................Number installed
Activity:....................................................................New Facilities and Replacements
Facility Description:....................All stone pipelines meeting criteria of Exh A Sec LB
Maintenance Frequency: ................................................................................As required
Performance Benchmark:..........................Competitive to private contractor installation
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:...........................................................................
Standard construction equipment(backhoe,trackhoe,dump truck,shoring,etc.),
crew size as needed
Att A-Sanitary, Storm and Surface Water Management
Performance and Reporting Standards Page 19
R&O 07-46 10/23/07;plus amendments R&O 08-21 06/25/08 and R&O 09-21 07/14/09
Special Notes and Requirement:...................................... ........................................None
Measurement Criteria:............ ..........................................................._Number installed
C. Geographical Information Systems (GIS)
This section applies to inventory and location information on all sanitary and
stormwater facilities within the service area including inside the Cities as necessary
for permit compliance, master planning, system modeling, flow monitoring and asset
management.
1. Sanitary and storm sewer systems shall be mapped using an electronic mapping
system (GIS).
2. District shall identify feature classes/data elements necessary for permit
compliance, master planning, system modeling, flow monitoring and asset
management. GIS systems of the sanitary and storm systems must contain these
data elements. Data elements may be stored in MMIS as an alternate.
3. All facilities shall have a unique facility number, or the system must store the
District's facility number.
4. Sanitary and storm sewer mapping shall be updated on a regular basis to include
all new facilities installed by the jurisdiction or through development activity
and any upgrades which affect size, slope, location, or pipe material.
5. Updated GIS data (including any GIS data stored in MMIS) shall be transferred
between District and other jurisdictions' systems at a minimum frequency of
quarterly, or as otherwise approved by the District.
D. Maintenance Management Information Systems (MMIS)
This sec tion applie s to system s used to tr ack work elem ents identified in Sectio n I.A.
(Collection System s Mainten ance Program s) and any w ork elem ents iden tified in 1.13
(Local Collection System Repairs) which are performed by non-contracted crews.
1. MMIS shall track all field work orders and have the ability to generate reports
showing current and historic work orders and management reports.
2. MMIS system must inter-relate to GIS to graphically show such things as
scheduled and completed work.
3. District shall identify data elements and work categories necessary for permit
compliance, reporting,program oversight, and coordination of repair and
maintenance work. MMIS systems for the sanitary and storm systems must
contain these data elements in the same general work order format and the same
work categories.
E. After Hours Calls and Emergencies
A jurisdiction performing any portion of the system maintenance and repair of the
storm and sanitary system must also have a system to receive after hours calls and to
mobilize emergency crews that meets the following criteria:
Alt A-Sanitary, Storm and Surface Water Management
Performance and Reporting Standards Page 20
R&O 07-46 10/23/07;plus amendments R&O 08-21 06/25/08 and R&O 09-21 07/14/09
1, There shall be a written after hours and emergency response procedure in place
showing the phone numbers that the public is given for emergency contacts, how
calls are routed during regular and after hours, who is responsible for making
decisions and taking action, and what records are to be kept. If resolving the
problem requires structural repairs, a capital improvement, increased
maintenance, source control, cross connection repair, or other similar action, there
must be a process in place to refer the problem to the appropriate person or
department.
2. The appropriate after-hours number shall be advertised as part of the jurisdiction's
storm and sanitary sewer public information program and clearly specify that the
number is available 24/7.
3. The system will include a procedure to relay the incident report or complaint call
to the appropriate first responder.
4. If sufficient information can not be gathered over the phone,the first responder
will respond with a goal of being on site within 1 hour, and no longer than within
2 hours for emergencies involving public health, safety, damage to the
environment, or property damage that potentially is within the responsibility of
the overall District program, and by the next business day for those calls that are
not an emergency.
5. All complaint calls must be logged. The log must include the details of the call
(date and time, name, phone number, and address of caller, description of
complaint, etc.), and who the call was referred to for resolution. The log must
indicate or link to a source that indicates the actual problem found during the
investigation, and the actions taken. The records must be retrievable from the
system and must be able to provide a report that links the call to the response and
final resolution. Records of calls taken by outside parties such as answering
services or 911 also need to be accessible in the same manner. If a problem is
referred to another jurisdiction or program, the person contacted should be noted.
Records need to be maintained for a minimum of three years.
6. For sewer overflows caused by a defect in the public system,the records must
include a completed Overflow Notification form.
II. Engineering, Inspection, and Support Elements
A. Development Plan Review Services
Ensure that all sanitary and stormwater facilities within the District's service
boundary meet all minimum design and construction standards outlined in the
District's Design and Construction Standards (D&C Standards).
1. Service Provider Letter(SPLs)
a. Prescreen Issuance
Att A-Sanitary, Storm and Surface Water Management
Performance and Reporting Standards Page 21
R&O 07-46 10/23/07;plus amendments R&O 08-21 06/25/08 and R&O 09-2107/14/09
i. Using aerial photos, photographs, resource maps, utility maps, and
other resources, review Prescreen Site Assessment applications for
requirements to perform additional site assessment on the basis of:
1) Possible existence of water quality sensitive areas on or within
200' of project site; and
2) Type of proposed activity.
ii. Issue PreScreen Site Assessment to applicant on District-approved
forms.
iii. Keep database (electronic preferred) of information on all applications
and determinations.
b. Service Provider Letter Issuance
i. Issue SPLs pursuant to D&C Standards, including consideration for
applicable mitigation requirements from other regulatory agencies
(e.g., US Army Corps of Engineers and the Oregon Division of State
Lands).
ii. Use forms approved by the District.
iii. Keep database (electronic preferred) of information on all applications,
including requirements, correspondence, and response times.
2. Land Use Comments Submittal
a. Submit comments within the land use comment period for all land use
applications subject to regulation under the D&C Standards.
b. At a minimum, include general condition to meet the requirements of D&C
Standards and provide specific conditions as necessary, including but not
limited to:
• Vegetated corridors and sensitive areas protections as specified in the
SPL
• Analysis of sanitary and storm/surface water systems, including
downstream flow impact analysis
• Public sanitary and storm system extensions to upstream properties
• Separate lateral services to individual lots
• Public water quality and quantity facilities, where appropriate
3. Land Use Review and Approval
a. Prior to Land Use Application being deemed "complete", ensure that land
use applications for activities defined as development or redevelopment in
the D&C Standards include a SPL.
b. Include conditions of approval to meet conditions submitted under II.A.2.
Att A-Sanitary, Storm and Surface Water Management
Performance and Reporting Standards Page 22
R&O 07-46 10/23/07;plus amendments R&O 08-21 06/25/08 and R&O 09-21 07/14/09
4. Plan Review
Review plans for conformance with D&C Standards and land use conditions of
approval which apply to provision of sanitary sewer and storm sewer service
and vegetated corridors. As early as possible, identify variances from standards
and obtain District approval of proposed alternative.
For cities performing plan review: When plan reviewer believes plans to be in
substantial compliance with the D&C Standards, transmit plans to District.
Transmittal shall include name of the plan reviewer seeking approval and a
description and explanation of any known variances. District shall complete its
review within 15 working days from receipt of the plans and return comments to
city. City may consider plans as approved by District if District fails to provide
comments within 15 working days. City shall require incorporation of District
redline comments prior to final approval.
5. Development Permit Issuance
This section applies to "public works", "site development", or other permit
types covering the permitting, construction and inspection of storm, sanitary,
and vegetated corridor improvements.
Issue permits for sanitary and storm sewer construction, connection,
modification, and disconnection only when other regulatory requirements (i.e.,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or Oregon Division of State Lands) have
been addressed and/or permits obtained. If early site development permit
issuance is allowed, require that any activities undertaken prior to other
regulatory (DSL and COE) approval is at the applicant's risk.
B. Development Inspection Services
Ensure all sanitary and stormwater facilities within the service boundary are
constructed in accordance with the D&C Standards. The following are descriptions
of major tasks associated with development inspection services.
I. New development inspection
Inspect all projects constructing sanitary and storm facilities (including all
public conveyance elements and private and public water quality/quantity and
vegetated corridor enhancement and mitigation sites) at least once per week
during construction of the facilities covered by the D&C Standards; and more
frequently depending on the nature and stage of the project.
2. New development final approval
Prior to issuing final approvals, receive and approve all required as-built
drawings; TV inspect all new pipe system; review the TV records; require
correction of identified deficiencies; review and approve testing results; require
removal of erosion control and best management practices measures as
specified in D&C Standards and by any additional permit condition.
3. Cross-connection identification/notification and correction
Att A-Sanitary, Storm and Surface Water Management
Performance and Reporting Standards Page 23
R&O 07-46 10/23/07;plus amendments R&O 08-21 06/25/08 and R&O 09-21 07/14/09
Meet Illicit Discharge Elimination requirements outlined in NPDES Watershed-
Based Waste Discharge Permit (Permit) and MS4 Storm Water Management
Plan (SWMP).
As identified,pursue the abatement of cross-connections. Within 15 working
days of identification, eliminate identified cross-connections using immediate
notification to responsible parties (owners/operators of property) and escalating
abatement procedures, up to and including correction and billing of the
responsible party. (There may be mitigating circumstances that may preclude
meeting this timeline. However, the intent of the abatement process is to ensure
initial action within 15 working days and continued action to correct.)
Inspect all cross-connection corrections with qualified personnel and document
correction to DEQ.
4. Erosion Control Inspection
Meet inspection frequencies as required by the Permit and SWMP.
5. Erosion Control Enforcement Program
Employ an active enforcement program to allow inspection staff to gain timely
compliance and correction of identified deficiencies (i.e., compliance within 48
hours). Include the following minimum enforcement procedures.
• Verbal warnings
• Deficiency Notice (DN)
• Stop Work Orders (SW)
• Issuance of Civil Penalties
6. Erosion Control Wet Weather Management
Issue wet weather letters to all active and inactive development projects. Using
District supplied template, issue one letter by September 15th each year,with a
second reminder letter by September 30th each year. During wet weather
periods, inspect all sites at least weekly.
7. Erosion Control and Vegetated Corridor Training
District will lead development, coordination, presentation, and promotion of
erosion control inspection training at least once a year and vegetated corridor
inspection training at least twice a year.
All staff performing erosion control inspection shall attend erosion control
inspection training as required by the Permit and SWMP.
All staff performing vegetated corridor inspection shall attend annual training
for erosion control.
C. Capital Projects
Coordinate the CIP Program to provide adequate sanitary and storm system capacity
and prevent storm-related overflows from the sanitary system as specified in the
Att A-Sanitary, Storm and Surface Water Management
Performance and Reporting Standards Page 24
R&O 07-46 10/23/07;plus amendments R&O 08-21 06/25/08 and R&O 09-21 07/14/09
Permit and by law, i.e., overflows prohibited except during a storm event greater than
the one-in-five-year, 24-hour duration storm from November 1 through May 21 and
except during a storm event greater than the one-in-ten-year,24-hour duration storm
from May 22 through October 31 and all storm-related overflows prohibited after
January 1, 2010.
1. Master Planning
Prepare sanitary and storm sewer Master Plans for the entire service area. For
sanitary sewer, analyze pipes greater than 10-inch in diameter. Include smaller
pipe system if flow monitoring indicates additional analysis for the sewershed is
needed. For storm sewer, analyze an average subbasin size of 25-acres and
include all pipes greater than 15-inch in diameter.
Incorporate appropriate data from local master plans for additional detail in
District-wide Master Plan.
Incorporate city-identified population and growth projections in the analysis.
2. System Monitoring
Monitor system performance through sewer flow monitoring, stream flow
monitoring, and water quality monitoring in accordance with the NPDES
Watershed Discharge Permit requirements. Coordinate monitoring program for
the entire service area to achieve maximum efficiency. Locate monitoring
equipment to assist with master planning and project selection process.
D. Joint Cities-District Capital Project Review Committee
A Joint City-District Capital Project Review Committee (CIP Committee) is hereby
established to ensure Cities and District collaboratively prioritize capital improvement
projects.
Clean Water Services (District) and member Cities are required to participate in the CIP
Committee.
1. Purpose:
The CIP Committee will annually update, revise and prioritize the list of regional
sanitary conveyance and storm and surface water capital improvement projects.
(The Committee will not review Wastewater Treatment Projects.) The
Committee shall initially focus its prioritization on sanitary conveyance projects,
including 1/1 abatement projects and capacity-related sanitary pump station
projects, with system-wide infrastructure planning in mind. The Committee shall
recommend the prioritized projects to be included in the regional CIP to the Board
as part of the District's annual budget process.
Capital Improvement Projects are prioritized to meet the following objectives:
• Personal Health and Safety
Att A-Sanitary, Storm and Surface Water Management
Performance and Reporting Standards Page 25
R&O 07-46 10/23/07;plus amendments R&O 08-21 06/25/08 and R&O 09-21 07/14/09
• Environmental Health
• Permit compliance
• Operational,Maintenance and Cost Effectiveness
• Development Responsiveness
2. Committee Governance
The CIP Committee is comprised of representatives from each local service
provider(Beaverton, Cornelius, Forest Grove, Hillsboro, Sherwood, Tigard,
Tualatin, and the District). The District representative also represents Durham,
King City,North Plains Gaston and Banks. Each Committee representative is
responsible for coordinating the interests of various disciplines, including but not
limited to operations and maintenance, water,transportation, etc. The District
provides administrative support for the Committee.
a. CIP Committee Duties
CIP Committee members shall:
i. Regularly attend and participate in CIP Committee meetings.
ii. Review CIP Committee materials prior to the meeting.
iii. Prepare and submit Capital Project Priority Ranking Applications to the
Committee.
iv. Review and evaluate Capital Project Priority Ranking Applications, and
award "committee discretionary points."
v. Recommend construction design and management responsibilities for
implementation of projects, as needed.
b. CIP Committee Roles
i. Chairperson. The CIP Committee shall elect a chairperson. The
chairperson shall provide an agenda for each meeting and conduct all CIP
Committee meetings. Election of the Chairperson shall occur annually at
the Committee's first meeting after the start of the fiscal year. A person
may be elected chairperson a maximum of three consecutive years.
ii. Recorder. The District shall provide a recorder to perform administrative
and recording duties, including collection and assemblage of the Capital
Project Priority Ranking Applications, retention of issue papers, meeting
logistics and sending meeting notices, and general support to the
chairperson. The recorder shall provide a written summary of each
meeting to the CIP Committee not more than two weeks following the
meeting. The recorder is not a Committee member.
c. CIP Committee Meetings
Att A-Sanitary, Storm and Surface Water Management
Performance and Reporting Standards Page 26
R&O 07-46 10/23/07;plus amendments R&O 08-21 06/25/08 and R&O 09-21 07/14/09
i. Regular and Special Committee Meetings. The CIP Committee shall
meet regularly as needed but not less than twice annually at the time and
place to be determined by the CIP Committee members. Any member
may request special meetings. The Chairperson shall determine whether a
special meeting is needed. Regular meeting notices shall be provided not
less than ten (10) working days prior to the meeting. Special meeting
notices shall be provided not less than five (5) working days prior to the
meeting.
ii. Quorum and Majority Vote. A quorum consists of a District
representative and four (4) City representatives. A majority vote of
members present shall constitute the acts of the Committee.
iii. Proxies. A Committee member of record may vote at any meeting either
in person, by proxy, or may designate an alternate to attend the meeting
and have voting privileges.
iv. Meeting Records. A written summary of all meetings in which a quorum
is present shall be kept. The summary shall include any minority opinion
on any action taken.
V. Bylaw Review. The Committee will review its Bylaws at the last regular
meeting of the year to evaluate whether changes are required.
E. Industrial Pretreatment—Fats Oils and Grease Abatement Program
Meet requirements of District Industrial Sewer Use R&O 98-26 or revised to assist in
managing pollutants at their source and reduce impacts of fats, oils, and grease in the
collection system.
F. Service and Information Requests
Receive and process inquiries and requests for information for sanitary and storm
sewer system.
III. Business and Customer Related Services
A. Customer Billing
1. Regular Service Charge Billings
Regular billing consists of preparing and sending the regular billing, typically
monthly or bi-monthly, of all sanitary and storm water service charges to all
customers within the designated service area. The customer account files are
regularly updated with move-in and move-out information and updated based on
new construction/development within the service area. In addition,the billing
jurisdiction records,tracks, and is able to identify the total number of equivalent
Att A-Sanitary, Storm and Surface Water Management
Performance and Reporting Standards Page 27
R&O 07-46 10/23/07;plus amendments R&O 08-21 06/25/08 and R&O 09-21 07/14/09
dwelling units being billed for storm water and sanitary sewer. Combined billing
may occur where multiple utility services are provided by the billing jurisdiction
and are combined into one bill.
2. Remittance Handling
Payments for billed services are receipted each business day and these payments
are posted to the appropriate accounts within 7 business days. Service charge
receipts are designated as stormwater or sanitary sewer and deposited to the
corresponding account or fund.
3. Winter Average Update
Effective July I of each year and on the specific schedule established in the
District's current Rates and Charges Resolution and Order, calculate the updated
winter average water consumption for each customer and update and revise
average placed into the billing calculation for the customer's variable/usage
portion of their service charge for the coming 12 month period.
4. Account Update
Prior to the next billing cycle, update stormwater and sanitary sewer customer
accounts by the billing jurisdiction based on the previous activities related to
discontinuation of service, move-in/outs, new accounts or changes to billing
address.
B. Customer Service
1. Billing Revision Request
Review customers' requests to change in billing status and if approved by the
responsible jurisdiction, incorporate changes into the customer account file with
the requested/approved billing revision reflected in the next full billing cycle.
2. Billing and Customer Support
Staff is available during its normal business hours to receive questions and
requests from customers relating to billing and account status, and to receive and
respond to other general inquiries relating to the storm and sanitary sewer
program.
C. Bad Debt Expense
1. Enforcement Procedure Documentation
a) For accounts combined with water service billing, apply non or under-
payment of sewer and stormwater bills to the water utility which
establishes termination of water service as the preferred response to any
Att A-Sanitary, Storm and Surface Water Management
Performance and Reporting Standards Page 28
R&O 07-46 10/23/07;plus amendments R&O 08-21 06/25/08 and R&O 09-21 07/14/09
non or under-payment. Initiate collection procedures through a letter no
later than at the 60 day past due point with water termination procedures
beginning no later than at the 90 day past due point.
b) Follow the collection procedure in C.2 below, for accounts that are
sewer and/or storm only (no joint water account).
2. Collection Procedure
In those cases where water service termination does not produce payment, billing
jurisdiction initiates collection procedures against the past due account.
Collection procedures may be delayed until the past due account becomes large
enough to warrant the collection process defined as more than 3 months past due,
more than $500 past due, or both.
IV.Reporting Standards
Individual Cities are responsible to perform certain elements of the overall storm and sanitary
sewer program.. These responsibilities are defined in the intergovernmental agreements
between each City and the District. Following are the reporting requirements for each
element of the program. If a City is responsible for an element of the program, then the City
is also responsible for the reporting requirements.
The District shall specify the format and exact content of each report, and may revise the
format and content periodically.
A. Field Maintenance and Repair
1. General - City provide access to City MMIS to allow CWS to monitor Field
Operations work orders, or, upon request from CWS, City must generate reports
showing current and historical work orders and other management reports.
2. TV Inspection and Line Cleaning—On a bi-weekly or monthly schedule as
determined by CWS,the City shall provide a list to the District of storm and
sanitary lines TV inspected and/or cleaned by the City the prior weeks.
3. Street Sweeping Material -- City shall provide to District testing results of
sweeper debris (THP and TCLP tests) every 6 months
4. Quarterly Performance Report—City shall provide to the District a quarterly
report no later than the end of the month following each quarter showing the
quantity of work performed (such as number of catch basins cleaned) and
secondary reporting criteria if any (such as cubic yards of material removed) in
each category.
The report shall also include a summary of street sweeping recording device
readings showing dates, miles swept, and average speed while sweeping. City
Att A-Sanitary, Storm and Surface Water Management
Performance and Reporting Standards Page 29
R&O 07-46 10/23/07;plus amendments R&O 08-21 06/25/08 and R&O 09-2107/14/09
shall provide or make available the original street sweeping device charts on
request.
5. City shall "certify" each quarterly report with the following:
Certification Statement,40 CFR 122.22(d)
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or
supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the
information submitted.Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system,or those persons
directly responsible for gathering the information,the information submitted is,to the best of my knowledge and
belief,true,accurate,and complete.I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information,
including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.
Signature Date
Att A-Sanitary, Storm and Surface Water Management
Performance and Reporting Standards Page 30
R&O 07-46 10/23/07;plus amendments R&O 08-21 06/25/08 and R&O 09-21 07/14/09
B. Finance and Accounting—City shall provide to the District:
1. Annually no later than January I for the prior Fiscal Year, a summary of
expenditures from Storm and Sanitary Sewer funds including SDC's and Capital
Funds. If available,the CAFR for the sewer and storm fund reporting, and the
"Homebuilder Report"for SDC's would meet this requirement.
2. Annually, no later than July 31 of each year, a summary of positions funded in
the current Fiscal Year by storm or sanitary sewer funds. This requirement can be
met by providing a copy of the storm and sanitary portion from the current
adopted line item budget.
3. Annually no later than August 1 if the amount exceeds 1%of the annual City
storm and sanitary sewer revenue,
a) a listing of all over 90 day past due storm and sanitary sewer accounts
and the status of actions taken to obtain payment
b) a listing of any write offs taken by the City relative to past due storm
and sanitary sewer accounts.
4. Monthly,no later than the end of the month following that month,
a) a summary of storm and sanitary sewer revenue received including
SDC's.
b) a total of all equivalent dwelling units for stormwater and for sanitary
sewer
C. Engineering and Inspection
1. Monthly, no later than the 10th of each month, issuance of storm and sanitary
permits by the cities is to be documented and forwarded to the District. This
report can be combined with Finance and Accounting Reporting element.
2. Monthly, no later than the 10th of each month,justification for each water
quality fee-in-lieu granted will be documented and reported to the District. This
report can be combined with Finance and Accounting Reporting element.
3. Monthly, no later than the 10th of each month, report any discrepancies
identified in engineering and environmental plan review to the District.
4. Monthly, no later than the 10th of each month, report erosion control
inspections conducted.
5. Twice annually, report vegetated corridor inspections completed.
D. Capital Improvement Construction
Att A-Sanitary, Storm and Surface Water Management
Performance and Reporting Standards Page 31
R&O 07-46 10/23/07;plus amendments R&O 08-21 06/25/08 and R&O 09-21 07/14/09
Annually,no later than October I of each year, report summary of CIP
implementation status of sanitary, storm, and surface water projects listed in the
previous year CIP, including:
a) Actual vs. planned schedule to date
b) Actual vs. planned budget to date
c) Description and justification for scope variance, if applicable
E. District Summary Reports
District shall compile information from the reports identified in sections IV.A.-D.,
incorporate data from its own performance of the same functions and provide the
following summary reports to all jurisdictions:
I. Field Operations Quarterly Report
2. Annual Field Operation Summary and Reports necessary for compliance with
the Permit
3. Annual Financial Summary Report
4. Quarterly Engineering and Inspection Report
5. Annual Engineering Summary Report and Reports necessary for compliance
with the Permit
6. Annual CIP Implementation Summary
V. Enforcement—The following procedures shall be used where there is an identified or
suspected deficiency in the performance of an element or Activity of the Local City Program by
a member City:
A. Monitoring—CWS shall set up a system to monitor the city performance of each
element and Activity of the Local City Program
B. Notification—Each city shall designate a "responsible city contact"person. In the
event that CWS believes an element or Activity of the Local City Program is not
being performed up to the established standard, CWS will notify the city contact
person. The city contact person will be responsible for disseminating that notice
to all appropriate staff and administration at the city.
C. Initial Meeting—Following the initial notice, CWS and city will meet to review
the elements or Activities of the program in question. In the event that CWS and
city disagree on whether the program element or Activity is being performed up
to standard, CWS will make the final decision.
Att A-Sanitary, Storm and Surface Water Management
Performance and Reporting Standards Page 32
R&O 07-46 10/23/07;plus amendments R&O 08-21 06/25/08 and R&O 09-21 07/14/09
D. Plan of Action—In the event of an identified deficiency, City shall develop and
submit to CWS within two weeks a schedule that includes development of a plan
of action for bringing the specific program element or Activity into compliance.
The plan of action must show how the program standard will be met in a timely
manner. CWS will review the schedule to determine if it is reasonable and
appropriate.
E. Failure to Meet Standard—In the event the program element or Activity in
question is not corrected within the established schedule, the City and CWS may
agree on a revised plan of action, or CWS may recommend to the City staff that it
take over that element or Activity of the program. If the City does not agree on
CWS taking over that element or Activity, CWS may notify the City that the issue
will be taken to the CWS Board in accordance with the current City/CWS
operating agreement.
F. Single Errors—This procedure is not intended to require that a City be "perfect'
in its execution of the City Program elements and Activities. Errors and isolated
deficiencies will occur from time to time. This procedure is meant to address
programmatic deficiencies.
VI. Response to Sanitary Sewer Overflows and Spills
A. Definitions:
1. A "sanitary sewer overflow" or"overflow" is a release of sewage caused by
a fault in the publicly maintained system. The sewage may reach the ground,
a waterway, or be confined to a structure. Typically, sewage will escape
from the public conveyance system through a broken pipe or a manhole.
Sewage may escape through a portion of the private system, such as a
manhole, cleanout or plumbing fixture, but if it was caused by a fault in a
public system it is still classified as an "overflow". The "fault' in the public
system may be a structural defect or damage, a blockage, unexpected result
of maintenance activity, or insufficient capacity.
2. A "spill" is a release of sewage caused by a fault in a private system.
Examples of spills include backups due to a plugged private lateral or cross
connections between a private sanitary system and a storm system.
3. "Incidental maintenance and repair leakage" includes drops of sewage
resulting from regular maintenance and repair activities such as from tools
like cleaner hoses and TV cameras, and from materials such as pipe fittings.
To meet this definition the quantity must be minor and must be fully
contained so as to not cause a public health hazard or risk to the
environment. For incidental leakages that meet this definition, no further
actions are required under these standards.
Att A-Sanitary, Storm and Surface Water Management
Performance and Reporting Standards Page 33
R&O 07-46 10/23/07;plus amendments R&O 08-21 06/25/08 and R&O 09-21 07/14/09
4. "Illicit discharges" are volumes of sewage, or other prohibited material, that
reach the stormwater system or waters of the state but that do not come
directly from a sewage system. Examples are a septic hauler truck or a
public combination cleaner truck that has an accident while traveling on a
road and spills sewage from its tank, or a failing septic system that is
discharging to the ground and reaching a storm drain. These incidents
should be addressed under MS4 rules and procedures, and no further action
is required under these standards.
5. The "publicly maintained system" includes those sewer collection facilities
that meet the definition of Section 1.13 of this R&O. It does not include the
portion of private laterals on which responsible agencies perform structural
repairs through the rules in a separate District R&O. It does not include
sewer systems on property owned by a public entity such as laterals and
building lines in public buildings,parks, etc that do not otherwise meet the
definition in Section I.B.
6. "Responsible agency" is either CWS or a member City, based on Appendix
A of the IGA between CWS and each member City. For"overflows", the
responsible agency is the agency that is maintaining that public facility. For
"spills", the responsible agency is the agency that is maintaining the local
public sanitary sewer collection system in that area.
B. Initial Response
1. The responsible agency must respond to every report of an incident that may
involve the release of sewage. The response must continue until the incident
is completely resolved or it is determined that further action is not the
responsibility of the agency.
2. Investigation. The agency responsible for the maintenance of the local
public sanitary sewer system is responsible for the initial response and
investigation. The responsible agency will treat the incident as an
emergency with a goal of the investigation beginning within one hour
regardless of the day of the week or time of day. The agency will make
sufficient effort to determine the category and the type of facility. This may
be accomplished in some cases by a phone call, but may also require a crew
to be dispatched to the site.
3. Determine the Category. The responsible agency shall investigate to
determine if the incident is an "overflow" or a "spill' (see definitions
above). Until the determination of the cause is made, it should be assumed
that it is an overflow from the public system.
4. Determination of the Facility. If it is determined to be an overflow, the
agency responsible for the initial response shall determine who is
Att A-Sanitary, Storm and Surface Water Management
Performance and Reporting Standards Page 34
R&O 07-46 10/23/07;plus amendments R&O 08-21 06/25/08 and R&O 09-21 07/14/09
responsible for the next steps in the response, and shall immediately notify
that agency. For public sewer facilities within the District's boundary, it
shall be the agency responsible for the maintenance of that facility as shown
in the IGA between CWS and the City. If the facility is outside the
District's boundary,the responsible jurisdiction shall be notified.
C. Response Actions to Overflows:
1. Establish Control (abate the cause). The agency responsible for responding to
an overflow is determined in Section 2.d above. The responsible agency shall
take immediate action to abate the cause of the overflow. This may include
such actions as unplugging a blocked line, or setting up pumps to pump
around a problem area to relieve an overflow. The goal is to stop the overflow
as quickly as possible.
2. Establish Containment. The responsible agency shall act immediately to
identify the area and extent of the overflow, and shall take action to contain
the overflow if it is not already contained by the topography. Containment
may include such things as creating a berm to contain the overflow or
covering storm drain inlets. The goal is to keep the sewage where it can be
easily cleaned up without damage to the environment.
3. Clean Up. The responsible agency will clean up the area affected by the
overflow in a timely manner. Clean-up may include removing debris and
solids using hand labor, using a vacuum truck,washing the area with
chlorinated water, or using a street sweeper. The responsible agency shall
evaluate spills and should clean areas where there is a reasonable potential for
sewage to enter public waters or the public stormwater system, or if there is a
public health danger.
4. Sample Collection. The responsible agency shall collect samples for
bacteriological analyses for any overflow or spill that may have reached
public waters. The samples shall be gathered following established sampling
protocols and the responsible agency shall flag the sample sites so they may
be located for follow-up sampling. The samples shall be collected within 1
hour of arrival at the site of the overflow. The samples shall be delivered to
the CWS lab for analysis.
5. Post warning signs. The responsible agency shall post warning signs when
the overflow affects an area where there is the likelihood of public access and
in public areas such as parks, schools, playgrounds, or waterways with public
access.
6. Initial Communication. The responsible agency will contact DEQ and CWS
regarding overflows as provided in the Sanitary Sewer Overflow Response
Att A-Sanitary, Storm and Surface Water Management
Performance and Reporting Standards Page 35
R&O 07-46 10/23/07;plus amendments R&O 08-21 06/25/08 and R&O 09-2107/14/09
instructions in the spill kit. Contact must be made as soon as possible and no
later than 24 hours after the responsible agency became aware of the incident.
7. Documentation. The responsible agency shall document the incident by
completing the Overflow Notification form provided by CWS and emailing it
within 24 hours to eventncleanwaterservices.org
8. 5-Day Letter. CWS will prepare and submit a detailed "5-day letter"to DEQ
for all overflows unless DEQ states the letter is not needed. The responsible
agency will ensure that the responders and supervisors are available to provide
any additional information requested by CWS or DEQ. The responsible
agency will respond immediately to requests for additional information.
9. Additional Public Notice. The responsible agency will provide any additional
public notice, such as further signage,public radio announcements, door
hangers, etc., as directed by DEQ or CWS.
10.Additional samples and removal of warning signs. CWS shall take additional
samples following abatement of the overflow and cleanup of the area. This
shall be repeated until test results show no further contamination at which
time CWS shall notify the responsible agency who shall then remove the
posted warning signs.
11. Analysis and Correction. The responsible agency will document the fault in
the public system that was the cause of the overflow. The responsible agency
shall analyze the cause and determine those actions needed to prevent
reoccurrence of the overflow. The responsible agency shall take timely action
to implement measures to prevent a reoccurrence. These actions may include
a capital project to increase capacity, increased maintenance, increased FOG
enforcement, or correcting a pipe defect.
12. Monthly reports. The responsible agency shall send CWS a written report by
the fifth day of each month reporting any overflows that were that agency's
responsibility during the previous month.
D. Response Actions to Spills
1. Establish Control (abate the cause). The responsible agency shall advise the
property owner on steps they should take.
2. Establish Containment. The responsible agency shall evaluate the situation
and act to contain sewage if there is a threat to human health or the
environment such as where the spill is in an area accessible to the public or
may reach the stormwater conveyance system or a body of water.
3. Initial Communication. For spills that may threaten human health or the
Att A-Sanitary, Storm and Surface Water Management
Performance and Reporting Standards Page 36
R&O 07-46 10/23/07;plus amendments R&O 08-21 06/25/08 and R&O 09-21 07/14/09
environment, the responsible agency shall notify DEQ and CWS as a
courtesy.
4. Follow up. The responsible agency shall monitor the spill to assure the
private party is taking action to abate the spill. If not, the responsible agency
shall use its own enforcement powers or shall pass the responsibility to
another agency with enforcement powers to abate the spill.
Att A-Sanitary, Storm and Surface Water Management
Performance and Reporting Standards Page 37
R&O 07-46 10/23/07,plus amendments R&O 08-21 06/25/08 and R&O 09-21 07/14/09
1
Attachment A
Amendment to the Sanitary Sewer and SWM Work programs and standards,priorities, and
policies contained in R&O No. 07-46 as amended by R&O No. 08-21 and R&O 09-21.
The following Sections are hereby amended, added,or deleted:
1. Delete the last sentence from the"Maintenance Frequency" definition in Section 2.D.
Maintenance Frequency—An adopted standard defining the long term annual target goals
for the overall program for the typical system. It is recognized that some facilities will
require varying from the standard frequency due to unusual characteristics. It is also
recognized that from year to year, conditions will vary and so specified maintenance
frequencies may not be achieved each year.
to the...,-eyi,.:
2. Amend Section I.A.9 of the standards to read
I. Field Operations Services
A. Collection Systems Maintenance Programs
9. General TV Standards
a. All TV inspections shall follow NASSCO-PACP standards, and
procedures. All TV operators shall be certified to use this rating system.
b. Inspections shall be performed using a software suite that allows the
capture of digital video, still images in real time, and the recording of
observation locations. All observations shall be entered on an electronic
log sheet and cross-referenced with their occurrence in the video. All
inspection data to be delivered in a NASSCO Ver. 4.x database.
C. Quality—Under normal circumstances,the pipe to be inspected shall be
recently cleaned prior to inspection to allow all defects to be recorded
during the inspection. Fog in the pipe that limits the view during the
inspection is not acceptable. The camera lighting shall allow a clear
picture up to five pipe diameter lengths away for the entire periphery of
the sewer, and the lighting shall be adjusted to eliminate hot spots.
d. Direction—Under normal circumstances, the TV inspection shall start at
the upstream manhole and proceed downstream.The direction of flow
shall be clearly marked on the video screen and the electronic log form.
e. TV footage measurement--The TV inspection system shall be equipped
to measure the length of each segment. The video counter shall be zeroed
at the beginning of each new video inspection, and at any intermediate
manhole.
f. Camera--The CCTV camera shall record in color and shall be capable of
panning the lens through a 360-degree are about the vertical axis and
tilting it at least 90 degrees to the longitudinal axis. For pipes larger than
6 feet in diameter, the equipment shall have a zoom feature capable of
providing general views looking along the pipe up to five pipe diameter
lengths away, and close up views of features.
g. Clean Water Services manhole and feature numbers shall be used on all
reports. Where inspections are performed by a City or contractor, the
reports shall use CWS numbering or unique facility numbers consistent
with GIS data transferred to the District in accordance with Section ILC .
h. Digital Recordings— Video format shall be Mpegl with a frame size of
320x240, a frame rate of 29.97 or 30 frames per second and a bit-rate of
1150 kbps. The information shall be written to a DVD or other data
digital transfer device or by arrangement,the District's secure file transfer
appliance. Inspection information shall be stored in a NASSCO PACP
version 4.x database. Links to the inspection video shall be stored in the
media tables within the PACP database using relative file references.
i. Still Photographs-- During CCTV inspections, still digital color photos
may be taken of major defects and to document typical conditions within
any reach. They may optionally be included with the PACP database and
inspection video,but if they are included,the photographs shall be in
JPEG format and in the PACP database, and relative references to the
stills must be included in the media tables.
j. Delivery of Work Product—For Cities or contractors doing the TV
program, completed TV inspection video, still pictures, and inspection
reports that comply with the standards of this section shall be delivered to
the District every two weeks, or as agreed to by the District and City.
3. Amend Section I.A.17
I. Field Operations Services
A. Collection Systems Maintenance Programs
17.Water Quality Manholes—Storm
Activity:......................................................................................Cleaning
Facility Description:...................................Public water quality manholes
Maintenance Frequency:...Twice per year or more frequently as required
PerformanceBenchmark:...........................................................10 per day
Equipment and Crew Recommendation:Combination cleaner truck, crew of 2
Special Notes and Requirement:. Spring cleaning is only if full of debris.
Otherwise the `cleaning" is limited to removing floatables and oil from the top.
Measurement Criteria:Number cleaned and cubic yards of material removed
4. Amend Section ILA, Subsections 1 and 4.
II. Engineering, Inspection, and Support Elements
A. Development Plan Review Services
Ensure that all sanitary and stormwater facilities within the District's service
boundary meet all minimum design and construction standards outlined in the
District's Design and Construction Standards (D&C Standards).
1. Service Provider Letter(SPLs)
a. Prescreen Issuance
i. Using aerial photos,photographs, District Provided resource maps,
utility maps, and other resources,review Sensitive Area Prescreening
Site Assessment applications for requirements to perform additional
site assessment on the basis of:
1) Possible existence of water quality sensitive areas on or within
200' of the project site; and
2) Type of proposed activity.
ii. Issue Sensitive Area Prescreening 1FeSereen Site Assessment to
applicant on District-approved forms.
iii. Keep database(electronic preferred) of information on all applications
and determinations.
b. Service Provider Letter Issuance
i. Issue SPLs pursuant to D&C Standards, including consideration for
applicable mitigation requirements from other regulatory agencies
(e.g.,US Army Corps of Engineers and the Oregon Department
Divisierr of State Lands).
ii. Use forms approved by the District.
iii. Keep a database(electronic preferred) of information on all
applications,including requirements, correspondence, and response
times.
4. Plan Review
Review plans for conformance with D&C Standards and land use conditions of
approval which apply to provision of sanitary sewer, and storm sewer service
and vegetated corridors. As early as possible,identify exceptions verianees from
standards and obtain District approval of proposed alternative.
For cities performing plan review:When the plan reviewer believes plans to be
in substantial compliance with the D&C Standards,transmit the plans to
District. Transmittal shall include name of the plan reviewer seeking approval
and a description and explanation of any known exceptions vanaftees. District
shall complete its review within 15 working days from receipt of the plans and
return comments to city. City may consider plans as approved by District if
District fails to provide comments within 15 working days. City shall require
incorporation of District a comments prior to final approval.
5. Amend Section II.B, Subsections 2,4,6, 7, and 8.
II. Engineering, Inspection, and Support Elements
B. Development Inspection Services
2. New development final approval
Prior to issuing final approvals, receive and approve all required as-built
drawings; TV inspect all new pipe systems;review the TV records; require
correction of identified deficiencies;review and approve testing results; require
removal of appropriate erosion control measures. and bestmanagernent
eeadition. Final approval does not relieve the owner of responsibility for any
other Federal, State, or local permit conditions.
4. Erosion Control hispection
Meet inspection frequencies as required by the Permit and SWMP. Maintain
documentation (inspections log or notes) of erosion control deficiencies.
6. Erosion Control Wet Weather Management
Issue wet weather letters to all active and inactive development projects. Using
the District supplied template,issue a ene letter by September 15th each year,
with a second reminder letter by September 30th each year. During wet weather
periods,inspect all development sites at least weekly.
7. Maintenance Assurance Inspection of Landscaping in Water Quality Facilities
and Vegetated Corridors
Conduct and document inspection of landscaping for vegetated corridors and for
water quality facilities in accordance with the D&C Standards.
8. Erosion Control and Water Quality Facility Vegetated a Training
District will lead development, coordination,presentation, and promotion of
erosion control inspection training at least enee a ye ae and water quality facility
standards and design vegetated eenidef inspeetieft training at least once twiee a
year.
All staff performing erosion control inspection shall attend erosion control
inspection training as required by the Permit and SWMP.
for ffBsiea-eentrel-
6. Amend Section II.C.2
II. Engineering, Inspection,and Support Elements
C. Capital Projects
2. System Monitoring
Monitor system performance through sewer flow monitoring, stream flow
monitoring, and water quality monitoring in accordance with the NPDES
Watershed Discharge Permit requirements. Coordinate monitoring program for
the entire service area to achieve maximum efficiency. Locate monitoring
equipment to assist with master planning and project selection process.
Provide a project specific map showing flow monitoring requests for proposed
CEP projects including sanitary capacity improvements and for I and 1
abatement projects at least 1 year prior to start of design.
7. Amend Section ILE
II. Engineering, Inspection,and Support Elements
E. Industrial Pretreatment—Fats Oils and Grease Abatement Program
eelleetien system.
Clean Water Services has developed a Fat, Oil and Grease(FOG) Abatement
Program in cooperation with other Metro-area municipalities, the Oregon Restaurant
Association and pumping companies that service grease removal devices (see
http://yrefcrredpumper.ore). The FOG Abatement Program meets the requirements
of the District's Industrial Sewer Use R&O 09-1. The District and its member Cities
are working collaboratively to implement the FOG Abatement Program and are
actively communicating with the food service establishments within the service
area. Implementation of the program will be completed in FY '09-10, and on-going
inspections and education will continue indefinitely. On-line training is available for
both municipal FOG inspectors and managers of food service establishments at
www.cleanwaterservices.orgJog.
• All Food Service Establishments (FSEs)* in each member city will have one
inspection by June 30,2011.
After that, each FSE will be inspected annually. The District will do the same in
unincorporated Washington County and for member cities who wish to defer the
program to the District, for a fee to be negotiated.
• Inspectors will see one full pump out** of each Grease Removal Device
(GRD)*** every five years.
• Member cities will report back to the District twice a year. The template for
this data management system will be developed in continuing conversations
with the member cities.
*FSEs refers to Food Service Establishments or"serving establishments" as defined
in the State of Oregon Plumbing Specialty Code, Chapter 10 Section 1014.1.
**One full pump out constitutes seeing the Grease Removal Device (GRD) empty,
which typically occurs at the time of maintenance (pump out).
***Grease Removal Device (GRD)refers to the FOG treatment device,typically a
grease trap or grease interceptor.
8. Add Section II.G
II. Engineering, Inspection,and Support Elements
G. Private Water Quality Facility Management Program
This program is to ensure adequate maintenance of privately-owned water quality
facilities (PWQFs). The program has four major elements— Inventory, Inspection,
Education and Outreach, and Enforcement,which are supported by program
management.
1. Inventory of PWQFs
a) Annually update and maintain an inventory of existing and newly- added
facilities, including the area treated.
b) Inventory shall be available in an electronic format (Excel,Access) and include
location, owner, current rating and type.
c) Maintenance Agreements are required for all new facilities as described in the
D&C Standards.
2. Inspection of PWQFs
a) At a minimum, inspect 25%of sites annually and all sites in a four-year cycle.
Assess the condition of all water quality facilities on each site inspected
including pretreatment structures associated with the treatment train.
b) Send annual letters to every PWQF owner as a reminder of their obligation to
maintain the PWQFs.
c) Develop and maintain an electronic database for inspections that includes
location, owner, date of inspections, condition assessment rating, and follow-up
actions. Also retain correspondence to PWQF owners and supporting materials
from inspections.
d) When inspection requires entry onto private property,permission may be
provided through a maintenance agreement,by the owner or owner's
representative, or by procedures in code, ordinance or other regulation.
3. Education and Outreach for PWQF Management Program:
a) District will provide and periodically update educational materials about PWQF
maintenance and inspection for Cities and Owners.
b) District will provide a website with educational materials for PWQF
Management.
c) Annually, Cities and District shall evaluate the effectiveness of the outreach
program and appropriately adapt activities.
4. Enforcement of PWQF Management Program:
a) Enforcement Procedures
Employ an active enforcement program to allow timely compliance and
correction of identified deficiencies,including the following minimum
enforcement procedures.
• Education on Required Corrective Maintenance Actions
• Establishment and Monitoring of Corrective Work Plans
• Deficiency Notices
• Issuance of Civil Penalties
Progressive enforcement shall be used if compliance is not achieved by education and
coaching.All contacts and notices must be documented.
Enforcement Procedures By Condition of Water Quality Facility
Rating/Problem Enforcement
For Facilities with regular inspection ratings
Note: For all Facilities with regular inspections, ensure annual notice has been sent and there is a
recent inspection before proceeding with any enforcement.
1—Excellent No additional action unless rating falls to poor/very poor(4 or
5). For facilities in fair(3)condition, it may be appropriate to
2—Good contact the owner and explain how items needing maintenance
could be improved.
3—Fair
4—Poor Follow Enforcement Procedures
• Use established Abatement Procedures,if necessary.
5—Very Poor
9. Amend Section 11I.A.3
III. Business and Customer Related Services
A. Customer Billing
3. Winter Average Update
A new Winter
Average will be determined each year for each customer effective with the
charges incurred no earlier than July I and no later than September 1 of that year,
based on schedule established in the District's current Rates and Charges
Resolution and Order (Section II E. 1. a.). Updated winter average will be used in
billing calculation for customer's variable/usage portion of their sewer service
charge for the coming 12 month period.
10. Amend Section IV.0
IV. Reporting Standards
C. Engineering and Inspection
1. Monthly, no later than the 15th T& of each month, issuance of storm and
sanitary permits by the cities is to be documented and forwarded to the District.
This Connection report can be combined with Finance and Accounting Reporting
element.
2. Monthly, no later than the 15'h Wh of each month,permitted project, water
quality facility information, substantial completion, and justification for each
water quality fee-in-lieu granted will be documented and reported to the District
in the Site Development Permit Form report,
1. a,r,nthl.. no later than the ink
identified in engineeiieg and environmental plan _e to the Dist_iet
3. Monthly,no later than the 15tb 4-e of each month, report erosion control
inspections conducted.
.
4. Other Engineering Submittals:
For each plan review, a transmittal shall be submitted to District noting any majer
attachments to the design plans, and engineering and environmental exceptions.
Other engineering submittals may be required for specific performance standard
elements not included in the report requirements above.
Engineering data for MS4 report tracking measures, not covered in the reports
above, will be separately submitted annually.
5. Quarterly, no later than 30 days after end of quarter, send updated GIS data
as specified in (I. C. 5).
6. Annually, no later than July 30 of each year, report on the following for
Private Water Quality Facility Management Program:
a) For Inspections:
o Number of inspections performed for sites and facilities.
o Number of Facilities rated PoorNery Poor
o Number of facility ratings improved to fair/good/excellent in
FY
o Number of corrective improvements plans established
o Number of Deficiency Notices
o Number of Civil Citations
b) Number of annual notices sent
c) Updated inventory list with number of sites, number of facilities
and area treated
11. Amend Section IV.D
IV. Reporting Standards
D. Capital Improvement Construction
1. Annually,no later than October 1 of each year,report summary of CIP
implementation status of sanitary, storm, and surface water projects listed in the
previous year CIP, including:
a) Actual vs. planned schedule for the prior fiscal year to date
b) Actual(unaudited) expenditures vs.planned budget for the prior
fiscal year to date
c) Description and justification for scope variance, if applicable.
d) Annually, no later than the 10° of January, report summary of CIP
actual expenditures for the first two quarters of the current fiscal
year
e) Annually,no later than the 10 of January,report summary of CIP
projected expenditures for the last two quarters of the current fiscal
year.
WEST YOST
ASSOCIATES
/vi �h
ro,mn� tDR TOR,ANp ST'- I PfafO r
Q QSUMMERSi 9V S 1 �'q�} , �m 'N =
. 0 a a I rll ¢ w a m r
Q% SUMMERC ESTO ¢ w �' x z o Q
a �zN� r ,mts TSG pP ZaZ z TIGARD T ,as°
QC F ,wra RAKE DR� i>_, Cr F O JF' S OTT T LEWIS L m 0�
t t- iset`�amt• P w $
1P5a taa]B 36" ,9410 H6. m! W P= }. HAS Si
a x � eA
_CON RISE DR v F r D'410 '}b�•I"" `
,awal]��^ 0 �O
Iss�a ,, teem •• ,�SS^ ¢ t°
KATHERINE I N I!; I I ) s.l°°]] :. 42- I KATHERINE ST P
Z 1
r w ons p xlm mss] '$'• ,asw ,aeze 1 60,
l
(RIDS ST W\l SP\' G ,ss, O LYNN ST aea ,,ami tasr 42•• «Us'xo ,a+n 1G`sia3]a Lases, E�
m mat
W ry naffs �m„mi;i zz ca. leses^C 1s s y^C
Q m siasi N/y ANN S7 m x131 aos+ am ;tmo ao^ •nsm,)I6m m lY O� �p
_ �1 p m •_I a r:A
lino zw, 2a'[ s
/ 77
WALNUT ST A'. �am16a°'
,431 ON d/•as�so .o
law3 f �•"^a` /yss NO(
• 1 ♦ / �5/l39 W ¢ o�• 1a�1 � / T
Q no - —II I
r Q r rcee �mm]]� _moo o ERROLST ✓pyNS �a��s'"^(moi
o spas✓ 0 Q, pN YIX \✓.t,
T/PPITS PL m I f ' I a� � .y,0 Sr tl�•yazw m�O fO Qi
CARMEN ST mssx :\ �aJr m NZ \ u°aa
m r mml a, m
sa o
Eim0 5]39] ti0o]RIBm
m ALBERTA ST ��a� .`(�I s]zs• »m3`mis
• FONNER ST aw•
m xis,
A.
P a W ) IGEN p
O P�Orc •.. y \ nwLr9%531°�ro
JAMESST 'Sp'0 9-
16
-
; to7
md. n131.117 �,sm
Q'. `y t�. ^_ \n00 • m, Y \93XN 9,19 aa.
saws _MARION ST ARK ax°Pf •\ PJB yCC ml
Y Q 111653as y'2' Sr, 1 6°" +Ism
6Am HO LOW LN O d VOp ¢ m P •ilssa
,t. /mo y y515 ztt mo- awe 'aN 60,
w ✓•a m
G LIN T r j �J� ire]t •I � worz .saaoi P�NJMQp YC Sr
o ¢ A. FAIRHAVEN ST +m_ FAIRHAVEN T 99 9 P� �� OMARAS
o rc r ^ m \ Antm �7 O
W aBA • PF`S P /v,AN130 SNI:
Ca%3 FAIRVIEW
¢ n101mP l^Latw
2E N OSE VISTA Dy EDGEWOOD ST m1°fi�
z+lm GA PARK PL A xiw alp
ILLVIEW ST HIL xa,as
aw ¢ IEbV CT aui.I FANA,�A. 6".f.yaa_`_ GAARDE ST •alm w F ��,ae �_
AMES LN w - zlm r,m FF
MCDONAID ST
�O x
aeaa r
`• _ w '' ELROSE CT > P
nen9a�. r' ANDAC k a
IIEW OR T81RIVILW
M CFARLAND S ^' wMOUNTAIN VIEW LN VIE TE
WO BROOKLYN< mzrew I u pST RYW ¢> INEZ ST INEZ ST nxoJL'
�s zmm MURDOCKLN PEMBROOKSTr" _
a
I]F x nl x
\ Ia•FH4IRoQ \ l = Q I i.
MURI)0 K T INEBR00 ST +P
I o
h �tsan�—� gS DR TO dT - r
mm9 ZA i LANG I rIl IL
w
Q SUMMER ST J - ,� G
fan B y d •¢ > , O ~ W
• z
SUMMER C ESS P rc m x a
a w
z TIGARD T ~
O r 9 RAKE DR�• aai ti F 00 1 Q, OTT T LEWISL m Og
IO ° Inv 1+seg W'. ma w XKATHERINE
1a6" DwCON RISE DR49n1°I ,99 , 1m9m t " ,9989 196H1 ,g,199>1 9 JKATHERINE T ,ess9au" sen aP ,eST/RID ST SPL j 1` zs Dm+;9 sass $, p2. foam a2• lwza go;ns1e— \a00 �yC
W\LL 2 0 :Ln LYNN ST I°•szw :sea�,�, :aeu �u9n 1.`s 1d3m
F- I Pv .Sates • 11 �w7—
'1/v,
W r9s �.mS.L rcez „w ANNS7m + fa9m za. 24^na°m60,
rC' AA Oa
WALNUT ST r rm9 , vw.,a9e9 laade99z .e /PL f tiS NOL
w .A ht �'p —snae w ¢ ��• 4i� •$' ,.a9+ /� / B �d ST,
ER RST ms°m ?O '�P, ✓OHNy, wzea• LN \
r 41 PL
Host 3ms01 rtppRf
�r• CARMEN ST mesz a r°>s� �F •• 19+`°a� �
.l 91 �(\``�� an •woes re�ot�.rzie9s
l! mmeALBERTA ST
' FONNERS
m s 9f r°°e S Brut
JAMES ST ¢ OPOEN`p\A n j NOO e,a P ti ,r
PRD �„� o n \ � n�Zsam i ST ��°es e.• 5t\p r19f ��
P 0.
MARION STARK T e..•�°a •\ P ��! ,
ems' P9� �OT r sa" ,tem
HO LOW LN �� m/ °• SISL {..tm� i m• &.
LIN T ¢ GE •r,m I' O� Pmt NFS
r ; A� am, �•� o �J C T
rc Ne o °#Y FAIRHAVEN ST zlw FAIRHAVEN T 9Q eP JW S� OMARA
\ 1 w �ntm P .7 DN OSP
FAIRVIEW L :+m FAIRHAVENW h`S.� P p,9�m,s9 yf•
1O FAIRVIEW'IT- -
iE N ¢ ROSE VISTA Dy u: rtm AEDGEW0muzmf'tim+m
s- zreae m 00 ST .iotas.
r•� w A mina
ILLVIEW ST HI m+w
W tEOi :Iai FAN.y
a
�. essaeoC aeu yaw, GAARDE ST
AMES LN w ntm - a J miso FK,
VG � y > nogg MCDONALD ST A
aeu '- I•_'_� j � H ELROSE CT - p
--:awe. r POANDA 1-
k
m MOUNTAIN VIEW LN
lIEW DR ti CFARLAND a `" _ i TBIDIVIEXI
Bjp V/ < GREEN�WARDLN
pesx oast. W OWO � BROOKLVIII INEZ ST INEZn.m L aeu I T RYLN r r�e9�
m ar�aes �' n MURDOCKLN PEMBROOKST rrpz _
I
�,ILT6,�, m 19'ani •e • w MURbOCK 5T INEBROO ST m. Mfr
ol
H,yL\R^N W\"-�-I�'R
3/19 O 1
/46 (' s�mz .19eze SS DR TO LAND ST / I • O w
B n1Bn
a3 SUMMER ST
2
BO I $. Fx-
19e1e
>
- SUMMER:C EST F ¢ w m r w ¢
Op w o TIGARD T
O x m991e R<A KE DR ,9eva / 4 22 U �_ Oii T LEWISL m O
0 •im16 in ama• P IHST' w �z
mDDSE F ,asa'eBw ae^ ABa w $ QS' HO AS w Q \9S
r r1 1a9a 1LB6t+asss Jw00�
.CON RISE DR O
,I m
ry 199]a •�1m]" • � •19881 1 W y
+� +^ e¢9 ,aa 42"� KATHERINE Si P
KATHERINE T � I I +ms5mus• 1\
P w I
'RID Si W\\.lG = I o :yp11 O LYNN ST m•n :.mi,m+ '1v1e w+ 164 e s / 4i2q�p
m• 1. 1A611 / o/��y.� C
W N / ffR90 m•�:DTBG S BqJ �. 19�B. •99B"- 5S
Q o 'yy 645 ,�siam qNN ANN Si m m1a+ am +T 16+D aD" Ism ns O �a
//�� P I '�Imo" •1��ry �/ ®S \ CCPi S
H ry 4u j __ 1 •� ::: o ;A14 O d 9Bm .c
/ WALNUT ST aom :ABs"�' O(
14
n 1 m a16D. eisA w r c' 0 1emz .199w 9m1 SS
w o.. at .$'� �sme w ¢ o�• m ,Am r
,p r Q w%�� ,� J ERROL ST
0 mem p0 .a'4PJ O'YiYS +uea1 G q ,evn
s�sm! I 0 p pN l ,9 ,eBB
y x. S:mmD p 11ss
~ n mn`msaT/PP1'(i PL .° I m1 .y0 9 stuez '2ssTy neasa
CARMEN ST 1VJ •� 4F •r.13s
s mmz 2 � Hole 'Vr/� g � s19w�� + 1ee91
N �06 C ���9: mD�6 Stlm•
/br <
•�R1 ALBERTA ST tiz
m Aem
FON ER ST awj � masa
a+a�aem
• ^ �� S 93i+ � mBW
nmm1 wOOp w GEN C ams w h'O s" n1a JAMES ST ¢ Op �.n°ee > OC
o m x F m sr moss¢• p0 x1191 •tem
a �. n DyyaDBJpa
p� m 'mtN p � naso P � r �mzoa m11e G2,
kms MARION ST POgaez+� Q \da+s w ¢ ARK T •x•9°03 •\ �,t.PJp y,`YS .n1em 60„ nem
HO LOW LN X03 /�• �Slg\,o I—.a1 F mm1 mm1 'P-p a0"
G LIN T > ,w aam+ OE I' �•I moaz amz �aJ OP t6�i0ST
FAIRHAVEN ST1w FAIRHAVEN T ep J4i N'S OMARA
41 Wp 99
w J �e�y9 FAIRVIEW L n1m FAIRHAVEN Fy+�S P m;a, mlae p1_
;E N ¢ EDGEWOOD ROSE VISTA D «
/2 ^ ¢ �— ��m P ST m1azN.tmlw
ae'B f• w A mr
ee6 �11m¢ ILLVIEW ST HI
i ••,,',,', i x EWCT {.ra9 FAN,y
zrea6 6" aeA aeA GAARDE ST ,atm
AMES LN a+m < miso' EF.
JO. _ MCDONALDST o
m.aaaa .�_F F J A
w F' ELROSE CT
0
m w
aun}" r p_Op NDA
/IEW DR w F nen 'I CFARLAND g ¢, "' w m x MOUNTAIN VIEW LN
TMIDSVIE!
lgT ¢ GREEN WgRD LN00 BROOKLY¢ INEZ ST INEZ ST L > 6
T n m=9
x F� MURDOCKYN PEMBROOKST azOY 1�� ;azoz —
m
w MURDOCK ST INEBROO ST �a V
H RNW R 4.O 1 ¢ w r1a x