Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2000 - Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Wastewater Collection System Master Plan City of Jefferson10 Ta Xn _ May 2000 Sverdrup Civil, Inc. St. Louis, Missouri I i , CITY OF JEFFERSON is i I�I j WASTEWATER-COLLECTION SYSTEM I ' MASTER PLAN L -- it I t May 2000 t By Lill SVERDRUP CIVIL,INC St. Louis,Missouri ` EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Jefferson Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) is at or above capacity to treat wastewater collected by the City sewer system during dry weather. During wet weather, collection system flows far exceed WPCF capacity. Planning has been completed for increasing the WPCF treatment capacity. The Wastewater Collection System Master Plan presents the results of a study of the City of Jefferson sewer system and is the basis for sizing the expanded WPCF. Collection system needs until the year 2020 have been studied. The Master Plan will assist the city in its efforts to reduce non-sewage flows to the capacity of the expanded WPCF and also provides a plan for new sewers to serve future growth for the next 20 years. The planning area for the Wastewater Collection System Master Plan includes all of the City of Jefferson, areas outside the city limits in both Cole County and Callaway County and pumped flow from Holts Summit, Missouri. Several areas located south of the current service area with the potential for future development are included in the planning area. The planning area Year 2020 projected population is 62,400, with 38,600 of those persons located within the current city limits. Divided by the Missouri River, the majority of the wastewater collection system is located south of the river. All flows from the south side are collected at the Walnut Street Pump Station and pumped across the river to the WPCF located north of the river. Flows from the north side are - collected at the Westinghouse Pump Station and pumped to the WPCF. Due to the size of the collection system and the severe topography of the area, there are currently twenty-eight intermediate wastewater pump stations within the system. The future WPCF design average flow is 11 million gallons per day (mgd). Design average flow includes contributions from residential, commercial and industrial sources and the city of Holts Summit. The future design peak hourly dry weather flow is 25 mgd. Estimated design peak wet weather flow is based on recent hydraulic modeling of the wastewater collection system using selected design storms. Calibration of the hydraulic model developed for the south wastewater collection system is based on the results of a flow-monitoring program conducted in the spring of 1999. Flow monitoring results indicate that significant amounts of storm water enter the sanitary sewers through infiltration and inflow sources during wet weather. High infiltration and inflow occurs in most of the City of Jefferson collection system. Hydraulic modeling results indicate that while the collection system is adequate for peak flows i during dry weather, the majority of the system is insufficient for the peak flows that occur during wet weather. Once sewer capacity has been reached, surcharge conditions and ultimately sanitary system overflows occur. i Sources of extraneous wet weather flows need to be located and controlled. A program to identify and correct major sources of infiltration and inflow(I/I) in areas where it is most evident iL is recommended to reduce wet weather peak flows. The I/I control program includes a sewer system evaluation study to identify sources of I/I, estimate potential flow reductions and evaluate i ; possible correction methods. A sewer system evaluation study includes smoke testing, manhole inspections and television inspection of sewers. Potential I/I corrective actions include pipe rehabilitation or replacement, removal of storm water connections and manhole repair. The estimated cost for the recommended I/I source detection program is $4 million and the estimated cost for the I/I source correction program is $18 million dollars (Year 2000 dollars). The wet weather peak flow resulting from a 5-year, 6-hour storm is used as the basis for sizing improvements to Walnut Street Pump Station and the WPCF. The design wet weather peak flow to these facilities with the recommended M control program is 60 mgd. For the remaining portions of the collection system, wet weather peak flows resulting from the 10-year, 6-hour storm, and assuming the recommended I/I control program has been implemented, is the basis for design. Even with the recommended UI control program, significant improvements to current wastewater facilities are needed to provide adequate capacity to carry design wet weather peak flows to the wastewater treatment plant. In addition to relief sewer and pump station upgrades needed to improve existing components of the collection system, new sewers and pump stations are needed to serve future growth areas that are outside the current service area. Wastewater collection system improvements are grouped and prioritized in five phases, timed to both accommodate growth in outlying targeted annexation areas and also to relieve overloaded downstream facilities that are currently overloaded or will be overloaded when the growth occurs. A summary of the suggested schedule of improvements and project cost estimates (in Year 2000 dollars) is provided in the following table. Improvements include M identification and correction in appropriate areas, relief sewers, pump station upgrades and new wastewater facilities. Project Cost Estimate Recommended Project Phases (mil$) Phase I (5-year): Basin 10 Improvements (I/I control, new sewer extensions and improvements to 12.0 existing downstream system) ! Phase II (10-year): Area A, Area D, Area E, and Area F improvements (I/I control, new wastewater 35.1 facilities and improvements to existing downstream system) Phase III (15-year): Existing System Improvements 28.8 - for 2-year Design Storm(including I/I control) Phase IV (20-year): Existing System Improvements 31.0 in Grays Creek Drainage Basin(including M control) r- Phase V (25-year): Existing System Improvements 14.5 for 5-year and 10-year Design Storms Additional Improvements to Serve Remaining 14.2 Outlying Areas and Eliminate Pump Stations Total 135.6 L-i I � TABLE OF CONTENTS i ' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................... 1.1 PURPOSE..................................................................................................................................................1-1 i1.2 STUDY AREA...........................................................................................................................................1-2 SECTION 2 DESIGN CRITERIA.........................................................................................................................2-1 I , 2.1 WASTEWATER FLOW CRITERIA......................................................................................................2-1 2.1.1 Average Wastewater Flow Criteria................................................................................................2-1 ( 2.1.2 Peak Hourly Wastewater Flow Criteria........................................................................................2-2 2.1.3 Peak Wet Weather Wastewater Flow Criteria..............................................................................2-2 -- 2.2 SEWER DESIGN CRITERIA.................................................................................................................2-4 it SECTION 3 POPULATION PROJECTIONS......................................................................................................3-1 3.1 PRESENT AND FUTURE POPULATION............................................................................................3-1 3.2 PROJECTED AREAS OF GROWTH....................................................................................................3-2 3.2.1 Residential........................................................................................................................................3-2 i ' 3.2.2 Commercial and Industrial.............................................................................................................3-3 SECTION 4 PUMP STATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT ...........................................................................4-1 4.1 COLE JUNCTION....................................................................................................................................4-1 4.2 BINDER.....................................................................................................................................................4-2 4.3 RIVERSIDE PARK...................................................................................................................................4-2 4.4 WESTVIEW..............................................................................................................................................4-2 4.5 MOREAU...................................................................................................................................................4-3 4.6 COVINGTON............................................................................................................................................4-3 4.7 WESTINGHOUSE....................................................................................................................................4-4 i 4.8 IDLEWOOD..............................................................................................................................................4-4 4.9 HAYSELTON............................................................................................................................................4-5 4.10 GREEN MEADOW...................................................................................................................................4-5 4.11 SOUTHRIDGE..........................................................................................................................................4-6 4.12 CEDAR CITY............................................................................................................................................4-6 4.13 DOVER 4.14 ST.MARTINS#1 (NORTH)....................................................................................................................4-7 4.15 ST.MARTINS#2(SOUTH).....................................................................................................................4-7 I4.16 INDIAN HILLS.........................................................................................................................................4-8 ` 4.17 T-ROAD.....................................................................................................................................................4-8 4.18 RANDALL.................................................................................................................................................4-8 1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) SECTION 4 PUMP STATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT,continued HILLS.......................................................................................................................................4-9 4.1.9 -SYLVAN I I 4.20 GUN CLUB................................................................................................................................................4-9 4.21 WOODWARD...........................................................................................................................................4-9 4.22 BONITA PASEO.....................................................................................................................................4-10 4.23 WINDRIVER...........................................................................................................................................4-10 t4.24 HAAF........................................................................................................................................................4-10 4.25 IVEN.........................................................................................................................................................4-11 r-, 4.26 WESTPORT............................................................................................................................................4-11 I 4.27 SCHOLASTIC.........................................................................................................................................4-11 4.28 COMMAND WEB..................................................................................................................................4-12 SECTION 5 FLOW MONITORING PROGRAM(SPRING 1999)...................................................................5-1 5.1 RAINFALL RESULTS....................................................:........................................................................5-1 ' 5.2 MONITORING RESULTS5-2 ...................................................................................................................... - SECTION 6 DEVELOPMENT OF HYDRAULIC MODEL(HYDRA)............................................................6-1 6.1 PHYSICAL SYSTEM...............................................................................................................................6-1 6.2 SANITARY FLOWS................................................................... ......................................6-2 6.3 INFILTRATION AND INFLOW................................................................... 6-3 SECTION 7 INFILTRATION AND INFLOW ANALYSIS..................................................................:.............7-1 , I 7.1 RAINFALL INDUCED INFILTRATION AND INFLOW...................................................................7-1 7.1.1 Evaluation of Infiltration/Inflow in Major Drainage Basins........................................................7-1 7.1.2 Summa -- 7.2 MISSOURI RIVER INFLUENCE...........................................................................................................7-6 7.3 IMPACT OF UI REDUCTION ON WALNUT STREET PEAK FLOWS..........................................7-7 _ 7.4 INFILTRATION AND INFLOW PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................7-9 7.5 INFILTRATION AND INFLOW PROGRAM COST ESTIMATES................................................7-11 I SECTION 8 WASTEWATER DESIGN FLOWS ................................................................................................8-1 I i 8.1 DESIGN AVERAGE FLOW....................................................................................................................8-1 8.2 DESIGN PEAK HOURLY FLOW..........................................................................................................8-1 F) 8.3 DESIGN PEAK WET WEATHER FLOW ...............8-2 8.3.1 Water Pollution Control Facility and Walnut Street Pump Station............................................8-2 8.3.2 Wastewater Collection System........................................................................................................8-3 11 i _J TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) SECTION 9 WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM ANALYSIS..............................................................9-1 9.1 EXISTING WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM......................................................................9-1 9.2 GRAVITY SEWER SYSTEM..................................................................................:..............................9-2 9.3 SEWAGE PUMP STATIONS..................................................................................................................9-4 9.4 INFILTRATIONANFLOW COST EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS.............................................................9-6 SECTION 10 ELIMINATE PUMP STATIONS AND SERVE OUTLYING AREAS....................................10-1" � J 10.1 ELIMINATE GREEN MEADOW PUMP STATION.........................................................................10-1 j 10.2 ELIMINATE SOUTHRIDGE PUMP STATION ................................................................................10-2 10.3 ELIMINATE IDLEWOOD PUMP STATION.....................................................................................10-3 10.4 ELIMINATE ADDITIONAL PUMP STATIONS ...............................................................................10-4 10.5 IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE OUTLYING AREAS A AND B 10-5 10.6 IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE OUTLYING AREA C......................................................................10-5 10.7 IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE OUTLYING AREA D......................................................................10-5 10.8 IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE OUTLYING AREAS E AND F.......................................................10-6 10.9 SEWER EXTENSIONS IN BASIN 10-FROG HOLLOW AREA......................................................10-7 SECTION 11 SCHEDULE OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS.........................................................11-1 it f 11.1 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS................................................................................................11-1 11.2 PHASE I IMPROVEMENTS(5-YEAR)...............................................................................................11-3 j 11.3 PHASE I1 IMPROVEMENTS(10 YEAR)...............................................................................:...........11-4 11.4 PHASE III IMPROVEMENTS(15-YEAR) .........................................................................................11-7 } 11.5 PHASE IV IMPROVEMENTS(20-YEAR)..........................................................................................11-8 S 11.6 PHASE V IMPROVEMENTS(25-YEAR).........................:.................................................................11-9 _ 11.7 ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS.....................................................................................................11-10 11.8 SUMMARY............................................................................................................................................11-10 APPENDIX A Flow Monitoring Summary Results { APPENDIX B North and South Wastewater Collection System,Future Dry Weather Hydraulic Model Results....................................provided in separate document APPENDIX C Stage-Duration Curve-for Missouri River at City of Jefferson, i Missouri,October 1995 to June 1999................................provided in separate document APPENDIX D North Wastewater Collection System,Future Wet Weather HydraulicModel Results..............................................provided in separate document APPENDIX E South Wastewater Collection System,Future Wet Weather Hydraulic Model Results..............................................provided in separate document �i 111 S� r f � f r TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) it LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1-1 CITY OF JEFFERSON MASTER PLAN STUDY AREA.........................................................1-4 FIGURE 3-1 MAJOR WATER USERS AND AREAS OF PROJECTED GROWTH ..................................3-6 f FIGURE 4-1 EXISTING WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM.........................................................4-15 FIGURE 5-1 FLOW MONITORING LOCATIONS AND MODELED PUMP STATIONS ........................5-6 FIGURE 7-1 EXAMPLE HYDROGRAPH SHOWING INFLOW PREDOMINANT DEFECT METER 9-MAY 4, 1999 STORM...............................................................................................7-22 ! FIGURE 7-2 EXAMPLE HYDROGRAPH SHOWING EXTENDED INFILTRATION METER 14-MAY 4,1999 STORM.............................................................................................7-23 FIGURE 7-3 EXAMPLE HYDROGRAPH SHOWING INFILTRATION AND INFLOW i METER 8-MAY 4,1999 STORM...............................................................................................7-24 FIGURE 7-4 MISSOURI RIVER INFLUENCE ON AVERAGE DAILY WPCF FLOW(JANUARY 1997 THROUGH DECEMBER 1998).................................................................................................7-25 FIGURE 7-5 MO RIVER INFLUENCE ON DRY AVERAGE FLOW TO WALNUT ST.PS...................7-26 FIGURE 9-1 COLLECTION SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES WITH UI CONTROL PROGRAM..................9-12 FIGURE 10-1 SERVICE TO OUTLYING AREAS A THROUGH F............................................................10-15 i FIGURE 10-2 GRAVITY SEWER EXTENSIONS..........................................................................................10-16 -"I FIGURE 11-1 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS(WITH UI CONTROL PROGRAM) ....................11-22 I r-, l �i iv I ' �R TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) LIST OF TABLES TABLE 3-1 JEFFERSON CITY HISTORICAL POPULATION AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS 3-4 l i TABLE 3-2 STUDY AREA POPULATION PROJECTIONS.....................................................................:..3-5 TABLE 4-1 SUBMERSIBLE TYPE WASTEWATER PUMP STATIONS................................................4-13 TABLE 4-2 WETWELL/DRY WELL TYPE WASTEWATER PUMP STATIONS .................................4-14 TABLE 5-1 SUMMARY OF FLOW METER LOCATIONS.........................................................................5-3 � I TABLE 5-2 RAINFALL SUMMARY .................................5-4 TABLE 5-3 FLOW MONITORING SUMMARY I C TABLE 6-1 NORTH JEFFERSON CITY EXISTING PUMP STATIONS INCLUDED IN MODEL.......6-5 j I TABLE 6-2 SOUTH JEFFERSON CITY EXISTING PUMP STATIONS INCLUDED IN MODEL........6-6 TABLE 7-1 DRY WEATHER AVERAGE TO WET WEATHER PEAK RATIO ....................................7-12 TABLE 7-2 SUMMARY OF INFILTRATION/INFLOW ANALYSIS.......................................................7-16 I� TABLE 7-3 MISSOURI RIVER AT JEFFERSON CITY AVERAGE RIVER STAGE............................7-17 I , TABLE 7-4 MISSOURI RIVER CONTRIBUTION TO DRY WEATHER FLOWS AT WALNUT tSTREET PUMP STATION.........................................................................................................7-18 TABLE 7-5 WALNUT STREET PUMP STATION ESTIMATED WET WEATHER PEAK FLOW ....7-19 TABLE 7-6 RECOMMENDED INFILTRATION/INFLOW CONTROL PROGRAM............................7-20 i TABLE 7-7 INFILTRATION/INFLOW PROGRAM COST ESTIMATES...............................................7-21 TABLE 8-1 JEFFERSON CITY WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY HISTORICAL ANNUAL j AVERAGE WASTEWATER FLOW...........................................................................................8-5 TABLE 8-2 DESIGN AVERAGE FLOW PROJECTION..............................................................................8-6 TABLE 8-3 DESIGN WET WEATHER PEAK FLOW IN MAJOR DRAINAGE BASINS.......................8-7 TABLE 8-4 DESIGN WET WEATHER PEAK FLOW TO MAJOR PUMP STATIONS..........................8-8 11 TABLE 9-1 WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM................................................................................9-7 �lTABLE 9-2 RELIEF SEWER IMPROVEMENTS..........................................................................................9-8 TABLE 9-3 EVALUATION OF MAJOR PUMP STATIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION ...........9-9 lli If TABLE 9-4 PUMP STATION IMPROVEMENTS TABLE 9-5 UI CONTROL PROGRAM COST EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS ................................................9-11 v i r 4 " TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) LIST OF TABLES, continued i' f TABLE 10-1 ELIMINATE GREEN MEADOW PUMP STATION 10-8 TABLE 10-2 ELIMINATE SOUTHRIDGE PUMP STATION......................................................................10-9 TABLE 10-3 .ALTERNATIVES TO ELIMINATE IDLEWOOD PUMP STATION.................................10-10 TABLE 10-4 ELIMINATE IDLEWOOD PUMP STATION........................................................................10-11 TABLE 10-5 ELIMINATE OUTLYING PUMP STATIONS.......................................................................10-12 TABLE 10-6 PROJECT COST ESTIMATES TO SERVE OUTLYING AREAS......................................10-13 TABLE 10-7 BASIN 10-FROG HOLLOW AREA IMPROVEMENTS......................................................10-14 TABLE 11-1 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS TO WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM.11-12 r-, TABLE 11-2 PHASE I: BASIN 10 IMPROVEMENTS(IMPLEMENT BY 2005).....................................11-13 " ' f TABLE 11-3 PHASE HA:HIGH PRIORITY AREA,AREA A IMPROVEMENTS(IMPLEMENT BY 2010)............................................................................................................................................11-14 TABLE 11-4 PHASE IIB:HIGH PRIORITY AREAS,AREA D IMPROVEMENTS(IMPLEMENT BY 2010).............................................................................................................................................11-15 TABLE 11-5 PHASE IIC:HIGH PRIORITY AREAS,AREA E AND AREA F IMPROVEMENTS IMPLEMENT BY 2010 r7 TABLE 11-6 PHASE III: SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS FOR 2-YEAR DESIGN STORM(IMPLEMENT BY2015)........................................................................................:.............................................11-17 i" TABLE 11-7 PHASE IV: GRAYS CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN IMPROVEMENTS(IMPLEMENT BY 2020).............................................................................................................................................11-18 TABLE 11-8 PHASE V: SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS FOR 5 YEAR AND 10 YEAR DESIGN STORMS ' (IMPLEMENT BY 2025)...............................................................................................:...........11-19 TABLE 11-9 ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS(IMPLEMENT AS APPROPRIATE)..........................11-20 i ? 1 1 TABLE 11-10 SCHEDULE OF IMPROVEMENTS,SUMMARY OF PROJECT PHASES......................11-21 t f vi I ' SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE The Wastewater Collection System Master Plan evaluates the capability of the system facilities jto provide adequate service for existing and future development in the City of Jefferson planning area. This study can be used by the City as a basis for planning the improvements necessary to address potential wet weather sanitary sewer overflows and to accommodate growth for the 20- year study period. The master plan addresses sanitary sewer and pump station needs. Wastewater treatment needs j are addressed in a separate document, "City of Jefferson, Water Pollution Control Facility Improvements, Facility Plan", prepared by Sverdrup Civil, Inc., March 2000. Improvements to the Water Pollution Control Facility are based on design wastewater flows developed in this _ collection system master plan. I ; Purposes of the Wastewater Collection System Master Plan are to: • Project future wastewater flows for the 20-year study period • Recommend collection system improvements required for future design flows I � • Provide a planned approach for implementation of the recommended improvements Average wastewater flows include contributions from residential, commercial and industrial sources. Peak wastewater flows add to average flows extraneous storm water that enters the I ; sanitary sewer system during rainfall events. Future wet weather peak flows are developed using a computerized hydraulic model of the sewer system. Peak flows are compared to the capacity of the existing wastewater collection system to analyze its adequacy over the 20-year design period. In areas where the peak flows exceed the system capacity, there is the potential for sanitary sewer overflows. Design peak wastewater flows are also used as the basis for sizing recommended improvements. I 1-1 f . ' J Improvements to the wastewater collection system are recommended for areas of the collection system that are not large enough to handle the design wastewater flows. Improvements include Ireduction of wet weather peak flows through an infiltration and inflow control program, relief sewers and pump station upgrades. Improvements needed to expand service into areas currently outside the collection system service area are also evaluated. Improvement projects are scheduled in five-year increments over the next twenty-five years. t 1.2 STUDY AREA The planning area for the Wastewater Collection System Master Plan comprises all of the City of Jefferson, areas outside the city limits in both Cole County and Callaway County and pumped flow from Holts Summit, Missouri. The study area is approximately 66 square miles and is _i shown on Figure 1-1. Areas currently served by the wastewater collection system are divided into 21 drainage basins. In addition to the current service area,the study area includes some areas not presently served by the City of Jefferson collection system. Areas not presently served by the City of Jefferson collection system(A through F) are included in the master plan study area as they represent areas of potential future development, which are likely to be connected to the system in the future. ' 4 The Missouri River divides the study area, with the majority of the area located south of the river and the Water Pollution Control Facility located north of the river. The current service area north of the Missouri River, located in Callaway County, includes the area within the city limits and a small area north of the city limits. Much of the northern service area was flooded in 1993 and because most of the residential areas were bought out, the area within the city limits is primarily commercial and light industrial. Flow from Holts Summit is ipumped to the North City of Jefferson Sewer Extension near the intersection of Route AC and Highway 54. The City of Jefferson has an intermunicipal agreement with the City of Holts Summit to provide wastewater treatment capacity for 500,000 gallons per day. I ' 1-2 _l The majority of the current service area is located south of the Missouri River in Cole County. The southern service area is generally bordered-by the Moreau River to the east and south and by Grays Creek drainage area to the west. Grays Creek drainage area was originally sewered by the Cole County Regional Sewer District (CCRSD) in the early 1980's. The CCRSD is no longer in operation and City of Jefferson now maintains the collection system in the Grays Creek drainage area. r i r� I ! ii r�r � f i ! r� � I n, I � 1-3 w rr REE ELSTON 21B ST. .,MARTIN JEFFERSON Ar CITY WPCF STATE 2 CAPITOL HW -50 ._.., 11 1 V� " o-, ____� 10 w 1- ec w cC 1-i WY C LEGEND 3 DRAINAGE BASIN NUMBER STUDY AREA/MAJOR DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY ---- CITY LIMITS FIGURE 1-1 CITY OF JEFFERSON WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN STUDY AREA t SECTION 2 E DESIGN CRITERIA s 2.1 WASTEWATER FLOW CRITERIA f� Major sources of wastewater flow in the study area include sanitary sewage from residential, commercial and industrial sources, rapid (or storm induced) infiltration and inflow and Missouri (� River influenced infiltration/inflow. Average daily flows from sanitary and industrial sources F follow predictable patterns and are readily estimated. Extraneous flows such as rapid infiltration r and inflow are highly variable and can depend on numerous factors including system condition, storm intensity and duration and groundwater table. The Missouri River divides the collection system service area and depending on the river stage can contribute flow to some sanitary sewers. 2.1.1 Average Wastewater Flow Criteria Wastewater flow rates are developed for several types of land uses including residential, commercial/light industrial, and major water users. Average flow criteria for these sources are: Residential: 100 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) Commercial/Light Industrial: 1000 gallons per acre per day(gpad) Major Water Users: Based on water usage records The residential wastewater contribution of 100 gpcd is based on Missouri Department of Natural Resources recommended criteria for sewer design and includes some allowance for infiltration. 11 Values in literature for peak flows from commercial and industrial sources typically range from 3600 gpad to 5000 gpad. Because major water users are accounted for separately, an average flow of 1000 gpad, with an 8-hour per day operation, is used in this study for other developed or undeveloped commercial/industrial areas. The resulting peak flow rate is 3000 gpad. f; For the purposes of this study, major water users are defined as facilities that average over 50,000 gallons per day water usage. 2-1 l Additional allowance is included in the design average flows to account for wet weather and Missouri River influences. The additional average flow component is based on the historical average flows to the City of Jefferson Water Pollution Control Facility(WPCF). 2.1.2 Peak Hourly Wastewater Flow Criteria Peak hourly flow criteria is based on the Missouri DNR peaking factor criteria: 18 +(Population in thousands)o.s 4+(Population in thousands)o.s 2.1.3 Peak Wet Weather Wastewater Flow Criteria Development of wet weather peak flows is based on the recent hydraulic modeling of the collection system at selected design storms. Calibration of the hydraulic model developed for r the south wastewater collection system is based on the results of a spring 1999 flow-monitoring program. Flow monitoring results and development of the hydraulic models are discussed in �l greater detail in Sections 5 and 6 of this master plan. Major contributors to wet weather peak flows are rapid (or storm induced) infiltration and inflow. Rapid infiltration is defined as extraneous flow that enters sanitary sewers below ground — during a storm event. Typical sources of rapid infiltration include defective pipe joints, cracked pipe, or faulty manholes. Inflow is unwanted surface water that enters sanitary sewers during storm events. Typical sources of inflow include submerged (or missing) manhole covers, roof drain connections, broken pipe in creek crossings or improper connections to storm sewers. ? Sources of inflow and infiltration can also be located on private property, such as roof drain or foundation-drain connections, and in private sewer laterals. I . Another type of infiltration is extraneous flow that enters the sanitary sewer system very consistently, 24 hours a day. This infiltration depends on the season, not individual storms. It can be thought of as ground water, but its source is generally rainwater from a storm event that may have taken place days or even months before. Sources of this type of infiltration are the same as for rapid infiltration. Dry weather flows for March 31, 1999 were used as the basis for 2-2 I modeling the constant type infiltration. This day was selected as a typical dry weather day during the wet spring season when the Missouri River was at low stage. Rapid infiltration and inflow are extremely variable and to a large extent depend on the intensity r-, and duration of a storm event. Wet weather peak flows measured in the existing collection system were used as the basis for calibrating the hydraulic model rapid infiltration and inflow components. The model was then used to estimate wet weather peak flows for future conditions. ? Expected flows in the collection system have been calculated based on design storms with 10- year, 5-year and 2-year frequency. Wet weather peak flows are estimated based on a flow-monitoring program conducted from March 21 through May 31, 1999 at 20 locations throughout the City of Jefferson. Precipitation was normal for this period. The measured wastewater flows were used to calibrate the hydraulic model for selected storms. Because sewer system deteriorate over time, the model also anticipated • Inflow will increase 0.5%per year • Infiltration will increase 2%per year i Three design storms are utilized in the development of the collection system master plan. The design storm for evaluating the collection system hydraulics and sizing system improvements is the 10-year, 6-hour storm. The 10-year, 6-hour design storm is an intense storm, which i generally occurs over a small area. Because of the size of the City of Jefferson service area, the peak wet weather design flow reaching the wastewater treatment plant and the Walnut Street Pump Station (including the section of sewer just upstream of this pump station) is based on the 5-year, 6-hour storm. For purposes of prioritizing collection system improvements, design flows from the 2-year, 6-hour storm are estimated. Characteristics of these design storms are: Return Period: 10 years 5 years 2 years Duration: 6 hours 6 hours 6 hours Total Volume: 3.6 inches 3.1 inches 2.4 inches 2-3 f , �S 1 ' r 3 I _r 2.2 SEWER DESIGN CRITERIA Existing sewer adequacy is evaluated assuming the sewers are flowing full. Relief and new sewer design assumes the sewers flow three-quarters full. The Mannings factor, n, for estimating sewer capacity is typically 0.013. r—i I ; 5 r i E� i _ r I _s 2-4 r� i SECTION 3 f POPULATION PROJECTIONS r-, Existing development and projected.growth in the planning area are identified as the basis for estimating the quantity and location of wastewater flows generated by residential, commercial and industrial sources. 3.1 PRESENT AND FUTURE POPULATION } For this master plan, the baseline for existing conditions is Year 2000. The future design basis for the 20-year study period is Year 2020. Historical population and projections for population growth within the City of Jefferson are j summarized in Table 3-1. Growth in the City of Jefferson to the Year 2020 is based on a projected increase of 4.7% per decade, the average growth over the past 20 years. The decrease in population between Year 2000 and Year 2010 is due to the expected closing of the Missouri _ State Penitentiary (2000 persons) within the next 5 years. Population projections for the study area are summarized in Table 3-2. The study area includes the small service area in Callaway County north of the Missouri River, Jefferson City south of the Missouri River and additional service area in Cole County outside the present city limits. I Populations for the Year 1990 are based on census data. t Population projections for service areas in Cole and Callaway County are developed from the Comprehensive Plan Update prepared for City of Jefferson'. Growth in the service area located { in Cole County conservatively assumes an increase of 10% per decade, slightly higher than the low and moderate projections in the Comprehensive Plan Update. In addition, growth projections in the Cole County service area assume 73% of the Cole County population will locate within the City of Jefferson service area, similar to the results of the 1990 census data. '"Comprehensive Plan Update,City of Jefferson,Missouri",prepared by Landform Urban Planning Services,St. Louis,Missouri,March 1996. 3-1 (ter � I 1 Growth in the service area located in Callaway County is based on a high projection increase of —a i 20%per decade and does not include Holts Summit. According to census data,the population of Holts Summit decreased between the years 1980 and 1990, while the population of Callaway i County increased as a whole. Population projections for Holts Summit are beyond the scope of this plan. Therefore, the existing and future wastewater flows from Holts Summit are to be based on past billing records and the maximum wastewater treatment capacity allowed in their intermunicipal agreement with City of Jefferson. r-� r � 3.2 PROJECTED AREAS OF GROWTH fThe City of Jefferson wastewater collection system serves approximately 18,000 acres (28 —; square miles)within the city limits and approximately 24,000 acres (38 square miles) outside the i city limits. Currently,just over half of the area within the city limits is developed. r—� 3.2.1 Residential Developed land usage in City of Jefferson is predominately residential. Distribution of the , I baseline (Year 2000) residential population in the current collection system service area is based on 1990 census tracts and development that has occurred over the past 10 years. Discussions with city planning personnel indicate that residential growth within the city limits in the past 10 years has focused in the west and south central portions of the City, as well as continued development within existing residential areas. Future growth is expected to be similar to the past T' 10 years. Growth outside the city limits has been primarily south of the City and west in the Grays Creek drainage basin. Areas of expected residential growth are shown in Figure 3-1. Based on review -of the Annexation Plan for the City of Jefferson, Missouri2, the primary growth areas outside the city limits are as follows: • South of city limits in Frog Hollow area and future Route 179 extension • East of city limits in Algoa area • Small area north of city limits in Ventura area �^ 2"City of Jefferson Annexation Plan, 1996",by D.R.Preston,December 1996. 3-2 I i� Additional growth is expected west and southwest of the city limits north of the city limits near Route 179, and south of the city limits near Seven Hills Road. 3.2.2 Commercial and Industrial Existing commercially developed land within City of Jefferson is presently about 600 acres. Existing industrial development is also about 600 acres. In addition, the following major industrial and commercial water users are shown in Figure 3-1. Missouri State Penitentiary (Year 2000 only) ABB Modine Manufacturing Unilever/Chesebrough Ponds Missouri State Capital and Harry S. Truman State Office Building St. Mary's Health Center Von Hoffinann Press Commercial growth in the City is based on a projected increase of 24 acre per year, the average growth from 1977 to 1992. Future commercial areas are assumed to be located in undeveloped land within the city limits zoned for commercial use and in outlying areas of St. Martins, along Business 50 West and along Frog Hollow Road. _l Industrial growth is projected to be approximately 12 acres per year, slightly less than the growth from 1977 to 1992. Future industrial areas are assumed to be located in undeveloped land within �l I the city limits zoned for industrial use. Industrial growth is difficult to predict and is affected by available industrial park settings, severe topography south of the Missouri River and areas north of the Missouri River located in the 100-year floodplain. 1 � s , (T, ' 3-3 r—• i f i TABLE 3-1 JEFFERSON CITY HISTORICAL POPULATION a AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS Year Population Percent Increase 1900 9,664 - �? 1910 11,850 22.6 1920 14,490 22.3 1930 21,596 49 1940 24,268 12.4 1950 25,099 3.4 1960 28,228 12.5 1970 32,407 14.8 .1980 33,619 3.7 1990 35,494 5.6 2000 37,200 assume 4.76 `-, 2010 36,900- assume 4.76 ,< < 2020 38,600 assume 4.76 j - Less MO State Penitentiary incarcerated persons(2000). 6 Average of percent increases from 1980 and 1990. y ~3 e f �1 Y 3-4 t � 4 -- D TABLE 3-2 STUDY AREA POPULATION PROJECTIONS 5 "1P 9 2020: Actual 0 Stud Coireh1. • J*' 4Y tq_y Jefferson City/North of MO River and Service Area in Callaway Co. NA 319 NA 400 NA 500 NA 600 Cole County 63, 579 70,000 77,000 84,700 Jefferson City/South of MO River in Cole County 35,175 36,800 36,400 38,000 Study Area in Cole County (outside of city limits) 11,122 14,300 19,800 23,800 .TOTAL STUDY AREA POPULATION 46,616 51,500 56,700 62,400 Notes: 1. Jefferson City/North of Missouri River and Service Area in Callaway County projections based on a 20%increase per decade. 2. Jefferson City population projections based on a 4.7%increase per decade. Year 2010 includes loss of Missouri State Penitentiary. 3. Study Area in Cole County(outside city limits) population projections based on a 10% overall increase per decade in Cole County, and assumes 73%of Cole County population resides in Master Plan study area. 3-5 7-t 1- 14J 1— ST. ST. MARTINS LEGEND --- STUDY AREA BOUNDARY CITY LIMITS • MAJOR WATER USER AREAS OF PROJECTED GROWTH OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS ELSTON _ VENTURA AREA 1-------- CHESEBROUGH- PONDS HWy so MODINE MFG. w 0 • (elepits-. VON.HOFFMANN PRESS t o• ; I ce HWY C Li— HW'( 54. rrr,r- ABB ST. MARY'S HEALTH CENTER - JEFFERSON CITY WPCF STATE CAPITOL '1' MAN STATE "SEVEN HILLS RD. J1—WX- -5P/63 MISSOURI STATE PENITENTIARY • ALGOA AREA ( 1 .......'N• ' - NIr- • '-1 \ . ,-L-..-....... / N. . • 1. \ 1 \ 1 \ I \ • I N • I __, ‘1.; '''....,...--..-:- • . -.' "s• _____ __.,V: FIGURE 3-1 MAJOR WATER USERS AND AREAS OF PROJECTED GROWTH i I SECTION 4 PUMP STATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT An inspection program of each pump station in the wastewater collection system was conducted in spring of 1999 to provide a preliminary assessment of the mechanical, electrical, controls and structural condition. Pump station condition and age were used in the evaluation of necessary improvements and in prioritizing improvement projects. A summary of each pump station assessment is provided in the following sections. There are currently twenty-nine pumping stations in the Jefferson City wastewater collection system. Approximate locations of the wastewater pump stations are shown on Figure 4-1. Fifteen stations are the submersible type. Submersible pump station capacities, pump ' ( information and year of construction are summarized in Table 4-1. Fourteen stations are the wet well/dry well type. Wet well/dry well pump station capacities, pump information and year of construction is summarized in Table 4-2. Walnut Street Pump Station pumps all wastewater flow from the southern portion of the collection system across the Missouri River to the wastewater treatment facility. The wastewater treatment facility and Walnut Street Pump Station are evaluated in greater detail in the City of y Jefferson WPCF Improvements Facility Plan,prepared by Sverdrup Civil, March 2000. 4.1 COLE JUNCTION Cole Junction pump station is a triplex wet well/dry well type station. It pumps wastewater flows from Grays Creek drainage basin and Basin 12 to gravity sewers in Basin 13. It was constructed in 1982 and has an on-site generator with automatic transfer switch for emergency operation. The station is in fair mechanical condition. All pumps have the original motors. One pump has been replaced and another has been rebuilt. The structural condition of the wet well, dry well and building is good. 4-1 `t I , Odors were noticeable at the time of inspection and have been reported in the past. There is a i long detention time in the gravity sewers from Grays Creek drainage basin. A Bioxide odor control system is manually activated as necessary. 4.2 BINDER Binder pump station is a duplex wet well/dry well type station serving Basin 20 in the Grays Creek drainage area. It is a USEMCO package station installed in 1983, and has an on-site generator with automatic transfer switch for emergency operation. The station is mechanically in fair condition. The high station discharge head required the installation of electrically actuated pump discharge isolation valves for minimizing the effects of water hammer in the force main. City personnel are addressing electrical controls associated N with the automatic operation of the pumps and the electrically operated discharge valves to improve reliability of the station. I— Reported long wastewater detention times in the wet well can lead to station odors during summer months. 4.3 RIVERSIDE PARK r Riverside Park pump station is a duplex wet well/dry well type station. Located just south of the Missouri River,the station serves Basins 16 and 17. The station was constructed in 1966. Structurally the station is in good condition. Mechanically it is in fair condition. The pumps and station piping operate reliably, but are original equipment. The electrical systems, including the E pump starter controls, SCADA system, electrical service, and manual transfer switch with generator hookup,were upgraded in 1998 and are in good condition. 4.4 WESTVIEW Westview pump station is a duplex wet well/dry well type station located in the Gray's Creek drainage basin. Originally the station pumped to the gravity sewers in Gray's Creek basin. With piping modifications made by the City, it now pumps to gravity sewers in Basin 10. It is a 4-2 1_ " i ; _ USEMCO package station installed in 1987, and has a manual transfer switch with a portable generator hookup for emergency operation. r'ti The station is mechanically and electrically in fair condition, although periodic failures are reported for the electric man lift. 4.5 MOREAU r� Moreau pump station is a duplex wet well/dry well type station. Located just west of the Moreau River, it serves Basin 4 and the pumped flow from Green Meadow Pump Station. Moreau pump station was originally built in 1965, and has a manual transfer switch with a portable generator hookup for emergency operation. i ' The station is in good structural condition. Decaying collection system manholes lead to debris accumulation in the wet well. The station was upgraded in 1994, with new wastewater pumps, and electrical controls. Soft starters were added to minimize the effects of water hammer on the i � station equipment and force main. The station piping is the original equipment and is in fair condition for its age. The station is located adjacent to residential housing and does have periodic odor problems. A Bioxide chemical feed system is manually activated for odor control, but is not always effective in eliminating odors. i 4.6 COVINGTON Covington pump station is a duplex submersible type station. Located just north of Highway C, it pumps to gravity sewers in Basin 10. It was installed in 1998, and has a manual transfer switch with a portable generator hookup for emergency operation. The station is new and in good condition. A drain from the valve vault to the wet well was not provided. Piping and valves in the valve vault remain submerged because of water infiltration, and must be pumped out to access for inspection and maintenance. The 90 HP pumps are f � i provided with electric soft starters to minimize the effects of water hammer on the station 4-3 j . equipment and force main. A SCADA system remains to be installed for remote monitoring of i the station status. 4.7 WESTINGHOUSE Westinghouse pump station is a duplex wet well/dry well type station serving the North Jefferson City area on the north side of the Missouri River. It is a Smith and Loveless package station installed in 1971, and has a manual transfer switch with a portable generator hookup for emergency operation. The station is mechanically in fair condition for its age. The station was flooded during the flood of 1993. Electrical service and controls were moved from the station dry well to a platform i } above ground for protection from future flood events. Flow for Holts Summit is pumped to the gravity sewers that drain to the Westinghouse pump I, station. Both stations have the same rated capacity of 700 gallons per minute. 4.8 IDLEWOOD Idlewood pump station is a duplex wet well/dry well type station. Located adjacent to Renns Lake, it serves Basin 8. It is a Smith and Loveless package station installed in 1973, and has a manual transfer switch with a portable generator hookup for emergency operation. The station is in poor structural and mechanical condition. The wet well is small, and overflows to an adjacent 1000 gallon holding tank. Groundwater reportedly infiltrates directly into the wet well and holding tank. The base for the buried metal can dry well section is bowed, causing pump and piping alignment problems within the dry well. The pumps vibrate significantly during operation, causing excessive wear on the pumps and piping. The high pump discharge head required because of the long force main and static lift combined with the lack of any type of hydraulic surge protection may also contribute to poor mechanical conditions. The suction valve on one of the-pumps is leaking raw wastewater into the dry well section. i Electrical controls were removed from the dry well can and installed in an above ground shed to 4-4 ti ; protect them from flooding. The remaining electrical components in the dry well section are in poor condition with exposed wiring and inoperable lighting. The utility electrical supply suffers from voltage fluctuations,which adversely affect the station control system and equipment. Odors have been reported at the wet well /holding tank, as well as, at the end of the force main where flow discharges to a gravity sewer in Basin 9. Various methods of odor control have been tried in the past, including Bioxide chemical feed and compressed air injected into the force main. There is currently no equipment in place for odor control. i� 4.9 HAYSELTON Hayselton pump station is a duplex wet well/dry,well type station. Located south of the Missouri River, it serves a small area in Basin 15. Originally constructed in .1956, the pumps were replaced around 1983. Although the station is in fair structural condition, the age alone indicates a need for improvements. The piping and valves appear to be original. Excessive condensation and moisture was noted in the dry well, and has contributed to corrosion of the pipe, valves, and pump bases. The electrical system, upgraded around 1994, is in good condition. The upgrade included new starters,manual transfer switch, and generator hookup for emergency operation. 4.10 GREEN MEADOW Green Meadow pump station is a duplex wet well/dry well type station. Located just west of Moreau River, it serves Basin 3. It is a Dickey package station installed in 1969, and has a manual transfer switch with a portable generator hookup for emergency operation. This station is prone to flooding, and has suffered flood damage to the dry well section on numerous fi occasions. Ir- i In 1996 the pumps were replaced with dry pit submersible pumps to minimize future flood damage. New electrical controls were installed at that time on a raised platform at the station. I 4-5 Y. The electrical systems are in good condition. i ., Structurally and mechanically the station is in fair condition. Excessive corrosion was noted in the dry well and on the piping and valves. 4.11 SOUTHRIDGE Southridge pump station is a duplex submersible type station. Located west of Highway 54, it pumps flow from a small area to gravity sewers in Basin 9. The station was constructed in 1980, and has a manual transfer switch with a portable generator hookup for emergency operation. Structurally and mechanically the station is in good condition. However, the pumps are an obsolete model, making it difficult to obtain repair parts. Pump controls should be upgraded at � i the time that the pumps are replaced. The housing structure for the electrical controls is inadequately sized with the addition of the SCADA panel now installed in it. The electrical service to the station is in good condition. 4.12 CEDAR CITY r Cedar City pump station is a duplex submersible type station. Located north of the Missouri River, it serves Basin 1. The station was replaced in 1990. Sewer storage provides emergency storage capacity. , i The station is in good structural and mechanical condition. The electrical pump controls and - SCADA system are in good condition as well. 4.13 DOVER Dover pump station is a duplex submersible type station that pumps flow from a small area to the gravity sewers in Basin 13. The station was constructed in 1985, and has a manual transfer switch with generator hookup installed for emergency operation. I '. The station is in good structural and mechanical condition. 4-6 The electrical pump control system is in poor condition. The panel components are corroded from infiltration of sewer gas into the control panel. The pump local controls are not reliable and should be upgraded. The SCADA system is in good condition. The electrical service to the station is in good condition. 1 4.14 ST. MARTINS#1 (NORTH) —� St. Martins #1 pump station is a duplex wet well/dry well type station. Located in Grays Creek Drainage Basin, the station serves a small area in St. Martins. The station consists of two self- priming centrifugal pumps mounted in a small uninsulated enclosure above the wet well. The station was constructed in 1994 and has a manual transfer switch with generator hook up for emergency operation. The wet-well is in good structural condition. The wet well has an overflow line to the abandoned t� package treatment plant, which serves as a 12,000-gallon emergency holding tank. The pump enclosure is small, providing limited access for inspection and maintenance. The uninsulated enclosure provides inadequate cold weather protection. The station is operated during the winter months with one pump off line and.drained to prevent freeze damage. t The electrical and controls systems are in good condition. A locally mounted phase converter provides the 480-volt, 3-phase power. 4.15 ST. MARTINS#2 (SOUTH) St. Martins #2 pump station uses 2 duplex wet well/dry well type stations. Located in Grays Creek Drainage Basin, the station serves a small area in St. Martins. The duplex pump systems consist of self-priming centrifugal pumps configured in series operation to achieve the required discharge head. They are mounted in small enclosures above the wet well. The station was f constructed in 1994 and has a manual transfer switch with generator hook up for emergency operation. The wet-well is in good structural condition. The pump enclosures are small, providing limited access for inspection and maintenance. The uninsulated enclosures provide inadequate cold 4-7 I� I4 it , weather protection. The station is operated during the winter months with one pump system off line and drained to prevent freeze damage. The electrical and controls systems are in good condition. 4.16 INDIAN HILLS Indian Hills pump station is a duplex wet well/dry well type station serving a small area in Basin 16. Originally constructed in 1979, the electrical service was upgraded around 1994 with new manual transfer switch and generator hookup for emergency operation. The station is in good structural condition. The pumps, mechanical and electrical control systems are over 20 years old, but still operate reliably. An adjacent retention pond provides emergency storage capacity. The base of the retention pond is overgrown, and the integrity of the liner is questionable. 4.17 T-ROAD T-Road pump station consists of a single self-priming centrifugal pump serving a small area in the Grays Creek drainage basin. The installation date of this pump station is unknown. The station has no redundancy in either pumping capacity or electrical service. It is controlled by a local float switch only, and has no remote monitoring or control capability. The structural, mechanical and electrical systems are in fair condition, and operate reliably. 4.18 RANDALL Randall pump station is a duplex submersible type station serving a small area in the Grays Creek drainage basin. The station was constructed around 1991. Emergency electrical service is not provided at this station. Sewer storage provides emergency storage capacity. Structurally and mechanically the station is in good condition. The housing structure for the electrical controls is inadequately sized with the addition of the SCADA panel now installed in it. A locally mounted phase converter provides the electrical service to the station. 4-8 l 1 II S� ! 4.19 SYLVAN HILLS Sylvan Hills pump station is a duplex submersible type station. Located adjacent to the Missouri River, it serves a small area in Basin 15. The station was constructed around 1986. Sewer storage provides emergency storage capacity. f The station is in good structural and mechanical condition. The housing structure for the electrical controls is inadequately sized with the addition of the SCADA panel now installed in it. A locally mounted phase converter provides the electrical service to the station. 1 Wet well odors are reported in the summer months, but no odor control system is in use at this time. 4.20 GUN CLUB Gun Club pump station is a duplex submersible type station serving a small area in the Grays Creek drainage basin. The installation date of this pump station is unknown. The electrical service is provided with an automatic transfer switch and power service from two separate utilities. The station is in fair structural and mechanical condition, but the wet well has insufficient capacity to handle the station flow. A separate valve vault was not installed with the station. The station force main is only 2"diameter. The electrical pump control system is in poor condition. The panel components are corroded, and the panel is overcrowded from the installation of SCADA system components in the existing control panel. 4.21 WOODWARD Woodward pump station is a duplex submersible type station serving a small area in the Grays I ' 4-9 I � I" i Creek drainage basin. No information is available on the age of the station. Emergency electrical { service is not provided at this station. Sewers provide emergency storage capacity. The station is in good structural and mechanical condition. New pumps were installed around 1990. r- i The electrical pump control system is in poor condition. The panel components are corroded from infiltration of sewer gas into the control panel. The pump local controls are not reliable and should be upgraded. The SCADA system is in good condition. 4.22 BONITA PASEO Bonita Paseo pump station consists of a single submersible grinder pump installed within a manhole. Located adjacent to the Missouri River, it services a single basement. It was installed around 1994. The station has no redundancy in either pumping capacity or electrical service. It is controlled by local float switches only, and has no remote monitoring or control capability. The starter controls are in fair condition, and operate reliably. 4.23 WINDRIVER Windriver pump station is a duplex submersible type station. Located adjacent to the Missouri River, it pumps flows to gravity sewers in Basin 16. The station was constructed around 1988. The station is in good structural and mechanical condition. The drain between the valve vault and the wet well is inoperable. The valve vault remains full of water causing excessive corrosion of the pipe and fittings. The starter controls and remote monitoring SCADA system are in good condition. 4.24 HAAF Haaf pump station is a duplex submersible type station. Located adjacent to the Missouri River, it pumps flow to gravity sewers in Basin 16. The station was constructed in 1985. The station is in good structural and mechanical condition. The starter controls and remote monitoring SCADA r- i system are in fair condition 4-10 I 4.25 IVEN Iven pump station consists of a single submersible grinder pump installed within a manhole. Located just downstream of Hough Park Lake, it pumps flow to gravity sewers in Basin 3. It was constructed around 1987. Sewer storage provides emergency storage capacity. The station has no redundancy in either pumping capacity or electrical service. It is controlled by local float switches only, and has no remote monitoring or control capability. The starter controls are in fair condition, and operate reliably. 4.26 WESTPORT Westport pump station consists of a single submersible grinder pump installed within a manhole. Constructed in 1995, it pumps flow from approximately 5 houses to gravity sewers in Basin 10. The station has no redundancy in either pumping capacity or electrical service. Sewer storage provides emergency storage capacity. It is controlled by local float switches only, and has no remote monitoring or control capability. The starter controls are in fair condition, and operate reliably. 4.27 SCHOLASTIC Scholastic pump station is a duplex submersible type station located in Basin 16. The station was constructed in 1992. Sewer storage provides emergency storage capacity. The station is in good structural and mechanical condition. The housing structure for the ' electrical controls is inadequately sized with the addition of the SCADA panel now installed in it. The electrical service and control systems are in good condition, but do not have any means for emergency operation. if l l 4-11 ( i I T 4.28 COMMAND WEB Command Web pump station is a duplex submersible type station located east of Moreau River, outside the master plan study area. The station was constructed in 1994 and discharges to the nearby National Guard lagoon. The station is in good structural.and mechanical condition. The electrical service and control systems are in good condition. A SCADA system for remote monitoring is not installed at this location. ' i I i k t i t , 4-12 i TABLE 4-1 SUBMERSIBLE TYPE WASTEWATER PUMP STATIONS 1 Pump Pump Drainage Capacity Motor No. of Year Pump Station Name Basin (gpm) (hp) Pumps Type of Station Constructed i—f Covington 10 800 90 2 Submersible 1998 _-� Southridge 9 300 22.5 2 Submersible 1980 _ Cedar City 1 260 7.5 2 Submersible 1990 Dover 13 200 23 2 Submersible 1985 Randall 21 100 7.5 2 Submersible 1991 - Sylvan Hills 15 50 7.5 2 Submersible grinder 1986 _ Gun Club 21 50 5 2 Submersible grinder Unknown Pumps Woodward 21 30 3 2 Submersible grinder replaced 1990 Bonita Paseo 21 Unknown(2) (2) 1 Submersible pump 1994 Windriver 16 50 5 2 Submersible grinder 1988 _ Haaf 16 Unknown 5 2 Submersible grinder 1985 Iven 3 Unknown 2 1 Submersible grinder 1987 Westport 10 Unknown(3) 3 1 Submersible grinder 1995 Scholastic 16 50 5 2 Submersible grinder 1992 Command Web out(1) Unknown 3.5 2 Submersible grinder 1994 Notes: 1. Command Web pump station is east of Moreau River and is outside the study area. 2. Bonita Paseo Pump Station serves a single basement. 3. Westport Pump Station serves approximately 5 houses. 1J I_ I 4-13 k TABLE 4-2 WET WELL/DRY WELL TYPE WASTEWATER PUMP STATIONS i , - 1 Pump Pump Drainage Capacity Motor No. of Year Pump Station Name Basin (gpm) (hp) Pumps Type of Station Constructed 12500 400 2 Walnut Street 19 5600 100 1 Wet well/Dry well 1968 Cole Junction 21 1925 150 3 Wet well/Dry well 1982(2) Concrete wet well with Binder 20 1700 100 2 buried metal dry well 1983 Riverside Park 17 1500 50 2 Wet well/Dry well 1966 (3) Concrete wet well with Westview 10 950 60 2 buried metal dry well 1987 Moreau(Greenberry) 4 800 100 2 Wet well/Dry well 1965 (4) Concrete wet well with Westinghouse 1 700 10 2 buried metal dry well 1971 Concrete wet well with Idlewood 8 350 60 2 buried metal dry well 1973 r' Hayselton 15 300 20 2 Wet well/Dry well 1956(5) Concrete wet well with - Green Meadow 3 300 14.6 2 buried metal.dry well 1969(6) St. Martins#2(South) 21 150 10 4 (1) Wet well/Dry well 1994 St. Martins#I(North) 21 140 15 2 Wet well/Dry well 1994 r Indian Hills 16 100 20 2 Wet well/Dry well 1979 T-Road 21 25 3 1 Wet well/Dry well Unknown -- Notes: 1. St. Martins#2 (South)Pump Station includes two duplex pump stations piped with pumps in series (4 pumps total). 2. Cole Junction Pump Station: one pump is new, another was rebuilt, all have original motors. 3. Riverside Park Pump Station: pumps have been rebuilt, but have original motors. r- 4. Moreau Pump Station: new pumps with soft starters installed in 1994. f 5. Hayselton Pump Station: pumps replaced in 1983. 6. Green Meadow Pump Station: pumps replaced in 1996. i 4-14 � 4 BONITA PASEO z GoGo YLVAN HILLS YSELTO NGHOUSE ST. MARTINS #2 UT.'STREET 2 JEFFERSON CITY WPCF PARK VER HA LEGEND 3 DRAINAGE BASIN NUMBERS STUDY AREA/MAJOR DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY ■ PUMP STATION FORCE MAIN SEWER SYSTEM FIGURE 4-1 EXISTING WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM SECTION 5 FLOW MONITORING PROGRAM(SPRING 1999) rJ The flow-monitoring program was conducted to collect data on the City of Jefferson wastewater collection system and its response to dry weather and wet weather conditions. Flow monitoring was conducted in the spring of 1999, from March 23 through May 31. Monitoring sites were selected at the downstream end of the twenty major drainage basins south of the Missouri River. Flow monitoring sites are shown on Figure 5-1 and are described in Table 5-1. 5.1 RAINFALL RESULTS Rainfall was measured at five locations throughout the southern portion of the collection system. Rainfall gauge locations are shown on Figure 5-1. Nine significant rainfall events occurred during the monitoring period. Rainfall data for these rainfall events for each of the five gauges is summarized in Table 5-2. A brief description of each rainfall follows. April 3, 1999: Light rain throughout study area (average total rainfall of 0.5 inches). Peak intensities range from 0.15 to 0.33 inch/hour. April 8, 1999: Light rain throughout study area with heaviest rainfall in the southeast area (average total rainfall of 0.4 inches). Peak intensities range from 0.09 to 0.46 inch/hour. _ April 14 and 15, 1999: Light continuous rain throughout study area beginning late April 14 and continuing into April 15 (average total rainfall of 0.8 and 0.6 inches, respectively). Peak intensities range from 0.12 to 0.21 inchihour. April 25, 1999: Light continuous rain throughout study area(average total rainfall of 0.5 inches). �k Peak intensities range from 0.08 to 0.13 inch/hour. 5-1 April 26, 1999: Moderate rain throughout most of study area with heaviest rainfall in the western and southern areas (average total rainfall of 1.0 inches). Peak intensities range from 0.05 to 0.74 inch/hour. May 4, 1999: Heavy rain throughout study area (average total rainfall of 2.4 inches). Peak intensities range from 0.54 to 0.97 inch/hour. May 12, 1999: Moderate rain throughout study area (average total rainfall of 0.9 inches). Peak intensities range from 0.33 to 0.68 inch/hour. May 15, 1999: Light rain in localized areas near gauges 1 and 5 (average total rainfall of 0.6 inches). Peak intensities of 0.29 inch/hour. 5.2 MONITORING RESULTS Flow monitoring results are summarized in Table 5-3. Dry weather information summarized includes dry weather average and peak flows at each monitoring site. The typical dry weather i flows are shown for March 31, 1999. Wet weather information includes the wet weather peak flow for each of the storms listed in the rainfall summary table. Flow monitoring summary results for each meter are included in Appendix A. 5-2 I i TABLE 5-1 SUMMARY OF FLOW METER LOCATIONS 1i Flow Meter j Number Comments 3 Located upstream of Green Meadow Pump.Station in Basin 3 4 Located upstream of Moreau Pump Station in Basin 4 _} 5 Located in Basin 5 6 Located on East Branch Wears Creek Sewer, a parallel sewer to South Main in Basin 7 7 Located on South Main, a parallel sewer to East Branch Wears Creek Sewer in Basin 7 8 Located upstream of Idlewood Pump Station in Basin 8- 9 Located in Basin 9 10 Located in Basin 10 -, 11A Located on Main Branch Wears Creek Sewer,monitors majority of flow in Basin 11 11B Monitors small portion of flow in Basin 11 12 Located on Belair Interceptor upstream of Cole Junction Pump Station 13 Located in Basin 13 i 14 Located in Basin 14 15 Located in Basin 15 i 16 Located upstream of Riverside Park Pump Station in Basin 16 17 Located upstream of Riverside Park Pump Station in Basin 17 Located on Missouri River Interceptor upstream of Walnut Street Pump Station in 18 Basin 18 Located on Main Branch Wears Creek Sewer upstream of Walnut Street Pump Station 19 in Basin 19 Located on Grays Creek Interceptor upstream of Cole Junction Pump Station. ` 20 Measures all flow from Grays Creek drainage basin(Basins 20, 2 1 A and 21B) Located on Grays Creek Interceptor. Measures flow from upper reaches of Grays 21 Creek drainage basin(Basins 20 and 21B) I-, i � 5-3 If--' { i TABLE 5-2 RAINFALL SUMMARY Rainfall Daily Total (inches) Rainfall Peak Intensity (inch/hour) Date Gauge 1 Gauge 2 Gauge 3 Gauge 4 Gauge 5 Average Gauge 1 Gauge 2 Gauge 3 Gauge 4 Gauge 5 Range 04/03/99 0.59 0.42 0.46 0.43 0.39 0.5 0.33 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.19 0.15-0.33 04/08/99 0.24 0.19 0.28 0.63 0.52 0.4 1 0.18 0.09 0.16 0.46 0.44 0.09-0.46 04/14/99 0.62 0.83 0.85 0.82 0.73 0.8 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.12-0.13 04/15/99 0.19 0.73 0.79 0.63 0.68 0.6 0.10 0.21 0.15 0.19 0.16 0.10-0.21 04/25/99 0.44 0.48 0.59 0.54 0.47 0.5 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.08-0.13 04/26/99 1.40 0.15 1.53 1.31 0.66 1.0 0.74 0.05 0.61 0.52 0.22 0.05-0.74 05/04/99 2.37 2.65 2.71 2.55 1.70 2.4 0.68 0.71 0.78 0.97 0.54 0.54-0.97 05/12/99 1.03 0.83 0.97 1.09 0.76 0.9 0.68 0.34 0.53 0.46 0.33 0.33-0.68 05/15/99 0.42 0 0 0 0.93 0.6 0.29 0 -0 0 0.29 0-0.29 5-4 TABLE 5-3 FLOW MONITORING SUMMARY Dry Weather Flow (cfs) Meter Average Peak Wet Weather Peak Flow (cfs) Date 3/31/99 4/3/99 1 4/8/99 4/14/99 4/15/99 4/25/99 4/26/99 5/4/99 5/12/99 5/15/99 Total Rainfall, in. 0 1 0 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.5 1.0 2.4 0.9 0.6 3 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.9 2.1 0.9 2.8 3.3 0.9 1.2 4 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.5- 1.5 0.6 2.3' 2.9 0.5 0.5 5 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.4 2.1 1.3 3.7 4.9 1.5 1.9 6&7 2.4 3.4 4 5 6 9 7 11 13 5 8 8 0.2 0.3 0:3 d.n.a. d.n.a. d.n.a. 0.4 2.8 3.4 0.9 �0.6 9 0.7 1.0 1A 1.4 1.8 3.4 1.5 4.3 4.7 1.7 1.7 10 1:0 1.5 1.7 1.4 1.7 3.3 1.5 5.2 6.8 1.9 2.0 11A 3.2 3.9 5.0 4.9 5.6 8.4 4.6 10.5 12.1 d.n.a. d.n.a. 1113 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.6 1.0 1.2 0.3 1.0 12 0.8 1.3 1.9 1.5 2.2 3:2 2.3 3.8 4.0 2.2 2.5 13 1.9 2.6 3.5 3.0 3.8 8.2 4.5 10.3 11.1 4.8 5.6 14 2'.8 3.5 5.8 4.8 6.3 14.5 7.5 15.9 16.2 6.6 8.0 15 0.4 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.6 d.n.a. d.n.a. 3.9 1.2 1.3 16 0.9 1.5 1.5 2.2 2.2 3.8 1.9 4.2 d.n.a. d.n.a. 3.0 17 0.8 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.9 2.6 1.6 4.1 2.7 2.0 3.1 18 . 2.5 3.9 3.8 4.2 4.3 6.5 5.1 7.6 10.9 5.0 5.6 19 9.1 11.6 14.7 14.1 15.5 23.4 18.0 25.2 35.1 17.7 17.1 20 1.1 1.6 1.9 1.7 1.7 5.0 2.4 9.0 12.8 2.5 3.6 21 0.9 1.3 1.9 1.6 1.7 3.8 2.0 9.7 10.1 1.8 2.8 d.n.a. =data not available The maximum wet weather peak flow at the monitoring locations for the flow monitoring period occurred during the 5/4/99 storm event (shown in bold text). The only exception is Meter 16 where data was not available for 5/4/99 due to equipment malfunction. 5-5 w F- G osCRE ELSTON 21B C, 0 `'� �� HWY 54 1.3 YSELTO�^� r NGHOUSE ST. MARTINS U1/STREET HWY 50 2 JEFFERSON CITY WPCF LEGEND 4�O •WESTVIEW 10 rn 1 - CO CO GTON I HWY C 3 DRAINAGE BASIN NUMBERS OO STUDY AREA/MAJOR DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY EXISTING FORCE MAIN • FLOW METER • PUMP STATION RAIN GAUGE SEWER SYSTEM F- EADOW FIGURE 5-1 FLOW MONITORING LOCATIONS AND MODELED PUMP STATIONS I = 4 i� SECTION 6 DEVELOPMENT OF HYDRAULIC MODEL (HYDRA) The HYDRA hydraulic models were used to evaluate wastewater collection capacity. Two �) purposes of hydraulic modeling for the City of Jefferson wastewater collection system are to 1) represent existing conditions and 2) evaluate how the system responds to future design conditions. Model results assist in the estimation of design wet weather flows and in the, hydraulic evaluation of sewer and pump station capacities. The collection system north of the Missouri River was modeled separately from the collection system south of the Missouri River. Both existing and future conditions were evaluated. The Year 2000 is the baseline for existing conditions. The Year 2020 is the basis for future conditions. Initial development of the hydraulic models for the existing system had three major steps: • Create a skeletal representation of the physical system • Place estimated sanitary wastewater flows, including residential, commercial and industrial contributions. Calibrate to dry weather flow monitoring results. • Apply infiltration and inflow. Calibrate to wet weather flow monitoring results. The model software utilized was HYDRA 6, developed by Pizer Incorporated. The HYDRA sewer analysis engine has been a commercial product since 1973. i 6.1 PHYSICAL SYSTEM Information on the Jefferson City wastewater collection system was collected from City file r drawings. The following components of the collection system are included in the hydraulic models: r; • Trunk sewer pipes, including diameter, length, upstream and downstream invert elevations and upstream and downstream ground elevations. The model calculates pipe slopes and capacities. Y • Manholes, invert and ground elevations established from sewer pipe data. } • Pressure pipes(force mains), including diameter, length, upstream and downstream invert r elevations and upstream and downstream ground elevations i 6-1 s • Pump stations, including maximum volume of wet well, number of pumps, type of pump �l (constant or variable discharge), maximum discharge of each pump, and on and off volume switches for each pump • Diversion structures ' 'F • Outfall (i.e.the bottom of the collection system) t , jrl Figure A (located in Appendix B) illustrates the system as modeled for the study area north of , 4 the Missouri River, including manhole designations. Pump stations included in this system are summarized in Table 6-1. The system outfall is designated as the downstream end of the Westinghouse force main. A summary of the north Jefferson City collection system basic data is provided in Appendix B. Sewer pipe designations are the same as the upstream manhole designation. Figure A (located in Appendix B) illustrates the system as modeled for the study area south-of the Missouri River, including manhole designations. Pump stations included in this system are summarized in Table 6-2. The system outfall is designated as the diversion structure upstream of t Walnut Street Pump Station. A summary of the south Jefferson City collection system basic data is provided in Appendix B. Sewer pipe designations are the same as the upstream manhole designation. 6.2 SANITARY FLOWS —� Sanitary flow consists of contributions from residential, commercial and industrial sources. This flow is introduced into the collection system following a 24-hour diurnal curve. Residential --� diurnal curves were developed for each major drainage basin using dry weather flow monitoring results. _ The current residential population is assumed to be distributed throughout the study areas based s on 1990 census tract data and areas that have development over the past 10 years. Future residential population is distributed in areas of projected growth. 6-2 ti I � � 1 Existing commercial and light industrial contributions are distributed throughout the study areas on the basis of land use maps included in the 1996 Comprehensive Plan Update? Future commercial and light industrial contributions are distributed based on projected .growth in undeveloped land zoned for commercial and industrial use. Contributions from major water users are applied directly to the collection system based on location. s� I i Year 2000, sanitary flow only, hydraulic modeling results for the south Jefferson City collection system were calibrated to the dry weather data from the spring 1999 flow monitoring program. i Design dry weather flows for the Year 2020 for the north Jefferson City collection system are summarized in Appendix B. Design dry weather flows for the Year 2020 for the south Jefferson City collection system are summarized in Appendix B. 6.3 INFILTRATION AND INFLOW The collection system north of the river is relatively small. The primary residential area, Cedar _ City, was flooded in 1993 and subsequently bought out. City personnel indicate there has been —, no evidence of sewer capacity deficiencies in this part of the study-area. Because of limited development in this area and lack of capacity issues, no flow monitoring was conducted in this portion ofthe study area. Therefore, design peak wet weather flows are developed for the North Jefferson City system on the following basis: • Average flow criteria of 100 gallons per capita per day . t • Residential diurnal.curve and a peaking factor of 4.0 -� • Commercial peak of 3.0 i • Infiltration rate of 30,000 gallons per day per mile of trunk sewer. The majority of the Jefferson City collection system is located south of the Missouri River. As evidenced by flow monitoring results discussed in Section 5, peak flows increase substantially during wet weather. Storm water enters sanitary sewers through infiltration and inflow sources. `j 3"Comprehensive Plan Update",preared for Ci hof Jefferson,Missouri,prepared by Landform Urban Planning Services,March 1996. 6-3 vl ' a f 17 i ` Rapid infiltration (storm induced) and inflow (I/I) volumes for a designated storm event are estimated by defining a square footage of paved surface that would yield that volume during the storm event. With this method, different storms (with different rainfall depths)yield different M volumes,.as in the real world. Inflow volumes are estimated and tracked separately from rapid infiltration volumes. Rapid infiltration tends-to gradually increase in flow reaching its peak after the peak of the storm and then gradually taper off. Therefore, with HYDRA, rapid infiltration is further defined by developing this typical hydrograph shape based on the following data collected during flow monitoring: • How long after the storm starts are the first signs of rapid infiltration • How long after the peak of the storm hyetograph does the rapid infiltration reach its peak • How long after the storm stops does the rapid infiltration take to stop Model results for current wet weather flows in each of the major drainage basins in the south collection system were calibrated to- the flow-monitoring data. However, flow monitoring occurred only at the base of each major drainage basin. Therefore, estimates of infiltration and inflow quantities for each basin were distributed equally throughout the sewers modeled in that basin. Future wet weather flows were developed for three design storms of varying intensities, including 2 year-6 hour, 5 year-6 hour and 10 year-6 hour design storms. i f� • i 6-4 i } TABLE 6-1 NORTH JEFFERSON CITY EXISTING PUMP STATIONS INCLUDED IN MODEL E ' Pump 1 Pump 1 Pump 2 Capacity Capacity Capacity Pump Name (gpm) (cfs) (cfs) Speed-Type Cedar City 1 260 0.58 0.29 1 constant Westinghouse 700 1.56 0.78 constant Note:-Pump 2 capacity assumed to be one-half of Pump 1 capacity. i �t r ' 1 i 6-5 i { TABLE 6-2 SOUTH JEFFERSON CITY M` EXISTING PUMP STATIONS INCLUDED IN MODEL Pump 1 Pump 1 Pump 2 Capacity Capacity• Capacity Pump Name (gpm) (cfs) (cfs) Speed Type Cole Junction 1925 4.3 2.15 constant Binder 1700 3.8 1.9 constant Riverside Park 1500 3.3 1.65 constant Westview 950 2.12 1.06 constant Moreau 800 1.8 0.9 constant + Covington 800 1.8 0.9 constant Idlewood 350 0.8 0.4 constant Hayselton 300 0.7 0.35 constant Green,Meadow 300 0.7 0.35 constant Southridge 300 0.69 0.35 constant Indian Hills 100 0.22 0.11 constant Note: Pump 2 capacity assumed to be one-half of Pump 1 capacity. t 1 i G r�L J II 6-6 SECTION 7 INFILTRATION AND INFLOW ANALYSIS i ; The wastewater collection system infiltration and inflow(I/I) analysis includes: • Review of flow monitoring data to evaluate impact of infiltration/inflow on wet weather peak flows and to identify predominant type of system defect in each major drainage basin • Review of flow monitoring data and plant influent data to evaluate impact of Missouri River on wastewater flows • Through use of hydraulic model, analysis of collection system response to different future conditions, including design storms of varying -intensity and I/I reduction alternatives ~, • Development of cost effective I/I control program to reduce wet weather peak flows • Development of cost estimates for recommended I/I control program 7.1 RAINFALL INDUCED INFILTRATION AND INFLOW Results from the spring 1999 flow-monitoring program show significant increases-in peak flows during rainfall events in the majority of the collection system service area south of the Missouri i River. Table 7-1 compares the dry weather average flow(QDA) for the typical dry day of March 31 to the wet weather peaks (QWP) for the nine rainfall events that occurred during the monitoring program. Dry weather average to wet weather peak ratios (QWP/QDA) for systems in moderate condition are typically 3 to 5. Dry weather average to wet weather peak ratios for �j the Jefferson City collection system ranged from 3 to 17 for rainfall events of l.inch total rain or 4 more. 7.1.1 Evaluation of Infiltration/Inflow in Major Drainage Basins Following is a brief summary of the infiltration/inflow indicated by the flow-monitoring results as summarized in Table 7-1. Summary graphs of the flow-monitoring program are included in Appendix A. s Basin 3: QWP/QDA ranges from 2.3 to 11.0 indicating significant infiltration/inflow. Flow monitoring summary shows sharp peak during rainfall with a second smaller peak after end of rain indicating inflow dominated defect in sewers. 7-1 } i� { Basin 4: QWP/QDA ranges from 1.0 to 7.3 indicating moderate infiltration/inflow. Flow monitoring summary shows sharp peak during rainfall that slowly tapers off several hours following end of storm indicating inflow and infiltration in sewer system. i� Basin 5: QWP/QDA ranges from 1.4 to 7.0 indicating moderate infiltration/inflow. Flow r-� monitoring summary shows sharp peak during rainfall with a second smaller peak after, end of rain indicating inflow dominated defect in sewers. i ! Basins 6 & 7: parallel sewers that were monitored separately serve Basins 6 and 7, with results added together. QWP/QDA ranges from 1.7 to 5.4 indicating moderate infiltration/inflow. However, Basins 6 and 7 receive flow from Basins 3, 4-and 5. Any system overflows in these upstream systems would reduce the wet peak flow in Basins 6 and 7, thereby dampening the _ peak to average ratio. Flow monitoring summaries for these two locations generally show sharp peak during rainfall with later smaller peaks after end of rain indicating inflow dominated defect in the sewers. ; E Basin 8: QWP/QDA ranges from 1.5 to 17.0 indicating significant infiltration/inflow. Flow monitoring summary shows sharp peak during rainfall that slowly tapers off several hours following end of storm indicating infiltration as well as inflow in the sewer system. Basin 9: QWP/QDA ranges from 1.4 to 7.0 indicating moderate infiltration/inflow. Flow monitoring summary shows sharp peak during rainfall with a second smaller peak after end of rain indicating inflow dominated defect in sewers. --, Basin 10: QWP/QDA ranges from, 1.4 to 6.8 indicating moderate infiltration/inflow. Flow monitoring summary shows sharp peak during rainfall with a second smaller peak after end of -� rain indicating inflow dominated defect in sewers. �? Basin 11, Flow Meter 11A: Flow meter 11A was located on Main Branch Wears Creek f' (MBWC) Sewer, the major sewer that drains through Basin 11. QWP/QDA ranges from 1.4 to 3.8 indicating moderate infiltration/inflow. However, Basin 11 receives flow from Basins 8, 9 7-2 a I and 10. Overflows in these upstream systems would reduce the wet peak flow in Basin- 11, thereby dampening the peak to average ratio. Flow monitoring summary generally shows sharp peak during rainfall that slowly tapers off several hours following the end of rain indicating infiltration as well as inflow in the sewer system. Basin 11, Flow Meter 11B: Flow meter I IB was located on Southwest Main, an 8 to 15 inch sewer that partially parallels MBWC Sewer. QWP/QDA ranges from 1.0 to 6.0 indicating moderate infiltration/inflow. Flow monitoring summary shows sharp peak during rainfall that quickly drops off after end of rain indicating inflow dominated defect in sewers. Flow in this sewer also increases as the Missouri River level increases to above stage 20. a . Basin 12: QWP/QDA ranges from 1.9 to 5.0 indicating moderate infiltration/inflow. Flow y monitoring summary generally shows sharp peak during rainfall that slowly tapers off several hours following the end of rain indicating infiltration as well as inflow in the sewer system. In addition, flows tend to increase as the Missouri River level increases to above stage 25. Basin 13: QWP/QDA ranges from 1.6 to 5.8 indicating moderate infiltration/inflow. However, Basin 13 receives pumped flow from Basins 12 and 20 and 21 (Grays Creek). Overflows in these upstream systems would reduce the wet peak flow in Basin 13, thereby dampening the peak to average ratio. Flow monitoring summary generally shows sharp peak during rainfall that slowly tapers off several hours following the end of rain indicating infiltration as well as inflow I in the sewer system. Flow in this sewer also tend to increase as the Missouri River level increases to above stage 25. , i Basin 14: QWP/QDA ranges from 1.7 to 5.8 indicating moderate infiltration/inflow. However, Basin 14 receives flow from Basins 12, 13, 20 and 21. Overflows in these upstream systems -- would reduce the wet peak flow in Basin 14, thereby dampening the peak to average ratio. Flow monitoring summary generally shows sharp peak during rainfall that slowly tapers off several hours following the end of rain indicating infiltration as well as inflow in the sewer system. Flow in this sewer also tend to increase as the Missouri River level increases to above stage 25. 7-3 Basin 15: QWP/QDA ranges from 2.3 to 9.8 indicating significant infiltration/inflow. Flow monitoring summary shows sharp peak during rainfall with a second smaller peak after end of rain indicating inflow dominated defect in sewers. Basin 16: QWP/QDA ranges from 1.7 to 4.7 indicating moderate infiltration/inflow. Flow monitoring summary shows sharp peak during rainfall with a second smaller peak after end of rain indicating inflow dominated defect in sewers. Flow in this sewer also increased when the � t Missouri River level increased to above stage 25 until a major defect in the sewer was corrected. Basin 17: QWP/QDA ranges from 1.9 to 5.1 indicating moderate infiltration/inflow. Flow monitoring summary shows sharp peak during rainfall indicating inflow dominated defects in sewers. Flow in this sewer also increased when Missouri River levels increased to above stage 25. _ Basin 18: QWP/QDA ranges from 1.5 to 4.4 indicating moderate infiltration/inflow. However, Basin 18 receives flow from Basins 16 and 17. Overflows in these upstream systems would reduce the wet peak flow in Basin 18, thereby dampening the peak to average ratio. Flow monitoring summary shows a peak during rainfall indicating inflow dominated defects in sewers.. Flow in this sewer also increased when Missouri River levels increase to above stage 25. P - Basin 19: Flow. meter 19 was located on Main Branch Wears Creek (MBWC) Sewer, just G upstream of Walnut Street Pump Station. This sewer receives flow from the majority of the south collection system. QWP/QDA ranges from 1.5 to 3.9 indicating moderate infiltration/inflow. However, overflows in the upstream systems would reduce the wet peak flow in Basin 19, thereby dampening the peak to average ratio. Flow monitoring summary generally ; I shows sharp peak during rainfall that slowly tapers off several hours following the end of rain n indicating infiltration as well as inflow in the sewer system. J , Grays Creek Basin-Meter 20: QWP/QDA ranges from 1.5 to 11.6 indicating major infiltration/inflow. Flow monitoring summary shows sharp peak during rainfall with a second smaller peak after end of rain indicating inflow dominated defect in sewers. Flow meter 20 is 7-4 I~ located in the downstream end of the Grays Creek Interceptor. Flow in this sewer also increased when Missouri River levels increased to above stage 25. Grays Creek Basin-Meter 21: QWP/QDA ranges from 1.8 to 11.2 indicating major infiltration/inflow. Flow monitoring summary shows sharp'peak during rainfall with a second smaller peak after end of rain indicating inflow dominated defect in sewers. 7.1.2 Summary Flow monitoring results can provide a good indication of the type of flows in the sewer system under varying wet weather conditions. Flow monitoring results for numerous basins show a rapid increase in peak flows during rainfall events, an indication that inflow is the dominant source of storm water in the sanitary sewers. . This includes Basins 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11B, 15, 16, 18, 20 and 21. Figure 7-1 is an example hydrograph developed in HYDRA showing inflow as the predominant defect. The hydrograph was developed as part of the wet weather calibration at Meter 9 (in Basin 9) for the May 4, 1999 storm. In" the hydrograph, the different types of flow are shown separately and -are added together for a total flow. Inflow increases rapidly to a significant peak during the rain and a decreases rapidly as well. Rapid infiltration (storm-induced) increases to a much lower peak and tapers off gradually. Constant infiltration due to groundwater sources is very small. Sanitary flows are shown following a typical diurnal pattern. F Flow monitoring results for several other basins show that not only does the peak flow increase rapidly during the rainfall event, but that it also stays high for several hours"following the end of - the rainfall. The cause of this extended infiltration condition cannot be identified without further investigation. Extended infiltration is evident in Basins 11A, 12, 13, 14 and 17. Figure 7-2 is an example hydrograph developed in HYDRA showing extended infiltration. The hydrograph was developed as part of the wet weather calibration at Meter 14 (in Basin 14) for the May 4, 1999 storm. In the hydrograph, the different types of flow are shown separately and are added I, together for a total flow. Inflow increases rapidly to a significant peak during the rain and T 1 decreases rapidly as well. In addition, rapid infiltration(storm-induced) increases to a significant 7-5 r� r - i 4a t peak and stays high for an extended period of time (over 10 hours) before tapering off. Sanitary flows are shown following a typical diurnal pattern. Flow monitoring results for remaining basins (Basins 4, 8 and 19) show peak flows that increase during a rain and also several hours after the rainfall event, an indication that there is significant infiltration as well as inflow. Figure 7-3 is an example hydrograph developed in HYDRA showing significant infiltration and inflow. The hydrograph was developed as part of the wet weather calibration at Meter 8 (in Basin 8) for the May 4, 1999 storm. In the hydrograph, the different types of flow are shown separately and are added together for a totalflow. Inflow increases rapidly to a significant peak during the rain. In addition, rapid infiltration (storm- induced) increases to a significant peak and then tapers off in just a few hours following the rain. Sanitary flows are shown following a typical diurnal pattern. A summary of the type of M reflected in the flow monitoring results for the major drainage basins is provided in Table 7-2. 4 7.2 MISSOURI RIVER INFLUENCE ; i The Missouri River divides the collection system service area. Both influent data to the Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) and the collection system flow-monitoring data show that the river can contribute to the flow in the sanitary sewer system. Figure 7-4 shows the average daily flows to the WPCF for various precipitation amounts at river stage 11 through 30. This graph illustrates that average daily flows to the WPCF tend to increase as river stage increases. The 'r spring 1999 flow-monitoring data also indicates that as the river stage increases, wastewater flows in certain portions of the collection.system increase. Flows increase particularly when the river is above flood stage 23. i . The historical monthly and annual average river stages for November 1995 through June 1999 is w presented in Table 7-3. Average river stages are based on river stage data collected by the USGS for the Missouri River at Jefferson City. A stage-duration curve was developed from the data from this time period to illustrate the percentage of time the river exceeds various stages. This stage-duration curve is included in Appendix C. 7-6 `f Analysis of the flow monitoring results to Walnut Street Pump Station indicates that the percentage of time that the Missouri River significantly contributes to the collection system is small, but at higher river stages 'the contribution during those periods is significant. To differentiate the contribution of the river on wastewater flows from I/I sources, average flow during dry weather are evaluated for various river stages. Estimation of the river contribution at Walnut Street Pump Station for high river stages 20 through 27 is presented in Table 7-4 and shown graphically in Figure 7-5. Flows attributed-to the river are the difference between average dry weather flow at high river stage and the dry weather flow at low river stage. The river contribution to Walnut Street Pump Station is the sum of contribution to Flow Meters 18 and 19 (located on the two trunk sewers that drain to Walnut Street Pump Station). Figure 7-5 further illustrates the flows that were contributed by the river to Walnut Street Pump Station at stages 20 through 27 during dry weather and the percentage of time the river is at these stages. From this data, the Missouri River contributed 1.5 mgd or less to the average daily flow for river stages up through 24,which is exceeded less than 6 percent of the time. " _. While it only occurs a small percent of the time, entrance of Missouri River waters into the collection system is costly, detrimental to pumping and treatment operations and difficult to account for in design of improvements. The amount of water that could be collected at high river stages is only limited by the pumping capacity at Walnut Street pump station. Therefore, the City is currently conducting an on-going program to identify and correct sources of river infiltration and inflow. 7.3 IMPACT OF UI REDUCTION ON WALNUT STREET PEAK FLOWS Results of the flow-monitoring program indicate that infiltration and inflow are significant in the p majority of the south collection system. Inflow, the above-grade source of storm water into sanitary sewers, is relatively inexpensive to find and correct. Infiltration,the-below-grade source of storm water into sanitary sewers is much more difficult to find and to correct. r The amount of infiltration and inflow that enters the sewer system is extremely variable and depends on many factors, including storm intensity, condition of sewers, soil conditions prior to, 7-7 a storm event. The hydraulic model developed for the City of Jefferson collection system is used to analyze how the system responds to different storm intensities. Design wet weather peak flows are developed for three design storms of varying intensity, 2 year-6hour (2.4 inch total rainfall), 5 year-6hour(3.1 inch total rainfall) and 10 year-6hour(3.6 inch total rainfall). Sewer system evaluation programs involving identification and correction of I/1 sources can reduce wet weather peak flows. Sources of inflow are located above ground and are easiek to detect and correct than below ground infiltration sources. Based on past experience and discussions with experts in the field of I/I control, conservative estimates of 40% reduction in inflow related peak flows and 25% reduction in rapid infiltration related peak flows are used to evaluate I/I control in the collection system. The impact of four I/I control altematives on peak flows generated from three design storms is evaluated. The first alternative involves no M reduction. Alternative 2 includes reduction of inflow only in basins where the flow monitoring results indicate inflow is the dominant defect. This includes inflow reduction in Basins 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 B, 15, 16, 18, 20 and 21. A reduction in inflow related peak flows of 40% is assumed for all of these basins except Basin 18, where a reduction of 75% is assumed. A larger inflow reduction is assumed in Basin 18 due to the severity of the inflow problem and the likelihood that much of the volume is from major sources. Alternative 3 includes the inflow reductions of the first alternative, as well as inflow and infiltration reduction in basins where the flow monitoring results show an extended infiltration condition. This includes inflow and infiltration reduction in Basins IIA, 12, 13, 14 and 17. A reduction in rapid infiltration related peak flows of 25% is assumed in addition to the reduction in inflow related peak flows of 40%. Alternative 4 includes the inflow and infiltration reduction of Alternatives 2 and 3, as well as inflow and infiltration reduction in Basin 8 and infiltration reduction in Basin 15. Basin 8 is a small basin that drains to Idlewood Pump Station. Basin 15 is another small basin located along 7-8 I the Missouri River. Flow monitoring results for both basins indicate short term, but significant i7 - infiltration that does not last as long as basins with extended infiltration. Because of the small size of these basins and the.relatively small length of sewers in the basins; I/I control is evaluated to determine impact on relief sewer and pump station improvements. Estimated wet weather peak flows at Walnut Street Pump Station for future conditions vary from 50 to. 100 mgd, depending on the design storm and the I/I reduction alternative. These estimated _ peak,flows are summarized in Table 7-5. Due to the size of the south service area, the 5-year design storm is selected as the basis for recommended improvements at Walnut Street Pump Station. The estimated wet weather peak flow for the 5-year storm, without any control of inflow or infiltration, is 86 mgd. Estimated wet weather peak flows for the 5-year storm for the inflow and infiltration control alternatives vary from 58 to 63 mgd. Alternative 41/1 control program to reduce the estimated wet weather peak flow at Walnut Street Pump Station to about 58 mgd is recommended. While reduction of wet weather flows in Basin 8 and 15 do not greatly impact flows at Walnut Street Pump Station; they are included in the recommended I/I program to reduce necessary relief sewer and pump station improvements. 7.4 INFILTRATION AND INFLOW PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS -J E An infiltration/inflow control program involves identifying, quantifying and correcting excessive sources of storm water flow into the sanitary sewers. The I/I control program can be conducted by City personnel if the staff and equipment is available or can be coordinated with a qualified i engineering firm. ; I -` A program to identify and correct infiltration and inflow is, proposed to.reduce the amount of extraneous storm water flows and Missouri River waters that enter the sanitary sewer system. As 1 described in the section above, to cost effectively reduce peak flows at Walnut Street Pump Station, a .program is needed to address inflow in most of the major drainage basins and j infiltration, as well as inflow, in basins exhibiting extended infiltration. To minimize relief sewer and pump station improvement needs, infiltration and inflow control is recommended in Basins 8 and 15. I 7-9 i The recommended M reduction program also includes control of the Missouri River contribution to wastewater flows. Investigation and necessary correction of sewers with inverts up to River Stage 27 (elevation 546.7 MSL) is recommended. Inflow is described as storm (or river) water that enters the sanitary sewers from above ground sources. Sources of inflow include broken or missing manhole lids, storm sewer connections, and broken pipes in creek crossings. The inflow source detection program includes physical inspection of all manholes and smoke testing of all sewers in the recommended drainage basin. Once potential problem areas have been identified through inspection and smoking, television inspection and dye water flooding can help determine the extent of the problem. Experienced personnel are needed to review the fieldwork and develop corrective action. Potential corrective action to reduce inflow into the sanitary sewers include manhole rehabilitation (top two feet), pipe rehabilitation or replacement, reconnection of storm sewer cross connections and removal of roof or basement drains from sanitary sewers. Inflow detection and correction is recommended in all of the major drainage basins, except Basins 1, 2 and 4. Infiltration is described as storm (or river) water that enters the sanitary sewers from below ground sources. Sources of infiltration included broken pipes, leaking pipe joints, manholes in disrepair. Such sources allow extraneous water into sanitary sewers whenever ground water is above the elevation of the defect. The infiltration source detection program includes additional television inspection in potential problem areas identified during smoke testing of the sewers. As with inflow reduction portion of the program, experienced personnel are needed to review the fieldwork and develop corrective action. Potential corrective actions to reduce infiltration into the sanitary sewers include manhole repair and/or coating (bottom portion), pipe rehabilitation (lining, grouting and coating) or pipe replacement. - Infiltration detection and correction is recommended in major drainage basins as summarized in Table 7-6. I 7-10 li 7.5 INFILTRATION AND INFLOW PROGRAM COST ESTIMATES i Program requirements to identify sources of inflow in the recommended drainage basins include manhole inspection and smoke testing of all sewers in the basin. It is assumed 15 percent of the total sewer length will require television inspection and dye water flooding to further identify inflow source. Program requirements to identify sources of infiltration in the recommended drainage basins include television inspection of at least 50 percent of the sewers. Additional inspection is included in areas where the sewer inverts are below River Stage 27. Cost estimates to identify I/I sources include fieldwork and development of corrective action plan and are based on the following assumptions: }, • Inflow source detection costs are based on $2.00/lf for the total length of sewer in the basin • Infiltration source detection costs assume $4.00/lf based on the sewer length estimated to require further television inspection Cost estimates to correct sources of I/I include construction and engineering and are based on the l - ' following assumptions: --' • Inflow only correction costs are $10.00/lf multiplied by the total sewer length in the basin ; i • Infiltration and inflow correction costs are $20.00/lf multiplied by the total sewer length in the basin The estimated cost of the recommended infiltration and inflow control program is $22 million dollars and includes $4 million dollars for detection of sources and $18 million dollars for correction. I/I program cost estimates by major drainage basin are summarized in Table 7-7. Cost estimates are in 1999 dollars. J- 7-11 TABLE 7-1 DRY WEATHER AVERAGE TO WET WEATHER PEAK RATIO Meter 3 Meter 4 Meter 5 Dry Average Flow=0.3 cfs Dry Average Flow=0.4 cfs Dry Average Flow=0.7 cfs Total Total Total Rainfall Wet Peak QWP/QDA Rainfall Wet Peak QWP/QDA Rainfall Wet Peak QWP/QDA Date (inches) Flow(cfs) Ratio Date (inches) Flow(cfs) Ratio 0 (inches) Flow(cfs) Ratio 4/3/99 0.5 0.7 2.3 4/3/99 0.5 0.4 1.0 4/3/99 0.5 1.0 1.4 4/8/99 0.4 0.7 2.3 4/8/99 0.4 0.6 1.5 4/8/99 0.4 1.1 1.6 4/14/99 0.8 0.9 3.0 4/14/99 0.8 0.5 1.3 4/14/99 1 0.8 1.4 2.0 4/15/99 0.6 2.1 7.0 4/15/99 0.6 1.5 3.8 4/15/99 0.6 2.1 3.0 4/25/99 0.5 0.9 3.0 4/25/99 0.5 0.6 1.5 4/25/99 0.5 1.3 1.9 4/26/99 1.0 2.8 9.3 4/26/99 1.0 2.3 5.8 4/26/99 1.0 3.7 5.3 5/4/99 2.4 3.3 11.0 5/4/99 2.4 2.9 7.3 5/4/99 2.4 4.9 7.0 5/12/99 0.9 0.9 3.0 5/12/99 0.9 0.5 1.3 5/12/99 0.9 1.5 2.1 5/15/99 0.6 1.2 4.0 5/15/99 0.6 0.5 1.3 5/15/99 0.6 1.9 2.7 Meter 6&7 Meter 8 Meter 9 Dry Average Flow=2.4 cfs Dry Average Flow=0.2 cfs Dry Average Flow=0.7 cfs Total Total Total Rainfall Wet Peak QWP/QDA Rainfall Wet Peak QWP/QDA Rainfall Wet Peak QWP/QDA Date (inches) Flow(cfs) Ratio Date (inches) Flow(cfs) Ratio Date (inches) Flow(cfs) Ratio 4/3/99 0.5 4 1.7 4/3/99 0.5 0.3 1.5 4/3/99 0.5 0.7 1.0 4/8/99 0.4 5 2.1 4/8/99 0.4 d.n.a. d.n.a. 4/8/99 0.4 0.7 1.0 4/14/99 1 0.8 6 2.5 4/14/99 0.8 d.n.a. d.n.a. 4/14/99 1 0.8 0.9 1.3 4/15/99 0.6 9 3.8 4/15/99 0.6 d.n.a. d.n.a. 4/15/99 0.6 2.1 3.0 4/25/99 0.5 7 2.9 4/25/99 0.5 0.4 2.0 4/25/99 0.5 0.9 1.3 4/26/99 1.0 11 4.6 4/26/99 1.0 2.8 14.0 4/26/99 1.0 2.8 4.0 5/4/99 2.4 13 5.4 5/4/99 2.4 3.4 17.0 5/4/99 2.4 3.3 4.7 5/12/99 0.9 5 2.1 5/12/99 0.9 0.9 4.5 5/12/99 2.9a 0.9 1.3 5/15/99 0.6 8 3.3 5/15/99 0.6 0.6- 3.0 5/15/99 0.6 1.2 1.7 d.n.a.=data not available 7-12 ---' --� --' ---J ---.J -- - -- - - TABLE 7-1,continued DRY WEATHER AVERAGE TO WET WEATHER PEAK RATIO Meter 10 Meter 11A Meter 11B Dry Average Flow= 1.0 cfs Dry Average Flow=3.2 cfs Dry Average Flow=0.2 cfs Total Total Total Rainfall Wet Peak QWP/QDA Rainfall Wet Peak QWP/QDA Rainfall Wet Peak QWP/QDA Date (inches) Flow(cfs) Ratio Date (inches) Flow(cfs) Ratio, Date (inches) Flow(cfs) Ratio 4/3/99 0.5 1.7 1.7 4/3/99 0.5 5.0 1.6 4/3/99 0.5 0.2 1.0 4/8/99 0.4 1.4 1.4 4/8/99- 0.4 4.9 1.5 4/8/99 0.4 0.2 1.0 4/14/99 0.8 1.7 1.7 4/14/99 0.8 5.6 1.8 4/14/99 0.8 0.2 1.0 4/15/99 0.6 3.3 3.3 4/15/99 1 0.6 8.4 2.6 4/15/99 0.6 1 0.5 2.5 4/25/99 0.5 1.5 1.5 4/25/99 0.5 4.6 1.4 4/25/99 0.5 0.6 3.0 4/26/99 1.0 5.2 5.2 4/26/99 1.0 10.5 3.3 4/26/99 1.0 1.0 5.0 5/4/99 2.4 6.8 6.8 5/4/99 2.4 12.1 3.8 5/4/99 2.4 1.2 6.0 5/12/99 0.9 1.9 1.9 5/12/99 0.9 d.n.a. d.n.a. 5/12/99 0.9 0.3 1.5 5/15/99 0.6 2.0 2.0 5/15/99 0.6 d.n.a. d.n.a. 5/15/99 0.6 1.0 5.0 Meter 12 Meter 13 Meter 14 Dry Average Flow=,0.8 cfs Dry Average Flow= 1.9 cfs Dry Average Flow=2.8 cfs Total Total Total Rainfall Wet Peak QWP/QDA Rainfall Wet Peak QWP/QDA Rainfall Wet Peak QWP/QDA Date (inches) Flow(cfs) Ratio Date (inches) Flow(cfs) Ratio Date (inches) Flow(cfs) Ratio 4/3/99 0.5 1.9 2.4 4/3/99 0.5 3.5 1.8 4/3/99 0.5 5.8 2.1 4/8/99 0.4 1.5 1.9 4/8/99 0.4 3.0 1.6 4/8/99 0.4 -4.8 1.7 4/14/99 0.8 2.2 2.8 4/14/99 0.8 3.8 2.0 4/14/99 1 0.8 6.3 2.3 4/15/99 0.6 3.2 4.0 4/15/99 0.6 8.2 4.3 4/15/99 0.6 14.5 5.2 4/25/99 0.5 2.3 2.9 4/25/99 0.5 4.5 2.4 4/25/99 0.5 7.5 2.7 4/26/99 1.0 3.8 4.8 4/26/99 1.0 10.3 5.4 4/26/99 1.0 15.9 5.7 5/4/99 2.4 4.0 5.0 5/4/99 2.4 11.15.8 5/4/99 2.4 16.2 5.8 5/12/99 0.9 2.2 2.8 5/12/99 0.9 4.8 2.5 5/12/99 0.9 2.4 5/15/99 0.6 2.5 3.1 5/15/99 0.6 5.6 2.9 5/15/99 0.6L16 2.9 d.n.a.=data not available 7-13 - TABLE 7-1,continued DRY WEATHER AVERAGE TO WET WEATHER PEAK RATIO Meter 15 Meter 16 Meter 17 Dry Average Flow=0.4 cfs Dry Average Flow=0.9 cfs Dry Average Flow=0.8 cfs Total Total Total Rainfall Wet Peak QWP/QDA Rainfall Wet Peak QWP/QDA Rainfall Wet Peak QWP/QDA Date (inches) Flow(cfs) Ratio Date (inches) Flow(cfs) Ratio Date (inches) Flow(cfs) Ratio 4/3/99 0.5 0.9 2.3 4/3/99 0.5 1.5 1.7 4/3/99 0.5 1.5 1.9 4/8/99 0.4 1.0 2.5 4/8/99 0.4 2.2 2.4 4/8/99 0.4 1.5 1.9 4/14/99 0.8 1.2 3.0 4/14/99 0.8 2.2 2.4 4/14/99 0.8 1.9 2.4 4/15/99 0.6 1.6 4.0 4/15/99 0.6 3.8 4.2 4/15/99 0.6 2.6 .3.3 4/25/99 0.5 d.n.a. d.n.a. 4/25/99 0.5 1.9 2.1 4/25/99 0.5 1.6 2.0 4/26/99 1.0 d.n.a. d.n.a. 4/26/99 1.0 4.2 4.7 4/26/99 1.0 4.1 5A 5/4/99 2.4 3.9 9.8 5/4/99 2.4 d.n.a. d.n.a. 5/4/99 2.4 2.7 3.4 5/12/99 0.9 1.2 3.0 5/12/99 0.9 d.n.a. d.n.a. 5/12/99 0.9 2.0 2.5 5/15/99 0.6 1.3 3.3 5/15/99 0.6 3.0 3.3 5/15/99 0.6 3.1 3.9 Meter 18 Meter 19 Dry Average Flow=2.5 cfs Dry Average Flow=9.1 cfs Total Total Rainfall Wet Peak QWP/QDA Rainfall Wet Peak QWP/QDA Date (inches) Flow(cfs) Ratio Date (inches) Flow(cfs) Ratio 4/3/99 0.5 3.8 1.5 4/3/99 0.5 14.7 1.6 4/8/99 0.4 4.2 1.7 4/8/99 0.4 14.1 1.5 4/14/99 0.8 4.3 1.7 4/14/99 0.8 15.5 1.7 4/15/99 0.6 6.5 2.6 4/15/99 0.6 23.4 2.6 4/25/99 0.5 5.1 2.0 4/25/99 0.5- 18.0 2.0 - 4/26/99 .0 -4/26/99 1.0 7.6 3.0 4/26/99 1.0 '25.2 2.8 5/4/99 2.4 10.9 4.4 5/4/99 2.4 35.1 3.9 5/12/99 0.9 5.0 2.0 5/12/99 0.9 17.7 1.9 5/15/99 0.6 5.6 2.2 5/1.5/99 0.6 17.1 1.9 d.n.a.=data not available 7-14 --D TABLE 7-1, continued DRY WEATHER AVERAGE TO WET WEATHER PEAK RATIO Meter 20 Meter 21 Dry Average Flow= 1.1 cfs Dry Average Flow= 0.9 cfs Total Total Rainfall Wet Peak QWP/QDA Rainfall Wet Peak QWP/QDA Date (inches) Flow(cfs) Ratio Date (inches) Flow(cfs) Ratio 4/3/99 0.5 1.9 1.7 4/3/99 0.5 1.9 2.1 4/8/99 0.4, 1.7 . 1.5 4/8/99 0.4 1.6 1.8 4/14/99 0.8 1.7 1.5 4/14/99 0.8 1.7 1.9 4/15/99 0.6 5.0 4.5 4/15/99 0.6 3.8 4.2 4/25/99 0.5 2.4 2.2 4/25/99 0.5 2.0 2.2 4/26/99 1.0 9.0 8.2 4/26/99 1.0 9.7 10.8 5/4/99 2.4 12.8 11.6 5/4/99 2.4 10.1. 11.2 5/12/99 . 0.9 2.5 2.3 5/12/99, 0.9 1.8 2.0 5/15/99 0.6 3.6 3.3 5/15/99 0.6 2.8 3.1 7-15 TABLE 7-2 SUMMARY OF INFILTRATIONANFLOW ANALYSIS Inflow Dominant Inflow and '.Infiltration Defect Extended Infiltration and Inflow Basin 3 Basin 11A Basin 4 Basin 5 Basin 12 Basin 8 Basin 6 Basin 13 Basin 19 Basin 7 Basin 14 Basin 9 Basin 17 Basin 10 Basin 11B Basin 15 Basin 16 Basin 18 Basin 20 s Basin 21 i - I i . j 7-16 i } TABLE 7-3 MISSOURI RIVER AT JEFFERSON CITY AVERAGE RIVER STAGE Month 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 January 7.5 8.7 10.6 10.5 February 9.0 14.1 12.4 13.7 March 9.9 15.9 15.6 13.1 April 11.8 21.1 20.1 19.0 May 20.4 19.6 14.5 22.9 June 22.7 17.5 18.9 19.2 July 17.5 15.5 16.0 i August 16.0 14.1 13.5 September 13.7 13.9 12.4 October 13.8 14.3 17.4 November 13.6 15.6 14.5 18.9 December 10.3 12.2 13.6 13.2 Annual Average 14.2 15.2 15.3 National Weather Service Floodstage is River Stage 23. i r, r� 7-17 TABLE 7-4 MISSOURI RIVER CONTRIBUTION TO DRY WEATHER FLOWS AT WALNUT STREET PUMP STATION (all flows in mgd) Mo River Interceptor(Meter 18) MBWC Sewer(Meter 19) Percent Dry avg. flow at RS 11=1.6 mgd Dry avg. flow at RS 11=5.9 mgd Combined Dry Time River Dry Weather Avg Dry Weather Dry Weather Avg Dry Weather Weather River River Stage is Flow at River River Flow at River River Contribution to Stage Exceeded Stage>20 Contribution Stage>20. Contribution Walnut Street PS 20 15 1.4 0 6.0 0.1 0.1 21 12 1.2 0 6.1 0.2 0.2 22 9 1.5 0 7.4 1.5 1.5 23 7 1.5 0 6.7 0.8 0.8 24 6 1.9 0.3 6.8 0.9 1.2 25 4 2.8 1.2 8.1 2.2 3.4 26 3 2.7 1.1 9.7 3.8 4.9 27 2 4.0 2.4 10.3 4.4 6.8 Flow monitoring period was from March 22, 1999 through May 31, 1999. Dry Weather Average Flow at River Stage 11 based on March 31, 1999 flow monitoring data 7-18 4 i 1 TABLE 7-5 WALNUT STREET PUMP STATION ESTIMATED WET WEATHER PEAK FLOW (all flows in mgd) Design Storm Infiltration/Inflow Control Alternative 2yr-6hr Syr-6hr 10yr-6hr Alternative 1: No I/I Reduction 72 86 100 Alternative 2: Reduce Inflow in Selected Basins (3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11B, 15, 16, 18, 20 and 21) 53 63 74 Alternative 3: Reduce Inflow in Selected Basins and Reduce Infiltration/Inflow in Basins with Extended I/I (I IA, 12, 13, 14 and 17) 50 58 68 Alternative 4: Reduce Inflow in Selected Basins, Reduce Infiltration/Inflow in Basins with Extended UI _y and Reduce Infiltration/Inflow in Basins 8& 15 50 58 67 i � i � i 7-19 i � TABLE 7-6 RECOMMENDED INFILTRATION/INFLOW CONTROL PROGRAM if , t Major Drainage Inflow Infiltration Basin Control Control Basis for Recommended Infiltration Control Program 1 not at this time not at this time 2 not at this time not at this time 3 Yes not at this time i 4 not at this time not at this time 5 Yes not at this time 6 Yes not at this time 7 Yes Yes Includes sewers with inverts below River Stage 27 _ 8 Yes Yes To reduce relief sewer and pump station improvements ' 9 Yes not at this time 10 Yes not at this time Extended infiltration and includes sewers with inverts 11 Yes Yes below River Stage'27 Extended infiltration and includes sewers with inverts 12 Yes Yes below River Stage 27 13 Yes Yes Extended infiltration Extended infiltration and includes sewers with inverts 14 Yes Yes below River Stage 27 15 Yes Yes' To reduce relief sewer improvements 16 Yes Yes Includes sewers with inverts below River Stage 27 Extended infiltration and includes sewers with inverts 17 Yes Yes below River Stage 27 18 Yes Yes Includes sewers with inverts below River Stage 27 19 Yes Yes Includes sewers with inverts below River Stage 27 t 20 Yes not at this time 21 Yes Yes Includes sewers with inverts below River Stage 27 i 7-20 TABLE 7-7 i r INFILTRATION/INFLOW CONTROL PROGRAM COST ESTIMATES Major Major Identification Correction Total Program Drainage Sewer Cost Estimate Cost Estimate Cost Estimate 3 46,000 92,000 458,000 550,000 4 32,000 0 0 0 5 60,000 119,000 596,000 715,000 6 52,000 104,000 519,000 623,000 7 69,000 343,000 1,373,000 1,716,000 8 22,000 87,000 436,000 523,000 9 72,000 144,000 721,000 865,000 10 85,000 171,000 853,000 1,023,000 11 133,000 689,000 2,651,000 3,340,000 12 94,000 411,000 1,870,000 2,281,000 13 88,000 354,000 1,769,000 2,123,000 - 14 31,000 150,000 626,000 776,000 15 22,000 88,000 440,000 528,000 16 110,000 308,000 1,652,000 1,960,000 17 67,000 324,000 1,348,000 1,672,000 18 29,000 105,000 440,000 545,000 19 16,000 75,000 311,000 386,000 20 52,000 104,000 522,000 627,000 21 117,000 305,000 1,410,000 1,715,000 Total, mil S 4.0 18.0 22.0 Cost estimates are in Year 2000 dollars F r 7-21 J 5.0 T t 1 4.0 j I f o 3.0 - - - —-- - —— - 2.0 -- - - - -- -- -- --- — — — -- — R p d InfiLti-atiorl. 8 CD a 1.0 - LL a i a y U C 3 ni tr to Grudaer 0 0.0 Hours from Midnight Project:p:1ENVIRON\PROJECTS\0141991700CADD\710SVCv\711Envveffsout\ Run: (9/28/99 4:18:02 PM) Existing Pipe: 09a001m Size: 15.Oin Design Q: 4.494ds Length: 300.Oft Average Q: 1.849ds Slope: 0.01 D Over D: 0.701 Invert Up: 567 7ft Velocity: 4.93fps Invert Dn: 564.8ft Peaking Fdr: 1.342 FIGURE 7-1 EXAMPLE HYDROGRAPH SHOWING INFLOW PREDOMINANT DEFECT METER 9 -MAY 4. 1999 STORM J 20.0 rr r-L-LX 15.0 -J ------,-Ra pid I of il :rz tion Or- 10.0 ln�lbw FI- JLr ID C 8 5.0 (D (D --I'S nitary u- :L u- -J 0.0 1 11 12 13 14 1b Ib it its 19 Zu 21 22 wi Z4 Zo Zb Z( AZ JJ ill J0 Jb it Jt$ JV qu 41 4Z 41 44 40 4b 41 Hours from Midnight Project:p:\ENVIRON\PROJECTS\014199\700CADD\71OSvCv\711EnvNeffsout\ Run: (9128/994:18:02 PM) Existing Pipe: 14a01Om Size: 30.Oin Design Q: 16.378ds Length: 368.Oft Average Q: 9.094cls Slope: 0.001 D Over D: 1.0 Invert Up: 539.74ft Velocity* 3.337fps Invert Dn: 539.4ft Peaking Fctr 1.606 FIGURE 7-2 EXAMPLE HYDROGRAPH SHOWING EXTENDED INFILTRATION METER 14 -MAY 4, 1999 STORM J ---- }, — 5.0 ---- 5.0 4.0 of 11 3.0 Ral3. rat-.., /F 2.0 E J --Ilif]Ow CD 1.0 LL _rrr rr ty Sani Laf 0 LL 0.0 7--J8W YU—7-17—;::3ii T9—T7—T9—0—2U— 25-29—= 133-34-30 30 'if 30 JV qu Hours from Midnight Project:p:\ENVIRONXPROJECTS\014199\700CADD\710SvCv%71IEnvveffsout\ Run: (9/28/994:18:02 PM) Existing Pipe: 08a002m Size: 8.Oin Design Q: 3.291ds Length: 250.Oft Average Q: 1.331ds Slope: 0.016 D Over D: 1.0 Invert Up: 621.4ft Velocity- 9.427fps Invert Dn: 617.4ft Peaking Fctr: 1.396 FIGURE 7-3 EXAMPLE HYDROGRAPH SHOWING INFILTRATION AND INFLOW METER 8 -MAY 4, 1999 STORM -- FIGURE 7-4 MISSOURI RIVER INFLUENCE ON AVERAGE DAILY WPCF FLOW (January 1997 through December 1998) 9.5 9 RS < 11' RS < 12' c --�-RS < 13' �+ -QRS < 14' . s -RS < 15' RS < 20' au 7.s +RS < 25' a� RS < 30' 7 - 6.5 6.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Precipitation - Less-Than or Equal To (inches) FIGURE 7-5 MO RIVER INFLUENCE ON DRY AVERAGE FLOW TO WALNUT ST. PS 10 - 9 8 .d 7 • RS 27 b 6 0 w 5 RS 26 q 0 U 4 - RS 25 3 - \S, 2 _ • RS 22 RS 24 1 RS 23 RS 21 RS 20 0 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% Percent of Time River Stage is Exceeded SECTION 8 WASTEWATER DESIGN FLOWS 8.1 DESIGN AVERAGE FLOW Historical annual average wastewater flows to the City of Jefferson WPCF are summarized in Table 8-1. Fluctuations in the average annual wastewater flow can be attributed to impact of wet ' weather and Missouri River stage on influent flows. Annual per capita average flows (based on City of Jefferson population only) have gradually increased over the past 20 years, from about 190 gallons per capita per day in 1980 to about 220 gallons per capita per day in 1999. The higher than typical per capita wastewater flow can be attributed to several factors, including: ' • Large service area outside the city limits • Large visiting population due to State Capitol and state offices ' • Contribution of storm water and Missouri River to wastewater flows The estimated existing (Year 2000) annual average flow is 8.7 million gallons per day (mgd),the average of the past three years. Missouri River stage, precipitation and current hydraulic capacity of Walnut Street Pump Station can influence average annual flows. The design (Year 2020) average flow is 11 mgd. Contributions to the design average flow include residential, major water users, commercial and light industry and Holts Summit, as summarized in Table 8-2. The design average flow also includes an allowance of 1.5 mgd for wet weather conditions and river influence. The allowance is derived from the difference between the Year 2000 estimated average flow of 8.7 mgd (based on historical annual average flows) and the calculated 2000 flow of 7.2 mgd. 8.2 DESIGN PEAK HOURLY FLOW Using the Missouri Department of Natural Resources peak factor formula and a Year 2020 population projection of 62,400, the peak factor is 2.2. Based on a design average flow of 11 mgd,the design peak dry weather hourly flow is 25 mgd. 8-1 f , 8.3 DESIGN PEAK WET WEATHER FLOW 8.3.1 Water Pollution Control Facility and Walnut Street Pump Station Wet weather peak flow to the Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) is a combination of flow from the service area north of the Missouri River and the service area south of the river. The majority of the City of Jefferson service area is located south of the Missouri River, where the flow drains to Walnut Street Pump Station to be pumped to the WPCF. Due to the large size of the south collection system service area, wastewater peak flows generated from the 5-year design storm are used as the design basis for improvements to the WPCF and Walnut Street Pump Station. The 1999 flow-monitoring program indicated significant infiltration and inflow in all of the drainage basins in the south service area. Hydraulic modeling of future conditions using the 5- year, 6-hour design storm basis estimates a wet weather peak of 86 mgd to the Walnut Street Pump Station. As discussed in Section 7 of this master plan, a program of infiltration and inflow (I/I) control throughout the majority of the collection system can reduce wet weather peak flows. Based on hydraulic modeling for the 5-year, 6-hour design storm, reducing inflow in a majority of the ! drainage basins can decrease the Walnut Street Pump Station wet weather peak to 63 mgd. The wet weather peak flow can be further reduced to 58 mgd by also addressing infiltration, as well as inflow, in additional basins. The recommended infiltration and inflow control program discussed in Section 7 also includes sewers that may be influenced by the Missouri River. The Year 2020 design wet weather peak flow for the area south the Missouri River (to Walnut Street Pump Station) is 58 mgd is based on the following assumptions: • Design storm is 5 year 6 hour storm event • Inflow increases 0.5%per year throughout the planning period • Infiltration increases 2%per year throughout the planning period • I/I reduction in selected basins (as discussed in Section 7) _i 8-2 I- 1 Annual inflow and infiltration increases are assumed because sewer systems continue to deteriorate over time. The service area north of the Missouri River is small. Because of limited development in the area, no flow monitoring was conducted. The pump station serving Holts Summit discharges to the upper end on the service area. The Year 2020 design wet weather peak flow of 2 mgd is based on the following assumptions: • Peak factor of 4 on residential flows • Peak factor of 3 on commercial and industrial flows • Infiltration allowance of 30,000 gallons per day per mile of trunk sewer • Holts Summit pump station has both pumps in operation and assuming maximum capacity is 1.5 times one-pump capacity Based on the study results and assumptions, the design wet weather peak flow to the Water Pollution Control Facility from both the north and south service areas will be 60 mgd, for the 5- year, 6-hour design storm. 8.3.2 Wastewater Collection System Wet weather peak flows generated from the 10-year design storm are the basis for analyzing the existing collection system adequacy and for designing necessary relief sewer and pump station improvements. Design wet weather peak flows for the major drainage basins both with and without the recommended I/I control program are summarized in Table 8-3. Design flows with I/I control are based on the following assumptions: • 40%reduction of inflow related peaks in all basins except 1, 2, 4, 18 and 19 • 75% reduction of inflow related peaks in Basin 18 is assumed due to the large quantity of measured inflow in this basin • 25%reduction of infiltration related peaks in basins 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17 Because the wet weather peak flow consists of several components added together, the overall peak flow reduction in each basin varies. The sanitary peak flow component is not reduced. The inflow related peak flow component and the infiltration related peak flow component are reduced separately. In addition, the wet weather peak flow in several basins is impacted by flows from 8-3 upstream basins. Therefore, based on the above inflow and infiltration reduction assumptions, overall reductions in the design wet weather peak flows vary from 22 to 49 percent. Design wet weather peak flows for the following major pump stations are based on the design wet weather peak flow in the sewer(s) just upstream of the station as developed from the hydraulic model. • Cole Junction(combined peak flows from Grays Creek drainage basin and Basin 12) • Binder(peak flow from Basin 20) • Riverside Park(combined peak flows from Basins 16 & 17) • Moreau(combined peak flows from Green Meadow Pump Station&Basin 4) • Idlewood(peak flow from Basin 8) • Green Meadow (peak flow from Basin 4) • Cedar City(peak flow from Basin 1) • Westinghouse (combined peak flows from Basins 1 &2 and Holts Summit Pump Station) For other pump stations an assumed peak factor of 4 or 5 was used to develop design wet weather peaks. These include Westview, Covington,Hayselton, Southridge, and Indian Hills. Design wet weather peak flows for the major pump stations both with and without the recommended I/I control program are summarized in Table 8-4. These design peak flows developed from the 10-year design storm are the basis for master-plan level cost estimates. During preliminary design, pumping capacities are to be based on cost effective evaluation of peak attenuation through alternatives such as I/I reduction, retention in wet well and trunk sewers, and detention facilities. Design wet weather peak flows with the recommended UI control program are based on estimates of the amount of extraneous water that can be effectively removed. Actual removal percentages will vary from basin to basin and design flows should be reevaluated following completion of I/I source correction. i 8-4 F TABLE S-1 JEFFERSON CITY WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY HISTORICAL ANNUAL AVERAGE WASTEWATER FLOW Annual Annual Jefferson City Average Precipitation Above/Below Year Population (mgd) (in/yr) Annual Averages 1980 33,619 4.6 26.7 Below - 1981 5.8 45.9 Above 1982 6.5 52.4 Above 1983 6.3 37.5 Below 1984 8.2 33.13 Unknown 1985 9.6 53.1 Above - 1986 6.6 39.5 Above 1987 6.2 33.1 Below 1988 6.4 36.2 Below 1989 6.1 31.9 Below 1990 35,494 7.1 52.1 Above - 1991 6.6 35.6 Below 1992 7.2 38.9 Above ' 1993 7.61 66.1 Above 1994 7.4 33.3 Below 1995 7.2 37.9 Below 1996 7.22 38.0 Below 1997 8.2 38.4 Average 1998 9.3 61.6 1 Above 1999 8.4 30.3 Below 2000 (Estimated) 37,200 8.7 na na Notes: 1. Plant was shut down in 1993 for several months 2. Based on WPCF Operating Data, with some missing data in Sept., Oct., Dec. 3. Missing September data 4. Walnut Street Pump Station was limited in pumping due to hydraulic capacity of headworks. 5. Average annual precipitation=38.43 inch/year(1961-1990) 8-5 I , TABLE 8-2 DESIGN AVERAGE FLOW PROJECTION Year-2000 Year 2020 'Design Averageflow Design Average Flow Type of Flow and Design Criteria Basis (mgd) Basis (mgd) Residential: Study Area Population 51,500 less Mo State Penitentiary 2,000 Estimated Population 49,500 62,400 Residential Avg Flow(at 100 gpcd) 5.01 6.2 Major Water Users (gallons per day): Mo State Penitentiary 400,000 0 r- ABB 55,000 55,000 Modine 95,000 95,000 Unilever/Chese. 70,000 70,000 Mo State Capitol 40,000 40,000 Harry S. Truman State 68,000 68,000 St. Mary's Med Cen 62,000 62,000 Van Hoffman Press 50,000 50,000 Major Water Users Avg. Flow, 840,000 -0.81 440,000 0.4 Commercial &Light Industry -- Max. Flow(gallons per acre per day, gpad)= 3000 Assume 8 hour operation, average flow(gpad)= 1000 Commercial Area(acre) 600 1100 Light Indusry Area(acre) 600 850 Comm. &Lt. Industrial Avg. Flow 1200 1.2 1950 2.0 . i Holts Summit 0.21 1 0.5 Total Average Flow 7.2 9.1 —; Year 2000,Estimated Average Flow(based on historical annual average flows) 8.7 Additional flow(MO River influence,precipitation) 1.5 1.5 r1 DESIGN YEAR 2020 AVERAGE FLOW 11 8-6 , I TABLE 8-3 DESIGN WET WEATHER PEAK FLOW IN MAJOR DRAINAGE BASINS 10-year, 6-hour Design Storm Pump stations upgraded for 10-year, 6-hour.design storm. Overall assumed No UI Reduction With UI Control percent reduction in Basin (cfs) Program (cfs) peak flow 1 0.3 0.3 0 2 3.4. 3.4 0 3 6.1 4.1 33 l 4 - 5.4 5.4 0 5 9.9 6.6 33 6&7 29.1 22.0 24 8 6.4 4.8 25 - 9 13.4 8.9 34 10 13.7 10.1 26 11A 29.3 21.1 28 j 11B 2.5 1.6 36 12 11.5 9.0 22 -� 13 43.6 30.3 31 14 51.9 39.1 25 15 7.5 5.1 32 f 16 14.0 9.3 34 l 17 6.2 4.2 32 18 35.0 18.0 49 i 19 119.8 85.1 29 Grays Creek- Meter 20 32.9 22.0 33 Grays Creek- Meter 21 26.5 17.5 34 8-7 TABLE 8-4 DESIGN WET WEATHER PEAK FLOW TO MAJOR PUMP STATIONS 10-year, 6-hour Design Storm Existing Rated No I/I Reduction With UI Control Pump Station Capacity(gpm) (gpm) Program (gpm) Cole Junction 1925 20000 14000 Binder 1700 4800 3300 Riverside Park 1500 9100 6100 Westview 950 950 Note 1 Moreau 800 5200 4300 Covington 800 806 Note 1 Westinghouse 700 1700 (Note 2) Note 1 Idlewood 350 2900 2200 Hayselton 300 600 Note 1 Green Meadow 300 2700 1900 Southridge 300 300 Note 1 Cedar City -260 260 Note 1 Indian Hills 100 450 Note 1 Notes: 1. I/1 reduction not evaluated at this time. 2. Assumes both Holts Summit pumps operating at 1.5 times rated capacity 8-8 r � + I 1 ' l SECTION 9 WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM ANALYSIS The wastewater collection system can be analyzed under different conditions using the hydraulic models that have been developed for the project. Using the models of the City of Jefferson collection system, design wastewater peak flows are compared to the capacity of the existing wastewater collection system. The system is evaluated for its.,ability to adequately carry flows to the wastewater treatment plant. Where size and capacity of the system are not sufficient, surcharging conditions and potential sanitary sewer overflows can occur. I Design wastewater peak flows for the wastewater collection system are discussed in Section 8 of i this master plan. Existing wastewater facilities are evaluated for peak flows developed for both dry weather and wet weather conditions. The following sections evaluate the capability of the existing gravity sewers and major sewage , t , pump stations to -handle design peak wastewater flows. Where wastewater facilities are not adequate for design flows, cost estimates for the necessary relief sewers and pump station improvements are developed. Improvements and cost estimates are developed to address estimated wet weather peak flows both with and without the recommended 'infiltration and inflow (I/I)-control program. A cost-effective analysis of the recommended I/I control program is provided in Section 9.4. 9.1 EXISTING WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM The existing wastewater collection system serves an area of approximately 66 square miles. Divided by the Missouri River, a small portion of the service,area and the wastewater-treatment plant are located north of the river with the majority of the service area located south of the river. j The system north of the river receives pumped flow from Holts Summit. ! The service area for the current wastewater collection system is comprised of 21 major drainage - basins. Basins 1 and 2 are located north of the Missouri River,the remaining nineteen basins are � i - 9-1 . r ' I south of the river. Six additional drainage basins with the potential to be added to the collection system in the future are located south of the current city limits. Because of the severe topography of the planning area, all of the wastewater flow requires pumping to the wastewater treatment plant. North of the Missouri River, all wastewater flow reaches the Westinghouse Pump Station to be pumped to the treatment plant. South of the Missouri River, all wastewater flow reaches the Walnut Street Pump Station to be pumped across the river to the treatment plant. Walnut Street Pump Station and the wastewater treatment facility are evaluated in a separate document, "City of Jefferson, Water Pollution Control Facility, Facility Plan", prepared by Sverdrup Civil,Inc.,March 2000. 9.2 GRAVITY SEWER SYSTEM - The estimated total length of major sewers in the existing collection system is about 1.2 million feet (or 230 miles). Estimated drainage basin size and length of major sewer lines in each - drainage basin are summarized in Table 9-1. There are over 1.2 million feet (233 miles) of major gravity sewers in the current service area, ranging in size from 8-inch up to 48-inch in diameter. Figure 4-1 (in Section 4) shows the existing major trunk sewers that are included in the hydraulic models of the north and south wastewater collection systems. Approximately 25 percent of the existing sewers are included in the hydraulic models. Model results indicate that the existing north and south collection systems are adequate for design wastewater peak flows that occur during dry weather. Collection system operating personnel do not report any significant problems during dry weather. Results for the dry weather analysis for the system north of the Missouri River are included in Appendix B. Results for the dry weather analysis for the system south of the river are included in Appendix C. 9-2 i I � As indicated in previous sections of this master plan, during wet weather, wastewater peak flows increase significantly throughout the sanitary sewer system. Increases in wet weather peaks are a result of storm water entering the sanitary sewer system through infiltration and inflow. Model results indicate that the existing system north of the river is adequate for the design wet weather peak flows. Operating personnel do not report any significant problems in the north system. Model results for design wet weather peak flows for the system north of the Missouri River are included in Appendix D. Wet weather peak flows for three design storms with 2-year, 5-year and 10-year return frequencies were developed and compared to the capacity of the south collection system. Model results indicate that significant portions of the south system are overloaded during wet weather conditions. Operations personnel indicate that corresponding areas of the system overflow or surcharge during significant rain events. To reduce potential wet weather peak flows, a program to control infiltration and inflow is _ recommended and is summarized in Section 7.4. Wet weather peak flows for three design storms with the recommended infiltration and inflow control program were developed and compared to the capacity of the south collection system. Even with reduction of wet weather peak flows through I/I correction, model results indicate that significant portions of the south system are overloaded during wet weather conditions. Model results for design wet weather peak flows (10 year design storm, with I/I control program) for the system south of the Missouri River are included in Appendix E. Figure 9-1 illustrates the portions of the collection system that are inadequate for the design wet weather peak flows (with I/I control program), indicating potential for surcharged or overflow conditions. Sections highlighted in yellow are most critical. These sections are overloaded for peak flows generated for the smaller intensity, but more frequent, 2-year design storm, as well as the 5-year and 10-year design storms. Sections highlighted in dark blue are overloaded for peak - flows generated for the higher intensity 5-year and 10-year design storms. Sections highlighted in light purple are only overloaded for peak flows generated for the 10-year design storm. 9-3 '. i I Conceptual sizing of needed relief sewer improvements is based on the following assumptions: • Sewers are sized for design peak flows generated from the 10-year design storm • Pump stations are upgraded for design peak flows generated from the 10-year design storm • ,Sewer design is based on flowing three-quarters full • Existing sewers are replaced • Slope is based on existing pipe slope Sewers were conceptually sized for design wet weather peak flows developed both with and without the recommended I/I control program. Estimated total cost for new relief sewers needed to provide adequate capacity for design wet weather peak flows during a 10-year design storm is $78.7 million with the I/I control program and $102.3 without I/I reduction. Project cost estimates for relief sewers by drainage basin are summarized in Table 9-2. Project cost estimates are based on Year 2000 dollars, and include estimated construction costs, contingency, and engineering. i 9.3 SEWAGE PUMP STATIONS All of the existing pump stations except Command Web are shown on Figure 4-1 (Section 4). The small Command Web Pump Station is located outside the study area. Pump stations included in the hydraulic models (generally those with a capacity greater than 250 gallons per minute) are shown on Figure 6-1 (Section 6). Recommended improvements to major pump stations are based on the evaluation of several factors including: • Station capacity for design wet weather peak flows • Preliminary condition assessment(refer Section 4) -- • Station age in Year 2020 Evaluation of these factors and recommended actions for each major pump station are summarized in Table 9-3. Design wet weather peak flows generated just upstream of the pump stations were compared to existing station capacity. Pump stations that are overloaded for the 2- 9-4 j i year design storm also showed high wet well level conditions during the significant storm of May 4, 1999, which occurred during the spring 1999 flow-monitoring period. With a total rainfall volume ranging from 1.7 to 2.7 inches, this storm is comparable to the 2-year design storm (total rainfall volume of 2.4 inches). The recommended action for overloaded pump stations is to increase capacity within the 20-year study period. A summary of the preliminary pump station condition assessment is summarized in Section 4. Each pump station is evaluated for structural, mechanical and electrical condition. The overall condition assessment and the age of the station by the Year 2020 are summarized in Table 9-3, as well. For pump stations that appear to be adequate for design wet weather flows and are in good overall condition,the recommended action is to replace pumps within the 20-year study period. Although the Westview Pump Station appears adequate for design wet weather flows, additional investigation is recommended due to high wet well level conditions experienced during the May 4 storm event. Due to the overall fair condition of the station, the recommended action at this time is to replace the station within the 20-year study period. Estimated total project cost for major pump station improvements (and force mains) is $17.7 million with the I/I control program and $18.7 without I/I reduction. Project cost estimates for major pump station improvements are summarized in Table 9-4. Project cost estimates are based on Year 2000 dollars, and include estimated construction costs, contingency, and engineering. Pump stations are upgraded for the peak flows generated from the 10-year design storm (refer Table 8-4). It is assumed the minor pump stations (less than 250 gallons per minute) will be upgraded as necessary or eliminated as economically feasible. Costs associated with upgrading minor pump stations are considered to be part of the City's annual wastewater collection system maintenance budget. 9-5 , i I 9.4 INFILTRATION/INFLOW COST EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS Analysis-of improvements needed both with an I/I control program and without significant I/I reduction indicates it is cost effective to reduce wet weather peak flows. As shown in Table 9-5, the estimated total project cost for wastewater collection system improvements with an I/I control program is $141.2 million dollars. This includes UI source detection and correction _ program cost estimates as well as those to improve the Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) and Walnut Street Pump Station. The estimated total project cost for wastewater collection system improvements without any I/I reduction is $150.5 million dollars, an increase of $9.3 million dollars. In addition to decreasing capital improvement costs, reduction of wastewater flows through I/I control can decrease collection and treatment operating costs. For example, reducing run times or pump motor horsepower can save costs for energy,maintenance and repair. Therefore,the program to control infiltration and inflow, as outlined in Section 7-4 of this master plan, is recommended. To reduce wet weather peak flows, the control program includes identification and correction of UI sources. The spring 1999 flow monitoring program measured flow rates at the base of the major drainage basins and estimated I/I quantities were distributed evenly throughout the basin trunk sewers. Once the I/I control program has been completed within a major drainage basin, evaluation of the impact of correcting I/I sources on wet weather peak flows is needed to further define relief sewer and pump station improvements. 9-6 TABLE 9-1 WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM Drainage Area Estimated Length of Basin No. (acres) Major Sewers (ft) North of Missouri River 1 222 20,700 2 1,817 12,300 South of Missouri River 3 1,078 45,800 4 375 31,800 5 816 59,600 6 592 51,900 7 435 68,700 8 302 21,800 9 864 72,100 10 4,910 85,300 11 1,264 132,600 12 856 93,500 13 1,601 88,500 14 403 31,300 15 393 22,000 16 1,749 110,100 17 936 67,400 18 347 29,300 - 19 127 15,600 20 3,483 50,000 _ 21 1 11,747 120,000 Proposed Future Service Areas A 581 Unknown B 1,447 Unknown C 1,011 Unknown D 1,647 Unknown E 750 Unknown ` F 2,067 Unknown TOTAL 41,820 1,230,300 4 I �i i 9-7 TABLE 9-2 RELIEF SEWER IMPROVEMENTS With UI Control Program No VI Reduction Approximate Estimated Approximate Estimated Sewer Length Project Cost Length Project Cost Designation (ft) (Yr 2000 $) (ft). (Yr 2000 $) 3A 3,489 852,000 9,925 2,625,000 4A 803 259,000 803 259,000 4B 566 174,000 566 180,000 5A 3,777 1,009,000 3,933 1,125,000 6A 8,901 3,560,000 9,515 4,008,000 7A 4,414 5,697,000 5,968 7,988,000 8A, 3,982 1,143,000 3,982 1,175,000 9A 10,102 3,040,000 10,102 3,097,000 9B 3,543 866,000 3,918 997,000 10A 16,110 5,334,000 23,974 7,468,000 10C 0 0 1,925 379,000 11A 12,663 10,292,000 12,663 10,937,000 12A 6,500 2,732,000 9,057 3,565,000 12B 0 0 784 251,000 13A 9,254 2,933,000 11,660 3,761,000 . 13B 3,375 822,000 3,640 907,000 13C 3,280 1,223,000 3,280 1,354,000 14A 8,671 6,661,000 8.,671 7,071,000 15A 4,789 1,51400 5,808 1,779,000 r 16A 8,574 2,905,000 8,574 3,138,000 i 16C 1,197 361,000 2,797 724,000 17A 0 0 3,594 1,280,000 18A 0 0 5,729 5,233,000 4 19A 1,417 3,300,000 1,417 3,478,000 -i 20A 6,455 2,117,000 10,223 3,223,000 j 21A 28,713 19,502,000 37,016 23,662,000 21B 2,485 605,000 2,485 605,000 ~ 21C 4,728 1,817,000 4,728 2,036,000 TOTAL 157,789 78,718,000 206,738 102,305,000 9-8 TABLE 9-3 EVALUATION OF MAJOR PUMP STATIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION High Level Station During Condition Age in Pump Station Station Capacity Evaluation 5-4-99 Storm Assessment Yr 2020 Recommended Action Cole Junction Overloaded for 2-year design storm Yes(Note 1) Fair 38 Increase capacity and replace station Binder Overloaded for 5-year design storm No data Fair 37 Increase capacity and replace station Riverside Park Overloaded for 2-year design storm Yes Fair 54 Increase capacity and replace station Further investigation needed due to high wet well levels during significant storm events. Replace Westview Appears adequate for design flows Yes Fair 33 station within planning period Moreau Overloaded for 2-year design storm Yes Good 55 Increase capacity and replace station Replace pumps and minor upgrades in later portion Covington Appears adequate for design flows No data Good 22 of planning period Westinghouse Overloaded for design flows Yes Fair 49 Increase capacity and replace station Idlewood Overloaded for 2-year design storm Yes Poor 47 Increase capacity and replace station or eliminate Hayselton Overloaded for design flows Yes Fair 64 Increase capacity and replace station Green Meadow Overloaded for 2-year design storm Yes Fair 51 Increase capacity and replace station or eliminate Replace pumps and minor upgrades within planning Southridge Appears adequate for design flows No data Good 40 period or eliminate Replace pumps and minor upgrades in later portion Cedar City Appears adequate for design flows No data Good 30 of planning period Overflows to retention pond for Indian Hills design flows No Good 41 Replace station within planning period Note 1: It appears only one pump was in operation at Cole Junction Pump Station on May 4 and 5, 1999. 9-9 ir- i TABLE 9-4 PUMP STATION IMPROVEMENTS With III Control Program No UI Reduction Upgrade Upgrade Pump Station Pump Station New Force Main Pump Station New Force Main Designation (Yr 2000$) (Yr 2000$) (Yr 2000$) (Yr 2000$) Cedar City 55,000 existing is adequate 55,000 existing is adequate r Westinghouse 569,000 291,000 569,000 291,000 Green Meadow 472,000 171,000 472,000 184,000 Moreau 1,528,000 893,000 1,528,000 957,000 1 Idlewood 900,000 1,331,000 1,024,000 1,331,000 i Southridge 60,000 existing is adequate 60,000 existing is adequate Covington 239,000 existing is adequate 239,000 existing is adequate t Westview 508,000 existing is adequate 508,000 existing is adequate Cole Junction 3,412,000 1,755,000 3,791,000, 1,755,000 Hayselton 429,000 314,000 429,000 314,000 Riverside Park 1,431,000 972,000 1,,431,000 1,149,000 Indian Hills 418,000 258,000 418,000 258,000 r Binder 1,158,000 574,000 1,286,000 611,000 Total 11,179,000 6,559,000 11,810,000 6,850,000 1 l �I I i 9-10 I � I TABLE 9-5 y I/I CONTROL PROGRAM COST EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS Estimated Project Cost(million$) Recommended Improvements With UI Control Program No I/I Reduction Program WPCF and Walnut St PS 22.7 29.5 Relief Sewers 78.7 102.3 Pump Station Improvements 11.2 11.8 I Force Main Improvements 6.6 6:9 I/I Source Detection Program 4.0 0.0 _+ I/I Source Correction Program 18.0 0.0 _ Total- 141.2 150.5 I k ' I l F y V f 1 r .I 1 1 1 iJ 9-11 ST. MARTINS #2 ELSTON 21B ST. MARTINS „T—ROAD (s) ■ jINDER BONITA PASEO 1)9 21A COLE JUNCTION (35 0 c' HWY 54 ■ ST. MARTINS #1 (N) GUN CLUB ■ WOODWAR RANDALL ■ DOVE ■ SYLVAN HILLS CEDAR CITY HAYSELTON, HWY 50 13 It 94 NGHOUSE JEFFERSON ��— CITY WPCF 2 WALNUT STREET 20 WINDRIVER HAAF WESTVIEW LEGEND 3 DRAINAGE BASIN NUMBERS STUDY AREA/MAJOR DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY • PUMP STATION EXISTING SEWER SYSTEM EXISTING FORCE MAIN SYSTEM OVERLOAD FOR 2YR DESIGN STORM OR GREATER SYSTEM OVERLOAD FOR 5YR DESIGN STORM OR GREATER Alownwil SYSTEM OVERLOAD FOR 10YR DESIGN STORM OR GREATER 10 WESTPORT ■ CO GTON • GARD F- D HWY C ■ OUTHRIDG SCHOLASTIC ■ I VEN U FIGURE 9-1 COLLECTION SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES WITH I/1 CONTROL PROGRAM r , i ( _I SECTION 10 ELIMINATE PUMP STATIONS AND SERVE OUTLYING AREAS Presently there are thirty sewage pump stations throughout the wastewater collection system. Pump station operation is costly from a labor, maintenance and power standpoint. Elimination of Green Meadow, Idlewood and Southridge pump stations with gravity sewer extensions is evaluated to determine cost effectiveness. Elimination of several other pump stations in outlying areas is evaluated as well. These outlying pump stations can be eliminated as growth and development dictate. Sewer improvements for six areas presently outside the collection system service area are also evaluated in this section of the Master Plan. These areas are to the south and west of the current city limits and are included in the Master Plan planning area due to the potential for future development. The six outlying areas, as shown on Figure 10-1, are designated as Areas A, B, C, D,E and F. They include areas of potential annexation as described in the 1996 Annexation Plan for City of Jefferson, Missouri4. In addition, sewer improvements for a portion of Drainage Basin 10 located south of the current city limits are developed. These improvements would serve the high annexation potential area of Frog Hollow. f 10.1 ELIMINATE GREEN MEADOW PUMP STATION Green Meadow Pump Station is located at the downstream end of Basin 3 and pumps wastewater flow a short distance to a gravity sewer upstream of Moreau Pump Station. The two pump stations are relatively close to each other and thus have the potential to be combined into one pump station. Both Green Meadow and Moreau Pump Stations have insufficient capacity for the wet weather peak flows from a 2-year design storm or greater and will require upgrading in the near future. F 4 Jefferson City Annexation Plan 1996, by D.R.Preston,December 1996. 10-1 I Green Meadow Pump Station was constructed in 1969 and the pumps were replaced in 1996. The station is in fair condition and has suffered flood damage as evidenced by excessive corrosion in the dry well. r Moreau Pump Station was constructed in 1965 and the pumps replaced in 1994. The station is in good condition, except for the original piping that is in fair condition. The proposed Green Meadow Sewer Extension would eliminate Green Meadow Pump Station and carry wastewater flows by gravity to Moreau Pump Station. The approximate location of the sewer extension is shown on Figure 10-1. Preliminary sizing is based on carrying wastewater flows generated in Basin 3 from the 10-year design storm(with I/I control program). Construction of the .Green Meadow Sewer Extension eliminates the need for station i improvements (including a new larger force main) and a relief sewer for the gravity sewer to Moreau Pump Station (Relief Sewer 4B). However, Green Meadow Pump Station is lower than Moreau Pump Station. Therefore, the cost to upgrade or relocate Moreau Pump Station will increase. The cost-effective analysis for eliminating Green Meadow Pump Station is summarized in Table 10-1. The estimated project cost for improvements necessary to upgrade Green Meadow and Moreau Pump Stations is $2.3 million. The estimated project cost for the improvements _ necessary to eliminate Green Meadow Pump Station is $2.6 million. Cost estimates for the Green Meadow Sewer Extension are based on the assumption very little rock excavation will be required. Taking into consideration the additional costs to operate and maintain Green Meadow Pump Station, elimination of this station is recommended. 10.2 ELIMINATE SOUTHRIDGE PUMP STATION Southridge Pump Station is located north of Highway 54 and pumps wastewater flows north a ` short distance to a gravity sewer in Basin 9. Southridge Pump Station was constructed in 1980. While the station appears to be in good condition it is at the typical 20-year design life for um PP g � t3'P� Y g pump 1 stations. 10-2 i � t ' The proposed Southridge Sewer Extension would eliminate Southridge Pump Station and carry wastewater flows south by gravity to future trunk sewers in outlying Area D. The approximate location of the sewer extension is shown on Figure 10-1. Preliminary sizing is based on serving a development factor of 2.5 people per acre of drainage area served. Construction of the Southridge Sewer Extension eliminates the need for station improvements and reduces relief sewer needs for Basin 9. Future trunk sewers in outlying Area D are not greatly effected. The cost-effective analysis for elimination of Southridge Pump Station is summarized in Table 10-2. The estimated project cost for improvements necessary to upgrade Southridge Pump Station is $1.8 million. The estimated project cost for improvements necessary to eliminate Southridge Pump Station is $2.0 million. Taking into consideration the additional costs to operate and maintain Southridge Pump Station, elimination of this station is recommended. 10.3 ELIMINATE IDLEWOOD PUMP STATION Idlewood Pump Station is located at the downstream end of Basin 8 near Renns Lake and pumps wastewater flow north to a gravity sewer in Basin 9. Idlewood Pump Station has insufficient capacity for wet weather peak flows generated from the 2-year design storm. Constructed in 1973, the station is beyond the typical 20-year design life for pump stations. It is reported to have operational difficulties and is in poor condition. The proposed Idlewood Sewer Extension would eliminate Idlewood Pump Station and carry wastewater flows by gravity to the future Trunk Sewer E. The approximate location of the sewer extension is shown on Figure 10-1. Preliminary sizing is based on carrying design wet weather peak flow generated in Basin 8 from the 10-year design storm (with I/I control program)., Construction of the Idlewood Sewer Extension eliminates the need for station improvements, but greatly impacts sizing of future improvements to serve outlying Area E. 10-3 j r , f i , I Two alternatives for eliminating Idlewood Pump Station and upsizing future improvements to serve outlying Area E were evaluated. Option A includes upsizing future improvements in Area E to handle additional flows from Basin 8 and continuing to pump all flow north .to Basin 9. Option B includes upsizing future improvements in Area E to handle additional flows from Basin 8 and pumping all flow northeast to outlying Area D future improvements. With Option B, future improvements in Area D, as well as the Green Meadow Sewer Extension, will need to be upsized. Option A is similar to the current system operation and downstream relief sewer needs in Basins 6, 7, 9 and 11 are not impacted. However, Option B eliminates a significant flow from Basins 9 and 11 and transfers it to the Green Meadow/Moreau pumping system that pumps to gravity sewers in Basins 6 and 7. Hydraulic analyses indicate that while Option B increases the size of the relief sewer needs in Basins-6 and 7, it eliminates the need for much of the relief in Basins 9 and 11. This results in significant cost savings. The cost-effective analysis for eliminating Idlewood Pump Station is summarized in Table 10-3. The estimated project cost for improvements necessary to upgrade Idlewood Pump Station is $32.5 million. The estimated project cost for improvements necessary to eliminate Idlewood Pump Station and pump to Basin 9 (Option A) is $33.4 million. The estimated project cost for improvements necessary to eliminate Idlewood Pump Station and pump to outlying Area D (Option B) is $26.8 million. Therefore, elimination of Idlewood Pump Station and pumping to outlying Area D is recommended. Preliminary sizing of improvements needed to eliminate Idlewood Pump Station and pump to outlying Area D (Option B) is summarized in Table 10-4. 10.4 ELIMINATE ADDITIONAL PUMP STATIONS Elimination of several pump stations with gravity sewer extensions is shown on Figure 10-2. Projects cost estimates are summarized in Table 10-5. Preliminary sizing of sewer extensions is based on serving a development factor of 2.5 people per acre of drainage area served. 10-4 10.5 IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE OUTLYING AREAS A AND B Area A includes about 500 acres located west of the city limits and south of the Missouri River. This area is included in the Algoa high priority annexation area. Area B includes about 1500 acres located west of the city limits and south of Highway 50/63. This area includes Schott annexation area. Improvements needed to serve Area A and Area B are shown on Figure 10-1. Trunk Sewers A and B drain to future Pump Station A, which is proposed to pump east across the Moreau River - to the Algoa wastewater collection system. Preliminary sizing of the trunk sewers is based on serving a development factor of 2.5 people per acre of drainage area served. Project cost - estimates for 'improvements to serve Area A and Area B are $1.5 million and $1.3 million, respectively, as summarized in Table 10-6. 10.6 IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE OUTLYING AREA C Area C includes about 1000 acres located southwest of the city limits and is bounded on the east and west sides by the Moreau River. This area includes the Seven Hills/Wilmor annexation areas. Improvements needed to serve Area C are shown on Figure 10-1. Trunk Sewer C drains to future Pump-Station C, which would pump to existing sewers in Basin 16. Relief Sewer Extension 16C is needed to provide adequate capacity for the additional flow to sewers in Basin 16. Relief Sewer Extension 16C serves an additional 200 acres in Basin 16. Preliminary sizing of the trunk sewers is based on serving a development factor of 2.5 people per acre of drainage area served. Project cost estimate for improvements to serve Area C is $2.8 million as summarized in Table 10-6. 10.7 IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE OUTLYING AREA D Area D includes about 1600 acres located south of the city limits and southeast of Highway 54. This area includes the future Route 179 extension. 10-5 1 i I ' � I Improvements needed to serve Area D are shown on Figure 10-1. Trunk Sewer D drains to the recommended Green Meadow Sewer Extension. As discussed previously, it is economically feasible to upsize improvements in outlying Areas D and E to eliminate Southridge Pump Station and combine Idlewood Pump Station with future Pump Station E (Option B, pump to future Trunk D). Idlewood Pump Station currently serves Basin 8. Preliminary sizing of Trunk Sewer D is based on carrying wet weather peak flow in Basin 8 from the 10-year design storm (with I/I control program) as well as serving a development factor of 2.5 people per acre of future drainage area served. The project cost estimate for improvements to serve Area D is $3.3 million as summarized in Table 10-6. This does not include the Green Meadow Sewer Extension. 10.8 IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE OUTLYING AREAS E AND F Area E includes about 750 acres located south of the city limits and is intersected by Highway 54. This area includes the Route CC annexation area. Area F includes about 2000 acres located south of the city limits. Some of this area is included in the Frog Hollow high priority annexation area. - Improvements needed to serve Area E and Area F are shown on Figure 10-1. Trunk Sewers E and F drain to future Pump Station E. As discussed previously, it is economically feasible to upsize improvements in outlying Area E to eliminate the existing Idlewood Pump Station in Drainage Basin 8. Idlewood Pump Station is eliminated by construction of Idlewood Sewer Extension to future Trunk Sewer E. Pump Station E is proposed to pump to future Trunk Sewer D. Recommended improvements to eliminate Idlewood Pump.Station (Option B-pump to future Trunk D) are shown on Figure 10-1 and include the following: • Idlewood Sewer Extension • Upsizing Trunk Sewer E to carry flow from Basin 8 as well as Area E • Upsizing Pump Station E to handle flow from Basin 8 as well as Areas E&F _. • Force Main E to carry flow from Pump Station E to future Trunk D Extension • Trunk D Extension to carry flow to future Trunk D 10-6 � j I � I Preliminary sizing of Trunk Sewer E (upsized for Option B) and Trunk D Extension is based on carrying the design wet weather peak flow generated in Basin 8 from the 10-year design storm (with I/I control program). In addition, they are sized to serve a development factor of 2.5 people per acre of future area served. Preliminary sizing of Trunk Sewer F is based on serving a development factor of 2.5 people per acre of drainage area served. ! Project cost estimates for improvements to serve Area E and Area.F are $2.9 million and $1.4 million,respectively, as summarized in Table 10-6. 10.9 SEWER EXTENSIONS IN BASIN 10-FROG HOLLOW AREA The area south of the city limits near Frog Hollow Road and future Route 179 extension in Drainage Basin 10 is the high priority annexation area of Frog Hollow. Two sewer extensions - needed to serve this area are shown on Figure 10-1. Sewer Extension 1 (located east of Frog Hollow Road) serves an -area of about 550 acre. Sewer Extension 2 (located west of Frog Hollow Road) serves an area of about 250 acres). Preliminary sizing of the sewer extensions is based on serving a development factor of 2.5 people per acre. Project cost estimates for the two sewer extensions to serve the Frog Hollow area are $504,000 - each, as summarized in Table 10-7. I I I i 10-7 r- I i � TABLE 10-1 ELIMINATE GREEN MEADOW PUMP STATION Estimated Project Cost Upgrade Eliminate Collection System Improvements Green Meadow PS Green Meadow PS Upgrade Green Meadow Pump Station 472,000 na New Green Meadow Force Main 171,000 na Relief Sewer 4B 174,000 na _ Upgrade Moreau Pump Station 1,528,000 1,840,000 Green Meadow Sewer Extension na 790,000 Total 2,345,000 2,630,000 10-8 � i TABLE 10-2 ELIMINATE`SOUTB RIDGE PUMP STATION Estimated Project Cost Upgrade Eliminate Collection System Improvements Southridge PS Southridge PS Upgrade Southridge Pump Station 60,000 not applicable Relief Sewer 9B 866,000 433,000 Relief Sewer 9A(partial) 885,000 885,000 Southridge Sewer Extension(8" and F 10", 50001f) not applicable 722,000 Total 1,811,000 2,040,000 r --I , f i !I 10-9 3 � i I TABLE 10-3 ALTERNATIVES TO ELIMINATE IDLEWOOD PUMP STATION Estimated Project Costs Upgrade Idlewood PS Eliminate Idlewood PS Eliminate Idlewood PS Collection System Improvements Pump to Basin 9 Option A:.Pump to Basin 9 Option B:Pump to Future Trunk D Upgrade Idlewood Pump Station 900,000 na na New Idlewood Force Main 1,331,000 na na Trunk E 840,000 1,093,000 1,093,000 Pump Station E 200,000 900,000. 840,000 Force Main E 66.5,000 .2,425,000 959,000 Idlewood Sewer Extension 'na 413,000 413,000 Trunk D 2,521,000 2,521,000 3,302,000 Trunk D Extension na na 321,000 Upgrade Moreau Pump Station _ (eliminate Green Meadow PS) 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,900,000 New Moreau Force Main 893,000 893,000 957,000 Green Meadow Sewer Extension 790,000 790,000 846,000 Relief Sewer 6A 3,560,000 3,560,000 4,152,000 Relief Sewer 7A 5,697,000 5,697,000 7,988,000 Relief Sewer 9A 3,040,000 3,040,000 885,000 , Relief Sewer 11A 10,292,000 10,292,600 3,220,000 Total 32,500,000 33,400,000 26,900,000 10-10 TABLE 10-4 ELIMINATE IDLEWOOD PUMP STATION Approximate Collection System Improvements Preliminary Length Revised for Option B-Pump to Future Trunk D Size (feet) Trunk E 18" 5,000 -I Pump Station E 2400 gpm na Force Main E 14" 7.,000 Idlewood Sewer Extension 15" 2,400 Trunk D 24" 14,700 Trunk D Extension 12" 2,000 Upgrade Moreau Pump Station(eliminate Green Meadow PS) 7100 gpm na New Moreau Force Main 20" 5,900 Green Meadow Sewer Extension 24" 3,100 Relief Sewer 6A 18"-36" 9,500 Relief Sewer 7A 36"-48" 6,000 Relief Sewer 9A 15"-18" 2,600 Relief Sewer I IA 30"-42" 4,600 r i 10-11 r + TABLE 10-5 ELIMINATE OUTLYING PUMP STATIONS Approximate Estimated Pump Station to Diameter Length Project Cost be Eliminated Improvements (inch) (feet) (Yr 2000 $) Comments Scholastic Scholastic Sewer Extension 8 3,500 353,000 Connect to future Trunk Sewer A Westport Westport Sewer Extension 8 2,300 233,000 Connect to exisiting Covington Gardens Interceptor Iven Iven Sewer Extension 8 2,500 252,000 Connect to existing sewer 3a Gun Club Gun Club Sewer Extension 8 . 5,500 555,000 Connnect to existing Grays Creek Interceptor Randall & Dover Randall/Dover Sewer Extension 8 & 10 9,000 1,023,000 Connnect to existing Grays Creek Interceptor T-Road T-Road Sewer Extension 8 10,000 1,007,000 Connnect to existing Grays Creek Interceptor Woodward Woodward Sewer Extension 8 3,500 353,000 Connect to existing Grays Creek Interceptor Binder Sewer Extension, Gravity sewer around west side of Binder Lake and Binder& T-Road (including T-Road Sewer Exten.) 8 & 24 15,500 7,278,000 connect to Grays Creek Interceptor 10-12 TABLE 10-6 PROJECT COST ESTIMATES TO SERVE OUTLYING AREAS Collection System Improvements Approx. Length Project Cost Estimate Area Improvement Size (feet) (Year 2000$) A Trunk Sewer A 15" 5,000 858,000 Pump Station A 200 gpm na 240,000 j Force Main A 6" 4,000 401,000 Subtotal Area A, million $ 1.5 B Trunk Sewer B 15" 7,000 1,334,000 C Trunk Sewer C 12" 7,000 1,122,000 Relief Sewer Extn 16C 12" 7,000 1,341,000 Pump Station C 260 gpm na 280,000 Force Main C 6" 800 87,000 Subtotal Area C, million $ 2.8 Trunk Sewer D-revised to D eliminate Idlewood PS, Option B 24" 14,700 3,302_,000 Trunk Sewer E-revised to eliminate E Idlewood PS 18" 5,000 1,093,000 Pump Station E-revised to eliminate Idlewood PS, Option B 2400 gpm na 840,000 Force Main E-revised to eliminate _ Idlewood PS, Option B 14" 7,000 959,000 Subtotal Area E, million $ 2.9 F Trunk Sewer F 15" 7,500 1,421,000 ' 1 10-13 TABLE 10-7 BASIN 10-FROG HOLLOW AREA IMPROVEMENTS Approximate Diameter Length Project Cost Estimate Collection System.Improvement (inch) (feet) (Year 2000$) Sewer Extension Number 1 8 5,000 504,000 Sewer Extension Number2 8 5,000 - 504,000 5 - • I I 1 t 10-14 DDWAR 13 (WES/11NGHOUSE JEFFERSON >-A CITY WPCF 2 WALNUT STREET H WY 50 RIVERSIDE PARK WINDRIVER HAAF �O �a&9CD 10 N HILLS P S 1?A 10 SOUT-'IDLE HWY C 5 3 RUNK SEWER A --- LEGEND ,3 DRAINAGE BASIN NUMBERS STUDY AREA/MAJOR DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY ■ PUMP STATION EXISTING SEWER SYSTEM IDLEWOOD TRUNK SEWER SCHOLASTIC UMP STATION C MOREAU REEN MEADOW WER EXTEN .ION EN MEAD t W TRUNK SEWER B C U. TRUNK ~ SEWER F EXISTING FORCE MAIN SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS CITY LIMITS LEWOOD SEWER XTENSION TRUNK SEWE PUMP STATION E FIGURE 10-1 SERVICE TO OUTLYING AREAS A THROUGH F BONITA PASEO 0 c cr HWY 54 SYLVAN HILLS CEDAR CITY HAYSELTON ST. MARTINS #2 ST. MARTINS T -ROAD (S) ■ ■ ST. MARTINS #1 (N) N w A LEGEND 3 DRAINAGE BASIN NUMBERS STUDY AREA/MAJOR DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY • PUMP STATION EXISTING SEWER SYSTEM EXISTING FORCE MAIN SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 94 NGHOUSE JEFFERSON CITY WPCF 2 WALNUT STREET WESTVIEW .i Il�� IIIESTPORT SEWER 76, 10 WESTPORT.--\ XTENSIONcc t cc ' l� - ` CO GTON ii HWY C GARD 0 - /c� s IVEN SE EXTENSION RIVERSIDE PARK WINDRIVER HAAF EADOW SCHOLASTIC SCHOLASTIC SEWER EXTENSION FIGURE 10-2 - -11.• UMP STATION A RUNK SEWER A GRAVITY SEWER EXTENSIONS SECTION 11 SCHEDULE OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS For dry weather conditions, the existing wastewater collection system is adequate for the 20-year study period. However, during wet weather conditions, sanitary sewers receive substantial storm water flows from infiltration and inflow sources. Once sewer capacity has been reached, surcharge conditions and ultimately sanitary sewer system overflows occur. Collection systems continue to deteriorate over time, allowing increased quantities of storm water to enter the sanitary sewer system during wet weather. A program to identify and correct infiltration and inflow sources is recommended to s improve the collection system condition and reduce wet weather peak flows. Even with reduction of infiltration and inflow, significant improvements to the wastewater collection system are needed to provide adequate capacity to carry design wet weather peak flows to the wastewater treatment plant. In addition to relief sewer and pump station upgrades needed to improve the existing collection system, new wastewater facilities are needed for future growth areas that are outside the current service area. This section suggests a phased approach to implement the recommended I/I control program and collection system improvements necessary to provide a wastewater i collection system with adequate capacity for the future. 11.1 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS Recommended wastewater collection system improvements,with I/I control program also implemented, are shown in Figure 11-1. Improvements are shown in different colors to represent the five project phases. J 11-1 Estimated project costs for recommended collection system improvements are summarized in Table 11-1. Improvements are grouped by type of project. The UI control program includes inflow identification and correction in all basins except 1,2 and 4. It also includes infiltration identification and correction to reduce wet weather peak flows and influence of Missouri River in basins 7, 8, 11 through 19 and 21. I } Relief sewer, pump station and force main improvements are based-on eliminating Green Meadow, Southridge and Idlewood pump stations. The recommended alternative for eliminating Idlewood Pump Station (Option B) involves directing Basin 8 flows to future Pump Station E in Area E, with the combined flows pumped to future Area D. Improvements to outlying Areas D and E are therefore also based .on eliminating Idlewood Pump Station by this alternative. The total estimated project cost for the recommended wastewater collection system improvements is $135.6 million. The Master Plan gives the City the recommended wastewater system improvements and conceptual sizing of these improvements. Priorities for implementation of the improvements may be modified based on the results of future sewer studies as well as the timing of future growth. Based'on current anticipated wastewater loading requirements, recommended wastewater collection system improvement projects are grouped and prioritized in five phases to address the following goals: • Accommodate growth in outlying targeted annexation areas and relieve overloaded downstream facilities • Minimize sanitary sewer overflow potential during wet weather to high priority waters • Minimize overflow potential by frequency of occurrence Providing sewer improvements in locations adjacent to current city limits encourages growth to occur in areas accessible to annexation. This future growth adds to the city population and thus increases revenues generated. However, adding wastewater flows to downstream facilities that are already overloaded can increase potential for or frequency of sanitary sewer overflows. Therefore,,improvements to outlying areas are coupled with 11-2 improvements to address capacity deficiencies in the downstream sewers and pump stations, including I/I control in affected drainage basins. Two targeted high priority waters that could be affected by future growth are the Moreau River and Renns Lake. The Moreau River is located south and east of the city. Its designated beneficial uses include livestock and wildlife watering, protection of warm water aquatic life and human health, whole body contact recreation and boating. Renns Lake is located in a residential community in Basin 8, north of the intersection of Route CC and Highway 54. Addressing the wastewater collection system needs in the vicinity of these waters is given a high priority to protect their beneficial uses. As discussed in Section 9, Wastewater Collection System Analysis, significant portions of the collection system are of inadequate capacity for wastewater peak flows that occur during wet weather. Figure 9-1 identifies the portions of the system that are overloaded under various wet weather conditions even with peak flow reductions anticipated following the recommended I/I control program. Facilities that are overloaded for the wet weather peak flows generated from the 2-year design storm are given highest priority due to the frequency(every other year) of potential surcharge and overflow conditions. Due to the large number and expense of collection system improvements, projects are grouped in five phases that cover a span of twenty-five years. Project phasing is discussed in the following sections. 11.2 PHASE I IMPROVEMENTS (5-YEAR) Phase I improvements address wastewater collection system needs in Basin 10. Basin 10 includes the high priority annexation area of Frog Hollow as well as the future Route 179 extension. Recommended improvements (shown in dark blue on Figure 11-1) include the following: • Sewer extensions in Frog Hollow, a high priority annexation area • I/I control program in Basins 8, 9, 10 and 11 ' • Relief of overloaded sewers in Basin 10 11-3 Project cost estimates for Phase I improvements are summarized in Table 11-2. Two sewer extensions are recommended east and west of Frog Hollow Road. Because significant sections of the gravity sewers downstream of the extensions in Basin 10 are overloaded for the 2-year design storm, Relief Sewer 10A is included in the Phase I improvements. UI control program in Basins 9, 10 and 11 are recommended to reduce wet weather flows in the sewers downstream of the proposed sewer extensions and to r define Relief Sewer l0A requirements. M control program in Basin 8 is recommended due to the poor structural and mechanical condition of Idlewood Pump Station, which is located at the downstream end of Basin 8. z Although scheduled to.be eliminated in the Phase 11-High Priority Area Improvements, its current condition may warrant more immediate action. Flow monitoring in Basin 8 indicated significant infiltration and inflow into the sanitary sewers. An UI control program in Basin 8 will assist in defining any necessary Idlewood Pump Station interim improvements. The total project cost estimate for Phase I-Basin 10 improvements is $12.0 million. Project cost estimates include construction, engineering and contingency and are based on Year 2000 dollars. 11.3 PHASE II IMPROVEMENTS (10 YEAR) Phase II improvements address wastewater collection system needs in outlying areas A, D, E and F, as well as downstream facilities impacted by improvements in these area. Phase II improvements also address collection system needs to minimize overflow potential to Moreau River and Renns Lake. Area A Area A includes the high priority annexation area of Algoa. Recommended _ improvements to serve Area A (shown in orange on Figure 11-1) include new trunk - sewers and a pump station to direct flows east across the Moreau River. Evaluation of wastewater facilities east of Moreau River are beyond the scope of this Master Plan, but 11-4 are expected to be adequate for the additional flows from Area A. Project cost estimates for Phase II-Area A improvements are summarized in Table 11-3 The total project cost estimate for Phase II-Area A improvements is $1.5 million. Project cost estimates include construction, engineering and contingency and are based on Year 2000 dollars. Area D Area D includes the future Route 179 extension that is expected to encourage growth in this area. Recommended improvements (shown in orange on Figure 11-1) to serve Area D include: • Trunk Sewer D • I/I control program in Basins 3, 6, 7 and 19 • Upgrade of Moreau Pump Station and force main • Relief of overloaded sewers in Basins 4 and 6 • Sewer extensions to eliminate Green Meadow and Southridge pump stations I Project cost estimates for Phase II-Area D improvements are summarized in Table 11-4. Trunk Sewer D extends west along the Moreau River and connects to the proposed Green �.J Meadow Sewer Extension. This gravity sewer extension eliminates the existing Green Meadow Pump Station and drains to the Moreau Pump Station. The Green Meadow Pump Station is overloaded for the 2-year design storm. Because Moreau Pump Station is presently overloaded for the 2-year design storm, a new (— Moreau Pump Station (and force main) is included in the Phase II improvements. With the upgrade of Moreau Pump Station, most of the downstream gravity sewers in Basin 6 are overloaded for the 2-year design storm and Relief Sewer 6A is recommended. Relief Sewer 4A is included to relieve a small section of sewer upstream of Moreau Pump Station that is overloaded for the 2-year design storm. 11-5 i Southridge Sewer Extension is included to eliminate the Southridge Pump Station. This sewer extension provides wastewater collection for areas within the city limits and portions of Area D that are near the future Route 179 extension. I/I control program in Basins 3, 6, 7 and 19 is recommended to reduce wet weather flows in this section of the wastewater collection system and to define pump station and relief sewer requirements. The total project cost estimate for Phase II-Area D improvements is $15.4 million. Project cost estimates include construction, engineering and contingency and are based ` on Year 2000 dollars. Areas E and F Area E includes part of the future Route 179 extension that is expected to encourage growth in this area. Area F includes part of the Frog Hollow high priority annexation area. There are several isolated lagoon and package wastewater treatment plants that could be eliminated with sewer improvements in Areas E and F. Recommended improvements (shown in orange on Figure 11-1)to serve Areas E and F include: • Trunk Sewers E and F • Pump Station E(and force main) • I/I control program in Basin 5 • Relief of overloaded sewers in Basins 7, 8 and 19 • Sewer extensions to eliminate Idlewood Pump Station —f Project cost estimates for Phase II-Areas E and F improvements are summarized in Table 11-5. Trunk Sewer E extends south across Highway 54 to Pump Station E. Idlewood Sewer Extension drains to the proposed Trunk Sewer E and eliminates the existing Idlewood Pump Station. Idlewood Pump Station is overloaded for the 2-year design storm and is in poor condition. Pump Station E pumps to Trunk D Extension, that carries flows to Trunk Sewer D to ultimately reach Moreau Pump Station. j T 11-6 With the addition of flows to Moreau Pump Station, the downstream gravity sewers in Basin 7 and potentially Basin 19 are overloaded for the 2-year design storm and Relief Sewers 7A and 19A are recommended. Relief Sewer 8A is included to relieve the sewers in Basin 8 that are overloaded for the 2-year design storm. I/I control program in Basin 5 is recommended to reduce wet weather flows in this section of the wastewater collection system. The total project cost estimate for Phase II-Area E and Area F improvements is $18.2 million. Project cost estimates include construction, engineering and contingency and are t based on Year 2000 dollars. 11.4 PHASE III IMPROVEMENTS (15-YEAR) Phase III improvements address relief of remaining sections of the wastewater collection system within the city limits that are overloaded for the 2-year design storm. Phase III improvements also include the upgrade of several older major pump stations. Recommended improvements(shown in brown on Figure 11-1) include the following: • I/I control program in Basins 5, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 • Relief of overloaded sewers in Basins 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 • Upgrade of Riverside Park Pump Station(and new force main) • Upgrade of aging pump stations-Indian Hills, Westinghouse and Hayselton Project cost estimates for Phase III improvements are summarized in Table 11-6. Relief Sewers 12A, 13A (downstream portion), 14A, 15A, 16A (downstream portion) and 16C are included to relieve the sewers in the corresponding basins that are overloaded for the 2-year design storm. Riverside Park Pump Station is overloaded for the 2-year design storm as well. I/I control program in Basins 5 and 12 through 18 is recommended to reduce wet weather flows and to define relief sewer and Riverside Pump Station requirements. I 11-7 Indian Hills,-Westinghouse and Hayselton.pump stations will be approaching 40 to 60 years of service within the study period. This is beyond the expected design life for pump stations. Indian Hills Pump Station is overloaded for design wet weather peak flows and currently overflows to a retention pond. The condition of the retention pond is questionable. Westinghouse Pump Station is overloaded for the design wet weather peak flow. Both Westinghouse and Hayselton pump stations are in fair condition. Therefore, upgrades for Indian Hills, Westinghouse and Hayselton pump stations are included in the Phase III improvements. The total project cost estimate for Phase III improvements is $28.8 million. Project cost - estimates include construction, engineering and contingency and are based on Year 2000 dollars. 11.5 PHASE IV IMPROVEMENTS (20-YEAR) Phase IV improvements address relief of those sections of the wastewater collection system in Grays Creek drainage basin (Basins 20 and 21) that are generally overloaded for the 2-year design storm. Cole County Regional Sewer District constructed the -- wastewater collection system in Grays"Creek drainage basin in the early 1980's. Since the district's bankruptcy, the City was ordered to assume responsibility for the collection facilities. Recommended improvements (shown in green on Figure 11-1) include the following: • I/I control program in Basins 20 and 21 • Relief of overloaded sewers in Basins 13, 20 and 21 • Upgrade of Cole Junction and Binder pump stations (and new force mains) Project cost estimates for Phase IV improvements are summarized in Table 11-7. Relief - Sewers 13C, 20A (downstream portion), and 21A are included to relieve the sewers in the -corresponding basins that are overloaded for the 2-year design storm. Cole Junction 3_ Pump Station is overloaded for the 2-year design storm as well. Binder Pump Station is l _ overloaded for the 5-year design storm. 11-8 Relief sewer requirements in Grays Creek drainage basin alone represent over one- quarter of the relief sewer project costs. Because sewers in Grays Creek drainage basin are of relatively new construction, limited flow monitoring.was conducted in this section of the sewer system. Consistent with other drainage basins, I/I quantities were distributed evenly throughout the large sewer system in Gray Creek drainage basin. An I/I control program in this basin is recommended to identify the actual location of I/I sources to more accurately apply wet weather flows to the sewer system and thus better define relief sewer and pump station requirements. The total project cost estimate for Phase IV-Grays Creek improvements is $31.0 million. 'i Project cost estimates include construction, engineering and contingency and are based on Year 2000 dollars 11.6 PHASE V IMPROVEMENTS (25-YEAR) i , Phase V improvements address relief of those sections of the wastewater collection system that are overloaded for the 5-year and 10-year design storms. Phase V improvements also include the upgrade of three major pump stations. Recommended improvements (shown in light purple on Figure 11-1) include the following: • Relief of overloaded sewers in Basins 5, 9, 13, 16 and 20 • Upgrade,of major pump stations-Westview, Cedar City and Covington Project cost estimates for Phase V improvements are summarized in Table 11-8. Relief Sewers 5A, 9B, 9A, 13B, 16A (upstream portion) and 20A (upstream portion) are included to relieve the sewers in the corresponding basins that are overloaded for the 5- year design storm. Relief Sewers 3A, 11A (upstream portion), 13A (upstream portion), 21B and 21C are included to relieve the sewers in the corresponding basins that are overloaded for the 10-year design storm. Three pump stations will be approaching 30 to 40 years of service within the study period, exceeding the expected design life for pump stations. Upgrades for Westview, s Cedar City-and Covington pump stations are included in the Phase IV improvements. 11-9 The total project cost estimate for Phase V improvements is $14.5 million. Project cost estimates include construction, engineering and contingency and are based on Year 2000 dollars. 11.7 ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS Improvements to the wastewater collection system that may be needed in the future include providing service to outlying Areas B and C. In addition, many small pump stations in outlying areas of the service area could be eliminated with sewer extensions to i main interceptors. fAdditional projects to improve the wastewater collection system and associated estimated project costs are summarized in Table 11-9. Trunk Sewer B is needed to provide service to Area B and drains to future Trunk Sewer A. Trunk Sewer C is needed to provide service to Area C. It drains to Pump Station C that directs flows to an existing gravity sewer in Basin 16. Relief Sewer Extension 16C is needed to carry the additional flows -- from Area C. Future improvements to serve Area B and Area C are shown on Figure 10- I (Section 10). Pump stations in outlying areas of the collection system can be eliminated with gravity sewer extensions as funds become available or as growth in the sewer extension service area develops. Future gravity sewer extensions to eliminate pump stations are shown on Figure 10-2 (Section 10). The total project cost estimate for additional system improvements is $14.2 million. Project cost estimates include construction, engineering and contingency and are based - on Year 2000 dollars. 11.8 SUMMARY i � Recommended improvements to the wastewater collection system are summarized by recommended project phases in Table 11-10. The City may wish to make each phase the basis for a five-year improvement program. All costs are in Year 2000 dollars and must 11-10 be escalated if implemented in future years. Estimated project costs for the recommended system improvements include $4.0 million for infiltration/inflow identification program, $18.0 million for infiltration/inflow correction program and $113.6 million for capital improvement projects. i i i I it t ; I 11-11 TABLE 11-1 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS TO WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM Project Cost Estimates Reference Tables for Collection System Improvements (Year 2000$) Cost Estimates Infiltration/Inflow Source Detection Program 4.0 Table 7-7 Infiltration/Inflow Correction Program 18.0 Table 7-7, Relief Sewers: revised to eliminate Green Meadow, Tables 9-2, 10-1, ' Southridge and Idlewood(Option B)pump stations 71.8 10-2, 10-3 _ Pump Station Improvements:revised to eliminate j Green Meadow, Southridge and Idlewood(Option B) Tables 9-4, 10-1, pump stations 10.1 10-2, 10-3 Force Main Replacements:revised to eliminate Green Meadow; Southridge and Idlewood(Option B)pump Tables 9-4, 10-1, stations 5A 10-2, 10-3 Sewer Extensions to Eliminate Green Meadow, _ Southridge and Idlewood(Option B)pump stations 2.3 Tables 10-2, 10,3 1 Eliminate outlying pump stations 10.0 Table 10-5 Improvements to serve outlying areas 14.3 Tables 10-6, 10-7 , I Total Project Cost Estimate 135.6 r f i 11-12 TABLE 11-2 PHASE I: BASIN 10 IMPROVEMENTS (Implement by 2005) Estimated Project Cost Subtotal s ` Project (Year 2000$) (mil$) _ I/I Investigation and Correction: Basin 8 523,000 I/I Investigation and Correction: Basin 9 865,000 I/I Investigation and Correction: Basin 10 1,023,000 I/I Investigation and Correction: Basin 11 3,340,000 " Subtotal UI Investigation and Correction Program 5.7 I Basin 10 Gravity Sewer Extension No. 1 (west of Frog Hollow Road) 504,000 Basin 10 Gravity Sewer Extension No. 2 (east of Frog Hollow Road) 504,000 1.0 Relief Sewer l0A(majority overloaded for 2yr-6hr storm) 5,334,000 5.3 Total 12.0 : i f J� 11-13 TABLE 11-3 PHASE IIA: HIGH PRIORITY AREA AREA A IMPROVEMENTS (Implement by 2010) Estimated Project Cost Subtotal Project (Year 2000$) (mil$) Trunk Sewer A 858,000 Pump Station A(pump across Moreau River) 240,937 Force Main A 401,000 Total 1.5 i r - 17 11-14 i TABLE 11-4 PHASE IIB: HIGH PRIORITY AREAS AREA D IMPROVEMENTS (Implement by 2010) Estimated Project Cost Subtotal Project (Year 2000$) (mil$) I/I Investigation and Correction: Basin 3 550,000 I/I Investigation and Correction: Basin 6 623,000 I/I Investigation and Correction: Basin 7 1,716,000 '- 1/I Investigation and Correction: Basin 19 386,000 Subtotal I/I Investigation and Correction Program 3.3 - Green Meadow Sewer Extension(revised to include Basin 8 flow) 846,000 New Moreau Pump Station(revised to include Basin 8 flow) 1,876,586 ! New Moreau Force Main(revised to include Basin 8 flow) 957,000 Trunk Sewer D (revised to include Basin 8 flow) 3,302,000 Southridge Sewer Extension' 722,000 , 7.7 ( Relief Sewer 4A(overloaded for 2yr-6hr storm) 259,000 Relief Sewer 6A(revised to include Basin 8 flow, overloaded for 2 yr storm) 4,152,000 4.4 Total 15.4 f } 11-15 TABLE 11-5 PHASE.IIC: HIGH PRIORITY AREAS AREA E AND AREA F IMPROVEMENTS (Implement by 2010) Estimated Project Cost Subtotal Project (Year 2000$) (mil$) I/I Investigation and Correction: Basin 5 714,600 ! Subtotal I/I Investigation and Correction'Program 0.7 Pump Station E-revised to include Basin 8 flow and pump to Future Trunk D 842,614 Force Main E-revised to include Basin 8 flow and pump to Future Trunk D' 959,000 Idlewood Sewer Extension 413,000 Trunk Sewer E-revised to include Basin 8 flow 1,093,000 Trunk D Extension 321,006 Trunk Sewer F 1,421,000 5.0 Relief Sewer 7A(revised to include Basin 8 flow, overloaded for 2-yr storm) 7,988,000 Relief Sewer 8A(overloaded for 2-yr storm) 1,143,000 Relief Sewer 19A 3,300,000 12.4 Total 18.2 ' 4 11-16 TABLE 11-6 PHASE III: SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS FOR 2-YEAR.DESIGN STORM (Implement by 2015) (excluding Grays Creek Drainage Basin) Estimated Project Cost Subtotal Project (Year,2000$) (mil$) _ UI Investigation and Correction: Basin 12 2,281,400 I/1 Investigation and Correction: Basin 13 2,123,000 I/I Investigation and Correction: Basin 14 776,240 I/I Investigation and Correction: Basin 15 528,000 I/I Investigation and Correction: Basin 16 1,960,000 I/I Investigation and Correction: Basin 17 1,672,000_ I/I Investigation and Correction:.Basin 18 545,000 Subtotal I/I Investigation and Correction Program 9.9 Riverside Park Pump Station Improvements 1,431,373 Riverside Park New Force Main 972,000 Indian Hills Pump Station Improvements 417,586. Indian Hills New Force Main, 258,000 Upgrade Westinghouse PS (built 1971, same size as Holts Summit PS) 568,608 New Westinghouse Force.Main(over 40 yrs by 2020) 291;000 Upgrade Hayselton Pump Station(built in 1950s,pumps replaced 1983) 429,040 New Hayselton Force Main(over 40 yrs by 2020) 314,000 4.7 ( Relief Sewer 12A(overloaded for 2yr-6hr storm) 2,732,000 Relief Sewer 13A-Downstream (overloaded for 2yr-6hr storm, remaining for 10 yr; assume 50%of cost) 1,466,500 Relief Sewer 14A (overloaded for 2-yr storm) 6,661,000 Relief Sewer 15A (significant.portion overloaded for 2-yr storm) 1,514,000 Relief Sewer 16A-Downstream(About 50% sewer overloaded for 2yr storm) 1,452,500 Relief Sewer 16C (overloaded for 2-yr storm) 361,000 14.2 Total 28,8 11-17 r- 7 � 1,. t I t TABLE 11-7 PHASE IV: GRAYS CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN IMPROVEMENTS (Implement by 2020) Estimated Project Cost Subtotal Project (Year 2000$) (mil$) I/I Investigation and Correction: Basin 20 626,940 _f I/I Investigation and Correction: Basin 21 1,715,062 Subtotal I/I Investigation and Correction Program 2.3 Cole Junction Pump Station Improvements 3,412,035 Cole Junction New Force Main 1,755,000 Binder Pump Station Improvements 1,157,511 Binder New Force Main 574,000 6.9 Relief Sewer 13C (overloaded for 2yr-6hr storm) 1,223,000 Relief Sewer 20A-Downstream(overloaded for 2yr-6hr storm,remaining for r i 10 yr, assume 50% of cost) 1,058,500 r Relief Sewer 21A(overloaded for 2-yr storm) 19,502,000- 21.8 , t Total 31.0 7 j i i i 3 1 11-18 TABLE 11-8 PHASE V: SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS FOR 5 YEAR AND 10 YEAR DESIGN STORMS (Implement by 2025) Estimated Project Cost Subtotal Project (Year 2000$) (mil$) - Relieve system overloaded for 5-year design storm Upgrade Westview Pump Station 507,792 Relief Sewer 5A 1,009,000 Relief Sewer 9B (assumes elimination of Southridge PS) 433,000 Relief Sewer 9A(without flow from Basin 8) 885,000 Relief Sewer 13B 822,000 Relief Sewer 16A-Upstream(assume 50%of cost) 1,452,500 Relief Sewer 20A-Upstream(assume 50%of cost) 1,058,500 Total: Relieve system overloaded for 5-year design storm 6.2 Relieve system overloaded for 10-year design storm Upgrade Covington Pump Station 239,200 Upgrade Cedar City Pump Station 55,016 Relief Sewer 3A 852,000 Relief Sewer 11A-Upstream(without Basin 8 flow, overloaded for 10 yr) 3,220,000 Relief Sewer 13A-Upstream(assume 50%of cost) 1,466,500 Relief Sewer 21B 605,000 Relief Sewer 2 1 C 1,817,400 Total: Relieve system overloaded for 10-year design storm 8.3 Total Phase V System Improvements for 5-Year and 10-Year Design Storms 14.5 11-19 TABLE 11-9 ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS (Implement as Appropriate) Estimated Project Cost Subtotal Project (Year 2000$) (mil$) Trunk Sewer B. Provide for growth in Area B 1,334,000 1.3 Trunk Sewer C: Provide for growth in Area C 1,122,000 Relief Sewer Extn 16C: Provide for growth in Area C 1,341,000 Pump Station C: Provide for growth in Area C 276,817 4 ' Force Main C: Provide for growth in Area C 87,000 Subtotal Area C 2.8 Scholastic Sewer Extension 353,000 Westport Sewer Extension 233,000 Iven Sewer Extension 252,000 Gun Club Sewer Extension 555,000 Randall/Dover Sewer Extension 1,023,000 Woodward Sewer Extension 353,000 Binder%T-Road Sewer Extension 7,278,000 Subtotal Sewer Extenstions 10.0 i Total 14.2 i. r-- 11-20 TABLE 11-10 SCHEDULE OF IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY OF PROJECT PHASES Project Cost Estimates I/I UI Identification Correction Capital Recommended Project Phases Program Program Improvements Total Phase I: Basin 10 Improvements 1.1 4.6 6.3 12.0 Phase II: High Priority Areas Area D improvements and upgrade Moreau Pump Station 0.6 2.7 12.1 15.4 Areas E & F improvements and eliminate Idlewood Pump Station 0.1 0.6 17.5 18.2 Area A improvements-pump across Moreau River 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.5 Total Phase II 0.7 3.3 31.1 35.1 Phase III: System Improvements for 2-Year Design Storm (excluding Grays Creek Drainage Basin) 1.8 8.2 18.8 28.8 Phase IV: Grays Creek Drainage Basin Improvements 0.4 1.9 28.7 31.0 Phase V: System Improvements'for 5-Year and 10-Year Design Storms Relieve system overloaded for 5-year design storm 0.0 0.0 6.2 6.2 Relieve system overloaded for 10-year design storm 0.0 0.0 8.3 8.3 Total Phase V 0.0 0.0 14.5 14.5 Additional Improvements 0.0 0.0 14.2 14.2 Total 4.0 18.0 113.6 135.6 11-21 J 1 'N 21B w ELSTON ' ST. MARTINS ■T -ROAD ST. MARTINS #21(S) ■ ■ ST. MARTINS #1 (N) 21A 21A ti 2:0 /^ \ BONITA PASEO z RrF ii9 a y`y� c xi 0- 218ul COLE JUNCTION i IMPROVEMENTS 1 \ CEDAR CITY / 2 A ems► ri IMPROVEMENTS --\, \ SYLVAN HILLS `\2B ` RANDALL ■DOVE 0` 12 \ ! HAYSELTON\\ R / • r - l ■GUN CLUB \ . /� \� \ IMPROVEMENTS ' - 3A -DO STINGHOUS 1 \ , IMPROVEMENTS ■ `WOOQWARD \ fin_ !!! . 1 J4 srp{\ a Com\ JEFFERSON BINDER, • 4 qC i 15 ` : .� CITY WPCF IMPROVEMENTS / 13A-UPSTREA? ` �- 15A ' �� 2 20A -DOWNSTREAM 13 13B - --._19 : / WALNUT STREET 20A -UPSTREAM HWY 50 ----"..\�— - 4 HWY 54 rE 94 20 SEWER SION 2 WESTVIEW IMPROVEMENTS 11 LEGEND 3 DRAINAGE BASIN NUMBERS ------- STUDY AREA/MAJOR DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY IN PUMP STATION EXISTING SEWER SYSTEM EXISTING FORCE MAIN PHASE I IMPROVEMENTS mi•Nomir PHASE II IMPROVEMENTS •INEN• PHASE III IMPROVEMENTS PHASE IV IMPROVEMENTS PHASE V IMPROVEMENTS WESTPORT ■ '` 10A 11A `', RIVERSIDE PARK IMPROVEMENTS 16A-DOWNSTREAM —WINDRIVER r,o SEWER \ EXTENSION 1 ��o� i 1.11 COVINGTON GARDENS IMPROVEMENTS L 10 16C w1 1 HWY C IDLEWCOD (ELIMINATED) O 2 • ' E TRUNK "• J © SEWER F , r; TRUNK -E i 17 i MOREAU PUMP STATION E IDLEWOOD 'SEWER X ENSION� HWY gRTy 16 ST 5o/63 HAAF INDIAN HILLS IMPROVEMENTS 1 // \SCHOLASTIC I OVEltalTS\ \ \ 1 \ MEADOW - - E SION ©) \ ) f�UMP-� STATION A ��RU � OMR ANK TRUNK SEWER D1 - GREEN MEADOW (ELIMINATED) / FIGURE 11-1 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS (WITH 1/I CONTROL PROGRAM) Appendix A Flow Monitoring Summary Results Exhibit 3-1 Flow Monitoring -- Meter No. 3 (MH 184-05H) 3.5 1�J-eIen,,on_C' y,Miss-aur' 0.0 o.z 3.0 0.4 2.5 0.6 i N .. 0.8 2.0 \` 7 3 � � LL T N C o j iR 1.5 River Stage 1.2 Q (ft/10) _ 1 1.0 .4 1.6 0.5 - 1.8 0.0 2.0 Date Hourly Rainfall(in.) —Avg.Hrly Flowrates(cfs) River Stage(ft/10) Exhibit 4-1 Flow Monitoring -- Meter No. 4 (MH 182-15) Jefferson City, Missouri 4.0 TI 7 0.0 0.2 3.5 0.4 3.0 0.6 2.5 3 >° E O1 2.0 1.0 m >. N C O _ % W 1.2 Q 1.5 River Stage♦ _ (ft/10) 1.4 10 - 1.6 0.5 NQI1.8 0.0 2.0 Date Hourly Rainfall(in.) —Avg.Hrly.Flowrates(cfs) —River Stage(ft/10) Exhibit 5-1 Flow Monitoring -- Meter No. 5 (MH 083-07,11) 5.0 T� Jefferson City, Missouri 0.0 4.5 0.2 i 4.0 -- — --------- 0.4 3.5 0.6 3.0 0.8 m o E a °f 2.5 1.0 �a >. N C 7 >O 2.0 1.2 Q 2 1.5 1.4 River Stage (ft/10) 1.0 1.6 0.5 1.8 0.0o� 2.0 Date Hourly Rainfall(in.) —Avg.Hrly.Flowrates(cfs) River Stage(ft/10) 6 Exhibit 6-1 Flow Monitoring -- Meter No. 6 (MH 011-09A2) Jefferson City, Missouri 8.0 17, 0.0 7.5 0.2 7.0 6.5 0.4 6.0 - 5.5 - 0.6 5.0 — ---- ----- - — c 0.8 0 ar o � 4- 4.5 - _ 3 0 o d > n. 04.0 - 3 4.0 1.0 3.5 1.2 Z Q 3.0 0 2.5 AX Lit �L 1.4 2.0 A_UJ � 'OA il IL U P� fl, N_ ARiver 1.6 St A age (fu age(ful 0) 1.0 0.5 0.0 2.0 Date Hourly Rainfall(in.) —Avg.Hrly.Flowrates(cfs) River Stage(ft/10) Exhibit 7-1 Flow Monitoring -- Meter No. 7 (MH 011-0913) Jefferson City, Missouri 6.0 � �- ,� 0.0 5.5 — - 0.2 5.0 0.4 4.5 - - 0.6 4.0 " c 0-3.5 - 0.8 m 3 � E o e > L 03.0 - 1.0 �o O > 2 Im 2.5 1.2 a o x 2.0 1.4 River Stage (ft/10)� 1.5 1.6 1.0 1.8 0.5 0.0 2.0 pr Date Hourly Rainfall(in.) —Avg.Hrly.Flowrates(cfs) River Stage(ft/10) Exhibit 8-1 Flow Monitoring -- Meter No. 8 (MH 261-05A1) Jefferson City, Missouri 5.0 —r— -- r-----)� „ 0.0 4.5 -- — — 0.2 4.0 0.4 3.5 0.6 N C 3.0 0.8 d M 0 E L2 rn 2.5 1.0 ro N c is o a 2.0 1.2 c Q x 1.5 1.4 :::::���River)S�ta,e 1.0 1.6 tAl 0.5 1.8 n I n^ t data not available 2.0 0.0 aN am sa s: sa s eR ga b� Date Hourly Rainfall(in.) Avg.Hrly.Flowrates(cfs) River Stage(ft/10) NOTE: Flowmeter malfunction from April 6 to April 18, 1999 Exhibit 9-1 Flow Monitoring -- Meter No. 9 (MH 283-12A) Jefferson City, Missouri 6.0 T r,r— 0 5.5 0.2 5.0 - - 0.4 4.5 - - 0.6 4.0 - E 0.8 m a 63.5 - E o d � LL 3.0 0 1 w 0 fy jR 2.5 1.2 > o a x 2.0 1.4 River Stage (ft/10) kit �mw I ► 1.5 1.6 1.0 �4m�6k'-� Al 0.5 18 0.0 2 $ Date Hourly Rainfall(in.) Avg.Hrly.Flowrates(cfs) River Stage(ft/10) Exhibit 10-1 Flow Monitoring -- Meter No. 10 (MH 283-06) Jefferson City, Missouri 0.0 8.0 in 7.5 0.2 7.0 6.5 0.4 6.0 - - 0.6 5.5 H 5.0 c v 0.8 m o E 3 �.5 0 o d E10 - 1.0 >. y c o ;3.5 x � it � 1.2 � a 3.0 = River Stage(ft/10) 2.5 1.4 2.0 1 1.5 .6 WhWLAI �Am f I V k k TI 1 11 V k I I - 1 1.8 .0 0.5 0.0 2.0 Date Hourly Rainfall(in.) —Avg.Hrly.Flowrates(cfs) River Stage(ft/10) Exhibit 11A-1 Flow Monitoring -- Meter No. 11A (MH 011-20) Jefferson City, Missouri 15.0 � 0 140 -- -- 0.2 40 — 0.2 13.0 - 12.0 - 0.4 11.0 0.6 10.0 W C ,. 9.0 0.80 d C E o a, 8.0 j c to 7.0 0 Ol Q: o Z 6.0 1.2 . x 5.0 ' 1.4 4.0 3.0 1.6 4 River Stage(ft/10 2.0 1.8 1.0 data not available 0.0 2 Date Hourly Rainfall(in.) —Avg.Hrly.Flowrates(cfs) River Stage(ft./10) Exhibit 11 B-1 Flow Monitoring -- Meter No. 11B (MH 011-1613) Jefferson City, Missouri 3.0 0.0 2.8 -- 0.2 2.5 _ 0.4 2.3 ---- - 0.6 2.0 w c 0.8 a 1.8 B o > a N 1.5 1.0 River Stage c 'o L. (ft/10) 1.3 �\ 1.2 a o x 1.0 1.4 0.8 - - --- 1.6 0.5 1.8 0.3 0.0 2.0 p Date Hourly Rainfall(in.) —Avg.Hrly.Flowrates(cfs) River Stage(ft.11 b) Exhibit 12-1 Flow Monitoring -- Meter No. 12 (MH 342-03) Jefferson City, Missouri 5.0 � It��I� 0.0 45 0.2 4.0 0.4 3.5 0.6 � c _3.0 0.8 y o � �--River Stage (ft/10) o �► a 2.5 1.0 = to c o 2.0 1.2 Q C X 1.5 1.4 1.0 1.6 0.5 1.8 0.0 �-�» - -- �-T- - - 2.0 Date Hourly Rainfall(in.) —Avg.Hrly.Flowrates(cfs) River Stage(ft/10) Exhibit 13-1 Flow Monitoring -- Meter No. 13 (MH 314-05E) Jefferson City, Missouri 30 0 � 0 27.5 0.2 25.0 0.4 22.5 0.6 20.0 H C 0.8 ,. 17.5 E a > aIm 0 15.0 River Stage (ft) > 0 > _ 12.5 1.2 c a = 10.0 1.4 7.5 1.6 5.0 G 1.8 2.5 0.0t 2 a s � � $� Date Hourly Rainfall(in.) —Avg.Hrly.Flowrates(cfs) —River Stage(ft.) Exhibit 14-1 Flow Monitoring -- Meter No. 14 (MH 272-07) Jefferson City, Missouri 30.0 � 0 275 0.2 25.0 ' 0.4 22.5 0.6 20.0 - Ir N S 0.8 d m 17.5 E � � o 0 Im 1 aL 15.0 c N River Stage (ft) a c >•- 12.5 1.2 Q 2 10.0 1.4 7.5 1.6 5.0 1.8 2.5 0.0 2 Date Hourly Rainfall(in.) —Avg.Hrly.Flowrates(cfs) River Stage(ft.) Exhibit 15-1 Flow Monitoring -- Meter No. 15 (MH 304-08C) Jefferson City, Missouri 4.5 4.0 0 71 ' 0.2 0.4 3.5 0.6 3.0 0. m c E . 2.5 0 River Stage ► > (ft/10) 1 c N c 2.0 x it >. ¢ x 1.5 1.4 1.0 I 1.6 P 0.5 1.8 0.0 2 Date Hourly Rainfall(in.) Avg.Hrly.Flowrates(cfs) River Stage(ft./10) Exhibit 16-1 Flow Monitoring -- Meter No. 16 (MH 101=08) Jefferson City, Missouri 11.0 n� 0 10.0 0.2 9.0 0.4 8.0 0.6 7.0 0.8 y o E 2 3 6.0 - .2 m U. . e W 5 y 5.0 m o a 1.2 o a 4.0 _ 1.4 3.0 ./ River Stage ft/10) 1.6 2.0 1.0 data not 1.8 available 0.0 2 $ b s\ se s sm s o oR gN o $ $ o o$ Date Hourly Rainfall(in.) Avg.Hrly.Flowrates(cfs) River Stage(ft./10) Exhibit 17-1 Flow Monitoring -- Meter No. 17 (MH 101-14) Jefferson City, Missouri 5.5 0.2 5.0 0.4 4.5 0.6 40 _ N C y o 3.5 E m U. a N 3 .0 River Stage 1 c c (ft/10) J, _ i2 2.5 1.2 a x 2.0 - 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.0 1 0.5 .8 0.0 2 n Date Hourly Rainfall(in.) —Avg.Hrly.Flowrates(cfs) River Stage(ft./10) Exhibit 18-1 Flow Monitoring -- Meter No. 18 (MH 011-42A) Jefferson City, Missouri 30.0 � —�� 0 27.5 0.2 25.0 - 0.4 22.5 0.6 20.0 y C 0.8 m 17.5 o 0 0> > a 9 15.0 1 N River Stage (ft) ► c v o _ W 12.5 �f 1.2 0 Q o x 10.0 1.4 7.5ly 1.6 5.0 N'kkU1 2.5 .8 qNm� 0.0 a a s 2 Date Hourly Rainfall(in.) Avg.Hrly.Flowrates(cfs) River Stage(ft.) Exhibit 19-1 Flow Monitoring -- Meter No. 19 (MH 011-28G) Jefferson City, Missouri 40.0 — �— 0 37.5 -— — 0.2 35.0 - 32.5 0.4 30.0 27.5 0.6 River Stage(ft) _ 25.0 v 0.8 22.5 2 > 0 0► _ E 49 20.0 1 T N C d W 17.5 1.2 Q 15.0 x 12.5 1.4 10.0 1 7.5 .6 5.0 1.8 2.5 -- 0.0 -- 2 Date Hourly Rainfall(in.) —Avg.Hrly.Flowrates(cfs) River Stage(ft.) Exhibit 20-1 Flow Monitoring -- Meter No. 20 (MH GC-A) Jefferson City, Missouri 15.0 0.0 140 0.2 13.0 12.0 0.4 11.0 0.6 10.0 ^ c c 9.0 0.8 2 8.0 >o 1.0 LLw m 70 0 o > 6.0 1.2 > o a x 5.0 1.4 4.0 3.0 � River Stage fid/I Q 1.6 2.0 - ;U�1 1.8 1.0 -144"mmu"Wift M64� 0.02.0 d $„ 2N 6r eN g Date Hourly Rainfall(in.) —Avg.Hrly.Flowrates(cfs) River Stage(ft/10) Exhibit 21-1 Flow Monitoring -- Meter No. 21 (MH GC-1) 15.0 Jefferson City, Missouri 0 14.0 0.2 13.0 - 12.0 - 0.4 11.0 - - 0.6 10.0 N S °. 9.0 0.8 .� O 7 A 3 8.0 O LL 1 7a N 7.0 - 0 > 6.0 1.2 a' _ 5.0 1.4 4.0 3.0 1.6 � Iver age 2.0 1.8 1.0 _4k[WkTKAA!hIAI AWA .1d LkMUIA �.MWAWAI. N �LhAhk kK.AAIAIAhfl 41111141 V-�Vnj V PM4VV'N I V,V,rvvv.v V ppv if V V1117TV "V U �V� V V b'ry - rpp�j V pppp�Vw 0.0 2 Date Hourly Rainfall(in.) —Avg.Hrly.Flowrates(cfs) River Stage(ft/10)