Mather Interceptor Project

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL FORM FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS GREATER THAN $1 MILLION

MATHER INTERCEPTOR PROJECT A Project Development Plan (PDP) is prepared, reviewed, and approved during the capital delivery of a project. The PDP is initially prepared at the preliminary planning phase of a project and updated, as necessary, as the project becomes more defined. The PDP shall provide a clear and concise problem statement, provide background on the problem, identify constraints, list possible alternate solutions, evaluate each alternative, and provide a recommendation. This PDP has been prepared in accordance with guidelines developed by the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD). The PDP has been reviewed for completeness and is approved. Version: _______________ Project Team:

Senior Engineer

Date

Principal Engineer

Date

District Asset Management Coordinator

Date

Division Chief

Date

District Engineer

Date

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Mather Interceptor Project Development Plan (PDP) was prepared to address wastewater needs of the Mather and Aerojet sewer sheds in Rancho Cordova, California. County Sanitation District 1 (CSD-1) currently provides sewer collection services to this area via an interim pump station (Chrysanthy), which was designed to serve until the Mather Interceptor was brought online, initially scheduled for January 2015. However, growth in Rancho Cordova prior to 2006 had increased wastewater flow faster than predicted. Because of this accelerated development, the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD) has moved forward with implementation of the Mather Interceptor, with a goal of having wastewater flowing in the new system by December 2010. During the development of this document, it was determined that the Laguna Creek Area 5 (LCA5) shed would also require sewer service earlier than predicted. The Mather Interceptor PDP was amended to address wastewater needs of the LCA5 sewer shed, assuming a similar schedule of having facilities on-line by December 2010. The Mather Interceptor is being implemented to delay the construction of the Laguna Creek Interceptor. The Aerojet Sewer Sheds were tributary to the Bradshaw Interceptor under the 1993/94 Master Plan. However, the Master Plan 2000 (MP2000) used different design criteria and determined the portions of the Bradshaw Interceptor already constructed would not have capacity to convey all flows from its sewer shed when it reached buildout. The solution proposed by MP2000 was to divert the Aerojet sewer sheds to the Laguna Creek Interceptor. This would require construction of Aerojet 4 Interceptor in Sunrise Blvd. from Douglas Road to just north of Jackson Road. But it was also determined that construction of the Laguna Creek and Aerojet 4 Interceptors could be delayed for 20 years by constructing the Mather Interceptor and conveying Aerojet shed flows to Bradshaw Interceptor until interim available capacity is no longer available. Wastewater flow from any development in LCA5 prior to the construction of the Laguna Creek Interceptor would need to be pumped to the Mather Interceptor. Potential Mather Interceptor routes as well as possible extensions to serve LCA5 were presented to the PAC on October 18, 2006. A schedule for completing the Mather Interceptor by the end of 2010 was also presented. Following the October PAC meeting, the brainstormed alternatives were considered under a fatal flaw analysis and net present worth calculations were made for the construction, engineering, environmental mitigation, right-of-way acquisition and operation and maintenance costs. The temporary and permanent public impacts were also estimated. At the PAC meeting on November 15, 2006, 10 potential alternative gravity alignments from Chrysanthy to the Bradshaw Interceptor were presented in detail and a recommendation to keep five alternatives for further analysis was accepted by the PAC. In addition, five alternatives for serving LCA5 were presented. Four of the LCA5 alternatives would be added to the gravity alignments already screened. The fifth, the AJ4 alternative, would serve LCA5 and included the construction of Aerojet 4 Interceptor concurrently with the Mather Interceptor. Also, another gravity alternative, Alternative 9B was considered and subjected to the screening analysis. It was dropped since it did not Mather Interceptor Project

ES-1

October 2007

Executive Summary

have a cost advantage over other alternatives and would required a much longer time to construct due to ROW acquisition requirements from the USBR. When the LCA5 alternatives were added to the gravity sewer alternatives there were a total of 15 possible combinations. Rather than carrying all possible combinations, a screening analysis was done based on length of pipe for the LCA5 alternatives. Three of the LCA5 alternatives were much longer and would have a much higher construction cost. It was determined these three would not pass a screening level analysis and were dropped leaving seven practical alternatives, three gravity only and four gravity plus LCA5 alternatives. Modeling conducted by Capacity Management, using criteria supplied by the SIAMI Program, determined that the Bradshaw Interceptor had available interim capacity until at least 2030 and the available capacity was 49 mgd. The analysis of the development pace in the LCA5 shed estimated peak wet weather flow would reach 10 mgd in 2015. The SIAMI Program recommended that a pump station and force main serving LCA5 and discharging to the Mather Interceptor be included in the alternatives being considered. District staff accepted the recommendation. When the determination to provide service to LCA5 with the Mather Interceptor was made, the gravity only alternatives were dropped. The four remaining alternatives were considered “practical” and were presented to the PAC at their February 21, 2007 meeting (see Figure ES-1). The four practical alternatives included a gravity sewer to serve the Mather and Aerojet shed areas, and also included a regional pump station and force mains to serve the LCA5 sewer shed. One alternative added the construction of the Aerojet 4 Interceptor. The PAC accepted the four practical alternatives. The next step was to complete a business case evaluation (BCE) on the four alternatives. To complete the BCE, preliminary engineering drawings and construction cost estimates were prepared for all four practical alternatives. Team members then estimated costs to the community for a number of parameters (see Table ES-1). The BCE demonstrated that Alternative MI-1 (Zinfandel Drive) + LCA5-1 had the lowest total cost to the community. This alternative was presented to the Project Authorization Committee (PAC) for approval on April 18, 2007. The PAC approved the Mather Interceptor (MI-1 gravity sewer) portion of the recommended alternative and agreed that SRCSD should proceed with the project with the budget and schedule described in this PDP. The PAC did not approve the LCA5-1 (pump station and force mains) portion of the recommended alternative. The PAC recommended that the solution to provide sewer service to the LCA5 shed be analyzed further in a separate PDP document. They expressed concerns regarding the estimated pace of development in the LCA5 sewer shed. The PAC directed that alternatives using multiple interim CSD-1 pump stations be included in the analysis. Previous discussions with SRCSD staff had assumed that a regional solution was appropriate because the 10 mgd threshold for SRCSD responsibility would be reached by 2015.

October 2007

ES-2

Mather Interceptor Project

Executive Summary

Figure ES-1 Schematic of Mather Interceptor Practical Alternatives

Mather Interceptor Project

ES-3

October 2007

Executive Summary

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

Mather Interceptor Project

ES-4

October 2007

Executive Summary

Table ES-1 Mather Interceptor BCE Results Summary

Mather Interceptor Project

ES-5

October 2007

Executive Summary

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

October 2007

ES-6

Mather Interceptor Project

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1.0 PROBLEM STATEMENT ................................................................... 1-1 CHAPTER 2.0 BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM STATEMENT ....................... 2-1 2.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Service Area and Service Level Impacts ............................................................... 2-5 2.3 Schedule ................................................................................................................. 2-6 CHAPTER 3.0 CONSTRAINTS ................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Physical Condition ................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Existing Site Conditions In the Poject Area........................................................... 3-2 3.2.1 Soils and Groundwater................................................................................................ 3-2 3.2.2 Environmental Features .............................................................................................. 3-3 3.2.3 Folsom South Canal and United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation Property ........................................................................................................... 3-3 3.2.4 Mather Air Force Base (Mather Airport) and Mather Boulevard ............................... 3-4 3.2.5 Zinfandel Drive ........................................................................................................... 3-4 3.2.6 Douglas Road .............................................................................................................. 3-4 3.2.7 Eagles Nest Road ........................................................................................................ 3-5 3.2.8 Sunrise Boulevard, South of Douglas Road................................................................ 3-5 3.2.9 Sunrise Boulevard, North of Douglas Road................................................................ 3-5 3.2.10 Chrysanthy Boulevard................................................................................................. 3-5 3.2.11 Kiefer Boulevard......................................................................................................... 3-6 3.2.12 Jaeger Road ................................................................................................................. 3-6 3.2.13 Highway 16/Jackson Road .......................................................................................... 3-6

3.3 Concurrent and Future Construction in the Project Area....................................... 3-6 3.4 Codes, Regulatory Standards, and Policies............................................................ 3-7 CHAPTER 4.0 IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES.......................................... 4-1 4.1 Brainstorming Effort .............................................................................................. 4-1 4.2 Description of Alternatives .................................................................................... 4-1 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.4 4.2.5 4.2.6 4.2.7 4.2.8 4.2.9 4.2.10 4.2.11 4.2.12 4.2.13 4.2.14 4.2.15 4.2.16

Alternative MI-1 Zinfandel Drive ............................................................................... 4-3 Alternative MI-2 Mather Boulevard ........................................................................... 4-3 Alternative MI-3 Golf Course / Zinfandel Drive A .................................................... 4-3 Alternative MI-4 Golf Course / Zinfandel Drive B..................................................... 4-3 Alternative MI-5 Golf Course / Mather Boulevard A................................................. 4-4 Alternative MI-6 Golf Course / Mather Boulevard B ................................................. 4-4 Alternative MI-7 Sunrise Boulevard A ....................................................................... 4-4 Alternative MI-8 Sunrise Boulevard B ....................................................................... 4-5 Alternative MI-9 Canal ............................................................................................... 4-5 Alternative MI-9B Canal (East) .................................................................................. 4-5 Alternative MI-10 All Force Main .............................................................................. 4-5 Alternative LCA5-1 Sunrise Boulevard Extension ..................................................... 4-6 Alternative LCA5-2 Jaeger Road................................................................................ 4-6 Alternative LCA5-3 Eagles Nest A............................................................................. 4-6 Alternative LCA5-4 Eagles Nest B............................................................................. 4-6 Alternative Aerojet 4................................................................................................... 4-6

CHAPTER 5.0 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ...................................................... 5-1 5.1 Overall Analysis Procedure.................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Fatal Flaw Analysis................................................................................................ 5-1 5.3 Screening Analysis................................................................................................. 5-2 Mather Interceptor Project

i

October 2007

Table of Contents

5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.3 5.3.4

Screening Analysis Criteria......................................................................................... 5-2 Application of Screening Analysis.............................................................................. 5-4 Conclusions of the Mather Interceptor Screening Analysis...................................... 5-23 Additional Screening Involving the LCA5 and AJ4 Alternatives............................. 5-24

5.4 Business Case Evaluation .................................................................................... 5-26 5.4.1 5.4.2 5.4.3 5.4.4 5.4.5

Business Case Evaluation Approach......................................................................... 5-26 Business Case Evaluation Parameters....................................................................... 5-29 Application of Business Case Evaluation ................................................................. 5-37 Summary of Results of the Business Case Evaluation.............................................. 5-63 Recommendation of Preferred Alternative ............................................................... 5-69

CHAPTER 6.0 SELECTED ALTERNATIVE DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS.................. 6-1 6.1 Hydraulic Control Points ....................................................................................... 6-1 6.1.1 6.1.2 6.1.3 6.1.4 6.1.5 6.1.6

Downstream – Bradshaw Interceptor.......................................................................... 6-1 Upstream – Aerojet Section 1 ..................................................................................... 6-1 Mather Junction Structure ........................................................................................... 6-2 MAE Junction ............................................................................................................. 6-2 Folsom South Canal Crossing ..................................................................................... 6-2 Summary of Mather Interceptor Hydraulic Design Control Points ............................ 6-3

6.2 Preliminary Design Assumptions for the Interceptor ............................................ 6-3 6.3 Zinfandel Drive (station 0+00 to 59+88) ............................................................... 6-4 6.3.1 Preliminary Design Construction and Alignment Decision Summary ....................... 6-4 6.3.2 Final Design Considerations ....................................................................................... 6-6

6.4 Douglas Road West of and Including Folsom South Canal (stations 59+80 to 82+32) .................................................................................................................... 6-6 6.4.1 Preliminary Design Construction and Alignment Decision Summary ....................... 6-7 6.4.2 Final Design Issues ..................................................................................................... 6-8

6.5 Douglas Road East of Canal to Sunrise Boulevard (stations 82+32 to 108+99) ... 6-8 6.5.1 Preliminary Design Construction and Alignment Decision Summary ....................... 6-9 6.5.2 Final Design Issues ................................................................................................... 6-10

6.6 Sunrise Boulevard, Douglas Road to Chrysanthy Boulevard (MI station 108+99 to 152+21, AJ4 station 1051+85 to 1010+33) ......................................................... 6-11 6.6.1 Preliminary Design Construction and Alignment Decision Summary ..................... 6-11 6.6.2 Final Design Issues ................................................................................................... 6-12

CHAPTER 7.0

October 2007

REFERENCES...................................................................................... 7-1

ii

Mather Interceptor Project

Table of Contents

APPENDICES APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: APPENDIX C: APPENDIX D APPENDIX E: APPENDIX F: APPENDIX G: APPENDIX H: APPENDIX I: APPENDIX J: APPENDIX K: APPENDIX L: APPENDIX M: APPENDIX N: APPENDIX O: APPENDIX P:

Capacity Management Hydraulic Modeling Results Bradshaw Technical Memorandum, Interim Project Authorization Committee Decision: Update Mather Interceptor Practical Alternatives Capacity Management Hydraulic Modeling Cost Escalation Rates Construction Cost Estimate Right-of-Way Cost Estimate Environmental Mitigation Cost Estimate Operational and Maintenance Cost Estimate Construction Schedule, Cost of Delay, and Schedule Costs Traffic Delay Costs Public Impact Costs Risk Register and Risk Cost Technical Memorandum, Preliminary Design Mather Interceptor – Alternative MI-1 + LCA5-1 Construction Approach Technical Memorandum Preliminary Design Mather Interceptor – Alternative MI-2 + LCA5-1 Construction Approach Technical Memorandum Preliminary Design Mather Interceptor – Alternative MI-7 + LCA5-1 Construction Approach Technical Memorandum Preliminary Design Mather Interceptor – Alternative AJ4 Construction Approach

LIST OF TABLES Table 5-1 Fatal Flaw Criteria ............................................................................................. 5-2 Table 5-2 Screening Criteria ............................................................................................ 5-20 Table 5-3 Screening Analysis Results ............................................................................. 5-21 Table 5-4 Summary of Mather Interceptor Screening Analysis Results.......................... 5-23 Table 5-5 Right of Way Property Value Assumptions .................................................... 5-31 Table 5-6 Environmental Mitigation Value Assumptions ............................................... 5-32 Table 5-7 Mather Interceptor Cost of Delay beyond 2010 .............................................. 5-34 Table 5-8 BCE Results Comparison Among Alternatives............................................... 5-66 Table 5-9 Construction Cost Escalation Rate Sensitivity ................................................ 5-68 Table 6-1 Summary of Mather Interceptor Hydraulic Design Control Points................... 6-3 Table 6-2 Shaft Dimensions for Pipe Jacking and Receiving............................................ 6-4

Mather Interceptor Project

iii

October 2007

Table of Contents

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 Mather Interceptor and LCA5 Project Area ..................................................... 1-1 Figure 2-1 Mather Interceptor and LCA5 Service Area .................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-2 Mather Interceptor and LCA5 Planned Developments .................................... 2-4 Figure 2-3 Mather Interceptor and LCA5 Schedule Summary.......................................... 2-7 Figure 4-1 Alternative MI-1 Layout .................................................................................. 4-8 Figure 4-2 Alternative MI-2 Layout .................................................................................. 4-9 Figure 4-3 Alternative MI-3 Layout ................................................................................ 4-10 Figure 4-4 Alternative MI-4 Layout ................................................................................ 4-11 Figure 4-5 Alternative MI-5 Layout ................................................................................ 4-12 Figure 4-6 Alternative MI-6 Layout ................................................................................ 4-13 Figure 4-7 Alternative MI-7 Layout ................................................................................ 4-14 Figure 4-8 Alternative MI-8 Layout ................................................................................ 4-15 Figure 4-9 Alternative MI-9 Layout ................................................................................ 4-16 Figure 4-10 Alternative MI-9B Layout............................................................................ 4-17 Figure 4-11 Alternative MI-10 Layout ............................................................................ 4-18 Figure 4-12 Alternative LCA5-1 Layout ......................................................................... 4-19 Figure 4-13 Alternative LCA5-2 Layout ......................................................................... 4-20 Figure 4-14 Alternative LCA5-3 Layout ......................................................................... 4-21 Figure 4-15 Alternative LCA5-4 Layout ......................................................................... 4-22 Figure 4-16 Alternative Aerojet 4 Layout........................................................................ 4-23 Figure 5-1 Figure 5-1 BCE Summary of Alternatives and Related Additional Costs…..5-28 Figure 5-2 Profile of the Mather Interceptor Alternative MI-1+ LCA5-1....................... 5-39 Figure 5-3 Mather Interceptor Alternative MI-1 Net Present Value ............................... 5-42 Figure 5-4 Mather Interceptor Future Construction of AJ4 Net Present Value............... 5-43 Figure 5-5 Mather Interceptor MAE Stub Out Net Present Value................................... 5-43 Figure 5-6 Alternative MI-1 BCE Summary of Costs ..................................................... 5-44 Figure 5-7 Alternative MI-1 Net Present Value (including additional costs).................. 5-44 Figure 5-8 Profile of Alternative MI-2 + LCA5-1 ........................................................... 5-46 Figure 5-9 Alternative MI-2 Net Present Value............................................................... 5-48 Figure 5-10 Mather Interceptor Future Construction of AJ4 Net Present Value............. 5-49 Figure 5-11 Mather Interceptor MAE Stub Out Net Present Value................................. 5-50 Figure 5-12 Alternative MI-2 BCE Summary of Costs ................................................... 5-50 Figure 5-13 Mather Interceptor Total Alternative MI-2 Net Present Value ................... 5-51 Figure 5-14 Profile of Alternative MI-7 + LCA5-1......................................................... 5-52 Figure 5-15 Mather Interceptor Alternative MI-7 Net Present Value ............................. 5-55 Figure 5-16 Mather Interceptor Future Construction of AJ4 Net Present Value............. 5-56 Figure 5-17 Mather Interceptor MAE Trunk Net Present Value ..................................... 5-56 Figure 5-18 Alternative MI-7 BCE Summary of Costs ................................................... 5-57 Figure 5-19 Alternative MI-7 Total Net Present Value (including additional costs) ...... 5-57 Figure 5-20 Profile of Mather Interceptor Alternative AJ4 ............................................. 5-59 Figure 5-21 Alternative AJ4, Net Present Value ............................................................. 5-62 Figure 5-22 Alternative AJ4 BCE Summary of Costs ..................................................... 5-62 Figure 5-23 AJ4 Alternative Total Net Present Value..................................................... 5-63 Figure 5-24 BCE Results at Various Construction Cost Escalation Rates ...................... 5-69

October 2007

iv

Mather Interceptor Project

Table of Contents

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AACE ADWF ADT AJ ARV BCE Caltrans CCTV CDFG CEQA CM CSD-1 DERA EIR EPB ESA FAA FSC ft/sec GGS hp HVAC kV kWh LCA5 LOS mg/L O&M OSHA LNWI mgd MI MP2000 PAC NMFS NPDES NPV PDP PM PO PROW PWWF RCP ROW RWQCB

Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering average dry weather flow average daily traffic Aerojet air release valve business case evaluation California Department of Transportation closed circuit television California Department of Fish and Game California Environmental Quality Act Construction Management County Sanitation District 1 California Department of Environmental Review and Assessment Environmental Impact Report earth pressure balance Environmental Science Associates Federal Aviation Administration Folsom South Canal feet per second giant garter snake horsepower heating, ventilation, and air conditioning kilovolt kilowatt-hours Laguna Creek Area 5 level of service milligram per liter operations and maintenance Occupational Safety and Health Administration Lower Northwest Interceptor million gallons per day Mather Interceptor Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District Master Plan 2000 Project Authorization Committee National Marine Fisheries Service National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System net present value project development plan Program Management public outreach permanent right-of-way peak wet weather flow reinforced concrete pipe right-of-way Regional Water Quality Control Board

Mather Interceptor Project

v

October 2007

Table of Contents

SHPO SIAMI SRCSD SRWTP SSES TBM TCE TRACON USACE USBR USFWS VELB VFD

October 2007

State Historic Preservation Officer South Interceptor and Mather Interceptor Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Sanitary Sewer Expansion Study tunnel boring machine temporary construction easements Terminal Radar Approach Control United States Army Corps of Engineers United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of USBR United States Fish and Wildlife Service valley elderberry longhorn beetle variable frequency drive

vi

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 1 Problem Statement

CHAPTER 1.0 PROBLEM STATEMENT The Mather Interceptor problem statement is as follows: “There is insufficient capacity in the project area. Additional capacity is needed by 2010.” The problem statement was approved at the October 15, 2006, PAC Initiation meeting. The project area is shown in Figure 1-1.

Figure 1-1 Mather Interceptor and LCA5 Project Area

Mather Interceptor Project

1-1

October 2007

Chapter 1 Problem Statement

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

October 2007

1-2

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 2 Background of the Problem Statement

CHAPTER 2.0 BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM STATEMENT This chapter describes background information related to the problem statement, including general project background, service area and service level impacts, and schedule. 2.1

BACKGROUND

Prior to the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD) Master Plan 2000 (MP2000), Mather Air Force Base, now Mather Airport, and the Aerojet sewer shed areas were part of the Bradshaw Interceptor system. The Laguna Creek area 5 (LCA5) shed was part of the Laguna Creek Interceptor system. MP2000 determined that flows in the Bradshaw Interceptor System would likely exceed the system’s capacity at buildout in the reaches that have already been constructed. This shortfall in capacity was attributed to the updated, higher flow generation criteria used by MP2000 instead of the 1993/94 Sanitary Sewer Expansion Study (SSES). The solution proposed in the MP2000 was to convey flows generated in the Aerojet sheds to the Laguna Creek Interceptor, resulting in only minor surcharging in the Bradshaw Interceptor System at buildout. To provide service to the Aerojet sheds until the future construction of the Laguna Creek Interceptor, MP2000 recommended that the Mather Interceptor be constructed and used to convey the Aerojet shed flows to the Bradshaw Interceptor while the Bradshaw Interceptor has excess capacity. It should be noted that the Mather Interceptor would also convey flows from the Mather Airport shed area to the Bradshaw Interceptor. Ultimately, as the Bradshaw Interceptor begins to approach its capacity, the Laguna Creek Interceptor would be constructed and used to convey the Aerojet flows to the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plan (SRWTP). MP2000 estimated that the Laguna Creek Interceptor would be required by 2024. Once the Aerojet flows were being conveyed to the Laguna Creek Interceptor, the Mather Interceptor would continue to convey flows from the Mather Airport shed area to the Bradshaw Interceptor. The Eastern Interceptor Sheds Map which includes the Mather Interceptor and LCA5 service areas and interceptor systems are shown in Figure 2-1 and are described in detail in subsequent sections. Mather Interceptor and LCA5 developments areas and names are shown in Figure 2-2. Since the release of MP2000, changes were made to the Bradshaw Interceptor that may impact the design of the Mather Interceptor. The Bradshaw Interceptor 7 Routing Study, completed in July 2002 (Black & Veatch), recommended a new route for much of Bradshaw 7 and part of Bradshaw 8. The recommended route moved Bradshaw 7 closer to the Mather Interceptor route than was previously defined in the MP2000 report. The proximity of the two interceptors suggested that a new Mather Interceptor alignment may be more economical. The Bradshaw 7 Routing Study proposed that the Mather Interceptor be routed north along Mather Boulevard to the southern edge of the Villages of Zinfandel development. The SRCSD MP2000 Reconciliation Report (completed in July 2003) revisited the Mather Interceptor alignment following the adjustment of the Bradshaw Interceptor alignment. The report recommended a point of connection to the Bradshaw Interceptor where it

Mather Interceptor Project

2-1

October 2007

Chapter 2 Background of the Problem Statement

crosses Zinfandel Drive. Aerojet Interceptor Sections 1, 2, and 2 Stub Out (AJ1, AJ2, and AJ2S, respectively) would connect to the Mather Junction Structure at its upstream end, located at the Sunrise Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection. The Mather Junction Structure also would include a connection point for the future Aerojet Interceptor Section 4 (AJ4). The recommendations of the MP2000 Reconciliation Report and other analyses described above resulted in the following design and analysis parameters for this Project Development Plan (PDP): •

The Mather Interceptor will convey flows from the Aerojet sheds to the Bradshaw Interceptor on an interim basis. The Mather Interceptor must connect to the existing AJ1 pipeline in Chrysanthy Boulevard.

•

The Mather Interceptor will include a structure at Sunrise Boulevard and Douglas Road that provides connections for the Aerojet interceptors.

•

The Mather Interceptor will remain in use to serve the Aerojet sewer sheds as long as the Bradshaw Interceptor has available capacity. When the Bradshaw Interceptor reaches capacity, SRCSD will divert the flows originating from the Aerojet sewer sheds to the future Laguna Creek Interceptor.

•

The Mather Interceptor project must either include a structure for connection of the County Sanitation District 1 (CSD-1) MAE trunk sewer, near the intersection of Douglas Road and Eagles Nest Road, or should consider how CSD-1 will otherwise convey the MAE trunk flow to the Bradshaw Interceptor. The MAE trunk sewer is designated in the 2006 CSD-1 Master Plan to serve future development south of Douglas Road and north of Kiefer Boulevard.

•

The LCA5 alternatives considered will convey flow from the LCA5 shed to the Mather Interceptor at Chrysanthy Boulevard.

•

The analysis should determine if it would be beneficial to construct the AJ4 Interceptor as part of Mather Interceptor construction.

October 2007

2-2

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 2 Background of the Problem Statement

Figure 2-1 Mather Interceptor and LCA5 Service Area

Mather Interceptor Project

2-3

October 2007

Chapter 2 Background of the Problem Statement

Figure 2-2 Mather Interceptor and LCA5 Planned Developments

October 2007

2-4

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 2 Background of the Problem Statement

2.2

SERVICE AREA AND SERVICE LEVEL IMPACTS

As stated above, the Mather Interceptor service area includes Mather and Aerojet sheds. The Mather shed will be permanently served by the Mather Interceptor and the Aerojet sheds will be temporarily served by the Mather Interceptor, until construction of the Laguna Creek Interceptor. The permanent Mather Interceptor Service Area is the Mather Interceptor Sewer Shed and is shown in purple shading in Figure 2-1. The interim Mather Interceptor Service Area and the Aerojet Sewer Shed are shown in pink in Figure 2-1. The interim LCA5 service area is a portion of the area shown in green in Figure 2-1. CSD-1 service levels in the Mather Interceptor service area will be affected by the capacity limitations of the Chrysanthy Pump Station. Flows to the Chrysanthy Pump Station are anticipated to reach the facility’s capacity prior to 2010. As stated above, development in the area has already required the construction of several small interim pump stations. To maintain an acceptable level of service in the project area, additional facilities are required. In support of providing an excellent level of service in the region, SRCSD and its contributing agencies typically enter into a Master Interagency Agreement (MIA) to define the roles and responsibilities of each party regarding sewer service in an area. In December 2006, SRCSD, CSD-1, Sacramento County, the City of Sacramento, and the City of Folsom entered into an MIA. In accordance with Section 2 of the agreement, the MIA will remain in effect until June 13, 2024. The MIA states that SRCSD is required to finance, construct, reconstruct, operate, and maintain all interceptor sewers for conveyance of wastewater from a contributing agency or a major portion of a contributing agency to the SRWTP. The agreement defines an “Interceptor Sewer” as any sewer, in-line treatment, and/or pump facilities designed to carry a peak wet weather flow of 10 million gallons per day (mgd) or greater from new development, or that has its upstream and downstream ends adjacent and connected to existing interceptor sewers. The MIA states that CSD-1 is a contributing agency to SRCSD and is responsible for providing local sewer service within CSD-1’s service area. The MIA defines local sewer service as the collection, conveyance, treatment, and transfer to the SRCSD system of wastewater originating within the CSD-1 service area. CSD-1 is required to finance, construct, reconstruct, operate, and maintain all collector and trunk sewers for wastewater within its local service area and to dispose of all wastewater originating within its local service area by delivery of same to SRCSD facilities. CSD-1 typically coordinates with developers to plan the construction of the interim sewer facilities required to provide service until interceptor sewer facilities are in place and, in many cases, CSD-1 requires that the developer construct the future trunks required to service the area. CSD-1 uses a mechanism to collect funds from the development community and then uses the funds to reimburse the developer that constructs the interim sewer facilities to provide interim service to the area. These interim sewer facilities are typically designed to carry a peak wet weather flow of less than 10 mgd and are therefore not considered interceptor sewer facilities. Once a developing area is anticipating flows large enough to require the construction of facilities that are designed to carry a peak wet weather flow (PWWF) of 10 mgd or greater,

Mather Interceptor Project

2-5

October 2007

Chapter 2 Background of the Problem Statement

the responsibility to “finance, construct, reconstruct, operate, and maintain” the facility belongs to SRCSD, per the conditions of the MIA. The Aerojet shed area will require an interceptor sewer facility prior to 2010 and the LCA5 shed area will require (local or interceptor) sewer facilities with a total capacity exceeding 10 mgd by 2015. This PDP will assess the best solution to provide the required sewer service to the shed areas. 2.3

SCHEDULE

The Mather Interceptor project, as defined by the problem statement, requires the completion of construction by December 2010. The schedule is driven by the capacity limitations of the Chrysanthy Pump Station. Since flows to the Chrysanthy Pump Station are anticipated to reach the facility’s capacity prior to 2010, additional capacity is needed as soon as possible. A reasonable but aggressive schedule was developed to determine the earliest date that the additional capacity could be made available. As a result of the schedule analysis, it was determined that the earliest date that a project solution could be designed and constructed is December 2010. This date was adopted by SRCSD and CSD1 as the required completion date for the project. The schedule for the completion of sewer service to the LCA5 shed is not driven by the same capacity issues as Mather Interceptor. Based on development plans for the LCA5 shed area, sewer service will be required by December 2010, additional capacity will be required by 2013, and flows from the shed area are expected to exceed 10 mgd by 2015. Thus, it was assumed that the construction of LCA5 should proceed on a schedule similar to that of the Mather Interceptor, potentially avoiding the cost to construct several smaller interim stations. To meet this aggressive schedule, several key milestones will have to be met throughout the project life cycle. A Mather Interceptor and LCA5 schedule summary is shown in Figure 2-3. The schedule summary includes the key activities and milestones required to complete the Mather Interceptor by December 2010.

October 2007

2-6

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 2 Background of the Problem Statement

Figure 2-3 Mather Interceptor and LCA5 Schedule Summary Mather Interceptor Project

2-7

October 2007

Chapter 2 Background of the Problem Statement

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

October 2007

2-8

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 3 Constraints

CHAPTER 3.0 CONSTRAINTS This chapter describes the constraints affecting project development, including the connections to existing and future facilities, existing site conditions, concurrent and future construction in the project area, and codes, regulatory standards, and policies. 3.1

PHYSICAL CONDITION

Anticipating the likelihood of development in the Aerojet sheds would occur 10 to 20 years before significant development in the lower Laguna Creek sheds, MP2000 recommended that the Mather Interceptor be used to convey Aerojet shed flows to the Bradshaw Interceptor while the Bradshaw Interceptor has available capacity. Thus, the Mather Interceptor must be sized to accommodate Mather and Aerojet shed flows, and extend from the Aerojet shed area to the Bradshaw Interceptor. Development in the LCA5 shed area will begin in 2009 and sewer service will be required by 2011. Flow from the LCA5 shed will be conveyed to the Bradshaw Interceptor until the future construction of the Laguna Creek Interceptor. The sewer service to the LCA5 shed must be sized to accommodate LCA5 flows, and extend from the LCA5 shed area to the Mather Interceptor near the intersection of Chrysanthy Boulevard and Sunrise Boulevard. Since the Mather Interceptor will provide interim service to the Aerojet shed area, the Mather Interceptor will not be sized for buildout flows from the Aerojet or LCA5 sheds. The Mather Interceptor must be designed to accommodate a maximum design flow equal to the maximum PWWF from the Aerojet, Mather, and LCA5 shed areas at the date that Bradshaw reaches capacity. In addition, the Mather Interceptor will need to be designed to accommodate a minimum design flow equal to the buildout flows for the Mather shed area. Thus, estimating the date that the Bradshaw Interceptor will reach capacity while receiving flows from the Aerojet, Mather, and LCA5 shed areas is critical. Based on hydraulic model results for the Bradshaw Interceptor sewer system, the Bradshaw Interceptor could accept up to 49 mgd from the Mather Interceptor until 2030. The upstream end of the Mather Interceptor will connect to an existing 42-inch-diameter stub out, part of the AJ1 located near the intersection of Chrysanthy Boulevard and Sunrise Boulevard. The existing AJ1 Stub Out was constructed by the Anatolia development. Once the connection is complete and the Mather Interceptor is operational, the existing interim Chrysanthy Pump Station and force main will be taken out of service. The Chrysanthy Pump Station is located near the intersection of Chrysanthy Boulevard and Anatolia Drive, east of Sunrise Boulevard. The Chrysanthy Pump Station has been upgraded to a capacity of 3 mgd and has a potential expanded capacity of 7 mgd. The flow from the Chrysanthy Pump Station is pumped through an 18-inch-diameter, 7-mile-long force main, which discharges to the Bradshaw Interceptor at the intersection of Kiefer Boulevard and Happy Lane. The Chrysanthy Pump Station was designed to CSD-1 pump station standards with a 25-year life. It should be noted that the small commercial/high density housing development immediately south of Douglas Road, and on both sides of Sunrise Boulevard, will soon be served by an interim pump station. The small pump station will have a capacity of about 1.0 mgd and will be located on the west side of

Mather Interceptor Project

3-1

October 2007

Chapter 3 Constraints

Sunrise Boulevard immediately south of Douglas Road. The force main will convey flow from the pump station to AJ1 along Sunrise Boulevard. Once the Mather Interceptor is completed, this small interim pump station and force main will be abandoned and the flow will be conveyed across Douglas Road to the Mather Interceptor. The Douglas Road pump station was bid in July 2007 and should be on line by 2009. The downstream end of the Mather Interceptor will connect to the Bradshaw Interceptor. Section 7B of the Bradshaw Interceptor is nearest to the Mather Interceptor project area. The location of the connection to the Bradshaw Interceptor depends on the selected alignment for the Mather Interceptor. Also in accordance with MP2000, construction of the Mather Interceptor will include a junction structure, located near the intersection of Sunrise Boulevard and Douglas Road, to connect the Mather, AJ1, AJ2, AJ2S, and AJ4 Interceptors. The upstream end of LCA5 will include a pump station located east of Sunrise Boulevard between Kiefer Road and Highway 16 (Jackson Highway) and a force main to the Mather Interceptor. One or more trunk sewers will be constructed from the nearby Waegell and Suncreek developments to the pump station site to convey flow from the LCA5 shed to the pump station. A small interim pump station has been constructed in the LCA5 shed to serve the Anatolia III development. This pump station has a design capacity of less than 1.0 mgd and, when put in operation, will discharge flow through a force main in Jaeger Road to AJ1. The downstream end of the LCA5 force main will connect to the Mather Interceptor near the intersection of Chrysanthy Boulevard and Sunrise Boulevard via a transition structure that converts pressure flow to a gravity flow. Since the LCA5 pump station and force mains will provide interim service to the LCA5 shed, the pump station and force mains will not be sized for buildout flows from the LCA5 shed. The LCA5 pump station and force mains must be designed to accommodate a maximum design flow equal to the maximum PWWF from the LCA5 shed area at the date that Bradshaw reaches capacity. As noted above, the Mather Interceptor will be sized to receive this flow from the LCA5 facilities. 3.2

EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS IN THE POJECT AREA

3.2.1 Soils and Groundwater According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation conducted by Kleinfelder (2007), “soils encountered throughout the site consisted of various amounts of gravel and cobbles with a matrix of sand, silt and clay. These granular materials were interbedded with layers of silt, clay, silty sand and clayey sand. Cobbles within the gravel layers encountered in the borings ranged from about 3 to 6-inches in diameter. Multiple gravel and cobble layers exist at various depths throughout the project limits.”

October 2007

3-2

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 3 Constraints

Research conducted during the Reconnaissance Phase of the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation indicated that regional groundwater elevations are over 50 feet below the surface in the project area. The elevation of the interceptor would be above the groundwater table based on this information, but perched groundwater is occasionally encountered. Construction of Bradshaw 8 and Bradshaw 7 both encountered minimal groundwater along the majority of their alignments. However, soil borings conducted by Kleinfelder found groundwater levels above the expected interceptor elevation in 5 of 11 borings. Three out of four borings along Mather Interceptor section 1 (MI-1) found groundwater. 3.2.2 Environmental Features Environmental conditions could present a problem for SRCSD, depending on which alternative is chosen. The Mather area has a high concentration of vernal pools and wetlands, as shown by recently completed field surveys conducted to identify sensitive environmental resources potentially affected by the project. To address potential environmental conditions, SRCSD would likely have to obtain environmental permits in a complex acquisition process. 3.2.3 Folsom South Canal and United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation Property The United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) owns Folsom South Canal, which parallels Sunrise Boulevard through the entire project area and must be crossed by the Mather Interceptor to convey flow to the Bradshaw Interceptor. A tunnel under the canal is the most practical crossing method and USBR prefers 25 feet of clearance between the canal bottom and the interceptor. Clearance of between 10 and 15 feet is necessary to allow gravity flow from the crossing to the Bradshaw Interceptor, unless a siphon or pump station is constructed. USBR will allow less than 25 feet of clearance if it can be demonstrated that the proposed construction will not damage the canal. The depth of the canal crossing in conjunction with the gravity sewer design would result in deep pipeline construction from the canal crossing to the Bradshaw Interceptor. The pipeline will be constructed at a depth of 40 to 60 feet below existing grade in this area. Tunneling will likely prove to be more cost-effective than open cut methods of construction at these depths. USBR will grant a temporary easement and/or a construction permit for temporary construction activities on its property and will grant a permanent easement for the Folsom South Canal (FSC) crossing. USBR will not grant a permanent easement for the pipeline to be placed on its property, except for a crossing. The process to obtain a permit or easement from USBR includes extensive technical and environmental review. Delays caused by the permit/right-of-way (ROW) acquisition process could delay the start of construction.

Mather Interceptor Project

3-3

October 2007

Chapter 3 Constraints

3.2.4 Mather Air Force Base (Mather Airport) and Mather Boulevard The Mather Air Force Base property is currently owned by the United States of America, but is being turned over to Sacramento County, which will allow the interceptor to be installed with a license as long as the interceptor is located within the planned ROW of Mather Boulevard. Mather Boulevard is a two-lane road that runs northwest from the end of Douglas Road to Mather Field. It sees minimal traffic and passes under the approach to the Mather Field runway about 2,000 feet west of the end of the runway. Sacramento County Airport has plans to construct a new security fence around the airfield and Mather Boulevard will be on the airfield side of the fence. Public access to Mather Boulevard in this area will be discontinued. District operations and maintenance (O&M) access will require airfield manager escorts, arranged in advance. Contaminated soil and groundwater have been encountered in this area and are included in the Mather Air Force Base Cleanup Program. However, contamination in this area is minimal; the worst areas of contamination are further to the west. 3.2.5 Zinfandel Drive Zinfandel Drive has been extended about 2,500 feet south of North Mather Boulevard along the MP2000 alignment for Mather Boulevard. If this alignment is chosen, existing pavement and utilities will affect the construction methods and cost. Zinfandel Drive is planned to be extended another 3,500 feet south to Douglas Road. This project is currently in the preliminary design phase and will not likely start construction until after completion of the Mather Interceptor. The extension of Zinfandel Drive will pass through property currently owned by the United States of America, but is scheduled to be transferred to Sacramento County. Sacramento County has indicated it will negotiate a license agreement with SRCSD to allow construction of the interceptor. If Zinfandel Drive is constructed over the interceptor, the license will expire and no easement will be necessary. If Zinfandel Drive is not constructed over the interceptor, permanent easements will be negotiated after the completion of construction. 3.2.6 Douglas Road Douglas Road between Eagles Nest Road and Sunrise Boulevard is currently a two-lane Road within an 80-foot ROW. The Douglas Road widening project is currently in preliminary design, and the interceptor could be constructed prior to widening, mitigating impacts on traffic. The Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) facility is a federal air traffic control facility located on the north side of Douglas Road, just west of the canal. Obtaining ROW from the TRACON facility would be difficult since the land is federally owned. In addition, air traffic control communications are transmitted though fiber optics lines in Douglas Road. Mather Lake and other environmentally sensitive wetlands are located south of Douglas Road and immediately east of the Folsom South Canal. The property on the north side of Douglas Road, near Sunrise Boulevard, is owned by Cordova

October 2007

3-4

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 3 Constraints

Recreation and Park District. This land is mostly undeveloped with the exception of a shooting range. 3.2.7 Eagles Nest Road Eagles Nest Road is a two-lane road between Douglas Road and Kiefer Road. It parallels Sunrise Boulevard about 1 mile to the west and could be a viable alternative alignment to Sunrise Boulevard. Due to its narrow corridor, construction in Eagles Nest Road would completely block traffic. To avoid traffic impacts, the pipeline could be placed in an easement off the road, but significant wetlands and vernal pools would be impacted and require mitigation. 3.2.8 Sunrise Boulevard, South of Douglas Road South of Douglas Road, Sunrise Boulevard is currently a two-lane road, but is being widened to four lanes from Douglas Road to Chrysanthy Boulevard during the 2007 construction season. It is anticipated that Sunrise Boulevard will be widened from Chrysanthy Boulevard to Kiefer Road by the end of 2009. A 69 kilovolt (kV) power line parallels Sunrise Boulevard along the east side. Most of the utilities (water, gas, drainage) are in the east side of the road. There is room for a sewer in the new lanes on the west side, but this is a heavily traveled arterial road and significant traffic delays would result from construction activities. USBR owns the vacant land between the Sunrise Boulevard ROW and the Folsom South Canal, along the west side of the road. As stated above, USBR will issue a temporary easement and/or construction permit for temporary, construction activities on its property but will not grant a permanent easement to place the pipeline on its property, except the Folsom South Canal crossing. 3.2.9 Sunrise Boulevard, North of Douglas Road North of Douglas Road, Sunrise Boulevard is currently a four-lane road. The first mile of Sunrise Boulevard, north of Douglas, is not developed on either side. The property east of Sunrise Boulevard is privately owned and is part of the Rio Del Oro Specific Plan. The property west of Sunrise Boulevard is owned by Cordova Recreation and Parks District. The remaining northern stretch of Sunrise Boulevard is lined with businesses and is landscaped with trees on both sides and in the median. The road is heavily used and construction in the road ROW will likely result in significant traffic delays. Where the land is undeveloped along Sunrise Boulevard, the Mather Interceptor will be placed adjacent to the road ROW, and an easement will be pursued. 3.2.10 Chrysanthy Boulevard Chrysanthy Boulevard is an 80-foot wide, four-lane road with parking that intersects Sunrise Boulevard and continues to the east for 2,500 feet. It provides access into the Anatolia Subdivision and will be extended another 3,000 feet to the east in the near future to connect with Jaeger Road. The CSD-1 Chrysanthy Pump Station is located at the intersection of Chrysanthy Boulevard and Anatolia Drive, which is 1,000 feet east of Sunrise Boulevard. AJ1 is

Mather Interceptor Project

3-5

October 2007

Chapter 3 Constraints

located in Chrysanthy Boulevard and is in service. AJ1 has already been extended to Jaeger Road. The extension of Chrysanthy Boulevard will follow AJ1. 3.2.11 Kiefer Boulevard Kiefer Boulevard is an existing two-lane, county road that runs in an east-west direction through the area. Between Eagles Nest Road and Sunrise Boulevard, Kiefer Boulevard is a two-lane, paved road in an approximately 80-foot-wide ROW. Between Sunrise Boulevard and Jaeger Road, it is a dirt road in approximately 60-foot-wide ROW. However, this portion of Kiefer Boulevard is currently being improved and will be a twolane paved road with an-80-foot-wide ROW. The current road construction will place the two lanes in the north side of the ROW and will allow widening of the road to the south in the future. 3.2.12 Jaeger Road Jaeger Road was recently improved as a two-lane road in an 80-foot (approximate) ROW. Jaeger Road runs in a north-south direction between Kiefer Boulevard and Douglas Road. The existing road was built in the west side of the ROW, leaving room for road widening in the future. 3.2.13 Highway 16/Jackson Road Jackson Road is a State Highway controlled and maintained by CalTrans. Jackson Road is the primary connector between Sacramento and Amador County. Jackson Road intersects Sunrise Boulevard at the south end of the project site, just south of the potential location for the pump station site. Jackson Road is a two-lane road, but carries high volumes of commuter and truck traffic. Any work within its ROW requires a permit from CalTrans. 3.3

CONCURRENT AND FUTURE CONSTRUCTION IN THE PROJECT AREA

Several concurrent and future construction projects are planned in this developing area. The following is a list of these projects identified during preliminary design: •

Road Projects o Zinfandel Drive Extension o Douglas Road Widening o Sunrise Boulevard Widening o Kiefer Road Widening o Jaeger Road Widening o Jackson Road/Sunrise Boulevard Intersection Improvement o Eagles Nest Road Realignment o Chrysanthy Road Extension

•

Development Projects o Villages at Zinfandel o Creekside

October 2007

3-6

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 3 Constraints

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o •

Sundance Plaza and Sundance Village Rio Del Oro Specific Plan Preserve at Sunridge Anatolia III Suncreek Specific Plan Area Waegell Property Mather East Grantline West Grantline 600 Grantline 208 Douglas 103 Douglas 98 Montelena Sunridge Lot J Sunridge Park Arista del Sol

Other Projects o Mather Air Force Base Cleanup Program o Mather Groundwater Extraction and Treatment System (GET H-B) (12-inch pipeline in Douglas Road)

The SIAMI program management team is coordinating with the agencies responsible for managing road projects and proposed developments in the area. Mather Interceptor and LCA5 planned development areas and names are shown in Figure 2-2. 3.4

CODES, REGULATORY STANDARDS, AND POLICIES

The design of the project would conform to the requirements of the following SRCSD design guidelines: • • • •

Interceptor Design Manual (2003) SRCSD/CSD-1 Sewage Pump Station Design Manual (2005) SIAMI Interceptor Design Guidelines (2007) SIAMI Pump Station Design Guidelines (2007)

The selected Mather Interceptor project will conform to the requirements of the MIA discussed in Section 2.2. In addition, the project will comply with the following list of applicable regulatory agencies: •

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

•

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Consultation

•

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Consultation

•

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) Consultation

•

United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR)

Mather Interceptor Project

3-7

October 2007

Chapter 3 Constraints

•

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and associated Environmental Impact Report (EIR)

•

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)

•

California Department of Transportation (CalTrans)

•

California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal OSHA)

•

Central Valley Region, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)

•

Sacramento County, Department of Transportation

•

City of Rancho Cordova, Department of Transportation

•

Other local utilities

October 2007

3-8

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 4 Identification of Alternatives

CHAPTER 4.0 IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES This chapter describes the identification of project alternatives. The brainstorming effort to identify project alternatives and construction alternatives is described in detail. (Please note that for ease of viewing, the figures for this chapter have been placed at the end of the chapter.) 4.1

BRAINSTORMING EFFORT

Brainstorming of alternatives and potential construction techniques occurred during several coordination meetings. The following project team members participated in one or more of the alternative brainstorming sessions: • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Neal Allen, SRCSD Steve Norris, SRCSD Andrew Page, SRCSD Humera Arshad, SRCSD Robb Armstrong, SRCSD Paul Philleo, CSD-1 John Buttz, MWH Daniel Breg, MWH Rebecca Walker, MWH Bill Worrall, MWH Mike Massaro, MWH Mohammad Djavid, MWH John Bergen, MWH Steve Hyland, MWH

The following people were provided information about the alternatives and given opportunity to comment: • • • • • • • 4.2

Cyrus Abhar, City of Rancho Cordova Kathy Garcia, City of Rancho Cordova Dean Blank, Sacramento County Department of Transportation David Norris, Sacramento County Economic Development M. Robert White, County of Sacramento Economic Development Mark Rayback, Wood Rodgers (Consultant Representative, Development Community) Peter Tobia, Wood Rodgers (Consultant Representative, Development Community) DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

This section describes in detail the alternatives considered for the Mather Interceptor and LCA5. As stated earlier, the brainstormed alternatives were to meet the following requirements:

Mather Interceptor Project

4-1

October 2007

Chapter 4 Identification of Alternatives

•

The Mather Interceptor alternatives will convey flows from the Aerojet sheds to the Bradshaw Interceptor. The Mather Interceptor must connect to the existing AJ1 pipeline in Chrysanthy Boulevard.

•

The Mather Interceptor alternatives will include a structure at Sunrise Boulevard and Douglas Road that provides connections for the Aerojet interceptors.

•

The Mather Interceptor alternatives must be able to remain in use to serve the Aerojet sewer sheds as long as the Bradshaw Interceptor has available capacity. When the Bradshaw Interceptor reaches capacity, SRCSD will divert the flows originating from the Aerojet sewer sheds to the future Laguna Creek Interceptor.

•

The Mather Interceptor alternatives will either include a structure for connection of the CSD-1 MAE trunk sewer, near the intersection of Douglas Road and Eagles Nest Road, or will consider how CSD-1 would otherwise convey the MAE trunk flow to the Bradshaw Interceptor.

•

The Mather Interceptor alternatives will allow for the pipeline to be kept in service after construction of the Laguna Creek Interceptor. The Mather Junction Structure may be used to divert flows to either the Bradshaw Interceptor or Laguna Creek Interceptor systems.

•

The LCA5 alternatives considered will convey flow from the LCA5 shed to the Mather Interceptor at Chrysanthy Boulevard.

•

The analysis will include an alternative to determine if it would be beneficial to construct the AJ4 Interceptor as part of Mather Interceptor construction.

The alternatives can be separated into two groups. The first group is intended to serve the Mather and Aerojet shed areas. This group of 11 alternatives is called the Mather Interceptor alternatives (Alternatives MI-1 through MI-9, MI-9B, and MI-10). The second group is intended to serve a portion of the LCA5 shed. This group of four alternatives is called the LCA5 alternatives (Alternatives LCA5-1 through LCA5-4). An additional alternative (Alternative AJ4) was included that addresses service to the Mather, Aerojet, and LCA5 shed areas, and also includes construction of Aerojet Interceptor Section 4 (Alternative AJ4) from Douglas Road to the Mather Pump Station. As stated previously, this alternative was included to determine whether it would be cost-effective to build the AJ4 pipeline during construction of the Mather Interceptor and LCA5 facilities (pump station and force mains), avoiding the need to re-impact the same alignment in the future. In total, 16 project alternatives were considered. It should be noted that not all 16 alternatives were presented at the PAC Initiation meeting held on October 18, 2006. For instance, the LCA5 and AJ4 alternatives were not specifically presented. Hydraulic modeling and understanding of whether there was an actual need for service in LCA5 was still under development at that time. In addition, a “No Project” alternative was not considered during the analysis because the need for additional capacity in the project area was known.

October 2007

4-2

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 4 Identification of Alternatives

The descriptions and figures of the alternatives below reflect the project alternatives as they were known during the brainstorming analysis, and may have changed in later sections of this report as the design of the alternatives developed. 4.2.1 Alternative MI-1 Zinfandel Drive This alternative (see Figure 4-1) would begin with a new 42-inch-diameter gravity sewer picking up flows from the Aerojet-1 Interceptor that currently flow into the Chrysanthy Pump Station. This 42-inch-diameter open-cut gravity sewer would run north along Sunrise Boulevard to the Mather Junction Structure at Douglas Road. A 48-inch-diameter open-cut segment would then run west along Douglas Road to a drop structure on the east side of the FSC. A 48-inch-diameter gravity tunneled section would cross the FSC, run west on Douglas Road and north on the future extension of Zinfandel Drive, ending at a connection to the Bradshaw 7B Interceptor in North Mather Boulevard. 4.2.2 Alternative MI-2 Mather Boulevard This alternative (see Figure 4-2) is similar to MI-1, except the final segment, north of Douglas Road, would run along Mather Boulevard instead of Zinfandel Drive. It would begin with a new 42-inch–diameter gravity sewer picking up flows from Aerojet-1 Interceptor that currently flow into the Chrysanthy Pump Station. This 42-inch-diameter open-cut gravity sewer would run north along Sunrise Boulevard to the Mather Junction Structure at Douglas Road. A 48-inch-diameter open-cut segment would then run west along Douglas Road to a drop structure on the east side of the FSC. A 48-inch-diameter gravity tunneled section would cross the FSC, run west on Douglas Road and northwest on Mather Boulevard, ending at a connection to the Bradshaw 7B Interceptor in North Mather Boulevard. 4.2.3 Alternative MI-3 Golf Course / Zinfandel Drive A Under this alternative (see Figure 4-3), flows from the Mather Junction Structure at the Sunrise Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection would be brought south along Sunrise Boulevard in a 36-inch-diameter open-cut gravity sewer to a new drop/junction structure at the Sunrise Boulevard/Chrysanthy Boulevard intersection (flows from the Aerojet-1 Interceptor would be collected at this point). From this drop/junction structure, a 54-inchdiameter tunneled gravity sewer would cross the FSC, run west within an undeveloped area, run north on Eagles Nest Road, then north along the future extension of Zinfandel Drive to the Bradshaw 7B Interceptor in North Mather Boulevard. 4.2.4 Alternative MI-4 Golf Course / Zinfandel Drive B Under this alternative (see Figure 4-4), flows from the Mather Junction Structure at the Sunrise Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection would run west along Douglas Road in a 36inch-diameter open-cut segment to a drop structure on the east side of the FSC. A 36-inchdiameter gravity tunneled section would cross the FSC, and run west on Douglas Road to a junction structure at the future extension of Zinfandel Drive.

Mather Interceptor Project

4-3

October 2007

Chapter 4 Identification of Alternatives

A new drop/junction structure would be built at the Sunrise Boulevard/Chrysanthy Boulevard intersection. From this drop/junction structure, a 36-inch-diameter tunneled gravity sewer would cross the FSC, run west within an undeveloped area, and north on Eagles Nest Road to a junction structure at the Douglas Road/Zinfandel Drive intersection. Finally, a 48-inch-diameter tunneled gravity sewer would run along the future extension of Zinfandel Drive to a connection to the Bradshaw 7B Interceptor in North Mather Boulevard. 4.2.5 Alternative MI-5 Golf Course / Mather Boulevard A This alternative (see Figure 4-5) is similar to Alternative MI-3, except that the final segment is along Mather Boulevard instead of Zinfandel Drive. Flows from the Mather Junction Structure at the Sunrise Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection would be brought south along Sunrise Boulevard in a 36-inch-diameter tunneled gravity sewer to a new drop/junction structure at the Sunrise Boulevard/Chrysanthy Boulevard intersection. From this drop/junction structure, a 54-inch-diameter tunneled gravity sewer would cross the FSC, run west within an undeveloped area, north on Eagles Nest Road, then northwest along Mather Boulevard to the Bradshaw 7B Interceptor in North Mather Boulevard. 4.2.6 Alternative MI-6 Golf Course / Mather Boulevard B This alternative (see Figure 4-6) is similar to MI-4, except the final segment is along Mather Boulevard instead of Zinfandel Drive. Flows from the Mather Junction Structure at the Sunrise Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection would run west along Douglas Road in a 36-inch-diameter open-cut segment to a drop structure on the east side of the FSC. A 36-inch-diameter gravity tunneled section would cross the FSC, and run west on Douglas Road to a junction structure at the intersection of Eagles Nest Road. A new drop/junction structure would be built at the Sunrise Boulevard/Chrysanthy Boulevard intersection. From this drop/junction structure, a 36-inch-diameter tunneled gravity sewer would cross the FSC, run west within an undeveloped area, north on Eagles Nest Road, and end at the Douglas Road/Zinfandel Drive junction structure. Finally, a 48-inch-diameter tunneled gravity sewer would run northwest along Mather Boulevard to a connection to the Bradshaw 7B Interceptor in North Mather Boulevard. 4.2.7 Alternative MI-7 Sunrise Boulevard A Under this alternative (see Figure 4-7), the gravity sewer would begin at the downstream end of the Aerojet-1 Interceptor. A 42-inch-diameter open-cut gravity sewer would run north along Sunrise Boulevard to the Mather Junction Structure at Douglas Road. The pipeline would transition to a 48-inch-diameter open-cut gravity sewer and run northwest along Sunrise Boulevard, west along Recycle Road, and connect to a drop structure with a tunneled crossing of the FSC. Finally, the pipeline would connect to a junction structure to the Bradshaw 7B Interceptor just west of the FSC.

October 2007

4-4

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 4 Identification of Alternatives

4.2.8 Alternative MI-8 Sunrise Boulevard B This alternative (see Figure 4-8) is similar to Alternative MI-7, except the connection to Bradshaw 7B occurs slightly farther north on Sunrise Boulevard. The gravity sewer would begin at the downstream end of the Aerojet-1 Interceptor. A 42-inch-diameter open-cut gravity sewer would run north along Sunrise Boulevard to the Mather Junction Structure at Douglas Road. The pipeline would transition to a 48-inch-diameter open-cut gravity sewer and run northwest along Sunrise Boulevard, then turn west at the future extension of International Drive, where a drop manhole would be installed and the pipeline would tunnel under the FSC. Finally, the pipeline would connect to a junction structure to the Bradshaw 7B Interceptor just west of the FSC. 4.2.9 Alternative MI-9 Canal Under this alternative (see Figure 4-9), the gravity sewer would begin at the downstream end of the Aerojet-1 Interceptor. A 42-inch-diameter open-cut gravity sewer would run north along Sunrise Boulevard to the Mather Junction Structure at Douglas Road, then west along Douglas Road to a drop structure east of the FSC crossing. From the drop structure, a 48-inch tunneled gravity sewer would cross the FSC, then turn north parallel to the FSC and connect to the Bradshaw 7B Interceptor along Baroque Drive. 4.2.10 Alternative MI-9B Canal (East) This alternative was added as a result of comments received after the PAC Confirmation meeting on November 15, 2006. This alternative (see Figure 4-10) is similar to Alternative MI-9, except it runs along the east side of the FSC. The proposed gravity sewer would begin at the downstream end of the Aerojet-1 Interceptor. A 42-inchdiameter open-cut gravity sewer would run north along Sunrise Boulevard to Douglas Road, then west along Douglas Road to the east side of the FSC. A combination of a 42inch-diameter tunneled and open-cut gravity sewer would continue northwest along the canal to a drop structure. A tunneled crossing of the FSC would flow to a junction structure at the Bradshaw 7B Interceptor along Baroque Drive. 4.2.11 Alternative MI-10 All Force Main This alternative was added as a result of comments received at the PAC Initiation meeting on October 18, 2006. This alternative (see Figure 4-11) would include two pump stations. The first would be a 15 mgd AJ1 Pump Station that would replace the interim Chrysanthy Pump Station and include dual 21-inch-diameter open-cut force mains running west on Chrysanthy Boulevard and north on Sunrise Boulevard to the new 23 mgd AJ2 Pump Station at Douglas Road. From the AJ2 Pump Station, dual 27-inch-diameter open-cut force mains would run west along Douglas Road with a tunneled crossing of the FSC to the future extension of Zinfandel Drive, then northwest along Zinfandel Drive to a connection to the Bradshaw 7B Interceptor in North Mather Boulevard. The dual 21-inch force mains from AJ1 would parallel the AJ2 force mains along this route to Bradshaw 7B.

Mather Interceptor Project

4-5

October 2007

Chapter 4 Identification of Alternatives

4.2.12 Alternative LCA5-1 Sunrise Boulevard Extension Note that the next four alternatives provide facilities to convey flows from areas south of the Chrysanthy Pump Station, in the Laguna Creek Interceptor sewer shed, to the various Mather Interceptor alternatives discussed above. All LCA5 alternatives would initially include a 20 mgd pump station at the Sunrise Boulevard/Jackson Highway intersection. The final design flows of the pump station would be determined by hydraulic modeling results, which are discussed in later chapters. This pump station will be referred to as the Mather Pump Station. Alternative LCA5-1 would begin at the Mather Pump Station (see Figure 4-12). Dual 24inch-diameter open-cut force mains would run north along Sunrise Boulevard to the transition structure at Chrysanthy Boulevard. The transition structure would convert pressurized flow and connect to gravity sewers. This alternative could connect to Alternatives MI-1 through MI-9B. 4.2.13 Alternative LCA5-2 Jaeger Road Under this alternative (see Figure 4-13), flow from the pump station would run in dual 24inch-diameter open-cut force mains north on Sunrise Boulevard, east on Kiefer Boulevard, north on Jaeger Road, and west on Chrysanthy Boulevard to a transition structure. This alternative could connect to Alternatives MI-1 through MI-9B. 4.2.14 Alternative LCA5-3 Eagles Nest A Under this alternative (see Figure 4-14), flow from the pump station would run in dual 24inch-diameter open-cut force mains west along the Jackson Highway and north on Eagles Nest Road to a junction structure just south of the Mather Golf Course. This alternative would connect to Alternatives MI-3 through MI-6. 4.2.15 Alternative LCA5-4 Eagles Nest B This alternative (see Figure 4-15) is similar to Alternative LCA5-3, except that it extends to the Chrysanthy Junction Structure. From the pump station, dual 24-inch-diameter opencut force mains would run west along Jackson Highway (with a tunneled crossing of the FSC), north on Eagles Nest Road to just south of the Mather Golf Course, and east to the Chrysanthy Junction Structure (with a tunneled crossing of the FSC). This alternative would connect to all of the alternatives except MI-3 through MI-6. 4.2.16 Alternative Aerojet 4 This alternative (see Figure 4-16) differs from the other alternatives in that it includes facilities to provide service to the Mather, Aerojet, and LCA5 sheds and includes the construction of AJ4. As stated above, AJ4 would convey flow from the Mather Junction Structure (Aerojet sheds) to the Laguna Creek Interceptor and would be located along Sunrise Boulevard. This alternative was considered to determine if it would be beneficial to construct AJ4 as part of the Mather Interceptor and LCA5 construction. This alternative would avoid the future re-impact of the same alignment along Sunrise Boulevard, and also

October 2007

4-6

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 4 Identification of Alternatives

would avoid associated increased public impacts of working along/in this arterial road after much of the development in the area has occurred. For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that if AJ4 were to be constructed, it would not be operated until completion of the Laguna Creek Interceptor. This alternative includes three distinct components: •

Mather Interceptor Component – Identical to Alternative MI-1, includes a 54-inchdiameter tunneled gravity sewer that would run north along Sunrise Boulevard, west along Douglas Road (crossing the FSC), and north along the future extension of Zinfandel Road to a junction structure at the Bradshaw 7B Interceptor along North Mather Boulevard.

•

LCA5 Component – Identical to Alternative LCA5-1, includes a 20 mgd Mather Pump Station and dual 24-inch-diameter open-cut force mains that would run north along Sunrise Boulevard (parallel to the AJ4 gravity sewer) to a transition structure at Chrysanthy Boulevard.

•

AJ4 Component – Includes a 72-inch-diameter tunneled gravity sewer extending south on Sunrise Boulevard to the new Mather Pump Station near the intersection of Jackson Highway and Sunrise Boulevard.

•

It should be noted that the AJ4 Alternative was slightly modified after the November, 2006 PAC Confirmation Meeting. The modification is reflected in the following chapter.

Mather Interceptor Project

4-7

October 2007

Chapter 4 Identification of Alternatives

Figure 4-1 Alternative MI-1 Layout

October 2007

4-8

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 4 Identification of Alternatives

Figure 4-2 Alternative MI-2 Layout

Mather Interceptor Project

4-9

October 2007

Chapter 4 Identification of Alternatives

Figure 4-3 Alternative MI-3 Layout

October 2007

4-10

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 4 Identification of Alternatives

Figure 4-4 Alternative MI-4 Layout

Mather Interceptor Project

4-11

October 2007

Chapter 4 Identification of Alternatives

Figure 4-5 Alternative MI-5 Layout

October 2007

4-12

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 4 Identification of Alternatives

Figure 4-6 Alternative MI-6 Layout

Mather Interceptor Project

4-13

October 2007

Chapter 4 Identification of Alternatives

Figure 4-7 Alternative MI-7 Layout

October 2007

4-14

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 4 Identification of Alternatives

Figure 4-8 Alternative MI-8 Layout

Mather Interceptor Project

4-15

October 2007

Chapter 4 Identification of Alternatives

Figure 4-9 Alternative MI-9 Layout

October 2007

4-16

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 4 Identification of Alternatives

Figure 4-10 Alternative MI-9B Layout

Mather Interceptor Project

4-17

October 2007

Chapter 4 Identification of Alternatives

Figure 4-11 Alternative MI-10 Layout

October 2007

4-18

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 4 Identification of Alternatives

Figure 4-12 Alternative LCA5-1 Layout

Mather Interceptor Project

4-19

October 2007

Chapter 4 Identification of Alternatives

Figure 4-13 Alternative LCA5-2 Layout

October 2007

4-20

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 4 Identification of Alternatives

Figure 4-14 Alternative LCA5-3 Layout

Mather Interceptor Project

4-21

October 2007

Chapter 4 Identification of Alternatives

Figure 4-15 Alternative LCA5-4 Layout

October 2007

4-22

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 4 Identification of Alternatives

Figure 4-16 Alternative Aerojet 4 Layout

Mather Interceptor Project

4-23

October 2007

Chapter 4 Identification of Alternatives

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

October 2007

4-24

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

CHAPTER 5.0 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES This chapter provides analysis of the alternatives described in the previous chapter, including alternatives found to be fatally flawed and alternatives retained for a screening analysis. 5.1

OVERALL ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

The analysis procedure consisted of three steps, each described in following sections:

5.2

•

Fatal Flaw Analysis. The alternatives listed in the previous chapter were compared against fatal flaw criteria established by the project team. The alternatives were considered fatally flawed if they conflicted with the problem statement or if they met any of the fatal flaw criteria. These alternatives were removed from further consideration and the remaining alternatives were retained for screening analysis.

•

Screening Analysis. Alternatives retained from the fatal flaw analysis were developed in further detail and compared against screening criteria established by the project team. Alternatives were screened based on direct and indirect costs and impacts, with alternatives removed from further consideration that had high costs and/or high impacts or significant issues related to engineering or O&M. Alternatives retained from the screening analysis were carried forward to a BCE.

•

Business Case Evaluation. Alternatives retained from the screening analysis were developed in further detail for a BCE to choose a preferred project. The BCE procedure included preparing a preliminary design and construction approach. Further detail was developed for hydraulic considerations, O&M considerations, and financial costs and benefits to estimate a total cost to the community. FATAL FLAW ANALYSIS

The fatal flaw analysis was performed on alternatives identified in the brainstorming sessions, using the fatal flaw criteria shown in Table 5-1. Only one alternative was eliminated, Alternative MI-9, because of schedule concerns. Alternative MI-9 is located along the west side of the FSC, and would require ROW purchase from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), (owner of the TRACON facility) and USBR, (owner of the FSC). These two acquisitions would likely take a considerable length of time, if they were allowed at all, thus potentially delaying project completion beyond 2010. For this reason, Alternative MI-9 was eliminated.

Mather Interceptor Project

5-1

October 2007

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

Table 5-1 Fatal Flaw Criteria Category

Level of Service - Sewer

Description 1. CSD-1: No surcharge during 10-year storm PWWF. 2. SRCSD: Ability to serve service area without surcharge.

Schedule Impacts

Schedule delay to project completion beyond 2010 deadline that cannot be mitigated.

Constructability

The proposed construction method cannot be executed in the route location.

•

• • • •

•

Examples Disrupt function of existing interceptor or pump station

Environmental permitting Right-of-way Construction methods (e.g., utility conflicts) Concurrent construction – planned roadwork or development during planned construction season Gravity sewer pipe in conflict with existing utility or other obstacle that cannot be relocated (canals, culverts, existing utilities)

Key: CSD-1 = County Sanitation District 1 PWWF = peak wet weather flow SRCSD = Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District

5.3

SCREENING ANALYSIS

Alternatives retained from the fatal flaw analysis were subjected to a screening analysis. This section summarizes the screening analysis performed for the Mather Interceptor, including screening analysis criteria, application, and conclusions. 5.3.1 Screening Analysis Criteria Table 5-2 (following screening analysis information) lists the screening criteria used to evaluate the alternatives. They are presented below and summarized in the table. 5.3.1.1 Capital Cost The capital cost for each alternative was estimated using the following eight subcategories: •

Engineering Costs. The first four Engineering Costs (design at 8.5 percent of construction, construction management at 8.0 percent, project management at 16 percent, and SRCSD costs at 8.7 percent) were estimated based on costs from SRCSD’s recently completed Lower Northwest Interceptor Program. One component of the project management costs is the cost associated with utility and environmental permitting. These permitting costs were estimated as approximately 0.3 percent of the probable construction costs based on budgets from the Lower Northwest Interceptor Program and other recent projects. However, the cost of environmental permitting was then multiplied by 1, 1.25, or 1.5, depending on the environmental permitting difficulty rating assigned to the alternative. The ratings

October 2007

5-2

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

were based on an evaluation by the SIAMI program management team’s environmental consultant Environmental Science Associates (ESA) regarding the difficulty of obtaining permits for each alternative route. •

Environmental Mitigation. Environmental mitigation costs were estimated based on the approximate acreage of impacted vernal pools, wetlands, and giant garter snake (GGS) habitat. This assessment considered an approximate 500-foot swath of land as the impact area, and all features (e.g., stream channels, wetlands, vernal pools, ditches) within this area were considered impacted. The total cost was then estimated as equal to the total number of acres multiplied by the cost of mitigation per acre, based on recent, local projects, including the Lower Northwest Interceptor Program. The estimated mitigation costs for vernal pool, channel/wetland, and GGS habitat were $270,000/acre, $100,000/acre, and $100,000/acre, respectively.

•

Right-of-Way Acquisition. The capital cost of ROW acquisition was estimated based on unit costs for five different categories of land: vacant/United States, developing, residential, commercial, and manufacturing industry. ROW costs for permanent ROW (PROW) for vacant/United States, developing, residential, commercial, and manufacturing industry land were estimated at $3/square foot, $10/square foot, $25/square foot, $22/square foot, and $9/square foot, respectively. ROW costs for temporary construction easements (TCE) were estimated as 20 percent of the PROW costs for each of the respective land categories.

•

Construction. The probable construction cost was estimated using unit costs multiplied by the number of units per alternative and their length, where applicable. The construction unit costs were based on recent Sacramento construction, including the Lower Northwest Interceptor Program.

5.3.1.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs O&M costs were separated into labor, power, material, and chemical costs. The labor cost of inspection for gravity interceptors was estimated as the interceptor length multiplied by a unit cost of $30/foot. Site maintenance was estimated as $20,000, based on the estimated labor hours multiplied by the labor cost of $100 per hour. The cost for pigging the force mains was estimated at $100,000 every 20 years. The power cost was estimated by multiplying an assumed unit cost of $0.10 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) by the estimated pump run time. The O&M cost estimate for chemicals was based on the assumption that the sulfide concentration in wastewater is 0.2 milligrams per liter (mg/L) and that it takes 10 pounds of chlorine to remove 1 pound of sulfide. Therefore, 0.606 pounds of chlorine would be needed per gallon of wastewater, which is equivalent to $0.50 per gallon. Based on the estimated average flow rate of the pump station, the cost of chlorine (chemical cost) per year was estimated as the cost per day multiplied by 365 days. The O&M materials cost included replacing air release valves every 10 years ($10,000), overhauling pumps every 20 years ($125,000), replacing pumps every 40 years ($500,000),

Mather Interceptor Project

5-3

October 2007

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

performing routine odor control unit maintenance (including carbon cartridges) every 10 years, and replacing variable speed drives every 20 years ($500,000) at the same time as pump overhaul. Power costs were estimated based on projected operating time for the pump station and associated horsepower for the pump. 5.3.1.3 Temporary Public Impacts The alternatives were assessed for indirect impacts as well as direct costs. Indirect impacts were evaluated in the screening analysis by rating each alternative on a scale from 1 to 5. Alternatives that were rated 1 or 2 were considered to have low impacts, a rating of 3 was considered moderate, and ratings of 4 and 5 were considered to have high impacts. Indirect impacts were separated into two categories: temporary and permanent public impacts. Temporary public impacts would be associated with traffic, noise, dust, and vibration caused by construction activities. The temporary impacts of dust, noise, and vibration were rated by determining the number of residential houses, businesses, and other sensitive receptors within 500 feet of the centerline of the alternative segments or within the 1,000-foot buffer zone along the segments of each of the proposed project alternatives. The rating assigned to each alternative was normalized to allow comparison of each alternative. The temporary traffic impacts were assessed using traffic count surveys conducted by Y&C Consulting in conjunction with information from city and county traffic growth estimates. Y&C counted traffic along a number of major roadways and predicted the hours of delay associated with traffic along these corridors at the time of construction (2009). 5.3.1.4 Permanent Public Impacts Permanent public impacts were quantified by first assigning a weighting factor to the type of structure that would be constructed (e.g., pump station, drop structure, transition structure). The pump station was given a weighting factor of 3, while the drop and transition structures were given a weighting factor of 1, because pump stations typically have more associated visual, noise, and odor impacts, as documented in previous projects. The next step involved public outreach (PO) specialists driving the alignments of the different alternatives and stopping at locations where the proposed structures would be built. Based on the locations where these structures would be built, a PO ranking was given to indicate the permanent impact that would be associated with the structure. The weighting factor for each structure was then multiplied by the PO ranking and normalized for each alternative to assign ratings. 5.3.2 Application of Screening Analysis Using these screening criteria, the SIAMI program management team divided the alternatives into segments, in an effort to minimize duplicated assessments. Each segment was analyzed separately, and the segment and structure costs and ratings were then added to create totals for each alternative. The screening analysis results for the ten Mather Interceptor alternatives, LCA5 alternatives and AJ4 are summarized in Table 5-3 (following screening analysis information).

October 2007

5-4

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

5.3.2.1 Alternative MI-1 Zinfandel Drive 5.3.2.1.1

Construction and Engineering Costs

It was estimated that the MI-1 alignment was deep enough to require tunneling for pipe installation from the FSC crossing to the Bradshaw Interceptor (8,200 feet). The remaining alignment was assumed to be open cut (6,700 feet) with some additional cost for work in or near Sunrise Boulevard. The length of pipe required under this alternative was the least of all alternatives, but the length of tunneling required made this alternative moderately expensive compared to the other alternatives. Total estimated construction cost is $25,202,000. The engineering costs were estimated using percentages of the construction cost. The estimated engineering cost is $10,383,000 for MI-1. 5.3.2.1.2

Environmental Mitigation Cost

Most of the MI-1 alignment follows existing ROW, except the future Zinfandel Drive extension. It is anticipated that the sewer would be constructed before the road is built; therefore, SRCSD would be responsible for mitigation of wetlands and vernal pools in this area. The estimated cost is $902,000. 5.3.2.1.3

Right-of-Way Acquisition Cost

The MI-1 alignment would be mostly in existing ROW, but permanent and temporary ROW would be required along Douglas Road and Sunrise Boulevard. The total ROW acquisition cost for this alternative is estimated to be $2,540,000. 5.3.2.1.4

Operation and Maintenance Cost

Operation costs for the gravity interceptor would be primarily for routine internal inspections. O&M costs for a gravity sewer are minimal. 5.3.2.1.5

Indirect Impacts

Traffic impacts for MI-1 were rated 1 out of 5. The alignment would follow the unused portion of Zinfandel Drive and then follows the planned alignment of the road extension prior to its construction. The alignment would also be in the north side of Douglas Road. The Douglas Road ROW is 80 feet to 100 feet wide and the traveled way is along the south side of the ROW, and is only two lanes and about 25 feet wide. Keeping the alignment in the north side would avoid closing any traffic lanes. It is also expected that construction of the sewer along Sunrise would avoid closing traffic lanes. However, the Zinfandel Drive extension and the widening of Douglas Road construction are currently planned for 2009 and 2010, when construction of the Mather Interceptor is planned. The possibility of both contractors working in the same areas at the same time must be avoided. Temporary noise, dust and vibration impacts to the public were rated 1out of 5. The alignment of MI-1 avoids any existing establishments except TRACON, an auto salvage business on Douglas Road, and several houses along Sunrise Boulevard.

Mather Interceptor Project

5-5

October 2007

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

Permanent public impacts were rated 2 out of 5 and include junction structures at the North Mather Boulevard/Zinfandel Drive intersection and the Sunrise Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection. 5.3.2.2 Alternative MI-2 Mather Boulevard 5.3.2.2.1

Construction and Engineering Costs

Tunneling was also assumed for the MI-2 alignment from the FSC crossing to the junction with the Bradshaw Interceptor. But the additional distance following Mather Boulevard compared to Zinfandel Drive would result in a longer total alignment and longer tunneling distance than MI-1 (10,550 feet). The rest of the alignment was assumed to be open cut (6,700 feet) with some additional cost for work in or near Sunrise Boulevard. The length of pipe required under MI-2 would be 2,350 feet longer than for MI-1 and the overall cost would also be higher. Total estimated construction cost is $31,473,000. The engineering costs were estimated using percentages of the construction cost. The estimated engineering cost is $12,967,000 for MI-2. 5.3.2.2.2

Environmental Mitigation Cost

Most of the MI-2 alignment would follow existing ROW, and the Mather Boulevard route impacts fewer wetlands than the planned Zinfandel Drive extension and the MI-1 alternative. The estimated cost of environmental mitigation is $710,000. 5.3.2.2.3

Right-of-Way Acquisition Cost

The MI-2 alignment would be mostly in existing ROW, but permanent and temporary ROW would be required along Mather Boulevard., Douglas Road, and Sunrise Boulevard. Because of the additional length of the alignment, the MI-2 cost for ROW acquisition would be higher than for MI-1. The total ROW acquisition cost for this alternative is estimated to be $3,806,000. 5.3.2.2.4

Operation and Maintenance Cost

Operation costs for the gravity interceptor would be primarily for routine internal inspections. O&M costs for a gravity sewer are minimal. An issue that could affect the O&M of the interceptor under the MI-2 alternative is the future status of Mather Boulevard. Mather Airport staff have said they would close Mather Boulevard to the public and include it in the security zone due to security concerns. This potential closure raises potential access issues for routine O&M and during emergencies. 5.3.2.2.5

Indirect Impacts

Traffic impacts for MI-2 were rated 2 out of 5. The work along Mather Boulevard would require occasional road closures and one-way traffic. Like MI-1, the MI-2 alignment would also be in the north side of Douglas Road and construction should not impact traffic in Douglas due to the wide ROW available. However, the widening of Douglas Road construction is currently planned for 2009 and 2010, when construction of the Mather Interceptor is planned. The possibility of both contractors working in the same areas at the same time must be avoided.

October 2007

5-6

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

Temporary noise, dust and vibration impacts to the public were rated 3 out of 5. The alignment of MI-2 would pass no additional structures compared to MI-1 and therefore would have similar temporary impacts. Permanent public impacts were rated 2 out of 5 and include junction structures at Mather Boulevard and the Sunrise Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection. 5.3.2.3 Alternative MI-3 Golf Course / Zinfandel Drive A 5.3.2.3.1

Construction and Engineering Costs

The MI-3 alignment is one of the longest alignments of all the alternatives (21,350 feet) and all of it is assumed to be tunneled. This would result in one of the highest estimated construction costs. Total estimated construction cost is $47,759,000. The engineering costs were estimated using percentages of the construction cost. The estimated engineering cost is $19,677,000 for MI-3. 5.3.2.3.2

Environmental Mitigation Cost

Significant portions of the MI-3 alignment would follow cross-county routes and impact significant wetland features. The cross-country portions would include the segment between Sunrise Boulevard and Eagles Nest Road and along the planned Zinfandel Drive extension. The estimated cost of environmental mitigation is $723,000. 5.3.2.3.3

Right-of-Way Acquisition Cost

The MI-3 alignment would require permanent easements for the segment between Sunrise Boulevard and Eagles Nest Road. It would also require significant temporary easements along Eagles Nest Road. This would result in one of the highest ROW acquisition costs of all the alternatives. The total ROW acquisition cost for this alternative is estimated to be $7,241,000. 5.3.2.3.4

Operation and Maintenance Cost

Operation costs for the gravity interceptor would be primarily for routine internal inspections. O&M costs for a gravity sewer are minimal. 5.3.2.3.5

Indirect Impacts

Traffic impacts for MI-3 were rated 1 out of 5. About one half of the alignment is in crosscountry areas and the work along Sunrise Boulevard should not affect traffic. The work along Eagles Nest Road would not significantly affect traffic. Like MI-1, the MI-3 alignment must be constructed prior to the extension of Zinfandel Drive. If the sewer construction work takes place after the road extension, there could be additional impacts to traffic. Temporary noise, dust and vibration impacts to the public were rated of 3 out of 5. The potential for increased temporary impacts along this alignment is due to the adjacency of the alignment to the Mather Golf Course.

Mather Interceptor Project

5-7

October 2007

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

Permanent public impacts were rated 2 out of 5 and include junction structures at the North Mather Boulevard/Zinfandel Drive intersection and the Sunrise Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection. 5.3.2.4 Alternative MI-4 Golf Course / Zinfandel Drive B 5.3.2.4.1

Construction and Engineering Costs

MI-4 would include one of the longest lengths of pipe (22,400 feet) of all the alternatives and most of it (19,700 feet) is assumed to be tunneled. Even though the total footage of MI-4 is longer than MI-3, its construction cost would be less because of less tunneled footage. Total estimated construction cost is $39,106,000. The engineering costs were estimated using percentages of the construction cost. The estimated engineering cost is $16,111,000 for MI-4. 5.3.2.4.2

Environmental Mitigation Cost

Significant portions of the MI-4 alignment would follow cross-county routes and impact significant wetland features. The cross-country portions would include the segment between Sunrise Boulevard and Eagles Nest Road and along the planned Zinfandel Drive extension. The estimated cost of environmental mitigation is $956,000. 5.3.2.4.3

Right-of-Way Acquisition Cost

The MI-4 alignment would require permanent easements for the segment between Sunrise Boulevard and Eagles Nest Road. It would also require significant temporary easements along Eagles Nest Road. This would result in one of the highest ROW acquisition costs of all the alternatives. The total ROW acquisition cost for this alternative is estimated to be $5,732,000. 5.3.2.4.4

Operation and Maintenance Cost

Operation costs for the gravity interceptor would be primarily for routine internal inspections. O&M costs for a gravity sewer are minimal. 5.3.2.4.5

Indirect Impacts

Traffic impacts for MI-4 were rated 1 out of 5. About one half of the alignment would be in cross-country areas and the work along Douglas Road should not affect traffic. The work along Eagles Nest Road would not significantly affect traffic. Like MI-1, the MI-4 alignment must be constructed prior to the extension of Zinfandel Drive. If the sewer construction work takes place after the road extension, there could be additional impacts to traffic. Temporary noise, dust and vibration impacts to the public were rated 1 out of 5. This alignment would have a lower affect on Sunrise Boulevard, but passes by the Mather Golf Course. Permanent public impacts were rated 3 out of 5 and include junction structures at the North Mather Boulevard/Zinfandel Drive intersection, the Douglas Road/Eagles Nest Road

October 2007

5-8

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

intersection, and the Sunrise Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection. This alternative would require two crossings of the FSC. 5.3.2.5 Alternative MI-5 Golf Course / Mather Boulevard A 5.3.2.5.1

Construction and Engineering Costs

MI-5 is basically the same alternative as MI-3 except that it would follow Mather Boulevard which would result in a total alignment slightly longer than MI-3 (23,700 feet). Of the total, 23,200 feet are assumed to be tunneled. MI-5 has one of the longest overall alignments of all the alternatives except MI-6. However, it would have the highest total construction cost because of the extensive tunneling required. Total estimated construction cost is $53,963,000. The engineering costs were estimated using percentages of the construction cost. The estimated engineering cost is $22,233,000 for MI-5. 5.3.2.5.2

Environmental Mitigation Cost

Significant portions of the MI-5 alignment would follow cross-county routes and impact significant wetland features. The cross-country portions would include the segment between Sunrise Boulevard and Eagles Nest Road and along the planned Zinfandel Drive extension. The estimated cost of environmental mitigation is $531,000. 5.3.2.5.3

Right-of-Way Acquisition Cost

The MI-5 alignment would require permanent easements for the segment between Sunrise Boulevard and Eagles Nest Road. It would also require significant temporary easements along Eagles Nest Road and Mather Boulevard. This would result in the highest ROW acquisition costs of all the alternatives. The total ROW acquisition cost for this alternative is estimated to be $8,508,000. 5.3.2.5.4

Operation and Maintenance Cost

Operation costs for the gravity interceptor would be primarily for routine internal inspections. O&M costs for a gravity sewer are minimal. This alternative would have the same issue as MI-2 regarding future access for maintenance when Mather Boulevard is closed to the public. 5.3.2.5.5

Indirect Impacts

Traffic impacts for MI-5 were rated 2 out of 5. About one half of the alignment is in crosscountry areas, and the work along Douglas Road should not affect traffic. The work along Eagles Nest Road would not significantly affect traffic. Most of the impact to traffic would be along Mather Boulevard, where road closures would be required. Temporary noise, dust and vibration impacts to the public were rated 3 out of 5. The alignment of MI-5 would pass houses along Sunrise Boulevard and the Mather Golf Course.

Mather Interceptor Project

5-9

October 2007

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

Permanent public impacts were rated 2 out of 5 and include junction structures at Mather Boulevard and the Sunrise Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection. 5.3.2.6 Alternative MI-6 Golf Course / Mather Boulevard B 5.3.2.6.1

Construction and Engineering Costs

MI-6 is basically the same alternative as MI-4 except it would follow Mather Boulevard which would result in a total alignment slightly longer than MI-4 (24,750 feet). Of the total, 22,050 feet are assumed to be tunneled. Even though this alternative would have the longest overall alignment, it would have a slightly lower total construction cost than MI-5 because less of the alignment would be tunneled. Total estimated construction cost is $49,750,000. The engineering costs were estimated using percentages of the construction cost. The estimated engineering cost is $20,497,000 for MI-6. 5.3.2.6.2

Environmental Mitigation Cost

Significant portions of the MI-6 alignment would follow cross-county routes and impact significant wetland features. The cross-country portions include the segment between Sunrise Boulevard and Eagles Nest Road. The estimated cost of environmental mitigation is $764,000. 5.3.2.6.3

Right-of-Way Acquisition Cost

The MI-6 alignment would require permanent easements for the segment between Sunrise Boulevard. and Eagles Nest Road. It would also require significant temporary easements along Eagles Nest Road and Mather Boulevard. The total ROW acquisition cost for this alternative is estimated to be $6,998,000. 5.3.2.6.4

Operation and Maintenance Cost

Operation costs for the gravity interceptor would be primarily for routine internal inspections. O&M costs for a gravity sewer would be minimal. This alternative would have the same issue as MI-2 regarding future access for maintenance when Mather Boulevard is closed to the public. 5.3.2.6.5

Indirect Impacts

Traffic impacts for MI-6 were rated 2 out of 5. About one half of the alignment would be in cross-country areas and the work along Douglas Road should not affect traffic. The work along Eagles Nest Road would not significantly affect traffic. Most of the impact to traffic would be along Mather Boulevard, where road closures would be required. Temporary noise, dust and vibration impacts to the public were rated 1 out of 5. There is potential for increased temporary impacts due to the adjacency of the alignment to the Mather Golf Course. Permanent public impacts were rated 3 out of 5 and include junction structures at Mather Boulevard, the Douglas Road/Eagles Nest Road intersection, and the Sunrise

October 2007

5-10

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection. This alternative would require two crossings of the FSC. 5.3.2.7 Alternative MI-7 Sunrise Boulevard A 5.3.2.7.1

Construction and Engineering Costs

MI-7 would have the shortest alignment (13,500 feet) and only 900 feet would be tunneled since it would not cross the FSC until the end of the alignment. This would result in the lowest estimated construction cost of all the alternatives. Total estimated construction cost is $19,761,000. The engineering costs were estimated using percentages of the construction cost. The estimated engineering cost is $8,142,000 for MI-7. 5.3.2.7.2

Environmental Mitigation Cost

MI-7 would be a relatively short alignment and most of it would be in the public ROW; therefore, the impact to wetlands and other environmental features would be relatively low compared to the other alternatives. The estimated cost of environmental mitigation is $472,000. 5.3.2.7.3

Right-of-Way Acquisition Cost

Even though the MI-7 alignment would be relatively short, 5,400 feet would require permanent and temporary easements on privately owned, developable property along Sunrise Boulevard, north of Douglas Road. The total ROW acquisition cost for this alternative is estimated to be $6,448,000. 5.3.2.7.4

Operation and Maintenance Cost

Operation costs for the gravity interceptor would be primarily for routine internal inspections. O&M costs for a gravity sewer are minimal. 5.3.2.7.5

Indirect Impacts

Traffic impacts for MI-7 were rated 4 out of 5. About 2,200 feet of the MI-7 alignment would be in the shoulder of Sunrise Boulevard, which is a very heavily traveled street north of Douglas Road. This would require a lane closure, which would cause significant traffic delays. Temporary noise, dust and vibration impacts to the public were rated 4 out of 5. The alignment would pass in front of a number of businesses along Sunrise Boulevard. The potential for loss of business claims is very high with this alternative. The potential cost of these impacts is difficult to assess because cost is determined by the nature of a business, and the quality of financial records used to determine loss. Permanent public impacts were rated 2 out of 5 and include junction structures in the Bradshaw Interceptor easement behind homes on Baroque Drive and the Sunrise Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection.

Mather Interceptor Project

5-11

October 2007

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

5.3.2.8 Alternative MI-8 Sunrise Boulevard B 5.3.2.8.1

Construction and Engineering Costs

MI-8 would follow the same alignment as MI-7 except that it would cross the FSC about 1,500 feet north of the MI-7 crossing. However, MI-8 would have a shorter tunnel than MI-7; therefore, its total construction cost would be only slightly higher. Total estimated construction cost is $21,529,000. The engineering costs were estimated using percentages of the construction cost. The estimated engineering cost is $8,870,000 for MI-8. 5.3.2.8.2

Environmental Mitigation Cost

MI-8 would be a relatively short alignment and most of it would be in the public ROW; therefore, the impact to wetlands and other environmental features would be relatively low compared to the other alternatives. MI-8 would have the same environmental impacts as MI-7; the estimated cost of environmental mitigation is $472,000. 5.3.2.8.3

Right-of-Way Acquisition Cost

Even though the MI-8 alignment would be relatively short, 5,400 feet would require permanent and temporary easements on privately owned, developable property along Sunrise Boulevard, north of Douglas Road. MI-8 would be longer than MI-7, but the additional length would be in the Sunrise Boulevard ROW; therefore, the ROW acquisition costs would be virtually identical. The total ROW acquisition cost for this alternative is estimated to be $6,033,000. 5.3.2.8.4

Operation and Maintenance Cost

Operation costs for the gravity interceptor would be primarily for routine internal inspections. O&M costs for a gravity sewer are minimal. 5.3.2.8.5

Indirect Impacts

Traffic impacts for MI-8 were rated 5 out of 5. About 3,700 feet of the MI-8 alignment would be in the shoulder of Sunrise Boulevard, which is a very heavily traveled street north of Douglas Road. This would require a lane closure, which would cause significant traffic delays. The length of the sewer construction in Sunrise Boulevard would be longer than MI-7; therefore, the impact to traffic is higher. Temporary noise, dust and vibration impacts to the public were rated of 4 out of 5. The alignment would pass in front of a number of businesses along Sunrise Boulevard. The potential for loss of business claims is very high with this alternative. The potential cost of these impacts is difficult to assess because cost is determined by the nature of a business, and the quality of financial records used to determine loss. Permanent public impacts were rated 2 out of 5 and include junction structures in the Bradshaw Interceptor easement behind homes in the Villages at Zinfandel and at the Sunrise Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection.

October 2007

5-12

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

5.3.2.9 Alternative MI-9B Canal (East) 5.3.2.9.1

Construction and Engineering Costs

MI-9B crosses the FSC at the same location as MI-7. However, it follows Douglas Road before turning northwest and following the canal to the crossing and as a result, it is slightly longer than MI-7. Total estimated construction cost for MI-9B is $24,563,000. The engineering costs were estimated using percentages of the construction cost. The estimated engineering cost is $10,120,000 for MI-9B. 5.3.2.9.2

Environmental Mitigation Cost

The MI-9B alignment follows undeveloped land along the canal and would impact a significant amount of wetlands. The environmental cost of MI-9B is estimated to be $1,912,000, which is twice the estimated environmental mitigation cost of MI-4. Alternative MI-4 has the second highest mitigation cost. 5.3.2.9.3

Right-of-Way Acquisition Cost

Because MI-9B follows the FSC land, it requires less right of way acquisition than most of the other alternatives. The total ROW acquisition cost for this alternative is estimated to be $3,901,000. 5.3.2.9.4

Operation and Maintenance Cost

Operation costs for the gravity interceptor would be primarily for routine internal inspections. O&M costs for a gravity sewer are minimal. 5.3.2.9.5

Indirect Impacts

Traffic impacts for MI-9B were rated 2 out of 5. This alignment impacts traffic in Sunrise Blvd. south of Douglas Road, but avoids construction in traveled ways along Douglas Road and is completely out of traveled ways where it parallels the FSC. Temporary noise, dust and vibration impacts to the public were rated 4 out of 5. The alignment would pass along the rear of a number of businesses between the FSC and Sunrise Boulevard. It also passes by the future shopping plaza at the Sunrise Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection. There is a potential for loss of business claims with this alternative. The potential cost of these impacts is difficult to assess because cost is determined by the nature of a business, and the quality of financial records used to determine loss. Permanent public impacts were rated 2 out of 5 and include junction structures in the Bradshaw Interceptor easement behind homes in the Villages at Zinfandel and at the Sunrise Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection.

Mather Interceptor Project

5-13

October 2007

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

5.3.2.10

Alternative MI-10 All Force Main

5.3.2.10.1 Construction and Engineering Costs MI-10 would include two pump stations and twin force mains for each pump station. The four force mains would include long lengths of pipe, but the pipe diameters would be smaller than the gravity pipes under the previous alternatives. Also, force mains can follow the “lay of the land,” resulting in less deep sewers and less tunneling. The total estimated construction cost is $43,061,000. The engineering costs were estimated using percentages of the construction cost. The estimated engineering cost is $17,741,000 for MI-10. 5.3.2.10.2 Environmental Mitigation Cost Most of the force mains could be constructed in existing ROW except the segment along the extension of Zinfandel Drive. The estimated cost of environmental mitigation is $1,102,000. 5.3.2.10.3 Right-of-Way Acquisition Cost The force mains for MI-10 would follow the same routes as for MI-1, but MI-10 must include the cost of fee title for the pump station sites and temporary contractor staging areas. Both pump station sites would be on developable property. The total ROW acquisition cost for this alternative is estimated to be $6,165,000. 5.3.2.10.4 Operation and Maintenance Cost Operation costs for the pump stations and force mains would include power to run the pumps as well as costs for odor control chemicals, force main air release valve maintenance, and general site upkeep. The costs would be related to pumping rates, length of force main, and elevation difference at the outlet. The NPV of the annual O&M costs is estimated to be $3,327,000 over the life of the pump stations. 5.3.2.10.5 Indirect Impacts Traffic impacts for MI-10 were rated 4 out of 5. Temporary noise, dust and vibration impacts to the public were rated 5 out of 5. The alignment of MI-10 would avoid any existing establishments except TRACON, an auto salvage business on Douglas Road, and several houses along Sunrise Boulevard. Permanent public impacts were rated 5 out of 5 and include junction structures at the North Mather Boulevard/Zinfandel Drive intersection and the Sunrise Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection.

October 2007

5-14

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

5.3.2.11

Alternative LCA5-1 Sunrise Boulevard Extension

5.3.2.11.1 Construction and Engineering Costs LCA5-1 would include the pump station and 15,500 feet of dual 24-inch-diameter force main. This alternative would have the shortest force main of the LCA5 alternatives and, as a result, would have the lowest construction cost. The total estimated construction cost is $23,089,000. The engineering costs were estimated using percentages of the construction cost. The estimated engineering cost is $9,513,000 for LCA5-1. 5.3.2.11.2 Environmental Mitigation Cost Environmental mitigation costs for LCA5-1 would be relatively high because of impacts to wetlands along the force main route and the pump station site. The estimated cost of environmental mitigation is $3,093,000. 5.3.2.11.3 Right-of-Way Acquisition Cost The LCA5-1 force mains could be constructed in the Sunrise Boulevard ROW, but ROW acquisition costs would include the pump station site and temporary easement costs. The total ROW acquisition cost for this alternative is estimated to be $4,834,000. 5.3.2.11.4 Operation and Maintenance Cost Operation costs for the pump station and force main would include power to run the pumps as well as costs for odor control chemicals, force main air release valve maintenance, and general site upkeep. Since all alternatives assume the same pumping rates, the difference in cost would be related to the length of the force main and elevation difference at the outlet. The NPV of the annual O&M costs for LCA5-1 over the life of the pump station is estimated to be $2,041,000. 5.3.2.11.5 Indirect Impacts Traffic impacts for LCA5-1 were rated 4 out of 5. The entire force main alignment would be in the shoulder of Sunrise Boulevard. In addition, the alignment must cross the intersection with Kiefer Boulevard by open-cut construction which would require lane closures. Temporary noise, dust and vibration impacts to the public were rated 3 out of 5. The alignment would pass a number of homes along Sunrise Boulevard. Permanent public impacts were rated 3 out of 5 and include pump station visual impacts as well as potential for noise and odors.

Mather Interceptor Project

5-15

October 2007

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

5.3.2.12

Alternative LCA5-2 Jaeger Road

5.3.2.12.1 Construction and Engineering Costs LCA5-2 would include the pump station and 25,600 feet of dual 24-inch-diameter force main. This alternative would have the longest force main of the LCA5 alternatives and, as a result, would have the highest construction cost. The total estimated construction cost is $30,957,000. The engineering costs were estimated using percentages of the construction cost. The estimated engineering cost is $12,754,000 for LCA5-2. 5.3.2.12.2 Environmental Mitigation Cost Environmental mitigation costs for LCA5-2 would be relatively high because of impacts to wetlands along the force main route and the pump station site. The estimated cost of environmental mitigation is $3,466,000. 5.3.2.12.3 Right-of-Way Acquisition Cost The LCA5-2 force mains would be constructed along Sunrise Boulevard, Kiefer Boulevard and Jaeger Road. The cost of the easements along this route reflects the longer force main length. The LCA5-2 ROW acquisition cost would be one of the highest of the LCA5 alternatives. The total ROW acquisition cost for this alternative is estimated to be $6,292,000. 5.3.2.12.4 Operation and Maintenance Cost Operation costs for the pump station and force main would include power to run the pumps as well as costs for odor control chemicals, force main air release valve maintenance, and general site upkeep. Since all alternatives assume the same pumping rates, the difference in cost would be related to the length of the force main and elevation difference at the outlet. The NPV of the annual O&M costs for LCA5-2 over the life of the pump station is estimated to be $2,119,000. 5.3.2.12.5 Indirect Impacts Traffic impacts for LCA5-2 were rated 3 out of 5. LCA5-2 would include less construction in Sunrise Boulevard; this is reflected in lower traffic impacts than for LCA51. This alternative also calls for open cut crossing of the Kiefer Boulevard intersection, which would require lane closures. Temporary noise, dust and vibration impacts to the public were rated 5 out of 5. The alignment would pass through areas that would have newly constructed homes along Jaeger Road. Permanent public impacts were rated 3 out of 5 and include pump station visual impacts as well as potential for noise and odors.

October 2007

5-16

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

5.3.2.13

Alternative LCA5-3 Eagles Nest A

5.3.2.13.1 Construction and Engineering Costs LCA5-3 would include the pump station and 18,650 feet of dual 24-inch-diameter force main. This alternative would have a shorter force main than LCA5-2, but would be longer than LCA5-1; the construction cost reflects the difference in force mains. The total estimated construction cost is $24,993,000. The engineering costs were estimated using percentages of the construction cost. The estimated engineering cost is $10,296,000 for LCA5-3. 5.3.2.13.2 Environmental Mitigation Cost Environmental mitigation costs for LCA5-3 would be relatively high due to impacts to wetlands along the force main route and the pump station site, but not as high as for LCA5-1 and LCA5-2. There are significant wetlands and vernal pools along Eagles Nest Road, but it appears they could be avoided to some degree. The estimated cost of environmental mitigation is $1,123,000. 5.3.2.13.3 Right-of-Way Acquisition Cost The LCA5-3 force mains would be constructed along Jackson Road and Eagles Nest Road. The total ROW acquisition cost for this alternative is estimated to be $3,167,000. 5.3.2.13.4 Operation and Maintenance Cost Operation costs for the pump station and force main would include power to run the pumps as well as costs for odor control chemicals, force main air release valve maintenance, and general site upkeep. Since all alternatives assume the same pumping rates, the difference in cost would be related to the length of the force main and elevation difference at the outlet. The NPV of the annual O&M costs for LCA5-3 over the life of the pump station is estimated to be $2,041,000. 5.3.2.13.5 Indirect Impacts Traffic impacts for LCA5-3 were rated 2 out of 5. It is expected that construction could avoid the traveled way along Jackson Road, and there is very little traffic on Eagles Nest Road. Temporary noise, dust and vibration impacts to the public were rated 1 out of 5. The alignment would pass very few structures. Permanent public impacts were rated 2 out of 5 and include pump station visual impacts as well as potential for noise and odors.

Mather Interceptor Project

5-17

October 2007

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

5.3.2.14

Alternative LCA5-4 Eagles Nest B

5.3.2.14.1 Construction and Engineering Costs LCA5-4 would include the pump station and 25,300 feet of dual 24-inch-diameter force main. This alternative would be almost as long as LCA5-2, and the construction cost would be almost identical. The total estimated construction cost is $30,378,000. The engineering costs were estimated using percentages of the construction cost. The estimated engineering cost is $12,515,000 for LCA5-4. 5.3.2.14.2 Environmental Mitigation Cost Environmental mitigation costs for LCA5-4 would be similar to LCA5-3, since the routes are similar, but LCA5-4 would be longer. The estimated cost of environmental mitigation is $1,502,000. 5.3.2.14.3 Right-of-Way Acquisition Cost The ROW acquisition cost for LCA5-4 would be relatively high because of the need to obtain permanent easements between Eagles Nest Road and Sunrise Boulevard. The total ROW acquisition cost for this alternative is estimated to be $6,947,000. 5.3.2.14.4 Operation and Maintenance Cost Operation costs for the pump station and force main would include power to run the pumps as well as costs for odor control chemicals, force main air release valve maintenance, and general site upkeep. Since all alternatives assume the same pumping rates, the difference in cost would be related to the length of the force main and elevation difference at the outlet. The NPV of the annual O&M costs for LCA5-4 over the life of the pump station is estimated to be $1,998,000. 5.3.2.14.5 Indirect Impacts Traffic impacts for LCA5-4 were rated 2 out of 5. It is expected that the construction could avoid the traveled way along Jackson Road, and there is very little traffic on Eagles Nest Road. Temporary noise, dust and vibration impacts to the public were rated 1 out of 5. The alignment would pass very few structures. Permanent public impacts were rated 3 out of 5 and include pump station visual impacts as well as potential for noise and odors. 5.3.2.15

Alternative AJ4 Aerojet 4

5.3.2.15.1 Construction and Engineering Costs AJ4 would include a gravity sewer similar to MI-1, a pump station and force main similar to LCA5-1, and construction of AJ4, which is a 72-inch-diameter gravity sewer from the

October 2007

5-18

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

Mather Junction Structure on Douglas Road to Jackson Road. The total estimated construction cost is $63,784,000. The engineering costs were estimated using percentages of the construction cost. The estimated engineering cost is $26,297,000 for AJ4. 5.3.2.15.2 Environmental Mitigation Cost The environmental mitigation cost for AJ4 is high because of the length of the project. The estimated cost of environmental mitigation is $3,995,000. 5.3.2.15.3 Right-of-Way Acquisition Cost Although most of the alignment would follow existing or future ROW, temporary easements and a pump station site would be needed. The total ROW acquisition cost for this alternative is estimated to be $7,374,000. 5.3.2.15.4 Operation and Maintenance Cost Operation costs for the pump station would be very similar to LCA5-1. The NPV of the annual O&M costs for AJ4 over the life of the pump station are estimated to be $2,081,000. 5.3.2.15.5 Indirect Impacts Traffic impacts for AJ4 were rated 4 out of 5. AJ4 would impact the entire length of Sunrise Boulevard from Jackson Road to Douglas Road. Temporary noise, dust, vibration impacts to the public were rated 3 out of 5 and would likely include noise, dust, and potential vibration from heavy construction equipment. The alignment would pass in front of a number of homes along Sunrise Boulevard. Permanent public impacts were rated 3 out of 5 and include visual, noise, and potential odor impacts from the pump station as well as junction structures at the North Mather Boulevard/Zinfandel Drive intersection and the Sunrise Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection. Impacts would include a transition structure on Sunrise Boulevard.

Mather Interceptor Project

5-19

October 2007

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

Table 5-2 Screening Criteria Category

Description/Value Calculation Engineering cost includes: • Final Design • Program Management • Construction Management • SRCSD Oversight Environmental mitigation costs include impacts to: • Channel/wetlands • Vernal pools • Giant garter snakes (GGS) • Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (VELB) • Trees • Other species Cost to acquire easements based on Lower Northwest Interceptor Program (LNWI) unit costs

Engineering

Direct Costs

Environmental

Capital Cost Right-of-Way

Construction

Cost to construct proposed facilities, based on unit cost factors, not facility layouts

O&M Cost

Operation and maintenance (O&M) cost includes: • Labor • Power • Materials • Chemicals

Indirect Impacts

Traffic Temporary Public Impacts

Permanent Public Impacts

October 2007

Noise, Dust, and Vibration

Visual, Noise, and Odor

5-20

Temporary public impacts due to traffic delays were assigned a rating of 1 to 5. Temporary public impact due to construction related noise, dust, and vibration were assigned a rating of 1 to 5. Permanent public impacts (potential visual, noise, and odor) from the pump station and other structures (e.g., junction structures, transition structures) were assigned a rating or 1 to 5.

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

Table 5-3 Screening Analysis Results Direct Costs

Indirect Impacts

Temporary Public Impacts

$2,540,000 $3,806,000 $7,241,000 $5,732,000 $8,508,000 $6,998,000 $6,448,000 $6,033,000 n/a $3,901,000 $6,165,000 $4,834,000 $6,292,000 $3,167,000 $6,947,000 $7,374,000

$25,202,000 $31,473,000 $47,759,000 $39,106,000 $53,963,000 $49,750,000 $19,761,000 $21,529,000 n/a $24,563,000 $43,061,000 $23,089,000 $30,957,000 $24,993,000 $30,378,000 $63,784,000

Visual/Noise/Odor [i]

$902,000 $710,000 $723,000 $956,000 $531,000 $764,000 $472,000 $472,000 n/a $1,912,000 $1,102,000 $3,093,000 $3,466,000 $1,123,000 $1,502,000 $3,995,000

Noise/Dust/Vibration [h]

Zinfandel Drive Mather Boulevard Golf Course / Zinfandel Drive A Golf Course / Zinfandel Drive B Golf Course / Mather Boulevard A Golf Course / Mather Boulevard B Sunrise Boulevard A Sunrise Boulevard B Canal Canal (East) All Force Main Sunrise Boulevard Extension Jaeger Road Eagles Nest A Eagles Nest B Aerojet 4

Traffic [g]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9B 10 1 2 3 4 4

Total Direct Cost (NPV) [f]

Right of Way [c]

MIMIMIMIMIMIMIMIMIMIMILCA5LCA5LCA5LCA5AJ-

Permanent Public Impacts

O&M (NPV) [e]

Environmental Mitigation [b]

$10,383,000 $12,967,000 $19,677,000 $16,111,000 $22,233,000 $20,497,000 $8,142,000 $8,870,000 n/a $10,120,000 $17,741,000 $9,513,000 $12,754,000 $10,296,000 $12,515,000 $26,279,000

Alternatives

Probable Cost of Construction [d]

Engineering [a]

Capital Costs (Estimates in 2006 $, not NPV)

$40,000 $45,000 $55,000 $50,000 $59,000 $49,000 $38,000 $41,000 n/a $40,000 $3,327,000 $2,041,000 $2,119,000 $2,041,000 $1,998,000 $2,081,000

$40,762,000 $51,131,000 $78,751,000 $64,673,000 $89,007,000 $81,460,000 $36,436,000 $39,275,000 n/a $42,332,000 $78,489,000 $44,402,000 $57,993,000 $43,352,000 $55,634,000 $107,958,000

1 2 1 1 2 2 4 5 n/a 2 4 4 3 2 2 4

1 3 3 1 3 1 4 4 n/a 4 5 3 5 1 1 3

2 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 n/a 2 5 3 3 2 3 3

Footnotes:

Mather Interceptor Project

[a]

Engineering cost includes the cost of final design, program management, construction management, and SRCSD involvement and oversight. Engineering cost above is estimated in 2006 dollars and has not been escalated or discounted. Based on LNWI budget, assumes that the cost of final design will be approximately 8.5% of the probable cost of construction. Based on LNWI budget, assumes that the cost of construction management will be approximately 8.0% of the probable cost of construction. Assumes that the total cost of program management is approximately 16.0% of the probable construction cost, based on the existing program management contract amount and assuming a $60M probable cost of construction. This cost includes the cost of environmental and utility permitting. Based on LNWI budget, assumes that the cost of district involvement will be approximately 8.7% of the probable cost of construction.

[b]

The Environmental Mitigation Cost includes all mitigation required for the construction of the project. The Environmental Mitigation Cost above is estimated in 2006 dollars and has not been escalated or discounted. Estimated based on approximate acreage impacts to vernal pools, wetlands, and giant garder snake habitat as assessed by ESA and current mitigation values.

[c]

The Right of Way Cost includes the cost to obtain all necessary temporary and permanent property rights for the project. The Right of Way Cost was estimated based on approximate easment requirements and current appraisal values. The Right of Way Cost above is estimated in 2006 dollars and has not been escalated or discounted.

[d]

The Probable cost of construction includes the likely cost to construct the proposed facilities ("unit price" cost estimate). Probable cost of construction including a 20% contingency for unknown conditions due to the early stage of design. The probable cost of construction above is estimated in 2006 dollars and has not been escalated or discounted.

[e]

Operation and Maintenance (O&M) cost includes the cost of labor, power, materials, and chemicals to operate and maintain the proposed facilities. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) cost assumes a 80 year life cycle and is a net present value.

[f]

The Total Cost is a net present value and includes the Engineering Cost, Environmental Mitigation Cost, Right of Way Cost, Probable Cost of Contstruction, and O&M Cost. It was assumed that the Engineering Cost, Environmental Mitigation Cost, Right of Way Cost, and Probable Cost of Contstruction were incurred in accordance with the project schedule. The net present value was calculated assuming a 5% per year discount rate and a 3% per year escalation rate, in accordance with SRCSD standards.

[g] [h] [i]

Temporary public impacts due to traffic delays were assigned a rating of 1 to 5. This assessment was performed by Y&C based on recent traffic counts in the area. Temporary public impacts due to construction related noise, dust, and vibration were assigned a rating of 1 to 5. This assessment was performed by MMC and were based on a field survey of sensitive receptors in the project area. Permanent public impacts (potential visual, noise, and odor) from the pump station and other structures (i.e., junction structures, transition structures, etc.) were assigned a rating of 1 to 5. This assessment was performed by MMC and were based on a field survey of sensitive receptors in the project area.

5-21

October 2007

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

October 2007

5-22

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

5.3.3 Conclusions of the Mather Interceptor Screening Analysis In selecting Mather Interceptor alternatives to carry forward from the screening analysis, the following were considered and are summarized in Table 5-4: • • •

Overall cost of the alternative Rating associated with temporary public impacts Rating associated with permanent public impacts

Table 5-4 Summary of Mather Interceptor Screening Analysis Results Alternative MI-7 MI-8 MI-1 MI-9B MI-2 MI-4 MI-3 MI-6 MI-10 MI-5 AJ-4

Net Present Value ($millions) $36.4 $39.3 $40.8 $42.3 $51.1 $64.7 $78.8 $81.5 $86.5 $89.0 $108.0

Public Impact (temporary/permanent) High/Low High/Low Low/Low High/Low Moderate/Low Low/Moderate Low/Low Low/Moderate Low/High Moderate/Low Low/Low

Screening Conclusions Retained Eliminated Retained Eliminated Retained Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated Retained

The overall cost or NPV was mostly related to the length of pipe required for each alternative. Construction costs ranged between $19,761,000 and $53,963,000. O&M costs were so low for a gravity sewer, they did not affect the total NPV of these alternatives. There was very little difference in environmental mitigation costs, which ranged from about $500,000 to about $1,000,000. ROW acquisition costs were significant but did not change the rankings of the alternatives. Indirect impact ratings were generally low (1) to moderate (3) for all alternatives except MI-7, MI-8, and MI-9B. Most of the alternative alignments would avoid construction near existing structures or homes. However, MI-7 and MI-8 would pass many businesses and require construction in a very busy section of Sunrise Boulevard. MI-7 had the lowest total cost and NPV, but had very high traffic and temporary public impacts due to the construction necessary in Sunrise Boulevard north of Douglas Road. MI-8 had a slightly higher NPV than MI-7 and also had very high traffic and public impacts for the same reason as MI-7. MI-1 had the next lowest cost and very low traffic and temporary public impacts. MI-2 was about $10,000,000 higher in cost than MI-1 and had slightly higher indirect impacts. MI-9B had the next lowest cost after MI-1, but had a high rating for temporary public impacts. This alternative was initially excluded from the screening analysis because it is partially located in USBR property and it is unlikely a permit will be obtained in a time Mather Interceptor Project

5-23

October 2007

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

frame that allows completion of alternative by the end of 2010. However, a cost estimate was prepared so it could be compared to other alternatives. If the cost of MI-9B was significantly lower than the other alternatives SRCSD would consider allowing a later project completion. However, MI-9B is not significantly lower than other alternatives, so it was not considered a practical alternative. MI-4 had the next lowest cost, but its cost is $13,000,000 higher than MI-2. The remaining alternatives had costs $26,000,000 to $38,000,000 higher than MI-2 and did not have significantly lower indirect impacts. After comparing the NPVs and public impact for each alternative, the following conclusions were drawn: •

There is a cost breakpoint between the first five alternatives, with the lowest NPV, and the four alternatives with the highest NPV (see Table 5-3).

•

Four of the five lowest-cost alternatives would have low permanent public impacts. Two would have low temporary public impacts.

Given these results, the five lowest-cost Mather Interceptor alternatives were retained from the screening analysis to be analyzed further in the BCE as “practical alternatives”: Alternatives MI-1, MI-2, MI-4, MI-7, and MI-8. Alternatives MI-7 and MI-8 will be treated as one because they follow the same alignment but with a different FSC crossing location. These practical alternatives were approved in the PAC Confirmation Meeting on November 15, 2006. 5.3.4 Additional Screening Involving the LCA5 and AJ4 Alternatives Capacity management hydraulic modeling results for the Bradshaw Interceptor and the LCA5 areas were not available at the time of PAC Confirmation Meeting; thus, four LCA5 alternatives were carried over. Once the SRCSD Capacity Management group provided results of the hydraulic modeling effort (see Appendix A), the following decisions were made: •

The Bradshaw Interceptor will reach capacity by 2030. Thus, the Laguna Creek Interceptor would need to be in place by 2030.

•

The excess capacity available in the Bradshaw Interceptor prior to 2030 is approximately 49 mgd.

•

The LCA5 sewer shed will reach 10 mgd of flow by approximately 2015, triggering the need for an SRCSD facility to serve the LCA5 sheds.

•

The design flow for the Mather Pump Station (serving the LCA5 shed) was determined to be 13 mgd.

Because an SRCSD facility is required for LCA5 flows very close to the time of the Mather Interceptor (2015 vs. 2010), and approximately 15 years before the likely completion of the Laguna Creek Interceptor, it was determined that the Mather Interceptor project should include facilities to provide service to LCA5.

October 2007

5-24

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

As presented earlier, the SIAMI program management team identified five alternatives to provide service to LCA5: LCA5-1, LCA5-2, LCA5-3, LCA5-4, and AJ4. The costs and ratings for these five alternatives are presented in Table 5-3. Two of the alternatives (LCA5-5 and LCA5-6) were replaced by the AJ4 alternative, leaving five “practical” alternatives to serve the southern area: LCA5-1, LCA5-2, LCA5-3, LCA5-4, and AJ4. These five practical southern alternatives were combined with the MI practical alternatives (MI-1, MI-2, MI-4, MI-7, and MI-8) to create eleven additional alternatives for consideration (see Appendix B). To further simplify analysis, additional screening took place: •

Alternative MI-8 was dropped from further consideration because Alternatives MI7 and MI-8 were nearly identical, with the exception of the crossing location of the FSC.

•

LCA5-2 and LCA5-4 were dropped because of high cost.

•

MI-4 was dropped because of high cost. This resulted in dropping LCA5-3 as well, because this extension route was specific to the MI-4 alternative.

This left LCA5-1 as the only remaining LCA5 alternative, to be linked with the three remaining MI alternatives (MI-1, MI-2, and MI-7) to create a complete alternative. AJ4 also remained, as a complete alternative. The location of the Mather Pump Station and the alignment of the force main were modified to coincide with the facilities shown in MP2000. The result is four complete practical alternatives: • • • •

MI-1 and LCA5-1 (now termed MI-1) MI-2 and LCA5-1 (now termed MI-2) MI-7 and LCA5-1 (now termed MI-7) AJ4

These practical alternatives were approved by the PAC at the February 21, 2007 meeting. The SIAMI program management team then completed a preliminary design and BCE of these four alternatives. These four practical alternatives were also modeled by capacity management to confirm pipe sizes and design flows (see Appendix C). It should be noted that the PAC did not accept the analysis of alternatives to serve LCA5. CSD-1 staff disagreed with the assumptions used in the flow modeling effort that determined flow in the LCA5 shed would reach 10 mgd by 2015. They also speculated the slow-down in the housing market would further delay the need for regional service to LCA5. There was also speculation that Bradshaw Interceptor would have the capacity to handle buildout flows from Aerojet sheds making Aerojet 4 Interceptor unnecessary. There was discussion that developer built interim pump stations would be a better solution if development slowed. The PAC directed that alternatives using multiple interim CSD-1 pump stations be included in the analysis. Previous discussions with SRCSD staff had assumed that a regional solution was appropriate because the 10 mgd threshold for SRCSD responsibility would be reached by 2015. Project staff was directed in June 2007 to compare the regional

Mather Interceptor Project

5-25

October 2007

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

pump station and force main to multiple interim pump stations. The results of that analysis are presented in a separate PDP. 5.4

BUSINESS CASE EVALUATION

The purpose of the BCE is to develop a “Total Cost to the Community” for each practical alternative. Traditionally, only capital and operating costs were considered when performing a BCE to select a preferred alternative. That type of analysis limits the scope of the costs considered to those incurred by the facility owner. Conceptually, a Total Cost to the Community should include all significant direct and indirect costs associated with the design, construction, and operation of the proposed facilities regardless of who may incur the cost. For a pipeline construction project, the Total Cost to the Community may include potential cost impacts to other municipalities whose facilities or operation thereof may be affected by the project selection, developers who may be depending on construction of the project in a particular location and on a particular schedule, or individual members of the public who may be temporarily or permanently impacted by construction of the proposed facilities. The list of parameters (potential cost categories) required to perform a rigorous BCE based on the Total Cost to the Community will include a variety of topics. The list of parameters depends on the proposed project and related potential impacts. A list of BCE parameters was prepared for the Mather Interceptor Project and is discussed in the text below. Although the objective was to assess all potential costs in dollars, some costs were difficult or impractical to quantify. These intangible costs were captured as intangible issues and were considered during the selection of preferred alternative. 5.4.1 Business Case Evaluation Approach To perform a rigorous analysis of the BCE parameters, a preliminary design was developed for each of the practical alternatives. The preliminary design includes a set of drawings and a description of the recommended construction approach. All practical alternatives include the same pump station and force main, but with different gravity pipeline configurations. The pump station and pipeline preliminary designs were captured in separate preliminary design documents. The preliminary design drawings for the pipelines include plan and profile sheets in addition to detail sheets for key structures and typical appurtenances. The plan and profile sheets include pipeline centerline, pipeline stationing, major structure locations, tunnel shaft locations, manhole locations, pump station location, construction staging areas, limits of disturbance for the proposed construction, proposed permanent easements, parcel boundaries, assessors parcel numbers, and preliminary existing utility information. Preliminary design drawings for the pump station include civil, architectural, mechanical, structural, and electrical layout drawings in addition to detail sheets for key structures. The description of the construction approach for both the pipelines and pump station includes information regarding construction methods and assumptions on how the contractor may approach executing the work. Consistent with the Problem Statement, the construction approach considered assumes a target start-date of December 2010. Please note that several supporting documents were used during the development of the preliminary designs: Environmental Site Assessment October 2007

5-26

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

Phase 1 Report by ESA (2007); Preliminary Geotechnical Report by Kleinfelder (2007); hydraulic analysis performed by Capacity Management Division; and information on existing utilities collected from various sources (see Appendix A). Each practical alternative was analyzed to determine if there were any related additional costs to the community (beyond those directly associated with implementation of the practical alternative) or costs that must be included to provide for an equitable comparison between alternatives. Once a cost was identified, it was determined which BCE parameters should be evaluated. Required design information was prepared to characterize the cost for use in calculating identified BCE parameter costs. Related additional costs were not designed or analyzed to the same level of detail as for the practical alternatives (see Appendix D). Each of the BCE parameters (construction, engineering, ROW acquisition, environmental mitigation, O&M, schedule, temporary public impacts, and risk) were assessed for the practical alternatives. Only the BCE parameters required to adequately characterize related additional costs were calculated. All BCE costs were developed in 2007 dollars. The date(s) during which the costs would be incurred was identified. Costs were escalated and discounted using a life cycle cost analysis to determine the NPV. Life cycle duration was determined based on the facilities under consideration. Design life for the pipelines was assumed to be 80 years and most pump station components were assumed to last 20 to 40 years before replacement. Since most of the project components have a design life of 80 years, 80 years was used as the project life cycle duration. Pump station equipment replacement costs were added to the life cycle analysis. Furthermore, the NPV was calculated assuming a 5 percent discount rate and a 3 percent escalation rate. The resulting NPV for each practical alternative and related benefit(s) was combined, resulting in a Total Cost to the Community for each practical alternative. This concept of comparing the Total Cost to the Community (NPV) as a sum of the NPV of the practical alternative and any related cost(s) is captured in Figure 5-1.

Mather Interceptor Project

5-27

October 2007

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

BCE Compares the Total Cost to the Community for Alternatives

Total Cost to the Community for Alternative MI-1

Total Cost to the Community for Alternative MI-2

Total Cost to the Community for Alternative MI-7

Total Cost to the Community for Alternative AJ4

=

NPV for Alternative MI-1 As Designed

=

NPV for Alternative MI-2 As Designed

=

NPV for Alternative MI-7 As Designed

=

NPV for Alternative AJ4 As Designed

+

Any Related Additional Costs

+

Any Related Additional Costs

+

Any Related Additional Costs

+

Any Related Additional Costs

Figure 5-1 BCE Summary of Alternatives and Related Additional Costs In addition, an analysis was performed to determine the sensitivity of BCE results to fluctuations in the escalation rate for construction cost. The NPV of the construction cost for each practical alternative and any related additional costs were calculated assuming a 5 percent discount rate and 3, 5, 7.5, and 10 percent escalation rates to determine if the ranking between alternatives was affected. Preparation of a sensitivity analysis for construction cost escalation rates was discussed and approved by the PAC on February 21, 2007. The Total Cost to the Community, key intangibles, and results of the sensitivity analysis were presented to SRCSD staff, and a preferred alternative was selected.

October 2007

5-28

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

5.4.2 Business Case Evaluation Parameters The BCE parameters (previously referred to as selection criteria) were first presented to the PAC on October 18, 2006 at the Project Initiation Meeting. Several subsequent meetings were held with the project team, including SRCSD staff, to refine the list of BCE parameters and identify an approach to calculate the parameters as costs. The revised BCE parameters were presented to the PAC for approval at the November 15, 2006, PAC Confirmation Meeting. The BCE parameters used for this analysis include the following costs: • • • • • • • •

Construction Engineering Right-of-way acquisition Environmental mitigation Operation and maintenance Schedule Temporary public impacts Risk

It should be noted that the cost to obtain environmental and utility permits, previously presented to the PAC as separate BCE parameters, were determined to be relatively insignificant and are no longer individually calculated. The cost to obtain these permits is included in the engineering cost. The key assumptions and approach taken to determine BCE parameter costs are discussed below. 5.4.2.1 Construction Cost A Class 3 Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) Opinion of Probable Construction Cost estimate was prepared for each of the practical alternatives. Class 3 estimates are generally as follows: •

Prepared to form the basis for budget authorization, appropriation, and/or funding, including full project funding requests, and become the first of the project phase "control estimates" against which all actual costs and resources will be monitored for variation to budget.

•

Based on more deterministic estimating methods than stochastic methods.

•

Based on a 10 percent to 40 percent level of design.

•

Have an accuracy of +/- 10 percent to 30 percent (sometimes higher), depending on the technological complexity of the project, appropriate reference information, and the inclusion of an appropriate contingency determination.

Opinion of Probable Construction Cost estimates includes a 20 percent construction contingency. Construction cost estimates for related additional costs were calculated using a “unit price” estimating approach. Typical unit prices were determined based on recent construction of similar facilities. Unit price construction cost estimates also include a 20 percent construction contingency. Mather Interceptor Project

5-29

October 2007

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

Detailed Construction Cost estimates for each practical alternative and related additional costs can be found in Appendix E. 5.4.2.2 Engineering Cost The cost of engineering services includes the cost of SRCSD participation and oversight in addition to consultant-provided program management (PM), final design, and construction management (CM) services. The following were assumed: •

Based on previous SRCSD projects, SRCSD participation and oversight would be 3.8 percent of the Probable Construction Cost. SRCSD participation and oversight would include the cost for SRCSD Engineering and Operations and Maintenance staff to participate through design, construction, and start-up; for California Department of Environmental Review and Assessment (DERA) to prepare and obtain approval of the project Supplemental EIR process; for Sacramento County legal services to provide support when necessary; and for the Sacramento County Real Estate Division to pursue and obtain the required right of way for the project. This does not include the cost of the property easement and/or title.

•

Program Management services were estimated at 9.2 percent of the Probable Construction Cost and include the cost to provide program management services through design, construction, and facility start-up.

•

Final design services were estimated at 8.5 percent of the Probable Construction Cost and include the cost to provide design services through final design and construction.

•

CM services were estimated at 8.0 percent of the Probable Construction Cost and include the cost to provide CM services through construction and start-up.

5.4.2.3 Right-of-Way Cost ROW cost includes the cost to purchase the property rights to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed practical alternative. The cost for staff to pursue the required ROW was included within the engineering cost. Using the proposed temporary and permanent ROW areas defined in the preliminary design documents, a complete list of the parcels and the impacted areas was prepared. It was assumed that permanent ROW would be obtained through acquisition of a permanent easement, but in some cases, where impacts would be significant, or SRCSD had placed a reservation to purchase property, it was estimated ROW would be obtained in fee title. Fee title was estimated at 100 percent of fair market value. Permanent easements were estimated at 50 percent of fair market value. Temporary easements were estimated at 10 percent per year of fair market value and for a 2-year duration. Each parcel was placed into one of five land use categories, and a value was estimated for each land use category based on fair market value in the area. The list of land use categories and estimated fair market values for the project are shown in Table 5-5.

October 2007

5-30

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

Table 5-5 Right of Way Property Value Assumptions Estimated Fair Market Value ($/square foot.) $25 $22 $10 $9 $3

Land Use Category Residential Commercial/Business Developing Manufacturing/Industrial Vacant lands/USA

The total cost of required ROW was calculated for each parcel. The total ROW cost includes temporary easement, permanent easement, fee title, and damages, if applicable. ROW costs for each impacted parcel were summed to obtain a total ROW cost for the practical alternative. The detailed ROW cost estimate for each practical alternative can be found in Appendix F. The following assumptions were used in estimating the ROW impacts: •

In general, the Mather Interceptor can be placed in existing public ROW and it will not be necessary to obtain permanent ROW except in the following locations: o The Mather Pump Station site. All alternatives would require a fee title acquisition for the pump station site, currently located on Waegell property, and an easement for the pipelines to the pump station from either the Waegell or Shaliko properties. o The interceptor pipelines between Sunrise Boulevard and the Mather Pump Station (all alternatives). o The Mather Junction Structure site on the northwest corner of the Sunrise Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection (all alternatives). o The first 800 feet of the interceptor in Mather Boulevard (MI-2 alternative). o Approximately 6,000 feet of alignment on the east side of Sunrise Boulevard, north of Douglas Road (MI-7 alternative).

•

All alternatives would require an easement to cross USBR property and the FSC. USBR would also issue an easement for temporary construction purposes.

•

The MI-2 alignment would require an easement on property owned by the Sacramento County.

•

The MI-7 alignment would require an easement along Sunrise Boulevard from various private owners under the Rio Del Oro Specific Plan.

5.4.2.4 Environmental Mitigation Cost Environmental mitigation costs include the estimated mitigation cost for construction of the practical alternative. To assess potential environmental impacts of the practical

Mather Interceptor Project

5-31

October 2007

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

alternatives, the environmental team conducted a formal delineation of wetlands and other waters (ESA, 2007), an assessment of study area vegetation communities, and an assessment of special-status plant and animal species that have potential to occur within the vicinity of the project area. It should be noted that the results of the wetland delineations are preliminary and subject to verification by USACE. The temporary ROW (limits of disturbance) defined by the preliminary design was used to determine potential impacts to each of the delineated features, including channel/wetlands, vernal pools, GGS habitat, valley elderberry longhorn beetle (VELB), trees, and other impacted species for each practical alternative. Mitigation ratios and costs were estimated using recent mitigation requirements for similar construction impacts (see Table 5-6). Impacts and required mitigation were calculated and summed for a total mitigation cost for each practical alternative. The detailed environmental mitigation cost estimate for each practical alternative can be found in Appendix G. Table 5-6 Environmental Mitigation Value Assumptions Mitigation Cost ($/acre)

Mitigation Category Vernal Pools Vernal Pool Preservation Vernal Pool Creation Seasonal Wetlands Freshwater Emergent Wetlands Riparian Wetlands Drainages Giant Garter Snake Upland Habitat Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Habitat

$250,000 $175,000 $110,000 $110,000 $151,000 $134,000 $20,000 $10,000

The following assumptions were used in estimating environmental impacts: •

In areas of tunneled pipeline construction, no impacts were assumed, except at shaft locations. Surface impacts within 100 feet of tunnel shaft locations were included to account for equipment staging and access. In areas scheduled for open-cut construction, total impact was assumed.

•

Vernal pool impacts were considered “direct impacts” if implementation of the alternative would result in the direct placement of fill into any portion of the pool. Vernal pool impacts were considered “indirect impacts” if implementation of the alternative would require activity within 250 feet but direct placement of fill would not occur.

•

Direct impacts to vernal pools would require a 2:1 preservation mitigation ratio and a 1:1 creation mitigation ratio for a total ratio of 3:1. Indirect impacts to vernal pools would require a 2:1 creation mitigation ratio.

October 2007

5-32

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

•

For all other wetland and waters of the United States of America, impacts were calculated where implementation of the alternative would result in the direct placement of fill into the feature.

•

Mitigation ratios for all other wetlands and waters of the United Stated of America were based on the no-net-loss wetland policy of USACE.

•

Mitigation costs for vernal pools, seasonal wetlands, freshwater emergent wetlands, drainages, and riparian wetlands were based on current mitigation rates from Wildlands, Inc., and Westervelt Ecological Services, as well as rates provided by USACE.

•

Mitigation requirements for protected trees were based on the General Plan of the City of Rancho Cordova (2006) and Sacramento County Code of Ordinances 19.04 and 19.12. Mitigation costs for trees were based on market rates for replacement trees.

5.4.2.5 Operation and Maintenance Cost O&M costs include the estimated cost to operate and maintain the proposed facilities for each practical alternative. In coordination with SRCSD O&M staff, basic assumptions were developed to describe costs to operate and maintain a gravity sewer, force main, and pump station. All practical alternatives would include identical pump station and force main configurations. Only the gravity sewer configurations would change between practical alternatives. The O&M requirements for each practical alternative were estimated for the facilities and operating conditions described by the preliminary designs. O&M unit costs were estimated based on average costs for the O&M of SRCSD’s existing facilities. The detailed O&M cost estimate for each practical alternative can be found in Appendix H. The following assumptions were used in estimating O&M costs: •

Gravity sewers typically have virtually no operation costs and relatively minimal maintenance costs if they are built with sufficient slopes and appropriate materials to prevent corrosion. It was assumed that the entire length of the gravity sewer would receive a routine/incidental cleaning and closed circuit television (CCTV) inspection every 20 years.

•

Force mains typically have significant O&M costs, unlike gravity sewers. It was assumed that an air release valve (ARV) must be serviced once a year and replaced every 20 years. A blow-off must be serviced every 5 years.

•

Pump stations have significant O&M costs that depend on the pump station design and assumed operating conditions. Pump station O&M costs include primary energy (electricity), backup energy (diesel fuel), chemical sodium hypochlorite (chlorine), chemical lubricants, labor, spare parts, miscellaneous materials, pump overhaul, variable frequency drives (VFD) overhaul, pump replacement, odor control overhaul (cartridges), and backup generator overhaul. Pump station O&M costs account for the gradual increase of sewer flows until buildout flow is reached.

Mather Interceptor Project

5-33

October 2007

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

5.4.2.6

Schedule Cost

The schedule cost includes real costs that may be incurred by SRCSD or others if the completion of the project is delayed beyond December 2010. For this project, it was assumed that if the project were not completed by December 2010, an additional cost would be incurred to continue to operate and maintain the Chrysanthy Pump Station and force main. The Chrysanthy Pump Station and force main would be abandoned after completion of the Mather Interceptor. In addition, if a regional pump station is not online, future development in the LCA5 would require an interim pump station to serve the LCK Trunk Shed in 2011 and an interim pump station to serve the LCJ Trunk Shed in 2013. These two interim stations would be constructed by developers, and CSD-1 has stated it would likely reimburse the developers construction costs because these two stations would serve entire trunk sheds, not individual developments. These two pump stations were noted in the 2006 CSD-1 Master Plan. The O&M cost (“Cost of Delay”) to operate and maintain the Chrysanthy Pump Station and the construction and O&M costs of the LCJ and LCK trunk shed pump stations and associated force mains were calculated and are shown in Table 5-7. Table 5-7 Mather Interceptor Cost of Delay beyond 2010 (Capital and O&M Cost for Construction or Continued Operation of CSD-1 Pump Stations) Pump Stations Chrysanthy Pump Station and Force Main [a] LCK Pump Station [b] LCJ Pump Station [c] Total Cost of Delay

Construction Cost ($)

O&M Cost ($/yr)

O&M Cost ($/day)

Year Required

Existing

$177,048

$485

Existing

$257 $513 $1,255

2011 2013

$7,245,000 $2,993,000 $10,238,000

$93,701 $187,241

Footnotes: [a] Chrysanthy Pump Station: Assuming 2.05 mgd average dry weather flow (ADWF) and 31,000 linear feet of 21 inch force main. [b] LCK Pump Station: Assuming 9.2 mgd Design Flow and 12,700 linear feet of 12-inch-diameter force main. [c] LCJ Pump Station: Assuming 3.8 mgd Design Flow and ADWF and 15,600 linear feet of 15-inch-diameter force main. Note: Capacities for LCJ and LCK Pump Stations will be further analyzed and confirmed in a separate PDP document.

A construction schedule was developed for each practical alternative. If proposed construction could be completed before December 31, 2010, a schedule cost was not applied to the alternative. If proposed construction could not be completed before December 31, 2010, the number of days of delay was calculated and then used to calculate the “cost of schedule delay.” “Project completion” for this purpose was defined by completion of the start-up and testing schedule activities. The detailed construction schedule, estimate of the cost of delay, and schedule cost for each practical alternative can be found in Appendix I.

October 2007

5-34

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

5.4.2.7 Temporary Public Impact Cost The temporary public impact cost includes traffic delays and mitigation or repair of construction-related impacts, including noise, dust, and vibration. The following approach and assumptions were used to determine a traffic delay cost for each practical alternative. In October 2006, existing daily traffic counts were collected for most major roads in the project area, including Sunrise Boulevard. In addition, traffic volume estimates were obtained from the City of Rancho Cordova. Based on the traffic growth rate from the General Plan of the City of Rancho Cordova (2006), existing daily traffic counts were escalated to project construction year (2009) traffic volumes. Where existing daily traffic counts were low, limited field observations were used to estimate daily traffic volumes. The average daily traffic (ADT) for each major road was estimated for 2009. Using the 2009 traffic volumes, level of service on study roadways was determined using the city’s ADT Method. Based on the change of level of service, the daily delay due to construction on each affected roadway was estimated. The delay due to road closures and detours was also estimated. The total number of working days for each work zone within existing travel ways was estimated as part of the preliminary design construction approach. With the daily delay and estimated number of working days, the cumulative delay on each affected roadway was estimated. The total cumulative delay due to construction was converted to delay cost based on the assumption of $9 per hour, which is published by Federal Highway Administration. The detailed construction traffic delay cost for each practical alternative can be found in Appendix J. The following approach and assumptions were used to determine the impacts to the public from construction-related noise, dust, and vibration. Exhibits were prepared, including the project area parcel, road alignments, and project centerline, and stationing and key structures. Buffer zones with radii of 50, 150, and 250 feet were shown around all proposed excavations, including open-cut pipeline construction and other excavations for tunnel shafts, pipeline appurtenances, or key structures. The total number of homes and businesses within each buffer zone was tabulated and totaled for each practical alternative. It was assumed that homes and businesses within the 50-foot radius would sustain relatively high impacts, those between the 50-foot and 150-foot radii would sustain moderate impacts, and those within the 250-foot radius would sustain relatively low impacts. The temporary public impact cost associated with noise was calculated by estimating the linear feet of sound walls that would need to be installed to mitigate noise impacts. It was assumed that sound wall would only be installed for “fixed site” construction activities such as tunnel shafts and other structure excavations. The cost of the sound wall construction was estimated at $50 per linear foot, including materials and installation. The temporary public impact cost associated with dust was calculated by estimating the total number of car washes, pool cleanings, heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) services, house cleaning, power washes, and window/blinds cleanings that would be required to mitigate dust impacts to sensitive receptors within the buffer zones. The cost of the mitigation measures was estimated based on average cost for the industry or were based on costs paid by SRCSD on previous projects.

Mather Interceptor Project

5-35

October 2007

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

The temporary public impact cost associated with vibration was calculated by estimating the cost of preconstruction and postconstruction surveys, monitoring during construction, and potential damage claims. The total number of structures within the buffer zones was estimated by counting structures adjacent to tunnel jacking shafts. It was assumed that vibration impacts would only occur around “fixed site” construction activities such as tunnel shafts and other structure excavations. The cost of the mitigation measures was estimated based on average cost for the industry or was based on costs paid by SRCSD on previous projects. Detailed construction temporary public impact costs for noise, dust, and vibration impacts for each practical alternative can be found in Appendix K. 5.4.2.8 Risk Cost Potential project risks are separated into four major categories: • • • •

Cost volatility Schedule delay Construction O&M

Cost volatility includes uncertainties or risk events that may result in a cost to the project. The baseline cost estimates included in the BCE make several assumptions related to unit costs, construction methods, production rates, and escalation rates. Certain construction materials, including steel, petroleum products, and concrete/aggregate, are known to be highly volatile, with an associated high uncertainty in unit price. Rather than a separate analysis of the risk of the volatility of certain construction cost items, a sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the sensitivity of BCE results to fluctuations in the escalation rate for construction cost. Therefore, this report does not consider cost volatility of construction-related materials. Schedule risks include risk events that may result in a delay to the project schedule. Similar to the schedule cost calculation, as described in schedule cost section, it was assumed that there is a resulting cost consequence to operate CSD-1’s interim facilities if completion of construction is delayed beyond 2010. The Cost of Delay was used to determine the cost impacts of a potential schedule delay. Three schedule risk events were identified as having high potential delay consequences. Schedule risks include the following: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) individual dewatering permit required, EIR schedule, and obtaining the USBR ROW license. However, because all four alternatives were potentially affected in the same way, these risks cannot be used to differentiate between alternatives. Construction risks were defined as risk events that would occur during the construction period. These risk events may have related cost and/or schedule consequences. Four risk events were identified that differentiate among alternatives: •

Encountering contaminated soil or groundwater. It was assumed the risks of encountering contamination would be greater for alternatives closer to Mather Field.

October 2007

5-36

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

•

Encountering methane gas in the soil. MI-1 and MI-2 are close to closed landfills and methane has been encountered in the ground near the landfills.

•

Traffic safety. Extensive construction work in existing traveled ways increases the chances of public vehicle accidents.

•

Shaft construction. MI-7 would have more installation by open cut methods and less risk for shaft construction.

Other construction related risks are common to all alternatives, based on the type of construction method that would be employed on this project. These include the following: tunneling risks, open-cut risks, shaft construction risks, differing site conditions, underground utilities, and general safety. During final design, additional efforts should be undertaken to identify and potentially quantify more specific construction risks. Other risk events that should be considered include procurement time for pipe and tunnel boring machine (TBM), construction within newly paved roads during the building moratorium period, and settlement caused by dewatering or vibration. O&M risks include risk events that may occur during the O&M period. For the Mather Interceptor, the length of force main is identical between alternatives meaning O&M risks are common to all alternatives. O&M risks include O&M of force mains, O&M of pump station, and O&M of gravity sewers. As described above, four risk events were identified that were different for each of the alternatives, including encountering contaminated soil or groundwater, encountering methane during construction, shaft construction, and traffic safety. The expected cost associated with these risk events were calculated as the probability of risk occurrence multiplied by the cost consequence if the risk event were to occur. For each practical alternative, the risk cost was calculated as the sum of the cost of each risk event. Risk cost was not evaluated for related additional costs. The detailed risk register and risk cost for each practical alternative can be found in Appendix L. 5.4.3 Application of Business Case Evaluation Four practical alternatives are under consideration for the Mather Interceptor project: • • • •

Alternative MI-1 Zinfandel Drive Alternative MI-2 Mather Boulevard Alternative MI-7 Sunrise Boulevard Alternative AJ4 Zinfandel Drive + Aerojet 4

As stated above, each of the BCE parameter costs were assessed for the practical alternatives in 2007 dollars. Only the BCE parameters required to adequately characterize the benefits were calculated for each of the benefits. The date(s) during which the cost would be incurred was identified. A life cycle cost analysis was used to determine NPV. NPV was calculated assuming a life cycle of 80 years, a discount rate of 5 percent per year, and an escalation rate of 3 percent per year. The resulting NPV for each practical alternative and related benefit(s) were combined, resulting in a Total Cost to the Community for each practical alternative. Descriptions of intangible costs were tabulated for consideration during selection of the preferred alternative. Mather Interceptor Project

5-37

October 2007

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

In addition, an analysis was performed to determine the sensitivity of BCE results to fluctuations in the escalation rate for construction cost. The NPV of the construction cost for each practical alternative and any related additional costs was calculated assuming a 5 percent discount rate and 3, 5, 7.5, and 10 percent escalation rates to determine if the ranking between alternatives would be affected. As mentioned above, each practical alternative was analyzed to determine if any related additional costs to the community (beyond those directly associated with the implementation of the practical alternative) would need to be included for an equitable comparison between alternatives. For this project, two related additional costs must be taken into account to provide an equitable comparison between alternatives. Alternatives MI-1, MI-2, and AJ4 would allow the future MAE Trunk Sewer to be connected to the Mather Interceptor on Douglas Road. This connection location was assumed in the MP2000 (SRCSD) and the 2006 CSD-1 Master Plan. If Alternative MI-7 is selected as the preferred alternative, CSD-1 would incur an additional cost to construct the MAE Trunk Sewer an additional 6,000 feet to the Bradshaw Interceptor. Alternative AJ4 includes the cost to construct the AJ4 Interceptor now, even though it is not needed until 2030. This alternative is being considered to see if the increased impacts of construction in 2030 could be avoided and those avoided costs would make it a preferred alternative compared to alternatives that assume future construction. To compare AJ4 to the other alternatives, the NPV of the future cost to construct the AJ4 Interceptor in 2030 was included in the total NPV of MI-1, MI-2, and MI-7. This related cost was taken into account in this BCE and is discussed in detail. Following is a discussion of the alternatives under consideration, calculation of BCE parameters, and results of the life cycle cost analysis for each of the practical alternatives and related additional costs. 5.4.3.1 Alternative MI-1 Zinfandel Drive Mather Interceptor Alternative 1 (MI-1) (Zinfandel Drive Alternative) + LCA5-1 (pump station and force main) includes 15,121 feet of gravity interceptor plus 15,630 feet of dual force main and a regional pump station. The required capacity of the gravity portion is 49.4 mgd. The capacity of the pump station would be 13 mgd and the size of the dual force mains would be 24 inches. The pump station would be located approximately 1,200 feet northeast of the intersection of Sunrise Boulevard and Jackson Road. Figure 5-2 shows a schematic figure illustrating the alignment of the alternative. Additional details about the practical alternative are provided in the Technical Memorandum, Preliminary Design Mather Interceptor – Alternative MI-1 + LCA5-1 Construction Approach, found in Appendix M. Flow would be pumped from the Mather Pump Station through 15,630 feet of dual 24inch-diameter force main across private property to Sunrise Boulevard and then north along Sunrise to the transition structure located in the west side of the Sunrise Boulevard ROW across from the Chrysanthy Boulevard intersection. Flow discharged from the force main would combine with flow from the connection to the Aerojet 1 Interceptor that was October 2007

5-38

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

formerly pumped by the Chrysanthy Pump Station, and then flow north in a 72-inchdiameter gravity sewer for 4,150 feet to the Mather Junction Structure at the northwest intersection of Douglas Road and Sunrise Boulevard. The Mather Junction Structure would include a stub for the future connection of the Aerojet 2 Interceptor and a stub for the future connection of the AJ4 Interceptor. Flow from the Mather Junction Structure would flow west by gravity along Douglas Boulevard, drop to a lower elevation to pass under the FSC and continue west along Douglas Road. The total length of the 72-inchdiameter interceptor in Douglas Road is 4,920 feet. At the future intersection with an extension of Zinfandel Drive, the sewer would flow north along the Zinfandel Drive Extension in a 72-inch-diameter gravity sewer for 5,880 feet to the Mather/Bradshaw Junction Structure, where flow would discharge to the 84-inch-diameter Bradshaw Interceptor. The profile summary figure below shows a schematic illustration of the alternative. Additional details about this practical alternative are provided in the preliminary design documents and are available upon request.

Figure 5-2 Profile of the Mather Interceptor Alternative MI-1+ LCA5-1 5.4.3.1.1 Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Alternative MI-1 It should be noted that all values below are presented as present values (in 2007 dollars), with a discount rate of 5 percent per year, an escalation rate of 3 percent per year, and a life cycle of 80 years. 5.4.3.1.1.1 Construction Cost The NPV Probable Construction Cost was estimated as $71,592,000 for the pump station, force main and Mather Interceptor construction and includes a 20 percent construction contingency. It was assumed that the majority of pump station, force main, and Mather Interceptor costs would be incurred during the two seasons (2009 and 2010) planned for construction of the project.

Mather Interceptor Project

5-39

October 2007

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

5.4.3.1.1.2 Engineering Cost The NPV engineering cost of MI-1 was estimated as $21,534,000. It was assumed that this cost would be incurred over the life of the project design and construction (2007 through 2010). 5.4.3.1.1.3 Right-of-Way Cost The NPV ROW cost was estimated as $6,881,000. The ROW cost consists of $2,844,000 (41 percent of total) for temporary easements, $3,183,000 (46 percent of total) for permanent easements, $853,000 (12 percent of total) in fee titles, and no damages. It was assumed that this cost would be incurred during the ROW acquisition process (2008 through 2010), which may continue into and beyond the construction period. 5.4.3.1.1.4 Environmental Mitigation Cost The NPV environmental mitigation cost was estimated as $12,407,000. The environmental mitigation cost consists of $12,215,000 (98 percent of total) for vernal pool impacts, $171,000 (1 percent of total) for channel/wetland impacts, $0 for GGS habitat impacts, $0 for VELB habitat impacts, $1,000 for tree impacts, and $22,000 for impacts to other species. It was assumed that this cost would be incurred in 2008 because mitigation costs typically must be paid prior to final approval of some environmental permits. 5.4.3.1.1.5 Operation and Maintenance Cost The NPV O&M cost was estimated as $8,306,000. This alternative includes a total of 31,260 feet of 24-inch-diameter force main and 15,100 feet of gravity sewer 72-inch in diameter. The Mather Pump station would require four 250 horsepower (hp) pumps with an average total dynamic head of 77 feet at start-up and 154 feet at buildout. The force main includes 18 ARVs and 12 blow-offs. O&M costs were calculated over the 80-year life cycle of the facility. 5.4.3.1.1.6 Schedule Cost The construction schedule for this alternative includes the following milestone dates: • • • •

8/27/08 for Notice to Proceed on the Construction Contract 8/19/10 for Substantial Completion 10/14/10 for Completion of Start-Up and Testing 11/11/10 for Final Acceptance

It should be noted that the schedule above assumes double construction shifts for tunnel operations. This alternative would meet the December 31, 2010, target date for completing the gravity portion of the Mather Interceptor, and accepting flow from the Chrysanthy Pump Station and taking it off-line. It would also provide service to the LCA5 shed by December 31, 2010. 5.4.3.1.1.7 Temporary Public Impact Cost The total temporary public impact estimated NPV for dust, noise, and vibration for Alternative MI-1 + LCA5-1 was estimated as $149,800. The noise mitigation cost associated with building soundwalls was estimated to be $95,300, assuming that 2,000 linear feet of soundwall would need to be built. The dust mitigation cost was estimated as $21,900. The dust mitigation cost includes the following mitigation costs: HVAC October 2007

5-40

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

cleanings at $12,200; house cleanings at $3,700; power washes at $4,900; window and blinds cleaning at $500; and car washes at $600. No pools are located within the buffer zone; therefore, no mitigation cost was estimated for pool cleanings. The total vibration mitigation estimated cost of preconstruction and postconstruction, monitoring during construction, and potential damage claims is $32,600. Of the cost total, the cost of preconstruction and postconstruction and monitoring during construction was estimated as $4,300, and the total potential damage claims were estimated as $28,300. The total traffic delay for the proposed Alternative MI-1 + LCA5-1 would result in 2,464 hours of delay, which was converted into $21,100 of delay cost in NPV. Detailed assumptions of delay cost analysis are also shown in Table 1 of the Technical Memorandum: Potential Traffic Delay Cost Due to Construction in Appendix I. The indirect impact to traffic of Alternative MI-1 + LCA5-1 would be incurred by required lane closure on Chrysanthy Boulevard, Sunrise Boulevard, and Kiefer Boulevard. No traffic impacts on Zinfandel Drive or Douglas Road were anticipated since the interceptor would be outside the travel way, or traffic would be minimal. For the segment of the interceptor running along the west side of Sunrise Boulevard, only the southbound approach would be impacted. The potential traffic impacts of Alternative MI-1 + LCA5-1 on various roadways are shown in Table 1 of Appendix I. As shown in Table 1 of Appendix I, the levels of service (LOS) on various roadways with the proposed project are at LOS D or better. The level of service on Sunrise Boulevard south of Kiefer Boulevard would decrease from D to F, which is below the City of Rancho Cordova’s acceptable standard, LOS F indicates over-capacity conditions with excessive delays. The total temporary public impact cost, including noise, dust, vibration and traffic delays, would be $171,000 in NPV. 5.4.3.1.1.8 Risk Cost The NPV risk cost was calculated to be $238,000 which consists entirely of construction risks. The construction risk for contaminated soil or groundwater encountered was estimated to be $204,700. The construction risk for methane encountered was estimated to be $33,000. The alternative MI-1 NPV is shown in Figure 5-3.

Mather Interceptor Project

5-41

October 2007

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

Risk, $238,000 Public Impact, $171,000 Schedule, $0 O&M, $8,306,000 Engineering, $21,534,000

Environmental, $12,407,000

Right of Way, $6,881,000

Construction, $71,592,000

Total $121,129,000 3%/yr Escalation Rate 5%/yr Discount Rate

Figure 5-3 Mather Interceptor Alternative MI-1 Net Present Value 5.4.3.1.2 Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Alternative MI-1 Related Additional Costs The related additional costs of Alternative MI-1 + LCA5-1 were identified as the additional cost to construct AJ4 in the future, and the cost to provide a stub out for the CSD-1 trunk sewer at the intersection of Douglas Road and Zinfandel Drive. The cost to construct AJ4 in the future includes the cost of engineering, construction, O&M, and public impacts (see Figure 5-4). An estimate was also made for traffic delays for future construction of AJ4. Tunneling of most of the alignment was expected, but at least three shafts along Sunrise Boulevard can be expected to impact one travel lane for most of a construction season. The NPV of this traffic delay cost in 2029 is $920,000. The NPV of the pubic impact cost due to dust, noise and vibration is $388,000, so the total NPV of the public impact costs is $1,308,000. It should be noted that environmental impacts were not calculated because it was assumed that the Mather area would be built out and remaining environmental features would be negligible along the AJ4 corridor. ROW costs were not calculated because it was assumed that ROW required to construct AJ4 in the future would be acquired as part of the MI-1 + LCA5-1 ROW acquisition. Finally, due to the large uncertainties associated with project construction in 2080, unique risks were not quantified. The cost of the MAE stub includes only the cost of construction (see Figure 5-5). It was assumed that the stub out to allow for the future connection of CSD-1 flows would be constructed as part of the MI construction and that the stub out would be constructed within the Alternative MI-1 + LCA5-1 limits of disturbance. Thus, it was assumed that there would be insignificant additional engineering, environmental, ROW, O&M, or public

October 2007

5-42

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

impacts beyond those already included in the Total Cost to the Community for Alternative MI-1 + LCA5-1.

Public Impacts, $1,308,000 O&M, $573,000 Engineering, $13,813,000

Construction, $45,919,000

Mather Interceptor Future Construction of AJ4 Net Present Value Total $61,613,000 3%/yr Escalation Rate 5%/yr Discount Rate

Figure 5-4 Mather Interceptor Future Construction of AJ4 Net Present Value

Construction $66,000

Mather Interceptor MAE Stub Out Net Present Value Total $66,000 3%/yr Escalation Rate 5%/yr Discount Rate

Figure 5-5 Mather Interceptor MAE Stub Out Net Present Value

Mather Interceptor Project

5-43

October 2007

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

The total cost of Alternative MI-1 + LCA5-1, including additional related costs, was estimated to be as follows: NPV of Future Aerojet 4 NPV of MAE Stub Out NPV of MI-1+LCA5

$61,613,000 $66,000 $121,129,000

Total NPV

$182,808,000

This concept is captured in Figure 5-6.

Total NPV for Alternative MI-1

=

NPV for Alternative MI-1 As Designed

NPV of Future Aerojet 4

+

+

NPV of MAE Stub Out

Figure 5-6 Alternative MI-1 BCE Summary of Costs 5.4.3.1.3 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Summary for Alternative MI-1 As stated above, the NPV was calculated assuming a life cycle of 80 years, a discount rate of 5 percent per year, and an escalation rate of 3 percent per year. Total life cycle cost (Cost to the Community) for Alternative MI-1 is $182,808,000 and, as stated above, is equal to the NPV for MI-1 () plus NPV of future construction of the AJ4 Interceptor and a stub out for the MAI Trunk. Total Alternative MI-1 NPV (including additional costs) is shown in Figure 5-7. Public Impact, $1,479,000 Schedule, $0 Risk, $238,000

O&M, $8,879,000

Engineering, $35,347,000

Environmental, $12,407,000

Right of Way, $6,881,000

Construction, $117,577,000

Total $182,808,000 3%/yr Escalation Rate 5%/yr Discount Rate

Figure 5-7 Alternative MI-1 Net Present Value (including additional costs) October 2007

5-44

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

In summary, key comments and intangibles noted above include the following: •

Negative image to SRCSD due to major construction activity adjacent to a major roadway.

•

Construction schedule assumes double shifts for tunnel construction operations.

•

Potential loss of business at shopping centers currently under construction at the intersection of Douglas Road and Sunrise Boulevard.

•

Potential disruption of the TRACON operations caused by accidentally hitting its underground utilities.

•

Potential conflict with the Zinfandel Drive extension and Douglas Road widening.

5.4.3.2 Alternative MI-2 Mather Boulevard Mather Alternative MI-2 + LCA5-1 includes approximately 17,345 feet of 72-inchdiameter gravity interceptor, approximately 15,630 feet of 24-inch-diameter dual force main, and a pump station. The required flow capacity of the gravity portion would be 49 mgd. The capacity of the pump station would be 13 mgd and the size of the dual force mains would be 24 inches. The pump station would be located approximately 1,200 feet northeast of the intersection of Sunrise Boulevard and Jackson Road. Additional details about this practical alternative are provided in the Technical Memorandum, Preliminary Design Mather Interceptor – Alternative MI-2 + LCA5-1 Construction Approach, found in Appendix N. Flow would be pumped from the Mather Pump Station through 15,630 feet of dual 24inch-diameter force main across private property to Sunrise Boulevard and then north along Sunrise Boulevard to the transition structure located in the west side of the Sunrise Boulevard ROW across from the Chrysanthy Boulevard intersection. Flow discharged from the force main would combine with flow from the connection to the Aerojet 1 Interceptor that was formerly pumped by the Chrysanthy Pump Station, and then flow north in a 72-inch-diameter gravity sewer for 4,150 feet to the Mather Junction Structure at the northwest intersection of Douglas Road and Sunrise Boulevard. The Mather Junction Structure would include a stub for the future connection of the Aerojet 2 Interceptor and a stub for the future connection of the AJ4 Interceptor. Flow from the Mather Junction Structure would flow west in a 72-inch-diameter gravity sewer along Douglas Boulevard, drop to a lower elevation to pass under the FSC and continue west along Douglas Road. The total length of the interceptor in Douglas Road would be 6,530 feet. At the intersection of Douglas Road and Mather Boulevard, the sewer would flow northwest along Mather Boulevard in a 72-inch-diameter gravity sewer for 6,620 feet to the Mather/Bradshaw Junction Structure, where flow would discharge to the 84-inch-diameter Bradshaw Interceptor. Figure 5-8 shows a schematic figure of the profile of the alternative. Additional details about this practical alternative are provided in the preliminary design documents and are available on request.

Mather Interceptor Project

5-45

October 2007

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

Figure 5-8 Profile of Alternative MI-2 + LCA5-1 5.4.3.2.1 Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Alternative MI-2 5.4.3.2.1.1 Construction Cost The NPV Probable Construction Cost was estimated as $76,842,000 for the pump station, force main, and Mather Interceptor construction and includes a 20 percent construction contingency. It was assumed that the majority of pump station, force main, and Mather Interceptor costs would be incurred during the two seasons (2009 and 2010) planned for construction of the project. 5.4.3.2.1.2 Engineering Cost The NPV engineering cost was estimated as $23,113,000 for the NPV of the pump station, force main, and Mather Interceptor. It was assumed the NPV of the Mather Interceptor engineering would be incurred during 2007 through 2010. 5.4.3.2.1.3 Right-of-Way Cost The NPV ROW cost was estimated as $7,093,000. The ROW cost consists of $3,092,000 (44 percent of total) for temporary easements, $3,148,000 (44 percent of total) for permanent easements, and $853,000 (12 percent of total) in fee titles. It was assumed that this cost would be incurred during the ROW acquisition process (2008 through 2010), which could continue into and beyond the construction period. 5.4.3.2.1.4 Environmental Mitigation Cost NPV environmental impacts of this alternative are similar to those for the MI-1 alternative. The NPV of the environmental mitigation cost was estimated as $11,539,000. The environmental mitigation cost consists of $11,339,000 (98 percent of total) for vernal pool impacts, $177,000 (1 percent of total) for channel/wetland impacts, $0 for GGS habitat impacts, $0 for VELB habitat impacts, $1,000 for tree impacts, and $22,000 for impacts to

October 2007

5-46

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

other species. It was assumed that this cost would be incurred in 2008 because mitigation costs typically must be paid prior to final approval of some environmental permits. 5.4.3.2.1.5 Operation and Maintenance Cost The NPV O&M cost was estimated as $8,414,000. This alternative includes a total of 31,260 feet of 24-inch-diameter force main and 15,600 feet of gravity sewer between 54 inches and 72 inches in diameter. The Mather Pump Station would require four 250 hp pumps with an average total dynamic head of 77 feet at start-up to 154 feet at buildout. The force main would include 18 ARVs and 12 blow-offs. O&M costs were calculated over the 80-year life cycle of the facility. 5.4.3.2.1.6 Schedule Cost The construction schedule for this alternative includes the following milestone dates: • • • •

8/27/08 for Notice to Proceed on the Construction Contract 11/29/10 for Substantial Completion 01/24/11 for Completion of Start-Up and Testing 02/21/11 for Final Acceptance

It should be noted that the schedule above assumes double shifts for tunnel construction operations. This alternative would not complete the gravity sewer portion of the Mather Interceptor and would not provide service to the LCA5 shed by the end of 2010. The Mather Pump Station would be complete by July 2010, but the gravity sewer would not be complete until January 24, 2011. It was assumed for the purposes of this cost analysis that this schedule delay would not be significant and no additional costs for delay would be incurred. 5.4.3.2.1.7 Temporary Public Impact Cost The total temporary public impact cost in NPV for dust, noise, and vibration for the MI-2 + LCA5-1 Alternative was estimated as $147,000. The noise mitigation cost associated with building soundwalls was estimated to be $95,200, assuming that 2,000 linear feet of soundwall would need to be built. The dust mitigation cost was estimated as $21,900. The dust mitigation cost included the following mitigation costs: HVAC cleanings at $12,200; house cleanings at $3,700; power washes at $4,900; window and blinds cleaning at $500; and car washes at $600. No pools were located within the buffer zone; therefore, no mitigation cost was estimated for pool cleanings. The total vibration mitigation cost of preconstruction and postconstruction, monitoring during construction, and potential damage claims was estimated as $29,000. The total cost of preconstruction and postconstruction and monitoring during construction was estimated as $3,900 and total potential damage claims were estimated as $26,000. The total traffic delay for the proposed MI-2 + LCA5-1 alternative would result in 4,193 hours of delay, which was converted into $35,900 of delay cost in NPV. Detailed assumptions of delay cost analysis are also shown in Table 2 of the Technical Memorandum, Potential Traffic Delay Cost Due to Construction in Appendix I. The indirect impact to traffic of the MI-2 + LCA5-1 Alternative would be incurred by required lane closures on Mather Boulevard, Chrysanthy Boulevard, Sunrise Boulevard, and Kiefer Boulevard. No traffic impacts on Douglas Road were anticipated because the interceptor

Mather Interceptor Project

5-47

October 2007

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

would be outside the travel way. For the segment of the interceptor running along the west side of Sunrise Boulevard, only the southbound approach would be impacted. The potential traffic impacts of Alternatives MI-2 + LCA5-1 on various roadways are shown in Table 2 of Appendix I. As shown in Table 2 of Appendix I, the LOS on various roadways with the proposed project are at LOS D or better. The LOS on Sunrise Boulevard south of Kiefer Road would decrease from D to F, which is below the City of Rancho Cordova’s acceptable standard. LOS F indicates over-capacity conditions with excessive delays. The total temporary public impact cost, including noise, dust, vibration, and traffic delays, would be $183,000 in NPV. 5.4.3.2.1.8 Risk Cost The total cost associated with risk was calculated to be $1,525,000 which consisted entirely of construction risks. The construction risk for contamination encountered was estimated to be $1,470,900. The construction risk for methane encountered was estimated to be $54,600. The Alternative MI-2 NPV is shown in Figure 5-9. Risk, $1,525,000 Public Impact, $183,000 Schedule, $0 O&M, $8,414,000 Engineering, $23,113,000

Environmental, $11,539,000

Right of Way, $7,093,000

Construction, $76,842,000

Total $128,709,000 3%/yr Escalation Rate 5%/yr Discount Rate

Figure 5-9 Alternative MI-2 Net Present Value 5.4.3.2.2 Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Alternative MI-2 Related Additional Costs The related additional costs of Alternative MI-2 + LCA5-1 Alternative were identified as the additional cost to construct AJ4 in the future and the cost to provide a stub out for the CSD-1 trunk sewer at the intersection of Douglas Road and Zinfandel Drive. The cost to construct AJ4 in the future includes the cost of engineering, construction, O&M, and public impacts (see Figure 5-10).

October 2007

5-48

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

An estimate was also made for the traffic delays for the future construction of AJ4. Tunneling of most of the alignment is expected, but at least three shafts along Sunrise Boulevard could be expected to impact one travel lane for most of a construction season. The NPV of this traffic delay cost in 2029 is $920,000. The NPV of the public impact cost due to the dust, noise and vibration is $388,000, so the total NPV of the public impact cost is $1,308,000. It should be noted that environmental impacts were not calculated because it was assumed that the Mather area would be built out and remaining environmental features would be negligible along the AJ4 corridor. ROW costs were not calculated because it was assumed that ROW required to construct AJ4 in the future would be acquired as part of the MI-1 + LCA5-1 ROW acquisition. Finally, risk was not calculated due to the large uncertainties associated with project construction in 2030, unique risks were not quantified. MAE Stub Out includes only the cost of construction (see Figure 5-11). It was assumed that the stub out to allow for the future connection of the CSD-1 flows would be constructed as part of the Mather Interceptor construction, and that the stub out would be constructed within the Alternative MI-1 + LCA5-1 limits of disturbance. Thus, it was assumed that there would be insignificant additional engineering, environmental, ROW, O&M, or public impacts beyond those already included in the Total Cost to the Community for Alternative MI-1 + LCA5-1.

Public Impacts, $1,308,000 O&M, $573,000 Engineering, $13,813,000

Construction, $45,919,000

Mather Interceptor Future Construction of AJ4 Net Present Value Total $61,613,000 3%/yr Escalation Rate 5%/yr Discount Rate

Figure 5-10 Mather Interceptor Future Construction of AJ4 Net Present Value

Mather Interceptor Project

5-49

October 2007

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

Construction $66,000

Mather Interceptor MAE Stub Out Net Present Value Total $66,000 3%/yr Escalation Rate 5%/yr Discount Rate

Figure 5-11 Mather Interceptor MAE Stub Out Net Present Value The total cost of Alternative MI-2 + LCA5-1, including the additional related costs, was estimated to be as follows: NPV of Future Aerojet 4 NPV of MAE Stub Out NPV of MI-2+LCA5 Total NPV

$61,613,000 $66,000 $128,709,000 $190,388,000

5.4.3.2.3 Summary of Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Alternative MI-2 As mentioned above, the Total Cost to the Community is equal to the sum of the NPV costs of the future construction of AJ4 Interceptor, the MAE stub out, and Alternative MI2, as it was designed. This is shown graphically in Figure 5-12. Total NPV for Alternative MI-2

=

NPV for Alternative MI-2 As Designed

+

NPV of Future Aerojet 4

+

NPV of MAE Stub Out

Figure 5-12 Alternative MI-2 BCE Summary of Costs The Mather Interceptor total Alternative MI-2 NPV (including additional costs) is shown in Figure 5-13.

October 2007

5-50

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

Risk, $1,525,000 Public Impact, $1,491,000 Schedule, $0 O&M, $8,987,000 Engineering, $36,926,000

Environmental, $11,539,000

Right of Way, $7,093,000

Construction, $122,827,000

Total $190,388,000 3%/yr Escalation Rate 5%/yr Discount Rate

Figure 5-13 Mather Interceptor Total Alternative MI-2 Net Present Value (including additional costs) In summary, key comments and intangibles noted above include the following: •

Mather Airport plans to close Mather Boulevard to the public, and the road will be inside the airport security fence. O&M would need to work with airfield management to access the gravity sewer for maintenance. O&M currently has a similar situation for an existing sewer in the airfield; therefore, this is not considered an issue.

•

Negative image to SRCSD due to major construction activity adjacent to a major roadway.

•

Construction schedule assumes double shifts for tunnel construction operations.

•

Start-up of the Mather Pump Station is not scheduled until January 24, 2011. Either development may be delayed, or interim facilities may need to be constructed.

•

Potential loss of business at the shopping centers currently under construction at the intersection of Douglas Road and Sunrise Boulevard.

•

Potential disruption of the TRACON operations caused by accidentally hitting its underground utilities.

5.4.3.3 Alternative MI-7 Sunrise Boulevard Alternative MI-7 + LCA5-1 includes approximately 14,230 feet of 54-inch-diameter to 72inch-diameter gravity interceptor, approximately 15,630 feet of 24-inch-diameter dual force main, and a pump station. The required flow capacity of the gravity portion would Mather Interceptor Project

5-51

October 2007

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

be 49 mgd. The capacity of the pump station would be 13 mgd and the size of the dual force mains would be 24 inches. The pump station would be located approximately 1,200 feet northeast of the intersection of Sunrise Boulevard and Jackson Road. Figure 5-14 shows a schematic figure of the alignment of the alternative. Additional details about this practical alternative are provided in the Technical Memorandum, Preliminary Design Mather Interceptor – Alternative MI-7 + LCA5-1 Construction Approach, found in Appendix O. Flow would be pumped from the Mather Pump Station through 15,630 feet of dual 24inch-diameter force main across private property to Sunrise Boulevard and then north along Sunrise Boulevard to the transition structure located in the west side of the Sunrise Boulevard ROW, across from the Chrysanthy Boulevard intersection. Flow discharged from the force main would combine with flow from the connection to the Aerojet 1 Interceptor that was formerly pumped by the Chrysanthy Pump Station, and flow north in a 72-inch-diameter gravity sewer for 4,150 feet to the Mather Junction Structure at the northwest intersection of Douglas Road and Sunrise Boulevard. The Mather Junction Structure would include a stub for the future connection of Aerojet 2 Interceptor and a stub for the future connection of the AJ4 Interceptor. Flow from the Mather Junction Structure would flow north in a 54-inch-diameter gravity sewer along Sunrise Boulevard to the intersection with Recycle Road. The total length of the interceptor in and along Sunrise Boulevard is 8,690 feet. The gravity sewer would turn west and flow along Recycle Road for 400 feet, and drop to a lower elevation and pass under the FSC. The tunnel under the canal is 720 feet. At the west end of the tunnel is the Mather/Bradshaw Junction Structure, where flow would discharge to the 72-inch-diameter Bradshaw Interceptor. Figure 5-14 shows a schematic figure illustrating the profile of the alternative. Additional details about this practical alternative are provided in preliminary design documents and are available on request.

Figure 5-14 Profile of Alternative MI-7 + LCA5-1

October 2007

5-52

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

5.4.3.3.1 Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Alternative MI-7 5.4.3.3.1.1 Construction Cost The NPV Probable Construction Cost was estimated as $62,813,000 for the pump station, force main, Mather Interceptor construction and includes a 20 percent construction contingency. It was assumed that the majority of pump station, force main, and Mather Interceptor costs would be incurred during the two seasons (2009 and 2010) planned for construction of the project. 5.4.3.3.1.2 Engineering Cost The NPV engineering cost was estimated as $18,893,000 for the pump station, force main, and Mather Interceptor. It was assumed the NPV of the Mather Interceptor engineering would be incurred during 2007 through 2010. 5.4.3.3.1.3 Right-of-Way Cost The NPV ROW cost was estimated as $9,422,000. The ROW cost consists of $3,898,000 (41 percent of total) for temporary easements, $4,672,000 (50 percent of total) for permanent easements, and $853,000 (9 percent of total) in fee titles. It was assumed that this cost would be incurred during the ROW acquisition process (2008 through 2010), which may continue into and beyond the construction period. 5.4.3.3.1.4 Environmental Mitigation Cost The NPV environmental impacts of this alternative are similar to those for Alternative MI1. The NPV of the environmental mitigation cost was estimated as $11,297,000. The environmental mitigation cost consists of $11,110,000 (98 percent of total) for vernal pool impacts, $162,000 (1 percent of total) for channel/wetland impacts, $0 for GGS habitat impacts, $0 for VELB habitat impacts, $3,000 for tree impacts, and $22,000 for impacts to other species. It was assumed that this cost would be incurred in 2008 because mitigation costs typically must be paid prior to final approval of some environmental permits. 5.4.3.3.1.5 Operation and Maintenance Cost The NPV O&M cost was estimated as $8,264,000. This alternative includes a total of 31,260 feet of 24-inch-diameter force main and 14,230 feet of gravity sewer between 54 inches and 72 inches in diameter. The Mather Pump Station would require four 250 hp pumps with an average total dynamic head of 77 feet at start-up to 154 feet at buildout. The force main would include 18 ARVs and 12 blow-offs. O&M costs were calculated over the 80-year life cycle of the facility. 5.4.3.3.1.6 Schedule Cost The construction schedule for this alternative includes the following milestone dates: • • • •

08/27/08 for Notice to Proceed on the Construction Contract 06/30/10 for Substantial Completion 10/06/10 for Completion of Start-Up and Testing 11/03/10 for Final Acceptance

Mather Interceptor Project

5-53

October 2007

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

It should be noted that the schedule above does not assume double shift for tunnel construction operations. No delay costs have been assumed for this alternative. 5.4.3.3.1.7 Temporary Public Impact Cost The total temporary public impact cost in net present value for dust, noise, and vibration for Alternative MI-7 + LCA5-1 was estimated to be $284,200. The noise mitigation cost associated with building soundwalls was estimated to be $95,200, assuming that 2,000 linear feet of soundwall would need to be built. The dust mitigation cost was estimated as $35,000. The dust mitigation cost included the following mitigation costs: HVAC cleanings at $24,600; house cleanings at $4,000; power washes at $5,400; window and blinds cleaning at $500; and car washes at $500. No pools were located within the buffer zone; therefore, no mitigation cost was estimated for pool cleanings. The total vibration mitigation cost of preconstruction and postconstruction, monitoring during construction, and potential damage claims was estimated to be $154,000. The total cost of preconstruction and postconstruction and monitoring during construction was estimated as $14,600, and total potential damage claims were estimated as $139,400. The total traffic delay for the proposed interceptor Alternative MI-7 + LCA5-1 would result in 46,508 hours of delay, which was converted into $398,700 of delay cost in NPV. Detailed assumptions of delay cost analysis are also shown in Table 3 of the Technical Memorandum; Potential Traffic Delay Cost Due to Construction in Appendix I. The indirect impact to traffic of Alternative MI-7 + LCA5-1 Alternative would be incurred by requiring lane closures on Sunrise Boulevard, Chrysanthy Boulevard, and Kiefer Boulevard. In addition, a road closure to through traffic would be required on Recycle Road. However, a single reversible lane would be provided to local traffic to access business on Recycle Road. For the segment of the interceptor running along the west side of Sunrise Boulevard, only the southbound approach would be impacted. The potential traffic impacts of the MI-7 + LCA5 alternative on various roadways are shown in Table 3 of the Technical Memorandum; Potential Traffic Delay Cost Due to Construction in Appendix I. As shown in Table 3 of Appendix I, the LOS on various roadways for the proposed project are at LOS D or better. The LOS on Sunrise Boulevard between Recycle Road and Douglas would decrease from LOS A to LOS F. Sunrise Boulevard south of Kiefer Road would decrease from D to F. LOS F is below the City of Rancho Cordova’s acceptable standard, and indicates over-capacity conditions with excessive delays. The total temporary public impact cost, including dust, noise, vibration and traffic delays, is $683,000. 5.4.3.3.1.8 Risk Cost The total cost associated with risk was calculated to be $820,000 which consisted entirely of construction risks for traffic. The Alternative MI-7, NPV is shown in Figure 5-15.

October 2007

5-54

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives Risk, $820,000 Public Impact, $683,000 Schedule, $0 O&M, $8,264,000

Engineering, $18,893,000

Environmental, $11,297,000

Right of Way, $9,422,000

Construction, $62,813,000

Total $112,192,000 3%/yr Escalation Rate 5%/yr Discount Rate

Figure 5-15 Mather Interceptor Alternative MI-7 Net Present Value 5.4.3.3.2 Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Alternative MI-7 Related Additional Costs Related additional costs of Alternative MI-7 + LCA5-1 were identified as the additional cost to construct AJ4 in the future, and the cost to construct the MAE Trunk Sewer from Douglas Road to the Bradshaw Interceptor, approximately 6,000 feet of 21-inch-diameter gravity sewer. Related additional costs for both items above include the cost of engineering, construction, O&M and public impacts (see Figure 5-16). An estimate was also made for traffic delays for the future construction of AJ4. Tunneling of most of the alignment is expected, but at least three shafts along Sunrise Boulevard can be expected to impact one travel lane for most of a construction season. The NPV of this traffic delay cost in 2029 is $920,000. The NPV of the public impact cost due to dust, noise and vibration is $388,000, so the total NPV of the public impacts is $1,308,000. It should be noted that environmental impacts were not calculated because it was assumed that the Mather area would be built out and remaining environmental features would be negligible along the AJ4 corridor. ROW costs were not calculated because it was assumed that ROW required to construct AJ4 in the future would be acquired as part of the MI-7 + LCA5-1 ROW acquisition. Finally, due to the large uncertainties associated with project construction in 2030, unique risks were not quantified. The MAE Trunk Sewer extension cost includes the cost of construction, engineering, and O&M for the 6,000-foot extension (see Figure 5-17). The CSD-1 Master Plan stated the MAE Trunk Sewer would be required between 2011 and 2020; therefore, a construction period of 2015 was assumed. It was assumed the MAE Trunk Sewer would be constructed within the Zinfandel Drive ROW; therefore, no additional environmental, ROW, or public

Mather Interceptor Project

5-55

October 2007

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

impacts would occur beyond those already included in the Total Cost to the Community for Alternative MI-7 + LCA5-1. Public Impacts, $1,308,000 O&M, $573,000 Engineering, $13,813,000

Construction, $45,919,000

Mather Interceptor Future Construction of AJ4 Net Present Value Total $61,613,000 3%/yr Escalation Rate 5%/yr Discount Rate

Figure 5-16 Mather Interceptor Future Construction of AJ4 Net Present Value

O&M, $126,000 Engineering, $4,364,000

Construction, $14,507,000

Mather Interceptor MAE Trunk Net Present Value Total $18,997,000 3%/yr Escalation Rate 5%/yr Discount Rate

Figure 5-17 Mather Interceptor MAE Trunk Net Present Value

October 2007

5-56

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

The total cost of Alternative MI-7 + LCA5-1 was estimated to be: NPV of Future Aerojet 4 NPV of MAE Stub Out NPV of MI-7+LCA5

$61,613,000 $18,997,000 $112,192,000

Total NPV

$192,802,000

5.4.3.3.3 Summary of Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Alternative MI-7 As mentioned above, the Total Cost to the Community is equal to the sum of the NPV costs of Alternative MI-7 and the future construction of the AJ4 Interceptor and MAE Trunk Sewer extension. This is shown graphically in Figure5-18. Total NPV for Alternative MI-7

=

NPV for Alternative MI-7 As Designed

+

NPV of Future Aerojet 4

+

NPV of MAE Extension

Figure 5-18 Alternative MI-7 BCE Summary of Costs The Alternative MI-7 total NPV (including additional costs) is shown in Figure 5-19. Risk, $820,000 Public Impact, $1,991,000 Schedule, $0 O&M, $8,963,000 Engineering, $37,070,000

Environmental, $11,297,000

Right of Way, $9,422,000

Construction, $123,239,000

Total $192,802,000 3%/yr Escalation Rate 5%/yr Discount Rate

Figure 5-19 Alternative MI-7 Total Net Present Value (including additional costs) In summary, key comments and intangibles noted above include the following: •

Reduces interference with roadway construction in Zinfandel Drive and Douglas Road.

Mather Interceptor Project

5-57

October 2007

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

•

Construction of the MAE Trunk Sewer 5 years after completion of the Mather Interceptor in the same area.

•

Negative image to SRCSD due to major construction activity in and adjacent to a major roadway.

•

Potential loss of business at the shopping centers currently under construction at the intersection of Douglas Road and Sunrise Boulevard.

5.4.3.4 Alternative AJ4 Zinfandel + Aerojet 4 Alternative AJ4 includes approximately 15,121 linear feet of 72-inch-diameter gravity interceptor, 15,625 linear feet of dual force main to serve LCA5, and 19,875 linear feet of AJ4 gravity pipeline. Alternative AJ4 includes the Mather Interceptor and force main to convey flow from the Sunrise/Douglas development east of Sunrise Boulevard to the Bradshaw 7B Interceptor on an interim basis. Compared to the other Mather Interceptor alternatives, this alternative would add construction of the AJ4 Interceptor. The capacity of the pump station would be 13 mgd. The pump station would be located approximately 1,200 feet northeast of the intersection of Sunrise Boulevard and Jackson Road. Figure 520 shows a schematic of the alignment of the alternative. Additional details about this practical alternative are provided in the Technical Memorandum; Preliminary Design Mather Interceptor – Alternative AJ4 Assumed Construction Approach found in Appendix P. Flow would be pumped from the Mather Pump Station through 15,630 feet of dual 24inch-diameter force main across private property to Sunrise Boulevard and then north along Sunrise Boulevard to the transition structure located in the west side of the Sunrise Boulevard ROW across from the Chrysanthy Boulevard intersection. Flow discharged from the force main would combine with flow from the connection to the Aerojet 1 Interceptor that was formerly pumped by the Chrysanthy Pump Station, and then flow north in a 72-inch-diameter gravity sewer for 4,150 feet to the Mather Junction Structure at the northwest intersection of Douglas Road and Sunrise Boulevard. The Mather Junction Structure would include a stub for the future connection of Aerojet 2 Interceptor and a stub for the future connection of the AJ4 Interceptor. Flow from the Mather Junction Structure would flow west in a 72-inch-diameter gravity sewer along Douglas Road, drop to a lower elevation to pass under the FSC and continue west along Douglas Road. The total length of the interceptor in Douglas Road would be 4,920 feet. At the future intersection with an extension of Zinfandel Drive, the sewer would flow north along Zinfandel Drive in a 72inch-diameter gravity sewer for 5,980 feet to the Mather/Bradshaw Junction Structure, where it would discharge to the 84-inch-diameter Bradshaw Interceptor. The AJ4 Alternative includes a 72-inch-diameter gravity sewer from the Mather Junction Structure that would flow south along Sunrise Boulevard to the Mather Pump Station, paralleling the Mather Interceptor pipelines. It was assumed this pipeline would be left dry and would serve as the AJ4 Interceptor when construction of the Laguna Creek Interceptor is completed. The profile figure below shows a schematic illustration of the alternative. Additional details about this practical alternative are provided in the preliminary design documents and are available on request.

October 2007

5-58

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

Figure 5-20 Profile of Mather Interceptor Alternative AJ4 5.4.3.4.1 Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Alternative AJ4 5.4.3.4.1.1 Construction Cost The NPV Probable Construction Cost was estimated as $124,913,000, which includes a 20 percent construction contingency. It was assumed that the majority of this cost would be incurred during the two seasons (2009 and 2010) planned for construction of the project. 5.4.3.4.1.2 Engineering Cost The NPV engineering cost was estimated as $37,576,000. It was assumed that this cost would be incurred over the life of the project design and construction (2007 through 2010).

Mather Interceptor Project

5-59

October 2007

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

5.4.3.4.1.3 Right-of-Way Cost The NPV ROW cost was estimated as $7,146,000. The ROW cost consists of $3,117,000 (44 percent of total) for temporary easements, for $3,177,000 (44 percent of total) permanent easements, and $853,000 (12 percent of total) in fee titles. It was assumed that this cost would be incurred during the ROW acquisition process (2008 through 2010), which may continue into and beyond the construction period. 5.4.3.4.1.4 Environmental Mitigation Cost Environmental mitigation impacts would be identical to MI-1. The NPV of the mitigation costs were estimated as $12,407,000. The environmental mitigation cost would consist of $12,213,000 (98 percent of total) for vernal pool impacts, $171,000 (1 percent of total) for channel/wetland impacts, $0 for GGS habitat impacts, $0 for VELB habitat impacts, $1,000 for tree impacts, and $22,000 for impacts to other species. It was assumed that this cost would be incurred in 2008 because mitigation costs typically must be paid prior to final approval of some environmental permits. 5.4.3.4.1.5 Operation and Maintenance Cost The NPV O&M cost was estimated as $9,272,000. This alternative includes a total of 31,200 feet of 24-inch-diameter force main and 15,100 feet of 72-inch-diameter gravity sewer for the Mather Interceptor and 19,800 feet of 72-inch-diameter gravity sewer for the AJ4 Interceptor. O&M costs for this alternative assume the AJ4 Interceptor would be cleaned and CCTV-inspected to verify no significant corrosion had occurred before it would be put into service. The Mather Pump station would require four 250 hp pumps with an average total dynamic head of 77 feet at start-up to 154 feet at buildout. The force main would include 18 ARVs and 12 blow-offs. O&M costs were calculated over the 80year life cycle of the facility. 5.4.3.4.1.6 Schedule Cost The construction schedule for this alternative includes the following milestone dates: • • • • •

08/27/08 for Notice to Proceed on the Construction Contract 03/10/11 for completion of the Mather Interceptor gravity sewer 05/25/12 for Substantial Completion 07/20/12 for Completion of Start-Up and Testing 08/17/12 for Final Acceptance

It should be noted that the schedule above assumes double shifts for tunnel construction operations. This alternative would not be substantially complete until May 2012 and would not be able to accept flow from the LCA5 shed until July 2012. This is because of the additional tunneling that would be required to complete the AJ4 Interceptor pipeline. It was also assumed that the force main could not be completed until the AJ4 pipeline was complete because the force main and pipeline would parallel each other in the same corridor, and the force main would be above the Aerojet pipeline. Alternative methods of construction would be considered during final design for potential to accelerate force main construction. However, for purposes of this analysis, a delay cost was assumed for the additional O&M cost of the Chrysanthy Pump Station after December 2010, and the cost

October 2007

5-60

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

of an interim pump station in the LCA5 shed. This would result in a schedule NPV cost of $7,354,000. 5.4.3.4.1.7 Temporary Public Impact Cost The total temporary public impact cost for dust, noise, and vibration for Alternative AJ4 was estimated to be $147,200 in net present value. The noise mitigation cost associated with building sound walls was estimated to be $93,700, assuming that 9,000 linear feet of sound wall would need to be built. The dust mitigation cost was estimated as $21,500. The dust mitigation cost included the following mitigation costs: HVAC cleanings at $12,000; house cleanings at $3,600; power washes at $4,800; window and blinds cleaning at $500; and car washes at $600. No pools were located within the buffer zone; therefore, no mitigation cost was estimated for pool cleanings. The total vibration mitigation cost of preconstruction and postconstruction, monitoring during construction, and potential damage claims was estimated to be $21,500. The total cost of preconstruction and postconstruction and monitoring during construction was estimated as $4,200, and total potential damage claims were estimated as $27,800. The proposed Alternative AJ4 has the same alignment as Alternative MI-1 + LCA5-1 and would therefore experience the same traffic impacts. However, the NPVs would be slightly different because of the difference in the time period of construction. The proposed interceptor Alternative AJ4 would result in 2,464 hours of delay, which was converted into $20,800 of delay cost in NPV. Detailed assumptions of delay cost analysis are also shown in Table 1 of the Technical Memorandum; Potential Traffic Delay Cost Due to Construction, in Appendix I. The total temporary public impact cost, including dust, noise, vibration and traffic delays, is $168,000. 5.4.3.4.1.8 Risk Cost The total cost associated with risk for Alternative AJ4 was calculated to be $233,000 which consisted entirely of construction risks presented in the discussion of Alternative MI-1 + LCA5-1 in 5.4.3.1.1 above. 5.4.3.4.2 Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Alternative AJ4 Related Additional Costs Alternative AJ4 includes construction of the AJ4 Interceptor; therefore, the only related additional cost would be the cost to provide a stub out for the CSD-1 Trunk Sewer at the intersection of Douglas Road and Zinfandel Drive. The cost of the MAE stub includes only the cost of construction. It was assumed that the stub out to allow for the future connection of the CSD-1 flows would be constructed as part of the MI construction, and that the stub out would be constructed within the Alternative MI-1 + LCA5-1 limits of disturbance. Thus, it was assumed that there would be insignificant additional engineering, environmental, ROW, O&M, or public impacts beyond those already included in the Total Cost to the Community for Alternative AJ4.

Mather Interceptor Project

5-61

October 2007

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

The total cost of Alternative AJ4, including related additional costs, was estimated to be as follows (see Figure 5-21): NPV of MAE Stub Out NPV of AJ4

$66,000 $199,069,000

Total NPV

$199,135,000 Public Impact, $168,000 Schedule, $7,354,000

Risk, $233,000

O&M, $9,272,000

Engineering, $37,576,000

Environmental, $12,407,000

Right of Way, $7,146,000

Construction, $124,913,000

Total $199,069,000 3%/yr Escalation Rate 5%/yr Discount Rate

Figure 5-21 Alternative AJ4, Net Present Value 5.4.3.4.3 Summary of Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Alternative AJ4 As mentioned above, the Total Cost to the Community is equal to the sum of the NPV costs of the MAE Trunk Stub Out Alternative AJ4 as it was designed. This is shown graphically in Figure 5-22.

Total NPV for Alternative AJ4

=

NPV for Alternative AJ4 As Designed

+

NPV of MAE Trunk Stub Out

Figure 5-22 Alternative AJ4 BCE Summary of Costs Total alternative AJ4 NPV (including additional costs) is shown in Figure 5-23.

October 2007

5-62

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

Public Impact, $168,000 Schedule, $7,354,000

Risk, $233,000

O&M, $9,272,000 Engineering, $37,576,000

Environmental, $12,407,000

Right of Way, $7,146,000

Construction, $124,979,000

Total $199,135,000 3%/yr Escalation Rate 5%/yr Discount Rate

Figure 5-23 AJ4 Alternative Total Net Present Value (including additional costs) In summary, key comments and intangibles noted above include the following: •

Early construction of the AJ4 Interceptor avoids future impacts to the public, and removes risk of higher than average cost escalation.

•

Negative image to SRCSD due to major construction activity adjacent to a major roadway

•

Construction schedule assumes double shifts for tunnel construction operations.

•

Start-up of the Mather Pump Station is not scheduled until July 20, 2012. Either development may be delayed, or interim facilities may need to be constructed.

•

Potential loss of business at the shopping centers currently under construction at the intersection of Douglas Road and Sunrise Boulevard.

•

Potential disruption of the TRACON operations caused by accidentally hitting its underground utilities.

5.4.4 Summary of Results of the Business Case Evaluation To select the preferred alternative, the Total Cost to the Community (total NPV) and any key intangibles for each practical alternative should be compared. Below is a discussion of the comparison between the practical alternatives (see Table 5-8).

Mather Interceptor Project

5-63

October 2007

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

5.4.4.1 Construction Cost Alternative MI-1 has the lowest NPV of construction cost of the four alternatives. The construction cost NPV of MI-1 is 4 percent to 5 percent lower than for MI-2 and MI-7, respectively, and 6 percent lower than for AJ4. 5.4.4.2 Engineering Cost Because engineering cost was calculated at a percent of construction cost, engineering cost is not a differentiating BCE parameter. 5.4.4.3 Right-of-Way Cost The ROW cost for MI-1 is $212,000 (3 percent) less than MI-2, $2,541,000 (27 percent) less than MI-7, and $256,000 (4 percent) less than AJ4. All the alternatives have similar ROW acquisition requirements except MI-7, which requires permanent and temporary easements along Sunrise Boulevard north of Douglas Road. 5.4.4.4 Environmental Mitigation Cost Most of the environmental impacts and mitigation costs for all four alternatives are south of Chrysanthy Boulevard along Sunrise Boulevard and across private property. The primary difference is that the MI-1 and AJ4 alignments impact more vernal pools north of Douglas Road. Costs for MI-1 and AJ4 are $868,000 (8 percent) higher than for MI-2, and $1,110,000 (10 percent) higher than for MI-7. 5.4.4.5 Operation and Maintenance Cost Since the pump station and force main are identical for all four alternatives, the O&M costs are not significantly different, except AJ4. The O&M cost for AJ4 is $309,000 more than the lowest alternative because of the cost to clean and CCTV-inspect the unused AJ4 Interceptor before it is put into service in 2030. 5.4.4.6 Schedule Cost Reasonable construction schedules project that Alternatives MI-1, MI-2, and MI-7 would be complete prior to or close to the December 31, 2010 deadline. Alternative AJ4 would not be complete prior to the deadline and a $7,354,000 NPV cost has been added to the alternative cost to cover schedule delays. 5.4.4.7 Temporary Public Impact Cost Alternative AJ4 has the lowest public impact costs because it avoids additional impacts to the public when the AJ4 Interceptor is constructed in 2030. MI-7 has the greatest impacts because of the construction in Sunrise Boulevard, which would require closure of one lane of traffic and associated costs of traffic delays. MI-1 costs were virtually identical to MI-2, $512,000 less than for MI-7, and $1,311,000 higher than for AJ4. Although the temporary public impact cost accounts for impacts to the public caused by traffic delays and construction-related nuisance impacts (noise, dust, vibration), some key

October 2007

5-64

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

intangible public impacts may be caused as a result of construction of these alternatives. Many of these were common to all the alternatives, including the following: •

Potential loss of business at the shopping centers currently under construction at the intersection of Sunrise Boulevard and Douglas Road.

•

Impacts to traffic along Sunrise Boulevard south of Douglas Road

5.4.4.8 Risk Cost Risk costs are nearly identical for MI-1 and AJ4, but are significantly less than for MI-7 and MI-2. Risk costs for MI-1 and AJ4 are $1,287,000 less than for MI-2 because of the higher risk of encountering contaminated soil and groundwater. Risk costs for MI-1 and AJ4 are $582,000 less than for MI-7 because of the increased risk of traffic accidents. 5.4.4.9 Summary The Total Cost to the Community and key comments and intangibles are captured in Table 5-8.

Mather Interceptor Project

5-65

October 2007

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

Table 5-8 BCE Results Comparison Among Alternatives Total Cost to the Community NPV (2007 $)

Alt.

Key Comments/Intangibles

Public Impact, $1,479,000 Schedule, $0 O&M, $8,879,000

Risk, $238,000 Engineering, $35,347,000

• Environmental, $12,407,000

•

Right of Way, $6,881,000

•

MI-1 Construction, $117,577,000

•

Mather Interceptor Total Alt. 1 Net Present Value (including Add. Costs) Total $182,808,000 3%/yr Escalation Rate 5%/yr Discount Rate

Double shift tunnel construction operations. Facility start-up on 10/14/10. Service to Chrysanthy Pump Station and LCA5 shed provided by December 2010. Potential conflict with Zinfandel Drive construction and Douglas roadwidening. Potential loss of business at shopping centers.

Risk, $1,525,000 Public Impact, $1,491,000 Schedule, $0 O&M, $8,987,000 Engineering, $36,926,000

• Environmental, $11,539,000

Right of Way, $7,093,000

• •

MI-2 Construction, $122,827,000

Mather Interceptor Total Alt. 2 Net Present Value (including Add. Costs) Total $190,388,000 3%/yr Escalation Rate 5%/yr Discount Rate

October 2007

•

5-66

Construction near known area of contaminated soil and groundwater. Double shift tunnel construction operations. Facility start-up on 01/24/11. Service to Chrysanthy Pump Station and LCA5 shed is late by 3-1/2 weeks. Continued operation of CSD-1 interim pump stations until this date. Potential loss of business at shopping centers.

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

Alt.

Total Cost to the Community NPV (2007 $)

Key Comments/Intangibles

Risk, $820,000 Public Impact, $1,991,000 Schedule, $0 O&M, $8,963,000 Engineering, $37,070,000

Environmental, $11,297,000

• •

Right of Way, $9,422,000

MI-7

• Construction, $123,239,000

Single shift tunnel operations. Facility start-up on 10/06/10. Provides service to Chrysanthy Pump Station and LCA5 shed by December 2010. More construction in and along Sunrise Boulevard.

Mather Interceptor Total Alt. 7 Net Present Value (including Add. Costs) Total $192,802,000 3%/yr Escalation Rate 5%/yr Discount Rate

Public Impact, $168,000 Schedule, $7,354,000

•

Risk, $233,000

O&M, $9,272,000 Engineering, $37,576,000

• Environmental, $12,407,000

Right of Way, $7,146,000

AJ4

Construction, $124,979,000

• Mather Interceptor Total Alt. AJ4 Net Present Value (including Add. Costs) Total $199,135,000 3%/yr Escalation Rate 5%/yr Discount Rate

Mather Interceptor Project

•

5-67

Avoids impact to developed area by constructing the Aerojet 4 Interceptor in 2010 rather than 2019. Double shift tunnel operations • 03/10/11 for start-up of gravity sewer serving Chrysanthy Pump Station. • 07/20/12 for completion of start-up and testing of Mather Pump Station and service to LCA5 shed. Service to Chrysanthy Pump Station is 3-1/2 months late. Continued operation by CSD-1 until this date. Service to LCA5 is 1 ½ years late. Interim facilities may be necessary if development occurs by 2011.

October 2007

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

5.4.4.10

Construction Cost Escalation Rate Sensitivity Analysis

An analysis was performed to determine the sensitivity of the BCE results to fluctuations in the escalation rate for construction cost. The NPV for each alternative was calculated assuming a 3 percent per year escalation rate, a 5 percent per year discount rate, and an 80year life cycle. The 3 percent per year escalation rate and 5 percent per year discount rate were applied to all costs. In addition, the NPV of the construction costs was recalculated assuming a 5, 7.5, and 10 percent escalation rate to determine if the ranking between alternatives would be affected (see Table 5-9). Table 5-9 Construction Cost Escalation Rate Sensitivity

Alternative

MI-1 MI-2 MI-7 AJ4

Total NPV at 5 percent Discount Rate and 3 percent Escalation Rate $181,920,000 $189,500,000 $191,910,000 $199,130,000

Total NPV at 5 percent Discount Rate and 5 percent Escalation Rate $208,940,000 $216,780,000 $219,220,000 $207,810,000

Total NPV at 5 percent Discount Rate and 7.5 percent Escalation Rate $259,250,000 $267,420,000 $269,890,000 $219,330,000

Total NPV at 5 percent Discount Rate and 10 percent Escalation Rate $337,800,000 $346,320,000 $348,810,000 $231,650,000

Key: NPV = net present value MI = Mather Interceptor AJ = Aerojet

As shown above, MI-1 has the lowest NPV at a 5 percent discount rate and a 3 percent escalation rate. If construction costs are escalated at 5 percent, and other factors are the same, AJ4 has the lowest NPV. This is because of the increased cost of the future construction of AJ4 Interceptor if costs escalate between now and 2029. The gap between AJ4 widens if higher construction cost escalation rates are assumed, as shown in Figure 524. At the 3 percent escalation rate, MI-1 is 4 percent lower in cost than MI-2, which has the next lowest NPV. At the 5 percent escalation rate, AJ4 has an NPV of less than 1 percent less than MI-1 (see Figure 5-24).

October 2007

5-68

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives $290,000,000

$270,000,000

NPV (2007$)

$250,000,000

$230,000,000

$210,000,000

$190,000,000

$170,000,000

$150,000,000 Total NPV [j] 3%/yr Escalation Rate 5%/yr Discount Rate

Total NPV 5%/yr Escalation Rate 5%/yr Discount Rate

Total NPV 7.5%/yr Escalation Rate 5%/yr Discount Rate

Escalation Rate (%)

MI-1 + LCA5-1 MI-7 + LCA5-1

MI-2 + LCA5-1 AJ4 (MI-1 + LCA5-1 + AJ4)

Figure 5-24 BCE Results at Various Construction Cost Escalation Rates 5.4.5 Recommendation of Preferred Alternative Alternative MI-1 is the Preferred Alternative for the Mather Interceptor project. However, it is also recommended that implementation of Alternative AJ4 be studied further under the Basis of Design Report to be conducted by the final designer, CDM. Further study of AJ4 is possible without delaying the design task because the MI-1 and AJ4 alignments overlap each other; therefore, no additional survey other field work is necessary. The preliminary design and BCE-assumed construction of AJ4 would be very difficult in 2029. However, the final designer can study the constructability of AJ4 further and more carefully analyze different construction methods. The final designer can also determine if land can be reserved now to facilitate construction of tunnel shafts or other construction features in the future. This would allow AJ4 construction to take place in the future and avoid a significant increase in current construction budgets. The final designer will be directed to provide a recommendation on the AJ4 constructability in a Basis of Design Report. The recommendation of Alternative MI-1 and the further study of Alternative AJ4 was made to the PAC on April 18, 2007. However, there was concern that a regional pump station to serve the LCA5 shed was recommended as part of all the alternatives, and the use of multiple, interim pump stations had not been analyzed. It was also stated that the pace of development had slowed significantly and the pump station would not be needed for some time. As a result, the PAC directed program management staff to conduct further analysis of the development and flow estimates, and compare the use of multiple developer-constructed interim pump stations. Previous discussions with SRCSD staff had assumed that a regional solution was appropriate because the 10 mgd threshold for SRCSD responsibility would be reached by 2015.

Mather Interceptor Project

5-69

October 2007

Chapter 5 Analysis of Alternatives

The PAC also expressed concern that further modeling to be conducted under the Sequencing Study may show that the Bradshaw Interceptor may have enough capacity to handle buildout flows from the Aerojet sewer sheds. If that is the case, Aerojet 4 Interceptor would not be necessary. It is also possible that if Aerojet 4 Interceptor is needed, it may not be needed for 30 years or more. It was felt that constructing but not using an interceptor for 30 years or more would be a waste. However, the PAC did approve the analysis of the constructability of Aerojet 4 in the future. The MI-1 route for the gravity portion of the Mather Interceptor was accepted by the PAC and the PAC agreed that it should be designed and constructed on the schedule described in this PDP. There was concern that the Mather Interceptor may not be ready when the Chrysanthy pump station runs out of capacity. Plans for development in the area served by the Chrysanthy pump station have been approved and the estimated flow from those developments exceeds the design capacity of the pump station. The portion of the Preferred Alternative (Alternative MI-1) that provides sewer service to LCA5 was removed and will receive further analysis in a separate PDP. That analysis will include a refinement of the development pace in the LCA5 shed, a sensitivity analysis of the development pace, an estimate of future flows and a comparison of several developer constructed interim pump stations to the single, regional pump station and force main built by SRCSD.

October 2007

5-70

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 6 Selected Alternative Design Assumptions

CHAPTER 6.0 SELECTED ALTERNATIVE DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS This chapter describes the design concept and routing of the Mather Interceptor Preferred Alternative (MI-1). This chapter also lists major features of significance along the interceptor route and explains the reasons the pipeline was aligned as shown on preliminary design drawings. Also included in this chapter is a list of known key issues to be resolved or followed up on by the final designer. For the purpose of describing Alternative MI-1, the alignment was divided into four segments:

6.1

•

Zinfandel Drive (MI station 1+00 to 59+80)

•

Douglas Road west of and including the FSC (station 59+80 to 82+32)

•

Douglas Road east of the FSC (station 82+32 to 108+99)

•

Sunrise Boulevard, Douglas Road to Chrysanthy Boulevard (station 108+99 to 152+21) HYDRAULIC CONTROL POINTS

6.1.1 Downstream – Bradshaw Interceptor The Mather Interceptor will discharge to the Bradshaw Interceptor at the southwest corner of the Zinfandel Drive/Mather Boulevard intersection. This is at approximately Bradshaw Station 319+00, where the invert elevation is approximately 60.5 feet and the crown of the 84-inch diameter pipe is approximately 67.5 feet (refer to the Bradshaw Plans for survey datum information). For the purposes of this preliminary design, matching crowns were assumed. 6.1.2 Upstream – Aerojet Section 1 MP2000 called for the Mather Interceptor to collect flow from the Mather Junction Structure, which would collect flow from Aerojet Sections 1, 2, and 2S. However, a portion of Aerojet Section 1 was constructed by the developer of the Anatolia 1 development during the construction of Chrysanthy Boulevard and the Chrysanthy Pump Station. The developer left the downstream end of Aerojet 1 on the east side of the Chrysanthy Boulevard/Sunrise Boulevard intersection. To provide relief to the Chrysanthy Pump Station, specified in the PDP, the Mather Interceptor must be extended south along Sunrise Boulevard to Chrysanthy Boulevard and tied into the end of the existing Aerojet Section 1. As a result, the Mather Interceptor would be longer than anticipated by MP2000. The record drawings for Aerojet Section 1 show the invert elevation as 138.14 feet.

Mather Interceptor Project

6-1

October 2007

Chapter 6 Selected Alternative Design Assumptions

6.1.3 Mather Junction Structure The Mather Junction Structure was planned by MP2000 to allow flow to be collected from Aerojet Sections 1, 2, and 2S and discharged to the Mather Interceptor, and also to the AJ4 Interceptor when it is constructed. Although schematic diagrams in MP2000 show Aerojet 2 and 2s individually discharging to the Mather Junction Structure, it is anticipated they would combine in a junction structure on the east side of Sunrise Boulevard and the combined flow would cross under Sunrise Boulevard to the Mather Junction Structure. This allows a single crossing of Sunrise Boulevard and a simpler Mather Junction Structure. This was discussed and agreed to in concept by SRCSD staff. It also appears this is how the sewer system is being laid out in the Rio Del Oro Sewer Facilities Plan. Key elevations for the Mather Junction Structure are the incoming Aerojet 2 and the upstream portion of the Mather Interceptor. The preliminary design used MP2000 to estimate the Aerojet 2 elevations and incoming elevation. The MP2000 invert for Aerojet 2 at the connection to the Mather Interceptor would be 119.24, but the MP2000 pipe diameter is 60-inch-diameter for Aerojet 2. For matching pipe crowns with the Mather Interceptor 72-inch-diameter pipe, and allowing for some drop across one or more structures, an invert of 118.05 would be needed for the Mather Interceptor leaving the structure. The incoming elevation of the upstream Mather Interceptor is set by the existing elevation of Aerojet 1 and the pipe slope from Chrysanthy Boulevard to the Mather Junction Structure. There is sufficient elevation drop to provide the slope of 0.0013 assumed in the preliminary design. The Mather Junction Structure should also be deep enough to allow the existing 10-inch-diameter sewer in Douglas Road to tie in by gravity. The 10-inch-diameter sewer would be served by a pump station on Douglas Road that should be abandoned after the construction of Mather Interceptor. The 10-inch-diameter sewer may also connect to a downstream manhole if one is closer to the end of the sewer. The downstream elevation of the 10-inch-diameter sewer is 127.21 feet. 6.1.4 MAE Junction The CSD-1 Master Plan calls for the MAE Trunk Sewer to discharge to the Mather Interceptor at the intersection of Eagles Nest Road and Douglas Road. The Master Plan calls for a 21-inch-diameter diameter trunk at a tie-in elevation of 78.71. The estimated flow from the trunk shed is about 5 mgd. According to discussions with CSD-1, the elevation is lower than required to serve the trunk shed, and the Master Plan is taking advantage of the depth of the Mather Interceptor. Matching crowns was assumed for the preliminary design. Changes in the elevation should be discussed with CSD-1. A stub across Douglas Road should be considered. 6.1.5 Folsom South Canal Crossing The preliminary design assumed a minimum clearance from the bottom of the FSC to the top of the interceptor sewer of 15 feet. This distance was based on the rule of thumb that calls for three pipe diameters of minimum clearance under structures. Less clearance would affect the slope and create velocities less than cleansing velocities. The USBR has

October 2007

6-2

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 6 Selected Alternative Design Assumptions

stated it prefers a clearance of 25 feet, but is willing to consider less clearance if it can be demonstrated that damage to the canal would not occur. 6.1.6 Summary of Mather Interceptor Hydraulic Design Control Points Table 6-1 summarizes the Mather Interceptor hydraulic design control points. Table 6-1 Summary of Mather Interceptor Hydraulic Design Control Points Control Point Bradshaw Interceptor Aerojet 1 Aerojet 2 Aerojet 3

6.2

Station 0+00 152+21 109+00 80+00

Elevation 67.5 138.14 118.05 80.0

Description Crown of Pipe (approx.) Invert of existing Aerojet 1 Invert of future Aerojet 2 Interceptor crown, max

PRELIMINARY DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE INTERCEPTOR

During the preliminary design effort, several key assumptions were made that affected the alignment of the interceptor pipelines: •

Tunneling method was assumed for construction of the entire alignment based on the depth of the pipeline as well as for limiting impacts to the community (traffic) along Sunrise Boulevard and Douglas Road.

•

Pipe jacking was determined to be more practical than two-pass tunneling since for much of the route, limiting the number and location of shafts would not be necessary. As a result, the interceptor alignment consists of straight sections between manholes, and does not follow road curvatures.

•

Standard drive length for pipe jacking was assumed to be 750 feet. Jacking length may be extended up to 1,000 feet if local conditions prevent lesser spacing, or to eliminate short drives requiring additional shafts. It was assumed an earth pressure balance (EPB) TBM operated in open mode would be used most of the time. EPB mode would be used where perched water is encountered and in locations such as the FSC crossing where significant water heads are anticipated.

•

Shafts were assumed to be circular.

•

Standard SRCSD standard manhole design was assumed (refer to preliminary drawings details).

•

Pipe material is assumed to be reinforced concrete pipe (RCP), T-loc lined.

•

Although a 54-inch-diameter pipe has sufficient capacity to convey the required Mather Interceptor flows, a 72-inch-diameter pipe was used for design purposes. Construction efficiency increases significantly from 54-inch-diameter to 72-inchdiameter pipe sizes, resulting in comparable construction costs. The pipe diameter assumption during preliminary design was that 54-inch-diameter to 72-inchdiameter pipe sizes would be allowed for pipe jacking. The 72-inch-diameter pipe

Mather Interceptor Project

6-3

October 2007

Chapter 6 Selected Alternative Design Assumptions

is conservative for estimating impacts to the environment and community, as well as allowing use of the same machine for MI-1 and potentially AJ4. •

RCP was assumed since it is suitable for gravity sewer, can be installed by tunneling methods, and is likely to be the least cost pipe material for the range of pipe diameters for this project.

•

Shaft diameters are as listed in Table 6-2. Table 6-2 Shaft Dimensions for Pipe Jacking and Receiving

Shaft Type Jacking Shaft Receiving Shaft

6.3

Single Pipeline in Shaft Preferred Minimum Diameter Diameter (confined work (space area) available) 31 feet 22 feet 22 feet 16 feet

Two Pipelines in Shaft Preferred Diameter (space available)

Minimum Diameter (confined work area)

36 feet 25 feet

30 feet 22 feet

ZINFANDEL DRIVE (STATION 0+00 TO 59+88)

The Mather Interceptor alignment begins at its tie-in location to Bradshaw 7B on Zinfandel Drive just south of the intersection with North Mather Boulevard and Baroque Drive. The interceptor routes southerly along the future extension of Zinfandel Drive for approximately 5,880 lineal feet to Douglas Road. Pipe depth to invert averages nearly 55 feet in this segment. Key considerations in siting the interceptor in this segment include the following: •

Morrison Creek would be crossed by tunneling.

•

The 21-inch-diameter MAE trunk sewer connection would connect to the turning structure at the intersection with Douglas Road.

6.3.1 Preliminary Design Construction and Alignment Decision Summary 6.3.1.1 Vertical Constraint The primary factor in determining the vertical alignment was the elevation of the Bradshaw Interceptor and the FSC. Matching crown to crown was assumed for the Bradshaw connection and 15 feet (about three pipe diameters) of cover was assumed under the canal. This resulted in a slope of 0.0015 in this section. The following utilities were identified and are located between STA 0+28 to STA 24+00: •

A 16-inch-diameter water line near the east edge of pavement (northbound lanes)

•

An 8-inch-diameter sanitary sewer in the west (southbound) lanes

•

12-inch-diameter to 36-inch-diameter storm drains approximately 5 feet east of the median

October 2007

6-4

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 6 Selected Alternative Design Assumptions

However, because of the depth of the sewer, no utilities are known to constrain the vertical alignment. Many utilities are crossed at an angle, but this should not be an issue during construction because the pipeline would be tunneled. However, this makes repairs more difficult if O&M must excavate in this area. The plans appear to show the interceptor conflicting with storm drains in the area, but this is due to the limited accuracy of the unrectified aerial photographs. It is expected that shafts can be located to avoid utilities in most locations. 6.3.1.2 Slopes and Velocity Slopes were limited by hydraulic control points throughout the alignment. From the MAE Junction Structure connection to the Mather Bradshaw Interceptor, slopes ranging from 0.0016 to 0.008 were assumed. Calculated average daily flow velocities at start-up and buildout for this segment range from 2.80 ft/sec to 4.10 feet per second (ft/sec) and 4.30 ft/sec to 7.40 ft/sec, respectively. 6.3.1.3 Horizontal Constraints The Bradshaw Interceptor diameter increases from 72 inches to 84 inches near the centerline of Zinfandel Drive. The Mather/Bradshaw Junction Structure was sited on the west side of Zinfandel Drive to take advantage of the larger diameter and capacity of the 84-inch portion. It was also thought that M&O would prefer to have the structure off the pavement so it was sited just to the west of the curb. Currently, approximately 2,500 linear feet of the Zinfandel Drive extension have been completed south of North Mather Boulevard The road in this section is asphalt-paved, three lanes in each direction, with a raised 12-foot-wide median. The remaining 3,380 linear feet to the future intersection with Douglas Road are scheduled for construction in 2009. As a result, Zinfandel Drive would be completed through to Douglas Road by the time Mather Interceptor construction starts, therefore, it is expected that traffic volume would be very low. It is assumed that closing about one half of the completed portion of the road and routing traffic to the other half of the road would not be a problem. Manholes were placed (which would be shaft locations) along the west side of the road and within the 108-foot-wide road ROW in locations that would be clear of the sanitary sewer. A 108-foot-wide road ROW exists where the road has been constructed. The same ROW width is expected for the planned road expansion. 6.3.1.4 Structures Required The Mather/Bradshaw Junction Structure is currently under design by Black and Veatch and would be constructed under a separate project. The Bradshaw 7C project will leave a 72-inch-diameter stub for the Mather Interceptor tie-in. The MAE Junction Structure would be located in the northeast corner of the Zinfandel Drive/Douglas Road intersection. It was located off the road to avoid placing the structure in a busy intersection. This structure would serve as a tie-in for the future MAE Trunk Sewer to serve the areas south of Douglas Road and a turning structure. A 21-inch stub out is required for the future connection of the MAE Trunk Sewer.

Mather Interceptor Project

6-5

October 2007

Chapter 6 Selected Alternative Design Assumptions

6.3.1.5 Environmental Issues • • •

Vernal pools along the alignment Potential for contaminated groundwater or soil Closed landfills nearby

6.3.1.6 Right-of-Way Needs Preliminary plans assumed the 108-foot ROW acquisition would be completed and available for use when the Mather Interceptor is constructed, and the alignment would stay within the ROW. If the ROW for the extension has not been obtained, the county will grant a license for construction of the interceptor. During recent negotiations with the Creekside development owner, SRCSD agreed to move the interceptor to private property on the east side of Zinfandel Drive for the first 1,200 feet of the alignment. Temporary construction easement needs were estimated and are shown on the plans. 6.3.2 Final Design Considerations Items to be resolved or finalized in this section of the interceptor during final design include the following: •

Coordination with Bradshaw 7C designer (Black and Veatch) for connection point

•

Coordination with road designer (Wood Rodgers) and City of Rancho Cordova to mitigate construction conflicts and the location of the MAE Junction Structure. Road construction is scheduled for 2009; therefore, the Mather Interceptor may need to be accelerated.

•

Minimizing wetland resource impacts south of the existing Zinfandel Drive, where feasible.

6.4

DOUGLAS ROAD WEST OF AND INCLUDING FOLSOM SOUTH CANAL (STATIONS 59+80 TO 82+32)

This section includes 2,325 feet of interceptor parallel to Douglas Road. The interceptor turns eastward at the future intersection with Zinfandel Drive, routes parallel to Douglas Road, and crosses under the (FSC) approximately 2,000 feet east of Zinfandel Drive. The total span of the canal cut is approximately 210 feet. Pipe depth to invert averages about 65 feet in this stretch. Key features of this subsection include the following: •

TRACON facility along the north side of Douglas Road

•

Utilities along the north side of Douglas Road

•

Mather Lake on the south side of Douglas Road

•

FSC under crossing

•

Business park located on the north side of Douglas Road immediately east of the canal

October 2007

6-6

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 6 Selected Alternative Design Assumptions

6.4.1 Preliminary Design Construction and Alignment Decision Summary 6.4.1.1 Vertical Constraints The primary vertical constraint in this segment is the FSC. The assumptions for the design of the interceptor are discussed above. The following utilities are known to exist in this section: •

Underground telephone in a concrete duct.

•

2-inch-diameter gas line. At the time the pipe was aligned, the gas line was not known to exist and the utility does not appear on the drawings. However, the gas line was potholed and the location is noted in the general sheets of the drawings.

•

16-inch-diameter water main

•

2-inch-diameter sewer force main that originates from a septic tank on the southwest corner of the TRACON site and routes just north of the Douglas Road pavement. The sewer force main has the potential to conflict with construction only at the shaft on the corner of Douglas Road and Zinfandel Drive.

•

1.5-inch-diameter streetlight conduit.

•

12-inch-diameter water main.

•

10-inch-diameter storm drain and catch basins.

The 12-inch-diameter water main at the back of the sidewalk and 10-inch-diameter storm drain catch basins must be avoided or relocated. 6.4.1.2 Slopes and Velocity Slope for this segment ranges from 0.0016 to 0.0015. 6.4.1.3 Horizontal Constraints The interceptor was located in the north side of the road because there is much more room off the roadway than on the south side of the road, and is further away from Mather Lake and its wetlands. The Northern California TRACON facility is located in the north side of Douglas Road. At the normal drive length of 750 feet, the first shaft east of the Douglas Road/Zinfandel Drive intersection would have been located within the main entranceway to the TRACON facility. It was therefore moved easterly so that the work area would not obstruct the entranceway. The next shaft east is near the gated emergency exit from the facility at approximately Station 74+85 to 75+25. East of the FSC at the shaft site, the interceptor is shown closer to the roadway pavement to avoid private landscaping and parking lot improvements on the public ROW. However, it would likely be necessary to use the entire ROW for construction purposes so the manhole could be moved further to the north.

Mather Interceptor Project

6-7

October 2007

Chapter 6 Selected Alternative Design Assumptions

6.4.1.4 Structures Required A vortex manhole east of the FSC would be required. 6.4.1.5 Environmental Issues The primary environmental issue is Mather Lake south of Douglas Road. 6.4.1.6 Right-of-Way Needs The preliminary road alignment plans show Douglas Road being expanded in a northerly direction and much of the frontage at the TRACON facility being removed. Temporary construction areas were assumed to be located within the ROW. 6.4.2 Final Design Issues Items to be resolved or finalized in this section of the interceptor during final design include the following: •

Permitting from USBR to place pipeline within its property.

•

Coordination with TRACON to avoid its critical facilities, time construction, and locate shafts. (At the February 2007 meeting, TRACON offered a triangle-shaped piece of land east of its facility as a staging and work area to avoid construction in front of the rest of its facility. A probable result is that the first two pipe drives to the west would be longer, on the order of 900 feet, with a drive under the canal of about 525 feet).

•

Coordination with road designer (Wood Rodgers) and the City of Rancho Cordova to avoid construction conflicts, including the new bridge piers.

•

Coordination with CSD-1 for a MAE Trunk Sewer stub out potentially crossing Douglas Road to avoid future impacts.

6.5

DOUGLAS ROAD EAST OF CANAL TO SUNRISE BOULEVARD (STATIONS 82+32 TO 108+99)

The principal features of this section are as follows: •

Business park frontage on the north side of the road for the first 900 east of the canal.

•

Underground utilities along the north side of the road.

•

Wetlands immediately east of the business park and Morrison Creek Crossing approximately 500 feet west of Sunrise Boulevard.

•

Utility poles and associated overhead lines, including power lines, along the north side of the road.

October 2007

6-8

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 6 Selected Alternative Design Assumptions

•

Retail shopping center development under construction on the southwest corner of Douglas Road and Sunrise Boulevard.

•

Future Douglas Road Sewer Lift Station just west of the shopping center and associated incoming 8-inch-diameter gravity line.

•

Mather Junction Structure, with at least four interceptor pipes entering and exiting.

6.5.1 Preliminary Design Construction and Alignment Decision Summary 6.5.1.1 Tunneling vs. Open Cut The pipe depth is in the range where open-cut or tunneling methods would have comparable costs. However, pipe jacking is the presumed construction method to minimize impacts to traffic, businesses, and wetland-type features. In addition, the corridor in some areas is narrow for open-cut construction to be used. The pipeline is also recommended to be tunneled in front of the business park because the limited corridor is expected to make tunneling more cost effective as well as minimize impacts to stakeholders. 6.5.1.2 Vertical Constraints The primary vertical constraint is the elevation of the Mather Junction Structure and the incoming Aerojet 2 Interceptor. The preliminary design estimated Aerojet 2 would enter the Mather Junction Structure at 118.05 feet. A slope of 0.0016 out of the structure was assumed. For the first two drives east of the canal, the interceptor routes between the road and utility poles, minimizing disruption to traffic and business. For the third drive, the interceptor was routed north of the overhead power lines to allow construction of the Mather Junction Structure. The length of the three tunneling drives averages nearly 900 feet. Shorter drive lengths would have resulted in an additional shaft. The Mather Interceptor was routed between known utilities to allow shaft construction and minimize utility relocation. The following utilities are known to exist in this segment of Douglas Road: • • • •

Underground telephone in a concrete duct bank 12-inch-diameter storm drains 8-inch-diameter sewer 12-inch-diameter water main

6.5.1.3 Slopes and Velocity Slope for this segment ranges from 0.0016 to 0.0017. Calculated average daily flow velocities at start-up and buildout for this segment range from 2.80 ft/sec to 4.10 ft/sec and 2.90 ft/sec to 4.30 ft/sec, respectively.

Mather Interceptor Project

6-9

October 2007

Chapter 6 Selected Alternative Design Assumptions

6.5.1.4 Horizontal Constraints The pipe is aligned on the north side of the street to stay consistent with the alignment from the west side of the canal and avoid a future shopping center. It is assumed that construction must remain off Douglas Road and should not significantly impede access to the business park or shooting club. 6.5.1.5 Structures Required The Mather Junction Structure was located on the northwest corner of Sunrise Boulevard and Douglas Road because other corners have existing or pending development. This is a large junction structure that would connect the incoming Mather, Aerojet 2, and Aerojet 2 Stub Out interceptors with the AJ4 and Mather interceptors. Maintenance and flow routing gates to switch between Mather Interceptor and AJ4 Interceptor flows once capacity in the Bradshaw Interceptor has been reached, coupled with high traffic volumes, make locating the structure well outside the traveled way desirable. Also, it was assumed that the Aerojet 2 and Aerojet 2 Stub Out would be combined into a single pipe before entering the Mather Junction Structure. This assumption was discussed with SRCSD staff. 6.5.1.6 Environmental Issues Environmental features in the area may be impacted during construction. Provisions would need to be made to minimize these impacts during construction of the interceptor. Environmental features include the following: •

Morrison Creek

•

Wetlands and vernal pools

6.5.1.7 Right-of-Way Needs The interceptor was assumed to be constructed within the widened Douglas Road ROW. Permanent and temporary easements would be required for construction of the Mather Junction Structure and work staging areas. 6.5.2 Final Design Issues Items to be resolved or finalized in this section of the interceptor during final design include the following: •

Connecting the 8-inch-diameter local collector sewer line that goes to the future Douglas Road Sewer Lift Station to the Interceptor. SRCSD agreed that the line could be connected directly to its system rather than routed to a trunk, as long as the line did not connect to a structure like the Mather Junction Structure.

•

Finalizing the flow scheme for the Mather Junction Structure.

October 2007

6-10

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 6 Selected Alternative Design Assumptions

•

6.6

Property acquisition from Mather Parks and Recreation District for the Mather Junction Structure and nearby incoming and outgoing pipes. SUNRISE BOULEVARD, DOUGLAS ROAD TO CHRYSANTHY BOULEVARD (MI STATION 108+99 TO 152+21, AJ4 STATION 1051+85 TO 1010+33)

This segment is within the Sunrise Boulevard ROW between Douglas Road and Chrysanthy Boulevard. As part of the Mather Interceptor discussion, a segment of AJ4 would be included for future constructability evaluation. This segment includes approximately 4,150 feet of the Mather Interceptor and the planned 72-inch-diameter AJ4 Interceptor aligned parallel to each other along Sunrise Boulevard, plus 167 feet of the Mather Interceptor crossing Sunrise Boulevard to an existing 42-inch-diameter Aerojet 1 Stub Out. The Mather Interceptor flows south to north and would be located at a higher elevation than the AJ4 Interceptor, which would flow in the opposite direction. The average elevation of the AJ4 Interceptor would be about 15 feet lower than the Mather Interceptor in this segment. Principal features of this section are as follows: •

Future business and existing residential development along the entire eastern frontage of Sunrise Boulevard south of Douglas Road.

•

Retail shopping center development, construction of which recently began on the southwest corner of Douglas Road and Sunrise Boulevard, with proposed condominium development immediately south.

•

The FSC to the west and parallel to Sunrise Boulevard, with the USBR ROW adjacent to the road ROW.

6.6.1 Preliminary Design Construction and Alignment Decision Summary 6.6.1.1 Vertical and Horizontal Constraints USBR will not allow permanent pipeline easements parallel to the FSC. Therefore, the interceptor alignment is shown off the existing pavement and within the west side of the Sunrise Boulevard ROW. The west side was chosen because of the number of existing utilities in the east side, the high voltage power lines, and a lack of available land for temporary construction easements due to existing residents adjacent to the ROW. 6.6.1.2 Slopes and Velocity The slope for this Mather Interceptor segment is 0.0013.

Mather Interceptor Project

6-11

October 2007

Chapter 6 Selected Alternative Design Assumptions

6.6.1.3 Environmental Issues Wetland and vernal pools exist west of Sunrise Boulevard. 6.6.1.4 Right-of-Way Needs USBR has indicated that it is willing to allow temporary construction easements. 6.6.2 Final Design Issues Issues to be resolved during final design include the following: •

Coordination with the developer of the Sundance property for location of manholes and resolution of construction issues.

•

Defining the ROW required for AJ4 if it is constructed in the future.

October 2007

6-12

Mather Interceptor Project

Chapter 7 References

CHAPTER 7.0 REFERENCES Black & Veatch. 2000. Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District Interceptor System Master Plan. Black & Veatch. 2002. Bradshaw Interceptor 7 Routing Study. Black & Veatch. 2003. Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District Interceptor System Master Plan Reconciliation Report. Black & Veatch. 2003. Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District Master Plan Reconciliation Report. City of Rancho Cordova. 2006. General Plan of the City of Rancho Cordova. CSD-1. 2006. CSD-1 Master Plan. ESA. 2007. Environmental Site Assessment, Phase I Report. JMM. 1993. Sanitary Sewer Expansion Study. Kleinfelder. 2007. Preliminary Geotechnical Report. MWH. 2007. SIAMI Interceptor Design Guidelines. MWH. 2007. Pump Station Design Guidelines. Nolte. 2005. Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District and County Sanitation District -1 Sewage Pump Station Design Manual. SRCSD. 2003. Interceptor Design Manual. SRCSD. 1996. Sacramento Regional Wastewater Management Program Master Interagency Agreement.

Mather Interceptor Project

7-1

October 2007

Chapter 7 References

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

October 2007

7-2

Mather Interceptor Project