The URL can be used to link to this page

R-02-26 Approving Professional Services Agreement Between HR Green, Inc. and the Village of Lemont, Illinois for Village Wide Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring Design Engineering1►'418 Main Street Lemont, IL 60439 TO: Village Board Meeting FROM: Ted Friedley, Public Works THROUGH: SUBJECT: A Resolution Approving Professional Services Agreement Between HR Green, Inc. and the Village of Lemont, Illinois for Village Wide Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring Design Engineering DATE: January 26, 2026 SUMMARY/BACKGROUND HR Green is assisting the Village with a Village wide sanitary sewer flow monitoring program. This program has been mandated by the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRD) due to their inflow and infiltration (I&I) concerns with their plant located in the Village of Lemont. The flow monitoring is the first step in a multi -step process to make the improvements that MWRD is looking for. Somewhere midway through this multi -step process, MWRD told us that they would approve an Extraterritorial Service Inclusion (ESI) for the property with a PIN of 12-02-36-300-019-0000 (included in GIS photo Exhibit B) for future development of the property. ANALYSIS This project is being added to the FY27 budget, but the selection of the sub -consultant needs to start ASAP so the meters can be set up for the monitoring period of April 1, 2026-June 30, 2026. Consistency with Village Policy 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan (if applicable) STAFF RECOMMENDATION Pass A Resolution Approving Professional Services Agreement Between HR Green, Inc. and the Village of Lemont, Illinois for Village Wide Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring Design Engineering BOARD ACTION REQUESTED Pass A Resolution Approving Professional Services Agreement Between HR Green, Inc. and the Village of Lemont, Illinois for Village Wide Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring Design Engineering ATTACHMENTS A Resolution Approving Professional Services Agreement Between HR Green, Inc. and the Village of Lemont, Illinois for Village Wide Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring Design Engineering.pdf VILLAGE OF LEMONT RESOLUTION NUMBER R- ;)a -26 A RESOLUTION APPROVING PROFESSIONAL SERIVCES AGREEMENT BETWEEN HR GREEN, INC. AND THE VILLAGE OF LEMONT, ILLINOIS FOR VILLAGE WIDE SANITARY SEWER FLOW MONITORING DESIGN ENGINEERING JOHN EGOFSKE, Village President CHARLENE M. SMOLLEN, Clerk SAMUEL J. FORZLEY JANELLE KITTRIDGE KEN MCCLAFFERTY KEVIN SHA UGHNESSY RICK SNIEGOWSKI RON STAPLETON Trustees Published in pamphlet form by authority of the Village President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Lemont on V. '-2026 RESOLUTION NO. R- , -26 A RESOLUTION APPROVING PROFESSIONAL SERIVCES AGREEMENT BETWEEN HR GREEN, INC. AND THE VILLAGE OF LEMONT, ILLINOIS FOR VILLAGE WIDE SANITARY SEWER FLOW MONITORING DESIGN ENGINEERING WHEREAS the Village of Lemont, Counties of Cook, Will, and DuPage, Illinois, ("the Village") is a municipality in the State of Illinois with full powers to enact Ordinances and adopt Resolutions for the benefits of the residents of the Village; and WHEREAS, the Village and HR Green, Inc. wish to enter a professional services agreement for Village Wide Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring Design Engineering as further outlined in the professional services agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A ("Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the Mayor and Board of Trustees find that it is in the best interests of the Village to authorize the Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Lemont, Counties of Cook, Will and DuPage, Illinois, as follows: SECTION 1: That the above recitals and legislative findings are found to be true and correct and are hereby incorporated herein and made a part hereof as if fully set forth in their entirety. SECTION 2: The Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Lemont hereby approve the Agreement with HR Green, Inc. in substantially the same form as attached hereto as Exhibit A, subject to attorney review. SECTION 3: The Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized, respectively, to execute the Agreement with HR Green, Inc. SECTION 4: This Resolution, and its parts, are declared to be severable and any section, subsection, sentence, clause, provision, or portion of this Resolution that is declared invalid such decision shall not affect the validity of any other portion of this Resolution, which shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 5: All Resolutions and Ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF LEMONT, COUNTIES OF COOK, WILL, AND DUPAGE, ILLINOIS, ON THIS ?�Ko DAY OF j a.nu" 2026. PRESIDENT AND VILLAGE BOARD MEMBERS: AYES: NAYES Samuel J. Forzley Janelle Kittridge Ken McClafferty Kevin Shaughnessy Rick Sniegowski Ron Stapleton ATTEST: CHARLEN M. SMOLLEN Village Clerk ABSENT: ABSTAIN: lr V 10 JOHN EGOFSKE President G� OF l F v � v SEAL /�LINO`S Exhibit A Village Wide Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring Design Engineering Agreement HRGreen® PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT For Village of Lemont Village Wide Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring Engineering Services Mr. George Schafer Village of Lemont 418 Main Street Lemont, IL 60439 630.257.1550 Prepared by: Bruce A. Hill, Municipal Executive Municipal Services — Engineering Timothy J. Hartnett President — Municipal Services HR Green Project No.: 2503627 January 7, 2026 Version2.1 02052021 Village of Lemont Village Wide Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring HR Green Project No.: 2503627 January 7, 2026 Page 2 of 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICE 3.0 DELIVERABLES AND SCHEDULES INCLUDED IN THIS AGREEMENT 4.0 ITEMS NOT INCLUDED IN AGREEMENT/SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES 5.0 SERVICES BY OTHERS 6.0 CLIENT RESPONSIBILITIES 7.0 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FEE 8.0 TERMS AND CONDITIONS Version2.1 02052021 HRGreen. Village of Lemont Village Wide Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring HR Green Project No.: 2503627 January 7, 2026 Page 3 of 7 THIS AGREEMENT is between Village of Lemont (hereafter "CLIENT") and HR Green, Inc. (hereafter "COMPANY"). 1.0 Project Understanding 1.1 General Understanding The CLIENT is requesting the COMPANY to provide flow monitoring and analysis for all separate sanitary sewer in the Village to cooperate with the MWRD mandate to do so. The purpose of flow monitoring is to determine the extent of excess sanitary flows, inflow and infiltration (I&I) throughout the Village. The areas found with the most excessive I&I will be identified and a timeframe for improvements will be set and submitted to MWRD for approval. Nine (9) to ten (10) flow meters, installed and maintained for a period of 90 days, are proposed throughout the Village. Preliminary meter locations, and their respective sub -basing boundaries, have been defined and each proposed installation structure location has been investigated with the assistance of a Village sewer collection system staff member. The Village's rain gage and water billing data will be used as additional inputs for the study. COMPANY has separated the various services into two (2) disciplines as listed below in the Scope of Services. 2.0 Scope of Services A. Flow Monitoring 1. The COMPANY will contract with a sub -consultant to provide and maintain level/velocity flow meters throughout the basin areas to identify metered sub -basins with high inflow and infiltration. 2. COMPANY will define meter locations that will effectively measure flow while minimizing cost of the sub -consultant. 3. COMPANY will be on -site when sub -consultant installs meters. 4. Data will be collected from these meters on a regular basis to ensure that flow meters are working properly and accurate data is being collected. 5. The meters are proposed to be installed in April 2026 and collect flow data until June 2026, for a data collection period of 90 days. 6. A total of nine (9) to ten (10) meters are proposed to be installed. 7. The CLIENT's rain gage data will be required for the period of flow data collection. 8. Installation and removal of the flow meters is included. Version2.102052021 HRGreen® B. Data Analysis and Report Village of Lemont Village Wide Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring H,R Green Project No.: 2503627 January 7, 2026 Page 4 of 7 1. Flow data collected from the project area, along with rain data and water billing data, will be analyzed to identify level of infiltration, level of inflow and wet weather peaking factors for each of the metered sub -catchments. 2. Sub -catchments will be prioritized based on inflow and infiltration, for further investigation by the CLIENT, under separate contract with the COMPANY, to identify sources of excess flow. 3. COMPANY will prepare and submit three (3) copies of a draft report outlining monitoring results with prioritization schedule and recommendations. 4. The following will be included in the report: a. Level of infiltration b. Level of inflow c. Wet weather peaking factors d. Recommendations for future I&I reductions in each area 5. CLIENT's draft report comments will be incorporated into the final report. Three (3) hard copies, and one (1) electronic copy, will be submitted. 6. Project management will be provided throughout the project during the meter installation, the flow monitoring, and data analysis/report phases. 3.0 Deliverables and Schedules Included in this Agreement • COMPANY will provide CLIENT with draft report and final report. 4.0 Items not included in Agreement/Supplemental Services The following items are not included as part of this agreement but not limited to: Permitting Supplemental services not included in the agreement can be provided by COMPANY under separate agreement, if desired. 5.0 Services by Others Flow Metering and Data Collection Services (SUB to COMPANY) Version2.102052021 Village of Lemont Village Wide Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring HR Green Project No.: 2503627 January 7, 2026 HRGreen. Page 5 of 7 6.0 Client Responsibilities The CLIENT is to provide COMPANY with project information to include, but not limited to: • If available, CLIENT's Confined Space Entry Plan and equipment for sub -contractor's structure entry. • If available, CLIENT's rain gage data in electronic format. • Electronic format water billing data, separated by sub -basin users, for the Residential Lift Station tributary area. 7.0 Professional Services Fee 7.1 Fees The fee for services will be based on COMPANY standard hourly rates current at the time the AGREEMENT is signed. These standard hourly rates are subject to change upon 30 days' written notice. Non -salary expenses directly attributable to the project such as: (1) living and traveling expenses of employees when away from the home office on business connected with the project; (2) identifiable communication expenses; (3) identifiable reproduction costs applicable to the work; and (4) outside services will be charged in accordance with the rates current at the time the service is done. 7.2 Invoices Invoices for COMPANY's services will be submitted, on a monthly basis. Invoices will be due and payable upon receipt in accordance with the Illinois Prompt Payment Act 50ILCS 505. If any invoice is not paid within these timelines, COMPANY may, without waiving any claim or right against the CLIENT, and without liability whatsoever to the CLIENT, suspend or terminate the performance of services. 7.3 Extra Services Any service required but not included as part of this AGREEMENT shall be considered extra services. Extra services will be billed on a Time and Material basis with prior approval of the CLIENT. 7.4 Exclusion This fee does not include attendance at any meetings or public hearings other than those specifically listed in the Scope of Services. These service items are considered extra and are billed separately on an hourly basis. 7.5 Payment The CLIENT AGREES to pay COMPANY on the following basis: Time and Material basis with a Not to Exceed fee of: $149,250.00. See Exhibit A for man-hour estimate and current rate sheet. Version2.1 02052021 Village of Lemont Village Wide Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring HR Green Project No.: 2503627 January 7, 2026 HRGreen. Page 6 of 7 8.0 Terms and Conditions This Agreement is an addendum to and is considered part of the Master Agreement between CLIENT and HR Green. All terms and conditions contained in that agreement apply to this Agreement which was approved by the Board. This AGREEMENT is approved and accepted by the CLIENT and COMPANY upon both parties signing and dating the AGREEMENT. Services will not begin until COMPANY receives a signed agreement. COMPANY's services shall be limited to those expressly set forth in this AGREEMENT and COMPANY shall have no other obligations or responsibilities for the Project except as agreed to in writing. The effective date of the AGREEMENT shall be the last date entered below. Sincerely, HR GREEN, INC. Bruce A. Hill Municipal Executive — Municipal Title: Services — Engineerinq Date: 1/7/2026 VILLAGE OF LEMONT 418 Main Street Lemont, IL 60439 Phone: 630.257.1550 Accepted by: Printed/ Typed Name: George Schafer Title: Village Administrator Date HR GREEN, INC. 323 Alana Drive New Lenox, IL 60451 Phone: 815.462.9324 Approved by: Printed/ Typed Name: Timothy J. Hartnett Title: President - Municipal Services Date: 1 /7/2026 J:\2025\2503627\Admin\Contract\Client\SFA - 2503627 Lemont IL - Village Wide Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring.docx Version2.102052021 HRGreen® EXHIBIT A Village of Lemont Village Wide Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring HR Green Project No.: 2503627 January 7, 2026 Page 7 of 7 TASK Personnel MAN- HOURS LABOR COST Task A — Flow Monitoring Project Manager 112 $21,920 Subtotal: 112 $21,920 Task B — Data Analysis and Report Client Manager 16 $3,600 Project Manager 48 $12,480 Project Engineer 80 $16,000 Mileage $250 Subtotal: 144 $32,330 HR Green, Inc. Total: $54,250 Direct Costs — Sub Consultant Flow Monitoring $95,000 Contract Total: $149,250 Version2.102052021 c 0 0 c a� L a� N 0 �i L L it x W L 0 m � O � O s c x m w 0 0 0 M CO C? N O N V- Z a cn a c 0 0 Exhibit C Lemont Basin and Water Reclamation Plant Study 9 Gr Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago Lemont Basin and Water Reclamation Plant 1•r Y+• Study November 26, 2002 Collection Facilities Assessment Report T 0 W ELI MOTITrmxom �-a 0 0 r1a m un PM Contents Section1 - Objectives and Background...............................................................................1-1 1.1 Introduction............................................................................................ ..............1-1 1.2 Report Content .................................... -................................................................... 1-2 Section 2 - Existing Collection Facilities............................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Conveyance Facilities............................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Current System Operation...................................................................................... 2-3 Section3 - System Analysis Approach................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Flow Model... ................................................................ ........................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Flow in Sanitary Sewers............................................................................ 3-1 3.2 Hydraulic Model...................................................................................................... 3-2 Section4 - Flow Monitoring.................................................................................................. 4-1 Section5 - Population Estimates and Flows....................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Existing Development and Sewered Area............................................................ 5-1 5.2 Existing Population and Dry Weather Flow ........................................................ 5-1 5.3 Dry Weather Flow.................................................................................................... 5-3 5.3.1 Base Wastewater Flow............................................................................... 5-6 5.3.2 Infiltration.................................................................................................... 5-6 5.3.3 Results.......................................................................................................... 5-7 5.4 Wet Weather Flow................................................................................................... 5-7 5.4.1 RDII Unit Hydrograph Parameters......................................................... 5-9 5.4.2 Wet Weather Flow under Existing Population andDevelopment..................................................................................... 5-10 5.5 Calibration ................................ --........................................................................... 5-10 5.6 Comparison to ICAP Program Results............................................................... 5-11 Section6 - System Analysis and Results............................................................................. 6-1 6.1 Future Development and Sewered Area... ........................................................... 6-1 6.2 Flow Analysis Results............................................................................................. 6-4 6.3 Summary and Conclusions..................................................................................... 6-4 Appendices Appendix A Collection System Inventory Appendix B FM Data for MWRDGC Interceptor Appendix C Population by Subbasin Appendix D Diurnal Variation during Dry Weather Appendix E CDM's SHAPE Program for RDII Analysis Appendix F RDII Analysis Results Appendix G Rainfall Input Pa20707MWROM3393MTe , t -Collection SymemlFolure Flow Est REPORT\l-d.. Table of Contents Tables 5-1 Dry Weather Flow Estimates at Flow Monitoring Sites ..................................... 5-5 5-2 Calculation of Average Per Capita Base Wastewater Flow Using Only RepresentativeBasins.............................................................................................. 5-6 5-3 Calculation of Infiltration Per Unit Area Using Only Representative Basins......................................................................................................................... 5-7 n rt N• 0 5-4 R, t and k Values Selected for Analysis................................................................. 5-9 5-5 Calibration Results................................................................................................. 5-11 5-6 Comparison of Current CDM Lemont Study Flows to 1990 ICAP StudyFlows............................................................................................................. 5-12 6-1 System Analysis Results.. ........................................................................................ 6-4; 0 N G7 �D cm lil PA20707MW R0Q3B301Twk 5 • Collection SyslomlFNure Flow Est REPORTMoc doo sm i :3 Section o One �y! ro o cn a Section 1 Objectives and Background 1.1 Introduction The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC) operates a water reclamation plant (WRP) in Lemont, Illinois. The Lemont WRP serves the wastewater treatment needs of approximately 12,000 people who reside in the Lemont drainage basin. The District also owns and maintains approximately 25,000 feet of interceptor sewers that drain flow to the Lemont WRP. The Lemont WRP is the smallest of the seven plants operated by the MWRDGC. The plant came on line in 1961. Since that time, the plant has undergone a number of facilities modifications and operational changes. Treated wastewater from the WRP is discharged under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (SSC). The MWRDGC interceptors (Lemont Nos.1, 2, 3, 4) receive flow from both separate and combined sewered areas within the basin. The Village of Lemont contributes the combined sewer flow from the older areas of the Village. Separate sanitary wastewater collection sewers serve the remaining portions of the basin. While separate, it is evident that these sewers convey substantial amounts of infiltration and inflow (I/I) during and after storm events. This study will serve as the keystone for a plan to address the future needs of the Lemont Basin. This study will address the following objectives; ■ Assess the current conditions associated with the existing interceptor sewers and the existing WRP. ■ Project the future population and ultimate land uses in the basin for purposes of establishing the criteria for future improvements. ■ Develop and evaluate viable alternatives for meeting the future needs of the Lemont Basin and associated conveyance and treatment facilities. ■ Establish a recommended course of action for future improvements based upon cost effectiveness and scheduling of the improvements on a staged basis. The purpose of this report is to evaluate the collection system to provide design flows for improvements to conveyance and treatment facilities in the Lemont Basin. The Lemont Basin planning area covers approximately 15 square miles in Lemont Township in extreme southwest Cook County. Sanitary sewers that convey flow to the MWRDGC Lemont WRP presently serve about one-third of the area. a z cn P:V0707MW RDU3036%Task 7 - Collection SystemlFuture Flow Est REPORnrePort Joo Im Section 1 Objectives and Background ICollection system flows depend on several factors. The primary determinants are: ■ the sewered population ■ the extent and nature of sewered areas 1 ■ the extent of the combined sewer area ■ the condition, age, and materials of construction of the sewers Dry weather sewage flow rates are mostly dependent on population while wet weather flows are influenced by the extent of the sewer service area and length of the sewer. This report presents the available information on existing population and development in the Lemont Basin and the data and assumptions used to develop future flow scenarios. The activities undertaken to estimate future system flows included: 1. Monitoring of sewer flows at various locations in the local collection system. 2. Analysis of monitored flows to determine the dry weather and wet weather components of these flows. 3. Assessment of the current land use and sewering status of each area in the study area. 4. Development and calibration of a flow model to simulate the generation of existing system flows. 5. Development of a 2020 land use and sewered area scenario based on NIPC and . Village of Lemont projections. 6. Development of an ultimate land use scenario and calculation of ultimate system flows. 1.2 Report Content This report is organized into six sections including this first section on the objectives and background of the Lemont Basin study. Section 2 describes the current Lemont Basin collection facilities and their operation. The analysis approach used to estimate flows and evaluate the facilities is presented in Section 3. Section 4 describes the flow monitoring conducted in Lemont Basin to evaluate system flows. In Section 5, the flow monitoring data is analyzed to characterize dry weather and wet weather flows in the basin. The procedures used to estimate future basin populations and flows are also presented. A system model has been developed for analyzing treatment requirements under various future flow scenarios. Section 6 presents results of the 1-2 IP:120707MWRM33978\Task t-Collection SystemlFulure Flow Eat REPORTV.pad- Section 1 Objectives and Background analysis under future (2020) and ultimate development conditions and provides recommendations for treatment facility capacities to handle future flows. CM 1-3 PA20707MWRD133930\T"k i - CoWtlon Syetem\Foure flow Eat REPORNeport.doo El LI �l 0 0 0 Section 2 Existing Collection Facilities 2.1 Conveyance Facilities The existing Lemont Basin collection System consists of 24,994 feet of MWRDGC interceptors and local sews serving approximately 5.25 square miles (3360 acres) of sewered area. The severed service area is mostly separate sewer area but 496 acres of downtown Lemont x served by combined sewers designed to capture and convey stormwater runoff in addition to sanitary sewage. There are two major MWRDGC interceptors in the Lemont Basin. Both were constructed in 1982. The Lemont Interceptor No. 4 is a 36-inch and 42-inch circular concrete sewer that extends 8371 feet along Walker Road between Archer Avenue and Main Street. The Lemont 4 interceptor discharges into the Lemont 1, 2 and 3 interceptor which carries flow from the northeast and the southwest to the intersection of Main and Julia Streets. The Lemont 1, 2 and 3 interceptor is 54 inches in diameter,16,623 feet long, and was tunneled through the bedrock 40 to 50 feet below the surface. Inflow to the Lemont WRP is carried in a 54-inch sewer originating just west at the intersection of Julia Street and Main Street. The Village of Lemont combined sewer area drains to a 30-inch combined sewer that flows north under Stephen Street. A siphon carries flow under the Illinois and Michigan Canal (I & M Canal) to a diversion structure located at Stephen Street and River Street. This diversion forces flow into an 18-inch WRP influent sewer known as the Stephen Street sewer. The diversion is designed to force the 18-inch pipe to flow full before any overflow occurs. Overflows continue north along Stephen Street through a 30-inch by 48-inch outfall sewer that discharges to the SSC. Both the Stephen Street sewer (the 18-inch influent) and the 54-inch influent from Lemont 1, 2 and 3 discharge to the Lemont WRP wet well. The wet well has an overflow that is designed to prevent flooding of the plant. If inflows exceed the 4- MGD (million gallons per day) plant capacity for an extended period of time, a wet well overflow will occur through the 4-foot by 4-foot rectangular emergency overflow conduit. The emergency overflow also discharges to the SSC. Figure 2-1 shows the study area and the Lemont WRP and interceptor. An inventory of MWRDGC collection facilities is provided in Appendix A. 2-1 P:\2W07MW RD\398,98\Tesk 1 - Coll.clbn System\Future Flow 1- REPORT\r.pod.d- AM R I 10 Section 2 Existing Collection Facilities 2.2 Current System Operation During dry weather conditions, the wet well is maintained at a flow depth of about 7 to 8 feet (Elevation -22 to -23 CCD [City of Chicago Datum]). This wet well depth results in 2 to 3 feet of flow in the 54-inch influent sewer and generally less than a foot of flow in the Lemont 1, 2 and 3 interceptor. During wet weather, the inflow to the wet well increases and the water level in the wet well is allowed to rise while the pumping rate is gradually increased. Generally, the level is allowed to rise to a depth of about 14 feet (-16.3 CCD) while pumping is increased to the plant capacity of 4.0 MGD (6.2 cubic feet per second [cfs]). At this level, the Lemont 1, 2, and 3 interceptor is completely filled exploiting 1.95 million gallons (MG) of available inline storage. The 14-foot depth is below the invert elevation of the incoming Stephen Street sewer (18-inch plant influent) from the combined sewer area; therefore this wet well water level can be maintained without affecting the capacity to accept flow from the combined sewer area. If system flows continue to exceed the plant capacity, then the water level will rise fairly rapidly. At an elevation of 2.3 feet CCD, the emergency overflow weir is overtopped and direct discharge to the SSC is possible. The weir flow discharges into a 4-foot by 4-foot rectangular box that has a gate at its outlet. This 4-foot by 4-foot box serves as an emergency overflow that protects the plant from flooding during extreme storms. If the water level exceeds -2.25 feet CCD, discharge can flow out of the wet well through the Stephen Street sewer (18-inch plant influent) and to the SSC through the Lemont Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO). Although there is a valve on the Stephen Street sewer (18-inch plant influent) that can be closed to prevent this type of discharge, according to MWRDGC staff, the valve remains open at all times. All of the simulation results presented in this memorandum assume that dry weather and wet weather operations will follow the procedures described above and the valve on the Stephen Street sewer (18-inch plant influent) remains open throughout each storm. 2-3 0 P:120707MWRD\33B36S..k i - C.ILWI.n Syw..T A— Flow U REPORTr.pod d.. D u 0 4 Willi Three FLOW Section 3 System Analysis Approach A system modeling strategy that is appropriate for hydraulic evaluation of the existing conveyance system for projecting daily and maximum flows to the plant in addition to evaluation of flow management alternatives was developed. The modeling strategy consists of a flow generation component and a hydraulic model. The flow model determines system inflows at selected load points within the system. Because the approach uses dynamic modeling throughout the interceptor analysis, flows are generated as continuous hydrographs. The hydraulic model is a fully dynamic hydraulic model that simulates the travel of flow through portions of the local system and all of the MWRDGC interceptors. The model accounts for system storage and tracks the quantity of overflow. A complete system model was developed, including the combined sewer area, separate sewer area, CS©s, WRP influent pumps, and the emergency overflow. This model is easily adapted for evaluation of proposed modifications and improvements 3.1 Flow Model 3.1.1 Flow in Sanitary Sewers The flow present in a sanitary sewer consists of three components. These are: 1. Wastewater from domestic, commercial and industrial users. 2. Groundwater infiltration into laterals and sewers. 3. Infiltration and inflow associated with precipitation and snowmelt. The first two components are present at all times in the collection system and are often called dry weather flow (DWF). The third component is only present during and shortly after rainfall or snowmelt events and is also called rainfall dependent infiltration and inflow or (RDII) se crate sewer areas. In combined T11VE Figure 3-1. Components of Separate Sanitary Sewer Flow T when it occurs in p sewer areas, stormwater is collected intentionally in the sewers. In separate sewer areas, RDII is an unintentional but unavoidable component of the sewer flow. This report describes the procedures used to predict the dry weather and wet weather flows throughout the Lemont Basin system. A basin flow generation model was developed with the capability to generate four flow components illustrated in Figure 3-1: ■ Base Wastewater Flow (BWF) - sanitary sewage from domestic commercial and industrial sources. P:V07U7MWRD\33936\Ta$k I. Collectan Syet.m\Future Flow Eel REPORSkepon doc 3-1 Section 3 System Analysis Approach ■ Groundwater Infiltration (GWI) - continuous seepage of subsurface water into foundation drains, laterals, sewers, and manholes. This flow varies slowly with changes in surrounding groundwater levels. ■ Surface Runoff - Stormwater runoff from the land surface that enters the system only in the combined sewer area through street inlet area drains and directly connected downspouts. ■ Rainfall Derived Infiltration and Inflow (RDII) - stormwater component that enters separate sanitary sewers. It uses many of the same entry points as GWI and also enters through defective manhole covers and illicit connections such as sump pumps. The defining feature of RDII is that it is rainfall or snowmelt driven and eventually goes to zero when the event is over. Estimates of each flow component were developed. Model parameters are based on flow decompositions and basin data. The following parameters were used to generate flows. ComponentFlow Base Wastewater Population Groundwater Sewer Service Area Combined Area Runoff Basin Area and Percent Impervious Separate Area 1/1 Sewer Service Area/Age and Condition of Construction 3.2 Hydraulic Model �! A dynamic hydraulic model of the District's conveyance facilities in the Lemont Basin was developed using SWMM EXTRAN. This model routes flows from load points in the local sewer system through the local sewer connection point to the District interceptor and through the interceptor to the WRP. The model provides a complete flow hydrograph for the event being evaluated. It accounts for the hydraulic effect of Mstorage in the interceptors and wet well and provides the duration, peak flow, and volume of the event. The model was calibrated to match flows and volumes recorded during two of the storm events occurring during the monitoring period. Calibration was achieved by adjusting the flow model parameters controlling RDII and GWI levels as needed. 3-2 P:U0707MWRO =34MTaak 1 - Collecllon SyalemTwure Flow Est REPORTUeporl Joc Section Four Section 4 Flow Monitoring A flow monitoring program was conducted in the Lemont Basin during the fall of 2001. The objectives of the flow monitoring program were to: 1. Measure local sewer flows for the purpose of developing a model of dry and wet weather flows. 2. Provide recorded flows that can be utilized for calibration of the models. 3. Assess the nature of dry and wet weather flows arriving at the Lemont WRP. 4. Assess the feasibility of accurate flow monitoring under the adverse hydraulic conditions that exist in the Lemont interceptors. Flows were monitored in the collection system during a three-month period from October 4, 2001 to January 3, 2002. Flow records were obtained at 17 locations in the collection system and from the treatment plant. Rainfall was measured concurrently at two sites in the Lemont Basin. The flow monitoring sites included nine sites in the local separate sanitary sewers: one site in the local combined sewer and seven sites in the MWRDGC interceptor system. The locations of the monitoring stations and rain gauges are shown in Figure 4-1. Procedures, results and quality assurance of the flow and rainfall data are described in the "Lemont Basin Flow Monitoring Study" by ADS Environmental Services, Inc. 0 7 N 10 Cm 4-1 IN.. t . Collodion 8ymt %Fow. Flow Est REPORTAwo d d- Q C 3 0 0 to N it FF s 1 ! s s oo-IN 70 � o no CL c A e � A v a W &I I Section 4 Flow Monitoring The local flow monitoring sites recorded by Meters 8 through 17 were designed to provide data to develop the flow model. These data were used to characterize dry weather and wet weather flows generated in the local sewer systems. Analysis of these meters for model development is presented in Section 5.3. Eight meters designated Meter No. kL D1 through D8 were installed in MWRDGC interceptors. Meters D2 and D7 were mainly intended for use in model calibration while the rest were installed to evaluate the feasibility of flow monitoring under certain adverse conditions. A trio of meters, D1, D2 and D3 were installed around the junction of Lemont 4 and Lemont 1, 2 and 3. Data problems at Meter D1 lead to the later installation of Meter D8 at the next upstream manhole. Meters D4 and D5 were installed to be used along with local Meter 17 for comparison to the total plant influent. Under this monitoring plan, the flows at D8 and D2 should sum to equal the flow at D3. The data from these meters are listed in Appendix B. On average the flow at D3 exceeded the sum of D8 and D2 by 6.3 percent. Daily maximum flows were higher by less than five percent. The flow at D3 was almost always higher, probably due to inflow between the monitoring sites. It is likely that inflow at site D1 interfered with the accuracy of monitoring records there. The flows at Meters D4, D5 and 17 should add up to the plant flow under ideal conditions. These flows would not be additive if: ■ overflows were occurring ■ interceptor storage was occurring ■ plant -flow measurement was inaccurate Again, the recorded data are provided in Appendix B. For evaluation, data were eliminated during wet weather (where plant flows exceeded 4.0 MGD or interceptor flows were very low) along with days with missing plant data. The remaining data showed that the metered inflows from D4, D5 and 17 matched plant flows within 5 percent during the monitoring period on a long-term average basis and within 16.5 percent when absolute daily differences are measured. The flow metering data demonstrated that on a daily basis, flow measurements within 10 percent could be achieved regularly. 4-3 IP120707MWRO1330381Task 1 • Collecllon SystemlFulure Flow Est REPORTreport.doc Section 5 Population Estimates and Flows An evaluation of existing flows, population and land use was conducted to characterize flow conditions in the Lemont Basin. A system model was developed to estimate future flows based on projections of future population and development. The system model was then calibrated to recorded flows and compared to previous wet weather system analyses conducted in the Lemont Basin. 5.1 Existing Development and Sewered Area The Lemont Basin contains six different classifications of sewer service areas. Three of these areas discharge to MWRDGC facilities: ■ Separate sewer service area ■ Combined sewer area in central Lemont ■ Separate sewer areas that discharge into the combined sewers Additional areas do not discharge to MWRDGC: ■ Separate sewer area draining to facilities of Metro Utility Company ■ Developed areas using private septic tanks ■ Undeveloped areas where no sewage is generated The approximate extent of each type of sewer service within the Lemont Basin is shown on the map provided in Figure 5-1. 5.2 Existing Population and Dry Weather Flow The Lemont Basin has been delineated into 78 sewer drainage subbasins. Of these, 43 basins are currently served by sanitary sewers that discharge to the Lemont WRP. The remaining 35 basins are expected to be developed and sewered under either 2020 or ultimate population and land use. Of the 43 basins currently in operation, five basins are drained by combined sewers and two of the separate sewer basins discharge into the combined sewer area. The current (2000) sewered population was determined by overlaying the basin boundaries onto a population density map based on the 2000 U.S. decennial census. Parcels of each density were multiplied by the parcel area and summed to determine the approximate population of each basin. The results of these computations are presented in Appendix C. These estimates are approximate because the census results are provided as a range of densities and the median density in each parcel was used in the calculations. While individual basins might exhibit population variances, the total population of groups of subbasins, and the overall basin appear to be accurate. cm 5-1 P:t2070/MWRDt33B301Task 1 - C.11.0— SY-1—NP.du1e PI.W Est REPORT\repon doc N U) i c� Section 5 Population Estimates and Flows The population analysis indicates a total population of 12,486 in the Lemont Basin sewered service area. This compares with a population of 13,100 for the Village of Lemont reported in the 2000 census. The total population of Lemont Township is 18,292 according to the census. 5.3 Dry Weather Flow Dry weather flows were characterized at each site by eliminating wet weather days from the flow monitoring records. The remaining days were averaged to obtain an average daily behavior such as that illustrated in Figure 5-2. Dry weather flow follows a regular daily pattern that peaks each afternoon and falls to a daily low early in the morning. Table 5-1 summarizes the dry weather flow estimates for each flow monitor. Plots of the dry weather diurnal variation based on average results from each flow meter are located in Appendix D. In each basin, the flow was divided into base wastewater and average minimum daily flow. Then, per capita base wastewater flow and unit area average minimum daily flows were calculated. Base wastewater flow depends on the population served in the basin with some additional contribution from commercial, industrial and institutional sources. These non -domestic sources are scattered throughout Lemont such that nearly every sewer basin is dominated by residential land use. Therefore, non -domestic flows were assumed to be population dependent as well. Infiltration is generally a function of the number of service laterals and the length of sewer in a basin. In basins with uniform development, the acreage of the sewer service area serves as a good surrogate for these parameters. 5-3 P320707MWRD13303017ask 7 • Collealon SyslemlFulum Flow Eat REPORlbeport.doo r----- -- � N r r C p O 00 CO N O O O O O O O O (aow) mou O O r U) O LO N O O ro G O N w F^ fn CD c 'C O c O U. l0 d L W 3 0 a� c G c O .O m .c R �o c O N m 9 Table 5-1. Dry Weather Flow Estimates at FloiA Table 5-1 a. Segregation of dry weather flow into b. minimum daiiv flow FLOW METER AVERAGE DRY WEATHER FLOW (MGD) BASE W 8 0.068 9 0.121 10 0.071 11 0.068 12 0.067 13 0.067 14 0.546 15' 0.067 16 0.080 17 0.680 Table 5-1b. Calculation of ner capita base wastewa FLOW METER CONTRIBUTING POPULATION BASE W ( 8 636 9 216 10 461 11 283 12 415 13 983 14 3092 151 134 16 145 172 3545 Table 5-1c. Minimum flow Der unit area FLOW METER CONTRIBUTING AREA (ACRES) AVERA( DAII 8 101.9 9 92.7 10 351.7 11 41.0 12 82.4 13 139.4 14 508.6 15' 20.7 16 43.8 17 498.2 1 - Monitoring Basin 15 is a fomerly combined sewer ar 2 - Monitoring Basin 17 is a combined sewer area 5-5 Piy 707MWRDt338381TaA i • Collodion 3ywemToure Flow Eat REPORT)mport doc J G 0 Section 5 Population Estimates and Flows 5.3.1 Base Wastewater Flow The analysis of per capita base waste flow was based on monitoring data from monitoring basins 8,10,11,12,14 and 17. Data from monitoring basins 9,13,15 and 16 were not used because the results from these areas were determined to be not representative of typical flow behavior in the area. For example, basin 9 contains a large commercial facility (the Lithuanian World Center) that is responsible for greatly elevated dry weather flows. Dry weather flows in basins 15 and 16 are also extremely high. In basin 15, this may be due to the presence of commercial discharges and because it is a formerly combined sewer area. Stormwater cross -connections may still exist in the basin, while the results from basin 15 are indicative of formerly combined sewer areas; they should not be applied basinwide. The problems with basins 13 and 16 appear to be with the population estimates. The population of basin 13 appears to be overstated while 16 is low. The project population estimating procedure based on 2000 census tracts was followed in each case. The procedure indicates 7.1 persons per acre in basin 13 but only 3.3 persons per acre in basin 16. The population estimates can be refined further only through field verification beyond the scope of this project. The flow records from basins 9,13,15 and 16 were examined in detail. The data appears to be valid and accurate. The flows vary in a regular and appropriate daily pattern. Table 5-2 shows the calculation of average wastewater flow using basins most representative of observed behavior in Lemont. The average wastewater contribution is approximately 90 gallons per capita per day including domestic, commercial and industrial discharges. About 68 percent of the population contributes to the area used for this estimate. Table 5.2. Calculation of Average Per Capita BWF Using Only Representative FLOW METER CONTRIBUTING POPULATION BASE WASTE WATER FLOW (MGD) BASE WASTE WATER FLOW (gal/cap/day) 8 636 0.048 74.7 10 461 0.036 78.1 11 283 0.048 170.4 12 415 0.047 112.3 14 3092 0.346 111.9 17 3545 0.230 64.8 Total/Average 1 8431 0.754 89.4 5.3.2 Infiltration In most areas, the flow at the daily minimum is nearly all groundwater. Typically, the average daily low flow consists of 80 to 95 percent groundwater. In some cases, the absolute monthly or weekly minimum flow is used to identify the groundwater infiltration rate. However, in Lemont the percentage approach appeared to be more reliable. An infiltration estimate based on 80 percent of the average daily low was determined by trial and error for the Lemont Basin. cm 5-6 P:120707MWR0k330301Taskl Est REPORn.pomd.. j D I J a C Section 5 Population Estimates and Flows Calculation of infiltration is shown in Table 5-3. Data from basins 13 and 16 can be included in this analysis because the population estimate does not play a role in the calculation of infiltration per unit area. Basin 17 is omitted because it includes the entire combined sewer area and it overlaps with basin 13. As shown, the estimated average groundwater infiltration rate is 208 gallons per acre per day. Table 5-3. Calculation of infiltration Per Unit Area Using Only Representative Basins FLOW METER CONTRIBUTING AREA (ACRES) AVERAGE MINIMUM DAILY FLOW (MGD) AVERAGE MINIMUM DAILY FLOW (gallacretday) ESTIMATED INFILTRATION (gal/acre/day) 8 101.9 0.020 196 157 10 351.7 0.035 100 80 11 41.0 0.020 487 390 12 82.4 0.020 243 194 13 139.4 0.020 144 115 14 508.6 0.200 393 315 16 43.81 0.015 342 274 Total/Average 1 1268.91 0,3301 2601 208 Apparent groundwater infiltration rates were significantly higher in the combined sewer area than in other areas. There are several likely reasons for this. One reason, which has nothing to do with infiltration, is that the combined system receives water from outdoor uses such as lawn watering and cleaning. Clearwater connections such as foundation drains are more prevalent in the combined sewer area and the sewer system is composed of larger sewers with a higher density of connections and structures than found in a separate sewer system. These factors allow far more groundwater infiltration in the combined sewer than the separate sewer system. Based on the results from flow Meters 15 and 17 and subsequent model calibration, an infiltration rate of 600 gallons per acre per day was established for the combined sewer area and for the formerly combined sewer areas that have been separated. 5.3.3 Results Dry weather flow for the existing population and land use was calculated using the previously determined BWF rate of 90 gpcpd and infiltration rates of 208 gallons per acre or 600 gallons per acre. The total flow is estimated to be 1.92 MGD. This agrees well with the dry weather average daily flow reported at the Lemont WRP during November and December 2001, which was 1.90 MGD. The average daily flow (ADF) reported at the Lemont WRP, which includes wet weather days, is equal to 2.1 MGD. 5.4 Wet Weather Flow Wet weather flows were characterized by deducting the dry weather flow from the monitoring record. The remainder is a series of hydrographs that represent the wet weather response observed in the sewer flow. An example RD1I hydrograph is shown in Figure 5-3. ♦6 L 5-7 P:\20707MW RD\33830\Task i - Coll-c- SyM—W.A— Flaw Esl REPORTkepod d.. o� �y mm h m E Lu ,to N fC '0 O 8 a � r- LO O <V r .. r p O p p O r (a9w) moo N r N rr N C O C O 2 O U. O y.. t a P Im O x 0 oc W R U. a r; Section 5 Population Estimates and Flows 5.4.1 RDII Unit Hydrograph Parameters The RDII simulation uses three hydrographs to represent the sanitary sewer flow response to rainfall. A discussion of this representation has been included in Appendix E. Three model parameters are required to represent each hydrograph: r; - the hydrograph relative volume t; - the time to peak in hours k; - the relative length of the receding limb of the hydrograph (tail) as a proportion of t The parameter ri specifies the quantity of I/1 as a percentage of rainfall. RDII hydrographs were derived from the flow monitoring data for each storm event during the monitoring period. Unit hydrographs were fit manually to each event and r, t and k values obtained. The results of these fits are summarized in Appendix F. From the ten separate sewer area monitoring sites, a total of 33 RDII hydrographs were obtained. The total r-value for these hydrographs ranged from 0.0087 to 0.1406. Predominant land uses in the sewered areas in the Lemont Basin are residential; mixed commercial, residential and institutional; and golf course areas. Monitored sewer basins included an assortment of these land uses to determine whether a relationship between land use and r, t, k values was evident. The resulting r, t, k estimates varied mostly according to age and density of development with average r- values being lower in newer, lower density areas than in older areas. Flow Monitors 8,10 and 12 yielded low r values due to the newer construction in the basins monitored, while flow monitors 9,11,14 and 15 yielded high r values due to presence of older construction in their basins. Basins 13 and 16 provided mixed flow results so they were not included in the groupings. Based on these classifications, initial r- values were assigned to each subbasin in the sewered areas of Lemont Basin. The t and k values are fairly uniform throughout all basins; thus a single set of values was used. The selected r-values were adjusted further during calibration of the flow model. These adjustments are discussed in the following section. The final r, t and k values selected for the analysis are shown in Table 5-4. The older area total composite r factor selected is 0.038 and the newer area total composite r factor selected is 0.012, meaning that at least 3.8 percent and 1.2 percent of the rainfall was detected in sewers in older and newer construction areas, respectively, in of the recorded storm events. RDII analysis results are in Appendix F. ITable 5-4: R, t and k Values Selected for Analysis I Cl Older construction r-values rl=0.0114 r2=0.0076 r3=0.0190 Newer construction r-values r,=0.0036 r2=0.0024 r3=0.0060 t-values t,=1.0 t2=4.0 t3=14.0 k-values k1=1.0 k2=1.0 k3=0.5 I Cm 5-9 IP:U0707MWR0\339301T..k I -C.Ua I.. Syat..AF0... FI.W Es4 REPORTI,.pod d.. Section 5 1 Population Estimates and Flows V ro n' 5.4.2 Wet Weather Flow under Existing Population and Development QN A system model of the existing Lemont Basin was formulated using the RUNOFF and EXTRAN modules of the USEPA Storm Water Management Model (SWMM). The RUNOFF module generates RDII in the separate sewer basins and stormwater runoff in the combined sewer area. The EXTRAN model routes the flow inputs through the system to the Lemont WRP or CSO outfall. Input for the RUNOFF model for RDII estimation includes the basin areas and the r, t and k parameters assigned to each basin. RUNOFF also requires rainfall input in the form of depth versus time. In the combined sewer area, surface runoff characteristics are also required. EXTRAN model input consists mainly of physical data describing the collection system. This includes sewer segment size, shape and length and the invert and rim elevation of each manhole. The modeled system drains to the wet well at the Lemont WRP. The four WRP influent pumps are represented in the model to simulate backwater in the system when inflows exceed the pumping capacity and raise water levels. There are four outfalls in the model. These are the Stephen Street CSO, the Lemont WRP outfall, the emergency overflow and a simulated stormwater overland flow outfall for flow that exceeds the capacity of the combined sewer system. 5.5 Calibration The system model was validated by comparing key results to recorded values during two storm events that occurred during the monitoring period. The storms evaluated were a storm with 2.5 to 2.8 inches of rainfall on October 13, 2001 and a storm with 1.14 to 1.35 inches of rainfall on October 23 and 24, 2001. The model validation parameters included the following: ■ The total volume treated at Lemont WRP ■ The emergency overflow volume ■ The hydrograph in Lemont 4 near Main and Walker (Meter D2) ■ The hydrograph in Lemont 4 near McCarthy and Walker (Meter D7) For each historical storm, the rainfall at each of the two rain gauges was distributed among the modeled basins by assigning the nearest gauge. The RUNOFF and EXTRAN models were executed for each event. Minor adjustments were made in the RDII r-values to obtain good correlation in the four calibration targets. Final results are tabulated in Table 5-5 and the hydrograph outputs are plotted in Figures 5-4 and 5-5. In both cases, the modeled and actual flow treated at the Lemont WRP was within 5 percent. The model also did an adequate job of reproducing the hydrographs in the Lemont 4 interceptor. Emergency overflow was recorded in the October 13 event but not the October 23 and 24 event. The model results agree with this. 5-10 PA20707MWRD13303017a$k 1 • Collection SystemlFuture Flow Eat REPORikepmt doc 1 0 Section 5 Population Estimates and Flows Table 5-5: Calibration Results October 13 Recorded Modeled October 23-24 Recorded Modeled Volume Treated at Lemont WRP MG 7.42 7.70 6.86 7.09 Emergency Overflow Volume MG 1.38 0.16 0.00 0.00 Peak Flow in Meter D2 MGD 2.68 2.951 1.93 1.80 Peak Flow in Meter D7 (MGD) 1 1.36 2.25 0.72 1.45 Most of the modeled results match the corresponding measured values very well. A notable discrepancy is modeled emergency outflow discharge in the October 13 storm. The modeled volume is about ten percent of the volume estimated at the Lemont WRP during the event. There are two likely reasons for the discrepancy. The recorded volume is an estimate determined at the Lemont WRP. There is no automatic measurement device at the Lemont WRP and the emergency overflow volume estimate is based on water levels observed on a staff gauge and the time period over which the overflow occurred. The second source of uncertainty is the potential reverse flow through the Stephen Street sewer (18-inch plant influent). See Section 2.2 for discussion of the Stephen Street sewer (18-inch plant influent). According to the model, approximately 0.48 MG would have discharged from the wet well through the Stephen Street CSO during the October 13 storm. If the valve on the Stephen Street sewer (18-inch plant influent) were closed during the storm, then there would have been more flow through the emergency overflow than what the model indicates. 5.6 Comparison to ICAP Program Results Further analysis indicated that current study flow estimates are consistent with those of the Lemont Infiltration/Inflow Corrective Action Program (ICAP) study of 1990. The results of this study are printed in a 1990 report titled "Lemont Basin System Analysis Report" While the current study performed analyses for the entire Lemont Basin (including separate sewer areas, combined sewer areas and separate sewer areas draining to combined sewers) based on residential population, the Lemont ICAP study of 1990 performed analyses for only the separate sewer areas of Lemont based on commercial and industrial population equivalent. The population equivalent -to -population ratio was calculated as 1.07. The ICAP study of 1990 report 5 a 3-year post rehabilitation peak flow of 732 gallons per capita per day. In order to compare current Lemont study peak flows to the Lemont ICAP study of 1990, the existing system model was adjusted to account for separate sewer areas only. This adjusted model was run with the 3-year, 2-hour design storm. The resulting Lemont WRP peak flow of 6.61 MGD was normalized by 1.07 times the estimated existing population of the separate sewer area of Lemont. As shown in 5-11 IP:V07D7MWRO133836tTask i - Collection SyslamvfW— Flow Ent REPOR7lreport d" Section 5 Population Estimates and Flows Table 5-6, the current Study Lemont WRP per capita peak flow estimate is comparable to the Lemont ICAP study of 1990. Table 5-6: Comparsion of Current CDM Lemont Study Flows to 1990 ICAP Study Flows ICAP, 1990 CDM, 2002 Population 6,150 8,832 Population Equivalent 6,600 9,479 Per Capita Flow (gal/cap/day) 1 7321 699 am 5-12 P:V20707MW R0133GMTaek i - Collection ttyeternWu"s Flow Est REPORTkeWrt.doc Section 5 Population Estimates and Flows 5 45 4 3.5 3 26 2 1.5 i Ob 0 10/12A712.00 10`13010'.00 Calibration Storm October 13, 2001 Hydrograph at Monitoring Site D02 ' 4 35 3 2.6 2 1: 0. loll 2101 12:00 10113/01 0'00 _I i --- Actual - Modeled 10/13101 1200 10/14101090 10110112:00 - — 10I151010:00 10/1501 12.00 Calibration Storm October 13, 2001 Hydrograph at Monitoring Site D07 tun�nv — - - 010:00 10h5101 1200 1011319111:UU Figure 5-4. Calibration Storm October 13, 2001 — Hydrograph Outputs 5-13 Pi2WlIIMWRM33B3MTesk 1 - ColleUlon SysdmW inure Flow Est REPORTTreport doo Section 5 population Estimates and Flows Calibration Slorm October 23, 2001 Hydrograph at Monitoring Site D02 3.5 3, Actual — Modred I :1 E 1-1 :1 7111, L 10 10 Section Six I Section 6 System Analysis and Results 6.1 Future Development and Sewered Area Population projections for Lemont Township in the year 2020 were obtained from the Northeast Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC). The NIPC estimates are provided by one square mile survey sections from the land records system. Comparison with existing population distribution provided an initial estimate of the areas where future growth would occur. Undeveloped areas in the Township were classified as either developable or undevelopable. Undevelopable lands consisted of forest preserve district, cemetery and the North -South Tollway right-of-way (ROW). Discussions were held with the Village of Lemont Department of Public Works who provided information on current and near future development plans. During these discussions, the following assumptions were established: ■ The forest preserve, tollway ROW and cemetery are the only truly undevelopable land in the Township. ■ The area currently served by Metro Utility Co. will be conveyed to MWRDGC by 2020. ■ The neighborhoods currently served by septic systems will remain on septics through 2020 except for small areas along Walker Road. ■ Nearly all developable areas are expected to develop by 2020. The notable exception is the Cog Hill Golf Club. The additional population implied by the NIPC forecast was distributed among the basins where new development was projected to occur. The resulting 2020 land use and population condition is a sewered area of 8,134 acres and a population serviced of 25,264. The 2020 population for each subbasin is found in Appendix C. A map showing the extent of 2020 development and sewered area is provided in Figure 6-1. Under ultimate development, all developable lands in the Lemont Basin are expected to develop to a uniform density. The anticipated uniform density was assumed to be similar to typical 2020 development in Lemont. This was determined to be 7.5 persons per acre. The ultimate condition also assumes that all areas currently served by septic tanks will be added to the sewered service area. The resulting ultimate population and land use condition is a sewered service area of 9,394 acres and population of 71,804. The results of population computations are found in Appendix C. A map showing the extent of the sewered area under ultimate conditions is provided in Figure 6-2. I CM IPA20707MWRDl33B39ATesk t-Collettlon SystemTL4Flow Est REPORnreporl doe 6-1 Village of Lemont Boundary C3Study Area Sewer Type/Development Status Combined Figure 6-1, 2020 Sewer Type and Redevelopment Status fe Calumet Sag Channel 6-2 �. fl xipuaddv saa►puaddv xipuaddv , x►puaddv d xcpuaddv . �' d xcpuaddv Q1 1 - twl N 00 0 m 00 to IS O V a (a im A ul O K m C c 0 CA y CD 3 a w N y CD z 4 (n CD C^ C j V m 71 6.2 Flow Analysis Results Analysis of system conditions for 2000, 2020 and ultimate development were conducted. In each case, the same dry weather and wet weather flow factors, derived from the flow monitoring, were employed in the analysis. Though conservation or technological improvements could reduce flows in the future, it is not likely that new practices would have a significant effect by the year 2020. The purpose of the ultimate conditions analysis is to identify a reasonable upper limit on future flows. Therefore, assumptions of improved technology or conservation may not be appropriate for the ultimate condition. Analysis was conducted for a range of rainfall storm event frequencies and durations. Rainfall input is discussed in Appendix G. A critical duration analysis was conducted to determine the storm duration that produces maximum flows at the treatment plant. This analysis identified the 12-hour storm as critical for peak flow. The 24-hour storm should be considered when evaluating alternatives calling for additional storage capacity. E Results of the analysis are shown in Table 6-1. These results are based on simulations conducted assuming that the system is operated in much the same was as it is at the present time. During dry weather, the wet well depth is maintained at 6 to 7 feet and wet weather depths are 12 to 14 feet. This wet weather operation takes advantage of the considerable storage volume available in the Lemont 1, 2 and 3 interceptors. Treatment capacity requirements were determined by increasing pumping capacity until the proper operating depth was achieved. All simulations assumed the combined sewer area would remain as it currently is. A separate analysis was performed to evaluate the alternative of sewer separation. Table 6-1. System Analysis Results 2000 2020 Ultimate Separate Sewer Area (acres) 2,864 7,636 8,896 Combined Sewer Area (acres) 496 498 498 Sewered Population 12,486 25,264 71,804 Average Dry Weather Flow (MGD) 1.92 4.16 8.61 Maximum Wet Weather Flow (MGD) 1-year storm 4.4 22.0 32.2 2-year storm 6.6 24.1 35.5 5-year storm 10.6 28.1 40.2 10-year storm 13.6 33.7 44.7 25-year storm 15.5 37.0 51.2 6.3 Summary and Conclusions This report covered three tasks that were completed in conjunction with the Lemont Basin and WRP analysis. P:120707M W RD133B30\Task 1 - C.11- wn SyslsmlFulure Flow Em REPORTkop.,t doc 6-4 a 0 These three tasks are: �I a 10 N I. Section 6 System Analysis and Results ■ Formulation of a wet weather flow generation model ■ Development of a hydraulic model representing the Lemont Basin collection system ■ Estimation of the extent of future development and population Development and population conditions were defined for the present time, for 2020 and ultimate development. The models were used to evaluate system flows for a variety of rainfall storm intensities under each development condition. The results indicate that the existing treatment capacity is insufficient to handle large wet weather events. This situation will worsen dramatically by the year 2020. Dry weather flow will more than double from 1.9 to 4.2 MGD. Wet weather flows will increase by even greater proportions. Typically,10-year event flows are employed in the design of collection and treatment facilities. Storms of 10-year magnitude represent an emergency -flood condition that is not considered part of normal operations. As shown in Table 6-1, the 10-year flow is expected to increase to 34 MGD from the current peak of 13 MGD. Wet weather flow increases are not proportional because the effect of storage in the interceptor is generally greater at high flows, but is less effective in 2020 because more of the interceptor storage is used up by dry weather flow. Substantial additional flow increases occur under ultimate land use. These include another doubling of dry weather flow and a 33 percent increase in the 10-year peak wet weather flow. Ultimate conditions were developed to represent the maximum conceivable level of population and development in the basin. This level of development is not likely to be reached for many decades. It is recommended that the 2020 conditions be used as the basis for WRP improvements and other alternatives for the Lemont Basin Plan. P:120707MWRO13303MTaA 1 . Colle lion System%FWure Flow Eel REPORTIreport dm 6-5 Appendix A Collection System Inventory 0 D I D Table A-1. District Pine and Manhole Inventory U/S •- Manhole ON • 30600C 30600 D/S Manhole 30500 Circular Diameter 4.50 Length 772 30500C 30500 30400 Circular 4.50 736 30400C 30400 30300 Circular 4.50 505 30300C 30300 30200 Circular 4.50 711 30200C 30200 30100 Circular 4.50 465 30100C 30100 30000 Circular 4.50 740 300on(-1 ON • 42000C 30000 42000 1200 41900 Circular Circular 4.50 2.50 311 94 41900C 41900 41800 Circular 2.50 419 41800C 41700 Circular 2.50 463 41700C _41800 41700 41600 Circular 2.50 463 41600C 41600 41500 Circular 2.50 463 41500C 41500 41400 Circular 2.50 444 41400C 41400 41300 Circular 2.50 408 41300C 41300 41200 Circular 2.50 435 41200C 41200 41100 Circular 2.50 500 41100C 41100 41000 Circular 2.50 354 41000C 41000 40900 Circular 2.50 408 40900C 40900 40800 Circular 2.50 511 40800C 40800 40700 Circular 2.50 526 40700C 40700 40600 Circular 2.50 505 40600C 40600 40500 Circular 2.50 497 40500C 40500 40400 Circular 3.50 84 40400C 40400 40300 Circular 2.50 488 40300C 40300 40200 Circular 2.50 257 40200C 40200 40100 Circular 2.60 473 40100C 40100 20000 Circular 2.50 579 40000C 40000 20000 Circular 2.50 46 ON • 20000 10700 Circular 4.50 796 20000C 10700C 10700 10600 Circular 4.50 724 10600C 10600 10500 Circular 4.50 798 10500C 10500 10400 Circular 4.50 742 10400C 10400 10300 Circular 4.50 895 10300C 10300 10200 Circular 4.50 540 10200C 10200 10100 Circular 4.50 720 10100C 10100 10000 Circular 4.50 748 10000C TO WET WELL 1100cl ON - 20800C 10000 11001 20800 1200 10001 20700 Circular Circular Circular 4.50 4.50 4.50 701 379 781 20700C 20700 20600 Circular 4.50 759 20600C 20600 20500 Circular 4.50 589 20500C 20500 20400 Circular _ 4.50 761 20400C _ 20400 20300 Circular 4.50 618 20300C 20300 20200 Circular 4.50 739 20200C 20200 20100 Circular 4.50 826 20100C 20100 20000 Circular 4.50 646 •rnhln A_9 1 ncal Pina anti Manhnip InvP_ntely U/S p. Manhole OFF OF • 30630C 30630 DIS Manhole.• 306001 Circular Diameter 1.50 Length 3600 30620C 30620 30610 Circular 1.75 1271 30610C 30610 30600 Circular 2.00 75 30625C 30625 30620 Circular 1.50 344 30510C 30510 30500 Circular 0.67 200 30320C 30320 30310 Circular 1.00 1200 30310C 30310 OFF OF • 40210C 40210 30300 40200 Circular Circular 1.00 0.99 400 200 40410C 40410 40400 Circular 0.99 70 40420C 40420 40410 Circular 0.97 71 40425C 40425 40420 Circular 0.97 340 40810C 40810 40800 Circular 1.00 1500.99 40910C 40910 40900 Circular 1.00 65 40920C 40920 40910 Circular 0.50 65 41020C 41020 41000 Circular 1.00 75 41410C 41410 41400 Circular 1.50 500 41420C 41420 41400 Circular 0.67 1600 41430C 41430 41400 Circular 1.50 1000 41510C 41510 41500 Circular 0.67 75 41520C 41520 41510 Circular 0.67 50 41710C 41710 41700 Circular 0.67 550 41720C 41720 41700 Circular 1.75 400 41910C 41910 41900 Circular 2.00 99 41920C 41920 41910 Circular 1.00 320 OFF OF • 10210C 10210 10200 Circular 0.97 260 10410C 10410 10400 Circular 1.00 50 10420C 10420 10410 Circular 0.97 220 10710C 10710 10700 Circular 0.67 130 1200C 1200 _ 1100 1 Circular 4.50 633 14OFF OF • 20210 20200 Circular 1.00 534 20210C 20710C 20710 20700 Circular 2.50 700 20810C _ 20810 20800 Circular 1.25 45 20510C 20510 20500 Circular 0.67 292 COMBINED11 50210 50200 Circular 2400 50210C 50220C 50220 50200 Circular 3000 50230C 50230 50200 Circular 11.05 4800 50240C 50240 50200 Circular 2400 50250C 50250 50200 Circular . 2200 50200C 50200 50100 Circular 2.50 980 50100C 50100 50000 Circular 2.50 18_6 CSO 1 50000 50010 Circular 3.32 121 �831 CSO 2 50010 CSO Out Circular 3.32 50000C 50000 Distribution Manhole Circular _ 1.50 172 COMBIN Distribution Manhole 1000 Circular 1.501 318 Tnhlo A-,i nictrirt Manhnla Invpntnry Manhole• LEMONT 30600 Ground 18.18 Invert Elevation -20.33 . • •Y-Coordinate 588393.42 1823334.71 30500 14.61 -20.65 589152.69 1823492.55 30400 16.96 -20.7 589874.85 1823634.30 30300 21.74 -21.37 590371.86 1823723.77 30200 26.1 -21.8 591050.93 1823935.00 30100 25.94 -22.08 591476.76 1824121.82 30000 24.89 -22.38 592154.01 1824418.93 ON • 10000 26 -21.91 593101.47 1824772.74 10100 25.13 -21.27 593801.28 1825036.86 10200 22.62 -20.65 594474.89 1825291.15 10300 23.28 -20.19 594980.09 1825481.85 10400 22.24 -19.42 595817.23 1825797.91 10500 31.08 -18.78 596530.48 1826002.27 10600 40.06 -18.1 597308.95 1826179.26 10700 37.93 -17.48 598006.93 1826372.00 ION LEMONT 40100 48.72 30.7 598809.00 1826000.00 40200 54.27 37.92 598832.00 1825528.00 40300 63.02 41.75 598840.00 1825280.00 40400 80.94 59.49 598860.00 1824760.00 40500 81.61 61.56 598940.00 1824730.00 40600 102.53 78.36 598960.00 1824220.00 40700 109.56 89.03 598970.00 1823715.00 40800 *128.96 94.22 598984.00 1823176.00 40900 120.83 99.07 599008.00 1822670.00 41000 133.33 115.7 599016.00 1822248.00 41100 144.29 121.04 599032.00 1821888.00 41200 149.56 131.71 599040.00 1821380.00 41300 150.16 133.98 599056.00 1820945.00 41400 152.49 136.4 599065.00 1820552.00 41500 150.26 138.89 599067.00 1820102.85 41600 155.25 141.49 599081.34 1819639.89 41700 164 144.02 599095.67 1819177.01 41800 167.76 146.46 599109.00 1818714.60 41900 163.74 148.7 599133.00 1818296,00 42100 162.84 149.24 599131.57 1818202.06 ON ! 20000 33.83 -16.8 598774.421 1826583.47 20100 28.96 -16.41 599404.58 1826724.27 20200 32.84 -15.91 600181.75 1827002.87 20300 28.2 -15.46 600853.84 _ _ 1827310.15 20400 29.13 -15.09 601415.89 1827567.10 20500 33.62 -14.63 602106.60 1827886.48 20600 31.49 -14.27 602635.62 1828145.42 20700 36.19 -13.82 603317.24 1828479.14 20800 31.92 -13.35 604040.91 1828764.77 Table A-4. Local Manhole Inventory Ground Manhole Elevation (ft) OFF OF • 30630 160.99 Invert Elevation (ft) 150.99 ..Y-Coordinate 588393.42 1818000.00 30610 18.12 4.45 588153.61 1823263.02 30620 18.22 5.96 587326.66 1823189.89 30625 18.999 9.999 587326.66 1822860.00 30510 14.99 0.991 589245.24 1823392.55 30310 22.84 8.321 590380.00 1823525.00 30320 25.29 10.991 589150.00 1823030.00 OFF OF • 10210 56.52 45.52 594698.44 1824724.25 10410 39.02 22.22 595846.31 1825705.56 10420 40.12 32.12 595965.26 1825515.69 10710 41.39 33.24 598006.93 1826250.00 1200 25.099 -22.51 592430.42 1824533.63 1100 25.099 OFF OF s 40210 80.99 -23.981 40.99 592186.001 599032.00 1825118.00 1825528.00 40410 81.68 69.18 598744.06 _ 1824747.30 40420 78.02 71.59 598742.54 1824785.50 40425 83.999 76.69 598396.30 1825034.81 40810 129 117.18 597934.00 _ 1823176.00 40910 121 111.58 599042.57 1822687.36 40920 129.999 117.4 599138.39 1822694.73 41020 133.47 119.51 598973.36 1822244.07 41420 152.62 138.1 600585.00 1820552.00 41410 151.59 137.96 598944.58 1820719.73 41430 151 138 598065.00 1820552.00 41510 152.72 144.82 599104.98 1820106.83 41520 153.52 147.32 599168.59 1820049.58 41710 162.99 145 599451.43 1819244.10 41720 162.62 145.39 599021.74 1819174.10 41720 162.62 145.39 599021.74 1819174.10 41910 163.74 150.5 599084.09 1818275.09 419201 163.74 150.754 598809.88 1818101.21 412201 163.741 150.754 598809.88 1818101.21 ji OFF OF s 32.99 14.99 600398.12 1826515.34 20210 20710 64.75 56.26 603597.17 1828047.80 20810 31.7 16.55 604082.08 _ �602197.90 1829033.90 20510 COMBINED SEWER 50200 52.6 SYSTEM 25.99 45.49 5.99 592050.00 1827691.27 1824320.00 50201 24.99 18.99 592000.00 1824300.00 50210 33.99 7.99 589994.84 1822280.00 50220 36.99 10.99 591600.00 1821600.00 50230 106.99 80.99 592650.00 1819600.00 50240 36.99 10.99 593450.00 1821950.00 50250 66.99 40.99 593346.70 1824257.96 50100 6 -1.99 591752.92 1824980.82 50000 5.67 -2.25 591675.00 1825150.00 50010 5.6 -2.54 591625.00 1825260.00 Distribution Manhple 6 -3.83 591760.00 1825300.00 a 71 J I :1 17 C :1 I L 0 C'. 0 � Appendix B � FM Data for MWRDGC Interceptor fl i i J 1 I I E D D E I I Table Description All ADS records for D2, D8 and D3. These are the meters at the junction at Walker Table B-1 and Main All ADS records for D4 D5 and Meter 17 along with plant flows provided by Table B-2 MWRDGC Days of meter malfunction deleted. Table B-3 Identified where Min flow is 0. Days of Plant min = 0 deleted. Assumed to Table B-4 be some sort of malfunction Days of hig—Fplant flow deleted since Table B-5 overflow likely on such days ITable B-1. All ADS records for D2, D8 and D3 I Date D03Avg D02+DO8 Avg D03 Max D02+DO8 Max D03 Min D02+DO8 Min 13-Nov-01 0.417 0.424 0.728 0.781 0.165 0.16 14-Nov-01 0.459 0.46 0.787 0.791 0.155 0.165 15-Nov-01 0.448 0.443 0.743 0.812 0.172 0.181 16-Nov-01 0.435 0.447 0.703 0.771 0.191 0.162 17-Nov-01 0.458 0.464 0.854 0.808 0.184 0.15 18-Nov-011 0.446 0.453 0.821 0.812 0.143 0.152 19-Nov-01 0.154 0.449 0.462 0.862 0 0.155 20-Nov-01 0.461 0.434 1.22 0.814 0 0.166 21-Nov-01 0.505 0.451 1.051 0.794 0 0.163 22-Nov-01 0.604 0.464 1.548 0,865 0.165 0.153 23-Nov-01 0.504 0.419 0.934 0.786 0.177 0.155 24-Nov-01 0.491 0,453 0.827 0.816 0,183 0.155 25-Nov-01 0.539 0.522 0.879 0,879 0.24 0.215 26-Nov-01 0.463 0.455 0.809 0.809 0.197 0.162 27-Nov-01 0.465 0.453 0.78 0.823 0.206 0.184 28-Nov-01 0.453 0.442 0.718 0.742 0.183 0.177 29-Nov-01 0.481 0.47 0.78 0.823 0.244 0.189 30-Nov-01 0.705 0.672 1.071 0.997 0.377 0.325 1-Dec-01 0.595 0.566 0.919 0,854 0.321 0.285 2-Dec-01 0.53 0.525 0.862 0.839 0.247 0.189 3-Dec-01 0.469 0.469 0.742 0.814 0.195 0.171 4-Dec-01 0.464 0.443 0.735 0.836 0.175 0.165 5-Dec-01 0.461 0.437 0.789 0.803 1 0.185 0.171 6-Dec-01 0.472 0.433 0,865 0.776 0.217 0.179 7-Dec-01 0.458 0.428 0.728 0.819 0.188 0.156 8-Dec-01 0.485 0.45 0.79 0.799 0.165 0.154 9-Dec-01 0.499 0.466 0.863 0.824 0.175 0.161 IO-Dec-01 0.462 0.447 0.771 0.839 0.219 0.158 11-Dec-01 0.455 0.429 0.764 0.817 1 0.174 0.184 12-Dec-01 0.46 0.444 0.822 0.812 0.201 0.163 13-Dec-01 0.56 0.545 0.827 0.858 0.316 0.267 14-Dec-01 0.398 0.541 1.353 0.829 0 0.174 15-Dec-01 0 0.506 0 1.302 0 0.223 16-Dec-01 0.241 0.489 1,082 0.952 0 0.133 17-Dec-01 0 0.542 0 0.798 1 0 0.224 18-Dec-01 0 0.532 0 1.106 0 0.231 19-Dec-01 0.519 0.51 0.99 0.81 0 0.182 20-Dec-01 0.519 0.508 0.807 0.819 0.237 0.189 21-Dec-01 0.532 0.5 0.83 0.791 0.233 0.168 22-Dec-01 0.594 0.548 0.925 0.864 0.245 0.176 23-Dec-01 0.655 0.618 1.12 0.918 1 0.229 0.337 24-Dec-01 0.551 0.568 1.663 0.924 0 0.256 25-Dec-01 0.583 0.525 0.988 0.929 0.277 0.221 26-Dec-01 0.575 0.522 0.916 0.818 0.29 0,193 27-Dec-01 0.549 0.508 0.813 0.759 0.251 0.201 28-Dec-01 0.54 0.499 0.858 0.75 0.249 0,178 29-Dec-01 0.549 0.497 0.931 0.859 1 0.225 0.167 30-Dec-01 0.544 0.485 0.946 0,795 0.243 0.171 31-Dec-01 0.558 0.492 0.867 0.782 0.238 0.177 1-Jan-02 0.556 0.486 0.876 0.872 0.241 0.188 2 Jan-02 0.529 0.458 0.83 0.716 0.2 3 0.1 ota Table B-2. All ADS records for D4 D5 and Meter 17 and plant flows provided by MWRDGC IE D04+D05-1-j¢ Plant Date 17 Min. Minimum 5-Oct-01 0.93 2.63 6-Oct-01 0.69 2.34 7-Oct-01 0.49 2.46 8-Oct -01 0.45 O 9 Oct-01 0.38 0.73 ]0 Oct-OI 0.38 0.71 11-Oct-01 OA7 0.62 12-Oct-Ol 0.6 0.02 13-Oct-01 0 2.29 14-Oct-01 0 4 IS-Oct-01 0 3.99 16-Oct-01 0.88 2.19 17-Oct-01 0.71 2.15 18-Oct-01 0.59 2.47 19-Oct-01 0.54 2.03 20-Oct-01 1.25 1.22 21-Oct-01 1.15 0.98 22-Oct-01 0.37 0.32 23-Oct-01 0.48 1.62 24-Oct-01 0.8 I0 25-Oct-Of 1.02 3.99 26-Oct-01 0.81 2.47 27-Oct-01 0.64 2.53 28-Oci-01 0.51 2.48 29-Oct-Ol 0.48 0.06 D04 � DOS- J7 Max. 5.77 1.31 1.11 3.8 3.52 1 4.55 2.31 5.74 1394 0 1.5 1.68 1.39 1.25 5.05 4.13 3.85 4.46 12.71 7.58 1.92 1.32 1.33 1.17 5.44 Plant Maximum 4.4 2.49 4.07 2.77 2.54 2.32 2.17 4.92 4.42 4.12 4.12 4.13 3.01 2.83 2.47 2.32 2,23 3.92 4.41 4.37 4.15 4,11 2.67 2.59 2.66 DO -+-DOS-t 17 Ave. 1.3 0.95 0.78 1.97 1.54 2.04 1.35 1.79 1.95 0 0.38 1.19 0,95 0.85 2.56 2.32 t.94 2.11 2 ].38 1 0.91 0.85 1.54 Plant Averages 3.91 2.41 3.11 2.07 1.9 1.81 1.96 2.91 3.37 4,05 4.05 3,81 2.66 2.63 2.3 1.85 1.74 3.29 3.57 4.05 3.3? 2.6 2.53 2.54 Average Difference 2.61 1.46 2.33 O.11 0.36 0.23 0.61 1.13 1.42 4.05 3.67 2.63 1.71 1.78 -0.26 -0.47 0.2 1.19 1.57 2.67 2.37 1.69 1.68 I % Difference Low Velocity 6G.8 D04, DUS 60.7 D04, DOS 74.9 D04, DUS 5.1 18.8 -12.5 31.3 D05 38.7 D05 42.2 D04, DOS 100 17, D04, 90.7 D04, D05 68.9 D04, D05 64.1 D04 DOS 67.5 D04, D05 -112 25.5 11.6 3fi DOS 43.9 D04, DOS 65.9 Dt)4, DOS 70.2 D(J4, DOS G4.9 DU4, DOS 66.4 D04, DOS 39.2 30-Oct-01 31-Oct-01 I-Nov-01 2-Nov-01 3-Nov-01 4-Nov-01 5-Nov-01 6-Nov-01 7-Nov-01 8-Nov-01 0.44 0.47 0.42 0.44 0.37 0.98 0.34 0.35 0.87 0.85 0 1.12 0 0 0.73 0.74 0 0.79 1.05 1 4.65 3.71 3.76 3.53 3.62 4.03 1 4.59 3.44 3.04 3.38 2.58 2.67 2.59 2.54 2.36 2.43 4.22 2.95 2.53 2.8 1.83 091 1.76 1.9 1.53 2.16 1.81 1.45 1.89 1 9 1.78 2.07 1.86 2.04 19 1.97 1,74 1.85 1.76 1 '70 0.05 1.16 0.1 0.14 0.37 -0.19 -0.07 0.4 -0.13 n 1, DOS 3 55.8 DU4, DUS 5.6 6.9 19.4 D04 -9,7 -4.1 D04 21.6 7.4 9-Nov-O 1 0,96 1,02 3.23 2.69 1,88 1.76 0.12 6.8 10-Nov-01 0.92 1.05 3.36 2.71 2.01 1.86 0.15 -g 11-Nov-01 0.64 0.99 3.38 2,67 195 1.79 O.i6 8.7 DOS 12-Nov-01 0.31 0 3.09 2.09 1.12 L68 0.56 33.2 D04, DOS 13-Nov-01 0.35 0 2.52 2.71 0.99 1.66 0.67 40.1 D04, DOS 14-Nov-01 0.33 0.28 5.35 2.88 1.42 2.14 0.72 33.8 D04, DOS 15-Nov-01 0.6 0 3.84 3.28 195 1.79 -0.16 -8.8 DOS 16-Nov-01 0.95 1 . 0 1 3.11 2.44 L87 1.73 17-Nov-01 0.89 1.01 3.67 2.82 2 1.84 18-Nov-01 0.94 0.97 3.31 2.56 2.01 1.75 0.26 -15.1 19-Nov-01 0.32 0.68 3.13 2.19 I.15 1.63 0.48 29.3 Dp5 20-Nov-01 0.32 1.81 3.57 1.94 1.78 1.86 0.08 4.4 21-Nov-01 0.31 0 3.35 2.47 1.53 1.76 0.23 13.2 D04, D05 22-Nov-01 0.55 0.81 3.84 2.38 1.82 1.77 0.05 29 23-Nov-01 0.86 0.77 3.19 2.31 1.79 1.63 0.16 -9.9 24-Nov-01 0.32 0.84 3.65 2.3 1.34 1.79 0.45 25.3 D04. D05 25-Nov-01 0.58 2.11 196 2.24 0.92 2.16 1.24 57.5 D04, DOS 26-Nov-01 0.32 0.47 4A9 2.51 1.75 2 0.25 12.7 D04, DOS 27-Nov-01 0.38 1.65 3.85 2.5 ].46 2.06 0.61 29,4 D04, DOS 28-Nov-01 0.37 0 3.9 2.98 1.31 L77 0.47 26.3 D04, DOS 29-Nov-01 1.26 1.1 S 3.55 2.45 2.18 2.03 0.15 7.6 30-Nov-01 0.73 0.53 5.3 2.82 1.43 2.32 0.89 38.5 D04, DOS 1-Dec-01 0,54 2.26 1.12 2.76 0.84 2.5 I.66 6G.6 D04, DOS 2-Dec-01 0.41 2.1 1.09 2.55 0.74 2.36 1.62 68.G D04, DOS 3-Dec-01 0.38 0.72 3.8 2.69 2.0? 2.22 0.15 6.7 4-Dec-01 5-Dec-01 6-Dec-01 7-Dec-01 8-Dec-01 1.09 1.04 1.08 0.96 0.39 0.48 0.97 0.74 0 0 3.35 3.49 3.44 3.17 3 07 2,69 2.64 2.42 2.27 2.8 9-Dec-01 0.37 0 2.7 2.3 10-Dec-01 0.36 0 2.69 2.46 11-Dec-01 0,31 0 2.5 2.27 i 2-Dec-01 0.33 0 3.72 1.99 13-Dec-01 0.6 0 2.84 2.58 14-Dec-01 0.38 2 1.36 2,2 15-Dec-01 0.44 2.16 1.05 2.69 16-Dec-01 0.37 2.05 1.32 2.61 17-Dec-01 0.69 0.09 1.53 3,05 18-Dec-01 0.51 2.36 1.08 4.38 19-Dec-01 0.44 2.23 1.32 2.71 20-Dec-01 0.46 0 1.i2 2g 21-Dec-01 22-Dec-01 0.45 0.43 2.15 2,1 1 2.66 3 03 2 57 23-Dec-Ol 0.57 1.31 1.48 2.62 24-Dec-01 0.45 0 1.16 4.45 25-Dec-01 0.42 2.43 1.04 2.61 26-Dec-01 0.41 2,31 1.04 2.56 27-Dec-0 I 0.41 2.31 1.1 2.39 28-Dec-01 24-Dec-01 0.39 0.39 0 0.94 4.49 0 1.13 2.25 30-Dee-01 0,37 2.04 1.14 2.2 "0" 2.04 1.91 -0.13 -7 2.07 1.82 -0.25 -13.9 2.03 1.92 -0.11 -5.7 1.95 1.78 -0.17 -9.7 0.98 1.73 0.75 43.5 D05 1.26 1.96 0.7 35.6 D05 1.21 1.86 0.65 35.1 D05 0.96 1.97 1.02 51.5 D05 1.24 1.87 0.63 33.6 D05 0.87 2.01 1.14 56.6 D04, D05 0.84 2.07 1.23 59.4 D04, D05 0.75 2.41 1.66 69 D04, DOS 0.77 2.42 1.65 68 D04, DOS 1.05 2.74 1.69 61.6 D04, DOS 0.81 2.75 1.45 70.7 D04, D05 0.85 2.55 1.7 66.7 D04, DOS 0.75 2.4 1.65 68.7 D04, D05 0,72 2.44 1.72 70.4 D04, DOS 0.94 2.4 1.46 61 D04, DOS 0.9 2.44 1.54 63.1 D04, D05 0.8 2.41 1.02 67 D04, D05 0.73 2.49 1.76 70.6 D04, D05 0.74 2.39 1.65 69 D04, D05 0,72 2.35 1.63 69.5 D04 DOS 0.68 2.39 1.7I 71.5 D04, DO5 0.69 2.06 1.37 66.4 D04, DOS 0.68 2.12 1.44 67.9 D04, D05 f 17.55 187.32 69.77 37.2 - A w W N N N N W w tJ J tJ U N (A N A W N ��:abaddabdaabaabaaddbeaaaazzzzzzz7zzzzzzz� i r r r r r 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 r i 1 i r 1 1 1 1 cv ro cc cc co rn rn co eu m to h cu ry 10 �o to co cv cv cc o 0 0 0 0 o O c' O << o O C O C o C<< 0 0 � O O r O O 1 O 1 O O O r O O O r O r O r O 1 O O O O O O O r p 1 O 1 0 r 0 0 1 d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N a N i0 U O� to w AU A �' �' A 'c �1 oo chi, �D W Cn A 'Ai CN b m (AOONi rn C� �^ W 1.0 O w tAi ONcT W W O p�o A Uh W .p Ln A .A � to W to A N 10 Vi N 1.0 CA 00 N .- A �0 1/1 to ...• W V1 W 00 lA Qo \O �7 9 0 A 0 P 0 A 0 A 0 -P 0 0 in 0 in 0 to 0 O< 0 N p 0 +.A 0 v1 0 0 0 0 A 0 A 0 0 A 0 0 A 0 iA 0 In 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O p 00 oo O1 N .A b Opo N lN/1 0o W 000 lAi1 A �- 4 U W w A W -] W \O LAi ON N v .yp N ? LA W A kA LA iALA N A W _A W A A 01 A W P ON A AP J W a A d 00 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 0 W 0 O 0 W 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �_ 0 1 0 r 0 0 1 0 1 0 �1 O 01 CN to b �A N A �-+ A �-' 0 v1 W to C. W A 0\ W _d N W W O 1''1 O W O N W N O O O O N O W W .- O _O O O O_ O W O 00 '1' O Cl O O 0 p 00 O O ti 00 -I N �--� V1 ON to w lA �D A �-' V1 �p W •-• N 00 �] W IA � N M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 1''1 00 00 J ZD 'D w 00 w �D o� D N �D 60 r'"1 00 00 J 00 N -A 1 00 -1 00 --4 00 J avil ^-7 Do O 00 00 00 00 J �D A V1 00 00 Do A J Ow J W �) 00000 J ono tA w oNo t�i1 c Ili 10 ao t00 x O J O 00 b 0 v 0 00 0 p 0 00 0 �p 0 tip 0 0 J 0 00 0 w 0 0 DD 0 w 0 00 0 � 0 0o 0 J 0 00 0 w 0 00 0 00 0 Do 0 0 0 0 0 0 L7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O .1 N 00 00 �p v1 to v1 J c!1 .-. N �-+ w ON b �--� lA 00 W N `•D r1 O w W LA O 'D 00 N J A 00 N 00 O 00 J 00 J 00 00 01 00 00 O `.1 J 00 -_1 VO v 00 a a N \D 00 b 00 A �--� �D w N J �O A �D �D ON W ON A ID A J W N W IO \lD O, to N 00 �.. N .-� a O DD a O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tJ 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O PIL16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O -IL LL p O O d 00 to J O v1 lD (.A O CD D1 O w O O W W ..-. O v1 O Q\ O W O O O b b 00 0 O O J O N O T O �1 Op A p N W A 0 0 0 r-' A 6T oo O O O A U t~o A A w ..r N Do A oo � N ..• �D N ,.r w 00 `D �. ;p ,.r N W U A 1„ ,p w 00 w iD O1 Oo Odi �O O(A A W t07 h 0 0 0 0 0 0 o d o b o b d o 0 0 o b o W A ao W VNi b I w O y _N �--� �� --• I tJ W N W J , IQ W N O �' W J W A N C, yWy J h J- b 1 1 OHO �! A Oi V�i a 7 O O G7 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O ..... pp oo �.1 v J O �D N w �.1 O\ 00 Q\ 00 V1 Q\ lA V1 J �1 O\ .-.. �1 ..., 00 N 06 W N .- 00 ..r J ... 00 V1 lA Lh u U `� - 00 01 ` _ + 00 �-1 --+ J 00 .-+ w .... ,�! 01 00 1D -I W A 00 A a, �D �-+ CA �-• �D V1 V1 tO �1 A N lA U1 LA W N U N �-+ to O a0 00 O O O O W O O W O O O W O O O p O 0 0 0 0 p O p O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PIP 0 d O O p16 O O W N O W IM o�� p p W 0� O_ _O W N O _O O r-- N Cl LA O U O N W O O W W O O _C Q O W O IQ O O W to W •.• 0000 — --1 Owi 00 � V1 00 I'D 0000 �--� �--- A 1-' OWO A A 000 cWi1 01 N tAA "1 0000 N N �D A h N O W b 0 W 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P. p p 0 0 O O O O O O C O 0 �I O J O D 'D W U W A W A O U O U W w W A W w W W O .-� W N W O w O w W ,W O w p N O N p O O O Ili W w W .-. 0 - _W W O W �-- W w O 00 O 0 O 0 W W O W h �' rn N 1... �- w w -1 � 1J •-• lA to tp w N 00 v 00 U a N U ... ,.1 >✓ h (p O O O O d O 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 d O O p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 8 U O.A W \D O N O \ W w WO 0 W W WO W O1 00 W W AaOV1oo O O O O M �O' oo %D w oa �O 10 b a, 00 10 A 1.14 C N N CA O O O W O O O O O O O O O O O PIP O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O b O O Q O+ O to C1 O �i W to W �1 0 �D 0 V1 O 0 a\ 0 0 A 0 A 0 W O O O_ CO O W O W O N to W V1 to O N W N N N O W N O O O ti 0 W w ••• N o0 00 A .-• N W N lA LA N N �O A �D W '� V1 C_ � f9 w Q W g a a N O v N v co Al 3 a v c. C. UP H h 3 ID <D w C 7 n 3 a m m of m CL 0 u w N N N N N N N N O �O �t � to A W N O �D oo ,-I U A a z z z Z z zz7 ��°°°op000000000000000['j00000000o •-.• O �D Oo J Q� A w t'' N N N N N N N N •-- z z Z z '_' Oo J °� W N •.• O �O tb J U O a O O O p O 0 0 0 b O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d d O 0 0 p O 0 0 Q 0 O O O O O O O {. �^ �l tv W W In W Do in W w �D Oo W w � ip � o0 0o W �O W .P In � Oa CJ � ••• •-• O O O .'Op oc A w w N O O O N N N O .-.• •-O N 0 0 0 .-. 0 N U ►. °i A ,.._, oo G'1 w to In J o0 0o C, 0 .-.-p p .� N N N w `-. 0 0- N N N t0 O O N �O 00 wON Ef C7 = o O O O O O 0 O O p O O O O O O _ a N J to w N O� t0 01 w N O� cwn w °Oi Cn Do A A W b 00 O> iU O O A w Cn o O 'J coo W °\ J A V' J W J U C a --• v� w w A �. w w w w w w W W v� w w w w W w A w w ►. J� � W lh W �. l0 4'1 �-- 00 In �, W CA .-. W w W tJ IN O A ^-..r i- N A w A V1 .-. .�. ..-• N A w ._.. a LA N O to V� �p U to �O A J w •-• J �-. to oo O� W oo A A O N J W W� J ,A oo ..-. O N W °r W i,n Vi .-+ W a s � CL y � N N N N N N N N N N N °Ji N vi O O owo n oo O� J U oo inA w o�vN� N N N w V00 A W Qi N A ao J •..• �O O W to w T J �D J .-. to ? �D tV tN A oo O .-. W V, O A ? ppyy � C r� O --A 00 J J •- U A oo -• �O °� A N A w A a LJ "' N N "" N `-' 0 0 0 .., .-• N r-. N N N O O .-. .-. N O CT J oo J O 00 N tin O W"D ao A �--� in i0 00 �O O w O O J+ A w Oo OAi tJi� N A �O N co vi 00 00 � `�' w O in J �O W a O ao A N oo cT U U �p U A A 00 U O O lh v N N r. � •-- N .... .-. �. .r �. ..r ..� .-• N N N W A W � � in w <? O O J °� J ao °� J oo J J o0 J J J Oo b� O v, O� w �' "N N N w ...• -- .- W N w� `t! a 0 0 tv 00 00 d pa a a a rt A A A o o a oa o o a a a a CJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 o A o 0 0 0 o ta a a a o 0 0 0'0 3 a ad o- o00 ooa000000C)C N N ^v In W N UN °� OW N cn W QOi In ao .P A a, V°`i �p J A VOi J OW O�0 .p W U W Vwi V�i J N O CL n N O A N .--• 00 00 N V� A W 00 O� Oo J fD � N � NN .p O O A N .-. ___ _ O "" "" N N •-- O O O O �. ....N O O N -. N � H U U A In O� to Oo 00 °� O� A N Os V, N .�.• w A u w OZ W O� A N J J 00 tJ 0 ��, abbdbdbbebddbdbeb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � .,aa00000000000---�.-oc J N J w lh A ...+ J A 00 0o A �O 00 .- OCN N N N •-• N N N N N N N O O O O N a,. O A� W W A -• w (N .-• ..• a ut N W W p1 lh C1 O A J 00 N O o 00 J .•• A J "I J Y.' Oo V, O\ aJ J IJ G1 N tN .A G1 �O 7- ._. .F• O A A oo i.s a N 4a N V+ CT A Io In O ,O N W lh iA U �I W Ol C7% �. ON� N N V�i Obi O O O O d O 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N 0 • A oho N A w O� N00 00 J vJ, A aw -4 A- JA N N N N N N N N N N N N N -• -- N N A ih V, J V, A N A O 'O 00 io N W cT ' ' A L O A W U C\ A of N A (h C1 W "" Ut W U N 1=• A {� 1> A A l� A A fit.. � .Ia A aaadaaa0g a 0 0 V o A c V, O V, o v, a V, 0 o d o 0 0 J -• A J �O In oo N N A J "� A� 0 al c J v tiD N -.! A 'J�i �O W A W N tin •-' O+ t.A O R: '�Y Al 0\ U� W O �O V O� A W N O �O 00 V Q\ A -• C �O Oo V� A W W N N •� Maio C7C7C7b�Z�zZZ'Z7z7ZZZ7Z7'zZZzz��p`o""'o w d o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'0 0 o n o 0 0 0 0 0 60 w ti Q, t •� "' "" O O --• O O C C O O� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --• `- 0 0 0 <J yyJ O C O W V tJ W W laa 00 U W W 1p W L^a W iD 00 00 W �p W a i Go A tD Oo W C\ W tJ N Q< Vr N N A U W A N U V U 0o V U V A AI oo Do � O •'o O O O O -• 0 0 0 0 •-+ O O O O •--• O O O O -• N O O O 'V t V �O A J W A oo v o0 00 U0o �O O O O O O O J e.l J N W U U J A V �• N C U C ^ r , ' C7 O� G N -• w 4- W w U w w A w w w w w w w w U w w w w w w A w w w O �•J d= W ooUh O N th N `• A Q\ Ol 00 A Ut W W W .�. lh 00 .p 00 tT �I Q1 00 U �D A W O\ tJ W A W V \0 O w VI W 0\ J W N V J N A G ;� ^� O O -- N •-• .- p .J .-. O O O O N O 0 0 0 0 0 „_, 001 ut � A � A VJi v°'i � 'l' �l � U -' •..• •..• `� N O N O CJ U O\ .-• 00 C\ A N 00 00 A W 0000 CD G f�D �--. tJr A oo aoJo .n -- O J N to .CD -• o0 oo � lwir A U. { < d � yr _ _ _ _N_ _.rJ C b N N ww OCi O V oo D\ � y 11 0o J O O t�ir oho `a W � a, w v, A w A W�� t�i, � C� m O tTa CD � ••J O O p 'O O p O O D 0 0 0 0 0 0 p O g C 0 0 O � �, O O O' "' �, O_ 00 D\ A N t.n N w A i0 J O� J LACD U w w d oa� a d c C7 cn 17U odd A �b o o U 0 0 r ',A-t � 0 0 0 0 0 •-• O O O O •-• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •--O O p ".+' � c D\ WA N y tJ `• U O N A w p .� ... .-.-. N v. ti G V U N �O C1 �O U W N� VOi U W Ol U W A N taa � •.• O A �• taa i..a ti O d � C t t CJ ' C000 � ti N •-• .-. "' p "' "-' O O O O N O 0 0 0 0 0 •-- .- .-. •-. N O N O O`� (J w -- aA, WV, l0 W 0o A O\ �O Jn mw aJJ...v. •p �p p, A N oo A w oc ' oo CD O� L � [D ... V 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O p 0 0 0 Vr w t ,� � W "" W� lJ A •--O O A jJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •--0 0 0 0 0 C7 �� o _ _ C U �O U U U� U Co 00 � fT A N O� U N •_.. W �' � V O� J V' �� W U � G .Appendix C Population by Subbasin population Estimates by Subbasin Table C-1. Results of Population Computations BASIN 10 EXISTING POPULATION 2020 POPULATION FUTURE POPULATION S3001 13 13 54 S3002 37 41 150 F3003 Q 410 557 F3004 0 1381 404 F3005 0 15 61 F3006 0 241 772 F3007 0 562 1259 S3009 415 415 618 S3010 1294 1294 1904 F3011 0 24 81 F3012 0 68 91 F3013 0 874 2426 S3014 39 101 344 F3015 0 0 564 S3016 176 256 543 S3017 251 661 1512 S3019 621 621 621 S3020 8 9 38 S3021 130 157 157 S3022 762 878 878 05000 17 125 241 C5001 186 206 310 C5002 623 623 623 C5003 571 775 775 S5004 443 534 534 C5005 722 722 722 S5006 1092 1262 1262 F1001 0 965 2784 S1002 145 219 329 S1003 538 538 538 S1004 888 888 888 S1005 610 610 764 S2001 20 122 752 S2002 12 12 454 S2003 0 885 5503 S2004 38 38 1032 F2005 0 27 995 F2006 0 22 732 F2008 0 80 792 F2009 0 0 4310 F2010 0 0 4575 F2011 0 207 1826 F4001 0 81 340 F4002 0 225 441 F4003 0 118 379 S4004 263 263 312 F4005 0 65 65 S4006 283 283 308 population Estimates by Subbasin S4007 36 59 77 F4008 0 135 569 F4009 0 319 424 S4010 102 102 163 F4011 0 191 749 S4012 21 26 64 F4013 0 1175 1516 S4014 CAr%4c 188 195 485 S4016 U 427 4a 502 95 538 F4017 0 42 42 S4018 48 60 61 S4019 93 93 S4020 1361 361 744 S4021 68 249 625 S4022 210 210 227 F4023 0 84 218 S4024 247 502 2104 F4025 0 248 1340 F4026 0 427 2059 F4027 0 80 246 F4028 0 307 1078 F4029 0 1005 2806 F4030 461 1033 2638 F4031 0 210 2579 F4032 0 315 2219 F4033 0 43 467 S4035 53 53 160 S4036 174 467 1538 S4037 28 49 211 Totals 12473 25251 71804 10 Appendix D Diurnal Variation during Dry Weather a' 0.1 01, 0.1, G 0,15 t7 0.1 0.00 0.00 0,04 0.02 0 0 0.1 0. g 0.01 i Q 0.oe 0.04 0.02 0 Figure 0-1. Flow Meter 8 Diurnal Variation During Dry Weather u.25 0.5 UsTime of Dev ' Figure D-2. Flow Meter 9 Diurnal Variation During Dry Weather 025 0.5 0.75 1 Time of Day Figure D-3. Flow Meter 10 Diurnal Variation During Dry Weather .__ 0.5 0.75 Time of Day 1 Figure D-4. Flow Meter 11 Diurnal Variation During Dry Weather 0.14 0.12 008 0.08 0 04 0.02 - 0 0 0.25 0.6 0.75 1 Time of Day Figure D-5. Flow Meter 12 Diurnal Variation During Dry Weather 0.14 - 0.12 0.1 U8 ME 0.06 . R 0.04 0.02 o 7� o i 0.26 os 0.75 1 Time of Day 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.09 0.02 0 0 Figure D-6. Flow Meter 13 Diurnal Variation During Dry Weather 026 0.5 0.76 1 Time of Day 0. o,i o. � O.f (0 0.5 LA. 0,4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0. O.OF 0.08 0.04 D.02 01. 0,1 0.1 01; i O.OE o.ofl 0.04 0.02 0 Figure D-7. Flow Meter 14 Diurnal Variation During Dry Weather 0,75 i Time of Day Figure D-8. Flow Meter 15 Diurnal Variation During Dry Weather 0 J._ _. 025 — __ _ _ 0 05..._._—___—..— 0.75 _�^ 1 Time of Day Figure D-9. Flow Meter 16 Diurnal Variation During Dry Weather 0.75 1 Time of Day Figure D-10. Flow Meter 17 Diurnal Variation During Dry Weather 0.25 0.5 0.75 TIms of Day 0 Appendix E D J 0 D Appendix E CDM's SHAPE Program for RDII Analysis J dCDM's SHAPE Program for VI Analysis dVI analysis: SHAPE The rainfall and flow monitoring data was analyzed to develop an understanding of the system RDI/I characteristics using the SHAPE computer program. SHAPE consists of a number of utility computer programs to evaluate the complete records of flow and rainfall data, isolate typical dry- and wet -weather periods, define characteristic sanitary flows, determine seasonal dry -weather infiltration rates; and develop unit hydrographs representative of I/I. The SHAPE program used to determine the appropriate unit I/I hydrograph parameters for input into the SWMM models. Rainfall -Dependent InfiltrationlInflow (RDZ4) Characterization A unit hydrograph approach was used to determine a characteristic relationship between rainfall and RDI/I for each meter. Figure E-1 illustrates how the RDI/I from a single hour of rainfall with an intensity of I is characterized under this approach. Experience indicates that it often requires up to three unit hydrographs to adequately represent the various ways that precipitation becomes RDI/I. Each unit hydrograph is characterized by the following three parameters: ■ R: The fraction of rainfall volume that enters the sanitary sewer system ■ T: The time to peak in hours ■ K: The ratio of time to recession to the time to peak This approach allows estimating unit flow parameters appropriate for forecasting design flows. This method of hydrograph decomposition considers a range of parameters including rainfall depths, sewered area, antecedent moisture conditions (AMC), and groundwater elevations to better quantify individual wastewater flow components in the system. Unit hydrograph parameters are developed through a systematic analysis of measured flow and rainfall. Once developed, these unit hydrograph parameters and design rainfall hyetographs can be used to define RDI/1 inflow hydrographs for collection system modeling/evaluation. The approach to developing RDI/I unit hydrograph parameters follows: 1. First, RDI/I events were defined by subtracting the characteristic dry -weather flows (BWF and GWI) from the measured flow record, as illustrated in Figure E-2. For each event, the total R was calculated for the event by dividing the RDI/I volume by the rainfall volume. 2. Then, events where most RDI/I is due to direct inflow and/or very rapid infiltration were identified. Typically, these are intense, short -duration thunderstorms preceded by relatively dry antecedent conditions. These events were used to determine Rl, Tl, and Kl, characterizing the first unit hydrograph. 7 Rainfal Intensit} (in/hi O .4 w Time Triangular Unit Hydrograph Approach to Decomposition COM, of the Wet -Weather Sanitary Sewer Hydrograph Figure E-1 Legend RDI/I --- Rainfall Dependent Infiltration/Inflow . F �►' GWI --- Groundwater Infiltration " y BWF --- Base Wastewater Flow Precipitation ME= GWI BWF Time CM. Components of Wet -Weather Flow Figure E-2 b �a a 11 0 LJI 7 3. Next events where infiltration is maximized were identified. These are typically long duration, low intensity events preceded by wet antecedent conditions. These events were used to determine R2, T2, and K2, characterizing the second unit hydrograph. If these events had very long recession limbs, it became necessary to develop R3, Ts, and K3, for the third unit hydrograph. 4. R, T, and K parameters for the three unit hydrographs characterizing RDI/I at the meter were assigned to all catchments tributary to the meter. 5. Finally, the R, T, and K parameters were verified by using them along with catchment areas to develop inflow hydrographs for a more complex rainfall event. These hydrographs are then routed through the collection system with the model developed and compared with measured hydrographs for this event. Using the above procedure, the appropriate R, T, and K values of the above -mentioned hydrographs were selected for input into SWMM. This allows the SWMM model to easily accommodate monitored system hydrographs, and facilitates the calibration of the SWMM model, as well as evaluating rehabilitation alternatives. r 7, V J D n Lm Appendix F RDII Analysis Results e, LU > 'E E —wa OMM oF, N N 00 A I it 00 m 9 0 6 C5 6 0 CS Ci &cc C, 0 C, 0 n c cc C, 0 q q 0 q C, C? 0 CQ coo q q 9 q ID 1D lo o ON S, !RR o cc o 0 o 16 6 n OO o F HO 21 oOOO NEI ms cc 6 n 6 600 q 1p R q coo q Cli cc ... O n M Ln m n No Of f0 In 470 8 a th OM X co o oo lo o cc, coo 666 cc cc a o cc o o c 0 ol col o oq o c000 o cc c; co i . o ci m m coo M o a os cc c4 N Do q q coca q R q 9 a q cc 't o ao o on cc cc) on acoo o oo rj "8889No o8 o. NA 9 oatmo Oo q q -no co 0 0 0 0 o g con coo 666 66 66 cc cc acco o cc w no m ;! F w w rat �; m M 1� o o ;; Ln a , ?? m 8 - 1� m n ci o 0 o m m m R, q 7 q �oca coo cc cc cc _o QBrio o o cc Of - tu Q) w 6i 6 d c 6 cd; 66 00 cc coon 6 66 w > LL I o I ownzsi wcro" 1 z N o oc o cj o o qq no � ccC q aN o xLu z z w—mo z Co LU i2 W m co G) P z oi 0 0 I- z z o2 z z O z z z z uj Z Z 00 0 z u) z 0 Lu Lu w uk, w� w� z w Z w� Lj Lu Lu w QQ ca I'm [Lu a- 00 9 w Lu w w w w w w co fn w v) 0 Qw) wo v) ow) u) w In momN 04 z c mmmm m (n U) (0 v) cn w 9 F- Lu N ff v 2 N ff K N v ff X-m-g-a-g-" ff ndix G Appendix G Rainfall Input 0 r 3 Rainfall Input Rainfall is specified in RUNOFF as depths during a sequence of equal time intervals. Any design storm or historical storm can be represented. Design storms modeled were set up based on rainfall depth and distribution data obtained from Illinois State water Survey Bulletin 70 (Huff and Angel,1989). Storm events used in the analysis are summarized in Table G-1. Average range of storm durations is simulated to ensure that the critical duration storms for both flood flow and flood volume have been considered in the development of design hydrographs. Table G-1: Design Rainfall Depths for Northeastern Illinois Recurrence Interval Duration 6-month 1-year 2-year 5-year 10-year 25-year 15 Minutes 0.55 0.68 0.82 1.03 1.21 1.49 30 Minutes 0.75 0.93 1.12 1.41 1.65 2.04 1 Hour 0.96 1.18 1.43 1.79 2.10 2.59 2 Hour 1.20 1.48 1.79 2.24 2.64 3.25 3 Hour 1.30 1.60 1.94 2.43 2.86 3.53 6 Hour 1.52 1.88 2.28 2.85 3.35 4.13 12 Hour 1.77 2.18 2.64 3.31 3.89 4.79 24 Hour 2.03 2.51 3.04 3.80 4.47 5.51 r*�L P920707MWRD\33030\Task 1 - Collodion SysteniTtRum Flow Est REPORT\Appendbc CIA- consulting • engineering • construction • operations