RJN Group, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii Map Exhibits Map Exhibit 1 Basin Unit Inflow Rate Reduction Appendix APPENDIX A Flow Meter Site Sheets APPENDIX B Rain Gauge Site Sheets APPENDIX C Wet-Weather Hydrographs
RJN Group, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 BACKGROUND RJN Group, Inc. was retained by the City of Hot Springs, Arkansas to perform flow monitoring services for a post rehabilitation effectiveness evaluation on selected areas of the wastewater collection system. A total of 33 ADS flow meters were used to monitor wastewater flow from March 31, 2015 to June 10, 2015 for a period of 72 days. These results were compared to 2009 flow monitoring, which is used as a baseline to scorecard the rehabilitation efforts. In 2009, the City was divided into 65 basins wheras several basins were combined in 2015 to reduce the overall cost. Significant rehabilitation construction projects have been completed, specifically two projects that rehabilitated all deficient manholes across the service area. Post rehabilitation flow monitoring was conducted in 2013 focusing on 11 of the 65 basins. This project focused on the tributary area of the Davidson Wastewater Treatment Plant. The following basins were studied in 2013, but are included in the Davidson Wastewater Treatment Plant tributary area and will be discussed again in this report: HS-04, HS-05, HS-06, HS-61, HS-63, HS-64, and HS-65 for comparison purposes. The analysis from 2009 was modified to take into account the larger basins. Flow monitoring locations are given in Table 1. Ten (10) rain gauges were installed to record rainfall during these periods. Rain gauge locations, recorded totals, and intensities are listed in Table 2. Significantly more rainfall was recorded in 2015 than during 2009. An average of 20.28 inches of rain was recorded in 2015 with gauges recording between 18.43 and 21.42 inches of rainfall. This compares to an average of 10.17 inches of rain with gauges recording between 9.31 and 13.34 inches of rain in 2009. Eighteen(18) rain events exceeded peak hourly intensities of 0.20 inches/hour as compared to nine (9) such rain events in 2009. With the additional rainfall the antecedent ground conditions in 2015 were more optimal for allowing rain-derived inflow and infiltration into the sanitary sewer system compared to 2009. Figure 1 depicts flow meter locations, rain gauge locations, and basin boundaries. A basin flow diagram indicating direction of flow from one basin to another is shown on Figure 2. Site sheets for each monitored location are located in the Appendix of this report. POST REHABILITATION FLOW MONITORING HOT SPRINGS, AR
RJN Group, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Table 1 FLOW MONITORING LOCATIONS Meter/Basin Number Manhole ID Nominal Pipe Diameter (in) Flow Meter Location HS-08 9456 12 Thornton Ferry and Albert Pike HS-11 8171 24 173 Aberina Street HS-13 8569 17 3400 US-270 HS-17 651 12 Central Avenue and Fountain Street HS-18 4013 10 Spring Street and Vernel Street HS-19 3097 12 314 Cottrell Avenue HS-20 4015 21 640 Vernel Street HS-21 4081 21 2618 Spring Street HS-22 4141 12 2211 Spring Street HS-23 4561 12 723 Bellaire Street HS-25 1753 15 920 Ridgeway Street HS-26 1713 22 Guy Street and Ridgeway Street HS-28 1726 24 198 Ravenwood Place HS-30 4917 18 197 Catherine Heights Road HS-30A 1746 30 US-70 HS-32 2497 24 106 W Grand Avenue HS-34 1302 27 128 Shady Grove Road HS-37 6396 8 198 Maylou Terrace HS-38 971 15 207 Patriot Street HS-40 1789 10 205 Lexington Street HS-41 983 15 Leonard Street HS-42 163 27 Shady Grove Road HS-44 1002 48 798 Adams Street HS-45 1899 12 798 Adams Street HS-47 8001 25 128 Jennison Square HS-48 7969 12 199 Sonora Street HS-49A 1863 35 106 Forrest View Court HS-50 1912 25 646 Golf Links Road HS-53 5260 10 754 Carpenter Dam Road HS-54 1673 48 398 Davidson Drive HS-57 962 30 318 Davidson Drive HS-58 1871 24 1354 State Highway 88 HS-62 1254 24 111 Pond Street
Table 2 RAINFALL SUMMARY Rain Gauge No. 2 Pump Station 107 Dodson Terrace Rain Gauge No. 4 Walker’s Marine Service 478 Amity Road Rain Gauge No. 5 Golden’s Paint & Body 109 Airway Road Rain Gauge No.6 Terminix International 215 Twin Points Road Date 2015 Total Daily Rainfall (in) Peak 60-Minute Rainfall Intensity (in/hr) Total Daily Rainfall (in) Peak 60-Minute Rainfall Intensity (in/hr) Total Daily Rainfall (in) Peak 60-Minute Rainfall Intensity (in/hr) Total Daily Rainfall (in) Peak 60-Minute Rainfall Intensity (in/hr) April 01 0.42 0.29 0.86 0.82 1.28 1.14 1.14 1.06 05 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 06 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.01 07 1/ 1/ 0.01 0.01 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 09 0.73 0.23 1.86 1.05 0.87 0.44 0.90 0.43 13 2.16 0.53 1.79 0.69 1.44 0.74 2.47 1.10
14 0.71 0.49 0.47 0.29 0.74 0.37 0.50 0.29 15 0.20 0.15 0.16 0.10 0.22 0.13 0.14 0.10 16 1/ 1/ 0.20 0.20 0.06 0.06 0.20 0.19 17 0.04 0.04 1/ 1/ 0.01 0.01 1/ 1/ 18 0.19 0.17 0.10 0.06 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.05 19 0.34 0.17 0.59 0.56 0.39 0.16 0.56 0.37 22 0.27 0.25 0.07 0.07 0.35 0.32 0.15 0.14 23 0.09 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.11 24 1.69 0.22 1.37 0.24 1.79 0.20 1.37 0.30 26 0.01 0.01 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 27 0.22 0.07 0.24 0.09 0.20 0.06 0.10 0.06 28 0.61 0.24 0.48 0.23 0.61 0.27 0.55 0.23 May 07 0.14 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 1/ 1/ 08 0.42 0.16 0.22 0.12 0.46 0.24 0.33 0.21 09 1.69 1.06 2.40 1.39 1.95 1.39 2.39 1.47 1/ No rainfall recorded. 2/ Rain gauge malfunction.
Table 2 (Cont.) RAINFALL SUMMARY Rain Gauge No. 2 Pump Station 107 Dodson Terrace Rain Gauge No. 4 Walker’s Marine Service 478 Amity Road Rain Gauge No. 5 Golden’s Paint & Body 109 Airway Road Rain Gauge No.6 Terminix International 215 Twin Points Road Date 2015 Total Daily Rainfall (in) Peak 60-Minute Rainfall Intensity (in/hr) Total Daily Rainfall (in) Peak 60-Minute Rainfall Intensity (in/hr) Total Daily Rainfall (in) Peak 60-Minute Rainfall Intensity (in/hr) Total Daily Rainfall (in) Peak 60-Minute Rainfall Intensity (in/hr) May 10 0.02 0.01 0.09 0.06 0.17 0.09 0.10 0.06 11 3.02 1.05 2.76 1.45 2.86 1.26 2.41 1.22 13 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 14 0.18 0.17 0.08 0.08 0.28 0.27 0.08 0.08 15 0.50 0.48 0.84 0.79 0.60 0.59 0.34 0.30 16 0.02 0.02 0.39 0.37 0.10 0.09 0.17 0.15
17 0.86 0.75 0.70 0.60 1.13 1.01 0.84 0.74 20 1.50 0.80 1.75 0.83 1.61 1.01 0.40 0.34 21 1/ 1/ 0.01 0.01 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 22 0.16 0.08 0.13 0.11 0.13 0.06 1/ 1/ 23 0.04 0.03 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 0.01 0.01 24 0.34 0.23 0.58 0.56 0.70 0.69 0.07 0.05 25 1.38 0.93 1.49 1.02 1.46 0.98 1.40 0.93 28 0.27 0.25 0.03 0.02 0.35 0.32 0.22 0.19 29 1.27 0.89 1/ 1/ 0.71 0.42 0.61 0.38 30 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 0.16 0.12 0.26 0.16 31 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.14 June 06 0.16 0.10 1/ 1/ 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.06 08 0.15 0.14 1/ 1/ 0.28 0.28 0.12 0.11 09 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.06 0.06 Total 19.87 19.77 21.27 18.43 1/ No rainfall recorded. 2/ Rain gauge malfunction.
Table 2 (Cont.) RAINFALL SUMMARY Rain Gauge No. 8 ABI Building 911 West Grand Rain Gauge No. 9 AA Storage World 415 Golf Links Road Rain Gauge No. 11 Belvedere Country Club 257 Belvedere Drive Rain Gauge No.13 Affiliated Engineers 800 Ridgeway Street Date 2015 Total Daily Rainfall (in) Peak 60-Minute Rainfall Intensity (in/hr) Total Daily Rainfall (in) Peak 60-Minute Rainfall Intensity (in/hr) Total Daily Rainfall (in) Peak 60-Minute Rainfall Intensity (in/hr) Total Daily Rainfall (in) Peak 60-Minute Rainfall Intensity (in/hr) April 01 1.34 0.36 1.64 1.51 0.95 0.77 1.67 1.52 05 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 06 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.02 07 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 0.01 0.01 1/ 1/ 09 2/ 2/ 0.89 0.41 0.57 0.26 1.03 0.51 13 2/ 2/ 2.00 1.05 1.99 1.08 1.74 0.93
14 2/ 2/ 0.49 0.28 0.49 0.29 0.63 0.43 15 2/ 2/ 0.16 0.07 0.13 0.06 0.11 0.03 16 2/ 2/ 0.31 0.31 1/ 1/ 0.09 0.09 17 2/ 2/ 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 1/ 1/ 18 2/ 2/ 0.12 0.05 0.08 0.07 0.31 0.27 19 2/ 2/ 0.34 0.29 0.16 0.11 0.39 0.30 22 0.32 0.27 0.16 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.22 0.16 23 0.14 0.14 0.11 0.10 0.26 0.22 0.22 0.21 24 1.71 0.23 1.58 0.31 2.03 0.46 1.70 0.36 26 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 27 0.21 0.07 0.23 0.08 0.14 0.05 0.22 0.07 28 0.64 0.22 0.62 0.23 0.91 0.27 0.75 0.26 May 07 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 0.01 0.01 08 1.68 1.09 0.37 0.23 1.53 0.90 0.41 0.25 09 0.39 0.21 2.13 1.23 0.53 0.31 1.68 1.27 1/ No rainfall recorded. 2/ Rain gauge malfunction.
Table 2 (Cont.) RAINFALL SUMMARY Rain Gauge No. 8 ABI Building 911 West Grand Rain Gauge No. 9 AA Storage World 415 Golf Links Road Rain Gauge No. 11 Belvedere Country Club 257 Belvedere Drive Rain Gauge No.13 Affiliated Engineers 800 Ridgeway Street Date 2015 Total Daily Rainfall (in) Peak 60-Minute Rainfall Intensity (in/hr) Total Daily Rainfall (in) Peak 60-Minute Rainfall Intensity (in/hr) Total Daily Rainfall (in) Peak 60-Minute Rainfall Intensity (in/hr) Total Daily Rainfall (in) Peak 60-Minute Rainfall Intensity (in/hr) 10 1/ 1/ 0.09 0.05 0.17 0.10 0.01 0.01 11 2.67 1.27 2.59 1.31 2.42 1.08 2.54 1.20 13 1/ 1/ 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 14 0.27 0.27 0.04 0.04 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 15 0.43 0.41 0.78 0.73 0.29 0.26 0.89 0.84 16 0.10 0.06 0.12 0.11 0.07 0.02 0.08 0.06
17 1.21 1.10 0.79 0.70 1.41 1.32 0.78 0.71 20 1.48 0.87 1.77 0.94 1.53 0.95 1.75 0.86 21 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 22 0.11 0.06 0.13 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.12 0.06 23 0.02 0.02 1/ 1/ 0.06 0.04 1/ 1/ 24 0.73 0.70 0.66 0.57 0.41 0.33 0.44 0.34 25 1.30 0.83 1.41 0.96 1.33 0.85 1.38 0.98 28 0.40 0.36 0.28 0.24 0.26 0.22 0.49 0.44 29 0.56 0.29 0.59 0.29 0.70 0.50 0.67 0.45 30 0.26 0.15 0.22 0.15 0.12 0.04 0.22 0.11 31 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.09 0.10 0.08 June 06 0.42 0.34 0.10 0.08 0.35 0.35 0.36 0.25 08 0.11 0.11 0.21 0.20 1/ 1/ 0.28 0.28 09 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.04 1/ 1/ Total 16.57 21.17 19.50 21.42 1/ No rainfall recorded. 2/ Rain gauge malfunction.
Table 2 (Cont.) RAINFALL SUMMARY Rain Gauge No. 14 Morning Star Fire Dept. Station 4 1764 Shady Grove Road Rain Gauge No. 15 Buddy Bean Lumber Company 3900 Malvern Avenue Date 2015 Total Daily Rainfall (in) Peak 60-Minute Rainfall Intensity (in/hr) Total Daily Rainfall (in) Peak 60-Minute Rainfall Intensity (in/hr) April 01 1.58 1.31 2/ 2/ 05 0.02 0.02 2/ 2/ 06 0.03 0.01 2/ 2/ 07 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 09 1.26 0.66 1.66 0.36 13 1.51 0.53 1.66 0.49
14 0.41 0.28 0.29 0.18 15 0.10 0.06 0.17 0.09 16 0.03 0.03 0.12 0.12 17 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 18 0.26 0.25 0.11 0.05 19 0.31 0.25 0.80 0.74 22 0.17 0.14 0.07 0.05 23 0.23 0.21 0.13 0.13 24 1.48 0.32 1.16 0.20 26 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 27 0.21 0.07 0.18 0.09 28 0.68 0.21 0.57 0.21 May 07 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 08 0.38 0.23 0.31 0.19 09 2.01 1.12 2.56 1.21 1/ No rainfall recorded. 2/ Rain gauge malfunction.
Table 2 (Cont.) RAINFALL SUMMARY Rain Gauge No. 14 Morning Star Fire Dept. Station 4 1764 Shady Grove Road Rain Gauge No. 15 Buddy Bean Lumber Company 3900 Malvern Avenue Date 2015 Total Daily Rainfall (in) Peak 60-Minute Rainfall Intensity (in/hr) Total Daily Rainfall (in) Peak 60-Minute Rainfall Intensity (in/hr) 10 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 11 2.46 0.96 1.95 0.80 13 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 14 0.06 0.06 1/ 1/ 15 0.35 0.33 0.11 0.07 16 0.11 0.09 0.01 0.01
17 0.85 0.81 0.79 0.76 20 2.01 1.13 1.91 1.12 21 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 22 0.12 0.06 0.07 0.03 23 0.01 0.01 1/ 1/ 24 0.65 0.36 0.44 0.25 25 1.39 0.96 1.31 0.90 28 0.37 0.32 0.17 0.11 29 1.14 0.57 0.98 0.78 30 1/ 1/ 0.34 0.26 31 0.28 0.11 0.21 0.12 June 06 0.33 0.21 0.27 0.14 08 1/ 1/ 0.01 0.01 09 1/ 1/ 0.01 0.01 Total 20.82 18.38 1/ No rainfall recorded. 2/ Rain gauge malfunction.
^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ÔÕ ÔÕ ÔÕ ÔÕ ÔÕ HS-2 HS-3 HS-1 HS-6 HS-5 HS-4 HS-60 HS-61 HS-65 HS-64 HS-63 HS-8 HS-47 H HS-48 HS-5 HS-41 HS-38 HS-40 HS-62 HSR HSRG 4 HSRG 6 HSRG 2 HS HSRG 5 City of H ^_ 2012 Meter Location ^_ 2013 Meter Location ^_ 2015 Meter Location GravityMains ForceMains No Post Rehab FLow Monitoring
^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ÔÕ ÔÕ ÔÕ ÔÕ ÔÕ ^_ ^_ HS-50 HS-13 HS-37 HS-54 HS-57 HS-11 HS-53 58 HS-45 HS-44 HS-28 HS-42 HS-23 HS-34 HS-25 HS-26 HS-22 HS HS-21 -32 HS-18 HS-20 HS-19 HS-17 HS-49A RG 8 SRG 9 HSRG 13 HSRG 14 HSRG 11 HSRG 15 HS-30 HS-30A Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Hot Springs © Figure 1 Basin Flow Diagram Rain Gauge Locations 2012 Post Rehab Flow Monitoring 2013 Post Rehab Flow Monitoring 2015 Post Rehab Flow Monitoring ÔÕ Rain Gauge Location
05 04 36 06 62 39 40 38 16 17 15 32 33 14 18 19 20 21 23 08 37 63 64 41 65 35 34 42 43 22 26 24 25 27 28 29 30
61 44 46 51 47 48 01 60 58 50 10 11 49B 45 44 49A 12 13 30A 57 53 54 Davidson Treatment Plant Southwest Treatment Plant 02 03 56B 56A 09 FIGURE 2 BASIN FLOW DIAGRAM CITY OF HOT SPRINGS, ARKANSAS LEGEND Monitored in 2013- 10 Total 01 39 Monitored in 2015 - 33 Total 02 Monitored in 2012- 1 Total
RJN Group, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 The baseline for Inflow and Infiltration (I/I) comparison is based on a report dated August 14, 2009, “City-wide Flow Monitoring in the City of Hot Springs” prepared by RJN Group, Inc. Thirty (30) meters were successfully placed at the same location collecting the equivalent service area as in 2009. Meter HS-37 was moved due to a re-routing of the sewer lines within its service area. This meter was installed at a location to collect the same approximate service area as 2009. The new meter location is downstream of the relief line between Basins HS-37 and HS-38. Due to the new meter location and re-route of flow, Basin HS-37 flows into Basin HS-38. In 2009 flow from Basin HS-37 was split between Basins HS-38 and HS-62. Basin HS-31 from the 2009 report has been dissolved and now it’s flow is divided between Basins HS-30, HS-57, and the newly created HS-30A. This reconfiguration provided a better understanding of the flows entering the Gulpha Pump Station. Basin HS-30 has increased by approximately 15,600 linear feet of sewer line. Basin HS-30A consists of the portion of original Basin HS-31 entering the Gulpha Pump Station from the north. The remainder of HS-31 downstream of the Gulpha Pump Station is now included in the Basin HS-57 service area. Engineering review and input of additional calibration data were performed in order to finalize the flow data collected in the field. Manual depth and velocity readings (velocity profiles) were taken on a weekly basis to verify the metered data. Average flow rates for one hour intervals were determined for each monitoring location. The hourly, average flow rates were used to determine daily dry-weather and wet-weather flow rates. Flow data collected during rainfall events was evaluated to determine peak instantaneous inflow rates. Data was collected on 5-minute intervals. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing wastewater collection study area that was monitored contains approximately 2,080,000 linear feet of gravity sanitary sewer mains and interceptors, with the majority concentrated in the central and east side of Hot Springs, Arkansas. DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS This section contains definitions and abbreviations commonly used throughout this report. (1) Infiltration (as defined by USEPA) - the water entering a sewer system and service connections from the ground through such means as, but not limited to, defective pipes, pipe joints, service connections, service laterals, or manhole walls. (2) Inflow (as defined by USEPA) - the water discharged into a sewer system, including service connections, from such sources as roof leaders; cellar, yard, and area drains; foundation drains; cooling water discharges; drains from springs and swampy areas; manhole covers; cross connections from storm sewers, combined sewers, or catch basins; storm waters; surface runoff; or drainage. (3) Excessive infiltration and inflow (I/I) - the extraneous clean water that enters the sanitary sewer system which can be eliminated on a cost effective basis.
RJN Group, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 (4) Base Flow - wastewater flow exclusive of infiltration or inflow. Generally determined from water records during months when most of the water consumption is returned to the wastewater collection system. (5) Permanent Infiltration - extraneous flow that enters the sewer system through the ground during periods of dry-weather/low-groundwater. Generally determined by subtracting base flow during winter months from the average daily dry-weather monitored flow. (6) Peak Infiltration - the maximum extraneous flow that enters the wastewater collection system during high groundwater conditions after the inflow effects of a rain event have ended. Generally determined by subtracting dry-weather/low-groundwater flow (average daily dry weather monitored flow) from flow recorded during periods of high groundwater. (7) Average Daily Dry-Weather Flow - dry-weather/low-groundwater flow exclusive of dry-weather/high-groundwater (peak infiltration) and wet weather (inflow) flow. Includes base flow and permanent infiltration only. (8) Average Daily Dry-Weather Flow Peaking Factor - the ratio between the peak hourly flow rate and the average daily flow. (9) 1-Year/60-Minute Storm - a storm event that produces 1.55 inches of rain per hour and is expected to occur once in any given year. (10) Design Storm Event - a storm event selected for purposes of analyzing its effect on the wastewater collection system. (11) gpd - gallons per day. (12) mgd - million gallons per day. (13) Surcharge Condition – When the sewer flow depth equals or exceeds the diameter of the discharging sewer lines. (WEF Manual of Practice FD-6) (14) Infiltration and Inflow (I/I) – A combination of infiltration and inflow flow in sanitary sewer. (15) Rain-Derived Inflow and Infiltration (RD-I/I) – Quantity of rain dependent inflow and infiltration that enters the sanitary sewer system. METHODOLOGY DETERMINATION OF AVERAGE DAILY DRY-WEATHER FLOW Flow data collected during dry-weather/low-groundwater periods was analyzed to determine the average daily dry-weather flow for each of the thirty-three basins. The dry-weather period for this analysis was from the combination of May 2, 2015 through May 6, 2015 and June 4, 2015 through June 5, 2015. These seven days represent the only combination of seven unique days of the week that were least affected by previous rainfall events.
RJN Group, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 AVERAGE DAILY DRY-WEATHER FLOW PEAKING FACTOR Wastewater flow during dry-weather periods will vary during the day in response to water consumption. By examining the diurnal curves for each monitored drainage basin, a peaking factor was determined. An example of the weekday and weekend diurnal curves for HS-08 is shown below. The peaking factor is the ratio of the peak hourly flow rate and the average daily flow. INFILTRATION CONDITIONS Infiltration may enter the system through pipe joints, sewer line defects (including main sewer lines and building sewer lines), and defective manhole walls, benches, and pipe seals. There are two types of infiltration that can be determined during a study, permanent infiltration and peak infiltration. Permanent infiltration is defined as extraneous flow that enters the sewer system through the ground during periods of dry-weather and low-groundwater. Peak infiltration is defined as the maximum extraneous flow that enters the sanitary sewer system during high-groundwater conditions after the inflow effects of a rain event have ended. Peak infiltration was used to evaluate the effects of infiltration on the sewer system. DETERMINATION OF PEAK INFILTRATION Determining peak infiltration requires analysis of flow data obtained during dry-weather/high-groundwater conditions. Care must be exercised in the analysis to exclude days that are too close to rainfall events. This is necessary to avoid including residual inflow (rainfall induced infiltration) that may lead to an over-estimation of peak infiltration. Generally, periods following significant rainfall, excluding the day immediately following a rain event, are used for determining peak infiltration.
RJN Group, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Systems with infiltration problems typically demonstrate a pattern of elevated level of flow after the rain has passed indicating slow percolation of groundwater into the sewer system through pipe defects. The peak infiltration per basin is expressed in gpd per inch diameter mile of pipe. EPA guidelines define excessive infiltration as basins which demonstrate levels in excess of 5,000 gpd/idm. It should be noted record rainfall occurred in the spring of 2015 and the ground was more saturated than in 2009. May especially experienced significant rainfall; therefore, it was determined that utilizing events from April would more closely resemble ground conditions and rainfall events from that of 2009. The infiltration analysis was based on two storm events, April 4, 2015 and April 28, 2015. INFLOW CONDITIONS Inflow in a sanitary sewer system is defined as extraneous flow that is a direct result of stormwater runoff. Inflow may enter the sanitary sewer system through directly connected downspouts, area drains, cleanouts, and building sewers. Stormwater may also enter the system through direct or indirect connections between the sanitary sewers and storm drains or ditches and sewer line defects, and through defective manhole covers, frame seals, corbels, and manhole walls. DETERMINATION OF INFLOW Flow data collected during wet-weather periods was analyzed to determine peak inflow originating in each basin. To determine the peak inflow rate, the sum of base flow and dry-weather infiltration was subtracted from the peak instantaneous flow observed immediately following a rain event. Base flow and infiltration was generally determined from flow data 24 hours prior to the time that the maximum flow rate occurred following the rainfall event. The peak inflow rate was plotted against the 60-minute rainfall intensity for the corresponding rain event. Regression analysis was then used to determine the “best fit” relationship between the various sets of data points. Generally, several storm events of various intensities are required to establish the rainfall intensity/inflow relationship. It is also important to use rain events that do not surcharge the sewer system. Using data from rain events that surcharge the sewer system may greatly underestimate the inflow potential in each basin. In addition, by analyzing rain events that do not surcharge the system, the calculations for peak inflow are the “theoretical” amounts the system could take in. In actuality, the sewer system may not carry the projected amount of inflow because there is not available capacity. During the flow monitoring period, 18 rain events were recorded with peak 60-minute rainfall intensity greater than 0.20 inches/hour. These intensities ranged from 0.21 inches/hour to 1.52 inches/hour. Most of the rain events were fairly homogenous throughout the study period. The number of events, plus the evenly distributed totals and intensities, allowed good data to provide the “best fit” relationship as described above. POST-REHABILITATION STUDY Over the past six years a series of rehabilitation projects have been undertaken throughout the City. These projects were directed at manholes and sewer mains that were structurally unsound and/or contributed high amounts of I/I to the sanitary sewer system.
RJN Group, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 In 2009 Hot Springs, AR underwent a City-wide sanitary sewer assessment study, which included inspection of approximately all 12,000 manholes and 2,100,000 linear feet of gravity mains encumbered in the service area of Hot Springs. Additionally, the City evaluated the pump stations intermixed amongst 1,100,000 linear feet of force mains. A hydraulic model was constructed and calibrated with all of these entities along with 3,200 grinder stations. These studies situated the City to move forward with priority based construction projects to remove inflow and infiltration from the collection system, upgrade facilities, and make necessary capacity enhancements. Over the last several years, the City has undergone many projects which address necessary maintenance needs along with upgrades to existing pump station facilities. The focus of this report is specifically tied to manhole rehabilitation efforts which addressed infrastructure repairs within the gravity sewer system that led to high amounts of inflow and infiltration entering the collection system. In 2011 the City of Hot Springs released two separate rehabilitation projects. One addressed approximately half of the City’s necessary manhole repairs, based on inflow and infiltration defects along with structural repairs. 2,511 manholes were rehabbed during this one year project. The City also repaired 649 manholes utilizing Uretek under a separate project. Additionally, the City released a gravity main rehabilitation project which addressed lines contributing high amounts of I/I. This project consisted of 15,227 linear feet of sewer and nine (9) point repairs. In 2014 the City released a third rehabilitation project to address the other half of the necessary manhole repairs in which 1,522 manholes were rehabilitated during this one year project All manhole rehabilitation recommendations from the 2011 Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Study with Hydraulic Capacity Report have been completed. The 2014 Post Rehabilitation Flow Monitoring Report focused on the Mazarn Basin and upstream basins of the Fairwood and Hot Springs Creek Basins. This report accounts for the entire tributary area of the Davidson Wastewater Treatment Plant; hence, there is some overlap of the rehabilitation from what was discussed in the 2014 Post Rehabilitation Flow Monitoring Report. Repairs for 4,305 manholes have been completed in the Davidson Wastewater Treatment Plant service area along with 15,227 linear feet of sewer main replacement. Below is a summary of the rehabilitation projects undertaken in each of the basins: Basin 08 0 linear feet of sewer main replaced (0.00% of basin) 10 manholes replaced (2.38%) 107 manholes rehabilitated (25.41%) Basin 11 (in combination with Basins 09 and 10) 0 linear feet of sewer main replaced (0.00% of basin) 11 manholes replaced (1.53%) 201 manholes rehabilitated (27.92%)
RJN Group, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Basin 13 (in combination with Basin 12) 0 linear feet of sewer main replaced (0.00% of basin) 0 manholes replaced (0.00%) 86 manholes rehabilitated (20.53%) Basin 17 (in combination with Basin 16) 0 linear feet of sewer main replaced (0.00% of basin) 23 manholes replaced (6.91%) 126 manholes rehabilitated (37.84%) Basin 18 (in combination with Basin 14) 0 linear feet of sewer main replaced (0.00% of basin) 14 manholes replaced (3.97%) 119 manholes rehabilitated (33.71%) Basin 19 0 linear feet of sewer main replaced (0.00% of basin) 4 manholes replaced (2.35%) 86 manholes rehabilitated (50.59%) Basin 20 3,750 linear feet of sewer main replaced (10.17% of basin) 7 manholes replaced (3.74%) 114 manholes rehabilitated (60.96%) Basin 21 0 linear feet of sewer main replaced (0.00% of basin) 3 manholes replaced (1.53%) 201 manholes rehabilitated (65.31%) Basin 22 0 linear feet of sewer main replaced (0.00% of basin) 0 manholes replaced (0.00%) 76 manholes rehabilitated (35.51%)
RJN Group, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Basin 23 0 linear feet of sewer main replaced (0.00% of basin) 1 manhole replaced (0.41%) 101 manholes rehabilitated (41.06%) Basin 25 (in combination with Basin 24) 0 linear feet of sewer main replaced (0.00% of basin) 0 manholes replaced (0.00%) 105 manholes rehabilitated (34.31%) Basin 26 0 linear feet of sewer main replaced (0.00% of basin) 0 manholes replaced (0.00%) 53 manholes rehabilitated (43.80%) Basin 28 (in combination with Basin 27) 0 linear feet of sewer main replaced (0.00% of basin) 0 manholes replaced (0.00%) 93 manholes rehabilitated (31.63%) Basin 30 (in combination with Basin 29) 437 linear feet of sewer main replaced (0.65% of basin) 0 manholes replaced (0.00%) 119 manholes rehabilitated (33.15%) Basin 31 0 linear feet of sewer main replaced (0.00% of basin) 1 manhole replaced (0.37%) 53 manholes rehabilitated (19.70%) Basin 32 (in combination with Basin 15) 6,204 linear feet of sewer main replaced (7.20% of basin) 63 manholes replaced (14.03%) 212 manholes rehabilitated (47.22%)
RJN Group, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Basin 34 (in combination with Basin 33) 0 linear feet of sewer main replaced (0.00% of basin) 25 manholes replaced (6.72%) 157 manholes rehabilitated (42.20%) Basin 37 0 linear feet of sewer main replaced (0.00% of basin) 1 manhole replaced (2.63%) 29 manholes rehabilitated (76.32%) Basin 38 (in combination with Basin 39) 146 linear feet of sewer main replaced (0.18% of basin) 9 manholes replaced (2.17%) 194 manholes rehabilitated (46.86%) Basin 40 0 linear feet of sewer main replaced (0.00% of basin) 4 manholes replaced (3.88%) 47 manholes rehabilitated (45.63%) Basin 41 (in combination with Basins 63, 64, and 65) 2,879 linear feet of sewer main replaced (2.31% of basin) 4 manholes replaced (0.54%) 355 manholes rehabilitated (48.04%) Basin 42 (in combination with Basin 35) 0 linear feet of sewer main replaced (0.00% of basin) 15 manholes replaced (4.50%) 152 manholes rehabilitated (45.65%) Basin 44 (in combination with Basin 43) 0 linear feet of sewer main replaced (0.00% of basin) 1 manhole replaced (0.35%) 151 manholes rehabilitated (52.61%)
RJN Group, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Basin 45 0 linear feet of sewer main replaced (0.00% of basin) 2 manholes replaced (0.94%) 96 manholes rehabilitated (45.28%) Basin 47 0 linear feet of sewer main replaced (0.00% of basin) 5 manholes replaced (2.21%) 81 manholes rehabilitated (35.84%) Basin 48 394 linear feet of sewer main replaced (0.82% of basin) 1 manhole replaced (0.35%) 70 manholes rehabilitated (24.56%) Basin 49A 0 linear feet of sewer main replaced (0.00% of basin) 2 manholes replaced (1.29%) 96 manholes rehabilitated (35.48%) Basin 50 (in combination with Basin 51) 0 linear feet of sewer main replaced (0.00% of basin) 1 manhole replaced (0.34%) 151 manholes rehabilitated (31.76%) Basin 53 0 linear feet of sewer main replaced (0.00% of basin) 0 manholes replaced (0.00%) 72 manholes rehabilitated (36.18%) Basin 54 (in combination with Basin 49B and 57) 0 linear feet of sewer main replaced (0.00% of basin) 1 manhole replaced (0.20%) 102 manholes rehabilitated (20.56%)
RJN Group, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Basin 57 0 linear feet of sewer main replaced (0.00% of basin) 1 manhole replaced (0.62%) 46 manholes rehabilitated (28.57%) Basin 58 (in combination with Basins 46, 60, and 61) 375 linear feet of sewer main replaced (0.23% of basin) 16 manholes replaced (1.60%) 328 manholes rehabilitated (32.83%) Basin 62 (in combination with Basins 04, 05, 06, and 36) 1,073 linear feet of sewer main replaced (0.56% of basin) 23 manholes replaced (2.13%) 285 manholes rehabilitated (26.34%) DRY-WEATHER FLOW COMPARISON As discussed previously, antecedent ground conditions were moderately saturated during the 2009 study, but far more so for the 2015 monitoring period. Therefore, permanent infiltration entering the sewer system would most likely have an added impact of additional infiltration occurring during the dry weather period selected for analysis for both studies. In addition, monitoring in 2009 occurred in the winter months and 2015 monitoring occurred in the spring. In addition, Hot Springs is a resort town and swings in population from season to season is far more influential than for a normal City. There was a reduction in average daily dry-weather flow for 9 of the 33 basins. Five of the nine basins only experienced a slight reduction in average daily dry-weather flow, but either had similar or higher peak hourly dry-weather flows. This slight reduction in average daily dry-weather flow is therefore a matter of circumstance. A different dry week would result in similar average daily dry-weather flows to 2009. Four basins, HS-23, HS-41, HS-45, and HS-62 experienced a large reduction in average daily dry-weather flow. Large permanent infiltration sources were most likely removed during rehabilitation efforts leading to the reduction in average daily dry-weather flow. Table 3 provides comparisons for average daily dry-weather flow, peak dry weather hourly flow, and dry weather peaking factors between the two studies and the average daily flow comparison is shown graphically on page 22. WET-WEATHER FLOW COMPARISON Comparisons of wet-weather flows between the two studies utilized analysis of both infiltration and inflow conditions.
RJN Group, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Table 3 DRY-WEATHER COMPARISON FOR REHABILITATED BASINS Average Daily Flow (mgd) Peak Hourly Flow (mgd) Peaking Factor Site Name 2009 2015 2009 2015 2009 2015 HS-08 0.187 0.151 0.357 0.285 1.91 1.89 HS-11 0.811 0.502 1.438 1.395 1.77 2.78 HS-13 0.080 0.146 0.153 0.229 1.91 1.57 HS-17 0.191 0.319 0.331 0.488 1.73 1.53 HS-18 0.153 0.311 0.269 0.492 1.76 1.58 HS-19 0.168 0.224 0.250 0.334 1.49 1.49 HS-20 0.546 0.621 0.728 0.865 1.33 1.39 HS-21 0.687 0.800 0.836 1.152 1.22 1.44 HS-22 0.102 0.142 0.184 0.224 1.80 1.58 HS-23 0.149 0.053 0.276 0.075 1.85 1.42 HS-25 0.327 0.419 0.479 0.601 1.46 1.43 HS-26 0.859 1.159 1.164 1.618 1.36 1.40 HS-28 1.392 1.711 1.715 2.373 1.23 1.39 HS-301/ 0.403 0.481 0.516 0.643 1.28 1.34 HS-30A2/ N/A 1.825 N/A 2.610 N/A 1.43 HS-313/ 2.336 N/A 2.901 N/A 1.42 N/A HS-32 0.637 1.114 1.009 1.743 1.58 1.56 HS-34 0.934 1.142 1.564 1.714 1.67 1.50 HS-37 0.040 0.073 0.065 0.107 1.63 1.47 HS-38 0.484 0.601 0.576 0.750 1.19 1.25 HS-40 0.075 0.081 0.168 0.154 2.24 1.90 HS-41 0.642 0.154 0.857 0.226 1.33 1.47 HS-42 2.274 2.665 3.342 3.777 1.47 1.42 HS-44 2.790 2.671 3.879 3.891 1.39 1.46 HS-45 0.405 0.113 0.581 0.166 1.43 1.47 HS-47 0.318 0.430 0.512 0.801 1.61 1.86 HS-48 0.122 0.124 0.229 0.205 1.88 1.65 HS-49A 5.972 5.687 7.867 8.364 1.32 1.47 HS-50 2.605 2.564 3.560 3.844 1.37 1.50 HS-53 0.098 0.130 0.181 0.228 1.85 1.75 HS-54 9.214 10.077 12.595 13.942 1.37 1.38 HS-57 2.220 3.059 2.707 4.199 1.22 1.37 HS-58 1.915 1.591 2.425 2.472 1.27 1.55 HS-62 1.097 0.248 1.634 0.350 1.49 1.41 1/ 2015 meter location different than 2009 resulting in invalid comparison. 2/ Basin did not existing in 2009. 3/ Basin no longer exists; split between HS-30, HS-30A, and HS-57.
10.000 12.000 Average Daily Flow Com 1/ 2015 meter location different than 2009 resulting in invalid compa 2/ Basin did not exist in 2009. 3/ Basin no longer exists: split between HS-30, HS-30A, and HS-57. 6.000 8.000 Flo w (mgd) 0.187 0.811 0.080 0.191 0.153 0.168 0.546 0.687 0.102 0.149 0.327 0.859 1.392 0.403 2.336 0.637 0.151 0.502 0.146 0.319 0.311 0.224 0.621 0.800 0.142 0.053 0.419 1.159 1.711 0.481 1.825 1.114 0.000 2.000 4.000 0 8 11 13 17 18 19 2 0 21 2 2 2 3 2 5 2 6 2 8 3 0 3 0 A 31 3 2 1/ 2/ 3/ H S-0 8 H S-11 H S-13 H S-17 H S-18 H S-19 H S-2 0 H S-21 H S-2 2 H S-2 3 H S-2 5 H S-2 6 H S-2 8 H S-3 0 H S-3 0 A H S-31 H S-3 2 Basin N 2009
9.214 10.077 mparisons (Cumulative) arison. 5.972 5.687 0.934 0.040 0.484 0.075 0.642 2.274 2.790 0.405 0.318 0.122 2.605 0.098 2.220 1.915 1.097 1.142 0.073 0.601 0.081 0.154 2.665 2.671 0.113 0.430 0.124 2.564 0.130 3.059 1.591 0.248 3 4 3 7 3 8 4 0 41 4 2 4 4 4 5 4 7 4 8 4 9 A 5 0 5 3 5 4 5 7 5 8 6 2 H S-3 4 H S-3 7 H S-3 8 H S-4 0 H S-41 H S-4 2 H S-4 4 H S-4 5 H S-4 7 H S-4 8 H S-4 9 A H S-5 0 H S-5 3 H S-5 4 H S-5 7 H S-5 8 H S-6 2 Number 9 2015
RJN Group, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Infiltration Analysis In 2009 peak infiltration was not able to be calculated due to surcharging and/or loss of flow for seven basins. Peak infiltration was able to be calculated for all but two basins, HS-20 and HS-42, in 2015. Even with peak infiltration being able to be calculated for five additional basins there was an 18.8 percent reduction in peak infiltration going to the Davidson Wastewater Treatment Plant. There was an increase in infiltration in Basins HS-11, HS-25, HS-26, HS-37, HS-38, and HS-58. Table 4 outlines the results for peak infiltration and shown graphically on page 26. Inflow Analysis Moderate reductions in inflow were achieved throughout the system. In 2009 three basins experienced surcharging and/or loss of flow that prevented inflow rates from being calculated. An additional four basins experienced capacity restrictions upstream that dampened their inflow rates. In 2015 only Basin HS-50 experienced those same surcharging and/or loss of flow issues. Basins HS-54 and HS-57 are still experiencing capacity restrictions upstream that dampen their inflow rates. A 10.4% reduction can be seen across the system. When only basins with valid rates from 2009 are compared to achievable rates from 2015 a 15.8 percent reduction was achieved. Basins HS-17, HS-19, HS-20, HS-34, HS-37, and HS-40 saw an increase in inflow rates (gpd/1,000 lf). Table 5 outlines the results for inflow analysis and shown graphically on page 28. As previously noted, when comparing to the 2009 study, especially for inflow analysis, the City experienced far fewer recorded wet weather overflows in the areas which underwent rehabilitation than in 2009 with comparable wet weather events. This “tightening” of the collection system allowed for a larger portion of the wet weather flows to be recorded in 2015 compared to 2009 due to the flows staying within the system. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The following items summarize the findings from the post-rehabilitation flow monitoring and I/I reduction analysis between the 2009 and 2013 flow studies conducted. 2015 had significantly more rainfall than in 2009. Flow has been re-routed within Basin HS-37. This basin now flows entirely into Basin HS-38. Meters HS-30 and HS-31 were relocated to Meter Sites HS-30 and HS-30A immediately upstream of the Gulpha Pump Station as requested by the City. This drastically reduced the size of those basins from 2009 and increased the size of the basin downstream of Gulpha Pump Station, HS-57. A basin to basin comparison is not valid for those three basins. There was significantly less surcharging and/or loss of flow observed during the 2015 monitoring period as compared to 2009. A reduction of 18.8 percent of infiltration has occurred in the Davidson Wastewater Treatment Plant tributary area. A reduction of 10.4 percent of inflow has occurred in the tributary area of the Davidson Wastewater Treatment Plant.
RJN Group, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Basins HS-17, HS-19, HS-20, HS-34, HS-37, and HS-40 saw an increase in Basin Unit Inflow Rates (gpd/1,000 lf). Basins HS-11, HS-25, HS-26, HS-37, HS-38, and HS-58 saw an increase in infiltration rates in terms of gpd/idm. Basin Peak Unit Infiltration was calculated for Basins HS-28, HS-32, HS-49A, and HS50 where surcharging and/or loss of flow prevented that calculation in 2009. Basin Unit Inflow Rates were calculated for Basins HS-28, HS-42, and HS-49A where surcharging and/or loss of flow prevented that calculation in 2009. Analysis identified a 6.9 million gallon reduction (39.8%) in overall volume of inflow for a 1-inch rainfall to Davison Treatment Plant as compared to 2009.
RJN Group, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Table 4 INFILTRATION DATA Total Infiltration (mgd) Basin Peak Unit Flow (gpd/idm) Site Name 2009 2015 2009 2015 HS-08 0.150 0.002 1,510 18 HS-11 0.141 0.344 721 1,759 HS-13 0.102 0.087 936 799 HS-17 0.218 0.043 2,707 536 HS-18 0.461 0.296 4,719 3,035 HS-19 0.102 0.083 2,641 2,145 HS-20 0.253 0.331 1/ 1/ HS-21 0.947 0.597 10,264 3,934 HS-22 0.094 0.080 1,496 1,273 HS-23 0.151 0.011 2,569 193 HS-25 0.363 0.265 2,282 2,729 HS-26 1.331 1.168 6,652 11,261 HS-28 1.464 1.456 1/ 245 HS-303/ 0.239 0.379 1,727 2,734 HS-30A4/ N/A 1.668 N/A 4,916 HS-315/ 1.139 N/A 1/ N/A HS-32 0.288 0.336 1/ 2,305 HS-34 0.571 0.534 3,249 2,274 HS-37 0.064 0.084 6,030 7,880 HS-38 0.246 0.518 529 2,876 HS-40 0.189 0.124 7,268 4,763 HS-41 0.543 0.173 2,732 870 HS-42 0.698 0.665 1/ 1/ HS-44 2.094 1.417 13,997 7,539 HS-45 0.230 0.103 4,161 1,865 HS-47 0.432 0.225 4,662 2,105 HS-48 0.171 0.107 2,393 1,503 HS-49A 2.511 3.390 1/ 7,449 HS-50 0.762 1.411 1/ 302 HS-532/ 0.219 0.122 3,563 1,978 HS-54 8.103 6.577 32,474 2,525 HS-57 1.374 2.418 149 2,488 HS-58 1.648 1.379 1,774 1,925 HS-62 1.017 0.196 3,091 740 1/ Unable to calculate due to surcharging. 2/ The rain event on 4/28 was used for Meter HS-53 due to missing data at that meter. 3/ 2015 meter location different than 2009 resulting in invalid comparison. 4/ Basin did not existing in 2009. 5/ Basin no longer exists; split between HS-30, HS-30A, and HS-57.
8.000 9.000 Peak Infiltration C 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 Infiltration (mgd) 1/ The rain event on 4/28 was used for Meter HS-83 due to mis 2/ 2015 meter location different than 2009 resulting in invalid c 3/ Basin did not existing in 2009. 4/ Basin no longer exists; split betweeh HS-30, HS-30A, and HS- 0.150 0.141 0.102 0.218 0.461 0.102 0.253 0.094 0.151 0.363 1.331 1.464 0.239 1.139 0.288 0.002 0.344 0.087 0.043 0.296 0.083 0.331 0.080 0.011 0.265 1.168 1.456 0.379 1.668 0.336 0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 2/ 3/ 4/ HS-08 HS-11 HS-13 HS-17 HS-18 HS-19 HS-20 HS-22 HS-23 HS-25 HS-26 HS-28 HS-30 HS-30A HS-31 HS-32 Ba 2 4/
8.103 6.577 Comparisons 3.390 sing data at that meter. comparison. -57. 0.571 0.064 0.246 0.189 0.543 0.698 2.094 0.230 0.432 0.171 2.511 0.762 0.219 1.374 1.648 1.017 0.534 0.084 0.518 0.124 0.173 0.665 1.417 0.103 0.225 0.107 1.411 0.122 2.418 1.379 0.196 1/ HS-34 HS-37 HS-38 HS-40 HS-41 HS-42 HS-44 HS-45 HS-47 HS-48 HS-49A HS-50 HS-53 HS-54 HS-57 HS-58 HS-62 asin Number 2009 2015 26
RJN Group, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Table 5 INFLOW DATA Site Name Total Inflow (mgd) Basin Unit Inflow Rate (gpd/1,000 lf) 2009 2015 2009 2015 HS-08 1.257 1.121 17,114 15,263 HS-11 3.951 2.656 30,209 20,307 HS-13 1.538 1.038 21,692 14,640 HS-17 2.139 3.421 33,016 52,804 HS-18 1.798 0.801 26,635 11,866 HS-19 0.911 1.260 29,816 41,238 HS-20 2.941 2.332 6,293 7,351 HS-21 5.439 3.882 61,331 38,055 HS-22 1.234 0.709 29,204 16,779 HS-23 1.139 0.958 28,036 23,580 HS-25 1.700 1.233 9,749 4,779 HS-26 8.200 4.609 62,899 741 HS-28 8.698 6.024 2/ 2,985 HS-303/ 0.715 1.844 8,661 22,336 HS-30A4/ N/A 7.624 N/A 119,358 HS-315/ 12.200 N/A 2/ N/A HS-32 4.501 5.738 31,387 26,905 HS-34 6.809 11.638 35,593 90,988 HS-37 0.464 0.691 57,362 85,425 HS-38 2.320 3.339 18,231 17,714 HS-40 0.873 1.242 40,088 57,033 HS-41 1.628 0.388 13,035 3,107 HS-42 14.425 15.172 1/ 5,426 HS-44 15.737 15.999 21,244 13,391 HS-45 4.026 2.553 100,627 63,811 HS-47 1.859 0.860 37,782 11,003 HS-48 0.458 0.452 9,515 9,390 HS-49A 17.414 21.908 1/ 25,360 HS-50 5.076 2.544 1/ 1/ HS-53 0.757 0.383 18,357 9,288 HS-54 39.856 25.747 2/ 2/ HS-57 13.766 3.608 2/ 2/ HS-58 10.230 4.652 30,322 446 HS-62 7.665 3.208 16,889 10,845 1/ Unable to calculate due to surcharging. 2/ Capacity restrictions upstream dampen peak flows. 3/ 2015 meter location different than 2009 resulting in invalid comparison. 4/ Basin did not existing in 2009. 5/ Basin no longer exists; split between HS-30, HS-30A, and HS-57.
35.000 40.000 45.000 Inflow Analy 20.000 25.000 30.000 35.000 T otal Inflo w (m g d) 1/ 2015 meter location different than 2009 resulting in invalid com 2/ Basin did not existing in 2009. 3/ Basin no longer exists; split betweeh HS-30, HS-30A, and HS-57. 1.257 3.951 1.538 2.139 1.798 2.941 5.439 1.234 1.139 1.700 8.200 8.698 0.715 12.200 1.121 2.656 1.038 3.421 0.801 2.332 3.882 0.709 0.958 1.233 4.609 6.024 1.844 7.624 0.000 5.000 10.000 15.000 1/ 2/ 3/ H S-0 8 H S-11 H S-13 H S-17 H S-18 H S-2 0 H S-21 H S-2 2 H S-2 3 H S-2 5 H S-2 6 H S-2 8 H S-3 0 H S-3 0 A H S-31 Bas 200 2/ 3/
39.856 ysis 14.425 15.737 17.414 13.766 15.172 15.999 21.908 25.747 mparison. 4.501 6.809 0.464 2.320 0.873 1.628 14.425 15.737 4.026 1.859 0.458 5.076 0.757 13.766 10.230 7.665 5.738 11.638 0.691 3.339 1.242 0.388 15.172 15.999 2.553 0.860 0.452 2.544 0.383 3.608 4.652 3.208 H S-3 2 H S-3 4 H S-3 7 H S-3 8 H S-4 0 H S-41 H S-4 2 H S-4 4 H S-4 5 H S-4 7 H S-4 8 H S-4 9 A H S-5 0 H S-5 3 H S-5 4 H S-5 7 H S-5 8 H S-6 2 sin Number 09 2015 28
APPENDIX 5 Tech Memo – Hot Springs Future Growth
APPENDIX 6 Tech Memo – Hot Springs Sewerage Master Plan