HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdmin Order 58-20-262020WastewaterMaster Plan
Prepared by Public WorksEngineering Division
Exhibit A to Administrative Order 58-20-26
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Index i
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction and Summary ......................................................................................................... 1
MASTER PLAN PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................... 1
GENERAL ................................................................................................................................................... 1
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................... 2
Chapter 2 - Study Area and Land Use ........................................................................................................... 4
PURPOSE ................................................................................................................................................... 4
BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................... 4
GENERAL ................................................................................................................................................... 4
MAJOR SYSTEM BASINS AND SUB-BASINS ................................................................................................ 5
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING ....................................................................................................................... 5
PRESENT AND FUTURE LAND USES ........................................................................................................... 5
Chapter 3 - Existing Wastewater Systems .................................................................................................... 8
PURPOSE ................................................................................................................................................... 8
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 8
MAJOR BASINS .......................................................................................................................................... 9
Highway 99 Industrial Area, including the Airport (SI & AI) .................................................................. 9
River Road/Santa Clara (RR & SC) ....................................................................................................... 10
Willakenzie North, Willakenzie South and Willamette River (WN, WS & WR) ................................... 10
Bethel (BN) .......................................................................................................................................... 10
South West (SW) ................................................................................................................................. 10
Downtown (DW, DC, DF & DA) ........................................................................................................... 11
Laurel Hill (LH) ..................................................................................................................................... 11
SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS AND VALUATION ......................................................................................... 11
EXISTING WASTEWATER PUMP AND LIFT STATIONS .............................................................................. 13
Highway 99 Industrial Area and Airport Stations ............................................................................... 14
River Road/Santa Clara Stations ......................................................................................................... 14
Willakenzie Stations ............................................................................................................................ 15
Bethel Stations .................................................................................................................................... 15
Central Eugene Stations ...................................................................................................................... 15
SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF THE WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM ..................................................... 17
Chapter 4 - Design Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 28
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Index ii
PURPOSE ................................................................................................................................................. 28
LAND USE INFORMATION ....................................................................................................................... 28
BASE WASTEWATER FLOWS ................................................................................................................... 29
Base Wastewater Flow Rates for Residential Areas ........................................................................... 29
Base Wastewater Flow Rates for Commercial and Industrial Areas ................................................... 30
Campus Industrial ............................................................................................................................... 30
PEAK FLOW FACTOR ................................................................................................................................ 31
Design Depth of Flow .......................................................................................................................... 31
INFILTRATION/INFLOW ........................................................................................................................... 31
General ................................................................................................................................................ 31
New Systems ....................................................................................................................................... 32
Existing Systems .................................................................................................................................. 32
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED DESIGN CRITERIA FOR NEW SYSTEMS .......................................................... 32
Average Dry-Weather Flow ................................................................................................................. 32
Peak Flow Factor (PFF) ........................................................................................................................ 33
Infiltration/Inflow - New Development Areas .................................................................................... 33
Chapter 5 - Rehabilitation of Existing Wastewater Systems ....................................................................... 35
PURPOSE ................................................................................................................................................. 35
GENERAL ................................................................................................................................................. 35
WASTEWATER SYSTEM REHABILITATION PROGRAM ............................................................................. 36
Methods for Problem Identification ................................................................................................... 36
Methods for Correction and Quality Control ...................................................................................... 37
Wastewater Model Development ...................................................................................................... 37
Rehabilitation Planning Process .......................................................................................................... 38
Finance Planning ................................................................................................................................. 39
REHABILITATION OF PRIVATE SERVICE LATERALS .................................................................................. 39
REHABILITATION COSTS .......................................................................................................................... 40
Mainline Rehabilitation Unit Costs ..................................................................................................... 40
Public Lateral Rehabilitation Costs...................................................................................................... 41
Manhole Rehabilitation Costs ............................................................................................................. 41
Long-Range Rehabilitation Planning ................................................................................................... 41
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ................................................................................................................... 42
Chapter 6 - Basis of Cost Estimates ............................................................................................................. 46
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Index iii
PURPOSE ................................................................................................................................................. 46
GENERAL ................................................................................................................................................. 46
WASTEWATER CONSTRUCTION COSTS ................................................................................................... 46
SERVICE LATERALS .................................................................................................................................. 48
WASTEWATER PUMP STATIONS ............................................................................................................. 48
WASTEWATER PRESSURE LINES .............................................................................................................. 50
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ................................................................................................................... 50
Chapter 7 - Major Collection System Expansion ......................................................................................... 51
PURPOSE ................................................................................................................................................. 51
GENERAL COST INFORMATION ............................................................................................................... 51
PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND COST ESTIMATED BY AREA ......................................................................... 52
South West Eugene (SW) .................................................................................................................... 53
Highway 99 Industrial Area (SI) ........................................................................................................... 53
Willakenzie Area (WN) ........................................................................................................................ 53
Clear Lake Road (SI/BN) ...................................................................................................................... 54
Glossary and Key to Abbreviations ............................................................................................................. 68
Appendices .................................................................................................................................................. 70
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 1: Introduction and Summary 1
Chapter 1: Introduction and Summary
MASTER PLAN PURPOSE
The Wastewater Master Plan (master plan) was initiated by the City Engineer to organize a wide variety
of information about the City of Eugene wastewater collection system and to update the 1992 Urban
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan (USSMP). The plan’s scope includes all public portions of the collection
system owned and maintained by the City of Eugene, including pump stations. It excludes facilities
owned by the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission as well as facilities on private
property. The planning period for this document is 20 years. The purpose of the master plan is to:
• Provide historical information about the development of the existing system.
• Identify general problems and rehabilitation needs of the existing system.
• Provide design criteria to be used for future system expansion.
• Identify future needs and estimated costs to extend major system improvements to unserved
areas within the urban growth boundary.
The master plan is intended to be useful to several groups:
• City staff, to ensure consistency in various wastewater-related analyses;
• Policy makers, to provide background and guidance in the consideration of wastewater-related
plans and policies; and
• Developers and other private interests, to aid them in their understanding of the various
requirements related to the expansion and preservation of Eugene’s wastewater system.
Through the efforts outlined in this master plan, the City will continue to build and maintain a
wastewater collection system that meets several key objectives:
• Protect the public health and our local water resources
• Meet the NPDES permit requirement by eliminating sanitary sewer overflows
• Build new improvements with an expected life of more than 100 years
• Size improvements to ensure upstream future developments have capacity
• Ensure improvements are water-tight and reduce infiltration and inflow
• Minimize risk and increase seismic resiliency
GENERAL
Carefully planned, well-engineered, regularly maintained wastewater collection and treatment systems
protect public health and support economic growth. For thousands of years, water has been the primary
vehicle for conducting away community wastes. The collection and disposal of sewage has evolved over
the past several centuries to include elaborate underground piped networks and complex treatment
facilities. The basic layout for a modern wastewater collection system includes small-diameter, shallow
pipes that connect homes and businesses to the public system. These lateral pipes connect to larger,
deeper pipes that typically run under roadways and ultimately discharge to a treatment plant.
As detailed in Chapter 3, wastewater system construction began in central Eugene between 1900 and
1910. The wastewater collection system expanded very slowly prior to 1945. The initial system was a
combined system that collected both stormwater and wastewater flows.
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 1: Introduction and Summary 2
The combined wastewater system discharged untreated wastes to the Willamette River until about
1950, when the first Eugene primary wastewater treatment plant was constructed on River Avenue.
Between 1960 and 1970, separate stormwater and wastewater systems were constructed, and most of
the direct stormwater inflow from street and alley drainage was removed from the wastewater system.
In 1977, Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County jointly formed the Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Commission (MWMC) to develop a regional wastewater treatment system for the Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Service Area. The new plant on River Avenue was completed in 1984 and was
designed to process a peak wet weather flow of 175 MGD. The regional system, which comprises the
system components that serve both Eugene and Springfield, also includes the larger pipes and pump
stations in the wastewater collection system as well as facilities to treat solid wastes (biosolids) and
irrigate effluent for agricultural purposes.
Between 1980 and 1999 major collection system expansion occurred. Approximately 32 percent of the
local wastewater system was built during this period. In 1992, the Urban Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
(USSMP) was adopted to inventory the existing system and provide data and analysis for planning,
designing, rehabilitating and managing Eugene’s wastewater collection system.
As of 2019, Eugene owned and operated 717 miles of wastewater collection lines. The local system also
includes approximately 20,000 manholes and 27 local pump stations.
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
While the basic layout for a wastewater collection system is simple enough, the complexities of the
system arise almost immediately. How large should the pipes be? How deep? Can the system be
expanded to accommodate new development? What if portions of the system can’t flow by gravity to
the outfall? What is the condition of the collection system, and how long will any particular pipe last
before it needs to be rehabilitated? The Wastewater Master Plan strives to answer the question, “what
should be built and when?"
For example, if a particular wastewater pipe can no longer convey the volume of wastewater demanded
of it, it must be replaced with a larger diameter pipe, or a second parallel pipe must be built. If that
larger pipe is sized to handle only current flows it will need to be replaced a second time when
additional development occurs. A more cost-effective solution is to replace the pipe once using a larger
pipe that may be underutilized in the short term but is adequate for planned developments within the
planning horizon.
In general, the master plan focuses on providing objective data that can be further analyzed and inform
decision making. The data also support several conclusions, which are summarized below:
• Chapter 2 indicates that the City anticipates an increase in population, commercial land use, and
industrial land use in every major wastewater basin.
• As stated in Chapter 3, effective 2017 the City has taken ownership and maintenance
responsibilities for all wastewater lines within the public rights of way, which includes more than
60,000 lateral lines.
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 1: Introduction and Summary 3
• Chapter 3 also concludes that the City of Eugene has maintained excellent GIS information
about the wastewater system, allowing a high level of planning and certainty in the system
characteristics and function.
• Seismic studies indicate that Eugene’s wastewater system should perform reasonably well in the
event of an earthquake. Most of the city’s pump stations are located in non- to low-liquification
zones, and less than 1 percent of the gravity wastewater line segments are expected to
experience some level of damage. Adherence to seismic standards for pump station
construction and continued cured-in-place pipe rehabilitation will further improve the structural
integrity of the system.
• Chapter 4 notes that sizing a wastewater system without specific development plans or a unified
ownership or shared development strategy in the upper reaches of the basin is challenging. The
methodology outlined in this chapter is typical of many municipalities and has been successful in
the design of much of the Eugene system. Utilizing this methodology when preparing a
wastewater study should minimize the need for capacity expansion under normal development
conditions.
• Private service laterals and private systems and their contribution of inflow and infiltration to
the local and regional system are likely to be a growing issue, as discussed in Chapter 5. Further
analysis of the problem is needed, and a long-term strategy should be implemented to ensure
that system capacity is preserved and regulatory goals eliminating sanitary sewer overflows are
met.
• As detailed in Chapter 5, nearly 29 percent of Eugene’s wastewater collection system is at least
50 years old and has not been rehabilitated. Studies indicate that 50 years may approach the
design life of concrete pipe materials, particularly those installed before advanced gasket
technology was available. In addition, the systemwide needs due to future urban development
must be considered.
• Chapter 5 also recognizes that a significantly increased funding level for rehabilitation over the
next 20 years is critical to catch up with the demand of rehabilitating the existing concrete pipe
inventory. As of 2019, the total estimated cost to rehabilitate 202 miles of the oldest parts of
Eugene’s system exceeded $185 million.
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 2: Study Area and Land Use 4
Chapter 2 - Study Area and Land Use
PURPOSE
The purpose of this chapter is to establish the planning framework for the wastewater system analysis
and the land-use and population basis for system calculations.
BACKGROUND
In the 1992 Urban Sanitary Sewer Master Plan (USSMP), the study area included areas beyond the Urban
Growth Boundary (UGB) that were identified in the 1987 Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General
Plan boundary as urban reserves. However, in June 2001 the Lane Council of Governments produced an
Urban Reserve Analysis and Alternatives Report. That report concluded that it was not appropriate to
designate urban reserves without extensive further analysis. This conclusion was approved by all three
Metro jurisdictions.
Two major pump stations, Glenwood and Barger, were built in the late 1990s and designed to include
expected development within the 1987 urban reserve areas. Since that development never happened,
both pump stations are currently underutilized. However, the Barger station has the capacity to provide
100 percent back-up for the Terry Street pump station, and the Glenwood station has sufficient capacity
for Springfield’s redevelopment of Glenwood.
As of 2020, new urban reserves are under consideration. Nevertheless, no urban reserve areas will be
included in the study area for this document. The planning period and scope of urban reserves planning
render these areas inappropriate to be used for wastewater design.
GENERAL
The study area for this plan includes all areas for which the City of Eugene is expected to construct and/
or maintain the wastewater collection system. The study area is based on Eugene’s UGB at the end of
2019 and the lands included as part of the Eugene Airport, as shown on Map 2-A.
Based on the study area of this plan, the larger undeveloped areas that will require major wastewater
system expansion are:
• North Willakenzie
• North Highway 99N Industrial area
• Willow Creek area
• South Bailey Hill
• West 11th/Crow Road
• Clear Lake Road
Each of these areas is described in more detail in Chapter 7.
There are other areas that have considerable growth potential but appear to have minor financial impact
on the City’s capital wastewater program. In these areas, wastewater service can be extended from
existing trunk systems with 8-inch pipes. Under City Code 7.175(6), the cost of these extensions is paid by
the owners of the benefitted parcels. These areas include:
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 2: Study Area and Land Use 5
• Laurel Hill
• South Amazon
• Royal Node
MAJOR SYSTEM BASINS AND SUB-BASINS
To analyze flow in the wastewater collection system, the study area was divided into major system basins
and sub-basins as shown in Map 2-A. These basins and sub-basins were initially based on the network
system developed in the 1978 Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES) report by CH2M-Hill and the 1992
USSMP. Minor basin boundary modifications have been made to those basins as published to reflect
actual construction, elimination of the urban reserve and increased topographic mapping capabilities. In
addition, the Bethel South major basin was renamed South West, and the Bethel North basin was
renamed Bethel.
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
Development within Eugene and Springfield is guided by the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
General Plan (Metro Plan). The Metro Plan, which serves as the regional comprehensive land use plan,
promotes compact growth through the use of an urban growth boundary. Growth occurs by
development of vacant and underutilized lands, as well as redevelopment inside the urban growth
boundary. Development within Eugene is also guided by the Envision Eugene Comprehensive Plan,
adopted in 2017 as Eugene’s city-specific land-use plan. The Envision Eugene Comprehensive Plan guides
future growth within Eugene’s UGB.
More detailed land-use planning is provided in neighborhood refinement plans, special area studies, and
the Eugene-Springfield Public Facilities and Services Plan. This level of detailed planning allows public
utilities, services, and facilities to be designed and constructed in an orderly and efficient manner.
PRESENT AND FUTURE LAND USES
The Envision Eugene Comprehensive Plan used a geographic model, along with input from technical
experts, to create the inventory of the City’s land supply. The City compared projected land-use needs to
the capacity available in the City’s buildable land supply as further described in the Envision Eugene
Employment Land Supply Study. Based on this analysis, the UGB was expanded in 2017 to meet 2012-
2032 land-use needs. Table 2-1 uses similar methods as the Envision Eugene Comprehensive Plan to
illustrate how development is expected to affect each wastewater basin.
For residential development, the City receives a certified city-wide population estimate. The City
estimated 2017 basin populations using methods similar to the Comprehensive Plan’s method (2.24
persons per household per the 2010 U.S. Census multiplied by the number of residential address points
in the Regional Land and Information Database). These results are shown in Table 2-1.
The 2032 basin population estimates in Table 2-1 equal the 2017 population plus anticipated growth
through 2032. Housing growth was estimated using several methods. On vacant and partially vacant
areas the method was similar to the Envision Eugene Comprehensive Plan, Residential Land Supply Study
housing capacity estimates for 2012-2032. Also taken into account was a baseline amount of housing
redevelopment. Finally, consideration was given to political measures that increase legal residential land
density. Every new housing unit was assumed to add 2.24 persons to the basin.
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 2: Study Area and Land Use 6
The 2012 land areas in Table 2-1 were derived from developed land data in the Envision Eugene
Comprehensive Plan, Employment Land Supply Study. The 2032 land areas equal the 2012 land areas
plus 20 years of anticipated development. The additional developed land is estimated from two sources:
commercial and industrial development occurring on vacant and partially vacant land and conversion of
non-employment land to employment land. Therefore, some of the additional 2032 development is on
land already identified as developed in 2012.
Table 2-1: Population Estimate and Land Use Projections for Eugene Wastewater Basins
Major Basins
Population Commercial Land
Area (Acres)
Industrial Land
Area (Acres)
2017 2032 2012 2032 2012 2032
Highway 99 Industrial Area,
including Airport (SI, AI) 338 403 729 836
River Road/Santa Clara (RR, SC) 30,179 35,209 128 146
Willakenzie (WN, WR, WS) 41,541 50,362 456 485 96 148
Bethel (BN) 28,325 31,812 147 160 411 462
South West (SW) 12,905 21,190 148 175 817 1,044
Downtown (DA, DC, DF, DW) 70,826 81,828 345 350 82 84
Laurel Hill (LH) 1,622 3,819 5 16
Outside defined basins 350 640
Totals 185,736 224,623 1,229 1,682 2,135 3,214
W 13th
W 2nd
W 6th
W 11th
W 13th
E 4thE3rd
CityViewOakPatchBaileyHillOliveWillamettePearl PattersonHilyardLincoln AlderAgateFranklin
W 11th
W 18thSBertelsenW13th
W 7th
W 24th
W 28th
E 33rd
E 19th
Colum bia
E 30th
Cre s tL o r a n e Hw yCity View W 28th
B a ile yH illW 25th
ChambersJeffersonFriendlyPolkKeving
t
o
n
BaileyHillW 18th W 18th
GimplHillWillow Creek GimplHillLorane HwyBaileyHill WillametteLoraneHwyW 11th
SDaneboRandyPape⌐BeltlineHwyS Bertelsen
W 11th
W 1 s t
Avalon NTerryNTerryGreenHillFirestone
Royal
Marshall
ElmiraRoosevelt
H
w
y
9
9
N
NorthwestExpressway
Park
Horn Minda
W 5th
W 1st
VanBurenN Danebo Bodenhamer
Barger
LegacyClearLake
Clear Lake
River Loop 1
CrockerIrvingIrvingHyacinth Hunsaker
Randy Pape ⌐Beltline HwyRandyPape⌐B e l t l i n e H w y
SilverNor
t
hwes
t
Ex
pr
es
s
wayPrai
ri
eH
w
y
9
9
N
Ri
ver
Blackfoot
Irvington
Barstow
River Loop 2
WilkesIrvingtonLynnbrook
Spring Creek
River Loop 2
Beacon
Awbrey
E Enid
Airport
Lynnbrook Ri
ver ScenicLancasterMeadowviewMeadowview
Ri
verPr
a
iri
e
Prairie
Hwy99sGreenHillGreen Hill
Beacon
H
w
y
9
9
NGreenHill
GreenHillHoward
N ParkNTerry CrescentN Delta HwyGoodpa s tu r e L p
GoodpastureIslandBeth
el
H
w
y
9
9
NRoyalMaxwell
Goodpasture Island
County Farm
CoburgJeppesenAcres
OakwayCountryClub
Bailey CoburgBarger
EchoHollowTaneyW Shelton McMurphey
Ha rlow
Mar tin Lut her Ki ng JrLeoHarrisPkwy
E 18th
Beltline
Harlow
W C e ntennialVanDuyn
FerryStreetBridgeAyres
Green AcresRandyPape⌐BeltlineHwy
Cal Young
W ill akenzie
C r e scentGam
e
F
a
r
m
ChadCoburg
NorkenzieGilhamFairview
F ra n k l i n
HawkinsBrittanyWillowCreekEd C o ne
Roosevelt
AspenRainbowKinsrow
I-105
E 24th
EAmazonE
30thAmazonPkwyHilyardHarrisTimberline
E 40th
Di
l
l
ardFoxHoll
o
wW 39th
E 43rd
E 4 3 r dAgate
E 46thWillametteDonald HilyardCrowGreenHillLincolnWillametteBraeBurnMcKinleyGarfieldGarfield ChambersPolkMonroeWashingtonJeffersonValley River
E Broadway
W D
I-5Kincaid
NShastaLpSpringDilla
r
dOakHighBlair
E 19th
W 13th
W 11th
W 27th
W 29th
E 33rd WAmazonFoxHollowMcBethW 11th
W 5th
W 7thSSeneca
ArthurN S eneca Willag illespieClub
Oakm
o
n
t
GoodpastureIsland
DeltaHwyGilhamNorkenzieLakeNParkNParkFairfieldGroveI-105
Cal Young
NGardenSGardenGameFarmGatewayRandyPape⌐Beltline Hwy
I-105
AmazonPkwy
W 6th RandyPape⌐BeltlineHwyHavitureColtonRi
ver
DonaldFoxHollowBog artAlderCoburg
B
o
t
t
o
m
Co
b
u
r
gN CoburgWillam
e
t
t
e
Coburg
McKenzie View Arm itag e River Loop 1Coburg Industrial Glenwood Henderson Bloom berg
Gonyea Blanton I - 5I - 5I - 5
I - 5
N Bertelsen N Danebo WAmazonLakeview
Avengale
ArcadiaCubitNClareyArrowheadRiver
Aug usta BrackenfernWalnutOrchardFairmountS u m m itMillLoraneHwyWashingtonW 7th W 7thUnionPac
ifi
c
RRE Enid
AI
LH
SI
WS
SW
WR
SC
DA
WN
DW
DC
DF
BN
RR
Eugene Wastewater Basins
Legend
LH = Laurel Hill
DW = Downtown West
DF = Franklin Basin
DC = Downtown Central
WR = River BasinRR = River Road
S C = S anta Clara
S I = Hwy 99 Industrial Area
WN = North Willakenzie
WS = S outh Willakenzie
AI = Airport
BN = Beth el
S W = S outh West
DA = Am azon Basin
M
0 7,000 Ft
Map 2-A
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 3: Existing Wastewater Systems 8
Chapter 3 - Existing Wastewater Systems
PURPOSE
The purpose of this chapter is to provide detailed information about Eugene’s seven major wastewater
basins and evaluate the wastewater system infrastructure, including pipe and pump stations, to provide
adequate service to meet current and future needs. The main sections in this chapter discuss historical
background, major basins, system characteristics, and existing pump and lift stations.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Wastewater construction began in central Eugene between 1900 and 1910. The wastewater collection
system expanded very slowly prior to 1945. The initial system was a combined storm and wastewater
system.
After World War II, the Eugene system expanded rapidly to provide service to development in newly
annexed areas. Development was also rapid in areas outside the city (Willakenzie, Bethel-Danebo, River
Road, and Santa Clara) where wastewater service was initially provided by individual septic tanks.
The combined wastewater system discharged untreated wastes to the Willamette River until about 1950
when the first Eugene primary wastewater treatment plant was constructed at the present River Avenue
site. Major treatment plant improvements were made in 1959, 1965, and 1970 to increase capacity and
upgrade from primary to secondary treatment.
A major wastewater rehabilitation program was also accomplished between 1960 and 1970. The
combined storm and wastewater system in the older central Eugene area caused serious overloads in the
collection system and also at the treatment plant. Separate wastewater pipes were constructed and
most of the direct stormwater inflow from street and alley drainage was removed from the wastewater
system. Construction costs for separation of the combined system totaled about $6 million. This would
be equivalent to about $70 million in 2019 dollars.
In 1977, Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County jointly formed the Metropolitan Wastewater Management
Commission (MWMC) to develop a regional wastewater treatment system for the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Service Area. The Eugene treatment plant on River Avenue was enlarged to accommodate
the new regional wastewater flows. The new plant was completed in 1984 and serves the entire Eugene-
Springfield area. At that time, it was designed to process a peak wet weather flow of 175 MGD.
Between 1980 and 1999 major collection system expansion occurred. Approximately 32 percent of the
current system was built in that time frame. Interceptors, pump stations, and pressure lines were
constructed to serve the River Road, Santa Clara, and west Eugene/Willow Creek areas.
In the late 1990s, a wastewater model for the Eugene-Springfield service area was developed by
CH2MHill. The primary focus of that model was to support the regional wastewater treatment plant
improvements. That model, and subsequent updates, focused on large-diameter pipes, typically 12
inches in diameter and greater. In 2014, the City of Eugene’s staff began working on a Eugene model. All
pipes with diameters 10 inches and larger and all connected pump stations were included in the model.
In 2016 the model was fully calibrated for both wet weather and dry weather flows and work began to
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 3: Existing Wastewater Systems 9
expand the model to include 8-inch diameter pipes, starting in areas where the focus is to reduce
Infiltration/Inflow.
In 2004 a comprehensive update to the 1977 regional wastewater treatment plan was completed. The
2004 plan included an evaluation of the regional wastewater treatment facilities, including Eugene-
Springfield Water Pollution Control Facility (E-S WPCF), major pump stations and interceptors, the
Biosolids Management Facility, the Biocycle Farm, and the Seasonal Industrial Waste Facility. The intent
of this MWMC Facilities Plan was to identify facility enhancements and expansions necessary to serve the
community’s wastewater needs through 2025. The plan identified improvements necessary to increase
the capacity from 175 MGD to 277 MGD to serve a 2025 MWMC metro population of 297,585.
Some of the improvements of the 13-phase, $144 million project included significant upgrades to the
existing facilities and installation of new pretreatment grit removal, digesters, additional clarifiers and a
new tertiary filtration system and high-rate disinfection facilities. By 2016, the majority of regional capital
projects identified in the 2004 MWMC Facilities Plan and the 2014 MWMC Partial Facilities Plan Update
dealing with wastewater capacity and treatment needs through 2025 had been completed.
In 2017, the City simplified the jurisdictional boundary of private versus public wastewater systems. Prior
to that time, the portion of the service lateral to a business or residence was public within the right of
way if it was built with the mainline and considered private if it was built after the mainline. This
distinction was difficult to track for both the City and the public. Effective 2017 the City has taken
ownership and maintenance responsibilities for all wastewater lines within the public rights of way,
which includes more than 60,000 lateral lines.
MAJOR BASINS
The 1992 USSMP divided the Eugene service area into 14 major basins (Map 3-A shows the basins and
major system components) and 144 sub-basins, shown in basin flow diagrams (see Map 3-B West and
Map 3-C East). Several of the major basins have a common outfall and similar characteristics and,
therefore, are grouped together for the purpose of this plan. The seven groups are:
• Highway 99 Industrial area, including the Airport
• River Road/Santa Clara
• Willakenzie
• Bethel
• South West
• Downtown
• Laurel Hill
Each group of major basins is described as follows:
Highway 99 Industrial Area, including the Airport (SI & AI)
The Highway 99 Industrial Area (see Map 3-D) is the area between State Highway 99 and Northwest
Expressway and includes seven sub-basins. There are currently 8 miles of wastewater lines in this basin,
all of which have been constructed since 1985.
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 3: Existing Wastewater Systems 10
The Highway 99 Industrial Area has a significant amount of undeveloped or underdeveloped land. The
1992 USSMP required two new pump stations to serve this basin, but they have not yet been built, and
are still necessary.
As detailed in Chapter 7, the 2017 Urban Growth Boundary expansion will be mostly served by the SI
basin. Also, the existing Enid Pump Station is expected to be relocated and upsized to also serve
development in that area.
The Airport has been divided into three sub-basins corresponding with the three pump stations that
serve this area. Planned wastewater expansion in this basin is minimal.
River Road/Santa Clara (RR & SC)
The River Road basin (see Map 3-E) includes nine sub-basins, all south of the Beltline Highway between
the Willamette River and Northwest Expressway. With the exception of the West Bank interceptor built
in 1951, the 48 miles of wastewater lines in this basin were built since 1971. Of those 48 miles, 37 miles
were built since 1990.
The Santa Clara basin includes 10 sub-basins, all north of Beltline and east of Northwest Expressway. The
majority of the 82-mile system has been built since 1980.
With the exception of the eastern fringe, and some limited in-fill, the properties in the River Road and
Santa Clara basins are fully served.
Willakenzie North, Willakenzie South and Willamette River (WN, WS & WR)
The Willakenzie group (see Map 3-F) includes everything north of the Willamette River and is divided into
three major basins (North, South and River) and 21 sub-basins.
The first wastewater line was built in 1962 in the Willakenzie area. Approximately 33 percent of the
existing system was built in the 1960s. Currently, there are 127 miles of wastewater lines and five local
pump stations. The entire basin drains to the Willakenzie pump station, which is a regional pump station
that also receives all of the flow from the city of Springfield through the East Bank interceptor.
There are still a number of undeveloped parcels in the northern part of the basin.
Bethel (BN)
The Bethel basin (see Map 3-G) includes everything west of Bethel Drive and north of the Southern
Pacific railroad tracks. There are 19 sub-basins and 102 miles of wastewater pipe, with the first lines built
in 1964. The Bethel basin has three large pump stations: West Irwin, Barger, and Terry. All three stations
pump into dual force mains that run along Beltline Highway to the treatment plant. The Barger and Terry
stations receive flow from the South West basin.
Since the 1992 plan, a significant portion of the basin has been designated as wetlands or has been
converted to wetlands and is no longer available for development. With the exception of the Royal Node
area (west of Terry Street, north and south of Royal Avenue), the basin is fully served.
South West (SW)
The South West basin (see Map 3-G), formerly known as Bethel South, includes the area south of the
Southern Pacific railroad tracks and west of the Downtown West basin. There are 14 sub-basins. There
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 3: Existing Wastewater Systems 11
are 72 miles of wastewater pipe, about half of which were built prior to 1980, with the first segments
built in the early 1950s.
Since the 1992 plan, a significant portion of the basin was either determined to be wetlands, or
converted to wetlands, and is no longer available for development. There is still a large amount of
undeveloped land in the southern part of the basin, primarily along Bailey Hill Road, Willow Creek Road
and West 11thAvenue. There currently are no pump or lift stations within the basin, but to serve the
Bailey Hill area, a pump station will need to be built. The entire South West basin drains to either the
Terry or Barger pump stations in the Bethel basin.
Downtown (DW, DC, DF & DA)
The Downtown group (see Map 3-H and Map 3-I) includes four major basins (West, Central, Amazon, and
Franklin) which are further divided into 61 sub-basins. The area extends from City View on the west, the
UGB on the south, Fairmount Boulevard on the east, and the Willamette River on the north.
The Downtown group is served by a network of about 261 miles of lateral, trunk, and interceptor
wastewater lines that carry wastewater downstream to the Fillmore lift station near Polk Street next to
the south bank of the Willamette River.
The total flow is then routed through a 72-inch gravity interceptor on the west side of the river to the
regional wastewater treatment plant. The 72-inch West Bank interceptor was constructed in 1951, has a
2007 modeled design capacity of 117 MGD, which will be adequate if infiltration is minimized in new
system construction and infiltration/inflow is reduced by rehabilitation of the existing system.
Approximately 182 miles of pipe in this basin group was more than 50 years old in 2019. Significant
rehabilitation projects have been constructed since 1995 to address existing infiltration/inflow (I/I).
With the exception of the southernmost parts of the Amazon basin, the Downtown group is fully served
by wastewater infrastructure.
Laurel Hill (LH)
The Laurel Hill basin (see Map 3-I) is the area east of Floral Hill Drive. The first segments of wastewater
pipe were built in the early 1950s. Approximately nine miles were built prior to 1982, with no
construction for the next 18 years. Since 2000, three additional miles of pipe have been built.
Prior to 1994, flow from this basin went by gravity down Judkins Road and Franklin Boulevard to Judkins
Point lift station. In 1994, the Glenwood regional pump station was completed, and the entire basin has
been redirected to that station.
Approximately 60 percent of the basin is undeveloped. All future development flows will continue to be
directed to the Glenwood pump station.
SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS AND VALUATION
The total length of the wastewater collection system was about 717 miles as of 2019. Also, there are 27
local pump stations and two regional pump stations located in Eugene and about 11 miles of pressure
lines within the system. In general, modern PVC pipe was not introduced until the early 1980s. Most pipe
installed prior to that time is concrete, clay, or truss pipe. Tables 3-1 and 3-2 indicate the years of
construction. Map 3-J shows the system by original year of construction.
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 3: Existing Wastewater Systems 12
Table 3-1: Wastewater Inventory by Year Constructed – Gravity System
Year Constructed Percent of System Length of Pipe (feet)
1912-1919 1% 437,680
1920-1929 2% 90,960
1930-1939 1% 23,800
1940-1949 4% 141,330
1950-1959 9% 336,790
1960-1969 25% 925,180
1970-1979 17% 617,240
1980-1989 9% 337,190
1990-1999 23% 850,290
2000-2009 7% 273,090
2010-2019 2% 77,400
Total 3,716,940
Table 3-2: Wastewater Inventory by Year Constructed – Pressure System
Year Constructed Percent of System Length of Pipe (feet)
1950-1959 0.4% 266
1960-1969 19% 11,120
1970-1979 2% 1,126
1980-1989 35% 21,257
1990-1999 34% 20,444
2000-2009 9% 5,293
2010-2019 0% 22
Total 59,665
The estimated replacement value of the gravity collection system, including 25% for engineering, based
on 2019 construction costs, is $855 million, as shown in Table 3-3.
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 3: Existing Wastewater Systems 13
Table 3-3: Existing Wastewater System Estimated Replacement Value – Gravity System
Pipe
Diameter
(inches)
Average
Trench Depth
(feet)
Systems
Length
(feet * 1000)
Estimated
Construction Cost
(per foot) 1
Total Unit
Cost 2
Reconstruction
Total Cost (in
millions)
4 5 5.89 $111.18 $138.97 $0.82
6 7 270.57 $153.89 $192.36 $52.05
8 8 2,714.01 $156.15 $195.18 $529.73
10 10 173.16 $158.20 $197.75 $34.24
12 11 127.33 $202.01 $252.52 $32.15
14 8 2.51 $170.45 $213.06 $0.53
15 12 77.45 $211.94 $264.92 $20.52
16 10 1.61 $212.10 $265.12 $0.43
18 13 91.49 $261.81 $327.26 $29.94
21 14 50.34 $280.86 $351.08 $17.67
22 8 1.23 $260.49 $325.61 $0.40
24 12 29.19 $292.54 $365.68 $10.67
27 14 16.77 $339.40 $424.25 $7.12
30 15 43.78 $387.83 $484.78 $21.22
36 16 45.92 $502.32 $627.90 $28.83
42 17 8.66 $547.79 $684.74 $5.93
48 20 27.87 $631.83 $789.78 $22.01
54 20 11.85 $753.24 $941.54 $11.16
60 18 7.42 $875.99 $1,094.99 $8.13
66 17 7.28 $935.83 $1,169.79 $8.51
72 14 11.35 $888.64 $1,110.80 $12.61
Total 3,725.67 $854.68 3
1 Estimated construction costs are from Table 6-1 of this report for construction in developed areas,
and include 6 inches of asphalt concrete pavement (ACP) surfacing
2 Total unit costs include 25% for engineering and administration
3 Estimated replacement cost for total gravity wastewater system, based on 2019 dollars (ENR 11281)
EXISTING WASTEWATER PUMP AND LIFT STATIONS
The Eugene service area currently includes 27 wastewater pump and lift stations, owned and operated
by the City, in addition to two regional pump stations (Irvington and Willakenzie), owned and operated
by MWMC. The number in each of the basins is shown below in Table 3-4.
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 3: Existing Wastewater Systems 14
Table 3-4: Number of Wastewater Pump/Lift Stations in Eugene Service Area
Major System Area Number of Pump
/Lift Stations
Highway 99 Industrial area, including the Airport 5
River Road/Santa Clara 8
Willakenzie 5
Bethel 3
South West 0
Downtown 6
Laurel Hill 0
Total 27
An information summary on each pump station is shown in Table 3-5. Pump station locations are shown
on Map 3-A.
Highway 99 Industrial Area and Airport Stations
Five locally owned pump stations serve the Highway 99 industrial area and the Eugene Airport. The
airport has three stations. The South Airport station serves a single hangar, and lifts the flow to the
gravity system and into the Piper station, which is also a lift station. Additional flow is collected from the
terminal and other development north of the terminal, all of which flows into the Airport pump station.
From there, a force main extends 5,500 feet, west on Awbrey Lane and south on Highway 99, which then
converts to gravity to the Enid pump station.
The Enid station currently collects additional flow from developments along Airport Road. It is expected
to be relocated and upsized to also serve development in the Clear Lake area as detailed in Chapter 7.
The station pumps under Highway 99, ultimately converting back to gravity, and continuing on to the
MWMC-owned Irvington station.
The fifth station is the Prairie Road pump station, located at Beltline Highway. The Prairie Road station,
built in 1997, was sized to serve the area adjacent to Prairie Road from Kaiser Avenue to Maxwell Road.
It is not anticipated that improvements will be necessary within the planning period.
The portion of the basin north of Auction Way is largely undeveloped. The 1992 USSMP identified the
need for two additional pump stations to serve this area, and those stations are still indicated in this plan
to be constructed.
River Road/Santa Clara Stations
With the exception of two small sub-basins that drain to the River Avenue pump station or the West
Bank interceptor, the River Road basin drains to the Skipper pump station located along the northwest
boundary of the basin. This large site-built station pumps into the 30-inch force main coming from west
Eugene.
There are two pump stations and four lift stations in the Santa Clara basin. All four lift stations (Santa
Clara, Wilkes, Spring Creek and Lynnbrook) lift flow to a point where gravity takes it to the Irvington
pump station. From Irvington, a 24-inch force main carries the flow to the 30- and 48-inch force mains
coming from west Eugene. The Irvington pump station is a regional station because it handles flows to
the MWMC biosolids farm to the north, and therefore is not addressed in this master plan.
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 3: Existing Wastewater Systems 15
The remaining two pump stations (Greenwich and Division) pump into the 30- and 48-inch force mains to
the treatment plant. Division is a medium-sized station. Increased development may require an upgrade
to this station. The Greenwich station is a large station but the basin is almost fully developed so
upgrades are unlikely to be required.
Willakenzie Stations
All of the flow from the Willakenzie area is pumped across the Willamette River by the Willakenzie pump
station. The Willakenzie station is a regional station, maintained by MWMC.
The other major station in the Willakenzie area is the Oakway pump station, which is located on St.
Andrews Drive near Oakway Road. This station has a 500-foot-long pressure line that lifts the flow back
into the gravity system in Oakway Road. It was relocated and reconstructed in 2001.
The other four stations in the Willakenzie system are lift stations that serve fairly small, localized areas.
All of these stations have two pumps, and no special issues are expected.
Bethel Stations
All of the wastewater from the South West and Bethel basins flows by gravity to the West Irwin, Terry
Street and Barger pump stations in the Bethel basin. It is then pumped through two pressure lines
(30inch and 42-inch diameters) that extend east from each pump station, about 3.5 miles along Jessen
Drive and Beltline Road to the wastewater treatment plant.
The West Irwin pump station was constructed in 1965 to serve the area annexed in 1964. This station has
a limited wet well size, with an access-constrained drywell. In addition, the superstructure is
unreinforced masonry that will not tolerate seismic activity. A replacement station is included in the
City’s capital improvement plan to be designed in 2020 and constructed in 2021.
The Terry Street pump station was constructed in 1984 to provide increased capacity for the South West
basin. The station is in good condition, and major improvements are not likely to be needed in the
planning period.
The Barger pump station was constructed in 1998. This pump station, included in the 1992 USSMP, was
built to facilitate development within the UGB and was sized to accommodate flows from the South
West basin as well as areas outside the UGB identified as urban reserve. Since that pump station was
constructed, vast tracts of land in west Eugene were set aside as part of the West Eugene Wetlands. In
addition, areas previously identified as urban reserve are no longer considered to be part of the future
development. For these reasons, the Barger pump station has significant reserve capacity.
Central Eugene Stations
Flow from three of the four large basins of the Downtown group reaches the treatment plant by gravity
through the 72-inch West Bank interceptor. The Downtown West basin flows to the Fillmore pump
station, which then lifts the flow into the West Bank interceptor. Originally constructed in 1960, major
modifications were added to the Fillmore station in 1995. The other five pump stations serve small
localized areas.
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 3: Existing Wastewater Systems 16
Table 3-5: Existing Wastewater Pump Stations (Eugene Local) and Replacement Values
Name/Location Year
Built
(No. of
Pumps)
/HP
Firm
Capacity
(MGD)
Maximum
Flow
(MGD)
Estimated
Replacement
Cost * ($ million)
Pump
Station
Features
A. Highway 99 Industrial Area/Airport
Airport 2004 (2) 18 0.60 1.2 $0.95 A, B, C,
Piper 1977 (2) 3 0.50 0.7 $0.90 A, B
Airport South 1996 (2) 3 0.40 0.5 $0.86 A, B, E
Enid 1985 (2) 20 2.38 4.0 $1.72 C, D
Prairie Road 1997 (2) 88 3.30 5.4 $2.12 A, B, C
B. River Road/Santa Clara Areas
Skipper 1985 (2) 60 3.00 5.0 $1.99 C, D
Division 1984 (2) 28 1.30 2.6 $1.25 A, B, D
Greenwich 1985 (2) 30 1.00 1.5 $1.12 B, C, D
Lynnbrook 1997 (2) 3 0.29 0.5 $0.81 A, C, D, E
Wilkes 1985 (2) 7.5 0.50 0.8 $0.90 A, B, D
Spring Creek 1985 (2) 7.5 0.50 0.8 $0.90 A, B, D
North Santa 2001 (2) 10 0.60 0.9 $0.95 A, C, E
River 1992 (2) 7.5 0.70 1.0 $0.99 A, E
C. Willakenzie Area
Oakway 2001 (3) 25 3.01 6.0 $2.00 B, C
Spyglass 1977 (2) 4.7 0.60 0.9 $0.95 A, B, D
Delta 1975 (2) 9.4 0.80 1.4 $1.03 A, B
Tadmore 1978 (2) 3 0.50 0.8 $0.90 A, B, D
Crimson 1997 (2) 30 2.14 3.6 $1.62 E, A, C
D. Bethel
West Irwin 1964 (3) 300 11.00 21.0 $5.48 F
Terry Street 1984 (3) 200 6.60 14.0 $3.56 F
Barger 1999 Note 1 3.60 6.2 $2.25 A, F
E. Central Eugene Area
Judkins Point 1954 (2) 10 0.29 0.5 $0.81 A, D
Fillmore 1960 (2/3) 12.9 44.0 $6.31 A, D
Tonawanda 1962 (2) 15 0.29 0.5 $0.81 B, C, E
Foxcroft 1966 (2) 7.5 0.60 0.9 $0.95 B, D, E
Willamette 1967 (2) 3.5 0.60 1.0 $0.95 B, C, E
Riverfront 1990 (2) 5 0.40 0.6 $0.86 A, B, C,
Total Replacement Cost $43.93
Notes:
*ENR 11281; estimated replacement costs based on Table 6-4 plus 25% engineering and admin.
Note 1 – Station has one 177 hp and one 130 hp pumps; designed for four 385 hp pumps
Pump Station Features:
A = Submersible pumps D = Pump around available
B = No bypass available E = Package type station
C = Emergency generator hookup F = Two power sources
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 3: Existing Wastewater Systems 17
Table 3-6: Existing Wastewater System Estimated Replacement Value – Pressure System
Pipe diameter
(inches)
Average trench
depth (feet)
System length
(feet)
Construction
cost1 (per foot)
Total unit cost2
(per foot)
Total cost of
reconstruction
4 4 543 $56 $70 $38,136
6 4 6,214 $67 $84 $521,560
8 4 5,364 $76 $96 $512,853
10 4 1,031 $93 $117 $120,117
12 4 4,189 $108 $135 $563,859
14 4 115 $156 $196 $22,483
16 5 7,876 $168 $210 $1,656,902
28 5 7,871 $255 $319 $2,508,052
30 6 13,018 $271 $338 $4,405,133
36 7 60 $418 $522 $31,341
42 7 13,118 $506 $633 $8,304,477
72 10 266 $900 $1,125 $299,234
Total 59,665 $18,984,148 3
Note: 2019 dollars (ENR 12281)
1 Estimated construction costs are from Table 6-5 of this report for construction in developed areas.
2 Total unit costs include 25% for engineering and administration.
3 $18.98 million is the estimated replacement cost for the total Eugene pressure wastewater system.
SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF THE WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
In 2016 a seismic assessment of the wastewater collection system and locally owned pump stations was
conducted to evaluate the expected performance of a moment magnitude 9.0 Cascadia Subduction Zone
(CSZ) earthquake. The complete technical memo is included in Appendix A.
Permanent ground deformation (PGD) is one of the primary factors causing damage to buried pipes.
Mapping done by the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) indicates a low
probability of liquefaction along the Willamette River, and the south valley. There is a moderate
probability of liquefaction along the south hills but, due to the slopes, most wastewater pipes are only 8
inches in diameter. The resulting damage would more likely cause infiltration in misaligned pipe joints,
rather than a completely blocked pipe. According to the assessment, the City has in excess of 20,000
gravity wastewater line segments. The total number of line segments expected to experience some level
of damage is fewer than 200.
All of the pump stations are located in non- to low-liquefaction zones. Underground stations are
expected to perform well, and with the exception of the West Irwin station (which is scheduled to be
rebuilt), above ground stations are also expected to perform well. The primary issues associated with
pump stations are loss of power and the potential to misalign influent and effluent pipes.
Given that the majority of Eugene falls in the low probability of PGD, the current design and construction
specifications utilizing bell and spigot PVC are suitable for gravity wastewater pipe, and welded HDPE for
force mains. New pump stations should be designed to current seismic standards with special attention
to the influent and effluent pipe connections to the structure.
&%
&%
&%
&%&%&%
&%
&%&%
&%
&%
&%
&%
&%
&%
&%
&%
&%&%&%
&%
&%
&%
&%
&%
&%
&%&%
&%
&%&%
&%
&%
&%
AI
LH
SI
WS
SW
WR
SC
DA
WN
DW
DC
DF
BN
RR
W 13th
W 2nd
W 6th
W 11th Ave
W 13th Ave
E 4th Ave
E 3rd Ave
CityViewStOakPatchRdBaileyHillRdOliveStWillametteStPearl StPattersonStHilyardStLincoln StAlderStAgateStFranklinBlvd
W 11th Ave
W 18th AveSBertelsenRdW13thAve
W 7th Ave
W 24th Ave
W 28thAve
E 33rd Ave
E 19th Ave
Columbia StE 30th Ave
Crest D rL or a ne H wyCity View StW28th Ave
B a ile yH illR d
W 25th Ave ChambersStJeffersonStFriendlyStPolkStKevington Ave
BaileyHillRdW 18th Ave
W 18th Ave
GimplH illRdWillow Creek Rd
GimplHillRdLorane HwyBaileyHillRd Willam etteStLoraneHwyW 11th A
v
e SDaneboAveRandyPapéBeltlineHwyS Bertelsen RdW 11th Ave
W 1s t Ave
Avalon St NTerryStNTerryStGreenHillRdFirestone Dr
Royal Ave
Marshall Ave
Elmira Rd
Roosevelt Blvd
H
w
y
9
9
N
NorthwestExpressway
Park Ave
Horn Ln Minda Dr
W 5th Ave
W 1st Ave
VanBurenStN Danebo AveBodenhamer Rd
Barger Dr
LegacyStClearLakeRd
Clear Lake Rd
River Loop 1
CrockerRdIrving RdIrvingRdHyacinthSt Hunsaker Ln
Randy Papé Beltline HwyRandyPapéBeltlineHwy
Silver LnNor
t
hwes
t
Ex
pr
es
s
way
Prai
ri
eRdH
w
y
9
9
N
Ri
ver
RdBlackfoot Ave
Irvington Dr
Barstow Ave
River Loop 2
Wilkes DrIrvingtonDrLynnbrookDr
Spring Creek Dr
River Loop 2
Beacon Dr
Awbrey Ln
E Enid Rd
Airport Rd
Lynnbrook Dr Ri
ver
RdScenicDrLancasterDrMeadowview Rd
Meadowview Rd
Ri
ver
RdPr
a
iri
e
Rd
Prairie
Rd
Hwy99sGreenHillRdGreen Hill Rd
Beacon Dr
H
w
y
9
9
NGreenHillRd
GreenHillRdHoward Ave
N Park AveNTerrySt Crescent AveN Delta HwyGood p a s t u r e L p
GoodpastureIslandRdBeth
el
D
r
H
w
y
9
9
N
Royal Ave
Maxwell Rd
Goodpasture Island Rd
County Farm Rd
Coburg RdJeppesen Acres Rd
OakwayRdCountryClubRd
Bailey Ln
CoburgRdBarger Dr
EchoHollowRdTaneyStW Shelton McMurpheyBlvd
Ha r lo w Rd
Martin Luther King Jr Blvd
LeoHarrisPkwy
E 18th Ave
Beltline Rd
Harlow Rd
W C entennial BlvdVanDuynStFerryStreetBridgeAyresRd
GreenAcresRd
RandyPapéBeltlineHwy
Cal Young Rd
W illakenzie Rd
Cr e scentA veGame Farm Rd
ChadDrCoburgRd
NorkenzieRdGilhamRdFairview Dr
F ra n k l i n Bl v d
HawkinsLnBrittanyStWillowCreekRdEd C o n e Blvd
RooseveltBlvd
AspenStRainbowDrKinsrow Ave
I-105
E 24th Ave
EAmazonDr
E
30thAveAmazonPkwyHilyardStHarrisStTimb
e
rli
neDr
E 40th Ave
Di
l
l
ar
dRdFoxHollow
Rd
W 39th Ave
E43rdAve
E 4 3 r d A v eAgate
St
E 4
6
t
h
A
v
eWillametteStDonaldSt HilyardStCrowRdGreenHillRdLincolnStWillametteStBraeBurnDrMcKinleyStGarfieldStGarfield StChambersStPolkStMonroeStWashingtonStJeffersonStValleyRiverDr
E Broadway
W D St
I-5KincaidSt
NShastaLpSpringBlvdDillard
RdOakStHighStBlair
Blvd
E 19th Ave
W 13th Ave
W 11th Ave
W 27th Ave
W 29th Ave
E 33rd Ave
W AmazonDr
FoxHollowRdMcBethRdW 11thAve
W 5th Ave
W 7th PLSSenecaRd
ArthurStN Seneca RdWillagillespie RdClubRd
Oakmont Way
GoodpastureIslandRd
DeltaHwyGilhamRdNorkenzieRdLakeDrNParkAveNParkAveFairfieldAveGroveStI-105
Cal Young Rd
NGardenWaySGardenWayGameFarmRdGatewayStRandyPapéBeltlineHwy
I-105
AmazonPkwy
W 6th AveRandyPapéBeltlineHwyHavitureWayColtonWayRiverRd
DonaldStFoxHollowRdBogartAlderStCoburg Bottom Loop
Co
b
u
r
g
R
dN Coburg RdWillamette St
Coburg
R
d
McKe
n
z
i
e
V
i
e
w
D
r
Armitage RdRiver Loop 1Coburg Industrial WayGlenwood BlvdHenderson AveBloomberg Rd
Gonyea RdBlanton Rd I - 5I - 5I - 5
I - 5
N Bertelsen RdN Danebo AveWAmazonDrLakeview Dr
Avengale Dr
ArcadiaDrCubitStNClareyStArrowheadStRiverAve
Augusta StBrackenfern RdWalnutStOrchardStFairmountBlvd S u m m itA v eMillSt
LoraneHwyWashingtonStW 7th Ave
W 7th AveUnionPac
ifi
c
Railr
o
adE Enid Rd
484230
726628 16
2136
6018
24
27125415
14 10
22
18
10
18
10
101212101515
10
12
101812
1510
18
21
101221301824
10
12161810 1036
1218
10
18
1510
21
15
18
10
18
10
1021 211024 1512
1810
12
18101015
121
5
10
121010211221 10
15
10
12 21121515121010
12
1030 1212
16
10
1218
10 2410
12
10
102418
10
12
12
12
151
8
2110
15
15121510121224181010
24 211210
1212183010
101036
10
3612 123010
1218 10
301010483012
211018
1212
15
2110
10 102124
1060
211
2
12
36 1512
10
102
7
1012
18
18
1812
12
18
30
24
10
3
0
541215
18
12481215
121215 24
1212
12
15
10 1212
15
2724
24
42
18
12
241010
102112
3612 21
12101510
101536
27
151818
10
12 1015
18
721010
12
21
1510
1827
101
5
10
10
15
10
18
2430151518
1836
24
30
2410103612
10 101510
10 101510
151012
101
8
15
12
10
15
1221
1510
36
121027
2424
10
301
810
12
36
48
1210
18
1
8
10
10
18
12
21
12
10
3012 10
15
12
1010
M
Legend
Eugene System Map
Pump/Lift StationWaste Pipe with Diameter&%
Force MainsMWMC
Ft07,000
Map 3-A: Current Wastewater System and Basins
Map 3-B: Basin Flow (West)
SI31
SI32
BN41
Map 3-C: Basin Flow (East)
Avalon St NTerryStFirestone Dr
Marshall AveN Danebo AveBodenhamer Rd
Barger Dr
LegacyStClear LakeRd
Clear Lake Rd Irving Rd HyacinthStR andyP a p é B e l t l i n e H w yNor
t
hwes
t
Ex
pr
es
s
wayPrairi
eRdH
w
y
9
9
N Irvington Dr
Barstow Ave
L y nnbrookDr
Beacon Dr
Awbrey Ln
E Enid Rd
Airport Rd
Lynnbrook Dr
LancasterDrMeadowview Rd
Meadowview Rd Ri
ver
RdP
r
a
iri
e
RdHwy99sGreenHillRd
Green Hill Rd
H
w
y
9
9
NGreenHillRd
GreenHillRdNTerryStH
w
y
9
9
N
Barger Dr
EchoHollowRdTaneyStFairfieldAveRandyPapéBeltlineHwyHavitureWayColtonWayCubitStNClareyStArrowheadStUn
i
onPac
ifi
c
Railr
oadE Enid Rd
SKIPPERPS
IRVINGTONPS
TERRYST PS
ENIDPS
GREENWICHPS
PIPERPS
WESTIRWIN PS
AIRPORTPS
BIOCYCLEFARM P.S.
BARGERGREENHILL PS
PRAIRERD PS
SOUTHAIRPORT PS
42
30
1628
4836 24
27 2118
1510 121415 243
0
27
1212
3012
10
10
10 1012
152410
2118
1
8
1218
15
21
10
12
1012
18
4
8
15
24
2710 1218
18
10
15
10
21101
2
AIRP-1 SI-13
SI-21
SI-11
SI-32
BN-13
BN-32
SI-12
BN-41
SI-31 SC-41
BN-17
BN-21
BN-12
BN-15
SC-31
BN-31
AIRP-3
BN-16
SC-21
RR-11
AIRP-2
BN-14
SI-14
BN-11
SC-42
RR-12
BN-22
SC-32
BN-26BN-24
SC-45
SC-40
BN-33
M
Ft03,000
Biocycle Farm
Eugene System Map
LegendPump/Lift StationWaste Pipe with Diameter 10" & Greater&%
MWMCForce Mains
Map 3-D: Highway 99 Industrial Area, including the Airport (SI & AI)
W 1st Ave
Marshall Ave
Elmira Rd
Roosevelt Blvd
H
w
y
9
9
N
NorthwestExpressway
Park Ave
Horn Ln
W 1st Ave
VanBurenStRiver Loop 1
CrockerRdIrving RdIrvingRdHyacinthSt Hunsaker Ln
Randy Papé Beltline HwyRandyPapéBeltlineHwy
Silver LnNor
t
hwes
t
Ex
pr
es
s
wayPrairi
eRdRi
ver
RdBlackfoot Ave
Irvington Dr
Barstow Ave
River Loop 2
Wilkes DrIrvingtonDrLynnbrookDr
Spring Creek Dr
River Loop 2
Beacon Dr
Lynnbrook Dr Ri
ver
RdScenicDrLancasterDrBeacon Dr
Howard Ave
N Park Ave N Delta HwyGo o d p a s t u r e L p
GoodpastureIslandRdBethelD
r
H
w
y
9
9
N
Royal Ave
Maxwell Rd
Goodpasture Island Rd
CountryClubRd
Barger Dr
EchoHollowRdTaneyStGreenAcres Rd
RandyPapéBeltlineHwy
Cal Young Rd NorkenzieRdRoosevelt Blvd
I-105
Garfield StChambersStValleyRiver Dr
N Seneca RdWillagillespie RdGoodpastureIslandRd
DeltaHwyNorkenzieRdLakeDrNParkAveNParkAveFairfieldAveGroveStRi
ver
RdRiver Loop 1N Bertelsen RdCubitStNClareyStArrowheadStRiver AveUn
i
onPac
ifi
c
Railr
oadSKIPPERPS
IRVINGTONPS WILKESPS
SPRINGCREEK PS
DELTAPS
WILLAKENZIEPS
GREENWICHPS
FILLMOREPS
TADMOREPS
DIVISION PS
BIOCYCLEFARM P.S.
N SANTA CLARA PS
LYNNBROOKPS
PRAIRERD PS
RIVERAVE PS
7
2
30
4266
18
5436
48
27 1512
24
10
21
141810
18
15
12
15
12101521 181518
361010 151515
18
12
15
24 1210121018122110
101018
27
1214
3610
1012 10101012
101012
27
1021211010
10
30
72
1218
10121
51018
1815
154812
10
12
12
30
15
12
10
15
15
10
12
12101010SI-21
WR-2
SC-21
SC-32
BN-13 RR-11
RR-17
WR-1
SC-41
SC-43
BN-17
BN-25
SC-33
RR-14
BN-16
SC-11
SC-31
BN-15
BN-26
BN-22
SC-34
BN-28
WS-21WS-11
RR-21
SI-11
RR-16
SC-42
RR-12
WN-41
BS-13
BN-23
WS-10
RR-15
RR-13
WN-32
SI-14
SC-44
SI-13
WS-33
WS-32
DC-12
BN-24
RR-31
BN-27
DW-11
BS-14
SC-45
WN-11
BN-14
SC-40
DW-12 DC-11
WN-51
WR-3
SI-32
BS-15
M
Ft03,000
Biocycle Farm
Eugene System Map
LegendPump/Lift StationWaste Pipe with Diameter 10" & Greater&%
MWMCForce Mains
Map 3-E: River Road/Santa Clara (RR & SC)
W 13th
W 2nd
W 6th
W 11th Ave
W 13th Ave
E 4th Ave
E 3rd Ave
OliveStWillametteStPearl StPattersonStHilyardStLincoln StAlderStFranklinBlvd
W 11th Ave
W 7th Ave
NorthwestExpressway
Minda Dr
W 5th Ave
W 1st Ave
VanBurenStHunsaker Ln
Randy Papé Beltline Hwy
River Loop 2
Wilkes Dr
Crescent AveN Delta HwyGo o d p a s t u r e L p
GoodpastureIslandRdGoodpasture Island Rd
County Farm Rd
Coburg RdJeppesen Acres Rd
OakwayRdCountryClubRd
Bailey Ln
CoburgRdW SheltonMcMurpheyBlvd
Harlo w R d
Martin Luther King Jr BlvdLeo
HarrisPkwy VanDuynStFerryStreetBridgeAyres Rd
GreenAcres Rd
RandyPapéBeltlineHwy
Cal Young Rd
W illakenzie Rd
C re scentA veGame Farm
R
d
ChadDr
CoburgRdNorkenzieRdGilhamRdF ra n k l i n B l v d
Roosevelt Blvd
AspenStRainbowDrKins row Ave
I-105
GarfieldStGarfield StChambersStPolkStMonroeStWashingtonStJeffersonStValleyRiver Dr
E Broadway
W D St
KincaidStOakStHighStBlair
Blvd
W 13th Ave
W 11th AveWillagillespie RdClubRd
Oakmont Way
GoodpastureIslandRd
DeltaHwyGilhamRdNorkenzieRdI-105
Cal Young Rd
NGardenWaySGardenWayGatewayStRandyPapéBeltlineHwy
W 6th AveRiverRd BogartCo
b
u
r
g
R
d
McKe
n
z
i
e
V
i
e
w
D
r
Armitage RdRiver Loop 1I - 5I - 5I - 5
Lakeview Dr
Avengale Dr
ArcadiaDrRiver Ave
OrchardStMillStW 7th Ave
SPYGLASSPS
WILLAMETTETOWERS PS
DELTAPS
WILLAKENZIEPS
FILLMOREPS
TADMOREPS
OAKWAYPS
DIVISION PS
CRIMSONPS
RIVERAVE PS
GLENWOODPS
RIVERFRONTPS
7
2
546636
48
18 126024
15
10
30
16 22
42
21
14
27
10
15
12101010
18
151012
101824
2115 2148241024
24
1218
12101210 182115
24
121012151816421524121815181210
152421
101018601010
3615
18
10
10
12101010 3042 101218
121010
10
36 2121
1012
12 1036
22
10
121015
14
12
12363010 12
12
1510181012
18 10181021
1210
36 151015
2412 10
10
1012 1214
12
14
2112
10
2112
48
1018 1010
15
1236
10
15
24
102418
12
10
10
15151530
10
121036
30
15
10
10
10 1210301018
3018
36
12241
0
2410 12102110
30 12101272
12
1218
24
15102418
18
121510
12
1210 1215
10
18
10WR-3
WS-24
WN-22
WR-2
WS-21
WS-14
WS-23
WR-1
WS-22
WN-13
WN-12
WN-32
WN-21
WS-11
RR-17
WN-41
WN-31
DF-11
SC-11
WS-10
DC-11DW-12
WS-12
SC-34
DC-12
WS-33
WS-32
DC-17
DC-18
DW-41
RR-16
RR-31
WN-11
WS-13
DW-11
BN-28
DF-15DF-12
DW-13
DW-14
DC-23
WN-51
SC-33
SC-43
DC-14
DC-15
RR-15
DC-31 DC-19
DC-13
DC-32
RR-21
DW-43
DW-15
DC-16
DC-33 DC-21 DC-22
LH-20
RR-14
DF-16DW-44DW-21
M
Ft03,000
Biocycle Farm
Eugene System Map
LegendPump/Lift StationWaste Pipe with Diameter 10" & Greater&%
MWMCForce Mains
Map 3-F: Willakenzie North, Willakenzie South and Willamette River (WN, WS & WR)
CityViewStOakPatchRdBaileyHillRdSBertelsenRdW 13th Ave
City View StB a ile y H illR d
W 25th Ave
Kevington Ave
BaileyHillRdW 18th Ave
W 18th Ave
GimplH illR dWillow Creek Rd
W 11th
A
v
e
SDaneboAveRandyPapéBeltlineHwyS Bertelsen RdW 11th Ave
W 1st Ave
Avalon St NTerryStNTerryStGreenHillRdFirestone Dr
Royal Ave
Marshall Ave
Elmira Rd
Roosevelt Blvd
H
w
y
9
9
N
NorthwestExpressway
Park Ave
Horn LnN Danebo AveBarger Dr
LegacyStR andyP a p é B e l t l i n e H w y
Silver Ln
Howard Ave
N Park AveNTerrySt
BethelD
r
H
w
y
9
9
N
Royal Ave
Maxwell Rd
Barger Dr
EchoHollowRdTaneyStHawkinsLnBrittanyStWillowCreekRdEd C o n e Blvd
Roosevelt Blvd
Ti
mberli
neDrGreenHillRd McKinleyStW 11th Ave
W 5th Ave
W 7th PLSSenecaRd
ArthurStN Seneca RdLakeDrNParkAveNParkAveFairfieldAveGroveStRandyPapéBeltlineHwyHavitureWayColtonWayN Bertelsen RdN Danebo AveCubitStNClareyStW 7th Ave
SKIPPERPS
TERRYST PS
WESTIRWIN PS
BARGERGREENHILL PS
PRAIRERD PS
42
30
36
1628
2748 18
24
211510 121418
12
15
10
36
10
15 2118
27
12
10
15
12
181010 1227
3010
151012
1212
18
10101
5
10
36
12
1818
1230
15
12181010481218
1818
4
2
12
1215
12
12
15
10
21
10
10
10
10
10
121
8
10
241010
36
10301510
12
123
0
10
10
12
30
10
12
151512
12
15
24
12 151010
24
24101012 15
1012
1818
15
151010 2121101510101812
12BS-25
BS-13
BN-32
BN-31
BS-32
BS-12
BS-42
BS-33
BS-22
BN-13
BN-21
BS-21
SI-21
BS-31
BS-15
DW-21
RR-11
BN-22
BN-41
BN-17
BN-25
BN-12
BN-16
BN-15
RR-14
BN-33
BS-14
BN-26
BS-23
BN-29
RR-12
BS-62
BN-23
BS-52
BN-14
BN-28
RR-13
SC-21
BN-11
RR-21
BN-24
BS-24
RR-17
RR-15
BN-27
DW-44
RR-16
DW-33
DW-34
DW-42
DW-41
SI-32 SC-11
DW-13
RR-31
M
Ft03,000
Biocycle Farm
Eugene System Map
LegendPump/Lift StationWaste Pipe with Diameter 10" & Greater&%
MWMCForce Mains
Map 3-G: Bethel and South West (BN & SW)
W 13th
W 2nd
W 6th
W 11th Ave
W 13th Ave
E 4th Ave
E 3rd Ave
CityViewStOakPatchRdOliveStWillametteStPearl StPattersonStHilyardStLincoln StAlderStAgateStFranklinBlvd
W 11th Ave
W 18th Ave
W 7th Ave
W 24th Ave
W 28th Ave
E 33rd Ave
E 19th Ave
Columbia StE 30th Ave
Crest Dr
L o r a n e H w yCity View StW28th Ave ChambersStJeffersonStFriendlyStPolkStH
w
y
9
9
N
NorthwestExpressway
Park Ave
Horn Ln Minda Dr
W 5th Ave
W 1st Ave
VanBurenStN Park Ave
GoodpastureIslandRdBethelD
r
Goodpasture Island Rd Jeppesen Acres Rd
OakwayRdCountryClubRd
Bailey Ln
CoburgRdW SheltonMcMurpheyBlvd
Harlo w R d
Martin Luther King Jr BlvdLeo
HarrisPkwy
E 18th Ave VanDuynStFerryStreetBridgeCal Young Rd
W illakenzie RdNorkenzieRdGilhamRd
HawkinsLnRoosevelt Blvd
Kinsrow Ave
I-105
E 24th Ave
EAmazonDr
E30th
A
v
eAmazonPkwyHilyardStHarrisSt
E 40th Ave
W 39th Ave
E 43rd Ave
E 4 3 r d A veAgate
St
E 4
6
t
h
A
v
eWillametteStDonaldSt HilyardStLincolnStWillametteStBraeBurnDrMcKinleyStGarfieldStGarfield StChambersStPolkStMonroeStWashingtonStJeffersonStValleyRiver Dr
E Broadway
KincaidStNShastaLpSpringBlvdOakStHighStBlair
Blvd
E 19th Ave
W 13th Ave
W 11th Ave
W 27th Ave
W 29th Ave
E 33rd Ave
WAmazonDr
FoxHollowRdW 11th Ave
W 5th Ave
W 7th PL
ArthurStWillagillespie RdClubRd
Oakmont WayDeltaHwyNParkAve
I-105
Cal Young Rd
RandyPapéBeltlineHwy
Ama
zonPkwy
W 6th AveRiverRd
DonaldStBogartAlderStBlanton Rd WalnutStOrchardStFairmountBlvd S um m itA v eMillSt
LoraneHwyWashingtonStW 7th Ave
FOXCROFTPS
TONAWANDAPS
SPYGLASSPS
JUDKINSPT PS
WILLAMETTETOWERS PS
FILLMOREPS
OAKWAYPS
RIVERFRONTPS
PrivatePS
7
2
666018
27541236
2124
30
481514
16
10
22
42
12
122115
18
10 101
5
10
3012
1036 121015211010
1212
101010
12
6015
12 151036
18 1024
30
24
121515
10
2410241015
101014
4210
1272
18
10
24
15
10
15 121010
12
1012
101221
10
18
1812151210241024
30
18
2712103612
2
7 1818
1536
1
0
121515
10
1212151818
10
12
15 1210
12
10 121012123010
30
2118
21
12
18
12
1210
22 303610 1010
10
1012 101510 1018
1015121815
10
15
10 21151012
18
12182112
18
15
1036 122414
10161210 181018
30
10
12
24
15101036
121012
121218
15 1010101815123010121210 2110152412 10
1254
10
2118
24151015
18
10101012
361812
1812101224101018101010
21
10101036
18121521
15
12
101210
15
181224
10
1210 1010
15
12
121810101515104215 2110
18 2112
10151810
30101010
3010
1012
14
10
18
12
10
121010
121
018211018181215
12
121512
10 12
10 WR-3
WR-2
WS-24
DA-34
DA-12
DW-21
DA-14
RR-17
LH-20
WS-21
WS-23
WS-22
DA-43
BN-28
DA-42
BS-15
DW-34
RR-14
DA-41
WS-14
DA-22
DW-33
DF-11
DW-44
RR-16
DA-33
DF-14
DA-26
DC-35
DA-13
DA-32DA-24BS-25
DC-33
DW-41
DC-11DW-12
WS-11
DW-36
BS-14
WR-1
DC-36
DF-12
DC-12
WS-33
DW-32
DW-35
DA-25
WS-32
DC-17
DC-18
DC-23
DC-34
DC-25
DF-15
DW-31
DW-11
BN-27
DW-13
BS-23
WS-12
DA-15
DA-21
DW-14
WS-13RR-15
DF-16
DC-14
DC-15
DA-31
DC-31
DF-13
DC-37
BN-25
DC-19
DC-13
DC-32DW-43
DC-22
DC-24
DW-42
DA-23
DC-16DC-21
DW-15
WN-22
BS-24
BN-16
M
Ft03,000
Biocycle Farm
Eugene System Map
LegendPump/Lift StationWaste Pipe with Diameter 10" & Greater&%
MWMCForce Mains
Map 3-H: Downtown (DW, DC & DF)
W 13th
E 4th Ave
E 3rd Ave
OliveStWillametteStPearl StPattersonStHilyardStLincoln StAlderStAgateStFranklinBlvd
W 11th Ave
W 18th Ave
W 24th Ave
W 28th Ave
E 33rd Ave
E 19th Ave
Columbia StE 30th Ave
Crest Dr JeffersonStFriendlyStPolkStWillametteStW 5th Ave
W 1st Ave
VanBurenStCountryClubRd
W SheltonMcMurpheyBlvd
Martin Luther King J r BlvdLeo
HarrisPkwy
E 18th Ave
W C en te n nial BlvdFerryStreetBridgeFairviewDr
F ra n k l i n B l v dAspenSt RainbowDrKinsrow Ave
I-105
E 24th Ave
EAmazonDr
E30th
A
v
eAmazonPkwyHilyardStHarrisSt
E 40th Ave
Di
l
l
ar
dRdFoxHollo
wRd
W 39th Ave
E 43rd Ave
E 4 3 r d A veAgate
St
E 4
6
t
h
A
v
eWillametteStDonaldSt HilyardStLincolnStWillametteStBraeBurnDrPolkStMonroeStWashingtonStJeffersonStE Broadway
W D St
I-
5KincaidSt
NShastaLpSpringBlvdDill
a
r
d
RdOakStHighStBlair
Blvd
E 19th Ave
W 13th Ave
W 11th Ave
W 27th Ave
W 29th Ave
E 33rd Ave
WAmazonDr
FoxHollowRdClubRd
I-105
SGardenWayI-105
Ama
zonPkwy
W 6th Ave
DonaldStFoxHollowRdAlderStGlenwood BlvdHenderson AveBloomberg Rd
Gonyea RdI - 5WAmazonDrAugusta StBrackenfern RdWalnutStOrchardStFairmountBlvd S um m itA v eMillSt
LoraneHwyWashingtonStW 7th Ave
JUDKINSPT PS
WILLAMETTETOWERS PS GLENWOODPS
RIVERFRONTPS
PrivatePS666018271254362124
30
481516
10
22
4214
181012
121215
12 121218
21105
4
21121510
123
6 1010
1010
14
15
10
42
30
1210
1018
1010
101212101510
12101815
1210
1010
30243618
12
15
1210
15
18 151036
12
12
15 1224
151224
102715
1218
361510
12 10151221
12
12
18
241510
1015 12
10151812
10
10
15
10 212
7
10
1818
2112
10
2418
10
1210
10101024 121036
15 1521123015
121212
10
1810
1
0
121224
301015
15
1210 10
1
8
122418
15
10
10
18 1810
22
1010 151030
10 1012 10
10 10
121810102436
10
12
10
101018
1224
30
181210
10
10
1818 101510151814
2410122412
18 1021121815
121012
10
1215 102414
3010
10121012
60
12
1012
18
12
211854
211230
10
12241012
10
WR-3
LH-20
DA-16
DA-13
DA-15
DA-43
DA-34
DA-14
DA-12 DA-42
DA-41
DA-22
DF-11
DA-33
DF-14
LH-10
DA-26
DC-35
DA-32DA-24
DC-33
DC-11
DW-36
DC-36
DF-12
DW-34
DW-35
DA-25
DC-17
DC-18
DC-23
DC-34
DC-25
DC-12
DF-15
DW-12
DA-21
DW-32
DW-14
WS-23
DF-16
DC-14
DC-15
DA-31
DC-31
DF-13
DC-37
WR-2
DC-19
DC-13
DC-32
DC-22
DC-24
DW-43
DA-23
DC-16DC-21
DW-31
DW-15
DW-11 WS-22
M
Ft03,000
Biocycle Farm
Eugene System Map
LegendPump/Lift StationWaste Pipe with Diameter 10" & Greater&%
MWMCForce Mains
Map 3-I: Downtown and Laurel Hill (DA & LH)
W 13th
W 2nd
W 6th
W 11th
W 13th
E 4thE3rd
CityViewOakPatchBaileyHillOliveWillamettePearl PattersonHilyardLincoln AlderAgateFranklin
W 11th
W 18thSBertelsenW13th
W 7th
W 24th
W 28th
E 33rd
E 19th
Colum bia
E 30th
Cre s tL o r a n e Hw yCity View W 28th
B a ile yH illW 25th
ChambersJeffersonFriendlyPolkKevington BaileyHillW 18th W 18th
GimplHillWillow Creek GimplHillLorane HwyBaileyHill WillametteLoraneHwyW 11th
SDaneboRandyPape⌐BeltlineHwyS Bertelsen W 11th
W 1 s t
Avalon NTerryNTerryGreenHillFirestone
Royal
Marshall
ElmiraRoosevelt
H
w
y
9
9
N
NorthwestExpressway
Park
Horn Minda
W 5th
W 1st
VanBurenN Danebo Bodenhamer
Barger
LegacyClearLake
Clear Lake
River Loop 1
CrockerIrvingIrvingHyacinth Hunsaker
Randy Pape ⌐Beltline HwyRandyPape⌐B e l t l i n e H w y
SilverNorthwes
t
Ex
pr
es
s
wayPrai
ri
eH
w
y
9
9
N
Ri
ver
Blackfoot
Irvington
Barstow
River Loop 2
WilkesIrvingtonLynnbrook
Spring Creek
River Loop 2
Beacon
Awbrey
E Enid
Airport
Lynnbrook Ri
ver ScenicLancasterMeadowviewMeadowview
Ri
verPr
a
iri
e
Prairie
Hwy99sGreenHillGreen Hill
Beacon
H
w
y
9
9
NGreenHill
GreenHillHoward
N ParkNTerry CrescentN Delta HwyGoodpa s tu r e L p
GoodpastureIslandBeth
el
H
w
y
9
9
NRoyalMaxwell
Goodpasture Island
County Farm
Coburg JeppesenAcres
OakwayCountryClub
Bailey CoburgBarger
EchoHollowTaneyW Shelton McMurphey
Ha rlow
Mar tin Lut her Ki ng JrLeoHarrisPkwy
E 18th
Beltline
Harlow
W C e ntennialVanDuyn
FerryStreetBridgeAyres
Green AcresRandyPape⌐BeltlineHwy
Cal Young
W ill akenzie
C r e scentGam
e
F
a
r
m
ChadCoburg
NorkenzieGilhamFairview
F ra n k l i n
HawkinsBrittanyWillowCreekEd C o ne
Roosevelt
AspenRainbowKinsrow
I-105
E 24th
EAmazonE
30thAmazonPkwyHilyardHarrisTimberline
E 40th
Di
l
l
ardFoxHoll
o
wW 39th
E 43rd
E 4 3 r dAgate
E 46thWillametteDonald HilyardCrowGreenHillLincolnWillametteBraeBurnMcKinleyGarfieldGarfield ChambersPolkMonroeWashingtonJeffersonValley River
E Broadway
W D
I-5Kincaid
NShastaLpSpringDilla
r
dOakHighBlair
E 19th
W 13th
W 11th
W 27th
W 29th
E 33rd WAmazonFoxHollowMcBethW 11th
W 5th
W 7thSSeneca
ArthurN Seneca WillagillespieClub
Oakm
o
n
t
GoodpastureIsland
DeltaHwyGilhamNorkenzieLakeNParkNParkFairfieldGroveI-105
Cal Young
NGardenSGardenGameFarmGatewayRandyPape⌐Beltline Hwy
I-105
AmazonPkwy
W 6th
RandyPape⌐BeltlineHwyHavitureColtonRi
ver
DonaldFoxHollowBogartAlderCoburg Bottom
Co
b
u
r
g
N Coburg Willam
e
t
t
e
Coburg
McKenzie Vie
w
Arm itage River Loop 1Coburg Industrial Glenwood Henderson Bloom berg
Gonyea Blanton I - 5I - 5I - 5
I - 5
N Bertelsen N Danebo WAmazonLakeview
Avengale
ArcadiaCubitNClareyArrowheadRiver
Augusta BrackenfernWalnutOrchardFairmountS u m m itMillLoraneHwyWashingtonW 7th W 7thUnionPac
ifi
c
RRE Enid
AI
LH
SI
WS
SW
WR
SC
DA
WN
DW
DC
DF
BN
RR
M
Ft07,000
Original Year Constructed
0 - 1910 1911 - 19301931 - 1950
1951 - 1970
Legend
1971 - 19901991 - 20102011 - 2019
Map 3-J: Original Year Constructed
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 4: Design Criteria 28
Chapter 4 - Design Criteria
PURPOSE
The main purpose of this chapter is to standardize wastewater collection system design criteria for new
development in the city of Eugene. These criteria utilize the best available land use and planning
information and standardizes the calculation of design flows within the collection system.
The specific types of information needed to estimate collection system design flows are:
• Land use designations – Land use designations for the development under consideration, and all
upstream contributing areas through the development.
• Base wastewater flow – Estimated daily average base wastewater flow rates for residential,
commercial, and industrial users.
• Peak flow factor – A factor applied to the average base wastewater flow to estimate peak flow
rates that occur during the day.
• Peak infiltration/inflow – The estimated peak flow rate for stormwater that enters the collection
system through wastewater defects and unauthorized connections.
LAND USE INFORMATION
Land use designations and population projections are the basis for estimating base wastewater flows in
the collection system. Specific information about existing and projected land-use designations, can be
obtained from the City of Eugene Planning and Development Department.
For purposes of long-range, general planning, Table 4-1 includes the land-use designations that are
assumed to contribute wastewater flows to the system. Also included is a very brief description of
allowed uses within each designation.
Table 4-1: Land-Use Designation Categories Assumed to Contribute Flow to the Wastewater System
Land Use
Designation Brief Description
Low-Density
Residential
One-family dwellings with some allowance for other types of dwellings. Up
to 14 dwellings per net acre.
Medium-Density
Residential
Medium-density residential use and encourage a variety of dwelling types.
Allowed density between 10-28 dwellings per net acre
High-Density Residential High-density residential use and is intended to provide an opportunity for a
dense living environment. Allowed density 20-112 dwellings per net acre
Neighborhood
Commercial Facilities
Generally, less than 5 acres, serving day to day needs.
Community
Commercial Centers
Generally, 5 acres to 40 acres, include a wide range of purchaser goods and
entertainment, office, and service needs for a support population smaller
than that of the metropolitan area but larger than that of a neighborhood.
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 4: Design Criteria 29
Major Retail Centers Includes a wide range of purchaser goods, educational opportunities,
entertainment, offices, travel accommodations, and services that attract
people from the entire metropolitan area.
Campus Industrial Designed for firms that will help achieve economic diversification objectives
and that typically have a large number of employees per acre. Designed to
provide sites for large-scale offices that provide a scientific and educational
research function or directly serve manufacturing uses or other industrial or
commercial enterprises.
Light-Medium
Industrial
Industries that are often involved in the secondary processing of materials
into components, the assembly of components into finished products,
transportation, communication and utilities, wholesaling, and warehousing.
Heavy Industrial A range of manufacturing uses including those involved in the processing of
large volumes of raw materials into refined products and/or industrial uses
that have significant external impacts.
Special Heavy
Industrial
Areas designated to accommodate relocation of existing heavy industrial
uses inside the UGB where there is not sufficient room for expansion and to
accommodate a limited range of other heavy industries.
Park and Open Space Areas that will conserve and preserve a variety of parks, recreation areas,
and open spaces to maintain livability of the metropolitan area. Provides a
balance of active and passive recreation opportunities to meet
neighborhood, community, and metropolitan needs. Several facilities are
allowed.
Government and
Education
Government services and education campuses.
University/Research Intended to accommodate light industrial, research and development, and
office uses related to activities, research, and programs of the University of
Oregon.
Mixed Use This category represents areas where more than one use might be
appropriate.
BASE WASTEWATER FLOWS
Base wastewater flow is the average daily flow that originates from residential, commercial, and
industrial users. If the collection system had no I/I, the base wastewater flow would be the total daily
flow. Since I/I is very low during long periods of dry weather, base wastewater flow is also called average
dry weather flow. The purpose of this section is to establish base wastewater flow rates that are
generated by the 15 different land-use categories.
Base Wastewater Flow Rates for Residential Areas
Base wastewater flows generally relate closely to water consumption rates. In Exhibit 17 of the Eugene
Water & Electric Board’s 2004 Water System Master Plan, winter water consumption in the EWEB
system was shown to be 150 gallons per household per day for residential use. Based on the 2010
census, the average occupancy rate is approximately 2.24 persons per dwelling unit, resulting in the flow
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 4: Design Criteria 30
rate of 67 gal/capita/day. This flow rate is less than the 1992 rate of 73 gal/capita/day, which is an
expected result of low-flow fixtures and other water conservation efforts.
For new construction, the Envision Eugene Comprehensive Plan estimates the average number of
dwelling units per gross acre for low-, medium- and high-density designated areas. Those units and the
estimated base flow rates are shown in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2: Estimated Base Flow Rates for Residential Land Use
Type of Land Use
(Designation)
Dwelling Units
Per Gross Acre1
Population Per
Gross Acre2
Base Flows Per
Gross Acre3
Base Flows
Per Net Acre4
Low-Density Residential 4.0 9 600 750
Medium-Density Residential 5 10.7 24 1,605 2,000
High-Density Residential 21.5 48 3,230 4,040
1 From Envision Eugene Comprehensive Plan estimates
2 Dwelling units x 2.24 persons/DU – 2010 census
3 Population x 67 gal/capita/day – 2004 EWEB Water Master Plan
4 Gross acres include 25% street right-of-way. Flow per net acre = 1.25 x flow per gross acre.
5 Includes Row Houses
Base Wastewater Flow Rates for Commercial and Industrial Areas
Commercial and industrial developments have a wide range of flow rates. This is due to the variety of
products, services, and intensity of site development that may occur. Without specific development
plans, base wastewater flow rates can be estimated on a basis of mixed development. The 1992 USSMP
included a detailed analysis to establish base wastewater flow rates for each of the major land use
categories. A thorough review of that analysis was completed, in addition to a review of current master
plans for EWEB and the City of Springfield, and a review of current industrial wastewater permits. It has
been determined that there is no basis to modify the methodology included in the 1992 plan. A copy of
that analysis is included in Appendix B of this document.
In addition to the four commercial and two industrial base flow rates included in the 1992 master plan
(see Table 4-3), one additional category has been established: Campus Industrial. A brief description of
this is included in Table 4-1. Calculation of base wastewater flow rates are described below.
Campus Industrial
An economic opportunities analysis prepared by ECONorthwest as part of the Envision Eugene process
found an average of about 21 persons/acre on a sample of Campus Industrial sites in Eugene (see
Envision Eugene Comprehensive Plan, Employment Land Supply Study, Part II, Table 25.) The study is
planning for 10 employees per acre on industrial sites smaller than 10 acres (Table 31) and 6 to 14
employees per acres on industrial sites larger than 10 acres (Table 32). The Campus Industrial land-use
category could include industries that have a varying water demand, but also may have less dense
development than other commercial/industrial uses. Utilizing the per capita rate of 67 gallons may
grossly underestimate the flow rate. A more reasonable value similar to the Light-Medium Industrial rate
of 3,040 gallons per gross acre per day provides a factor of safety.
At best these flow rates are rough estimates that may be used for preliminary planning and system
design. They may be checked against actual water usage in existing commercial developments and
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 4: Design Criteria 31
adjusted as necessary. More accurate estimates can be made when specific site plans are developed, and
then actual flow rates can be determined when the development is in operation. This process would
allow preliminary design flow rates to be verified and provides more valid information to monitor system
capacities.
PEAK FLOW FACTOR
The preceding sections have established estimates of average base wastewater flows for proposed
developments. Average base wastewater flow is defined as the average daily wastewater contribution
from residential, commercial, and industrial users. To determine the required pipe sizes for the
wastewater collection system, estimates of the peak hourly flow rate are required. Residential,
commercial, and industrial flows typically follow a regular pattern, the maximum peak occurring in the
morning and a lesser peak generally occurring in the evening. The peaks correspond to high water usage
in homes, commercial institutions, and industries.
The 1992 USSMP includes an extensive analysis for the development of the peak flow factor used in
Eugene and there is no basis to modify this methodology. The base peak flow factor should not be more
than 3.5 nor less than 1.5. It is based on an exponential curve which can be calculated by the formula:
Peak Flow Factor = 25 - 20.20 (ADWF)0.0165 where ADWF = average dry-weather flow expressed in 1000s
of gallons/day.
Design Depth of Flow
Wastewater systems are often designed to flow at a d/D ratio (depth of peak flow/pipe diameter) of 0.5
to 0.7 during peak flow conditions. This serves two purposes:
• Maintains ventilation throughout the pipeline.
• Provides some reserve capacity for future flow increases which may occur from land use or
zoning changes, high-volume commercial or industrial businesses, or concentration of high-volume
users in certain areas.
To simplify the design process, the peak flow factor has been calculated to provide a variable safety
factor. When the proposed design criteria indicate a pipe is flowing full, the actual d/D ratio (depth of
peak flow/pipe diameter) is estimated to vary from 0.65 for 8-inch pipes to 0.85 for 60-inch pipes. This
allows the designer to accurately select pipe sizes based on their capacity when flowing full.
INFILTRATION/INFLOW
General
Infiltration/inflow (I/I), combined with peak base wastewater flow from residential, commercial, and
industrial users makes up the total collection system design flow. In the Eugene collection system, I/I
constitutes a majority of the total peak flow during the wet weather periods of the year.
Total infiltration/inflow consists of two components:
• Groundwater infiltration (GWI) occurs when a non-watertight wastewater pipe or structure is
submerged or partially submerged beneath the groundwater table.
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 4: Design Criteria 32
• Rainfall-dependent I/I (RDI/I) occurs during and shortly after a rainfall event and includes both
infiltration and inflow. The stormwater inflow results from surface runoff sources and the
rainfall-dependent infiltration (RDI) results from saturated soil conditions.
Various factors influence the I/I flow rate. GWI peaks during the high groundwater period, usually
between January and March. The RDI peak occurs when the soil is highly saturated and has limited
capacity to store additional water.
New Systems
New system design should not allow stormwater inflow. Ongoing system management and inspection
will prevent connection of catch basins, area drains, and roof drains to the wastewater systems. An
allowance for infiltration should still be included because pipe and joint materials will develop some
defects during the long service life of the system.
New pipe materials are expected to have a service life of 100 years or more. Over that long service life,
considerable damage should be expected. Therefore, the recommended peak I/I rate for new
wastewater system design is:
2000 gal/gross acre/day or 2500 gal/net acre/day
This is an increase from the previous master plan but is consistent with the DEQ recommendation and
the criteria used in the MWMC Facility Plan.
Existing Systems
For basins and study areas that include an existing wastewater system, an allowance for both infiltration
and inflow must be included for the existing system. Peak I/I flow rates can vary widely, depending on
the decade of construction, material type and groundwater conditions. Because of the complexity of
variables causing I/I, rather than calculating a value based on these factors, the best way to estimate I/I is
to use hydraulic model results for the study area. As the wastewater hydraulic model is developed, more
and more basin-specific I/I rate data is becoming available. This data is based on field measured flow
rates.
If the study area does not have model results available, estimate the capacity of an existing wastewater
line by reviewing the age of the system, the type of pipe materials, and whether any rehabilitation has
been completed. If this review indicates less than 50 percent of the system is rehabilitated or PVC pipe,
the peak infiltration rate of 4000 gal/gross acre/day should be used.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED DESIGN CRITERIA FOR NEW SYSTEMS
This section provides a summary of the design criteria developed in the previous sections. The basic
components of the design flow are shown in the following equation:
Design Flow = (ADWF x PFF) + (I/I)
where ADWF = Average Dry Weather Flow, PFF = Peak Flow Factor, and I/I = Infiltration and Inflow.
Average Dry-Weather Flow
The ADWF is the total of the base wastewater flows from all types of land use designations within the
design basin, shown in Table 4-3. Refined flow information for specific developments (especially
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 4: Design Criteria 33
commercial and industrial) should be used when available. Flow rates are provided for both gross and
net acres. Gross areas are for the entire development site, including street areas. Net areas are for lots
and development areas only and assume 25 percent of the gross area is used for streets.
Table 4-3: Summary of Design Wastewater Flow Rates for New Developments
Gross Acre Design Net Acre Design
Land Use Category Base flow Rate
(Gal/Acre/Day)
Base flow Rate
(Gal/Acre/Day)
Low-Density Residential 600 750
Medium-Density Residential 1605 2000
High-Density Residential 3230 4040
Neighborhood Commercial Facilities 1360 1700
Community Commercial Center/Mixed Use 2000 2500
Major Retail Center 2560 3200
Campus Industrial 3040 3800
Light-Medium/Special Heavy Industrial 3040 3800
Heavy Industrial 1520 1900
Park and Open Space Consult park master plan for use intensity
Government and Education/University Research 2680 3350
Peak Flow Factor (PFF)
The peak flow factor simulates the peak hourly base wastewater flow rate that occurs during the day.
The PFF varies between 3.5 and 1.5, depending on the total average dry-weather flow from the basin
area. The PFF can be calculated from the following equation:
Peak Flow Factor = 25 - 20.2 (ADWF)0.0165
where ADWF is the total average dry-weather flow from the basin or study area, expressed in 1000s of
gallons per day.
Example: Total ADWF for the basin is 600,000 gal/day
PFF = 25 - 20.2 (600)0.0165
= 25 - 20.2 (1.11) = 2.55
Infiltration/Inflow - New Development Areas
For new development, an allowance is made for peak infiltration at the following rates:
Peak Infiltration Rates
Type of Land Use Gal/Gross Acre/Day Gal/Net Acre/Day
All Types 2,000 2,500
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 4: Design Criteria 34
Example Calculation
The following is an example calculated using wastewater flow rates in Table 4-3:
Preliminary development plan for a site containing 100 gross acres:
• 10 acres Neighborhood Commercial
• 10 acres Light-Medium Industrial
• 60 acres Low-Density Residential
• 20 acres Medium-Density Residential
Land Use Site Area
(Gross Acres)
Base Flow Rate
(Gal/Acre/Day)
Average Dry Weather Flow
(1,000 Gal/Day)
Low-Density Residential 60 600 36.0
Medium-Density Residential 20 1,605 32.1
Neighborhood Commercial 10 1,360 13.6
Light/Medium Industrial 10 3,040 30.4
Total Average Base Flow (Kgal/day) = 112.1
Peak Base Flow (Kgal/day)1 = 354.7
Infiltration (Kgal/day)2 = 200.0
Peak Design Flow (Kgal/day) = 554.7
Peak Design Flow (CFS) = 0.860
1 Peak Flow Factor = 25 - 20.2 (112.1)0.0165
2 Infiltration = 100 gross acres at the rate of 2,000 GAD
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 5: Rehab of Existing Systems 35
Chapter 5 - Rehabilitation of Existing Wastewater Systems
PURPOSE
The purpose of this chapter is to document current and past pipe rehabilitation efforts, outline methods
for determining future rehabilitation priorities, and propose a level of funding necessary to fully address
long-term preservation of the system based on projected design life and capacity of system components.
GENERAL
The preservation needs of the wastewater system fall into two categories: structural problems and
excessive I/I.
Structural problems: As detailed in Table 5-1, 29 percent of the system, which is approximately one
million feet of pipe, was constructed at least 50 years ago and not rehabilitated as of 2019. Studies
indicate that this may approach the design life of concrete pipe materials, particularly those installed
before advanced gasket technology was available. Prior to the mid-1970s, wastewater pipe was
constructed with concrete, clay, or transite. Although these materials are generally good for this
application, over decades they are subject to chemical erosion, and the jointing materials deteriorate,
allowing ground water to infiltrate. Investigations into the older parts of the system indicate that the
majority of infiltration is coming from these older pipes. Today's installations only allow PVC, HDPE and
ductile iron pipe which are chemically resistant, and have superior jointing materials.
Currently, the City of Eugene rehabilitates approximately 9,000 feet of old pipe per year. However, the
collection system is aging much faster than we can rehab it. As of 2019, 34 percent of the system was at
least 50 years old. By 2029 that number jumps to 49 percent. As a result, Eugene can expect more
structural problems and emergency repairs unless an accelerated rehabilitation program is established.
Table 5-1: Age of Unrehabilitated Gravity Pipe Collection System
Decade of
Construction
Length of Pipe
Constructed
Rehabilitated
Pipe
Unrehabilitated
Pipe
Percent
Unrehabilitated
1912-1919 43,685 24,531 19,154 44%
1920-1929 90,958 65,291 25,666 28%
1930-1939 23,804 12,041 11,764 49%
1940-1949 141,521 75,167 66,354 47%
1950-1959 336,789 200,876 135,913 40%
1960-1969 925,151 112,844 812,307 88%
1970-1979 617,267 41,605 575,662 93%
1980-1989 337,284 9,200 328,084 97%
1990-1999 850,484 6181 844,304 99%
2000-2009 273,154 1465 271,689 99%
2010-2019 88,218 147 88,071 100%
Total 3,728,314 549,347 3,178,967 85%
50 years or older (as of 2019) 490,750 1,071,157 69%
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 5: Rehab of Existing Systems 36
Excessive infiltration and inflow: In addition to age-related structural concerns, the older wastewater
pipes are also the primary source of excessive I/I. Excessive I/I creates a series of related problems:
• Treatment plant operation: High water flow rates increase plant operational costs and reduce
treatment effectiveness. Given that the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
wastewater discharge permits are issued with increasing restrictions, plant efficiency becomes
more critical.
• Treatment plant capacity: The existing treatment plant was designed for a maximum hydraulic
capacity of 277 MGD. The average dry weather flow at the plant is under 30 MGD. Since the
completion of major upgrades to the plant, the maximum flow experienced at the plant has
been 231 MGD. As development occurs in both Eugene and Springfield, reducing I/I is critical to
maintaining flows within the design capacity of the plant.
• Wastewater system capacity: As indicated above, high I/I rates at the treatment plant are an
indication of higher flows throughout the piped system. Increased I/I reduces the available
capacity for development and densification.
These preservation needs can be addressed through a managed rehabilitation program. Map 5-A
indicates the types and areas of rehabilitation that have taken place over the last 25 years, and Map 5B
shows the type of current pipe materials.
WASTEWATER SYSTEM REHABILITATION PROGRAM
Eugene’s wastewater collection system rehabilitation program is primarily centered on the reduction of
infiltration and inflow. The overall program consists of several rehabilitation methods and quality-control
procedures addressing the operation, maintenance and preservation of Eugene’s wastewater system.
Methods for Problem Identification
• Smoke testing is the process of flooding a blocked-off segment of the wastewater collection
system with inert, artificial smoke to see where it emerges. It is used to locate collection system
defects, improper connections, and storm-wastewater cross connections. System-wide smoke
testing was done in the mid-1970s and again in the mid-2000s. Many defects were found in both
public and private wastewater lines. A large percentage of the defects were corrected; however,
it was not possible to determine the I/I reduction that was accomplished due to a lack of
measurable data. Smoke testing in 2018 in the Friendly Street neighborhood, which lasted most
of the summer, resulted in only 6 work orders and 2 notices to correct cross connections. Also, it
was difficult to determine if the defects were public or private.
• Video inspection is the process of video recording the interior of a pipe using specialized
equipment. It is used to observe and document pipe deficiencies (pipe cracks, offset joints,
settlement or dips in the pipeline, root intrusion, protruding taps) and detect infiltration in the
mains and laterals; The inspection program has been ongoing since about 1965 and is now on
about a five-year cycle to inspect all pipes that are less than 24 inches in diameter.
• Manhole inspection is the process of manually investigating and reporting on the features of a
wastewater manhole looking for infiltration in covers, frames, cones, structures, and connecting
lines.
• Flow monitoring is the process of measuring the amount of water passing by a point in the
wastewater system over time. It was started in 1989 and measures wastewater flow rates at key
manholes throughout the system. Flow monitoring information has two key uses: it is used to
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 5: Rehab of Existing Systems 37
calibrate the wastewater model, and it helps locate areas with rehabilitation needs based on
infiltration. The most important information is obtained during heavy rainstorm events which
determines the existing amount of I/I. The flow monitoring is also used to measure flow before
and after rehabilitation work to measure I/I reduction.
Methods for Correction and Quality Control
• Inflow source correction eliminates stormwater that reaches the wastewater system through
direct connections. Historically, the connections were identified by the smoke-testing program.
Roof drains, area drains, foundation drains, catch basins, sump pumps, cross-connections, etc.,
are disconnected from the wastewater system and rerouted to the storm or street drainage
system. Manhole covers are also a source of inflow. When leaking manhole covers are identified
they are corrected.
• Infiltration correction needs to be accomplished in both the public wastewater system and the
private building service lines to reduce flows caused by infiltration. Correction of pipe defects is
accomplished in several ways: reconstruction; chemical grout; sealing; slip lining; and cured-in-
place pipe (CIPP) lining..
• Structural correction is accomplished by reconstruction or lining. If pipe condition, pipe size, and
capacity requirements are all acceptable, then structural conditions may be improved by lining
the host pipe. Structural correction and I/I reduction are planned and constructed at the same
time to allow use of the most cost-effective construction methods.
• Wastewater construction inspection is essential in new construction and equally important –
and even more difficult – in rehab construction. The City has established construction
specifications and performs comprehensive and thorough inspections. A trained engineering
technician from the Engineering Division is provided to witness and document construction or
rehabilitation. Special attention is paid to lateral connections, which can be a major source of
infiltration.
• Design and design review of proposed wastewater systems is performed by the Engineering
Division to ensure compliance with design criteria and public improvement design standards.
Wastewater lines are constructed in public street rights-of-way whenever possible to provide
best access for wastewater maintenance. When easement construction is necessary, more
consideration is given to preserving maintenance access. Allowing the installation of private
wastewater systems is minimized. When private systems are allowed, the owners must agree to
provide equal construction, maintenance, and I/ I control. Long, private service lines within the
public right-of-way are replaced with direct access into the public system where possible.
Wastewater Model Development
Eugene's complex wastewater collection system has been simulated as a digital hydraulic model in DHI's
Mike Urban software. This model allows Engineering to perform complex analyses on the wastewater
collection system.
The model was substantially completed in 2016. It was developed and is maintained by in-house staff.
The initial simulated network included only pipes 10 inches in diameter and larger and associated pump
stations. The model was calibrated using 30 flow monitors which recorded both wet weather and dry
weather flows. This calibration means that when a historical rainstorm is simulated, the model's output
closely matches the graph of the measured flow for that storm.
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 5: Rehab of Existing Systems 38
For the model to be a useful tool, continued refinement, expansion, and maintenance of the model is
necessary. A flow monitor only measures the flow at a discrete point, which then represents the
wastewater system upstream of that point. With 30 initial flow monitor locations, each of those points
represents many thousands of feet of pipe. Monitoring and modeling more points increases data
resolution so that each measured flow represents fewer, more localized upstream pipes. The next
milestone in model refinement is to reach flow data resolution at no larger than 50,000 feet.
Furthermore, by including only pipes 10 inches and greater in diameter, the initial model contained only
20 percent of existing wastewater pipes. As flow monitors are deployed in upstream reaches that were
not included in the initial model, the model is expanded by adding the associated upstream network of
8-inch pipes. The location of these upstream monitors is often driven by measuring the flow in micro-
basins to determine areas of extreme I/I for rehabilitation.
Map 5-C shows the layout of the model at the start of 2020. As seen on the map, there are localized
areas that have been filled in with all existing 8-inch pipes. The map also shows all monitoring points
where the model is currently calibrated.
The model is maintained by analyzing flow data over time. Some flow monitors are permanently
deployed in key locations so that the model can be re-calibrated when system changes are detected.
Rehabilitation Planning Process
The rehabilitation needs of the wastewater system far exceed the available capital resources. Prioritizing
projects requires integration of many factors, including an analysis of the wastewater model, review of
flow monitoring data, video inspection, consideration of future development, operational capacity of
pump stations, and available budget. These tasks are divided among the Engineering, Wastewater,
Maintenance, and Administration divisions of Eugene Public Works.
Rehabilitation projects are generally identified 18 to 24 months prior to construction. The process to
prioritize capital projects begins with updating the wastewater model and the ranked micro-basin list
with the latest flow data. Engineering, Wastewater and Maintenance divisions meet to evaluate the
current areas of high I/I on the ranked list. Generally, the micro-basin with the worst I/I is given the
highest priority. However, the evaluation also includes:
• What areas of the city are expected to have development that could increase flows beyond the
downstream capacity if I/I efforts do not take place?
• Are pump stations having operational difficulties due to high I/I rates upstream?
• What is the pipe type and age of the system under consideration?
• Which areas can be rehabilitated most efficiently within the budget?
• What system defects are causing an inordinate impact on Maintenance operations?
The next step is video inspection by Maintenance or a contractor in the selected micro-basin. These
videos and reports enable the Engineering team to scope and design the capital rehabilitation project,
including mains, cleanouts, laterals, and manholes. Engineering Division prepares and bids the project for
construction. Once construction is complete, flow monitors are deployed to measure the effectiveness
of the rehabilitation, and the flow monitoring data is once again used to update, expand, and refine the
model.
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 5: Rehab of Existing Systems 39
The process is repeated continually. It is important to review the entire system each year due to
changing priorities, new information, development trends, budget considerations, and operational
needs.
Finance Planning
Adequate funding for an effective wastewater rehabilitation program requires financial planning in two
major areas:
• Wastewater user charge administration and rate setting: The local portion of the wastewater
user charge supports operation, maintenance, and rehab of the existing wastewater systems and
provides some capital improvement funding. The user charge will likely continue to be the main
source of funding for the rehabilitation program. Any increase in user charges to support an
expanded program must be coordinated with the regional user charge and implemented so as to
avoid major impact on ratepayers.
• Capital Improvement Program planning: Wastewater rehabilitation improvements have
generally been funded as a single program item in the CIP budget. This practice should continue,
as specific areas and projects are defined annually based on current model outputs and other
priorities as discussed above.
REHABILITATION OF PRIVATE SERVICE LATERALS
Service laterals, which extend from the main wastewater line to a business or residence, have the
potential to be major contributors to infiltration. Historically, when the mainline is rehabilitated, the
portion of the service lateral from the mainline to the right of way is included in the rehabilitation
project. From the right-of-way line to the business or residence, the pipe is private property. As long as it
appears to be working, there is little incentive for the private owner to replace or repair the pipe
regardless of its contribution of I/I into the wastewater system.
There is general agreement among wastewater professionals that I/I from private service laterals
exacerbates peak flow issues in the wastewater collection and treatment system. Initial assessments of
Eugene's flow monitoring data support this notion. An analysis done for the Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Commission in 2015 offered a number of conclusions:
• Regulatory standards exist for the management of wet weather flows and the prohibition of
sanitary sewer overflows.
• Substantial penalties are associated with noncompliance with the regulatory standards.
• The Eugene/Springfield Regional Water Pollution Control Facility experiences significant peak
flows due to infiltration and inflow in the public and presumably the private segments of the
sanitary sewer system. These peak flows increase the costs to collect and convey water in the
sanitary system to the treatment plant, reduce treatment efficiency and increase treatment
costs, and increase the potential for overflows from the sanitary sewer system.
• Significant funding and resources have been applied by MWMC and Eugene and Springfield to
the repair and rehabilitation of the public segments of the sanitary sewer infrastructure, and to
expanding the capacity of the regional treatment facility to accept and treat peak wet weather
flows.
• Neither city has specific code requirements at this time related to the responsibilities for proper
operation and maintenance of private service laterals connected to the public sanitary system.
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 5: Rehab of Existing Systems 40
• There is currently insufficient data to quantitatively document the contribution of I/I from
private service laterals to the local or MWMC wastewater system.
• There is anecdotal evidence from Eugene and Springfield, and quantitative data from peer
agencies, of the potential significance of these contributions.
• Eugene and Springfield have the capability to conduct flow monitoring of the sanitary sewer
systems within their jurisdiction.
• There are case examples of, and practical experience with, private lateral programs of peer
agencies that can be used for reference and guidance.
The full analysis and a list of possible actions to further evaluate the need for a program to address I/I
from private service laterals is included as Appendix C.
REHABILITATION COSTS
The costs of an effective wastewater rehabilitation program are determined by the method(s) used to
rehabilitate the system, the size of the pipes and other infrastructure being rehabilitated, and the
amounts of pipes needing rehabilitation. The costs are also affected by the quantity of public laterals and
manholes attached to the mains undergoing rehab, which are typically rehabbed in complementary
projects.
Mainline Rehabilitation Unit Costs
The three most common methods of wastewater rehab are: chemical grout sealing, cured-in-place pipe
lining (CIPP), and reconstruction. Other methods of rehabilitation include slip lining and pipe bursting. In
Eugene, slip lining is seldom used, and pipe bursting has been used on smaller pipe sizes but does not
represent a significant portion of the rehabilitation program.
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 5: Rehab of Existing Systems 41
Chemical grout sealing performs best
in deep lines with elevated ground
water conditions that do not allow
the grout to dry out. It is the least
costly rehab method but does not
provide any structural improvement
to the pipeline. This method of rehab
is best utilized for portions of the
system difficult to access by other
means, and costs vary significantly
based on depth, size and the number
of locations included in the contract.
Table 5-2 shows the estimated unit
cost for the primary method of
construction, cured-in-place pipe, (or
CIPP). This method of rehabilitation
not only provides a continuous,
unjointed segment of pipe between
manholes, but it performs as a
structural improvement to the host
pipe.
Public Lateral Rehabilitation Costs
Public laterals extend from the wastewater main to the property line. The primary method used to
rehabilitate laterals in Eugene is CIPP lining. At 2019 prices, an average lateral (length 30 feet) costs about
$4,500 to CIPP line, which includes engineering costs.
Manhole Rehabilitation Costs
Manholes are generally constructed with concrete and are therefore a potential source of
inflow/infiltration as they age. The primary method used to rehabilitate manholes and restore their
ability to protect against infiltration is grout sealing. At 2019 prices, sealing a manhole costs $225/vertical
foot and costs $500 to seal the channel.
Long-Range Rehabilitation Planning
As of 2019 there were approximately 717 miles of public wastewater lines. Of this approximately 202
miles of pipe were 50 years or older, without any type of rehabilitation performed on them, as shown in
Table 5-1 and Table 5-3.
Table 5-2: Estimated Construction Costs for Wastewater
Rehabilitation Using Cured-In-Place Pipe (CIPP)
Existing Wastewater
Diameter
CIPP 1
($/foot)
Wastewater
Reconstruction 2 ($/foot)
6” $129 $138
8” $132 $154
10” $134 $168
12” $136 $187
15” $141 $199
18” $154 $254
21” $165 $284
24” $219 $295
27” $251 $347
30” $280 $401
36” $325 $467
42” $390 $542
48” $447 $666
54” $526 $786
60” $730 $894
66” $803 $908
72” $958 $917
Note: 2019 construction costs: ENR = 11281
1 CIPP costs includes replacing and reconnecting the service line
to the ROW.
2 Wastewater reconstruction includes pavement removal and
replacement. Costs shown are for a typical average depth
based on the size of the pipe. Detailed reconstruction cost
information is included in Chapter 6.
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 5: Rehab of Existing Systems 42
Table 5-3: Construction Costs for Wastewater Rehabilitation Using Cured-In-Place Pipe (CIPP) for
Existing Un-Rehabilitated Pipe Greater Than 50 Years Old (as of 2019)
Pipe Diameter Un-Rehabilitated Pipe (ft) CIPP Cost/Foot Total Construction Cost1
5” -6” 30,526 $129 $3.95
8” 649,149 $132 $85.38
10” 64,125 $134 $8.58
12” 53,307 $136 $7.25
14”-15” 32,813 $141 $4.61
18” 60,443 $154 $9.31
21” 29,737 $165 $4.91
24” 17,176 $219 $3.77
27” 12,863 $251 $3.22
30” 32,820 $280 $9.19
36” 38,878 $325 $12.63
42” 3,543 $390 $1.38
48” 5,674 $447 $2.54
54” 11,851 $526 $6.23
60” 7,424 $730 $5.42
66” 7,276 $803 $5.84
72” 11,301 $958 $10.82
Total 1,068,904 $185.03
Note: cost estimates used 2019 Construction Costs, ENR =11281
1 in millions of dollars
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The fiscal year 2020 capital budget included $1,755,000 for wastewater reconstruction and
rehabilitation. In 2019, this represented less than 0.1 percent of the estimated replacement value of the
wastewater collection system and only allowed for rehabilitation of approximately 11,000 feet of pipe.
To help put that amount of rehab in perspective, an additional 70,000 feet of wastewater pipe reached
the age of 50 in 2019 alone.
PVC was not the predominant pipe type until approximately the mid-1970s, and wasn’t used exclusively
for smaller diameter pipe until the 1980s. Most literature concludes that PVC can be expected to have a
service life of 100 years, or more. In addition to the pipe material, the joint materials used in PVC pipe
continue to improve, reducing I/I.
An added benefit of a fully funded wastewater rehabilitation program is improved resiliency of the
system in the event of an earthquake. Continuous, lined gravity wastewater pipes are far less likely to
separate during a seismic event.
W 13th
W 2nd
W 6th
W 11th
W 13th
E 4thE3rd
CityViewOakPatchBaileyHillOliveWillamettePearl PattersonHilyardLincoln AlderAgateFranklin
W 11th
W 18thSBertelsenW13th
W 7th
W 24th
W 28th
E 33rd
E 19th
Colum bia
E 30th
Cre s tL o r a n e H w yCity View W 28th
B a ile yH illW 25th
ChambersJeffersonFriendlyPolkKevington BaileyHillW 18th W 18th
GimplHillWillow Creek GimplHillLorane HwyBaileyHill WillametteLoraneHwyW 11th
SDaneboRandyPape⌐BeltlineHwyS Bertelsen W 11th
W 1 s t
Avalon NTerryNTerryGreenHillFirestone
Royal
Marshall
ElmiraRoosevelt
H
w
y
9
9
N
NorthwestExpressway
Park
Horn Minda
W 5th
W 1st
VanBurenN Danebo Bodenhamer
Barger
LegacyClearLake
Clear Lake
River Loop 1
CrockerIrvingIrvingHyacinth Hunsaker
Randy Pape ⌐Beltline HwyRandyPape⌐B e l t l i n e H w y
SilverNor
t
hwes
t
Ex
pr
es
s
wayPrai
ri
eH
w
y
9
9
N
Ri
ver
Blackfoot
Irvington
Barstow
River Loop 2
WilkesIrvingtonLynnbrook
Spring Creek
River Loop 2
Beacon
Awbrey
E Enid
Airport
Lynnbrook Ri
ver ScenicLancasterMeadowviewMeadowview
Ri
verPr
a
iri
e
Prairie
Hwy99sGreenHillGreen Hill
Beacon
H
w
y
9
9
NGreenHill
GreenHillHoward
N ParkNTerry CrescentN Delta HwyGoodpa s tu r e L p
GoodpastureIslandBeth
el
H
w
y
9
9
NRoyalMaxwell
Goodpasture Island
County Farm
Coburg JeppesenAcres
OakwayCountryClub
Bailey CoburgBarger
EchoHollowTaneyW Shelton McMurphey
Ha rlo w
Marti n Luther King JrLeoHarrisPkwy
E 18th
Beltline
Harlow
W C e ntennialVanDuyn
FerryStreetBridgeAyres
Green AcresRandyPape⌐BeltlineHwy
Cal Young
W ill akenzie
C r e scentGam
e
F
a
r
m
ChadCoburg
NorkenzieGilhamFairview
F ra n k l i n
HawkinsBrittanyWillowCreekEd C o ne
Roosevelt
AspenRainbowKinsr ow
I-105
E 24th
EAmazonE
30thAmazonPkwyHilyardHarrisTimberline
E 40th
Di
l
l
ardFoxHoll
o
wW 39th
E 43rd
E 4 3 r dAgate
E 46thWillametteDonald HilyardCrowGreenHillLincolnWillametteBraeBurnMcKinleyGarfieldGarfield ChambersPolkMonroeWashingtonJeffersonValley River
E Broadway
W D
I-5Kincaid
NShastaLpSpringDilla
r
dOakHighBlair
E 19th
W 13th
W 11th
W 27th
W 29th
E 33rd WAmazonFoxHollowMcBethW 11th
W 5th
W 7thSSeneca
ArthurN Seneca WillagillespieClub
Oakm
o
n
t
GoodpastureIsland
DeltaHwyGilhamNorkenzieLakeNParkNParkFairfieldGroveI-105
Cal Young
NGardenSGardenGameFarmGatewayRandyPape⌐Beltline Hwy
I-105
AmazonPkwy
W 6th
RandyPape⌐BeltlineHwyHavitureColtonRi
ver
DonaldFoxHollowBogartAlderCoburg Bottom
Co
b
u
r
g
N Coburg Willam
e
t
t
e
Coburg
McKenzie Vie
w
Arm itage River Loop 1Coburg Industrial Glenwood Henderson Bloom berg
Gonyea Blanton I - 5I - 5I - 5
I - 5
N Bertelsen N Danebo WAmazonLakeview
Avengale
ArcadiaCubitNClareyArrowheadRiver
Augusta BrackenfernWalnutOrchardFairmountS u m m itMillLoraneHwyWashingtonW 7th W 7thUnionPac
ifi
c
RRE Enid
AI
LH
SI
WS
SW
WR
SC
DA
WN
DW
DC
DF
BN
RR
M
Ft07,000
Rehabilitated Pipe
Legend
Pipe BurstLinerGrout Seal Sh ort LinerSpot Repair
Map 5-A: Rehabilitated Pipe by Type of Repair
W 13th
W 2nd
W 6th
W 11th
W 13th
E 4thE3rd
CityViewOakPatchBaileyHillOliveWillamettePearl PattersonHilyardLincoln AlderAgateFranklin
W 11th
W 18thSBertelsenW13th
W 7th
W 24th
W 28th
E 33rd
E 19th
Colum bia
E 30th
Cre s tL o r a n e Hw yCity View W 28th
B a ile yH illW 25th
ChambersJeffersonFriendlyPolkKevington BaileyHillW 18th W 18th
GimplHillWillow Creek GimplHillLorane HwyBaileyHill WillametteLoraneHwyW 11th
SDaneboRandyPape⌐BeltlineHwyS Bertelsen W 11th
W 1 s t
Avalon NTerryNTerryGreenHillFirestone
Royal
Marshall
ElmiraRoosevelt
H
w
y
9
9
N
NorthwestExpressway
Park
Horn Minda
W 5th
W 1st
VanBurenN Danebo Bodenhamer
Barger
LegacyClearLake
Clear Lake
River Loop 1
CrockerIrvingIrvingHyacinth Hunsaker
Randy Pape ⌐Beltline HwyRandyPape⌐B e l t l i n e H w y
SilverNorthwes
t
Ex
pr
es
s
wayPrai
ri
eH
w
y
9
9
N
Ri
ver
Blackfoot
Irvington
Barstow
River Loop 2
WilkesIrvingtonLynnbrook
Spring Creek
River Loop 2
Beacon
Awbrey
E Enid
Airport
Lynnbrook Ri
ver ScenicLancasterMeadowviewMeadowview
Ri
verPr
a
iri
e
Prairie
Hwy99sGreenHillGreen Hill
Beacon
H
w
y
9
9
NGreenHill
GreenHillHoward
N ParkNTerry CrescentN Delta HwyGoodpa s tu r e L p
GoodpastureIslandBeth
el
H
w
y
9
9
NRoyalMaxwell
Goodpasture Island
County Farm
Coburg JeppesenAcres
OakwayCountryClub
Bailey CoburgBarger
EchoHollowTaneyW Shelton McMurphey
Ha rlow
Mar tin Lut her Ki ng JrLeoHarrisPkwy
E 18th
Beltline
Harlow
W C e ntennialVanDuyn
FerryStreetBridgeAyres
Green AcresRandyPape⌐BeltlineHwy
Cal Young
W ill akenzie
C r e scentGam
e
F
a
r
m
ChadCoburg
NorkenzieGilhamFairview
F ra n k l i n
HawkinsBrittanyWillowCreekEd C o ne
Roosevelt
AspenRainbowKinsrow
I-105
E 24th
EAmazonE
30thAmazonPkwyHilyardHarrisTimberline
E 40th
Di
l
l
ardFoxHoll
o
wW 39th
E 43rd
E 4 3 r dAgate
E 46thWillametteDonald HilyardCrowGreenHillLincolnWillametteBraeBurnMcKinleyGarfieldGarfield ChambersPolkMonroeWashingtonJeffersonValley River
E Broadway
W D
I-5Kincaid
NShastaLpSpringDilla
r
dOakHighBlair
E 19th
W 13th
W 11th
W 27th
W 29th
E 33rd WAmazonFoxHollowMcBethW 11th
W 5th
W 7thSSeneca
ArthurN Seneca WillagillespieClub
Oakm
o
n
t
GoodpastureIsland
DeltaHwyGilhamNorkenzieLakeNParkNParkFairfieldGroveI-105
Cal Young
NGardenSGardenGameFarmGatewayRandyPape⌐Beltline Hwy
I-105
AmazonPkwy
W 6th
RandyPape⌐BeltlineHwyHavitureColtonRi
ver
DonaldFoxHollowBogartAlderCoburg Bottom
Co
b
u
r
g
N Coburg Willam
e
t
t
e
Coburg
McKenzie Vie
w
Arm itage River Loop 1Coburg Industrial Glenwood Henderson Bloom berg
Gonyea Blanton I - 5I - 5I - 5
I - 5
N Bertelsen N Danebo WAmazonLakeview
Avengale
ArcadiaCubitNClareyArrowheadRiver
Augusta BrackenfernWalnutOrchardFairmountS u m m itMillLoraneHwyWashingtonW 7th W 7thUnionPac
ifi
c
RRE Enid
AI
LH
SI
WS
SW
WR
SC
DA
WN
DW
DC
DF
BN
RR
M
Ft07,000
Pipe Material Type
Legend
T ransiteVarious Plastics
Clay or SteelT russ
Concrete
Map 5-B: Wastewater Pipe Material
M
Ft07,000
Wastewater Hydraulic Model
LegendPipesManholesMonitor Sites
CatchmentsConnections
Map 5-C: Wastewater Hydraulic Model
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 6: Basis of Cost Estimates 46
Chapter 6 - Basis of Cost Estimates
PURPOSE
This chapter provides estimated construction costs for wastewater lines, wastewater pump stations, and
pressure lines.
GENERAL
The estimated costs presented in this chapter are primarily for development of long-range financial
plans. Major new interceptors, trunk wastewaters lines, pump stations, and pressure lines that may be
constructed during the next 20 years are described in Chapter 7. This chapter shows the basic unit prices
used to estimate the construction costs for these future wastewater projects.
WASTEWATER CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Wastewater construction cost estimates are based on the 1998 Local Wastewater System Development
Study completed by CH2MHill and have been adjusted to an Engineering News-Record (ENR) cost index
of 11281, which was the average adjustment for 2019. This method was verified by comparing adjusted
estimates to values from more recent cost estimating software.
The estimated costs per foot are shown for pipes from 6-inch through 72-inch diameters and for trench
depths in 5-foot increments. The costs are estimated for two typical construction situations as shown in
Table 6-1 and Table 6-2. The costs include a complete construction package for the main wastewater
line, including manholes, excavation, pipe bedding, pipe materials, pipe laying, pipe zone backfill,
appropriate trench backfill, air-pressure testing, TV inspection, and pavement removal and repair in the
trench area where required.
The tables show costs for projects of average construction difficulty. When special conditions exist, such
as high ground water, unstable trench, difficult traffic control, etc., costs should be increased. Costs for
building service connection lines and other special features, such as pavement overlays beyond the
trench area, also must be added if a more complete project estimate is needed.
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 6: Basis of Cost Estimates 47
Table 6-1: Estimated Costs for Construction in Developed Areas
Diameter
(inches)
Depth (feet)
0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 Over 21
6 $105.11 $153.90 $190.03 $223.60 $261.62
8 $107.36 $156.15 $192.29 $225.87 $264.27
10 $109.49 $158.20 $194.59 $229.96 $269.06
12 $122.11 $161.03 $202.01 $240.62 $281.52
14 $131.54 $170.46 $211.94 $250.54 $293.14
15 $131.54 $170.46 $211.94 $250.54 $293.14
16 $212.09 $261.81 $307.02 $359.22
18 $212.09 $261.81 $307.02 $359.22
20 $233.74 $280.86 $326.09 $381.52
21 $233.74 $280.86 $326.09 $381.52
22 $260.49 $292.54 $343.56 $401.96
24 $260.49 $292.54 $343.56 $401.96
27 $279.93 $339.40 $390.41 $456.78
30 $320.00 $387.83 $445.15 $520.81
36 $360.59 $437.09 $502.34 $587.75
42 $391.42 $475.50 $547.79 $640.92
45 $454.37 $549.96 $631.83 $739.24
48 $454.37 $549.96 $631.83 $739.24
54 $557.86 $665.07 $753.24 $881.29
60 $659.98 $779.59 $875.99 $1,024.91
66 $704.93 $832.77 $935.82 $1,094.91
72 $752.58 $888.64 $998.54 $1,168.29
78 $969.86 $1,086.04 $1,270.67
Notes: Unit costs are for reconstruction in developed areas (ENR 11281). Excludes engineering.
Includes 6 inches ACP
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 6: Basis of Cost Estimates 48
Table 6-2: Estimated Costs for Construction in Undeveloped Areas
Diameter
(inches)
Depth (feet)
0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 Over 21
6 $81.42 $130.20 $161.60 $190.43 $223.71
8 $80.95 $129.73 $160.60 $188.89 $222.01
10 $80.37 $129.07 $159.64 $189.19 $222.45
12 $90.26 $129.17 $163.79 $196.03 $230.57
14 $96.97 $135.89 $170.46 $202.15 $237.83
15 $95.61 $134.53 $168.83 $200.25 $235.65
16 $174.80 $217.07 $254.83 $299.56
18 $172.08 $213.79 $251.01 $295.21
20 $191.01 $229.59 $266.26 $313.15
21 $189.65 $227.96 $264.36 $310.98
22 $215.04 $238.01 $279.93 $329.25
24 $212.32 $234.74 $276.12 $324.90
27 $227.68 $276.70 $317.26 $373.19
30 $263.67 $320.23 $366.29 $430.69
36 $296.11 $359.70 $412.06 $484.57
42 $318.78 $388.32 $446.09 $524.68
45 $377.64 $457.90 $524.41 $616.48
48 $373.56 $453.00 $518.70 $609.95
54 $468.89 $558.31 $628.69 $738.95
60 $562.86 $663.04 $740.02 $869.51
66 $599.64 $706.44 $788.43 $926.47
72 $639.14 $752.52 $839.72 $986.78
78 $823.93 $915.80 $1,076.11
Notes: Unit Costs are for construction in undeveloped areas (ENR 11281). Excludes engineering
and paving costs.
SERVICE LATERALS
Service laterals under streets extend from the wastewater main to the property lines. For estimating
purposes, include a unit price for each property to be connected. Based on 2019 prices for 6-inch PVC
and cleanouts, connection costs are estimated as follows:
• Service lateral in paved streets: $3,000 to $3,500
• Service lateral in new development areas or unpaved gravel streets: approximately $4,000
WASTEWATER PUMP STATIONS
Pump station structures generally are designed to handle ultimate peak flows. Pumps may be installed
incrementally as required by development and population growth.
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 6: Basis of Cost Estimates 49
Cost estimates shown are for construction costs only, not including engineering, administration, or
contingency. The pump station cost estimates shown should be used only for preliminary estimates.
These tables were prepared by using actual bid prices, as shown in Table 6-3, for nine pump stations
constructed in Eugene and Springfield since 1992.
Table 6-3: Pump Station Costs from Recent Eugene/Springfield Projects
Construction
Year
Description of
Project/Location TDH Firm Station
Capacity Low Bid Price 1
2004 Airport Pump Station 100 ft. 0.6 MGD $1.192 M
1999 Barger/Greenhill Pump Station 160 ft. 3.6 MGD $3.877 M
1997 Crimson Pump Station 49 ft. 2.1 MGD $0.683 M
1994 Glenwood Pump Station2 30 ft. 18.0 MGD $3.935 M
2008 Harlow Road Pump Station2 51 ft 10.0 MGD $4.771 M
1997 Lynnbrook Pump Station 27 ft. 0.29 MGD $0.196 M
2001 North Santa Clara Pump Station 48 ft. 0.60 MGD $0.501 M
2001 Oakway Pump Station 32 ft. 3.01 MGD $1.431 M
1997 Prairie Road Pump Station 106 ft. 3.30 MGD $1.174 M
1 Adjusted to 2019 ENR 11281, excludes engineering
2 Station located in Springfield.
This data was supplemented with the price of 16 other pump stations built by consultants or the City of
Salem. All costs were adjusted to ENR Cost Index of 11281. The resultant table 6-4 is derived from a
linear fit of all 25 pump stations. Pump station cost estimates can be made either from the table or from
the linear fit equation: 𝐶𝑂𝑆𝑆 = 348674∗𝑄[𝑀𝐺𝐶]+547499. A more accurate estimate should be made
when actual design information becomes available.
Table 6-4: Estimated Construction Cost of Wastewater Pump Stations
Pump Station Capacity (MGD) Estimated Construction Cost 1
0.3 $652,000
0.5 $722,000
1.0 $896,000
2.0 $1,245,000
3.0 $1,594,000
4.0 $1,942,000
5.0 $2,291,000
7.0 $2,988,000
10.0 $4,034,000
12.0 $4,732,000
15.0 $5,778,000
20.0 $7,521,000
1 ENR = 11281
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 6: Basis of Cost Estimates 50
WASTEWATER PRESSURE LINES
Estimated construction costs for wastewater pressure lines are shown in Table 6-5. These costs were
developed by updating the ENR index from the 1992 Master Plan to the 2019 index of 11281 and
reviewing and comparing the values with recently bid projects. Costs are shown for two construction
conditions: 1) in paved street areas, which require imported granular backfill material and pavement
removal and restoration; and 2) in open areas, where surface restoration and utility conflicts are a
minimum.
Both conditions assume minimum trench depth with three feet of cover above the top of pipe. The
types of pipe material assumed for the various sizes are:
Pipe Size/Range Type of Pipe Material
6-inch to 27-inch PVC
30-inch and larger Concrete-encased steel
Table 6-5: Estimated Construction Cost for Wastewater Pressure Lines (Force Mains)
Pipe diameter (inches)
Estimated construction cost (per foot)
In paved areas2 In open areas1
6 $66 $43
8 $76 $53
10 $93 $65
12 $108 $75
14 $156 $114
16 $169 $125
28 $255 $194
30 $271 $210
36 $417 $341
42 $507 $425
72 $899 $786
Notes: ENR =11281
1 Costs assume 3-foot depth of pipe cover, with imported granular backfill above the
pipe zone area and minimal surface restoration or utility conflicts.
2 Costs assume 3-foot depth of pipe cover, with imported granular backfill above the
pipe zone area and removal and restoration of pavement in trench area.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The estimated construction costs included here are for high-level planning purposes. All construction
costs are influenced by the economy, time of bidding, difficulties of the specific project, and time
allowed for construction. Consideration of all factors should be included when preparing project-specific
estimates.
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 7: Major System Expansion 51
Chapter 7 - Major Collection System Expansion
PURPOSE
The purpose of this chapter is to summarize major wastewater collection system expansion in
predominantly undeveloped areas within the Urban Growth Boundary.
GENERAL COST INFORMATION
Cost estimates and a general service plan have been prepared for wastewater lines 10 inches and
greater in diameter, pump stations, force mains, and 8-inch wastewater lines necessary to serve a pump
station. In addition, Maps 7-B through 7-I indicate possible locations of 8-inch wastewater lines, but
only for demonstrating the ability to serve all areas of the basin. In all cases, the plan is only one option
for providing service. Based on development patterns, alternatives can be prepared that vary from this
plan, provided that no plans are approved that cannot ultimately serve the entire basin.
Project cost estimates are based on preliminary design information and an Engineering News Record
Construction Cost Index of 11281, which is the average index for 2019. An additional 35 percent has
been added for engineering and administration costs. Contingency or escalation factors are not
included.
Funding for these projects can happen in several ways. If the project is driven by a development, the
developer would pay for the improvements and may receive SDC credits for constructing pump stations
with capacity beyond that needed by the immediate development. They may also receive SDC credits for
constructing wastewater lines greater than 8 inches in diameter.
If the City initiates a project, a portion of the cost would be assessed to adjacent property owners and
other benefitted lot owners. The balance would be funded by SDCs.
Because SDCs and assessment funds have strict protocols on their use, additional funds may be needed
for major system expansion projects to cover items such as:
• City costs related to petition or development projects
• Manhole cover replacement
• Deferred assessments
• Improvement to existing facilities
• Correction of system problems outside the rehab program
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 7: Major System Expansion 52
Table 7-1: Summary of Costs for Proposed Capital Improvements to Wastewater System
(Estimated Costs from Tables 7-2 Through 7-5)
Improvement Area Description Total New Capacity Costs1
1. SW – West 11th/Crow Road (Map 7-B) a. 16672 to B-01 $621,315 b. B-02 to B-01 $559,396 c. B-03 to B-01 $628,600
2. SW – Willow Creek/West 18th (Map 7-C) a. C-04 to 4348 $401,957
3. SW – Bailey Hill/Gimpl Hill (Map 7-D) a. PS-D-55, PS-D-55 to D-05, and D-05 to 2324 $1,550,044
4. SI – North of East Enid Road (Map 7-E) a. PS-E-06, E-07 to PS-E-06, and E-08 to PS-E-06 $3,432,392 b. E-09 to E-08 and E-11 to E-08 $1,033,029 c. E-16 to PS-E-12 and PS-E-12 $3,006,912
5. SI – South of East Enid Road (Map 7-E) a. E-19 to 5706 $526,109
6. SI – South of Beltline Highway (Map 7-F) a. F-21 to 15929 $361,903
7. WN – North Delta Highway (Map 7-G) a. PS-G-22 and PS-G-22 to G-25 $1,004,431 b. G-25 to 16814 $207,341
8. WN – Coburg Road/County Farm (Map 7-H) a. PS-H-26 and PS-H-26 to 17007 $1,014,379 b. PS-H-27 and PS-H-27 to 17015 $1,168,176
9. SI/BN – Clear Lake Road (Map 7-I) a. I-30 to PS-I-32, I-33 to PS-I-32, and PS-I-32 $5,457,149 b. I-39 to I-34 $1,778,486 c. I-37 to I-39 and I-40 to I-39 $1,047,655 d. I-41 to 5927, I-42 to W Irwin PS, W Irwin PS, and I-43 to 13369 $2,420,126
Total $26,219,399
1 All costs shown are in 2019 dollars and include 35% for engineering and administration
PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND COST ESTIMATED BY AREA
The major wastewater collection system improvements which may impact the City of Eugene Capital Improvement Program in the next 20 years are in the following areas (see Map 7-A for an overview):
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 7: Major System Expansion 53
South West Eugene (SW)
The South West Basin flows north to the Bethel Basin and is serviced by the Terry Street and Barger
pump stations. Future development within this basin should not trigger major pump station upgrades.
The South West Eugene Basin has three distinct areas for wastewater development:
• West 11th/Crow
• Willow Creek/18th Avenue
• Bailey Hill/Gimpl Hill Roads
The West 11th/Crow area has approximately 370 acres of underdeveloped or undeveloped land. The
current service plan for this area, shown on Map 7-B, does not vary drastically from the 1992 USSMP.
The Willow Creek/18th Avenue area, shown on Map 7-C, has approximately 230 acres of underdeveloped
or undeveloped land. Due to the extensive protected wetlands in this sub-basin, the only wastewater
line greater than 10 inches is planned to extend down Willow Creek Road approximately 1800 feet.
The Bailey Hill/Gimpl Hill Road area is approximately 155 acres of underdeveloped or undeveloped land.
The 1992 Master Plan indicated that a gravity wastewater line be constructed north from Gimpl Hill
Road, and then west down 18th to Willow Creek Road. Since that plan, all of the land between Gimpl Hill
Road and 18th has been identified as protected wetlands. Constructing this wastewater line would be
cost prohibitive due to the environmental impacts of constructing in the wetlands. The master plan for
this area, as shown on Map 7-D, includes a new pump station, located along Gimpl Hill Road. A pressure
main would pump the wastewater to the top of Bailey Hill Road, and allow flow by gravity to the existing
system. Preliminary analysis indicates that the pipe running north to 18th Avenue has capacity for this
change from the 1992 plan. Other than these improvements, no wastewater lines greater than 10
inches are required in this basin.
Highway 99 Industrial Area (SI)
With the exception of the Prairie Road pump station and the gravity wastewater line extending to the
north, most of the improvements indicated in the 1992 USSMP have yet to be built. Map 7-E and Map 7-
F show the updated service plan, which still includes two new pump stations. The northernmost pump
station (PS-SI2) and the associated force main and gravity lines serve a single lot, currently owned by
MWMC. The costs of these improvements would not be eligible for SDC credits.
Willakenzie Area (WN)
The Willakenzie North area is bounded on the west by the Willamette River, on the east by Interstate
Highway 5, and on the south by Beltline Highway. There are two main undeveloped areas: North Delta
Highway, and the County Farm/Coburg area.
The North Delta Highway area has approximately 156 acres that is not currently developed. The service
plan for this area is shown on Map 7-G. Generally, the area would drain to the Crimson Pump Station,
which was built in 1997 and designed for this loading. The furthest northwest corner on the basin would
require either extensive fill, or the construction of an additional pump station, which was not identified
in the 1992 USSMP. In addition, the pump station and associated force main and gravity lines would only
serve this lot and therefore are not eligible for SDC credits.
The County Farm/Coburg area has many underdeveloped or undeveloped parcels. Wastewater service
for this area was originally designed in the 1992 Wastewater Master Plan. Much of those improvements
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 7: Major System Expansion 54
have been constructed, and Map 7-H indicates future needs. As planned in 1992, two new pump
stations will be required to fully service this basin.
Clear Lake Road (SI/BN)
In 2017, the Clear Lake Expansion added 924 acres of land to Eugene’s Urban Growth Boundary near
Clear Lake Road. This expansion will add sub-basins to Basins SI and BN.
The service plan for this area is on map 7-I. As much land as cover will allow will be drained south into
pipes that lead to the West Irwin Pump Station. The remainder of the lots will be drained North into Enid
Pump Station, which will need to be relocated and upsized.
Table 7-2: Proposed Wastewater Capital Improvements for South West Eugene
Location Preliminary Design Information
Manhole
Basin/No.
Capacity
(CFS)
Pipe Size
(Inches)
Invert
Elevation
Slope
(Ft./ft.)
Length
(Ft.)
Average
Depth (Ft.)
Estimated
Cost1
SW - West 11th/Crow Road (Map 7-B)
From 16672
To B-01 3.76 15 379.7
383.3 0.002 1570 23 $621,3102
From B-01
To B-02 1.42 10 383.3
387.5 0.0025 1540 21 $559,4002
From B-01
To B-03 1.42 10 383.3
388.8 0.0025 2015 17 $625,5602
SW - Willow Creek/West 18th (Map 7-C)
From C-04
To 4348 2.70 10 389.7
406.7 0.009 1830 10 $390,9402
SW - Bailey Hill / Gimpl Hill (Map 7-D)
PS-SW1 0.8 MGD 430 N/A N/A 10 $910,570
From PS-SW1
To D-05
6” force
main
430
496.0 N/A 1450 3 $129,910
From 2324
To D-05 2.43 8 437.9
496.0 0.024 2400 8 $505,9802
1 All costs shown are in 2019 dollars and include 35% for engineering and administration
2 Assumed to be constructed in existing roads.
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 7: Major System Expansion 55
Table 7-3: Proposed Wastewater Capital Improvements for Hwy 99 Industrial Basin (North)
Location Preliminary Design Information
Manhole
Basin/No.
Capacity
(CFS)
Pipe Size
(Inches)
Invert
Elevation
Slope
(Ft./ft.)
Length
(Ft.)
Average
Depth (Ft.)
Est. Const.
Cost 1
SI - North of East Enid Road (Map 7-E)
PS-E-06 (lift
station located at
the end of Action
Way)
4.8MGD
351.9 N/A N/A 21 $2,731,720
From PS-E-06
To 16103 7.48 18 367.5
367.0 0.003 150 6 $34,910
From PS-E-06
To E-07 1.56 10 351.9
355.2 0.003 1000 17 $255,420
From PS-E-06
To E-08 6.11 18 351.9
354.5 0.002 1175 19 $398,220
From E-08
To E-09 1.42 10 354.5
359.1 0.0025 1650 16 $421,440
From E-08
To E-10 6.11 18 354.5
357.2 0.002 1200 15 $346,320
From E-10
To E-11 4.60 15 357.2
361.1 0.003 1200 10 $217,930
PS-E-12 (lift
station located
north of Awbrey
Lane)
2.9MGD
345
19 $1,669,390
From PS-E-12
To E-11
12” force
main
345
361.1 N/A 2360 4 $239,940
From PS-E-12
To E-13 1.56 10 345
350.4 0.003 1640 14 $353,450
From PS-E-12
To E-14 3.76 15 345
347.3 0.002 1000 17 $270,290
From E-14
To E-15 2.07 12 347.3
350.0 0.002 1200 13 $265,280
From E-15
To E-16 1.42 10 350.0
352.2 0.0025 800 9 $139,320
1 All costs shown are in 2019 dollars and include 35% for engineering and administration
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 7: Major System Expansion 56
Table 7-4: Proposed Wastewater Capital Improvements for Hwy 99 Industrial Area Basin (South)
Location Preliminary Design Information
Manhole
Basin/No.
Capacity
(CFS)
Pipe Size
(Inches)
Invert
Elevation
Slope
(Ft./ft.)
Length
(Ft.)
Average
Depth (Ft.)
Est. Const.
Cost1
SI - South of East Enid Road (Map 7-E)
From 5706
To E-17 4.2 15 363.5
365.7 0.0025 800 10 $145,240
From E-17
To E-18 2.32 12 365.7
368.9 0.0025 1100 10 $191,830
From E-18
To E-19 1.42 10 368.9
371.1 0.0025 800 10 $139,320
SI - South of Beltline Highway (Map 7-F)
From 15929
To F-20 2.32 12 371.2
373.4 0.0025 800 16 $259,8202
From F-20
To F-21 1.42 10 373.4
374.5 0.0025 400 15 $105,0202
1 All costs shown are in 2019 dollars and include 35% for engineering and administration
2 Assumed to be constructed in existing roads.
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 7: Major System Expansion 57
Table 7-5: Proposed Wastewater Capital Improvements for Willakenzie Area
Location Preliminary Design Information
Manhole
Basin/No.
Capacity
(CFS)
Pipe Size
(Inches)
Invert
Elevation
Slope
(Ft./ft.)
Length
(Ft.)
Average
Depth (Ft.)
Est. Const.
Cost1
WN - North Delta Highway (Map 7-G)
PS-G-22 (in the
northwest corner
of the basin)
0.3MGD
380 N/A N/A 8 $758,810
From PS-G-22
To G-23
6” Force
Main
383
396.1 N/A 580 4 $33,450
From G-23
To G-24 1.0 8 3 396.1
393.1 0.004 680 5 $74,360
From G-24
To G-25 1.0 8 3 389.9 0.004 750 10 $131,430
From G-25
To 16814 1.27 10 389.9
388.0 0.002 775 17 $197,900
WN - Coburg Road/County Farm (Map 7-H)
PS-H-26 0.4MGD 396 N/A N/A 18 $910,570
From PS-H-26
To 17007
6” Force
Main N/A N/A 1,160 4 $103,8102
PS-H-27 0.3MGD 404 N/A N/A 11 $758,810
From PS-H-27
To H-28
6” Force
Main N/A N/A 1,300 4 $74,970
From H-28
To 17015 1.0 8 3 414.4
407.7 0.004 1575 7 $332,0602
1 All costs shown are in 2019 dollars and include 35% for engineering and administration
2 Assumed to be constructed in existing roads.
3 8-inch lines required for the pump station
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Chapter 7: Major System Expansion 58
Table 7-6: Proposed Wastewater Capital Improvements for Clear Lake Area
Location Preliminary Design Information
Manhole
Basin/No.
Capacity
(CFS)
Pipe Size
(Inches)
Invert
Elevation
Slope
(Ft./ft.)
Length
(Ft.)
Average
Depth (Ft.)
Est. Const.
Cost1
North Delta Highway (see Map 7-I)
PS-I-30 5.5 MGD
(new
capacity)
342.7 N/A N/A 31 $3,336,500
From I-30
To I-31 2.54 12 351.6
347.6 0.003 1318 21 $420,250
From I-31
To PS-I-32 2.54 12 347.6
343.5 0.003 1380 26 $511,9102
From I-34
To PS-I-32 6.26 18 345.5
342.7 0.0021 1325 31 $642,5502
From I-33
To I-34 1.56 10 354.4
349.9 0.003 1503 23 $545,9302
From I-35
To I-34 5.11 15 350.7
345.5 0.0037 1401 29 $554,4302
From I-36
To I-35 5.11 15 359.3
350.7 0.0037 2515 24 $845,890
From I-39
To I-36 3.36 15 362.0
359.3 0.0016 1297 18 $378,180
From I-37
To I-38 1.21 10 367.0
365.5 0.0018 800 9 $175,7202
From I-38
To I-39 1.91 12 365.5
362.0 0.0017 1999 13 $551,2202
From I-40
To I-39 1.42 10 368.6
365.4 0.0025 1200 12 $320,7002
From I-41
To 5927 1.10 10 364.1
363.0 0.0015 714 13 $162,540
From I-42
To W Irwin PS 1.42 10 355.3
355.1 0.0025 64 26 $23,2502
From I-43
To 13369 1.27 10 361.9
360.0 0.004 464 21 $145,680
1 All costs shown are in 2019 dollars and include 35% for engineering and contingency 2
Assumed to be constructed in existing roads.
[Ú
[Ú
[Ú
[Ú
[Ú
[Ú
W 13th
W 2nd
W 6th
W 11th
W 13th
E 4thE3rd
CityViewOakPatchBaileyHillOliveWillamettePearl PattersonHilyardLincoln AlderAgateFranklin
W 11th
W 18thSBertelsenW13th
W 7th
W 24th
W 28th
E 33rd
E 19th
Colum bia
E 30th
Cre s tL o r a n e Hw yCity View W 28th
B a ile yH illW 25th
ChambersJeffersonFriendlyPolkKevington BaileyHillW 18th W 18th
GimplHillWillow Creek GimplHillLorane HwyBaileyHill WillametteLoraneHwyW 11th
SDaneboRandyPape⌐BeltlineHwyS Bertelsen W 11th
W 1 s t
Avalon NTerryNTerryGreenHillFirestone
Royal
Marshall
ElmiraRoosevelt
H
w
y
9
9
N
NorthwestExpressway
Park
Horn Minda
W 5th
W 1st
VanBurenN Danebo Bodenhamer
Barger
LegacyClearLake
Clear Lake
River Loop 1
CrockerIrvingIrvingHyacinth Hunsaker
Randy Pape ⌐Beltline HwyRandyPape⌐B e l t l i n e H w y
SilverNor
t
hwes
t
Ex
pr
es
s
wayPrai
ri
eH
w
y
9
9
N
Ri
ver
Blackfoot
Irvington
Barstow
River Loop 2
WilkesIrvingtonLynnbrook
Spring Creek
River Loop 2
Beacon
Awbrey
E Enid
Airport
Lynnbrook Ri
ver ScenicLancasterMeadowviewMeadowview
Ri
verPr
a
iri
e
Prairie
Hwy99sGreenHillGreen Hill
Beacon
H
w
y
9
9
NGreenHill
GreenHillHoward
N ParkNTerry CrescentN Delta HwyGoodpa s tu r e L p
GoodpastureIslandBeth
el
H
w
y
9
9
NRoyalMaxwell
Goodpasture Island
County Farm
Coburg JeppesenAcres
OakwayCountryClub
Bailey CoburgBarger
EchoHollowTaneyW Shelton McMurphey
Ha rlow
Mar tin Lut her Ki ng JrLeoHarrisPkwy
E 18th
Beltline
Harlow
W C e ntennialVanDuyn
FerryStreetBridgeAyres
Green AcresRandyPape⌐BeltlineHwy
Cal Young
W ill akenzie
C r e scentGam
e
F
a
r
m
ChadCoburg
NorkenzieGilhamFairview
F ra n k l i n
HawkinsBrittanyWillowCreekEd C o ne
Roosevelt
AspenRainbowKinsrow
I-105
E 24th
EAmazonE
30thAmazonPkwyHilyardHarrisTimberline
E 40th
Di
l
l
ardFoxHoll
o
wW 39th
E 43rd
E 4 3 r dAgate
E 46thWillametteDonald HilyardCrowGreenHillLincolnWillametteBraeBurnMcKinleyGarfieldGarfield ChambersPolkMonroeWashingtonJeffersonValley River
E Broadway
W D
I-5Kincaid
NShastaLpSpringDilla
r
dOakHighBlair
E 19th
W 13th
W 11th
W 27th
W 29th
E 33rd WAmazonFoxHollowMcBethW 11th
W 5th
W 7thSSeneca
ArthurN Seneca WillagillespieClub
Oakm
o
n
t
GoodpastureIsland
DeltaHwyGilhamNorkenzieLakeNParkNParkFairfieldGroveI-105
Cal Young
NGardenSGardenGameFarmGatewayRandyPape⌐Beltline Hwy
I-105
AmazonPkwy
W 6th
RandyPape⌐BeltlineHwyHavitureColtonRi
ver
DonaldFoxHollowBogartAlderCoburg Bottom
Co
b
u
r
g
N Coburg Willam
e
t
t
e
Coburg
McKenzie Vie
w
Arm itage River Loop 1Coburg Industrial Glenwood Henderson Bloom berg
Gonyea Blanton I - 5I - 5I - 5
I - 5
N Bertelsen N Danebo WAmazonLakeview
Avengale
ArcadiaCubitNClareyArrowheadRiver
Augusta BrackenfernWalnutOrchardFairmountS u m m itMillLoraneHwyWashingtonW 7th W 7thUnionPac
ifi
c
RRE Enid
AI
LH
SI
WS
SW
WR
SC
DA
WN
DW
DC
DF
BN
RR
Legend
M
0 7,000 Ft
Detail Map Area
Future Pum p Station[Ú
Map 7-D
Map 7-B
Map 7-C
Map 7-F
Map 7-E
Map 7-G Map 7-H
Map 7-I
Wastewater Capital Improvement Plan
Map 7-A
GREEN HILL RDCROW RDGREEN HILL RD11TH AVE
ARROWSMITH STOWEN LP
SPRR
ATLANTIC AVETERRY STMORELY LP
PACIFICAVESPRR
E D C O N E BLVD TERRY STPITCHFORD AVE
WILLOW LA PORTE DRRENNE STWESTEC DRDRR
S
E
V
EDRIVEWOODLAND ACRES LNIROOSEVELT BLVD
66
6
6
BS-01BS-02
BS-03
16672
8"
10"
10"8"15"
8"
8"
8"
SW-31
SW-42
SW-12
BN-33
Legend
[Ú Future Pump Station
^_Existing Pump Station
ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ Force Main
10 inch or Larger WW Pipe10 inch or Larger WW Pipe
8 inch WW Pipe
Existing WW System
Future Improvements
SW - West 11th/Crow Road
M0 1,000
Feet
Map 7-B: SW - West 11th/Crow Road
QUARRY LNWILLOWCREEKRDRATHBONE RDARROWSMITH ST
PITCHFORD AVE
WILLOW CREEK CIR
MCTAVISH LN
WILLOW CREEK RD
PITCHFORD AVE WILLOW CREEK RDWILLOW CREEK RDCOMMERCE ST
18TH AVERENNE STSLOCUM DRIVE
BARBARA LNWESTEC DRWILLOW CREEK RD6
6
C-04
4348
8"
8"
10"
8"
8"SW -32
SW-33
SW-62
Legend
[Ú Future Pump Station
^_Existing Pump Station
ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ Force Main
10 inch or Larger WW Pipe10 inch or Larger WW Pipe
8 inch WW Pipe
Existing WW System
Future Improvements
SW - Willow Creek / West 18th
M
0 1,000
Feet
Map 7-C: SW - Willow Creek/West 18th
BAILEY HILL RDGIMPL WAY
WI
L
L
'
S
R
DBAILEY HILL RDMCMOROTT LNG IM P L H IL L R D BERTELSEN RDBAILEY HILL RDWILLOW
C
R
E
E
K
R
D WILLOW CREEK RDEAGLE
V
I
E
W
D
R
BAILEY VIEW DR
S U M M ITSKYBLVDOOKYHOLLO W DRFOUR OAKS GRANGE RDN DRPARLIAMENT STFOUR OAKS GRANGE RDHARVARD DR
BAILEY
HI
L
L
R
DMENT ST
SUNSET VIEWROLLIE LPL
E
A
H
Y
D
R
I
V
E
ROYALAN
N
L
A
N
E
ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ ââââââââ ââââââââââââââ[Ú
6
6
6
PS-D-55
D-05
2324
10"
8"
6" FM
8"
8"
8"
8"
SW-22
SW-32
SW-52
SW-62
[Ú Future Pump Station
^_Existing Pump Station
ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ Force Main
10 inch or Larger WW Pipe10 inch or Larger WW Pipe
8 inch WW Pipe
Existing WW System
Future Improvements
SW - Bailey Hill/Gimpl HillLegend
M
0 1,000
Feet
Map 7-D: SW - Bailey Hill/Gimpl Hill
^_
^_
AWBREY LN PRAIRIE RDBROWN STH
W
Y
9
9
N
O
R
E
G
O
N
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
R
R
HW
Y
9
9
N
AWBREY LNGREEN HILL RDO
R
E
G
O
N
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
R
R
O
R
E
G
O
N
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
R
R
SPRRSPRRO
R
E
G
O
N
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
R
R
HALLETT ST
KELSO ST
HW
Y
9
9
N
H
W
Y
9
9
N LINK RDENID RDENID RD
WOODRUFF STLINK RDMONYA LNPRAIR
IE
RD
CLEO AVE
CECIL AVE
LEDA WAYAUCTION CTAIRPORT RD
H
W
Y
9
9
N
KELSO ST
A
U
C
T
I
O
N
W
A
Y
ZUMWALT STPRAI
RI
ERDAIRPORT RD
CAROL AVE
BEACON DR
IRVINGTON DR
NAPA
V
A
L
L
E
Y
L
N
SPRRS
PRR
ZINFANDEL
L
N
PRAIRIE RDGENT RD
LEGHORN AVE
KAISER AVE
ââââââââââââââââââââ ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ
[Ú
[Ú
6
6 6
6
6 6
6
66
6 6
6
6
6
6
SI-9
SI-8
SI-7
PS-SI-2
SI-6
SI-5
SI-4
SI-2
PS-SI-1 16103SI-1
SI-3
5706
SI-10
SI-11
SI-12
12"
10"
8"
8"
15"
18"
18"
10"
10"
8"
8"
8"
8"
10"
12" FM
15"
8"
8"
8"
8"
15"
6" FM
10"
8"
12"
12"
8"8"
SI-13
SI-11
SI-12
SI-14
Legend
[Ú Future Pump Station
^_Existing Pump Station
ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ Force Main
10 inch or Larger WW Pipe10 inch or Larger WW Pipe
8 inch WW Pipe
Existing WW System
Future ImprovementsSI - East Enid Road
M0 1,500
Feet
Map 7-E: SI - East Enid Road
^_
MCDOUGAL RDMCDOUGAL LNCLAREY ST
CLAREY ST
MANGAN STNOAH STNOAH
S
T
HW
Y
9
9
N
BELTLINE
R
D
Q ST
KALMIA STPRAIR
IE
RDBOWTIE AVECORVETTE
L
N
R
GREENWICH
A
V
E
SONYLPBELTLINE RD
K A L M IA S T
HOLLYHOCK
L
N
COTTONWOOD PL PLENTYWOOD LNNORTHWEST EXPRESSWAYRRY LANE
WOODEN WAY
CROWTHER DR
IVE BORDERSDRI
VE KALMIA STNORTHWEST EXPRESSWAY
MAXWELL RDALLEA DRDAVID AVESMITHOAK
ST
BUSHNELL LNSKIPPER AVEANTHONY WAYBRAMBL
E
W
O
O
D
L
N
MANGAN STWAGNER ST
JESSEN DR
MCDOUGAL RD
JENNYLNPRAIR
IE
RD
HW
Y
9
9
N
MAXWELL RD
THOMAS ST
CLAREY ST PRAIRIE RDBETSY LNWAGNER STALTIMONT ST
AERIAL DR
CL
A
R
E
Y
S
T
E
M
P
I
R
E
P
A
R
K
D
R
C
E
N
T
U
R
Y
DRKE
L
S
Y
L
N
AERIAL WAY
MEGAN WAY
R IVIERA
ASHLEY CT
ASHLEY LN
JESSEN DR
6
6
6
15929
F-21
F-20
8"
10"
12"
SI-21
BN-13
RR-11
Legend
[Ú Future Pump Station
^_Existing Pump Station
ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ Force Main
10 inch or Larger WW Pipe10 inch or Larger WW Pipe
8 inch WW Pipe
Existing WW System
Future Improvements
SI - South of Beltline HighwayM0800
Feet
Map 7-F: SI - South of Beltline Highway
^_
^_
STAPPDRDELTAPINESDR STAPPDRODEL
LLAKEDR
DIAMONDLAKEDRWALDOLAKEDRP A LM TREE
CRATER LAKE DR
P L U M WAY
DELTA NORTH CONNECTOR GILHAM RDMEADOW VIEW DRSTERLING WOODS DRIVEMEADOW POINTE LN
M EADOWVIEWDRMIRRO RPO N D W A Y
DR
TORR
A
V
E
CRIMSON AVE
DON JUAN AVEQUAIL MEADOW WAYPURISIMA
HONEYWOOD
S
T
NORTHRIDGE WAY
LAKEVIEW DR
ASHBURY
D
R
LAKE COVE AVE
LAKE GLENN DRELKHORN DR
LAKE
S
H
O
R
E
D
R
POWDER RIVER DRAYRES RD
LAKE CREEK AVE
LAKEMONTDRGILHAM RDLAKE WIND DR
LAKE HARBOR DR
MET
O
LIUS
DR WOLFME
ADOWSLN
LAKEVIEW DR
LAKELAND WAY
LAKERIDGE
LP
CRESCENTLAKEDRRIVE R POINTELPLNMEADOWVIEWDR RIVER POINTE DRWATERBROOKWAYSAND TRAP
CANOE RIDGE WAY
RIVER POINTE DRAPPLEWOOD LNDELTA HIGHWAYCEDAR RDWOLF MEADOWS LNDELTA HIGHWAYN DELTA HIGHWAYââââââââââââââââââââââ
[Ú
6
6 6 6
6
G-24
G-23
PS-G-22
16814
16820
G-25
6" FM
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
10"
8"
WN-32
WN-41
Legend
[Ú Future Pump Station
^_Existing Pump Station
ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ Force Main
10 inch or Larger WW Pipe10 inch or Larger WW Pipe
8 inch WW Pipe
Existing WW System
Future Improvements
WN - North Delta HighwayM0800
Feet
Map 7-G: WN - North Delta Highway
COBURG RDCOBURG RDGAM
E
F
ARM
R
D
MARTINIQUE DR
ANTIGUA DR
BERMUDA
D
R
HILL VIEW LANE 2
MA
R
T
I
NI
QUEAVECOUNTY FARM RD
COBURG RDMARJORIE AVE
DALE AVE
HILL VIEW LANE 1DEVONAVEWILDISH LNFOX MEADOW RDCOUNTY FARM RDC R AFT SMA N
MATT DRMOUNTAIN TERRACE
BELLE TERRA DR
TWIN ELMS DR
WESTER ST
RIVERBEND AVE
PARK WOOD DRPAR
K
V
I
E
W
D
R
DALE AVE
LAKEVIEW AVE
DEVON AVEDOWNING
S
T
COMSTOCK
A
V
E
SAINT CROIX ST
S A I N T T H OMASSTG
R
A
N
D
C
A
Y
M
A
N
D
R
S A I N T C R OIXSTS A I NT LUCIAST
B
AR
B
ADO
S
DRGRAND CAYMAN DRG
R
A
N
D
CAYMANDRBARBADOS DR
S A I N T K I T T S A V E
ARLINGT
O
N
A
V
ECOBURG RDMATT DRD AYNA LN
KINNEY LP
TENNYSON A V E
SUZANNE WAYCHERYL STCHUCKANUT STWIN
GATESTPARK GROVE DR
CHERYL STDEVON AVEBONNIE VIEW DR ââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ[Ú
[Ú
6
6
6
66
H-28
17007
17015
PS-H-26
19452
16585
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
PS-H-27
8"
6" FM
8"
8"
8"
8"
6" FM
8"
WN-22
WN-13
WN-12
WN-31
Legend
[Ú Future Pump Station
^_Existing Pump Station
ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ Force Main
10 inch or Larger WW Pipe10 inch or Larger WW Pipe
8 inch WW Pipe
Existing WW System
Future Improvements
WN - Coburg/County Farm
M0 1,000
Feet
Map 7-H: WN - Coburg/County Farm
0 2000
Feet
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!
!
!!!!
!
!
!!!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!!!
!
!
!!
!
!!!!!
!
!!!!
!
!
!!!
!!!
!!
!!!!
!
!
!!
! !
!!
!
!!!!
!!!!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!!
!
!!!!
!
!!!!
!
!!!
!
!!!
!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!!
!!!
!!!!!!
!
!!
!
!
!!!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!
!
!!!
!
!!!
!!
!
!!
!
6
6 6
6666
6
66
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
PS
^_
^_
SI-12SI-31
SI-32
BN-41
BN-13
AIRP-1
SI-11
SI-13
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
12"
18"
15"
15"
10"
12"10"
10"
10"10"
5927
W Irwin PS
13369
5973
PS-I-32
I-33
I-36
I-37 I-38
I-39 I-40
I-34
10"
I-41
I-42 I-43
I-30
I-31 12"
15"
I-35
H
W
Y
9
9
N
CLEAR LAKE RDGREEN HILL RDAIRPORT RD AIRI D
KELSO ST
WILBUR AVECAROL AVE
OLD AIRPORT RD
EB BELTLI
NE
R
D
IRVING RD
WB BELTLINE RDN TERRY STW ENID RDJESSEN DR
E ENID RD
GENT RDA
U
C
T
I
O
N
W
A
Y
OHIO STEB BELTLINE OFRPTREVON ST
WB BELTLINE ONRPSENECA SAWMILLTHEONA DR
DAKOTA STDEVOS STMONYA LNWISCONSIN STMINNESOTA STELIZABETH STNORTH WAY CLEO AVEARNOLD AVEWOODRUFF STPRIMROSE STBEAN STCOETIVY AVE AUCTION CTCUBIT STMCDOUGAL LNASHLEY LN
ROSEBAY LEDA WAYSENECA SAWMILLAIRPORT RD
ROSEBAY
JESSEN DR
E ENID RD
PRAIR
IE
RDSENECA SAWMILLM
PS ââ ââ ââ ââ ââFuture Pump Station
Existing Pump Station
Force Main
10 inch or Larger WW Pipe
8 inch WW Pipe
Existing WW System
Future Improve!ments
SI/BN - Clear Lake RoadLegend
^_
Map 7-I: SI/BN - Clear Lake Road
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Glossary
Glossary and Key to Abbreviations
ACP – asphaltic concrete pavement
ADWF – average dry-weather flow, used to calculate system flows, including base flow and peak flow
CFS – cubic feet per second
CIP – capital improvement plan, used to plan long-term major infrastructure improvements
CIPP – cured-in-place pipe, a treatment used to repair wastewater lines
DEQ – Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
DU – dwelling unit
ENR – Engineering News-Record, a weekly publication that publishes an extensive amount of data on
building material prices and construction labor costs
Force main – a wastewater pipe that conveys wastewater under pressure
GAD – gallons per acre per day
GPM – gallons per minute
Gravity line – a wastewater pipe that conveys wastewater by gravity
I/I – inflow and infiltration. Inflow occurs when stormwater enters the wastewater system through
inappropriate connections such as downspouts. Infiltration occurs when groundwater enters the
wastewater system through cracks and other deficiencies in wastewater collection pipes.
Interceptor – a large-diameter wastewater pipe that conveys large volumes of wastewater
Kgal – 1,000 gallons
Metropolitan Area General Plan – the overarching planning document for land within the
EugeneSpringfield urban growth boundary.
MGD – thousands of gallons per day, used to quantify the volume of wastewater flows
MWMC – Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission, a governmental agency comprised of
representatives from Lane County and the cities of Eugene and Springfield to manage regional
wastewater services in the metro area. The City of Eugene operates the regional collection and
treatment system, and Springfield provides administrative services for the regional agency.
PFF – peak flow factor
PGD - permanent ground deformation
Pump station – a wastewater facility, also known as a lift station, that pressurizes and pumps
wastewater when gravity is not sufficient to convey the flow
SDC – system development charges, impact fees generally collected when expansion, new development,
or an intensification of use occurs on property served by City infrastructure. The fees are used to fund
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Glossary
the non-assessable portion of infrastructure construction costs needed to support growth in the
community and to recoup a portion of the community’s investment in the infrastructure already in place
UGB – urban growth boundary, a boundary established under state planning law to regulate urban
development
USSMP - the City of Eugene’s 1992 Urban Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
Ballantyne Consulting, LLC
Hazard Assessment and Mitigation of Lifeline Systems
Ballantyne Consulting LLC • 1915 63rd St. NE • Tacoma, WA 98422 • 206‐226‐7496
dbballan@comcast.net • BallantyneConsulitng.com
FINAL Technical Memorandum
Date: June 30, 2016
From: Donald Ballantyne, PE
To: Teri Higgins, City of Eugene
Subject: Seismic Assessment of Wastewater Collection and Conveyance System
1.Introduction
This Technical Memorandum describes the seismic assessment conducted by Ballantyne Consulting, LLC
of the City of Eugene, Oregon (Eugene) sewage collection and conveyance system. The work was done
as a subconsultant to West‐Yost. Eugene staff provided GIS support. Eugene provides collection and
conveyance of wastewater but does not provide treatment. The system consists of about 3.65 million
feet of sewer pipe ranging in size from eight‐ to seventy‐two‐inches in diameter. This planning level
assessment evaluated the expected performance of these sewers. There are 26 wastewater pump
stations in the system. This assessment evaluated five of the older more typical pump stations.
The assessment evaluated the expected performance of a moment magnitude 9.0 (Mw9.0) Cascadia
Subduction Zone (CSZ) earthquake on the system. Earthquake ground motion, liquefaction and landslide
probabilities and permanent ground deformations (PGD) were obtained from the Oregon Department of
Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI), using the planning level earthquake hazard data that was
developed for the Oregon Resilience Plan.
It is the intent that the findings of this evaluation be incorporated into the Eugene Wastewater
Comprehensive Plan.
2.Regional Seismicity and the Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquake
The CSZ is the most significant earthquake source zone that can impact Eugene. A CSZ event is expected
to have similar impacts as the 2011 Japanese Tohoku Earthquake. The postulated Mw9.0 CSZ fault runs
about 600 miles from mid‐Vancouver Island in Canada south to Eureka California. Starting at one end, it
would take about 5 minutes for it to “un‐zip”, resulting in ground shaking for that duration along its
length. The CSZ fault zone is located off the Pacific coast shore line, on‐the‐order of 100 miles distant
from Eugene, so strong shaking has attenuated by the time it reaches the City. The CSZ has traditionally
been considered to have a 500‐year recurrence interval with an event breaking its entire length with a
magnitude on the order of Mw9.0. The last event occurred in 1,700 AD. Multiple smaller events would
also be possible breaking adjacent segments of the fault.
In recent years, Dr. Chris Goldfinger, at Oregon State University, has studied turbidites along the CSZ and
concluded that there is a shorter recurrence interval in southern segment of the CSZ. In the segment
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Appendix A-1
Appendix A
Teri Higgins
June 30, 2016
Page 2
from approximately Yaquina Bay south to Coos Bay (i.e. due west from Eugene), he proposes a
recurrence interval of 300 to 380 years. If that is the case, it is expected that some of these events to be
smaller than a M9.0 expected on the average of every 500 years.
For the CSZ Mw9.0 event, the Eugene area would expect peak ground accelerations (PGA) on the order
of 15 to 20 percent times gravity, or about 7 in/sec peak ground velocity (PGV is another shaking
intensity parameter used for pipeline evaluation). By comparison, events such as the 1994 Northridge,
California Earthquake and the 1995 Kobe, Japan Earthquake produced PGAs on the order of 60 to 80
percent times gravity. The recent Napa, California Earthquake produced a PGA on the order of 50
percent times gravity.
The CSZ information included on the DOGAMI Open File Report 13‐06 (O‐13‐06), and used to develop
the Oregon Resilience Plan, addresses this event. Hazard mapping from O‐13‐06 used for this evaluation
included:
Peak Ground Velocity (PGV)
Liquefaction Probability
Permanent Ground Deformation (PGD) Due to Liquefaction
Earthquake Induced Landslide Probability
Permanent Ground Deformation (PGD) Due to Landslides
Earthquakes cause shaking that can result in structural damage to facilities and buried piping. They can
also cause liquefaction and associated lateral spreading, and landslides, both of which are forms of PGD.
PGD is particularly damaging to buried piping. In the 1995 Kobe Earthquake, wide‐spread liquefaction
and associated ground deformation was the primary cause of over 1,200 pipeline failures. In the 2011
Christchurch New Zealand earthquake, widespread liquefaction along the Avon River caused extensive
damage to both water and sewer pipelines.
DOGAMI mapping shows a low probability of liquefaction (0‐5%) along the Willamette and McKenzie
Rivers. The probability is low for several reasons. First, the higher liquefaction susceptibility found
further north along the Willamette River in Oregon was due to alluvial deposits in the backwater of the
Missoula Floods. That flood backwater did not extend south as far as Eugene. Second, the alluvial
deposits found along the two rivers in the Eugene area are generally too course to allow liquefaction, as
the rivers are just starting to lose energy coming out of the Cascades. Finer sands are washed
downstream. The mapping shows the most significant liquefaction probability (moderate, 5 – 15%
probability as defined by DOGAMI) in Eugene in the hills in the southwestern, southern, and
southeastern areas of the City. This liquefiable material is likely from other local sources. DOGAMI maps
the moderate liquefaction probability soils overlapping with areas mapped as having high landslide
susceptibility. The probabilities are taken into account when estimating the number of pipeline failures.
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Appendix A-2
Teri Higgins
June 30, 2016
Page 3
DOGAMI maps also provided an estimate of the PGD expected in a CSZ event. Once the ground liquefies,
or a landslide is initiated, the ground will permanently displace, moving downhill, or towards a free face
such as a river bank. The greater the PGD, the more pipeline damage is expected.
3.Overview of Seismic Vulnerability of Wastewater Systems
Wastewater systems are vulnerable to earthquakes due to shaking and ground deformation. Structures
such as pump stations, above grade piping, and treatment plants are vulnerable to seismic lateral
loading. Heavy, cast in place reinforced concrete structures that make up many wastewater system
components are resistant to lateral loading. Other types of structures such as tilt‐up buildings, concrete
frame buildings, and unreinforced masonry buildings are vulnerable.
The building code to which structures were designed is important. In Oregon, the Zone designation in
the Uniform Building Code (UBC) that was in place in the early 1990s, was increased from Zone 2 to
Zone 3 as seismologists gained a better understanding of regional seismicity. Buildings designed earlier
are more vulnerable to earthquakes. Buildings designed to modern earthquake codes should perform
much better in a CSZ event.
When the building shakes, inadequately supported piping and conduits can swing and break off at hard
points, wall penetrations and connections to pumps and other equipment. Heavy inline equipment such
as check valves add additional loading to the pipelines exacerbating the situation. Steel and ductile pipe
will perform better than brittle cast iron. Broken pipelines can result in flooding particularly in below
grade structures.
Regional power is often disrupted. High voltage substation equipment is the most seismically vulnerable
part of a power system with their tall fragile ceramic insulators. Substation rigid busses and switch gear
is also fragile. Within facilities, inadequately anchored electrical cabinets can tip over, breaking off
connections and damaging internal equipment.
In addition to shaking, liquefaction and associated lateral spreading can be devastating to the
wastewater facilities. Wastewater facilities are often sited in low areas where it is likely to be more
liquefiable. The Higashinada Treatment Plant in Kobe Japan was founded on liquefiable soil. In the 1995
Kobe Earthquake, the plant site settled up to one meter and moved laterally two meters causing
extreme damage. If liquefaction occurs below or around a building such as a pump station, it can float or
tip severing connecting pipelines as occurred to several pump stations in the 2011 Christchurch New
Zealand event. Even if everything within the pump station remains intact, the sewage cannot flow in or
get pumped out. In some cases, the opening left from these severed pipe connections allowed liquefied
sand to enter the pump station. Cleanup of liquefied sand in wastewater pump stations was an issue in
Seattle following the 2001 Nisqually Earthquake.
Pipelines are potentially more vulnerable than structures. Ground shaking can cause adjacent pipe
segments to move relative to one another damaging rigid joints. Joints that are mortared can crack.
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Appendix A-3
Teri Higgins
June 30, 2016
Page 4
While it may not result in catastrophic failure, infiltration can increase. When liquefaction occurs gravity
pipelines can float changing its grade line. A high point in the sewer can result in solids deposition and
reduction in flow capacity. In the 1965 Seattle Earthquake, a large diameter sewer under the Cedar River
floated upwards about two feet. Floatation can also result in opening up pipe joints allowing entry of
liquefied sand. Sand removal was a huge issue in Christchurch when they were trying to restore
operation.
Liquefaction related lateral spreading can be the most devastating. It can separate joints, and cause
pipeline segments to physically break. The good news is that sewer pipeline catastrophic damage (e.g.
where sewage can no long flow) is much less likely than water pipeline damage. In the 1994 Northridge
Earthquake in Los Angeles, approximately 1,000 water main failures occurred in the San Fernando
Valley. In the same area, only 10 sewer collapses were reported where the Los Angeles Department of
Public Works was required to hook up pumps and hoses to move sewage around a collapsed pipe
section. Note however, that there was a very limited amount of liquefaction in the San Fernando Valley
in that event. Ultimately, sewers in a significant part of the San Fernando Valley had to be replaced due
to cracking of both pipe and joints.
4.Evaluation of Wastewater Collection and Conveyance System
This section address both evaluation of sewer pipelines and pump stations.
Hazard mapping available from DOGAMI was used for both pipelines and pump stations. For pipelines,
the shaking intensity data in the form of peak ground velocity (PGV) was used, estimated to be 7
inches/second for the CSZ event across the City. The PGV was used as input into a pipe fragility equation
developed by the American Lifelines Alliance (ALA) as follows:
Shaking Repair Rate (ALA)
Repair Rate/1,000’ = K x 0.00187 x PGV
Where:
K = a constant used representing different pipe materials. For this project the K values shown in
Table 1 were used:
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Appendix A-4
Teri Higgins
June 30, 2016
Page 5
Table 1. Pipe K Values for Various Pipe Materials
Pipe Material K
Concrete ‐ assumed bell & spigot 0.7
PVC/Truss 0.7
Continuously Lined between Manholes ‐ Various Host
Pipes, includes HDPE
0.4
Transite (asbestos cement) 0.5
Cast Iron/Steel 1.0
Clay 1.0
PGV = peak ground velocity in in/sec; 7 in/sec used for CSZ earthquake
Generally, the same K values used for water pipelines were used except values for clay pipe and lined
pipe which were not included in the ALA document. Clay pipe was assumed to have about the same
performance as cast iron. It is somewhat more brittle, but has more joints, possibly making it more
flexible. Pipeline lining (such as resin impregnated polyester fabric) has been lab tested in gas pipelines
at Cornell University for earthquake performance. The material adheres to the pipe wall when
pressurized such as in water systems. For gravity sewers, it may slide inside the pipe which would
improve its performance. A K value of 0.4 was selected for this polyester liner, better than modern bell
and spigot pipe, but not as good as HDPE as the liner would minimize the effect of joint cracking.
Permanent Ground Deformation Repair Rate (ALA)
Repair Rate/1,000’ = K x 1.06 x PGD0.319
The same K values are used as shown above for pipe subjected to PGD.
PGD in inches is included DOGAMI mapping.
Pipe types, and PGD zones were mapped using GIS, and the above equation applied to the various
categories. Eugene GIS staff did the pipe material take off for the various hazard zones. The total lengths
of pipe for various materials and diameters are shown in Table 2.
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Appendix A-5
Teri Higgins
June 30, 2016
Page 6
Table 2. Eugene Sewer Pipe Lengths (in feet) by Material and Diameter (inches)
8" or less 10"‐12" 15"‐20" 21"‐30" 36"‐48" 54"‐72"
Concrete ‐ assumed
bell & spigot 1,196,312 154,417 125,096 128,049 81,383 37,904
PVC/Truss 1,391,462 82,639 25,834 8,575
Continuously Lined
between Manholes ‐
Various Host Pipes,
includes HDPE 302,756 54,595 17,979 4,935 1,016
Transite 9,365 6,575 3,772
Cast Iron/Steel 2,268 499 176 125 21
Clay 12,464 686 175
Total 3,649,078
Table 3 shows the expected number of repairs when the sewer system is subjected to wave propagation
(shaking). This is not a precise number with a range in the results of minus 50% to plus 100%. Repairs
for areas subjected to liquefaction are not included in this table. The large majority of the repairs are in
small diameter concrete and PVC/Truss pipe, driven by the large footage in these categories. These
repairs would be randomly distributed across the system.
Table 3. Expected Gravity Pipe Repairs Due to Wave Propagation (PGV)
Pipe Type K
8" or
less
10"‐
12"
15"‐
20"
21"‐
30"
36"‐
48"
54"‐
72" Total
Concrete ‐ assumed bell &
spigot 0.7 10 1 1 1 1 0 14
PVC/Truss 0.7 11 1 0 0 0 0 12
Continuously Lined between
Manholes ‐ Various Host
Pipes, includes HDPE 0.4 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
Transite 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cast Iron/Steel 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Clay 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 23 2 1 1 1 0 29
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Appendix A-6
Teri Higgins
June 30, 2016
Page 7
Table 4 shows the expected number of repairs when the system under goes the expected permanent
ground deformation estimated by DOGAMI. This is not a precise number with a range in the results of
minus 50% to plus 100%. The large majority of the failures are in small diameter concrete and PVC/Truss
pipe. Many of these repairs are found in the areas with high probability of liquefaction and PGDs in the
hills in the southern part of Eugene.
Table 4. Expected Gravity Pipe Failure Due to Liquefaction/Lateral Spread (PGD)
K
8" or
less
10"‐
12"
15"‐
20"
21"‐
30"
36"‐
48"
54"‐
72" Total
Concrete ‐ assumed bell &
spigot 0.7 26 3 2 2 2 0 34
PVC/Truss 0.7 26 1 0 0 0 0 28
Continuously Lined between
Manholes ‐ Various Host
Pipes, includes HDPE 0.4 2 0 0 0 0 0 3
Transite 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cast Iron/Steel 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Clay 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 54 5 2 2 2 0 65
For pressure pipe, there is a very limited length, so the expected number of failures is two or less.
The ALA (for water pipeline fragilities) includes a relationship between leaks and breaks; for PGV related
repairs, 20% are estimated to be breaks, and 80% leaks. For PGD related repairs, 80% are estimated to
be breaks and 20% leaks. For sewers, it is assumed leaks will result in increased infiltration. Breaks
would be related to catastrophic pipe collapse. Applying these relationships, the results are shown in
Table 5.
Table 5. Estimated Number of Pipeline Repairs and Catastrophic Failures
Failure Categories
Calculated
Leaks
Calculated
Breaks
Calculated
Total
Estimated
Catastrophic
Repairs
PGV Related Repairs 23 6 29 1
PGD <= 4" Related Repairs 8 31 39 8
PGD > 4" Related Repairs (1) 5 21 26 21 (1)
Total Calculated Repairs 36 58 94 30
(1) Repairs in areas with PGDs > 4 in pipe 12” and smaller, located in the southern Eugene hills.
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Appendix A-7
Teri Higgins
June 30, 2016
Page 8
Sewer pipe is inherently weaker than water pipe, and types and extent of failures are expect to be
different. Failures requiring immediate attention, e.g., collapses have a lower rate than water main
failures which include both leaks and breaks. Assume 25 percent of the total calculated repairs are
catastrophic failures (i.e., where the sewer no longer transports sewage) where PGDs are 4 inches or
less, or in any of the pipe subjected only to PGV. Where the PGD is greater than 4 inches, most of the
failures are in pipelines 12‐inches in diameter and smaller, and are expected to be located in the hills
along the southern side of the City.
As there is so little pressure main footage, calculations showed only one or two failures are likely.
However, if differential settlement occurs at the 3 pump stations in liquefiable soil, that number could
increase.
5.Evaluation Expected Performance of Wastewater Pump Stations
Five of Eugene’s 26 wastewater pump stations were selected as being representative of older pump
stations in the system (Table 6). These pump stations were evaluated by observation, site visits to each,
discussions with staff, and review of the available facility drawings. Liquefaction probability was taken
from DOGAMI mapping.
Table 6. Representative Older Wastewater Pump Stations that were Evaluated (sorted by capacity)
Name
Date of
Construction Type Structure
Capacity
(MGD)
Liquefaction
Probability
(3)
Emergency
Operation
Fillmore 1960,
Upgrade
1996
Submers‐
ible
Below grade, Wet Well A
‐ 2 Submersibles, Wet
Well B ‐ 3 Submersibles,
Control Room below
grade above Wet Well A
44 Low (0‐5%) Generator
Transfer
Switch, Pump
Around
Available
West
Irwin
1984 with
seismic,
pump/ pipe
upgrade
Wet
well/ Dry
well
Wet Well/ Dry Well
Caisson: Brick/ steel
superstructure
21 None Onsite
generator,
two power
sources
Terry
Street
1984 Wet
well/ Dry
well
Wet Well/Dry Well
Caisson, Wood frame
superstructure
14 None Two power
sources
Tadmore 1978 Submers‐
ible
2 pumps in MH with
attached Control Vault
8 Low (0‐5%) Pump Around
Available
Division
Avenue
1984, 2007
Upgrade
Submers‐
ible
2 pumps in MH with
attached Control Vault
1 Low (0‐5%) Pump Around
Available
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Appendix A-8
Teri Higgins
June 30, 2016
Page 9
Three potential general vulnerabilities for Eugene pump stations include: 1) power interruption, 2)
electrical and control cabinet toppling, and 3) site liquefaction. The general status of items 1) and 3) are
shown on Table 6. Regional power interruption is likely. High voltage substations transporting power
into the region are vulnerable. Power systems have failed following many earthquakes around the
world, and would be expected in a CSZ event. As the entire region could well be without power, two
power sources would not improve the power reliability.
Electrical power and control cabinets are vulnerable to toppling if they are not properly anchored.
During the site visits, observations inside the cabinets were not made.
Three of the pump stations are in low liquefaction zones (0‐5% probability). If the liquefaction occurred,
the pump station manhole/vault could float damaging both inlet and outlet connecting piping. Pipe is
ductile iron so significant differential movement would be required to cause it to fail. A better
understanding of the City geotechnical seismic environment should be developed, and critical facilities
addressed accordingly.
Focused discussions about each pump station that was evaluated follow.
Fillmore Pump Station
Manhole and vault structures and piping appear adequate to resist seismic loading. Submersible pumps
anchorage dependent of manufacturer’s design. Historically these have not failed in earthquakes
West Irwin
The pump station caisson is divided into wet‐ and dry wells with a reinforced concrete wall separation.
The pump station superstructure corners overhang the caisson; it is unclear whether they are
cantilevered or on small foundations. If they are supported on foundations, differential settlement could
damage the building. The brick superstructure was retrofitted with a steel frame between wall sections
and supporting the roof trusses. No retrofit design drawings were available. The superstructure should
be evaluated by a structural engineer. The brick walls are rigid and the steel frame is ductile. When
subjected to 2 – 3 minutes of shaking, the bricks could fall away leaving no lateral support for the
remaining steel columns that support the roof
Pump discharge lines and the discharge header lateral support appear to be inadequately braced, and
should be checked by a structural engineer.
In the event the pump station fails, it is designed to overflow to Terry St Pump Station, so pump station
failure may not be catastrophic.
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Appendix A-9
Teri Higgins
June 30, 2016
Page 10
Terry Street
The pump station caisson is divided into wet‐ and dry wells with a reinforced concrete wall separation.
The pump station superstructure corners overhang the caisson; it is unclear whether they are
cantilevered or on small foundations. If they are supported on foundations, differential settlement could
damage the building.
The pump station wood frame superstructure beam and roof connections should be evaluated. The
pump station was designed prior to the seismic rezoning in the 1990s. Wood frame structures with large
openings are vulnerable if connections are inadequately detailed.
Pump discharge lines and the discharge header lateral support appear to be inadequately braced and
should be checked by a structural engineer.
Tadmore
The pump station pipe material is unknown. If 1968 vintage piping could be cast iron, which is brittle and
vulnerable in earthquakes. Manhole and vault structures and piping appear adequate to resist seismic
loading. Submersible pumps anchorage dependent of manufacturer’s design. Historically these have not
failed in earthquakes. This design is older than the others and as a result is more vulnerable to failure.
Check with the pump station manufacturer on the stability of the pump anchorage.
Division Avenue
Manhole and vault structures and piping appear adequate to resist seismic loading. Submersible pumps
anchorage dependent of manufacturer’s design. Historically these have not failed in earthquakes
6.Mitigation Recommendations for Collection/ Conveyance Sewers and Pump Stations
This section recommends action items to minimize the impact of a CSZ Earthquake on the Eugene
wastewater system.
1.Geotechnical Hazard Parameters ‐ Develop a better understanding of the probabilities and PGDs
associated with liquefaction and landslide within the City. Pipeline performance in earthquake is
controlled by the geotechnical hazard environment. The DOGAMI maps used for this project
designated liquefiable areas along the Willamette River as having a low probability of
liquefaction occurring (5 percent or less), and if it did liquefy, PGDs would be 4‐inches or less.
The DOGAMI maps showed pockets of moderate liquefaction in southern Eugene, some areas
with the probability of liquefaction being as high as 15 percent with PGDs as high as 40 inches.
In the same areas the landslide probabilities are as high as 30 percent with PGDs exceeding 100
inches. These geotechnical earthquake hazard parameters strongly influence the expected
performance of the sewer system.
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Appendix A-10
Teri Higgins
June 30, 2016
Page 11
2.Existing Sewers
a.Sewers in Non‐Liquefiable Areas. Pipe joints may crack due to shaking. Pipeline collapse
will be limited. Continue to slip‐line sewers if required for other reasons. It will reduce
the potential for cracking and infiltration following an earthquake.
b.Sewers in Low Probability Liquefiable Areas (0 – 5% probability and PGDs of 4‐inches or
less). These areas are found along the Willamette River. If liquefaction occurs, there will
be some pipeline damage, although the probability is small. For critical (large diameter
pipes 24‐inches and larger) pipelines that are difficult to access for repair (e.g. river
crossings), consider slip lining them to hold the pipe segments together. Products such
as those available from Insituform (polyester liner) should be adequate, although the
lining material has limited ductility. HDPE slip lining would be preferred as it is much
more ductile.
c.Sewers in Moderate Probability Liquefiable Areas (5 ‐ 15% probability and PGDs greater
than 4 inches. These same areas are subject to landslides with a 15 – 30% probability of
occurrence and with PGDs potentially exceeding 100 inches. These areas are found in
the hills in southern Eugene. These pipelines are typically 12‐inches diameter or less
serving small areas. It is difficult to mitigate these sewers if large PGDs occur. Slip lining
the system with HDPE would have the greatest likelihood of success, but even that may
be limited. Make sure that damaged sewers can overflow to the River without backing
up buildings or overflowing into the streets.
3.New Sewers
a.Sewers in Non‐liquefiable areas. Use pipe with joints that can accommodate small
differential movements (less than ½”) without cracking. Standard bell and spigot pipe
with rubber gaskets is acceptable. Pipe materials can include concrete, vitrified clay, and
PVC.
b.Critical Sewers (24‐inch and larger) in Low Probability Liquefiable Areas (0 – 5%
probability and PGDs of 4‐inches or less). These areas are found along the Willamette
River. Design the pipe to be neutrally buoyant so if the surrounding soil liquefies, it
won’t float. Use specially designed pipe with double depth bells to limit joint pull‐out of
segmented pipe. HDPE, reinforced concrete, steel, or ductile iron pipe is required. For
difficult to access locations (e.g. river crossings) use continuous or restrained joint pipe
such as HDPE, steel with welded joints, or ductile iron with restrained joints.
c.Non‐Critical Sewers (less than 24‐inch diameter) ‐ Low Probability Liquefiable Areas (0 –
5% probability and PGDs of 4‐inches or less). These areas are found along the
Willamette River. It is preferred but not required to design the pipe to be neutrally
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Appendix A-11
Teri Higgins
June 30, 2016
Page 12
buoyant with specially designed double depth bells to limit pull out. HDPE, PVC,
reinforced concrete, steel pipe, or ductile iron is required.
d.Sewers in Moderate Probability Liquefiable Areas (5 ‐ 15% probability and PGDs greater
than 4 inches. These same areas are subject to landslides with a 15 – 30% probability of
occurrence and with PGDs greater than 4 inches and potentially exceeding 100 inches.
These areas are found in the hills in southern Eugene. These pipelines are typically 12‐
inches diameter or less serving small areas. Use continuous pipe such as HDPE, steel
with welded joints, molecularly oriented PVC with restrained joints, or restrained ductile
iron pipe. To maintain longitudinal continuity, design the pipe to pass through
manholes.
e.Pressure Sewers in Non‐liquefiable areas. Use continuous pipe or segmented pipe with
elastomeric gaskets.
f.Pressure Sewers in Low Probability Liquefiable areas (0 – 5% probability and PGDs of 4‐
inches or less). These areas are found along the Willamette River. Use continuous pipe
such as HDPE, steel with welded joints, molecularly oriented PVC with restrained joints,
or restrained ductile iron pipe.
g.Pressure Sewers in Moderate Probability Liquefiable areas (5 – 15% probability and
PGDs exceeding 4‐inches and potentially exceeding 100 inches). These areas are found
in the hills in southern Eugene. Use continuous pipe such as HDPE, steel with welded
joints, molecularly oriented PVC with restrained joints, or restrained ductile iron pipe, all
with the ability to accommodate 1‐percent strain.
h.Repair Materials – Evaluate repair materials required for critical large diameter sewers.
Acquire and stockpile materials accordingly.
4.Existing Pump Stations
a.Emergency Overflows ‐ Provide emergency overflows for all pump stations to protect
public health. Design overflows so that sewage will not backup into buildings or
overflow into City streets.
b.Emergency Power ‐ Provide capability for emergency power for all pump stations. It is
likely that the regional power system will be inoperable so even pump stations with two
feeds would be inoperable. Each pump station should have a built in emergency
generator or a quick connect for an emergency generator. Develop an emergency
generator plan to address the generators owned, generator rotation, and generator
refueling.
c.Cabinet Anchorage ‐ Inspect all electrical and control cabinets in all pump stations to
assure they are anchored to the floor, wall or ceiling above. Anchor those found to be
deficient.
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Appendix A-12
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Appendix A-13
Teri Higgins
June 30,2016
Page 13
d.Liquefaction -Identify all pump stations in liquefiabie areas.Evaluate the foundations to
determine whether liquefaction was taken into account.Develop a plan to mitigate
pump station movement/flotation considering replacement or upgrade.Pump Stations
Evaluated
e.Fillmore -No recommendations
f.West Irwin -Evaluate the pump station superstructure original design and seismic
upgrade to assess its seismic vulnerability.Replace or mitigate accordingly.Evaluate the
pump discharge lines and discharge header for lateral resistance.
g.Terry Street -Evaluate the pump station wood superstructure seismic vulnerability.
Evaluate the pump discharge lines and discharge header for lateral resistance.
h.Tadmore -Check pump station pipe materia!.If it is cast iron {likely for the time it was
constructed),evaluate pipe support,bracing and flexibility.Evaluate the submersible
pump anchorage for seismic resistance,as this is a particularly old pump station.
i.Division Ave -No recommendations
&Or \v
Donald Baiiantyne,PE
Baliantyne Consulting LLC
R&?
EXPIRATION DATE:12/31/Z°lt
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Appendix A-13
Memorandum
Date: October 27, 2017
To: File
From: Teri Higgins
Subject: Clarification/Update to Ballantyne Consulting Technical Memo
During the final review of the Wastewater Master Plan, it was discovered that the current HazVu map
on the DOGAMI website indicates a significant amount of moderate liquefaction Hazard in the Eugene
Area. A review of data used for the Ballantyne memo, and a discussion with Don Ballantyne revealed
the following:
The source used for the analysis was the DOGAMI Open File Report 13-06 (O-13-06), which is the
file specific to the Cascadia M9 Event. This is the same source used to develop the Oregon
Resilience Plan.
The outline of the areas on the current HazVu map are identical to the outlines used for the
technical memo.
The current HazVu map indicates no areas of low probability of liquefaction, only None, Moderate,
or High in the Eugene area.
The attached map indicated the areas of low probability used for both the EWEB report and the
Eugene report.
Don confirmed that DOGAMI modified the current HazVu and changed most of the Low
Probability areas to Moderate. Although he is not exactly sure why they did that, he suspects
they were trying to standardize liquefaction across the state.
As stated in Don’s technical memo, he does not believe that the lower valleys of Eugene are of a
high enough probability for liquefaction to warrant concerns, and the need to change/upgrade
construction standards of gravity wastewater pipe. The recommendations outlined on page 12
of the memo for areas of moderate probability should only be applied to areas in the hills of
south Eugene.
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Appendix A-14
06,0003,000FeetNotes1. Source: Oregon_Resilience_Plan_Ground_Motion_and_Ground_Failure_Maps.gdb.FIGURE 9EWEB2014 Water Master PlanRESILIENCY PLANNING - LIQUEFACTIONPROBABILITY VS.CAST IRON PIPELINESUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ!!!!223Q§¨¦5§¨¦5§¨¦105§¨¦105CITYVIEW1150 PSSANTACLARA607PSSKINNERSBUTTE607 PSCREST1325 PSCREST975 PSCREST1150 PSWILLAMETTE 1325 PSHAYDEN BRIDGEFILTRATIONPLANTRAW WATERINTAKE2 & 3RAW WATERINTAKE 1SHASTA1150 PSCOLLEGEHILL 703 PSDILLARD975 PSWILLAMETTE975 PSSUMMITTERRACE1150 PSSHASTA975 PSDILLARD800 PSCREST800 PSFAIRMOUNT850 PS 1WILLAMETTE1150 PSLAURELHILL850 PSCRENSHAW800 PSSOUTH LOUISLN 800 PSGILLESPIEBUTTE800 PSSTONECREST700 PSCOLLEGEHILL 607RSVRCITY VIEW975 RSVRCOLLEGEHILL 703RSVRSKINNERSBUTTE603 RSVRBLOOMBERG700 RSVRFAIRMOUNT850 RSVR SWILLAMETTE800RSVR EDILLARD800 RSVRSHASTA975 RSVRFAIRMOUNT975 PSSHASTA800 PSWILLAMETTE1150 RSVRCREST800 RSVRCITY VIEW800 RSVR ESHASTA800 RSVRFAIRMOUNT850 RSVR NHAWKINS HILL 607 RSVRCREST 975 RSVRWILLAMETTE 800 RSVR WCITY VIEW800 RSVR WCITY VIEW1150 RSVRHAWKINSVIEW1150 PSWILLAMETTE800 PSSUMMITTERRACE1250 PSCITYVIEW975 PSCREST1150RSVRLAUREL HILL850 RSVRSANTACLARA398 RSVRWILLAMETTE975 RSVRHAYDENBRIDGERSVRCITY VIEW800 PSSTARTOUCH1325 PSLEGEND3QWater Treatment Plant!!2Raw Water Intake¼ÐÚActive Pump StationUTExisting ReservoirPipe MaterialOtherCast IronHydrology FeatureEWEB Service AreaLast Saved: 7/30/2014 3:22:10 PM bvera; W:\Clients\537 EWEB\01-14-20 2014 Master Plan\GIS\Figures\Vulnerability\Fig9_Liq_Prob_vs_CAS.mxdProbability of LiquefactionNot LiquefiableLow (0-5%)Medium (5-15%)High (15-27%)2020 Eugene Wastewater Master PlanAppendix A-15
Memorandum
Date: March 30, 2016
To: File
From: Teri Higgins, P.E.
Subject: Validation of Industrial/Commercial Design Flow Rates
Unlike residential flow rates, commercial and industrial flow rates have an extreme range of values
depending on the industry. The table on the following page shows the highest industrial users in Eugene
& Springfield which clearly indicates the wide variation in flows.
An examination of multiple municipalities also indicated a wide range of design values and
methodologies. Springfield, for example, has a short list of mostly commercial uses (motels, restaurants,
nursing homes, etc,) and flow rates per person, bed, etc. There is essentially no guidance on industrial
flows. This method of estimation assumes that one knows the exact industry that is up stream, and yet to
be identified. Philomath and Albany assign values based on Land Use, similar to Eugene, but only have a
couple of categories. Clean Water Services also assigns values based on Land Use, and has a more
extensive list, similar to Eugene, but typically their values are significantly higher. A summary
spreadsheet is included at the end of this memo.
In general, flow rates for commercial and industrial flows should be based on an assumed employment
density and a flow per employee, in addition to the process flow rate for the type of industry. An EWEB
graph attached indicates a relatively steady trend in water consumption for industrial and commercial
users over a 20 year period.
The design values included in the 1992 Urban Sanitary Sewer Master Plan were established based on the
1961 Sewer Study Report prepared by CH2M Hill and utilized a per employment flow plus an estimated
industry flow. Without further evidence to the contrary, the 1992 flow rates will be carried forward in
the new Master Plan. In addition, 1 new category will be established to more directly correspond to land
use designations (a complete description is included in the master plan):
Campus Industrial: The target employment is 21 persons/acre. The Campus Industrial land
use category could include industries that have a varying water demand, but also may have
less dense development than other commercial/industrial uses. Utilizing the pure per capita
rate of 67 gallons may grossly underestimate the flow rate. A more reasonable value similar to
the Light-Medium Industrial rate of 3040 will provide a low cost factor of safety.
The flow rates listed for commercial and industrial uses are for upstream master planning
purposes only, when no additional information is available as to proposed developments.
Always consider other factors and use the best engineering judgement when assigning flow
rates.
Appendix B
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Appendix B-1
Comparison of commercial/Industrial Flow ratesLand Use DesignationBrief Description1992 WWMP Base Flow rate Gal/Gross Ac/DayClean Water Services MP 2009Albany 2011Philomath 2004Prince George County 2008Employment Density per Acre1992 WWMP Employment Density per Acre Springfield Design Standards 2006Proposed 2016 Master PlanLow-Density Residential One-family dwellings with some allowance for other types of dwellings. 1-10 DU/AC950 102075 gal/cap/day100 gal/per (all catagories) 13 810Medium-Density ResidentialMedium-density residential use and encourage a variety of dwelling types. 10-28 DU/AC1970 3392 27 2010High-Density Residential High-density residential use and is intended to provide an opportunity for a dense living environment. 20-112 DU/AC4560 7536 62 4890Neighborhood Commercial Generally less than 5 acres, serving day to day needs.1360 2930 1500 1500 2000 34 1360Community Commercial 5 acres to 40 acres, include a wide range of purchaser goods and entertainment, office, and service needs for a support population smaller than that of the metropolitan area but larger than that of a neighborhood.2000 6400 36 50 2000Major Commercial Includes a wide range of purchaser goods, educational opportunities, entertainment, offices, travel accommodations, and services that attract people from the entire metropolitan area.2560 54 64 2560Commercial/Industrial Areas that allow a compatible mix of commercial and industrial uses that are largely oriented to automobile traffic. The zone is intended to provide for commercial uses and complimentary processing, assembling, packaging, or repairing of previously manufactured products.24 2600General Office Intended to provide for small- to medium-sized office buildings, often in transitional locations between residential and commercial uses.2930 7500 40 2345Campus Industrial Designed for firms that will help achieve economic diversification objectives and that typically have a large number of employees per acre. Designed to provide sites for large-scale offices that provide a scientific and educational research function or directly serve manufacturing uses or other industrial or commercial enterprises. 2930 2000 21 3040Light-Medium Industrial Industries that are often involved in the secondary processing of materials into components, the assembly of components into finished products, transportation, communication and utilities, wholesaling, and warehousing.3040 2930 1300 2750 2000 13 18 3040Heavy Industrial A range of manufacturing uses including those involved in the processing of large volumes of raw materials into refined products and/or industrial uses that have significant external impacts. 1520 5850 6000 4000 8 10 1520Park, Recreation and Open SpaceAreas that will conserve and preserve a variety of parks, recreation areas, and open spaces to maintain livability of the metropolitan area. Provides a balance of active and passive recreation opportunities to meet neighborhood, community, and metropolitan needs. Several facilities are allowed.0consult master plan for use intensityGovernment and Educationincludes university and research2930 500 10-16 gal/per/day2680Springfield has a short table of specific facilities and uses a flow rate per person (employment), per seat (resturants), per bed (nursing homes, etc.).2020 Eugene Wastewater Master PlanAppendix B-2
EugeneAvg Process Discharge (gpd)Acres (Gross)gal/ac/daySpringfield Avg Process Discharge (gpd)ALSCO80,000 1.15 69,565 Aramark Uniform13,494 Altech Finishes7,000 2 3,500 Arclin, USA12,681 Emerald Forest Products28,090 10.4 2,701 Farwest Steel Corp.276Extreme Technologies dba BowTech‐Anodizing18,264 8.4 2,174 Franz Bakery11,070 Extreme Technologies dba WaterDog5,030 International Paper96,624 Flakeboard America Limited64,250 15 4,283 Lane County Leachate79,213 Forrest Paint Company4,500 3.75 1,200 Lane County Vactor1,398Gheen Irrigation Works31,000 3 10,333 Mac Industries200Hynix Semiconductor Manufacturing America3,500 McKenzie Chrome1,350J.H. Baxter & Co.750 Momentive Specialty Chemical49,362 MetalWorks Paint and Rust Removal370 Pacific States Plywood24,998 Molecular Probes/Life Technologies4,400 4 1,100 Peace Health Hospital133,000 Murphy Plywood1,650 PeaceHealth Annex2,845Oregon Ice Cream62,000 3.2 19,375 Rosboro, LLC34,095 Pacific Metal Fab.??1,500 6 250 Sanipac, Inc.7,480Peterson Pacific120 SierraPine/PlyVeneer12,621 Pierce Fittings8,910 3.3 2,700 Swanson Group5,050Quality Metal Finishing5,000 Turtle Mountain LLC (Shelley St.)24,150 Springfield Creamery39,900 6 6,650 Turtle Mountain LLC (Main St.)213Superior Steel Fabrication4,500 Voith Paper479University of Oregon402,000 Weyerhaeuser Truck Rd.46,000 Weyerhaeuser NR Company4,561 Willamette Valley Company510 Large Industrial Users, 2005. Compiled by the WWTP2020 Eugene Wastewater Master PlanAppendix B-2
Demand charts C.xlsCVO\04362002101/05/2005Exhibit 19. Water Use per Commercial/Industrial Connection-5001,0001,5002,0002,5003,0002002200120001999199819971996199519941993199219911990198919881987198619851984Annual Use Per Customer (gpd)2020 Eugene Wastewater Master PlanAppendix B-4
Demand charts B for Section 8.xlsCVO\04363001601/06/2005Exhibit 2-19. Adjusted Residential Water Use by Season (1998-2002)050100150200250300350400Indoor (year round baseline) Outdoor (May-Sep) Annual Average Indoor+Outdoor (May-Sep)Residential Water Use (gpd/connection)2020 Eugene Wastewater Master PlanAppendix B-5
CH2M HILL 2-1
CVO\042030003
SECTION 2
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) operates a public community water system
serving Eugene, Oregon, and a small number of customers located outside the city
limits. EWEB’s system has been assigned the state and federal Public Water System
Identification No. 41000287. This section provides an overview of the system by
describing the customer base, recent water use history, water rights, and the facilities
that make up the system.
Service Area and Population
Exhibit 2-1 provides an overview map of the EWEB service area, including the
EWEB-supplied water companies and districts. The service area is generally bounded
by Interstate 5 on the east, the McKenzie and Willamette Rivers on the north, rural
areas and farmland on the west, and forested hills on the south.
EWEB’s estimated service population for year 2004 is 168,000. This estimate was
based on census data and information supplied by the Lane Council of Governments
(LCOG). The particular methodology for translating census data to a service
population estimate for EWEB is described in the chapter on growth projections.
Water Use
EWEB’s average day demands for the past 20 years have ranged from 22.0 mgd in
1983 to 30.5 mgd in 1998 and again in 2000. The trend over this period for average
day demands has been an increase of 0.28 mgd per year.
As typical for Western Oregon utilities, EWEB’s demands show a marked increase
during the summer months because of outdoor irrigation. During the past 20 years,
the summer demands (June through September) averaged 1.8 times the winter
demands. The summer to winter multiplier range was 1.4 to 2.1 times. For the period
of 1998-2002, summer demands averaged 2.0 times the winter demands.
The highest recorded maximum day demand for the system was 68.8 mgd in 1998.
The second highest value of 65.3 mgd was recorded in 2003. The trend over the past
20 years has been an increase at the rate of 0.42 mgd per year.
It is common for maximum day demands to fluctuate more than average day
demands. The maximum day demand occurs in the summer because of outdoor
irrigation. It is not uncommon for the maximum day demand to drop compared to
previous years if the summer is relatively cool and wet. Conversely, it may increase
sharply from one year to the next if the summer is relatively hot and dry.
About 50 percent of water use in the EWEB system is by residential customers, with
the remaining 50 percent used by commercial and industrial customers.
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Appendix B-6
AgendaItemVII.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March6, 2015
TO: MetropolitanWastewaterManagementCommission (MWMC)
FROM:MattStouder,GeneralManager
SUBJECT: AnalysisofPrivateLaterals
ACTION
REQUESTED: InformationandDiscussion
ISSUE
Contribution ofwetweatherflowsfromprivatelateralsintheEugene/Springfieldservice
areahavenot been quantified, maypotentially besignificant, andrepresentan
opportunitytoachievegreatercontrol ofpeakwetweather flowsreceived bytheWater
PollutionControlFacility (WPCF).Accordingly, theMWMChasexpressedaninterestin
evaluatingtheroleprivatelateralsplaytotheoverallcontributionofpeak flowsat the
WPCF, andrecentlycontracted with PeterRuffier toconductan analysisandgather
informationassociatedwiththisissue.
BACKGROUND
Duringperiodsofwetweather, theWPCFexperiences significantpeakflowsfrom
infiltration andinflow (I/I) fromboththepublicandprivateportionsofthewastewater
systems inEugeneandSpringfield.Theseflowsincreasecollectionandtreatment
costs, reduce treatment efficiency andincrease theriskofregulatory non-compliance.
Additionally, excessive peakflowscontribute totheneed for blending (themixing of
primaryandsecondarytreatedeffluent duringcritical periodsprior todischarge) to
protect critical treatmentelements.
Inrecent years, theCities ofEugeneand Springfieldhave investedheavily in
implementingprojectsaimed atreducing I/Iinthepublic portionofthewastewater
systemasidentified inthe2001 WetWeatherFlowManagementPlan (WWFMP), as
wellastheirrespectivelocalwastewatermasterplans.Additionally, theMWMC has
madesignificantinvestmentsinwetweatherrelatedflowcontrols, includingexpanding
thecapacity oftheWPCF toaccept andtreatpeakflowsupto 277MGD.
Recently, theCitieshavefocusedresources todevelopCapacity, Management,
Operations, andMaintenance (CMOM) planstoserveasanintegratedandadaptive
approachformanagement ofthelocalwastewater collectionsystems.Priortoand
Appendix C
Agenda Item VII
2020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan Appendix C-1
Memo: AnalysisofPrivateLaterals
March6, 2015
Page2of3
duringCMOMdiscussions, theCommissionhadexpressedaninterestinevaluatingthe
rolethatprivatelateralsplaytotheoverallcontributionofpeakwetweatherflowstothe
WPCF.InMay2014, theCommission adoptedaCMOMframeworkdocumentwhich
includedaprivatelateralprogramasoneofthetenfundamental elements.
DISCUSSION
InJuneof2014, theCityofEugene (onbehalfofMWMC) enteredintoacontract with
PeterRuffiertoprovideananalysisandoptionsforscopingaprivatelateralprogramfor
thecities ofEugene andSpringfield.Thescopeofworkassociatedwiththeproject
included:
Summarizing theregulatoryandpolicycontextandissuespertinenttoprivate
laterals.
Workingwithkeystafftoassembleexistinginformationonthesource ofwet
weatherflows, andtoassessifpossible, thesignificanceofI/Ifromprivate
laterals.
Performingasurveyofpeeragencyinformationanddatarelevanttoprivate
lateralmetrics.
ProvidinganoutlineidentifyingnextstepsforaddressingtheI/Ifromprivate
laterals.
Mr. Ruffier’sworkandfindingsaresummarizedinAttachment 1(SummaryReport), and
willbediscussedattheMarch13, 2015, Commissionmeeting.Ingeneral, theSummary
Reportfindstheexistingdatainsufficient toquantifyorestimatethecontribution ofI/I
fromprivate lateralsintothepublicsystem. However, Mr. Ruffier indicated thatthe
privateportion ofthecollection system likely contributes asubstantialamountofI/Iflow
basedonanecdotal evidence.
Furthermore, astrategy (detailed inpage9of9, Attachment1) toaddress I/Ifrom
private lateralsand further evaluateprogramrequirementsincludesthe following
recommendedactions:
Inviteselect peeragenciestocome toEugene/Springfield todiscusstheir private1)
lateral programs.
Establish acommon definition ofprivatelateral fortheMWMCpartners. 2)
Design andimplementpilotproject(s) to evaluate thecontributionof I/Ifrom3)
privatelaterals indifferent partsof thesanitarysystem.
Clearlydefinethefunctionalpeakwetweathercapacities of theconveyanceand4)
treatment units.
Updatetheassessment oftheeffectiveness ofrainfall-derived infiltration and5)
inflow (RDII) controland reductionmethods.
Setsystem-wideobjectivesandperformancemeasures forfurthercontroland6)
reduction ofRDII.
Updatethestrategicplansandstandardoperating procedures forflowmonitoring7)
ofthesanitary sewer system.
Appendix C-22020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan
Memo: AnalysisofPrivateLaterals
March6, 2015
Page3of3
Usingtheresultsofstepsabove, determine whetheritiscost-effectivetoexpand8)
I/Icontrolandreduction activitiestoincludesomeorallofprivatelateralsinthe
system.
Ifthecontributionfromprivatelateralsisdeemedsignificantandifcontroland9)
reductionmeasures aredetermined tobecost-effective incomparison to
measures taken forthepublicsectionsofthesanitary systemortreatment
facilities, developthepoliciesandproceduresnecessary toestablishaprogram
toaddress I/Ifromprivatelateralsandmoveforward withnecessaryregulatory
andcodechanges.
ACTION REQUESTED
No actionrequested; thisitem isprovidedforinformation anddiscussion.
ATTACHMENTS
1.SummaryReport - AnalysisandOptionsforaPrivate LateralProgramforthe
MWMC
Appendix C-32020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan
Summary of anAnalysis andOptions foraPrivateLateral
Program fortheMetropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
February10, 2015
Introduction
TheEugene/SpringfieldRegionalWaterPollutionControlFacilityexperiencessignificantpeakflowsdue
torainfallderivedinfiltrationandinflowinthepublicandprivatesegmentsofthesanitarysewersystem.
Thesepeakflowsincreasethecoststocollectandconveywaterinthesanitarysystemtothetreatment
plant, reducetreatmentefficiencyandincrease treatmentcosts, andincreasethepotentialforoverflows
andbasementbackupsfromthesanitarysewersystem. TheMetropolitanWastewaterManagement
Commission (MWMC) anditspartners (Eugene, Springfield, andLaneCounty) haveinvested
considerableresourcesinassessing, planning, andimplementing projectsthatareintended toreducethe
amountofinfiltrationandinflowtothesanitarysystem. Significant fundingandresourceshavebeen
appliedtotherepairandrehabilitation ofthepublicsegmentsofthesanitarysewer infrastructure, andto
expandingthecapacityoftheregionaltreatmentfacilitytoacceptandtreatpeakwetweather flows. The
2001WetWeatherFlowManagement Plansetforththerecommendationsthatformthefoundationofthe
projectstoaddressinfiltrationandinflow, includingarecommendationtoestablishapolicyrelatedto
privatelateralsandtheimplementation ofavoluntaryprogramtoaddresstherepairandrehabilitation of
defectiveprivatelaterals. Althoughthecontributionofinfiltrationandinflowfromprivatelateralshas
notbeenquantified, itispotentiallysignificantandrepresentsanopportunitytoachievegreatercontrol
overpeakflowsinthesystem. Asaresult, theMWMChasrequestedananalysisofwhetheraprogramto
controlandreduceinfiltrationandinflow (I/I) fromprivatelateralsintheEugene/Springfield sewer
serviceareaiswarrantedduetothevolumeofI/Ifromthesesourcesand, ifso, developmentofanoutline
ofoptionsforthefundamentalelementsofsuchaprogram.
Background
Theanalysisispredicateduponthefollowingfactors:
StateandFederalregulations prohibitsanitarysewer overflows(SSOs) andrequiremanagementofwet
weatherflows.
Theregulatoryenvironment underthefederalCleanWaterActandtheStateofOregon’s
implementation oftheNationalPollutantDischargeEliminations System (NPDES)permit
programestablishstrictresponsibilities andliabilitiesforthemanagementofsanitarysewer
systemsandwetweatherflowsreceivedby, andtransportedin, thesesystems. TheU.S.
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency (EPA) hassetastrictprohibitiononoverflowsfromthe
sanitarysewersystem, andtheStateofOregonhasestablished definitiveparametersforthe
controlandmanagementofpeakwetweatherflows. TheseregulationsandtheNPDESpermit
issuedtotheMWMChaveresultedinsignificantcapitalexpendituresforupgradingthepublic
sanitarysewercollectionsystemandfortheconstructionofpeakwetweathertreatmentunitsat
theregionalwastewatertreatmentplant.
ATTACHMENT 1
Page1of10 Appendix C-42020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan
TheMWMChasinvestedsignificantlyinthecontrolofwetweatherflows, buttheseinvestmentshavenot
yetaddressedI/Ifromprivatelaterals.
Wetweatherflows, generatedfrominfiltrationandinflow (I/I) tothesanitarysewercollection
system, contribute topeakflows, theassociatedriskofsanitaryseweroverflows, andtothe
significantoperatingandmaintenancecostsnecessarytotransportto,andtreatsuch flowsat,the
Eugene/Springfield RegionalWaterPollutionControlFacility. EugeneandSpringfieldare
investingsubstantial resourcesinthemaintenance ofthepublicwastewatersystemtominimize
andcontrolI/I. Thelocallyimplementedsewermaintenance programiseffectiveatsustaining
thephysicalintegrity ofthepublicsystemandaddressingareasofthesystemthathavehighrates
ofI/I, howevertherehasnotbeenadirectassessmentof itscosteffectivenessinfurtherI/I
reduction. Thecapitalprogram continuestofindhighpriorityrepairsaspartofthewastewater
rehabilitationprogramandEugeneisdevelopingtheassessmentprocessinconjunction withthe
masterplanupdateandcompletionofitswastewatermodel. However, dataindicates thatthis
programascurrentlyconfiguredwillnotcontrolpeakwetweatherflowstoalevelthatwill
preservethe plannedfunctionallifespanofthepeakwetweatherfacilitiesoftheregional
treatment plant.Theabilityoftheprogramtomanagetherisksofwetweatheroverflows tomeet
anticipated regulatorystandardsis alsounknown. TheamountofI/Icontributed fromprivate
lateralsinthe systemis currentlyunquantifiedbut maybesignificant, baseduponassessments
fromother wastewater agenciesandthebestprofessional judgment oflocalstaff.
TheMWMC has theauthority tosetstandards for theperformance ofprivatelaterals.
TheMWMChasexpressed aninterest inevaluatingtheroleofprivate sanitarysewerlateralsto
thecontributionofpeakwetweatherflows, andaddressing thiscontributionif foundtobe
significant. TheMWMC hastheauthorityunder itsenabling intergovernmentalagreementtoset
standardsforthesanitarysewersystemserving theEugene/Springfield Regional WaterPollution
Control Facility. ThecitiesofEugeneandSpringfield havetheresponsibilitytoimplementsuch
standardsin theirrespective jurisdictions.
Theobjectives fortheanalysisofan I/Ireduction program forprivatesewerlateralsweretoassess, using
localdatatotheextent possible, thesignificanceofI/Ifromprivatelateralstothepeakflowsobservedin
thesanitarysewercollectionsystemandattheregionalwastewatertreatmentplant. Baseduponthis
assessment, adeterminationwouldbemadeaboutwhetherthereductionandcontrol ofI/Ifromprivate
lateralscanfurthertheobjectivesoftheworkthatEugene andSpringfieldareperformingunderthe
capacity, management, operations, andmaintenanceprogram; ifsuchreductionandcontrolwouldhelp
preservetheplannedfunctionallifeoftheexistingpeakwetweathertreatmentfacilities; andwhethera
privatelateralprogramwouldbeimportanttoachieveanticipatedregulatorystandardsforwetweather
flowmanagement. Ifapositivedeterminationismadeabouttheseoutcomesofaprivatelateralprogram,
anoutlinewouldbedevelopedoftheoptionsforaprogramthatwouldserveMWMCthrough
implementationinEugeneandSpringfield.
SummaryofFindings
RegulatoryConsiderations andContext
Withintheregulatorycontext, wetweatherflowsareaddressedprimarilyfromanobjectiveofreducing
theriskofoverflowsfromsanitarysewersystemsandtopreventtheneedtobypasstreatmentunitswithin
wastewatertreatmentfacilities. Forthepastnumber ofyears theU.S. EPAhasadopted anationalfocus
onaddressingSSOswithinitsenforcementprogram, andhasdriventhedevelopmentandincorporationof
implementationprograms relatedtotheeffective operationandmaintenance ofsanitarysewersystemsin
ATTACHMENT 1
Page2of10 Appendix C-52020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan
NPDESwastewaterdischargepermits.ExistingStateregulationsundertheWaterQualityRegulationsof
Division41, section340-041-0120, setforthspecificparametersrelatedtowetweatherrelatedSSOs
whichestablishseasonalstormeventexceptionstotheSSOprohibition. EPAhasnotapproved these
exceptions. Consequently, theStateofOregonhaspubliclystatedthatitsposition willbeconsistentwith
theEPA’sstrictpolicyontheprohibitionofSSOsregardless oftheStateregulations, andthisisreflected
inthelanguageintheNDPESpermitheldbytheMWMC.
ThelackofexplicitrulesandguidanceforenforcementofwetweathercausedSSOsleavesOregon
NPDESpermittees (includingtheMWMC) atsomelevelofvulnerabilityindeterminingtheirlegal
liabilitiesfromthirdpartyenforcementactions. Itisclearthathaving arobustprogramformanagement
ofthesanitarysewersystemandI/Irelatedwetweather impacts, withmonitoring datatodocument
effectiveimplementation, isastrongelementfordemonstratinganaffirmativedefensetoanychallengeof
noncompliance.
SeveralotherelementsoftheCleanWater ActandtheNPDESprogramarepertinenttotheconsideration
ofaprogram tocontrolandreduceI/Ifromprivatelaterals. FederalregulationsundertheCleanWater
ActhavebeeninterpretedbytheU.S. EPAtorequirethatalltreatmentunitsofawastewatertreatment
facilitybeusedinthecollection, transport, andtreatmentofsewagewastes. Accordingly, bypassing any
treatmentunitisprohibited. ThisprohibitionisreflectedintheGeneralConditionsoftheNPDES permit
issuedtotheMWMC (ScheduleF, SectionB, paragraph3). However, manytreatmentfacilitieshave
beendesignedandareoperatedtoprotecttreatment unitsfromwashoutbypeakwetweather flowsby
intentionallydivertingsomeportionofthewastestreamaroundtreatment unitsandthen “blending” the
internalflowspriortodisinfectionanddischarge. Thispracticeprotectsthelong-termtreatment
capabilityofthewastewater treatmentfacilityandstillresultsinatreated, disinfectedeffluentthat
complieswiththewaterqualitystandards assignedintheNPDESpermit. Highpeakflowsgenerated
duringwetweathereventsaretheprimarydriverforutilizingblending, anyprogramthathelpstoreduce
thesepeakflowswillcontributetoareductionofthefrequencyandmagnitudeofablendingevent.
MWMC’sNPDESpermitalsocontainsaperformancerequirement thatisinfluencedbywetweather
derivedI/I, thatbeingarequiredminimumof85% percentremovalforboththe5-dayCarbonaceous
BiologicalOxygenDemand (CBOD) andTotalSuspendedSolids (TSS). Duringpeakflows, the5
concentration ofpollutantsintheinfluentwastestreamarereduced bytheproportionofI/Iinthe
wastewater, whichdecreasestheefficiencyoftreatment andmakesitdifficulttomeetthe85% removal
minimum. Again, anyprogramthatreducesthevolumeofI/Iwillreducethedifficultyofmeetingthe
85% removalrequirement.
Projections aboutfutureregulationsrelatedtothemanagementandeffectsofwetweatherflows, andwhat
maybeincludedinfutureNPDESpermitsrelatedtowetweather/peakflowcontrols, SSOprohibition
language, sanitary sewerprogramrequirements, andblendingallowances ishighlyspeculative. Whatcan
beprojectedwithsomecertaintyisthatthefocusonSSOs, uncertainty abouttheregulatorystatusof
blending, therequirements forprograms toeffectivelymanagesanitarysewersystems, andthe
implicationsofperformancerequirementswillallcontinuetobeinplayandwilllikelydependupon
individualnegotiations forrenewalofanypermit. Correspondingly thequestionsofinterpretationof
NPDESrulesand regulationsandtherisksassociatedwithachallenge ofnoncompliance willcontinueto
beofconcerntopermittees.
ATTACHMENT 1
Page3of10 Appendix C-62020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan
Wetweather/peakflowissuesforMWMC
TheMWMC wasestablishedin1977throughaninter-governmentalagreementbetweenLaneCounty
andtheCitiesof Eugene andSpringfield, toconstructandoperatetheregionalwastewater facilities
servingtheEugene-Springfield area. Theintergovernmental agreement (IGA) details thepurposeofthe
Commission, andthespecific roles andresponsibilities ofeach ofthesignature parties. TheIGAalso
specifies thattheMWMC hastheresponsibilitytocomply withstateandfederalregulations, including
thosedescribedabove relatingtowetweatherflowimpactsandperformancestandards. Withrespect to
thesubject ofwetweather flowsand I/I, theIGAspecifically assigns totheMWMC thefunction of
settingminimum standards fortheconstruction and maintenance ofallpartsofthesanitarysewersystem
servingtheEugene/Springfield RegionalWaterPollution ControlFacility. ThecitiesofEugeneand
Springfield have therelated responsibility toimplement suchminimum standards intheir respective
jurisdictions, as accordedbytheIGA. Suchstandards presumably may include considerations of
managingtheinfiltration and inflowcontributingto peakwetweatherflowsintheoverall wastewater
systemnecessarytocomplywiththe pertinentregulationsandreduce therisksofnoncompliance.
OvertheyearstheMWMC hasdevotedconsiderable timeand attentionto theissue ofpeakwetweather
flows. In 2001theCommission adoptedtheWetWeather FlowManagement Plan (WWFMP), which had
asanoverallobjective todeterminethemost cost-effectiveandpolitically feasible setof solutionsfor
managing excessivewet-weatherwastewaterflowrates bothinthecollection systemandatthe water
pollutioncontrol facility. During developmentoftheWWFMP, programelementsrelatedtoaddressing
theI/I fromprivate lateralswereconsidered byaCitizen’sAdvisory Committee (CAC), whichrendered
thefollowingkeydecision:
Implementation ofavoluntary, private lateralreplacementprogram: Thiswasconsidered to bean
essential componentof theWWFMP. Eventhough asolutionwasidentified whereonlythepublicportion
ofthe systemrequiresrehabilitation, theprivateportioncontributes asignificantportionoftheI/Iand
thereforemustbeaddressed.
TheCAC recommendedthatthiskeydecisionbeformulatedintoaPolicyStatement andincluded asa
formalpartoftheWWFMP. Thisrecommendation receivedsupportinpubliccomments receivedduring
theWWFMPprocess, buthasneverbeenimplemented. Furthermore, duringitsassessmentofthe
variousalternativesformanaging peakwetweatherflowstheCACalsoevaluatedtherequirementsfor
implementingthePlan’srecommendations, andlistedpotentialoptionsfordevelopingavoluntaryprivate
lateralrehabilitationprogramtobeperformedinconjunctionwiththeimplementation oftheWWFMPas
wellaspolicyconsiderations forimplementationofsuchaprogram.
Thecurrentprogramsandactivitiesbeingimplemented bythecitypartnersinMWMCaredetailedin
annualreportssubmittedtotheDEQ, asrequiredbytheNPDESpermit (ScheduleB, SpecialCondition
3a). Thesereportssummarize theinspection, maintenance, repair, andrehabilitation activitiesundertaken
inthepublicsewersystem. Forexample, in2013-2014theCityofSpringfield’sI/Iprogramactivities
includedclosedcircuitTVinspection, manholeinspection, manholeandpipelinerepair, internalpipe
patching, riserrepairs, pipelinecleaning, pipelinerootremoval, flowandraingaugemonitoring andmap
anddatabaseupdating. TheCityofEugeneundertakes similaractivitiesforthemanagementofI/I.
BothCitiesimplement Section714.2oftheOregonStatePlumbingCode (2011), whichstatesthat “No
rain, surface, orsubsurfacewatershallbeconnectedto, ordischargedinto, anydrainagesystemunless
ATTACHMENT 1
Page4of10 Appendix C-72020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan
1firstapprovedbytheAuthorityHavingJurisdiction.”TheCitiesrequirethecorrectionofimproper
connectionsfromprivatepropertiestothepublicsanitary sewersystemwhensuchareobservedduring
smoketestingorbyothermeansofidentification, usingtheauthorityoflocalseweruseordinances (in
Eugene, theprohibitiontoconnectingstormwaterdrainstothesewersystemiscontainedinCityCode
6.610). However, thislanguagewouldrequiremodification torequirerehabilitationofprivatesewer
laterals. Eugenedoeshaveavoluntaryprivatelateralprogramthateducateshomeownersaboutthe
benefitstomaintainprivatelaterals. Eugeneencourageshomeownerstoconsiderrepairoftheirprivate
lateralswhenthepublicsystemwillbeworkedon. Privatelateralsthatservemultiplepropertiesare
beingreplacedwithpublicsystemsandindividualpropertyconnection points. Eugenehasacquiredthe
abilitytoinspectprivatelaterals withamain-launchedTVcameraandareinvestigatingprivatelateral
liningbybothpubliccontractandcitycrewefforts.
OtheractivitiestoreduceandmanageI/Iarelargelyrestrictedtoworkonthepublicsewersystem, with
theexceptionbeingthehistoricaluseofsmoketestingusedtoidentifygaps, voids, anddefectivepipe
segmentsinthesanitary sewersystem. NeitherCityhasspecific coderequirementsatthistimerelatedto
theproperoperationandmaintenanceofprivatesewerlateralsconnectedtothepublicsanitarysystem,
andthislackofauthorityinhibitstheCities’ abilitytotakemoreformaloraggressivecorrectiveactionsto
controlandreducethecontributionofwetweatherderivedI/Ifromprivatelaterals.
PotentialSignificanceofI/IfromPrivateLaterals
TheWWFMPandsubsequent updatesthroughthe2004MWMCFacilitiesPlanandthe2014Facilities
PlanUpdatealldocumented thesignificanceofrainfallderivedinfiltrationandinflow (RDII) tothelarge
peakflowsexperienced atthewastewater treatmentfacility. Flowmonitoring programsconductedby
MWMCanditspartnersdonotspecificallytargetthequantification ofrainfallinducedI/Ifromprivate
laterals, soitisverydifficult atthepresenttimetoaccuratelyidentify howmuchofthepeakflowsseenin
thesystemiscomingfromprivatelaterals andconnections. Itmaybepostulatedhowever, thatgiventhe
substantialeffortsalreadyundertakenbyMWMCanditspartnerstorehabilitate thepublicsewersystem
andthecontinuinglargepeakflowsgenerated inthesystemthatprivatelateralsarelikelytohavea
meaningfulvolumetriccontributiontowetweatherflows.
BothSpringfieldandEugenehave, overtime, conductedsignificantmonitoringofflowsintheir
respective sectionsofthesanitarysewersystem. Thisinformationismaintainedinvariousdatabases, and
isgenerallyaccessible forqueryandanalysis. Theinformationhasbeenusedtodevelopandtest
hydraulicmodelsofthesanitarysystem, whichhaveinturnbeenusedasinputstothedesignofpeakwet
weatherconveyanceandtreatmentunitsattheregionalwastewater treatment plant. Thereisnospecific
monitoringofflowsfromprivatelateralsineithercommunity. Bothcitiesarenowcodingdefectsand
visibleinfiltrationandinflowfromprivatelateralsduringCCTVinspections andincludingthis
informationintheirinspectionandmaintenancedatabases.
Thereappearstobeonlyonereportonanassessmentofthemonitoring datarelative totheeffectiveness
ofI/Ireductionefforts, “AstudyoftheEffectivenessofWastewaterCollectionRehabilitation toReduce
InfiltrationandInflow” thatwascompletedin2004fortheCityofEugene.Thisanalysisreviewedthe
existingwastewaterrehabilitationprogramandconcludedthattheproject methodologyapplied was
successful, inmostcasesequalingorexceeding theWetWeatherFlowManagement Program’srainfall
derivedinfiltrationandinfiltrationreductionrateswithoutrehabilitating privatelaterals. Therehasbeen
1However, thiscodeappliestonew, remodels, additionsorrepairs; itisnotamechanismtorequirerehabilitation.
ATTACHMENT 1
Page5of10 Appendix C-82020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan
noupdate ofthisreport. Springfieldhasnotconductedasimilaranalysis. Therehasbeennoregional
assessmentoftheeffectivenessofI/Ireductionactivities, althoughtherehavebeensomeupdatesof
hydraulicmodels usedintheplanningofcapitalprojectsrelatedtowetweatherflowsandpeakcapacities
oftreatment units.
Specifically inregardsto privatelaterals, theCityofEugenePublicWorksMaintenance Division
prepareda “WastewaterServiceLateralsReport” in2010whichattemptedtodocumentthesizeofthe
privatelateralsysteminEugeneandestimatetheI/Iflowcontributionsfromprivatelateralstotheoverall
flowsinthesystem. TheanalysisuseddatafrombothEugene’smaintenancemanagementsystem and
theGISsystem, andgeneratedabestguessestimateofthesizeofthetotalservicelateralsystemat
approximately625miles, including about43,000serviceconnectionsandlowerlaterallineand59,000
services on privateproperty orupperlaterals. ApplyingthesenumberstoobservedandestimatedI/Irates
frommain lineCCTVassessment dataforprivate laterals, thereportestimated anaverageaggregatedaily
2flowrateof885GPM, or1.27mgd, from privatelaterals (theseestimateswereconservative andmay
likelybelow, givenfieldobservations intheEugene/Springfieldsewersystem). Thereportcalculates an
annualcosttoconveyandtreatthisflowas $300,000. Thereportalsoconductedaliteraturereviewof
information relatedtoprivatelaterals, andsummarized that “…I/Icontributionrates fromtheservice
lateralsystemvarywidely, butgenerally fallbetween therange30–70%.” Springfieldhasnotconducted
asimilarassessmentofprivatelaterals, andatthistimehasnotcollated informationrelative tothe
numberof private laterals orscaleoftheprivate lateralsystem intheirwastewaterservicearea.
Theflowmonitoring programsforbothcitiesiscurrentlyinastateofchange. Springfieldisre-
evaluating itsmonitoringlocations anddevelopingastrategicplanforfuturemonitoring. Eugeneis
revamping itssanitarysewer collectionsystemmodel. Flowmonitoringequipmentforbothcommunities
needstobeupdated ingeneral.Neithercommunity hasa summarydocumentorreportontheflow
monitoringprogram proceduresorobjectives. Theflowmonitoringprogramsforthetwocommunities
arenotcloselycoordinated, formethodologyorobjectives. OtherthanintheWetWeatherFlow
ManagementPlan, there arenoclearly statedobjectivesorperformancemeasures forI/Ireduction
programs. Perspectivesontheobjectivesappeartohavechangedovertheyearsasthepersonnelinvolved
intheprogramhavechanged, andresources andprioritieshavechangedasbudgetavailabilityand
maintenanceneedshaveevolved.
Basedupontheexistingflowmonitoring dataandwastewatersystemmaintenancerecords, itisnot
possibletorenderadefinitive quantitative conclusionaboutthesignificance ofnon-sanitaryflowsfrom
privatelaterals totheoverall peakwetweather flowstransportedtotheregional wastewater treatment
facility. However, peeragencyinformation, visual observationsfromlocalCCTVinspections, and the
bestprofessionaljudgmentoflocalwastewater staffleadstoasubjectiveconclusion thatprivatelaterals
maybecontributing substantialI/Iflowsandthatthiswarrantsmore formal attentionandevaluation.
Summary ofPrivate LateralProgramsinOregon
Asurveywasconductedofpeerwastewater agenciesin Oregon toassesstheexistenceofprogramsto
controland reduceI/Ifromprivatelateralsandlearn fromanyexperience gainedinthedevelopment and
implementation ofsuchprograms. Thesurvey found thatseveralmunicipalities in Oregonhave
2The report notes “The reader iscautioned these are rough estimations dueto the incompleteness ofthe data
sources and thelevel of interpretation, but does provide useful insights based on observed findings.”
ATTACHMENT 1
Page6of10 Appendix C-92020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan
developed andimplementedprivatelateralprograms. Theseprogramscanprovidesomeinsightsintothe
differentconditions, practices, regulations, andpoliciesthatcanbeincludedinaprivatelateralprogram.
Alloftheprograms weremotivatedbyanobjective ofreducingthecontributionofnon-sewageflows
fromprivatelateralstotheoverallI/Iinthesanitarysystem (St. HelensandMcMinnvilleestimatedthat
upto50% ofI/Iintheirsystemsoriginatedfromprivatelaterals). Alloftheprogramsaredrivenbyan
awarenessoftheregulatoryliabilityassociatedwithsanitaryseweroverflows, thepotentialhealthhazards
posedbydefective sewerlaterals, andtheincreasedcostsofhandlingnon-sewagewater.
Ineachofthecaseexamples, themunicipalitydefineswhataprivatesewerlateralisandsetsclear
expectations (inmunicipalcode) fortheresponsibilitiesoftheprivatepropertyownerstomaintain their
sewerlateralsinproperoperatingconditionand torepairsaidlateralsiftheyaredetermined tobe
defective. These coderequirementsserveasthefoundationfortheprivatelateralprograms, establishing
therelevantresponsibilitiesandgrantingthemunicipalities theauthoritytoinspectormonitorprivate
lateralsandrequire repairsiftheneedissodetermined. Evenincommunitiesthatdonothaveaformal
programtoaddressprivatesewerlaterals, thereisusuallycodelanguagerelatingtotheauthoritiesofthe
serviceproviderandtheresponsibilities oftheprivatepropertyownersinrespecttoprivatesanitarysewer
serviceconnections.
Eachoftheprivatelateralprogramsestablishessomemechanismtodeterminethecondition ofaprivate
lateral (suchaswithsmoketesting, inspectionduringmainlinerepairorrehabprojects, orfromother
inspectionsorobservations), setsforththeproceduresforaprivatepropertyownertoconductthe
appropriatenecessaryrepairs, clarifiestiming andtheresponsibility forfundingofthework, andincludes
somelevelofpenaltiesorenforcement (whichmayincludemonetarypenaltiesordenialofservice).
AssessmentoftheeffectivenessoftheprivatelateralprogramsinOregonhasbeenlargely subjective, due
tothechallengesofconductingaccuratepre- andpost- monitoringofflows. FortheCityofSt. Helens,
whichinstituteditsprivatelateralprograminresponsetoregulatorymandatesrelatedtowetweather
flows, therehavebeennorecentwetweatherassociatedoverflows, peakingfactorshavebeenreducedin
thewastewatersystem, pumpstationoperatingtimeshavedecreased, andtherehavebeenfewer
operationalcall-outsforpumpstationevents. Theothercommunitiesdonotreportquantitativeresults
fromtheirprograms.
Theissuesofwetweather, I/I, highflowpeaking factors, sanitaryseweroverflows, andrelatedconcerns
overprivate lateralsisnotuniquetoOregon. Numerousstudieshavedemonstrated thatprivatelaterals
canbeasignificant sourceofI/Iinsanitary sewersystems. ManyothercommunitiesintheUnitedStates
havedevelopedprogramstoaddresstheseissues, andasignificantamountofstudyhasbeenundertaken
bytheprofessionalorganizations associated withthetechnologyandmanagement ofwastewaterservices.
Examplesofcodelanguagerelatedtoprivatesanitarysewersispresented inpapersoftheproceedings of
theannualWaterEnvironmentFederation’sTechnicalConference andinthedatabaseofthePrivate
PropertyVirtualLibrary (hostedbytheWaterEnvironmentFederation).
Inadditiontothebasicprogramelementsdescribed fortheprivatelateralprogramsinOregon othercities
havedeveloped alternatestrategiesandrequirements, suchas: compliancedocumentationtodemonstrate
thataprivatesewerlateralisfreeofleaks (EastBayMunicipalUtilityDistrict (EBMUD), CAand
Greencastle, IN); requirementsthatinspectionandtestingofsewerlateralsbedoneatthetimeofremodel
orsaleofanexisting building (CityofSausalito, EBMUD, RockRiverWaterReclamationDistrict, IL,
ATTACHMENT 1
Page7of10 Appendix C-102020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan
WestCountyWastewater District, CA, Wickliffe, OH), andrequirementsforthedistribution ofprivate
side-sewereducationalflyersatthetimeofsale, majorbuildingremodeloradditionstopropertiesin
ordertoeducatepropertyownersontheconditionsofprivateside-sewers (CityofTacoma).
Policyconsiderations
Thepotentialelementsandrelatedsupportingpoliciesforimplementationofaprivatelateralprogram
wereoutlinedaspartofthedevelopmentoftheWWFMPin2000. Thefundamentalpolicyissues
involvedwithestablishing aprivatelateral programinclude:
Istheprogramvoluntaryormandatory?
Whomustparticipate?
Whopaysforrepairsandrehabilitation?
How (andwhen) istheprogramimplemented?
Whatlocalcoderevisionsoradditionsarenecessarytosupporttheprogram?
Howisequityofprogramrequirementsaddressed acrosstheMWMCpartners?
HowistheprogramaddressedwithintheregulatorysystemappliedtoMWMC?
Someofthesepolicyconsiderations areself-explanatoryandhavereceivedsomedebateatthe
administrative, management, andoperationallevelswithintheMWMCprogram. Oneofthemore
significant issues—thatofhowaprivatelateralprogramwouldbeaddressedwithintheregulatory
system—hasnotreceivedasmuchdiscussion. UndercurrentCleanWaterActregulationsandState
implementation activities, aprivatelateralprogramwouldbeadiscretionaryactivitybyapermittee.
Suchaprogramcouldbedevelopedandimplementedsolelyatthediscretionoftheindividualentityasa
meanstoreducepeakwetweatherflowsandreducerisksofnoncompliance withregulatory requirements
suchastheprohibitionsonSSOs), butnotbeexplicitlyincludedinaNPDESpermittherebygiving the
entitymaximumflexibilityinprogramimplementationandmodification. Asanalternative, theentity
couldseektohavetheelementsoftheprivatelateralprogramincorporated intoageneralsanitarysewer
programforinclusionintheNPDESpermit. Thisapproachwouldgivetheprivate lateralprogram
officialregulatory “sanction,” wouldestablishanexplicitbasis (andpublicjustification) forallocating
resourcestotheeffort, andwouldmotivateperformance measurement andreporting. Apermit
requirementforaprivatelateralprogramwouldalsoestablishabasisforreportingandariskof
noncompliancewiththestatedprogram-requiredelements (albeitwiththepossibility ofanaffirmative
defenseagainstapermitviolation), andwouldrestricttheflexibilityofthepermittee toquicklymodify
theprogramasconditionsmaywarrant.
OptionsforAddressing theInfiltrationandInflow fromPrivateSewerLaterals
Thefindingssummarizedabovecanbedistilledintothefollowingconclusions:
Regulatorystandardsexistforthemanagement ofwetweatherflowsandtheprohibitionof
sanitaryseweroverflows,
Substantialpenalties areassociatedwithnoncompliance withtheregulatorystandards,
TheMWMChastheresponsibilityundertheintergovernmentalagreement (IGA) tocomplywith
stateandfederal regulations,
TheEugene/SpringfieldRegionalWaterPollutionControlFacilityexperiences significantpeak
flowsduetoinfiltrationandinflowinthepublicandprivatesegmentsofthesanitarysewer
ATTACHMENT 1
Page8of10 Appendix C-112020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan
system. These peakflowsincreasethecoststocollectandconveywaterinthesanitarysystemto
thetreatmentplant, reducetreatment efficiencyandincreasetreatment costs, andincreasethe
potentialforoverflowsfromthesanitarysewersystem,
Significant fundingandresourceshavebeenappliedbyMWMCandEugeneandSpringfield to
therepairandrehabilitationofthepublicsegmentsofthesanitarysewerinfrastructure, andto
expandingthecapacityoftheregionaltreatmentfacilitytoacceptandtreatpeakwetweather
flows,
TheMWMChastheauthorityundertheIGAforsettingminimumstandardsfortheconstruction
andmaintenance ofallparts ofthesanitarysewersystemservingtheEugene/Springfield
RegionalWaterPollutionControlFacility. ThecitiesofEugeneandSpringfieldhavetherelated
responsibilitytoimplementsuchminimumstandardsintheirrespectivejurisdictions,
NeitherCityhasspecificcoderequirementsatthistimerelatedtotheresponsibilities forproper
operationandmaintenance ofprivatesewerlateralsconnected tothepublicsanitarysystem,
Thereiscurrentlyinsufficientdatatoquantitativelydocument thecontributionofI/Ifromprivate
lateralstothelocalorMWMCwastewatersystem,
ThereisanecdotalevidencefromEugeneandSpringfield, andquantitativedatafrompeer
agencies, ofthepotential significanceofthesecontributions,
EugeneandSpringfield havethecapabilitytoconductflowmonitoringofthesanitarysewer
systemswithintheirjurisdiction,
Therearecaseexamplesof, andpracticalexperiencewith, privatelateralprogramsofpeer
agenciesthatcanbeusedforreferenceandguidance.
Workingfromtheseconclusions, astrategyandlistofpossible actionstofurtherevaluatetheneedfor,
andcharacteristics of, aprogramtoaddressI/Ifromprivatesewerlateralscanbeformulated, asfollows:
1.InviteselectpeeragenciestocometoEugene/Springfield todiscusstheirprivatelateral
programs, orworkwiththeOregonAssociation ofCleanWaterAgenciestoconductaworkshop
oneffectiveprogramsforthecontrolofI/Ifromprivate laterals, asaneducationalopportunityto
learnfromthe experience ofotheragencies.
2.Establish acommondefinition ofprivatelateralfortheMWMC partners, whichshouldincludea
distinctionbetweenprivatelateralswithinthepublicrightofway, andprivatelateralsonprivate
property.
3.Designandimplementpilotproject(s) toevaluatethecontributionof I/Ifromprivate laterals in
different partsofthe sanitarysystem. Focusthepilotprojectsonareaswheretheprivatesections
ofthesystemareknownorsuspectedtobesignificantcontributors ofI/Iflows, andconduct
repairandrehabilitation measurestocontrolandreducetheI/Iandperformapre- andpost-
analysisof theeffectiveness ofthemeasures.
4.Clearlydefinethefunctionalpeakwetweathercapacities oftheconveyanceandtreatment units,
andtheiranticipatedservice livesbased upontheoriginaldesign parameters. Conductan
analysisof theriskof SSOsandblendingusinghistorical dataonpeakflows.
5.Updatetheassessmentoftheeffectivenessofrainfall-derivedinfiltrationandinflow (RDII)
controlandreductionmethodsusingexistingdatafrombothEugeneandSpringfield.
6.Setsystem-wideobjectivesandperformance measuresforfurthercontrolandreductionofRDII.
7.Updatethestrategic plansandstandard operating procedures forflow monitoring of thesanitary
sewersystem, consistent withtheobjectives andperformance measures instep 6.
ATTACHMENT 1
Page9of10 Appendix C-122020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan
8.Usingtheresultsofstepsabove, determinewhetheritiscost-effectivetoexpandI/Icontroland
reductionactivitiestoincludesomeorallofprivatelaterals inthesystem (i.e. whethertoaddress
lateralsonlytotheright-of-wayorallthewaytothebuilding).
9.Decisionpoint: Ifthecontributionfromprivatelateralsisdeemedsignificantandifcontroland
reductionmeasures aredeterminedtobecost-effectiveincomparisontomeasures takenforthe
publicsectionsofthesanitary systemortreatmentfacilities,developthepoliciesandprocedures
necessary toestablishaprogramtoaddressI/Ifromprivatelateralsandmoveforwardwith
necessaryregulatoryandcodechanges:
a.Developandincorporatelanguageinlocalsewercodesadoptingthecommondefinition
ofprivatelateral, settingstandardsfortheproperoperationandmaintenance ofprivate
lateralsconnectedtothepublicsanitarysystem, andgivingthecitiestheauthorityto
inspectandenforcethesestandards.
b.Developthepoliciesandprocesses necessarytoestablishanongoingprogramtoaddress
I/Ifromprivatelaterals.
ATTACHMENT 1
Page10of10 Appendix C-132020 Eugene Wastewater Master Plan