mather interceptor project

8/14/2019 Mather Interceptor Project

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mather-interceptor-project 1/145



PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL FORM

FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS GREATER THAN$1 MILLION

MATHER INTERCEPTOR PROJECT

A Project Development Plan (PDP) is prepared, reviewed, and approved during the capitaldelivery of a project. The PDP is initially prepared at the preliminary planning phase of aproject and updated, as necessary, as the project becomes more defined. The PDP shallprovide a clear and concise problem statement, provide background on the problem,identify constraints, list possible alternate solutions, evaluate each alternative, and provide

a recommendation.

This PDP has been prepared in accordance with guidelines developed by the SacramentoRegional County Sanitation District (SRCSD). The PDP has been reviewed forcompleteness and is approved.

Version: _______________

Project Team:

Senior Engineer Date

Principal Engineer Date

District Asset Management Coordinator Date

Division Chief Date

District Engineer Date



THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY



Executive Summary

Mather Interceptor ES-1 October 2007

Project

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Mather Interceptor Project Development Plan (PDP) was prepared to addresswastewater needs of the Mather and Aerojet sewer sheds in Rancho Cordova, California.

County Sanitation District 1 (CSD-1) currently provides sewer collection services to thisarea via an interim pump station (Chrysanthy), which was designed to serve until theMather Interceptor was brought online, initially scheduled for January 2015. However,growth in Rancho Cordova prior to 2006 had increased wastewater flow faster thanpredicted. Because of this accelerated development, the Sacramento Regional CountySanitation District (SRCSD) has moved forward with implementation of the MatherInterceptor, with a goal of having wastewater flowing in the new system by December2010. During the development of this document, it was determined that the Laguna Creek Area 5 (LCA5) shed would also require sewer service earlier than predicted. The MatherInterceptor PDP was amended to address wastewater needs of the LCA5 sewer shed,assuming a similar schedule of having facilities on-line by December 2010.

The Mather Interceptor is being implemented to delay the construction of the LagunaCreek Interceptor. The Aerojet Sewer Sheds were tributary to the Bradshaw Interceptorunder the 1993/94 Master Plan. However, the Master Plan 2000 (MP2000) used differentdesign criteria and determined the portions of the Bradshaw Interceptor alreadyconstructed would not have capacity to convey all flows from its sewer shed when itreached buildout. The solution proposed by MP2000 was to divert the Aerojet sewer shedsto the Laguna Creek Interceptor. This would require construction of Aerojet 4 Interceptorin Sunrise Blvd. from Douglas Road to just north of Jackson Road. But it was alsodetermined that construction of the Laguna Creek and Aerojet 4 Interceptors could bedelayed for 20 years by constructing the Mather Interceptor and conveying Aerojet shed

flows to Bradshaw Interceptor until interim available capacity is no longer available.Wastewater flow from any development in LCA5 prior to the construction of the LagunaCreek Interceptor would need to be pumped to the Mather Interceptor.

Potential Mather Interceptor routes as well as possible extensions to serve LCA5 werepresented to the PAC on October 18, 2006. A schedule for completing the MatherInterceptor by the end of 2010 was also presented. Following the October PAC meeting,the brainstormed alternatives were considered under a fatal flaw analysis and net presentworth calculations were made for the construction, engineering, environmental mitigation,right-of-way acquisition and operation and maintenance costs. The temporary andpermanent public impacts were also estimated.

At the PAC meeting on November 15, 2006, 10 potential alternative gravity alignmentsfrom Chrysanthy to the Bradshaw Interceptor were presented in detail and arecommendation to keep five alternatives for further analysis was accepted by the PAC. Inaddition, five alternatives for serving LCA5 were presented. Four of the LCA5alternatives would be added to the gravity alignments already screened. The fifth, the AJ4alternative, would serve LCA5 and included the construction of Aerojet 4 Interceptorconcurrently with the Mather Interceptor. Also, another gravity alternative, Alternative 9Bwas considered and subjected to the screening analysis. It was dropped since it did not



Mather Interceptor ES-3

Figure ES-1 Schematic of Mather Interceptor Practical Alternative

Project



Executive Summary

Mather Interceptor ES-4 October 2007

Project




Table ES-1 Mather Interceptor BCE Results Summ

Mather Interceptor ES-5

Project



Executive Summary

October 2007 ES-6



Table of Contents

Mather Interceptor i October 2007

Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1.0 PROBLEM STATEMENT ................................................................... 1-1

CHAPTER 2.0 BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM STATEMENT ....................... 2-12.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 Service Area and Service Level Impacts ............................................................... 2-52.3 Schedule ................................................................................................................. 2-6

CHAPTER 3.0 CONSTRAINTS ................................................................................... 3-13.1 Physical Condition ................................................................................................. 3-13.2 Existing Site Conditions In the Poject Area........................................................... 3-2

3.2.1 Soils and Groundwater................................................................................................ 3-2 3.2.2 Environmental Features .............................................................................................. 3-3 3.2.3 Folsom South Canal and United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of

Reclamation Property........................................................................................................... 3-3 3.2.4 Mather Air Force Base (Mather Airport) and Mather Boulevard ............................... 3-4 3.2.5 Zinfandel Drive ........................................................................................................... 3-4 3.2.6 Douglas Road .............................................................................................................. 3-4

3.2.7 Eagles Nest Road ........................................................................................................ 3-5 3.2.8 Sunrise Boulevard, South of Douglas Road................................................................ 3-5 3.2.9 Sunrise Boulevard, North of Douglas Road................................................................ 3-5 3.2.10 Chrysanthy Boulevard................................................................................................. 3-5 3.2.11 Kiefer Boulevard......................................................................................................... 3-6 3.2.12 Jaeger Road................................................................................................................. 3-6 3.2.13 Highway 16/Jackson Road.......................................................................................... 3-6

3.3 Concurrent and Future Construction in the Project Area....................................... 3-63.4 Codes, Regulatory Standards, and Policies............................................................ 3-7

CHAPTER 4.0 IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES.......................................... 4-14.1 Brainstorming Effort .............................................................................................. 4-1

4.2 Description of Alternatives .................................................................................... 4-14.2.1 Alternative MI-1 Zinfandel Drive............................................................................... 4-3 4.2.2 Alternative MI-2 Mather Boulevard ........................................................................... 4-3 4.2.3 Alternative MI-3 Golf Course / Zinfandel Drive A .................................................... 4-3 4.2.4 Alternative MI-4 Golf Course / Zinfandel Drive B..................................................... 4-3 4.2.5 Alternative MI-5 Golf Course / Mather Boulevard A................................................. 4-4 4.2.6 Alternative MI-6 Golf Course / Mather Boulevard B ................................................. 4-4 4.2.7 Alternative MI-7 Sunrise Boulevard A ....................................................................... 4-4 4.2.8 Alternative MI-8 Sunrise Boulevard B ....................................................................... 4-5 4.2.9 Alternative MI-9 Canal ............................................................................................... 4-5 4.2.10 Alternative MI-9B Canal (East) .................................................................................. 4-5 4.2.11 Alternative MI-10 All Force Main.............................................................................. 4-5

4.2.12 Alternative LCA5-1 Sunrise Boulevard Extension..................................................... 4-6 4.2.13 Alternative LCA5-2 Jaeger Road................................................................................ 4-6 4.2.14 Alternative LCA5-3 Eagles Nest A............................................................................. 4-6 4.2.15 Alternative LCA5-4 Eagles Nest B............................................................................. 4-6 4.2.16 Alternative Aerojet 4................................................................................................... 4-6

CHAPTER 5.0 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES...................................................... 5-15.1 Overall Analysis Procedure.................................................................................... 5-15.2 Fatal Flaw Analysis................................................................................................ 5-15.3 Screening Analysis................................................................................................. 5-2



Table of Contents

5.3.1 Screening Analysis Criteria......................................................................................... 5-2 5.3.2 Application of Screening Analysis.............................................................................. 5-4 5.3.3 Conclusions of the Mather Interceptor Screening Analysis...................................... 5-23 5.3.4 Additional Screening Involving the LCA5 and AJ4 Alternatives............................. 5-24

5.4 Business Case Evaluation .................................................................................... 5-265.4.1 Business Case Evaluation Approach......................................................................... 5-26

5.4.2 Business Case Evaluation Parameters....................................................................... 5-29 5.4.3 Application of Business Case Evaluation ................................................................. 5-37 5.4.4 Summary of Results of the Business Case Evaluation.............................................. 5-63 5.4.5 Recommendation of Preferred Alternative ............................................................... 5-69

CHAPTER 6.0 SELECTED ALTERNATIVE DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS.................. 6-16.1 Hydraulic Control Points ....................................................................................... 6-1

6.1.1 Downstream – Bradshaw Interceptor.......................................................................... 6-1 6.1.2 Upstream – Aerojet Section 1 ..................................................................................... 6-1 6.1.3 Mather Junction Structure........................................................................................... 6-2 6.1.4 MAE Junction ............................................................................................................. 6-2 6.1.5 Folsom South Canal Crossing..................................................................................... 6-2

6.1.6 Summary of Mather Interceptor Hydraulic Design Control Points ............................ 6-3 6.2 Preliminary Design Assumptions for the Interceptor ............................................ 6-36.3 Zinfandel Drive (station 0+00 to 59+88) ............................................................... 6-4

6.3.1 Preliminary Design Construction and Alignment Decision Summary ....................... 6-4 6.3.2 Final Design Considerations ....................................................................................... 6-6

6.4 Douglas Road West of and Including Folsom South Canal (stations 59+80 to82+32) .................................................................................................................... 6-6

6.4.1 Preliminary Design Construction and Alignment Decision Summary ....................... 6-7 6.4.2 Final Design Issues ..................................................................................................... 6-8

6.5 Douglas Road East of Canal to Sunrise Boulevard (stations 82+32 to 108+99) ... 6-86.5.1 Preliminary Design Construction and Alignment Decision Summary ....................... 6-9 6.5.2 Final Design Issues ................................................................................................... 6-10

6.6 Sunrise Boulevard, Douglas Road to Chrysanthy Boulevard (MI station 108+99 to152+21, AJ4 station 1051+85 to 1010+33) ......................................................... 6-11

6.6.1 Preliminary Design Construction and Alignment Decision Summary ..................... 6-11 6.6.2 Final Design Issues ................................................................................................... 6-12

CHAPTER 7.0 REFERENCES...................................................................................... 7-1

October 2007 ii Mather Interceptor

Project



Table of Contents

Mather Interceptor iii October 2007

Project

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Capacity Management Hydraulic Modeling Results BradshawAPPENDIX B: Technical Memorandum, Interim Project Authorization Committee

Decision: Update Mather Interceptor Practical Alternatives

APPENDIX C: Capacity Management Hydraulic ModelingAPPENDIX D Cost Escalation RatesAPPENDIX E: Construction Cost EstimateAPPENDIX F: Right-of-Way Cost EstimateAPPENDIX G: Environmental Mitigation Cost EstimateAPPENDIX H: Operational and Maintenance Cost EstimateAPPENDIX I: Construction Schedule, Cost of Delay, and Schedule CostsAPPENDIX J: Traffic Delay CostsAPPENDIX K: Public Impact CostsAPPENDIX L: Risk Register and Risk CostAPPENDIX M: Technical Memorandum, Preliminary Design Mather Interceptor –

Alternative MI-1 + LCA5-1 Construction ApproachAPPENDIX N: Technical Memorandum Preliminary Design Mather Interceptor –

Alternative MI-2 + LCA5-1 Construction ApproachAPPENDIX O: Technical Memorandum Preliminary Design Mather Interceptor –

Alternative MI-7 + LCA5-1 Construction ApproachAPPENDIX P: Technical Memorandum Preliminary Design Mather Interceptor –

Alternative AJ4 Construction Approach

LIST OF TABLES

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



Table of Contents

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Mather Interceptor and LCA5 Project Area..................................................... 1-1Figure 2-1 Mather Interceptor and LCA5 Service Area .................................................... 2-3Figure 2-2 Mather Interceptor and LCA5 Planned Developments .................................... 2-4

Figure 2-3 Mather Interceptor and LCA5 Schedule Summary.......................................... 2-7Figure 4-1 Alternative MI-1 Layout .................................................................................. 4-8Figure 4-2 Alternative MI-2 Layout .................................................................................. 4-9Figure 4-3 Alternative MI-3 Layout ................................................................................ 4-10Figure 4-4 Alternative MI-4 Layout ................................................................................ 4-11Figure 4-5 Alternative MI-5 Layout ................................................................................ 4-12Figure 4-6 Alternative MI-6 Layout ................................................................................ 4-13Figure 4-7 Alternative MI-7 Layout ................................................................................ 4-14Figure 4-8 Alternative MI-8 Layout ................................................................................ 4-15Figure 4-9 Alternative MI-9 Layout ................................................................................ 4-16Figure 4-10 Alternative MI-9B Layout............................................................................ 4-17

Figure 4-11 Alternative MI-10 Layout ............................................................................ 4-18Figure 4-12 Alternative LCA5-1 Layout ......................................................................... 4-19Figure 4-13 Alternative LCA5-2 Layout ......................................................................... 4-20Figure 4-14 Alternative LCA5-3 Layout ......................................................................... 4-21Figure 4-15 Alternative LCA5-4 Layout ......................................................................... 4-22Figure 4-16 Alternative Aerojet 4 Layout........................................................................ 4-23Figure 5-1 Figure 5-1 BCE Summary of Alternatives and Related Additional Costs…..5-28Figure 5-2 Profile of the Mather Interceptor Alternative MI-1+ LCA5-1....................... 5-39Figure 5-3 Mather Interceptor Alternative MI-1 Net Present Value ............................... 5-42Figure 5-4 Mather Interceptor Future Construction of AJ4 Net Present Value............... 5-43Figure 5-5 Mather Interceptor MAE Stub Out Net Present Value................................... 5-43

Figure 5-6 Alternative MI-1 BCE Summary of Costs ..................................................... 5-44Figure 5-7 Alternative MI-1 Net Present Value (including additional costs).................. 5-44Figure 5-8 Profile of Alternative MI-2 + LCA5-1........................................................... 5-46Figure 5-9 Alternative MI-2 Net Present Value............................................................... 5-48Figure 5-10 Mather Interceptor Future Construction of AJ4 Net Present Value............. 5-49Figure 5-11 Mather Interceptor MAE Stub Out Net Present Value................................. 5-50Figure 5-12 Alternative MI-2 BCE Summary of Costs ................................................... 5-50Figure 5-13 Mather Interceptor Total Alternative MI-2 Net Present Value ................... 5-51Figure 5-14 Profile of Alternative MI-7 + LCA5-1......................................................... 5-52Figure 5-15 Mather Interceptor Alternative MI-7 Net Present Value ............................. 5-55Figure 5-16 Mather Interceptor Future Construction of AJ4 Net Present Value............. 5-56

Figure 5-17 Mather Interceptor MAE Trunk Net Present Value ..................................... 5-56Figure 5-18 Alternative MI-7 BCE Summary of Costs ................................................... 5-57Figure 5-19 Alternative MI-7 Total Net Present Value (including additional costs) ...... 5-57Figure 5-20 Profile of Mather Interceptor Alternative AJ4............................................. 5-59Figure 5-21 Alternative AJ4, Net Present Value ............................................................. 5-62Figure 5-22 Alternative AJ4 BCE Summary of Costs..................................................... 5-62Figure 5-23 AJ4 Alternative Total Net Present Value..................................................... 5-63Figure 5-24 BCE Results at Various Construction Cost Escalation Rates ...................... 5-69

October 2007 iv Mather Interceptor

Project



Table of Contents

Mather Interceptor v October 2007

Project

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AACE Association for the Advancement of Cost EngineeringADWF average dry weather flowADT average daily traffic

AJ AerojetARV air release valveBCE business case evaluationCaltrans California Department of TransportationCCTV closed circuit televisionCDFG California Department of Fish and GameCEQA California Environmental Quality ActCM Construction ManagementCSD-1 County Sanitation District 1DERA California Department of Environmental Review and AssessmentEIR Environmental Impact Report

EPB earth pressure balanceESA Environmental Science AssociatesFAA Federal Aviation AdministrationFSC Folsom South Canalft/sec feet per secondGGS giant garter snakehp horsepowerHVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioningkV kilovoltkWh kilowatt-hoursLCA5 Laguna Creek Area 5

LOS level of servicemg/L milligram per literO&M operations and maintenanceOSHA Occupational Safety and Health AdministrationLNWI Lower Northwest Interceptormgd million gallons per dayMI Mather InterceptorMP2000 Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District Master Plan 2000PAC Project Authorization CommitteeNMFS National Marine Fisheries ServiceNPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPV net present valuePDP project development planPM Program ManagementPO public outreachPROW permanent right-of-wayPWWF peak wet weather flowRCP reinforced concrete pipeROW right-of-wayRWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board



Table of Contents

SHPO State Historic Preservation OfficerSIAMI South Interceptor and Mather InterceptorSRCSD Sacramento Regional County Sanitation DistrictSRWTP Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment PlantSSES Sanitary Sewer Expansion Study

TBM tunnel boring machineTCE temporary construction easementsTRACON Terminal Radar Approach ControlUSACE United States Army Corps of EngineersUSBR United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of USBRUSFWS United States Fish and Wildlife ServiceVELB valley elderberry longhorn beetleVFD variable frequency drive

October 2007 vi Mather Interceptor

Project



Chapter 1

Problem Statement

CHAPTER 1.0 PROBLEM STATEMENT

The Mather Interceptor problem statement is as follows:

“There is insufficient capacity in the project area. Additional capacity is needed by 2010.”

The problem statement was approved at the October 15, 2006, PAC Initiation meeting.The project area is shown in Figure 1-1.

Figure 1-1 Mather Interceptor and LCA5 Project Area

Mather Interceptor 1-1 October 2007

Project



Chapter 1

Problem Statement


October 2007 1-2 Mather Interceptor

Project



Chapter 2

Background of the Problem Statement

crosses Zinfandel Drive. Aerojet Interceptor Sections 1, 2, and 2 Stub Out (AJ1, AJ2, andAJ2S, respectively) would connect to the Mather Junction Structure at its upstream end,located at the Sunrise Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection. The Mather JunctionStructure also would include a connection point for the future Aerojet Interceptor Section 4(AJ4).

The recommendations of the MP2000 Reconciliation Report and other analyses describedabove resulted in the following design and analysis parameters for this ProjectDevelopment Plan (PDP):

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

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

• The Mather Interceptor will remain in use to serve the Aerojet sewer sheds as long

as the Bradshaw Interceptor has available capacity. When the BradshawInterceptor reaches capacity, SRCSD will divert the flows originating from theAerojet sewer sheds to the future Laguna Creek Interceptor.

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

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

• The analysis should determine if it would be beneficial to construct the AJ4Interceptor as part of Mather Interceptor construction.


Project



Chapter 2



Project

Figure 2-1 Mather Interceptor and LCA5 Service Area



Chapter 2



Project

Figure 2-2 Mather Interceptor and LCA5 Planned Developments



Chapter 2


2.2 SERVICE AREA AND SERVICE LEVEL IMPACTS

As stated above, the Mather Interceptor service area includes Mather and Aerojet sheds.The Mather shed will be permanently served by the Mather Interceptor and the Aerojetsheds will be temporarily served by the Mather Interceptor, until construction of theLaguna Creek Interceptor. The permanent Mather Interceptor Service Area is the Mather

Interceptor Sewer Shed and is shown in purple shading in Figure 2-1. The interim MatherInterceptor Service Area and the Aerojet Sewer Shed are shown in pink in Figure 2-1.The interim LCA5 service area is a portion of the area shown in green in Figure 2-1.

CSD-1 service levels in the Mather Interceptor service area will be affected by the capacitylimitations of the Chrysanthy Pump Station. Flows to the Chrysanthy Pump Station areanticipated to reach the facility’s capacity prior to 2010. As stated above, development inthe area has already required the construction of several small interim pump stations. Tomaintain an acceptable level of service in the project area, additional facilities are required.

In support of providing an excellent level of service in the region, SRCSD and its

contributing agencies typically enter into a Master Interagency Agreement (MIA) to definethe roles and responsibilities of each party regarding sewer service in an area. InDecember 2006, SRCSD, CSD-1, Sacramento County, the City of Sacramento, and theCity of Folsom entered into an MIA. In accordance with Section 2 of the agreement, theMIA will remain in effect until June 13, 2024. The MIA states that SRCSD is required tofinance, construct, reconstruct, operate, and maintain all interceptor sewers for conveyanceof wastewater from a contributing agency or a major portion of a contributing agency tothe SRWTP. The agreement defines an “Interceptor Sewer” as any sewer, in-linetreatment, and/or pump facilities designed to carry a peak wet weather flow of 10 milliongallons per day (mgd) or greater from new development, or that has its upstream anddownstream ends adjacent and connected to existing interceptor sewers.

The MIA states that CSD-1 is a contributing agency to SRCSD and is responsible forproviding local sewer service within CSD-1’s service area. The MIA defines local sewerservice as the collection, conveyance, treatment, and transfer to the SRCSD system of wastewater originating within the CSD-1 service area. CSD-1 is required to finance,construct, reconstruct, operate, and maintain all collector and trunk sewers for wastewaterwithin its local service area and to dispose of all wastewater originating within its localservice area by delivery of same to SRCSD facilities. CSD-1 typically coordinates withdevelopers to plan the construction of the interim sewer facilities required to provideservice until interceptor sewer facilities are in place and, in many cases, CSD-1 requiresthat the developer construct the future trunks required to service the area. CSD-1 uses a

mechanism to collect funds from the development community and then uses the funds toreimburse the developer that constructs the interim sewer facilities to provide interimservice to the area. These interim sewer facilities are typically designed to carry a peak wet weather flow of less than 10 mgd and are therefore not considered interceptor sewerfacilities.

Once a developing area is anticipating flows large enough to require the construction of facilities that are designed to carry a peak wet weather flow (PWWF) of 10 mgd or greater,


Project



Chapter 2



Project

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

2.3 SCHEDULE

The Mather Interceptor project, as defined by the problem statement, requires thecompletion of construction by December 2010. The schedule is driven by the capacitylimitations of the Chrysanthy Pump Station. Since flows to the Chrysanthy Pump Stationare anticipated to reach the facility’s capacity prior to 2010, additional capacity is neededas soon as possible. A reasonable but aggressive schedule was developed to determine theearliest date that the additional capacity could be made available. As a result of theschedule analysis, it was determined that the earliest date that a project solution could bedesigned and constructed is December 2010. This date was adopted by SRCSD and CSD-1 as the required completion date for the project.

The schedule for the completion of sewer service to the LCA5 shed is not driven by thesame capacity issues as Mather Interceptor. Based on development plans for the LCA5shed area, sewer service will be required by December 2010, additional capacity will berequired by 2013, and flows from the shed area are expected to exceed 10 mgd by 2015.Thus, it was assumed that the construction of LCA5 should proceed on a schedule similarto that of the Mather Interceptor, potentially avoiding the cost to construct several smallerinterim stations.

To meet this aggressive schedule, several key milestones will have to be met throughoutthe project life cycle. A Mather Interceptor and LCA5 schedule summary is shown in

Figure 2-3. The schedule summary includes the key activities and milestones required tocomplete the Mather Interceptor by December 2010.



Mather Interceptor 2-7

B

Project

Figure 2-3 Mather Interceptor and LCA5 Schedule Summary



Chapter 2




Project



Chapter 3

Constraints

CHAPTER 3.0 CONSTRAINTS

This chapter describes the constraints affecting project development, including theconnections to existing and future facilities, existing site conditions, concurrent and future

construction in the project area, and codes, regulatory standards, and policies.

3.1 PHYSICAL CONDITION

Anticipating the likelihood of development in the Aerojet sheds would occur 10 to 20years before significant development in the lower Laguna Creek sheds, MP2000recommended that the Mather Interceptor be used to convey Aerojet shed flows to theBradshaw Interceptor while the Bradshaw Interceptor has available capacity. Thus, theMather Interceptor must be sized to accommodate Mather and Aerojet shed flows, andextend from the Aerojet shed area to the Bradshaw Interceptor. Development in the LCA5shed area will begin in 2009 and sewer service will be required by 2011. Flow from theLCA5 shed will be conveyed to the Bradshaw Interceptor until the future construction of the Laguna Creek Interceptor. The sewer service to the LCA5 shed must be sized toaccommodate LCA5 flows, and extend from the LCA5 shed area to the Mather Interceptornear the intersection of Chrysanthy Boulevard and Sunrise Boulevard.

Since the Mather Interceptor will provide interim service to the Aerojet shed area, theMather Interceptor will not be sized for buildout flows from the Aerojet or LCA5 sheds.The Mather Interceptor must be designed to accommodate a maximum design flow equalto the maximum PWWF from the Aerojet, Mather, and LCA5 shed areas at the date thatBradshaw reaches capacity. In addition, the Mather Interceptor will need to be designed toaccommodate a minimum design flow equal to the buildout flows for the Mather shed area.Thus, estimating the date that the Bradshaw Interceptor will reach capacity while receivingflows from the Aerojet, Mather, and LCA5 shed areas is critical. Based on hydraulicmodel results for the Bradshaw Interceptor sewer system, the Bradshaw Interceptor couldaccept up to 49 mgd from the Mather Interceptor until 2030.

The upstream end of the Mather Interceptor will connect to an existing 42-inch-diameterstub out, part of the AJ1 located near the intersection of Chrysanthy Boulevard and SunriseBoulevard. The existing AJ1 Stub Out was constructed by the Anatolia development.Once the connection is complete and the Mather Interceptor is operational, the existinginterim Chrysanthy Pump Station and force main will be taken out of service. TheChrysanthy Pump Station is located near the intersection of Chrysanthy Boulevard andAnatolia Drive, east of Sunrise Boulevard. The Chrysanthy Pump Station has beenupgraded to a capacity of 3 mgd and has a potential expanded capacity of 7 mgd. The flowfrom the Chrysanthy Pump Station is pumped through an 18-inch-diameter, 7-mile-longforce main, which discharges to the Bradshaw Interceptor at the intersection of KieferBoulevard and Happy Lane. The Chrysanthy Pump Station was designed to CSD-1 pumpstation standards with a 25-year life. It should be noted that the small commercial/highdensity housing development immediately south of Douglas Road, and on both sides of Sunrise Boulevard, will soon be served by an interim pump station. The small pumpstation will have a capacity of about 1.0 mgd and will be located on the west side of


Project



Chapter 3

Constraints

Sunrise Boulevard immediately south of Douglas Road. The force main will convey flowfrom the pump station to AJ1 along Sunrise Boulevard. Once the Mather Interceptor iscompleted, this small interim pump station and force main will be abandoned and the flowwill be conveyed across Douglas Road to the Mather Interceptor. The Douglas Road pumpstation was bid in July 2007 and should be on line by 2009.

The downstream end of the Mather Interceptor will connect to the Bradshaw Interceptor.Section 7B of the Bradshaw Interceptor is nearest to the Mather Interceptor project area.The location of the connection to the Bradshaw Interceptor depends on the selectedalignment for the Mather Interceptor.

Also in accordance with MP2000, construction of the Mather Interceptor will include a junction structure, located near the intersection of Sunrise Boulevard and Douglas Road, toconnect the Mather, AJ1, AJ2, AJ2S, and AJ4 Interceptors.

The upstream end of LCA5 will include a pump station located east of Sunrise Boulevard

between Kiefer Road and Highway 16 (Jackson Highway) and a force main to the MatherInterceptor. One or more trunk sewers will be constructed from the nearby Waegell andSuncreek developments to the pump station site to convey flow from the LCA5 shed to thepump station. A small interim pump station has been constructed in the LCA5 shed toserve the Anatolia III development. This pump station has a design capacity of less than1.0 mgd and, when put in operation, will discharge flow through a force main in JaegerRoad to AJ1.

The downstream end of the LCA5 force main will connect to the Mather Interceptor nearthe intersection of Chrysanthy Boulevard and Sunrise Boulevard via a transition structurethat converts pressure flow to a gravity flow.

Since the LCA5 pump station and force mains will provide interim service to the LCA5shed, the pump station and force mains will not be sized for buildout flows from the LCA5shed. The LCA5 pump station and force mains must be designed to accommodate amaximum design flow equal to the maximum PWWF from the LCA5 shed area at the datethat Bradshaw reaches capacity. As noted above, the Mather Interceptor will be sized toreceive this flow from the LCA5 facilities.

3.2 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS IN THE POJECT AREA

3.2.1 Soils and Groundwater

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


Project



Chapter 3

Constraints

Research conducted during the Reconnaissance Phase of the Preliminary GeotechnicalInvestigation indicated that regional groundwater elevations are over 50 feet below thesurface in the project area. The elevation of the interceptor would be above thegroundwater table based on this information, but perched groundwater is occasionallyencountered. Construction of Bradshaw 8 and Bradshaw 7 both encountered minimal

groundwater along the majority of their alignments.

However, soil borings conducted by Kleinfelder found groundwater levels above theexpected interceptor elevation in 5 of 11 borings. Three out of four borings along MatherInterceptor section 1 (MI-1) found groundwater.

3.2.2 Environmental Features

Environmental conditions could present a problem for SRCSD, depending on whichalternative is chosen. The Mather area has a high concentration of vernal pools andwetlands, as shown by recently completed field surveys conducted to identify sensitiveenvironmental resources potentially affected by the project. To address potentialenvironmental conditions, SRCSD would likely have to obtain environmental permits in acomplex acquisition process.

3.2.3 Folsom South Canal and United States Department of the Interior,Bureau of Reclamation Property

The United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) ownsFolsom South Canal, which parallels Sunrise Boulevard through the entire project area andmust be crossed by the Mather Interceptor to convey flow to the Bradshaw Interceptor. Atunnel under the canal is the most practical crossing method and USBR prefers 25 feet of clearance between the canal bottom and the interceptor. Clearance of between 10 and 15

feet is necessary to allow gravity flow from the crossing to the Bradshaw Interceptor,unless a siphon or pump station is constructed. USBR will allow less than 25 feet of clearance if it can be demonstrated that the proposed construction will not damage thecanal. The depth of the canal crossing in conjunction with the gravity sewer design wouldresult in deep pipeline construction from the canal crossing to the Bradshaw Interceptor.The pipeline will be constructed at a depth of 40 to 60 feet below existing grade in thisarea. Tunneling will likely prove to be more cost-effective than open cut methods of construction at these depths.

USBR will grant a temporary easement and/or a construction permit for temporaryconstruction activities on its property and will grant a permanent easement for the Folsom

South Canal (FSC) crossing. USBR will not grant a permanent easement for the pipelineto be placed on its property, except for a crossing. The process to obtain a permit oreasement from USBR includes extensive technical and environmental review. Delayscaused by the permit/right-of-way (ROW) acquisition process could delay the start of construction.


Project



Chapter 3

Constraints

3.2.4 Mather Air Force Base (Mather Airport) and Mather Boulevard

The Mather Air Force Base property is currently owned by the United States of America,but is being turned over to Sacramento County, which will allow the interceptor to beinstalled with a license as long as the interceptor is located within the planned ROW of Mather Boulevard.

Mather Boulevard is a two-lane road that runs northwest from the end of Douglas Road toMather Field. It sees minimal traffic and passes under the approach to the Mather Fieldrunway about 2,000 feet west of the end of the runway. Sacramento County Airport hasplans to construct a new security fence around the airfield and Mather Boulevard will beon the airfield side of the fence. Public access to Mather Boulevard in this area will bediscontinued. District operations and maintenance (O&M) access will require airfieldmanager escorts, arranged in advance. Contaminated soil and groundwater have beenencountered in this area and are included in the Mather Air Force Base Cleanup Program.However, contamination in this area is minimal; the worst areas of contamination arefurther to the west.

3.2.5 Zinfandel Drive

Zinfandel Drive has been extended about 2,500 feet south of North Mather Boulevardalong the MP2000 alignment for Mather Boulevard. If this alignment is chosen, existingpavement and utilities will affect the construction methods and cost.

Zinfandel Drive is planned to be extended another 3,500 feet south to Douglas Road. Thisproject is currently in the preliminary design phase and will not likely start constructionuntil after completion of the Mather Interceptor. The extension of Zinfandel Drive willpass through property currently owned by the United States of America, but is scheduled to

be transferred to Sacramento County. Sacramento County has indicated it will negotiate alicense agreement with SRCSD to allow construction of the interceptor. If Zinfandel Driveis constructed over the interceptor, the license will expire and no easement will benecessary. If Zinfandel Drive is not constructed over the interceptor, permanent easementswill be negotiated after the completion of construction.

3.2.6 Douglas Road

Douglas Road between Eagles Nest Road and Sunrise Boulevard is currently a two-laneRoad within an 80-foot ROW. The Douglas Road widening project is currently inpreliminary design, and the interceptor could be constructed prior to widening, mitigating

impacts on traffic. The Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) facility is a federalair traffic control facility located on the north side of Douglas Road, just west of the canal.Obtaining ROW from the TRACON facility would be difficult since the land is federallyowned. In addition, air traffic control communications are transmitted though fiber opticslines in Douglas Road. Mather Lake and other environmentally sensitive wetlands arelocated south of Douglas Road and immediately east of the Folsom South Canal. Theproperty on the north side of Douglas Road, near Sunrise Boulevard, is owned by Cordova


Project



Chapter 3

Constraints

Recreation and Park District. This land is mostly undeveloped with the exception of ashooting range.

3.2.7 Eagles Nest Road

Eagles Nest Road is a two-lane road between Douglas Road and Kiefer Road. It parallelsSunrise Boulevard about 1 mile to the west and could be a viable alternative alignment toSunrise Boulevard. Due to its narrow corridor, construction in Eagles Nest Road wouldcompletely block traffic. To avoid traffic impacts, the pipeline could be placed in aneasement off the road, but significant wetlands and vernal pools would be impacted andrequire mitigation.

3.2.8 Sunrise Boulevard, South of Douglas Road

South of Douglas Road, Sunrise Boulevard is currently a two-lane road, but is beingwidened to four lanes from Douglas Road to Chrysanthy Boulevard during the 2007construction season. It is anticipated that Sunrise Boulevard will be widened from

Chrysanthy Boulevard to Kiefer Road by the end of 2009. A 69 kilovolt (kV) power lineparallels Sunrise Boulevard along the east side. Most of the utilities (water, gas, drainage)are in the east side of the road. There is room for a sewer in the new lanes on the westside, but this is a heavily traveled arterial road and significant traffic delays would resultfrom construction activities. USBR owns the vacant land between the Sunrise BoulevardROW and the Folsom South Canal, along the west side of the road. As stated above,USBR will issue a temporary easement and/or construction permit for temporary,construction activities on its property but will not grant a permanent easement to place thepipeline on its property, except the Folsom South Canal crossing.

3.2.9 Sunrise Boulevard, North of Douglas Road

North of Douglas Road, Sunrise Boulevard is currently a four-lane road. The first mile of Sunrise Boulevard, north of Douglas, is not developed on either side. The property east of Sunrise Boulevard is privately owned and is part of the Rio Del Oro Specific Plan. Theproperty west of Sunrise Boulevard is owned by Cordova Recreation and Parks District.The remaining northern stretch of Sunrise Boulevard is lined with businesses and islandscaped with trees on both sides and in the median. The road is heavily used andconstruction in the road ROW will likely result in significant traffic delays. Where theland is undeveloped along Sunrise Boulevard, the Mather Interceptor will be placedadjacent to the road ROW, and an easement will be pursued.

3.2.10 Chrysanthy BoulevardChrysanthy Boulevard is an 80-foot wide, four-lane road with parking that intersectsSunrise Boulevard and continues to the east for 2,500 feet. It provides access into theAnatolia Subdivision and will be extended another 3,000 feet to the east in the near futureto connect with Jaeger Road.

The CSD-1 Chrysanthy Pump Station is located at the intersection of ChrysanthyBoulevard and Anatolia Drive, which is 1,000 feet east of Sunrise Boulevard. AJ1 is


Project



Chapter 3

Constraints

located in Chrysanthy Boulevard and is in service. AJ1 has already been extended toJaeger Road. The extension of Chrysanthy Boulevard will follow AJ1.

3.2.11 Kiefer Boulevard

Kiefer Boulevard is an existing two-lane, county road that runs in an east-west directionthrough the area. Between Eagles Nest Road and Sunrise Boulevard, Kiefer Boulevard is atwo-lane, paved road in an approximately 80-foot-wide ROW. Between SunriseBoulevard and Jaeger Road, it is a dirt road in approximately 60-foot-wide ROW.However, this portion of Kiefer Boulevard is currently being improved and will be a two-lane paved road with an-80-foot-wide ROW. The current road construction will place thetwo lanes in the north side of the ROW and will allow widening of the road to the south inthe future.

3.2.12 Jaeger Road

Jaeger Road was recently improved as a two-lane road in an 80-foot (approximate) ROW.

Jaeger Road runs in a north-south direction between Kiefer Boulevard and Douglas Road.The existing road was built in the west side of the ROW, leaving room for road wideningin the future.

3.2.13 Highway 16/Jackson Road

Jackson Road is a State Highway controlled and maintained by CalTrans. Jackson Road isthe primary connector between Sacramento and Amador County. Jackson Road intersectsSunrise Boulevard at the south end of the project site, just south of the potential locationfor the pump station site. Jackson Road is a two-lane road, but carries high volumes of commuter and truck traffic. Any work within its ROW requires a permit from CalTrans.

3.3 CONCURRENT AND FUTURE CONSTRUCTION IN THE PROJECTAREA

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

• Road Projectso Zinfandel Drive Extensiono Douglas Road Wideningo Sunrise Boulevard Wideningo Kiefer Road Widening

o Jaeger Road Wideningo Jackson Road/Sunrise Boulevard Intersection Improvemento Eagles Nest Road Realignmento Chrysanthy Road Extension

• Development Projectso Villages at Zinfandelo Creekside


Project



Chapter 3

Constraints

o Sundance Plaza and Sundance Villageo Rio Del Oro Specific Plano Preserve at Sunridgeo Anatolia IIIo Suncreek Specific Plan Areao

Waegell Propertyo Mather Easto Grantline Westo Grantline 600o Grantline 208o Douglas 103o Douglas 98o Montelenao Sunridge Lot Jo Sunridge Park o Arista del Sol

• Other Projectso Mather Air Force Base Cleanup Programo Mather Groundwater Extraction and Treatment System (GET H-B) (12-inch

pipeline in Douglas Road)

The SIAMI program management team is coordinating with the agencies responsible formanaging road projects and proposed developments in the area. Mather Interceptor andLCA5 planned development areas and names are shown in Figure 2-2.

3.4 CODES, REGULATORY STANDARDS, AND POLICIES

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

• Interceptor Design Manual (2003)

• SRCSD/CSD-1 Sewage Pump Station Design Manual (2005)

• SIAMI Interceptor Design Guidelines (2007)

• SIAMI Pump Station Design Guidelines (2007)

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

• United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

• United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Consultation

• National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Consultation

• State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) Consultation

• United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR)


Project



Chapter 3

Constraints

• California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and associatedEnvironmental Impact Report (EIR)

• California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)

• California Department of Transportation (CalTrans)

• California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal OSHA)

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

• Sacramento County, Department of Transportation

• City of Rancho Cordova, Department of Transportation

• Other local utilities


Project



Chapter 4

Identification of Alternatives

CHAPTER 4.0 IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES

This chapter describes the identification of project alternatives. The brainstorming effortto identify project alternatives and construction alternatives is described in detail. (Please

note that for ease of viewing, the figures for this chapter have been placed at the end of thechapter.)

4.1 BRAINSTORMING EFFORT

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

• Neal Allen, SRCSD

• Steve Norris, SRCSD

• Andrew Page, SRCSD

• Humera Arshad, SRCSD• Robb Armstrong, SRCSD

• Paul Philleo, CSD-1

• John Buttz, MWH

• Daniel Breg, MWH

• Rebecca Walker, MWH

• Bill Worrall, MWH

• Mike Massaro, MWH

• Mohammad Djavid, MWH

• John Bergen, MWH

•

Steve Hyland, MWHThe following people were provided information about the alternatives and givenopportunity to comment:

• Cyrus Abhar, City of Rancho Cordova

• Kathy Garcia, City of Rancho Cordova

• Dean Blank, Sacramento County Department of Transportation

• David Norris, Sacramento County Economic Development

• M. Robert White, County of Sacramento Economic Development

• Mark Rayback, Wood Rodgers (Consultant Representative, DevelopmentCommunity)

•

Peter Tobia, Wood Rodgers (Consultant Representative, Development Community)

4.2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

This section describes in detail the alternatives considered for the Mather Interceptor andLCA5. As stated earlier, the brainstormed alternatives were to meet the followingrequirements:


Project



Chapter 4


• The Mather Interceptor alternatives will convey flows from the Aerojet sheds to theBradshaw Interceptor. The Mather Interceptor must connect to the existing AJ1pipeline in Chrysanthy Boulevard.

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

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

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

• The Mather Interceptor alternatives will allow for the pipeline to be kept in serviceafter construction of the Laguna Creek Interceptor. The Mather Junction Structuremay be used to divert flows to either the Bradshaw Interceptor or Laguna Creek Interceptor systems.

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

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

The alternatives can be separated into two groups. The first group is intended to serve theMather and Aerojet shed areas. This group of 11 alternatives is called the Mather

Interceptor alternatives (Alternatives MI-1 through MI-9, MI-9B, and MI-10). The secondgroup is intended to serve a portion of the LCA5 shed. This group of four alternatives iscalled the LCA5 alternatives (Alternatives LCA5-1 through LCA5-4). An additionalalternative (Alternative AJ4) was included that addresses service to the Mather, Aerojet,and LCA5 shed areas, and also includes construction of Aerojet Interceptor Section 4(Alternative AJ4) from Douglas Road to the Mather Pump Station. As stated previously,this alternative was included to determine whether it would be cost-effective to build theAJ4 pipeline during construction of the Mather Interceptor and LCA5 facilities (pumpstation and force mains), avoiding the need to re-impact the same alignment in the future.In total, 16 project alternatives were considered. It should be noted that not all 16alternatives were presented at the PAC Initiation meeting held on October 18, 2006. For

instance, the LCA5 and AJ4 alternatives were not specifically presented. Hydraulicmodeling and understanding of whether there was an actual need for service in LCA5 wasstill under development at that time. In addition, a “No Project” alternative was notconsidered during the analysis because the need for additional capacity in the project areawas known.


Project



Chapter 4


The descriptions and figures of the alternatives below reflect the project alternatives asthey were known during the brainstorming analysis, and may have changed in latersections of this report as the design of the alternatives developed.

4.2.1 Alternative MI-1 Zinfandel Drive

This alternative (see Figure 4-1) would begin with a new 42-inch-diameter gravity sewerpicking up flows from the Aerojet-1 Interceptor that currently flow into the ChrysanthyPump Station. This 42-inch-diameter open-cut gravity sewer would run north alongSunrise Boulevard to the Mather Junction Structure at Douglas Road. A 48-inch-diameteropen-cut segment would then run west along Douglas Road to a drop structure on the eastside of the FSC. A 48-inch-diameter gravity tunneled section would cross the FSC, runwest on Douglas Road and north on the future extension of Zinfandel Drive, ending at aconnection to the Bradshaw 7B Interceptor in North Mather Boulevard.

4.2.2 Alternative MI-2 Mather Boulevard

This alternative (see Figure 4-2) is similar to MI-1, except the final segment, north of Douglas Road, would run along Mather Boulevard instead of Zinfandel Drive. It wouldbegin with a new 42-inch–diameter gravity sewer picking up flows from Aerojet-1Interceptor that currently flow into the Chrysanthy Pump Station. This 42-inch-diameteropen-cut gravity sewer would run north along Sunrise Boulevard to the Mather JunctionStructure at Douglas Road. A 48-inch-diameter open-cut segment would then run westalong Douglas Road to a drop structure on the east side of the FSC. A 48-inch-diametergravity tunneled section would cross the FSC, run west on Douglas Road and northwest onMather Boulevard, ending at a connection to the Bradshaw 7B Interceptor in North MatherBoulevard.

4.2.3 Alternative MI-3 Golf Course / Zinfandel Drive A

Under this alternative (see Figure 4-3), flows from the Mather Junction Structure at theSunrise Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection would be brought south along SunriseBoulevard in a 36-inch-diameter open-cut gravity sewer to a new drop/junction structure atthe Sunrise Boulevard/Chrysanthy Boulevard intersection (flows from the Aerojet-1Interceptor would be collected at this point). From this drop/junction structure, a 54-inch-diameter tunneled gravity sewer would cross the FSC, run west within an undevelopedarea, run north on Eagles Nest Road, then north along the future extension of ZinfandelDrive to the Bradshaw 7B Interceptor in North Mather Boulevard.

4.2.4 Alternative MI-4 Golf Course / Zinfandel Drive BUnder this alternative (see Figure 4-4), flows from the Mather Junction Structure at theSunrise Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection would run west along Douglas Road in a 36-inch-diameter open-cut segment to a drop structure on the east side of the FSC. A 36-inch-diameter gravity tunneled section would cross the FSC, and run west on Douglas Road to a junction structure at the future extension of Zinfandel Drive.


Project



Chapter 4


A new drop/junction structure would be built at the Sunrise Boulevard/ChrysanthyBoulevard intersection. From this drop/junction structure, a 36-inch-diameter tunneledgravity sewer would cross the FSC, run west within an undeveloped area, and north onEagles Nest Road to a junction structure at the Douglas Road/Zinfandel Drive intersection.

Finally, a 48-inch-diameter tunneled gravity sewer would run along the future extension of Zinfandel Drive to a connection to the Bradshaw 7B Interceptor in North MatherBoulevard.

4.2.5 Alternative MI-5 Golf Course / Mather Boulevard A

This alternative (see Figure 4-5) is similar to Alternative MI-3, except that the finalsegment is along Mather Boulevard instead of Zinfandel Drive. Flows from the MatherJunction Structure at the Sunrise Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection would be broughtsouth along Sunrise Boulevard in a 36-inch-diameter tunneled gravity sewer to a newdrop/junction structure at the Sunrise Boulevard/Chrysanthy Boulevard intersection. Fromthis drop/junction structure, a 54-inch-diameter tunneled gravity sewer would cross theFSC, run west within an undeveloped area, north on Eagles Nest Road, then northwestalong Mather Boulevard to the Bradshaw 7B Interceptor in North Mather Boulevard.

4.2.6 Alternative MI-6 Golf Course / Mather Boulevard B

This alternative (see Figure 4-6) is similar to MI-4, except the final segment is alongMather Boulevard instead of Zinfandel Drive. Flows from the Mather Junction Structureat the Sunrise Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection would run west along Douglas Roadin a 36-inch-diameter open-cut segment to a drop structure on the east side of the FSC. A36-inch-diameter gravity tunneled section would cross the FSC, and run west on DouglasRoad to a junction structure at the intersection of Eagles Nest Road.

A new drop/junction structure would be built at the Sunrise Boulevard/ChrysanthyBoulevard intersection. From this drop/junction structure, a 36-inch-diameter tunneledgravity sewer would cross the FSC, run west within an undeveloped area, north on EaglesNest Road, and end at the Douglas Road/Zinfandel Drive junction structure.

Finally, a 48-inch-diameter tunneled gravity sewer would run northwest along MatherBoulevard to a connection to the Bradshaw 7B Interceptor in North Mather Boulevard.

4.2.7 Alternative MI-7 Sunrise Boulevard A

Under this alternative (see Figure 4-7), the gravity sewer would begin at the downstreamend of the Aerojet-1 Interceptor. A 42-inch-diameter open-cut gravity sewer would runnorth along Sunrise Boulevard to the Mather Junction Structure at Douglas Road. Thepipeline would transition to a 48-inch-diameter open-cut gravity sewer and run northwestalong Sunrise Boulevard, west along Recycle Road, and connect to a drop structure with atunneled crossing of the FSC. Finally, the pipeline would connect to a junction structure tothe Bradshaw 7B Interceptor just west of the FSC.


Project



Chapter 4


4.2.8 Alternative MI-8 Sunrise Boulevard B

This alternative (see Figure 4-8) is similar to Alternative MI-7, except the connection toBradshaw 7B occurs slightly farther north on Sunrise Boulevard. The gravity sewer wouldbegin at the downstream end of the Aerojet-1 Interceptor. A 42-inch-diameter open-cutgravity sewer would run north along Sunrise Boulevard to the Mather Junction Structure atDouglas Road. The pipeline would transition to a 48-inch-diameter open-cut gravity sewerand run northwest along Sunrise Boulevard, then turn west at the future extension of International Drive, where a drop manhole would be installed and the pipeline wouldtunnel under the FSC. Finally, the pipeline would connect to a junction structure to theBradshaw 7B Interceptor just west of the FSC.

4.2.9 Alternative MI-9 Canal

Under this alternative (see Figure 4-9), the gravity sewer would begin at the downstreamend of the Aerojet-1 Interceptor. A 42-inch-diameter open-cut gravity sewer would runnorth along Sunrise Boulevard to the Mather Junction Structure at Douglas Road, then

west along Douglas Road to a drop structure east of the FSC crossing. From the dropstructure, a 48-inch tunneled gravity sewer would cross the FSC, then turn north parallel tothe FSC and connect to the Bradshaw 7B Interceptor along Baroque Drive.

4.2.10 Alternative MI-9B Canal (East)

This alternative was added as a result of comments received after the PAC Confirmationmeeting on November 15, 2006. This alternative (see Figure 4-10) is similar toAlternative MI-9, except it runs along the east side of the FSC. The proposed gravitysewer would begin at the downstream end of the Aerojet-1 Interceptor. A 42-inch-diameter open-cut gravity sewer would run north along Sunrise Boulevard to Douglas

Road, then west along Douglas Road to the east side of the FSC. A combination of a 42-inch-diameter tunneled and open-cut gravity sewer would continue northwest along thecanal to a drop structure. A tunneled crossing of the FSC would flow to a junctionstructure at the Bradshaw 7B Interceptor along Baroque Drive.

4.2.11 Alternative MI-10 All Force Main

This alternative was added as a result of comments received at the PAC Initiation meetingon October 18, 2006. This alternative (see Figure 4-11) would include two pump stations.The first would be a 15 mgd AJ1 Pump Station that would replace the interim ChrysanthyPump Station and include dual 21-inch-diameter open-cut force mains running west onChrysanthy Boulevard and north on Sunrise Boulevard to the new 23 mgd AJ2 PumpStation at Douglas Road.

From the AJ2 Pump Station, dual 27-inch-diameter open-cut force mains would run westalong Douglas Road with a tunneled crossing of the FSC to the future extension of Zinfandel Drive, then northwest along Zinfandel Drive to a connection to the Bradshaw 7BInterceptor in North Mather Boulevard. The dual 21-inch force mains from AJ1 wouldparallel the AJ2 force mains along this route to Bradshaw 7B.


Project



Chapter 4


4.2.12 Alternative LCA5-1 Sunrise Boulevard Extension

Note that the next four alternatives provide facilities to convey flows from areas south of the Chrysanthy Pump Station, in the Laguna Creek Interceptor sewer shed, to the variousMather Interceptor alternatives discussed above. All LCA5 alternatives would initiallyinclude a 20 mgd pump station at the Sunrise Boulevard/Jackson Highway intersection.The final design flows of the pump station would be determined by hydraulic modelingresults, which are discussed in later chapters. This pump station will be referred to as theMather Pump Station.

Alternative LCA5-1 would begin at the Mather Pump Station (see Figure 4-12). Dual 24-inch-diameter open-cut force mains would run north along Sunrise Boulevard to thetransition structure at Chrysanthy Boulevard. The transition structure would convertpressurized flow and connect to gravity sewers. This alternative could connect toAlternatives MI-1 through MI-9B.

4.2.13 Alternative LCA5-2 Jaeger Road

Under this alternative (see Figure 4-13), flow from the pump station would run in dual 24-inch-diameter open-cut force mains north on Sunrise Boulevard, east on Kiefer Boulevard,north on Jaeger Road, and west on Chrysanthy Boulevard to a transition structure. Thisalternative could connect to Alternatives MI-1 through MI-9B.

4.2.14 Alternative LCA5-3 Eagles Nest A

Under this alternative (see Figure 4-14), flow from the pump station would run in dual 24-inch-diameter open-cut force mains west along the Jackson Highway and north on EaglesNest Road to a junction structure just south of the Mather Golf Course. This alternative

would connect to Alternatives MI-3 through MI-6.

4.2.15 Alternative LCA5-4 Eagles Nest B

This alternative (see Figure 4-15) is similar to Alternative LCA5-3, except that it extendsto the Chrysanthy Junction Structure. From the pump station, dual 24-inch-diameter open-cut force mains would run west along Jackson Highway (with a tunneled crossing of theFSC), north on Eagles Nest Road to just south of the Mather Golf Course, and east to theChrysanthy Junction Structure (with a tunneled crossing of the FSC). This alternativewould connect to all of the alternatives except MI-3 through MI-6.

4.2.16 Alternative Aerojet 4

This alternative (see Figure 4-16) differs from the other alternatives in that it includesfacilities to provide service to the Mather, Aerojet, and LCA5 sheds and includes theconstruction of AJ4. As stated above, AJ4 would convey flow from the Mather JunctionStructure (Aerojet sheds) to the Laguna Creek Interceptor and would be located alongSunrise Boulevard. This alternative was considered to determine if it would be beneficialto construct AJ4 as part of the Mather Interceptor and LCA5 construction. This alternativewould avoid the future re-impact of the same alignment along Sunrise Boulevard, and also


Project



Chapter 4


would avoid associated increased public impacts of working along/in this arterial road aftermuch of the development in the area has occurred. For the purposes of this analysis, it wasassumed that if AJ4 were to be constructed, it would not be operated until completion of the Laguna Creek Interceptor.

This alternative includes three distinct components:• Mather Interceptor Component – Identical to Alternative MI-1, includes a 54-inch-

diameter tunneled gravity sewer that would run north along Sunrise Boulevard,west along Douglas Road (crossing the FSC), and north along the future extensionof Zinfandel Road to a junction structure at the Bradshaw 7B Interceptor alongNorth Mather Boulevard.

• LCA5 Component – Identical to Alternative LCA5-1, includes a 20 mgd MatherPump Station and dual 24-inch-diameter open-cut force mains that would run northalong Sunrise Boulevard (parallel to the AJ4 gravity sewer) to a transition structureat Chrysanthy Boulevard.

• AJ4 Component – Includes a 72-inch-diameter tunneled gravity sewer extendingsouth on Sunrise Boulevard to the new Mather Pump Station near the intersectionof Jackson Highway and Sunrise Boulevard.

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


Project



Chapter 4


Figure 4-1 Alternative MI-1 Layout


Project



Chapter 4




Project



Chapter 4



Project




Chapter 4


Figure 4-10 Alternative MI-9B Layout


Project



Chapter 4




Project



Chapter 4


Figure 4-12 Alternative LCA5-1 Layout


Project



Chapter 4




Project



Chapter 4



Project

Figure 4-16 Alternative Aerojet 4 Layout



Chapter 4




Project



Chapter 5

Analysis of Alternatives

CHAPTER 5.0 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

This chapter provides analysis of the alternatives described in the previous chapter,including alternatives found to be fatally flawed and alternatives retained for a screening

analysis.

5.1 OVERALL ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

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

• Fatal Flaw Analysis. The alternatives listed in the previous chapter werecompared against fatal flaw criteria established by the project team. Thealternatives were considered fatally flawed if they conflicted with the problemstatement or if they met any of the fatal flaw criteria. These alternatives wereremoved from further consideration and the remaining alternatives were retainedfor screening analysis.

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

• Business Case Evaluation. Alternatives retained from the screening analysis weredeveloped in further detail for a BCE to choose a preferred project. The BCEprocedure included preparing a preliminary design and construction approach.Further detail was developed for hydraulic considerations, O&M considerations,

and financial costs and benefits to estimate a total cost to the community.

5.2 FATAL FLAW ANALYSIS

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

reason, Alternative MI-9 was eliminated.


Project



Chapter 5


Table 5-1 Fatal Flaw Criteria

Category Description Examples

Level of Service - Sewer

1. CSD-1: No surchargeduring 10-year stormPWWF.

2. SRCSD: Ability to serveservice area withoutsurcharge.

• Disrupt function of existinginterceptor or pump station

Schedule Impacts

Schedule delay to projectcompletion beyond 2010deadline that cannot bemitigated.

• Environmental permitting• Right-of-way• Construction methods (e.g.,

utility conflicts)• Concurrent construction –

planned roadwork ordevelopment during plannedconstruction season

Constructability

The proposed construction

method cannot be executedin the route location.

• Gravity sewer pipe in conflictwith existing utility or other

obstacle that cannot berelocated (canals, culverts,existing utilities)

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

5.3 SCREENING ANALYSIS

Alternatives retained from the fatal flaw analysis were subjected to a screening analysis.This section summarizes the screening analysis performed for the Mather Interceptor,including screening analysis criteria, application, and conclusions.

5.3.1 Screening Analysis Criteria

Table 5-2 (following screening analysis information) lists the screening criteria used toevaluate the alternatives. They are presented below and summarized in the table.

5.3.1.1 Capital Cost

The capital cost for each alternative was estimated using the following eight subcategories:

• Engineering Costs. The first four Engineering Costs (design at 8.5 percent of construction, construction management at 8.0 percent, project management at 16

percent, and SRCSD costs at 8.7 percent) were estimated based on costs fromSRCSD’s recently completed Lower Northwest Interceptor Program. Onecomponent of the project management costs is the cost associated with utility andenvironmental permitting. These permitting costs were estimated as approximately0.3 percent of the probable construction costs based on budgets from the LowerNorthwest Interceptor Program and other recent projects. However, the cost of environmental permitting was then multiplied by 1, 1.25, or 1.5, depending on theenvironmental permitting difficulty rating assigned to the alternative. The ratings


Project



Chapter 5


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

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

• Right-of-Way Acquisition. The capital cost of ROW acquisition was estimatedbased on unit costs for five different categories of land: vacant/United States,developing, residential, commercial, and manufacturing industry. ROW costs for

permanent ROW (PROW) for vacant/United States, developing, residential,commercial, and manufacturing industry land were estimated at $3/square foot,$10/square foot, $25/square foot, $22/square foot, and $9/square foot, respectively.ROW costs for temporary construction easements (TCE) were estimated as 20percent of the PROW costs for each of the respective land categories.

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

5.3.1.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs

O&M costs were separated into labor, power, material, and chemical costs. The labor costof inspection for gravity interceptors was estimated as the interceptor length multiplied bya unit cost of $30/foot. Site maintenance was estimated as $20,000, based on the estimatedlabor hours multiplied by the labor cost of $100 per hour. The cost for pigging the forcemains was estimated at $100,000 every 20 years. The power cost was estimated bymultiplying an assumed unit cost of $0.10 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) by the estimated pumprun time.

The O&M cost estimate for chemicals was based on the assumption that the sulfideconcentration in wastewater is 0.2 milligrams per liter (mg/L) and that it takes 10 poundsof chlorine to remove 1 pound of sulfide. Therefore, 0.606 pounds of chlorine would beneeded per gallon of wastewater, which is equivalent to $0.50 per gallon. Based on theestimated average flow rate of the pump station, the cost of chlorine (chemical cost) peryear was estimated as the cost per day multiplied by 365 days.

The O&M materials cost included replacing air release valves every 10 years ($10,000),overhauling pumps every 20 years ($125,000), replacing pumps every 40 years ($500,000),


Project



Chapter 5


performing routine odor control unit maintenance (including carbon cartridges) every 10years, and replacing variable speed drives every 20 years ($500,000) at the same time aspump overhaul. Power costs were estimated based on projected operating time for thepump station and associated horsepower for the pump.

5.3.1.3 Temporary Public Impacts The alternatives were assessed for indirect impacts as well as direct costs. Indirect impactswere evaluated in the screening analysis by rating each alternative on a scale from 1 to 5.Alternatives that were rated 1 or 2 were considered to have low impacts, a rating of 3 wasconsidered moderate, and ratings of 4 and 5 were considered to have high impacts.Indirect impacts were separated into two categories: temporary and permanent publicimpacts. Temporary public impacts would be associated with traffic, noise, dust, andvibration caused by construction activities. The temporary impacts of dust, noise, andvibration were rated by determining the number of residential houses, businesses, andother sensitive receptors within 500 feet of the centerline of the alternative segments orwithin the 1,000-foot buffer zone along the segments of each of the proposed project

alternatives. The rating assigned to each alternative was normalized to allow comparisonof each alternative.

The temporary traffic impacts were assessed using traffic count surveys conducted byY&C Consulting in conjunction with information from city and county traffic growthestimates. Y&C counted traffic along a number of major roadways and predicted the hoursof delay associated with traffic along these corridors at the time of construction (2009).

5.3.1.4 Permanent Public Impacts

Permanent public impacts were quantified by first assigning a weighting factor to the type

of structure that would be constructed (e.g., pump station, drop structure, transitionstructure). The pump station was given a weighting factor of 3, while the drop andtransition structures were given a weighting factor of 1, because pump stations typicallyhave more associated visual, noise, and odor impacts, as documented in previous projects.The next step involved public outreach (PO) specialists driving the alignments of thedifferent alternatives and stopping at locations where the proposed structures would bebuilt. Based on the locations where these structures would be built, a PO ranking wasgiven to indicate the permanent impact that would be associated with the structure. Theweighting factor for each structure was then multiplied by the PO ranking and normalizedfor each alternative to assign ratings.

5.3.2 Application of Screening Analysis

Using these screening criteria, the SIAMI program management team divided thealternatives into segments, in an effort to minimize duplicated assessments. Each segmentwas analyzed separately, and the segment and structure costs and ratings were then addedto create totals for each alternative. The screening analysis results for the ten MatherInterceptor alternatives, LCA5 alternatives and AJ4 are summarized in Table 5-3

(following screening analysis information).


Project



Chapter 5


5.3.2.1 Alternative MI-1 Zinfandel Drive

5.3.2.1.1 Construction and Engineering Costs

It was estimated that the MI-1 alignment was deep enough to require tunneling for pipeinstallation from the FSC crossing to the Bradshaw Interceptor (8,200 feet). Theremaining alignment was assumed to be open cut (6,700 feet) with some additional cost forwork in or near Sunrise Boulevard. The length of pipe required under this alternative wasthe least of all alternatives, but the length of tunneling required made this alternativemoderately expensive compared to the other alternatives. Total estimated construction costis $25,202,000.

The engineering costs were estimated using percentages of the construction cost. Theestimated engineering cost is $10,383,000 for MI-1.

5.3.2.1.2 Environmental Mitigation Cost

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

5.3.2.1.3 Right-of-Way Acquisition Cost

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

5.3.2.1.4 Operation and Maintenance Cost

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

5.3.2.1.5 Indirect Impacts

Traffic impacts for MI-1 were rated 1 out of 5. The alignment would follow the unusedportion of Zinfandel Drive and then follows the planned alignment of the road extensionprior to its construction. The alignment would also be in the north side of Douglas Road.The Douglas Road ROW is 80 feet to 100 feet wide and the traveled way is along the southside of the ROW, and is only two lanes and about 25 feet wide. Keeping the alignment inthe north side would avoid closing any traffic lanes. It is also expected that construction of the sewer along Sunrise would avoid closing traffic lanes. However, the Zinfandel Driveextension and the widening of Douglas Road construction are currently planned for 2009and 2010, when construction of the Mather Interceptor is planned. The possibility of bothcontractors working in the same areas at the same time must be avoided.

Temporary noise, dust and vibration impacts to the public were rated 1out of 5. Thealignment of MI-1 avoids any existing establishments except TRACON, an auto salvagebusiness on Douglas Road, and several houses along Sunrise Boulevard.


Project



Chapter 5


Permanent public impacts were rated 2 out of 5 and include junction structures at the NorthMather Boulevard/Zinfandel Drive intersection and the Sunrise Boulevard/Douglas Roadintersection.

5.3.2.2 Alternative MI-2 Mather Boulevard


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

The engineering costs were estimated using percentages of the construction cost. The

estimated engineering cost is $12,967,000 for MI-2.


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


The MI-2 alignment would be mostly in existing ROW, but permanent and temporaryROW would be required along Mather Boulevard., Douglas Road, and Sunrise Boulevard.Because of the additional length of the alignment, the MI-2 cost for ROW acquisition

would be higher than for MI-1. The total ROW acquisition cost for this alternative isestimated to be $3,806,000.


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

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


Project



Chapter 5


Temporary noise, dust and vibration impacts to the public were rated 3 out of 5. Thealignment of MI-2 would pass no additional structures compared to MI-1 and thereforewould have similar temporary impacts.

Permanent public impacts were rated 2 out of 5 and include junction structures at Mather

Boulevard and the Sunrise Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection.

5.3.2.3 Alternative MI-3 Golf Course / Zinfandel Drive A


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



Significant portions of the MI-3 alignment would follow cross-county routes and impactsignificant wetland features. The cross-country portions would include the segmentbetween Sunrise Boulevard and Eagles Nest Road and along the planned Zinfandel Driveextension. The estimated cost of environmental mitigation is $723,000.


The MI-3 alignment would require permanent easements for the segment between SunriseBoulevard and Eagles Nest Road. It would also require significant temporary easementsalong Eagles Nest Road. This would result in one of the highest ROW acquisition costs of

all the alternatives. The total ROW acquisition cost for this alternative is estimated to be$7,241,000.




Traffic impacts for MI-3 were rated 1 out of 5. About one half of the alignment is in cross-country areas and the work along Sunrise Boulevard should not affect traffic. The work along Eagles Nest Road would not significantly affect traffic. Like MI-1, the MI-3alignment must be constructed prior to the extension of Zinfandel Drive. If the sewerconstruction work takes place after the road extension, there could be additional impacts totraffic.

Temporary noise, dust and vibration impacts to the public were rated of 3 out of 5. Thepotential for increased temporary impacts along this alignment is due to the adjacency of the alignment to the Mather Golf Course.


Project



Chapter 5



5.3.2.4 Alternative MI-4 Golf Course / Zinfandel Drive B


MI-4 would include one of the longest lengths of pipe (22,400 feet) of all the alternativesand most of it (19,700 feet) is assumed to be tunneled. Even though the total footage of MI-4 is longer than MI-3, its construction cost would be less because of less tunneledfootage. Total estimated construction cost is $39,106,000.



Significant portions of the MI-4 alignment would follow cross-county routes and impactsignificant wetland features. The cross-country portions would include the segmentbetween Sunrise Boulevard and Eagles Nest Road and along the planned Zinfandel Driveextension. The estimated cost of environmental mitigation is $956,000.


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




Traffic impacts for MI-4 were rated 1 out of 5. About one half of the alignment would bein cross-country areas and the work along Douglas Road should not affect traffic. Thework along Eagles Nest Road would not significantly affect traffic. Like MI-1, the MI-4alignment must be constructed prior to the extension of Zinfandel Drive. If the sewerconstruction work takes place after the road extension, there could be additional impacts totraffic.

Temporary noise, dust and vibration impacts to the public were rated 1 out of 5. Thisalignment would have a lower affect on Sunrise Boulevard, but passes by the Mather Golf Course.

Permanent public impacts were rated 3 out of 5 and include junction structures at the NorthMather Boulevard/Zinfandel Drive intersection, the Douglas Road/Eagles Nest Road


Project



Chapter 5


intersection, and the Sunrise Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection. This alternative wouldrequire two crossings of the FSC.

5.3.2.5 Alternative MI-5 Golf Course / Mather Boulevard A

5.3.2.5.1 Construction and Engineering CostsMI-5 is basically the same alternative as MI-3 except that it would follow MatherBoulevard which would result in a total alignment slightly longer than MI-3 (23,700 feet).Of the total, 23,200 feet are assumed to be tunneled. MI-5 has one of the longest overallalignments of all the alternatives except MI-6. However, it would have the highest totalconstruction cost because of the extensive tunneling required. Total estimated constructioncost is $53,963,000.


5.3.2.5.2 Environmental Mitigation CostSignificant portions of the MI-5 alignment would follow cross-county routes and impactsignificant wetland features. The cross-country portions would include the segmentbetween Sunrise Boulevard and Eagles Nest Road and along the planned Zinfandel Driveextension. The estimated cost of environmental mitigation is $531,000.


The MI-5 alignment would require permanent easements for the segment between SunriseBoulevard and Eagles Nest Road. It would also require significant temporary easementsalong Eagles Nest Road and Mather Boulevard. This would result in the highest ROWacquisition costs of all the alternatives. The total ROW acquisition cost for this alternative

is estimated to be $8,508,000.


Operation costs for the gravity interceptor would be primarily for routine internalinspections. O&M costs for a gravity sewer are minimal. This alternative would have thesame issue as MI-2 regarding future access for maintenance when Mather Boulevard isclosed to the public.


Traffic impacts for MI-5 were rated 2 out of 5. About one half of the alignment is in cross-country areas, and the work along Douglas Road should not affect traffic. The work alongEagles Nest Road would not significantly affect traffic. Most of the impact to trafficwould be along Mather Boulevard, where road closures would be required.

Temporary noise, dust and vibration impacts to the public were rated 3 out of 5. Thealignment of MI-5 would pass houses along Sunrise Boulevard and the Mather Golf Course.


Project



Chapter 5


Permanent public impacts were rated 2 out of 5 and include junction structures at MatherBoulevard and the Sunrise Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection.

5.3.2.6 Alternative MI-6 Golf Course / Mather Boulevard B

5.3.2.6.1 Construction and Engineering CostsMI-6 is basically the same alternative as MI-4 except it would follow Mather Boulevardwhich would result in a total alignment slightly longer than MI-4 (24,750 feet). Of thetotal, 22,050 feet are assumed to be tunneled. Even though this alternative would have thelongest overall alignment, it would have a slightly lower total construction cost than MI-5because less of the alignment would be tunneled. Total estimated construction cost is$49,750,000.


5.3.2.6.2 Environmental Mitigation CostSignificant portions of the MI-6 alignment would follow cross-county routes and impactsignificant wetland features. The cross-country portions include the segment betweenSunrise Boulevard and Eagles Nest Road. The estimated cost of environmental mitigationis $764,000.


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


Operation costs for the gravity interceptor would be primarily for routine internalinspections. O&M costs for a gravity sewer would be minimal. This alternative wouldhave the same issue as MI-2 regarding future access for maintenance when MatherBoulevard is closed to the public.


Traffic impacts for MI-6 were rated 2 out of 5. About one half of the alignment would bein cross-country areas and the work along Douglas Road should not affect traffic. Thework along Eagles Nest Road would not significantly affect traffic. Most of the impact totraffic would be along Mather Boulevard, where road closures would be required.

Temporary noise, dust and vibration impacts to the public were rated 1 out of 5. There ispotential for increased temporary impacts due to the adjacency of the alignment to theMather Golf Course.

Permanent public impacts were rated 3 out of 5 and include junction structures at MatherBoulevard, the Douglas Road/Eagles Nest Road intersection, and the Sunrise


Project



Chapter 5


Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection. This alternative would require two crossings of theFSC.

5.3.2.7 Alternative MI-7 Sunrise Boulevard A

5.3.2.7.1 Construction and Engineering CostsMI-7 would have the shortest alignment (13,500 feet) and only 900 feet would be tunneledsince it would not cross the FSC until the end of the alignment. This would result in thelowest estimated construction cost of all the alternatives. Total estimated construction costis $19,761,000.



MI-7 would be a relatively short alignment and most of it would be in the public ROW;

therefore, the impact to wetlands and other environmental features would be relatively lowcompared to the other alternatives. The estimated cost of environmental mitigation is$472,000.


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




Traffic impacts for MI-7 were rated 4 out of 5. About 2,200 feet of the MI-7 alignmentwould be in the shoulder of Sunrise Boulevard, which is a very heavily traveled streetnorth of Douglas Road. This would require a lane closure, which would cause significanttraffic delays.

Temporary noise, dust and vibration impacts to the public were rated 4 out of 5. Thealignment would pass in front of a number of businesses along Sunrise Boulevard. Thepotential for loss of business claims is very high with this alternative. The potential cost of these impacts is difficult to assess because cost is determined by the nature of a business,and the quality of financial records used to determine loss.

Permanent public impacts were rated 2 out of 5 and include junction structures in theBradshaw Interceptor easement behind homes on Baroque Drive and the SunriseBoulevard/Douglas Road intersection.


Project



Chapter 5


5.3.2.8 Alternative MI-8 Sunrise Boulevard B


MI-8 would follow the same alignment as MI-7 except that it would cross the FSC about1,500 feet north of the MI-7 crossing. However, MI-8 would have a shorter tunnel thanMI-7; therefore, its total construction cost would be only slightly higher. Total estimatedconstruction cost is $21,529,000.



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


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




Traffic impacts for MI-8 were rated 5 out of 5. About 3,700 feet of the MI-8 alignmentwould be in the shoulder of Sunrise Boulevard, which is a very heavily traveled streetnorth of Douglas Road. This would require a lane closure, which would cause significanttraffic delays. The length of the sewer construction in Sunrise Boulevard would be longerthan MI-7; therefore, the impact to traffic is higher.

Temporary noise, dust and vibration impacts to the public were rated of 4 out of 5. Thealignment would pass in front of a number of businesses along Sunrise Boulevard. Thepotential for loss of business claims is very high with this alternative. The potential cost of these impacts is difficult to assess because cost is determined by the nature of a business,and the quality of financial records used to determine loss.

Permanent public impacts were rated 2 out of 5 and include junction structures in theBradshaw Interceptor easement behind homes in the Villages at Zinfandel and at theSunrise Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection.


Project



Chapter 5


5.3.2.9 Alternative MI-9B Canal (East)


MI-9B crosses the FSC at the same location as MI-7. However, it follows Douglas Roadbefore turning northwest and following the canal to the crossing and as a result, it isslightly longer than MI-7. Total estimated construction cost for MI-9B is $24,563,000.

The engineering costs were estimated using percentages of the construction cost. Theestimated engineering cost is $10,120,000 for MI-9B.


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


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




Traffic impacts for MI-9B were rated 2 out of 5. This alignment impacts traffic in SunriseBlvd. south of Douglas Road, but avoids construction in traveled ways along DouglasRoad and is completely out of traveled ways where it parallels the FSC.

Temporary noise, dust and vibration impacts to the public were rated 4 out of 5. Thealignment would pass along the rear of a number of businesses between the FSC andSunrise Boulevard. It also passes by the future shopping plaza at the SunriseBoulevard/Douglas Road intersection. There is a potential for loss of business claims withthis alternative. The potential cost of these impacts is difficult to assess because cost isdetermined by the nature of a business, and the quality of financial records used todetermine loss.

Permanent public impacts were rated 2 out of 5 and include junction structures in theBradshaw Interceptor easement behind homes in the Villages at Zinfandel and at theSunrise Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection.


Project



Chapter 5



Project

5.3.2.10 Alternative MI-10 All Force Main


MI-10 would include two pump stations and twin force mains for each pump station. Thefour force mains would include long lengths of pipe, but the pipe diameters would besmaller than the gravity pipes under the previous alternatives. Also, force mains canfollow the “lay of the land,” resulting in less deep sewers and less tunneling. The totalestimated construction cost is $43,061,000.



Most of the force mains could be constructed in existing ROW except the segment alongthe extension of Zinfandel Drive. The estimated cost of environmental mitigation is$1,102,000.


The force mains for MI-10 would follow the same routes as for MI-1, but MI-10 mustinclude the cost of fee title for the pump station sites and temporary contractor stagingareas. Both pump station sites would be on developable property. The total ROWacquisition cost for this alternative is estimated to be $6,165,000.


Operation costs for the pump stations and force mains would include power to run thepumps as well as costs for odor control chemicals, force main air release valvemaintenance, and general site upkeep. The costs would be related to pumping rates, lengthof force main, and elevation difference at the outlet. The NPV of the annual O&M costs isestimated to be $3,327,000 over the life of the pump stations.


Traffic impacts for MI-10 were rated 4 out of 5.

Temporary noise, dust and vibration impacts to the public were rated 5 out of 5. Thealignment of MI-10 would avoid any existing establishments except TRACON, an autosalvage business on Douglas Road, and several houses along Sunrise Boulevard.




Chapter 5



Project

5.3.2.11 Alternative LCA5-1 Sunrise Boulevard Extension


LCA5-1 would include the pump station and 15,500 feet of dual 24-inch-diameter forcemain. This alternative would have the shortest force main of the LCA5 alternatives and, asa result, would have the lowest construction cost. The total estimated construction cost is$23,089,000.

The engineering costs were estimated using percentages of the construction cost. Theestimated engineering cost is $9,513,000 for LCA5-1.


Environmental mitigation costs for LCA5-1 would be relatively high because of impacts towetlands along the force main route and the pump station site. The estimated cost of environmental mitigation is $3,093,000.


The LCA5-1 force mains could be constructed in the Sunrise Boulevard ROW, but ROWacquisition costs would include the pump station site and temporary easement costs. Thetotal ROW acquisition cost for this alternative is estimated to be $4,834,000.


Operation costs for the pump station and force main would include power to run the pumpsas well as costs for odor control chemicals, force main air release valve maintenance, andgeneral site upkeep. Since all alternatives assume the same pumping rates, the differencein cost would be related to the length of the force main and elevation difference at theoutlet. The NPV of the annual O&M costs for LCA5-1 over the life of the pump station isestimated to be $2,041,000.


Traffic impacts for LCA5-1 were rated 4 out of 5. The entire force main alignment wouldbe in the shoulder of Sunrise Boulevard. In addition, the alignment must cross theintersection with Kiefer Boulevard by open-cut construction which would require laneclosures.

Temporary noise, dust and vibration impacts to the public were rated 3 out of 5. Thealignment would pass a number of homes along Sunrise Boulevard.

Permanent public impacts were rated 3 out of 5 and include pump station visual impacts aswell as potential for noise and odors.



Chapter 5



Project

5.3.2.12 Alternative LCA5-2 Jaeger Road


LCA5-2 would include the pump station and 25,600 feet of dual 24-inch-diameter forcemain. This alternative would have the longest force main of the LCA5 alternatives and, asa result, would have the highest construction cost. The total estimated construction cost is$30,957,000.



Environmental mitigation costs for LCA5-2 would be relatively high because of impacts towetlands along the force main route and the pump station site. The estimated cost of environmental mitigation is $3,466,000.


The LCA5-2 force mains would be constructed along Sunrise Boulevard, Kiefer Boulevardand Jaeger Road. The cost of the easements along this route reflects the longer force mainlength. The LCA5-2 ROW acquisition cost would be one of the highest of the LCA5alternatives. The total ROW acquisition cost for this alternative is estimated to be$6,292,000.




Traffic impacts for LCA5-2 were rated 3 out of 5. LCA5-2 would include lessconstruction in Sunrise Boulevard; this is reflected in lower traffic impacts than for LCA5-1. This alternative also calls for open cut crossing of the Kiefer Boulevard intersection,which would require lane closures.

Temporary noise, dust and vibration impacts to the public were rated 5 out of 5. Thealignment would pass through areas that would have newly constructed homes alongJaeger Road.




Chapter 5



Project

5.3.2.13 Alternative LCA5-3 Eagles Nest A


LCA5-3 would include the pump station and 18,650 feet of dual 24-inch-diameter forcemain. This alternative would have a shorter force main than LCA5-2, but would be longerthan LCA5-1; the construction cost reflects the difference in force mains. The totalestimated construction cost is $24,993,000.



Environmental mitigation costs for LCA5-3 would be relatively high due to impacts towetlands along the force main route and the pump station site, but not as high as forLCA5-1 and LCA5-2. There are significant wetlands and vernal pools along Eagles NestRoad, but it appears they could be avoided to some degree. The estimated cost of environmental mitigation is $1,123,000.


The LCA5-3 force mains would be constructed along Jackson Road and Eagles Nest Road.The total ROW acquisition cost for this alternative is estimated to be $3,167,000.




Traffic impacts for LCA5-3 were rated 2 out of 5. It is expected that construction couldavoid the traveled way along Jackson Road, and there is very little traffic on Eagles NestRoad.

Temporary noise, dust and vibration impacts to the public were rated 1 out of 5. Thealignment would pass very few structures.




Chapter 5



Project

5.3.2.

5.3.2.

14 Alternative LCA5-4 Eagles Nest B


LCA5-4 would include the pump station and 25,300 feet of dual 24-inch-diameter forcemain. This alternative would be almost as long as LCA5-2, and the construction costwould be almost identical. The total estimated construction cost is $30,378,000.



Environmental mitigation costs for LCA5-4 would be similar to LCA5-3, since the routesare similar, but LCA5-4 would be longer. The estimated cost of environmental mitigationis $1,502,000.


The ROW acquisition cost for LCA5-4 would be relatively high because of the need toobtain permanent easements between Eagles Nest Road and Sunrise Boulevard. The totalROW acquisition cost for this alternative is estimated to be $6,947,000.




Traffic impacts for LCA5-4 were rated 2 out of 5. It is expected that the constructioncould avoid the traveled way along Jackson Road, and there is very little traffic on EaglesNest Road.

Temporary noise, dust and vibration impacts to the public were rated 1 out of 5. Thealignment would pass very few structures.


15 Alternative AJ4 Aerojet 4


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



Chapter 5


Mather Junction Structure on Douglas Road to Jackson Road. The total estimatedconstruction cost is $63,784,000.

The engineering costs were estimated using percentages of the construction cost. Theestimated engineering cost is $26,297,000 for AJ4.


The environmental mitigation cost for AJ4 is high because of the length of the project.The estimated cost of environmental mitigation is $3,995,000.


Although most of the alignment would follow existing or future ROW, temporaryeasements and a pump station site would be needed. The total ROW acquisition cost forthis alternative is estimated to be $7,374,000.


Operation costs for the pump station would be very similar to LCA5-1. The NPV of theannual O&M costs for AJ4 over the life of the pump station are estimated to be$2,081,000.


Traffic impacts for AJ4 were rated 4 out of 5. AJ4 would impact the entire length of Sunrise Boulevard from Jackson Road to Douglas Road.

Temporary noise, dust, vibration impacts to the public were rated 3 out of 5 and wouldlikely include noise, dust, and potential vibration from heavy construction equipment. Thealignment would pass in front of a number of homes along Sunrise Boulevard.

Permanent public impacts were rated 3 out of 5 and include visual, noise, and potentialodor impacts from the pump station as well as junction structures at the North MatherBoulevard/Zinfandel Drive intersection and the Sunrise Boulevard/Douglas Roadintersection. Impacts would include a transition structure on Sunrise Boulevard.


Project



Chapter 5



Project

Table 5-2 Screening Criteria

Category Description/Value Calculation

Engineering

Engineering cost includes:• Final Design• Program Management• Construction Management• SRCSD Oversight

Environmental

Environmental mitigation costs includeimpacts to:

• Channel/wetlands• Vernal pools• Giant garter snakes (GGS)• Valley elderberry longhorn

beetle (VELB)• Trees• Other species

Right-of-WayCost to acquire easements based onLower Northwest Interceptor Program(LNWI) unit costs

ConstructionCost to construct proposed facilities,based on unit cost factors, not facilitylayouts

D

i r e c t C o s t s

Capital Cost

O&M Cost

Operation and maintenance (O&M)cost includes:

• Labor• Power• Materials• Chemicals

TrafficTemporary public impacts due to trafficdelays were assigned a rating of 1 to5.Temporary

PublicImpacts

Noise, Dust, and Vibration

Temporary public impact due toconstruction related noise, dust, andvibration were assigned a rating of 1 to5.

I n d i r e c t I m p a c t s

PermanentPublic

ImpactsVisual, Noise, and Odor

Permanent public impacts (potentialvisual, noise, and odor) from the pumpstation and other structures (e.g.,

junction structures, transitionstructures) were assigned a rating or 1

to 5.



Chapter 5


October 2007 5-22



Chapter 5


5.3.3 Conclusions of the Mather Interceptor Screening Analysis

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

•

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

• Rating associated with permanent public impacts

Table 5-4 Summary of Mather Interceptor Screening Analysis Results

AlternativeNet Present Value

($millions)Public Impact

(temporary/permanent)Screening Conclusions

MI-7 $36.4 High/Low Retained

MI-8 $39.3 High/Low Eliminated

MI-1 $40.8 Low/Low Retained

MI-9B $42.3 High/Low Eliminated

MI-2 $51.1 Moderate/Low RetainedMI-4 $64.7 Low/Moderate Eliminated

MI-3 $78.8 Low/Low Eliminated

MI-6 $81.5 Low/Moderate Eliminated

MI-10 $86.5 Low/High Eliminated

MI-5 $89.0 Moderate/Low Eliminated

AJ-4 $108.0 Low/Low Retained

The overall cost or NPV was mostly related to the length of pipe required for eachalternative. Construction costs ranged between $19,761,000 and $53,963,000. O&M costswere so low for a gravity sewer, they did not affect the total NPV of these alternatives.

There was very little difference in environmental mitigation costs, which ranged fromabout $500,000 to about $1,000,000. ROW acquisition costs were significant but did notchange the rankings of the alternatives.

Indirect impact ratings were generally low (1) to moderate (3) for all alternatives exceptMI-7, MI-8, and MI-9B. Most of the alternative alignments would avoid construction nearexisting structures or homes. However, MI-7 and MI-8 would pass many businesses andrequire construction in a very busy section of Sunrise Boulevard.

MI-7 had the lowest total cost and NPV, but had very high traffic and temporary publicimpacts due to the construction necessary in Sunrise Boulevard north of Douglas Road.

MI-8 had a slightly higher NPV than MI-7 and also had very high traffic and publicimpacts for the same reason as MI-7.

MI-1 had the next lowest cost and very low traffic and temporary public impacts. MI-2was about $10,000,000 higher in cost than MI-1 and had slightly higher indirect impacts.

MI-9B had the next lowest cost after MI-1, but had a high rating for temporary publicimpacts. This alternative was initially excluded from the screening analysis because it ispartially located in USBR property and it is unlikely a permit will be obtained in a time


Project



Chapter 5


frame that allows completion of alternative by the end of 2010. However, a cost estimatewas prepared so it could be compared to other alternatives. If the cost of MI-9B wassignificantly lower than the other alternatives SRCSD would consider allowing a laterproject completion. However, MI-9B is not significantly lower than other alternatives, soit was not considered a practical alternative.

MI-4 had the next lowest cost, but its cost is $13,000,000 higher than MI-2. Theremaining alternatives had costs $26,000,000 to $38,000,000 higher than MI-2 and did nothave significantly lower indirect impacts.

After comparing the NPVs and public impact for each alternative, the followingconclusions were drawn:

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

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

Two would have low temporary public impacts.Given these results, the five lowest-cost Mather Interceptor alternatives were retained fromthe screening analysis to be analyzed further in the BCE as “practical alternatives”:Alternatives MI-1, MI-2, MI-4, MI-7, and MI-8. Alternatives MI-7 and MI-8 will betreated as one because they follow the same alignment but with a different FSC crossinglocation. These practical alternatives were approved in the PAC Confirmation Meeting onNovember 15, 2006.

5.3.4 Additional Screening Involving the LCA5 and AJ4 Alternatives

Capacity management hydraulic modeling results for the Bradshaw Interceptor and the

LCA5 areas were not available at the time of PAC Confirmation Meeting; thus, four LCA5alternatives were carried over. Once the SRCSD Capacity Management group providedresults of the hydraulic modeling effort (see Appendix A), the following decisions weremade:

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

• The excess capacity available in the Bradshaw Interceptor prior to 2030 isapproximately 49 mgd.

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

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

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


Project



Chapter 5


As presented earlier, the SIAMI program management team identified five alternatives toprovide service to LCA5: LCA5-1, LCA5-2, LCA5-3, LCA5-4, and AJ4. The costs andratings for these five alternatives are presented in Table 5-3. Two of the alternatives(LCA5-5 and LCA5-6) were replaced by the AJ4 alternative, leaving five “practical”alternatives to serve the southern area: LCA5-1, LCA5-2, LCA5-3, LCA5-4, and AJ4.

These five practical southern alternatives were combined with the MI practical alternatives(MI-1, MI-2, MI-4, MI-7, and MI-8) to create eleven additional alternatives forconsideration (see Appendix B). To further simplify analysis, additional screening took place:

• Alternative MI-8 was dropped from further consideration because Alternatives MI-7 and MI-8 were nearly identical, with the exception of the crossing location of theFSC.

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

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

This left LCA5-1 as the only remaining LCA5 alternative, to be linked with the threeremaining MI alternatives (MI-1, MI-2, and MI-7) to create a complete alternative. AJ4also remained, as a complete alternative. The location of the Mather Pump Station and thealignment of the force main were modified to coincide with the facilities shown inMP2000. The result is four complete practical alternatives:

• MI-1 and LCA5-1 (now termed MI-1)



• AJ4

These practical alternatives were approved by the PAC at the February 21, 2007 meeting.The SIAMI program management team then completed a preliminary design and BCE of these four alternatives. These four practical alternatives were also modeled by capacitymanagement to confirm pipe sizes and design flows (see Appendix C).

It should be noted that the PAC did not accept the analysis of alternatives to serve LCA5.CSD-1 staff disagreed with the assumptions used in the flow modeling effort thatdetermined flow in the LCA5 shed would reach 10 mgd by 2015. They also speculated theslow-down in the housing market would further delay the need for regional service toLCA5. There was also speculation that Bradshaw Interceptor would have the capacity tohandle buildout flows from Aerojet sheds making Aerojet 4 Interceptor unnecessary.There was discussion that developer built interim pump stations would be a better solutionif development slowed.

The PAC directed that alternatives using multiple interim CSD-1 pump stations beincluded in the analysis. Previous discussions with SRCSD staff had assumed that aregional solution was appropriate because the 10 mgd threshold for SRCSD responsibilitywould be reached by 2015. Project staff was directed in June 2007 to compare the regional


Project



Chapter 5


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

5.4 BUSINESS CASE EVALUATION

The purpose of the BCE is to develop a “Total Cost to the Community” for each practicalalternative. Traditionally, only capital and operating costs were considered whenperforming a BCE to select a preferred alternative. That type of analysis limits the scopeof the costs considered to those incurred by the facility owner. Conceptually, a Total Costto the Community should include all significant direct and indirect costs associated withthe design, construction, and operation of the proposed facilities regardless of who mayincur the cost. For a pipeline construction project, the Total Cost to the Community mayinclude potential cost impacts to other municipalities whose facilities or operation thereof may be affected by the project selection, developers who may be depending onconstruction of the project in a particular location and on a particular schedule, orindividual members of the public who may be temporarily or permanently impacted byconstruction of the proposed facilities.

The list of parameters (potential cost categories) required to perform a rigorous BCE basedon the Total Cost to the Community will include a variety of topics. The list of parametersdepends on the proposed project and related potential impacts. A list of BCE parameterswas prepared for the Mather Interceptor Project and is discussed in the text below.Although the objective was to assess all potential costs in dollars, some costs were difficultor impractical to quantify. These intangible costs were captured as intangible issues andwere considered during the selection of preferred alternative.

5.4.1 Business Case Evaluation Approach

To perform a rigorous analysis of the BCE parameters, a preliminary design wasdeveloped for each of the practical alternatives. The preliminary design includes a set of drawings and a description of the recommended construction approach. All practicalalternatives include the same pump station and force main, but with different gravitypipeline configurations. The pump station and pipeline preliminary designs were capturedin separate preliminary design documents. The preliminary design drawings for thepipelines include plan and profile sheets in addition to detail sheets for key structures andtypical appurtenances. The plan and profile sheets include pipeline centerline, pipelinestationing, major structure locations, tunnel shaft locations, manhole locations, pumpstation location, construction staging areas, limits of disturbance for the proposedconstruction, proposed permanent easements, parcel boundaries, assessors parcel numbers,

and preliminary existing utility information. Preliminary design drawings for the pumpstation include civil, architectural, mechanical, structural, and electrical layout drawings inaddition to detail sheets for key structures. The description of the construction approachfor both the pipelines and pump station includes information regarding constructionmethods and assumptions on how the contractor may approach executing the work.

Consistent with the Problem Statement, the construction approach considered assumes atarget start-date of December 2010. Please note that several supporting documents wereused during the development of the preliminary designs: Environmental Site Assessment


Project



Chapter 5


Phase 1 Report by ESA (2007); Preliminary Geotechnical Report by Kleinfelder (2007);hydraulic analysis performed by Capacity Management Division; and information onexisting utilities collected from various sources (see Appendix A).

Each practical alternative was analyzed to determine if there were any related additional

costs to the community (beyond those directly associated with implementation of thepractical alternative) or costs that must be included to provide for an equitable comparisonbetween alternatives. Once a cost was identified, it was determined which BCEparameters should be evaluated. Required design information was prepared to characterizethe cost for use in calculating identified BCE parameter costs. Related additional costswere not designed or analyzed to the same level of detail as for the practical alternatives(see Appendix D).

Each of the BCE parameters (construction, engineering, ROW acquisition, environmentalmitigation, O&M, schedule, temporary public impacts, and risk) were assessed for thepractical alternatives. Only the BCE parameters required to adequately characterize related

additional costs were calculated. All BCE costs were developed in 2007 dollars. Thedate(s) during which the costs would be incurred was identified. Costs were escalated anddiscounted using a life cycle cost analysis to determine the NPV. Life cycle duration wasdetermined based on the facilities under consideration. Design life for the pipelines wasassumed to be 80 years and most pump station components were assumed to last 20 to 40years before replacement. Since most of the project components have a design life of 80years, 80 years was used as the project life cycle duration. Pump station equipmentreplacement costs were added to the life cycle analysis. Furthermore, the NPV wascalculated assuming a 5 percent discount rate and a 3 percent escalation rate. The resultingNPV for each practical alternative and related benefit(s) was combined, resulting in a TotalCost to the Community for each practical alternative. This concept of comparing the TotalCost to the Community (NPV) as a sum of the NPV of the practical alternative and anyrelated cost(s) is captured in Figure 5-1.


Project



Chapter 5


Total Cost tothe

Communityfor Alternative

MI-1

NPV forAlternative

MI-7 AsDesigned

NPV forAlternative

MI-1 AsDesigned

Total Cost tothe


AJ4

=

=

=

NPV forAlternative

AJ4 AsDesigned

NPV for

AlternativeMI-2 As

Designed

Total Cost tothe


MI-7

Total Cost to

theCommunity

for AlternativeMI-2

BCE Comparesthe Total Cost

to theCommunity for

Alternatives

Any RelatedAdditional

Costs+=

Any RelatedAdditionalCosts+


Costs+


Costs+

Figure 5-1 BCE Summary of Alternatives and Related Additional Costs

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


Project



Chapter 5


5.4.2 Business Case Evaluation Parameters

The BCE parameters (previously referred to as selection criteria) were first presented to thePAC on October 18, 2006 at the Project Initiation Meeting. Several subsequent meetingswere held with the project team, including SRCSD staff, to refine the list of BCEparameters and identify an approach to calculate the parameters as costs. The revised BCEparameters were presented to the PAC for approval at the November 15, 2006, PACConfirmation Meeting. The BCE parameters used for this analysis include the followingcosts:

• Construction

• Engineering

• Right-of-way acquisition

• Environmental mitigation

• Operation and maintenance

• Schedule

• Temporary public impacts

• Risk

It should be noted that the cost to obtain environmental and utility permits, previouslypresented to the PAC as separate BCE parameters, were determined to be relativelyinsignificant and are no longer individually calculated. The cost to obtain these permits isincluded in the engineering cost. The key assumptions and approach taken to determineBCE parameter costs are discussed below.

5.4.2.1 Construction Cost

A Class 3 Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) Opinion of Probable Construction Cost estimate was prepared for each of the practical alternatives.

Class 3 estimates are generally as follows:

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

• Based on more deterministic estimating methods than stochastic methods.

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

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

Opinion of Probable Construction Cost estimates includes a 20 percent constructioncontingency.

Construction cost estimates for related additional costs were calculated using a “unit price”estimating approach. Typical unit prices were determined based on recent construction of similar facilities. Unit price construction cost estimates also include a 20 percentconstruction contingency.


Project



Chapter 5


Detailed Construction Cost estimates for each practical alternative and related additionalcosts can be found in Appendix E.

5.4.2.2 Engineering Cost

The cost of engineering services includes the cost of SRCSD participation and oversight in

addition to consultant-provided program management (PM), final design, and constructionmanagement (CM) services. The following were assumed:

• Based on previous SRCSD projects, SRCSD participation and oversight would be3.8 percent of the Probable Construction Cost. SRCSD participation and oversightwould include the cost for SRCSD Engineering and Operations and Maintenancestaff to participate through design, construction, and start-up; for CaliforniaDepartment of Environmental Review and Assessment (DERA) to prepare andobtain approval of the project Supplemental EIR process; for Sacramento Countylegal services to provide support when necessary; and for the Sacramento CountyReal Estate Division to pursue and obtain the required right of way for the project.This does not include the cost of the property easement and/or title.

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

• Final design services were estimated at 8.5 percent of the Probable ConstructionCost and include the cost to provide design services through final design andconstruction.

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

5.4.2.3 Right-of-Way Cost

ROW cost includes the cost to purchase the property rights to construct, operate, andmaintain the proposed practical alternative. The cost for staff to pursue the required ROWwas included within the engineering cost. Using the proposed temporary and permanentROW areas defined in the preliminary design documents, a complete list of the parcels andthe impacted areas was prepared. It was assumed that permanent ROW would be obtainedthrough acquisition of a permanent easement, but in some cases, where impacts would besignificant, or SRCSD had placed a reservation to purchase property, it was estimatedROW would be obtained in fee title. Fee title was estimated at 100 percent of fair marketvalue. Permanent easements were estimated at 50 percent of fair market value. Temporaryeasements were estimated at 10 percent per year of fair market value and for a 2-yearduration.

Each parcel was placed into one of five land use categories, and a value was estimated foreach land use category based on fair market value in the area. The list of land usecategories and estimated fair market values for the project are shown in Table 5-5.


Project



Chapter 5


Table 5-5 Right of Way Property Value Assumptions

Land Use CategoryEstimated FairMarket Value

($/square foot.)

Residential $25

Commercial/Business $22Developing $10

Manufacturing/Industrial $9

Vacant lands/USA $3

The total cost of required ROW was calculated for each parcel. The total ROW costincludes temporary easement, permanent easement, fee title, and damages, if applicable.ROW costs for each impacted parcel were summed to obtain a total ROW cost for thepractical alternative. The detailed ROW cost estimate for each practical alternative can befound in Appendix F.

The following assumptions were used in estimating the ROW impacts:• In general, the Mather Interceptor can be placed in existing public ROW and it will

not be necessary to obtain permanent ROW except in the following locations:

o The Mather Pump Station site. All alternatives would require a fee titleacquisition for the pump station site, currently located on Waegell property,and an easement for the pipelines to the pump station from either theWaegell or Shaliko properties.

o The interceptor pipelines between Sunrise Boulevard and the Mather PumpStation (all alternatives).

o The Mather Junction Structure site on the northwest corner of the SunriseBoulevard/Douglas Road intersection (all alternatives).

o The first 800 feet of the interceptor in Mather Boulevard (MI-2 alternative).

o Approximately 6,000 feet of alignment on the east side of SunriseBoulevard, north of Douglas Road (MI-7 alternative).

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

• The MI-2 alignment would require an easement on property owned by the

Sacramento County.

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

5.4.2.4 Environmental Mitigation Cost

Environmental mitigation costs include the estimated mitigation cost for construction of

the practical alternative. To assess potential environmental impacts of the practical


Project



Chapter 5


alternatives, the environmental team conducted a formal delineation of wetlands and other

waters (ESA, 2007), an assessment of study area vegetation communities, and an

assessment of special-status plant and animal species that have potential to occur within

the vicinity of the project area. It should be noted that the results of the wetland

delineations are preliminary and subject to verification by USACE. The temporary ROW

(limits of disturbance) defined by the preliminary design was used to determine potentialimpacts to each of the delineated features, including channel/wetlands, vernal pools, GGS

habitat, valley elderberry longhorn beetle (VELB), trees, and other impacted species for

each practical alternative.

Mitigation ratios and costs were estimated using recent mitigation requirements for similarconstruction impacts (see Table 5-6). Impacts and required mitigation were calculated andsummed for a total mitigation cost for each practical alternative. The detailedenvironmental mitigation cost estimate for each practical alternative can be found inAppendix G.

Table 5-6 Environmental Mitigation Value Assumptions

Mitigation CategoryMitigation Cost

($/acre)

Vernal Pools

Vernal Pool Preservation $250,000

Vernal Pool Creation $175,000

Seasonal Wetlands $110,000

Freshwater Emergent Wetlands $110,000

Riparian Wetlands $151,000

Drainages $134,000

Giant Garter Snake Upland Habitat $20,000Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Habitat $10,000

The following assumptions were used in estimating environmental impacts:

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

• Vernal pool impacts were considered “direct impacts” if implementation of thealternative would result in the direct placement of fill into any portion of the pool.

Vernal pool impacts were considered “indirect impacts” if implementation of thealternative would require activity within 250 feet but direct placement of fill wouldnot occur.

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


Project



Chapter 5


• For all other wetland and waters of the United States of America, impacts werecalculated where implementation of the alternative would result in the directplacement of fill into the feature.

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

• Mitigation costs for vernal pools, seasonal wetlands, freshwater emergent wetlands,drainages, and riparian wetlands were based on current mitigation rates fromWildlands, Inc., and Westervelt Ecological Services, as well as rates provided byUSACE.

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

5.4.2.5 Operation and Maintenance Cost

O&M costs include the estimated cost to operate and maintain the proposed facilities foreach practical alternative. In coordination with SRCSD O&M staff, basic assumptionswere developed to describe costs to operate and maintain a gravity sewer, force main, andpump station. All practical alternatives would include identical pump station and forcemain configurations. Only the gravity sewer configurations would change betweenpractical alternatives. The O&M requirements for each practical alternative wereestimated for the facilities and operating conditions described by the preliminary designs.O&M unit costs were estimated based on average costs for the O&M of SRCSD’s existingfacilities. The detailed O&M cost estimate for each practical alternative can be found in

Appendix H.

The following assumptions were used in estimating O&M costs:

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

• Force mains typically have significant O&M costs, unlike gravity sewers. It wasassumed that an air release valve (ARV) must be serviced once a year and replaced

every 20 years. A blow-off must be serviced every 5 years.• Pump stations have significant O&M costs that depend on the pump station design

and assumed operating conditions. Pump station O&M costs include primaryenergy (electricity), backup energy (diesel fuel), chemical sodium hypochlorite(chlorine), chemical lubricants, labor, spare parts, miscellaneous materials, pumpoverhaul, variable frequency drives (VFD) overhaul, pump replacement, odorcontrol overhaul (cartridges), and backup generator overhaul. Pump station O&Mcosts account for the gradual increase of sewer flows until buildout flow is reached.


Project



Chapter 5



Project

5.4.2.6 Schedule Cost

The schedule cost includes real costs that may be incurred by SRCSD or others if thecompletion of the project is delayed beyond December 2010. For this project, it wasassumed that if the project were not completed by December 2010, an additional cost

would be incurred to continue to operate and maintain the Chrysanthy Pump Station andforce main. The Chrysanthy Pump Station and force main would be abandoned aftercompletion of the Mather Interceptor. In addition, if a regional pump station is not online,future development in the LCA5 would require an interim pump station to serve the LCKTrunk Shed in 2011 and an interim pump station to serve the LCJ Trunk Shed in 2013.These two interim stations would be constructed by developers, and CSD-1 has stated itwould likely reimburse the developers construction costs because these two stations wouldserve entire trunk sheds, not individual developments. These two pump stations werenoted in the 2006 CSD-1 Master Plan. The O&M cost (“Cost of Delay”) to operate andmaintain the Chrysanthy Pump Station and the construction and O&M costs of the LCJand LCK trunk shed pump stations and associated force mains were calculated and are

shown in Table 5-7.

Table 5-7 Mather Interceptor Cost of Delay beyond 2010(Capital and O&M Cost for Construction or Continued Operation of CSD-1

Pump Stations)

Pump StationsConstruction

Cost ($)O&M Cost

($/yr)O&M Cost

($/day)Year

Required

Chrysanthy Pump Stationand Force Main

[a]

Existing $177,048 $485 Existing

LCK Pump Station[b]

$7,245,000 $93,701 $257 2011

LCJ Pump Station[c]

$2,993,000 $187,241 $513 2013

Total Cost of Delay $10,238,000 $1,255Footnotes:[a] Chrysanthy Pump Station: Assuming 2.05 mgd average dry weather flow (ADWF) and 31,000 linear feet of21 inch force main.[b] LCK Pump Station: Assuming 9.2 mgd Design Flow and 12,700 linear feet of 12-inch-diameter force main.[c] LCJ Pump Station: Assuming 3.8 mgd Design Flow and ADWF and 15,600 linear feet of 15-inch-diameterforce main.Note: Capacities for LCJ and LCK Pump Stations will be further analyzed and confirmed in a separate PDPdocument.

A construction schedule was developed for each practical alternative. If proposedconstruction could be completed before December 31, 2010, a schedule cost was notapplied to the alternative. If proposed construction could not be completed before

December 31, 2010, the number of days of delay was calculated and then used to calculatethe “cost of schedule delay.” “Project completion” for this purpose was defined bycompletion of the start-up and testing schedule activities. The detailed constructionschedule, estimate of the cost of delay, and schedule cost for each practical alternative canbe found in Appendix I.



Chapter 5


5.4.2.7 Temporary Public Impact Cost

The temporary public impact cost includes traffic delays and mitigation or repair of construction-related impacts, including noise, dust, and vibration.The following approach and assumptions were used to determine a traffic delay cost foreach practical alternative. In October 2006, existing daily traffic counts were collected for

most major roads in the project area, including Sunrise Boulevard. In addition, trafficvolume estimates were obtained from the City of Rancho Cordova. Based on the trafficgrowth rate from the General Plan of the City of Rancho Cordova (2006), existing dailytraffic counts were escalated to project construction year (2009) traffic volumes. Whereexisting daily traffic counts were low, limited field observations were used to estimatedaily traffic volumes. The average daily traffic (ADT) for each major road was estimatedfor 2009. Using the 2009 traffic volumes, level of service on study roadways wasdetermined using the city’s ADT Method. Based on the change of level of service, thedaily delay due to construction on each affected roadway was estimated. The delay due toroad closures and detours was also estimated. The total number of working days for eachwork zone within existing travel ways was estimated as part of the preliminary design

construction approach. With the daily delay and estimated number of working days, thecumulative delay on each affected roadway was estimated. The total cumulative delay dueto construction was converted to delay cost based on the assumption of $9 per hour, whichis published by Federal Highway Administration. The detailed construction traffic delaycost for each practical alternative can be found in Appendix J.

The following approach and assumptions were used to determine the impacts to the publicfrom construction-related noise, dust, and vibration. Exhibits were prepared, including theproject area parcel, road alignments, and project centerline, and stationing and keystructures. Buffer zones with radii of 50, 150, and 250 feet were shown around allproposed excavations, including open-cut pipeline construction and other excavations for

tunnel shafts, pipeline appurtenances, or key structures. The total number of homes andbusinesses within each buffer zone was tabulated and totaled for each practical alternative.It was assumed that homes and businesses within the 50-foot radius would sustainrelatively high impacts, those between the 50-foot and 150-foot radii would sustainmoderate impacts, and those within the 250-foot radius would sustain relatively lowimpacts.

The temporary public impact cost associated with noise was calculated by estimating thelinear feet of sound walls that would need to be installed to mitigate noise impacts. It wasassumed that sound wall would only be installed for “fixed site” construction activitiessuch as tunnel shafts and other structure excavations. The cost of the sound wall

construction was estimated at $50 per linear foot, including materials and installation.

The temporary public impact cost associated with dust was calculated by estimating thetotal number of car washes, pool cleanings, heating, ventilating and air conditioning(HVAC) services, house cleaning, power washes, and window/blinds cleanings that wouldbe required to mitigate dust impacts to sensitive receptors within the buffer zones. Thecost of the mitigation measures was estimated based on average cost for the industry orwere based on costs paid by SRCSD on previous projects.


Project



Chapter 5


The temporary public impact cost associated with vibration was calculated by estimatingthe cost of preconstruction and postconstruction surveys, monitoring during construction,and potential damage claims. The total number of structures within the buffer zones wasestimated by counting structures adjacent to tunnel jacking shafts. It was assumed thatvibration impacts would only occur around “fixed site” construction activities such as

tunnel shafts and other structure excavations. The cost of the mitigation measures wasestimated based on average cost for the industry or was based on costs paid by SRCSD onprevious projects.

Detailed construction temporary public impact costs for noise, dust, and vibration impactsfor each practical alternative can be found in Appendix K.

5.4.2.8 Risk Cost

Potential project risks are separated into four major categories:

• Cost volatility

•

Schedule delay• Construction

• O&M

Cost volatility includes uncertainties or risk events that may result in a cost to the project.The baseline cost estimates included in the BCE make several assumptions related to unitcosts, construction methods, production rates, and escalation rates. Certain constructionmaterials, including steel, petroleum products, and concrete/aggregate, are known to behighly volatile, with an associated high uncertainty in unit price. Rather than a separateanalysis of the risk of the volatility of certain construction cost items, a sensitivity analysiswas performed to determine the sensitivity of BCE results to fluctuations in the escalationrate for construction cost. Therefore, this report does not consider cost volatility of

construction-related materials.

Schedule risks include risk events that may result in a delay to the project schedule.Similar to the schedule cost calculation, as described in schedule cost section, it wasassumed that there is a resulting cost consequence to operate CSD-1’s interim facilities if completion of construction is delayed beyond 2010. The Cost of Delay was used todetermine the cost impacts of a potential schedule delay. Three schedule risk events wereidentified as having high potential delay consequences. Schedule risks include thefollowing: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) individualdewatering permit required, EIR schedule, and obtaining the USBR ROW license.However, because all four alternatives were potentially affected in the same way, these

risks cannot be used to differentiate between alternatives.

Construction risks were defined as risk events that would occur during the constructionperiod. These risk events may have related cost and/or schedule consequences. Four risk events were identified that differentiate among alternatives:

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


Project



Chapter 5


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

• Traffic safety. Extensive construction work in existing traveled ways increases thechances of public vehicle accidents.

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

Other construction related risks are common to all alternatives, based on the type of construction method that would be employed on this project. These include the following:tunneling risks, open-cut risks, shaft construction risks, differing site conditions,underground utilities, and general safety. During final design, additional efforts should beundertaken to identify and potentially quantify more specific construction risks. Other risk events that should be considered include procurement time for pipe and tunnel boringmachine (TBM), construction within newly paved roads during the building moratoriumperiod, and settlement caused by dewatering or vibration.

O&M risks include risk events that may occur during the O&M period. For the MatherInterceptor, the length of force main is identical between alternatives meaning O&M risksare common to all alternatives. O&M risks include O&M of force mains, O&M of pumpstation, and O&M of gravity sewers.

As described above, four risk events were identified that were different for each of thealternatives, including encountering contaminated soil or groundwater, encounteringmethane during construction, shaft construction, and traffic safety. The expected costassociated with these risk events were calculated as the probability of risk occurrencemultiplied by the cost consequence if the risk event were to occur. For each practicalalternative, the risk cost was calculated as the sum of the cost of each risk event. Risk costwas not evaluated for related additional costs. The detailed risk register and risk cost foreach practical alternative can be found in Appendix L.

5.4.3 Application of Business Case Evaluation

Four practical alternatives are under consideration for the Mather Interceptor project:

• Alternative MI-1 Zinfandel Drive

• Alternative MI-2 Mather Boulevard

• Alternative MI-7 Sunrise Boulevard

• Alternative AJ4 Zinfandel Drive + Aerojet 4

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


Project



Chapter 5


In addition, an analysis was performed to determine the sensitivity of BCE results tofluctuations in the escalation rate for construction cost. The NPV of the construction costfor each practical alternative and any related additional costs was calculated assuming a 5percent discount rate and 3, 5, 7.5, and 10 percent escalation rates to determine if theranking between alternatives would be affected.

As mentioned above, each practical alternative was analyzed to determine if any relatedadditional costs to the community (beyond those directly associated with theimplementation of the practical alternative) would need to be included for an equitablecomparison between alternatives. For this project, two related additional costs must betaken into account to provide an equitable comparison between alternatives.

Alternatives MI-1, MI-2, and AJ4 would allow the future MAE Trunk Sewer to beconnected to the Mather Interceptor on Douglas Road. This connection location wasassumed in the MP2000 (SRCSD) and the 2006 CSD-1 Master Plan. If Alternative MI-7is selected as the preferred alternative, CSD-1 would incur an additional cost to construct

the MAE Trunk Sewer an additional 6,000 feet to the Bradshaw Interceptor.

Alternative AJ4 includes the cost to construct the AJ4 Interceptor now, even though it isnot needed until 2030. This alternative is being considered to see if the increased impactsof construction in 2030 could be avoided and those avoided costs would make it apreferred alternative compared to alternatives that assume future construction. To compareAJ4 to the other alternatives, the NPV of the future cost to construct the AJ4 Interceptor in2030 was included in the total NPV of MI-1, MI-2, and MI-7. This related cost was takeninto account in this BCE and is discussed in detail.

Following is a discussion of the alternatives under consideration, calculation of BCEparameters, and results of the life cycle cost analysis for each of the practical alternativesand related additional costs.

5.4.3.1 Alternative MI-1 Zinfandel Drive

Mather Interceptor Alternative 1 (MI-1) (Zinfandel Drive Alternative) + LCA5-1 (pumpstation and force main) includes 15,121 feet of gravity interceptor plus 15,630 feet of dualforce main and a regional pump station. The required capacity of the gravity portion is49.4 mgd. The capacity of the pump station would be 13 mgd and the size of the dualforce mains would be 24 inches. The pump station would be located approximately 1,200feet northeast of the intersection of Sunrise Boulevard and Jackson Road. Figure 5-2 shows a schematic figure illustrating the alignment of the alternative. Additional details

about the practical alternative are provided in the Technical Memorandum, PreliminaryDesign Mather Interceptor – Alternative MI-1 + LCA5-1 Construction Approach, found inAppendix M.

Flow would be pumped from the Mather Pump Station through 15,630 feet of dual 24-inch-diameter force main across private property to Sunrise Boulevard and then northalong Sunrise to the transition structure located in the west side of the Sunrise BoulevardROW across from the Chrysanthy Boulevard intersection. Flow discharged from the forcemain would combine with flow from the connection to the Aerojet 1 Interceptor that was


Project



Chapter 5



Project

formerly pumped by the Chrysanthy Pump Station, and then flow north in a 72-inch-diameter gravity sewer for 4,150 feet to the Mather Junction Structure at the northwestintersection of Douglas Road and Sunrise Boulevard. The Mather Junction Structurewould include a stub for the future connection of the Aerojet 2 Interceptor and a stub forthe future connection of the AJ4 Interceptor. Flow from the Mather Junction Structure

would flow west by gravity along Douglas Boulevard, drop to a lower elevation to passunder the FSC and continue west along Douglas Road. The total length of the 72-inch-diameter interceptor in Douglas Road is 4,920 feet. At the future intersection with anextension of Zinfandel Drive, the sewer would flow north along the Zinfandel DriveExtension in a 72-inch-diameter gravity sewer for 5,880 feet to the Mather/BradshawJunction Structure, where flow would discharge to the 84-inch-diameter BradshawInterceptor. The profile summary figure below shows a schematic illustration of thealternative. Additional details about this practical alternative are provided in thepreliminary design documents and are available upon request.

Figure 5-2 Profile of the Mather Interceptor Alternative MI-1+ LCA5-1

5.4.3.1.1 Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Alternative MI-1

It should be noted that all values below are presented as present values (in 2007 dollars),with a discount rate of 5 percent per year, an escalation rate of 3 percent per year, and a lifecycle of 80 years.

5.4.3.1.1.1 Construction Cost

The NPV Probable Construction Cost was estimated as $71,592,000 for the pump station,force main and Mather Interceptor construction and includes a 20 percent constructioncontingency. It was assumed that the majority of pump station, force main, and MatherInterceptor costs would be incurred during the two seasons (2009 and 2010) planned forconstruction of the project.



Chapter 5



Project

5.4.3

5.4.3

5.4.3.1.1.4

5.4.3

5.4.3.1.1.6

5.4.3

.1.1.2 Engineering Cost

The NPV engineering cost of MI-1 was estimated as $21,534,000. It was assumed that thiscost would be incurred over the life of the project design and construction (2007 through2010).

.1.1.3 Right-of-Way Cost The NPV ROW cost was estimated as $6,881,000. The ROW cost consists of $2,844,000(41 percent of total) for temporary easements, $3,183,000 (46 percent of total) forpermanent easements, $853,000 (12 percent of total) in fee titles, and no damages. It wasassumed that this cost would be incurred during the ROW acquisition process (2008through 2010), which may continue into and beyond the construction period.

Environmental Mitigation Cost

The NPV environmental mitigation cost was estimated as $12,407,000. Theenvironmental mitigation cost consists of $12,215,000 (98 percent of total) for vernal poolimpacts, $171,000 (1 percent of total) for channel/wetland impacts, $0 for GGS habitat

impacts, $0 for VELB habitat impacts, $1,000 for tree impacts, and $22,000 for impacts toother species. It was assumed that this cost would be incurred in 2008 because mitigationcosts typically must be paid prior to final approval of some environmental permits.

.1.1.5 Operation and Maintenance Cost

The NPV O&M cost was estimated as $8,306,000. This alternative includes a total of 31,260 feet of 24-inch-diameter force main and 15,100 feet of gravity sewer 72-inch indiameter. The Mather Pump station would require four 250 horsepower (hp) pumps withan average total dynamic head of 77 feet at start-up and 154 feet at buildout. The forcemain includes 18 ARVs and 12 blow-offs. O&M costs were calculated over the 80-yearlife cycle of the facility.

Schedule Cost

The construction schedule for this alternative includes the following milestone dates:

• 8/27/08 for Notice to Proceed on the Construction Contract

• 8/19/10 for Substantial Completion

• 10/14/10 for Completion of Start-Up and Testing

• 11/11/10 for Final Acceptance

It should be noted that the schedule above assumes double construction shifts for tunneloperations. This alternative would meet the December 31, 2010, target date for completingthe gravity portion of the Mather Interceptor, and accepting flow from the Chrysanthy

Pump Station and taking it off-line. It would also provide service to the LCA5 shed byDecember 31, 2010.

.1.1.7 Temporary Public Impact Cost

The total temporary public impact estimated NPV for dust, noise, and vibration forAlternative MI-1 + LCA5-1 was estimated as $149,800. The noise mitigation costassociated with building soundwalls was estimated to be $95,300, assuming that 2,000linear feet of soundwall would need to be built. The dust mitigation cost was estimated as$21,900. The dust mitigation cost includes the following mitigation costs: HVAC



Chapter 5



Project

cleanings at $12,200; house cleanings at $3,700; power washes at $4,900; window andblinds cleaning at $500; and car washes at $600. No pools are located within the bufferzone; therefore, no mitigation cost was estimated for pool cleanings. The total vibrationmitigation estimated cost of preconstruction and postconstruction, monitoring duringconstruction, and potential damage claims is $32,600. Of the cost total, the cost of

preconstruction and postconstruction and monitoring during construction was estimated as$4,300, and the total potential damage claims were estimated as $28,300.

The total traffic delay for the proposed Alternative MI-1 + LCA5-1 would result in 2,464hours of delay, which was converted into $21,100 of delay cost in NPV. Detailedassumptions of delay cost analysis are also shown in Table 1 of the TechnicalMemorandum: Potential Traffic Delay Cost Due to Construction in Appendix I. Theindirect impact to traffic of Alternative MI-1 + LCA5-1 would be incurred by required laneclosure on Chrysanthy Boulevard, Sunrise Boulevard, and Kiefer Boulevard. No trafficimpacts on Zinfandel Drive or Douglas Road were anticipated since the interceptor wouldbe outside the travel way, or traffic would be minimal. For the segment of the interceptor

running along the west side of Sunrise Boulevard, only the southbound approach would beimpacted. The potential traffic impacts of Alternative MI-1 + LCA5-1 on variousroadways are shown in Table 1 of Appendix I. As shown in Table 1 of Appendix I, thelevels of service (LOS) on various roadways with the proposed project are at LOS D orbetter. The level of service on Sunrise Boulevard south of Kiefer Boulevard woulddecrease from D to F, which is below the City of Rancho Cordova’s acceptable standard,LOS F indicates over-capacity conditions with excessive delays.

The total temporary public impact cost, including noise, dust, vibration and traffic delays,would be $171,000 in NPV.

5.4.3.1.1.8 Risk Cost

The NPV risk cost was calculated to be $238,000 which consists entirely of constructionrisks. The construction risk for contaminated soil or groundwater encountered wasestimated to be $204,700. The construction risk for methane encountered was estimated tobe $33,000.

The alternative MI-1 NPV is shown in Figure 5-3.



Chapter 5


Engineering, $21,534,000

Environmental, $12,407,000

Right of Way, $6,881,000

Construction, $71,592,000

O&M, $8,306,000

Schedule, $0

Public Impact, $171,000

Risk, $238,000

Total $121,129,000

3%/yr Escalation Rate5%/yr Discount Rate

Figure 5-3 Mather Interceptor Alternative MI-1 Net Present Value

5.4.3.1.2 Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Alternative MI-1 Related Additional Costs

The related additional costs of Alternative MI-1 + LCA5-1 were identified as theadditional cost to construct AJ4 in the future, and the cost to provide a stub out for theCSD-1 trunk sewer at the intersection of Douglas Road and Zinfandel Drive. The cost toconstruct AJ4 in the future includes the cost of engineering, construction, O&M, andpublic impacts (see Figure 5-4).

An estimate was also made for traffic delays for future construction of AJ4. Tunneling of most of the alignment was expected, but at least three shafts along Sunrise Boulevard canbe expected to impact one travel lane for most of a construction season. The NPV of thistraffic delay cost in 2029 is $920,000. The NPV of the pubic impact cost due to dust, noiseand vibration is $388,000, so the total NPV of the public impact costs is $1,308,000.

It should be noted that environmental impacts were not calculated because it was assumedthat the Mather area would be built out and remaining environmental features would benegligible along the AJ4 corridor. ROW costs were not calculated because it was assumedthat ROW required to construct AJ4 in the future would be acquired as part of the MI-1 +

LCA5-1 ROW acquisition. Finally, due to the large uncertainties associated with projectconstruction in 2080, unique risks were not quantified.

The cost of the MAE stub includes only the cost of construction (see Figure 5-5). It wasassumed that the stub out to allow for the future connection of CSD-1 flows would beconstructed as part of the MI construction and that the stub out would be constructedwithin the Alternative MI-1 + LCA5-1 limits of disturbance. Thus, it was assumed thatthere would be insignificant additional engineering, environmental, ROW, O&M, or public


Project



Chapter 5


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



O&M, $573,000

Public Impacts, $1,308,000

Mather Interceptor

Future Construction of AJ4

Net Present Value

Total $61,613,0003%/yr Escalation Rate5%/yr Discount Rate

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

Construction $66,000

Mather InterceptorMAE Stub Out

Net Present Value

Total $66,0003%/yr Escalation Rate5%/yr Discount Rate

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


Project



Chapter 5


The total cost of Alternative MI-1 + LCA5-1, including additional related costs, wasestimated to be as follows:

NPV of Future Aerojet 4 $61,613,000NPV of MAE Stub Out $66,000

NPV of MI-1+LCA5 $121,129,000

Total NPV $182,808,000

This concept is captured in Figure 5-6.

NPV ofMAEStubOut

NPV forAlternative

MI-1 AsDesigned

Total NPVfor

AlternativeMI-1

NPV ofFuture

Aerojet 4= + +

Figure 5-6 Alternative MI-1 BCE Summary of Costs

5.4.3.1.3 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Summary for Alternative MI-1

As stated above, the NPV was calculated assuming a life cycle of 80 years, a discount rateof 5 percent per year, and an escalation rate of 3 percent per year. Total life cycle cost(Cost to the Community) for Alternative MI-1 is $182,808,000 and, as stated above, isequal to the NPV for MI-1 () plus NPV of future construction of the AJ4 Interceptor and astub out for the MAI Trunk.

Total Alternative MI-1 NPV (including additional costs) is shown in Figure 5-7.



Right of W ay, $6,881,000


O&M, $8,879,000

Schedule, $0

Public Impact, $1,479,000

Risk, $238,000


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


Project



Chapter 5


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

• Negative image to SRCSD due to major construction activity adjacent to a majorroadway.

• Construction schedule assumes double shifts for tunnel construction operations.

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

• Potential disruption of the TRACON operations caused by accidentally hitting itsunderground utilities.

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

5.4.3.2 Alternative MI-2 Mather Boulevard

Mather Alternative MI-2 + LCA5-1 includes approximately 17,345 feet of 72-inch-

diameter gravity interceptor, approximately 15,630 feet of 24-inch-diameter dual forcemain, and a pump station. The required flow capacity of the gravity portion would be 49mgd. The capacity of the pump station would be 13 mgd and the size of the dual forcemains would be 24 inches. The pump station would be located approximately 1,200 feetnortheast of the intersection of Sunrise Boulevard and Jackson Road. Additional detailsabout this practical alternative are provided in the Technical Memorandum, PreliminaryDesign Mather Interceptor – Alternative MI-2 + LCA5-1 Construction Approach, found inAppendix N.

Flow would be pumped from the Mather Pump Station through 15,630 feet of dual 24-inch-diameter force main across private property to Sunrise Boulevard and then north

along Sunrise Boulevard to the transition structure located in the west side of the SunriseBoulevard ROW across from the Chrysanthy Boulevard intersection. Flow dischargedfrom the force main would combine with flow from the connection to the Aerojet 1Interceptor that was formerly pumped by the Chrysanthy Pump Station, and then flownorth in a 72-inch-diameter gravity sewer for 4,150 feet to the Mather Junction Structure atthe northwest intersection of Douglas Road and Sunrise Boulevard. The Mather JunctionStructure would include a stub for the future connection of the Aerojet 2 Interceptor and astub for the future connection of the AJ4 Interceptor. Flow from the Mather JunctionStructure would flow west in a 72-inch-diameter gravity sewer along Douglas Boulevard,drop to a lower elevation to pass under the FSC and continue west along Douglas Road.The total length of the interceptor in Douglas Road would be 6,530 feet. At the

intersection of Douglas Road and Mather Boulevard, the sewer would flow northwestalong Mather Boulevard in a 72-inch-diameter gravity sewer for 6,620 feet to theMather/Bradshaw Junction Structure, where flow would discharge to the 84-inch-diameterBradshaw Interceptor. Figure 5-8 shows a schematic figure of the profile of thealternative. Additional details about this practical alternative are provided in thepreliminary design documents and are available on request.


Project



Chapter 5



Project

Figure 5-8 Profile of Alternative MI-2 + LCA5-1


5.4.3

5.4.3

5.4.3

5.4.3.2.1.4

.2.1.1 Construction Cost

The NPV Probable Construction Cost was estimated as $76,842,000 for the pump station,force main, and Mather Interceptor construction and includes a 20 percent constructioncontingency. It was assumed that the majority of pump station, force main, and MatherInterceptor costs would be incurred during the two seasons (2009 and 2010) planned forconstruction of the project.


The NPV engineering cost was estimated as $23,113,000 for the NPV of the pump station,force main, and Mather Interceptor. It was assumed the NPV of the Mather Interceptorengineering would be incurred during 2007 through 2010.

.2.1.3 Right-of-Way Cost

The NPV ROW cost was estimated as $7,093,000. The ROW cost consists of $3,092,000(44 percent of total) for temporary easements, $3,148,000 (44 percent of total) forpermanent easements, and $853,000 (12 percent of total) in fee titles. It was assumed thatthis cost would be incurred during the ROW acquisition process (2008 through 2010),

which could continue into and beyond the construction period.


NPV environmental impacts of this alternative are similar to those for the MI-1 alternative.The NPV of the environmental mitigation cost was estimated as $11,539,000. Theenvironmental mitigation cost consists of $11,339,000 (98 percent of total) for vernal poolimpacts, $177,000 (1 percent of total) for channel/wetland impacts, $0 for GGS habitatimpacts, $0 for VELB habitat impacts, $1,000 for tree impacts, and $22,000 for impacts to



Chapter 5



Project

other species. It was assumed that this cost would be incurred in 2008 because mitigationcosts typically must be paid prior to final approval of some environmental permits.

5.4.3

5.4.3

5.4.3


The NPV O&M cost was estimated as $8,414,000. This alternative includes a total of

31,260 feet of 24-inch-diameter force main and 15,600 feet of gravity sewer between 54inches and 72 inches in diameter. The Mather Pump Station would require four 250 hppumps with an average total dynamic head of 77 feet at start-up to 154 feet at buildout.The force main would include 18 ARVs and 12 blow-offs. O&M costs were calculatedover the 80-year life cycle of the facility.

.2.1.6 Schedule Cost






It should be noted that the schedule above assumes double shifts for tunnel constructionoperations. This alternative would not complete the gravity sewer portion of the MatherInterceptor and would not provide service to the LCA5 shed by the end of 2010. TheMather Pump Station would be complete by July 2010, but the gravity sewer would not becomplete until January 24, 2011. It was assumed for the purposes of this cost analysis thatthis schedule delay would not be significant and no additional costs for delay would beincurred.


The total temporary public impact cost in NPV for dust, noise, and vibration for the MI-2 +LCA5-1 Alternative was estimated as $147,000. The noise mitigation cost associated withbuilding soundwalls was estimated to be $95,200, assuming that 2,000 linear feet of soundwall would need to be built. The dust mitigation cost was estimated as $21,900. Thedust mitigation cost included the following mitigation costs: HVAC cleanings at $12,200;house cleanings at $3,700; power washes at $4,900; window and blinds cleaning at $500;and car washes at $600. No pools were located within the buffer zone; therefore, nomitigation cost was estimated for pool cleanings. The total vibration mitigation cost of preconstruction and postconstruction, monitoring during construction, and potentialdamage claims was estimated as $29,000. The total cost of preconstruction andpostconstruction and monitoring during construction was estimated as $3,900 and total

potential damage claims were estimated as $26,000.

The total traffic delay for the proposed MI-2 + LCA5-1 alternative would result in 4,193hours of delay, which was converted into $35,900 of delay cost in NPV. Detailedassumptions of delay cost analysis are also shown in Table 2 of the TechnicalMemorandum, Potential Traffic Delay Cost Due to Construction in Appendix I. Theindirect impact to traffic of the MI-2 + LCA5-1 Alternative would be incurred by required lane closures on Mather Boulevard, Chrysanthy Boulevard, Sunrise Boulevard, and KieferBoulevard. No traffic impacts on Douglas Road were anticipated because the interceptor



Chapter 5



Project

would be outside the travel way. For the segment of the interceptor running along the westside of Sunrise Boulevard, only the southbound approach would be impacted. Thepotential traffic impacts of Alternatives MI-2 + LCA5-1 on various roadways are shown inTable 2 of Appendix I. As shown in Table 2 of Appendix I, the LOS on variousroadways with the proposed project are at LOS D or better. The LOS on Sunrise

Boulevard south of Kiefer Road would decrease from D to F, which is below the City of Rancho Cordova’s acceptable standard. LOS F indicates over-capacity conditions withexcessive delays.

The total temporary public impact cost, including noise, dust, vibration, and traffic delays,would be $183,000 in NPV.

5.4.3.2.1.8 Risk Cost

The total cost associated with risk was calculated to be $1,525,000 which consistedentirely of construction risks. The construction risk for contamination encountered wasestimated to be $1,470,900. The construction risk for methane encountered was estimated

to be $54,600.

The Alternative MI-2 NPV is shown in Figure 5-9.





O&M, $8,414,000

Schedule, $0


Risk, $1,525,000


Figure 5-9 Alternative MI-2 Net Present Value


The related additional costs of Alternative MI-2 + LCA5-1 Alternative were identified asthe additional cost to construct AJ4 in the future and the cost to provide a stub out for theCSD-1 trunk sewer at the intersection of Douglas Road and Zinfandel Drive. The cost toconstruct AJ4 in the future includes the cost of engineering, construction, O&M, andpublic impacts (see Figure 5-10).



Chapter 5


An estimate was also made for the traffic delays for the future construction of AJ4.Tunneling of most of the alignment is expected, but at least three shafts along SunriseBoulevard could be expected to impact one travel lane for most of a construction season.The NPV of this traffic delay cost in 2029 is $920,000. The NPV of the public impact costdue to the dust, noise and vibration is $388,000, so the total NPV of the public impact cost

is $1,308,000.

It should be noted that environmental impacts were not calculated because it was assumedthat the Mather area would be built out and remaining environmental features would benegligible along the AJ4 corridor. ROW costs were not calculated because it was assumedthat ROW required to construct AJ4 in the future would be acquired as part of the MI-1 +LCA5-1 ROW acquisition. Finally, risk was not calculated due to the large uncertaintiesassociated with project construction in 2030, unique risks were not quantified.

MAE Stub Out includes only the cost of construction (see Figure 5-11). It was assumedthat the stub out to allow for the future connection of the CSD-1 flows would be

constructed as part of the Mather Interceptor construction, and that the stub out would beconstructed within the Alternative MI-1 + LCA5-1 limits of disturbance. Thus, it wasassumed that there would be insignificant additional engineering, environmental, ROW,O&M, or public impacts beyond those already included in the Total Cost to theCommunity for Alternative MI-1 + LCA5-1.



O&M, $573,000


Mather Interceptor

Future Construction of AJ4

Net Present Value




Project



Chapter 5


Construction $66,000

Mather Interceptor

MAE Stub Out

Net Present Value

Total $66,0003%/yr Escalation Rate5%/yr Discount Rate

Figure 5-11 Mather Interceptor MAE Stub Out Net Present Value

The total cost of Alternative MI-2 + LCA5-1, including the additional related costs, wasestimated to be as follows:

NPV of Future Aerojet 4 $61,613,000NPV of MAE Stub Out $66,000NPV of MI-2+LCA5 $128,709,000

Total NPV $190,388,000

5.4.3.2.3 Summary of Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Alternative MI-2

As mentioned above, the Total Cost to the Community is equal to the sum of the NPVcosts of the future construction of AJ4 Interceptor, the MAE stub out, and Alternative MI-2, as it was designed. This is shown graphically in Figure 5-12.

Total NPVfor

AlternativeMI-2

NPV forAlternative

MI-2 AsDesigned

NPV ofFuture

Aerojet 4

NPV ofMAEStubOut+ +


The Mather Interceptor total Alternative MI-2 NPV (including additional costs) is shownin Figure 5-13.


Project



Chapter 5






O&M, $8,987,000

Schedule, $0


Risk, $1,525,000

Total $190,388,0003%/yr Escalation Rate

5%/yr Discount Rate

Figure 5-13 Mather Interceptor Total Alternative MI-2 Net Present Value(including additional costs)


• Mather Airport plans to close Mather Boulevard to the public, and the road will beinside the airport security fence. O&M would need to work with airfieldmanagement to access the gravity sewer for maintenance. O&M currently has asimilar situation for an existing sewer in the airfield; therefore, this is notconsidered an issue.

• Negative image to SRCSD due to major construction activity adjacent to a majorroadway.


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

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


5.4.3.3 Alternative MI-7 Sunrise Boulevard

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


Project



Chapter 5


be 49 mgd. The capacity of the pump station would be 13 mgd and the size of the dualforce mains would be 24 inches. The pump station would be located approximately 1,200feet northeast of the intersection of Sunrise Boulevard and Jackson Road. Figure 5-14 shows a schematic figure of the alignment of the alternative. Additional details about thispractical alternative are provided in the Technical Memorandum, Preliminary Design

Mather Interceptor – Alternative MI-7 + LCA5-1 Construction Approach, found inAppendix O.

Flow would be pumped from the Mather Pump Station through 15,630 feet of dual 24-inch-diameter force main across private property to Sunrise Boulevard and then northalong Sunrise Boulevard to the transition structure located in the west side of the SunriseBoulevard ROW, across from the Chrysanthy Boulevard intersection. Flow dischargedfrom the force main would combine with flow from the connection to the Aerojet 1Interceptor that was formerly pumped by the Chrysanthy Pump Station, and flow north in a72-inch-diameter gravity sewer for 4,150 feet to the Mather Junction Structure at thenorthwest intersection of Douglas Road and Sunrise Boulevard. The Mather Junction

Structure would include a stub for the future connection of Aerojet 2 Interceptor and a stubfor the future connection of the AJ4 Interceptor. Flow from the Mather Junction Structurewould flow north in a 54-inch-diameter gravity sewer along Sunrise Boulevard to theintersection with Recycle Road. The total length of the interceptor in and along SunriseBoulevard is 8,690 feet. The gravity sewer would turn west and flow along Recycle Roadfor 400 feet, and drop to a lower elevation and pass under the FSC. The tunnel under thecanal is 720 feet. At the west end of the tunnel is the Mather/Bradshaw Junction Structure,where flow would discharge to the 72-inch-diameter Bradshaw Interceptor. Figure 5-14 shows a schematic figure illustrating the profile of the alternative. Additional details aboutthis practical alternative are provided in preliminary design documents and are available onrequest.

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


Project



Chapter 5



Project


5.4.3

5.4.3

5.4.3

5.4.3.3.1.4

5.4.3

5.4.3

.3.1.1 Construction Cost

The NPV Probable Construction Cost was estimated as $62,813,000 for the pump station,force main, Mather Interceptor construction and includes a 20 percent constructioncontingency. It was assumed that the majority of pump station, force main, and MatherInterceptor costs would be incurred during the two seasons (2009 and 2010) planned forconstruction of the project.


The NPV engineering cost was estimated as $18,893,000 for the pump station, force main,and Mather Interceptor. It was assumed the NPV of the Mather Interceptor engineeringwould be incurred during 2007 through 2010.


The NPV ROW cost was estimated as $9,422,000. The ROW cost consists of $3,898,000(41 percent of total) for temporary easements, $4,672,000 (50 percent of total) forpermanent easements, and $853,000 (9 percent of total) in fee titles. It was assumed thatthis cost would be incurred during the ROW acquisition process (2008 through 2010),which may continue into and beyond the construction period.


The NPV environmental impacts of this alternative are similar to those for Alternative MI-1. The NPV of the environmental mitigation cost was estimated as $11,297,000. Theenvironmental mitigation cost consists of $11,110,000 (98 percent of total) for vernal poolimpacts, $162,000 (1 percent of total) for channel/wetland impacts, $0 for GGS habitatimpacts, $0 for VELB habitat impacts, $3,000 for tree impacts, and $22,000 for impacts toother species. It was assumed that this cost would be incurred in 2008 because mitigationcosts typically must be paid prior to final approval of some environmental permits.


The NPV O&M cost was estimated as $8,264,000. This alternative includes a total of 31,260 feet of 24-inch-diameter force main and 14,230 feet of gravity sewer between 54inches and 72 inches in diameter. The Mather Pump Station would require four 250 hppumps with an average total dynamic head of 77 feet at start-up to 154 feet at buildout.The force main would include 18 ARVs and 12 blow-offs. O&M costs were calculatedover the 80-year life cycle of the facility.









Chapter 5



Project

It should be noted that the schedule above does not assume double shift for tunnelconstruction operations. No delay costs have been assumed for this alternative.

5.4.3

5.4.3


The total temporary public impact cost in net present value for dust, noise, and vibration

for Alternative MI-7 + LCA5-1 was estimated to be $284,200. The noise mitigation costassociated with building soundwalls was estimated to be $95,200, assuming that 2,000linear feet of soundwall would need to be built. The dust mitigation cost was estimated as$35,000. The dust mitigation cost included the following mitigation costs: HVACcleanings at $24,600; house cleanings at $4,000; power washes at $5,400; window andblinds cleaning at $500; and car washes at $500. No pools were located within the bufferzone; therefore, no mitigation cost was estimated for pool cleanings. The total vibrationmitigation cost of preconstruction and postconstruction, monitoring during construction,and potential damage claims was estimated to be $154,000. The total cost of preconstruction and postconstruction and monitoring during construction was estimated as$14,600, and total potential damage claims were estimated as $139,400.

The total traffic delay for the proposed interceptor Alternative MI-7 + LCA5-1 wouldresult in 46,508 hours of delay, which was converted into $398,700 of delay cost in NPV.Detailed assumptions of delay cost analysis are also shown in Table 3 of the TechnicalMemorandum; Potential Traffic Delay Cost Due to Construction in Appendix I. Theindirect impact to traffic of Alternative MI-7 + LCA5-1 Alternative would be incurred byrequiring lane closures on Sunrise Boulevard, Chrysanthy Boulevard, and KieferBoulevard. In addition, a road closure to through traffic would be required on RecycleRoad. However, a single reversible lane would be provided to local traffic to accessbusiness on Recycle Road. For the segment of the interceptor running along the west sideof Sunrise Boulevard, only the southbound approach would be impacted. The potential

traffic impacts of the MI-7 + LCA5 alternative on various roadways are shown in Table 3of the Technical Memorandum; Potential Traffic Delay Cost Due to Construction inAppendix I. As shown in Table 3 of Appendix I, the LOS on various roadways for theproposed project are at LOS D or better. The LOS on Sunrise Boulevard between RecycleRoad and Douglas would decrease from LOS A to LOS F. Sunrise Boulevard south of Kiefer Road would decrease from D to F. LOS F is below the City of Rancho Cordova’sacceptable standard, and indicates over-capacity conditions with excessive delays.

The total temporary public impact cost, including dust, noise, vibration and traffic delays,is $683,000.

.3.1.8 Risk Cost

The total cost associated with risk was calculated to be $820,000 which consisted entirelyof construction risks for traffic.

The Alternative MI-7, NPV is shown in Figure 5-15.



Chapter 5






O&M, $8,264,000

Schedule, $0


Risk, $820,000


Figure 5-15 Mather Interceptor Alternative MI-7 Net Present Value


Related additional costs of Alternative MI-7 + LCA5-1 were identified as the additionalcost to construct AJ4 in the future, and the cost to construct the MAE Trunk Sewer fromDouglas Road to the Bradshaw Interceptor, approximately 6,000 feet of 21-inch-diametergravity sewer. Related additional costs for both items above include the cost of engineering, construction, O&M and public impacts (see Figure 5-16).

An estimate was also made for traffic delays for the future construction of AJ4. Tunnelingof most of the alignment is expected, but at least three shafts along Sunrise Boulevard canbe expected to impact one travel lane for most of a construction season. The NPV of thistraffic delay cost in 2029 is $920,000. The NPV of the public impact cost due to dust,noise and vibration is $388,000, so the total NPV of the public impacts is $1,308,000.

It should be noted that environmental impacts were not calculated because it was assumedthat the Mather area would be built out and remaining environmental features would benegligible along the AJ4 corridor. ROW costs were not calculated because it was assumedthat ROW required to construct AJ4 in the future would be acquired as part of the MI-7 +LCA5-1 ROW acquisition. Finally, due to the large uncertainties associated with projectconstruction in 2030, unique risks were not quantified.

The MAE Trunk Sewer extension cost includes the cost of construction, engineering, andO&M for the 6,000-foot extension (see Figure 5-17). The CSD-1 Master Plan stated theMAE Trunk Sewer would be required between 2011 and 2020; therefore, a constructionperiod of 2015 was assumed. It was assumed the MAE Trunk Sewer would be constructedwithin the Zinfandel Drive ROW; therefore, no additional environmental, ROW, or public


Project



Chapter 5


impacts would occur beyond those already included in the Total Cost to the Communityfor Alternative MI-7 + LCA5-1.



O&M, $573,000


Mather Interceptor

Future Construction of AJ4Net Present Value

Total $61,613,000





O&M, $126,000

Mather InterceptorMAE Trunk

Net Present Value


Figure 5-17 Mather Interceptor MAE Trunk Net Present Value


Project



Chapter 5



Project

The total cost of Alternative MI-7 + LCA5-1 was estimated to be:

NPV of Future Aerojet 4 $61,613,000NPV of MAE Stub Out $18,997,000NPV of MI-7+LCA5 $112,192,000

Total NPV $192,802,000

5.4.3.3.3 Summary of Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Alternative MI-7

As mentioned above, the Total Cost to the Community is equal to the sum of the NPVcosts of Alternative MI-7 and the future construction of the AJ4 Interceptor and MAETrunk Sewer extension. This is shown graphically in Figure5-18.


The Alternative MI-7 total NPV (including additional costs) is shown in Figure 5-19.





O&M, $8,963,000

Schedule, $0


Risk, $820,000


Figure 5-19 Alternative MI-7 Total Net Present Value (including additionalcosts)


• Reduces interference with roadway construction in Zinfandel Drive and DouglasRoad.

NPV ofMAE

Extension

NPV forAlternative

MI-7 As

Designed

Total NPVfor

Alternative

MI-7

NPV ofFuture

Aerojet 4= + +



Chapter 5



Project

• Construction of the MAE Trunk Sewer 5 years after completion of the MatherInterceptor in the same area.

a

eouglas Road and Sunrise Boulevard.

Alternative AJ4 includes approximately 15,121 linear feet of 72-inch-diameter gravityserve LCA5, and 19,875 linear feet of

-

h-diameter force main across private property to Sunrise Boulevard and then north

aton

the

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

• Potential loss of business at the shopping centers currently under construction at thintersection of D

5.4.3.4 Alternative AJ4 Zinfandel + Aerojet 4

interceptor, 15,625 linear feet of dual force main toAJ4 gravity pipeline. Alternative AJ4 includes the Mather Interceptor and force main toconvey flow from the Sunrise/Douglas development east of Sunrise Boulevard to theBradshaw 7B Interceptor on an interim basis. Compared to the other Mather Interceptoralternatives, this alternative would add construction of the AJ4 Interceptor. The capacity

of the pump station would be 13 mgd. The pump station would be located approximately1,200 feet northeast of the intersection of Sunrise Boulevard and Jackson Road. Figure 5

20 shows a schematic of the alignment of the alternative. Additional details about thispractical alternative are provided in the Technical Memorandum; Preliminary DesignMather Interceptor – Alternative AJ4 Assumed Construction Approach found in Appendix

P.

Flow would be pumped from the Mather Pump Station through 15,630 feet of dual 24-incalong Sunrise Boulevard to the transition structure located in the west side of the SunriseBoulevard ROW across from the Chrysanthy Boulevard intersection. Flow discharged

from the force main would combine with flow from the connection to the Aerojet 1Interceptor that was formerly pumped by the Chrysanthy Pump Station, and then flownorth in a 72-inch-diameter gravity sewer for 4,150 feet to the Mather Junction Structurethe northwest intersection of Douglas Road and Sunrise Boulevard. The Mather JunctiStructure would include a stub for the future connection of Aerojet 2 Interceptor and a stubfor the future connection of the AJ4 Interceptor. Flow from the Mather Junction Structurewould flow west in a 72-inch-diameter gravity sewer along Douglas Road, drop to a lowerelevation to pass under the FSC and continue west along Douglas Road. The total lengthof the interceptor in Douglas Road would be 4,920 feet. At the future intersection with anextension of Zinfandel Drive, the sewer would flow north along Zinfandel Drive in a 72-inch-diameter gravity sewer for 5,980 feet to the Mather/Bradshaw Junction Structure,

where it would discharge to the 84-inch-diameter Bradshaw Interceptor. The AJ4Alternative includes a 72-inch-diameter gravity sewer from the Mather Junction Structurethat would flow south along Sunrise Boulevard to the Mather Pump Station, parallelingMather Interceptor pipelines. It was assumed this pipeline would be left dry and wouldserve as the AJ4 Interceptor when construction of the Laguna Creek Interceptor iscompleted. The profile figure below shows a schematic illustration of the alternative.Additional details about this practical alternative are provided in the preliminary designdocuments and are available on request.



Chapter 5



Project

Figure 5-20 Profile of Mather Interceptor Alternative AJ4

5.4.3.4.1

The NPV Probable Construction Cost was estimated as $124,913,000, which includes a 20

percent construction contingency. It was assumed that the majority of this cost would be

5

The NPV engineering cost was estimated as $37,576,000. It was assumed that this costwould be incurred over the life of the project design and construction (2007 through 2010).

Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Alternative AJ4

5.4.3.4.1.1 Construction Cost

incurred during the two seasons (2009 and 2010) planned for construction of the project.

.4.3.4.1.2 Engineering Cost



Chapter 5



Project

5.4.3

5.4.3.4.1.4

5.4.3

5.4.3


The NPV ROW cost was estimated as $7,146,000. The ROW cost consists of $3,117,000(44 percent of total) for temporary easements, for $3,177,000 (44 percent of total)permanent easements, and $853,000 (12 percent of total) in fee titles. It was assumed that

this cost would be incurred during the ROW acquisition process (2008 through 2010),which may continue into and beyond the construction period.


Environmental mitigation impacts would be identical to MI-1. The NPV of the mitigationcosts were estimated as $12,407,000. The environmental mitigation cost would consist of $12,213,000 (98 percent of total) for vernal pool impacts, $171,000 (1 percent of total) forchannel/wetland impacts, $0 for GGS habitat impacts, $0 for VELB habitat impacts,$1,000 for tree impacts, and $22,000 for impacts to other species. It was assumed that thiscost would be incurred in 2008 because mitigation costs typically must be paid prior tofinal approval of some environmental permits.


The NPV O&M cost was estimated as $9,272,000. This alternative includes a total of 31,200 feet of 24-inch-diameter force main and 15,100 feet of 72-inch-diameter gravitysewer for the Mather Interceptor and 19,800 feet of 72-inch-diameter gravity sewer for theAJ4 Interceptor. O&M costs for this alternative assume the AJ4 Interceptor would becleaned and CCTV-inspected to verify no significant corrosion had occurred before itwould be put into service. The Mather Pump station would require four 250 hp pumpswith an average total dynamic head of 77 feet at start-up to 154 feet at buildout. The forcemain would include 18 ARVs and 12 blow-offs. O&M costs were calculated over the 80-year life cycle of the facility.




• 03/10/11 for completion of the Mather Interceptor gravity sewer




It should be noted that the schedule above assumes double shifts for tunnel constructionoperations. This alternative would not be substantially complete until May 2012 and

would not be able to accept flow from the LCA5 shed until July 2012. This is because of the additional tunneling that would be required to complete the AJ4 Interceptor pipeline. Itwas also assumed that the force main could not be completed until the AJ4 pipeline wascomplete because the force main and pipeline would parallel each other in the samecorridor, and the force main would be above the Aerojet pipeline. Alternative methods of construction would be considered during final design for potential to accelerate force mainconstruction. However, for purposes of this analysis, a delay cost was assumed for theadditional O&M cost of the Chrysanthy Pump Station after December 2010, and the cost



Chapter 5



Project

of an interim pump station in the LCA5 shed. This would result in a schedule NPV cost of $7,354,000.

5.4.3

5.4.3


The total temporary public impact cost for dust, noise, and vibration for Alternative AJ4

was estimated to be $147,200 in net present value. The noise mitigation cost associatedwith building sound walls was estimated to be $93,700, assuming that 9,000 linear feet of sound wall would need to be built. The dust mitigation cost was estimated as $21,500.The dust mitigation cost included the following mitigation costs: HVAC cleanings at$12,000; house cleanings at $3,600; power washes at $4,800; window and blinds cleaningat $500; and car washes at $600. No pools were located within the buffer zone; therefore,no mitigation cost was estimated for pool cleanings. The total vibration mitigation cost of preconstruction and postconstruction, monitoring during construction, and potentialdamage claims was estimated to be $21,500. The total cost of preconstruction andpostconstruction and monitoring during construction was estimated as $4,200, and totalpotential damage claims were estimated as $27,800.

The proposed Alternative AJ4 has the same alignment as Alternative MI-1 + LCA5-1 andwould therefore experience the same traffic impacts. However, the NPVs would beslightly different because of the difference in the time period of construction. Theproposed interceptor Alternative AJ4 would result in 2,464 hours of delay, which wasconverted into $20,800 of delay cost in NPV. Detailed assumptions of delay cost analysisare also shown in Table 1 of the Technical Memorandum; Potential Traffic Delay CostDue to Construction, in Appendix I.

The total temporary public impact cost, including dust, noise, vibration and traffic delays,is $168,000.

.4.1.8 Risk Cost

The total cost associated with risk for Alternative AJ4 was calculated to be $233,000which consisted entirely of construction risks presented in the discussion of AlternativeMI-1 + LCA5-1 in 5.4.3.1.1 above.

5.4.3.4.2 Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Alternative AJ4 Related Additional Costs

Alternative AJ4 includes construction of the AJ4 Interceptor; therefore, the only relatedadditional cost would be the cost to provide a stub out for the CSD-1 Trunk Sewer at theintersection of Douglas Road and Zinfandel Drive.

The cost of the MAE stub includes only the cost of construction. It was assumed that thestub out to allow for the future connection of the CSD-1 flows would be constructed aspart of the MI construction, and that the stub out would be constructed within theAlternative MI-1 + LCA5-1 limits of disturbance. Thus, it was assumed that there wouldbe insignificant additional engineering, environmental, ROW, O&M, or public impactsbeyond those already included in the Total Cost to the Community for Alternative AJ4.



Chapter 5


The total cost of Alternative AJ4, including related additional costs, was estimated to be asfollows (see Figure 5-21):

NPV of MAE Stub Out $66,000NPV of AJ4 $199,069,000

Total NPV $199,135,000





O&M, $9,272,000

Schedule, $7,354,000


Risk, $233,000


Figure 5-21 Alternative AJ4, Net Present Value

5.4.3.4.3 Summary of Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Alternative AJ4

As mentioned above, the Total Cost to the Community is equal to the sum of the NPVcosts of the MAE Trunk Stub Out Alternative AJ4 as it was designed. This is showngraphically in Figure 5-22.

NPV of MAETrunk Stub

Out

NPV forAlternative

AJ4 AsDesigned

+Total NPV

forAlternative

AJ4

=

Figure 5-22 Alternative AJ4 BCE Summary of Costs

Total alternative AJ4 NPV (including additional costs) is shown in Figure 5-23.


Project



Chapter 5






O&M, $9,272,000



Risk, $233,000


Figure 5-23 AJ4 Alternative Total Net Present Value(including additional costs)


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

• Negative image to SRCSD due to major construction activity adjacent to a majorroadway


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

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


5.4.4 Summary of Results of the Business Case Evaluation

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


Project



Chapter 5


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

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

•

Impacts to traffic along Sunrise Boulevard south of Douglas Road

5.4.4.8 Risk Cost

Risk costs are nearly identical for MI-1 and AJ4, but are significantly less than for MI-7and MI-2. Risk costs for MI-1 and AJ4 are $1,287,000 less than for MI-2 because of thehigher risk of encountering contaminated soil and groundwater. Risk costs for MI-1 andAJ4 are $582,000 less than for MI-7 because of the increased risk of traffic accidents.

5.4.4.9 Summary

The Total Cost to the Community and key comments and intangibles are captured in Table

5-8.


Project



Chapter 5


Table 5-8 BCE Results Comparison Among Alternatives

Alt.

Total Cost to the Community

NPV

(2007 $)

Key Comments/Intangibles

MI-1



Right of W ay, $6,881,000


O&M, $8,879,000

Schedule, $0


Risk, $238,000

Mather Interceptor

Total Alt. 1Net Present Value

(including Add. Costs)Total $182,808,000


• Double shift tunnel constructionoperations.

• Facility start-up on 10/14/10. Service toChrysanthy Pump Station and LCA5shed provided by December 2010.

• Potential conflict with Zinfandel Driveconstruction and Douglas road-widening.

• Potential loss of business at shoppingcenters.

MI-2





O&M, $8,987,000

Schedule, $0


Risk, $1,525,000

Mather Interceptor

Total Alt. 2Net Present Value

(including Add. Costs)Total $190,388,0003%/yr Escalation Rate5%/yr Discount Rate

• Construction near known area ofcontaminated soil and groundwater.

• Double shift tunnel constructionoperations.

• Facility start-up on 01/24/11. Service toChrysanthy Pump Station and LCA5shed is late by 3-1/2 weeks. Continuedoperation of CSD-1 interim pumpstations until this date.

• Potential loss of business at shoppingcenters.


Project



Chapter 5


Alt.

Total Cost to the Community

NPV

(2007 $)

Key Comments/Intangibles

MI-7





O&M, $8,963,000

Schedule, $0


Risk, $820,000

Mather Interceptor

Total Alt. 7

Net Present Value

(including Add. Costs)Total $192,802,000


• Single shift tunnel operations.

• Facility start-up on 10/06/10. Providesservice to Chrysanthy Pump Station andLCA5 shed by December 2010.

• More construction in and along Sunrise

Boulevard.

AJ4





O&M, $9,272,000



Risk, $233,000

Mather InterceptorTotal Alt. AJ4

Net Present Value(including Add. Costs)


• Avoids impact to developed area byconstructing the Aerojet 4 Interceptor in2010 rather than 2019.

• Double shift tunnel operations

• 03/10/11 for start-up of gravitysewer serving Chrysanthy PumpStation.

• 07/20/12 for completion of start-upand testing of Mather Pump Stationand service to LCA5 shed.

• Service to Chrysanthy Pump Stationis 3-1/2 months late. Continued

operation by CSD-1 until this date.

• Service to LCA5 is 1 ½ years late.Interim facilities may be necessary ifdevelopment occurs by 2011.


Project



Chapter 5



Project

5.4.4.10 Construction Cost Escalation Rate Sensitivity Analysis

An analysis was performed to determine the sensitivity of the BCE results to fluctuationsin the escalation rate for construction cost. The NPV for each alternative was calculatedassuming a 3 percent per year escalation rate, a 5 percent per year discount rate, and an 80-year life cycle. The 3 percent per year escalation rate and 5 percent per year discount rate

were applied to all costs. In addition, the NPV of the construction costs was recalculatedassuming a 5, 7.5, and 10 percent escalation rate to determine if the ranking betweenalternatives would be affected (see Table 5-9).

Table 5-9 Construction Cost Escalation Rate Sensitivity

Alternative

Total NPV at 5percent

Discount Rateand 3 percent

Escalation Rate


Discount Rateand 5 percent

Escalation Rate


Discount Rateand 7.5 percentEscalation Rate

Total NPV at 5percent Discount

Rate and 10percent Escalation

RateMI-1 $181,920,000 $208,940,000 $259,250,000 $337,800,000

MI-2 $189,500,000 $216,780,000 $267,420,000 $346,320,000MI-7 $191,910,000 $219,220,000 $269,890,000 $348,810,000AJ4 $199,130,000 $207,810,000 $219,330,000 $231,650,000

Key:NPV = net present valueMI = Mather InterceptorAJ = Aerojet

As shown above, MI-1 has the lowest NPV at a 5 percent discount rate and a 3 percentescalation rate. If construction costs are escalated at 5 percent, and other factors are thesame, AJ4 has the lowest NPV. This is because of the increased cost of the future

construction of AJ4 Interceptor if costs escalate between now and 2029. The gap betweenAJ4 widens if higher construction cost escalation rates are assumed, as shown in Figure 5-

24.

At the 3 percent escalation rate, MI-1 is 4 percent lower in cost than MI-2, which has thenext lowest NPV. At the 5 percent escalation rate, AJ4 has an NPV of less than 1 percentless than MI-1 (see Figure 5-24).



Chapter 5


$150,000,000

$170,000,000

$190,000,000

$210,000,000

$230,000,000

$250,000,000

$270,000,000

$290,000,000

Total NPV [j]

3%/yr Escalation Rate

5%/yr Discount Rate

Total NPV

5%/yr Escalation Rate

5%/yr Discount Rate

Total NPV

7.5%/yr Escalation Rate

5%/yr Discount Rate

Escalation Rate (%)

N P V ( 2 0 0 7 $ )

MI-1 + LCA5-1 MI-2 + LCA5-1MI-7 + LCA5-1 AJ4 (MI-1 + LCA5-1 + AJ4)

Figure 5-24 BCE Results at Various Construction Cost Escalation Rates

5.4.5 Recommendation of Preferred Alternative

Alternative MI-1 is the Preferred Alternative for the Mather Interceptor project. However,it is also recommended that implementation of Alternative AJ4 be studied further under theBasis of Design Report to be conducted by the final designer, CDM. Further study of AJ4is possible without delaying the design task because the MI-1 and AJ4 alignments overlapeach other; therefore, no additional survey other field work is necessary. The preliminary

design and BCE-assumed construction of AJ4 would be very difficult in 2029. However,the final designer can study the constructability of AJ4 further and more carefully analyzedifferent construction methods. The final designer can also determine if land can bereserved now to facilitate construction of tunnel shafts or other construction features in thefuture. This would allow AJ4 construction to take place in the future and avoid asignificant increase in current construction budgets. The final designer will be directed toprovide a recommendation on the AJ4 constructability in a Basis of Design Report.

The recommendation of Alternative MI-1 and the further study of Alternative AJ4 wasmade to the PAC on April 18, 2007. However, there was concern that a regional pumpstation to serve the LCA5 shed was recommended as part of all the alternatives, and theuse of multiple, interim pump stations had not been analyzed. It was also stated that thepace of development had slowed significantly and the pump station would not be neededfor some time. As a result, the PAC directed program management staff to conduct furtheranalysis of the development and flow estimates, and compare the use of multipledeveloper-constructed interim pump stations. Previous discussions with SRCSD staff hadassumed that a regional solution was appropriate because the 10 mgd threshold for SRCSDresponsibility would be reached by 2015.


Project



Chapter 5


The PAC also expressed concern that further modeling to be conducted under theSequencing Study may show that the Bradshaw Interceptor may have enough capacity tohandle buildout flows from the Aerojet sewer sheds. If that is the case, Aerojet 4Interceptor would not be necessary. It is also possible that if Aerojet 4 Interceptor isneeded, it may not be needed for 30 years or more. It was felt that constructing but not

using an interceptor for 30 years or more would be a waste. However, the PAC didapprove the analysis of the constructability of Aerojet 4 in the future.

The MI-1 route for the gravity portion of the Mather Interceptor was accepted by the PACand the PAC agreed that it should be designed and constructed on the schedule describedin this PDP. There was concern that the Mather Interceptor may not be ready when theChrysanthy pump station runs out of capacity. Plans for development in the area served bythe Chrysanthy pump station have been approved and the estimated flow from thosedevelopments exceeds the design capacity of the pump station.

The portion of the Preferred Alternative (Alternative MI-1) that provides sewer service to

LCA5 was removed and will receive further analysis in a separate PDP. That analysis willinclude a refinement of the development pace in the LCA5 shed, a sensitivity analysis of the development pace, an estimate of future flows and a comparison of several developerconstructed interim pump stations to the single, regional pump station and force main builtby SRCSD.


Project



Chapter 6

Selected Alternative Design Assumptions

CHAPTER 6.0 SELECTED ALTERNATIVE DESIGNASSUMPTIONS

This chapter describes the design concept and routing of the Mather Interceptor Preferred

Alternative (MI-1). This chapter also lists major features of significance along theinterceptor route and explains the reasons the pipeline was aligned as shown onpreliminary design drawings. Also included in this chapter is a list of known key issues tobe resolved or followed up on by the final designer.

For the purpose of describing Alternative MI-1, the alignment was divided into foursegments:

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

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

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

• Sunrise Boulevard, Douglas Road to Chrysanthy Boulevard (station 108+99 to152+21)

6.1 HYDRAULIC CONTROL POINTS

6.1.1 Downstream – Bradshaw Interceptor

The Mather Interceptor will discharge to the Bradshaw Interceptor at the southwest cornerof the Zinfandel Drive/Mather Boulevard intersection. This is at approximately BradshawStation 319+00, where the invert elevation is approximately 60.5 feet and the crown of the

84-inch diameter pipe is approximately 67.5 feet (refer to the Bradshaw Plans for surveydatum information). For the purposes of this preliminary design, matching crowns wereassumed.

6.1.2 Upstream – Aerojet Section 1

MP2000 called for the Mather Interceptor to collect flow from the Mather JunctionStructure, which would collect flow from Aerojet Sections 1, 2, and 2S. However, aportion of Aerojet Section 1 was constructed by the developer of the Anatolia 1development during the construction of Chrysanthy Boulevard and the Chrysanthy PumpStation. The developer left the downstream end of Aerojet 1 on the east side of the

Chrysanthy Boulevard/Sunrise Boulevard intersection. To provide relief to the ChrysanthyPump Station, specified in the PDP, the Mather Interceptor must be extended south alongSunrise Boulevard to Chrysanthy Boulevard and tied into the end of the existing AerojetSection 1. As a result, the Mather Interceptor would be longer than anticipated byMP2000. The record drawings for Aerojet Section 1 show the invert elevation as 138.14feet.


Project



Chapter 6


6.1.3 Mather Junction Structure

The Mather Junction Structure was planned by MP2000 to allow flow to be collected fromAerojet Sections 1, 2, and 2S and discharged to the Mather Interceptor, and also to the AJ4Interceptor when it is constructed. Although schematic diagrams in MP2000 show Aerojet2 and 2s individually discharging to the Mather Junction Structure, it is anticipated theywould combine in a junction structure on the east side of Sunrise Boulevard and thecombined flow would cross under Sunrise Boulevard to the Mather Junction Structure.This allows a single crossing of Sunrise Boulevard and a simpler Mather JunctionStructure. This was discussed and agreed to in concept by SRCSD staff. It also appearsthis is how the sewer system is being laid out in the Rio Del Oro Sewer Facilities Plan.

Key elevations for the Mather Junction Structure are the incoming Aerojet 2 and theupstream portion of the Mather Interceptor. The preliminary design used MP2000 toestimate the Aerojet 2 elevations and incoming elevation. The MP2000 invert for Aerojet2 at the connection to the Mather Interceptor would be 119.24, but the MP2000 pipediameter is 60-inch-diameter for Aerojet 2. For matching pipe crowns with the MatherInterceptor 72-inch-diameter pipe, and allowing for some drop across one or morestructures, an invert of 118.05 would be needed for the Mather Interceptor leaving thestructure. The incoming elevation of the upstream Mather Interceptor is set by the existingelevation of Aerojet 1 and the pipe slope from Chrysanthy Boulevard to the MatherJunction Structure. There is sufficient elevation drop to provide the slope of 0.0013assumed in the preliminary design. The Mather Junction Structure should also be deepenough to allow the existing 10-inch-diameter sewer in Douglas Road to tie in by gravity.The 10-inch-diameter sewer would be served by a pump station on Douglas Road thatshould be abandoned after the construction of Mather Interceptor. The 10-inch-diametersewer may also connect to a downstream manhole if one is closer to the end of the sewer.The downstream elevation of the 10-inch-diameter sewer is 127.21 feet.

6.1.4 MAE Junction

The CSD-1 Master Plan calls for the MAE Trunk Sewer to discharge to the MatherInterceptor at the intersection of Eagles Nest Road and Douglas Road. The Master Plancalls for a 21-inch-diameter diameter trunk at a tie-in elevation of 78.71. The estimatedflow from the trunk shed is about 5 mgd. According to discussions with CSD-1, theelevation is lower than required to serve the trunk shed, and the Master Plan is takingadvantage of the depth of the Mather Interceptor. Matching crowns was assumed for thepreliminary design. Changes in the elevation should be discussed with CSD-1. A stubacross Douglas Road should be considered.

6.1.5 Folsom South Canal Crossing

The preliminary design assumed a minimum clearance from the bottom of the FSC to thetop of the interceptor sewer of 15 feet. This distance was based on the rule of thumb thatcalls for three pipe diameters of minimum clearance under structures. Less clearancewould affect the slope and create velocities less than cleansing velocities. The USBR has


Project



Chapter 6


stated it prefers a clearance of 25 feet, but is willing to consider less clearance if it can bedemonstrated that damage to the canal would not occur.

6.1.6 Summary of Mather Interceptor Hydraulic Design Control Points

Table 6-1 summarizes the Mather Interceptor hydraulic design control points.

Table 6-1 Summary of Mather Interceptor Hydraulic Design Control Points

Control Point Station Elevation DescriptionBradshaw Interceptor 0+00 67.5 Crown of Pipe (approx.)Aerojet 1 152+21 138.14 Invert of existing Aerojet 1Aerojet 2 109+00 118.05 Invert of future Aerojet 2Aerojet 3 80+00 80.0 Interceptor crown, max

6.2 PRELIMINARY DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE INTERCEPTOR

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

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

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

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

• Shafts were assumed to be circular.

• Standard SRCSD standard manhole design was assumed (refer to preliminarydrawings details).

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

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


Project



Chapter 6


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

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

• Shaft diameters are as listed in Table 6-2.

Table 6-2 Shaft Dimensions for Pipe Jacking and Receiving

Single Pipeline in Shaft Two Pipelines in Shaft

Shaft Type

PreferredDiameter

(spaceavailable)

Minimum Diameter(confined work

area)

PreferredDiameter

(space available)

Minimum Diameter(confined work

area)

Jacking Shaft 31 feet 22 feet 36 feet 30 feetReceiving Shaft 22 feet 16 feet 25 feet 22 feet

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

The Mather Interceptor alignment begins at its tie-in location to Bradshaw 7B on ZinfandelDrive just south of the intersection with North Mather Boulevard and Baroque Drive. Theinterceptor routes southerly along the future extension of Zinfandel Drive forapproximately 5,880 lineal feet to Douglas Road. Pipe depth to invert averages nearly 55feet in this segment.

Key considerations in siting the interceptor in this segment include the following:

• Morrison Creek would be crossed by tunneling.

•

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

6.3.1 Preliminary Design Construction and Alignment Decision Summary

6.3.1.1 Vertical Constraint

The primary factor in determining the vertical alignment was the elevation of theBradshaw Interceptor and the FSC. Matching crown to crown was assumed for theBradshaw connection and 15 feet (about three pipe diameters) of cover was assumed underthe canal. This resulted in a slope of 0.0015 in this section.

The following utilities were identified and are located between STA 0+28 to STA 24+00:

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

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

• 12-inch-diameter to 36-inch-diameter storm drains approximately 5 feet east of themedian


Project



Chapter 6


However, because of the depth of the sewer, no utilities are known to constrain the verticalalignment. Many utilities are crossed at an angle, but this should not be an issue duringconstruction because the pipeline would be tunneled. However, this makes repairs moredifficult if O&M must excavate in this area. The plans appear to show the interceptorconflicting with storm drains in the area, but this is due to the limited accuracy of the

unrectified aerial photographs. It is expected that shafts can be located to avoid utilities inmost locations.

6.3.1.2 Slopes and Velocity

Slopes were limited by hydraulic control points throughout the alignment. From the MAEJunction Structure connection to the Mather Bradshaw Interceptor, slopes ranging from0.0016 to 0.008 were assumed. Calculated average daily flow velocities at start-up andbuildout for this segment range from 2.80 ft/sec to 4.10 feet per second (ft/sec) and 4.30ft/sec to 7.40 ft/sec, respectively.

6.3.1.3 Horizontal Constraints

The Bradshaw Interceptor diameter increases from 72 inches to 84 inches near thecenterline of Zinfandel Drive. The Mather/Bradshaw Junction Structure was sited on thewest side of Zinfandel Drive to take advantage of the larger diameter and capacity of the84-inch portion. It was also thought that M&O would prefer to have the structure off thepavement so it was sited just to the west of the curb.

Currently, approximately 2,500 linear feet of the Zinfandel Drive extension have beencompleted south of North Mather Boulevard The road in this section is asphalt-paved,three lanes in each direction, with a raised 12-foot-wide median. The remaining 3,380linear feet to the future intersection with Douglas Road are scheduled for construction in

2009. As a result, Zinfandel Drive would be completed through to Douglas Road by thetime Mather Interceptor construction starts, therefore, it is expected that traffic volumewould be very low. It is assumed that closing about one half of the completed portion of the road and routing traffic to the other half of the road would not be a problem. Manholeswere placed (which would be shaft locations) along the west side of the road and withinthe 108-foot-wide road ROW in locations that would be clear of the sanitary sewer.A 108-foot-wide road ROW exists where the road has been constructed. The same ROWwidth is expected for the planned road expansion.

6.3.1.4 Structures Required

The Mather/Bradshaw Junction Structure is currently under design by Black and Veatch

and would be constructed under a separate project. The Bradshaw 7C project will leave a72-inch-diameter stub for the Mather Interceptor tie-in.

The MAE Junction Structure would be located in the northeast corner of the ZinfandelDrive/Douglas Road intersection. It was located off the road to avoid placing the structurein a busy intersection. This structure would serve as a tie-in for the future MAE Trunk Sewer to serve the areas south of Douglas Road and a turning structure. A 21-inch stubout is required for the future connection of the MAE Trunk Sewer.


Project



Chapter 6


6.3.1.5 Environmental Issues

• Vernal pools along the alignment

• Potential for contaminated groundwater or soil

• Closed landfills nearby

6.3.1.6 Right-of-Way Needs

Preliminary plans assumed the 108-foot ROW acquisition would be completed andavailable for use when the Mather Interceptor is constructed, and the alignment would staywithin the ROW. If the ROW for the extension has not been obtained, the county willgrant a license for construction of the interceptor. During recent negotiations with theCreekside development owner, SRCSD agreed to move the interceptor to private propertyon the east side of Zinfandel Drive for the first 1,200 feet of the alignment. Temporaryconstruction easement needs were estimated and are shown on the plans.

6.3.2 Final Design Considerations

Items to be resolved or finalized in this section of the interceptor during final designinclude the following:

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

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

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

feasible.

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

This section includes 2,325 feet of interceptor parallel to Douglas Road. The interceptorturns eastward at the future intersection with Zinfandel Drive, routes parallel to DouglasRoad, and crosses under the (FSC) approximately 2,000 feet east of Zinfandel Drive. Thetotal span of the canal cut is approximately 210 feet. Pipe depth to invert averages about65 feet in this stretch. Key features of this subsection include the following:

• TRACON facility along the north side of Douglas Road

• Utilities along the north side of Douglas Road

• Mather Lake on the south side of Douglas Road

• FSC under crossing

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


Project



Chapter 6



6.4.1.1 Vertical Constraints

The primary vertical constraint in this segment is the FSC. The assumptions for the design

of the interceptor are discussed above.

The following utilities are known to exist in this section:

• Underground telephone in a concrete duct.

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

• 16-inch-diameter water main

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

• 1.5-inch-diameter streetlight conduit.

• 12-inch-diameter water main.

• 10-inch-diameter storm drain and catch basins.

The 12-inch-diameter water main at the back of the sidewalk and 10-inch-diameter stormdrain catch basins must be avoided or relocated.


Slope for this segment ranges from 0.0016 to 0.0015.

6.4.1.3 Horizontal Constraints

The interceptor was located in the north side of the road because there is much more roomoff the roadway than on the south side of the road, and is further away from Mather Lakeand its wetlands. The Northern California TRACON facility is located in the north side of Douglas Road. At the normal drive length of 750 feet, the first shaft east of the DouglasRoad/Zinfandel Drive intersection would have been located within the main entranceway

to the TRACON facility. It was therefore moved easterly so that the work area would notobstruct the entranceway. The next shaft east is near the gated emergency exit from thefacility at approximately Station 74+85 to 75+25.

East of the FSC at the shaft site, the interceptor is shown closer to the roadway pavementto avoid private landscaping and parking lot improvements on the public ROW. However,it would likely be necessary to use the entire ROW for construction purposes so themanhole could be moved further to the north.


Project



Chapter 6


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

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

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


6.5.1.1 Tunneling vs. Open Cut

The pipe depth is in the range where open-cut or tunneling methods would havecomparable costs. However, pipe jacking is the presumed construction method tominimize impacts to traffic, businesses, and wetland-type features. In addition, thecorridor in some areas is narrow for open-cut construction to be used. The pipeline is also

recommended to be tunneled in front of the business park because the limited corridor isexpected to make tunneling more cost effective as well as minimize impacts tostakeholders.

6.5.1.2 Vertical Constraints

The primary vertical constraint is the elevation of the Mather Junction Structure and theincoming Aerojet 2 Interceptor. The preliminary design estimated Aerojet 2 would enterthe Mather Junction Structure at 118.05 feet. A slope of 0.0016 out of the structure wasassumed. For the first two drives east of the canal, the interceptor routes between the roadand utility poles, minimizing disruption to traffic and business. For the third drive, theinterceptor was routed north of the overhead power lines to allow construction of the

Mather Junction Structure.

The length of the three tunneling drives averages nearly 900 feet. Shorter drive lengthswould have resulted in an additional shaft.

The Mather Interceptor was routed between known utilities to allow shaft construction andminimize utility relocation. The following utilities are known to exist in this segment of Douglas Road:

• Underground telephone in a concrete duct bank

• 12-inch-diameter storm drains

•

8-inch-diameter sewer• 12-inch-diameter water main


Slope for this segment ranges from 0.0016 to 0.0017. Calculated average daily flowvelocities at start-up and buildout for this segment range from 2.80 ft/sec to 4.10 ft/sec and2.90 ft/sec to 4.30 ft/sec, respectively.


Project



Chapter 6


• Property acquisition from Mather Parks and Recreation District for the MatherJunction Structure and nearby incoming and outgoing pipes.

6.6 SUNRISE BOULEVARD, DOUGLAS ROAD TO CHRYSANTHYBOULEVARD (MI STATION 108+99 TO 152+21, AJ4 STATION 1051+85

TO 1010+33)

This segment is within the Sunrise Boulevard ROW between Douglas Road andChrysanthy Boulevard. As part of the Mather Interceptor discussion, a segment of AJ4would be included for future constructability evaluation. This segment includesapproximately 4,150 feet of the Mather Interceptor and the planned 72-inch-diameter AJ4Interceptor aligned parallel to each other along Sunrise Boulevard, plus 167 feet of theMather Interceptor crossing Sunrise Boulevard to an existing 42-inch-diameter Aerojet 1Stub Out.

The Mather Interceptor flows south to north and would be located at a higher elevation

than the AJ4 Interceptor, which would flow in the opposite direction. The averageelevation of the AJ4 Interceptor would be about 15 feet lower than the Mather Interceptorin this segment.

Principal features of this section are as follows:

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

• Retail shopping center development, construction of which recently began on thesouthwest corner of Douglas Road and Sunrise Boulevard, with proposedcondominium development immediately south.

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


6.6.1.1 Vertical and Horizontal Constraints

USBR will not allow permanent pipeline easements parallel to the FSC. Therefore, theinterceptor alignment is shown off the existing pavement and within the west side of theSunrise Boulevard ROW. The west side was chosen because of the number of existing

utilities in the east side, the high voltage power lines, and a lack of available land fortemporary construction easements due to existing residents adjacent to the ROW.


The slope for this Mather Interceptor segment is 0.0013.


Project



Chapter 6


6.6.1.3 Environmental Issues

Wetland and vernal pools exist west of Sunrise Boulevard.

6.6.1.4 Right-of-Way Needs

USBR has indicated that it is willing to allow temporary construction easements.

6.6.2 Final Design Issues

Issues to be resolved during final design include the following:

• Coordination with the developer of the Sundance property for location of manholesand resolution of construction issues.

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


Project



Chapter 7

References

CHAPTER 7.0 REFERENCES

Black & Veatch. 2000. Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District Interceptor

System Master Plan.

Black & Veatch. 2002. Bradshaw Interceptor 7 Routing Study.

Black & Veatch. 2003. Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District InterceptorSystem Master Plan Reconciliation Report.

Black & Veatch. 2003. Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District Master PlanReconciliation Report.

City of Rancho Cordova. 2006. General Plan of the City of Rancho Cordova.

CSD-1. 2006. CSD-1 Master Plan.

ESA. 2007. Environmental Site Assessment, Phase I Report.

JMM. 1993. Sanitary Sewer Expansion Study.

Kleinfelder. 2007. Preliminary Geotechnical Report.

MWH. 2007. SIAMI Interceptor Design Guidelines.

MWH. 2007. Pump Station Design Guidelines.

Nolte. 2005. Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District and County SanitationDistrict -1 Sewage Pump Station Design Manual.

SRCSD. 2003. Interceptor Design Manual.

SRCSD. 1996. Sacramento Regional Wastewater Management Program MasterInteragency Agreement.


Project



Chapter 7

References



Project

mather interceptor project

Documents