Flow monitoring data summary and report submittal to ACHD and PADEP. Task 3 – System Characterization Required Inputs: Deconstructed hydrographs from 3RWW and ALCOSAN ALCOSAN Basin Planner model of portion of sewershed (if desired) Subtasks: Confirm delineation of POC and flow-monitor sewersheds. Deconstruct or obtain deconstructed hydrographs. Evaluate flow data consistency to identify abnormalities. Identify any additional field work needed to ensure understanding of system connectivity. Identify any stream inflows. Develop hydrologic and hydraulic (H&H) Tools or H&H Model – municipality to choose best methodology from the following four basic approaches – develop a regression analysis tool, develop a unit hydrograph from flow data, develop a synthetic unit hydrograph (RTK or other) using available SHAPE Program from ALCOSAN/CDM, and/or develop full hydraulic model or extend the ALCOSAN model to include upstream areas not covered by the Basin Planner’s model. Calibrate/Verify H&H tools or models using info from the flow monitoring program for dry and wet weather flows. Dry weather evaluation. Wet weather evaluation. For areas with insufficient flow monitoring data either collect additional data or use data from similar monitored areas to estimate flows.
TABLE 3-X: SEWERSHED CHARACTERISTICS FOR MUNICIPALITY BY POC POC Tributary Area Population Equivalent Dwelling Units Combined Separate Storm Inch-Miles Linear Feet Inch-Miles per Acre Inch-Miles Linear Feet Inch-Miles per Acre Inch-Miles Linear Feet Inch-Miles per Acre
TABLE 5-X: EXISTING AND FUTURE RDII AND GWI FOR [MUNICIPALITY] BY POC POC Sewered Area RDII GWI Existing Conditions (mgd) Future 2046 Conditions (mgd) Percent Difference Existing Conditions (mgd) Future 2046 Conditions (mgd) Percent Difference
TABLE 5-X: BASELINE CONDITION, TYPICAL YEAR ANNUAL CSO DISCHARGE SUMMARY FOR [MUNICIPALITY] Peak Rate (mgd) CSO Outfall Owner Number of Overflows in the Typical Year Annual Overflow Volume (MG) 0 Overflows per Year 4 Overflows per Year 10 Overflows per Year
TABLE 6-1: APPLICABLE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR [MUNICIPALITY] Receiving Stream Stream Designation TMDL (Y/N) (If No, is a TMDL proposed) TMDL Parameter Is TMDL CSO Related (Y/N) In Attainment with TMDL (Y/N)
EXAMPLE TABLE: ALTERNATIVE RANKING SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED FOR [MUNICIPALITY NAME] Criteria Category 1 (e.g. cost) Criteria Category 2 (e.g. quality) criteria Category 2 (e.g. operation) etc. Alternative Name Total Score Criteria 1 Criteria 2, etc. Criteria 1 Criteria 2, etc. Criteria 1 Criteria 2, etc. [total possible score] possible score] possible score] [total possible score] [total possible score] [total possible score] [total possible score] name Calculated total score Criteria Criteria score Criteria score Criteria score Criteria score Criteria
TABLE 7-X: SUMMARY OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE FOR [MUNICIPALITY] Capital Improvements Size/Capacity Estimated Capital Cost ($ million) TOTAL TABLE 7-X: COST BREAKDOWN OF RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE FOR [MUNICIPALITY] Cost Component CSO Control SSO Control Combined TPW Cost ($ million) Capital Cost 1 ($ million) Annual O&M Cost ($ million) TPW Cost CSO Control ($ million) Capital Cost 1 ($ million) Annual O&M Cost ($ million) TPW Cost SSO Control ($ million) TOTAL 1) Total Project Costs (Construction + Contingency + Soft Costs)