Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Prepared by
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates
Section 1 – Background
The Village of Whitefish Bay is experiencing basement flooding and system backups during
significant rain events. Following several instances of wet weather sewer backups and
wastewater overflows throughout the Village in the 1990s, Whitefish Bay commissioned a
Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES), which was finalized in 1999. The 1999 SSES sought
to identify and quantify sources of Inflow/Infiltration (I/I) and provide recommendations for
reducing I/I in order to reduce system surcharging and wet weather overflows.
This Sanitary Sewer Facility Plan builds on the findings of the SSES and introduces additional
insight into the sources of wet weather inflow and infiltration in the system. The objective of the
Facility Plan is to minimize basement backups and wet weather sanitary sewer overflows
through the control of wet weather inflow and infiltration repairing and rehabilitating the existing
sanitary sewer system in Whitefish Bay.
Furthermore, the Facility Plan uses the findings of more recent sewer system hydraulic
analyses, dyed water flooding studies, and observation of existing closed circuit television
(CCTV) records.
Presently, the entire system discharges into the Metropolitan Interceptor System (MIS). Please
refer to Figure 1-1 of the SSES ‘System Overview’ for an illustration of the Village system.
Currently, the Village discharges at the following five (5) primary locations into the MMSD
interceptor system:
Despite enjoying fully satisfactory dry weather service, the Village has historically suffered from
higher than normal wet weather flows in sanitary sewers, a condition that was originally studied
in the early 80s. In order to combat the risk of basement backups, it appears that a number of
relief measures were implemented through the years. In general, these measures probably
provided only temporary benefits as the continuously deteriorating structural integrity of the
system must have resulted in progressively increasing inflow and infiltration opportunities.
Nevertheless, Village continues to benefit from three wet weather relief connections through the
MIS: two are bypasses that discharge into the Village storm sewer systems, and one connection
to the MMSD's 84-inch North Side High Level Relief Sewer. In addition, the sanitary sewer
system currently has sixteen overflow locations consisting of gravity connections to storm
sewers, gated overflows to the storm sewers, and several locations where Department of Public
Works staff are able to relieve sanitary sewer surcharging by pumping the flow into the storm
sewers.
Despite the relatively high number of permanent and temporary overflow locations, the sanitary
sewer system in Whitefish Bay continues to pose an unacceptable risk of basement backups to
the residents. Even when basement backups do not occur, the possibility of wet weather
overflows exists, and consequently, the Village of Whitefish Bay is seeking aggressive and
decisive action to control and manage its sanitary sewer system operation and capacity.
In a letter dated August 16, 2002, the Department of Natural Resources sent a notice of permit
violation to Whitefish Bay; thereby acknowledging the latest bypass report dated June 4, 2002.
Noting that the June 3, 2002 rainfall was about 3 inches and was not accompanied by
widespread flooding, we can conclude that the existing wet weather inflow and infiltration
problems in sanitary sewers is the main cause of overflows in Whitefish Bay. Consequently, the
present Facility Plan seeks solutions to the wet weather inflow and infiltration problem in order
to reduce bypassing and help Whitefish Bay remain in compliance with the general permit for
bypasses or overflows from its sewer collection system.
Basement Backups
The extent of property damage due to basement backups is well documented and can be found
in the 1999 SSES. Specifically, to establish the magnitude of basement flooding, a postcard
survey was mailed to the Village residents. In order to obtain meaningful data, the survey was
limited to two heavy rainfall events that were known to have caused backups in the recent
years: June 20, 1997 and August 5, 1998.
The postcard requested the block and street of the resident, whether they had a sump pump, if
they suffered flooding during either event, the depth of flooding for each event, and the source
of flooding. Out of 4,880 postcards mailed, 2,896 responses were received (59% return rate)
with 496 reported sump pumps. As the postcards were received, there were input into a
database for tabulation and analysis. A printout of returned postcards from the database is
included in Appendix B -Postcard Survey Results, 1999 SSES. A graphical plot of the average
depth of flooding by block is presented in Chapter 2 of the 1999 SSES. The maximum depth of
basement flooding reported for the June 20, 1997 storm was 60 inches and for the August 5,
1998 storm was 48 inches.
Resident responses have provided irrefutable evidence of severe inflow and infiltration
problems. However, the exact and true source of excessive wet weather flows can only be
determined through a detailed study of the matter. Therefore, the following sections summarize
numerous engineering studies that seek to identify sources of excessive wet weather flows and
offer cost effective approaches to reduce overflows and minimize basement backups.
The condition and performance of the Whitefish Bay sewer system has been previously studied
by MMSD in 1981 and later by the Village between 1998 and 2000. These efforts sought to
identify the sources of wet weather inflow and infiltration in the system in order to protect
residents from basement backups and to reduce the occurrence of sewer overflows into storm
sewers or other receiving waters. As a result of these earlier studies, the Village took some
corrective measures.
The 1981 MMSD SSES states that wet weather inflow and infiltration is predominantly attributed
to the following sources:
Based on the 1981 MMSD Private Property Infiltration/Inflow Pilot Project, of the 4,500 homes in
Whitefish Bay, 3,500 have foundation drains connected to the sanitary sewer laterals (1999
SSES, page 3-2). In other words, foundation drains are said to contribute a significant amount
of wet weather inflow to sanitary sewers.
The General Report and the Village of Whitefish Bay Community Report from the 1981 SSES
provides data on historic problem areas, recognizes several deficiencies in the system, and
recommendations improvements.
Prior to commencing with the manhole inspection, flow monitoring, and smoke testing, a Survey
Plan was prepared, submitted to, and approved by the MMSD. The plan is a requirement for the
MMSD survey cost-sharing program for Sewer System Evaluation Surveys.
For flow monitoring, ten (10) ISCO 4150 Area-Velocity flow meters were installed for a 10-week
period from September 1, 1998 through November 17, 1998, and set to record average flows on
5-minute intervals. Based on the size and shape of the sewer, the flow rate was calculated by
the meter. During the ten-week monitoring period over 600,000 data points were collected.
The 1999 SSES utilized rain gauge data to correlate rainfall to sewer system inflow. An ISCO
674L Tipping Bucket Rain Gauge was installed on the roof the Village Hall to record rainfall and
set to record total rainfall on 5-minute periods.
The flow data was utilized to establish the base flow for each metered basin during periods
when there was no rainfall for three days prior to and during a week of dry weather. Weekend
flows were not used in the computation of the base flow. The base flow was then superimposed
over the metered data for verification.
Calculated dry weather infiltration rates showed that the greatest dry weather infiltration
measured in any one basin is 6,844 gpd/in-dia/mile. Significant infiltration begins at rates
greater than 10,000 gpd/in-dia/mile. The 1999 SSES found that, in all basins, the wet weather
flow in the sewer system is greater than the dry weather base flow. In fact, in most cases wet
weather flows are more than two times greater than the base flows. Since the basement backup
problems occur during rain events, it is clear that the major component of the problem in
Whitefish Bay is due to wet weather inflow. Accessible manholes in the Village were physically
inspected from the surface to identify and quantify infiltration/inflow (I/I) sources and the
structural condition. There are 942 manholes in the Village and, structurally speaking, less than
5 percent (45 manholes) of the manholes were found to be in poor condition.
Smoke testing was performed on the entire sanitary sewer system in the Village of Whitefish
Bay (204,000 lineal feet). The testing was performed utilizing a portable smoke blower to blow a
non-toxic smoke into the sanitary system. The surrounding area was then watched for the
presence of smoke, which would indicate a potential clear water entry point into the sanitary
system. The smoke source was investigated further to determine if the source was an entry
point. If so, the location and degree of smoke was documented and the source was videotaped.
During the smoke testing program 136 defects were found. A total of 44 catch basins were
found smoking, 22 (50 percent) of which were due to a bypass connection between the sanitary
and storm sewer systems.
The 1999 SSES inflow assignment (page 3-1, 3-2) suggests a slightly different assignment
distribution as compared to the 1981 SSES, but the general pattern is the same:
As stated earlier, the 1999 SSES found that, in all basins, the wet weather flow in the sewer
system is greater than the dry weather base flow. In fact, in most cases wet weather flows are
more than two times greater than the base flows. Since the basement backup problems occur
during rain events, it is clear that the major component of the problem in Whitefish Bay is due to
wet weather inflow.
The SSES has identified several sources of inflow into the sanitary sewer system:
• Surface connections of the sanitary sewer and the storm sewer systems (i.e.
manholes). The inflow through manholes is contributed through two main sources:
manhole covers and manhole frame to chimney interface. Please refer to section
3.1.1 of the SSES for manhole inflow assignment calculations.
• Connections to the sanitary sewer from homes in the Village. These connections are
classified as any connection that contributes storm water other than a defective
lateral. Connections of this type are foundation drain connections. The SSES has
found that 73 percent of the homes in the Village have foundation drains connected
to the sanitary sewer. A small fraction of these homes (80 homes) have sump pumps
connected to the foundation drain and an even smaller fraction of homes (five
homes) have downspouts connected (as discovered through smoke testing).
• A Village-wide dye water flooding study was performed starting February 2002.
Storm sewers having a 24-ich diameter or less located above or parallel to the
sanitary sewer system or the sanitary laterals were dye-water flooded. In those
sections of sanitary sewer that show positive dye water transference from the storm
sewer, the dye water cross connections were confirmed by observation of sanitary
sewer manholes.
Overall, it was found that most storm sewers leaked into either sanitary sewers or
more importantly, into the sanitary sewer laterals. Though it was not surprising that
storm sewers exfiltrated water, the extent of clear water allowed to inflow through
defects in laterals was significant. The dye water study report is included with this
Facility Plan as a supporting document.
• A complete viewing of all available sewer main video inspections (approximately 95
percent of the Village mains) was performed in February of 2002. The Village Public
Works crews perform routine video inspections of nearly the entire sanitary sewer
system on a regular basis. As part of this facility Plan, Village staff viewed the tapes
and noted the structural defects of various kinds, including sags, cracks, broken
pipes, holes in pipes, collapsed pipes, missing pipes, and defective or missing lateral
connections.
A significant amount of severe structural defects were identified. This effort strongly
and definitively refuted the statement regarding “no structural deficiency” finding in
the 1999 SSES. In fact, quite the opposite was seen, which brought the 1999 inflow
assignment into question.
The present structural condition of the sewers in the Village indicated that, in addition
to foundation drains, direct connections, and manhole defects, broken or missing
pipes and lateral connections should be considered as important inflow sources.
10-year rainfall
Location of Bypass HGL in Flow Direction
HGL in Sanitary
Storm
Sewer
Sewer
WB-20 at Lake Drive and Lake View 650.78 655.28 storm to sanitary
WB-1 at Montclaire and Kent 640.68 645.82 storm to sanitary
WB-6 at Montclaire and Bay Ridge 636.92 646.04 storm to sanitary
WB-7 at Montclaire and Santa Monica 647.05 643.35 sanitary to storm
WB-9 at Montclaire and Berkeley 648.55 639.65 sanitary to storm
WB-14 at Montclaire and Lake 650.50 633.57 sanitary to storm
WB-13 at Monrovia and Lake Drive 654.59 663.57 storm to sanitary
WB-19 at Diversey and Lancaster 635.08 637.79 storm to sanitary
WB-26 at Sheffield and Hampton 639.55 637.96 sanitary to storm
WB-18 at Newhall and Fairmount 656.91 619.39 sanitary to storm
WB-23 at Oakland and Lake 658.19 661.58 storm to sanitary
Wilshire and Cumberland 676.28 643.62 sanitary to storm
Newhall and Chateau 660.60 655.35 sanitary to storm
drains can be disconnected from sanitary sewer laterals, we should expect significant
reductions in wet weather inflows.
However, there is very little data correlating the number of foundation drain disconnection and a
corresponding and predictable reduction in clear water inflows. This is because the actual
contribution of each foundation drain is unknown and cannot be realistically estimated. In fact,
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc., is currently verifying conventional assumptions
regarding foundation drain disconnection by conducting a study in the Village of Shorewood.
Residents in the study area were encouraged to disconnect their foundation drains from the
sanitary sewers through financial incentives. Flow monitors in the sewer mains, as well as
sump pump meters were installed at approximately 40 percent of the homes in the study area.
Incidentally, the study area is served by a sewer system directly tributary to Basin 3 in Whitefish
Bay, meaning that conditions studied in this part of Shorewood are expected to be very similar
to conditions in Whitefish Bay.
In the Shorewood study, a strong correlation was noted between the reported sump pump
activity and the amount of monthly rainfall recorded at the Village rain gauge, i.e., the wetter
months have resulted in increased pumping from the sumps.
However, given the fact that the sewer flow response to rainfall is measured in tens of
thousands of gallons per day, and that the monthly sump pump activity amounts to thousands of
gallons per month, we conclude that other, as yet unidentified sources of wet weather inflow and
infiltration sources present a much bigger problem than the inflow from foundation drains. In
fact, subsequent dyed water flooding of storm sewers in the study area has confirmed that clear
water transference between the storm sewers and sanitary sewer laterals is almost immediate
in the area, and therefore, it was concluded that a very large portion of the wet weather flow
could be attributed to this source, rather than foundation drains.
Given the results of the Shorewood study, it seems unreasonable to assign a very large portion
of wet weather inflow to foundation drains, while ignoring structural defects and existing gravity
bypasses as potential inflow sources.
Structural defects allow ground water to leak into the sewers by presenting unobstructed
hydraulic paths for the ambient ground water. Since ground saturation closely follows rainfall,
the broken or missing pipes, disconnected lateral connections, etc. represent wet weather inflow
opportunities. In addition, structural defects play an important role in conveyance capacity of
sewers. Missing pipes, broken or collapsed sections impede flow and reduce performance.
Sags in pipes usually result in reduced hydraulic capacity and cause surcharging in the system.
We have shown that several of the existing gravity bypass connections to the storm sewers
have the potential of backflow into the sewers, thus completely defeating the purpose of having
these bypasses. These direct connections to the storm sewers represent a real and substantial
source of clear water inflow into the sanitary system.
Therefore, for the purposes of this Facility Plan, a more comprehensive list of inflow sources to
Whitefish Bay’s sanitary sewer system is presented as follows.
The Facility Plan considered several alternatives to reduce bypassing and basement backup
problems in Whitefish Bay. The previously completed Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Survey (SSES)
included some of these alternatives.
Storage
Pipe upsizing
Wet weather relief sewer construction
Foundation drain disconnection
Downspout extension
Manhole rehabilitation
Repair and rehabilitation of structural defects
Sanitary sewer lining
Sanitary lateral repair and rehabilitation
Storm sewer lining
Elimination of existing sanitary sewer bypasses
Storm sewer and drainage improvements
It should be noted that the solution alternatives include improvements in both the public and
private portions of the sanitary sewer collection system. While the structural defects in the
public sewers certainly contribute to the current I/I problem, the condition of the private laterals
and the existence of foundation drain connections are important concerns. Therefore, the
present Facility Plan seeks to combine improvements in both public and private sewer
components to arrive at a realistic inflow and infiltration reduction expectation. Section 4 of the
Plan describes each alternative in detail and presents the selected combination of
improvements for the Village.
Following the 1999 SSES and during the evaluation of the proposed improvements, the Village
of Whitefish Bay concluded that a reasonable protection level for residents would be against a
rainfall event with a 1 percent probability. The intent to provide this level of service was
presented to the Village Board and the public by the Village Engineer in March 2001 and all
subsequent evaluations of I/I reduction and sewer capacity management efforts targeted the
protection against a 1 percent probability (i.e., 100-year recurrence interval) rain event.
The present Facility Plan continues with this selected design objective of basement backup
protection during a 1 percent probability, 1-hour duration rainfall with a total depth of 2.64
inches. This means that, with the proposed improvements in place, the total flow (consisting of
sanitary sewer, infiltration, and inflow) in the system during the 100-year, 1-hour rain should be
handled in such a way as to not cause sewer backups.
During the 100-year, 1-hour rainfall, the hydraulic model estimates the presence of a total of
1,430,000 cubic feet or 10.7 million gallons of clear water in the system. The same hydraulic
model predicts that, during a 10-year, 1-hour duration rainfall (1.9 inches), the system will be
surcharged at some locations, but will perform without backups or bypassing. The hydraulic
analysis indicates that, during a 10-year, 1-hour rainfall, a total of 845,577 cubic feet or 6.325
million gallons of clear water move through the sanitary sewer system. In other words, there is
no need to completely eliminate all inflow and infiltration to attain the target service level: if the
inflow is limited to approximately 6.3 million gallons during a rain event (i.e., a 40 percent
reduction from current levels), we would minimize basement backups and significantly reduce
the frequency of sanitary sewer overflows.
Therefore, the present Facility Plan proposes to reduce wet weather inflow by 40 percent such
that the improved system’s performance during a 100-year rainfall is equivalent to the existing
system’s performance during a 10-year rain. The Facility Plan further proposes that, to
reasonable degree of engineering certainty, a 40 percent reduction in wet weather inflow is
attainable.
On the public side, we have identified a number of severe structural defects in the form of
broken and missing pipes, as well as a number of bypass locations where stormwater has
access to the sanitary sewers. By correcting these defects, the Facility Plan not only
addresses a basic infrastructure maintenance need, but also eliminates a great number of
gaping holes, each one of which is likely to be an important source of inflow into the system.
On the private side, we have found widespread evidence of clear water transference from
the storm sewers into the sanitary sewer laterals. Village-wide dye water flooding of storm
sewers indicated that defective sanitary laterals were an important and undisputed source of
stormwater inflow into the sewer system. While these defective laterals no doubt contribute
to dry and wet weather infiltration, the Facility Plan seeks to address the wet weather inflow
problem first.
Storage
This alternative consists of building, in-line or parallel with, the existing sanitary sewer. To lower
the hydraulic grade line significantly to reduce basement flooding, the storage would have to be
built below the existing sanitary system and pumped back into the system after the wet weather
event had subsided. Storage would have to be constructed throughout the Village. The 1999
SSES estimates that this alternative would have a probable cost of $17.7 million.
Storage was excluded from the recommended plan based on the basis of excessive cost, lack
of a free outlet, and no protection from MIS surcharging.
Pipe Upsizing
This alternative would consist of replacing the existing sewer system with a larger and deeper
system to lower the hydraulic grade line. To provide protection from backflow during MIS
surcharged conditions, a backflow prevention device would have to be installed at all Village
connections to the MIS. It should be noted that replacing the majority of pipes in the Village
would help reduce inflow and infiltration rates dramatically.
The 1999 SSES does not consider this to be a viable alternative, as it would be expected to cost
more than the storage alternative. The cost of replacing the majority of sewers in Whitefish Bay
with larger pipes can approach $30 million and since the Village’s discharge volume and rate
are limited by the MMSD, it is unlikely that such a grand project would even be possible to
undertake. Therefore, this alternative is not included in the Facility Plan.
discharged into the MIS in Estabrook Parkway at the southwestern comer of the Village. To
provide protection from MIS backflows during surcharged conditions, a backflow prevention
device would be installed at all Village connections to the MIS. Additionally, to provide free
outlet during events greater than the design rainfall, an outfall to the Milwaukee River would be
constructed at the southwestern comer of the Village.
This alternative is expected to cost $10 million (the 1999 SSES cost estimate of $4.8 million was
subsequently revised by the authors of the SSES). Though it provides protection from MIS
surcharging, this alternative requires the construction of a new sanitary sewer overflow to the
Milwaukee River. Furthermore, the relief sewer, as opposed to pipe upsizing, would not
address existing inflow and infiltration sources. Because of these reasons, this alternative was
not included in the Facility Plan.
In addition, there is very little data correlating the number of foundation drain disconnection and
a corresponding and predictable reduction in clear water inflows. This is because the actual
contribution of each foundation drain is unknown and cannot be realistically estimated. A
detailed description of a recent study supporting this argument has been presented in Section
2.5 of this Facility Plan.
This alternative was not considered for the recommended plan due to excessive cost and
unpredictable and uncertain benefits.
Downspout Extension
As an alternative to complete foundation drain disconnect, downspout extensions have
sometimes been proven to be effective in the elimination of inflow. Downspout extension
consists of extending the downspout a minimum of 6 to 8 feet from the foundation wall.
However, we note that the benefits of downspout extension diminish when dense and heavily
compacted backfill surrounds the foundation walls. As an established community where homes
are sometimes more than seven or eight decades old, it would be reasonable to expect that
most homes in Whitefish Bay are surrounded by heavily compacted soils, which may reduce the
effectiveness of the effort.
Manhole Rehabilitation
The rehabilitation and repair of the approximately 720 defective manholes identified during the
1999 SSES inspection will be undertaken. The total estimated cost for this alternative is $0.8
million, as detailed in Chapter 5 of the 1999 SSES.
It is estimated that approximately 5 percent of the total inflow would be removed from the
system through this component.
Because of its immediate benefit and very low cost, this alternative is recommended and
included in the Facility Plan. It is estimated that up to 5 percent of the total inflow would be
removed from the system through this component.
Construction of replacement sewers also helps in reducing the number of manholes in the
system because current design practice and construction methods allow less frequent use of
manholes than was the case when the Village’s sewers were originally built. Fewer manholes
help fight I/I by reducing the number of locations ground and surface water can be introduced
into the system. Though the use of fewer manholes is not a specific component of the Facility
Plan, the concept will be applied in each case of sanitary main replacement.
The cost evaluation of sanitary pipe replacement includes the expected list of restoration items
normally encountered during utility construction:
The following table represents the estimates of lineal feet of replacement per basin as shown
through the various studies.
It is estimated that approximately 10 to 20 percent of the wet weather flow would be removed
from the system through sewer lining.
In addition to inflow potential, it is generally accepted that older laterals like the ones found in
Whitefish Bay are also susceptible to collapse or root intrusions, thereby presenting service
problems for resident even during dry weather periods. In other words, the existence of
defective laterals is a problem for both the public system and the individual homeowner.
We therefore recommend that lateral repairs be included in all sanitary sewer replacement
projects. Therefore, repairs and rehabilitation of the portion of the lateral between the sewer
main and the property line is included in this Facility Plan.
The following table presents and estimate of the number of laterals that would be replaced as
part of the public sewer main replacement component of the Plan.
It is estimated that approximately 15 to 20 percent of the total inflow would be removed from the
system through private lateral repairs. In addition to the private lateral rehabilitation and
replacement, the Facility Plan also includes consideration of private lateral repairs where storm
sewers have been observed to leak into defective laterals.
We have previously shown that clear water transference between the storm sewers and
defective laterals presents a large problem for the Village. To address this situation, we
propose to rehabilitate private laterals in those areas where high transference was found even if
the sanitary sewers are not recommended for replacement. In other words, we are proposing a
second group of private lateral rehabilitation in addition to the laterals addressed as part of
public main replacement projects. It is anticipated that this second group of private laterals
would be lined using remote control technology, and the main objective would be to seal the
portion of the lateral in the immediate vicinity of the leaking storm sewer crossing.
Before including the second group of private laterals in the Facility Plan, we must first evaluate
the effectiveness of preventing clear water transference between storm sewers and private
laterals through the sealing of storm sewers. This approach is already under investigation by
the Village and MMSD, and though it does not address the structural defects in the private
laterals, some near term benefits may be obtained by lining storm sewers to prevent exfiltration
of clear water.
In locations where high water transference occurs, this method may be effective in the short
term. However storm sewer lining does not address the continuing inflow and infiltration
problems in the sanitary sewers and provides only a limited solution to the Village’s
predicament.
The long-term inflow and infiltration reduction that can be obtained through storm sewer lining is
presently unknown, however, preventing exfiltration from the storm sewers has so far been
considered as an effective alternative to private sanitary laterals that transfer the leaking water
into the sanitary sewers. In addition, the Village has already identified drainage improvement
needs, and the planned capacity increases and drainage improvements will address most of the
leaking storm sewers, thereby reducing the need for storm sewer lining. More information on
the extent of drainage improvements, and the potential inflow and infiltration benefits is
presented in the following sections of this Facility Plan.
The estimated cost of bypass elimination is $5,000 per location. For planning purposes, the
Facility Plan includes provisions to remove all existing bypasses for the estimated cost of
$65,000 over the course of plan implementation period.
Because of its immediate benefit and low cost, this alternative is recommended and included in
the Facility Plan. Based on hydraulic modeling of the system, it is estimated that approximately
5 percent of the total inflow would be removed from the system through this component.
The close relationship between the storm sewers system and defective laterals has been
demonstrated and noted by the Village. In addition, practices such as down spout extension put
increased burdens on the storm drainage system. To this end, the Village continues to pursue
the improvements identified in the comprehensive stormwater management plan.
Storm sewer capacity and drainage improvement is included in this Facility Plan because the
relationship between poor drainage, leaking storm sewers, and Clearwater transference into the
sanitary sewers has clearly been established. The Village is therefore proposing to include
storm sewer replacement and improvement projects as part of the overall effort to reduce and
control wet weather flows in the sanitary sewer system.
The following table presents the Village blocks and intersections where the hydraulic capacity of
the storm sewer system is exceeded during the 10-year rainfall event.
TOTAL $1,470,000.00
Option 1: I/I Reduction Benefits (repair and rehabilitation of private sanitary laterals)
Estimated I/I
Option 1 Facility Plan Component Reduction
Benefit
Private Lateral Repair with (1) pipe replacement, and (2) rehabilitation of private
laterals where stormwater transference has been found. Total estimated laterals 15% to 20%
to be repaired, replaced or rehabilitated: 1,550
Sanitary Sewer Replacement 5% to 10%
Sanitary Sewer Lining 10% to 20%
Storm Sewer Replacement 5%
Elimination of Bypasses 5%
Manhole Rehabilitation 5%
Miscellaneous Repairs and Rehabilitation 0% to 5%
TOTAL 45% to 70%
As an alternative to rehabilitating private laterals where stormwater leakage has been found,
lining the storm sewers is considered as an alternative. Though this method does not address
the structural defects in private laterals, it can nevertheless help reduce the amount of
stormwater transference between the storm sewers and the sanitary sewers.
Option 2: I/I Reduction Benefits (storm sewer lining and limited private sanitary sewer lateral repairs)
Estimated I/I
Option 2 Facility Plan Component Reduction
Benefit
Private Lateral Repair with pipe replacement only. Total estimated laterals to be
5% to 10%
repaired, replaced or rehabilitated: 680
Sanitary Sewer Replacement 5% to 10%
Sanitary Sewer Lining 10% to 20%
Storm Sewer Replacement 5%
Storm Sewer Lining 5% to 10%
Elimination of Bypasses 5%
Manhole Rehabilitation 5%
Miscellaneous Repairs and Rehabilitation 0% to 5%
TOTAL 40% to 70%
Option 2 offers a slightly scaled back approach that takes advantage of recent findings
regarding the benefits of storm sewer lining to prevent clear water leakage into the private
sanitary sewer laterals. However, we do note that the Village already has a storm sewer and
drainage improvement plan in place, and the lining of storm sewers in Option 2 may interfere
with recommended storm sewer improvement projects. The economic analysis of Option 2 is
presented below.
The following matrix compares the selected alternatives against the rejected alternatives, and
clearly shows the cost effectiveness of the measures included in the Facility Plan. The matrix
indicates that the approach proposed in this Facility Plan meets the expectations of the Village,
MMSD and the Department of Natural Resources: the removal of known inflow sources reduces
basement backup risks, seeks to eliminate the need for sewer overflow, and does not increase
flows discharged to the MMSD MIS.
In addition, the proposed approach brings the Village sewer infrastructure towards a state of
reasonably good repair so that future maintenance needs are predictable and economical.
Among all other options, the proposed approach is the only one that accomplishes all goals
without drawbacks, and for the lowest total cost.
Manhole Contingencies,
Sanitary Sewer Storm Sewer Sanitary Sewer Private Lateral Rehabilitation Engineering,
Basin Cost per Basin
Replacement Replacement Lining repair and other Survey,
repairs Inspection
WB1 $103,600 $ 55,000 $76,650 $59,200 $ 115,875 $ 372,500 $782,825.00
WB2 $186,200 $ 285,000 $19,950 $146,400 $ 115,875 $ 372,500 $1,125,925.00
WB3 $188,300 $ 570,000 $38,850 $162,600 $ 115,875 $ 372,500 $1,448,125.00
WB4 $141,400 $ 80,000 $194,250 $130,800 $ 115,875 $ 372,500 $1,034,825.00
WB5 $198,800 $ 250,000 $18,550 $113,600 $ 115,875 $ 372,500 $1,069,325.00
WB6 $529,900 $ 50,000 $75,250 $317,800 $ 115,875 $ 372,500 $1,461,325.00
WB7 $576,100 $ 150,000 $114,800 $349,200 $ 115,875 $ 372,500 $1,678,475.00
WB8 $443,100 $ 30,000 $18,550 $2,253,200 $ 115,875 $ 372,500 $3,233,225.00
The following table includes the ranking of the eight basins as a function of wet weather I/I. In
addition to the problem severity ranking, the improvements proposed in each basin were also
determined, so that an index of problem per implementation cost can be developed.
The cost index for each basin is computed as follows: the total cost of implementation in each
basin is normalized by peak flow ratios. The number thus obtained indicates the cost per
multiple of daily base flow, which represents the cost of removing each multiple of the base flow
from the daily wet weather flow peak. The lower the number, the more cost effective it is to
remove each multiple of the daily base flow from the system.
The following table summarizes the ranking of basin implementation costs by total construction
cost, by maximum flow ratio, and cost per multiple of daily base flow. We see that the most cost
effective ranking is very similar to the maximum flow ratio ranking. We therefore recommend
that the Facility Plan be implemented in the order presented in the following table.
Year 3
WB8 $3,233,225.00 8.9 4 $ 363,300 7
$ 3.23 M
Year 4
WB6 $1,461,325.00 7.1 6 $ 205,800 6
$ 1.46M
Year 5
WB7 $1,678,475.00 4.6 8 $ 364,900 8
$ 1.68 M
The last column of the table presents the timeline for implementation following the five-year plan
preferred by the Village. This timeline is chosen because it is compatible with other
infrastructure maintenance activities in Whitefish Bay.