HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix D2 Edina_South_Sanitary_Sewer_Capacity_Evaluation_-_20180820
Barr Engineering Co. 4300 MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com
Technical Memorandum
To: Ross Bintner– City of Edina From: Michael McKinney, Brandon Barnes, and Sarah Stratton – Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Edina South Sanitary Sewer Capacity Evaluation Date: August 17, 2018 Project: 23271653.00 c: Brian LeMon – Barr Engineering Co.
The purpose of this memo is to provide the City of Edina (City) with documentation of the results of Barr’s
analysis of the impact of planned redevelopment in the southwest portion of the City on its sanitary sewer
system. Redevelopment within the city and portions of the City of Bloomington (Bloomington) which
drain to Edina sanitary sewer are shown in Figure 1. The City is interested in knowing if existing
infrastructure is capable of handling the projected increase in flows.
With redevelopment comes the need to evaluate and assess the capability of the existing sanitary sewer
system to meet changing loads. This includes pipes near the redeveloping properties as well as those
downstream, all the way to the municipal boundary. The City maintains their municipal XP-SWMM
sanitary sewer model to reflect redevelopment within the City to evaluate if, when, and where
modifications to the sanitary sewer system are required to meet current and future demands.
The City identified several areas in Edina and Bloomington that are redeveloping. Bloomington provided
anticipated Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) values for those redevelopment parcels located in
Bloomington but served by Edina sanitary sewer infrastructure (Figure 1). The City provided information
relative to those redeveloping parcels located within Edina.
Barr estimated the magnitude of future inflows to the sanitary system based on the building areas and
types of redevelopment provided by the City and Bloomington. Estimated inflows used to update the
sanitary sewer model reflect existing inflow and planned development / redevelopment within Edina and
the contributing portions of Bloomington.
This memorandum provides a summary of information provided by the cities, methodology used to
update the model, and resulting available system capacity. The memorandum is divided into the
following sections:
• Demand Planning
• Scenario Modeling Results
• Conclusions and Recommendations
LincolnApartments
EdinaHighSchool
Cahill/70th
Creek Ridge/78th(Bloomington)456731
4567158
456717
456717
456721
45673
4567158
456731
456720
456734
456728
456753
100
7
6262
£¤169
£¤169
£¤212
§¨¦494
MCES-129
LS-06
LS-21
LS-20
LS-17
LS-18
LS-16
LS-15
LS-14
LS-23
LS-12
LS-03
LS-22
LS-13
EDENPRAIRIE
MINNEAPOLIS
SAINTLOUIS PARK
EDINA
HOPKINS
BLOOMINGTON
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2018-08-07 12:45 File: \\barr.com\gis\Client\Edina\Projects\South_Sanitary_23271653\Maps\Report\Figure 1 - Redevelopment Locations.mxd User: RCS2
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
!;N REDEVELOPMENT LOCATIONSCity of Edina, MN
FIGURE 1
"/MCES Meter Location
")Lift Station
Sanitary Sewer Pipes
Redevelopment Areas
MCES Metershed
Municipal Boundary
To: Ross Bintner– City of Edina From: Michael McKinney, Brandon Barnes, and Sarah Stratton – Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Edina South Sanitary Sewer Capacity Evaluation Date: August 17, 2018 Page: 3
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271653 Edina South Sanitary Sewer Cap\WorkFiles\04 - Memo\Edina South Sanitary Sewer Capacity Evaluation - 20180820.docx
1.0 Demand Planning
For the purposes of demand planning, it was assumed that sewage inflows from all areas other than those
identified as redeveloping in Figure 1 would remain at existing conditions. (i.e., only redevelopment in the
four areas highlighted in Figure 1 is considered in this analysis). Barr evaluated available capacity for three
levels of development density: low-, medium-, and high-density redevelopment. To evaluate the impact of
redevelopment, Barr developed and evaluated model inflows for the four model scenarios shown below:
1. Scenario 1 – Existing Conditions: Edina XP-SWMM existing conditions model with no updated
inflow data (Barr, 2017).
2. Scenario 2 – Low-Density Redevelopment: Scenario 1 with estimated inflow from anticipated
redevelopment (low-density redevelopment).
3. Scenario 3 – Medium-Density Redevelopment: Scenario 1 with estimated inflow from
anticipated redevelopment (medium-density redevelopment).
4. Scenario 4 – High-Density Redevelopment: Scenario 1 with estimated inflow from anticipated
redevelopment (high-density redevelopment).
The following subsections document existing inflow and demand planning information provided by the
cities of Edina and Bloomington and describe how data was incorporated into the XP-SWMM model.
1.1 Demand Planning Information from the City of Edina
The City identified three areas expected to redevelop within its city limits as shown in Figure 1: Lincoln
Apartments, Edina High School, and the commercial and retail area southeast of the intersection of Cahill
Road and West 70th Street (Cahill / 70th). Note that the fourth area identified on Figure 1 is in Bloomington
and is addressed later in this subsection. The City also provided inflow estimates for the high-density
redevelopment scenario for each area as summarized in Table 1. Specifically, the City provided the
estimated high-density Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) for Lincoln Apartments and Edina High School,
and an estimate of the living units per acre for parcels in the Cahill / 70th redevelopment area. Based on
input from the City, Barr developed the low-density and medium-density inflow estimates outlined in
Table 1. Based on the assumptions outlined in Table 1, final inflow values assigned to each redevelopment
parcel for low-, medium-, and high-density redevelopment scenarios are summarized in Table 3.
Redevelopment scenarios evaluated in this memorandum only consider redevelopment within the four
areas highlighted in Figure 1. Other areas within the City are redeveloping and will ultimately further
impact some of the pipe and lift station capacities in the MCES-129 sewershed. A combined analysis of
the impacts of the redevelopment considered here occurring along with other redevelopment is not
within the scope of this analysis but should be considered as those areas redevelop.
To: Ross Bintner– City of Edina From: Michael McKinney, Brandon Barnes, and Sarah Stratton – Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Edina South Sanitary Sewer Capacity Evaluation Date: August 17, 2018 Page: 4
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271653 Edina South Sanitary Sewer Cap\WorkFiles\04 - Memo\Edina South Sanitary Sewer Capacity Evaluation - 20180820.docx
Table 1 Redevelopment inflow assumptions for Edina redevelopment areas.
Edina Redevelopment
Area Parcel(s)
Redevelopment Assumption
Low-Density Medium-Density High-Density
Lincoln Apartments1 053-3111721320002 107 SAC 160.5 SAC 214 SAC
Edina High School1 053-0511621230001 34 SAC 51 SAC 68 SAC
Cahill/70th2 Multiple Parcels (18) 30 Units / Acre 50 Units / Acre 60 Units / Acre
1 High-Density average daily SAC units (SAC unit = 274 gallons per day) were provided by the City. Medium-density estimates
were calculated as 75% of the high-density value, and low-density estimates were calculated as 50% of the high density value.
2 The low-, medium, and high-density values of 30, 50, and 60 units / acre (where “units” are living units and "acre" is the area of
the parcel) were provided by the City for parcels in the Cahill / 70th redevelopment area. Final daily inflow values for each parcel
were calculated as follows: (parcel area, acre) x (units / acre) x (2.5 residents per unit) x (75 gpd / resident). These assumptions
are consistent with daily usage assumptions outlined in the Southeast Edina Sanitary Sewer study (Barr, 2017).
1.2 Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) values from the City of Bloomington
Bloomington identified and provided Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) values for existing parcels along
West 78th Street that are connected to Edina sanitary sewer infrastructure. For the majority of these
parcels, the City of Edina had previously provided existing metered inflow data which was incorporated
into 2016-2017 model development (Barr, 2017). One parcel included in the data submittal had not been
developed prior to the monitoring period evaluated in the previous City of Edina modeling effort, but
does now contribute flow to Edina. For this reason, the SAC value for this property provided by
Bloomington was added to the existing conditions model (Scenario 1) as outlined in Table 3.
1.3 Demand Planning Information from the City of Bloomington
Bloomington identified three parcels where redevelopment is expected along Creek Ridge Circle and West
78th Street (Creek Ridge / 78th) that will contribute increased flow and are connected to Edina sanitary
sewer infrastructure (Figure 1). Bloomington provided high-density redevelopment values for each. Based
on input from the City, Barr developed the low-density and medium-density inflow estimates in Table 2.
Final inflow values assigned to each redevelopment parcel for low-, medium-, and high-density
redevelopment scenarios are summarized in Table 3.
Table 2 Redevelopment inflow assumptions for Bloomington redevelopment areas.
Bloomington
Redevelopment Area Parcel
Redevelopment Assumption
Low-Density Medium-Density High-Density
Creek Ridge / 78th1
053-1711621210006 1.9 SAC 2.9 SAC 3.8 SAC
053-1711621210004 45.5 SAC 68.2 SAC 90.9 SAC
053-1711621210004 8.6 SAC 12.8 SAC 17.1 SAC
1 High-Density average daily SAC units (SAC unit = 274 gallons per day) were provided by the City of Bloomington. Medium-
density estimates were calculated as 75% of the high-density value, and low-density estimates were calculated as 50% of the
high density value.
To: Ross Bintner– City of Edina From: Michael McKinney, Brandon Barnes, and Sarah Stratton – Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Edina South Sanitary Sewer Capacity Evaluation Date: August 17, 2018 Page: 5
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271653 Edina South Sanitary Sewer Cap\WorkFiles\04 - Memo\Edina South Sanitary Sewer Capacity Evaluation - 20180820.docx
1.4 Final Inflows for Scenario Models
Various scenarios for existing and proposed inflow values assigned to parcels in the redevelopment areas
are summarized in Table 3. Daily inflow values shown in Table 3 were used to evaluate the impact on the
sanitary system.
To: Ross Bintner– City of Edina From: Michael McKinney, Brandon Barnes, and Sarah Stratton – Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Edina South Sanitary Sewer Capacity Evaluation Date: August 17, 2018 Page: 6
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271653 Edina South Sanitary Sewer Cap\WorkFiles\04 - Memo\Edina South Sanitary Sewer Capacity Evaluation - 20180820.docx
Table 3 Final Redevelopment Inflow Values.
Municipality Development Area Parcel(s) Address
Manhole
ID
Existing
Address
Inflow
(gpd)
Redevelopment Estimate Flow Rate (gpd)1,2 Final Flow Rate for Model (gpd)
Low-Density Medium-Density High-Density
Scenario 1:
Existing
Conditions
Scenario 2:
Low-Density
Scenario 3:
Medium-Density
Scenario 4:
High-Density
Edina Lincoln Apartments 053-3111721320002 5901 STATE HWY NO 169 MH-2274 0 29,318 43,977 58,636 0 29,318 43,977 58,636
Edina High School 053-0511621230001 6754 VALLEY VIEW RD MH-2474 7,935 9,316 13,974 18,632 7,935 17,251 21,909 26,567
Cahill/70th 053-0811621110005 5415 70TH ST W MH-1201 1,555 4,453 7,422 8,907 1,555 4,453 7,422 8,907
053-0811621110010 7017 AMUNDSON AVE MH-1201 935 7,275 12,126 14,551 935 7,275 12,126 14,551
053-0811621110019 7070 AMUNDSON AVE MH-1202 956 5,287 8,811 10,573 956 5,287 8,811 10,573
053-0811621110020 7100 AMUNDSON AVE MH-1203 1,016 6,381 10,635 12,761 1,016 6,381 10,635 12,761
053-0811621110024 7001 CAHILL RD MH-1180 779 4,978 8,297 9,957 779 4,978 8,297 9,957
053-0511621440001 5432 70TH ST W MH-3440 3,618 3,351 5,585 6,702 3,618 3,351 5,585 6,702
053-0511621440002 24 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED MH-3440 0 724 1,206 1,448 0 724 1,206 1,448
053-0511621440038 24 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED MH-3443 0 2,097 3,495 4,194 0 2,097 3,495 4,194
053-0511621440050 5420 70TH ST W MH-3442 15 1,962 3,269 3,923 15 1,962 3,269 3,923
053-0811621110003 24 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED MH-1195 0 1,292 2,153 2,583 0 1,292 2,153 2,583
053-0811621110004 5416 70TH ST W MH-3442 1,322 3,863 6,438 7,725 1,322 3,863 6,438 7,725
053-0811621110008 24 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED MH-1201 0 8,751 14,584 17,501 0 8,751 14,584 17,501
053-0811621110009 7075 AMUNDSON AVE MH-1201 29,052 5,702 9,503 11,404 29,052 5,702 9,503 11,404
053-0811621110017 24 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED MH-3443 0 527 879 1,055 0 527 879 1,055
053-0811621110018 5400 70TH ST W MH-3443 2,796 8,007 13,346 16,015 2,796 8,007 13,346 16,015
053-0811621110021 7079 AMUNDSON AVE MH-1202 0 1,084 1,806 2,168 0 1,084 1,806 2,168
053-0811621110022 7101 AMUNDSON AVE MH-1195 1,127 20,523 34,204 41,045 1,127 20,523 34,204 41,045
053-0811621110023 7125 CAHILL RD MH-1195 0 22,382 37,303 44,764 0 22,382 37,303 44,764
Bloomington Creek Ridge/78th 053-1711621210006 7807 CREEKRIDGE CIR MH-3032 4,6583 521 781 1,041 4,658 5,179 5,439 5,699
053-1711621210004 6701 78TH ST W MH-3033 0 12,453 18,680 24,907 0 12,453 18,680 24,907
053-1711621210004 6701 78TH ST W MH-3033 0 2,343 3,514 4,685 0 2,343 3,514 4,685
1 Redevelopment flow rate estimates are the estimated additional inflow to the parcel and do not also include the existing flow rate.
2 Final flow rate for model includes existing inflow for all development areas with the exception of Cahill / 70th. For Cahill / 70th, redevelopment inflows replace existing inflows.
3 Existing flow rate from this parcel did not exist during 2016-2017 modeling (Barr, 2017) because this parcel had not yet been developed. For this reason, the Bloomington SAC was included to represent existing flow from this development.
To: Ross Bintner– City of Edina From: Michael McKinney, Brandon Barnes, and Sarah Stratton – Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Edina South Sanitary Sewer Capacity Evaluation Date: August 17, 2018 Page: 7
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271653 Edina South Sanitary Sewer Cap\WorkFiles\04 - Memo\Edina South Sanitary Sewer Capacity Evaluation - 20180820.docx
2.0 Scenario Modeling Results
Four simulations were completed based on the scenarios discussed in Section 1.0. Inflows to the model
were updated for each scenario based on the data shown in Table 3. The resulting impacts to the City
sanitary system were evaluated for each of the redevelopment scenarios including those with updated
inflows from Bloomington.
Remaining available pipe capacity (%) for the five scenarios are shown in Figure 2 through Figure 5. Peak
flow rates for each scenario were calculated by peaking the average daily flow rate by the appropriate
MCES peaking factor (Metropolitan Council, 2016), corrected to not peak (a) the portion of average daily
flow attributed to inflow and infiltration (I/I), and (b) average outflow from two FilmTec facilities (located
at 5400 Dewey Hill Road and 7200 Ohms Lane). Flow rates from the FilmTec facilities discharge at a near
constant outflow rate and these outflow rates would not be impacted by a peak I/I event. For this reason,
flow rates from the facilities were not peaked.
The remaining available capacity (%) was then calculated by comparing the corrected peak flow rate to
the full flow rate of the pipe calculated using the Manning Equation. The remaining SAC units available in
each pipe segment are shown in Figure 6 through Figure 9.
Table 4 shows results from the existing condition model simulation and each of the three redevelopment
inflow simulations, and provides a summary of pipe capacity for each scenario.
Table 4 Edina South Sanitary Sewer Capacity Evaluation Summary.
Scenario
Redevelopment
Inflow1 (SAC)
Percentage (Number) of Pipes Greater Than…2
50%
Capacity
60%
Capacity
70%
Capacity
80%
Capacity
90%
Capacity
100%
Capacity
Scenario 1:
Existing Conditions -- 5.8%
(212)
4.5%
(163)
3.2%
(118)
1.8%
(65)
1.5%
(55)
1.2%
(43)
Scenario 2:
Low-Density
Redevelopment
436 6.1%
(223)
4.9%
(179)
3.9%
(143)
2.5%
(91)
1.6%
(58)
1.3%
(49)
Scenario 3:
Medium-Density
Redevelopment
799 6.3%
(228)
5.3%
(192)
4.1%
(148)
2.9%
(107)
1.7%
(63)
1.4%
(51)
Scenario 4:
High-Density
Redevelopment
1,029 6.3%
(229)
5.4%
(198)
4.4%
(160)
3.2%
(118)
2.1%
(76)
1.6%
(58)
1 Total redevelopment inflow added to the existing conditions model (Scenario 1).
2 Average pipe capacity utilized (%) of all pipes in the Southwestern Edina XP-SWMM model (3,634 pipe segments modeled).
%,
%,
LincolnApartments
EdinaHighSchool
Cahill/70th
Creek Ridge/78th(Bloomington)456731
4567158
456717
456717
456721
45673
4567158
456731
456720
456734
456728
456753
100
7
6262
£¤169
£¤169
£¤212
§¨¦494
MCES-129
LS-06
LS-21
LS-20
LS-17
LS-18
LS-16
LS-15
LS-14
LS-23
LS-12
LS-03
LS-22
LS-13
EDENPR AIR IE
MINNEAPOLIS
SAINTLOUIS PAR K
EDINA
HOPKINS
BLOOMINGTON
5400 DeweyHill Rd
7200 OhmsLane
Barr Foote r: ArcGIS 10.6, 2018-08-13 07:19 File : \\barr.com \g is\Clie nt\Edina\Proje cts \South_Sanitary_23271653\Maps \R e port\Fig ure 2 - Sce nario 1 - Existing Conditions Pipe Capacity Pe rce nt Us e d.m xd Us e r: R CS2
0 1,000 2,000
Fe e t
!;N SCENAR IO 1:EXISTING CONDITIONSPIPE CAPACITY PER CENT USED City of Edina, MN
FIGUR E 2
"/MCES Me te r Location
")Lift Station
R e de ve lopm e nt Are as
MCES Me te rs he d
Municipal Boundary
Pipe Capacity Percent Used
Le s s than 50%
Gre ate r than 50%
Gre ate r than 60%
Gre ate r than 70%
Gre ate r than 80%
Gre ate r than 90%
Gre ate r than 100%
Note s :• Thicke r pipe s are downs tre am fromre de ve lopm e nt are as• Pipe Capacity is calculate d as the MCESpe ak flow rate divide d by the full pipe flowrate calculate d us ing the Manning ’s Equation• MCES pe aking factors we re not applie d toflow from Film Te c facilitie s at 7200 Ohm s Lnand 5400 De we y Hill R d
%,
%,
LincolnApartments
EdinaHighSchool
Cahill/70th
Creek Ridge/78th(Bloomington)456731
4567158
456717
456717
456721
45673
4567158
456731
456720
456734
456728
456753
100
7
6262
£¤169
£¤169
£¤212
§¨¦494
MCES-129
LS-06
LS-21
LS-20
LS-17
LS-18
LS-16
LS-15
LS-14
LS-23
LS-12
LS-03
LS-22
LS-13
EDENPR AIR IE
MINNEAPOLIS
SAINTLOUIS PAR K
EDINA
HOPKINS
BLOOMINGTON
5400 DeweyHill Rd
7200 OhmsLane
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2018-08-21 08:43 File: \\barr.com \gis\Client\Ed ina\Projects\South_Sanitary_23271653\Maps\R eport\Figure 3 - Scenario 2 - Low-Density R ed evelopm ent Pipe Capacity Percent Used .m xd User: R CS2
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
!;N"/MCES Meter Location
")Lift Station
R ed evelopm ent Areas
MCES Metershed
Municipal Bound ary
Pipe Capacity Percent Used
Less than 50%
Greater than 50%
Greater than 60%
Greater than 70%
Greater than 80%
Greater than 90%
Greater than 100%
SCENAR IO 2:LOW-DENSITY R EDEVELOPMENTPIPE CAPACITY PER CENT USED City of Ed ina, MN
FIGUR E 3
Notes:• Thicker pipes are d ownstream fromred evelopm ent areas• Pipe Capacity is calculated as the MCESpeak flow rate d ivid ed by the full pipe flowrate calculated using the Manning’s Equation• MCES peaking factors were not applied toflow from Film Tec facilities at 7200 Ohm s Lnand 5400 Dewey Hill R d
%,
%,
LincolnApartments
EdinaHighSchool
Cahill/70th
Creek Ridge/78th(Bloomington)456731
4567158
456717
456717
456721
45673
4567158
456731
456720
456734
456728
456753
100
7
6262
£¤169
£¤169
£¤212
§¨¦494
MCES-129
LS-06
LS-21
LS-20
LS-17
LS-18
LS-16
LS-15
LS-14
LS-23
LS-12
LS-03
LS-22
LS-13
EDENPR AIR IE
MINNEAPOLIS
SAINTLOUIS PAR K
EDINA
HOPKINS
BLOOMINGTON
5400 DeweyHill Rd
7200 OhmsLane
Barr Foote r: ArcGIS 10.6, 2018-08-21 08:44 File : \\barr.com \g is\Clie nt\Edina\Proje cts \South_Sanitary_23271653\Maps \R e port\Fig ure 4 - Sce nario 3 - Me dium -De nsity R e de ve lopm e nt Pipe Capacity Pe rce nt Us e d.m xd Us e r: R CS2
Pipe Capacity Percent Used
Le s s than 50%
Gre ate r than 50%
Gre ate r than 60%
Gre ate r than 70%
Gre ate r than 80%
Gre ate r than 90%
Gre ate r than 100%
!;N
0 1,000 2,000
Fe e t
SCENAR IO 3:MEDIUM-DENSITY R EDEVELOPMENTPIPE CAPACITY PER CENT USED City of Edina, MN
FIGUR E 4
"/MCES Me te r Location
")Lift Station
R e de ve lopm e nt Are as
MCES Me te rs he d
Municipal Boundary
Note s :• Thicke r pipe s are downs tre am fromre de ve lopm e nt are as• Pipe Capacity is calculate d as the MCESpe ak flow rate divide d by the full pipe flowrate calculate d us ing the Manning ’s Equation• MCES pe aking factors we re not applie d toflow from Film Te c facilitie s at 7200 Ohm s Lnand 5400 De we y Hill R d
%,
%,
LincolnApartments
EdinaHighSchool
Cahill/70th
Creek Ridge/78th(Bloomington)456731
4567158
456717
456717
456721
45673
4567158
456731
456720
456734
456728
456753
100
7
6262
£¤169
£¤169
£¤212
§¨¦494
MCES-129
LS-06
LS-21
LS-20
LS-17
LS-18
LS-16
LS-15
LS-14
LS-23
LS-12
LS-03
LS-22
LS-13
EDENPR AIR IE
MINNEAPOLIS
SAINTLOUIS PAR K
EDINA
HOPKINS
BLOOMINGTON
5400 DeweyHill Rd
7200 OhmsLane
Barr Foote r: ArcGIS 10.6, 2018-08-21 08:44 File : \\barr.com \g is\Clie nt\Edina\Proje cts \South_Sanitary_23271653\Maps \R e port\Fig ure 5 - Sce nario 4 - Hig h-De nsity R e de ve lopm e nt Pipe Capacity Pe rce nt Us e d.m xd Us e r: R CS2
0 1,000 2,000
Fe e t
!;N"/MCES Me te r Location
")Lift Station
R e de ve lopm e nt Are as
MCES Me te rs he d
Municipal Boundary
Pipe Capacity Percent Used
Le s s than 50%
Gre ate r than 50%
Gre ate r than 60%
Gre ate r than 70%
Gre ate r than 80%
Gre ate r than 90%
Gre ate r than 100%
SCENAR IO 4:HIGH-DENSITY R EDEVELOPMENTPIPE CAPACITY PER CENT USED City of Edina, MN
FIGUR E 5
Note s :• Thicke r pipe s are downs tre am fromre de ve lopm e nt are as• Pipe Capacity is calculate d as the MCESpe ak flow rate divide d by the full pipe flowrate calculate d us ing the Manning ’s Equation• MCES pe aking factors we re not applie d toflow from Film Te c facilitie s at 7200 Ohm s Lnand 5400 De we y Hill R d
%,
%,
LincolnApartments
EdinaHighSchool
Cahill/70th
Creek Ridge/78th(Bloomington)456731
4567158
456717
456717
456721
45673
4567158
456731
456720
456734
456728
456753
100
7
6262
£¤169
£¤169
£¤212
§¨¦494
MCES-129
LS-06
LS-21
LS-20
LS-17
LS-18
LS-16
LS-15
LS-14
LS-23
LS-12
LS-03
LS-22
LS-13
EDENPRAIRIE
MINNEAPOLIS
SAINTLOUIS PARK
EDINA
HOPKINS
BLOOMINGTON
5400Dewey Hill Rd
7200 OhmsLane
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2018-08-21 08:48 File: \\barr.com\gis\Client\Edina\Projects\South_Sanitary_23271653\Maps\Report\Figure 6 - Scenario 1 - Existing Conditions Pipe Capacity Remaining (SAC).mxd User: RCS2
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
!;N"/MCES Meter Location
")Lift Station
Redevelopment Areas
MCES Metershed
Municipal Boundary
Pipe Capacity Remaining (SAC)
0
1-250
251-500
501-750
751-1000
1001-1500
1501-2000
2001-2500
2501-3000
3001-4000
4001-5000
5001-6000
6001-7000
7001-8000
8001-9000
>9001
Notes: Thicker pipes aredownstream fromredevelopment areas.MCES peaking factorswere not applied toflow from FilmTecfacilities at 7200 Ohms Lnand 5400 Dewey Hill Rd
SCENARIO 1:EXISTING CONDITIONSPIPE CAPACITY REMAINING (SAC)City of Edina, MN
FIGURE 6
%,
%,
LincolnApartments
EdinaHighSchool
Cahill/70th
Creek Ridge/78th(Bloomington)456731
4567158
456717
456717
456721
45673
4567158
456731
456720
456734
456728
456753
100
7
6262
£¤169
£¤169
£¤212
§¨¦494
MCES-129
LS-06
LS-21
LS-20
LS-17
LS-18
LS-16
LS-15
LS-14
LS-23
LS-12
LS-03
LS-22
LS-13
EDENPRAIRIE
MINNEAPOLIS
SAINTLOUIS PARK
EDINA
HOPKINS
BLOOMINGTON
5400Dewey Hill Rd
7200 OhmsLane
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2018-08-13 07:45 File: \\barr.com\gis\Client\Edina\Projects\South_Sanitary_23271653\Maps\Report\Figure 7 - Scenario 2 - Low-Density Redevelopment Pipe Capacity Remaining (SAC).mxd User: RCS2
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
!;N"/MCES Meter Location
")Lift Station
Redevelopment Areas
MCES Metershed
Municipal Boundary
Pipe Capacity Remaining (SAC)
0
1-250
251-500
501-750
751-1000
1001-1500
1501-2000
2001-2500
2501-3000
3001-4000
4001-5000
5001-6000
6001-7000
7001-8000
8001-9000
>9001 FIGURE 7
SCENARIO 2:LOW-DENSITY REDEVELOPMENTPIPE CAPACITY REMAINING (SAC)City of Edina, MN
Notes: Thicker pipes aredownstream fromredevelopment areas.MCES peaking factorswere not applied toflow from FilmTecfacilities at 7200 Ohms Lnand 5400 Dewey Hill Rd
%,
%,
LincolnApartments
EdinaHighSchool
Cahill/70th
Creek Ridge/78th(Bloomington)456731
4567158
456717
456717
456721
45673
4567158
456731
456720
456734
456728
456753
100
7
6262
£¤169
£¤169
£¤212
§¨¦494
MCES-129
LS-06
LS-21
LS-20
LS-17
LS-18
LS-16
LS-15
LS-14
LS-23
LS-12
LS-03
LS-22
LS-13
EDENPRAIRIE
MINNEAPOLIS
SAINTLOUIS PARK
EDINA
HOPKINS
BLOOMINGTON
5400Dewey Hill Rd
7200 OhmsLane
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2018-08-13 07:45 File: \\barr.com\gis\Client\Edina\Projects\South_Sanitary_23271653\Maps\Report\Figure 8 - Scenario 3 - Medium-Density Redevelopment Pipe Capacity Remaining (SAC).mxd User: RCS2
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
!;N"/MCES Meter Location
")Lift Station
Redevelopment Areas
MCES Metershed
Municipal Boundary
Pipe Capacity Remaining (SAC)
0
1-250
251-500
501-750
751-1000
1001-1500
1501-2000
2001-2500
2501-3000
3001-4000
4001-5000
5001-6000
6001-7000
7001-8000
8001-9000
>9001
SCENARIO 3:MEDIUM-DENSITY REDEVELOPMENTPIPE CAPACITY REMAINING (SAC)City of Edina, MN
FIGURE 8
Notes: Thicker pipes aredownstream fromredevelopment areas.MCES peaking factorswere not applied toflow from FilmTecfacilities at 7200 Ohms Lnand 5400 Dewey Hill Rd
%,
%,
LincolnApartments
EdinaHighSchool
Cahill/70th
Creek Ridge/78th(Bloomington)456731
4567158
456717
456717
456721
45673
4567158
456731
456720
456734
456728
456753
100
7
6262
£¤169
£¤169
£¤212
§¨¦494
MCES-129
LS-06
LS-21
LS-20
LS-17
LS-18
LS-16
LS-15
LS-14
LS-23
LS-12
LS-03
LS-22
LS-13
EDENPRAIRIE
MINNEAPOLIS
SAINTLOUIS PARK
EDINA
HOPKINS
BLOOMINGTON
5400Dewey Hill Rd
7200 OhmsLane
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2018-08-13 07:50 File: \\barr.com\gis\Client\Edina\Projects\South_Sanitary_23271653\Maps\Report\Figure 9 - Scenario 4 - High-Density Redevelopment Pipe Capacity Remaining (SAC).mxd User: RCS2
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
!;N"/MCES Meter Location
")Lift Station
Redevelopment Areas
MCES Metershed
Municipal Boundary
Pipe Capacity Remaining (SAC)
0
1-250
251-500
501-750
751-1000
1001-1500
1501-2000
2001-2500
2501-3000
3001-4000
4001-5000
5001-6000
6001-7000
7001-8000
8001-9000
>9001 FIGURE 9
SCENARIO 4:HIGH-DENSITY REDEVELOPMENTPIPE CAPACITY REMAINING (SAC)City of Edina, MN
Notes: Thicker pipes aredownstream fromredevelopment areas.MCES peaking factorswere not applied toflow from FilmTecfacilities at 7200 Ohms Lnand 5400 Dewey Hill Rd
To: Ross Bintner– City of Edina From: Michael McKinney, Brandon Barnes, and Sarah Stratton – Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Edina South Sanitary Sewer Capacity Evaluation Date: August 17, 2018 Page: 16
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271653 Edina South Sanitary Sewer Cap\WorkFiles\04 - Memo\Edina South Sanitary Sewer Capacity Evaluation - 20180820.docx
3.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
The proposed redevelopment areas reduce available capacity in pipes to which they discharge. The main
trunk lines flowing into LS-06 and from LS-06 to the MCES-129 interceptor are already known to be at or
over capacity based on MCES peak flow methodology and the flows from redevelopment evaluated in this
study add to the existing capacity issues. While the development proposed in Bloomington reduces the
capacity of down-sewer pipes, none of the pipes exceed 80% capacity before reaching the existing over-
capacity area upstream of LS-14.
The Lincoln Apartments and Cahill / 70th redevelopment areas (see Figure 1) cause the greatest reduction
in capacity and should be carefully monitored as development proceeds. During certain development
scenarios, these redevelopment areas cause pipes which are under capacity during existing conditions to
become over-capacity (e.g., to go from 50% capacity during existing conditions to over 80% capacity). As
a reminder, Figures 2 through 5 show capacity during peak flow conditions (using MCES peaking
methodology). Pipe capacity monitored in the field under normal flow conditions may not approach the
situations modeled in redevelopment scenario unless monitored during a peak flow event including
inflow and infiltration.
Possible areas of concern: The area immediately downstream of the proposed Lincoln Hill apartment
redevelopment caused pipes to exceed 80% capacity during some redevelopment scenarios. Pipe
segments in the vicinity of LS-14 increase significantly and should be monitored for potential problems.
The trunk lines upstream of the major Highway 100 crossing exceed 80% capacity in several areas and
should also be monitored.
References
Barr Engineering Co. (Barr). 2017. Southeast Edina Sanitary Sewer Study. Prepared for the City of Edina.
Metropolitan Council. 2016. 2016 Inflow & Infiltration Task Force Report.
https://metrocouncil.org/Wastewater-Water/Publications-And-Resources/WASTEWATER/Inflow-
Infiltration/Inflow-Infiltration-Task-Force-Report,-2016.aspx