HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix D1 SE Edina Sanitary Sewer 170516_Report_without_appendix_(2)
4300 MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200
Minneapolis, MN 55435
Phone: 952.832.2600
Southeast Edina Sanitary Sewer
Preliminary Engineering
Prepared for
City of Edina
April 2017
i
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271474 SE Edina San Sewer Prel Eng\WorkFiles\Task 8 - Project Report\Final
report\Update\SE_EdinaSanSwer_PrelEngrRpt-4-4-17.docx
Southeast Edina Sanitary Sewer
Preliminary Engineering
April 2017
Contents
1.0 Introduction and Background ............................................................................................................................................. 1
2.0 Data Acquisition and Review .............................................................................................................................................. 2
3.0 Demand Planning .................................................................................................................................................................... 3
4.0 Model Update ........................................................................................................................................................................... 5
4.1 Risk-related Mapping ................................................................................................................................................ 5
5.0 Scenario Modeling Results................................................................................................................................................... 7
6.0 Preliminary Engineering ........................................................................................................................................................ 8
6.1 Fairview ........................................................................................................................................................................... 9
6.2 Southdale .....................................................................................................................................................................10
6.3 Parklawn ........................................................................................................................................................................11
6.4 Cost Estimates ............................................................................................................................................................12
6.5 Modeling Results of Improvement Alternatives ...........................................................................................13
ii
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271474 SE Edina San Sewer Prel Eng\WorkFiles\Task 8 - Project Report\Final
report\Update\SE_EdinaSanSwer_PrelEngrRpt-4-4-17.docx
List of Tables
(embedded)
Table 1 List of Data Collected and Reviewed ........................................................................................................... 2
Table 2 Peaking Factors Using Three Different References................................................................................ 9
Table 3 Summary of Estimated Costs for the Improvement Alternatives ...................................................12
List of Tables
(attached)
Table 4 Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost (OPC) Summary Table – Budget Level Class 5
List of Figures
Figure 1 Major Metersheds
Figure 2 Submetersheds
Figure 3 Demand Planning Scenario 1 Existing Conditions Plus 5 Year Redevelopment
Figure 4 Demand Planning Scenario 2 Existing Conditions Plus 10 Year Redevelopment
Figure 5 Demand Planning Scenario 3 Ultimate Low Density
Figure 6 Demand Planning Scenario 4 Ultimate Medium Density
Figure 7 Demand Planning Scenario 5 Ultimate High Density
Figure 8 Pipe Capacity Based on MCES Peaking Factors (all flows peaked)
Figure 9 Pipe Capacity Based on MCES Peaking Factors (except FilmTec and LS6)
Figure 10 Pipe Capacity Based on MCES Peaking Factors (except FilmTec, LS6, and LS14)
Figure 11 Parcels Vulnerable to Basement Flooding Due to Sanitary Sewer Backup
Figure 12 Timing and Location of Surcharged Manholes Related to Failure of All Lift Stations
Figure 13 Timing and Location of Surcharged Manholes Related to Failure of Lift Station 6
Figure 14 Timing and Location of Surcharged Manholes Related to Failure of Lift Station 14
Figure 15 Timing and Location of Surcharged Manholes Related to Failure of Lift Station 16
Figure 16 Timing and Location of Surcharged Manholes Related to Failure of Lift Stations 17 & 18
Figure 17 Timing and Location of Surcharged Manholes Related to Failure of Lift Station 21
Figure 18 Timing and Location of Surcharged Manholes Related to Failure of Lift Stations 15 & 20
Figure 19 Timing and Location of Surcharged Manholes Related to Failure of Lift Station 3
iii
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271474 SE Edina San Sewer Prel Eng\WorkFiles\Task 8 - Project Report\Final
report\Update\SE_EdinaSanSwer_PrelEngrRpt-4-4-17.docx
Figure 20 Timing and Location of Surcharged Manholes Related to Failure of Lift Stations 10, 12 &
23
Figure 21 Timing and Location of Surcharged Manholes Related to Failure of Lift Stations 5 & 9
Figure 22 Timing and Location of Surcharged Manholes Related to Failure of Lift Stations 2 & 8
Figure 23 Timing and Location of Surcharged Manholes Related to Failure of Lift Station 11
Figure 24 Timing and Location of Surcharged Manholes Related to Failure of Lift Station 4
Figure 25 Timing and Location of Surcharged Manholes Related to Failure of Lift Station 13
Figure 26 Timing and Location of Surcharged Manholes Related to Failure of Lift Station 22
Figure 27 Pipes and Manholes within 100 Feet of Water
Figure 28 Pipe Capacity Scenario 1 Existing Conditions Plus 5 Year Redevelopment
Figure 29 Pipe Capacity Scenario 2 Existing Conditions Plus 10 Year Redevelopment
Figure 30 Pipe Capacity Scenario 3 Ultimate Low Density
Figure 31 Pipe Capacity Scenario 4 Ultimate Medium Density
Figure 32 Pipe Capacity Scenario 5 Ultimate High Density
Figure 33 Alternative F1 – Fairview Area Proposed Gravity Sewer Alignment
Figure 34 Alternative F2 – Fairview Area Proposed Forcemain Sewer Alignment
Figure 35 Alternatives S4 & S5 – Southdale Area Proposed Sewer Alignments
Figure 36 Alternative P6 – Parklawn Area Proposed Forcemain Alignment
Figure 37 Alternative P7 – Parklawn Area Proposed Forcemain and Gravity Alignment
Figure 38 Pipe Capacity Post Improvements
List of Appendices
Appendix A Task 2 – Data Acquisition and Review Technical Memorandum
Appendix B Task 3 – Proposed Demand Planning Model Scenarios Technical Memorandum
Appendix C Task 4 – XP-SWMM Model Update Documentation Technical Memorandum
iv
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271474 SE Edina San Sewer Prel Eng\WorkFiles\Task 8 - Project Report\Final
report\Update\SE_EdinaSanSwer_PrelEngrRpt-4-4-17.docx
Certifications
I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly
License Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
4/14/17
Dan Nesler
PE #: 47523
Date
1
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271474 SE Edina San Sewer Prel Eng\WorkFiles\Task 8 - Project Report\Final report\Update\SE_EdinaSanSwer_PrelEngrRpt-4-
4-17.docx
1.0 Introduction and Background
The City of Edina (City) has experienced a great deal of change over the past few decades. The Southdale
area has grown as redevelopment has shaped the area into a more vertical environment. Numerous one-
story buildings and surface parking lots are being replaced by multi-level buildings that are increasing
population density and adding load to the City’s sanitary system. This redevelopment brings the need to
evaluate and assess the capability of the City’s sanitary system to meet changing loads.
The City hired Barr Engineering (Barr) to assist with planning of their sanitary sewer system to address
possible needs that may arise from redevelopment occurring in southeastern Edina. The primary objective
of this project was to accurately understand the City’s current sanitary sewer system, and to help plan for
the changes needed because of the projected growth. To do this the City's existing XP-SWMM sanitary
sewer model was updated and calibrated. Using the updated model, Barr developed risk-related maps to
help City staff identify the areas of highest vulnerability within the City’s sanitary sewer system.
Redevelopment information provided by City planners provided Barr with information on ultimate low-,
medium-, and high-density build-outs in the form of zoning maps with differing zoning restrictions. Barr
then developed five redevelopment modeling scenarios to determine any needed sewer infrastructure
improvements. These improvements could then be included in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
and also help in addressing longer-term redevelopment.
The planning area, model updates, and specific redevelopment scenarios considered were developed in
conjunction with City staff and are summarized in this report and further documented in memos
submitted to the City over the course of the project (included as appendices to this report).
Upon review and modeling of the ultimate redevelopment scenarios, it was determined that infrastructure
improvements would be needed for even the lowest density ultimate redevelopment scenario. Three main
geographic areas of pipe capacity concern were identified through the scenario modeling: (1) Southdale
Mall area, (2) Fairview Hospital area, and (3) the area around Parklawn Avenue. In these areas, numerous
pipes are above capacity at the proposed level of redevelopment. The model results for these areas were
reviewed with City staff and proposed improvement alternatives were then identified for the sanitary
sewer system so that it can handle the additional flow from the proposed redevelopments. Planning level
cost estimates were then developed for each of the improvement alternatives.
2
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271474 SE Edina San Sewer Prel Eng\WorkFiles\Task 8 - Project Report\Final report\Update\SE_EdinaSanSwer_PrelEngrRpt-4-
4-17.docx
2.0 Data Acquisition and Review
Eight temporary sanitary sewer flow monitoring locations across the City were selected to gather data to
be used for sanitary sewer model calibration. These locations were selected based on discussions with City
staff. The temporary meters were installed in late January 2016 and were in place, collecting data for a
period of two weeks. For the purposes of this report, a “metershed” is the geographic area served by the
sanitary sewer system that drains to a specific monitoring (metered) location. Figure 1 shows the “major
metersheds” throughout the City and Figure 2 shows discrete “submetersheds.”
Water sales data was used as the input for the sanitary sewer model. City staff collected water use data for
the entire City specifically for use by Barr for sanitary sewer modeling. Initial water meter reads were
completed in late January 2016, and final water meter reads were completed in late February/early March
2016. The data collected from the water meters provides a total flow volume (gallons). The total volume
was then converted to an average daily flow rate for input into the model.
Table 1 provides a summary of all of the data collected and reviewed. Additional details about the
temporary monitoring data, water sales data, and all of the other data sets can be found in Appendix A
(Task 2 – Data Acquisition and Review technical memorandum).
Table 1 List of Data Collected and Reviewed
Data Received Description of Data Data Source
1 Flow data for MCES meters M127, M128,
and M129 15-minute raw flow data MCES
2 Flow data from temporary meters 15-minute flow data from 8 temporary
meters Barr (SampleTec)
3 Lift Station 6 flow meter data 15-minute flow data from 3 meters
located at Lift Station 6 City of Edina
4
Monthly water billing data for January
2016 (initial read) and February 2016 (final
read) for the entire City
Data includes volume of water billed,
address, and account number, if
available
City of Edina
5 Ten-minute water use data for select
locations
10-minute flow data typical of three
different water use types City of Edina
6 Water use data for the 20 largest water
users
Water use data for the 20 largest water
users City of Edina
7 Parcel data covering the City of Edina June 2015 GIS shapefile of the parcels
in the City Hennepin County
8 City’s GIS data documenting the current
sanitary sewer network
ArcGIS geodatabase of sanitary sewer
manholes, pipes, lift stations, and force
mains
City of Edina
3
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271474 SE Edina San Sewer Prel Eng\WorkFiles\Task 8 - Project Report\Final report\Update\SE_EdinaSanSwer_PrelEngrRpt-4-
4-17.docx
3.0 Demand Planning
Barr staff met with City staff in December 2015 and received general information on ultimate low-,
medium-, and high-density build-outs (redevelopment) in the form of zoning maps with differing zoning
restrictions. In addition, Barr received more site-specific information on location and density of areas that
could potentially be redeveloped in the next 5 years (by 2021) and 10 years (by 2026). This information
includes:
Redevelopments at existing sites that are currently under construction.
Existing sites that have had preliminary discussions with the City on redevelopment in the near
future.
Existing sites that City planning staff considers potentially able to support a denser
redevelopment in the near future.
City staff stressed that much of the information provided is “best guess” and that they usually do not
know far in advance which specific sites may be considered for redevelopment by the property owners. As
redevelopment occurs this information should be reviewed and updated as needed.
There are multiple ways demand planning scenarios can be defined. Given the very detailed
redevelopment information provided by City planners, Barr developed model scenarios that can help
inform the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) in the shorter term, while also addressing longer-term
redevelopment. Five model scenarios were developed and are described below:
1. Scenario 1 – Existing Condition Plus 5-Year Redevelopment
a. This scenario provides information on the most capacity limited sanitary sewer pipes the
City should consider addressing when developing its 5-year CIP.
b. The sanitary sewer model was updated for existing flows and additional flows were added
to the appropriate sewershed per the site-specific locations and densities provided by
City planning staff for SE Edina that were identified as “likely to be redeveloped within 5
years.” These areas are shown on Figure 3.
c. The redevelopment areas were assigned flows based on the redevelopment details
provided by City planners. The assigned flows take into consideration MCES and ASCE
peaking values, as well as historical data from previous redevelopments in Edina.
Assigned flows are shown in Appendix B.
d. For all non-redevelopment areas, flows were based on 2016 water use data.
2. Scenario 2 – Existing Condition Plus 10-Year Redevelopment
a. This scenario provides information on additional sanitary sewer sections the City can use
in planning for longer-term improvements. In addition, it can serve as a faster growth
scenario in the event that redevelopment happens sooner than anticipated.
b. The Scenario 1 model was used as a base model and additional flows were added to the
appropriate sewershed per the site-specific locations and densities provided by City
planning staff for SE Edina that were identified as “likely to be redeveloped within 5 to 10
4
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271474 SE Edina San Sewer Prel Eng\WorkFiles\Task 8 - Project Report\Final report\Update\SE_EdinaSanSwer_PrelEngrRpt-4-
4-17.docx
years” in addition to the “likely to be redeveloped within 5 years.” These areas are shown
on Figure 4.
c. The redevelopment areas were assigned flows based on the redevelopment details
provided by City planners. The assigned flows take into consideration MCES and ASCE
peaking values, as well as historical data from previous redevelopments in Edina.
Assigned flows are shown in Appendix B.
d. For all non-redevelopment areas, flows were based on 2016 water use data.
3. Scenario 3 – Ultimate Low Density
a. This scenario provides a baseline for potential redevelopment in all areas.
b. Scenario 2 (existing conditions plus 10-year development) was used as a starting point.
c. The Scenario 2 sanitary sewer model was updated for future flows in all sewersheds per
the redevelopment areas and low densities identified by City staff for SE Edina (Figure 5).
Assigned flows are shown in Appendix B.
d. For all non-redevelopment areas, flows were based on 2016 water use data.
4. Scenario 4 – Ultimate Medium Density
a. This scenario provides an evaluation of sewer limitations for a mid-range potential
redevelopment in all areas.
b. Scenario 2 (existing conditions plus 10-year development) was used as a starting point.
c. The Scenario 2 sanitary sewer model was updated for future flows in all sewersheds per
the redevelopment areas and medium densities identified by City staff for SE Edina
(Figure 6). Assigned flows are shown in Appendix B.
d. For all non-redevelopment areas, flows were based on 2016 water use data.
5. Scenario 5 – Ultimate High Density
a. This scenario provides an evaluation of sewer limitations for the maximum potential
development in all areas.
b. Scenario 2 (existing conditions plus 10-year development) was used as a starting point.
c. The Model 2 sanitary sewer model was updated for future flows in all sewersheds per the
development areas and high densities identified by City staff for SE Edina (Figure 7).
Assigned flows are shown in Appendix B.
d. For all non-redevelopment areas, flows were based on the 2016 water use data.
Additional details about demand planning can be found in Appendix B (Task 3 – Proposed Demand
Planning Model Scenarios technical memorandum).
5
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271474 SE Edina San Sewer Prel Eng\WorkFiles\Task 8 - Project Report\Final report\Update\SE_EdinaSanSwer_PrelEngrRpt-4-
4-17.docx
4.0 Model Update
Barr originally modeled the City’s entire sanitary sewer system using XP-SWMM in 2006. The goal of the
2006 project was to identify the location and magnitude of inflow and infiltration (I/I) into the sanitary
sewer network. The results of this study were used to target I/I reduction efforts throughout the City.
However, the model was constructed using pre-recession water sales data that is now over 10 years old.
Since that time, water use trends have changed, parts of the system have been lined or otherwise repaired
and, most importantly, the City has replaced all of its water meters, meaning that new, more accurate
water use data is now available. In addition, FilmTec has expanded and the Westin and other large
developments have been constructed. Therefore, in 2013, the model was updated to analyze available
capacity at the individual pipe scale. The model results were then used to (a) determine individual pipes
and pipe sections in the southeast area of Edina which may be nearing capacity; and (b) advise future
metering efforts, including identifying locations where metering should be conducted to improve the
accuracy of identifying potential capacity issues. For this 2016 model update, the existing (2013) model
was retained wherever possible, and updated only for areas within the City where parcels were revised or
where there were changes to the sanitary sewer system infrastructure.
After all of the flow input from 2016 winter water sales and hydraulic parameters were entered into the
XP-SWMM model, the model was run and the results were plotted and compared to observed (metered)
data to determine where and how much the model needed to account for infiltration.
Infiltration was used to calibrate the model. Infiltration was accounted for by adding flow volume (gallons
per day, gpd) based on inch-miles of sanitary sewer (pipe diameter multiplied by length) for each
submetershed. Generally speaking, more infiltration volume was needed for the older areas of the City,
where I/I is more likely to occur.
Appendix C (Task 4 – XP-SWMM Model Update Documentation technical memorandum) summarizes all of
the updates made to the pipe network and flow inputs for the City’s sanitary sewer XP-SWMM model, as
well as calibration methodology (including calibrated infiltration rates) and results. Calibrated infiltration
rates ranged from 250 gpd/inch-mile to 2,500 gpd/inch-mile. In almost all cases, infiltration rates
observed in 2016 were lower than in 2006. This would appear to show that the City has successfully
reduced infiltration by repairing its system over the past decade. This will result in a significant long-term
savings to the City in reduced fees paid to MCES.
4.1 Risk-related Mapping
With input from City staff, Barr also developed modeling scenarios to help City staff identify the areas of
highest vulnerability within the City’s sanitary sewer system. Various conditions that can result in problems
for the City were identified and then presented graphically in Figures 8 through 27. The figures created
can be used to help the City prioritize where they should focus their efforts during these different events
to minimize undesirable results.
The modeling scenarios and associated figures showing the results of the modeling include:
6
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271474 SE Edina San Sewer Prel Eng\WorkFiles\Task 8 - Project Report\Final report\Update\SE_EdinaSanSwer_PrelEngrRpt-4-
4-17.docx
1. Overall pipe capacity that helps identify choke points throughout the system (Figures 8, 9, and
10). Figure 8 shows the pipe capacity used when all flows in the system were peaked. Peak flows
were generated peaking the average daily flow from the calibrated model with the MCES peaking
factors shown in Table 2. Figure 9 shows the same peaked flows, with the exception that
discharge from Lift Station 6 and FilmTec were not peaked. In the case of FilmTec, the discharge is
relatively constant over the course of the day and peaking the flow would over estimate their
discharge. Lift station 6 flow was also not peaked, as the discharge from the lift station is
controlled by the existing pumps. Figure 10 shows the same flows as Figure 9, with the exception
that Lift station 14 is also not peaked. Similar to Lift Station 6, the discharge from the lift station is
controlled by the existing pumps. These figures can be used by City staff to help identify pipes
nearing their capacity and allow for initial assessment of the sanitary sewer system in areas of
potential redevelopment. Figures 8 represents the most conservative approach, while Figure 10 is
less conservative but more representative of actual conditions.
2. Parcels vulnerable to basement flooding due to sanitary sewer backup (relating pipe inverts to
topography) (Figure 11). Also shown on Figure 11 are all parcels that have experienced sewer
back-ups since 1975 based on data provided by the City. The potential of a parcel to experience a
sewer back-up was determined by comparing the elevation of the parcel (using the centroid of
the parcel) to the elevation of the invert of the upstream manhole. It was assumed that basement
elevations were 4-feet below the centroid elevation of the parcel. No actual basement elevations
or sewer lateral connection elevations were reviewed for this analysis. As such, this figure is a high
level review of potentially at risk basements, but not a detailed review of each parcel.
3. Timing and location of surcharged manholes related to failure of lift stations (Figures 12 to 26).
These figures were generated by running the calibrated model to determine how long it would
take for sanitary sewers leading to a lift station to surcharge in the event of a lift station failure.
These figures may be useful to City staff in helping determine the response priority in the event of
a lift station failure.
4. Pipes or manholes within 100 feet of water (Figure 27). This figure was generated to allow City
staff to see how much sanitary sewer infrastructure is near a surface water body and to consider
the risk of sanitary sewer flow reaching surface water
7
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271474 SE Edina San Sewer Prel Eng\WorkFiles\Task 8 - Project Report\Final report\Update\SE_EdinaSanSwer_PrelEngrRpt-4-
4-17.docx
5.0 Scenario Modeling Results
Based on the five scenarios identified for demand planning, five model simulations were completed. For
each simulated scenario, the estimated future flow was input into the model. For each scenario, the model
was used to identify potential pipe capacity issues within the existing sanitary sewer system if the
proposed redevelopment were to occur. To identify the pipes with capacity concerns, the modeled depth
of flow (d) in each pipe was compared to the actual pipe diameter (D). For example, a pipe with a d/D
ratio of 0.5 reflects a pipe flowing at half of its available capacity. For this study, a pipe with a d/D ratio of
0.8 or higher (i.e., a pipe flowing at 80% of its available depth and essentially at its capacity) was
considered to be undersized and was assumed to have the potential to be flowing over capacity at some
point during any given day. Results of the modeling showing d/D for each redevelopment scenario are
shown on Figures 28 through 32.
8
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271474 SE Edina San Sewer Prel Eng\WorkFiles\Task 8 - Project Report\Final report\Update\SE_EdinaSanSwer_PrelEngrRpt-4-
4-17.docx
6.0 Preliminary Engineering
Upon review of the three ultimate redevelopment scenarios, it was determined that infrastructure
improvements would be needed for even the low density scenario. Therefore, in an effort to be
conservative with the preliminary engineering, Barr and City staff selected Scenario 5 (ultimate high
density) to develop improvement alternatives. Scenario 5 reflects fully redeveloping southeastern Edina
with a relatively high population density. Three main geographic areas of pipe capacity concern were
identified through the scenario modeling: (1) Fairview Hospital area (Fairview), (2) Southdale Mall area
(Southdale), and (3) the area around Parklawn Avenue (Parklawn). These three areas are shown on Figure
32. In these areas, numerous pipes are above capacity at the proposed level of redevelopment. The model
results for these areas were reviewed with City staff and proposed improvement alternatives were then
identified for the sanitary sewer system so that the system can handle the additional flow from the
proposed redevelopments.
Eight proposed improvement alternatives were identified with input from City staff. Conceptual level
design was then completed for each of the alternatives. Based on the proposed flows for Scenario 5, a
daily average flow was determined. This average flow was then peaked to account for daily variations in
flow, as well as inflow and infiltration. Several methods exist for peaking sanitary sewer flow. The three
methods evaluated for this study were from the following references: (1) Metcalf and Eddy, Wastewater
Engineering, Collection and Pumping of Wastewater, 3rd Edition, May 1, 1981, (2) Metropolitan Council –
Environmental Services (MCES) Inflow and Infiltration Surcharge Manual, 2005, and (3) American Society of
Civil Engineering (ASCE), Gravity Sewer Design and Construction, 2007. The peaking factors associated with
each of the three methods are shown in Table 2. The three peaking methods were discussed with City
staff and the ASCE peaking factor method was selected. The ASCE peaking factors result in the least
peaked flow and were chosen because they would be most representative of new sanitary sewer
construction, similar to what would be occurring in the redevelopment of southeast Edina.
Currently the Fairview area is metered by MCES M128 which discharges to interceptor 1-RF-490. Based on
discussions with MCES staff, 1-RF-490 has limited capacity for additional flows; therefore, alternatives for
the Fairview area assumed that flows would be routed to the 1-RF-491 relief sewer, where MCES has
indicated there is available capacity to handle additional flow from redevelopment.
9
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271474 SE Edina San Sewer Prel Eng\WorkFiles\Task 8 - Project Report\Final report\Update\SE_EdinaSanSwer_PrelEngrRpt-4-
4-17.docx
Table 2 Peaking Factors Using Three Different References
Flow Peaking Factors
(mgd) (gpm) Metcalf and Eddy MCES ASCE
0.1 69 4 4 3.2
0.2 139 4 3.9 3
0.5 347 4 3.6 2.7
1 694 3.99 3.2 2.5
2 1,389 3.96 2.8 2.4
5 3,472 3.9 2.4 2.2
10 6,944 3.78 2.1 2
20 13,889 3.56 1.8 1.9
50 34,722 2.88 1.7 1.7
100 69,444 1.75 1.7 1.6
Peaked flows were then used to size pipes, pumps, and other aspects of the proposed alternatives. Gravity
pipe slopes and pipe sizing was also based on recommendations found in Recommended Standards for
Wastewater Facilities, 2014 Edition (10 State Standards). Gravity pipes were assumed to be polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) and forcemains were assumed to be high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe.
The proposed alternatives and associated cost estimates can be used to aid the City in planning and
budgeting for sanitary sewer improvements that will be needed as redevelopment continues to occur in
the City. While these alternatives are conceptual in nature, they are intended to provide the City an idea of
the level of effort and cost that would be required to provide sanitary sewer service to fully redevelop
southeastern Edina with a relatively high population density. These alternatives should be updated as
more details are learned about actual redevelopment plans.
6.1 Fairview
Three alternatives were identified to provide for the planned growth in the Fairview area:
F1 – new gravity relief sewer connecting to the Southdale area
F2 – a new lift station with forcemain connecting to the Southdale area
F3 - a new lift station with forcemain connecting to the 1-RF-491 relief sewer
All of these improvements would direct flow to the MCES interceptor 1-RF-491 located at the
southeastern extent of the City at Xerxes Avenue and 75th Street. In the Fairview area, significant
redevelopment is planned along West 65th and 66th Streets. The additional flow created by this
redevelopment creates a high likelihood of the existing sewer infrastructure not providing the necessary
level of service.
10
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271474 SE Edina San Sewer Prel Eng\WorkFiles\Task 8 - Project Report\Final report\Update\SE_EdinaSanSwer_PrelEngrRpt-4-
4-17.docx
Alternative F1 is a gravity sewer that is conceptually planned to run along West 65th Street, Barrie Road,
and West 66th Street. This alternative is dependent upon the completion of either alternatives S4 or S5 in
the Southdale area. Near the intersection of West 66th and York Avenue, the proposed gravity sewer
would connect to either alternative S4 or S5 for the Southdale area. This gravity sewer would service most
of the proposed redevelopment in the Fairview area. Existing sanitary sewer flows, except for Lift Station 4,
would continue to use the existing sanitary sewer, while new flows are planned to go to the proposed new
sewer. Lift Station 4 is planned to be connected to the relief sewer. Peak flow to the gravity sewer was
estimated to be 1,400 gpm. The proposed gravity sewer was sized to be 12-inch diameter pipe. The
conceptual alignment is shown on Figure 33.
Alternative F2 is a lift station and forcemain. The lift station is conceptually located near Fairview Hospital.
The redevelopment planned along West 65th Street would be routed to the new lift station. The lift station
would discharge to either alternative S4 or S5 in the Southdale area. Existing sanitary sewer flows, except
for Lift Station 4, would continue to use the existing sanitary sewer, while only new flows are planned to
be handled by the proposed alternative. Peak flow to the lift station was estimated to be 1,000 gpm. A
submersible, duplex lift station with redundancy was assumed. The proposed forcemain is sized to be
8-inch diameter pipe. The conceptual alignment for the forcemain is shown on Figure 34.
Alternative F3 is a lift station and forcemain. The lift station is also conceptually located near Fairview
Hospital. The redevelopment planned along West 65th Street would be routed to the new lift station. The
lift station would discharge directly to 1-RF-491. While alternatives F1 and F2 are dependent upon the
completion of alternatives in the Southdale area, alternative F3 could be constructed independent of any
improvements in the Southdale area. Existing sanitary sewer flows, except for Lift Station 4, would
continue to use the existing sanitary sewer, while only new flows are planned to be handled by the
proposed alternative. Peak flow to the lift station was estimated to be 1,000 gpm. A submersible, duplex
lift station with redundancy was assumed. The proposed forcemain is sized to be 8-inch diameter pipe.
The conceptual alignment is the same as alternative F2, except the forcemain extends all the way
to 1-RF-491.
6.2 Southdale
Two improvement alternatives were identified for the Southdale area:
S4 – new gravity relief sewer
S5 – new lift station with forcemain
Both of these improvements would direct flow to the MCES 1-RF-491 relief interceptor located at the
southeastern extent of the City at Xerxes Avenue and 75th Street. In the Southdale area, significant
redevelopment is planned for Southdale Mall to include three additional apartment/condominium
complexes, as well as additional redevelopment directly to the east of Southdale Mall. The additional flow
created by this redevelopment creates a high likelihood of the existing sewer infrastructure not providing
the necessary level of service.
11
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271474 SE Edina San Sewer Prel Eng\WorkFiles\Task 8 - Project Report\Final report\Update\SE_EdinaSanSwer_PrelEngrRpt-4-
4-17.docx
Alternative S4 is a gravity sewer that is conceptually planned to run along York Avenue, heading south
from 66th Street to the MCES relief interceptor. This gravity sewer would service all of the proposed
redevelopment at Southdale Mall, as well as the proposed redevelopment along York Avenue, and flows
from either alternative F1 or F2. Existing sanitary sewer flows would continue to use the existing sanitary
sewer, while new flows are planned to go to the proposed new sewer alignment. Peak flow to the gravity
sewer was estimated to be 3,400 gpm. The proposed gravity sewer was sized to be 33-inch diameter pipe.
The conceptual alignment is shown on Figure 35.
Alternative S5 is a lift station and forcemain. For this alternative the lift station is conceptually located near
Southdale Mall. The redevelopment planned for Southdale Mall and redevelopment east of the mall along
York Avenue would be routed to the new lift station. The forcemain from the lift station would be routed
all the way to the MCES relief interceptor. Existing sanitary sewer flows would continue to use the existing
sanitary sewer, while new flows are planned to go to the proposed alternative system. Peak flow to the lift
station was estimated to be 2,200 gpm. A submersible, duplex lift station with redundancy was assumed.
The proposed forcemain was sized to be 12-inch diameter pipe. The conceptual alignment for the
forcemain is shown on Figure 35.
6.3 Parklawn
Three alternatives were identified for the Parklawn area:
P6 – new lift station with forcemain
P7 – new gravity relief sewer with upgrades to existing Lift Station 6
P8 – new gravity relief sewer
These three improvements would direct flow to the MCES 1-RF-491 relief interceptor located at the
southeastern extent of the City. In the Parklawn area, significant redevelopment is planned for the area
bound by France Avenue on the east, Minnesota Drive on the south, and Parklawn Avenue on the west
and north. The additional flow created by this redevelopment creates a high likelihood of the existing
sewer infrastructure not providing the necessary level of service.
Alternative P6 is a lift station and forcemain. The lift station is conceptually located near Parklawn Avenue
and 76th Street. The sanitary flows from the redevelopment planned in the area would be routed to the
new lift station. The lift station would discharge to the MCES 1-RF-491 relief interceptor located at the
southeastern extent of the City. Existing sanitary sewer flows would continue to use the existing sanitary
sewer, while new flows are planned to go to the proposed new sewer alignment. Peak flow to the lift
station was estimated to be 900 gpm. A submersible, duplex lift station with redundancy was assumed.
The proposed forcemain was sized to be an 8-inch diameter pipe. The conceptual alignment for the
forcemain is shown on Figure 36.
Alternative P7 is a gravity sewer that is conceptually planned to run north from the Parklawn area to
existing Lift Station 6. This gravity sewer would service all of the proposed redevelopment in the Parklawn
area and would be connected to the existing lift station. The lift station would be upgraded with
12
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271474 SE Edina San Sewer Prel Eng\WorkFiles\Task 8 - Project Report\Final report\Update\SE_EdinaSanSwer_PrelEngrRpt-4-
4-17.docx
larger/additional pumps to handle the additional flow. A dedicated forcemain would then be installed
from the proposed pumps, running to a relief gravity sewer. The relief gravity sewer would follow an
alignment similar to the existing gravity sewer that receives Lift Station 6 discharges. Existing sanitary
sewer flows would continue to use the existing sanitary sewer, while new flows are planned to go to the
proposed new sewer alignment. Peak flow to the gravity sewer was estimated to be 900 gpm. The
proposed gravity sewer was sized to be 12-inch diameter pipe. The conceptual alignment is shown on
Figure 37.
Alternative P8 is a gravity sewer that would conceptually run from the Parklawn area to the MCES relief
interceptor located at the southeastern extent of the City. However, this alternative was determined to not
be feasible. The elevation differences between the Parklawn area and the MCES outlet did not allow for
gravity flow.
6.4 Cost Estimates
An estimated probable cost was developed for each of the improvement alternatives. Table 3 shows a
summary of total costs for each alternative and Table 4 shows the detailed cost estimate. The costs should
be considered screening-level, order-of-magnitude estimates, based on the limited level of project detail.
The cost estimates are valid in the context of a relative comparison of the alternatives. The costs
developed are intended to be used as criteria in comparing the different alternatives.
Table 3 Summary of Estimated Costs for the Improvement Alternatives
Alternatives
Alternative
F1
Alternative
F2
Alternative
F3
Alternative
S4
Alternative
S5
Alternative
P6
Alternative
P7
Fairview –
Gravity
Sewer to
Southdale
Fairview –
Lift Station
to Southdale
Southdale –
Gravity
Sewer to RF-
491
Southdale –
Gravity
Sewer
Southdale –
Lift Station
Parklawn –
Lift Station
Parklawn –
Gravity
Sewer and
LS6
Upgrades
Estimated Cost $3,618,000 $4,688,000 $5,655,000 $8,274,000 $6,773,000 $4,244,000 $10,018,000
plus 100% $7,236,000 $9,376,000 $11,310,000 $16,548,000 $13,543,000 $8,488,000 $20,036,000
minus 50% $1,809,000 $2,344,000 $2,828,000 $4,137,000 $3,387,000 $2,122,000 $5,009,000
The opinion of probable cost (OPC) should be considered a Class 5 estimate (plus 100%/minus 50%)
based on standards established by the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) and
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). The OPC for each alternative was developed using
information from similar projects and the consulting team’s experience and judgment. The OPC will
change as more information becomes available and the level of design detail is refined. In addition,
because the team has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or services furnished by
others, or over the contractor’s methods of determining prices, or over competitive bidding or market
conditions, it can be expected that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will vary from this OPC.
Contingency as used in this OPC represents an allowance to cover unknown conditions that are not
13
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271474 SE Edina San Sewer Prel Eng\WorkFiles\Task 8 - Project Report\Final report\Update\SE_EdinaSanSwer_PrelEngrRpt-4-
4-17.docx
possible to be adequately defined from the information at hand at the time the cost estimate is prepared
but must be accounted for by a sufficient cost to reasonably cover the foreseeable issues. Contingency is
a part of the defined project scope and is not used to account for future project scope or schedule
changes.
6.5 Modeling Results of Improvement Alternatives
For each the three areas evaluated (Southdale, Fairview, and Parklawn) a proposed engineering alternative
was added to the model to confirm that the improvements would alleviate the overcapacity pipes
identified in the earlier scenario modeling. The results of this modeling are shown on Figure 38. As
expected, the improvement options relieved the overcapacity pipes. Some other areas in southeast Edina
still show capacity issues with the proposed ultimate redevelopment, but were outside the scope of this
study and will need further evaluation as redevelopment occurs.
Tables
PREPARED BY: BARR ENGINEERING CO.DATE: 3/31/17TABLE 3 ‐ ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST (OPC) SUMMARY TABLE ‐ BUDGET LEVEL CLASS 5PROJECT: City of Edina ‐ Sanitary Sewer Preliminary EngineeringLOCATION: Edina, MinnesotaPROJECT #: 23/27‐1474.00Item No. Construction ItemUnit Unit PriceQuantity Extension Quantity Extension Quantity Extension Quantity Extension Quantity Extension Quantity Extension Quantity Extension1 Mobilization/Demobilization % 30% 1 575,676$ 1 746,136$ 1 899,997$ 1 1,316,757$ 1 354,324$ 1 675,452$ 1 1,594,417$ 2 Pavement Removals/RepairSY129$10,101 1,303,029$ 3,801 490,329$ 4,200541,800$ 19,4542,509,580$ 1,945 250,958$ 1,389 179,134.42$ 27,773 3,582,688$ 3 Excavation and Backfill < 20'CY10$14,459 144,590$ 6,159 61,590$ 6,159 61,590$ 56,661 566,610$ 11,332 113,322$ 13,477 134,772$ 67,386673,860$ 4 Excavation and Backfill > 20'CY18$0‐$ 0‐$0‐$ 0‐$ 0‐$0‐$ 18,232 328,176$ 5 Trench Prep and Pipe BeddingLF7$4,50031,500$ 1,80012,600$ 1,80012,600$ 7,50052,500$ 1,0007,000$ 1,0007,000$ 8,80061,600$ 6 Sewer ConnectionsEa1,000$25 25,000$ 25 25,000$ 25 25,000$ 100 100,000$ 50 50,000$ 25 25,000$ 25 25,000$ 7 10"‐12" Gravity Sanitary Sewer PipeLF32.00$3,850123,200$ 1,15036,800$ 1,15036,800$ 1,00032,000$ 1,00032,000$ 1,00032,000$ 8,800281,600$ 8 21" Gravity Sanitary Sewer PipeLF68.50$0‐$ 0‐$0‐$ 0‐$ 0‐$0‐$ 0‐$ 933" Gravity Sanitary Sewer PipeLF120.00$0‐$ 0‐$0‐$ 2,000240,000$ 0‐$0‐$ 0‐$ 10 36" Gravity Sanitary Sewer PipeLF175.00$0‐$ 0‐$0‐$ 4,500787,500$ 0‐$0‐$ 0‐$ 11 10" Sanitary Sewer Forcemain, TrenchlessLF70$0‐$ 1,00070,000$ 7,500525,000$ 0‐$ 0‐$4,800336,000$ 0‐$ 12 12" Sanitary Sewer Forcemain, TrenchlessLF90$0‐$ 0‐$0‐$ 0‐$ 0‐$0‐$ 0‐$ 13 15" Sanitary Sewer Forcemain, TrenchlessLF110$0‐$ 0‐$0‐$ 0‐$ 6,500715,000$ 0‐$ 0‐$ 14 Precast Manhole, 0‐10'Ea3,200$13 41,600$ 9 28,800$ 11 35,200$ 5 16,000$ 4 12,800$ 8 25,600$ 24 76,800$ 15 Precast Manhole, 11‐20'Ea5,000$0‐$ 0‐$0‐$ 17 85,000$ 0‐$0‐$ 7 35,000$ 16 Existing Lift Station UpgradesLS250,000$ 1 250,000$ 1 250,000$ 1 250,000$ 0‐$ 0‐$0‐$ 1 250,000$ 17 1001‐2000 GPM Lift StationLS1,512,000$ 0‐$ 1 1,512,000$ 1 1,512,000$ 0‐$ 0‐$1 1,512,000$ 0‐$ 18 2001‐3000 GPM Lift StationLS2,072,000$ 0‐$ 0‐$0‐$ 0‐$ 0‐$0‐$ 0‐$ 19 4000‐5000 GPM Lift StationLS3,136,000$ 0‐$ 0‐$0‐$ 0‐$ 1 3,136,000$ 0‐$ 0‐$ Construction Subtotal Cost$2,495,000$3,233,000$3,900,000$5,706,000$4,671,000$2,927,000$6,909,000Construction Contingency (25%)$624,000$808,000$975,000$1,427,000$1,168,000$732,000$1,727,000Engineering & Administration (20%)$499,000$647,000$780,000$1,141,000$934,000$585,000$1,382,000Total Capital Cost$3,618,000 $4,688,000 $5,655,000 $8,274,000 $6,773,000 $4,244,000 $10,018,000Low Range Total Cost (‐50%)$1,809,000 $2,344,000 $2,828,000 $4,137,000 $3,387,000 $2,122,000 $5,009,000High Range Total Cost (+100%)$7,236,000$9,376,000$11,310,000$16,548,000$13,546,000$8,488,000$20,036,000Notes6 This concept screening (Class 5, < 5% design completion per ASTM E 2516‐11) cost estimate is based on concept‐level designs, alignments, quantities and unit prices. Costs will change with further design. The estimated accuracy range for the Total Project Cost as the project is defined is ‐50% to +100%. The accuracy range is based on professional judgement considering the level of design completed, the complexity of the project and the uncertainties in the project as scoped. Operation and Maintenance costs are not included.7 Cost totals rounded to the nearest thousand dollarFairview Area ImprovementsSouthdale Area ImprovementsParklawn Area Improvements1 Limited Design Work Completed (<15%).2 Quantities Based on Design Work Completed and engineering judgement.3 Unit Prices Based on Information Available at This Time, including R.S. Means 2016 and recent bids.4 Limited Soil Boring and Field Investigation Information Available.5 Based on Preliminary Project Alignment Definition.Alternative P7Gravity to Southdale Gravity/LS to Southdale Gravity/LS to M129GravityForce MainForcemainGravityAlternative F1Alternative F2Alternative F3Alternative S4Alternative S5Alternative P6
Figures
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
#*
#*
#*
Unmetered
§¨¦494
£¤169
£¤212 62
7
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
MCES-129
MCES-128
MCES-127
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.4, 2016-10-05 15:54 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Sanitary_Sewer_Prelim_Eng_20160128\Maps\Reports\Task_8_Report\Figure 1 - Major Metersheds.mxd User: jrv
Major MetershedsCity of Edina, MN
FIGURE 102,250 4,500
Feet
!;N
Imagery: USDA; 2015
Temporary Meters
")Location 1")Location 2")Location 3")Location 4")Location 5")Location 6")Location 7")Location 8
Metersheds
Location 1
Location 2
Location 3
Location 4
Location 5
Location 6
Location 7
Location 8
MCES Meters#*MCES-127
#*MCES-128
#*MCES-129
Modeled Manholes
Modeled Pipes
Metershed Flow Direction
Unmetered Area
City of Edina Boundary
MCES Metersheds
MCES 127
MCES 128
MCES 129
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
#*
#*
#*
Unmetered
§¨¦494
£¤169
£¤212 62
7
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
MCES-129
MCES-128
MCES-127
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.4, 2016-10-05 15:56 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Sanitary_Sewer_Prelim_Eng_20160128\Maps\Reports\Task_8_Report\Figure 2 - Submetersheds.mxd User: jrv
SubmetershedsCity of Edina, MN
FIGURE 202,250 4,500
Feet
!;N
Imagery: USDA; 2015
Temporary Meters
")Location 1")Location 2")Location 3")Location 4")Location 5")Location 6")Location 7")Location 8
Metersheds
Location 1
Location 2
Location 3
Location 4
Location 5
Location 6
Location 7
Location 8
MCES Meters#*MCES-127#*MCES-128
#*MCES-129
Modeled Manholes
Modeled Pipes
Metershed Flow Direction
Unmetered Area
City of Edina BoundaryMCES Metersheds
MCES-127
MCES-128
MCES-129
W 69th St
§¨¦494
62
456731
456753
456731France Ave SFrance AveMinnesota Dr
W 66th St
W 65th St
W 70th St
France AveW 76th St
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.4, 2016-10-05 15:56 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Sanitary_Sewer_Prelim_Eng_20160128\Maps\Reports\Task_8_Report\Figure 3 - Scenario 1 Flow.mxd User: jrv
Demand Planning Scenario 1
Existing Conditions Plus
5 Year Redevelopment
City of Edina, MN
FIGURE 3
0 800 1,600
Feet
!;N
Southdale
Redevelopment Area
Hennepin County
ParcelsPipes
Scenario 1 Additional Flow (SAC Units)
1 - 50
51 - 100
101 - 250
251 - 500
501 - 1035
Imagery: USDA; 2015
W 69th St
§¨¦494
62
456731
456753
456731France Ave SFrance AveMinnesota Dr
W 66th St
W 65th St
W 70th St
France AveW 76th St
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.4, 2016-10-05 15:57 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Sanitary_Sewer_Prelim_Eng_20160128\Maps\Reports\Task_8_Report\Figure 4 - Scenario 2 Flow.mxd User: jrv
Demand Planning Scenario 2
Existing Conditions Plus
10 year Redevelopment
City of Edina, MN
FIGURE 4
0 800 1,600
Feet
!;N
Southdale
Redevelopment Area
Hennepin County
ParcelsPipes
Scenario 2 Additional Flow (SAC Units)
1 - 50
51 - 100
101 - 250
251 - 500
501 - 1035
Imagery: USDA; 2015
W 69th St
§¨¦494
62
456731
456753
456731France Ave SFrance AveMinnesota Dr
W 66th St
W 65th St
W 70th St
France AveW 76th St
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.4, 2016-10-05 15:57 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Sanitary_Sewer_Prelim_Eng_20160128\Maps\Reports\Task_8_Report\Figure 5 - Scenario 3 Flow.mxd User: jrv
Demand Planning Scenario 3
Ultimate Low Density
City of Edina, MN
FIGURE 5
0 800 1,600
Feet
!;N
Southdale
Redevelopment Area
Hennepin County
ParcelsPipes
Scenario 3 Additional Flow (SAC Units)
1 - 50
51 - 100
101 - 250
251 - 500
501 - 1035
Imagery: USDA; 2015
W 69th St
§¨¦494
62
456731
456753
456731France Ave SFrance AveMinnesota Dr
W 66th St
W 65th St
W 70th St
France AveW 76th St
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.4, 2016-10-05 15:58 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Sanitary_Sewer_Prelim_Eng_20160128\Maps\Reports\Task_8_Report\Figure 6 - Scenario 4 Flow.mxd User: jrv
Demand Planning Scenario 4
Ultimate Medium Density City of Edina, MN
FIGURE 6
0 800 1,600
Feet
!;N
Southdale
Redevelopment Area
Hennepin County
ParcelsPipes
Scenario 4 Additional Flow (SAC Units)
1 - 50
51 - 100
101 - 250
251 - 500
501 - 1035
Imagery: USDA; 2015
W 69th St
§¨¦494
62
456731
456753
456731France Ave SFrance AveMinnesota Dr
W 66th St
W 65th St
W 70th St
France AveW 76th St
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.4, 2016-10-05 15:59 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Sanitary_Sewer_Prelim_Eng_20160128\Maps\Reports\Task_8_Report\Figure 7 - Scenario 5 Flow.mxd User: jrv
Demand Planning Scenario 5
Ultimate High Density
City of Edina, MN
FIGURE 7
0 800 1,600
Feet
!;N
Southdale
Redevelopment Area
Hennepin County
ParcelsPipes
Scenario 5 Additional Flow (SAC Units)
1 - 50
51 - 100
101 - 250
251 - 500
501 - 1376
Imagery: USDA; 2015
§¨¦494
£¤169
£¤212 62
7
100
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.4, 2016-10-05 16:01 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Sanitary_Sewer_Prelim_Eng_20160128\Maps\Reports\Task_8_Report\Figure 8 - Pipe Capacity Based on MCES Peaking Factors.mxd User: jrv
Pipe Capacity Based on MCES Peaking FactorsCity of Edina, MN
FIGURE 8
0 2,250 4,500
Feet
!;NCity of Edina
Boundary
Pipe Capacity
(% Full)
0-10
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
70-80
80-90
90-100
>100
Imagery: USDA; 2015
Note: All flows peaked
§¨¦494
£¤169
£¤212 62
7
100
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.4.1, 2017-04-04 11:27 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Sanitary_Sewer_Prelim_Eng_20160128\Maps\Reports\Task_8_Report\Figure 9 - Pipe Capacity Based on MCES Peaking Factors.mxd User: jrv
Pipe Capacity Based on MCES Peaking FactorsCity of Edina, MN
FIGURE 9
0 2,250 4,500
Feet
!;N
City of Edina
Boundary
Pipe Capacity
(% Full)
0-10
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
70-80
80-90
90-100
>100
Imagery: USDA; 2015
Note: Lift Station 6 and
both FlimTec locations
not peaked
§¨¦494
£¤169
£¤212 62
7
100
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.4, 2016-10-05 16:02 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Sanitary_Sewer_Prelim_Eng_20160128\Maps\Reports\Task_8_Report\Figure 10 - Pipe Capacity Based on MCES Peaking Factors.mxd User: jrv
Pipe Capacity Based on MCES Peaking FactorsCity of Edina, MN
FIGURE 10
0 2,250 4,500
Feet
!;NCity of Edina
Boundary
Pipe Capacity
(% Full)
0-10
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
70-80
80-90
90-100
>100
Imagery: USDA; 2015
Note: Lift Station 6,
Lift Station 14, and
both FilmTec
locations not
peaked
§¨¦494
£¤169
£¤212 62
7
100
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.4, 2016-11-04 07:34 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Sanitary_Sewer_Prelim_Eng_20160128\Maps\Reports\Task_8_Report\Figure 11 - Parcels Vulnerable to Basement Flooding Due to Sanitary Sewer Backup.mxd User: jrv
Parcels Vulnerable to BasementFlooding Due to SanitarySewer BackupCity of Edina, MN
FIGURE 11
0 2,250 4,500
Feet
!;NDepth to Nearest Pipe (Feet)
(Measured From Estimated Basement Floor)
> 20
15 - 20
10 - 15
5 - 10
0 - 5
Imagery: USDA; 2015
City of Edina Boundary
Parcels with Sewer Blockage
History (1975 - Present)
Pipes
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
§¨¦494
£¤169
£¤212 62
7
100
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
LS-05
LS-04
LS-11
LS-09
LS-08
LS-10
LS-02
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.4, 2016-11-04 10:58 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Sanitary_Sewer_Prelim_Eng_20160128\Maps\Reports\Task_8_Report\Figure 12 - Timing and Location of Surcharged Manholes Related to Failure of All Lift Stations.mxd User: jrv
Timing and Location ofSurcharged Manholes Relatedto Failure of All Lift StationsCity of Edina, MN
FIGURE 12
Manholes(Node Time to Surcharge)
!(> 24 Hours
!(12 - 24 Hours
!(6 - 12 Hours
!(2 - 6 Hours
!(< 2 Hours
!(First Manhole to Flood
Estimated First Parcel with
Basement Backup
City of Edina Boundary
Pipes")Lift Station
Imagery: USDA; 2015
0 2,250 4,500
Feet
!;N
")
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!
LS-06
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.4.1, 2017-04-03 09:55 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Sanitary_Sewer_Prelim_Eng_20160128\Maps\Reports\Task_8_Report_Update_20170403\Figure 13 - Timing and Location of Surcharged Manholes Related to Failure of Lift Station 6.mxd User: jrv
Timing and Location ofSurcharged Manholes Relatedto Failure of Lift Station 6City of Edina, MN
FIGURE 13
0 800 1,600
Feet
Depth to Nearest Pipe (Feet)(Measured From Estimated
Basement Floor)
> 2015 - 2010 - 155 - 100 - 5
Manholes(Node Time to Surcharge)
!(> 24 Hours!(12 - 24 Hours!(6 - 12 Hours!(2 - 6 Hours!(< 2 Hours!First Manhole to Flood
Estimated First Parcel with
Basement Backup
City of Edina Boundary
Hennepin County Parcels
Pipes")Lift Station
Imagery: USDA; 2015
!;N
")
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
LS-14
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.4.1, 2017-04-05 12:24 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Sanitary_Sewer_Prelim_Eng_20160128\Maps\Reports\Task_8_Report_Update_20170403\Figure 14 - Timing and Location of Surcharged Manholes Related to Failure of Lift Station 14.mxd User: jrv
Timing and Location ofSurcharged Manholes Relatedto Failure of Lift Station 14City of Edina, MN
FIGURE 14
0 300 600
Feet
Depth to Nearest Pipe (Feet)(Measured From Estimated
Basement Floor)
> 2015 - 2010 - 155 - 100 - 5
Manholes(Node Time to Surcharge)
!(> 24 Hours!(12 - 24 Hours!(6 - 12 Hours!(2 - 6 Hours!(< 2 Hours!(First Manhole to Flood
Estimated First Parcel with
Basement Backup
City of Edina Boundary
Hennepin County Parcels
Pipes")Lift Station
Imagery: USDA; 2015
!;N
")
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
LS-16
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.4.1, 2017-04-03 09:58 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Sanitary_Sewer_Prelim_Eng_20160128\Maps\Reports\Task_8_Report_Update_20170403\Figure 15 - Timing and Location of Surcharged Manholes Related to Failure of Lift Station 16.mxd User: jrv
Timing and Location ofSurcharged Manholes Relatedto Failure of Lift Station 16City of Edina, MN
FIGURE 15
0 300 600
Feet
Depth to Nearest Pipe (Feet)(Measured From Estimated
Basement Floor)
> 2015 - 2010 - 155 - 100 - 5
Manholes(Node Time to Surcharge)
!(> 24 Hours!(12 - 24 Hours!(6 - 12 Hours!(2 - 6 Hours!(< 2 Hours!(First Manhole to Flood
Estimated First Parcel with
Basement Backup
City of Edina Boundary
Hennepin County Parcels
Pipes")Lift Station
Imagery: USDA; 2015
!;N
")
")!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
LS-17
LS-18
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.4.1, 2017-04-03 10:00 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Sanitary_Sewer_Prelim_Eng_20160128\Maps\Reports\Task_8_Report_Update_20170403\Figure 16 - Timing and Location of Surcharged Manholes Related to Failure of Lift Stations 17 & 18.mxd User: jrv
Timing and Location ofSurcharged Manholes Relatedto Failure of Lift Stations 17 & 18City of Edina, MN
FIGURE 16
0 250 500
Feet
Depth to Nearest Pipe (Feet)(Measured From Estimated
Basement Floor)> 2015 - 2010 - 155 - 100 - 5
Manholes(Node Time to Surcharge)
!(> 24 Hours!(12 - 24 Hours!(6 - 12 Hours!(2 - 6 Hours!(< 2 Hours!(First Manhole to Flood
Estimated First Parcel with
Basement Backup
City of Edina Boundary
Hennepin County Parcels
Pipes")Lift Station
Imagery: USDA; 2015
!;N
")
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
LS-21
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.4.1, 2017-04-03 10:07 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Sanitary_Sewer_Prelim_Eng_20160128\Maps\Reports\Task_8_Report_Update_20170403\Figure 17 - Timing and Location of Surcharged Manholes Related to Failure of Lift Station 21.mxd User: jrv
Timing and Location ofSurcharged Manholes Relatedto Failure of Lift Station 21City of Edina, MN
FIGURE 17
0 250 500
Feet
Depth to Nearest Pipe (Feet)(Measured From Estimated
Basement Floor)
> 2015 - 2010 - 155 - 100 - 5
Manholes(Node Time to Surcharge)
!(> 24 Hours!(12 - 24 Hours!(6 - 12 Hours!(2 - 6 Hours!(< 2 Hours!(First Manhole to Flood
Estimated First Parcel with
Basement Backup
City of Edina Boundary
Hennepin County Parcels
Pipes")Lift Station
Imagery: USDA; 2015
!;N
")
")
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
LS-20
LS-15
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.4.1, 2017-04-03 10:09 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Sanitary_Sewer_Prelim_Eng_20160128\Maps\Reports\Task_8_Report_Update_20170403\Figure 18 - Timing and Location of Surcharged Manholes Related to Failure of Lift Stations 15 & 20.mxd User: jrv
Timing and Location ofSurcharged Manholes Relatedto Failure of Lift Stations 15 & 20City of Edina, MN
FIGURE 18
0 250 500
Feet
Depth to Nearest Pipe (Feet)(Measured From Estimated
Basement Floor)> 2015 - 2010 - 155 - 100 - 5
Manholes(Node Time to Surcharge)
!(> 24 Hours!(12 - 24 Hours!(6 - 12 Hours!(2 - 6 Hours!(< 2 Hours!(First Manhole to Flood
Estimated First Parcel with
Basement Backup
City of Edina Boundary
Hennepin County Parcels
Pipes")Lift Station
Imagery: USDA; 2015
!;N
")
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(LS-03
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.4.1, 2017-04-03 10:16 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Sanitary_Sewer_Prelim_Eng_20160128\Maps\Reports\Task_8_Report_Update_20170403\Figure 19 - Timing and Location of Surcharged Manholes Related to Failure of Lift Station 3.mxd User: jrv
Timing and Location ofSurcharged Manholes Relatedto Failure of Lift Station 3City of Edina, MN
FIGURE 19
0 300 600
Feet
Depth to Nearest Pipe (Feet)(Measured From Estimated
Basement Floor)> 2015 - 2010 - 155 - 100 - 5
Manholes(Node Time to Surcharge)
!(> 24 Hours!(12 - 24 Hours!(6 - 12 Hours!(2 - 6 Hours!(< 2 Hours!(First Manhole to Flood
Estimated First Parcel with
Basement Backup
City of Edina Boundary
Hennepin County Parcels
Pipes")Lift Station
Imagery: USDA; 2015
!;N
")
")
")
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
LS-23
LS-12
LS-10
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.4.1, 2017-04-03 10:20 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Sanitary_Sewer_Prelim_Eng_20160128\Maps\Reports\Task_8_Report_Update_20170403\Figure 20 - Timing and Location of Surcharged Manholes Related to Failure of Lift Stations 10, 12 & 23.mxd User: jrv
Timing and Location ofSurcharged Manholes Relatedto Failure of Lift Stations10, 12 & 23City of Edina, MNFIGURE 20
0 350 700
Feet
Depth to Nearest Pipe (Feet)(Measured From Estimated
Basement Floor)> 2015 - 2010 - 155 - 100 - 5
Manholes(Node Time to Surcharge)
!(> 24 Hours!(12 - 24 Hours!(6 - 12 Hours!(2 - 6 Hours!(< 2 Hours!(First Manhole to Flood
Estimated First Parcel with
Basement Backup
City of Edina Boundary
Hennepin County Parcels
Pipes")Lift Station
Imagery: USDA; 2015
!;N
")
")!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(LS-05
LS-09
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.4.1, 2017-04-03 10:22 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Sanitary_Sewer_Prelim_Eng_20160128\Maps\Reports\Task_8_Report_Update_20170403\Figure 21 - Timing and Location of Surcharged Manholes Related to Failure of Lift Stations 5 & 9.mxd User: jrv
Timing and Location ofSurcharged Manholes Relatedto Failure of Lift Station 5 & 9City of Edina, MN
FIGURE 21
0 300 600
Feet
Depth to Nearest Pipe (Feet)(Measured From Estimated
Basement Floor)
> 2015 - 2010 - 155 - 100 - 5
Manholes(Node Time to Surcharge)
!(> 24 Hours!(12 - 24 Hours!(6 - 12 Hours!(2 - 6 Hours!(< 2 Hours!(First Manhole to Flood
Estimated First Parcel with
Basement Backup
City of Edina Boundary
Hennepin County Parcels
Pipes")Lift Station
Imagery: USDA; 2015
!;N
")
")
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
LS-08
LS-02
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.4.1, 2017-04-03 10:24 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Sanitary_Sewer_Prelim_Eng_20160128\Maps\Reports\Task_8_Report_Update_20170403\Figure 22 - Timing and Location of Surcharged Manholes Related to Failure of Lift Stations 2 & 8.mxd User: jrv
Timing and Location ofSurcharged Manholes Relatedto Failure of Lift Stations 2 & 8City of Edina, MN
FIGURE 22
0 250 500
Feet
Depth to Nearest Pipe (Feet)(Measured From Estimated
Basement Floor)> 2015 - 2010 - 155 - 100 - 5
Manholes(Node Time to Surcharge)
!(> 24 Hours!(12 - 24 Hours!(6 - 12 Hours!(2 - 6 Hours!(< 2 Hours!(First Manhole to Flood
Estimated First Parcel with
Basement Backup
City of Edina Boundary
Hennepin County Parcels
Pipes")Lift Station
Imagery: USDA; 2015
!;N
")
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
LS-11
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.4.1, 2017-04-03 10:28 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Sanitary_Sewer_Prelim_Eng_20160128\Maps\Reports\Task_8_Report_Update_20170403\Figure 23 - Timing and Location of Surcharged Manholes Related to Failure of Lift Station 11.mxd User: jrv
Timing and Location ofSurcharged Manholes Relatedto Failure of Lift Station 11City of Edina, MN
FIGURE 23
0 250 500
Feet
Depth to Nearest Pipe (Feet)(Measured From Estimated
Basement Floor)> 2015 - 2010 - 155 - 100 - 5
Manholes(Node Time to Surcharge)
!(> 24 Hours!(12 - 24 Hours!(6 - 12 Hours!(2 - 6 Hours!(< 2 Hours!(First Manhole to Flood
Estimated First Parcel with
Basement Backup
City of Edina Boundary
Hennepin County Parcels
Pipes")Lift Station
Imagery: USDA; 2015
!;N
")
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
LS-04
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.4.1, 2017-04-03 10:31 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Sanitary_Sewer_Prelim_Eng_20160128\Maps\Reports\Task_8_Report_Update_20170403\Figure 24 - Timing and Location of Surcharged Manholes Related to Failure of Lift Station 4.mxd User: jrv
Timing and Location ofSurcharged Manholes Relatedto Failure of Lift Station 4City of Edina, MN
FIGURE 24
0 250 500
Feet
Depth to Nearest Pipe (Feet)(Measured From Estimated
Basement Floor)
> 2015 - 2010 - 155 - 100 - 5
Manholes(Node Time to Surcharge)
!(> 24 Hours!(12 - 24 Hours!(6 - 12 Hours!(2 - 6 Hours!(< 2 Hours!(First Manhole to Flood
Estimated First Parcel with
Basement Backup
City of Edina Boundary
Hennepin County Parcels
Pipes")Lift Station
Imagery: USDA; 2015
!;N
")
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(LS-13
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.4.1, 2017-04-03 10:33 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Sanitary_Sewer_Prelim_Eng_20160128\Maps\Reports\Task_8_Report_Update_20170403\Figure 25 - Timing and Location of Surcharged Manholes Related to Failure of Lift Station 13.mxd User: jrv
Timing and Location ofSurcharged Manholes Relatedto Failure of Lift Station 13City of Edina, MN
FIGURE 25
0 250 500
Feet
Depth to Nearest Pipe (Feet)(Measured From Estimated
Basement Floor)> 2015 - 2010 - 155 - 100 - 5
Manholes(Node Time to Surcharge)
!(> 24 Hours!(12 - 24 Hours!(6 - 12 Hours!(2 - 6 Hours!(< 2 Hours!(First Manhole to Flood
Estimated First Parcel with
Basement Backup
City of Edina Boundary
Hennepin County Parcels
Pipes")Lift Station
Imagery: USDA; 2015
!;N
")
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
LS-22
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.4.1, 2017-04-03 10:35 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Sanitary_Sewer_Prelim_Eng_20160128\Maps\Reports\Task_8_Report_Update_20170403\Figure 26 - Timing and Location of Surcharged Manholes Related to Failure of Lift Station 22.mxd User: jrv
Timing and Location ofSurcharged Manholes Relatedto Failure of Lift Station 22City of Edina, MN
FIGURE 26
0 250 500
Feet
Depth to Nearest Pipe (Feet)(Measured From Estimated
Basement Floor)
> 2015 - 2010 - 155 - 100 - 5
Manholes(Node Time to Surcharge)
!(> 24 Hours!(12 - 24 Hours!(6 - 12 Hours!(2 - 6 Hours!(< 2 Hours!(First Manhole to Flood
Estimated First Parcel with
Basement Backup
City of Edina Boundary
Hennepin County Parcels
Pipes")Lift Station
Imagery: USDA; 2015
!;N
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
§¨¦494
£¤169
£¤212 62
7
100
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.4, 2016-11-03 12:04 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Sanitary_Sewer_Prelim_Eng_20160128\Maps\Reports\Task_8_Report\Figure 27 - Pipes or Manholes within 100 Feet of Water.mxd User: jrv
Pipes and Manholes Within100-Feet of WaterCity of Edina, MN
FIGURE 27
0 2,250 4,500
Feet
!;N
!(Manholes within 100' of Water
!(High Risk Manhole*
Pipes within 100' of Water
High Risk Pipe**
100-Foot Water Buffer
City of Edina Boundary
Imagery: USDA; 2015
* High risk manholes are manholes within 100-feet
of a water body and the first manhole to surcharge
in the event of a lift station failure (Figure 12).
** High risk pipes are pipes within 100-feet of a
water body and have a predicted peak flow greater
than 80% of the pipe capacity (Figure 8).
W 69th St
§¨¦494
62
456731
456753
456731France Ave SFrance AveMinnesota Dr
W 66th St
W 65th St
W 70th St
France AveW 76th St
W 77th St Parklawn AveXerxes Ave1-RF-491
1-RF-490Fairview Area
Southdale
Area
Parklawn Area
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.4, 2016-10-05 16:21 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Sanitary_Sewer_Prelim_Eng_20160128\Maps\Reports\Task_8_Report\Figure 29 - Scenario 1 - Existing Conditions Plus 5-Year Redevelopment.mxd User: jrv
Pipe Capacity Scenario 1Existing Conditions Plus5-Year RedevelopmentCity of Edina, MN
FIGURE 28
0 800 1,600
Feet
!;N
Southdale
Redevelopment Area
Hennepin County
Parcels
Pipe Capacity(%
Full): [d/D]
0-10
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
70-80
80-90
90-100
>100
Imagery: USDA; 2015
W 69th St
§¨¦494
62
456731
456753
456731France Ave SFrance AveMinnesota Dr
W 66th St
W 65th St
W 70th St
France AveW 76th St Xerxes Ave SParklawn AveW 77th St
1-RF-491
1-RF-490Fairview Area
Southdale
Area
Parklawn Area
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.4, 2016-11-03 12:06 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Sanitary_Sewer_Prelim_Eng_20160128\Maps\Reports\Task_8_Report\Figure 29 - Scenario 2 - Existing Conditions Plus 10-Year Redevelopment.mxd User: jrv
Pipe Capacity Scenario 2Existing Conditions Plus10-Year RedevelopmentCity of Edina, MN
FIGURE 29
0 800 1,600
Feet
!;N
Southdale
Redevelopment Area
Hennepin County
Parcels
Pipe Capacity(%
Full): [d/D]
0-10
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
70-80
80-90
90-100
>100
Imagery: USDA; 2015
W 69th St
§¨¦494
62
456731
456753
456731France Ave SFrance AveMinnesota Dr
W 66th St
W 65th St
W 70th St
France AveW 76th St
W 77th St Parklawn AveXerxes Ave1-RF-491
1-RF-490Fairview Area
Southdale
Area
Parklawn Area
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.4, 2016-11-03 12:22 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Sanitary_Sewer_Prelim_Eng_20160128\Maps\Reports\Task_8_Report\Figure 30 - Scenario 3 - Ultimate Low Density.mxd User: jrv
Pipe Capacity Scenario 3Ultimate Low DensityCity of Edina, MN
FIGURE 30
0 800 1,600
Feet
!;N
Southdale
Redevelopment Area
Hennepin County
Parcels
Pipe Capacity(%
Full): [d/D]
0-10
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
70-80
80-90
90-100
>100
Imagery: USDA; 2015
W 69th St
§¨¦494
62
456731
456753
456731France Ave SFrance AveMinnesota Dr
W 66th St
W 65th St
W 70th St
France AveW 76th St
W 77th St Parklawn AveXerxes Ave1-RF-491
1-RF-490Fairview Area
Southdale
Area
Parklawn Area
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.4, 2016-11-03 12:37 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Sanitary_Sewer_Prelim_Eng_20160128\Maps\Reports\Task_8_Report\Figure 31 - Scenario 4 - Ultimate Medium Density.mxd User: jrv
Pipe Capacity Scenario 4Ultimate Medium DensityCity of Edina, MN
FIGURE 31
0 800 1,600
Feet
!;N
Southdale
Redevelopment Area
Hennepin County
Parcels
Pipe Capacity(%
Full): [d/D]
0-10
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
70-80
80-90
90-100
>100
Imagery: USDA; 2015
W 69th St
§¨¦494
62
456731
456753
456731France Ave SFrance AveMinnesota Dr
W 66th St
W 65th St
W 70th St
France AveW 76th St
W 77th St Parklawn AveXerxes Ave1-RF-491
1-RF-490Fairview Area
Southdale
Area
Parklawn Area
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.4, 2016-11-03 12:38 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Sanitary_Sewer_Prelim_Eng_20160128\Maps\Reports\Task_8_Report\Figure 32 - Scenario 5 - Ultimate High Density.mxd User: jrv
Pipe Capacity Scenario 5Ultimate High DensityCity of Edina, MN
FIGURE 32
0 800 1,600
Feet
!;N
Southdale
Redevelopment Area
Hennepin County
Parcels
Pipe Capacity(%
Full): [d/D]
0-10
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
70-80
80-90
90-100
>100
Imagery: USDA; 2015
W 69th St
§¨¦494
62
456731
456753
456731France Ave SFrance AveMinnesota Dr
W 66th St
W 65th St
W 70th St
France AveW 76th St
W 77th St Parklawn AveXerxes Ave1-RF-491
1-RF-490Fairview Area
Southdale
Area
Parklawn Area
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.4, 2016-11-03 12:39 File: I:\Client\Edina\Projects\Sanitary_Sewer_Prelim_Eng_20160128\Maps\Reports\Task_8_Report\Figure 37 - Pipe Capacity Post Improvements.mxd User: jrv
Pipe CapacityPost ImprovementsCity of Edina, MN
FIGURE 38
0 800 1,600
Feet
!;N
Southdale
Redevelopment Area
Hennepin County
Parcels
Pipe Capacity(%
Full): [d/D]
0-10
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
70-80
80-90
90-100
>100
Imagery: USDA; 2015