Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-09-17; City Council; ; 2019 Asset Management Master Plan€r} JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT Staff Report Meeting Date: To: From: Staff Contact: Subject: Sept. 17, 2019 Mayor/President and City Council/Board of Directors Scott Chadwick, City Manager/Executive Manager Stephanie Harrison, Utilities Asset Manager stephanie.harrison@carlsbadca.gov or 760-603-7310 Vicki Quiram, Utilities Director/General Manager vicki.quiram@carlsbadca.gov or 760-438-2722 2019 Asset Management Master Plan Recommended Action CA Review C, \~ 1. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad approving the Asset Management Master Plan, Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project Nos. 5543-1 and 5543-2. 2. Adopt a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District approving the 2019 Asset Management Master Plan. Executive Summary On Jan . 24, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2017-020 authorizing execution of a professional services agreement with HDR Inc. for completion of the Potable Water, Recycled Water and Sewer Master Plan Updates (Master Plans), as well as the Asset Management Master Plan (AMMP). That same evening, the Board of Directors of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD Board) adopted Resolution No. 1558 approving the same action. The AMMP has been completed, and it presents a plan for the sound repair and replacement of utility investments using a performance-based asset management approach, which will extend the useful life of these assets. It lays out a plan for condition assessment and CIP projects that align with and support the Master Plans (which are being presented to the City Council and the CMWD Board for approval as a separate item). The AMMP documents rehabilitation and replacement decision-making logic and uses condition and failure data and risk criteria to recommend investment levels for condition-based rehabilitation and replacement of utility pipelines and other infrastructure. As discussed in the Master Plans, the capacity of potable water, recycled water and sewer systems are becoming less of a driver for capital improvements due to a reduction of demand caused by increased water conservation and managed growth forecasts. In contrast, the condition of the systems has become a more significant driver for capita l improvements. As the systems age and deteriorate, there is a need to increase investments in condition-related capital improvements and continue to implement asset management operational strategies to maintain service levels. Staff is taking a proactive approach to managing the lifecycles of the city's infrastructure to extend the useful life of the assets and plan for rehabilitation and replacement based on September 17, 2019 Item #11 Page 1 of 22 condition and risk to minimize the cost impacts to ratepayers. Creation of an AMMP results in CIP recommendations that will guide the utilities department in spending ratepayer funds in the most cost-effective manner. Investments in asset management will provide the best value for the city and ratepayers. Significant potential savings have been identified through the city's asset management programs. The AMMP is before the City Council and CMWD Board for approval as it provides direction to staff for implementation of the phased rehabilitation and replacement of the potable water, recycled water and sewer systems that are vital to the health and safety of the community they serve. The AMMP supports the 2007 Community Values identified in the Carlsbad Community Vision including water conservation, recycling and desalination, water quality and greenhouse gas reduction. The AMMP a'lso supports the 2007 City Council approved sustainability guiding principle for a diverse and drought resistant water supply. Discussion Through intricate infrastructure systems, much of which is underground, CMWD provides safe drinking and recycled water, and the City of Carlsbad provides wastewater collection and treatment services to Carlsbad residents within the service areas. CMWD and the city ensure that water delivery and wastewater collection meet increasingly stringent health, safety and environmental regulations and reporting requirements. These efforts require staff to operate, maintain, and renew potable water, recycled water and sewer infrastructure with an estimated replacement cost of over $2.1 billion. The primary goal of the utilities asset management program is to minimize the total cost of owning and operating infrastructure assets, while maintaining current service levels at acceptable levels of risk. The most effective way to meet this goal is to develop programs to proactively manage the entire lifecycle of water and wastewater infrastructure assets from the time they are put into service to when they are rehabilitated and replaced. Key metrics that measure the success of wastewater and water systems include the number of sanitary sewer overflows (SSO) per 100 miles and number of water main breaks per 100 miles. The utilities department tracks these and other metrics monthly; in both cases, the metrics show lower 550 and water main break rates than the average for the region. This is partly due to the proactive preventive maintenance programs in place. The utilities department uses industry best practices and asset performance data to develop and modify preventive maintenance programs with the goal of ensuring that assets last at least as long as their estimated useful life and that they perform at acceptable levels during that time. Another reason for the low 550 and water main break rates is because even though the water and wastewater systems are aging, they have been performing better than expected to date. Industry and staff experience suggest that infrastructure age alone is not a good predictor of asset condition or system investment need. The utilities department is moving towards using condition-based assessments and risk criteria, such as impacts to public health and the environment, to determine rehabilitation and replacement needs, priorities and investment levels. Having an asset management program that continuously reviews system condition and combines effective preventive maintenance programs with performance-based decisions can September 17, 2019 Item #11 Page 2 of 22 The AMMP provides a strong foundation for condition assessment and CIP planning that aligns with and supports the Master Plans. The AMMP is intended to act as a living document that will be updated as city programs evolve. It documents renewal decision logic and estimates future investment levels using risk and performance data. While the initial focus is on a specific set of asset types, the intent is to continue this process and eventually have lifecycle management programs in place for all assets. Staff has been utilizing an asset management and work management software system for the past 15 years and uses its data to track metrics and make decisions. Since that time, technology has significantly evolved. An evaluation of other software systems is needed to determine if there is one that would make data entry and data management easier and more efficient and would have better integration capabilities with other systems. This would improve efficiency, system performance and the quality and accessibility of this data. Fiscal Analysis The three utilities divisions (potable water, recycled water and wastewater) each have their own separate dedicated budgets and are referred to as "enterprise funds." Enterprise funds exist to provide a specific service, and they are primarily funded by ratepayers (customers) and user fees. The enterprise fund establishes a separate accounting and financial reporting mechanism for municipal services for which a fee is charged in exchange for those services. The monies collected for providing the specific services cannot be used for anything else. The ratepayers also own all of the infrastructure associated with the service being provided. For example, wastewater is a service the city provides its customers. The wastewater ratepayers own all of the wastewater infrastructure, rather than the city. The city is responsible for managing the enterprise fund and providing the service. There are two primary costs associated with the AMMP: 1) Costs associated with implementing projects identified in the AMMP. The recommended investment level for the rehabilitation/replacement program identified in the AMMP have been included in the FY 2019-20 CIP 15-year capital forecast and the Cost of Service Study and are currently estimated as follows: • Potable Water: $78.0 million • Recycled Water: $8.5 million • Wastewater: $76.0 million 2) Costs avoided by fully implementing the AMMP. September 17, 2019 Item #11 Page 4 of 22 Proactively managing assets through a condition-based program is a less expensive, more sustainable solution for managing assets over the long term. As described in this staff report, significant savings may be achieved through proactive asset management. Using a condition- based program to make decisions about rehabilitation and replacement, potable water and recycled water are expected to avoid approximately $13.3 million in annual costs while wastewater is expected to avoid approximately $2.9 million in annual costs. This represents approximately $16 million in avoided costs annually and hundreds of millions of dollars over the long-term. The AMMP staff support needed to manage the CIP workload, particularly given the new projects identified in the Master Plans, currently exceeds the capacity of existing staff. Staff has developed a resourcing strategy to meet the above-referenced needs by addition of one full- time permanent position that will be requested as part of the FY 2020-21 budget process. This future request is provided for information only at this time. · Next Steps Staff is working on this year's rehabilitation and replacement projects and anticipates bringing projects for water valve replacements and sewer main repairs to the Board and Council for authorization to bid. A plan for water main condition assessments is also being developed. Finally, staff is working on configuring a capital planning tool to assist with data analysis and project prioritizations. Environmental Evaluation (CEQA) The city and CMWD are proposing an update to the existing Master Plans. The existing Master Plans, adopted in November 2012, were evaluated in a program environmental impact report (PEIR 12-01) prepared and certified by the city. At that time, the PEIR considered and analyzed capital improvement projects {CIP) proposed as pc1rt of an update to the city's Water Master Plan and Sewer Master Plan {2003) and Water Reclamation Master Plan (1992). The city and CMWD are proposing additional CIP projects, some of which are recommended in the AMMP, be added to the existing Master Plans in addition to some updates and revisions to the CIP projects considered in the 2012 PEIR. An addendum was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code § 21000, et. seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines, as amended (California Administrative Code, Title 14, § 15000, et. seq.). The city planner has reviewed the project changes, and the revised Master Plan's PEIR addendum prepared by HDR and found that none of the requirements in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163 for a subsequent or supplement EIR have been triggered, as the addendum explains. Therefore, the revised project is within the scope of the adopted PEIR and use of an addendum to document the project changes is appropriate. CEQA Guideline Section 15164 also notes an addendum need not be circulated for public review but may simply be attached to the PEIR. Public Notification and Outreach This item was noticed in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and was available for public September 17, 2019 Item #11 Page 5 of 22 viewing and review at least 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting date. A copy of the 2019 AMMP is available for review at the office of the city clerk. Exhibits 1. City Council Resolution. 2. CMWD Board Resolution. 3. 2019 Utilities Master Plan Executive Summary. 4. A copy of the 2019 AM MP is on file at the office of the city clerk. September 17, 2019 Item #11 Page 6 of 22 RESOLUTION NO. 2019-182 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE 2019 UTILITIES ASSET MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) PROJECT NOS. 5543-1 and 5543-2. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California has determined it necessary, desirable and in the public interest to create an Asset Management Master Plan (AMMP); and WHEREAS, on Jan. 24, 2017, City Council adopted Resolution No. 2017-020 approving execution of a professional services agreement with HDR Inc. for completion of the AMMP; and WHEREAS, the attached 2019 AMMP was completed by HDR Inc. in accordance with the tasks outlined in their professional services agreement; and WHEREAS, the 2019 AMMP provides a strong foundation for condition assessment and capital improvement planning that aligns with and supports the 2019 Potable Water and Recycled Water Master Plan Updates; and WHEREAS, the 2019 Master Plan Updates revise the Sewer Master Plan adopted in November 2012 and for which a Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR 12-01) was certified by the city; and WHEREAS, HDR, Inc. prepared a revised PEIR addendum to include project changes identified in the 2019 Master Plan Updates, including any improvements identified in the 2019 AMMP; and WHEREAS, the city planner has reviewed the project changes identified in the 2019 Master Plan Updates and the 2019 AMMP, and the revised Master Plan's PEIR addendum prepared by HDR Inc. for the 2019 Master Plan Updates, and found that none of the requirements in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163 for a subsequent or supplement EIR have been triggered; and WHEREAS, the project is within the scope of the adopted PEIR and use of the addendum to document the project changes is appropriate; and WHEREAS, Guideline Section 15164 notes an addendum need not be circulated for public review but may simply be attached to the PEIR; and WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City Council approve the 2019 AMMP. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. September 17, 2019 Item #11 Page 7 of 22 2. That the City Council approves the 2019 AMMP, a copy of which is on file in the office of the city clerk. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Joint Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, and the Board of Directors of Carlsbad Municipal Water District of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the 17th day of September 2019, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Hall, Blackburn, Bhat-Patel, Schumacher, Hamilton. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. r c ~ f-lec-l(H GumrZ-1 DepWj "'o BARBARA ENGLESON, City Clerk G ,·t:J (SEAL) CJ~,){ September 17, 2019 Item #11 Page 8 of 22 RESOLUTION NO. 1619 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE 2019 UTILITIES ASSET MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN (AMMP), CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) PROJECT NOS. 5543-1 and 5543-2. WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD Board) of the City of Carlsbad, California has determined it necessary, desirable and in the public interest to create an AMMP; and WHEREAS, on Jan. 24, 2017, the CMWD Board adopted Resolution No. 1558 approving execution of a professional services agreement with HDR, Inc. for completion of the AMMP; and WHEREAS, the 2019 AMMP was completed by HDR Inc. in accordance with the tasks outlined in their professional services agreement; and WHEREAS, the 2019 AMMP provides a strong foundation for condition assessment and capital improvement planning that aligns with and supports the 2019 Potable Water and Recycled Water Master Plan Updates; and WHEREAS, the 2019 Master Plan Updates revise the Water Master Plan and Recycled Water Master Plan adopted in November 2012 and for which a Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR 12-01) was certified by the city; and WHEREAS, HDR, Inc. prepared a revised PEIR addendum to include project changes identified in the 2019 Master Plan Updates, including any improvements identified in the 2019 AMMP; and WHEREAS, the city planner has reviewed the project changes identified in the 2019 Master Plan Updates and the 2019 AMMP, and the revised PEIR addendum prepared by HDR Inc. for the 2019 Master Plan Updates, and found that none of the requirements in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163 for a subsequent or supplement EIR have been triggered; and WHEREAS, the project is within the scope of the adopted PEIR and use of the addendum to document the project changes is appropriate; and WHEREAS, Guideline Section 15164 notes an addendum need not be circulated for public review but may simply be attached to the PEIR; and WHEREAS, staff recommends that the CMWD Board approve the 2019 AMMP. September 17, 2019 Item #11 Page 9 of 22 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors ofthe Carlsbad Municipal Water District of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the CMWD Board approves the 2019 AMMP, a copy of which is on file in the office of the city clerk. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Joint Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District of the City of Carlsbad, California and the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the 17th day of September 2019, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Hall, Blackburn, Bhat-Patel, Schumacher, Hamilton. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. -=tJ!f~ /dec±or Gome 2 1 {of BARBARA ENGLESON, Secretary Dep Cit} (SEAL) , Clt/lt September 17, 2019 Item #11 Page 10 of 22 Recycled Water CIP • Sewer System CIP City Boundaries CIP ■■■■ Under Design/ Construction EEEB Existing System • Tank City Boundaries -CIP EEEB Existing System September 17, 2019 Item #11 Page 18 of 22 Industry and City staff experience informs us that age alone is not a good predictor of condition or system investment need. Continued investment in the asset management program is expected to result in lower infrastructure renewal costs than would be required through age-based forecasts. Significant potential savings have been identified through the City's asset management programs including the following: • The cost to replace sewer pipes with moderate sags is approximately $4 million in capital investment. Eventually these pipes will need to be replaced, but using a more frequent cleaning maintenance strategy to manage minor issues is extending the useful life of sewer pipes. This results in lower costs to ratepayers and fewer construction impacts to the community. • Over the next five years, a condition and performance-based asset management approach saves the City approximately $2.6 million per year when compared to the age-based forecast for gravity sewer and manhole renewal. • Over the next 50 years, a condition and performance-based asset management approach saves the City approximately $665 million dollars in unnecessary potable water and recycled water pipeline, valve and service replacement (an average of $13.3 million per year). The water renewal cost forecast is based on break rate and deterioration curves from regional utilities with similar water main infrastructure. September 17, 2019 Item #11 Page 19 of 22 Asset Management Master Plan Prepared for Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad Asset Management Master Plan Update Log For use by City of Carlsbad for Asset Management Master Plan Updates Version No. Update Date Summary of Updates Updated By 0 5/2019 Asset Management Master Plan Created HDR, Carlsbad MWD & City of Carlsbad Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | i Contents 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose of the Asset Management Master Plan ................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Asset Management Program Overview ................................................................................. 1-1 1.3 Asset Management Master Plan Organization....................................................................... 1-6 1.4 Program Participants .............................................................................................................. 1-6 1.5 Overview of Wastewater, Potable Water and Recycled Water Assets .................................. 1-7 1.6 Study Areas ............................................................................................................................ 1-7 2 Wastewater....................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 System Inventory, Performance & Replacement Cost ........................................................... 2-1 2.2 Gravity Sewers and Manholes ............................................................................................... 2-4 2.2.1 Age-Based Forecast.................................................................................................. 2-4 2.2.2 Performance-Based Forecast ................................................................................... 2-6 2.2.3 Recommended Investment Levels .......................................................................... 2-52 2.3 CIP Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 2-53 2.4 Condition and Capacity CIP Project Coordination ............................................................... 2-57 2.5 Opportunities ........................................................................................................................ 2-57 2.6 Asset Valuation .................................................................................................................... 2-58 2.7 InfoMaster and Project Packaging Workflow ....................................................................... 2-58 3 Potable and Recycled Water ............................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 System Inventory, Performance, & Replacement Cost .......................................................... 3-1 3.2 Pipelines, Valves, and Service Laterals ................................................................................. 3-4 3.2.1 Age-Based Forecast.................................................................................................. 3-4 3.2.2 Performance-Based Forecast ................................................................................... 3-5 3.2.3 Recommended Investment Levels .......................................................................... 3-32 3.3 CIP Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 3-33 3.4 Condition and Capacity CIP Project Prioritization ................................................................ 3-41 3.5 Opportunities ........................................................................................................................ 3-41 3.6 Asset Valuation .................................................................................................................... 3-42 Figures Figure 1-1. Water Main and Recycled Water Main Performance .............................................................. 1-3 Figure 1-2. Gravity Sewer and Manhole Renewal Cost Forecast.............................................................. 1-4 Figure 1-3. Potable and Recycled Water Pipeline, Valve and Services Cost Forecast ............................ 1-5 Figure 1-4. Water and Recycled Water Service Area ................................................................................ 1-8 Figure 1-5. Sewer Service Area ................................................................................................................. 1-9 Figure 2-1. Gravity Sewer Pipe by Install Year .......................................................................................... 2-2 Figure 2-2. Gravity Sewer Business Risk Exposure ................................................................................ 2-10 Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad ii | June 2019 Figure 2-3. Additive BRE versus Multiplicative BRE ................................................................................ 2-12 Figure 2-4. Gravity Sewer Likelihood of Failure ....................................................................................... 2-14 Figure 2-5. Defect Images Used for Defect Score Development............................................................. 2-17 Figure 2-6. Gravity Sewer Consequence of Failure ................................................................................. 2-23 Figure 2-7. Manhole Business Risk Exposure ......................................................................................... 2-27 Figure 2-8. Manhole Likelihood of Failure ................................................................................................ 2-29 Figure 2-9. Manhole Consequence of Failure.......................................................................................... 2-31 Figure 2-10. Gravity Sewer Condition Risk Mitigation Decision Logic Flow Diagram ............................. 2-35 Figure 2-11. Manhole Condition Risk Mitigation Decision Logic Flow Diagram ...................................... 2-39 Figure 2-12. Cost to Renew Gravity Sewers by BRE Thresholds ........................................................... 2-42 Figure 2-13. Gravity Sewer Renewal and Monitoring Action Results ...................................................... 2-45 Figure 2-14. Condition Risk Mitigation Decision Logic Renewal Results for Gravity Sewers ................. 2-46 Figure 2-15. Condition Risk Mitigation Decision Logic Monitoring Results for Gravity Sewers ............... 2-47 Figure 2-16. Gravity Sewer CIP Renewal Cost Forecast Results ........................................................... 2-48 Figure 2-17. Condition Risk Mitigation Decision Logic Results for Manholes ......................................... 2-50 Figure 2-18. Gravity Sewer and Manhole Renewal Cost Forecast ......................................................... 2-53 Figure 3-1. Age Alone is a Poor Indicator of Pipe Condition and Remaining Useful Life .......................... 3-5 Figure 3-2. Benchmarking of City Performance & Investment Levels ....................................................... 3-7 Figure 3-3. System Performance verses Investment Level Relationship .................................................. 3-8 Figure 3-4. Deterioration of AC Pipe at Vista Irrigation District .................................................................. 3-9 Figure 3-5. Forecasted Deterioration of City Pipelines .............................................................................. 3-9 Figure 3-6. 50-year City Pipeline Replacement Forecast ........................................................................ 3-10 Figure 3-7. Near-term Pipeline Replacement Project Map ...................................................................... 3-11 Figure 3-8. Map of Project 1 – Bolero Street ........................................................................................... 3-13 Figure 3-9. Map of Project 2 – Adams Street........................................................................................... 3-15 Figure 3-10. Map of Difficult to Access Pipe ............................................................................................ 3-16 Figure 3-11. Map of Project 3 – Caringa & Altisma ................................................................................. 3-18 Figure 3-12. Picture of Difficult to Access Area #1 .................................................................................. 3-19 Figure 3-13. Picture of Difficult to Access Area #2 .................................................................................. 3-19 Figure 3-14. Picture of Difficult to Access Area #3 .................................................................................. 3-20 Figure 3-15. Picture of Difficult to Access Area #4 .................................................................................. 3-21 Figure 3-16. Picture of Difficult to Access Area #5 .................................................................................. 3-22 Figure 3-17. Picture of Difficult to Access Area #6 .................................................................................. 3-23 Figure 3-18. Example of Plastic Pipe Failure Analysis ............................................................................ 3-26 Figure 3-19. Example of Soil Survey ....................................................................................................... 3-27 Figure 3-20. Example of Close-Interval Survey ....................................................................................... 3-28 Figure 3-21. Example of Targeted Excavation and Measurement of Pipe Wall Thickness ..................... 3-28 Figure 3-22. Example of In-Pipe Electromagnetic Technology................................................................ 3-29 Figure 3-23. Example of Small Diameter In-Pipe Electromagnetic Technology ...................................... 3-30 Figure 3-24. Savings by Evolving from an Age-based to Performance-based Program ......................... 3-33 Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | iii Tables Table 1-1. Carlsbad Asset Summary ......................................................................................................... 1-7 Table 2-1. Gravity Sewer Replacement Cost ............................................................................................. 2-2 Table 2-2. Manhole Replacement Cost ..................................................................................................... 2-4 Table 2-3. Age-based Useful Life .............................................................................................................. 2-4 Table 2-4. 40-Year Age-based Renewal Forecast .................................................................................... 2-5 Table 2-5. Gravity Sewer Cleaning Frequency .......................................................................................... 2-8 Table 2-6. Business Risk Exposure Score Components and Weights ...................................................... 2-9 Table 2-7. Defect Score ........................................................................................................................... 2-21 Table 2-8. Count of Defects Score ........................................................................................................... 2-21 Table 2-9. Cleaning Frequency Score ..................................................................................................... 2-21 Table 2-10. Capacity ................................................................................................................................ 2-22 Table 2-11. Spill Volume Potential ........................................................................................................... 2-24 Table 2-12. Public Health and Environmental Impact .............................................................................. 2-24 Table 2-13. Emergency Response Impact ............................................................................................... 2-25 Table 2-14. Business Risk Exposure Score Components and Weights .................................................. 2-25 Table 2-15. Condition Assessment Scoring ............................................................................................. 2-30 Table 2-16. Business Risk Exposure Summary....................................................................................... 2-37 Table 2-17. Renewal Action BRE Thresholds .......................................................................................... 2-43 Table 2-18. Condition Assessment Monitoring Action Basis ................................................................... 2-43 Table 2-19. Gravity Sewer Risk Mitigation Action Results ....................................................................... 2-44 Table 2-20. Gravity Sewer CIP Renewal Cost Forecast .......................................................................... 2-48 Table 2-21. Manhole CIP Renewal Cost Forecast .................................................................................. 2-51 Table 2-22. Small Diameter Gravity Sewer CCTV Inspection Forecast .................................................. 2-51 Table 2-23. Large Diameter Gravity Sewer CCTV Inspection Forecast .................................................. 2-52 Table 2-24. CIP Forecast for Sewer Line Refurbishments and Replacement ......................................... 2-54 Table 2-25. CIP Forecast for Sewer Line Condition Assessment............................................................ 2-56 Table 3-1. Summary of Pipe Infrastructure by Installation Decade ........................................................... 3-2 Table 3-2. Current Water Pipe Replacement Cost .................................................................................... 3-3 Table 3-3. Age-Based Useful Life .............................................................................................................. 3-5 Table 3-4. 50-Year Age-based Renewal Forecast .................................................................................... 3-5 Table 3-5. Opinion of Cost for Project 1 – Bolero Street ......................................................................... 3-14 Table 3-6. Opinion of Cost for Project 2 – Adams Street ......................................................................... 3-17 Table 3-7. Opinion of Cost for Project 3 – Caringa & Altisma .................................................................. 3-23 Table 3-8. Opinion of Cost for 30-year Condition Assessment Program ................................................. 3-25 Table 3-9. Initial Metallic Pipe Condition Assessment Prioritization ........................................................ 3-31 Table 3-10. Renewal Forecast Comparison ............................................................................................ 3-32 Table 3-11. CIP Forecast for Potable & Recycled Water Pipelines, Valves and Service Laterals .......... 3-35 Table 3-12. Reservoir Repair and Maintenance CIP ............................................................................... 3-37 Table 3-13.Reservoir Maintenance Schedule and Costs ........................................................................ 3-39 Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad iv | June 2019 Appendices Appendix A. Defect Codes and Scores Appendix B. InfoMaster Risk Model Implementation Notes Appendix C. Cost Factors Appendix D. Asset Valuation and Replacement Costs Appendix E. InfoMaster Updates Appendix F. Map of Water Access Issues Appendix G. Corrosion of AC Pipe Appendix H. Assessment of City AC Testing Appendix I. Break Rate and Replacement Rate Comparison Appendix J. Water Pipeline and Valve Cumulative Annual Investment Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | v Acronyms and Abbreviations AMP Asset Management Master Plan BRE business risk exposure CCFRPM CCTV Centrifugally Cast Fiberglass Reinforced Polymer Mortar closed-circuit television CIP capital improvement project CIPP cured-in-place pipe City or CMWD City of Carlsbad and Carlsbad Municipal Water District COF consequence of failure d/D flow depth to pipe diameter ea FTE each full time equivalent FY LD fiscal year large diameter LF LOF Linear feet likelihood of failure mi NASSCO miles National Association of Sewer Service Companies POF probability of failure SD small diameter SLD straight line depreciation SSMP Sewer System Management Plan SSO sanitary sewer overflow SWQCB State Water Quality Control Board USGS United States Geological Survey WDR Waste Discharge Requirements Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad vi | June 2019 This page is intentionally blank. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 1-1 1 Introduction This section includes the purpose and focus of the Asset Management Master Plan (AMP), the asset management program overview, AMP organization, AMP development participants, summary of assets and study areas included in the AMP. 1.1 Purpose of the Asset Management Master Plan The City of Carlsbad and Carlsbad Municipal Water District (City) operate, maintain, and renew sanitary sewer, potable water, and recycled water infrastructure. The replacement cost of this infrastructure is estimated to be over $2.1 billion per Section 1.5. As the system continues to age and deteriorate, the City seeks to sustain high levels of service at acceptable levels of risk, while minimizing cost. This AMP provides a strong foundation for condition assessment and capital improvement program (CIP) planning that aligns with and supports the 2018 Potable Water, Recycled Water and Sewer Master Plan Updates (Master Plan Updates). This initial AMP focuses in detail on the following infrastructure: • Gravity sewer mains and manholes • Potable water pipelines, valves, service laterals and appurtenances • Recycled water pipelines valves, service laterals and appurtenances CIP development and asset valuation is also included for wastewater force mains, all pump stations, and all reservoirs. This AMP is intended to be a living document that is updated as City programs evolve. 1.2 Asset Management Program Overview The primary goal of the Asset Management Program is to minimize the total cost of owning and operating infrastructure assets, while delivering the level of service that stakeholders demand, at acceptable levels of risk. It is clear that the City has been managing assets effectively, when compared to regional and local averages, from the high level of service provided to customers and low asset failure rates. A summary of the City’s level of service goals, system performance and the value of investing in a performance and condition- based asset management program versus an age based renewal program is provided below. The details of how these estimated cost savings were determined are provided in subsequent chapters. In the wastewater collection systems industry, a key metric is sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) count per 100 miles of sewer per year. The City is located in State Water Quality Control Board (SWQCB) Region 9 and the average performance in Region 9 of sewer systems without sewer lateral responsibility is currently between 1 and 1.5 SSOs per 100 miles per year. The City is currently performing better than this average SSO rate, which indicates a higher than average level of service provided to customers. The City’s wastewater level of service goal for gravity sewers and manholes is zero structural condition-caused SSOs. The City did not experience any structural condition-caused SSOs in 2018, thus meeting its level of service goal of zero incidences. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 1-2 | June 2019 In the water and recycled water industry, system performance is often measured in terms of “break rate,” which measures the annual number of main breaks per 100 miles of pipe operated. Recent research1 indicates that the average break rate in the California/Nevada region is 9.7 annual breaks per 100 miles. The City’s combined potable and recycled water systems have experienced break rates of 1.7 and 0.5 respectively over the past ten years. (Of the total length of the combined system, the potable water mains represent 85% and recycled water mains are 15%). These systems are combined for break rate comparisons and analysis. The system-wide break rate for the City’s potable and recycled water system is 1.5 or roughly six times better than the regional average. Even in Southern California, where soil condition and the materials used tend to result in longer useful lives, and where the cost of water drives utilities to manage aging infrastructure more proactively, the City operates within the top quartile of utilities in terms of system performance. The water and recycled water level of service goal for mains in the near term is a break rate less than or equal to 2 main breaks per 100 miles of pipe per year on average. Over time the City may evaluate level of service against cost and adjust the level of service goal as the system deteriorates. Figure 1-1 presents utility performance relative to other utilities2 with break rate on the x-axis and the annual system replacement rate on the y- axis. The proposed 5-year CIP in the AMP for water and recycled water pipeline replacement is the same system replacement rate as other utilities with similar break rates and is appropriate for the City’s system performance. However, as the system ages, increases in water pipe replacement will be needed to maintain low break rates. The capacity of wastewater, water and recycled water systems is becoming less of a driver for capital improvements due to conservation and growth forecasts as presented in the 2018 Master Plan Updates. In contrast, the system conditions have become a more significant driver for capital improvements. As the systems age and deteriorate the City will need to increase investments in condition-related capital improvements and continue to implement asset management strategies to proactively maintain or improve service levels. 1 The average break rate in California and Nevada is 9.7 per Folkman’s 2018 report titled Water Main Break Rates in the USA AND Canada: A Comprehensive Study. 2 The “other” utilities identified in this figure are Vista Irrigation Vista Irrigation District, San Dieguito WD, Rainbow MWD, Padre Dam MWD, Helix WD, Sweetwater Authority, City of San Juan Capistrano, Mesa WD, City of Buena Park, City of Long Beach, Contra Costa WD, East Bay MWD, City of Phoenix, and Denver Water. A table of these results is included in Appendix I. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 1-3 Figure 1-1. Water Main and Recycled Water Main Performance Based on age alone, significant investment in the City’s water and sewer infrastructure would be required, totaling approximately $1.1 billion through FY2058/2059. However, industry experience and City staff experience informs us that age alone is not a good predictor of condition or system investment need. Continued investments in the asset management program is expected to result in lower infrastructure renewal costs than identified through age-based forecasts. These continued investments in asset management will identify the best value for the City and ratepayers. Significant potential savings have been identified through the City’s asset management programs including the following. • City staff have adopted maintenance strategies to avoid costly capital renewal, to minimize the cost of owning infrastructure and to extend infrastructure useful life. One of those strategies is to clean gravity sewer pipes more frequently rather than replace pipes with moderate sags. This strategy has saved the City approximately $4 million in capital investment at the expense of approximately $70,000 in gravity sewer cleaning per year. • The condition-based and performance-based asset management approach is saving the City approximately $12.9 million when compared to the age-based forecast for gravity sewer and manhole renewal over the next 5 years. The condition-based forecast and age-based forecast comparison is presented in Figure 1-2. This forecast utilizes the average cost per year for the age-based forecast over the next 40 years and does not include inflation. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 1-4 | June 2019 Figure 1-2. Gravity Sewer and Manhole Renewal Cost Forecast • By moving from an age-based to a performance-based program, Figure 1-3 shows that the City will save approximately $665 million dollars in unnecessary potable water and recycled water pipeline, valve and service replacement (an average of $13.3 million per year). This forecast utilizes the average cost per year for the age- based forecast over the next 50 years and does not include inflation. A table of the results presented in Figure 1-3 is included in Appendix J. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 1-5 Figure 1-3. Potable and Recycled Water Pipeline, Valve and Services Cost Forecast One key investment need identified through the AMP development process is the need to fill the vacant asset management support staff position. This staff position should be maintained in the City’s asset management program and filled as soon as practicable. Skills needed for this position include knowledge of NASSCO PACP condition defect coding, Tableau, InfoMaster, GIS, and database management and analysis. This recommendation is based on the workload required to support key asset management program components including: • Performance metrics – approximately 0.1 full time equivalent (FTE) staff • Condition and break data management, QA/QC and assessment – approximately 0.3 FTE staff • Condition Repair and rehabilitation planning support – approximately 0.5 FTE staff • Scheduling support – approximately 0.1 FTE staff A second key investment need is to develop a roadmap for implementing ongoing asset management program improvements. This roadmap will take this AMP to the next step, providing a clear communication tool regarding the path forward, including opportunities identification, initiative priorities and schedule. Opportunities for further enhancement to the City’s ongoing asset management program are captured in the subsequent chapters of the AMP for each system. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 1-6 | June 2019 1.3 Asset Management Master Plan Organization The organization of this AMP was initially developed through a series of workshops with City staff. The AMP is divided into two sections: • Section 2 – Wastewater. The Wastewater section includes asset management planning for the sanitary sewer system. The focus of this section is gravity sewers and manholes. • Section 3 – Potable Water and Recycled Water. This section includes asset management planning for the potable water and recycled water systems. The focus of this section is pipelines, valves, service laterals, and appurtenances. 1.4 Program Participants The AMP was developed through a series of workshops and reviews by the Asset Management Team, which included both City staff members and HDR staff. City participants include the following: • Stephanie Harrison – Utilities Asset Manager (Project Manager) • Terry Smith – Engineering Manager • Don Wasko – Utilities Manager • Jesse Castaneda – Utilities Supervisor • Lindsey Stephenson – Senior Engineer • Lindsay Leahy – Associate Engineer • Tim Smith – Utilities Maintenance Planner • Brian Alcala – Wastewater Utilities Staff • Eric Sanders – Utilities Supervisor • Matt Jacobs – Utilities Supervisor • Mark Biskup – Associate Engineer • Cathy Nhothsavath – Assistant Engineer AMP development was supported by HDR staff including: • Jennifer Duffy, Project Manager • Eric Scherch, Deputy Project Manager • Dave Spencer, Asset Manager • Joel Engleson, Hydraulic Modeling and Asset Management Support • Amanda Leipard, Risk Model and Business Decision Logic Programming • Tom McCormack, Asset Management Support • Ernesto Mejia, Programming Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 1-7 1.5 Overview of Wastewater, Potable Water and Recycled Water Assets The City owns and manages approximately $2.1 billion in infrastructure supporting its wastewater, potable water and recycled water systems. Included in Table 1-1 is a summary of key assets owned by the City including asset count, asset length, and replacement cost. Table 1-1. Carlsbad Asset Summary System Asset Type Asset Count Length of Assets (feet) Replacement Cost ($) Wastewater Gravity Sewers 6,699 1,402,949 $398,000,000 Manholes 5,881 - $85,000,000 Force Mains 11 22,974 $14,000,000 Pump Stations 11 - $31,000,000 Wastewater Subtotal 12,602 1,425,923 $528,000,000 Potable Water Water Main 16,629 2,374,643 $983,000,000 Valves 13,542 - Service Line 36,380 790,454 Pump Stations 3 - $29,000,000 Reservoirs 12 - $273,000,000 Potable Water Subtotal 66,566 3,165,097 $1,285,000,000 Recycled Water Water Main 1,451 410,527 $187,000,000 Service Line 1,036 34,989 Valves 826 - Pump Stations 4 - $44,000,000 Reservoirs 4 - $66,000,000 Recycled Water Subtotal 3,320 445,516 $297,000,000 Total 82,488 5,036,536 $2,110,000,000 Notes: Replacement costs are for capital costs including soft and construction costs and are in 2019 dollars. Agua Hedionda and Buena Vista wastewater force mains are not included. 1.6 Study Areas The study areas for the AMP are the Carlsbad MWD water and recycled water service area and the City of Carlsbad sewer service area, which are shown in Figure 1-4 and Figure 1-5, respectively. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 1-8 | June 2019 Figure 1-4. Water and Recycled Water Service Area Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 1-9 Figure 1-5. Sewer Service Area Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 1-10 | June 2019 This page is intentionally blank. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 2-1 2 Wastewater This section focuses on asset management planning for the sanitary sewer system and includes a summary of system condition and performance, age-based and performance- based condition assessment and renewal forecasts, and CIP recommendations for gravity sewers and manholes. Also included in this section are opportunities for continuous improvement of the sewer asset management program. 2.1 System Inventory, Performance & Replacement Cost A summary of the City’s wastewater infrastructure with length and count of assets and replacement cost is included in Table 1-1. These results are based on the City’s infrastructure database of record, which is the City’s Geographic Information System (GIS). Carlsbad provided readily available GIS files with updates as of May 30, 2018, specifically GIS layers containing data on gravity mains, manholes, pumps, and pressurized mains. The analysis excluded infrastructure not owned by Carlsbad3. The sewer system performance monitoring and measurements are driven by SWQCB Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) and are documented in the City’s Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP). A key metric is SSO count per 100 miles of sewer per year. The City is located in SWQCB Region 9 and the average performance of medium sized sewer systems with between 100 and 500 miles of sewer in Region 9 in 2017 and 2018 is 1.5 SSOs per 100 miles per year. The City is currently performing better than this average SSO rate in 2017 and 2018 which indicates a higher than average level of service provided to customers. In 2018, the City experienced zero structural condition-caused SSOs. The sewer system is aging. Figure 2-1 presents the miles of gravity sewer pipe by install year and material with the install years grouped into 5-year periods. However, age is typically not a good indicator of condition for specific infrastructure as many factors contribute to deterioration. The City’s condition assessment program includes readily available higher quality data for 63 percent of gravity sewer mains inspected after January 1, 2015 and 76 percent of manholes. The City has lower quality, older condition assessment data in a readily available format for approximately 30 percent of gravity sewers. All readily available condition data indicates that approximately 3.6 percent of gravity sewer mains and 1.7 percent of manholes are recommended for renewal based on the selection criteria identified in the AMP. These percentages are low, indicating the system is performing well with respect to condition. As the City continues to inspect the sewer system, additional renewal projects will be identified. The current replacement cost of the gravity sewers and manholes is $483 million dollars. A summary of existing pipeline infrastructure and replacement costs are included in Table 2-1 and Table 2-2. The basis for the replacement unit cost estimates includes recent 3 Infrastructure with an OWNEDBY field of “CBD” in GIS is included. The SHAPELENGTH field is used for length. Infrastructure with a STATUS field of Abandoned, Not in Service and Future were excluded. Gravity sewer interceptors with cost sharing between regional utilities are included for those portions of the interceptors identified with the OWNEDBY of “CBD” in GIS. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 2-2 | June 2019 bid costs from the City and other utilities and assumed soft costs for planning, design, legal, construction administration, ownership administration, and contingencies. Figure 2-1. Gravity Sewer Pipe by Install Year Table 2-1. Gravity Sewer Replacement Cost Gravity Sewers Diameter Unit Cost ($ per Mile) Miles Replacement Cost (Million) 4 $846,230 0.006 $0.004 6 $846,230 15.56 $13.2 8 $846,230 201.86 $170.8 10 $1,057,790 17.75 $18.8 12 $1,269,350 10.93 $13.9 14 $1,480,900 - - 15 $1,586,680 2.70 $4.3 16 $1,692,460 0.09 $0.1 18 $1,904,020 2.04 $3.9 20 $2,115,580 0.51 $1.1 21 $2,221,360 1.35 $3.0 24 $2,538,690 4.28 $10.9 Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 2-3 Table 2-1. Gravity Sewer Replacement Cost Gravity Sewers Diameter Unit Cost ($ per Mile) Miles Replacement Cost (Million) 27 $2,856,030 0.98 $2.8 30 $3,173,370 0.01 $0.03 36 $3,490,700 2.07 $7.9 39 $3,808,040 0.25 $1.0 42 $4,125,380 3.94 $17.5 48 $4,442,710 1.00 $5.1 60 $5,077,390 0.07 $0.4 Subtotal 265.40 $274.7 Soft Cost Percentage of Construction Cost Type Percentage Cost (Million) Planning (CEQA and Permitting) 3% $8.2 Design 10% $27.5 Legal 2% $5.5 Construction Administration 15% $41.2 Ownership Administration 5% $13.7 Contingency 10% $27.5 Total Soft Costs 45% $123.6 Total Replacement Cost $398.3 Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 2-4 | June 2019 Table 2-2. Manhole Replacement Cost Manholes Count of Manholes Unit Cost (each) Replacement Cost (Million) 5881 $10,529.18 $61.9 Soft Cost Percentage of Construction Cost Soft Cost Type Percentage Cost (Million) Planning (CEQA and Permitting) 3% $1.9 Design 2% $1.2 Legal 2% $1.2 Construction Administration 15% $9.3 Ownership Administration 5% $3.1 Contingency 10% $6.2 Total Soft Costs 45% $27.9 Total Replacement Cost $84.8 2.2 Gravity Sewers and Manholes This section documents the age-based and performance-based forecasts for gravity sewers and manholes. 2.2.1 Age-Based Forecast Age-based gravity sewer and manhole replacement costs were developed using unit costs established in Section 2.1 and Appendix C, an assumed 2% annual inflation factor, City- documented infrastructure installation years, and City-provided useful life estimates, which are summarized in Table 2-3. Table 2-3. Age-based Useful Life Class Assumed Useful Life (Years) Wastewater Pipe-ABS 75 Wastewater Pipe-ACP 25 Wastewater Pipe-CI 25 Wastewater Pipe-CI-Critical 20 Wastewater Pipe-DIP 25 Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 2-5 Table 2-3. Age-based Useful Life Class Assumed Useful Life (Years) Wastewater Pipe-ESVCP 75 Wastewater Pipe-FPVC 75 Wastewater Pipe-FPVC Forcemain1 50 Wastewater Pipe-HDPE 100 Wastewater Pipe-HDPE Force Main1 50 Wastewater Pipe-CCFRPM-Force Main 50 Wastewater Pipe-CCFRPM-NP 75 Wastewater Pipe-PVC 100 Wastewater Pipe-PVC-Critical 50 Wastewater Pipe-PVC-Force Main 50 Wastewater Pipe-RCP 75 Wastewater Pipe-RCP-Force Main 50 Wastewater Pipe-VCP 75 Wastewater Pipe-VCP-Critical 50 Wastewater Pipe-VCP-Force Main 50 Wastewater Pipe-STL-Force Main1 50 Manholes2 75 Notes: 1 Based on similar values provided by Carlsbad 2 Based on industry experience Table 2-4 summarizes the results of a 40-year age-based replacement forecast. Including inflation, this method forecasts an average of $7.0 million dollars per year. A summary of age-based forecasts for gravity sewers, manholes, force mains, and pump stations is included in Appendix D. Table 2-4. 40-Year Age-based Renewal Forecast Timeframe Cost without Inflation (Million) Cost with Inflation (Million) Cumulative (FY19/20-FY58/59) $196.0 $280.4 Average Annual (FY19/20-FY58/59) $4.9 $7.0 Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 2-6 | June 2019 2.2.2 Performance-Based Forecast The performance-based forecast for gravity sewers and manholes incorporates sewer system performance, institutional knowledge, and City condition data. The approach used to develop the performance-based forecast for gravity sewer and manhole condition assessment and renewal needs utilizes a condition risk mitigation decision logic (decision logic). The decision logic for gravity sewers and manholes provides a transparent, defensible, and consistent approach for decision makers and is used to communicate risk, level of service, and cost to stakeholders. The decision logic is also used to develop high confidence risk mitigation forecasts. The decision logic leverages the City’s closed-circuit television (CCTV) inspections and other readily available data for gravity sewers to recommend a preliminary renewal or condition assessment action, identify risk associated with each inspected gravity sewer, and associate a cost with each recommended mitigation action. City staff review and update preliminary recommendations made by the decision logic when packaging projects. Although the rules built into the decision logic are based on professional and engineering judgment, they do not replace the need for review and validation by skilled professionals. The purpose of this section is to document the development process, decision logic inputs, methodology for assessing risk and the risk mitigation actions. The City will refine the decision logic over time based on adaptive management principals and lessons learned through implementing the decision logic. The City has selected InfoMaster software by Innovyze to manage the risk model and decision logic. Development Process A series of workshops were conducted in 2018 with City staff to develop the decision logic, risk model and CIP recommendations on July 25, September 12, September 19, October 24, October 29, and December 18. A summary of the content of each workshop by workshop number is included below: 1. Identification of priorities for the AMP. 2. Gathering information about the City’s current risk mitigation decision making policies and practices. The Asset Management Team discussed business risk exposure scoring (BRE) including likelihood of failure (LOF) and consequence of failure (COF) risk. 3. Detailed review of defects; Grouping of defects by severity and renewal methods (e.g., replacement, open-cut point repair, lining, trenchless repair, robotic cutting); Review of COF mapping of gravity sewers; Initial review of decision logic for gravity mains and manholes. 4. Discussion of large diameter sewer pipes that do not have inspection data. 5. Review of potential monitoring schedules. 6. Review of decision logic results, risk scores, unit costs, condition assessment and renewal forecast scenarios. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 2-7 Gravity Sewer Main Inputs The decision logic includes four key inputs including CCTV inspection data, gravity sewer cleaning frequencies, hydraulic model data, and GIS data. Each input is described in the sub-sections below. CCTV Data The City’s ongoing CCTV inspection program is comprised of the following inspection programs: • Proactive Monitoring – The City proactively inspects gravity sewers with CCTV inspection. The majority of CCTV inspection data is collected through this program. City staff currently perform proactive monitoring of small diameter gravity sewers that are less than or equal to 12 inches in diameter. Large diameter gravity sewers that are greater than 12 inches in diameter are typically inspected by contractors. • Requests – Referrals resulting from SSOs, customer calls, and City crews are examples of how CCTV inspections are generated in the Requests program • Construction Acceptance – After completion of new construction, repairs, rehabilitation or replacement of gravity sewers, the renewal work is inspected using CCTV. As of summer 2017, the City has CCTV data on approximately 93 percent of the gravity sewer collection system. The City historically utilized CUES CCTV software and a custom CCTV defect coding system. Currently, the City collects data in the National Association of Sewer Service Companies (NASSCO) Pipeline Assessment Certification Program (PACP) format in CUES CCTV software GraniteNet. The CCTV data includes defect codes that identify structural condition defects in gravity sewer pipes. This CCTV data is a primary input that drives the decision logic results and data quality is important. City staff indicate that data collected prior to January 1, 2015 utilized different inspection data collection priorities and practices and the data quality is not as consistent as data collected after January 1, 2015. As a result, City staff review of decision logic recommendations will be important. CCTV inspections are recommended to be planned in the near-term to close this data gap. This AMP utilizes the historical CUES CCTV data for forecasts. HDR industry experience analyzing defect deterioration over time indicates that defects such as cracks in the pipe barrel (not at the joint) with roots through the cracks deteriorate significantly over time. Consequently, the CUES CCTV data was updated to identify these defects with a new defect code “CrackRoots” if a crack defect and root defect were located within 1 foot of each other. Another finding is that defects with displaced soil behind the defect, such as holes in pipe with voids visible, deteriorate significantly faster over time than other Grade 5 structural defects. These have been incorporated into the use of CCTV data in the decision logic. Cleaning Data CCTV data documents pipe condition at the time of inspection. However, gravity pipes can deteriorate at different rates. In particular, frequent gravity sewer cleaning can result in pipe deterioration. The City’s gravity sewer cleaning frequencies range from 3 months to 4 years. The gravity sewer GIS layer includes these cleaning frequencies which were used Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 2-8 | June 2019 to approximate deterioration rates. Table 2-5 displays the gravity sewer system’s cleaning frequency. Typically, the system is cleaned over a 4 year period. Table 2-5. Gravity Sewer Cleaning Frequency Cleaning Frequency Attribute Name 3 months QT- Quarterly 6 months SAN-Semi-Annually 12 months ANN-Annually 12 months SCH – School Schedule 24 months 24M-1-24 Month Schedule – Year 1 24M-2-24 Month Schedule – Year 2 36 months 36M-1-36 Month Schedule –Group 1 36M-2-36 Month Schedule – Group 2 48 months 48M – 48 Month Schedule None NP- Not in Program Hydraulic Model Data The City has hydraulic capacity information for gravity sewers based on analysis of their hydraulic model. Pipes with less available capacity can have a higher risk of SSO if a structural collapse or blockage due to condition issues occurs. Hydraulic model capacity data is incorporated into the risk model. GIS Data The City has extensive GIS data for their assets including gravity sewers and manholes. This data, along with publicly available GIS information for waters of the state are incorporated into the decision logic. A description of how this data was utilized is included in the following sections. Business Risk Exposure Score All inspected pipes are prioritized for further renewal or monitoring action based on the business risk exposure (BRE) score. The BRE is a numerical value representing the relative business risk for each pipe based on the LOF and COF. A BRE of 100 represents the highest possible risk where a BRE of 0 represents the lowest possible risk. The BRE calculation was developed specifically for the City based on a combination of existing City decision making processes, staff input, and industry experience. During decision logic calibration, the BRE thresholds that trigger specific risk mitigation recommendations (trenchless repair, replacement, etc.) were refined and set at the level necessary to balance cost and risk. These thresholds may be adjusted by the City over time as additional condition assessment data is gathered and the program is refined. The Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 2-9 BRE is determined by the pipe’s LOF4 and COF. During development workshops, the Asset Management Team refined the relative weighting that the decision logic would place on each of these components. The BRE is comprised of the individual components listed in Table 2-6. Table 2-6. Business Risk Exposure Score Components and Weights Business Risk Exposure Score Component Percent of Business Risk Exposure Score (%) Likelihood of Failure (LOF) Defect Score 60 Count of Defects Score 10 Cleaning Frequency Score 5 Pipe Capacity 5 Subtotal 80 Consequence of Failure (COF) Spill Volume Potential: Pipe Diameter or Hydraulic Model 7 Public Health and Environmental Impact Proximity to Pedestrian Areas or Proximity to Waterways 7 Emergency Response Impact Traffic Control Maintenance/Repair Constraints 6 Subtotal 20 Total 100 The Asset Management Team has deliberately chosen to place a higher importance on the LOF than the COF. This ratio was determined based on lessons learned from other industry leading utilities with mature decision logic and the City’s practices. A risk mitigation action typically reduces the LOF significantly, but has limited or no impact on the COF. When COF is weighted higher, gravity sewers in good condition that are located in high consequence areas such as next to a water body can be prioritized higher than gravity sewers in very poor condition in low consequence areas. Weighting the COF lower than LOF is in line with City practices and identifies the pipes with the greatest risk of failure with a higher score and priority for renewal, while still adequately factoring COF into the decision-making process. The BRE score for each gravity sewer is mapped in Figure 2-2. 4 LOF is also referred to as the probability of failure in some prior risk model work completed for the City. The word “probability,” as defined in the dictionary includes a statistics related definition including “the relative possibility that an event will occur, as expressed by the ratio of the number of actual occurrences to the total number of possible occurrences.” The risk model does not calculate actual occurrences so LOF is used in the AMP. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 2-10 | June 2019 Figure 2-2. Gravity Sewer Business Risk Exposure Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 2-11 Some industry guidance on risk such as the Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF) Sustainable Infrastructure Management Program Learning Environment (SIMPLE) guidance consider multiplying LOF and COF scores to assess risk. The additive approach outlined above is based on the ISO31000 multi-criteria decision analysis approach and was selected by the Asset Management Team because calibrating the additive approach to match actual prioritization practices is simpler, more efficient, and more effective. Figure 2-3 illustrates this concept. Figure 2-3 shows two fracture defects and one large hole defect with three different LOF and COF scores, including one additive as described above and two multiplicative. The large hole is the most severe defect and the longitudinal fracture is the least severe based on City and typical industry practices. Adding the COF and LOF scores produces a total score that aligns with the City’s practices for identifying risk. Put simply, COF is still a factor, but COF does not outweigh LOF. Of the two multiplicative examples shown in Figure 2-3, Example A shows that multiplying COF and LOF results in the same BRE of 300 for the three defects, which is not in line with City practices for identifying gravity sewer risk. Example B uses an equation for BRE equal to 1 + COF / 100 multiplied by LOF, which produces results that are closer to City practices, but do not result in COF having any significant impact on the BRE. A third method could be used for the multiplicative approach that would yield accurate results, but this would require developing a custom weighting system for different defects and extensive calibration. Consequently, the additive approach was found to be the best and most effective approach for the City. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 2-12 | June 2019 Figure 2-3. Additive BRE versus Multiplicative BRE LOF Score COF Score Selected Additive BRE Approach COF + LOF Alternative Multiplicative BRE Approach Example A COF x LOF Alternative Multiplicative BRE Approach Example B (1 + COF/100) x LOF 20 5 25 100 21 20 10 30 200 22 20 15 35 300 23 20 20 40 400 24 30 5 35 150 32 30 10 40 300 33 30 15 45 450 35 30 20 50 600 36 40 5 45 200 42 40 10 50 400 44 40 15 55 600 46 40 20 60 800 48 50 5 55 250 53 50 10 60 500 55 50 15 65 750 58 50 20 70 1000 60 60 5 65 300 63 60 10 70 600 66 60 15 75 900 69 60 20 80 1200 72 LOF + COF is Easier to Calibrate than LOF x COF Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 2-13 Likelihood of Failure A workshop was conducted with City staff to refine existing factors for LOF and to weight each factor. The LOF is 80 percent of the total BRE. LOF is calculated using the following factors and weights: LOF = [Defect Score (Max 60)] + [Structural Defect Count (Max 10)] + [Maintenance Deterioration (Max 5)] + [Capacity (Max 5)] The LOF score is mapped for each gravity sewer and presented in Figure 2-4. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 2-14 | June 2019 Figure 2-4. Gravity Sewer Likelihood of Failure Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 2-15 DEFECT SCORE A primary component driving the likelihood of pipe failure is the worst structural defect present on the pipe. Therefore, the worst defect present in a pipe is the most heavily weighted factor used to rank and prioritize pipes based on risk. Defect scores identified through CCTV are grouped by the severity of defect into seven groups and are scored between 60-0. Defect Severity Group is primarily based on the structural severity of the defect, with Group 1 generally being the most severe and highest priority and Group 7 the least severe and lowest priority. The City’s custom defect coding system includes a severity modifier of small, medium, or large for most defect codes. Also, some defect codes are more severe than others (e.g., collapsed pipe defect is more severe than a cracked pipe defect). The Asset Management Team used images of defects to group typical condition defects by severity using the following general criteria: • Group 1 – Defect could potentially result in an emergency repair by contractor • Group 2 – Defect could potentially be prioritized to the top of the repair list • Group 3 – Some defects could be prioritized for a near term CIP project and others may be monitored in the future • Group 4 – Some defects could be prioritized for a CIP project and others could be monitored in the future • Group 5 – Most defects could be monitored in the future and others could result in a CIP project • Group 6 and Group 7 – Defect could be monitored in the future Figure 2-5 shows images for the defects by score. Table 2-7 displays the defect scoring groups and corresponding scores. The defect severity score for each defect code is included in Appendix A. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 2-16 | June 2019 This page is intentionally blank. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 2-17 Figure 2-5. Defect Images Used for Defect Score Development Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 2-18 | June 2019 This page is intentionally blank. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 2-19 Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 2-20 | June 2019 This page is intentionally blank. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 2-21 Table 2-7. Defect Score Defect Group Defect Score Group 1 60 Group 2 50 Group 3 30 Group 4 20 Group 5 10 Group 6 5 Group 7 1 COUNT OF DEFECTS The Count of Defects Score represents the component of the BRE determined by the total number of significant defects present on a pipe. Significant defects are defects in groups 1 through 4 that receive a defect score of 20 through 60. The Count of Defects Score assigns a maximum of 10 and the basis for calculating this score is presented in Table 2-8. Table 2-8. Count of Defects Score Number of Significant Defects Defect Count Score 1 0 2-3 2 4-5 4 5-7 6 8-10 8 >10 10 CLEANING FREQUENCY The Cleaning Frequency Score is based on the pipe’s scheduled cleaning frequency, as cleaning activities can increase the rate of a pipe’s deterioration or the severity of a defect over time. The Cleaning Frequency Score detail is included in Table 2-9. Table 2-9. Cleaning Frequency Score Scheduled Cleaning Frequency Cleaning Frequency Score 48 months or greater 0 36 months 0 24 months 1 Annually (12 months) 3 Semi-Annually (6 months) 5 Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 2-22 | June 2019 Table 2-9. Cleaning Frequency Score Scheduled Cleaning Frequency Cleaning Frequency Score Quarterly (3 months) or greater 5 CAPACITY The hydraulic model information was utilized for a component of the BRE score for a maximum score of 5. Current hydraulic model criteria for depth of flow to diameter of pipe ratio (d/D) is utilized. Pipes with a depth of flow to diameter of pipe ratio greater than 0.9 are considered capacity deficient. The greater the capacity constraint the larger the capacity score. The Capacity Score detail is included in Table 2-10. Table 2-10. Capacity Hydraulic Model Capacity d/D Capacity Score <=0.25 or Blank 0 >0.25-0.5 1 >0.5-0.9 3 >0.9-1 5 Greater than 1 5 CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE A workshop was conducted with City staff to refine existing factors for COF and to weight each factor. The COF is 20 percent of the total BRE. COF is calculated using the following factors and weights: COF = [Spill Volume Potential (Max 7)]) + [Public Health and Environmental Impact (Max 7)] + [Emergency Response (Max 6)] The resulting COF score for each gravity sewer is mapped in Figure 2-6. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 2-23 Figure 2-6. Gravity Sewer Consequence of Failure Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 2-24 | June 2019 SPILL VOLUME POTENTIAL The spill volume potential takes into account the diameter of the pipe or the hydraulic model flow in the pipe. As the pipe diameter increases or as the hydraulic model indicates an increase in flow the COF score increases. The risk model uses the highest score between either of the two categories, as detailed in Table 2-11 below. Table 2-11. Spill Volume Potential Hydraulic Model Flow (Million Gallons per Day) Diameter Spill Volume Score <=0.25 <=8 inches 0 >0.25-0.46 >8 to 12 Inches 1 0.461-1.03 >12 to 21 Inches 3 1.031-3.20 >21 to 27 inches 6 Greater than 3.2 or unknown >27 inches or unknown 7 PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The public health and environmental impact takes into account the gravity mains near pedestrian areas or near waterways such as streams, beaches, or lagoons. The pedestrian areas include schools, parks, and highly visited areas such as LEGOLAND® and the Carlsbad Village area. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) waterline and water bodies were used to determine the proximity to water. The highest score from proximity to waterways or proximity to pedestrian areas is used. The public health and environmental impact score is detailed in Table 2-12 below. Table 2-12. Public Health and Environmental Impact Proximity to Water (feet) Proximity to Pedestrian Areas (feet) Public Health and Environmental Impact Score >2000 >500 0 >1000-2000 -- 1 >500-1000 >100-500 3 >100-500 >1-100 5 <=100 feet <=1 Within a High Pedestrian Area 7 Emergency Response Impact The emergency response impact of the COF is indicated by the proximity of gravity mains to roadway and traffic control types as well as failures within restricted access areas. Gravity mains near high traffic areas or highly restricted areas such as railroads or private property increases the COF score. Pipe failure within these areas get a higher score because of increased difficulty of renewal and the potential for longer duration failure events. The highest score from traffic control or maintenance and repair constraint areas is used. The emergency response impact score is presented in Table 2-13. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 2-25 Table 2-13. Emergency Response Impact Traffic Control (Type) Maintenance and Repair Constraint Areas Emergency Response Impact Score Local or All Others All Others 0 Collector or Secondary Arterial Thick Pavement (State Street) 1 Major Arterial Street or Access Issue Poor Access (Easement) 3 Prime Arterial Restricted Access (Habitat or Private Property) 5 Freeway No Access – Railroad 6 Detailed implementation notes on the risk model development in InfoMaster software is included in Appendix E. Manhole Inputs Business Risk Exposure Score Similar to the gravity main BRE, the manhole BRE is a numerical value representing the relative structural risk for each manhole that has been inspected based on the condition assessment finding and COF. A BRE of 100 represents the highest possible risk and a score of 0 represents the lowest possible risk. The BRE calculation was developed specifically for the City based on a combination of existing City decision making processes, staff input, and industry experience. During decision logic calibration, the BRE thresholds that trigger specific risk mitigation recommendations (replacement/rehabilitation or monitor) were refined and set at the level necessary to balance cost and risk. These thresholds may be adjusted by the City over time as additional condition assessment data is gathered and the program is refined. The BRE is determined by the manhole’s LOF and COF. During development workshops, the Asset Management Team determined the relative weighting that the decision logic would place on each of these components. The BRE is comprised of the individual components listed in Table 2-14. Table 2-14. Business Risk Exposure Score Components and Weights Business Risk Exposure Score Component Percent of Business Risk Exposure Score (%) Likelihood of Failure Defect Score: Overall Manhole Condition Rating or Manhole Bench Rating 80 Subtotal 80 Consequence of Failure Spill Volume Potential: Pipe Diameter or Hydraulic Model 7 Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 2-26 | June 2019 Table 2-14. Business Risk Exposure Score Components and Weights Business Risk Exposure Score Component Percent of Business Risk Exposure Score (%) Public Health and Environmental Impact Proximity to Pedestrian Areas or Proximity to Waterways 7 Emergency Response Impact Traffic Control Maintenance/Repair Access Constraints 6 Subtotal 20 Total 100 Similar to gravity mains, the Asset Management Team has deliberately chosen to place a higher importance on the LOF than the COF. This ratio was determined based on lessons learned from other industry leading utilities with mature decision logic. A risk mitigation action typically reduces the LOF significantly but has limited or no impact on the COF. When COF is weighted higher, manholes that are in good condition but are located in high consequence areas can be prioritized higher than manholes in very poor condition. Weighting the condition assessment findings in this manner ensures that the manholes with the greatest risk of structural failure will be scored higher and prioritized for renewal, while still adequately factoring COF into the decision-making process. Figure 2-7 presents the BRE for manholes. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 2-27 Figure 2-7. Manhole Business Risk Exposure Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 2-28 | June 2019 LIKELIHOOD OF FAILURE A workshop was conducted with City staff to identify factors for LOF and to weight each factor. The LOF is 80 percent of the total BRE. LOF is calculated using the following factors and weights: LOF = [Condition Assessment score: Overall Condition Rating or Bench Rating Score (Max 80)] The LOF for each manhole is mapped in Figure 2-8. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 2-33 • No CUES CCTV Data – this indicates that there is no historical CUES CCTV in the InfoMaster model. These pipes will be inspected with NASSCO PACP data to close this data gap. Secondary notes include: • Abandoned inspection – Abandoned CCTV inspection, review cause. • Point Repair – Gravity sewers with a previously completed point repair will be flagged with a comment. A static list of repairs from SewerRepairs.xlsx is currently being used. • JAngularL– Pipe bend – Gravity sewers with a pipe bend are flagged for manhole installation review • Pipe Depth greater than or equal to 8 feet – Gravity sewers with a pipe depth of greater or equal to 8 feet are flagged with a comment • Pipe Depth greater than or equal to 25 feet – Gravity sewers with downstream invert elevations greater than or equal to 25 feet below grade, review primary action accordingly CCTV defects are grouped by typical primary action types in order to associate appropriate renewal recommendations with each defect in InfoMaster software. These are referred to as the Rehab Method in InfoMaster. These structural defect Rehab Methods are categorized by the Rehab Method and include: • Open Cut Point Repair – Defects that are typically addressed by open cut repair. • Trenchless Repair – Defects that typically are addressed through CIPP lining, patching, or other trenchless repair methods. • Replacement – Defects that are typically addressed by complete pipe replacement. • Robotic Cutter – Defects that are typically addressed through robotic cutting. As previously illustrated, Figure 2-5 shows the Rehab Method by defect codes, which are listed in Appendix A. The flow diagram shown in Figure 2-10 documents the decision logic for gravity mains. Primary actions are represented by circles in bold and underlined text, secondary notes are represented by circles at the beginning of the flow diagram in regular font text, and decision points are represented by diamonds in the flow chart. Additional description of some decision points in the decision logic include the following: • Gravity sewers with at least one replacement type defect are recommended for replacement. • Gravity sewers with at least one open cut point repair type defect and more than four open cut point repair or trenchless point repair type defects are recommended for replacement. This approach is more economical and in line with existing City practices. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 2-34 | June 2019 • Gravity sewers with three or more trenchless repairs are recommended for CIPP lining. • Gravity sewers with pipe diameter equal to 6 inches or smaller will not be renewed with CIPP or trenchless repair. BRE thresholds are critical decision points in the decision logic. These thresholds are used to determine whether a gravity sewer is recommended for a renewal action or future condition assessment monitoring action. If the BRE threshold is set to 30, for example, gravity sewers with a BRE greater than 30 will be recommended for renewal or more frequent monitoring. Setting and adjusting the BRE thresholds allows the City to balance cost, risk, and level of service appropriately and deliver the most value to ratepayers. The BRE thresholds vary by risk mitigation action to deliver the most value per dollar spent on renewal. Higher thresholds are used for more costly renewal actions and lower BRE thresholds are used for cheaper renewal actions. This approach mitigates the most risk at the lowest cost. The following example scenario illustrates this approach. Example Scenario: Five gravity sewers have a BRE of 30. One of those gravity sewers is recommended for CIPP which could cost over $10,000. The remaining four pipes are recommended for a trenchless repair, which could cost $2,500 each or $10,000 total. Setting the BRE threshold to 35 for the CIPP renewal and the BRE threshold to 30 for the trenchless point repair renewal will result in the decision logic recommending spending $10,000 on trenchless repairs and mitigating the risk on four gravity sewers, vs. spending $10,000 on mitigating the same risk on one gravity sewer. A description of the BRE thresholds for the City’s decision logic is included in Table 2-16. The BRE thresholds are included in the decision logic and are typically shown immediately prior to the risk mitigation action. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 2-35 Figure 2-10. Gravity Sewer Condition Risk Mitigation Decision Logic Flow Diagram Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 2-36 | June 2019 This page is intentionally blank. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 2-37 Gravity Main BRE Results The BRE is a numerical value representing the relative risk for each gravity sewer that has been inspected and includes the sum of LOF and COF scores. A summary of the BRE results is presented in Table 2-16 and includes all pipe in the City’s GIS. Table 2-16. Business Risk Exposure Summary BRE Count of Gravity Sewer Mains Length of Gravity Sewer Mains (feet) Percent by Length (%) 0-4 1970 427,223 27.4% 5-9 3125 572,331 36.7% 10-14 1343 275,124 17.7% 15-19 508 135,651 8.7% 20-24 89 32,631 2.1% 25-29 36 7,486 0.5% 30-34 49 12,971 0.8% 35-39 93 22,511 1.4% 40-44 84 21,745 1.4% 45-49 21 5,906 0.4% 50-54 21 5,375 0.3% 55-59 31 7,590 0.5% 60-64 43 10,542 0.7% 65-69 34 6,327 0.4% 70-74 44 9,771 0.6% 75-79 12 3,374 0.2% 80-84 3 913 0.1% Total 7506 1,557,470 100.0% Manhole Risk Management Actions This section summarizes the methodology for determining the appropriate risk mitigation action for each manhole that is inspected. The primary action documents the primary risk management action for the manholes. Primary actions include: • Replace or Rehab – Replacement or rehabilitation of the Manhole • Monitor – Manhole has minor structural defects and is recommended for re- inspection as part of current gravity main cleaning or CCTV inspection activities • No Condition Rating – Manhole does not have inspection data The manhole condition defects are the factors that determine if renewal is recommended for the manhole. The structural defects that are recommended for renewal include: Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 2-38 | June 2019 • Business Risk Exposure >=60 • Bench condition is poor • Corrosion is severe • Liner Condition is poor The flow diagram shown in Figure 2-11 documents the decision logic for manholes. Primary actions are represented by circles at the end of the flow diagram in bold and underlined text and decision points are represented by diamonds in the flow chart. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 2-39 Figure 2-11. Manhole Condition Risk Mitigation Decision Logic Flow Diagram Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 2-40 | June 2019 This page is intentionally blank. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 2-41 Condition CIP, Renewal and Assessment Forecast This section documents details of the renewal and condition assessment forecasts including unit costs, BRE thresholds that trigger a risk mitigation action and forecast results. Unit Costs Unit costs were developed based on recent costs from contracted work within the City’s collection system and recent industry experience at nearby utilities. Unit costs are calculated by summing the following costs for each gravity sewer pipe diameter and renewal type: • Material Cost – Typically the unit cost provided on a construction project bid tabulation • Installation Factor – Assumed to address costs such as mobilization, fittings, excavation, bedding, backfill, traffic control, by-pass pumping, equipment, labor, pavement or non-ROW patching or improvements. • Capital Cost Factor – Assumed to address costs related to agency administration, design, construction management, and construction contingency. The unit costs and cost factors for gravity sewers and manholes are included in Appendix C. BRE Results and Level of Service Thresholds Using the decision logic and unit costs, a dashboard tool in Microsoft Excel was developed to provide results in real time with adjustments to BRE thresholds that trigger renewal actions. This allowed the Asset Management Team to evaluate cost against risk. This tool was used to evaluate initial BRE thresholds for the City based on the distribution of BRE scores for the City’s sewer pipelines. This section presents the development of BRE thresholds. Gravity sewers with a BRE greater than the BRE threshold are recommended for renewal or increased frequency of condition assessment monitoring by the decision logic. Figure 2-12 shows the cost to renew gravity sewers at different BRE thresholds and level of service. The cost shown at each BRE threshold is the forecasted cost to perform the renewal actions identified for the decision logic for gravity sewers with a BRE greater than the threshold. Figure 2-12 shows that the cost forecast to complete all renewal identified by the decision logic for gravity sewers with a BRE greater than 30 is $7,600,000. Similarly, the cost to complete all renewal identified by the decision logic for gravity sewers with a BRE greater than 40 is $5,900,000. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 2-42 | June 2019 Figure 2-12. Cost to Renew Gravity Sewers by BRE Thresholds Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 2-43 A different BRE threshold is assigned for each renewal type. This allows the City to focus on lower cost renewal methods and consequently provide the most risk mitigation per rate payer dollar spent. More expensive renewal actions are assigned a higher BRE threshold and less expensive renewal actions are assigned a lower BRE threshold as shown in Table 2-17. Table 2-17. Renewal Action BRE Thresholds Renewal Action BRE Threshold Renewal Cost Examples ($) Replace SD 45 80,000 Open Cut Repair LD 45 57,000 CIPP LD 45 54,000 Open Cut Repair and CIPP SD 35 49,000 Open Cut Repair SD 35 26,000 CIPP SD 35 13,000 Trenchless Repair SD 30 2,500 Cut Tap or Obstacle 30 Nominal Capital Cost Note: Renewal cost examples for SD renewal actions assume 8 inch diameter pipe. Renewal cost examples for LD renewal actions assume 24 inch diameter pipe. Renewal cost examples assume the renewal action is performed on approximately 200 feet of gravity sewer. A similar approach was used to determine condition assessment monitoring BRE thresholds. Available crew productivity and input from staff regarding data quality are used along with BRE to determine the thresholds. Table 2-18 identifies the monitoring frequencies and basis for monitoring frequency recommendations. Less frequent inspection alternatives were evaluated including a 15-year and 12-year frequency for recently constructed gravity sewers and gravity sewers with no defects. However, data quality concerns for CCTV data completed prior to 1/1/2015, limited large diameter CCTV data in the database of record, and City staff concern about SSO risk resulted in the recommended frequencies presented in Table 2-18. Table 2-18. Condition Assessment Monitoring Action Basis Condition Assessment Monitoring Action Basis 5-Year Monitor LD The City has limited data on large diameter pipe in the CCTV database of record. The City plans to inspect large diameter pipe over 5 years to close this gap. 2-Year Monitor SD Pipes with a BRE greater than or equal to 30 and pipes that are on a quarterly or semi-annual cleaning frequency. 4-Year Monitor SD Pipes that do not meet the above criteria and; 1) have CCTV data prior to 1/1/2015 that may be of lower quality; or 2) non-plastic pipes. 8-Year Monitor SD Pipes that do not meet the above criteria and are plastic. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 2-44 | June 2019 Estimated Useful Life Determining a remaining useful life is challenging for gravity sewers and manholes because the time of failure is typically not known. Failure may occur when the gravity sewer is installed or later in the gravity sewer’s life due to cleaning-caused degradation over time or a contractor dig-in. The City’s CCTV data and manhole inspections provide a snapshot in time of the condition of a majority of the City’s gravity sewers and manholes. Based on the BRE thresholds selected by the Asset Management Team, gravity sewers with a renewal recommendation are assumed to exceed their useful life within the next 5 to 8 years. Gravity sewers recommended for monitoring are expected to exceed their useful life sometime beyond 8 years after their next planned inspection. These assumptions may change as the City performs repeat inspections of gravity sewers and determines more accurate remaining useful life. Renewal and Condition Assessment Forecasts This section includes renewal forecasts and condition assessment forecasts for gravity sewer and manhole infrastructure. Renewal Forecasts The BRE thresholds in Table 2-17 and the decision logic were used to forecast renewal recommendation quantities, condition assessment monitoring quantities and costs for gravity sewers and manholes. These recommendations from the decision logic will cost effectively meet the City’s desired renewal and monitoring program policies and are expected to result in minimal structural SSOs. Table 2-19 and Figure 2-13 summarize the risk mitigation actions by length and percentage for gravity sewers owned by the City. Table 2-19. Gravity Sewer Risk Mitigation Action Results Risk Mitigation Actions Gravity Sewer Length (Feet) Percent by Length (%) CIPP SD 14,142 1.0 Open Cut Repair + CIPP SD 1,954 0.1 Open Cut Repair SD 8,733 0.6 Open Cut Repair SD - Cost Review 2,905 0.2 Replace SD 12,253 0.9 Trenchless Repair SD 25,321 1.8 2 Year Monitor SD 47,638 3.4 4 Year Monitor SD 709,010 50.6 5 Year Monitor LD 101,161 7.2 8 Year Monitor SD 445,370 31.8 Review SD 32,125 2.3 Review LD 703 0.1 Total 1,401,316 100 Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 2-45 Figure 2-13. Gravity Sewer Renewal and Monitoring Action Results The renewal actions from the decision logic results are presented in Figure 2-14. Monitoring actions from the decision logic results are presented in Figure 2-15. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 2-46 | June 2019 Figure 2-14. Condition Risk Mitigation Decision Logic Renewal Results for Gravity Sewers Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 2-47 Figure 2-15. Condition Risk Mitigation Decision Logic Monitoring Results for Gravity Sewers Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 2-48 | June 2019 Costs forecasts for gravity sewer CIP renewal actions for gravity sewers owned by the City are shown in Figure 2-16 and Table 2-20. Figure 2-16. Gravity Sewer CIP Renewal Cost Forecast Results Table 2-20. Gravity Sewer CIP Renewal Cost Forecast Renewal Action Total CIPP SD $919,385 Open Cut Repair + CIPP SD $316,504 Open Cut Repair LD - Cost Review $0 Open Cut Repair SD $926,268 Open Cut Repair SD - Cost Review $427,028 Replace SD $3,046,698 Trenchless Repair SD $377,500 Total $6,013,382 Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 2-49 The City will be inspecting large diameter gravity sewer over the next several years. Approximately 30,000 linear feet is assumed to be inspected per year based on the plan for a 5-year monitoring schedule. The yield rate for large diameter pipes that have a BRE greater than 45 is approximately 3 percent of inspected large diameter pipe based on the results of the decision logic. This 3 percent yield rate multiplied by the 30,000 linear feet of planned inspection results in 900 linear feet of projected large diameter renewal per year. The average unit cost for 14 to 24 inch diameter pipe for CIPP and replacement is $353 per linear foot. This unit cost is applied to the 900 linear feet of projected renewal resulting in a forecast of $320,000 per year. Based on input from City staff regarding inspection schedules, renewal work for large diameter pipe is expected to start in FY2021/2022. The large diameter renewal forecast for years 6-15 is based on the age- based forecast described in this section and Appendix D. The manhole decision logic was used to forecast renewal recommendation quantities and costs for manholes. The decision logic identified 98 manholes for replacement. These manholes for renewal are shown in Figure 2-17. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 2-50 | June 2019 Figure 2-17. Condition Risk Mitigation Decision Logic Results for Manholes Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 2-51 The 98 manholes identified for renewal represent approximately 1.7 percent of all manholes. An additional 5 manholes per year are assumed to be identified for renewal based on input from City staff. A unit cost of $14,425 for replacement of each manhole (including soft costs) is used to forecast the costs over 5 and 7 years. Table 2-21 presents the quantities and costs for manhole replacement over a 5 year and 7 year time period. Table 2-21. Manhole CIP Renewal Cost Forecast Renewal Action Timeframe (years) Count of Manholes Total Replacement (Decision Logic) 5 98 $1,413,648 Replacement (Assumed) 5 25 $360,625 Total 123 $1,774,273 Replacement (Decision Logic) 7 98 $1,413,648 Replacement (Assumed) 7 35 $504,874 Total 133 $1,918,523 Condition Assessment Monitoring Forecasts Forecasted gravity sewer CCTV inspection to be performed by City crews on small diameter gravity sewers (12-inch diameter and smaller) is presented in Table 2-22 and is based on the decision logic results. City staff plan to complete inspections and cleaning of this average mileage per year, however historical CCTV inspection mileage per year is approximately 46 miles. The City could utilize City staff overtime to complete the CCTV inspection miles per year if staff are unable to complete the work within regular hours. Alternatively, the cost forecast for a contractor to complete the difference of approximately 7.2 miles per year at an assumed unit cost of $1.80 per linear foot is $70,000 per year and is included in the monitoring CIP forecast. Additional unit costs for CCTV are included in Appendix C. Table 2-22. Small Diameter Gravity Sewer CCTV Inspection Forecast CCTV Inspection Frequency Average Miles per Year 2 year 6.1 4 year 34.1 8 year 10.5 As-Needed Requests1 2.5 Total 53.2 Notes: 1 As-needed request are assumed to be approximately 1 percent of the system mileage per year based on the output of the decision logic and SSO rate. The forecast for large diameter gravity sewers is based on an inspection frequency of 5 years. The City is currently completing inspections as part of a third party regulatory action and the 5 year inspection frequency for cost forecasting and planning purposes is assumed to begin in FY2019/2020. The 5 year frequency was determined by staff to Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 2-52 | June 2019 mitigate risk and to provide CCTV data in the NASSCO PACP format utilized in the decision logic for future decision making. Potential near term inspections of large diameter gravity sewers, based on City staff input, include: • North Batiquitos Reach 6-9 • North Batiquitos Reach 1-4 • North Agua Hedionda Interceptor Table 2-23 presents the large diameter gravity sewer assessment cost forecast. Cleaning costs are currently included with inspection costs based on current City practices. Unit costs for CCTV inspection and cleaning are included in Appendix C. Table 2-23. Large Diameter Gravity Sewer CCTV Inspection Forecast Diameter Linear Feet CCTV and Clean Unit Cost Cost 15 14,117 $4.10 $57,879 16 450 $4.10 $1,846 18 10,782 $4.70 $50,674 20 2,692 $4.70 $12,655 21 7,150 $4.70 $33,606 24 22,812 $9.00 $205,304 27 5,166 $9.00 $46,493 30 45 $9.00 $408 36 10,940 $11.30 $123,622 39 1,182 $19.50 $23,056 42 20,790 $19.50 $405,412 48 5,281 $19.50 $102,978 60 352 $33.00 $11,627 Total 101,760 N/A $1,075,559 2.2.3 Recommended Investment Levels The condition-based renewal forecasts for gravity sewers and manholes are through the next 5 years. Beyond 5 years the condition and performance data and forecasts are less accurate for gravity sewers and manholes, however these forecasts are used to provide costs for the 15 year CIP in Section 2.2.4. The condition-based forecasts in Table 2-20 and Table 2-21 and the 40-year age-based forecast are presented in Figure 2-18 without inflation. The performance-based forecast result in $12.9 million in savings vs the age-based forecast over the next 5 years. Continued condition assessment over the next 5 to 10 years will result in additional data that may be used to develop longer-term condition-based forecasts. Condition-based forecasts in FY2019/2020 (2020 in the Figure) include an additional $3 million for CIP Project ID 55011 Buena Interceptor Sewer Pipeline and Manhole Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 2-53 Rehabilitation and additional funds in CIP Project ID 55031 Sewer Line Refurbishments and Replacement above the forecasted $1.2 million per year. Figure 2-18. Gravity Sewer and Manhole Renewal Cost Forecast 2.3 CIP Recommendations There are several AMP related CIP projects in the current 15 year CIP program for wastewater. Updates are included in this section for the following projects: • CIP Project ID 55031 Sewer Line Refurbishments and Replacement • CIP Project ID 55131 Sewer Line Condition Assessment The following CIP Projects were discussed and City staff indicated the current CIP budget is appropriate at this time. • CIP Project ID 38401 Sewer Lift Station Repairs and Upgrades • CIP Project ID 55201 Odor and Corrosion Prevention Assessment The 15-year CIP forecast for CIP Project ID 55031 Sewer Line Refurbishments and Replacement is presented in Table 2-24. This forecast includes costs for gravity sewers and manholes based on the results of the decision logic as described in previous sections. Years 6-15 utilize the age-based forecast for large diameter gravity sewers and Years 6- 15 for small diameter gravity sewers and manholes assume the cost per year in the Year 1-5 forecast. These costs include 2% annual inflation. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 2-54 | June 2019 Table 2-24. CIP Forecast for Sewer Line Refurbishments and Replacement Project Title Year 1 2019-20 Year 2 2020-21 Year 3 2021-22 Year 4 2022-23 Year 5 2023-24 Year 6-10 2025-29 Year 11-15 2030-34 Sewer Line Refurbishments and Replacement (Includes Manholes) $1,530,000 $1,530,000 $1,850,000 $1,850,000 $1,850,000 $13,350,000 $14,050,000 Proposed Small Diameter $1,240,000 $1,240,000 $1,240,000 $1,240,000 $1,240,000 $6,800,000 $7,400,000 Proposed Large Diameter $0 $0 $320,000 $320,000 $320,000 $4,950,000 $4,950,000 Proposed Manhole $290,000 $290,000 $290,000 $290,000 $290,000 $1,600,000 $1,700,000 Notes: Includes 2% inflation Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 2-55 The 15-year annual CIP forecast for CIP Project ID 55131 Sewer Line Condition Assessment is presented in Table 2-25 based on the results of the decision logic described in previous sections. Small diameter gravity sewer condition assessment is assumed to be address through existing City staff and a different budget after completion of some additional assessment in Years 1-5 to close data gaps. The large diameter gravity sewers forecast in years 6-15 assume the cost per year the Year 1-5 forecast. These costs include 2% annual inflation. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 2-56 | June 2019 Table 2-25. CIP Forecast for Sewer Line Condition Assessment Project Title Year 1 2019-20 Year 2 2020-21 Year 3 2021-22 Year 4 2022-23 Year 5 2023-24 Year 6-10 2025-29 Year 11-15 2030-34 Sewer Line Condition Assessment (Includes Manholes) $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $1,240,000 $1,370,000 Proposed small diameter $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $0 $0 Proposed Large Diameter $225,000 $225,000 $225,000 $225,000 $225,000 $1,240,000 $1,370,000 Proposed Manhole $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Notes: Includes 2% annual inflation Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 2-57 2.4 Condition and Capacity CIP Project Coordination All current CIP projects were compared to the condition renewal identified in the AMP using a tabular analysis to compare unique pipe IDs between the CIP projects GIS shapefile and decision logic output. There is no overlap between the condition and capacity projects. The capacity projects are identified in the 2018 Sewer Master Plan. 2.5 Opportunities Throughout development of the AMP, the Asset Management Team identified potential opportunities for continuous improvement to the asset management program. The City should consider these opportunities when developing an Asset Management Roadmap that clearly communicates to stakeholders the prioritized initiatives and a schedule for implementation. A list of these opportunities for wastewater are included below • Consider staffing needs resulting from recent vacancy in asset management support position and potential scheduling support needs. • Consider utilizing an experienced construction inspector for CIPP to ensure quality delivery by contractors. Consider NASSCO CIPP construction inspection certification. • Update risk for gravity sewer mains to account for the distance to a storm drain inlet and storm drain outlet. Gravity sewer mains that could spill immediately upstream from a storm drain outlet are higher risk of an SSO to waters of the state than gravity sewer mains located thousands of feet upstream from a storm drain outlet. Utilize the City's storm sewer “quilt” map to support the analysis. • Consider opportunities to pilot pipe bursting renewal technologies. City staff identified a potential pipe bursting location at Cannon Road between the I-5 and Avenida Encinas. • Consider evaluation of field notes for gravity sewers to better support cleaning maintenance. Publish maps of gravity sewer cleaning defects identified through CCTV for use by crews to support cleaning maintenance. • Consider developing a GIS layer of key trails or other pedestrian areas to be added to the risk model in the future. • Develop in InfoMaster a risk model and decision logic for the City’s NASSCO PACP format CCTV data for use in prioritizing renewal and planning future CIP projects. Align InfoMaster data update quick reference and project packaging workflows provided in Appendix E with City practices. Consider updating from InfoMaster to InfoAsset Planner software. Leverage risk model and decision logic developed for the AMP. • After implementation of new CCTV truck and equipment, update business processes for inspection and renewal decision making and conduct training on updated business processes. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 2-58 | June 2019 • Review gravity sewer decision logic recommendations for high risk pipe renewal and develop a construction contract for this work. Review gravity sewers recommended for review in the decision logic. • Evaluate CCTV monitoring schedule for small diameter gravity mains using the initial recommendations provided by the decision logic. • Consider opportunities to solicit more bids from contractors on inspection work. • Consider developing a schedule for inspection of each large diameter gravity sewer and import large diameter gravity sewer CCTV data into the CCTV database of record. Near term inspections could include North Batiquitos Reach 6-9, North Batiquitos Reach 1-4, North Agua Hedionda Interceptor. • Document the pump station and force main condition assessment program and develop data management to move towards performance-based renewal planning versus age-based. • When a significant portion of the gravity sewer mains and manholes have been inspected for a second time, analyze the data to determine deterioration forecasts and long-term projections for renewal that are performance-based versus age- based. • Update the AMP annually with significant changes or modifications to the program. 2.6 Asset Valuation The total asset replacement valuation for wastewater assets is $528 million. The replacement cost for gravity sewers, manholes, force mains, and lift stations is summarized in Table 1-1. This valuation is based on data that is readily available such as GIS data, financial records, maintenance and repair records, and replacement and renewal records. The City currently utilizes an Original Cost Less Depreciation valuation approach. Where performance-based forecasts were not developed, age was the basis for the straight-line depreciation calculations using estimated useful life by asset classes to estimate the asset service life and estimated replacement costs. Assets were "bundled" into one facility asset or group of facility assets, such as water reservoir or sewer lift station mechanical, and the total construction cost of the asset value and the useful life for the facility were applied. The asset valuation details including useful life assumptions and long-term funding forecasts by year are included in Appendix D. 2.7 InfoMaster and Project Packaging Workflow Included in Appendix E are an InfoMaster data update quick reference, InfoMaster field mapping for CCTV and sewer system data, and project packaging workflows. The data update quick reference provides a quick reference with instructions for updating data in InfoMaster when the sewer system changes or the City makes changes to the risk model or decision logic elements in InfoMaster. The field mapping presented in Appendix E documents how the CCTV and sewer system data is imported into InfoMaster. The project workflows are intended to provide a high level overview of how InfoMaster is used in the renewal project packaging and project close-out process. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 3-1 3 Potable and Recycled Water This section includes asset management planning for the potable and recycled water pipelines, valves and service laterals which includes a summary of system condition and performance, asset inventory, asset replacement costs, and condition assessment and replacement forecasts. 3.1 System Inventory, Performance, & Replacement Cost A summary of the City’s infrastructure with length and count of assets and replacement cost is included in Table 1-1. The City’s infrastructure database of record is GIS. The City has two distinct operating systems for potable and recycled water. Carlsbad provided readily available GIS files with updates as of November 30, 2016. The datasets used as the basis of this report were Water_Main, Water_Valve, and Water_Service_Line. Infrastructure that was not owned by Carlsbad was excluded5. Carlsbad keeps installation dates in several fields. To estimate the installation year of each pipe, the following procedure was used: 1. Use DWGSIGNDAT, if not populated 2. Use DWGASBUILT, if not populated 3. Use INSTALLDAT, if not populated 4. Use ACCEPTANCE, if not populated 5. Use the year in which the PROJECTNUM associated to the service was constructed, if not populated 6. Mark as unknown A summary of active system infrastructure by installation era is included in Table 3-1. 5 Infrastructure with an OWNEDBY field of “CMWD” is included. The SHAPELENGTH field is used for length. Infrastructure with a STATUS field of Abandoned and Not in Service was excluded. Infrastructure with a STATUS field of Future is included due to the age of the GIS data used. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 3-2 | June 2019 Table 3-1. Summary of Pipe Infrastructure by Installation Decade Installation Era Potable (mi) Recycled (mi) Total (mi) Unknown 5 - 5 <1960 7 - 7 1960-1969 34 - 34 1970-1979 76 - 76 1980-1989 108 4 112 1990-1999 122 28 151 2000-2009 92 43 135 2010-2017 6 2 8 Total 450 78 527 In the industry, system performance is often measured in terms of “break rate” which measures the annual number of main breaks per 100 miles of pipe operated. Recent research6 indicates that the average break rate in the Region is 9.7 annual breaks per 100 miles. The City’s potable and recycled water system has experienced break rates of 1.7 and 0.5 respectively over the past ten years. The system-wide break rate is 1.5 or roughly six times better than the regional average. Even in Southern California where materials used and soil conditions tend to result in longer useful lives and the cost of water drives utilities to manage aging infrastructure more proactively, the City is within the top quartile of utilities in terms of system performance. While the vast majority of the City’s infrastructure is expected to have a long life, variables7 will cause some City pipes to deteriorate much faster than the average. In order to sustain good service levels, the City will need to make modest investments in condition assessment and replacement to identify, prioritize, and replace pipes in poor condition. The current replacement cost of the potable and recycled water pipeline infrastructure8 is $1.7 billion dollars. A summary of existing pipeline infrastructure and replacement costs are included in Table 3-2. The basis for this replacement cost estimate includes recent City and other utility bid costs and assumed soft costs for planning, design, legal, construction administration, ownership administration, and contingencies. 6 The average break rate in California and Nevada is 9.7 per Folkman’s 2018 report titled Water Main Break Rates in the USA AND Canada: A Comprehensive Study. 7 Variables that may cause accelerated deterioration include manufacturing quality, construction quality, internal pressure, external loading, and soil characteristics such as corrosivity and shrink-swell potential. 8 The pipeline replacement cost includes both hard and soft costs for mains, services, and valves. The cost excludes pressure reducing stations, pump stations, tanks, and other facilities. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 3-3 Table 3-2. Current Water Pipe Replacement Cost Diameter (inches) Total Unit Cost ($/mile) Miles Replacement Cost (Million) Potable Recycled Total Potable Recycled Total 6 or less $1,725,000 48 11 58 $82 $19 $101 8 $1,875,000 211 29 240 $395 $54 $449 10 $2,100,000 56 1 57 $117 $3 $120 12 $2,250,000 72 19 91 $161 $42 $204 14 $2,625,000 10 1 11 $26 $3 $29 16 $3,000,000 30 3 33 $91 $8 $99 18 $3,150,000 4 3 7 $12 $10 $22 20 $3,525,000 1 2 2 $2 $5 $8 21 $3,863,000 3 - 3 $13 - $13 24 $4,200,000 5 5 10 $21 $19 $41 27 $4,725,000 2 0.4 2 $8 $2 $10 30 $5,250,000 4 4 8 $22 $22 $44 33 $5,775,000 0.2 - 0.2 $1 - $1 36 $6,300,000 4 - 4 $25 - $25 42 $7,350,000 1 - 1 $7 - $7 Total 450 78 527 $983 $187 $1,173 Soft Costs Percentage of Construction Cost Type Percentage Potable ($M) Recycled ($M) Total ($M) Planning 3% $29 $6 $35 Design 10% $98 $19 $117 Legal 2% $20 $4 $23 Construction Administration 15% $147 $28 $176 Ownership Administration 5% $49 $9 $59 Contingency 10% $98 $19 $117 Total Soft Costs 45% $442 $84 $528 Total Replacement Cost $1,425 $271 $1,701 Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 3-4 | June 2019 3.2 Pipelines, Valves, and Service Laterals Over time, pipeline infrastructure (including mains, valves, and service laterals) will deteriorate, break more often, and ultimately will need to be replaced. This section establishes prudent, transparent, and justifiable CIP budgets to address aging potable and recycled water pipeline infrastructure. The CIP budget will enable the City to sustain desired services levels, maximize the life of existing infrastructure, and mitigate the risk of large and unplanned rate increases due to aging pipeline infrastructure. 3.2.1 Age-Based Forecast An age-based pipeline renewal forecast was developed using unit costs established in Section 3.1, an assumed 2% annual inflation factor, City infrastructure installation years9, and published useful life estimates from the America Water Works Association (AWWA) report titled Buried No Longer: Confronting America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge as summarized in Table 3-3. 9 Approximately one percent of infrastructure had an unknown installation year. The average installation year of City infrastructure is 1990. For budgeting purposes, it was assumed that this infrastructure was installed in the average installation year of known City infrastructure (1990). Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 3-5 Table 3-3. Age-Based Useful Life Material Assumed Useful Life (Years) Miles PVC 70 240.1 Asbestos Cement 75 234.5 Steel 95 37.3 Ductile Iron 100 12.0 PCCP 75 3.1 Cast Iron 75 0.3 Copper 30 0.2 HDPE 70 0.1 Table 3-4 summarizes the results of a 50-year age-based assessment renewal forecast for potable water and recycled water pipelines, valves and services. Including inflation, this method forecasts an average of $44.6 million dollars per year. The 50 year time horizon was used to account for significant additional potential age-based replacement in the 40 to 50 year timeframe. A summary of age-based forecasts for pipelines, reservoirs, and pump stations is included in Appendix D. Table 3-4. 50-Year Age-based Renewal Forecast Timeframe Cost without Inflation (Million) Cost with Inflation (Million) Cumulative (FY19/20-FY69/70) $1,055.0 $2,229.0 Average Annual (FY19/20-FY69/70) $21.1 $44.6 3.2.2 Performance-Based Forecast Figure 3-1 illustrates that age alone is a poor indicator of pipe condition and remaining useful life. Figure 3-1. Age Alone is a Poor Indicator of Pipe Condition and Remaining Useful Life Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 3-6 | June 2019 Institutional knowledge and industry expertise10 suggest that the City’s infrastructure will last significantly longer than age-based estimates. To verify this, the City has initiated a water pipeline asset management program to measure infrastructure condition. This has included a system-wide leak detection program11 and measurement of the remaining effective wall thickness at five locations12. While some pipes will deteriorate faster than others, this work has verified that on average, City infrastructure is in good condition and will last significantly longer than industry standard useful life estimates document in Section 3.2.1. Pipeline Renewal In an effort to establish prudent, transparent, and data driven investment levels that maximize the life of existing infrastructure, a benchmarking effort was initiated to compare City performance and investment levels to other similar utilities. Utilities were benchmarked based on break rate (i.e., annual breaks per 100 miles of pipe owned) and replacement rate measured as the percentage of the system replaced annually. For example, it would take 100 years to replace the entire system at a replacement rate of 1% per year. Figure 3-2, benchmarks the City’s performance versus other similar utilities where the orange circle is the City and the blue diamonds represent these utilities: • Vista Irrigation District • San Dieguito Water District • Rainbow Municipal Water District • Padre Dam Municipal Water District • Helix Water District • Sweetwater Authority • City of San Juan Capistrano • Mesa Water District • City of Buena Park • City of Long Beach • Contra Costa Water District 10 Approximately 90% of the City infrastructure is made up of AC and PVC pipe materials. The predominant vintages of AC pipe (installed 1970s and later) tend to last much longer than prior vintages of AC pipe due to advances in manufacturing. Additionally, soils conditions (e.g. low shrink-swell potential) and modest pressure fluctuations result in relatively low stress levels applied to pipes promoting longer than average useful life. 11 Using acoustic sensors, the system was evaluated for active leaks. Over time, water leaks will accelerate pipe deterioration and eventually result in a break that disrupts service and the community. The leak detection effort identified a relatively small number of active leaks on City owned infrastructure and those leaks were concentrated in fittings and services as opposed to the main. These leaks were investigated and resolved. 12 See Appendix H for a detailed discussion of the condition assessment sample results. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 3-7 • East Bay MWD • City of Phoenix • Denver Water A table of the results presented in Figure 3-2 is included in Appendix I. Figure 3-2. Benchmarking of City Performance & Investment Levels Each community must find the appropriate balance between service levels and near-term cost for their community. In general, systems that are performing well do not require significant investment levels. However, as pipes deteriorate and break more often, increased investments in pipeline replacement are warranted. Figure 3-3 quantifies this relationship for the utilities that were benchmarked. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 3-8 | June 2019 Figure 3-3. System Performance verses Investment Level Relationship Currently, the City break rates are good relative to other utilities benchmarked. However, as this infrastructure continues to age and deteriorate, break rates will increase and the City should consider increasing investment levels to sustain desired service levels. To quantify how the performance of City infrastructure may deteriorate over the next fifty years, pipes were categorized into three asset classes (AC, PVC, and metallic) and readily available deterioration curves from other utilities with similar pipe vintages were leveraged. For example, Figure 3-4 shows how AC pipe at Vista Irrigation District have deteriorated as they age. Currently, City AC pipes are breaking at a rate of 2.1. This curve was used to estimate City AC breaks rates in the future. For example, this curve was used to estimate the increase in City AC break rates from 2.1 to 6.1 over the next twenty years. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 3-9 Figure 3-4. Deterioration of AC Pipe at Vista Irrigation District Figure 3-5 summarizes the twenty year forecasted break rate for each City asset class as well as an “All Pipe” break rate which considers the quantity of each material class to estimate overall system performance. Figure 3-5. Forecasted Deterioration of City Pipelines Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 3-10 | June 2019 The All Pipe break forecast was applied to estimate investment needs over the next 50 years. Figure 3-6 summarizes these investment needs by replacement rate and replacement cost with and without a 2% inflation factor. Figure 3-6. 50-year City Pipeline Replacement Forecast The recycled water system is performing approximately three times better than the potable water system. Over the next 50 years, the long term forecast model indicates that approximately 89% of all water pipeline investments should be targeted to the potable system and the remaining 11% should be targeted to the recycled water system. Since the recycled water system is relatively young, near term investments are expected to be even more focused on the potable water system. Pipeline Renewal Projects While most City pipeline infrastructure is expected to last well beyond the average published useful life estimates from AWWA, the useful life of particular pipes can vary significantly depending on manufacturing quality, installation quality, variations in deterioration factors (e.g. soil corrosivity, water corrosivity, presence of ground water), and variations in pipe stresses (e.g. pressure, ground movement, external loading). Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 3-11 Readily available data was evaluated13 to identify potential near-term pipe replacement candidates. These projects were reviewed with staff to identify and remove any projects where a current renewal project was already planned and budgeted. The result was the identification of three near-term replacement projects shown in Figure 3-7. The basis for each project is described in more detail below. The total cost of these projects is expected to be approximately $8.0 million dollars. The recommended pipe renewal budget is included in Chapter 3.3 of this report and should allow enough budget to identify one additional pipeline replacement project in the 5-year budget if a new problem pipe emerges. Figure 3-7. Near-term Pipeline Replacement Project Map 13 Project renewal identification included a review of clusters of main breaks and service breaks which may indicate the pipe is nearing the end of its useful life. The consequence of failure, pipe construction quality, stress factors (e.g. pressure, ground movement), and the accessibility of pipes were evaluated. Additional information such as leak detection and condition assessment data was used where it was readily available. Project 3 – Caringa & Altisma Project 2 – Adams St Project 1 – Bolero St Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 3-12 | June 2019 Project 1 – Bolero Street The first project identified has a mainline performance issue on Bolero Street, just south of El Fuerte Street. An aerial map of the project location is included in Figure 3-8. This 12- inch AC pipe was installed in 1975 by a single contractor. The pipeline is installed along a relatively steep slope which causes large pressure changes. Pipes are symbolized as: • Dark blue lines – Pipes exposed to lower pressures at the top of the hill along Acuna Court • Light blue lines - Pipes exposed to moderate pressures. • Purple lines - Pipes at the bottom of the hill that are exposed to high pressures. Pressure reducing valves are symbolized in orange. The pipe south of those pressure reducing valves are exposed to low pressure and are symbolized as dark blue. The main line pipe breaks in this area (red stars) are concentrated in the portion of this project that is exposed to high pressure. Therefore, the condition of the pipe in this project may be similar, however since the pipes in purple experience much higher stresses, breaks are concentrated in those areas. One additional break has occurred on the moderate pressure pipe. Three service breaks (yellow stars) have occurred in the cul-de-sacs off of El Fuerte and Bolero. Breaks in this area can be particularly consequential due to the relatively steep slope, high pressure, large diameter, and brittle pipe material14. Since this area has a relatively high consequence of failure and high concentration of breaks, a pipeline replacement project is recommended. The approximate boundaries of the replacement project should include the purple and light blue pipes as well as the associated services and appurtenances. The dark blue lines likely have significant useful life remaining since they are experiencing much lower pressures. Therefore, the replacement of the dark blue lines is not recommended. Based on the unit costs in Section 3.1, the estimated cost of this project is summarized in Table 3-5. The cost and length is summarized by the type of issue addressed including condition and access issues. The exact extents of the project should be finalized during design of this pipe replacement. 14 A brittle pipe that fractures generally damages more property and is more difficult to repair than an equally-sized ductile pipe that merely “leaks.” AC and PVC pipe often fracture during failure. Steel and ductile iron are more likely to leak. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 3-13 Figure 3-8. Map of Project 1 – Bolero Street Managua Place Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 3-14 | June 2019 Table 3-5. Opinion of Cost for Project 1 – Bolero Street Diameter (inches) Total Unit Cost ($/mile) Miles Replacement Cost (Million) Condition Access Total Condition Access Total 8 $1,875,000 0.33 0 0.33 $0.62 $0 $0.62 12 $2,250,000 0.76 0 0.76 $1.72 $0 $1.72 Construction Cost 1.10 0 1.10 $2.34 $0 $2.34 Soft Costs (% of construction cost) Percentage Total ($M) Planning, Design Legal, Construction Admin, Contingency 45% $1.05 Total Replacement Cost $3.40 Project 2 – Adams Street Project 2 identified a mainline performance issue on Adams Street near Park Drive and Cove Drive. An aerial map of the project location in is included in Figure 3-9. This 10-inch AC pipe was installed in 1969. There have been five mainline breaks (red stars) and two service breaks (yellow stars) on the pipe. The pipe in Adams runs along a short but steep slope as shown in Figure 3-10. A difficult to access pipe traverses this slope and ties into a pipe on Cove Drive to provide some limited redundancy in the area. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 3-15 Figure 3-9. Map of Project 2 – Adams Street Difficult to Access Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 3-16 | June 2019 Figure 3-10. Map of Difficult to Access Pipe Breaks in this area can be particularly consequential due to the relatively steep slope, large diameter, environmental impacts due to the proximity to Agua Hedionda, and brittle pipe material15. Since this area has a relatively high consequence of failure and high concentration of breaks, a pipeline replacement project is recommended. The approximate boundaries of the replacement project should include the purple line as well as the associated services and appurtenances shown in Figure 3-9. Based on the unit costs in Section 3.1, the estimated cost of this project is summarized in Table 3-6. The exact extents of the project should be finalized during design of this pipe replacement. In particular, the design should consider options to relocate the limited access pipe while considering any tradeoffs in terms of loss of redundancy. In addition to condition and access issues, the Water Master Plan identifies potential projects to address fire flows. During design, these pipes identified for fire flow improvements should be considered. 15 A brittle pipe that fractures generally damages more property and is more difficult to repair than an equally-sized ductile pipe that merely “leaks.” AC and PVC pipe often fracture during failure. Steel and ductile iron is more likely to leak. Difficult to Access Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 3-17 Table 3-6. Opinion of Cost for Project 2 – Adams Street Diameter (inches) Total Unit Cost ($/mile) Miles Replacement Cost ($M) Condition Access Total Condition Access Total 10 $2,100,000 0.49 0.03 0.52 $1.03 $0.06 $1.09 Construction Cost 0.49 0.03 0.52 $1.03 $0.06 $1.09 Soft Costs (% of construction cost) Percentage Total ($M) Planning, Design Legal, Construction Admin, Contingency 45% $0.49 Total Replacement Cost $1.58 Project 3 – Caringa & Altisma Project 3 identified a mainline performance issue near the intersection of Caringa Way and Altisma Way. An aerial map of the project location is included in Figure 3-11. This 6-inch and 8-inch AC pipe was installed in the early 1970s. Five main breaks (red stars), two service breaks (yellow stars), and two leaks (pink triangles) were documented in this area. Breaks in this area can be particularly consequential due to the brittle pipe material16 and difficult to access areas. A summary of the difficult to access (DTA) areas are included below. Pipes are symbolized as: • Red lines – Pipes with a condition issue • Yellow lines - Pipes with an access issue. • Orange lines - Pipes both an access and a condition issue. 16 A brittle pipe that fractures generally damages more property and is more difficult to repair than an equally-sized ductile pipe that merely “leaks.” AC and PVC pipe often fracture during failure. Steel and ductile iron is more likely to leak. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 3-18 | June 2019 Figure 3-11. Map of Project 3 – Caringa & Altisma DIFFICULT TO ACCESS #1 Difficult to Access area number one (DTA #1) includes a pipe that runs under a narrow, tree lined walkway that runs through a condominium complex as shown in Figure 3-12. During design, consider addressing this access issue and alternatives to relocate the main into the driveway to enable the City to access, maintain, and repair the infrastructure. DTA #1 DTA #2 DTA #3 DTA #4 DTA #5 DTA #6 Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 3-19 Figure 3-12. Picture of Difficult to Access Area #1 DIFFICULT TO ACCESS #2 Difficult to Access area number two (DTA #2) includes a pipe that runs under a car port roof structure and traverses under several retaining walls as shown in Figure 3-13. During design, consider addressing this access issue and consider alternatives to relocate the main into the street to avoid the roof structure and retaining walls and enable the City to access, maintain, and repair the infrastructure. Figure 3-13. Picture of Difficult to Access Area #2 Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 3-20 | June 2019 DIFFICULT TO ACCESS #3 Difficult to Access area number three (DTA #3) includes multiple pipes that run between narrow gaps within a condominium complex as shown in Figure 3-14. During design, consider addressing this access issue and alternatives to relocate the main into the street to enable the City to access, maintain, and repair the infrastructure or transfer ownership. Figure 3-14. Picture of Difficult to Access Area #3 Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 3-21 DIFFICULT TO ACCESS #4 Difficult to Access area number four (DTA #4) includes a pipe that runs between narrow gaps within a condominium complex and pool as shown in Figure 3-15. During design, consider addressing this access issue and consider alternatives to relocate the main or transfer ownership to enable the City to access, maintain, and repair the infrastructure. Figure 3-15. Picture of Difficult to Access Area #4 Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 3-22 | June 2019 DIFFICULT TO ACCESS #5 Difficult to Access area number five (DTA #5) includes a pipe that runs between a narrow gap within a condominium complex as shown in Figure 3-16. During design, consider addressing this access issue and alternatives to relocate the main into the driveway to enable the City to access, maintain, and repair the infrastructure. Figure 3-16. Picture of Difficult to Access Area #5 DIFFICULT TO ACCESS #6 Difficult to Access area number six (DTA #6) includes a pipe that runs between a narrow gap within a condominium complex as shown in Figure 3-17. During design, consider addressing this access issue and consider alternatives to relocate the main into the driveway to enable the City to access, maintain, and repair the infrastructure. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 3-23 Figure 3-17. Picture of Difficult to Access Area #6 PROJECT #3 RECOMMENDATION Since Project #3 has a relatively high consequence of failure and high concentration of breaks, a pipeline replacement project is recommended. The approximate boundaries of the replacement project should include the red and orange pipes and should consider alternatives to address the difficult to access pipes in Figure 3-11. Based on the unit costs in Section 3.1, the estimated cost of this project is summarized in Table 3-7. The exact extents of the project should be finalized during design of this pipe replacement. Table 3-7. Opinion of Cost for Project 3 – Caringa & Altisma Diameter (inches) Total Unit Cost ($/mile) Miles Replacement Cost (Million) Condition Access Total Condition Access Total 6 or less $1,725,000 0.17 0.37 0.54 $0.29 $0.64 $0.93 8 $1,875,000 0.61 0 0.61 $1.14 $0 $1.14 Construction Cost 0.78 0.37 1.15 $1.43 $0.64 $2.07 Soft Costs (% of construction cost) Percentage Total ($M) Planning, Design Legal, Construction Admin, Contingency 45% $0.93 Total Replacement Cost $3.00 Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 3-24 | June 2019 Inaccessible Infrastructure A significant portion of City water main infrastructure is located in areas that are difficult for City staff to access, maintain, and repair the infrastructure. City staff have developed a planning level map of known inaccessible areas which is included in Appendix F and the current replacement cost of this infrastructure based on this map and replacement unit costs presented in Section 3.1 is $55 million. However the actual cost to eliminate this access issue is likely significantly higher as pipes that currently run through inaccessible areas often take the shortest path. Relocating this infrastructure to accessible areas such as streets would likely increase the costs. Some of the inaccessible infrastructure also provides important system redundancy and improves water quality. Quantifying the most cost effective alternative would require a significant amount of planning and design and in some cases, the analysis may conclude that the current configuration is optimum. In order to cost effectively mitigate inaccessible infrastructure in the near-term, it is recommended that project specific evaluations of adjacent inaccessible infrastructure be conducted during the planning and design of pipeline replacement projects that are triggered for another reason (e.g. break history, condition, capacity constraint, water quality, growth). In this way, inaccessible infrastructure issues can be evaluated and mitigated as part of construction to minimize cost as well as the impact to the community during construction. In Section 3.2.2, this approach was incorporated into the pipeline replacement planning process. Of the infrastructure recommended for replacement, 2.37 miles were based on condition and 0.40 miles (i.e. 17% more pipes) were triggered because inaccessible pipe was near a recommended construction project. In order to budget for addressing inaccessible infrastructure in the future, the factor observed in the planning of these projects (17%) was applied to performance-based pipeline renewal budget documented in Section 3.2.2 to identify a budget of $337,000 per year to address access issues. Pipeline Condition Assessment A targeted pipeline condition assessment program will support cost effective system management and risk mitigation by: • extending the life of some pipes found to be in good condition, • preventing unnecessary breaks in other pipes found to be in poor condition, • identifying the most cost-effective renewal technology and project extents, and • increasing confidence in decision making. The purpose of this section is to quantify future condition assessment strategies, budgets, and near-term priorities at a planning level. The City should move forward with plans to develop a tactical pipeline condition assessment plan which will build off of this effort to further define projects, priorities, and the most cost effective way to leverage this budget. The planning level condition assessment strategy has been developed based upon pipeline material and diameter. A summary of the City’s pipeline condition assessment forecast is included in Table 3-8. A description of assumptions used in the development of this forecast are included below. The unit costs used in this section are based on recent similar work at other utilities and is intended to be used for systematic planning and Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 3-25 budgeting. Project specific costs will vary based on the unique operating context of each pipe. Table 3-8. Opinion of Cost for 30-year Condition Assessment Program Condition Assessment Task Quantity Assessed Cost Value Units Cost per Unit Total Annual Plastic Failure Analysis 0.5 ea/yr $6,000 $3,000 $3,000 Asbestos Cement Testing 20 ea/yr $1,250 $25,000 $25,000 Analysis 1 ea/yr $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 Metallic Tactical Condition Assessment Plan 1 ea $200,000 $200,000 $7,000 Soil Survey: 10-inches and larger 49 miles $13,200 $646,000 $22,000 Assessment: 10-inch to 16-inch 15 miles $74,000 $1,144,000 $38,000 Assessment: 18-inches and larger 33 miles $275,000 $9,177,000 $306,000 Assessment: 8-inch and smaller 5 miles $79,000 $410,000 $14,000 Total Annual Cost $440,000 Plastic Pipe Condition Assessment Budget Approximately 45% of the City’s system is plastic. Currently, the industry does not have a proven and industry accepted method for proactive condition assessment of plastic pipe. However, an opportunistic condition assessment focused on identifying the root cause of failure has proven to be cost effective. Plastic pipe has a low break rate compared with other materials, however when multiple breaks occur on a plastic pipe this can be an indicator of poor manufacturing and/or construction techniques and future breaks. In these cases, the City should perform a failure analysis on the pipe sample. This analysis may include the following: • Measurement per ASTM D2122 • Visual and microscopic examination of the pipe and fracture surfaces • Acetone immersion testing per ASTM D2152 • Heat reversion test per ASTM F1057 • Tensile testing per ASTM D638 • Izod impact testing per ASTM D256 An example of this failure assessment is shown in Figure 3-18. These tests should be performed by a laboratory with experience testing plastic pipe. For budgeting purposes, it is assumed that one PVC sample will be assessed every other year. The estimated cost of each assessment is $6,000 or approximately $3,000 per year. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 3-26 | June 2019 Figure 3-18. Example of Plastic Pipe Failure Analysis Asbestos Cement Condition Assessment Budget Approximately 45% of the City’s system is asbestos cement (AC). Based on industry research17, Appendix G summarizes how AC pipe corrodes and how that corrosion can be measured through Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS) testing. Proactive condition assessment of AC pipe can be expensive and disruptive to the community because the pipe must be isolated, exposed, and a sample from the pipe must be taken. However, when a pipe is exposed for another reason (e.g. service tap, break, valve replacement, pipe replacement), it provides a unique opportunity to cost effectively gather EDS data since roughly 90% of the cost of testing is in accessing the pipe. In order to cost effectively manage aging AC pipe, the City is implementing an Opportunity Condition Assessment Program (OCAP). As part of the valve replacement program, the City has an experienced laboratory perform EDS testing. At the time of this report, five samples have been tested and associated to a pipe. As documented in Appendix H, the results of these tests have shown that four of the five pipes are in good condition and one pipe has shown modest signs of deterioration. All five samples have at least 70% of the design wall thickness remaining and are expected to have decades of remaining useful life. 17 Based on Water Research Foundation Project 4480 Development of an Effective Management Strategy for Asbestos Cement Pipe. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 3-27 The City should continue to perform EDS testing during valve replacement. This cost is already embedded in the valve replacement budget. The City should also begin to collect and test AC when other opportunities arise such as break response and service taps. Assuming approximately 20 additional samples are collected and tested per year at a cost of approximately $1,250 each and approximately $25,000 per year is budgeted for support in data management, training, and decision making; the cost of the AC condition assessment program is approximately $50,000 per year. Metallic Pipe Condition Assessment Budget While only 10% of the City’s system is metallic, many of these pipes are larger and more critical transmission mains which should be managed proactively. For budgeting purposes, it is assumed that each metallic pipe 6-inches and larger18 will be assessed once every thirty years using non-destructive testing. For pipes 10-inches and larger, it is assumed that a soil corrosivity assessment (shown in Figure 3-19) will be performed to support condition assessment prioritization at a cost of $2.50 per foot. Figure 3-19. Example of Soil Survey For pipes 10-inches to 16-inches, it is assumed that close-interval survey (or cell-to-cell testing in paved areas) will be used to measure the location and severity of active corrosion (shown in Figure 3-20). This information will be used to determine whether excavation and measurement of pipe wall thickness is warranted. Assuming on average a modest number 18 Metallic mains smaller than 6-inches make up only 0.06% of the system. They typically have a lower consequence of failure and do not have a cost effective condition assessment technology. Therefore, no condition assessment program is warranted. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 3-28 | June 2019 of excavation are triggered (shown in Figure 3-21), this work is estimated to cost approximately $14 per foot. It is assumed that this data will be sufficient to make renewal decisions on pipes 10-inches to 16-inches. Figure 3-20. Example of Close-Interval Survey Figure 3-21. Example of Targeted Excavation and Measurement of Pipe Wall Thickness Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 3-29 For pipes 18-inches and larger that are often more critical and expensive to replace, it is assumed that higher resolution in-pipe electromagnetic technology will be required to make prudent and justifiable decisions (shown in Figure 3-22). This work is estimated to cost approximately $52 per foot. Figure 3-22. Example of In-Pipe Electromagnetic Technology For 6-inch and 8-inch pipes, a similar high resolution technology can be employed at a reduced cost since access may be achieved through a fire hydrant (shown in Figure 3-23). The estimate unit cost for these pipes is approximately $15 per foot. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 3-30 | June 2019 Figure 3-23. Example of Small Diameter In-Pipe Electromagnetic Technology Initial Metallic Pipe Condition Assessment Priorities Based on break history and institutional knowledge, a preliminary list of near term metallic pipe condition assessment projects were identified and prioritized. This is summarized in Table 3-9. The highest priority project was identified as an 8-inch metallic pipe within the airport. This is a relatively short pipe with a significant portion of the cost embedded in mobilization of the contractor. If the City proceeds with this project, they should also consider executing other high priority condition assessment projects as part of a larger project that will use the same technology19 to obtain more value from contractor mobilization. 19 Other high priority projects that use the same technology include project number 4 and 5. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 3-31 Table 3-9. Initial Metallic Pipe Condition Assessment Prioritization Project # Description Priority Condition Assessment Type Length (ft) 1 8” Pipe in Airport Site20 1 Assessment: 8-inch and smaller 2,500 2 8” El Camino 490 Pipe 2 Assessment: 8-inch and smaller 3,000 3 20” & 24” Cannon Rd Recycled Pipe 2 Assessment: 18-inches and larger 13,500 4 24” & 27” Stl from Maerkle to El Camino 2 Assessment: 18-inches and larger 8,000 5 Parallel 18” pipes southeast of tank on Janis Way 3 Assessment: 18-inches and larger 2,000 6 Pipe Crossing Railroad & Major Roads 4 Assessment: 8-inch and smaller Unknown 7 16” Stl Cannon Rd 5 Assessment: 10-inch to 16-inch 9,000 8 27” Stl Palomar Airport Rd 5 Assessment: 18-inches and larger 6,500 9 36” CMLC Santa Fe 2 5 Assessment: 18-inches and larger 3,500 10 14” Stl Valley St. 6 Assessment: 10-inch to 16-inch 1,300 Pipeline Cathodic Protection The primary driver for metallic pipe deterioration is corrosion. Cathodic protection can slow corrosion and extend the useful life of pipeline infrastructure. The City has previously budgeted approximately $1 million dollars for development and implementation of a cathodic protection program. It is assumed that this budget will be spent over the next five years and that approximately $50,000 per year will be required to maintain the cathodic protection system after the first five years based on cathodic protection maintenance contracts for similar utilities. Valve Replacement While the City’s pipeline infrastructure on average is expected to last well over one- hundred years, the City’s valves will occasionally fail. These failures may include leakage, inoperability, and the inability to perform their primary function of isolating flow. This function is important to limit the consequence of system failures and support operation and maintenance of the system. Recently, the City has budgeted approximately $1 million for valve replacement. This investment has been able to stabilize the backlog of known inoperable valves. Since valve replacement is less efficient than pipe replacement (which includes replacing adjacent valves, services, and other appurtenances creating opportunities for efficiency), it is ideal to limit valve replacement to inoperable valves and adjacent high priority valves. With this in mind, it is recommended that the valve replacement budget be continued in the near term and periodically reevaluated to verify 20 Length unknown; Consider potential future airport improvements. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 3-32 | June 2019 these investment levels enable the City to sustain a manageable backlog of inoperable valves. 3.2.3 Recommended Investment Levels Figure 3-24 shows the cumulative annual investment need over the next 50 years by investment type without inflation: • Replacement – Pipe replacement due to condition and performance issues. During replacement, adjacent valves, services, and other appurtenances will also be replaced. • Access – When a pipe replacement project is triggered, the cost to address additional access issues in a single project. • Valves – The cost to replace critical inoperable valves when the adjacent pipe has significant remaining useful life. • Cathodic Protection – The cost to develop and maintain cathodic protection systems to extend the life of metallic pipe. • Condition Assessment – The cost to perform non-destructive condition assessment and ensure the right pipes are replaced at the right time. Table 3-10 shows the summary performance-based forecast over the next 50 years compared to the age-based forecast without inflation. Figure 3-24 and Table 3-10 show that the City will save approximately $665 million dollars without inflation in unnecessary pipe replacement (an average of $13.3 million per year over 50 years) by moving to a performance-based program. Appendix J includes a table of the results presented in Figure 3-24. Table 3-10. Renewal Forecast Comparison Forecast Timeframe Cost without Inflation (Million) Cost with Inflation (Million) Age-based FY19/20-FY69/70 $1,055.0 $2,229.0 Performance-based FY19/20-FY69/70 $389.2 $807.3 Savings $665.8 $1,421.7 Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 3-35 Table 3-11. CIP Forecast for Potable & Recycled Water Pipelines, Valves and Service Laterals CIP Project ID System Project Title Year 1 2019-20 Year 2 2020-21 Year 3 2021-22 Year 4 2022-23 Year 5 2023-24 Year 6-10 2025-29 Year 11-15 2030-34 39041 and 50351 Potable Identified Pipeline Replacement & Access Issue Resolution $2,320,000 $2,530,000 $2,730,000 $640,000 $0 $0 $0 39041 and 50351 Potable Miscellaneous Pipeline Replacement & Access Issue Resolution $0 $0 $0 $2,050,000 $2,800,000 $17,390,000 $23,580,000 50191 Potable Miscellaneous Valve Repair & Replacement $890,000 $910,000 $930,000 $940,000 $960,000 $5,110,000 $5,650,000 50071 Potable Cathodic Protection Program $180,000 $180,000 $190,000 $190,000 $190,000 $260,000 $280,000 50511 Potable Condition Assessment $390,000 $400,000 $410,000 $410,000 $420,000 $2,250,000 $2,480,000 New Recycled Miscellaneous Pipeline Replacement $0 $0 $0 $250,000 $350,000 $2,150,000 $2,910,000 52121 Recycled Miscellaneous Valve Repair & Replacement $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $120,000 $120,000 $630,000 $700,000 New Recycled Cathodic Protection Program $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $30,000 $30,000 52111 Recycled Condition Assessment $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $280,000 $310,000 Notes: Includes 2% inflation Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 3-37 The 15-year CIP forecast for CIP Project ID 50241 Reservoir Repair and Maintenance Program is presented in Table 3-12. This forecast includes costs for “Washout, painting, exterior/interior coating” as identified in the reservoir maintenance schedule presented in Table 3-13. Washout, painting, exterior/interior coating is assumed to be required every 10 years. Costs for other activities in the reservoir maintenance schedule are addressed through different budgets. Table 3-12. Reservoir Repair and Maintenance CIP Project Title Year 1 2019-20 Year 2 2020-21 Year 3 2021-22 Year 4 2022-23 Year 5 2023-24 Year 6-10 2025-29 Year 11-15 2030-34 RESERVOIR REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,958,829 $3,068,428 $3,606,796 Notes: 1 Costs are based on bids received by the City for Tanks C, D1, D2, D3, Elm, Ellery, and Skyline. Calculated costs use Tank C and D3 cost per million gallons of storage. Costs include 2% inflation. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 3-38 | June 2019 This page is intentionally blank. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 3-39 Table 3-13.Reservoir Maintenance Schedule and Costs Tank Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 YEAR3 6-10 YEAR3 11-16 Bid Year Bid Costs2 Calculated Cost1,2 FY 2018/19 FY 2019/20 FY 2020/21 FY 2021/22 FY 2022/23 FY 2024/25 FY 2025-29 FY 2030-34 C Washout, painting, exterior/interior coating Warranty & Periodic inspection & repairs Washout, periodic inspection & repairs Warranty & periodic inspection & repairs Washout, periodic inspection & repairs Warranty & periodic inspection & repairs Washout, painting, exterior/interior coating 2018 $1,324,831 1.5 MG D3 Washout, painting, exterior/interior coating Warranty & Periodic inspection & repairs Sanitary/Safety Inspection Sanitary/Safety Inspection Sanitary/Safety Inspection Washout, periodic inspection & repairs Washout, painting, exterior/interior coating 8.5 MG D1 Washout, periodic inspection & repairs Warranty & periodic inspection / repairs Sanitary/Safety Inspection Sanitary/Safety Inspection Sanitary/Safety Inspection Washout, painting, exterior/interior coating Washout, painting, exterior/interior coating 2012 $667,718 1.25 MG D2 Washout, periodic inspection & repairs Warranty & periodic inspection / repairs Sanitary/Safety Inspection Sanitary/Safety Inspection Sanitary/Safety Inspection Assumed for Washout, painting, exterior/interior coating based on 2012/2013 project Washout, painting, exterior/interior coating 1.25 MG Ellery Sanitary/Safety Inspection Washout, periodic inspection & repairs Warranty & Periodic inspection & repairs Sanitary/Safety Inspection Sanitary/Safety Inspection Assumed for Washout, painting, exterior/interior coating based on 2014 project Washout, painting, exterior/interior coating 2014 $1,060,380 5.0 MG Elm Sanitary/Safety Inspection Washout, periodic inspection & repairs Warranty & Periodic inspection & repairs Sanitary/Safety Inspection Sanitary/Safety Inspection Assumed for Washout, painting, exterior/interior coating based on 2014 project Washout, painting, exterior/interior coating 1.5 MG Skyline 1.5 MG Washout, periodic inspection & repairs Warranty & Periodic inspection & repairs Sanitary/Safety Inspection Sanitary/Safety Inspection Sanitary/Safety Inspection Washout, painting, exterior/interior coating Washout, painting, exterior/interior coating La Costa Hi Washout, periodic inspection & repairs Warranty & Periodic inspection & repairs Sanitary/Safety Inspection Sanitary/Safety Inspection Sanitary/Safety Inspection Washout, painting, exterior/interior coating Washout, painting, exterior/interior coating $794,899 6.0 MG Santa Fe II 9.0 MG Washout, painting, exterior/interior coating Warranty & Periodic inspection & repairs Sanitary/Safety Inspection Sanitary/Safety Inspection Sanitary/Safety Inspection Washout, periodic inspection & repairs Washout, painting, exterior/interior coating $1,192,348 TAP Washout, periodic inspection & repairs Warranty & Periodic inspection & repairs Sanitary/Safety Inspection Sanitary/Safety Inspection Sanitary/Safety Inspection Washout, periodic inspection & repairs Washout, painting, exterior/interior coating $794,899 6.0 MG Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 3-40 | June 2019 Table 3-13.Reservoir Maintenance Schedule and Costs Tank Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 YEAR3 6-10 YEAR3 11-16 Bid Year Bid Costs2 Calculated Cost1,2 FY 2018/19 FY 2019/20 FY 2020/21 FY 2021/22 FY 2022/23 FY 2024/25 FY 2025-29 FY 2030-34 MKL Washout, periodic inspection & repairs Warranty & Periodic inspection & repairs Sanitary/Safety Inspection Sanitary/Safety Inspection Sanitary/Safety Inspection Washout, periodic inspection & repairs Washout, painting, exterior/interior coating $1,324,831 10.0 MG MKL Cover, Periodic inspection & repairs Warranty & Periodic inspection & repairs Sanitary/Safety Inspection Sanitary/Safety Inspection Sanitary/Safety Inspection Washout, periodic inspection & repairs Already Included in CIP 200 MG Notes: 1 Calculated costs use Tank C and D3 cost per million gallons of storage. 2 Bid Costs and Calculated Costs are for activities identified as "Washout, painting, exterior/interior coating" in the schedule. 3 Year 6-10 and Year 11-15 assume that “Washout, painting, exterior/interior coating” is required every 10 years. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 3-41 3.4 Condition and Capacity CIP Project Prioritization All current CIP projects, proposed hydraulic projects, and proposed condition projects were evaluated to coordinate investments and ensure there is no overlap. For example, low risk fire flow constraints typically aren’t included in a near term investment project. However, since a replacement program is already recommended for Adams Street where a fire flow issue exists, the project was refined to address the condition, fire flow, and difficult to access area simultaneously to minimize community disruption and cost effectively address lower priority issues. 3.5 Opportunities Throughout development of the Asset Management Master Plan, the Asset Management Team identified potential opportunities for continuous improvement to the asset management program. The City should consider these opportunities when developing an Asset Management Roadmap that clearly communicates to stakeholders the prioritized initiatives and a schedule for implementation. The below includes a list of these opportunities for water: • Develop guidelines to establish when inaccessible infrastructure should be addressed and what potential alternatives exist. A significant portion of inaccessible City water mains traverse through business, condominium, and apartment complexes and are not accessible via a public or private road. Water mains often run under walkways, near community pools, between buildings, and under overhangs. Determine if ownership transfer is a viable alternative when determining how to address inaccessible infrastructure. • The primary driver for metallic pipe deterioration is corrosion. Cathodic protection can slow corrosion and extend the useful life of pipeline infrastructure. Develop, implement, and maintain a cost effective cathodic protection system. • On an annual basis, review break history to identify clusters of main breaks that may warrant a future pipeline replacement project. • Refine the way inoperable valves are identified to ensure a single database of record exists for all known inoperable valves. • Develop and implement a valve risk model to identify and prioritize valve replacement. Develop guidelines on how to use this model to generate valve replacement projects. • Continue to collect, test, and analyze AC pipe samples during valve and pipe replacement projects. • Currently, the City is sampling and testing AC pipes during contracted valve replacement work. Readily available samples were evaluated as part of this study. Continue to develop and execute an opportunity condition assessment program to collect, test, and analyze AC pipe samples when other opportunities arise (e.g. service tapping and break response). Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad 3-42 | June 2019 • Develop a tactical metallic pipe condition assessment program to identify and prioritize condition assessment projects, manage project execution, and leverage the data collected to make renewal decisions. The program should leverage and refine the initial condition assessment strategies and priorities identified in this Asset Management Master Plan. • Refine the current water main COF assessment approach to quantify the number of customers, type of customers, and flow not delivered if a particular pipe fails. Leverage this information for both pipe and valve replacement prioritization. • Continue to perform proactive leak detection on a regular basis such as once every three to five years. • Consider opportunities to develop the computerized maintenance management system. • Update the AMP annually with significant changes or modifications to the program. 3.6 Asset Valuation The total asset replacement valuation for potable water is $1.29 billion and for recycled water is $297 million. The replacement costs are summarized in Table 1-1. This valuation is based on data that is readily available such as GIS data, financial records, maintenance and repair records, and replacement and renewal records. The City currently utilizes an Original Cost Less Depreciation valuation approach. Where performance-based forecasts were not developed, age is the basis for the straight-line depreciation calculations using estimated useful life by asset classes to estimate the asset service life and estimated replacement costs. Assets were "bundled" into one facility asset or group of facility assets, such as water reservoir or pump station mechanical, and the total construction cost of the asset value and the useful life for the facility were applied. The asset valuation details including useful life assumptions and long-term funding forecasts by year are included in Appendix D. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | Appendix A. Defect Codes and Scores Appendix A includes the CUES CCTV defect codes, associated scores, and the rehabilitation method used in InfoMaster. Defect Code Default Score Type Description Rehab. Method AbnSurvey 0 MISCELLANEOUS Abandoned Survey Broken 50 STRUCTURAL Broken TRENCHLESS REPAIR BrokenH 50 STRUCTURAL BrokenHole TRENCHLESS REPAIR BrokenSVM 60 STRUCTURAL BrokenSoil Visible - Medium TRENCHLESS REPAIR BrokenSVS 60 STRUCTURAL BrokenVoid Visible - Small TRENCHLESS REPAIR CAF 0 MISCELLANEOUS CONT. AGAINST FLOW Cavity 60 STRUCTURAL Cavity TRENCHLESS REPAIR CavityL 60 STRUCTURAL CavityLarge OPEN CUT POINT REPAIR CavityM 60 STRUCTURAL CavityMedium TRENCHLESS REPAIR CavityS 50 STRUCTURAL CavitySmall TRENCHLESS REPAIR Cleanout 0 CONSTRUCTION Cleanout CollapseM 60 STRUCTURAL CollapsedMedium OPEN CUT POINT REPAIR CollapseS 50 STRUCTURAL CollapsedSmall OPEN CUT POINT REPAIR Crack 50 STRUCTURAL Crack TRENCHLESS REPAIR CrackCN 5 STRUCTURAL CrackCircular - Narrow CrackCW 30 STRUCTURAL CrackCircular - Wider TRENCHLESS REPAIR CrackLN 5 STRUCTURAL CrackLongitudinal - Narrow CrackLW 30 STRUCTURAL CrackLongitudinal - Wider TRENCHLESS REPAIR CrackMN 20 STRUCTURAL CrackMultiple - Narrow TRENCHLESS REPAIR CrackMW 50 STRUCTURAL CrackMultiple - Wider TRENCHLESS REPAIR Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad | June 2019 Defect Code Default Score Type Description Rehab. Method CrackRoots 50 STRUCTURAL Crack with Roots TRENCHLESS REPAIR CrackSN 20 STRUCTURAL CrackSpiral - Narrow TRENCHLESS REPAIR CrackSW 30 STRUCTURAL CrackSpiral - Wider TRENCHLESS REPAIR CUW 0 STRUCTURAL Camera Under Water Debris 0 SERVICE Debris Debris10 0 SERVICE Debris<=10% Debris20 0 SERVICE Debris<=20% Debris30 0 SERVICE Debris<=30% Debris31 0 SERVICE Debris>30% Deform 60 STRUCTURAL Deformed TRENCHLESS REPAIR Deform10 60 STRUCTURAL Deformed<=10% TRENCHLESS REPAIR Deform11 50 STRUCTURAL Deformed>10% OPEN CUT POINT REPAIR DepositsL 0 SERVICE DepositsLight DepositsM 0 SERVICE DepositsMedium DepositsS 0 SERVICE DepositsSevere EndOfPipe 0 MISCELLANEOUS End of Pipe FH 0 MISCELLANEOUS FH Flattened 1 STRUCTURAL Flattened FlattenedL 1 STRUCTURAL FlattenedLight FlattenedM 1 STRUCTURAL FlattenedMedium GO 0 MISCELLANEOUS GO GreaseL 0 SERVICE GreaseLight GreaseM 0 SERVICE GreaseMedium GreaseS 0 SERVICE GreaseSevere Infiltrat 50 STRUCTURAL Infiltration TRENCHLESS REPAIR InfiltratL 1 STRUCTURAL InfiltrationLight Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | Defect Code Default Score Type Description Rehab. Method InfiltratM 30 STRUCTURAL InfiltrationMedium TRENCHLESS REPAIR InfiltratS 50 STRUCTURAL InfiltrationSevere TRENCHLESS REPAIR IntrSelRng 0 SERVICE Intruding Sealing Ring JAngular 10 STRUCTURAL Joint - Angular JAngularL 10 STRUCTURAL Joint - AngularLarge JAngularM 5 STRUCTURAL Joint - AngularMedium JAngularS 1 STRUCTURAL Joint - AngularSmall JGasketLte 1 STRUCTURAL Joint - GasketLight JGasketM 20 STRUCTURAL Joint - GasketMedium OPEN CUT POINT REPAIR JGasketSev 60 STRUCTURAL Joint - GasketSevere OPEN CUT POINT REPAIR JOffset 20 STRUCTURAL Joint Offset OPEN CUT POINT REPAIR JOffsetL 60 STRUCTURAL Joint OffsetLarge OPEN CUT POINT REPAIR JOffsetM 20 STRUCTURAL Joint OffsetMedium OPEN CUT POINT REPAIR JOffsetS 10 STRUCTURAL Joint OffsetSmall JSepL 60 STRUCTURAL Joint - SeparatedLarge TRENCHLESS REPAIR JSepM 20 STRUCTURAL Joint - SeparatedMedium TRENCHLESS REPAIR JSepS 10 STRUCTURAL Joint - SeparatedSmall LatAbnUnsl 1 STRUCTURAL Lateral Abandoned - Unsealed LatConPr 1 STRUCTURAL Lateral Connection Problem LatConPrBl 1 STRUCTURAL Lateral Connection ProblemLateral Blocked LatConPrFD 1 STRUCTURAL Lateral Connection ProblemFactory Defective Pipe LatConPrPD 1 STRUCTURAL Lateral Connection ProblemConnection Pipe Damaged LatConPrPr 30 STRUCTURAL Lateral Connection ProblemConnection Protruding ROBOTIC CUTTER Lateral 0 CONSTRUCTION Lateral Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad | June 2019 Defect Code Default Score Type Description Rehab. Method LateralCap 0 CONSTRUCTION LateralCapped LatLiveCon 0 MISCELLANEOUS LateralLive Connection LinFailBLn 50 STRUCTURAL Lining FailureBlistered lining REPLACE LinFailDet 60 STRUCTURAL Lining FailureDetached REPLACE LiningFail 50 STRUCTURAL Lining Failure REPLACE Pipe Size 0 MISCELLANEOUS Pipe Size Pipe Type 0 MISCELLANEOUS Pipe Type PipeContin 0 MISCELLANEOUS Pipe Continue Root 5 STRUCTURAL Root TRENCHLESS REPAIR RootHeavy 10 STRUCTURAL RootHeavy TRENCHLESS REPAIR RootInJnt 10 STRUCTURAL Root-in-Joint TRENCHLESS REPAIR RootInJntH 10 STRUCTURAL Root-in-JointHeavy TRENCHLESS REPAIR RootInJntL 1 STRUCTURAL Root-in-JointLight TRENCHLESS REPAIR RootInJntM 5 STRUCTURAL Root-in-JointMedium TRENCHLESS REPAIR RootInLat 5 STRUCTURAL Root-in-Lateral TRENCHLESS REPAIR RootInLatH 10 STRUCTURAL Root-in-LateralHeavy TRENCHLESS REPAIR RootInLatL 1 STRUCTURAL Root-in-LateralLight TRENCHLESS REPAIR RootInLatM 5 STRUCTURAL Root-in-LateralMedium TRENCHLESS REPAIR RootLight 1 STRUCTURAL RootLight TRENCHLESS REPAIR RootMedium 5 STRUCTURAL RootMedium TRENCHLESS REPAIR Sag 30 STRUCTURAL Sag SagLight 1 STRUCTURAL SagLight SagMedium 30 STRUCTURAL SagMedium SagSevere 60 STRUCTURAL SagSevere REPLACE Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | Defect Code Default Score Type Description Rehab. Method SDamLChemP 1 STRUCTURAL Surface DamageLight Material Damage - Chemical Pro SDamLMechP 1 STRUCTURAL Surface DamageLight Material Damage - Mechanical P SDamMChemP 20 STRUCTURAL Surface DamageMedium Material Damage - Chemical Pr SDamMMechP 20 STRUCTURAL Surface DamageMedium Material Damage - Mechanical SDamSChemP 20 STRUCTURAL Surface DamageSevere Material Damage - Chemical Pr SDamSMechP 30 STRUCTURAL Surface DamageSevere Material Damage - Mechanical TRENCHLESS REPAIR StartAgFlw 0 MISCELLANEOUS START AGAINST FLOW StartWiFlw 0 MISCELLANEOUS START WITH FLOW STOP 0 MISCELLANEOUS STOP SurfaceDam 30 STRUCTURAL Surface Damage TRENCHLESS REPAIR Vermin 0 MISCELLANEOUS Vermin Vermin 0 MISCELLANEOUS VerminMice Vermin 0 MISCELLANEOUS VerminRat VerminCRch 0 MISCELLANEOUS VerminCockroach WatLev 1 STRUCTURAL Water Level WatLevGT25 1 STRUCTURAL Water Level>=25% WatLevGT50 1 STRUCTURAL Water Level>=50% WatLevGT75 1 STRUCTURAL Water Level>=75% WatLevLT25 1 STRUCTURAL Water Level<25% WatMark 1 STRUCTURAL Water Mark WatMark50 1 STRUCTURAL Water Mark>=50% WatMark75 1 STRUCTURAL Water Mark>=75% Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad | June 2019 This page is intentionally blank. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | Appendix B. InfoMaster Risk Model Implementation Notes Gravity Sewer Mains Import CCTV 1) Update CCTV_Import with new conditions a. Remove blank row of CCTV conditions table (Excel file: Main Conditions CCTV_071118_withCrackRootsv2.xlsx) b. Clone CCTV_Import rename CCTV_Import_Updated c. Load IMIC_Inspections_CCTV_Import_Updated for inspection table d. Load excel as conditions table (Excel file: Main Conditions CCTV_071118_withCrackRootsv2.xlsx) e. Check field mappings f. Insert and Update (overwrite) as Import Options: i. 0 inspections inserted ii. 6208 inspections updated iii. 0 inspections ignored g. Geocode inspections LOF/POF (Potential of Failure Rating Factors for Wastewater Gravity Mains): 1) Defects Score (Max Score) [LOF 2, LOF 11-15] : a. Defects score shows up in InfoMaster results table Pipe Score_CCTV_Import_Updated in the field Structural Peak Score. b. Created individual LOFs for potential scores (60, 50, 30, 20, 10, 5) and scored each as 10 in IM initially. Weighting is used when LOF and COF are combined later to produce the final defect score. 2) Count of Defects [LOF 10] a. Count group 1-4 ( Defect scores >=20) –verify with Eric b. Loaded IMIC_Continuous_CCTV_Import_updated layer. i. Run Defect Count Data miner tool 1. The tool exports a table used in this risk calculation. Load this table to Arc Map to use in InfoMaster. 3) Cleaning Frequency – Updated Maintenance Failure - Cleaning Schedule 3 [LOF 6] a. Field = Cleaning Frequency i. 24 Month = 24M-1,24M-2 ii. 36 Month = 36M-1,36M-2 iii. 12 Month = ann , SCH iv. 6 Month = SAN v. 3 Month = QTY 4) Capacity – Created new LOF : Capacity (Modeled PWWD d/D) [LOF 16] a. Fields: Pipe ID = FacilityID, CapacityDD 5) LOF to use: LOF2,LOF6, LOF 10, LOF 11, LOF 12, LOF 13, LOF 14, LOF 15, LOF 16 COF (Consequence of Failure Rating Factors for Wastewater Gravity Mains): 1) Spill Volume Potential a. Modeled ADWF, mgd. Attribute already added into IM. Updated [COF1] with scoring only. b. Pipe Diameter [COF 2]– updated scoring check breaks confusing in spreadsheet: Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad | June 2019 c. Multi Parameter - Spill Volume Potential (updated Regulatory Compliance COF) [COF 15]: i. Takes the max from diameter or model: Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 2) Public Health and Environmental Impact a. COF 3- Schools, Church, Care Facility [Updated COF 3] i. Layer: CitySchoolChurchLicensedCareFacilityParcel ii. Query: "FacilityType" IN ('School' ,'Carlsbad-owned' ) iii. Max Distance 100,000 in order to capture all mains. iv. Break note: <1 indicates within area b. COF 4- [Updated COF 4] – Village View i. Layer: VillageReviewArea – taken from the general plan GIS layers ii. Max Distance 100,000 in order to capture all mains iii. Break note: <1 indicates within area c. COF 5 [Updated] Legoland i. GIS Layer created for Legoland_HPA ii. Max Distance 100,000 in order to capture all mains iii. Break note: <1 indicates within area d. COF 8 – Environmental Impact Waterways – WaterlineUSGS(Updated COF 8) i. Layer: WaterlineUSGS ii. I did not query any fields iii. Max Distance 100,000 in order to capture all mains e. COF 9- Environmental Impact Waterways – Waterbodies (Updated COF 9) i. Layer: Waterbody ii. Max Distance 100,000 in order to capture all mains f. COF 16 (updated) Multi Parameter Public Health and Environmental Impact: i. Combines COF 3 – 9 to get max value. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad | June 2019 Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 3) Emergency Response Impact a. Traffic Control COF 10 and COF 12 i. COF 10: Emergency Response Traffic Impact - Road Classification (Local -Prime Arterial) [Updated] Intersect Layer: RoadCenterline Query: "ROADTYPE" IN (50, 51, 40, 30, 20, 10, 62, 60) Buffer distance =60 -This is for the road categories below: All Others Local –Roadway Type =51 & 50 Collector or Secondary Arterial Roadway Type =40 & 30 Major Arterial Street or Private (access issue) Roadway Type =20, 60, 62 Prime Arterial Roadway Type =10 ii. COF 12: Emergency Response Traffic Impact – Freeways & Rail [Updated] Intersect Layer: GeneralPlanLandUse Query: "DESCRIPTION" = 'Transportation Corridor' Buffer Distance = 60 b. COF 13 Emergency Response Maintenance/Repair Constraints - Restricted Access (Habitat/Private) Intersect Layer: GeneralPlanLandUse Buffer =0 Query: "DESCRIPTION" IN ('Community Facilities' ,'General Commercial' ,'Local Shopping Center' ,'Local Shopping Center/Community Facilities' ,'Office' ,'Open Space' ,'Planned Industrial' ,'Planned Industrial/Office' ,'Regional Commercial' ,'Residential 0-1.5 du/ac' ,'Residential 0-4 du/ac' ,'Residential 15-23 du/ac' ,'Residential 23-30 du/ac' ,'Residential 4-8 du/ac' ,'Residential 8-15 du/ac' ,'Residential 8-15 du/ac / Office' ,'Residential 8-15 du/ac/Local Shopping Center' ,'Residential 8-15 du/ac/Visitor Commercial' ,'Village', 'Visitor Commercial' ,'Visitor Commercial/Open Space' ) c. COF 14 Emergency Response Traffic Impact - Repair Constraints - Poor Access – Easements (Updated) Intersect Layer: Public Works Easement Buffer =0 Query: none d. COF 19 Emergency Response Traffic Impact - Repair Constraints - Thick Pavement Intersect Layer: Queried Centerline for Roadway Name = ‘State Street’ GIS layer created for Thick Pavement Buffer =0 Query: none e. COF 18- Multi - Emergency Response Impact (updated) i. Combines COF 10,12,14,& 19 into 1 with Max values aggregated into single COF Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad | June 2019 Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | 4) Risk 1 – Base Risk Updated with the following Weights a. Updated for Cumulative Risk (LOF + COF) Max Score = 100 Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad | June 2019 5) Decision Logic a. Notes: i. Depth – Added a calculate Depth Field in the Gravity Mains layer using GIS (Upstream Elev – Downstream Elev.). The InfoMaster interpolate tool was used to clean up the results and remove blanks. Manholes LOF 1. Structural Risk Score a. LOF 17 – Imported Table from MH condition spreadsheet - i. Score 0-8 ii. Rating 5 = 8 iii. Rating 0 or1 =0 iv. Weighting applied when LOF and COF are combined to bring score to 80 out of 100. b. LOF 22 – from MH condition spreadsheet - Bench Condition field i. Good = 0 Poor = 8 c. Use Multi Parameter to pull Max Score between d. In Risk can do x10 and get scores of 80, 40, etc. COF 1. COF – See notes above for pipes. The same process is used. Risk 1 – Base Risk Updated with the following Weights Updated for Cumulative Risk (LOF + COF) Max Score = 100 i. Weight = 10 for MH condition risk. Logic 1) Mainly Using MH Condition Table. Created a Facility Selection for step 1 of logic “if has MH Condition”. 2) Corrosion “Severe” =”L” Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | Appendix C. Cost Factors Sewer Cost Factors Factor Description Replacement CIPP Open Cut Point Repair Trenchless Repair Manholes Installation Cost Factor (Applied first) Installation Cost Factor is based on CIPP bid tabs and addresses the costs related to items such as mobilization, fittings, excavation, bedding, backfill, traffic control, by-pass pumping, equipment, labor, pavement or non-ROW patching or improvements. Replacement 1.60 CIPP SD 1.30 Open Cut Point Repair 1.2 Trenchless Repair 1.0 Manhole N/A N/A N/A CIPP LD 1.60 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Capital Cost Factor The capital cost factor addresses the costs related to agency administration, design, construction management, and contingencies. Replacement (Uses the sum of the below percentages) 1.45 CIPP (Uses the sum of the below percentages) 1.45 Open Cut Point Repair (Uses the sum of the below percentages) 1.40 Trenchless Repair (Uses the sum of the below percentages) 1.37 Point Repair (Uses the sum of the below percentages) 1.37 Planning 3% Planning 3% Planning 3% Planning 3% Planning 3% Design 10% Design 5% Design 5% Design 2% Design 2% Legal 2% Legal 2% Legal 2% Legal 2% Legal 2% Construction Administration 15% Construction Administration 15% Construction Administration 15% Construction Administration 15% Construction Administration 15% Owner Administration 5% Owner Administration 5% Owner Administration 5% Owner Administration 5% Owner Administration 5% Contingency 10% Contingency 10% Contingency 10% Contingency 10% Contingency 10% Subtotal Capital Cost Factor 45% Subtotal 40% Subtotal 40% Subtotal 37% Subtotal 37% Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad | June 2019 Sewer Cost Tables Assumptions Cost per inch diameter per LF (Z in Unit Cost Table Below) Unit cost notes Replacement SD $11.90 Note: Bid tab prices are approximately $29/In-Dia/LF for 8" dia pipe for limited quantities. Carlsbad 2012 MP costs escalated to 2018 are $11.90/In-Dia/LF for >3000 LF quantities. $11.90/In-Dia/LF is assumed. Replacement LD $20.00 CIPP SD 12 inch $4.00 Based on bid tab PWS-17-34 CIPP LD $4.75 $4.75 aligns with LD bid tab for 36-inch pipe CIPP project from City of Vista Historical Inflation Tables Assumed Historical Inflation 1.75% RS Means National Average Years of Inflation 3 2016 to 2019 Sewer Manholes A B C = A x B Description Construction Cost Capital Cost Factor Capital Costs Units Manhole Replacement $10,529 1.37 $14,425 Each Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | Sewer Unit Costs Y A = Z (from cost table above) x Y B C = A x B F G = F x E H Renewal Action Diameter Material Cost per LF or Point Repair Installation Factor Construction Cost (No MHs) / LF or Point Repair [Used to check against bid tabs] Capital Cost Factor Capital Costs Units Replace SD 0 $100 1.60 $16 1.45 $232 Linear Foot Replace SD 3 $100 1.60 $160 1.45 $232 Linear Foot Replace SD 4 $100 1.60 $160 1.45 $232 Linear Foot Replace SD 6 $100 1.60 $160 1.45 $232 Linear Foot Replace SD 8 $100 1.60 $160 1.45 $232 Linear Foot Replace SD 10 $125 1.60 $200 1.45 $290 Linear Foot Replace SD 12 $150 1.60 $240 1.45 $349 Linear Foot Replace LD 14 $176 1.60 $280 1.45 $407 Linear Foot Replace LD 15 $188 1.60 $301 1.45 $436 Linear Foot Replace LD 16 $201 1.60 $321 1.45 $465 Linear Foot Replace LD 18 $226 1.60 $361 1.45 $523 Linear Foot Replace LD 20 $251 1.60 $401 1.45 $581 Linear Foot Replace LD 21 $263 1.60 $421 1.45 $610 Linear Foot Replace LD 24 $301 1.60 $481 1.45 $697 Linear Foot Replace LD 27 $338 1.60 $541 1.45 $784 Linear Foot Replace LD 30 $376 1.60 $601 1.45 $871 Linear Foot Replace LD 33 $414 1.60 $661 1.45 $959 Linear Foot Replace LD 36 $451 1.60 $721 1.45 $1,046 Linear Foot Replace LD 39 $489 1.60 $781 1.45 $1,133 Linear Foot Replace LD 42 $527 1.60 $841 1.45 $1,220 Linear Foot Replace LD 48 $602 1.60 $962 1.45 $1,394 Linear Foot Replace LD 54 $677 1.60 $1,082 1.45 $1,569 Linear Foot Replace LD 60 $752 1.60 $1,202 1.45 $1,743 Linear Foot CIPP SD 0 $34 1.30 $44 1.45 $64 Linear Foot CIPP SD 3 $27 1.30 $36 1.45 $52 Linear Foot CIPP SD 4 $27 1.30 $36 1.45 $52 Linear Foot CIPP SD 6 $27 1.30 $36 1.45 $52 Linear Foot CIPP SD 8 $34 1.30 $44 1.45 $64 Linear Foot CIPP SD 10 $38 1.30 $49 1.45 $71 Linear Foot CIPP SD 12 $51 1.30 $66 1.45 $95 Linear Foot CIPP LD 14 $59 1.30 $77 1.45 $111 Linear Foot CIPP LD 15 $63 1.60 $101 1.45 $146 Linear Foot CIPP LD 16 $67 1.60 $108 1.45 $156 Linear Foot CIPP LD 18 $76 1.60 $121 1.45 $176 Linear Foot Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad | June 2019 Sewer Unit Costs Y A = Z (from cost table above) x Y B C = A x B F G = F x E H Renewal Action Diameter Material Cost per LF or Point Repair Installation Factor Construction Cost (No MHs) / LF or Point Repair [Used to check against bid tabs] Capital Cost Factor Capital Costs Units CIPP LD 20 $84 1.60 $135 1.45 $195 Linear Foot CIPP LD 21 $88 1.60 $141 1.45 $205 Linear Foot CIPP LD 24 $101 1.60 $162 1.45 $234 Linear Foot CIPP LD 27 $114 1.60 $182 1.45 $264 Linear Foot CIPP LD 30 $126 1.60 $202 1.45 $293 Linear Foot CIPP LD 33 $139 1.60 $222 1.45 $322 Linear Foot CIPP LD 36 $152 1.60 $242 1.45 $352 Linear Foot CIPP LD 39 $164 1.60 $263 1.45 $381 Linear Foot CIPP LD 42 $177 1.60 $283 1.45 $410 Linear Foot CIPP LD 48 $202 1.60 $323 1.45 $469 Linear Foot CIPP LD 54 $228 1.60 $364 1.45 $527 Linear Foot CIPP LD 60 $253 1.60 $404 1.45 $586 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair SD 0 $1,534 1.20 $1,841 1.40 $2,577 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair SD 3 $1,534 1.20 $1,841 1.40 $2,577 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair SD 4 $1,534 1.20 $1,841 1.40 $2,577 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair SD 6 $1,534 1.20 $1,841 1.40 $2,577 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair SD 8 $1,534 1.20 $1,841 1.40 $2,577 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair SD 10 $1,700.00 1.20 $2,040 1.40 $2,856 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair SD 12 $1,900.00 1.20 $2,280 1.40 $3,192 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair LD 14 $2,200.00 1.20 $2,640 1.40 $3,696 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair LD 15 $2,500.00 1.20 $3,000 1.40 $4,200 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair LD 16 $2,800.00 1.20 $3,360 1.40 $4,704 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair LD 18 $3,200.00 1.20 $3,840 1.40 $5,376 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair LD 20 $3,600.00 1.20 $4,320 1.40 $6,048 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair LD 21 $3,800.00 1.20 $4,560 1.40 $6,384 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair LD 24 $4,200.00 1.20 $5,040 1.40 $7,056 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair LD 27 $4,600.00 1.20 $5,520 1.40 $7,728 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair LD 30 $5,000.00 1.20 $6,000 1.40 $8,400 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair LD 33 $5,400.00 1.20 $6,480 1.40 $9,072 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair LD 36 $5,400.00 1.20 $6,480 1.40 $9,072 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair LD 39 $5,800.00 1.20 $6,960 1.40 $9,744 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair LD 42 $5,800.00 1.20 $6,960 1.40 $9,744 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair LD 48 $6,200.00 1.20 $7,440 1.40 $10,416 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair LD 54 $6,600.00 1.20 $7,920 1.40 $11,088 Linear Foot Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | Sewer Unit Costs Y A = Z (from cost table above) x Y B C = A x B F G = F x E H Renewal Action Diameter Material Cost per LF or Point Repair Installation Factor Construction Cost (No MHs) / LF or Point Repair [Used to check against bid tabs] Capital Cost Factor Capital Costs Units Open Cut Point Repair LD 60 $7,000.00 1.20 $8,400 1.40 $11,760 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair SD Cost Review 0 Open Cut Point Repair Cost Review = Open Cut Point Repair Unit Cost per LF * 1.5 open cut point repairs per pipe / 210 average pipe length from Manhole to Manhole $147 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair SD Cost Review 3 $147 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair SD Cost Review 4 $147 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair SD Cost Review 6 $147 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair SD Cost Review 8 $147 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair SD Cost Review 10 $163 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair SD Cost Review 12 $182 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair LD Cost Review 14 $211 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair LD Cost Review 15 $240 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair LD Cost Review 16 $269 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair LD Cost Review 18 $307 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair LD Cost Review 20 $346 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair LD Cost Review 21 $365 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair LD Cost Review 24 $403 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair LD Cost Review 27 $442 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair LD Cost Review 30 $480 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair LD Cost Review 33 $518 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair LD Cost Review 36 $518 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair LD Cost Review 39 $557 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair LD Cost Review 42 $557 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair LD Cost Review 48 $595 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair LD Cost Review 54 $634 Linear Foot Open Cut Point Repair LD Cost Review 60 $672 Linear Foot Point Repair and CIPP SD 0 Point Repair + CIPP = CIPP unit cost per LF + (Open Cut Point Repair Cost * 1 Open Cut Point Repair per Pipe / 210 feet average sewer Manhole to Manhole length) $162 Linear Foot Point Repair and CIPP SD 3 $150 Linear Foot Point Repair and CIPP SD 4 $150 Linear Foot Point Repair and CIPP SD 6 $150 Linear Foot Point Repair and CIPP SD 8 $162 Linear Foot Point Repair and CIPP SD 10 $180 Linear Foot Point Repair and CIPP SD 12 $217 Linear Foot Point Repair and CIPP LD 14 $252 Linear Foot Point Repair and CIPP LD 15 $306 Linear Foot Point Repair and CIPP LD 16 $335 Linear Foot Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad | June 2019 Sewer Unit Costs Y A = Z (from cost table above) x Y B C = A x B F G = F x E H Renewal Action Diameter Material Cost per LF or Point Repair Installation Factor Construction Cost (No MHs) / LF or Point Repair [Used to check against bid tabs] Capital Cost Factor Capital Costs Units Point Repair and CIPP LD 18 $381 Linear Foot Point Repair and CIPP LD 20 $426 Linear Foot Point Repair and CIPP LD 21 $448 Linear Foot Point Repair and CIPP LD 24 $503 Linear Foot Point Repair and CIPP LD 27 $558 Linear Foot Point Repair and CIPP LD 30 $613 Linear Foot Point Repair and CIPP LD 33 $668 Linear Foot Point Repair and CIPP LD 36 $697 Linear Foot Point Repair and CIPP LD 39 $752 Linear Foot Point Repair and CIPP LD 42 $781 Linear Foot Point Repair and CIPP LD 48 $865 Linear Foot Point Repair and CIPP LD 54 $950 Linear Foot Point Repair and CIPP LD 60 $1,034 Linear Foot Trenchless Repair SD 0 Costs per discussion with Carlsbad $2,500 Each Trenchless Repair SD 4 $2,500 Each Trenchless Repair SD 6 $2,500 Each Trenchless Repair SD 8 $2,500 Each Trenchless Repair SD 10 $2,500 Each Trenchless Repair SD 12 $2,500 Each Cut Tap or Obstacle 0 Costs per discussion with Carlsbad $500 Each Cut Tap or Obstacle 4 $500 Each Cut Tap or Obstacle 6 $500 Each Cut Tap or Obstacle 8 $500 Each Cut Tap or Obstacle 10 $500 Each Cut Tap or Obstacle 12 $500 Each Cut Tap or Obstacle 14 $500 Each Cut Tap or Obstacle 15 $500 Each Cut Tap or Obstacle 16 $500 Each Cut Tap or Obstacle 18 $500 Each Cut Tap or Obstacle 20 $500 Each Cut Tap or Obstacle 21 $500 Each Cut Tap or Obstacle 24 $500 Each Cut Tap or Obstacle 27 $500 Each Cut Tap or Obstacle 30 $500 Each Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | Sewer Unit Costs Y A = Z (from cost table above) x Y B C = A x B F G = F x E H Renewal Action Diameter Material Cost per LF or Point Repair Installation Factor Construction Cost (No MHs) / LF or Point Repair [Used to check against bid tabs] Capital Cost Factor Capital Costs Units Cut Tap or Obstacle 33 $500 Each Cut Tap or Obstacle 36 $500 Each Cut Tap or Obstacle 39 $500 Each Cut Tap or Obstacle 42 $500 Each Cut Tap or Obstacle 48 $500 Each Cut Tap or Obstacle 54 $500 Each Cut Tap or Obstacle 60 $500 Each Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad | June 2019 This page is intentionally blank. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | Force Main Replacement Unit Costs Diameter (inches) Unit Cost ($/ft) With Capital Cost Factor of 45% (Planning, Legal, Design, Construction Admin, Construction Management, Contingency in $/ft) 2 $326.70 $473.72 2.5 $326.70 $473.72 3 $326.70 $473.72 4 $326.70 $473.72 6 $326.70 $473.72 8 $355.11 $514.91 10 $397.73 $576.70 12 $426.14 $617.90 14 $497.16 $720.88 15 $532.67 $772.37 16 $568.18 $823.86 18 $596.59 $865.06 20 $667.61 $968.04 21 $731.63 $1,060.86 24 $795.45 $1,153.41 27 $894.89 $1,297.59 30 $994.32 $1,441.76 33 $1,093.75 $1,585.94 36 $1,193.18 $1,730.11 42 $1,392.05 $2,018.47 Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad | June 2019 Water Main and Recycled Water Main Replacement Unit Costs (Including Services and Valves) Main Diameter (inches) Unit Cost ($/ft) With Capital Cost Factor of 45% (Planning, Legal, Design, Construction Admin, Construction Management, Contingency in $/ft) 2 $326.70 $473.72 2.5 $326.70 $473.72 3 $326.70 $473.72 4 $326.70 $473.72 6 $326.70 $473.72 8 $355.11 $514.91 10 $397.73 $576.70 12 $426.14 $617.90 14 $497.16 $720.88 15 $532.67 $772.37 16 $568.18 $823.86 18 $596.59 $865.06 20 $667.61 $968.04 21 $731.63 $1,060.86 24 $795.45 $1,153.41 27 $894.89 $1,297.59 30 $994.32 $1,441.76 33 $1,093.75 $1,585.94 36 $1,193.18 $1,730.11 42 $1,392.05 $2,018.47 Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | Sewer CCTV and Cleaning Unit Costs Diameter (inches) CCTV Unit Cost (per linear foot) Cleaning Unit Cost (per linear foot) Total 4 $1.80 $1.50 $3.30 6 $1.80 $1.50 $3.30 7 $1.80 $1.50 $3.30 8 $1.80 $1.50 $3.30 10 $1.80 $1.60 $3.40 12 $1.80 $1.90 $3.70 14 $1.80 $2.30 $4.10 15 $1.80 $2.30 $4.10 16 $1.80 $2.30 $4.10 18 $1.90 $2.80 $4.70 19 $1.90 $2.80 $4.70 20 $1.90 $2.80 $4.70 21 $1.90 $2.80 $4.70 24 $3.00 $6.00 $9.00 25 $3.00 $6.00 $9.00 26 $3.00 $6.00 $9.00 27 $3.00 $6.00 $9.00 28 $3.00 $6.00 $9.00 29 $3.00 $6.00 $9.00 30 $3.00 $6.00 $9.00 33 $3.80 $7.50 $11.30 34 $3.80 $7.50 $11.30 35 $3.80 $7.50 $11.30 36 $3.80 $7.50 $11.30 39 $6.00 $13.50 $19.50 42 $6.00 $13.50 $19.50 48 $6.00 $13.50 $19.50 54 $7.50 $18.00 $25.50 60 $10.50 $22.50 $33.00 Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad | June 2019 This page is intentionally blank. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | Appendix D. Asset Valuation and Replacement Costs Included in the tables below are age-based costs forecasts for each infrastructure type including summaries for use in financial analyses. In addition, replacement cost details and the useful life information used to determine the age-based forecasts for force mains, pump stations, and reservoirs are included below. Inflation is assumed to be 2% in the summary tables. Asset Valuation Small Diameter Gravity Sewer Mains (12-inch diameter and smaller) Cost Forecast Summary Description Condition-based (Million) Condition-based with Inflation (Million) Age-based (Million) Age-based with Inflation (Million) Notes 5-year (FY19/20-FY23/24) $6.0 $6.2 $3.5 $3.6 7-year (FY19/20-FY25/26) $8.5 $9.0 $3.5 $3.7 Assumes risk scores increase by 10 and a 9% increase is applied to account for pipes that will be inspected for this first time. 22-year (FY19/20-FY40/41) N/A N/A $46.5 $56.1 30-year (FY19/20-FY48/49) N/A N/A $74.9 $97.4 40-year (FY19/20-FY58/59) N/A N/A $111.7 $159.8 Large Diameter Gravity Sewer Mains (Greater than 12-inch diameter) Cost Forecast Summary Description Condition-based (Million) Condition-based with Inflation (Million) Age-based (Million) Age-based with Inflation (Million) 5-year (FY19/20-FY23/24) $0.0 $0.0 $9.3 $9.6 7-year (FY19/20-FY25/26) $0.0 $0.0 $9.3 $9.8 22-year (FY19/20-FY40/41) N/A N/A $30.6 $36.9 30-year (FY19/20-FY48/49) N/A N/A $43.9 $57.1 40-year (FY19/20-FY58/59) N/A N/A $55.0 $78.7 Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad | June 2019 Sewer Manhole Cost Forecast Summary Description Condition-based (Million) Condition-based with Inflation (Million) Age-based (Million) Age-based with Inflation (Million) 5-year (FY19/20-FY23/24) $1.8 $1.8 $0.7 $0.7 7-year (FY19/20-FY25/26) $1.9 $2.0 $0.7 $0.7 22-year (FY19/20-FY40/41) N/A N/A $10.3 $12.4 30-year (FY19/20-FY48/49) N/A N/A $17.4 $22.6 40-year (FY19/20-FY58/59) N/A N/A $29.3 $41.9 Total Gravity Sewers and Manholes Cost Forecast Summary Description Condition-based (Million) Condition-based with Inflation (Million) Age-based (Million) Age-based with Inflation (Million) 5-year (FY19/20-FY23/24) $7.8 $8.1 $13.5 $14.0 7-year (FY19/20-FY25/26) $10.4 $11.0 $13.5 $14.2 22-year (FY19/20-FY40/41) N/A N/A $87.4 $105.5 30-year (FY19/20-FY48/49) N/A N/A $136.0 $176.9 40-year (FY19/20-FY58/59) N/A N/A $196.0 $280.4 Wastewater Force Main Cost Forecast Summary Description Age-based (Million) Age-based with Inflation (Million) 40-year (FY19/20-FY58/59) $12.6 $18.1 Wastewater Pump Stations Cost Forecast Summary Description Age-based (Million) Age-based with Inflation (Million) 40-year (FY19/20-FY58/59) $48.1 $68.8 Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | Wastewater Gravity Sewer and Manhole Condition Assessment Cost Forecast Summary Description Cost (Million) Cost with Inflation (Million) 40-year (FY19/20-FY58/59) $9.0 $12.7 Water Mains, Valves and Services Cost Forecast Summary Description Performance-based (Million) Performance-based with Inflation (Million) Age-based (Million) Age-based with Inflation (Million)1 5-year (FY19/20-FY23/24) $19.8 $20.7 $0.4 $0.4 7-year (FY19/20-FY25/26) $28.0 $30.0 $0.4 $0.4 22-year (FY19/20-FY40/41) $105.4 $136.5 $69.0 $96.0 30-year (FY19/20-FY48/49) $159.5 $233.3 $215.0 $337.0 40-year (FY19/20-FY58/59) $242.5 $418.7 $478.0 $849.0 50-year (FY19/20-FY68/69) $347.2 $719.4 $988.0 $2,067.0 Notes: 1 Despite the low cost forecast based on age in the near term, the City has been budgeting approximately $3.5 to $4.5 million per year (including balances carried forward) to address aging infrastructure Water Pump Stations Cost Forecast Summary Description Age-based (Million) Age-based with Inflation (Million) 40-year (FY19/20-FY58/59) $43.8 $62.7 Water Reservoirs Cost Forecast Summary Description Age-based (Million) Age-based with Inflation (Million) 40-year (FY19/20-FY58/59) $218.4 $312.5 Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad | June 2019 Recycled Water Mains, Valves and Services Cost Forecast Summary Description Performance-based (Million) 1 Performance-based with Inflation (Million) 1 Age-based (Million) Age-based with Inflation (Million) 5-year (FY19/20-FY23/24) $1.5 $1.5 $0.0 $0.0 7-year (FY19/20-FY25/26) $2.5 $2.7 $0.0 $0.0 22-year (FY19/20-FY40/41) $12.0 $15.9 $0.0 $0.0 30-year (FY19/20-FY48/49) $18.7 $27.8 $0.6 $2.0 40-year (FY19/20-FY58/59) $29.0 $50.8 $1.0 $1.7 50-year (FY19/20-FY68/69) $41.9 $87.9 $67.0 $162.0 Notes: 1 Performance-based forecasts assume 11% of potable and recycled water forecasts for recycled water. Actual investments are likely to be more focused on potable water in the near term. Recycled Water Pump Stations Cost Forecast Summary Description Age-based (Million) Age-based with Inflation (Million) 40-year (FY19/20-FY58/59) $67.3 $96.3 Recycled Water Reservoirs Cost Forecast Summary Description Age-based (Million) Age-based with Inflation (Million) 40-year (FY19/20-FY58/59) $52.6 $75.2 Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | Replacement Costs and Useful Life Assumptions Wastewater Gravity Sewer Main and Manhole as well as Potable Water and Recycled Water Pipeline, Valve and Service Lateral Replacement Costs and Useful Life Assumptions are included in the Asset Management Master Plan. Pump Station and Reservoir Replacement Cost Detail *Class 5 Estimate - The WaterCost Model used to develop these replacement costs is a planning level cost tool (Estimate Class 5) which means that estimate accuracy will range from 50 to 20% BELOW to 30 to 100% ABOVE actual cost. The construction cost estimates are prepared by HDR Constructors, Inc. (HDRC) using the Timberline cost estimating software. Construction costs are derived from default input values. Wastewater Pump Stations Replacement Cost Construction Costs* Cannon LS Chinquapin LS El Fuerte LS Fox's Landing LS Home Plant LS Knots LS N Batiquitos LS Poinsettia LS Sand Shell LS TerraMar LS Villas LS 1. Structure/Site $2,405,939 $877,370 $1,195,913 $2,291,176 $1,807,684 $647,836 $2,139,753 $2,062,713 $606,230 $573,381 $717,903 2. Mechanical $1,521,678 $613,499 $833,060 $1,470,662 $1,255,730 $623,095 $1,403,348 $1,369,101 $560,506 $523,197 $490,639 3. Electrical/Instrumentation $695,754 $361,044 $412,543 $681,328 $620,551 $344,752 $662,293 $652,609 $336,460 $329,022 $333,361 Total Project Capital Cost* $4,623,372 $1,851,914 $2,441,516 $4,443,166 $3,683,966 $1,615,683 $4,205,394 $4,084,423 $1,503,196 $1,425,600 $1,541,903 Notes: Capacity information for small pump stations at Pine Beach Bathroom and Tamarack/Frazee Beach Bathroom are not readily available in GIS and are not included. Water and Recycled Water Pump Station Replacement Cost Construction Costs* Bressi PS Bressi RC PS Calavera Hills RC PS Calavera PS Carlsbad Water Recycling PS D Site RC PS Maerkle PS 1. Structure/Site $3,457,793 $2,202,799 $1,867,510 $1,651,488 $9,536,423 $4,725,297 $5,002,368 2. Mechanical $3,976,690 $1,697,507 $1,614,034 $1,667,768 $13,180,170 $5,425,690 $4,946,268 3. Electrical/Instrumentation $621,410 $265,302 $291,004 $277,439 $1,898,762 $848,468 $831,555 Total Project Capital Cost* $8,055,892 $4,165,608 $3,772,548 $3,596,694 $24,615,354 $10,999,455 $10,780,190 Notes: The below flow rates are not in GIS and are assumed for each pump station and used to calculate head for determining cost for water pump stations. Assumed Flow 3000 1800 11000 3500 3500 Calculated Head 110 110 120 110 110 Pump Station Assumed Useful Life Construction Cost Element Assumed Useful Life (Years) Source Structure/Site 50 IRS Pub946 Table B Mechanical 20 WEF Simple and Industry Experience Electrical/Instrumentation 15 WEF Simple and Industry Experience Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad | June 2019 Water Reservoir Replacement Cost Water Reservoir ELM ELLERY SKYLINE E D3 LA COSTA LO PAJAMA BUENA VISTA B (T.A.P.) MAERKLE #2 LA COSTA HI SANTA FE 2 Tank Type Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Prestressed Concrete Prestressed Concrete Prestressed Concrete Prestressed Concrete Capacity, MG 1.5 5.0 1.5 1.5 8.50 1.5 0.010 0.01 (Assumed) 6.0 10.0 6.0 9.0 Construction Costs* 1. Structure/Site $19,780,007 $37,774,809 $19,780,007 $19,780,007 $58,306,806 $19,780,007 $185,096 $185,096 $9,929,054 $16,524,406 $9,929,054 $14,875,568 2. Mechanical $2,655,941 $5,055,525 $2,655,941 $2,655,941 $7,795,998 $2,655,941 $24,900 $24,900 $1,404,989 $2,325,731 $1,404,989 $2,095,545 3. Electrical/Instrumentation $1,186,086 $2,258,545 $1,186,086 $1,186,086 $3,483,856 $1,186,086 $11,107 $11,107 $947,354 $1,575,585 $947,354 $1,418,527 Total Project Capital Cost $23,622,033 $45,088,880 $23,622,033 $23,622,033 $69,586,661 $23,622,033 $221,103 $221,103 $12,281,396 $20,425,722 $12,281,396 $18,389,640 Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | Recycled Water Reservoir Replacement Cost Recycled Water Reservoir SANTA FE 1 C D1 D2 Tank Type Prestressed Concrete Steel Steel Steel Capacity, MG 2.5 1.0 1.25 1.25 Construction Costs* 1. Structure/Site $4,158,363 $15,464,425 $17,622,216 $17,622,216 2. Mechanical $603,959 $2,080,350 $2,368,145 $2,368,145 3. Electrical/Instrumentation $398,058 $927,960 $1,057,023 $1,057,023 Total Project Capital Cost $5,160,379 $18,472,734 $21,047,384 $21,047,384 Reservoir Assumed Useful Life Construction Cost Element Assumed Useful Life (Years) Source Tank 50 Industry Experience Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad | June 2019 This page is intentionally blank. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | Appendix E. InfoMaster Updates This appendix provides additional details of the InfoMaster and project packaging workflows and a guideline for updating data and results in InfoMaster. Making Significant Changes When making significant changes to InfoMaster consider setting up a development InfoMaster project and ArcMap .MXD file for each potential City user to allow users to utilize the software without impacting the InfoMaster project and system database of record before changes are finalized. Consider limiting access to the InfoMaster project and system database of record to certain staff for making updates. Workflows InfoMaster software is a tool that is used as part of the overall pipe renewal workflow process. The figure below illustrates the role InfoMaster will play in the workflow process and summarizes the overall pipe renewal decision making workflow process. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad | June 2019 This page is intentionally blank. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | Figure E-1. InfoMaster Gravity Sewer and Manhole Renewal Workflow Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad | June 2019 This page is intentionally blank. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | InfoMaster software is used to develop the risk model and the InfoMaster Rehabilitation Plan which includes the recommended renewal action, BREs and flags for reviewers. Once the data has been processed in InfoMaster, the results should be reviewed for quality control, including verifying CCTV video media are linked to assets, risk scores and renewal actions are appropriate, and InfoMaster records that are locked should be locked. The next steps include validating the output, developing work orders or projects, and developing costs. The City has results summarized for CUES CCTV data in the Asset Management Master Plan. Results in InfoMaster will be validated and projects will initially be identified using InfoMaster. After completion of the work order or project, close-out procedures are performed including updating or unlocking InfoMaster records. A typical workflow for validating the output through close-out is show on Figure E-2. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad | June 2019 This page is intentionally blank. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | Figure E-2. Output Validation and Project Packaging Workflow Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad | June 2019 This page is intentionally blank. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | InfoMaster Closed-Circuit Television Data and Analysis Updates The City will not need to update the CCTV data in InfoMaster periodically for the CUES CCTV data because the City no longer inspects gravity sewers with this data format. However, the City may choose to update the decision logic or defect code information in InfoMaster and the City may choose to update sewer and manhole data associated with the CUES CCTV data format. In the future, the City will need to update the CCTV data in InfoMaster when NASSCO PACP data is analyzed in InfoMaster. These updates require the CCTV data to be imported, risk models rerun, rehabilitation plan rerun, and facilities updated. The InfoMaster: Update Data and Analysis Quick Reference below documents the steps to update the data in InfoMaster. InfoMaster Closed-Circuit Television Data Update and Analysis Quick Reference 1. Facilities (Sewer Mains and Manholes) a. InfoMaster drop down menu > Import Facility Data b. Click Next c. Navigate to the sewer main and manhole location on the City’s servers. The CUES data uses the C:\InfoMaster\Carlsbad IMSewer Draft Model and Files02052019\Carlsbad IMSewer Draft Model and Files\CarlsbadDataToInnovyze.gdb d. Set Manhole and gravity main e. Refer to below quick reference guides for field mapping, query definition, and import settings 2. CCTV Inspections, Observations, and Video links a. Update the Survey data i. Relies on the Sewer Data Import to link Facilities to Surveys ii. Right click CCTV_Import_Updated_High_v3, > Choose Import iii. Leave the defaults and click next iv. Navigate to the CCTV inspection and observations databases on the City’s servers. The CUES data is already uploaded to InfoMaster. v. vi. Set the Inspections, Conditions, and Media tables to the location of data on the City’s servers vii. Refer to quick reference guide included in the Asset Mgmt Master Plan Appendix for table/field mapping and import settings Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad | June 2019 b. Update the Defect Scores (this may be used to adjust the severity of defects for CUES or future PACP data) i. Relies on the defects code table in InfoMaster ii. Update the condition geocoding (placement along the line in GIS) iii. If displaying the analysis results (defects) in the map, these layers MUST be removed from the map first or an error will occur in processing. iv. Right click CCTV_Import_Updated_High_v3 > Choose Run for the CUES data. v. To display the results in the map right click the CCTV_Import_Updated_High_v3 and choose Map Display>All Defect Layers for the CUES data. 3. Consequence of Failure (COF) a. Relies on GIS data b. Run the Analysis (*replaces existing analysis). 2 Options i. You can run each COF score individually by right clicking each one and choosing RUN, or; ii. You can run them all at once by right clicking consequence of failure (COF) and choosing Batch Run. 4. Likelihood of Failure (LOF) a. Relies on inspection, cleaning frequency and capacity data b. Run the Analysis (*replaces existing analysis). 2 Options i. You can run each LOF score individually by right clicking each one and choosing RUN ii. You can run them all at once by right clicking likelihood of failure (LOF) and choosing Batch Run. 5. Risk a. Relies on the consequence of failure (COF) and likelihood of failure (LOF) tables b. Right click SEW_Risk 1, COF + LOF > choose Run 6. Failure/Deterioration Model: Skip we don’t use it 7. Rehabilitation Plan (Decision Logic) a. Relies on GIS data and Risk analysis b. Right click SEW_RehabPlan1, SewerMain Renewal_Plan > choose Run Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | CCTV Data Import Settings and Field Mapping The City will not need to update the CCTV data in InfoMaster periodically for the CUES CCTV data because the City no longer inspects gravity sewers with this data format. However, generic information is provided below for the City’s reference. CCTV Data Import Settings Right click CCTV_Import_Updated_High_v3> Choose Import for CUES data. Note, the CUES data will not need to be updated. Leave the defaults and click next. Load the Inspections, Conditions, and Media tables by navigating to the table file locations using the ‘Select a table’ button (red outline below). Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad | June 2019 See below for field mapping and import settings. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | Field Mapping for Inspections Field mapping translates the CCTV inspections outside of the InfoMaster model and imports the data into the InfoMaster project database. CUES data has already been uploaded. PACP format may be utilized by the City in the future. PACP Format InspectionID OriginalID Owner Date_ Time_ Upstream_MH Downstream_MH Direction Width Total_Length The system field is the InfoMaster Survey import field and the Client field is the adjustable fields. The required fields are highlighted in red. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad | June 2019 Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | Field Mapping for Inspection Media The below includes Media Instructions for CUES CCTV Data. 1) Video Name, location, and path need to be in the required format: a. Video file name updates: Existing video information in the CCTV_Observations Table.Video field Video Name updated to remove path to the following for InfoMaster \\fdstore01\wdvideo\Wdvideo\Media\Video\WW ZONE 9-16B-24-16B-90-TAMARACK AVE.mpg WW ZONE 9-16B-24-16B-90-TAMARACK AVE.mpg Video name must be in the media inspections table b. Video folder Location (relative location): Folder location for the individual videos. Video location must be in the media inspection table as a relative path. \\shares\wdvideo\Wdvideo\Media\Video\ c. Media folder path (root): Root path where the video folder location is. \\shares\wdvideo\Wdvideo\Media\ Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad | June 2019 InfoMaster concatenates the video root path to video path and video name to get the location to play the video. Field Mapping for Conditions Field mapping translates the CCTV observations outside of the InfoMaster model and imports the data into the InfoMaster project database as conditions. The system field is the InfoMaster Survey import field and the Client field is the adjustable fields. The required fields are highlighted in red. CUES data has already been uploaded. PACP format may be utilized by the City in the future. PACP Format ConditionID OriginalID InspectionID Distance PACP_Code Continuous Joint Clock_At_From Clock_To Remarks Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | Field Mapping for Conditions Media Conditions media was not readily available for CUES data and was not imported. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad | June 2019 GIS Data Import Settings The Import Facility manager is used to import or update GIS facility data into the Infomaster Project Database. The Import facility manager is found on the Infomaster tool bar shown below: Click next or import a standard database: Similar to CCTV data import the import source table fields are used to populate the facility data into the InfoMaster project database. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | Import Queries can be used here as well. For example all gravity mains managed by Carlsbad would be: Full facility information can be mapped into the Infomaster project database. The model will keep previous mapping fields per category (facility type) which can be found in the Facility and Asset Type Manager. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad | June 2019 Sewer Main Mapping Location: C:\InfoMaster\Carlsbad IMSewer Draft Model and Files02052019\Carlsbad IMSewer Draft Model and Files\CarlsbadDataToInnovyze.gdb for CUES data. Field Mapping: Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad | June 2019 Manhole Mapping Location: C:\InfoMaster\Carlsbad IMSewer Draft Model and Files02052019\Carlsbad IMSewer Draft Model and Files\CarlsbadDataToInnovyze.gdb for CUES data Field Mapping: Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | Appendix F. Map of Water Access Issues Note: This map is included in the PDF version of the Asset Management Master Plan due to the size of the map. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad | June 2019 This page is intentionally blank. ­® ­® ­® ­® ­® ­® ­® ­® ^ ^ ^ ^ UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y ""Y "< "< "< "< CWA Connection #4 CWA Connection #3 CWA Connection #6 CWA Connection #2 O L I V E N H A I N V A L L E C I T O S ELM ELLERY SKYLINE B (T.A.P.) MAERKLE#2 TANK D3 LA COSTA HI SANTAFE 2 LAKECALAVERA MAERKLE# 1 DAM OCEANSIDEINTER-TIE FLOWCONTROL VAULT MELROSEMETERVAULT LIONSHEADINTERTIE OCEANSIDE-CARLSBADINTERTIE NUEVACASTILLAINTERTIE CALLEMADERO ALGA & ELFUERTE QUARRYCREEKINTERTIE WPS1 WPS2 WPS7 WPS9 ElCaminoRealGateway Rd Paseo AspadaWoodlandW y CortePa noramaJasmineCtPaseoValindoN a u t i c a l D r Briarwood DrAvia ra PyDonCarlosDr R o o s e v e l t S t Cami noJ u n i p e ro Arlan d RdAveni daEncinasNorthF o rk A v Beacon Bay Dr Salk AvFoxtailLoop Suncup WyAlicante RdRanchoDel CanonJuniper AvSantaClaraWyBarber r y PlAvenidaMagnifica Circu loPapayoCorte Del CedroV a l l e y S tJames DrLa G r a n V i aSacadaCr Cort e D e l f i n i o Calle Tim ite o A lg a R d L u c ie rn a g a St Batiquito s D rRavineDrG ra n adaWy PlazuelaSt Sit ioCorde roDi V it a DrHemin gwayDr Dove LnFaradayAv J a me s Dr A r e n a l RdXana WyAvenidaValera AlicanteRd LasFloresDr A n i l l o W yEl S a l t o F a l l s S t RosemaryAv L o n i c e r a St EsferaStFermi Ct CaminoVid a R o b leMi mosaDrBryantDr RanchoSantaFeRdB ra n d o n CrDon Lorenzo DrMo n r o e S t The C ross ings D r Magnolia AvMartingale Ct Hyacinth CrParkDr R u th e r fordRdNeblinaDrChinquapin AvH i g h l a n d D r Poinsettia Ln ElFuerteStLaguna Dr Li nm a r L n CarlsbadVi l l a g e D r Bluebonnet DrC a r l s b a d B l Eden d a l e S t A l l ey MarcasitePlOleaLnWi ndflower DrCarlsbadVillageDrRockDoveStVancouverSt S e a c r e s t D r Gaviota CrRutherford R dTamarackAv M a d i s o n S t Argonauta StVistaL a N is aKellyDr G ib ra lta rStFaradayAvStat e St St a t e S t A l l e y Si tio F r ont eraBre s siRanchWyZodiacStEmba r c a d e r o Ln Chestnu t A v Ba ti q ui t osDrAlondraWy C am inoVidaR o b le BluePoint DrEl F u erteStJasperWy Lancew o odLnCollegeBlL a k e w o o d S t RanchoP a n cho Val l e y S t Luiseno Wy Stanford StDov e L n C alliand raRdGlasgowD rTamarack AvRan c h o C o m paneroAcunaCtFalconDrTurnstoneRd M arronR d El C a m i n o R e a l C a ssi a RdMariposaRd CorteDel A b eto SouthV ista WyCameo RdH u n ti n gtonDr Calle Madero Knowles Av SierraM o r e n a Av C adenciaStSubidaTerraceHidden Valley RdTelescopeAvFaradayAv A v e nid a Enci na sAm ante Ct LaCostaAv A viaraPy G a te sheadRdCurlewT e rrace Batiquitos Dr P o ppyLnHillsideDrSevillaWy P intorescoC t Savannah Ln PrimaveraW yTobria TerraceStoneridge Rd CayenneLnLin d e n Tr Monr o e S t Hig h l a n d Dr Gr a n d Pa cificDr D a y lily DrSunnyhillDr OleanderWyPaseoPlomoEl Cami noR e a l ElCaminoReal AlicanteRdHi g h l a n d D r Palomar Airport R d Palom a r A i r por t R d AvenidaMaravilla L o s R o b l e s D r C a r l s b a d B l Ch e sh i re Av CarlsbadVillageDr H a r d i n g S t AdobeSprings Rd El Ar bol Dr Goldenb u s h Dr DrydenPlLa G o l o n d r i n a S t NavarraDr Carlsbad Villag e D r Lexingto n C r C a rls b a d Village D r Gateway RdC o rte LangostaDickinson DrRanchoCortesPine AvPoinsettia Ln ManaguaPlChestnutA vWhitm a n Wy PriestlyDrFaradayAv CapstanDrColibri Ln KeenelandD rKin g sto nSt RefugioAvLaCostaAvPaseo Del NorteH a v e rhill St Altis m aWy NavigatorCrCaminoHillsDrB a ti q uit o s Dr AlgaRd P i o P i c o D r Docena R dPoinsettiaLnSunny Creek RdCarl s ba d Bl Ca r l s b a d B l Ambrosi aL n B uck RidgeAv TanzaniteDrYarrow DrSitioCa b a llero Ma rron R d Trail Easement CadenciaStL a C o s ta Av La Costa AvEl Camino RealNightshad e RdAdams StP o in settia L nHil l s i d e D r CaminoJuniperoDo n n a D r EurekaPlS a lie n teW yCann o n R d CannonRdCaminoVidaRoble Avenida V alera Palisades Dr Palomar Oaks Wy SnapdragonDrPio P ic o Dr OwensA v A vi a r aPy P a s e o D e l N o r t e Melaleu caAvCaminoC erezaChestnut AvRanchoSantaFeRdPonto RdC a za d e ro D rCorv i daeStPar k D r Loke rAvEastBatiquitos D r La C o s t a A v S k ylin e RdSunnyhi ll Dr A damsSt Citr i n e D r Vista Mariana C ostaDelMarR dTiger Run C tJeffersonStFourPeaksSt Paseo CandeleroMicaR d P alo marPointWy ElFuerteStAlgaR dTamarackAvHemingwayDr Loker A v E a st Shorebird LnPalmer W y RockroseTrBuena Vista Wy Tolkien Wy Ta marackAv H arw ichDrTownGardenR d Cassins S t Poinsettia VillageDyMilton Rd A za h arStTradew inds D r M o n r o e S t V a ll e c it osW d DyCamino V idaR o b leMonroeSt FrostAv Ponto D r Marron R d ViaC onquis ta d o r R a ncho B ra s a d oCaden c ia St I m p a l a Dr Alga RdOak AvL i o n sh e a d Av Tra i l Easement M ic a RdTamarackAv Wi l s o n S t P eninsula Dr M a r r o n R d C o rin ti a StAmbrosiaLn CatalpaRd Carrillo W ySunnyCreekRd WestOaksWyMarron RdLaCostaA v PoinsettiaLn L a P ortala daDr TamarackAvOrionStAircraft Dy Sapphire DrGlasgowDr RanchoSantaFeRd(abandoned)Las Palmas Dr AmberLnVenadoSt PiraguaStPlazaCamino Real Dy La Costa AvSierraMo re n a A v Ca r l s b a d V i l l a g e D r Carl sb a dSt at eBeach D yCa r l sb a d B l LegolandDr DenningDr C a r l s b a d B l DonRicardoDr AlicanteRdAl i canteRdFairlead Av S ym e D r AmbrosiaLn T w ainAvSaddleDrOriole CtAzureCr BrassPl All s ton S tPark DrDon Alberto DrFoxtailLoop HalitePl R an cho R i o C hicoEl Camino RealEde ndal eS t AlmadenLnAlmadenLnCh a rt e r Oa kDr HiddenVal l eyRd O c e a n v i ew D r P a l omarAir por t RdVeronicaCtMelo dia TrHoover StTamar ac k A v C o r i n tia St CorteRo me ro SitioLimaCoastli ne Av TowheeLnMelroseDrMelro se D r Ponto D r C arlsb ad Bl L a y angLayangCrAstonAvAsh berryRd WhiptailLoopWil l ow P l Sa n L u i s PalermiPlQuietCoveDr LantanaTr Si t i oA l g o d o nDonOrtegaDrFollette StV i a Veran o B r a d y C r Ridgecrest DrCar l sbadBlR anch o S a nt aFeRdMarbrisaCrSkimm e rC tCalle AndarAnchor Wy AthensAvP o n t i a c D r PaseoDelLagoSweetbriarCrVia MartaS a n Bartol o H aym arD r C a m in o DelP radoDurango CrKestrelDrL a re d o St Circul oSequ oia Paseo Acampo Whit ew a t e r S t T am a r a c k Av C o r v a lli s S t Ga ll eonWyL e ew a rd S t T o p e k a S t A g uilaS tTitanitePlJ e tt y Pt Mi mosaDr Private RdBlenkarneDrR ock R i dgeRd SkylineRdRush RoseDrO l ym p i a D r Longview DrAle xandr iCrCirculoS e q u o i aCorintiaStTorreyan n a C r C i r culo Sa n t i a g o Pa s e oD e l Vista MarshWrenStS h o r e D r O r io n Wy Surfb i r dCr Co v e D r KingfisherL n Reef CrEstrellaDeMarRdT rie ste Dr S u n n y hill Dr Ca t am a r an D r Ha r w ic hDrPaseoDesca n soSitio Oce a noQuail P l ArenalLnSimsburyCt C a c a tu aStAltivaPlTorrejonPlBlueHeronPlIvory P lRichFi e l d D r Flowe rFieldsW yTorryCt Gali c i a W y EastPointeAv CaringaWy C elinda Dr CaminoRo b l edoCata l ina D r BoleroStC re st Dr La p i s R d A rm a d a D r A v i l aAvPaseoPrivadoR e g e n tRd A v e n i d a E n c i nasC a r l s b a d B l CaminoDelP ar q u eMasters R d C i t r a c ado C r Obelisco Cr Gateway R d HeronCrKello g g A vVillage DrF l e e t S tHighlandDr Babil oni aS t H a ymar Dr Ca r Co u n tr y Dr ElFuerteStTrailEasement ElF u erte St Whiptail Loop WhiptailLoopL o kerAv W e st Aviara DrE N C I N I T A S O C E A N S I D E S . D .C O U N T Y S . D . C O U N T Y S . D . C O U N T Y S . D .C O U N T YS . D .C O U N T YS . D .C O U N T YS . D .C O U N T YS . D .C O U N T Y S . D .C O U N T Y S . D . C O U N T Y S . D .C O U N T YS . D .C O U N T YS . D .C O U N T YS A NM A R C O S V I S T A S . D . C O U N T Y CMWD Potable Water System Water Main Other District CMWD; Potable CMWD; Reclaimed Private Private; Reclaimed Maintenance Constraint Mains Carlsbad Desalination Pipeline SDWA Transmission "<Water Pump Station ""Y Water Pressure Reducing Station ­®InterTie ­®Meter Vault UT Water Reservoir ^CWA Connection Point Maintenance Constraint 25ft Buffer CMWD OMWD VWD Municipal Boundary Parcel Boundary ±0 1.5 30.75 Miles Maintenance Constraint Areas Carlsbad Municipal Water District Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | Appendix G. Corrosion of AC Pipe The corrosion of AC pipe follows a two-step process as documented in Water Research Foundation Project 4480 – Development of an Effective Strategy for Asbestos Cement Pipe: • Step 1 – Conversion of free lime (Ca(OH)2) to calcium carbonate (CaCO3) • Step 2 – Calcium carbonate dissolution and transported away The first step involves the conversion of free lime to calcium carbonate. This step can be measured by spraying phenolphthalein stain (i.e. Stain test) on a freshly exposed cross- section of the pipe wall. The portion of the pipe wall that stains is un-carbonated. The portion of the pipe wall that is unstained is carbonated. Figure G-1 shows a pipe that has been recently tested where the left side is the inner portion of the pipe wall and the right side is the outer portion of the pipe wall. Figure G-1. Stain Test Results Carbonation starts at both the inner and outer wall surface. Over time, it progresses towards the center of the pipe wall which is typically un-carbonated. In asbestos cement and other non-reinforced concrete applications, carbonation itself does not weaken the pipe. In fact, studies in non-reinforced concrete actually show a minor strengthening effect after carbonation. However, in AC pipes, carbonation is a precursor to corrosion. In step two of the AC pipe corrosion process, if the environment allows for calcium carbonate to be dissolved and carried away from the calcium-silicate-hydrate and other cement products in the concrete matrix, strength is lost and the pipe becomes more susceptible to failure. The extent of this degradation process can be measured by assessing the remaining calcium (Ca) content using the Energy Dispersive X-Ray Spectroscopy test (EDS test). Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad | June 2019 Figure G-2 shows the EDS test results for the same sample shown in Figure G-1. In this test, calcium content is measured at multiple points (i.e. wall locations) along the thickness of the pipe. At installation, calcium content was relatively uniform across the pipe wall thickness. As the AC pipe wall corrodes from the inner and outer wall surfaces towards the center of the wall, the calcium content will be significantly lower than the calcium content at the center of the pipe wall. The remaining calcium content at each wall location is reported as a percentage and calculated as the calcium content at that location divided by the maximum calcium content measured at all locations along the wall. Where the remaining calcium content is high, the pipe is healthy and strong and less likely to break. Where the remaining calcium content is relatively low, the pipe is not healthy and more likely to break. Typically, active corrosion is occurring over a relatively narrow portion of the pipe wall. Figure G-2. EDS Test Results Figure G-3 orients both tests for a single sample to each other to correlate the results. On the inner portion of the pipe wall, the fresh water conveyed by the pipe is an ideal medium to dissolve and carry away calcium carbonate (Step 2 of the corrosion process). As a result, shortly after each layer carbonates (Step 1) the pipe corrodes (Step 2). This means that Stain and EDS tests typically correlate very well to each other on the inner pipe wall. However, on the outer pipe wall, there is not a consistent medium to dissolve and carry away the calcium carbonate. Therefore, carbonation can often penetrate deep into the pipe but the pipe may not corrode nor lose strength. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | Figure G-3. EDS Versus Stain Test Correlation Therefore, it is recommended that EDS data be used to determine the severity of corrosion. The remaining wall thickness was calculated as the average remaining calcium at all wall locations divided by the maximum remaining calcium multiplied by the measured wall thickness. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad | June 2019 This page is intentionally blank. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | Appendix H. Assessment of City AC Testing At the time of this report, the City has collected five AC pipe samples as part of a valve replacement project. Additional samples are being collected by the City and will be analyzed in the future as they become available. Figure G-1 below shows an example of the data provided in the EDS report. This includes a photograph of the sample and a table of the EDS measurements. As described in Appendix G, the relative calcium content is the best measure of the effective wall thickness. Calcium is reported as a percentage of elements within each point tested. Calcium is measured at ten equally spaced points along the wall thickness from the outer edge of the wall (Spectrum #1) to the inner edge of the wall (Spectrum #10). Where calcium levels are relatively low, significant corrosion has occurred. Where calcium levels are relatively high, significant corrosion has not occurred. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad | June 2019 Figure H-1. AC Pipe EDS Test Example Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019| The data was consolidated into a single spreadsheet which includes the sample #, the measured diameter, the measured thickness, original design thickness, the location, the sample type (e.g. break, valve replacement, and service tap), the ten Ca readings, and the ten hardness readings (where available). While the physical wall thickness does not change over time, the effective wall thickness decreases over time as cement leaches from the pipe wall. This thinning of the effective wall will continue until the effective wall thickness can no longer resist the stresses on the pipe (e.g. internal pressure, external loads, bending due to ground movement) resulting in a break. EDS testing measures the effective wall thickness. Typically, corrosion occurs from the outer and inner wall towards the core which is commonly deteriorated. Therefore, the remaining wall thickness is calculated as the average remaining calcium at all wall locations divided by the maximum remaining calcium. Since larger pipes require thicker walls to resist a particular load, the percent of the design thickness remaining is used to determine the condition of a pipe. Therefore, the percent of the design thickness remaining is calculated as: TR = (CaAve * TMeasured ) / (CaMax * TDesign) Where: TR = Percent of the original class 200 design thickness remaining CaAve = Average calcium content across the sample thickness CaMax = Maximum calcium content across the sample thickness TDesign = The design wall thickness for class 200 pipe TMeasured = The measured wall thickness The five readily available samples are concentrated in two geographic areas. The first area is adjacent to the La Costa Golf Course near Navarra Drive and Vista Mariana as shown in Figure H-2. This area contains three samples from 8-inch pipe. The second is near the intersection of Carlsbad Village and Valley Street. This area contains two samples from 8- inch pipe as shown in Figure H-3. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad | June 2019 Figure H-2. Map of EDS Testing in La Costa Area Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | Figure H-3. Map of EDS Testing Near Carlsbad Village & Valley Street The condition assessment results are summarized in Table H-1. All five samples have at least 70% of their original design thickness remaining. These pipes should have significant remaining useful life, particularly the pipe near the intersection of Carlsbad Village and Valley. Table H-1. Summary of EDS Testing Results Area LabSampleID Diameter TDesign TMeasured CaAve CaMax Tremaining Carlsbad Village & Valley 31598 14 1.28 1.3 27.6% 34.0% 83% Carlsbad Village & Valley 31599 14 1.28 1.3 26.8% 33.0% 83% La Costa Golf Course 31339 8 0.75 0.83 21.6% 33.9% 70% La Costa Golf Course 31338 8 0.75 0.77 24.4% 32.6%21 77% La Costa Golf Course 31337 8 0.75 0.71 22.4% 29.8% 71% 21 An abnormally large Ca reading (47.9%) was reported but removed from this sample. It is believed to be a laboratory reporting error. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad | June 2019 This page is intentionally blank. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | Appendix I. Break Rate and Replacement Rate Comparison A comparison of break rates and replacement rates for selected utilities is included in the table below. Utility/Entity Break Rate Replacement Rate Vista Irrigation District 8 0.4% Helix Water District 6 0.4% Mesa Water District 3 0.1% East Bay MUD 11 0.5% Contra Costa Water District 1 0.4% Padre Dam Municipal Water District 3 0.2% Buena Park 1 0.1% San Juan Capistrano 9 0.1% Carlsbad 2 0.1% Rainbow MWD 14 0.5% Denver 11 0.4% City of Phoenix 14 0.4% Sweetwater Authority/South Bay Irrigation District 8 0.5% San Dieguito 1 0.1% Long Beach 3 0.4% Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad | June 2019 This page is intentionally blank. Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | Appendix J. Water Pipeline and Valve Cumulative Annual Investment The table below shows the estimated cumulative annual investment need for recycled water and potable water pipelines and valves over the next 50 years by investment type without inflation: • Replacement – Pipe replacement due to condition and performance issues. During replacement, adjacent valves, services, and other appurtenances will also be replaced. • Access – When a pipe replacement project is triggered, the cost to address additional access issues in a single project. • Valves – The cost to replace critical inoperable valves when the adjacent pipe has significant remaining useful life. • Cathodic Protection – The cost to develop and maintain cathodic protection systems to extend the life of metallic pipe. • Condition Assessment – The cost to perform non-destructive condition assessment and ensure the right pipes are replaced at the right time. Year Replacement (million) Access (million) Valve (million) Cathodic Protection (million) Condition Assessment (million) Total (million) 2020 $1.98 $0.34 $1.00 $0.20 $0.44 $3.96 2021 $2.12 $0.36 $1.00 $0.20 $0.44 $4.12 2022 $2.24 $0.38 $1.00 $0.20 $0.44 $4.26 2023 $2.37 $0.40 $1.00 $0.20 $0.44 $4.41 2024 $2.49 $0.42 $1.00 $0.20 $0.44 $4.55 2025 $2.60 $0.44 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $4.54 2026 $2.72 $0.46 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $4.68 2027 $2.84 $0.48 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $4.81 2028 $2.96 $0.50 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $4.95 2029 $3.07 $0.52 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $5.09 2030 $3.19 $0.54 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $5.22 2031 $3.31 $0.56 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $5.36 2032 $3.43 $0.58 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $5.50 2033 $3.55 $0.60 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $5.64 Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad | June 2019 Year Replacement (million) Access (million) Valve (million) Cathodic Protection (million) Condition Assessment (million) Total (million) 2034 $3.67 $0.62 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $5.78 2035 $3.79 $0.64 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $5.93 2036 $3.92 $0.67 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $6.07 2037 $4.04 $0.69 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $6.22 2038 $4.17 $0.71 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $6.37 2039 $4.30 $0.73 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $6.52 2040 $4.43 $0.75 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $6.67 2041 $4.57 $0.78 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $6.83 2042 $4.70 $0.80 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $6.99 2043 $4.84 $0.82 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $7.15 2044 $4.98 $0.85 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $7.32 2045 $5.13 $0.87 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $7.49 2046 $5.28 $0.90 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $7.66 2047 $5.43 $0.92 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $7.84 2048 $5.58 $0.95 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $8.02 2049 $5.74 $0.98 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $8.21 2050 $5.90 $1.00 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $8.40 2051 $6.07 $1.03 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $8.59 2052 $6.24 $1.06 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $8.79 2053 $6.41 $1.09 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $8.99 2054 $6.59 $1.12 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $9.20 2055 $6.77 $1.15 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $9.41 2056 $6.96 $1.18 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $9.63 2057 $7.15 $1.22 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $9.86 2058 $7.35 $1.25 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $10.09 2059 $7.55 $1.28 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $10.32 2060 $7.76 $1.32 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $10.56 2061 $7.97 $1.35 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $10.81 Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad June 2019 | Year Replacement (million) Access (million) Valve (million) Cathodic Protection (million) Condition Assessment (million) Total (million) 2062 $8.19 $1.39 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $11.07 2063 $8.41 $1.43 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $11.33 2064 $8.64 $1.47 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $11.60 2065 $8.88 $1.51 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $11.88 2066 $9.13 $1.55 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $12.17 2067 $9.38 $1.59 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $12.46 2068 $9.64 $1.64 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $12.76 2069 $9.90 $1.68 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $13.07 2070 $10.18 $1.73 $1.00 $0.05 $0.44 $13.40 Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District & the City of Carlsbad | June 2019 This page is intentionally blank.