HomeMy WebLinkAbout; ; 2019 Asset Management Master Plan Carlsbad Municipal Water District and the City of Carlsbad; 2019-06-17Asset 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
autical
Dr
Briarwood DrAvi
ar
a PyDonCarlosDr
R
o
osevelt St
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
alle
y
StJames DrLa Gran ViaSacadaCr
Corte Delfinio
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 Sa
lt
o
F
a
ll
s
St
RosemaryAv
L
o
n
i
c
e
r
a
St
EsferaStFermi CtCaminoVid a R o b leMi
mosaDrBryantDr
RanchoSantaFeRdB ra n d o n
CrDon Lorenzo DrMo
n
r
o
e
St
The Cr
ossi
ngs Dr
M agnolia AvMartingale Ct
Hyacinth
CrParkDr R u th e r fordRdNeblinaDrChinquapin AvH
ig
hla
n
d
D
r
P o in s e t t ia L n
ElFuerteStLaguna Dr
Lin
ma
r L
n CarlsbadVi l l a g e D r
Bluebonnet
DrC
arls
b
a
d Bl
Ede
nd
a
l
e
St All
e
yMarcasitePlOleaLnWi
ndflower
DrCarlsbadVillageDrRockDoveStVancouverSt
S
e
a
c
r
e
s
t
D
r
Gaviota
CrRutherford
R
dTamarackAv
M
adiso
n St
Argonauta StVistaL a N is aKellyDr G ib ra lta rStFaradayAvState
St
State St Alley
Sitio
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
DrElFuerteStJasperWy
Lancew o odLnCollegeBlL
a
k
e
w
o
o
d
S
t
RanchoP a n cho
Valley St
Luiseno
Wy
Stanford StDove Ln
C alliand raRdGlasgowD rTamarack AvRan c h o C o m paneroAcunaCtFalconDrTurnstoneRd
M arronR d
El Ca
mino Real
C a ssi a RdMariposaRd
CorteDel
A
b
eto
SouthV ista
WyCameo RdH
u
n
ti
n
gtonDr
Cal
le MaderoKnowles 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
Monroe St
Hig
h
l
a
n
d
Dr
Gr
a
n
d
PacificDr
D a y lily DrSunnyhillDr
OleanderWyPaseoPlomoEl
Cami
noR
e
a
l
ElCaminoReal
AlicanteRdHig
hlan
d Dr
Palomar Airport R d
Palom a r A i r p o r t R d
AvenidaMaravilla
L
o
s R
o
ble
s D
r
C
arls
b
a
d Bl
Ch e sh i re Av
CarlsbadVillageDr
H
ardin
g St AdobeSprings Rd
El
Ar
bol
Dr
Goldenb
u
s
h
Dr DrydenPlLa Golondrina St
NavarraDr
C a r ls b a d V illa g e D r
Lexingto n C
r
C a rls b a d VillageDr
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
Pi
c
o
Dr
Docena R dPoinsettiaLnSunny Creek RdCarl
s
ba
d
Bl
Ca
r
l
s
b
a
d
Bl Ambrosi
aL
n
B uck RidgeAv
TanzaniteDrYarrow DrSitioCa
b
a
llero
Ma rron R d
Trail Easement
CadenciaStL a C o s ta Av
L a C o sta A vEl Camino RealNightshad e RdAdams StP o in settiaL nHillside Dr
CaminoJuniperoDo
n
n
a
Dr
EurekaPlS a lie n teW yCann o n R d CannonRdCaminoVidaRoble
AvenidaValera
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
rt
e
Melaleu
caAvCaminoC erezaC hestnut AvRanchoSantaFeRdPonto RdC a za d e ro D rCor
vi
daeStPark Dr
Loke rAvEastBatiquitos D r
La Costa Av
S
k
ylin
e
RdSunnyhi
ll
Dr
A
damsSt
Citrine Dr
Vista Mariana
C ostaDelMarR dTiger Run CtJeffersonStFourPeaksSt
Paseo CandeleroMicaR d
P
alo
marPointWy
ElFuerteStAlgaR dTamarackAvHemingwayDr
Loker
A
v
E
a
st
Shorebird LnPalmer Wy
RockroseTrBuena Vista Wy
Tolkien Wy
Ta
marackAv
H arw ichDrTownGardenR d
Cassins
S
t
Poinsettia
VillageDyMilton Rd
A za h arStTradewinds Dr
M
o
n
r
o
e St
V
a
ll
e
c
it
osW d DyCamino V idaR o b leMonroeSt
FrostAv
Pont
o Dr
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
A l g a R dOak AvL i o n sh e a d Av
Tra i l Easement
M ic a RdTamarackAv
Wilson St
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 TamarackAvOrionStA i r c r a f t D y
Sapphire DrGlasgowDr
RanchoSantaFeRd(abandoned)Las Palmas Dr
AmberLnVenadoSt PiraguaStPlazaCamino Real Dy
L a C o s t a A vSierraMo
re
n
a
A
v Ca
rls
b
a
d
V
illa
g
e
D
r
Carl
sb
a
dSt
at
eBeach
D
yCa
r
l
s
ba
d
Bl LegolandDr
DenningDr
C
a
rls
b
a
d
B
l DonRicardoDr
AlicanteRdAl
i
canteRdFairlead Av
S
y
me
D
r
AmbrosiaLn
T w ainAvSaddleDrOriole CtAzureCr
BrassPl All
s
t
on StPark 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
vi
e
w Dr
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
Pont
o Dr
C
arlsb
ad
Bl
L a y angLayangCrAstonAvAsh berryRd
WhiptailLoopWill
o
w
P
l
Sa
n
Lu
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 AndarA nchor W yAthensAvP
o
ntia
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
e
wa
t
e
r St
T
a
ma
r
a
c
k
AvC
o
r
v
a
lli
s
S
t
Ga
ll
eonWyL
e
e
wa
r
d St
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
ly
mp
i
a Dr
Longview DrAle xandr
iCrCirculoS
e
q
u
o
i
aCorintiaStTorreyan
n
a
C
r
C i r culo
Santiago
Pa s e oD
e
l
Vista
MarshWrenStS
h
ore
D
r
O r io n Wy
SurfbirdCr
Cove Dr
KingfisherL n
Reef CrEstrellaDeMarRdT
rie
ste
Dr
S
u
n
n
y
hill
Dr
Ca
t
a
ma
r
a
n Dr Ha
r
w
ic
hDrPaseoDesca
n
soSitio
Oce
a
noQuail Pl
ArenalLnSimsburyCt
C a c a tu aStAltivaPlTorrejonPlBlueHeronPlIvory PlRichFi
e
l
dDr
Flowe rFieldsW yTorryCt
Galicia Wy
EastPointeAv
CaringaWy
C
elinda
Dr
CaminoRo b l edoCatalina Dr
BoleroStC
re
st
Dr
Lapis Rd
A
r
ma
d
a
Dr
A
v
i
l
aAvPaseoPrivadoR
e
g
e
n
tRd
A
v
e
n
i
d
a
E
n
c
i
nasC
arlsbad Bl
CaminoDelP
ar
q
u
eMasters
R
d
C i t r a c ado
C
r
Obeli
sco CrGateway R d
HeronCrKello g g A vVillage DrF
le
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.COUNTYS.D.COUNTY
S.D.COUNTYS.D.COUNTYS.D.COUNTYS.D.COUNTYS.D.COUNTYS.D.COUNTYS .D .C O U N T Y
S .D .C O U N T Y
S.D.COUNTYS.D.COUNTYS.D.COUNTYSANMARCOSV
I
S
T
A
S.D.CO U NT 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 AreasCarlsbad 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.