Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik, & Associates - Sanitary Sewer Facility Plan - 2002

Village of Whitefish Bay
Sanitary Sewer Facility Plan

September 12, 2002
Prepared by
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates
File No. 862-02-108

September 12, 2002
Section 1 – Background
The Village of Whitefish Bay is experiencing basement flooding and system backups during
significant rain events. Following several instances of wet weather sewer backups and
wastewater overflows throughout the Village in the 1990s, Whitefish Bay commissioned a
Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES), which was finalized in 1999. The 1999 SSES sought
to identify and quantify sources of Inflow/Infiltration (I/I) and provide recommendations for
reducing I/I in order to reduce system surcharging and wet weather overflows.
This Sanitary Sewer Facility Plan builds on the findings of the SSES and introduces additional
insight into the sources of wet weather inflow and infiltration in the system. The objective of the
Facility Plan is to minimize basement backups and wet weather sanitary sewer overflows
through the control of wet weather inflow and infiltration repairing and rehabilitating the existing
sanitary sewer system in Whitefish Bay.
Furthermore, the Facility Plan uses the findings of more recent sewer system hydraulic
analyses, dyed water flooding studies, and observation of existing closed circuit television
(CCTV) records.
1.1 - Description of Sewerage System

The Village of Whitefish Bay sanitary sewer system consists of approximately 204,000 lineal
feet of sewer pipe ranging in size from 8-inch to 30-inch in diameter and a total of 942
manholes. The primary construction material is vitrified clay pipe with two to three foot joint
spacing for the pipes and brick for the manholes. It is most probable that the Village's sewer
system was initially constructed as a combined system, which was subsequently converted to a
separated system in the late 1920's after the first Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewage District
(MMSD) Interceptor was constructed in 1926 along North Lydell Avenue.
Presently, the entire system discharges into the Metropolitan Interceptor System (MIS). Please
refer to Figure 1-1 of the SSES ‘System Overview’ for an illustration of the Village system.
Currently, the Village discharges at the following five (5) primary locations into the MMSD
interceptor system:
• Montclaire and Lydell

• Fairmount and Lydell
• Wilson and Courtland
• Diversey and Fairmount
• Lake Drive and Fairmount
Despite enjoying fully satisfactory dry weather service, the Village has historically suffered from
higher than normal wet weather flows in sanitary sewers, a condition that was originally studied
in the early 80s. In order to combat the risk of basement backups, it appears that a number of
relief measures were implemented through the years. In general, these measures probably
provided only temporary benefits as the continuously deteriorating structural integrity of the
system must have resulted in progressively increasing inflow and infiltration opportunities.
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc. Page 1

September 12, 2002
Nevertheless, Village continues to benefit from three wet weather relief connections through the
MIS: two are bypasses that discharge into the Village storm sewer systems, and one connection
to the MMSD's 84-inch North Side High Level Relief Sewer. In addition, the sanitary sewer
system currently has sixteen overflow locations consisting of gravity connections to storm
sewers, gated overflows to the storm sewers, and several locations where Department of Public
Works staff are able to relieve sanitary sewer surcharging by pumping the flow into the storm
sewers.
Despite the relatively high number of permanent and temporary overflow locations, the sanitary
sewer system in Whitefish Bay continues to pose an unacceptable risk of basement backups to
the residents. Even when basement backups do not occur, the possibility of wet weather
overflows exists, and consequently, the Village of Whitefish Bay is seeking aggressive and
decisive action to control and manage its sanitary sewer system operation and capacity.
1.2 - Description of Existing Problems

The very existence of numerous bypass locations throughout Whitefish Bay’s sewer system,
along with the three bypasses in the MIS serving Whitefish Bay should be viewed as proof that
the system is in serious need of repair and rehabilitation. In addition to these overflows, recent
years have seen a series of rain events that caused widespread basement backups in the
Village. As a result, the Village has initiated a methodical approach to reducing wet weather
sewer overflows and minimizing basement backups.
Wet Weather Overflows

The Village currently has a general permit for “Bypasses or Overflows from Sewage Collection
Systems” with an effective date of June 1, 2001. According to this permit, unscheduled
bypasses or overflows from the sewer system are prohibited. Unfortunately, the Village
experienced two instances of bypassing in 2001, and one in 2002. All three of these recent
bypasses occurred at existing permanent bypass locations.
In a letter dated August 16, 2002, the Department of Natural Resources sent a notice of permit
violation to Whitefish Bay; thereby acknowledging the latest bypass report dated June 4, 2002.
Noting that the June 3, 2002 rainfall was about 3 inches and was not accompanied by
widespread flooding, we can conclude that the existing wet weather inflow and infiltration
problems in sanitary sewers is the main cause of overflows in Whitefish Bay. Consequently, the
present Facility Plan seeks solutions to the wet weather inflow and infiltration problem in order
to reduce bypassing and help Whitefish Bay remain in compliance with the general permit for
bypasses or overflows from its sewer collection system.
Basement Backups
The extent of property damage due to basement backups is well documented and can be found
in the 1999 SSES. Specifically, to establish the magnitude of basement flooding, a postcard
survey was mailed to the Village residents. In order to obtain meaningful data, the survey was
limited to two heavy rainfall events that were known to have caused backups in the recent
years: June 20, 1997 and August 5, 1998.

September 12, 2002
• June 20-21, 1997

The first event, which occurred on June 21,1997, had a cumulative total of 4.7-inches
based on the MMSD ram gauge at Silver Spring and Teutonia (please refer to 1999
SSES Figure 1-2 ‘June 1997 Rainfall Chart’). This storm was preceded by another event
on June 20 with a cumulative total of 1.21-inches of rainfall. Overall, the June 20-21
event had over ten-inches of rainfall in a 26-hour period and was estimated to exceed a
500-year storm.
• August 5-6, 1998

The second event, which occurred on August 6, 1998, had a cumulative total of 2.89-
inches (please refer to 1999 SSES Figure 1-3 ‘August 1998 Rainfall Chart’). This storm
event was preceded by another event on August 5, with a cumulative total of 0.89-
inches. This event was estimated to exceed a 100-year event. During the August event,
the peak discharge from the Village was approximately 30.2 million gallons per day
based on MMSD flow data.
The postcard requested the block and street of the resident, whether they had a sump pump, if
they suffered flooding during either event, the depth of flooding for each event, and the source
of flooding. Out of 4,880 postcards mailed, 2,896 responses were received (59% return rate)
with 496 reported sump pumps. As the postcards were received, there were input into a
database for tabulation and analysis. A printout of returned postcards from the database is
included in Appendix B -Postcard Survey Results, 1999 SSES. A graphical plot of the average
depth of flooding by block is presented in Chapter 2 of the 1999 SSES. The maximum depth of
basement flooding reported for the June 20, 1997 storm was 60 inches and for the August 5,
1998 storm was 48 inches.
Resident responses have provided irrefutable evidence of severe inflow and infiltration
problems. However, the exact and true source of excessive wet weather flows can only be
determined through a detailed study of the matter. Therefore, the following sections summarize
numerous engineering studies that seek to identify sources of excessive wet weather flows and
offer cost effective approaches to reduce overflows and minimize basement backups.

September 12, 2002
Section 2 – Previous Studies of the System
The condition and performance of the Whitefish Bay sewer system has been previously studied
by MMSD in 1981 and later by the Village between 1998 and 2000. These efforts sought to
identify the sources of wet weather inflow and infiltration in the system in order to protect
residents from basement backups and to reduce the occurrence of sewer overflows into storm
sewers or other receiving waters. As a result of these earlier studies, the Village took some
corrective measures.
2.1 - 1981 SSES

In 1981, the Milwaukee Water Pollution Abatement Program completed a Sanitary Sewer
Evaluation Survey and the present eight sewer drainage basins were defined. In general, the
wet weather peak hourly flow rates in the eight basins range between 4 to 17 times normal daily
flows, indicating that severe surcharging in some basins was likely. Similar (or identical)
conclusions are also found in the 2010 MMSD Facility Plan.
The 1981 MMSD SSES states that wet weather inflow and infiltration is predominantly attributed
to the following sources:
 Manhole defects: 5 % of total

 Driveway drains, direct connected downspouts, and catch basins: 15 % of total
 Foundation drains: 75 % of total
Based on the 1981 MMSD Private Property Infiltration/Inflow Pilot Project, of the 4,500 homes in
Whitefish Bay, 3,500 have foundation drains connected to the sanitary sewer laterals (1999
SSES, page 3-2). In other words, foundation drains are said to contribute a significant amount
of wet weather inflow to sanitary sewers.
The General Report and the Village of Whitefish Bay Community Report from the 1981 SSES
provides data on historic problem areas, recognizes several deficiencies in the system, and
recommendations improvements.
2.2 - 1999 SSES

The 1999 SSES consisted of flow monitoring, manhole inspections, smoke testing. In addition,
a complete hydraulic model of the sanitary sewer system was created and calibrated using
monitored wet weather flows at eight locations throughout the Village. Details of the monitoring
and hydraulic model calibration are presented in the SSES Final Report by Earth Tech.
Prior to commencing with the manhole inspection, flow monitoring, and smoke testing, a Survey
Plan was prepared, submitted to, and approved by the MMSD. The plan is a requirement for the
MMSD survey cost-sharing program for Sewer System Evaluation Surveys.
For flow monitoring, ten (10) ISCO 4150 Area-Velocity flow meters were installed for a 10-week
period from September 1, 1998 through November 17, 1998, and set to record average flows on

September 12, 2002
5-minute intervals. Based on the size and shape of the sewer, the flow rate was calculated by
the meter. During the ten-week monitoring period over 600,000 data points were collected.
The 1999 SSES utilized rain gauge data to correlate rainfall to sewer system inflow. An ISCO
674L Tipping Bucket Rain Gauge was installed on the roof the Village Hall to record rainfall and
set to record total rainfall on 5-minute periods.
The flow data was utilized to establish the base flow for each metered basin during periods
when there was no rainfall for three days prior to and during a week of dry weather. Weekend
flows were not used in the computation of the base flow. The base flow was then superimposed
over the metered data for verification.
Calculated dry weather infiltration rates showed that the greatest dry weather infiltration
measured in any one basin is 6,844 gpd/in-dia/mile. Significant infiltration begins at rates
greater than 10,000 gpd/in-dia/mile. The 1999 SSES found that, in all basins, the wet weather
flow in the sewer system is greater than the dry weather base flow. In fact, in most cases wet
weather flows are more than two times greater than the base flows. Since the basement backup
problems occur during rain events, it is clear that the major component of the problem in
Whitefish Bay is due to wet weather inflow. Accessible manholes in the Village were physically
inspected from the surface to identify and quantify infiltration/inflow (I/I) sources and the
structural condition. There are 942 manholes in the Village and, structurally speaking, less than
5 percent (45 manholes) of the manholes were found to be in poor condition.
Smoke testing was performed on the entire sanitary sewer system in the Village of Whitefish
Bay (204,000 lineal feet). The testing was performed utilizing a portable smoke blower to blow a
non-toxic smoke into the sanitary system. The surrounding area was then watched for the
presence of smoke, which would indicate a potential clear water entry point into the sanitary
system. The smoke source was investigated further to determine if the source was an entry
point. If so, the location and degree of smoke was documented and the source was videotaped.
During the smoke testing program 136 defects were found. A total of 44 catch basins were
found smoking, 22 (50 percent) of which were due to a bypass connection between the sanitary
and storm sewer systems.
The 1999 SSES inflow assignment (page 3-1, 3-2) suggests a slightly different assignment
distribution as compared to the 1981 SSES, but the general pattern is the same:
 Manhole defects: 5.5 % of total

 Driveway drains, direct connected downspouts, and catch basins: 7.5 % of total
 Foundation drains: 87 % of total
As stated earlier, the 1999 SSES found that, in all basins, the wet weather flow in the sewer
system is greater than the dry weather base flow. In fact, in most cases wet weather flows are
more than two times greater than the base flows. Since the basement backup problems occur
during rain events, it is clear that the major component of the problem in Whitefish Bay is due to
wet weather inflow.

September 12, 2002
The SSES has identified several sources of inflow into the sanitary sewer system:
• Surface connections of the sanitary sewer and the storm sewer systems (i.e.
manholes). The inflow through manholes is contributed through two main sources:
manhole covers and manhole frame to chimney interface. Please refer to section
3.1.1 of the SSES for manhole inflow assignment calculations.
• Connections to the sanitary sewer from homes in the Village. These connections are
classified as any connection that contributes storm water other than a defective
lateral. Connections of this type are foundation drain connections. The SSES has
found that 73 percent of the homes in the Village have foundation drains connected
to the sanitary sewer. A small fraction of these homes (80 homes) have sump pumps
connected to the foundation drain and an even smaller fraction of homes (five
homes) have downspouts connected (as discovered through smoke testing).
2.3 - Other Studies since 1999

In addition to the investigations carried out in developing the SSES, a number of other studies
were also conducted. The Village pursued these studies in order to evaluate various alternatives
and identify solution alternatives that were the most cost effective.
• A Village-wide dye water flooding study was performed starting February 2002.
Storm sewers having a 24-ich diameter or less located above or parallel to the
sanitary sewer system or the sanitary laterals were dye-water flooded. In those
sections of sanitary sewer that show positive dye water transference from the storm
sewer, the dye water cross connections were confirmed by observation of sanitary
sewer manholes.
Overall, it was found that most storm sewers leaked into either sanitary sewers or
more importantly, into the sanitary sewer laterals. Though it was not surprising that
storm sewers exfiltrated water, the extent of clear water allowed to inflow through
defects in laterals was significant. The dye water study report is included with this
Facility Plan as a supporting document.
• A complete viewing of all available sewer main video inspections (approximately 95
percent of the Village mains) was performed in February of 2002. The Village Public
Works crews perform routine video inspections of nearly the entire sanitary sewer
system on a regular basis. As part of this facility Plan, Village staff viewed the tapes
and noted the structural defects of various kinds, including sags, cracks, broken
pipes, holes in pipes, collapsed pipes, missing pipes, and defective or missing lateral
connections.
A significant amount of severe structural defects were identified. This effort strongly
and definitively refuted the statement regarding “no structural deficiency” finding in
the 1999 SSES. In fact, quite the opposite was seen, which brought the 1999 inflow
assignment into question.
The present structural condition of the sewers in the Village indicated that, in addition
to foundation drains, direct connections, and manhole defects, broken or missing
pipes and lateral connections should be considered as important inflow sources.

September 12, 2002
As a consequence, a new and revised inflow assignment was necessary because a

portion of the inflows previously assigned to foundation drains clearly originated from
structural defects in the sewer system. Despite questions regarding the actual
contribution of foundation drains, the 1999 SSES seems to have overestimated the
maximum possible contribution of foundation drains to the inflow problem. (Please
see Section 3.1.3 of the 1999 SSES.)
• A comprehensive look at the hydraulic models for both the sanitary sewer system
and storm sewer system in the Village took place. Previously, each model had been
developed separately. When combined, the storm and sanitary sewer models were
able to describe the behavior and performance of the bypasses and cross
connections between the storm and sanitary pipes.
The hydraulic analysis clearly shows that at least six of the existing gravity bypasses
have the potential of backflow causing storm runoff to flow into the sanitary sewer
system. The remaining bypasses will gradually become obsolete as clear water
inflow is reduced from the system.
The following table summarizes the results of the hydraulic analysis of gravity
bypasses.
Gravity Bypasses from Sanitary to Storm Sewers
10-year rainfall
Location of Bypass HGL in Flow Direction
HGL in Sanitary
Storm
Sewer
Sewer
WB-20 at Lake Drive and Lake View 650.78 655.28 storm to sanitary
WB-1 at Montclaire and Kent 640.68 645.82 storm to sanitary
WB-6 at Montclaire and Bay Ridge 636.92 646.04 storm to sanitary
WB-7 at Montclaire and Santa Monica 647.05 643.35 sanitary to storm
WB-9 at Montclaire and Berkeley 648.55 639.65 sanitary to storm
WB-14 at Montclaire and Lake 650.50 633.57 sanitary to storm
WB-13 at Monrovia and Lake Drive 654.59 663.57 storm to sanitary
WB-19 at Diversey and Lancaster 635.08 637.79 storm to sanitary
WB-26 at Sheffield and Hampton 639.55 637.96 sanitary to storm
WB-18 at Newhall and Fairmount 656.91 619.39 sanitary to storm
WB-23 at Oakland and Lake 658.19 661.58 storm to sanitary
Wilshire and Cumberland 676.28 643.62 sanitary to storm
Newhall and Chateau 660.60 655.35 sanitary to storm

September 12, 2002
2.4 - Summary of Observed Structural Defects

Included in this Facility Plan are several maps that illustrate the structural defects identified
during and following the 1999 SSES:
• Map 1: Dye Water Flooding Transference.

This map is based on the dye water flooding study. It illustrates the
locations where water is transferred from the storm sewer system (storm
sewer pipes 24 inches of diameter or greater) to the sanitary sewer
system. It distinguishes between various degrees of observed
transference between the systems.
• Map 2: Sags in Pipes

This map is based on the video inspections of the system. It illustrates the
reaches of sewer main where sags were observed. Sags reduce pipe
capacity and contribute to surcharging that results in basement backups
and bypassing.
• Map 3: Cracked Pipes

location in the where a sewer main is cracked, thus allowing infiltration.
• Map 4: Broken Pipes, Holes in Pipes, & Collapsed Pipes

various locations where a sewer main was found to be broken, have a
hole in the pipe, or where sewer main pipes have completely collapsed,
thus allowing inflow.
• Map 5: Defective Lateral Connections

stretches of sewer main where one or more sanitary sewer lateral has a
broken connection to the main, thus allowing inflow.
• Map 6: Bypass Locations

This map is based on the result of the hydraulic analyses of sanitary and
storm sewers. It illustrates the locations of known bypasses in the Village.
In addition, those bypasses where the flow direction could be from the
storm sewer to the sanitary sewer are shown.
2.5 - Identification of Additional Inflow Sources

Both the 1999 and the 1981 SSES studies have identified foundation drains to be a major
source of wet weather inflow. The 1999 SSES study assigns almost 90 percent of the inflow to
foundation drains, while MMSD’s earlier study suggests 75 percent, not including wet weather
infiltration from private sanitary sewer laterals. This information suggests that, if foundation

September 12, 2002
drains can be disconnected from sanitary sewer laterals, we should expect significant
reductions in wet weather inflows.
However, there is very little data correlating the number of foundation drain disconnection and a
corresponding and predictable reduction in clear water inflows. This is because the actual
contribution of each foundation drain is unknown and cannot be realistically estimated. In fact,
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc., is currently verifying conventional assumptions
regarding foundation drain disconnection by conducting a study in the Village of Shorewood.
Residents in the study area were encouraged to disconnect their foundation drains from the
sanitary sewers through financial incentives. Flow monitors in the sewer mains, as well as
sump pump meters were installed at approximately 40 percent of the homes in the study area.
Incidentally, the study area is served by a sewer system directly tributary to Basin 3 in Whitefish
Bay, meaning that conditions studied in this part of Shorewood are expected to be very similar
to conditions in Whitefish Bay.
In the Shorewood study, a strong correlation was noted between the reported sump pump
activity and the amount of monthly rainfall recorded at the Village rain gauge, i.e., the wetter
months have resulted in increased pumping from the sumps.
However, given the fact that the sewer flow response to rainfall is measured in tens of
thousands of gallons per day, and that the monthly sump pump activity amounts to thousands of
gallons per month, we conclude that other, as yet unidentified sources of wet weather inflow and
infiltration sources present a much bigger problem than the inflow from foundation drains. In
fact, subsequent dyed water flooding of storm sewers in the study area has confirmed that clear
water transference between the storm sewers and sanitary sewer laterals is almost immediate
in the area, and therefore, it was concluded that a very large portion of the wet weather flow
could be attributed to this source, rather than foundation drains.
Therefore, significant inflow reduction due to foundation drain disconnection appears to be

possible in a very small number of cases. The current data suggests that most sump pumps will
either provide negligible or very modest inflow removal benefits. This conclusion is further
supported by the fact that flow measurements taken downstream of the sump pumps have not
recorded any reduction in response to rainfall. In other words, despite the fact that sump pumps
remove some of the inflow into the sewer system, the amount of removal has not been
significant enough to register in the flow measurements in the sewer pipes.
Given the results of the Shorewood study, it seems unreasonable to assign a very large portion
of wet weather inflow to foundation drains, while ignoring structural defects and existing gravity
bypasses as potential inflow sources.
Structural defects allow ground water to leak into the sewers by presenting unobstructed
hydraulic paths for the ambient ground water. Since ground saturation closely follows rainfall,
the broken or missing pipes, disconnected lateral connections, etc. represent wet weather inflow
opportunities. In addition, structural defects play an important role in conveyance capacity of
sewers. Missing pipes, broken or collapsed sections impede flow and reduce performance.
Sags in pipes usually result in reduced hydraulic capacity and cause surcharging in the system.

September 12, 2002
We have shown that several of the existing gravity bypass connections to the storm sewers
have the potential of backflow into the sewers, thus completely defeating the purpose of having
these bypasses. These direct connections to the storm sewers represent a real and substantial
source of clear water inflow into the sanitary system.
Therefore, for the purposes of this Facility Plan, a more comprehensive list of inflow sources to
Whitefish Bay’s sanitary sewer system is presented as follows.
Estimated Contribution to total

Inflow Source
wet weather flow
Manhole defects 5%
Driveway drains, direct connected downspouts,
15%
and catch basins
Foundation drains
Broken, collapsed, or missing pipes
Broken lateral connections 80%
Defective sanitary laterals
Existing gravity connections to storm sewers

September 12, 2002
Section 3 – Solution Alternatives
The Facility Plan considered several alternatives to reduce bypassing and basement backup
problems in Whitefish Bay. The previously completed Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Survey (SSES)
included some of these alternatives.
 Storage
 Pipe upsizing
 Wet weather relief sewer construction
 Foundation drain disconnection
 Downspout extension
 Manhole rehabilitation
 Repair and rehabilitation of structural defects
 Sanitary sewer lining
 Sanitary lateral repair and rehabilitation
 Storm sewer lining
 Elimination of existing sanitary sewer bypasses
 Storm sewer and drainage improvements
It should be noted that the solution alternatives include improvements in both the public and
private portions of the sanitary sewer collection system. While the structural defects in the
public sewers certainly contribute to the current I/I problem, the condition of the private laterals
and the existence of foundation drain connections are important concerns. Therefore, the
present Facility Plan seeks to combine improvements in both public and private sewer
components to arrive at a realistic inflow and infiltration reduction expectation. Section 4 of the
Plan describes each alternative in detail and presents the selected combination of
improvements for the Village.
3.1 - Performance Criteria for Solution Implementation

The 1999 SSES sought to provide solution alternatives that offered protection from basement
flooding during storm events similar to the August 6, 1998 rainfall (2.9 inches in 16 hours, 217
homes with sewer backups, estimated 932,000 gallons bypassed). This event was the most
significant storm event in recent history (excluding the June 1997 event, which would have been
cost prohibitive to provide protection against).
Following the 1999 SSES and during the evaluation of the proposed improvements, the Village
of Whitefish Bay concluded that a reasonable protection level for residents would be against a
rainfall event with a 1 percent probability. The intent to provide this level of service was
presented to the Village Board and the public by the Village Engineer in March 2001 and all
subsequent evaluations of I/I reduction and sewer capacity management efforts targeted the
protection against a 1 percent probability (i.e., 100-year recurrence interval) rain event.
The present Facility Plan continues with this selected design objective of basement backup
protection during a 1 percent probability, 1-hour duration rainfall with a total depth of 2.64

September 12, 2002
inches. This means that, with the proposed improvements in place, the total flow (consisting of
sanitary sewer, infiltration, and inflow) in the system during the 100-year, 1-hour rain should be
handled in such a way as to not cause sewer backups.
During the 100-year, 1-hour rainfall, the hydraulic model estimates the presence of a total of
1,430,000 cubic feet or 10.7 million gallons of clear water in the system. The same hydraulic
model predicts that, during a 10-year, 1-hour duration rainfall (1.9 inches), the system will be
surcharged at some locations, but will perform without backups or bypassing. The hydraulic
analysis indicates that, during a 10-year, 1-hour rainfall, a total of 845,577 cubic feet or 6.325
million gallons of clear water move through the sanitary sewer system. In other words, there is
no need to completely eliminate all inflow and infiltration to attain the target service level: if the
inflow is limited to approximately 6.3 million gallons during a rain event (i.e., a 40 percent
reduction from current levels), we would minimize basement backups and significantly reduce
the frequency of sanitary sewer overflows.
Therefore, the present Facility Plan proposes to reduce wet weather inflow by 40 percent such
that the improved system’s performance during a 100-year rainfall is equivalent to the existing
system’s performance during a 10-year rain. The Facility Plan further proposes that, to
reasonable degree of engineering certainty, a 40 percent reduction in wet weather inflow is
attainable.

September 12, 2002
Section 4 – Evaluation of Solution Alternatives

The overall objective of the Plan is to reduce wet weather inflow into the system by a minimum
of 40 percent. The Facility Plan contains a series of rehabilitation and repair measures, which,
when fully implemented, will reduce basement backups and sanitary sewer overflows. The
recommended measures include both the private and public components of the system:
 On the public side, we have identified a number of severe structural defects in the form of
broken and missing pipes, as well as a number of bypass locations where stormwater has
access to the sanitary sewers. By correcting these defects, the Facility Plan not only
addresses a basic infrastructure maintenance need, but also eliminates a great number of
gaping holes, each one of which is likely to be an important source of inflow into the system.
 On the private side, we have found widespread evidence of clear water transference from
the storm sewers into the sanitary sewer laterals. Village-wide dye water flooding of storm
sewers indicated that defective sanitary laterals were an important and undisputed source of
stormwater inflow into the sewer system. While these defective laterals no doubt contribute
to dry and wet weather infiltration, the Facility Plan seeks to address the wet weather inflow
problem first.
Storage
This alternative consists of building, in-line or parallel with, the existing sanitary sewer. To lower
the hydraulic grade line significantly to reduce basement flooding, the storage would have to be
built below the existing sanitary system and pumped back into the system after the wet weather
event had subsided. Storage would have to be constructed throughout the Village. The 1999
SSES estimates that this alternative would have a probable cost of $17.7 million.
Storage was excluded from the recommended plan based on the basis of excessive cost, lack
of a free outlet, and no protection from MIS surcharging.
Pipe Upsizing
This alternative would consist of replacing the existing sewer system with a larger and deeper
system to lower the hydraulic grade line. To provide protection from backflow during MIS
surcharged conditions, a backflow prevention device would have to be installed at all Village
connections to the MIS. It should be noted that replacing the majority of pipes in the Village
would help reduce inflow and infiltration rates dramatically.
The 1999 SSES does not consider this to be a viable alternative, as it would be expected to cost
more than the storage alternative. The cost of replacing the majority of sewers in Whitefish Bay
with larger pipes can approach $30 million and since the Village’s discharge volume and rate
are limited by the MMSD, it is unlikely that such a grand project would even be possible to
undertake. Therefore, this alternative is not included in the Facility Plan.
Wet Weather Relief Sewer Construction

Wet weather relief consists of constructing a deeper sewer system that would be tied into the
existing system at key locations to divert excess wet weather flows. The excess flows would be

September 12, 2002
discharged into the MIS in Estabrook Parkway at the southwestern comer of the Village. To
provide protection from MIS backflows during surcharged conditions, a backflow prevention
device would be installed at all Village connections to the MIS. Additionally, to provide free
outlet during events greater than the design rainfall, an outfall to the Milwaukee River would be
constructed at the southwestern comer of the Village.
This alternative is expected to cost $10 million (the 1999 SSES cost estimate of $4.8 million was
subsequently revised by the authors of the SSES). Though it provides protection from MIS
surcharging, this alternative requires the construction of a new sanitary sewer overflow to the
Milwaukee River. Furthermore, the relief sewer, as opposed to pipe upsizing, would not
address existing inflow and infiltration sources. Because of these reasons, this alternative was
not included in the Facility Plan.
Foundation Drain Disconnection

This alternative consists of verifying every home with connected foundation drains. Each home
verified would then be disconnected and a sump pump installed. The cost for this alternative
would be approximately $3,500 per home or, a total of $12.3 million.
In addition, there is very little data correlating the number of foundation drain disconnection and
a corresponding and predictable reduction in clear water inflows. This is because the actual
contribution of each foundation drain is unknown and cannot be realistically estimated. A
detailed description of a recent study supporting this argument has been presented in Section
2.5 of this Facility Plan.
This alternative was not considered for the recommended plan due to excessive cost and
unpredictable and uncertain benefits.
Downspout Extension
As an alternative to complete foundation drain disconnect, downspout extensions have
sometimes been proven to be effective in the elimination of inflow. Downspout extension
consists of extending the downspout a minimum of 6 to 8 feet from the foundation wall.
However, we note that the benefits of downspout extension diminish when dense and heavily
compacted backfill surrounds the foundation walls. As an established community where homes
are sometimes more than seven or eight decades old, it would be reasonable to expect that
most homes in Whitefish Bay are surrounded by heavily compacted soils, which may reduce the
effectiveness of the effort.
Nevertheless, the Village currently requires downspout discharges to be placed a minimum of

six feet from the foundation wall. Downspout extension is closely related to establishing and
maintaining adequate storm sewer service in the Village. As previously discussed, there is a
high potential for clear water leakage from storm sewers into sanitary laterals throughout the
Village. Under these circumstances, any additional runoff directed to the streets must first be
safely and effectively collected by the drainage system. In addition, the transfer of runoff from
the storm sewers into the sanitary laterals must be minimized either through sealing the storm
system, or repairing and rehabilitating the private laterals.

September 12, 2002
Manhole Rehabilitation
The rehabilitation and repair of the approximately 720 defective manholes identified during the
1999 SSES inspection will be undertaken. The total estimated cost for this alternative is $0.8
million, as detailed in Chapter 5 of the 1999 SSES.
It is estimated that approximately 5 percent of the total inflow would be removed from the
system through this component.
Repair and Rehabilitation of Structural Defects

A number of potential inflow sources were identified during smoke testing as part of the 1999
SSES. A detailed list of these defects is presented in Chapter 5 of the SSES report. The
implementation of these repairs will be included in the overall improvements defined by this
Facility Plan. The estimated cost of repairs is $62,000.
Because of its immediate benefit and very low cost, this alternative is recommended and
included in the Facility Plan. It is estimated that up to 5 percent of the total inflow would be
removed from the system through this component.
Sanitary Sewer Replacement

This repair entails replacing the entire stretch of the sanitary main between two manholes where
a structural defect is found. For sags in pipes, broken pipes, holes in pipes, or missing pipes this
is the only course of action.
Construction of replacement sewers also helps in reducing the number of manholes in the
system because current design practice and construction methods allow less frequent use of
manholes than was the case when the Village’s sewers were originally built. Fewer manholes
help fight I/I by reducing the number of locations ground and surface water can be introduced
into the system. Though the use of fewer manholes is not a specific component of the Facility
Plan, the concept will be applied in each case of sanitary main replacement.
The cost evaluation of sanitary pipe replacement includes the expected list of restoration items
normally encountered during utility construction:
 Removal and replacement of asphalt and base

 Excavation to existing main
 Removal of existing main and manholes by manhole to manhole segments
 Installation of new sewer main and manholes
 Reconnection of laterals along the new sewer main
 Backfill of the excavation
 Any sanitary bypassing necessary to complete the construction
The following table represents the estimates of lineal feet of replacement per basin as shown
through the various studies.

September 12, 2002
Sanitary Sewer Replacement

Lineal Feet of Sanitary
Sanitary Sewer Basin Cost per LF Cost per Basin
Sewer Replacement
WB1 1,480 $ 103,600.00
WB2 2,660 $ 186,200.00
WB3 2,690 $ 188,300.00
WB4 2,020 $ 141,400.00
$ 70.00
WB5 2,840 $ 198,800.00
WB6 7,570 $ 529,900.00
WB7 8,230 $ 576,100.00
WB8 6,330 $ 443,100.00
Total 33,820 – $ 2,367,400.00
Sanitary Sewer Lining

Where the structural defect on a sanitary main is limited to cracked pipes, pipe lining can be
used to repair the source of inflow. The following table represents the estimates of lining per
sanitary sewer basin as shown through the various studies.
Sanitary Sewer Lining

Lineal Feet of Sanitary
Sewer Lining
WB1 2,190 $ 76,650.00
WB2 570 $ 19,950.00
WB3 1,110 $ 38,850.00
WB4 5,550 $ 194,250.00
$ 35.00
WB5 530 $ 18,550.00
WB6 2,150 $ 75,250.00
WB7 3,280 $ 114,800.00
WB8 530 $ 18,550.00
Total 15,910 – $ 556,850.00
It is estimated that approximately 10 to 20 percent of the wet weather flow would be removed
from the system through sewer lining.
Sanitary Lateral Repair and Rehabilitation

Sanitary sewer laterals are a known and documented source of inflow. The age of the laterals,
original construction methods and materials all contribute to situations conducive to creating
inflow. For example, in the 2010 MMSD Sanitary Sewer Facility Plan, it is estimated that
between 20 to 60 percent of total inflow and infiltration may be due to defective sanitary sewer
laterals.
In addition to inflow potential, it is generally accepted that older laterals like the ones found in
Whitefish Bay are also susceptible to collapse or root intrusions, thereby presenting service
problems for resident even during dry weather periods. In other words, the existence of
defective laterals is a problem for both the public system and the individual homeowner.
We therefore recommend that lateral repairs be included in all sanitary sewer replacement
projects. Therefore, repairs and rehabilitation of the portion of the lateral between the sewer
main and the property line is included in this Facility Plan.

September 12, 2002
The following table presents and estimate of the number of laterals that would be replaced as
part of the public sewer main replacement component of the Plan.
Private lateral repairs during public sewer replacement

Sanitary Sewer Lineal Feet of Sanitary Estimated Number
Cost per Lateral Cost per Basin
Basin Sewer Replacement of Laterals
WB1 1,480 30 $ 59,200.00
WB2 2,660 53 $ 106,400.00
WB3 2,690 54 $ 107,600.00
WB4 2,020 40 $ 80,800.00
$ 2,000.00
WB5 2,840 57 $ 113,600.00
WB6 7,570 151 $ 302,800.00
WB7 8,230 165 $ 329,200.00
WB8 6,330 127 $ 253,200.00
Total 33,820 677 – $1,352,800.00
It is estimated that approximately 15 to 20 percent of the total inflow would be removed from the
system through private lateral repairs. In addition to the private lateral rehabilitation and
replacement, the Facility Plan also includes consideration of private lateral repairs where storm
sewers have been observed to leak into defective laterals.
We have previously shown that clear water transference between the storm sewers and
defective laterals presents a large problem for the Village. To address this situation, we
propose to rehabilitate private laterals in those areas where high transference was found even if
the sanitary sewers are not recommended for replacement. In other words, we are proposing a
second group of private lateral rehabilitation in addition to the laterals addressed as part of
public main replacement projects. It is anticipated that this second group of private laterals
would be lined using remote control technology, and the main objective would be to seal the
portion of the lateral in the immediate vicinity of the leaking storm sewer crossing.
Private lateral repairs to prevent storm sewer leakage

Sanitary Sewer Lineal Feet of affected Estimated number of
Cost per Lateral Cost per Basin
Basin storm sewer laterals to be sealed
WB1 -- -- --
WB2 1,450 16 $ 40,000.00
WB3 2,200 22 $ 55,000.00
WB4 2,020 20 $ 50,000.00
$ 2,500.00
WB5 -- -- --
WB6 600 6 $ 15,000.00
WB7 800 8 $ 20,000.00
WB8 8,000 800 $ 2,000,000.00
Total 15,070 872 – $ 2,180,000.00
Before including the second group of private laterals in the Facility Plan, we must first evaluate
the effectiveness of preventing clear water transference between storm sewers and private
laterals through the sealing of storm sewers. This approach is already under investigation by
the Village and MMSD, and though it does not address the structural defects in the private
laterals, some near term benefits may be obtained by lining storm sewers to prevent exfiltration
of clear water.

September 12, 2002
Storm Sewer Lining

Recent dye water studies in Whitefish Bay show that storm sewers leak into the sanitary sewers
and sanitary laterals. Lining the storm sewers can preventing exfiltration from the storm sewer
and reduce this portion of the wet weather inflow. The following table represents cost estimates
of storm sewer lining per sanitary sewer basin as summarized from the Village dye water
flooding study.
Storm Sewer Lining

Lineal Feet of Storm
Sewer Lining
WB1 -- --
WB2 1,450 $ 72,500.00
WB3 2,200 $ 110,000.00
WB4 2,020 $ 101,000.00
$ 50.00
WB5 -- --
WB6 600 $ 30,000.00
WB7 800 $ 40,000.00
WB8 8,000 $ 400,000.00
Total 15,070 – $ 753,500.00
In locations where high water transference occurs, this method may be effective in the short
term. However storm sewer lining does not address the continuing inflow and infiltration
problems in the sanitary sewers and provides only a limited solution to the Village’s
predicament.
The long-term inflow and infiltration reduction that can be obtained through storm sewer lining is
presently unknown, however, preventing exfiltration from the storm sewers has so far been
considered as an effective alternative to private sanitary laterals that transfer the leaking water
into the sanitary sewers. In addition, the Village has already identified drainage improvement
needs, and the planned capacity increases and drainage improvements will address most of the
leaking storm sewers, thereby reducing the need for storm sewer lining. More information on
the extent of drainage improvements, and the potential inflow and infiltration benefits is
presented in the following sections of this Facility Plan.
Elimination of Sanitary Sewer Bypasses

This alternative consists of closing six bypasses immediately because they have been shown to
pose a risk of flow from the storm sewer into the sanitary sewers. As other inflow reducing
measures are implemented, the remaining seven bypasses will be hydraulically evaluated and
when found to be no longer necessary, closed permanently.
The estimated cost of bypass elimination is $5,000 per location. For planning purposes, the
Facility Plan includes provisions to remove all existing bypasses for the estimated cost of
$65,000 over the course of plan implementation period.
Because of its immediate benefit and low cost, this alternative is recommended and included in
the Facility Plan. Based on hydraulic modeling of the system, it is estimated that approximately
5 percent of the total inflow would be removed from the system through this component.

September 12, 2002
Storm Sewer and Drainage Improvements

The Village of Whitefish Bay has recognized the need for comprehensive Stormwater
Management and commissioned a Stormwater Management Plan in 1998. As a result of
detailed hydraulic analysis, the stormwater management plan identified drainage problems and
recommended improvements to the storm sewer system throughout the Village. Overall, as the
hydraulic and hydrologic analysis shows, the storm sewer system generally has the proper
capacity to handle a 10-year rainfall event. However, pipe segments without the required
capacity also exist. An evaluation of the local topography suggests that these pockets of
drainage problems are confined to the streets, or street right of ways, greatly reducing the risk of
flood damage to property.
The close relationship between the storm sewers system and defective laterals has been
demonstrated and noted by the Village. In addition, practices such as down spout extension put
increased burdens on the storm drainage system. To this end, the Village continues to pursue
the improvements identified in the comprehensive stormwater management plan.
Storm sewer capacity and drainage improvement is included in this Facility Plan because the
relationship between poor drainage, leaking storm sewers, and Clearwater transference into the
sanitary sewers has clearly been established. The Village is therefore proposing to include
storm sewer replacement and improvement projects as part of the overall effort to reduce and
control wet weather flows in the sanitary sewer system.
The following table presents the Village blocks and intersections where the hydraulic capacity of
the storm sewer system is exceeded during the 10-year rainfall event.
Storm Sewer Capacity Improvement Needs Summary

Recommended Action to ensure 10
Location Problem Description
year storm capacity
North of Santa Monica
Upsizing of this 280 ft. segment to a
Blvd. - Montclair Ave. Undersized 24-inch pipe.
36-inch pipe.
intersection.
Undersized 27-inch pipe segment
Lydell Ave., between
receiving Lydell Ave. drainage in addition Upsizing of this 400 ft. segment to a
Belle Ave. and Montclair
to storm sewer flows from mid-block 36-inch pipe.
Ave.
inlets on Kent and Shoreland Avenues.
Lydell Ave., between
Belle Ave. and Montclair Undersized 27-inch pipe.
36-inch pipe.
Ave.
Lydell Ave. north of Day Upsizing of this 350 ft. segment to a
Undersized 18-inch pipe.
Ave. 24-inch pipe.
Birch Ave. between Bay
Ridge and Kent Undersized 21-inch pipe.
30-inch pipe.
Avenues.
Birch Ave. between Kent Upsizing of this 340 ft. segment to a
and Shoreland Avenues. 36-inch pipe.
Santa Monica Bd.
Between Henry Clay St. Undersized 36-inch pipe.
42-inch pipe.
and Lexington Bd.

September 12, 2002

year storm capacity
Idlewild Ave. between
Fleetwood and Undersized 36-inch pipe.
42-inch pipe.
Briarwood Pl.
Briarwood Pl. and Undersized 30-inch pipe.
42-inch pipe.
Lexington Bd.
Lexington Bd. And Undersized 30-inch pipe.
36-inch pipe.
Sylvan Ave.
Idlewil Ave. between
Sylvan Ave. and Henry Undersized 21-inch pipe.
30-inch pipe.
Clay St.
Cramer Ave. between

Wilshire Rd. and Undersized 24-inch pipe.
30-inch pipe.
Cumberland Bd.
Chateau Pl. between Upsizing of this 330 ft. segment to a
Larkin and Newhall St. 24-inch pipe.
Lake Dr. between
Fairmount and Oakland Undersized 21-inch pipe.
30-inch pipe.
Ave.
Fairmount Ave. between
Ardmore Ave. and Undersized 24-inch pipe.
30-inch pipe.
Woodburn St.
North side of Silver

Spring Dr. between Undersized 24-inch pipe.
30-inch pipe.
Lydell and Kent Ave.
South side of Silver
Spring Dr. between Upsizing of this 380 ft. segment to a
Lydell and Bay Ridge 24-inch pipe.
Ave.
Lydell Ave. north and Upsizing of this 1,420 ft. segment to a
south of Fairmount Ave. 36-inch pipe.

September 12, 2002

year storm capacity
The existing pipes will be adequate
when downstream pipes are upgraded.
Upsizing of this 40 ft. segment to a 42-
inch pipe.
North side of Courtland Undersized 30-inch pipe.
42-inch pipe.
Pl. between Marlborough
Ave. and Diversey Bd. Undersized 30-inch pipe.
48-inch pipe.
54-inch pipe.
54-inch pipe.
The existing pipe will be adequate
South side of Courtland Undersized 36x22-inch arch pipe.
when downstream pipes are upgraded.
Pl. between Marlborough
Ave. and Diversey Bd. Undersized 24-inch pipe.
36-inch pipe.
48-inch pipe.
Diversey Bd. between
Chateau and Courtland Undersized 54-inch pipe.
60-inch pipe.
Pl.
60-inch pipe.
30-inch pipe.
42-inch pipe.
Hampton Rd. between Undersized 36-inch pipe.
42-inch pipe.
Marlborough Ave. and
Diversey Bd. Undersized 42-inch pipe.
48-inch pipe.
48-inch pipe.
48-inch pipe.

September 12, 2002
Storm Sewer Replacement

Estimated Construction Cost
Sanitary Sewer Basin Street
by Basin
Birch Ave. between Bay Ridge and Kent Avenues.

WB1 $ 55,000
Birch Ave. between Kent and Shoreland Avenues.
North side of Silver Spring Dr. between Lydell and Kent

Ave.
South side of Silver Spring Dr. between Lydell and Bay
Ridge Ave.
Lydell Ave., between Belle Ave. and Montclair Ave.
WB2 $ 285,000
Lydell Ave., between Belle Ave. and Montclair Ave.
Lydell Ave. north of Day Ave.
Lydell Ave. one block north and south of Fairmount Ave.

North side of Courtland Pl. between Marlborough Ave.
and Diversey Bd.
South side of Courtland Pl. between Marlborough Ave.
WB3 $ 570,000
and Diversey Bd.
Diversey Bd. between Chateau and Courtland Pl.
Cramer Ave. between Wilshire Rd. and Cumberland Bd.

WB4 $ 80,000
Lake Dr. between Fairmount and Oakland Ave.
Hampton Rd. between Marlborough Ave. and Diversey
WB5 $ 250,000
Bd.
Fairmount Ave. between Ardmore Ave. and Woodburn St.

WB6 $ 50,000
Chateau Pl. between Larkin and Newhall St.
Idlewild Ave. between Fleetwood and Briarwood Pl.
Idlewild Ave. between Briarwood Pl. and Lexington Bd.

WB7 $ 150,000
Idlewild Ave. between Lexington Bd. And Sylvan Ave.
Idlewild Ave. between Sylvan Ave. and Henry Clay St.
WB8 Santa Monica Bd. - North of Montclair Ave. $ 30,000
TOTAL $1,470,000.00

September 12, 2002
Section 5 – Facility Plan Implementation
5.1 – Facility Plan Summary

The proposed Facility Plan includes sewer replacement, private sanitary lateral repair wherever
sewer replacement occurs, private lateral rehabilitation where leakage from storm sewers are
found, sanitary sewer lining, bypass elimination, manhole rehabilitation, and other
miscellaneous repairs. The following table presents the anticipated I/I reduction benefits as
previously discussed in Section 4 of this Plan.
Option 1: I/I Reduction Benefits (repair and rehabilitation of private sanitary laterals)
Estimated I/I
Option 1 Facility Plan Component Reduction
Benefit
Private Lateral Repair with (1) pipe replacement, and (2) rehabilitation of private
laterals where stormwater transference has been found. Total estimated laterals 15% to 20%
to be repaired, replaced or rehabilitated: 1,550
Sanitary Sewer Replacement 5% to 10%
Sanitary Sewer Lining 10% to 20%
Storm Sewer Replacement 5%
Elimination of Bypasses 5%
Manhole Rehabilitation 5%
Miscellaneous Repairs and Rehabilitation 0% to 5%
TOTAL 45% to 70%
As an alternative to rehabilitating private laterals where stormwater leakage has been found,
lining the storm sewers is considered as an alternative. Though this method does not address
the structural defects in private laterals, it can nevertheless help reduce the amount of
stormwater transference between the storm sewers and the sanitary sewers.
Option 2: I/I Reduction Benefits (storm sewer lining and limited private sanitary sewer lateral repairs)
Estimated I/I
Option 2 Facility Plan Component Reduction
Benefit
Private Lateral Repair with pipe replacement only. Total estimated laterals to be
5% to 10%
repaired, replaced or rehabilitated: 680
Sanitary Sewer Replacement 5% to 10%
Sanitary Sewer Lining 10% to 20%
Storm Sewer Replacement 5%
Storm Sewer Lining 5% to 10%
Elimination of Bypasses 5%
Manhole Rehabilitation 5%
Miscellaneous Repairs and Rehabilitation 0% to 5%
TOTAL 40% to 70%

September 12, 2002
5.2 - Economic Analysis

The following table presents itemized cost estimates for each plan component included in
Options 1 and 2. When compared to the other alternatives considered for Whitefish Bay, both
options of the proposed Facility Plan offer a cost effective approach to reducing basement
backups and sanitary sewer overflows. The main feature of the proposed Option 1 is that it
addresses the core problem rather than its symptoms and it establishes a process by which the
deterioration of the Village’s sanitary sewer infrastructure can be reversed.
Facility Plan – Option 1

Estimated Cost
Repair and rehabilitation of private sanitary laterals
Repair, Replacement, or Rehabilitation of approximately 1,550 Private
Sanitary Laterals (680 laterals during sewer replacement, 870 laterals to $3,532,800
be lined against stormwater leakage)
Sanitary Sewer Replacement $2,367,400
Sanitary Sewer Lining $556,850
Storm Sewer Replacement $1,470,000
Elimination of Bypasses $65,000
Manhole Rehabilitation $800,000
Miscellaneous Repairs and Rehabilitation $62,000
SUBTOTAL – CONSTRUCTION COST $ 8.85 M
Contingency Allowance – 20% of Construction Cost $ 1.77 M
SUBTOTAL – TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVMENTS $ 10.62 M
Surveying, Design Engineering and Construction Management –
25% of Sanitary Sewer Replacement (0.25 x $2.3 M = $575,000)
25% of Storm Sewer Replacement (0.25 x $1.47 M = $367,000) $ 1.21 M
12% of Sanitary Sewer Lining (0.12 x $0.5 M = $50,000)
10% of Private Sanitary Sewer Lining (0.10 x $2.3 M = $230,000)
TOTAL $ 11.83 M
Option 2 offers a slightly scaled back approach that takes advantage of recent findings
regarding the benefits of storm sewer lining to prevent clear water leakage into the private
sanitary sewer laterals. However, we do note that the Village already has a storm sewer and
drainage improvement plan in place, and the lining of storm sewers in Option 2 may interfere
with recommended storm sewer improvement projects. The economic analysis of Option 2 is
presented below.

September 12, 2002

Estimated Cost
Repair and rehabilitation of private sanitary laterals
Repair, Replacement, or Rehabilitation of approximately 680 private
$1,352,800
sanitary sewer laterals during sewer replacement.
Sanitary Sewer Replacement $2,367,400
Sanitary Sewer Lining $556,850
Storm Sewer Lining $753,500
Elimination of Bypasses $65,000
Manhole Rehabilitation $800,000
Miscellaneous Repairs and Rehabilitation $62,000
SUBTOTAL – CONSTRUCTION COST $ 5.96 M
Contingency Allowance – 20% of Construction Cost $ 1.19 M
SUBTOTAL – TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVMENTS $ 7.15 M
Surveying, Design Engineering and Construction Management –
25% of Sanitary Sewer Replacement (0.25 x $2.3 M = $575,000)
$ 0.71 M
12% of Sanitary Sewer Lining (0.12 x $0.5 M = $50,000)
12% of Storm Sewer Lining (0.12 x $0.75 M = $90,000)
TOTAL $ 7.86 M
The following matrix compares the selected alternatives against the rejected alternatives, and
clearly shows the cost effectiveness of the measures included in the Facility Plan. The matrix
indicates that the approach proposed in this Facility Plan meets the expectations of the Village,
MMSD and the Department of Natural Resources: the removal of known inflow sources reduces
basement backup risks, seeks to eliminate the need for sewer overflow, and does not increase
flows discharged to the MMSD MIS.
In addition, the proposed approach brings the Village sewer infrastructure towards a state of
reasonably good repair so that future maintenance needs are predictable and economical.
Among all other options, the proposed approach is the only one that accomplishes all goals
without drawbacks, and for the lowest total cost.

September 12, 2002
Comparison of Solution Alternatives

Alternative Cost Benefits Drawbacks
Does not address I/I sources.
Does not address structural defects in
Reduces basement backups and
Storage $ 17.7 M system.
sewer overflows.
Does not address surface drainage
problems.
Equivalent to re-building entire
sanitary sewer system.
Reduces basement backups and Cannot discharge higher flows into
sewer overflows. MIS.
Upsizing $ 30 M
Corrects I/I sources and structural May require overflow to Milwaukee
defects. River.
problems.
Does not address I/I sources.
system.
Relief Sewers $ 10 M Requires new overflow to Milwaukee
sewer overflows.
River.
problems.
Does not address other I/I sources.
Foundation system.
May reduce some of wet weather
Drain $12.3 M Unproven removal rates.
inflow.
Disconnection Does not address surface drainage
problems.
May worsen surface drainage.
sewer overflows.
Corrects known I/I sources and
structural defects.
Proposed Plan – Requires partial ownership of sanitary
$ 11.83 M Includes known private property
Option 1 lateral by the Village.
sources.
Does not require new overflow
construction.
Reduces total discharge into MIS.
Requires partial ownership of sanitary
lateral by the Village.
Only partially addresses private lateral
sewer overflows.
defects.
Corrects known I/I sources and
Proposed Plan – Storm sewer lining does not integrate
$ 7.9 M structural defects.
Option 2 well with recommended storm sewer
Does not require new overflow
improvements in the Stormwater
construction.
Management Plan.
Reduces total discharge into MIS.
problems.

September 12, 2002
5.3 – Facility Plan Selection

The selected alternative for implementation is Option 1 – Facility Plan consisting of the following
components:
 Repair, Replacement, or Rehabilitation Private Sanitary Laterals
 Sanitary Sewer Replacement
 Storm Sewer Replacement
 Sanitary Sewer Lining
 Elimination of Bypasses
 Manhole Rehabilitation
 Miscellaneous Repairs and Rehabilitation
The estimated cost of implementation is $11.83 million, and it is expected that a 45 to 70

percent reduction in wet weather inflow and infiltration will be achieved. The following table
summarizes the estimated construction cost for the Facility Plan implementation.
Facility Plan Estimated Costs
Manhole Contingencies,
Sanitary Sewer Storm Sewer Sanitary Sewer Private Lateral Rehabilitation Engineering,
Basin Cost per Basin
Replacement Replacement Lining repair and other Survey,
repairs Inspection
WB1 $103,600 $ 55,000 $76,650 $59,200 $ 115,875 $ 372,500 $782,825.00
WB2 $186,200 $ 285,000 $19,950 $146,400 $ 115,875 $ 372,500 $1,125,925.00
WB3 $188,300 $ 570,000 $38,850 $162,600 $ 115,875 $ 372,500 $1,448,125.00
WB4 $141,400 $ 80,000 $194,250 $130,800 $ 115,875 $ 372,500 $1,034,825.00
WB5 $198,800 $ 250,000 $18,550 $113,600 $ 115,875 $ 372,500 $1,069,325.00
WB6 $529,900 $ 50,000 $75,250 $317,800 $ 115,875 $ 372,500 $1,461,325.00
WB7 $576,100 $ 150,000 $114,800 $349,200 $ 115,875 $ 372,500 $1,678,475.00
WB8 $443,100 $ 30,000 $18,550 $2,253,200 $ 115,875 $ 372,500 $3,233,225.00
Total $2,367,400.00 $1,470,000.00 $556,850.00 $3,532,800.00 $927,000.00 $2,980,000.00 $11,834,050.00
5.4 - Facility Plan Implementation Schedule

In order to manage the implementation of the Facility Plan, and to address the most pressing
problem areas first, the Village proposes to base the implementation schedule on the maximum
day to base flow ratios previously developed by MMSD.
The following table includes the ranking of the eight basins as a function of wet weather I/I. In
addition to the problem severity ranking, the improvements proposed in each basin were also
determined, so that an index of problem per implementation cost can be developed.
The cost index for each basin is computed as follows: the total cost of implementation in each
basin is normalized by peak flow ratios. The number thus obtained indicates the cost per
multiple of daily base flow, which represents the cost of removing each multiple of the base flow
from the daily wet weather flow peak. The lower the number, the more cost effective it is to
remove each multiple of the daily base flow from the system.

September 12, 2002
The following table summarizes the ranking of basin implementation costs by total construction
cost, by maximum flow ratio, and cost per multiple of daily base flow. We see that the most cost
effective ranking is very similar to the maximum flow ratio ranking. We therefore recommend
that the Facility Plan be implemented in the order presented in the following table.
Facility Plan Implementation Schedule
Rank by Cost to reduce Implementation

Sewer Max Day to Rank by cost
Cost max flow each multiple of Schedule and
Basin Base Flow Ratio effectiveness
ratio base flow annual cost
WB1 $782,825.00 13.6 2 $57,500 1
Year 1
WB4 $1,034,825.00 17.7 1 $ 58,500 2
$ 2.94 M
WB2 $1,125,925.00 12.6 3 $ 89,400 3
WB3 $1,448,125.00 8.5 5 $ 170,400 4 Year 2
WB5 $1,069,325.00 5.8 7 $ 184,400 5 $ 2.52 M
Year 3
WB8 $3,233,225.00 8.9 4 $ 363,300 7
$ 3.23 M
Year 4
WB6 $1,461,325.00 7.1 6 $ 205,800 6
$ 1.46M
Year 5
WB7 $1,678,475.00 4.6 8 $ 364,900 8
$ 1.68 M
The last column of the table presents the timeline for implementation following the five-year plan
preferred by the Village. This timeline is chosen because it is compatible with other
infrastructure maintenance activities in Whitefish Bay.

Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik, &amp; Associates - Sanitary Sewer Facility Plan - 2002

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik, &amp; Associates - Sanitary Sewer Facility Plan - 2002

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Village of Whitefish Bay

Sanitary Sewer Facility Plan

File No. 862-02-108

1.1 - Description of Sewerage System

• Montclaire and Lydell

Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc. Page 1

1.2 - Description of Existing Problems

Wet Weather Overflows

Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc. Page 2

• June 20-21, 1997

• August 5-6, 1998

Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc. Page 3

Section 2 – Previous Studies of the System

2.1 - 1981 SSES

 Manhole defects: 5 % of total

2.2 - 1999 SSES

Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc. Page 4

 Manhole defects: 5.5 % of total

Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc. Page 5

2.3 - Other Studies since 1999

Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc. Page 6

As a consequence, a new and revised inflow assignment was necessary because a

Gravity Bypasses from Sanitary to Storm Sewers

Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc. Page 7

2.4 - Summary of Observed Structural Defects

• Map 1: Dye Water Flooding Transference.

• Map 2: Sags in Pipes

• Map 3: Cracked Pipes

• Map 4: Broken Pipes, Holes in Pipes, & Collapsed Pipes

• Map 5: Defective Lateral Connections

• Map 6: Bypass Locations

2.5 - Identification of Additional Inflow Sources

Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc. Page 8

Therefore, significant inflow reduction due to foundation drain disconnection appears to be

Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc. Page 9

Estimated Contribution to total

Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc. Page 10

Section 3 – Solution Alternatives

3.1 - Performance Criteria for Solution Implementation

Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc. Page 11

Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc. Page 12

Section 4 – Evaluation of Solution Alternatives

Wet Weather Relief Sewer Construction

Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc. Page 13

Foundation Drain Disconnection

Nevertheless, the Village currently requires downspout discharges to be placed a minimum of

Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc. Page 14

Repair and Rehabilitation of Structural Defects

Sanitary Sewer Replacement

 Removal and replacement of asphalt and base

Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc. Page 15

Sanitary Sewer Replacement

Sanitary Sewer Lining

Sanitary Sewer Lining

Sanitary Lateral Repair and Rehabilitation

Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc. Page 16

Private lateral repairs during public sewer replacement

Private lateral repairs to prevent storm sewer leakage

Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc. Page 17

Storm Sewer Lining

Storm Sewer Lining

Elimination of Sanitary Sewer Bypasses

Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc. Page 18

Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik, & Associates - Sanitary Sewer Facility Plan - 2002

Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik, & Associates - Sanitary Sewer Facility Plan - 2002