Mather Interceptor Project

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL FORM
FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS GREATER THAN

$1 MILLION
MATHER INTERCEPTOR PROJECT
A Project Development Plan (PDP) is prepared, reviewed, and approved during the capital
delivery of a project. The PDP is initially prepared at the preliminary planning phase of a
project and updated, as necessary, as the project becomes more defined. The PDP shall
provide a clear and concise problem statement, provide background on the problem,
identify constraints, list possible alternate solutions, evaluate each alternative, and provide
a recommendation.
This PDP has been prepared in accordance with guidelines developed by the Sacramento
Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD). The PDP has been reviewed for
completeness and is approved.
Version: _______________
Project Team:
Senior Engineer Date
Principal Engineer Date
District Asset Management Coordinator Date
Division Chief Date
District Engineer Date

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Mather Interceptor Project Development Plan (PDP) was prepared to address
wastewater needs of the Mather and Aerojet sewer sheds in Rancho Cordova, California.
County Sanitation District 1 (CSD-1) currently provides sewer collection services to this
area via an interim pump station (Chrysanthy), which was designed to serve until the
Mather Interceptor was brought online, initially scheduled for January 2015. However,
growth in Rancho Cordova prior to 2006 had increased wastewater flow faster than
predicted. Because of this accelerated development, the Sacramento Regional County
Sanitation District (SRCSD) has moved forward with implementation of the Mather
Interceptor, with a goal of having wastewater flowing in the new system by December
2010. During the development of this document, it was determined that the Laguna Creek
Area 5 (LCA5) shed would also require sewer service earlier than predicted. The Mather
Interceptor PDP was amended to address wastewater needs of the LCA5 sewer shed,
assuming a similar schedule of having facilities on-line by December 2010.
The Mather Interceptor is being implemented to delay the construction of the Laguna
Creek Interceptor. The Aerojet Sewer Sheds were tributary to the Bradshaw Interceptor
under the 1993/94 Master Plan. However, the Master Plan 2000 (MP2000) used different
design criteria and determined the portions of the Bradshaw Interceptor already
constructed would not have capacity to convey all flows from its sewer shed when it
reached buildout. The solution proposed by MP2000 was to divert the Aerojet sewer sheds
to the Laguna Creek Interceptor. This would require construction of Aerojet 4 Interceptor
in Sunrise Blvd. from Douglas Road to just north of Jackson Road. But it was also
determined that construction of the Laguna Creek and Aerojet 4 Interceptors could be
delayed for 20 years by constructing the Mather Interceptor and conveying Aerojet shed
flows to Bradshaw Interceptor until interim available capacity is no longer available.
Wastewater flow from any development in LCA5 prior to the construction of the Laguna
Creek Interceptor would need to be pumped to the Mather Interceptor.
Potential Mather Interceptor routes as well as possible extensions to serve LCA5 were
presented to the PAC on October 18, 2006. A schedule for completing the Mather
Interceptor by the end of 2010 was also presented. Following the October PAC meeting,
the brainstormed alternatives were considered under a fatal flaw analysis and net present
worth calculations were made for the construction, engineering, environmental mitigation,
right-of-way acquisition and operation and maintenance costs. The temporary and
permanent public impacts were also estimated.
At the PAC meeting on November 15, 2006, 10 potential alternative gravity alignments
from Chrysanthy to the Bradshaw Interceptor were presented in detail and a
recommendation to keep five alternatives for further analysis was accepted by the PAC. In
addition, five alternatives for serving LCA5 were presented. Four of the LCA5
alternatives would be added to the gravity alignments already screened. The fifth, the AJ4
alternative, would serve LCA5 and included the construction of Aerojet 4 Interceptor
concurrently with the Mather Interceptor. Also, another gravity alternative, Alternative 9B
was considered and subjected to the screening analysis. It was dropped since it did not
Mather Interceptor ES-1 October 2007

Project
Executive Summary
have a cost advantage over other alternatives and would required a much longer time to
construct due to ROW acquisition requirements from the USBR.
When the LCA5 alternatives were added to the gravity sewer alternatives there were a total
of 15 possible combinations. Rather than carrying all possible combinations, a screening
analysis was done based on length of pipe for the LCA5 alternatives. Three of the LCA5
alternatives were much longer and would have a much higher construction cost. It was
determined these three would not pass a screening level analysis and were dropped leaving
seven practical alternatives, three gravity only and four gravity plus LCA5 alternatives.
Modeling conducted by Capacity Management, using criteria supplied by the SIAMI

Program, determined that the Bradshaw Interceptor had available interim capacity until at
least 2030 and the available capacity was 49 mgd. The analysis of the development pace
in the LCA5 shed estimated peak wet weather flow would reach 10 mgd in 2015. The
SIAMI Program recommended that a pump station and force main serving LCA5 and
discharging to the Mather Interceptor be included in the alternatives being considered.
District staff accepted the recommendation.
When the determination to provide service to LCA5 with the Mather Interceptor was made,
the gravity only alternatives were dropped. The four remaining alternatives were
considered “practical” and were presented to the PAC at their February 21, 2007 meeting
(see Figure ES-1). The four practical alternatives included a gravity sewer to serve the
Mather and Aerojet shed areas, and also included a regional pump station and force mains
to serve the LCA5 sewer shed. One alternative added the construction of the Aerojet 4
Interceptor. The PAC accepted the four practical alternatives. The next step was to
complete a business case evaluation (BCE) on the four alternatives.
To complete the BCE, preliminary engineering drawings and construction cost estimates
were prepared for all four practical alternatives. Team members then estimated costs to the
community for a number of parameters (see Table ES-1). The BCE demonstrated that
Alternative MI-1 (Zinfandel Drive) + LCA5-1 had the lowest total cost to the community.
This alternative was presented to the Project Authorization Committee (PAC) for approval
on April 18, 2007.
The PAC approved the Mather Interceptor (MI-1 gravity sewer) portion of the
recommended alternative and agreed that SRCSD should proceed with the project with the
budget and schedule described in this PDP. The PAC did not approve the LCA5-1 (pump
station and force mains) portion of the recommended alternative. The PAC recommended
that the solution to provide sewer service to the LCA5 shed be analyzed further in a
separate PDP document. They expressed concerns regarding the estimated pace of
development in the LCA5 sewer shed. The PAC directed that alternatives using multiple
interim CSD-1 pump stations be included in the analysis. Previous discussions with
SRCSD staff had assumed that a regional solution was appropriate because the 10 mgd
threshold for SRCSD responsibility would be reached by 2015.
October 2007 ES-2 Mather Interceptor

Project
Executive Summary
Figure ES-1 Schematic of Mather Interceptor Practical Alternatives

Project
Executive Summary

Project
Executive Summary
Table ES-1 Mather Interceptor BCE Results Summary

Project
Executive Summary
October 2007 ES-6 Mather Interceptor

Project
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1.0 PROBLEM STATEMENT ................................................................... 1-1
CHAPTER 2.0 BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM STATEMENT ....................... 2-1
2.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 2-1
2.2 Service Area and Service Level Impacts ............................................................... 2-5
2.3 Schedule ................................................................................................................. 2-6
CHAPTER 3.0 CONSTRAINTS ................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Physical Condition ................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Existing Site Conditions In the Poject Area........................................................... 3-2
3.2.1 Soils and Groundwater................................................................................................ 3-2
3.2.2 Environmental Features .............................................................................................. 3-3
3.2.3 Folsom South Canal and United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Reclamation Property ........................................................................................................... 3-3
3.2.4 Mather Air Force Base (Mather Airport) and Mather Boulevard ............................... 3-4
3.2.5 Zinfandel Drive ........................................................................................................... 3-4
3.2.6 Douglas Road .............................................................................................................. 3-4
3.2.7 Eagles Nest Road ........................................................................................................ 3-5
3.2.8 Sunrise Boulevard, South of Douglas Road................................................................ 3-5
3.2.9 Sunrise Boulevard, North of Douglas Road................................................................ 3-5
3.2.10 Chrysanthy Boulevard................................................................................................. 3-5
3.2.11 Kiefer Boulevard......................................................................................................... 3-6
3.2.12 Jaeger Road ................................................................................................................. 3-6
3.2.13 Highway 16/Jackson Road .......................................................................................... 3-6
3.3 Concurrent and Future Construction in the Project Area....................................... 3-6
3.4 Codes, Regulatory Standards, and Policies............................................................ 3-7
CHAPTER 4.0 IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES.......................................... 4-1
4.1 Brainstorming Effort .............................................................................................. 4-1
4.2 Description of Alternatives .................................................................................... 4-1
4.2.1 Alternative MI-1 Zinfandel Drive ............................................................................... 4-3
4.2.2 Alternative MI-2 Mather Boulevard ........................................................................... 4-3
4.2.3 Alternative MI-3 Golf Course / Zinfandel Drive A .................................................... 4-3
4.2.4 Alternative MI-4 Golf Course / Zinfandel Drive B..................................................... 4-3
4.2.5 Alternative MI-5 Golf Course / Mather Boulevard A................................................. 4-4
4.2.6 Alternative MI-6 Golf Course / Mather Boulevard B ................................................. 4-4
4.2.7 Alternative MI-7 Sunrise Boulevard A ....................................................................... 4-4
4.2.8 Alternative MI-8 Sunrise Boulevard B ....................................................................... 4-5
4.2.9 Alternative MI-9 Canal ............................................................................................... 4-5
4.2.10 Alternative MI-9B Canal (East) .................................................................................. 4-5
4.2.11 Alternative MI-10 All Force Main .............................................................................. 4-5
4.2.12 Alternative LCA5-1 Sunrise Boulevard Extension ..................................................... 4-6
4.2.13 Alternative LCA5-2 Jaeger Road................................................................................ 4-6
4.2.14 Alternative LCA5-3 Eagles Nest A............................................................................. 4-6
4.2.15 Alternative LCA5-4 Eagles Nest B............................................................................. 4-6
4.2.16 Alternative Aerojet 4................................................................................................... 4-6
CHAPTER 5.0 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ...................................................... 5-1
5.1 Overall Analysis Procedure.................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Fatal Flaw Analysis................................................................................................ 5-1
5.3 Screening Analysis................................................................................................. 5-2
Mather Interceptor i October 2007

Project
Table of Contents
5.3.1 Screening Analysis Criteria......................................................................................... 5-2

5.3.2 Application of Screening Analysis.............................................................................. 5-4
5.3.3 Conclusions of the Mather Interceptor Screening Analysis...................................... 5-23
5.3.4 Additional Screening Involving the LCA5 and AJ4 Alternatives............................. 5-24
5.4 Business Case Evaluation .................................................................................... 5-26
5.4.1 Business Case Evaluation Approach......................................................................... 5-26
5.4.2 Business Case Evaluation Parameters....................................................................... 5-29
5.4.3 Application of Business Case Evaluation ................................................................. 5-37
5.4.4 Summary of Results of the Business Case Evaluation.............................................. 5-63
5.4.5 Recommendation of Preferred Alternative ............................................................... 5-69
CHAPTER 6.0 SELECTED ALTERNATIVE DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS.................. 6-1
6.1 Hydraulic Control Points ....................................................................................... 6-1
6.1.1 Downstream – Bradshaw Interceptor.......................................................................... 6-1
6.1.2 Upstream – Aerojet Section 1 ..................................................................................... 6-1
6.1.3 Mather Junction Structure ........................................................................................... 6-2
6.1.4 MAE Junction ............................................................................................................. 6-2
6.1.5 Folsom South Canal Crossing ..................................................................................... 6-2
6.1.6 Summary of Mather Interceptor Hydraulic Design Control Points ............................ 6-3
6.2 Preliminary Design Assumptions for the Interceptor ............................................ 6-3
6.3 Zinfandel Drive (station 0+00 to 59+88) ............................................................... 6-4
6.3.1 Preliminary Design Construction and Alignment Decision Summary ....................... 6-4
6.3.2 Final Design Considerations ....................................................................................... 6-6
6.4 Douglas Road West of and Including Folsom South Canal (stations 59+80 to
82+32) .................................................................................................................... 6-6
6.4.2 Final Design Issues ..................................................................................................... 6-8
6.5 Douglas Road East of Canal to Sunrise Boulevard (stations 82+32 to 108+99) ... 6-8
6.5.2 Final Design Issues ................................................................................................... 6-10
6.6 Sunrise Boulevard, Douglas Road to Chrysanthy Boulevard (MI station 108+99 to
152+21, AJ4 station 1051+85 to 1010+33) ......................................................... 6-11
6.6.1 Preliminary Design Construction and Alignment Decision Summary ..................... 6-11
6.6.2 Final Design Issues ................................................................................................... 6-12
CHAPTER 7.0 REFERENCES...................................................................................... 7-1
October 2007 ii Mather Interceptor

Project
Table of Contents
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Capacity Management Hydraulic Modeling Results Bradshaw
APPENDIX B: Technical Memorandum, Interim Project Authorization Committee
Decision: Update Mather Interceptor Practical Alternatives
APPENDIX C: Capacity Management Hydraulic Modeling
APPENDIX D Cost Escalation Rates
APPENDIX E: Construction Cost Estimate
APPENDIX F: Right-of-Way Cost Estimate
APPENDIX G: Environmental Mitigation Cost Estimate
APPENDIX H: Operational and Maintenance Cost Estimate
APPENDIX I: Construction Schedule, Cost of Delay, and Schedule Costs
APPENDIX J: Traffic Delay Costs
APPENDIX K: Public Impact Costs
APPENDIX L: Risk Register and Risk Cost
APPENDIX M: Technical Memorandum, Preliminary Design Mather Interceptor –
Alternative MI-1 + LCA5-1 Construction Approach
APPENDIX N: Technical Memorandum Preliminary Design Mather Interceptor –
APPENDIX O: Technical Memorandum Preliminary Design Mather Interceptor –
APPENDIX P: Technical Memorandum Preliminary Design Mather Interceptor –
Alternative AJ4 Construction Approach
LIST OF TABLES
Table 5-1 Fatal Flaw Criteria ............................................................................................. 5-2
Table 5-2 Screening Criteria ............................................................................................ 5-20
Table 5-3 Screening Analysis Results ............................................................................. 5-21
Table 5-4 Summary of Mather Interceptor Screening Analysis Results.......................... 5-23
Table 5-5 Right of Way Property Value Assumptions .................................................... 5-31
Table 5-6 Environmental Mitigation Value Assumptions ............................................... 5-32
Table 5-7 Mather Interceptor Cost of Delay beyond 2010 .............................................. 5-34
Table 5-8 BCE Results Comparison Among Alternatives............................................... 5-66
Table 5-9 Construction Cost Escalation Rate Sensitivity ................................................ 5-68
Table 6-1 Summary of Mather Interceptor Hydraulic Design Control Points................... 6-3
Table 6-2 Shaft Dimensions for Pipe Jacking and Receiving............................................ 6-4
Mather Interceptor iii October 2007

Project
Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Mather Interceptor and LCA5 Project Area ..................................................... 1-1
Figure 2-1 Mather Interceptor and LCA5 Service Area .................................................... 2-3
Figure 2-2 Mather Interceptor and LCA5 Planned Developments .................................... 2-4
Figure 2-3 Mather Interceptor and LCA5 Schedule Summary.......................................... 2-7
Figure 4-1 Alternative MI-1 Layout .................................................................................. 4-8
Figure 4-2 Alternative MI-2 Layout .................................................................................. 4-9
Figure 4-3 Alternative MI-3 Layout ................................................................................ 4-10
Figure 4-10 Alternative MI-9B Layout............................................................................ 4-17
Figure 4-11 Alternative MI-10 Layout ............................................................................ 4-18
Figure 4-12 Alternative LCA5-1 Layout ......................................................................... 4-19
Figure 4-16 Alternative Aerojet 4 Layout........................................................................ 4-23
Figure 5-1 Figure 5-1 BCE Summary of Alternatives and Related Additional Costs…..5-28
Figure 5-2 Profile of the Mather Interceptor Alternative MI-1+ LCA5-1....................... 5-39
Figure 5-3 Mather Interceptor Alternative MI-1 Net Present Value ............................... 5-42
Figure 5-4 Mather Interceptor Future Construction of AJ4 Net Present Value............... 5-43
Figure 5-5 Mather Interceptor MAE Stub Out Net Present Value................................... 5-43
Figure 5-6 Alternative MI-1 BCE Summary of Costs ..................................................... 5-44
Figure 5-7 Alternative MI-1 Net Present Value (including additional costs).................. 5-44
Figure 5-8 Profile of Alternative MI-2 + LCA5-1 ........................................................... 5-46
Figure 5-9 Alternative MI-2 Net Present Value............................................................... 5-48
Figure 5-10 Mather Interceptor Future Construction of AJ4 Net Present Value............. 5-49
Figure 5-11 Mather Interceptor MAE Stub Out Net Present Value................................. 5-50
Figure 5-12 Alternative MI-2 BCE Summary of Costs ................................................... 5-50
Figure 5-13 Mather Interceptor Total Alternative MI-2 Net Present Value ................... 5-51
Figure 5-14 Profile of Alternative MI-7 + LCA5-1......................................................... 5-52
Figure 5-15 Mather Interceptor Alternative MI-7 Net Present Value ............................. 5-55
Figure 5-16 Mather Interceptor Future Construction of AJ4 Net Present Value............. 5-56
Figure 5-17 Mather Interceptor MAE Trunk Net Present Value ..................................... 5-56
Figure 5-18 Alternative MI-7 BCE Summary of Costs ................................................... 5-57
Figure 5-19 Alternative MI-7 Total Net Present Value (including additional costs) ...... 5-57
Figure 5-20 Profile of Mather Interceptor Alternative AJ4 ............................................. 5-59
Figure 5-21 Alternative AJ4, Net Present Value ............................................................. 5-62
Figure 5-22 Alternative AJ4 BCE Summary of Costs ..................................................... 5-62
Figure 5-23 AJ4 Alternative Total Net Present Value..................................................... 5-63
Figure 5-24 BCE Results at Various Construction Cost Escalation Rates ...................... 5-69
October 2007 iv Mather Interceptor

Project
Table of Contents
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AACE Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering
ADWF average dry weather flow
ADT average daily traffic
AJ Aerojet
ARV air release valve
BCE business case evaluation
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CCTV closed circuit television
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CM Construction Management
CSD-1 County Sanitation District 1
DERA California Department of Environmental Review and Assessment
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EPB earth pressure balance
ESA Environmental Science Associates
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FSC Folsom South Canal
ft/sec feet per second
GGS giant garter snake
hp horsepower
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
kV kilovolt
kWh kilowatt-hours
LCA5 Laguna Creek Area 5
LOS level of service
mg/L milligram per liter
O&M operations and maintenance
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
LNWI Lower Northwest Interceptor
mgd million gallons per day
MI Mather Interceptor
MP2000 Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District Master Plan 2000
PAC Project Authorization Committee
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPV net present value
PDP project development plan
PM Program Management
PO public outreach
PROW permanent right-of-way
PWWF peak wet weather flow
RCP reinforced concrete pipe
ROW right-of-way
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
Mather Interceptor v October 2007

Project
Table of Contents
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SIAMI South Interceptor and Mather Interceptor
SRCSD Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District
SRWTP Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant
SSES Sanitary Sewer Expansion Study
TBM tunnel boring machine
TCE temporary construction easements
TRACON Terminal Radar Approach Control
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USBR United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of USBR
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
VELB valley elderberry longhorn beetle
VFD variable frequency drive
October 2007 vi Mather Interceptor

Project
Chapter 1
Problem Statement
CHAPTER 1.0 PROBLEM STATEMENT

The Mather Interceptor problem statement is as follows:
“There is insufficient capacity in the project area. Additional capacity is needed by 2010.”
The problem statement was approved at the October 15, 2006, PAC Initiation meeting.
The project area is shown in Figure 1-1.
Figure 1-1 Mather Interceptor and LCA5 Project Area
Mather Interceptor 1-1 October 2007

Project
Chapter 1
Problem Statement
October 2007 1-2 Mather Interceptor

Project
Chapter 2
Background of the Problem Statement
CHAPTER 2.0 BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM

STATEMENT
This chapter describes background information related to the problem statement, including
general project background, service area and service level impacts, and schedule.
2.1 BACKGROUND
Prior to the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD) Master Plan 2000
(MP2000), Mather Air Force Base, now Mather Airport, and the Aerojet sewer shed areas
were part of the Bradshaw Interceptor system. The Laguna Creek area 5 (LCA5) shed was
part of the Laguna Creek Interceptor system. MP2000 determined that flows in the
Bradshaw Interceptor System would likely exceed the system’s capacity at buildout in the
reaches that have already been constructed. This shortfall in capacity was attributed to the
updated, higher flow generation criteria used by MP2000 instead of the 1993/94 Sanitary
Sewer Expansion Study (SSES). The solution proposed in the MP2000 was to convey
flows generated in the Aerojet sheds to the Laguna Creek Interceptor, resulting in only
minor surcharging in the Bradshaw Interceptor System at buildout. To provide service to
the Aerojet sheds until the future construction of the Laguna Creek Interceptor, MP2000
recommended that the Mather Interceptor be constructed and used to convey the Aerojet
shed flows to the Bradshaw Interceptor while the Bradshaw Interceptor has excess
capacity. It should be noted that the Mather Interceptor would also convey flows from the
Mather Airport shed area to the Bradshaw Interceptor. Ultimately, as the Bradshaw
Interceptor begins to approach its capacity, the Laguna Creek Interceptor would be
constructed and used to convey the Aerojet flows to the Sacramento Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plan (SRWTP). MP2000 estimated that the Laguna Creek Interceptor would be
required by 2024. Once the Aerojet flows were being conveyed to the Laguna Creek
Interceptor, the Mather Interceptor would continue to convey flows from the Mather
Airport shed area to the Bradshaw Interceptor. The Eastern Interceptor Sheds Map which
includes the Mather Interceptor and LCA5 service areas and interceptor systems are shown
in Figure 2-1 and are described in detail in subsequent sections. Mather Interceptor and
LCA5 developments areas and names are shown in Figure 2-2.
Since the release of MP2000, changes were made to the Bradshaw Interceptor that may
impact the design of the Mather Interceptor. The Bradshaw Interceptor 7 Routing Study,
completed in July 2002 (Black & Veatch), recommended a new route for much of
Bradshaw 7 and part of Bradshaw 8. The recommended route moved Bradshaw 7 closer to
the Mather Interceptor route than was previously defined in the MP2000 report. The
proximity of the two interceptors suggested that a new Mather Interceptor alignment may
be more economical. The Bradshaw 7 Routing Study proposed that the Mather Interceptor
be routed north along Mather Boulevard to the southern edge of the Villages of Zinfandel
development.
The SRCSD MP2000 Reconciliation Report (completed in July 2003) revisited the Mather
Interceptor alignment following the adjustment of the Bradshaw Interceptor alignment.
The report recommended a point of connection to the Bradshaw Interceptor where it

Project
Chapter 2
crosses Zinfandel Drive. Aerojet Interceptor Sections 1, 2, and 2 Stub Out (AJ1, AJ2, and
AJ2S, respectively) would connect to the Mather Junction Structure at its upstream end,
located at the Sunrise Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection. The Mather Junction
Structure also would include a connection point for the future Aerojet Interceptor Section 4
(AJ4).
The recommendations of the MP2000 Reconciliation Report and other analyses described
above resulted in the following design and analysis parameters for this Project
Development Plan (PDP):
• The Mather Interceptor will convey flows from the Aerojet sheds to the Bradshaw
Interceptor on an interim basis. The Mather Interceptor must connect to the
existing AJ1 pipeline in Chrysanthy Boulevard.
• The Mather Interceptor will include a structure at Sunrise Boulevard and Douglas
Road that provides connections for the Aerojet interceptors.
• The Mather Interceptor will remain in use to serve the Aerojet sewer sheds as long
as the Bradshaw Interceptor has available capacity. When the Bradshaw
Interceptor reaches capacity, SRCSD will divert the flows originating from the
Aerojet sewer sheds to the future Laguna Creek Interceptor.
• The Mather Interceptor project must either include a structure for connection of the
County Sanitation District 1 (CSD-1) MAE trunk sewer, near the intersection of
Douglas Road and Eagles Nest Road, or should consider how CSD-1 will otherwise
convey the MAE trunk flow to the Bradshaw Interceptor. The MAE trunk sewer is
designated in the 2006 CSD-1 Master Plan to serve future development south of
Douglas Road and north of Kiefer Boulevard.
• The LCA5 alternatives considered will convey flow from the LCA5 shed to the
Mather Interceptor at Chrysanthy Boulevard.
• The analysis should determine if it would be beneficial to construct the AJ4
Interceptor as part of Mather Interceptor construction.

Project
Chapter 2
Figure 2-1 Mather Interceptor and LCA5 Service Area

Project
Chapter 2
Figure 2-2 Mather Interceptor and LCA5 Planned Developments

Project
Chapter 2
2.2 SERVICE AREA AND SERVICE LEVEL IMPACTS
As stated above, the Mather Interceptor service area includes Mather and Aerojet sheds.
The Mather shed will be permanently served by the Mather Interceptor and the Aerojet
sheds will be temporarily served by the Mather Interceptor, until construction of the
Laguna Creek Interceptor. The permanent Mather Interceptor Service Area is the Mather
Interceptor Sewer Shed and is shown in purple shading in Figure 2-1. The interim Mather
Interceptor Service Area and the Aerojet Sewer Shed are shown in pink in Figure 2-1.
The interim LCA5 service area is a portion of the area shown in green in Figure 2-1.
CSD-1 service levels in the Mather Interceptor service area will be affected by the capacity
limitations of the Chrysanthy Pump Station. Flows to the Chrysanthy Pump Station are
anticipated to reach the facility’s capacity prior to 2010. As stated above, development in
the area has already required the construction of several small interim pump stations. To
maintain an acceptable level of service in the project area, additional facilities are required.
In support of providing an excellent level of service in the region, SRCSD and its
contributing agencies typically enter into a Master Interagency Agreement (MIA) to define
the roles and responsibilities of each party regarding sewer service in an area. In
December 2006, SRCSD, CSD-1, Sacramento County, the City of Sacramento, and the
City of Folsom entered into an MIA. In accordance with Section 2 of the agreement, the
MIA will remain in effect until June 13, 2024. The MIA states that SRCSD is required to
finance, construct, reconstruct, operate, and maintain all interceptor sewers for conveyance
of wastewater from a contributing agency or a major portion of a contributing agency to
the SRWTP. The agreement defines an “Interceptor Sewer” as any sewer, in-line
treatment, and/or pump facilities designed to carry a peak wet weather flow of 10 million
gallons per day (mgd) or greater from new development, or that has its upstream and
downstream ends adjacent and connected to existing interceptor sewers.
The MIA states that CSD-1 is a contributing agency to SRCSD and is responsible for
providing local sewer service within CSD-1’s service area. The MIA defines local sewer
service as the collection, conveyance, treatment, and transfer to the SRCSD system of
wastewater originating within the CSD-1 service area. CSD-1 is required to finance,
construct, reconstruct, operate, and maintain all collector and trunk sewers for wastewater
within its local service area and to dispose of all wastewater originating within its local
service area by delivery of same to SRCSD facilities. CSD-1 typically coordinates with
developers to plan the construction of the interim sewer facilities required to provide
service until interceptor sewer facilities are in place and, in many cases, CSD-1 requires
that the developer construct the future trunks required to service the area. CSD-1 uses a
mechanism to collect funds from the development community and then uses the funds to
reimburse the developer that constructs the interim sewer facilities to provide interim
service to the area. These interim sewer facilities are typically designed to carry a peak
wet weather flow of less than 10 mgd and are therefore not considered interceptor sewer
facilities.
Once a developing area is anticipating flows large enough to require the construction of
facilities that are designed to carry a peak wet weather flow (PWWF) of 10 mgd or greater,

Project
Chapter 2
the responsibility to “finance, construct, reconstruct, operate, and maintain” the facility
belongs to SRCSD, per the conditions of the MIA. The Aerojet shed area will require an
interceptor sewer facility prior to 2010 and the LCA5 shed area will require (local or
interceptor) sewer facilities with a total capacity exceeding 10 mgd by 2015. This PDP
will assess the best solution to provide the required sewer service to the shed areas.
2.3 SCHEDULE
The Mather Interceptor project, as defined by the problem statement, requires the
completion of construction by December 2010. The schedule is driven by the capacity
limitations of the Chrysanthy Pump Station. Since flows to the Chrysanthy Pump Station
are anticipated to reach the facility’s capacity prior to 2010, additional capacity is needed
as soon as possible. A reasonable but aggressive schedule was developed to determine the
earliest date that the additional capacity could be made available. As a result of the
schedule analysis, it was determined that the earliest date that a project solution could be
designed and constructed is December 2010. This date was adopted by SRCSD and CSD-
1 as the required completion date for the project.
The schedule for the completion of sewer service to the LCA5 shed is not driven by the
same capacity issues as Mather Interceptor. Based on development plans for the LCA5
shed area, sewer service will be required by December 2010, additional capacity will be
required by 2013, and flows from the shed area are expected to exceed 10 mgd by 2015.
Thus, it was assumed that the construction of LCA5 should proceed on a schedule similar
to that of the Mather Interceptor, potentially avoiding the cost to construct several smaller
interim stations.
To meet this aggressive schedule, several key milestones will have to be met throughout
the project life cycle. A Mather Interceptor and LCA5 schedule summary is shown in
Figure 2-3. The schedule summary includes the key activities and milestones required to
complete the Mather Interceptor by December 2010.

Project
Chapter 2
Figure 2-3 Mather Interceptor and LCA5 Schedule Summary

Project
Chapter 2

Project
Chapter 3
Constraints
CHAPTER 3.0 CONSTRAINTS

This chapter describes the constraints affecting project development, including the
connections to existing and future facilities, existing site conditions, concurrent and future
construction in the project area, and codes, regulatory standards, and policies.
3.1 PHYSICAL CONDITION
Anticipating the likelihood of development in the Aerojet sheds would occur 10 to 20

years before significant development in the lower Laguna Creek sheds, MP2000
recommended that the Mather Interceptor be used to convey Aerojet shed flows to the
Bradshaw Interceptor while the Bradshaw Interceptor has available capacity. Thus, the
Mather Interceptor must be sized to accommodate Mather and Aerojet shed flows, and
extend from the Aerojet shed area to the Bradshaw Interceptor. Development in the LCA5
shed area will begin in 2009 and sewer service will be required by 2011. Flow from the
LCA5 shed will be conveyed to the Bradshaw Interceptor until the future construction of
the Laguna Creek Interceptor. The sewer service to the LCA5 shed must be sized to
accommodate LCA5 flows, and extend from the LCA5 shed area to the Mather Interceptor
near the intersection of Chrysanthy Boulevard and Sunrise Boulevard.
Since the Mather Interceptor will provide interim service to the Aerojet shed area, the
Mather Interceptor will not be sized for buildout flows from the Aerojet or LCA5 sheds.
The Mather Interceptor must be designed to accommodate a maximum design flow equal
to the maximum PWWF from the Aerojet, Mather, and LCA5 shed areas at the date that
Bradshaw reaches capacity. In addition, the Mather Interceptor will need to be designed to
accommodate a minimum design flow equal to the buildout flows for the Mather shed area.
Thus, estimating the date that the Bradshaw Interceptor will reach capacity while receiving
flows from the Aerojet, Mather, and LCA5 shed areas is critical. Based on hydraulic
model results for the Bradshaw Interceptor sewer system, the Bradshaw Interceptor could
accept up to 49 mgd from the Mather Interceptor until 2030.
The upstream end of the Mather Interceptor will connect to an existing 42-inch-diameter
stub out, part of the AJ1 located near the intersection of Chrysanthy Boulevard and Sunrise
Boulevard. The existing AJ1 Stub Out was constructed by the Anatolia development.
Once the connection is complete and the Mather Interceptor is operational, the existing
interim Chrysanthy Pump Station and force main will be taken out of service. The
Chrysanthy Pump Station is located near the intersection of Chrysanthy Boulevard and
Anatolia Drive, east of Sunrise Boulevard. The Chrysanthy Pump Station has been
upgraded to a capacity of 3 mgd and has a potential expanded capacity of 7 mgd. The flow
from the Chrysanthy Pump Station is pumped through an 18-inch-diameter, 7-mile-long
force main, which discharges to the Bradshaw Interceptor at the intersection of Kiefer
Boulevard and Happy Lane. The Chrysanthy Pump Station was designed to CSD-1 pump
station standards with a 25-year life. It should be noted that the small commercial/high
density housing development immediately south of Douglas Road, and on both sides of
Sunrise Boulevard, will soon be served by an interim pump station. The small pump
station will have a capacity of about 1.0 mgd and will be located on the west side of

Project
Chapter 3
Constraints
Sunrise Boulevard immediately south of Douglas Road. The force main will convey flow
from the pump station to AJ1 along Sunrise Boulevard. Once the Mather Interceptor is
completed, this small interim pump station and force main will be abandoned and the flow
will be conveyed across Douglas Road to the Mather Interceptor. The Douglas Road pump
station was bid in July 2007 and should be on line by 2009.
The downstream end of the Mather Interceptor will connect to the Bradshaw Interceptor.
Section 7B of the Bradshaw Interceptor is nearest to the Mather Interceptor project area.
The location of the connection to the Bradshaw Interceptor depends on the selected
alignment for the Mather Interceptor.
Also in accordance with MP2000, construction of the Mather Interceptor will include a
junction structure, located near the intersection of Sunrise Boulevard and Douglas Road, to
connect the Mather, AJ1, AJ2, AJ2S, and AJ4 Interceptors.
The upstream end of LCA5 will include a pump station located east of Sunrise Boulevard
between Kiefer Road and Highway 16 (Jackson Highway) and a force main to the Mather
Interceptor. One or more trunk sewers will be constructed from the nearby Waegell and
Suncreek developments to the pump station site to convey flow from the LCA5 shed to the
pump station. A small interim pump station has been constructed in the LCA5 shed to
serve the Anatolia III development. This pump station has a design capacity of less than
1.0 mgd and, when put in operation, will discharge flow through a force main in Jaeger
Road to AJ1.
The downstream end of the LCA5 force main will connect to the Mather Interceptor near
the intersection of Chrysanthy Boulevard and Sunrise Boulevard via a transition structure
that converts pressure flow to a gravity flow.
Since the LCA5 pump station and force mains will provide interim service to the LCA5
shed, the pump station and force mains will not be sized for buildout flows from the LCA5
shed. The LCA5 pump station and force mains must be designed to accommodate a
maximum design flow equal to the maximum PWWF from the LCA5 shed area at the date
that Bradshaw reaches capacity. As noted above, the Mather Interceptor will be sized to
receive this flow from the LCA5 facilities.
3.2 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS IN THE POJECT AREA
3.2.1 Soils and Groundwater
According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation conducted by Kleinfelder (2007),

“soils encountered throughout the site consisted of various amounts of gravel and cobbles
with a matrix of sand, silt and clay. These granular materials were interbedded with layers
of silt, clay, silty sand and clayey sand. Cobbles within the gravel layers encountered in
the borings ranged from about 3 to 6-inches in diameter. Multiple gravel and cobble layers
exist at various depths throughout the project limits.”

Project
Chapter 3
Constraints
Research conducted during the Reconnaissance Phase of the Preliminary Geotechnical

Investigation indicated that regional groundwater elevations are over 50 feet below the
surface in the project area. The elevation of the interceptor would be above the
groundwater table based on this information, but perched groundwater is occasionally
encountered. Construction of Bradshaw 8 and Bradshaw 7 both encountered minimal
groundwater along the majority of their alignments.
However, soil borings conducted by Kleinfelder found groundwater levels above the
expected interceptor elevation in 5 of 11 borings. Three out of four borings along Mather
Interceptor section 1 (MI-1) found groundwater.
3.2.2 Environmental Features
Environmental conditions could present a problem for SRCSD, depending on which

alternative is chosen. The Mather area has a high concentration of vernal pools and
wetlands, as shown by recently completed field surveys conducted to identify sensitive
environmental resources potentially affected by the project. To address potential
environmental conditions, SRCSD would likely have to obtain environmental permits in a
complex acquisition process.
3.2.3 Folsom South Canal and United States Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation Property
The United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) owns
Folsom South Canal, which parallels Sunrise Boulevard through the entire project area and
must be crossed by the Mather Interceptor to convey flow to the Bradshaw Interceptor. A
tunnel under the canal is the most practical crossing method and USBR prefers 25 feet of
clearance between the canal bottom and the interceptor. Clearance of between 10 and 15
feet is necessary to allow gravity flow from the crossing to the Bradshaw Interceptor,
unless a siphon or pump station is constructed. USBR will allow less than 25 feet of
clearance if it can be demonstrated that the proposed construction will not damage the
canal. The depth of the canal crossing in conjunction with the gravity sewer design would
result in deep pipeline construction from the canal crossing to the Bradshaw Interceptor.
The pipeline will be constructed at a depth of 40 to 60 feet below existing grade in this
area. Tunneling will likely prove to be more cost-effective than open cut methods of
construction at these depths.
USBR will grant a temporary easement and/or a construction permit for temporary
construction activities on its property and will grant a permanent easement for the Folsom
South Canal (FSC) crossing. USBR will not grant a permanent easement for the pipeline
to be placed on its property, except for a crossing. The process to obtain a permit or
easement from USBR includes extensive technical and environmental review. Delays
caused by the permit/right-of-way (ROW) acquisition process could delay the start of
construction.

Project
Chapter 3
Constraints
3.2.4 Mather Air Force Base (Mather Airport) and Mather Boulevard
The Mather Air Force Base property is currently owned by the United States of America,
but is being turned over to Sacramento County, which will allow the interceptor to be
installed with a license as long as the interceptor is located within the planned ROW of
Mather Boulevard.
Mather Boulevard is a two-lane road that runs northwest from the end of Douglas Road to
Mather Field. It sees minimal traffic and passes under the approach to the Mather Field
runway about 2,000 feet west of the end of the runway. Sacramento County Airport has
plans to construct a new security fence around the airfield and Mather Boulevard will be
on the airfield side of the fence. Public access to Mather Boulevard in this area will be
discontinued. District operations and maintenance (O&M) access will require airfield
manager escorts, arranged in advance. Contaminated soil and groundwater have been
encountered in this area and are included in the Mather Air Force Base Cleanup Program.
However, contamination in this area is minimal; the worst areas of contamination are
further to the west.
3.2.5 Zinfandel Drive
Zinfandel Drive has been extended about 2,500 feet south of North Mather Boulevard
along the MP2000 alignment for Mather Boulevard. If this alignment is chosen, existing
pavement and utilities will affect the construction methods and cost.
Zinfandel Drive is planned to be extended another 3,500 feet south to Douglas Road. This
project is currently in the preliminary design phase and will not likely start construction
until after completion of the Mather Interceptor. The extension of Zinfandel Drive will
pass through property currently owned by the United States of America, but is scheduled to
be transferred to Sacramento County. Sacramento County has indicated it will negotiate a
license agreement with SRCSD to allow construction of the interceptor. If Zinfandel Drive
is constructed over the interceptor, the license will expire and no easement will be
necessary. If Zinfandel Drive is not constructed over the interceptor, permanent easements
will be negotiated after the completion of construction.
3.2.6 Douglas Road
Douglas Road between Eagles Nest Road and Sunrise Boulevard is currently a two-lane
Road within an 80-foot ROW. The Douglas Road widening project is currently in
preliminary design, and the interceptor could be constructed prior to widening, mitigating
impacts on traffic. The Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) facility is a federal
air traffic control facility located on the north side of Douglas Road, just west of the canal.
Obtaining ROW from the TRACON facility would be difficult since the land is federally
owned. In addition, air traffic control communications are transmitted though fiber optics
lines in Douglas Road. Mather Lake and other environmentally sensitive wetlands are
located south of Douglas Road and immediately east of the Folsom South Canal. The
property on the north side of Douglas Road, near Sunrise Boulevard, is owned by Cordova

Project
Chapter 3
Constraints
Recreation and Park District. This land is mostly undeveloped with the exception of a
shooting range.
3.2.7 Eagles Nest Road
Eagles Nest Road is a two-lane road between Douglas Road and Kiefer Road. It parallels
Sunrise Boulevard about 1 mile to the west and could be a viable alternative alignment to
Sunrise Boulevard. Due to its narrow corridor, construction in Eagles Nest Road would
completely block traffic. To avoid traffic impacts, the pipeline could be placed in an
easement off the road, but significant wetlands and vernal pools would be impacted and
require mitigation.
3.2.8 Sunrise Boulevard, South of Douglas Road
South of Douglas Road, Sunrise Boulevard is currently a two-lane road, but is being
widened to four lanes from Douglas Road to Chrysanthy Boulevard during the 2007
construction season. It is anticipated that Sunrise Boulevard will be widened from
Chrysanthy Boulevard to Kiefer Road by the end of 2009. A 69 kilovolt (kV) power line
parallels Sunrise Boulevard along the east side. Most of the utilities (water, gas, drainage)
are in the east side of the road. There is room for a sewer in the new lanes on the west
side, but this is a heavily traveled arterial road and significant traffic delays would result
from construction activities. USBR owns the vacant land between the Sunrise Boulevard
ROW and the Folsom South Canal, along the west side of the road. As stated above,
USBR will issue a temporary easement and/or construction permit for temporary,
construction activities on its property but will not grant a permanent easement to place the
pipeline on its property, except the Folsom South Canal crossing.
3.2.9 Sunrise Boulevard, North of Douglas Road
North of Douglas Road, Sunrise Boulevard is currently a four-lane road. The first mile of
Sunrise Boulevard, north of Douglas, is not developed on either side. The property east of
Sunrise Boulevard is privately owned and is part of the Rio Del Oro Specific Plan. The
property west of Sunrise Boulevard is owned by Cordova Recreation and Parks District.
The remaining northern stretch of Sunrise Boulevard is lined with businesses and is
landscaped with trees on both sides and in the median. The road is heavily used and
construction in the road ROW will likely result in significant traffic delays. Where the
land is undeveloped along Sunrise Boulevard, the Mather Interceptor will be placed
adjacent to the road ROW, and an easement will be pursued.
3.2.10 Chrysanthy Boulevard
Chrysanthy Boulevard is an 80-foot wide, four-lane road with parking that intersects
Sunrise Boulevard and continues to the east for 2,500 feet. It provides access into the
Anatolia Subdivision and will be extended another 3,000 feet to the east in the near future
to connect with Jaeger Road.
The CSD-1 Chrysanthy Pump Station is located at the intersection of Chrysanthy

Boulevard and Anatolia Drive, which is 1,000 feet east of Sunrise Boulevard. AJ1 is

Project
Chapter 3
Constraints
located in Chrysanthy Boulevard and is in service. AJ1 has already been extended to
Jaeger Road. The extension of Chrysanthy Boulevard will follow AJ1.
3.2.11 Kiefer Boulevard
Kiefer Boulevard is an existing two-lane, county road that runs in an east-west direction
through the area. Between Eagles Nest Road and Sunrise Boulevard, Kiefer Boulevard is a
two-lane, paved road in an approximately 80-foot-wide ROW. Between Sunrise
Boulevard and Jaeger Road, it is a dirt road in approximately 60-foot-wide ROW.
However, this portion of Kiefer Boulevard is currently being improved and will be a two-
lane paved road with an-80-foot-wide ROW. The current road construction will place the
two lanes in the north side of the ROW and will allow widening of the road to the south in
the future.
3.2.12 Jaeger Road
Jaeger Road was recently improved as a two-lane road in an 80-foot (approximate) ROW.
Jaeger Road runs in a north-south direction between Kiefer Boulevard and Douglas Road.
The existing road was built in the west side of the ROW, leaving room for road widening
in the future.
3.2.13 Highway 16/Jackson Road
Jackson Road is a State Highway controlled and maintained by CalTrans. Jackson Road is
the primary connector between Sacramento and Amador County. Jackson Road intersects
Sunrise Boulevard at the south end of the project site, just south of the potential location
for the pump station site. Jackson Road is a two-lane road, but carries high volumes of
commuter and truck traffic. Any work within its ROW requires a permit from CalTrans.
3.3 CONCURRENT AND FUTURE CONSTRUCTION IN THE PROJECT

AREA
Several concurrent and future construction projects are planned in this developing area.
The following is a list of these projects identified during preliminary design:
• Road Projects
o Zinfandel Drive Extension
o Douglas Road Widening
o Sunrise Boulevard Widening
o Kiefer Road Widening
o Jaeger Road Widening
o Jackson Road/Sunrise Boulevard Intersection Improvement
o Eagles Nest Road Realignment
o Chrysanthy Road Extension
• Development Projects
o Villages at Zinfandel
o Creekside

Project
Chapter 3
Constraints
o Sundance Plaza and Sundance Village

o Rio Del Oro Specific Plan
o Preserve at Sunridge
o Anatolia III
o Suncreek Specific Plan Area
o Waegell Property
o Mather East
o Grantline West
o Grantline 600
o Grantline 208
o Douglas 103
o Douglas 98
o Montelena
o Sunridge Lot J
o Sunridge Park
o Arista del Sol
• Other Projects
o Mather Air Force Base Cleanup Program
o Mather Groundwater Extraction and Treatment System (GET H-B) (12-inch
pipeline in Douglas Road)
The SIAMI program management team is coordinating with the agencies responsible for
managing road projects and proposed developments in the area. Mather Interceptor and
LCA5 planned development areas and names are shown in Figure 2-2.
3.4 CODES, REGULATORY STANDARDS, AND POLICIES
The design of the project would conform to the requirements of the following SRCSD
design guidelines:
• Interceptor Design Manual (2003)
• SRCSD/CSD-1 Sewage Pump Station Design Manual (2005)
• SIAMI Interceptor Design Guidelines (2007)
• SIAMI Pump Station Design Guidelines (2007)
The selected Mather Interceptor project will conform to the requirements of the MIA
discussed in Section 2.2. In addition, the project will comply with the following list of
applicable regulatory agencies:
• United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Consultation
• National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Consultation
• State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) Consultation
• United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR)

Project
Chapter 3
Constraints
• California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and associated

Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
• California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)
• California Department of Transportation (CalTrans)
• California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal OSHA)
• Central Valley Region, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
• Sacramento County, Department of Transportation
• City of Rancho Cordova, Department of Transportation
• Other local utilities

Project
Chapter 4
Identification of Alternatives
CHAPTER 4.0 IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES

This chapter describes the identification of project alternatives. The brainstorming effort
to identify project alternatives and construction alternatives is described in detail. (Please
note that for ease of viewing, the figures for this chapter have been placed at the end of the
chapter.)
4.1 BRAINSTORMING EFFORT
Brainstorming of alternatives and potential construction techniques occurred during several

coordination meetings. The following project team members participated in one or more
of the alternative brainstorming sessions:
• Neal Allen, SRCSD
• Steve Norris, SRCSD
• Andrew Page, SRCSD
• Humera Arshad, SRCSD
• Robb Armstrong, SRCSD
• Paul Philleo, CSD-1
• John Buttz, MWH
• Daniel Breg, MWH
• Rebecca Walker, MWH
• Bill Worrall, MWH
• Mike Massaro, MWH
• Mohammad Djavid, MWH
• John Bergen, MWH
• Steve Hyland, MWH
The following people were provided information about the alternatives and given
opportunity to comment:
• Cyrus Abhar, City of Rancho Cordova
• Kathy Garcia, City of Rancho Cordova
• Dean Blank, Sacramento County Department of Transportation
• David Norris, Sacramento County Economic Development
• M. Robert White, County of Sacramento Economic Development
• Mark Rayback, Wood Rodgers (Consultant Representative, Development
Community)
• Peter Tobia, Wood Rodgers (Consultant Representative, Development Community)
4.2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
This section describes in detail the alternatives considered for the Mather Interceptor and
LCA5. As stated earlier, the brainstormed alternatives were to meet the following
requirements:

Project
Chapter 4
• The Mather Interceptor alternatives will convey flows from the Aerojet sheds to the
Bradshaw Interceptor. The Mather Interceptor must connect to the existing AJ1
pipeline in Chrysanthy Boulevard.
• The Mather Interceptor alternatives will include a structure at Sunrise Boulevard
and Douglas Road that provides connections for the Aerojet interceptors.
• The Mather Interceptor alternatives must be able to remain in use to serve the
Aerojet sewer sheds as long as the Bradshaw Interceptor has available capacity.
When the Bradshaw Interceptor reaches capacity, SRCSD will divert the flows
originating from the Aerojet sewer sheds to the future Laguna Creek Interceptor.
• The Mather Interceptor alternatives will either include a structure for connection of
the CSD-1 MAE trunk sewer, near the intersection of Douglas Road and Eagles
Nest Road, or will consider how CSD-1 would otherwise convey the MAE trunk
flow to the Bradshaw Interceptor.
• The Mather Interceptor alternatives will allow for the pipeline to be kept in service
after construction of the Laguna Creek Interceptor. The Mather Junction Structure
may be used to divert flows to either the Bradshaw Interceptor or Laguna Creek
Interceptor systems.
• The LCA5 alternatives considered will convey flow from the LCA5 shed to the
Mather Interceptor at Chrysanthy Boulevard.
• The analysis will include an alternative to determine if it would be beneficial to
construct the AJ4 Interceptor as part of Mather Interceptor construction.
The alternatives can be separated into two groups. The first group is intended to serve the
Mather and Aerojet shed areas. This group of 11 alternatives is called the Mather
Interceptor alternatives (Alternatives MI-1 through MI-9, MI-9B, and MI-10). The second
group is intended to serve a portion of the LCA5 shed. This group of four alternatives is
called the LCA5 alternatives (Alternatives LCA5-1 through LCA5-4). An additional
alternative (Alternative AJ4) was included that addresses service to the Mather, Aerojet,
and LCA5 shed areas, and also includes construction of Aerojet Interceptor Section 4
(Alternative AJ4) from Douglas Road to the Mather Pump Station. As stated previously,
this alternative was included to determine whether it would be cost-effective to build the
AJ4 pipeline during construction of the Mather Interceptor and LCA5 facilities (pump
station and force mains), avoiding the need to re-impact the same alignment in the future.
In total, 16 project alternatives were considered. It should be noted that not all 16
alternatives were presented at the PAC Initiation meeting held on October 18, 2006. For
instance, the LCA5 and AJ4 alternatives were not specifically presented. Hydraulic
modeling and understanding of whether there was an actual need for service in LCA5 was
still under development at that time. In addition, a “No Project” alternative was not
considered during the analysis because the need for additional capacity in the project area
was known.

Project
Chapter 4
The descriptions and figures of the alternatives below reflect the project alternatives as
they were known during the brainstorming analysis, and may have changed in later
sections of this report as the design of the alternatives developed.
4.2.1 Alternative MI-1 Zinfandel Drive
This alternative (see Figure 4-1) would begin with a new 42-inch-diameter gravity sewer
picking up flows from the Aerojet-1 Interceptor that currently flow into the Chrysanthy
Pump Station. This 42-inch-diameter open-cut gravity sewer would run north along
Sunrise Boulevard to the Mather Junction Structure at Douglas Road. A 48-inch-diameter
open-cut segment would then run west along Douglas Road to a drop structure on the east
side of the FSC. A 48-inch-diameter gravity tunneled section would cross the FSC, run
west on Douglas Road and north on the future extension of Zinfandel Drive, ending at a
connection to the Bradshaw 7B Interceptor in North Mather Boulevard.
4.2.2 Alternative MI-2 Mather Boulevard
This alternative (see Figure 4-2) is similar to MI-1, except the final segment, north of
Douglas Road, would run along Mather Boulevard instead of Zinfandel Drive. It would
begin with a new 42-inch–diameter gravity sewer picking up flows from Aerojet-1
Interceptor that currently flow into the Chrysanthy Pump Station. This 42-inch-diameter
open-cut gravity sewer would run north along Sunrise Boulevard to the Mather Junction
Structure at Douglas Road. A 48-inch-diameter open-cut segment would then run west
along Douglas Road to a drop structure on the east side of the FSC. A 48-inch-diameter
gravity tunneled section would cross the FSC, run west on Douglas Road and northwest on
Mather Boulevard, ending at a connection to the Bradshaw 7B Interceptor in North Mather
Boulevard.
4.2.3 Alternative MI-3 Golf Course / Zinfandel Drive A
Under this alternative (see Figure 4-3), flows from the Mather Junction Structure at the
Sunrise Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection would be brought south along Sunrise
Boulevard in a 36-inch-diameter open-cut gravity sewer to a new drop/junction structure at
the Sunrise Boulevard/Chrysanthy Boulevard intersection (flows from the Aerojet-1
Interceptor would be collected at this point). From this drop/junction structure, a 54-inch-
diameter tunneled gravity sewer would cross the FSC, run west within an undeveloped
area, run north on Eagles Nest Road, then north along the future extension of Zinfandel
Drive to the Bradshaw 7B Interceptor in North Mather Boulevard.
4.2.4 Alternative MI-4 Golf Course / Zinfandel Drive B
Under this alternative (see Figure 4-4), flows from the Mather Junction Structure at the
Sunrise Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection would run west along Douglas Road in a 36-
inch-diameter open-cut segment to a drop structure on the east side of the FSC. A 36-inch-
diameter gravity tunneled section would cross the FSC, and run west on Douglas Road to a
junction structure at the future extension of Zinfandel Drive.

Project
Chapter 4
A new drop/junction structure would be built at the Sunrise Boulevard/Chrysanthy

Boulevard intersection. From this drop/junction structure, a 36-inch-diameter tunneled
gravity sewer would cross the FSC, run west within an undeveloped area, and north on
Eagles Nest Road to a junction structure at the Douglas Road/Zinfandel Drive intersection.
Finally, a 48-inch-diameter tunneled gravity sewer would run along the future extension of
Zinfandel Drive to a connection to the Bradshaw 7B Interceptor in North Mather
Boulevard.
4.2.5 Alternative MI-5 Golf Course / Mather Boulevard A
This alternative (see Figure 4-5) is similar to Alternative MI-3, except that the final
segment is along Mather Boulevard instead of Zinfandel Drive. Flows from the Mather
Junction Structure at the Sunrise Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection would be brought
south along Sunrise Boulevard in a 36-inch-diameter tunneled gravity sewer to a new
drop/junction structure at the Sunrise Boulevard/Chrysanthy Boulevard intersection. From
this drop/junction structure, a 54-inch-diameter tunneled gravity sewer would cross the
FSC, run west within an undeveloped area, north on Eagles Nest Road, then northwest
along Mather Boulevard to the Bradshaw 7B Interceptor in North Mather Boulevard.
4.2.6 Alternative MI-6 Golf Course / Mather Boulevard B
This alternative (see Figure 4-6) is similar to MI-4, except the final segment is along
Mather Boulevard instead of Zinfandel Drive. Flows from the Mather Junction Structure
at the Sunrise Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection would run west along Douglas Road
in a 36-inch-diameter open-cut segment to a drop structure on the east side of the FSC. A
36-inch-diameter gravity tunneled section would cross the FSC, and run west on Douglas
Road to a junction structure at the intersection of Eagles Nest Road.
A new drop/junction structure would be built at the Sunrise Boulevard/Chrysanthy

Boulevard intersection. From this drop/junction structure, a 36-inch-diameter tunneled
gravity sewer would cross the FSC, run west within an undeveloped area, north on Eagles
Nest Road, and end at the Douglas Road/Zinfandel Drive junction structure.
Finally, a 48-inch-diameter tunneled gravity sewer would run northwest along Mather
Boulevard to a connection to the Bradshaw 7B Interceptor in North Mather Boulevard.
4.2.7 Alternative MI-7 Sunrise Boulevard A
Under this alternative (see Figure 4-7), the gravity sewer would begin at the downstream
end of the Aerojet-1 Interceptor. A 42-inch-diameter open-cut gravity sewer would run
north along Sunrise Boulevard to the Mather Junction Structure at Douglas Road. The
pipeline would transition to a 48-inch-diameter open-cut gravity sewer and run northwest
along Sunrise Boulevard, west along Recycle Road, and connect to a drop structure with a
tunneled crossing of the FSC. Finally, the pipeline would connect to a junction structure to
the Bradshaw 7B Interceptor just west of the FSC.

Project
Chapter 4
4.2.8 Alternative MI-8 Sunrise Boulevard B
This alternative (see Figure 4-8) is similar to Alternative MI-7, except the connection to
Bradshaw 7B occurs slightly farther north on Sunrise Boulevard. The gravity sewer would
begin at the downstream end of the Aerojet-1 Interceptor. A 42-inch-diameter open-cut
gravity sewer would run north along Sunrise Boulevard to the Mather Junction Structure at
Douglas Road. The pipeline would transition to a 48-inch-diameter open-cut gravity sewer
and run northwest along Sunrise Boulevard, then turn west at the future extension of
International Drive, where a drop manhole would be installed and the pipeline would
tunnel under the FSC. Finally, the pipeline would connect to a junction structure to the
Bradshaw 7B Interceptor just west of the FSC.
4.2.9 Alternative MI-9 Canal
Under this alternative (see Figure 4-9), the gravity sewer would begin at the downstream
end of the Aerojet-1 Interceptor. A 42-inch-diameter open-cut gravity sewer would run
north along Sunrise Boulevard to the Mather Junction Structure at Douglas Road, then
west along Douglas Road to a drop structure east of the FSC crossing. From the drop
structure, a 48-inch tunneled gravity sewer would cross the FSC, then turn north parallel to
the FSC and connect to the Bradshaw 7B Interceptor along Baroque Drive.
4.2.10 Alternative MI-9B Canal (East)
This alternative was added as a result of comments received after the PAC Confirmation
meeting on November 15, 2006. This alternative (see Figure 4-10) is similar to
Alternative MI-9, except it runs along the east side of the FSC. The proposed gravity
sewer would begin at the downstream end of the Aerojet-1 Interceptor. A 42-inch-
diameter open-cut gravity sewer would run north along Sunrise Boulevard to Douglas
Road, then west along Douglas Road to the east side of the FSC. A combination of a 42-
inch-diameter tunneled and open-cut gravity sewer would continue northwest along the
canal to a drop structure. A tunneled crossing of the FSC would flow to a junction
structure at the Bradshaw 7B Interceptor along Baroque Drive.
4.2.11 Alternative MI-10 All Force Main
This alternative was added as a result of comments received at the PAC Initiation meeting
on October 18, 2006. This alternative (see Figure 4-11) would include two pump stations.
The first would be a 15 mgd AJ1 Pump Station that would replace the interim Chrysanthy
Pump Station and include dual 21-inch-diameter open-cut force mains running west on
Chrysanthy Boulevard and north on Sunrise Boulevard to the new 23 mgd AJ2 Pump
Station at Douglas Road.
From the AJ2 Pump Station, dual 27-inch-diameter open-cut force mains would run west
along Douglas Road with a tunneled crossing of the FSC to the future extension of
Zinfandel Drive, then northwest along Zinfandel Drive to a connection to the Bradshaw 7B
Interceptor in North Mather Boulevard. The dual 21-inch force mains from AJ1 would
parallel the AJ2 force mains along this route to Bradshaw 7B.

Project
Chapter 4
4.2.12 Alternative LCA5-1 Sunrise Boulevard Extension
Note that the next four alternatives provide facilities to convey flows from areas south of
the Chrysanthy Pump Station, in the Laguna Creek Interceptor sewer shed, to the various
Mather Interceptor alternatives discussed above. All LCA5 alternatives would initially
include a 20 mgd pump station at the Sunrise Boulevard/Jackson Highway intersection.
The final design flows of the pump station would be determined by hydraulic modeling
results, which are discussed in later chapters. This pump station will be referred to as the
Mather Pump Station.
Alternative LCA5-1 would begin at the Mather Pump Station (see Figure 4-12). Dual 24-
inch-diameter open-cut force mains would run north along Sunrise Boulevard to the
transition structure at Chrysanthy Boulevard. The transition structure would convert
pressurized flow and connect to gravity sewers. This alternative could connect to
Alternatives MI-1 through MI-9B.
4.2.13 Alternative LCA5-2 Jaeger Road
Under this alternative (see Figure 4-13), flow from the pump station would run in dual 24-
inch-diameter open-cut force mains north on Sunrise Boulevard, east on Kiefer Boulevard,
north on Jaeger Road, and west on Chrysanthy Boulevard to a transition structure. This
alternative could connect to Alternatives MI-1 through MI-9B.
4.2.14 Alternative LCA5-3 Eagles Nest A
Under this alternative (see Figure 4-14), flow from the pump station would run in dual 24-
inch-diameter open-cut force mains west along the Jackson Highway and north on Eagles
Nest Road to a junction structure just south of the Mather Golf Course. This alternative
would connect to Alternatives MI-3 through MI-6.
4.2.15 Alternative LCA5-4 Eagles Nest B
This alternative (see Figure 4-15) is similar to Alternative LCA5-3, except that it extends
to the Chrysanthy Junction Structure. From the pump station, dual 24-inch-diameter open-
cut force mains would run west along Jackson Highway (with a tunneled crossing of the
FSC), north on Eagles Nest Road to just south of the Mather Golf Course, and east to the
Chrysanthy Junction Structure (with a tunneled crossing of the FSC). This alternative
would connect to all of the alternatives except MI-3 through MI-6.
4.2.16 Alternative Aerojet 4
This alternative (see Figure 4-16) differs from the other alternatives in that it includes
facilities to provide service to the Mather, Aerojet, and LCA5 sheds and includes the
construction of AJ4. As stated above, AJ4 would convey flow from the Mather Junction
Structure (Aerojet sheds) to the Laguna Creek Interceptor and would be located along
Sunrise Boulevard. This alternative was considered to determine if it would be beneficial
to construct AJ4 as part of the Mather Interceptor and LCA5 construction. This alternative
would avoid the future re-impact of the same alignment along Sunrise Boulevard, and also

Project
Chapter 4
would avoid associated increased public impacts of working along/in this arterial road after
much of the development in the area has occurred. For the purposes of this analysis, it was
assumed that if AJ4 were to be constructed, it would not be operated until completion of
the Laguna Creek Interceptor.
This alternative includes three distinct components:

• Mather Interceptor Component – Identical to Alternative MI-1, includes a 54-inch-
diameter tunneled gravity sewer that would run north along Sunrise Boulevard,
west along Douglas Road (crossing the FSC), and north along the future extension
of Zinfandel Road to a junction structure at the Bradshaw 7B Interceptor along
North Mather Boulevard.
• LCA5 Component – Identical to Alternative LCA5-1, includes a 20 mgd Mather
Pump Station and dual 24-inch-diameter open-cut force mains that would run north
along Sunrise Boulevard (parallel to the AJ4 gravity sewer) to a transition structure
at Chrysanthy Boulevard.
• AJ4 Component – Includes a 72-inch-diameter tunneled gravity sewer extending
south on Sunrise Boulevard to the new Mather Pump Station near the intersection
of Jackson Highway and Sunrise Boulevard.
• It should be noted that the AJ4 Alternative was slightly modified after the
November, 2006 PAC Confirmation Meeting. The modification is reflected in the
following chapter.

Project
Chapter 4
Figure 4-1 Alternative MI-1 Layout

Project
Chapter 4

Project
Chapter 4

Project
Chapter 4

Project
Chapter 4

Project
Chapter 4

Project
Chapter 4

Project
Chapter 4

Project
Chapter 4

Project
Chapter 4
Figure 4-10 Alternative MI-9B Layout

Project
Chapter 4

Project
Chapter 4
Figure 4-12 Alternative LCA5-1 Layout

Project
Chapter 4

Project
Chapter 4

Project
Chapter 4

Project
Chapter 4
Figure 4-16 Alternative Aerojet 4 Layout

Project
Chapter 4

Project
Chapter 5
Analysis of Alternatives
CHAPTER 5.0 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

This chapter provides analysis of the alternatives described in the previous chapter,
including alternatives found to be fatally flawed and alternatives retained for a screening
analysis.
5.1 OVERALL ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
The analysis procedure consisted of three steps, each described in following sections:
• Fatal Flaw Analysis. The alternatives listed in the previous chapter were
compared against fatal flaw criteria established by the project team. The
alternatives were considered fatally flawed if they conflicted with the problem
statement or if they met any of the fatal flaw criteria. These alternatives were
removed from further consideration and the remaining alternatives were retained
for screening analysis.
• Screening Analysis. Alternatives retained from the fatal flaw analysis were
developed in further detail and compared against screening criteria established by
the project team. Alternatives were screened based on direct and indirect costs and
impacts, with alternatives removed from further consideration that had high costs
and/or high impacts or significant issues related to engineering or O&M.
Alternatives retained from the screening analysis were carried forward to a BCE.
• Business Case Evaluation. Alternatives retained from the screening analysis were
developed in further detail for a BCE to choose a preferred project. The BCE
procedure included preparing a preliminary design and construction approach.
Further detail was developed for hydraulic considerations, O&M considerations,
and financial costs and benefits to estimate a total cost to the community.
5.2 FATAL FLAW ANALYSIS
The fatal flaw analysis was performed on alternatives identified in the brainstorming
sessions, using the fatal flaw criteria shown in Table 5-1. Only one alternative was
eliminated, Alternative MI-9, because of schedule concerns. Alternative MI-9 is located
along the west side of the FSC, and would require ROW purchase from the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), (owner of the TRACON facility) and USBR, (owner of
the FSC). These two acquisitions would likely take a considerable length of time, if they
were allowed at all, thus potentially delaying project completion beyond 2010. For this
reason, Alternative MI-9 was eliminated.

Project
Chapter 5
Table 5-1 Fatal Flaw Criteria

Category Description Examples
1. CSD-1: No surcharge • Disrupt function of existing
during 10-year storm interceptor or pump station
PWWF.
Level of Service - Sewer
2. SRCSD: Ability to serve
service area without
surcharge.
• Environmental permitting
• Right-of-way
Schedule delay to project • Construction methods (e.g.,
completion beyond 2010 utility conflicts)
Schedule Impacts
deadline that cannot be • Concurrent construction –
mitigated. planned roadwork or
development during planned
construction season
• Gravity sewer pipe in conflict
The proposed construction with existing utility or other
Constructability method cannot be executed obstacle that cannot be
in the route location. relocated (canals, culverts,
existing utilities)
Key:
CSD-1 = County Sanitation District 1
PWWF = peak wet weather flow
SRCSD = Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District
5.3 SCREENING ANALYSIS
Alternatives retained from the fatal flaw analysis were subjected to a screening analysis.
This section summarizes the screening analysis performed for the Mather Interceptor,
including screening analysis criteria, application, and conclusions.
5.3.1 Screening Analysis Criteria
Table 5-2 (following screening analysis information) lists the screening criteria used to
evaluate the alternatives. They are presented below and summarized in the table.
5.3.1.1 Capital Cost

The capital cost for each alternative was estimated using the following eight subcategories:
• Engineering Costs. The first four Engineering Costs (design at 8.5 percent of
construction, construction management at 8.0 percent, project management at 16
percent, and SRCSD costs at 8.7 percent) were estimated based on costs from
SRCSD’s recently completed Lower Northwest Interceptor Program. One
component of the project management costs is the cost associated with utility and
environmental permitting. These permitting costs were estimated as approximately
0.3 percent of the probable construction costs based on budgets from the Lower
Northwest Interceptor Program and other recent projects. However, the cost of
environmental permitting was then multiplied by 1, 1.25, or 1.5, depending on the
environmental permitting difficulty rating assigned to the alternative. The ratings

Project
Chapter 5
were based on an evaluation by the SIAMI program management team’s

environmental consultant Environmental Science Associates (ESA) regarding the
difficulty of obtaining permits for each alternative route.
• Environmental Mitigation. Environmental mitigation costs were estimated based
on the approximate acreage of impacted vernal pools, wetlands, and giant garter
snake (GGS) habitat. This assessment considered an approximate 500-foot swath
of land as the impact area, and all features (e.g., stream channels, wetlands, vernal
pools, ditches) within this area were considered impacted. The total cost was then
estimated as equal to the total number of acres multiplied by the cost of mitigation
per acre, based on recent, local projects, including the Lower Northwest Interceptor
Program. The estimated mitigation costs for vernal pool, channel/wetland, and
GGS habitat were $270,000/acre, $100,000/acre, and $100,000/acre, respectively.
• Right-of-Way Acquisition. The capital cost of ROW acquisition was estimated
based on unit costs for five different categories of land: vacant/United States,
developing, residential, commercial, and manufacturing industry. ROW costs for
permanent ROW (PROW) for vacant/United States, developing, residential,
commercial, and manufacturing industry land were estimated at $3/square foot,
$10/square foot, $25/square foot, $22/square foot, and $9/square foot, respectively.
ROW costs for temporary construction easements (TCE) were estimated as 20
percent of the PROW costs for each of the respective land categories.
• Construction. The probable construction cost was estimated using unit costs
multiplied by the number of units per alternative and their length, where applicable.
The construction unit costs were based on recent Sacramento construction,
including the Lower Northwest Interceptor Program.
5.3.1.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs

O&M costs were separated into labor, power, material, and chemical costs. The labor cost
of inspection for gravity interceptors was estimated as the interceptor length multiplied by
a unit cost of $30/foot. Site maintenance was estimated as $20,000, based on the estimated
labor hours multiplied by the labor cost of $100 per hour. The cost for pigging the force
mains was estimated at $100,000 every 20 years. The power cost was estimated by
multiplying an assumed unit cost of $0.10 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) by the estimated pump
run time.
The O&M cost estimate for chemicals was based on the assumption that the sulfide
concentration in wastewater is 0.2 milligrams per liter (mg/L) and that it takes 10 pounds
of chlorine to remove 1 pound of sulfide. Therefore, 0.606 pounds of chlorine would be
needed per gallon of wastewater, which is equivalent to $0.50 per gallon. Based on the
estimated average flow rate of the pump station, the cost of chlorine (chemical cost) per
year was estimated as the cost per day multiplied by 365 days.
The O&M materials cost included replacing air release valves every 10 years ($10,000),
overhauling pumps every 20 years ($125,000), replacing pumps every 40 years ($500,000),

Project
Chapter 5
performing routine odor control unit maintenance (including carbon cartridges) every 10
years, and replacing variable speed drives every 20 years ($500,000) at the same time as
pump overhaul. Power costs were estimated based on projected operating time for the
pump station and associated horsepower for the pump.
5.3.1.3 Temporary Public Impacts

The alternatives were assessed for indirect impacts as well as direct costs. Indirect impacts
were evaluated in the screening analysis by rating each alternative on a scale from 1 to 5.
Alternatives that were rated 1 or 2 were considered to have low impacts, a rating of 3 was
considered moderate, and ratings of 4 and 5 were considered to have high impacts.
Indirect impacts were separated into two categories: temporary and permanent public
impacts. Temporary public impacts would be associated with traffic, noise, dust, and
vibration caused by construction activities. The temporary impacts of dust, noise, and
vibration were rated by determining the number of residential houses, businesses, and
other sensitive receptors within 500 feet of the centerline of the alternative segments or
within the 1,000-foot buffer zone along the segments of each of the proposed project
alternatives. The rating assigned to each alternative was normalized to allow comparison
of each alternative.
The temporary traffic impacts were assessed using traffic count surveys conducted by
Y&C Consulting in conjunction with information from city and county traffic growth
estimates. Y&C counted traffic along a number of major roadways and predicted the hours
of delay associated with traffic along these corridors at the time of construction (2009).
5.3.1.4 Permanent Public Impacts

Permanent public impacts were quantified by first assigning a weighting factor to the type
of structure that would be constructed (e.g., pump station, drop structure, transition
structure). The pump station was given a weighting factor of 3, while the drop and
transition structures were given a weighting factor of 1, because pump stations typically
have more associated visual, noise, and odor impacts, as documented in previous projects.
The next step involved public outreach (PO) specialists driving the alignments of the
different alternatives and stopping at locations where the proposed structures would be
built. Based on the locations where these structures would be built, a PO ranking was
given to indicate the permanent impact that would be associated with the structure. The
weighting factor for each structure was then multiplied by the PO ranking and normalized
for each alternative to assign ratings.
5.3.2 Application of Screening Analysis
Using these screening criteria, the SIAMI program management team divided the
alternatives into segments, in an effort to minimize duplicated assessments. Each segment
was analyzed separately, and the segment and structure costs and ratings were then added
to create totals for each alternative. The screening analysis results for the ten Mather
Interceptor alternatives, LCA5 alternatives and AJ4 are summarized in Table 5-3
(following screening analysis information).

Project
Chapter 5
5.3.2.1 Alternative MI-1 Zinfandel Drive
5.3.2.1.1 Construction and Engineering Costs

It was estimated that the MI-1 alignment was deep enough to require tunneling for pipe
installation from the FSC crossing to the Bradshaw Interceptor (8,200 feet). The
remaining alignment was assumed to be open cut (6,700 feet) with some additional cost for
work in or near Sunrise Boulevard. The length of pipe required under this alternative was
the least of all alternatives, but the length of tunneling required made this alternative
moderately expensive compared to the other alternatives. Total estimated construction cost
is $25,202,000.
The engineering costs were estimated using percentages of the construction cost. The
estimated engineering cost is $10,383,000 for MI-1.
5.3.2.1.2 Environmental Mitigation Cost

Most of the MI-1 alignment follows existing ROW, except the future Zinfandel Drive
extension. It is anticipated that the sewer would be constructed before the road is built;
therefore, SRCSD would be responsible for mitigation of wetlands and vernal pools in this
area. The estimated cost is $902,000.
5.3.2.1.3 Right-of-Way Acquisition Cost

The MI-1 alignment would be mostly in existing ROW, but permanent and temporary
ROW would be required along Douglas Road and Sunrise Boulevard. The total ROW
acquisition cost for this alternative is estimated to be $2,540,000.
5.3.2.1.4 Operation and Maintenance Cost

Operation costs for the gravity interceptor would be primarily for routine internal
inspections. O&M costs for a gravity sewer are minimal.
5.3.2.1.5 Indirect Impacts

Traffic impacts for MI-1 were rated 1 out of 5. The alignment would follow the unused
portion of Zinfandel Drive and then follows the planned alignment of the road extension
prior to its construction. The alignment would also be in the north side of Douglas Road.
The Douglas Road ROW is 80 feet to 100 feet wide and the traveled way is along the south
side of the ROW, and is only two lanes and about 25 feet wide. Keeping the alignment in
the north side would avoid closing any traffic lanes. It is also expected that construction of
the sewer along Sunrise would avoid closing traffic lanes. However, the Zinfandel Drive
extension and the widening of Douglas Road construction are currently planned for 2009
and 2010, when construction of the Mather Interceptor is planned. The possibility of both
contractors working in the same areas at the same time must be avoided.
Temporary noise, dust and vibration impacts to the public were rated 1out of 5. The
alignment of MI-1 avoids any existing establishments except TRACON, an auto salvage
business on Douglas Road, and several houses along Sunrise Boulevard.

Project
Chapter 5
Permanent public impacts were rated 2 out of 5 and include junction structures at the North
Mather Boulevard/Zinfandel Drive intersection and the Sunrise Boulevard/Douglas Road
intersection.
5.3.2.2 Alternative MI-2 Mather Boulevard

Tunneling was also assumed for the MI-2 alignment from the FSC crossing to the junction
with the Bradshaw Interceptor. But the additional distance following Mather Boulevard
compared to Zinfandel Drive would result in a longer total alignment and longer tunneling
distance than MI-1 (10,550 feet). The rest of the alignment was assumed to be open cut
(6,700 feet) with some additional cost for work in or near Sunrise Boulevard. The length
of pipe required under MI-2 would be 2,350 feet longer than for MI-1 and the overall cost
would also be higher. Total estimated construction cost is $31,473,000.

Most of the MI-2 alignment would follow existing ROW, and the Mather Boulevard route
impacts fewer wetlands than the planned Zinfandel Drive extension and the MI-1
alternative. The estimated cost of environmental mitigation is $710,000.

The MI-2 alignment would be mostly in existing ROW, but permanent and temporary
ROW would be required along Mather Boulevard., Douglas Road, and Sunrise Boulevard.
Because of the additional length of the alignment, the MI-2 cost for ROW acquisition
would be higher than for MI-1. The total ROW acquisition cost for this alternative is
estimated to be $3,806,000.

inspections. O&M costs for a gravity sewer are minimal. An issue that could affect the
O&M of the interceptor under the MI-2 alternative is the future status of Mather
Boulevard. Mather Airport staff have said they would close Mather Boulevard to the
public and include it in the security zone due to security concerns. This potential closure
raises potential access issues for routine O&M and during emergencies.

Traffic impacts for MI-2 were rated 2 out of 5. The work along Mather Boulevard would
require occasional road closures and one-way traffic. Like MI-1, the MI-2 alignment
would also be in the north side of Douglas Road and construction should not impact traffic
in Douglas due to the wide ROW available. However, the widening of Douglas Road
construction is currently planned for 2009 and 2010, when construction of the Mather
Interceptor is planned. The possibility of both contractors working in the same areas at the
same time must be avoided.

Project
Chapter 5
Temporary noise, dust and vibration impacts to the public were rated 3 out of 5. The
alignment of MI-2 would pass no additional structures compared to MI-1 and therefore
would have similar temporary impacts.
Permanent public impacts were rated 2 out of 5 and include junction structures at Mather
Boulevard and the Sunrise Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection.
5.3.2.3 Alternative MI-3 Golf Course / Zinfandel Drive A

The MI-3 alignment is one of the longest alignments of all the alternatives (21,350 feet)
and all of it is assumed to be tunneled. This would result in one of the highest estimated
construction costs. Total estimated construction cost is $47,759,000.

Significant portions of the MI-3 alignment would follow cross-county routes and impact
significant wetland features. The cross-country portions would include the segment
between Sunrise Boulevard and Eagles Nest Road and along the planned Zinfandel Drive
extension. The estimated cost of environmental mitigation is $723,000.

The MI-3 alignment would require permanent easements for the segment between Sunrise
Boulevard and Eagles Nest Road. It would also require significant temporary easements
along Eagles Nest Road. This would result in one of the highest ROW acquisition costs of
all the alternatives. The total ROW acquisition cost for this alternative is estimated to be
$7,241,000.


Traffic impacts for MI-3 were rated 1 out of 5. About one half of the alignment is in cross-
country areas and the work along Sunrise Boulevard should not affect traffic. The work
along Eagles Nest Road would not significantly affect traffic. Like MI-1, the MI-3
alignment must be constructed prior to the extension of Zinfandel Drive. If the sewer
construction work takes place after the road extension, there could be additional impacts to
traffic.
Temporary noise, dust and vibration impacts to the public were rated of 3 out of 5. The
potential for increased temporary impacts along this alignment is due to the adjacency of
the alignment to the Mather Golf Course.

Project
Chapter 5
intersection.
5.3.2.4 Alternative MI-4 Golf Course / Zinfandel Drive B

MI-4 would include one of the longest lengths of pipe (22,400 feet) of all the alternatives
and most of it (19,700 feet) is assumed to be tunneled. Even though the total footage of
MI-4 is longer than MI-3, its construction cost would be less because of less tunneled
footage. Total estimated construction cost is $39,106,000.


along Eagles Nest Road. This would result in one of the highest ROW acquisition costs of
all the alternatives. The total ROW acquisition cost for this alternative is estimated to be
$5,732,000.


Traffic impacts for MI-4 were rated 1 out of 5. About one half of the alignment would be
in cross-country areas and the work along Douglas Road should not affect traffic. The
work along Eagles Nest Road would not significantly affect traffic. Like MI-1, the MI-4
alignment must be constructed prior to the extension of Zinfandel Drive. If the sewer
construction work takes place after the road extension, there could be additional impacts to
traffic.
Temporary noise, dust and vibration impacts to the public were rated 1 out of 5. This
alignment would have a lower affect on Sunrise Boulevard, but passes by the Mather Golf
Course.
Mather Boulevard/Zinfandel Drive intersection, the Douglas Road/Eagles Nest Road

Project
Chapter 5
intersection, and the Sunrise Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection. This alternative would
require two crossings of the FSC.
5.3.2.5 Alternative MI-5 Golf Course / Mather Boulevard A

MI-5 is basically the same alternative as MI-3 except that it would follow Mather
Boulevard which would result in a total alignment slightly longer than MI-3 (23,700 feet).
Of the total, 23,200 feet are assumed to be tunneled. MI-5 has one of the longest overall
alignments of all the alternatives except MI-6. However, it would have the highest total
construction cost because of the extensive tunneling required. Total estimated construction
cost is $53,963,000.


along Eagles Nest Road and Mather Boulevard. This would result in the highest ROW
acquisition costs of all the alternatives. The total ROW acquisition cost for this alternative
is estimated to be $8,508,000.

inspections. O&M costs for a gravity sewer are minimal. This alternative would have the
same issue as MI-2 regarding future access for maintenance when Mather Boulevard is
closed to the public.

Traffic impacts for MI-5 were rated 2 out of 5. About one half of the alignment is in cross-
country areas, and the work along Douglas Road should not affect traffic. The work along
Eagles Nest Road would not significantly affect traffic. Most of the impact to traffic
would be along Mather Boulevard, where road closures would be required.
alignment of MI-5 would pass houses along Sunrise Boulevard and the Mather Golf
Course.

Project
Chapter 5
Boulevard and the Sunrise Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection.
5.3.2.6 Alternative MI-6 Golf Course / Mather Boulevard B

MI-6 is basically the same alternative as MI-4 except it would follow Mather Boulevard
which would result in a total alignment slightly longer than MI-4 (24,750 feet). Of the
total, 22,050 feet are assumed to be tunneled. Even though this alternative would have the
longest overall alignment, it would have a slightly lower total construction cost than MI-5
because less of the alignment would be tunneled. Total estimated construction cost is
$49,750,000.

significant wetland features. The cross-country portions include the segment between
Sunrise Boulevard and Eagles Nest Road. The estimated cost of environmental mitigation
is $764,000.

Boulevard. and Eagles Nest Road. It would also require significant temporary easements
along Eagles Nest Road and Mather Boulevard. The total ROW acquisition cost for this
alternative is estimated to be $6,998,000.

inspections. O&M costs for a gravity sewer would be minimal. This alternative would
have the same issue as MI-2 regarding future access for maintenance when Mather
Boulevard is closed to the public.

Traffic impacts for MI-6 were rated 2 out of 5. About one half of the alignment would be
in cross-country areas and the work along Douglas Road should not affect traffic. The
work along Eagles Nest Road would not significantly affect traffic. Most of the impact to
traffic would be along Mather Boulevard, where road closures would be required.
Temporary noise, dust and vibration impacts to the public were rated 1 out of 5. There is
potential for increased temporary impacts due to the adjacency of the alignment to the
Mather Golf Course.
Boulevard, the Douglas Road/Eagles Nest Road intersection, and the Sunrise

Project
Chapter 5
Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection. This alternative would require two crossings of the
FSC.
5.3.2.7 Alternative MI-7 Sunrise Boulevard A

MI-7 would have the shortest alignment (13,500 feet) and only 900 feet would be tunneled
since it would not cross the FSC until the end of the alignment. This would result in the
lowest estimated construction cost of all the alternatives. Total estimated construction cost
is $19,761,000.

MI-7 would be a relatively short alignment and most of it would be in the public ROW;
therefore, the impact to wetlands and other environmental features would be relatively low
compared to the other alternatives. The estimated cost of environmental mitigation is
$472,000.

Even though the MI-7 alignment would be relatively short, 5,400 feet would require
permanent and temporary easements on privately owned, developable property along
Sunrise Boulevard, north of Douglas Road. The total ROW acquisition cost for this
alternative is estimated to be $6,448,000.


Traffic impacts for MI-7 were rated 4 out of 5. About 2,200 feet of the MI-7 alignment
would be in the shoulder of Sunrise Boulevard, which is a very heavily traveled street
north of Douglas Road. This would require a lane closure, which would cause significant
traffic delays.
alignment would pass in front of a number of businesses along Sunrise Boulevard. The
potential for loss of business claims is very high with this alternative. The potential cost of
these impacts is difficult to assess because cost is determined by the nature of a business,
and the quality of financial records used to determine loss.
Permanent public impacts were rated 2 out of 5 and include junction structures in the
Bradshaw Interceptor easement behind homes on Baroque Drive and the Sunrise
Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection.

Project
Chapter 5
5.3.2.8 Alternative MI-8 Sunrise Boulevard B

MI-8 would follow the same alignment as MI-7 except that it would cross the FSC about
1,500 feet north of the MI-7 crossing. However, MI-8 would have a shorter tunnel than
MI-7; therefore, its total construction cost would be only slightly higher. Total estimated
construction cost is $21,529,000.

MI-8 would be a relatively short alignment and most of it would be in the public ROW;
therefore, the impact to wetlands and other environmental features would be relatively low
compared to the other alternatives. MI-8 would have the same environmental impacts as
MI-7; the estimated cost of environmental mitigation is $472,000.

Even though the MI-8 alignment would be relatively short, 5,400 feet would require
permanent and temporary easements on privately owned, developable property along
Sunrise Boulevard, north of Douglas Road. MI-8 would be longer than MI-7, but the
additional length would be in the Sunrise Boulevard ROW; therefore, the ROW acquisition
costs would be virtually identical. The total ROW acquisition cost for this alternative is


Traffic impacts for MI-8 were rated 5 out of 5. About 3,700 feet of the MI-8 alignment
would be in the shoulder of Sunrise Boulevard, which is a very heavily traveled street
north of Douglas Road. This would require a lane closure, which would cause significant
traffic delays. The length of the sewer construction in Sunrise Boulevard would be longer
than MI-7; therefore, the impact to traffic is higher.
Temporary noise, dust and vibration impacts to the public were rated of 4 out of 5. The
alignment would pass in front of a number of businesses along Sunrise Boulevard. The
potential for loss of business claims is very high with this alternative. The potential cost of
these impacts is difficult to assess because cost is determined by the nature of a business,
and the quality of financial records used to determine loss.
Bradshaw Interceptor easement behind homes in the Villages at Zinfandel and at the
Sunrise Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection.

Project
Chapter 5
5.3.2.9 Alternative MI-9B Canal (East)

MI-9B crosses the FSC at the same location as MI-7. However, it follows Douglas Road
before turning northwest and following the canal to the crossing and as a result, it is
slightly longer than MI-7. Total estimated construction cost for MI-9B is $24,563,000.
estimated engineering cost is $10,120,000 for MI-9B.

The MI-9B alignment follows undeveloped land along the canal and would impact a
significant amount of wetlands. The environmental cost of MI-9B is estimated to be
$1,912,000, which is twice the estimated environmental mitigation cost of MI-4.
Alternative MI-4 has the second highest mitigation cost.

Because MI-9B follows the FSC land, it requires less right of way acquisition than most of
the other alternatives. The total ROW acquisition cost for this alternative is estimated to
be $3,901,000.


Traffic impacts for MI-9B were rated 2 out of 5. This alignment impacts traffic in Sunrise
Blvd. south of Douglas Road, but avoids construction in traveled ways along Douglas
Road and is completely out of traveled ways where it parallels the FSC.
alignment would pass along the rear of a number of businesses between the FSC and
Sunrise Boulevard. It also passes by the future shopping plaza at the Sunrise
Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection. There is a potential for loss of business claims with
this alternative. The potential cost of these impacts is difficult to assess because cost is
determined by the nature of a business, and the quality of financial records used to
determine loss.
Bradshaw Interceptor easement behind homes in the Villages at Zinfandel and at the
Sunrise Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection.

Project
Chapter 5
5.3.2.10 Alternative MI-10 All Force Main

MI-10 would include two pump stations and twin force mains for each pump station. The
four force mains would include long lengths of pipe, but the pipe diameters would be
smaller than the gravity pipes under the previous alternatives. Also, force mains can
follow the “lay of the land,” resulting in less deep sewers and less tunneling. The total
estimated construction cost is $43,061,000.

Most of the force mains could be constructed in existing ROW except the segment along
the extension of Zinfandel Drive. The estimated cost of environmental mitigation is
$1,102,000.

The force mains for MI-10 would follow the same routes as for MI-1, but MI-10 must
include the cost of fee title for the pump station sites and temporary contractor staging
areas. Both pump station sites would be on developable property. The total ROW
acquisition cost for this alternative is estimated to be $6,165,000.

Operation costs for the pump stations and force mains would include power to run the
pumps as well as costs for odor control chemicals, force main air release valve
maintenance, and general site upkeep. The costs would be related to pumping rates, length
of force main, and elevation difference at the outlet. The NPV of the annual O&M costs is
estimated to be $3,327,000 over the life of the pump stations.

Traffic impacts for MI-10 were rated 4 out of 5.
alignment of MI-10 would avoid any existing establishments except TRACON, an auto
salvage business on Douglas Road, and several houses along Sunrise Boulevard.
intersection.

Project
Chapter 5
5.3.2.11 Alternative LCA5-1 Sunrise Boulevard Extension

LCA5-1 would include the pump station and 15,500 feet of dual 24-inch-diameter force
main. This alternative would have the shortest force main of the LCA5 alternatives and, as
a result, would have the lowest construction cost. The total estimated construction cost is
$23,089,000.
estimated engineering cost is $9,513,000 for LCA5-1.

Environmental mitigation costs for LCA5-1 would be relatively high because of impacts to
wetlands along the force main route and the pump station site. The estimated cost of
environmental mitigation is $3,093,000.

The LCA5-1 force mains could be constructed in the Sunrise Boulevard ROW, but ROW
acquisition costs would include the pump station site and temporary easement costs. The
total ROW acquisition cost for this alternative is estimated to be $4,834,000.

Operation costs for the pump station and force main would include power to run the pumps
as well as costs for odor control chemicals, force main air release valve maintenance, and
general site upkeep. Since all alternatives assume the same pumping rates, the difference
in cost would be related to the length of the force main and elevation difference at the
outlet. The NPV of the annual O&M costs for LCA5-1 over the life of the pump station is

Traffic impacts for LCA5-1 were rated 4 out of 5. The entire force main alignment would
be in the shoulder of Sunrise Boulevard. In addition, the alignment must cross the
intersection with Kiefer Boulevard by open-cut construction which would require lane
closures.
alignment would pass a number of homes along Sunrise Boulevard.
Permanent public impacts were rated 3 out of 5 and include pump station visual impacts as
well as potential for noise and odors.

Project
Chapter 5
5.3.2.12 Alternative LCA5-2 Jaeger Road

main. This alternative would have the longest force main of the LCA5 alternatives and, as
a result, would have the highest construction cost. The total estimated construction cost is
$30,957,000.

Environmental mitigation costs for LCA5-2 would be relatively high because of impacts to
wetlands along the force main route and the pump station site. The estimated cost of

The LCA5-2 force mains would be constructed along Sunrise Boulevard, Kiefer Boulevard
and Jaeger Road. The cost of the easements along this route reflects the longer force main
length. The LCA5-2 ROW acquisition cost would be one of the highest of the LCA5
alternatives. The total ROW acquisition cost for this alternative is estimated to be
$6,292,000.


Traffic impacts for LCA5-2 were rated 3 out of 5. LCA5-2 would include less
construction in Sunrise Boulevard; this is reflected in lower traffic impacts than for LCA5-
1. This alternative also calls for open cut crossing of the Kiefer Boulevard intersection,
which would require lane closures.
alignment would pass through areas that would have newly constructed homes along
Jaeger Road.

Project
Chapter 5
5.3.2.13 Alternative LCA5-3 Eagles Nest A

main. This alternative would have a shorter force main than LCA5-2, but would be longer
than LCA5-1; the construction cost reflects the difference in force mains. The total
estimated construction cost is $24,993,000.

Environmental mitigation costs for LCA5-3 would be relatively high due to impacts to
wetlands along the force main route and the pump station site, but not as high as for
LCA5-1 and LCA5-2. There are significant wetlands and vernal pools along Eagles Nest
Road, but it appears they could be avoided to some degree. The estimated cost of

The LCA5-3 force mains would be constructed along Jackson Road and Eagles Nest Road.
The total ROW acquisition cost for this alternative is estimated to be $3,167,000.


Traffic impacts for LCA5-3 were rated 2 out of 5. It is expected that construction could
avoid the traveled way along Jackson Road, and there is very little traffic on Eagles Nest
Road.
alignment would pass very few structures.

Project
Chapter 5
5.3.2.14 Alternative LCA5-4 Eagles Nest B

main. This alternative would be almost as long as LCA5-2, and the construction cost
would be almost identical. The total estimated construction cost is $30,378,000.

Environmental mitigation costs for LCA5-4 would be similar to LCA5-3, since the routes
are similar, but LCA5-4 would be longer. The estimated cost of environmental mitigation
is $1,502,000.

The ROW acquisition cost for LCA5-4 would be relatively high because of the need to
obtain permanent easements between Eagles Nest Road and Sunrise Boulevard. The total
ROW acquisition cost for this alternative is estimated to be $6,947,000.


Traffic impacts for LCA5-4 were rated 2 out of 5. It is expected that the construction
could avoid the traveled way along Jackson Road, and there is very little traffic on Eagles
Nest Road.
alignment would pass very few structures.
5.3.2.15 Alternative AJ4 Aerojet 4

AJ4 would include a gravity sewer similar to MI-1, a pump station and force main similar
to LCA5-1, and construction of AJ4, which is a 72-inch-diameter gravity sewer from the

Project
Chapter 5
Mather Junction Structure on Douglas Road to Jackson Road. The total estimated
construction cost is $63,784,000.
estimated engineering cost is $26,297,000 for AJ4.

The environmental mitigation cost for AJ4 is high because of the length of the project.
The estimated cost of environmental mitigation is $3,995,000.

Although most of the alignment would follow existing or future ROW, temporary
easements and a pump station site would be needed. The total ROW acquisition cost for
this alternative is estimated to be $7,374,000.

Operation costs for the pump station would be very similar to LCA5-1. The NPV of the
annual O&M costs for AJ4 over the life of the pump station are estimated to be
$2,081,000.

Traffic impacts for AJ4 were rated 4 out of 5. AJ4 would impact the entire length of
Sunrise Boulevard from Jackson Road to Douglas Road.
Temporary noise, dust, vibration impacts to the public were rated 3 out of 5 and would
likely include noise, dust, and potential vibration from heavy construction equipment. The
alignment would pass in front of a number of homes along Sunrise Boulevard.
Permanent public impacts were rated 3 out of 5 and include visual, noise, and potential
odor impacts from the pump station as well as junction structures at the North Mather
Boulevard/Zinfandel Drive intersection and the Sunrise Boulevard/Douglas Road
intersection. Impacts would include a transition structure on Sunrise Boulevard.

Project
Chapter 5
Table 5-2 Screening Criteria
Category Description/Value Calculation
Engineering cost includes:

• Final Design
Engineering • Program Management
• Construction Management
• SRCSD Oversight
Environmental mitigation costs include
impacts to:
• Channel/wetlands
• Vernal pools
Environmental • Giant garter snakes (GGS)
• Valley elderberry longhorn
Direct Costs
beetle (VELB)
• Trees
Capital Cost • Other species
Cost to acquire easements based on
Right-of-Way Lower Northwest Interceptor Program
(LNWI) unit costs
Cost to construct proposed facilities,
Construction based on unit cost factors, not facility
layouts
Operation and maintenance (O&M)

cost includes:
• Labor
O&M Cost
• Power
• Materials
• Chemicals
Temporary public impacts due to traffic
Traffic delays were assigned a rating of 1 to
Temporary 5.
Public
Indirect Impacts
Temporary public impact due to

Impacts construction related noise, dust, and
Noise, Dust, and Vibration
vibration were assigned a rating of 1 to
5.
Permanent public impacts (potential
visual, noise, and odor) from the pump
Permanent
station and other structures (e.g.,
Public Visual, Noise, and Odor
junction structures, transition
Impacts
structures) were assigned a rating or 1
to 5.

Project
Chapter 5
Table 5-3 Screening Analysis Results
Direct Costs Indirect Impacts
Temporary Permanent
Capital Costs (Estimates in 2006 $, not NPV) Public Public
Impacts Impacts
Total Direct Cost (NPV) [f]

Probable Cost of Construction
Environmental Mitigation [b]
Alternatives
Noise/Dust/Vibration [h]
Visual/Noise/Odor [i]
Right of Way [c]
O&M (NPV) [e]

Engineering [a]
Traffic [g]
[d]
MI- 1 Zinfandel Drive $10,383,000 $902,000 $2,540,000 $25,202,000 $40,000 $40,762,000 1 1 2
MI- 2 Mather Boulevard $12,967,000 $710,000 $3,806,000 $31,473,000 $45,000 $51,131,000 2 3 2
MI- 3 Golf Course / Zinfandel Drive A $19,677,000 $723,000 $7,241,000 $47,759,000 $55,000 $78,751,000 1 3 2
MI- 4 Golf Course / Zinfandel Drive B $16,111,000 $956,000 $5,732,000 $39,106,000 $50,000 $64,673,000 1 1 3
MI- 5 Golf Course / Mather Boulevard A $22,233,000 $531,000 $8,508,000 $53,963,000 $59,000 $89,007,000 2 3 2
MI- 6 Golf Course / Mather Boulevard B $20,497,000 $764,000 $6,998,000 $49,750,000 $49,000 $81,460,000 2 1 3
MI- 7 Sunrise Boulevard A $8,142,000 $472,000 $6,448,000 $19,761,000 $38,000 $36,436,000 4 4 2
MI- 8 Sunrise Boulevard B $8,870,000 $472,000 $6,033,000 $21,529,000 $41,000 $39,275,000 5 4 2
MI- 9 Canal n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
MI- 9B Canal (East) $10,120,000 $1,912,000 $3,901,000 $24,563,000 $40,000 $42,332,000 2 4 2
MI- 10 All Force Main $17,741,000 $1,102,000 $6,165,000 $43,061,000 $3,327,000 $78,489,000 4 5 5
LCA5- 1 Sunrise Boulevard Extension $9,513,000 $3,093,000 $4,834,000 $23,089,000 $2,041,000 $44,402,000 4 3 3
LCA5- 2 Jaeger Road $12,754,000 $3,466,000 $6,292,000 $30,957,000 $2,119,000 $57,993,000 3 5 3
LCA5- 3 Eagles Nest A $10,296,000 $1,123,000 $3,167,000 $24,993,000 $2,041,000 $43,352,000 2 1 2
LCA5- 4 Eagles Nest B $12,515,000 $1,502,000 $6,947,000 $30,378,000 $1,998,000 $55,634,000 2 1 3
AJ- 4 Aerojet 4 $26,279,000 $3,995,000 $7,374,000 $63,784,000 $2,081,000 $107,958,000 4 3 3
Footnotes:
[a] Engineering cost includes the cost of final design, program management, construction management, and SRCSD involvement and oversight. Engineering cost above is estimated in 2006 dollars and has not been escalated or discounted.
Based on LNWI budget, assumes that the cost of final design will be approximately 8.5% of the probable cost of construction. Based on LNWI budget, assumes that the cost of construction management will be approximately 8.0% of the
probable cost of construction. Assumes that the total cost of program management is approximately 16.0% of the probable construction cost, based on the existing program management contract amount and assuming a $60M probable
cost of construction. This cost includes the cost of environmental and utility permitting. Based on LNWI budget, assumes that the cost of district involvement will be approximately 8.7% of the probable cost of construction.
[b] The Environmental Mitigation Cost includes all mitigation required for the construction of the project. The Environmental Mitigation Cost above is estimated in 2006 dollars and has not been escalated or discounted. Estimated based on
approximate acreage impacts to vernal pools, wetlands, and giant garder snake habitat as assessed by ESA and current mitigation values.
[c] The Right of Way Cost includes the cost to obtain all necessary temporary and permanent property rights for the project. The Right of Way Cost was estimated based on approximate easment requirements and current appraisal values.
The Right of Way Cost above is estimated in 2006 dollars and has not been escalated or discounted.
[d] The Probable cost of construction includes the likely cost to construct the proposed facilities ("unit price" cost estimate). Probable cost of construction including a 20% contingency for unknown conditions due to the early stage of design.
The probable cost of construction above is estimated in 2006 dollars and has not been escalated or discounted.
[e] Operation and Maintenance (O&M) cost includes the cost of labor, power, materials, and chemicals to operate and maintain the proposed facilities. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) cost assumes a 80 year life cycle and is a net present
value.
[f] The Total Cost is a net present value and includes the Engineering Cost, Environmental Mitigation Cost, Right of Way Cost, Probable Cost of Contstruction, and O&M Cost. It was assumed that the Engineering Cost, Environmental
Mitigation Cost, Right of Way Cost, and Probable Cost of Contstruction were incurred in accordance with the project schedule. The net present value was calculated assuming a 5% per year discount rate and a 3% per year escalation rate,
in accordance with SRCSD standards.
[g] Temporary public impacts due to traffic delays were assigned a rating of 1 to 5. This assessment was performed by Y&C based on recent traffic counts in the area.
[h] Temporary public impacts due to construction related noise, dust, and vibration were assigned a rating of 1 to 5. This assessment was performed by MMC and were based on a field survey of sensitive receptors in the project area.
[i] Permanent public impacts (potential visual, noise, and odor) from the pump station and other structures (i.e., junction structures, transition structures, etc.) were assigned a rating of 1 to 5. This assessment was performed by MMC and were
based on a field survey of sensitive receptors in the project area.

Project
Chapter 5

Project
Chapter 5
5.3.3 Conclusions of the Mather Interceptor Screening Analysis
In selecting Mather Interceptor alternatives to carry forward from the screening analysis,
the following were considered and are summarized in Table 5-4:
• Overall cost of the alternative
• Rating associated with temporary public impacts
• Rating associated with permanent public impacts
Table 5-4 Summary of Mather Interceptor Screening Analysis Results
Net Present Value Public Impact
Alternative Screening Conclusions
($millions) (temporary/permanent)
MI-7 $36.4 High/Low Retained
MI-8 $39.3 High/Low Eliminated
MI-1 $40.8 Low/Low Retained
MI-9B $42.3 High/Low Eliminated
MI-2 $51.1 Moderate/Low Retained
MI-4 $64.7 Low/Moderate Eliminated
MI-3 $78.8 Low/Low Eliminated
MI-6 $81.5 Low/Moderate Eliminated
MI-10 $86.5 Low/High Eliminated
MI-5 $89.0 Moderate/Low Eliminated
AJ-4 $108.0 Low/Low Retained
The overall cost or NPV was mostly related to the length of pipe required for each
alternative. Construction costs ranged between $19,761,000 and $53,963,000. O&M costs
were so low for a gravity sewer, they did not affect the total NPV of these alternatives.
There was very little difference in environmental mitigation costs, which ranged from
about $500,000 to about $1,000,000. ROW acquisition costs were significant but did not
change the rankings of the alternatives.
Indirect impact ratings were generally low (1) to moderate (3) for all alternatives except
MI-7, MI-8, and MI-9B. Most of the alternative alignments would avoid construction near
existing structures or homes. However, MI-7 and MI-8 would pass many businesses and
require construction in a very busy section of Sunrise Boulevard.
MI-7 had the lowest total cost and NPV, but had very high traffic and temporary public
impacts due to the construction necessary in Sunrise Boulevard north of Douglas Road.
MI-8 had a slightly higher NPV than MI-7 and also had very high traffic and public
impacts for the same reason as MI-7.
MI-1 had the next lowest cost and very low traffic and temporary public impacts. MI-2
was about $10,000,000 higher in cost than MI-1 and had slightly higher indirect impacts.
MI-9B had the next lowest cost after MI-1, but had a high rating for temporary public
impacts. This alternative was initially excluded from the screening analysis because it is
partially located in USBR property and it is unlikely a permit will be obtained in a time

Project
Chapter 5
frame that allows completion of alternative by the end of 2010. However, a cost estimate
was prepared so it could be compared to other alternatives. If the cost of MI-9B was
significantly lower than the other alternatives SRCSD would consider allowing a later
project completion. However, MI-9B is not significantly lower than other alternatives, so
it was not considered a practical alternative.
MI-4 had the next lowest cost, but its cost is $13,000,000 higher than MI-2. The
remaining alternatives had costs $26,000,000 to $38,000,000 higher than MI-2 and did not
have significantly lower indirect impacts.
After comparing the NPVs and public impact for each alternative, the following
conclusions were drawn:
• There is a cost breakpoint between the first five alternatives, with the lowest NPV,
and the four alternatives with the highest NPV (see Table 5-3).
• Four of the five lowest-cost alternatives would have low permanent public impacts.
Two would have low temporary public impacts.
Given these results, the five lowest-cost Mather Interceptor alternatives were retained from
the screening analysis to be analyzed further in the BCE as “practical alternatives”:
Alternatives MI-1, MI-2, MI-4, MI-7, and MI-8. Alternatives MI-7 and MI-8 will be
treated as one because they follow the same alignment but with a different FSC crossing
location. These practical alternatives were approved in the PAC Confirmation Meeting on
November 15, 2006.
5.3.4 Additional Screening Involving the LCA5 and AJ4 Alternatives
Capacity management hydraulic modeling results for the Bradshaw Interceptor and the
LCA5 areas were not available at the time of PAC Confirmation Meeting; thus, four LCA5
alternatives were carried over. Once the SRCSD Capacity Management group provided
results of the hydraulic modeling effort (see Appendix A), the following decisions were
made:
• The Bradshaw Interceptor will reach capacity by 2030. Thus, the Laguna Creek
Interceptor would need to be in place by 2030.
• The excess capacity available in the Bradshaw Interceptor prior to 2030 is
approximately 49 mgd.
• The LCA5 sewer shed will reach 10 mgd of flow by approximately 2015,
triggering the need for an SRCSD facility to serve the LCA5 sheds.
• The design flow for the Mather Pump Station (serving the LCA5 shed) was
determined to be 13 mgd.
Because an SRCSD facility is required for LCA5 flows very close to the time of the
Mather Interceptor (2015 vs. 2010), and approximately 15 years before the likely
completion of the Laguna Creek Interceptor, it was determined that the Mather Interceptor
project should include facilities to provide service to LCA5.

Project
Chapter 5
As presented earlier, the SIAMI program management team identified five alternatives to
provide service to LCA5: LCA5-1, LCA5-2, LCA5-3, LCA5-4, and AJ4. The costs and
ratings for these five alternatives are presented in Table 5-3. Two of the alternatives
(LCA5-5 and LCA5-6) were replaced by the AJ4 alternative, leaving five “practical”
alternatives to serve the southern area: LCA5-1, LCA5-2, LCA5-3, LCA5-4, and AJ4.
These five practical southern alternatives were combined with the MI practical alternatives
(MI-1, MI-2, MI-4, MI-7, and MI-8) to create eleven additional alternatives for
consideration (see Appendix B). To further simplify analysis, additional screening took
place:
• Alternative MI-8 was dropped from further consideration because Alternatives MI-
7 and MI-8 were nearly identical, with the exception of the crossing location of the
FSC.
• LCA5-2 and LCA5-4 were dropped because of high cost.
• MI-4 was dropped because of high cost. This resulted in dropping LCA5-3 as well,
because this extension route was specific to the MI-4 alternative.
This left LCA5-1 as the only remaining LCA5 alternative, to be linked with the three
remaining MI alternatives (MI-1, MI-2, and MI-7) to create a complete alternative. AJ4
also remained, as a complete alternative. The location of the Mather Pump Station and the
alignment of the force main were modified to coincide with the facilities shown in
MP2000. The result is four complete practical alternatives:
• MI-1 and LCA5-1 (now termed MI-1)
• AJ4
These practical alternatives were approved by the PAC at the February 21, 2007 meeting.
The SIAMI program management team then completed a preliminary design and BCE of
these four alternatives. These four practical alternatives were also modeled by capacity
management to confirm pipe sizes and design flows (see Appendix C).
It should be noted that the PAC did not accept the analysis of alternatives to serve LCA5.
CSD-1 staff disagreed with the assumptions used in the flow modeling effort that
determined flow in the LCA5 shed would reach 10 mgd by 2015. They also speculated the
slow-down in the housing market would further delay the need for regional service to
LCA5. There was also speculation that Bradshaw Interceptor would have the capacity to
handle buildout flows from Aerojet sheds making Aerojet 4 Interceptor unnecessary.
There was discussion that developer built interim pump stations would be a better solution
if development slowed.
The PAC directed that alternatives using multiple interim CSD-1 pump stations be
included in the analysis. Previous discussions with SRCSD staff had assumed that a
regional solution was appropriate because the 10 mgd threshold for SRCSD responsibility
would be reached by 2015. Project staff was directed in June 2007 to compare the regional

Project
Chapter 5
pump station and force main to multiple interim pump stations. The results of that analysis
are presented in a separate PDP.
5.4 BUSINESS CASE EVALUATION
The purpose of the BCE is to develop a “Total Cost to the Community” for each practical
alternative. Traditionally, only capital and operating costs were considered when
performing a BCE to select a preferred alternative. That type of analysis limits the scope
of the costs considered to those incurred by the facility owner. Conceptually, a Total Cost
to the Community should include all significant direct and indirect costs associated with
the design, construction, and operation of the proposed facilities regardless of who may
incur the cost. For a pipeline construction project, the Total Cost to the Community may
include potential cost impacts to other municipalities whose facilities or operation thereof
may be affected by the project selection, developers who may be depending on
construction of the project in a particular location and on a particular schedule, or
individual members of the public who may be temporarily or permanently impacted by
construction of the proposed facilities.
The list of parameters (potential cost categories) required to perform a rigorous BCE based
on the Total Cost to the Community will include a variety of topics. The list of parameters
depends on the proposed project and related potential impacts. A list of BCE parameters
was prepared for the Mather Interceptor Project and is discussed in the text below.
Although the objective was to assess all potential costs in dollars, some costs were difficult
or impractical to quantify. These intangible costs were captured as intangible issues and
were considered during the selection of preferred alternative.
5.4.1 Business Case Evaluation Approach
To perform a rigorous analysis of the BCE parameters, a preliminary design was

developed for each of the practical alternatives. The preliminary design includes a set of
drawings and a description of the recommended construction approach. All practical
alternatives include the same pump station and force main, but with different gravity
pipeline configurations. The pump station and pipeline preliminary designs were captured
in separate preliminary design documents. The preliminary design drawings for the
pipelines include plan and profile sheets in addition to detail sheets for key structures and
typical appurtenances. The plan and profile sheets include pipeline centerline, pipeline
stationing, major structure locations, tunnel shaft locations, manhole locations, pump
station location, construction staging areas, limits of disturbance for the proposed
construction, proposed permanent easements, parcel boundaries, assessors parcel numbers,
and preliminary existing utility information. Preliminary design drawings for the pump
station include civil, architectural, mechanical, structural, and electrical layout drawings in
addition to detail sheets for key structures. The description of the construction approach
for both the pipelines and pump station includes information regarding construction
methods and assumptions on how the contractor may approach executing the work.
Consistent with the Problem Statement, the construction approach considered assumes a
target start-date of December 2010. Please note that several supporting documents were
used during the development of the preliminary designs: Environmental Site Assessment

Project
Chapter 5
Phase 1 Report by ESA (2007); Preliminary Geotechnical Report by Kleinfelder (2007);

hydraulic analysis performed by Capacity Management Division; and information on
existing utilities collected from various sources (see Appendix A).
Each practical alternative was analyzed to determine if there were any related additional
costs to the community (beyond those directly associated with implementation of the
practical alternative) or costs that must be included to provide for an equitable comparison
between alternatives. Once a cost was identified, it was determined which BCE
parameters should be evaluated. Required design information was prepared to characterize
the cost for use in calculating identified BCE parameter costs. Related additional costs
were not designed or analyzed to the same level of detail as for the practical alternatives
(see Appendix D).
Each of the BCE parameters (construction, engineering, ROW acquisition, environmental

mitigation, O&M, schedule, temporary public impacts, and risk) were assessed for the
practical alternatives. Only the BCE parameters required to adequately characterize related
additional costs were calculated. All BCE costs were developed in 2007 dollars. The
date(s) during which the costs would be incurred was identified. Costs were escalated and
discounted using a life cycle cost analysis to determine the NPV. Life cycle duration was
determined based on the facilities under consideration. Design life for the pipelines was
assumed to be 80 years and most pump station components were assumed to last 20 to 40
years before replacement. Since most of the project components have a design life of 80
years, 80 years was used as the project life cycle duration. Pump station equipment
replacement costs were added to the life cycle analysis. Furthermore, the NPV was
calculated assuming a 5 percent discount rate and a 3 percent escalation rate. The resulting
NPV for each practical alternative and related benefit(s) was combined, resulting in a Total
Cost to the Community for each practical alternative. This concept of comparing the Total
Cost to the Community (NPV) as a sum of the NPV of the practical alternative and any
related cost(s) is captured in Figure 5-1.

Project
Chapter 5
BCE Compares
the Total Cost
to the
Community for
Alternatives
Total Cost to NPV for

the Alternative Any Related
Community
for Alternative
= MI-1 As
Designed
+ Additional
Costs
MI-1

Community
for Alternative
= MI-2 As
Designed
+ Additional
Costs
MI-2

Additional
Community
for Alternative
= MI-7 As
Designed
+ Costs
MI-7

Community
for Alternative
= AJ4 As
Designed
+ Additional
Costs
AJ4
Figure 5-1 BCE Summary of Alternatives and Related Additional Costs
In addition, an analysis was performed to determine the sensitivity of BCE results to

fluctuations in the escalation rate for construction cost. The NPV of the construction cost
for each practical alternative and any related additional costs were calculated assuming a 5
percent discount rate and 3, 5, 7.5, and 10 percent escalation rates to determine if the
ranking between alternatives was affected. Preparation of a sensitivity analysis for
construction cost escalation rates was discussed and approved by the PAC on February 21,
2007. The Total Cost to the Community, key intangibles, and results of the sensitivity
analysis were presented to SRCSD staff, and a preferred alternative was selected.

Project
Chapter 5
5.4.2 Business Case Evaluation Parameters
The BCE parameters (previously referred to as selection criteria) were first presented to the
PAC on October 18, 2006 at the Project Initiation Meeting. Several subsequent meetings
were held with the project team, including SRCSD staff, to refine the list of BCE
parameters and identify an approach to calculate the parameters as costs. The revised BCE
parameters were presented to the PAC for approval at the November 15, 2006, PAC
Confirmation Meeting. The BCE parameters used for this analysis include the following
costs:
• Construction
• Engineering
• Right-of-way acquisition
• Environmental mitigation
• Operation and maintenance
• Schedule
• Temporary public impacts
• Risk
It should be noted that the cost to obtain environmental and utility permits, previously
presented to the PAC as separate BCE parameters, were determined to be relatively
insignificant and are no longer individually calculated. The cost to obtain these permits is
included in the engineering cost. The key assumptions and approach taken to determine
BCE parameter costs are discussed below.
5.4.2.1 Construction Cost

A Class 3 Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) Opinion of
Probable Construction Cost estimate was prepared for each of the practical alternatives.
Class 3 estimates are generally as follows:
• Prepared to form the basis for budget authorization, appropriation, and/or funding,
including full project funding requests, and become the first of the project phase
"control estimates" against which all actual costs and resources will be monitored
for variation to budget.
• Based on more deterministic estimating methods than stochastic methods.
• Based on a 10 percent to 40 percent level of design.
• Have an accuracy of +/- 10 percent to 30 percent (sometimes higher), depending on
the technological complexity of the project, appropriate reference information, and
the inclusion of an appropriate contingency determination.
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost estimates includes a 20 percent construction
contingency.
Construction cost estimates for related additional costs were calculated using a “unit price”
estimating approach. Typical unit prices were determined based on recent construction of
similar facilities. Unit price construction cost estimates also include a 20 percent
construction contingency.

Project
Chapter 5
Detailed Construction Cost estimates for each practical alternative and related additional
costs can be found in Appendix E.
5.4.2.2 Engineering Cost

The cost of engineering services includes the cost of SRCSD participation and oversight in
addition to consultant-provided program management (PM), final design, and construction
management (CM) services. The following were assumed:
• Based on previous SRCSD projects, SRCSD participation and oversight would be
3.8 percent of the Probable Construction Cost. SRCSD participation and oversight
would include the cost for SRCSD Engineering and Operations and Maintenance
staff to participate through design, construction, and start-up; for California
Department of Environmental Review and Assessment (DERA) to prepare and
obtain approval of the project Supplemental EIR process; for Sacramento County
legal services to provide support when necessary; and for the Sacramento County
Real Estate Division to pursue and obtain the required right of way for the project.
This does not include the cost of the property easement and/or title.
• Program Management services were estimated at 9.2 percent of the Probable
Construction Cost and include the cost to provide program management services
through design, construction, and facility start-up.
• Final design services were estimated at 8.5 percent of the Probable Construction
Cost and include the cost to provide design services through final design and
construction.
• CM services were estimated at 8.0 percent of the Probable Construction Cost and
include the cost to provide CM services through construction and start-up.
5.4.2.3 Right-of-Way Cost

ROW cost includes the cost to purchase the property rights to construct, operate, and
maintain the proposed practical alternative. The cost for staff to pursue the required ROW
was included within the engineering cost. Using the proposed temporary and permanent
ROW areas defined in the preliminary design documents, a complete list of the parcels and
the impacted areas was prepared. It was assumed that permanent ROW would be obtained
through acquisition of a permanent easement, but in some cases, where impacts would be
significant, or SRCSD had placed a reservation to purchase property, it was estimated
ROW would be obtained in fee title. Fee title was estimated at 100 percent of fair market
value. Permanent easements were estimated at 50 percent of fair market value. Temporary
easements were estimated at 10 percent per year of fair market value and for a 2-year
duration.
Each parcel was placed into one of five land use categories, and a value was estimated for
each land use category based on fair market value in the area. The list of land use
categories and estimated fair market values for the project are shown in Table 5-5.

Project
Chapter 5
Table 5-5 Right of Way Property Value Assumptions

Estimated Fair
Land Use Category Market Value
($/square foot.)
Residential $25
Commercial/Business $22
Developing $10
Manufacturing/Industrial $9
Vacant lands/USA $3
The total cost of required ROW was calculated for each parcel. The total ROW cost
includes temporary easement, permanent easement, fee title, and damages, if applicable.
ROW costs for each impacted parcel were summed to obtain a total ROW cost for the
practical alternative. The detailed ROW cost estimate for each practical alternative can be
found in Appendix F.
The following assumptions were used in estimating the ROW impacts:

• In general, the Mather Interceptor can be placed in existing public ROW and it will
not be necessary to obtain permanent ROW except in the following locations:
o The Mather Pump Station site. All alternatives would require a fee title
acquisition for the pump station site, currently located on Waegell property,
and an easement for the pipelines to the pump station from either the
Waegell or Shaliko properties.
o The interceptor pipelines between Sunrise Boulevard and the Mather Pump
Station (all alternatives).
o The Mather Junction Structure site on the northwest corner of the Sunrise
Boulevard/Douglas Road intersection (all alternatives).
o The first 800 feet of the interceptor in Mather Boulevard (MI-2 alternative).
o Approximately 6,000 feet of alignment on the east side of Sunrise
Boulevard, north of Douglas Road (MI-7 alternative).
• All alternatives would require an easement to cross USBR property and the FSC.
USBR would also issue an easement for temporary construction purposes.
• The MI-2 alignment would require an easement on property owned by the
Sacramento County.
• The MI-7 alignment would require an easement along Sunrise Boulevard from
various private owners under the Rio Del Oro Specific Plan.
5.4.2.4 Environmental Mitigation Cost

Environmental mitigation costs include the estimated mitigation cost for construction of
the practical alternative. To assess potential environmental impacts of the practical

Project
Chapter 5
alternatives, the environmental team conducted a formal delineation of wetlands and other
waters (ESA, 2007), an assessment of study area vegetation communities, and an
assessment of special-status plant and animal species that have potential to occur within
the vicinity of the project area. It should be noted that the results of the wetland
delineations are preliminary and subject to verification by USACE. The temporary ROW
(limits of disturbance) defined by the preliminary design was used to determine potential
impacts to each of the delineated features, including channel/wetlands, vernal pools, GGS
habitat, valley elderberry longhorn beetle (VELB), trees, and other impacted species for
each practical alternative.
Mitigation ratios and costs were estimated using recent mitigation requirements for similar
construction impacts (see Table 5-6). Impacts and required mitigation were calculated and
summed for a total mitigation cost for each practical alternative. The detailed
environmental mitigation cost estimate for each practical alternative can be found in
Appendix G.
Table 5-6 Environmental Mitigation Value Assumptions

Mitigation Cost
Mitigation Category
($/acre)
Vernal Pools
Vernal Pool Preservation $250,000
Vernal Pool Creation $175,000
Seasonal Wetlands $110,000
Freshwater Emergent Wetlands $110,000
Riparian Wetlands $151,000
Drainages $134,000
Giant Garter Snake Upland Habitat $20,000
Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Habitat $10,000
The following assumptions were used in estimating environmental impacts:

• In areas of tunneled pipeline construction, no impacts were assumed, except at shaft
locations. Surface impacts within 100 feet of tunnel shaft locations were included
to account for equipment staging and access. In areas scheduled for open-cut
construction, total impact was assumed.
• Vernal pool impacts were considered “direct impacts” if implementation of the
alternative would result in the direct placement of fill into any portion of the pool.
Vernal pool impacts were considered “indirect impacts” if implementation of the
alternative would require activity within 250 feet but direct placement of fill would
not occur.
• Direct impacts to vernal pools would require a 2:1 preservation mitigation ratio and
a 1:1 creation mitigation ratio for a total ratio of 3:1. Indirect impacts to vernal
pools would require a 2:1 creation mitigation ratio.

Project
Chapter 5
• For all other wetland and waters of the United States of America, impacts were
calculated where implementation of the alternative would result in the direct
placement of fill into the feature.
• Mitigation ratios for all other wetlands and waters of the United Stated of America
were based on the no-net-loss wetland policy of USACE.
• Mitigation costs for vernal pools, seasonal wetlands, freshwater emergent wetlands,
drainages, and riparian wetlands were based on current mitigation rates from
Wildlands, Inc., and Westervelt Ecological Services, as well as rates provided by
USACE.
• Mitigation requirements for protected trees were based on the General Plan of the
City of Rancho Cordova (2006) and Sacramento County Code of Ordinances 19.04
and 19.12. Mitigation costs for trees were based on market rates for replacement
trees.
5.4.2.5 Operation and Maintenance Cost

O&M costs include the estimated cost to operate and maintain the proposed facilities for
each practical alternative. In coordination with SRCSD O&M staff, basic assumptions
were developed to describe costs to operate and maintain a gravity sewer, force main, and
pump station. All practical alternatives would include identical pump station and force
main configurations. Only the gravity sewer configurations would change between
practical alternatives. The O&M requirements for each practical alternative were
estimated for the facilities and operating conditions described by the preliminary designs.
O&M unit costs were estimated based on average costs for the O&M of SRCSD’s existing
facilities. The detailed O&M cost estimate for each practical alternative can be found in
Appendix H.
The following assumptions were used in estimating O&M costs:

• Gravity sewers typically have virtually no operation costs and relatively minimal
maintenance costs if they are built with sufficient slopes and appropriate materials
to prevent corrosion. It was assumed that the entire length of the gravity sewer
would receive a routine/incidental cleaning and closed circuit television (CCTV)
inspection every 20 years.
• Force mains typically have significant O&M costs, unlike gravity sewers. It was
assumed that an air release valve (ARV) must be serviced once a year and replaced
every 20 years. A blow-off must be serviced every 5 years.
• Pump stations have significant O&M costs that depend on the pump station design
and assumed operating conditions. Pump station O&M costs include primary
energy (electricity), backup energy (diesel fuel), chemical sodium hypochlorite
(chlorine), chemical lubricants, labor, spare parts, miscellaneous materials, pump
overhaul, variable frequency drives (VFD) overhaul, pump replacement, odor
control overhaul (cartridges), and backup generator overhaul. Pump station O&M
costs account for the gradual increase of sewer flows until buildout flow is reached.

Project
Chapter 5
5.4.2.6 Schedule Cost

The schedule cost includes real costs that may be incurred by SRCSD or others if the
completion of the project is delayed beyond December 2010. For this project, it was
assumed that if the project were not completed by December 2010, an additional cost
would be incurred to continue to operate and maintain the Chrysanthy Pump Station and
force main. The Chrysanthy Pump Station and force main would be abandoned after
completion of the Mather Interceptor. In addition, if a regional pump station is not online,
future development in the LCA5 would require an interim pump station to serve the LCK
Trunk Shed in 2011 and an interim pump station to serve the LCJ Trunk Shed in 2013.
These two interim stations would be constructed by developers, and CSD-1 has stated it
would likely reimburse the developers construction costs because these two stations would
serve entire trunk sheds, not individual developments. These two pump stations were
noted in the 2006 CSD-1 Master Plan. The O&M cost (“Cost of Delay”) to operate and
maintain the Chrysanthy Pump Station and the construction and O&M costs of the LCJ
and LCK trunk shed pump stations and associated force mains were calculated and are
shown in Table 5-7.
Table 5-7 Mather Interceptor Cost of Delay beyond 2010

(Capital and O&M Cost for Construction or Continued Operation of CSD-1
Pump Stations)
Construction O&M Cost O&M Cost Year
Pump Stations
Cost ($) ($/yr) ($/day) Required
Chrysanthy Pump Station
Existing $177,048 $485 Existing
and Force Main [a]
LCK Pump Station [b] $7,245,000 $93,701 $257 2011
LCJ Pump Station [c] $2,993,000 $187,241 $513 2013
Total Cost of Delay $10,238,000 $1,255
Footnotes:
[a] Chrysanthy Pump Station: Assuming 2.05 mgd average dry weather flow (ADWF) and 31,000 linear feet of
21 inch force main.
[b] LCK Pump Station: Assuming 9.2 mgd Design Flow and 12,700 linear feet of 12-inch-diameter force main.
[c] LCJ Pump Station: Assuming 3.8 mgd Design Flow and ADWF and 15,600 linear feet of 15-inch-diameter
force main.
Note: Capacities for LCJ and LCK Pump Stations will be further analyzed and confirmed in a separate PDP
document.
A construction schedule was developed for each practical alternative. If proposed

construction could be completed before December 31, 2010, a schedule cost was not
applied to the alternative. If proposed construction could not be completed before
December 31, 2010, the number of days of delay was calculated and then used to calculate
the “cost of schedule delay.” “Project completion” for this purpose was defined by
completion of the start-up and testing schedule activities. The detailed construction
schedule, estimate of the cost of delay, and schedule cost for each practical alternative can
be found in Appendix I.

Project
Chapter 5
5.4.2.7 Temporary Public Impact Cost

The temporary public impact cost includes traffic delays and mitigation or repair of
construction-related impacts, including noise, dust, and vibration.
The following approach and assumptions were used to determine a traffic delay cost for
each practical alternative. In October 2006, existing daily traffic counts were collected for
most major roads in the project area, including Sunrise Boulevard. In addition, traffic
volume estimates were obtained from the City of Rancho Cordova. Based on the traffic
growth rate from the General Plan of the City of Rancho Cordova (2006), existing daily
traffic counts were escalated to project construction year (2009) traffic volumes. Where
existing daily traffic counts were low, limited field observations were used to estimate
daily traffic volumes. The average daily traffic (ADT) for each major road was estimated
for 2009. Using the 2009 traffic volumes, level of service on study roadways was
determined using the city’s ADT Method. Based on the change of level of service, the
daily delay due to construction on each affected roadway was estimated. The delay due to
road closures and detours was also estimated. The total number of working days for each
work zone within existing travel ways was estimated as part of the preliminary design
construction approach. With the daily delay and estimated number of working days, the
cumulative delay on each affected roadway was estimated. The total cumulative delay due
to construction was converted to delay cost based on the assumption of $9 per hour, which
is published by Federal Highway Administration. The detailed construction traffic delay
cost for each practical alternative can be found in Appendix J.
The following approach and assumptions were used to determine the impacts to the public
from construction-related noise, dust, and vibration. Exhibits were prepared, including the
project area parcel, road alignments, and project centerline, and stationing and key
structures. Buffer zones with radii of 50, 150, and 250 feet were shown around all
proposed excavations, including open-cut pipeline construction and other excavations for
tunnel shafts, pipeline appurtenances, or key structures. The total number of homes and
businesses within each buffer zone was tabulated and totaled for each practical alternative.
It was assumed that homes and businesses within the 50-foot radius would sustain
relatively high impacts, those between the 50-foot and 150-foot radii would sustain
moderate impacts, and those within the 250-foot radius would sustain relatively low
impacts.
The temporary public impact cost associated with noise was calculated by estimating the
linear feet of sound walls that would need to be installed to mitigate noise impacts. It was
assumed that sound wall would only be installed for “fixed site” construction activities
such as tunnel shafts and other structure excavations. The cost of the sound wall
construction was estimated at $50 per linear foot, including materials and installation.
The temporary public impact cost associated with dust was calculated by estimating the
total number of car washes, pool cleanings, heating, ventilating and air conditioning
(HVAC) services, house cleaning, power washes, and window/blinds cleanings that would
be required to mitigate dust impacts to sensitive receptors within the buffer zones. The
cost of the mitigation measures was estimated based on average cost for the industry or
were based on costs paid by SRCSD on previous projects.

Project
Chapter 5
The temporary public impact cost associated with vibration was calculated by estimating
the cost of preconstruction and postconstruction surveys, monitoring during construction,
and potential damage claims. The total number of structures within the buffer zones was
estimated by counting structures adjacent to tunnel jacking shafts. It was assumed that
vibration impacts would only occur around “fixed site” construction activities such as
tunnel shafts and other structure excavations. The cost of the mitigation measures was
estimated based on average cost for the industry or was based on costs paid by SRCSD on
previous projects.
Detailed construction temporary public impact costs for noise, dust, and vibration impacts
for each practical alternative can be found in Appendix K.
5.4.2.8 Risk Cost

Potential project risks are separated into four major categories:
• Cost volatility
• Schedule delay
• Construction
• O&M
Cost volatility includes uncertainties or risk events that may result in a cost to the project.
The baseline cost estimates included in the BCE make several assumptions related to unit
costs, construction methods, production rates, and escalation rates. Certain construction
materials, including steel, petroleum products, and concrete/aggregate, are known to be
highly volatile, with an associated high uncertainty in unit price. Rather than a separate
analysis of the risk of the volatility of certain construction cost items, a sensitivity analysis
was performed to determine the sensitivity of BCE results to fluctuations in the escalation
rate for construction cost. Therefore, this report does not consider cost volatility of
construction-related materials.
Schedule risks include risk events that may result in a delay to the project schedule.
Similar to the schedule cost calculation, as described in schedule cost section, it was
assumed that there is a resulting cost consequence to operate CSD-1’s interim facilities if
completion of construction is delayed beyond 2010. The Cost of Delay was used to
determine the cost impacts of a potential schedule delay. Three schedule risk events were
identified as having high potential delay consequences. Schedule risks include the
following: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) individual
dewatering permit required, EIR schedule, and obtaining the USBR ROW license.
However, because all four alternatives were potentially affected in the same way, these
risks cannot be used to differentiate between alternatives.
Construction risks were defined as risk events that would occur during the construction
period. These risk events may have related cost and/or schedule consequences. Four risk
events were identified that differentiate among alternatives:
• Encountering contaminated soil or groundwater. It was assumed the risks of
encountering contamination would be greater for alternatives closer to Mather
Field.

Project
Chapter 5
• Encountering methane gas in the soil. MI-1 and MI-2 are close to closed
landfills and methane has been encountered in the ground near the landfills.
• Traffic safety. Extensive construction work in existing traveled ways increases the
chances of public vehicle accidents.
• Shaft construction. MI-7 would have more installation by open cut methods and
less risk for shaft construction.
Other construction related risks are common to all alternatives, based on the type of
construction method that would be employed on this project. These include the following:
tunneling risks, open-cut risks, shaft construction risks, differing site conditions,
underground utilities, and general safety. During final design, additional efforts should be
undertaken to identify and potentially quantify more specific construction risks. Other risk
events that should be considered include procurement time for pipe and tunnel boring
machine (TBM), construction within newly paved roads during the building moratorium
period, and settlement caused by dewatering or vibration.
O&M risks include risk events that may occur during the O&M period. For the Mather
Interceptor, the length of force main is identical between alternatives meaning O&M risks
are common to all alternatives. O&M risks include O&M of force mains, O&M of pump
station, and O&M of gravity sewers.
As described above, four risk events were identified that were different for each of the
alternatives, including encountering contaminated soil or groundwater, encountering
methane during construction, shaft construction, and traffic safety. The expected cost
associated with these risk events were calculated as the probability of risk occurrence
multiplied by the cost consequence if the risk event were to occur. For each practical
alternative, the risk cost was calculated as the sum of the cost of each risk event. Risk cost
was not evaluated for related additional costs. The detailed risk register and risk cost for
each practical alternative can be found in Appendix L.
5.4.3 Application of Business Case Evaluation
Four practical alternatives are under consideration for the Mather Interceptor project:
• Alternative MI-1 Zinfandel Drive
• Alternative MI-2 Mather Boulevard
• Alternative MI-7 Sunrise Boulevard
• Alternative AJ4 Zinfandel Drive + Aerojet 4
As stated above, each of the BCE parameter costs were assessed for the practical
alternatives in 2007 dollars. Only the BCE parameters required to adequately characterize
the benefits were calculated for each of the benefits. The date(s) during which the cost
would be incurred was identified. A life cycle cost analysis was used to determine NPV.
NPV was calculated assuming a life cycle of 80 years, a discount rate of 5 percent per year,
and an escalation rate of 3 percent per year. The resulting NPV for each practical
alternative and related benefit(s) were combined, resulting in a Total Cost to the
Community for each practical alternative. Descriptions of intangible costs were tabulated
for consideration during selection of the preferred alternative.

Project
Chapter 5
In addition, an analysis was performed to determine the sensitivity of BCE results to

fluctuations in the escalation rate for construction cost. The NPV of the construction cost
for each practical alternative and any related additional costs was calculated assuming a 5
percent discount rate and 3, 5, 7.5, and 10 percent escalation rates to determine if the
ranking between alternatives would be affected.
As mentioned above, each practical alternative was analyzed to determine if any related
additional costs to the community (beyond those directly associated with the
implementation of the practical alternative) would need to be included for an equitable
comparison between alternatives. For this project, two related additional costs must be
taken into account to provide an equitable comparison between alternatives.
Alternatives MI-1, MI-2, and AJ4 would allow the future MAE Trunk Sewer to be
connected to the Mather Interceptor on Douglas Road. This connection location was
assumed in the MP2000 (SRCSD) and the 2006 CSD-1 Master Plan. If Alternative MI-7
is selected as the preferred alternative, CSD-1 would incur an additional cost to construct
the MAE Trunk Sewer an additional 6,000 feet to the Bradshaw Interceptor.
Alternative AJ4 includes the cost to construct the AJ4 Interceptor now, even though it is
not needed until 2030. This alternative is being considered to see if the increased impacts
of construction in 2030 could be avoided and those avoided costs would make it a
preferred alternative compared to alternatives that assume future construction. To compare
AJ4 to the other alternatives, the NPV of the future cost to construct the AJ4 Interceptor in
2030 was included in the total NPV of MI-1, MI-2, and MI-7. This related cost was taken
into account in this BCE and is discussed in detail.
Following is a discussion of the alternatives under consideration, calculation of BCE

parameters, and results of the life cycle cost analysis for each of the practical alternatives
and related additional costs.
5.4.3.1 Alternative MI-1 Zinfandel Drive

Mather Interceptor Alternative 1 (MI-1) (Zinfandel Drive Alternative) + LCA5-1 (pump
station and force main) includes 15,121 feet of gravity interceptor plus 15,630 feet of dual
force main and a regional pump station. The required capacity of the gravity portion is
49.4 mgd. The capacity of the pump station would be 13 mgd and the size of the dual
force mains would be 24 inches. The pump station would be located approximately 1,200
feet northeast of the intersection of Sunrise Boulevard and Jackson Road. Figure 5-2
shows a schematic figure illustrating the alignment of the alternative. Additional details
about the practical alternative are provided in the Technical Memorandum, Preliminary
Design Mather Interceptor – Alternative MI-1 + LCA5-1 Construction Approach, found in
Appendix M.
Flow would be pumped from the Mather Pump Station through 15,630 feet of dual 24-
inch-diameter force main across private property to Sunrise Boulevard and then north
along Sunrise to the transition structure located in the west side of the Sunrise Boulevard
ROW across from the Chrysanthy Boulevard intersection. Flow discharged from the force
main would combine with flow from the connection to the Aerojet 1 Interceptor that was

Project
Chapter 5
formerly pumped by the Chrysanthy Pump Station, and then flow north in a 72-inch-
diameter gravity sewer for 4,150 feet to the Mather Junction Structure at the northwest
intersection of Douglas Road and Sunrise Boulevard. The Mather Junction Structure
would include a stub for the future connection of the Aerojet 2 Interceptor and a stub for
the future connection of the AJ4 Interceptor. Flow from the Mather Junction Structure
would flow west by gravity along Douglas Boulevard, drop to a lower elevation to pass
under the FSC and continue west along Douglas Road. The total length of the 72-inch-
diameter interceptor in Douglas Road is 4,920 feet. At the future intersection with an
extension of Zinfandel Drive, the sewer would flow north along the Zinfandel Drive
Extension in a 72-inch-diameter gravity sewer for 5,880 feet to the Mather/Bradshaw
Junction Structure, where flow would discharge to the 84-inch-diameter Bradshaw
Interceptor. The profile summary figure below shows a schematic illustration of the
alternative. Additional details about this practical alternative are provided in the
preliminary design documents and are available upon request.
Figure 5-2 Profile of the Mather Interceptor Alternative MI-1+ LCA5-1

5.4.3.1.1 Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Alternative MI-1
It should be noted that all values below are presented as present values (in 2007 dollars),
with a discount rate of 5 percent per year, an escalation rate of 3 percent per year, and a life
cycle of 80 years.
5.4.3.1.1.1 Construction Cost

The NPV Probable Construction Cost was estimated as $71,592,000 for the pump station,
force main and Mather Interceptor construction and includes a 20 percent construction
contingency. It was assumed that the majority of pump station, force main, and Mather
Interceptor costs would be incurred during the two seasons (2009 and 2010) planned for
construction of the project.

Project
Chapter 5
5.4.3.1.1.2 Engineering Cost

The NPV engineering cost of MI-1 was estimated as $21,534,000. It was assumed that this
cost would be incurred over the life of the project design and construction (2007 through
2010).
5.4.3.1.1.3 Right-of-Way Cost

The NPV ROW cost was estimated as $6,881,000. The ROW cost consists of $2,844,000
(41 percent of total) for temporary easements, $3,183,000 (46 percent of total) for
permanent easements, $853,000 (12 percent of total) in fee titles, and no damages. It was
assumed that this cost would be incurred during the ROW acquisition process (2008
through 2010), which may continue into and beyond the construction period.
5.4.3.1.1.4 Environmental Mitigation Cost

The NPV environmental mitigation cost was estimated as $12,407,000. The
environmental mitigation cost consists of $12,215,000 (98 percent of total) for vernal pool
impacts, $171,000 (1 percent of total) for channel/wetland impacts, $0 for GGS habitat
impacts, $0 for VELB habitat impacts, $1,000 for tree impacts, and $22,000 for impacts to
other species. It was assumed that this cost would be incurred in 2008 because mitigation
costs typically must be paid prior to final approval of some environmental permits.
5.4.3.1.1.5 Operation and Maintenance Cost

The NPV O&M cost was estimated as $8,306,000. This alternative includes a total of
31,260 feet of 24-inch-diameter force main and 15,100 feet of gravity sewer 72-inch in
diameter. The Mather Pump station would require four 250 horsepower (hp) pumps with
an average total dynamic head of 77 feet at start-up and 154 feet at buildout. The force
main includes 18 ARVs and 12 blow-offs. O&M costs were calculated over the 80-year
life cycle of the facility.
5.4.3.1.1.6 Schedule Cost

The construction schedule for this alternative includes the following milestone dates:
• 8/27/08 for Notice to Proceed on the Construction Contract
• 8/19/10 for Substantial Completion
• 10/14/10 for Completion of Start-Up and Testing
• 11/11/10 for Final Acceptance
It should be noted that the schedule above assumes double construction shifts for tunnel
operations. This alternative would meet the December 31, 2010, target date for completing
the gravity portion of the Mather Interceptor, and accepting flow from the Chrysanthy
Pump Station and taking it off-line. It would also provide service to the LCA5 shed by
December 31, 2010.
5.4.3.1.1.7 Temporary Public Impact Cost

The total temporary public impact estimated NPV for dust, noise, and vibration for
Alternative MI-1 + LCA5-1 was estimated as $149,800. The noise mitigation cost
associated with building soundwalls was estimated to be $95,300, assuming that 2,000
linear feet of soundwall would need to be built. The dust mitigation cost was estimated as
$21,900. The dust mitigation cost includes the following mitigation costs: HVAC

Project
Chapter 5
cleanings at $12,200; house cleanings at $3,700; power washes at $4,900; window and
blinds cleaning at $500; and car washes at $600. No pools are located within the buffer
zone; therefore, no mitigation cost was estimated for pool cleanings. The total vibration
mitigation estimated cost of preconstruction and postconstruction, monitoring during
construction, and potential damage claims is $32,600. Of the cost total, the cost of
preconstruction and postconstruction and monitoring during construction was estimated as
$4,300, and the total potential damage claims were estimated as $28,300.
The total traffic delay for the proposed Alternative MI-1 + LCA5-1 would result in 2,464
hours of delay, which was converted into $21,100 of delay cost in NPV. Detailed
assumptions of delay cost analysis are also shown in Table 1 of the Technical
Memorandum: Potential Traffic Delay Cost Due to Construction in Appendix I. The
indirect impact to traffic of Alternative MI-1 + LCA5-1 would be incurred by required lane
closure on Chrysanthy Boulevard, Sunrise Boulevard, and Kiefer Boulevard. No traffic
impacts on Zinfandel Drive or Douglas Road were anticipated since the interceptor would
be outside the travel way, or traffic would be minimal. For the segment of the interceptor
running along the west side of Sunrise Boulevard, only the southbound approach would be
impacted. The potential traffic impacts of Alternative MI-1 + LCA5-1 on various
roadways are shown in Table 1 of Appendix I. As shown in Table 1 of Appendix I, the
levels of service (LOS) on various roadways with the proposed project are at LOS D or
better. The level of service on Sunrise Boulevard south of Kiefer Boulevard would
decrease from D to F, which is below the City of Rancho Cordova’s acceptable standard,
LOS F indicates over-capacity conditions with excessive delays.
The total temporary public impact cost, including noise, dust, vibration and traffic delays,
would be $171,000 in NPV.
5.4.3.1.1.8 Risk Cost

The NPV risk cost was calculated to be $238,000 which consists entirely of construction
risks. The construction risk for contaminated soil or groundwater encountered was
estimated to be $204,700. The construction risk for methane encountered was estimated to
be $33,000.
The alternative MI-1 NPV is shown in Figure 5-3.

Project
Chapter 5
Risk, $238,000
Public Impact, $171,000
Schedule, $0
O&M, $8,306,000
Engineering, $21,534,000
Environmental, $12,407,000
Right of Way, $6,881,000
Construction, $71,592,000
Total $121,129,000
3%/yr Escalation Rate
5%/yr Discount Rate
Figure 5-3 Mather Interceptor Alternative MI-1 Net Present Value
5.4.3.1.2 Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Alternative MI-1 Related Additional Costs
The related additional costs of Alternative MI-1 + LCA5-1 were identified as the
additional cost to construct AJ4 in the future, and the cost to provide a stub out for the
CSD-1 trunk sewer at the intersection of Douglas Road and Zinfandel Drive. The cost to
construct AJ4 in the future includes the cost of engineering, construction, O&M, and
public impacts (see Figure 5-4).
An estimate was also made for traffic delays for future construction of AJ4. Tunneling of
most of the alignment was expected, but at least three shafts along Sunrise Boulevard can
be expected to impact one travel lane for most of a construction season. The NPV of this
traffic delay cost in 2029 is $920,000. The NPV of the pubic impact cost due to dust, noise
and vibration is $388,000, so the total NPV of the public impact costs is $1,308,000.
It should be noted that environmental impacts were not calculated because it was assumed
that the Mather area would be built out and remaining environmental features would be
negligible along the AJ4 corridor. ROW costs were not calculated because it was assumed
that ROW required to construct AJ4 in the future would be acquired as part of the MI-1 +
LCA5-1 ROW acquisition. Finally, due to the large uncertainties associated with project
construction in 2080, unique risks were not quantified.
The cost of the MAE stub includes only the cost of construction (see Figure 5-5). It was
assumed that the stub out to allow for the future connection of CSD-1 flows would be
constructed as part of the MI construction and that the stub out would be constructed
within the Alternative MI-1 + LCA5-1 limits of disturbance. Thus, it was assumed that
there would be insignificant additional engineering, environmental, ROW, O&M, or public

Project
Chapter 5
impacts beyond those already included in the Total Cost to the Community for Alternative
MI-1 + LCA5-1.
Public Impacts, $1,308,000

O&M, $573,000
Mather Interceptor
Future Construction of AJ4
Net Present Value
Total $61,613,000
5%/yr Discount Rate
Figure 5-4 Mather Interceptor Future Construction of AJ4 Net Present Value
Construction $66,000
Mather Interceptor
MAE Stub Out
Net Present Value
Total $66,000
5%/yr Discount Rate
Figure 5-5 Mather Interceptor MAE Stub Out Net Present Value

Project
Chapter 5
The total cost of Alternative MI-1 + LCA5-1, including additional related costs, was
estimated to be as follows:
NPV of Future Aerojet 4 $61,613,000

NPV of MAE Stub Out $66,000
NPV of MI-1+LCA5 $121,129,000
Total NPV $182,808,000
This concept is captured in Figure 5-6.
Total NPV NPV for NPV of NPV of

for Alternative Future MAE
Alternative
MI-1
= MI-1 As
Designed
+ Aerojet 4
+ Stub
Out
Figure 5-6 Alternative MI-1 BCE Summary of Costs
5.4.3.1.3 Life Cycle Cost Analysis Summary for Alternative MI-1

As stated above, the NPV was calculated assuming a life cycle of 80 years, a discount rate
of 5 percent per year, and an escalation rate of 3 percent per year. Total life cycle cost
(Cost to the Community) for Alternative MI-1 is $182,808,000 and, as stated above, is
equal to the NPV for MI-1 () plus NPV of future construction of the AJ4 Interceptor and a
stub out for the MAI Trunk.
Total Alternative MI-1 NPV (including additional costs) is shown in Figure 5-7.
Public Impact, $1,479,000
Schedule, $0
O&M, $8,879,000 Risk, $238,000
Total $182,808,000
5%/yr Discount Rate
Figure 5-7 Alternative MI-1 Net Present Value (including additional costs)

Project
Chapter 5
In summary, key comments and intangibles noted above include the following:
• Negative image to SRCSD due to major construction activity adjacent to a major
roadway.
• Construction schedule assumes double shifts for tunnel construction operations.
• Potential loss of business at shopping centers currently under construction at the
intersection of Douglas Road and Sunrise Boulevard.
• Potential disruption of the TRACON operations caused by accidentally hitting its
underground utilities.
• Potential conflict with the Zinfandel Drive extension and Douglas Road widening.
5.4.3.2 Alternative MI-2 Mather Boulevard

Mather Alternative MI-2 + LCA5-1 includes approximately 17,345 feet of 72-inch-
diameter gravity interceptor, approximately 15,630 feet of 24-inch-diameter dual force
main, and a pump station. The required flow capacity of the gravity portion would be 49
mgd. The capacity of the pump station would be 13 mgd and the size of the dual force
mains would be 24 inches. The pump station would be located approximately 1,200 feet
northeast of the intersection of Sunrise Boulevard and Jackson Road. Additional details
about this practical alternative are provided in the Technical Memorandum, Preliminary
Design Mather Interceptor – Alternative MI-2 + LCA5-1 Construction Approach, found in
Appendix N.
along Sunrise Boulevard to the transition structure located in the west side of the Sunrise
Boulevard ROW across from the Chrysanthy Boulevard intersection. Flow discharged
from the force main would combine with flow from the connection to the Aerojet 1
Interceptor that was formerly pumped by the Chrysanthy Pump Station, and then flow
north in a 72-inch-diameter gravity sewer for 4,150 feet to the Mather Junction Structure at
the northwest intersection of Douglas Road and Sunrise Boulevard. The Mather Junction
Structure would include a stub for the future connection of the Aerojet 2 Interceptor and a
stub for the future connection of the AJ4 Interceptor. Flow from the Mather Junction
Structure would flow west in a 72-inch-diameter gravity sewer along Douglas Boulevard,
drop to a lower elevation to pass under the FSC and continue west along Douglas Road.
The total length of the interceptor in Douglas Road would be 6,530 feet. At the
intersection of Douglas Road and Mather Boulevard, the sewer would flow northwest
along Mather Boulevard in a 72-inch-diameter gravity sewer for 6,620 feet to the
Mather/Bradshaw Junction Structure, where flow would discharge to the 84-inch-diameter
Bradshaw Interceptor. Figure 5-8 shows a schematic figure of the profile of the
alternative. Additional details about this practical alternative are provided in the
preliminary design documents and are available on request.

Project
Chapter 5
Figure 5-8 Profile of Alternative MI-2 + LCA5-1


force main, and Mather Interceptor construction and includes a 20 percent construction

The NPV engineering cost was estimated as $23,113,000 for the NPV of the pump station,
force main, and Mather Interceptor. It was assumed the NPV of the Mather Interceptor
engineering would be incurred during 2007 through 2010.

permanent easements, and $853,000 (12 percent of total) in fee titles. It was assumed that
this cost would be incurred during the ROW acquisition process (2008 through 2010),
which could continue into and beyond the construction period.

NPV environmental impacts of this alternative are similar to those for the MI-1 alternative.
The NPV of the environmental mitigation cost was estimated as $11,539,000. The

Project
Chapter 5

31,260 feet of 24-inch-diameter force main and 15,600 feet of gravity sewer between 54
inches and 72 inches in diameter. The Mather Pump Station would require four 250 hp
pumps with an average total dynamic head of 77 feet at start-up to 154 feet at buildout.
The force main would include 18 ARVs and 12 blow-offs. O&M costs were calculated
over the 80-year life cycle of the facility.

It should be noted that the schedule above assumes double shifts for tunnel construction
operations. This alternative would not complete the gravity sewer portion of the Mather
Interceptor and would not provide service to the LCA5 shed by the end of 2010. The
Mather Pump Station would be complete by July 2010, but the gravity sewer would not be
complete until January 24, 2011. It was assumed for the purposes of this cost analysis that
this schedule delay would not be significant and no additional costs for delay would be
incurred.

The total temporary public impact cost in NPV for dust, noise, and vibration for the MI-2 +
LCA5-1 Alternative was estimated as $147,000. The noise mitigation cost associated with
building soundwalls was estimated to be $95,200, assuming that 2,000 linear feet of
soundwall would need to be built. The dust mitigation cost was estimated as $21,900. The
dust mitigation cost included the following mitigation costs: HVAC cleanings at $12,200;
house cleanings at $3,700; power washes at $4,900; window and blinds cleaning at $500;
and car washes at $600. No pools were located within the buffer zone; therefore, no
mitigation cost was estimated for pool cleanings. The total vibration mitigation cost of
preconstruction and postconstruction, monitoring during construction, and potential
damage claims was estimated as $29,000. The total cost of preconstruction and
postconstruction and monitoring during construction was estimated as $3,900 and total
potential damage claims were estimated as $26,000.
The total traffic delay for the proposed MI-2 + LCA5-1 alternative would result in 4,193
hours of delay, which was converted into $35,900 of delay cost in NPV. Detailed
assumptions of delay cost analysis are also shown in Table 2 of the Technical
Memorandum, Potential Traffic Delay Cost Due to Construction in Appendix I. The
indirect impact to traffic of the MI-2 + LCA5-1 Alternative would be incurred by required
lane closures on Mather Boulevard, Chrysanthy Boulevard, Sunrise Boulevard, and Kiefer
Boulevard. No traffic impacts on Douglas Road were anticipated because the interceptor

Project
Chapter 5
would be outside the travel way. For the segment of the interceptor running along the west
side of Sunrise Boulevard, only the southbound approach would be impacted. The
potential traffic impacts of Alternatives MI-2 + LCA5-1 on various roadways are shown in
Table 2 of Appendix I. As shown in Table 2 of Appendix I, the LOS on various
roadways with the proposed project are at LOS D or better. The LOS on Sunrise
Boulevard south of Kiefer Road would decrease from D to F, which is below the City of
Rancho Cordova’s acceptable standard. LOS F indicates over-capacity conditions with
excessive delays.
The total temporary public impact cost, including noise, dust, vibration, and traffic delays,
would be $183,000 in NPV.
5.4.3.2.1.8 Risk Cost

The total cost associated with risk was calculated to be $1,525,000 which consisted
entirely of construction risks. The construction risk for contamination encountered was
estimated to be $1,470,900. The construction risk for methane encountered was estimated
to be $54,600.
The Alternative MI-2 NPV is shown in Figure 5-9.

Risk, $1,525,000
Schedule, $0
O&M, $8,414,000
Total $128,709,000
5%/yr Discount Rate
Figure 5-9 Alternative MI-2 Net Present Value

The related additional costs of Alternative MI-2 + LCA5-1 Alternative were identified as
the additional cost to construct AJ4 in the future and the cost to provide a stub out for the
CSD-1 trunk sewer at the intersection of Douglas Road and Zinfandel Drive. The cost to
construct AJ4 in the future includes the cost of engineering, construction, O&M, and
public impacts (see Figure 5-10).

Project
Chapter 5
An estimate was also made for the traffic delays for the future construction of AJ4.
Tunneling of most of the alignment is expected, but at least three shafts along Sunrise
Boulevard could be expected to impact one travel lane for most of a construction season.
The NPV of this traffic delay cost in 2029 is $920,000. The NPV of the public impact cost
due to the dust, noise and vibration is $388,000, so the total NPV of the public impact cost
is $1,308,000.
LCA5-1 ROW acquisition. Finally, risk was not calculated due to the large uncertainties
associated with project construction in 2030, unique risks were not quantified.
MAE Stub Out includes only the cost of construction (see Figure 5-11). It was assumed
that the stub out to allow for the future connection of the CSD-1 flows would be
constructed as part of the Mather Interceptor construction, and that the stub out would be
constructed within the Alternative MI-1 + LCA5-1 limits of disturbance. Thus, it was
assumed that there would be insignificant additional engineering, environmental, ROW,
O&M, or public impacts beyond those already included in the Total Cost to the
Community for Alternative MI-1 + LCA5-1.

O&M, $573,000
Mather Interceptor
Net Present Value
Total $61,613,000
5%/yr Discount Rate

Project
Chapter 5
Construction $66,000
Mather Interceptor
MAE Stub Out
Net Present Value
Total $66,000
5%/yr Discount Rate
Figure 5-11 Mather Interceptor MAE Stub Out Net Present Value
The total cost of Alternative MI-2 + LCA5-1, including the additional related costs, was
estimated to be as follows:

NPV of MI-2+LCA5 $128,709,000
Total NPV $190,388,000

5.4.3.2.3 Summary of Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Alternative MI-2
As mentioned above, the Total Cost to the Community is equal to the sum of the NPV
costs of the future construction of AJ4 Interceptor, the MAE stub out, and Alternative MI-
2, as it was designed. This is shown graphically in Figure 5-12.

for Alternative Future MAE
Alternative
MI-2
= MI-2 As
Designed
+ Aerojet 4
+ Stub
Out
The Mather Interceptor total Alternative MI-2 NPV (including additional costs) is shown
in Figure 5-13.

Project
Chapter 5
Risk, $1,525,000
Schedule, $0
O&M, $8,987,000
Total $190,388,000
5%/yr Discount Rate
Figure 5-13 Mather Interceptor Total Alternative MI-2 Net Present Value
(including additional costs)
• Mather Airport plans to close Mather Boulevard to the public, and the road will be
inside the airport security fence. O&M would need to work with airfield
management to access the gravity sewer for maintenance. O&M currently has a
similar situation for an existing sewer in the airfield; therefore, this is not
considered an issue.
roadway.
• Start-up of the Mather Pump Station is not scheduled until January 24, 2011.
Either development may be delayed, or interim facilities may need to be
constructed.
• Potential loss of business at the shopping centers currently under construction at the
5.4.3.3 Alternative MI-7 Sunrise Boulevard

Alternative MI-7 + LCA5-1 includes approximately 14,230 feet of 54-inch-diameter to 72-
inch-diameter gravity interceptor, approximately 15,630 feet of 24-inch-diameter dual
force main, and a pump station. The required flow capacity of the gravity portion would

Project
Chapter 5
be 49 mgd. The capacity of the pump station would be 13 mgd and the size of the dual
force mains would be 24 inches. The pump station would be located approximately 1,200
feet northeast of the intersection of Sunrise Boulevard and Jackson Road. Figure 5-14
shows a schematic figure of the alignment of the alternative. Additional details about this
practical alternative are provided in the Technical Memorandum, Preliminary Design
Mather Interceptor – Alternative MI-7 + LCA5-1 Construction Approach, found in
Appendix O.
Boulevard ROW, across from the Chrysanthy Boulevard intersection. Flow discharged
Interceptor that was formerly pumped by the Chrysanthy Pump Station, and flow north in a
72-inch-diameter gravity sewer for 4,150 feet to the Mather Junction Structure at the
northwest intersection of Douglas Road and Sunrise Boulevard. The Mather Junction
Structure would include a stub for the future connection of Aerojet 2 Interceptor and a stub
for the future connection of the AJ4 Interceptor. Flow from the Mather Junction Structure
would flow north in a 54-inch-diameter gravity sewer along Sunrise Boulevard to the
intersection with Recycle Road. The total length of the interceptor in and along Sunrise
Boulevard is 8,690 feet. The gravity sewer would turn west and flow along Recycle Road
for 400 feet, and drop to a lower elevation and pass under the FSC. The tunnel under the
canal is 720 feet. At the west end of the tunnel is the Mather/Bradshaw Junction Structure,
where flow would discharge to the 72-inch-diameter Bradshaw Interceptor. Figure 5-14
shows a schematic figure illustrating the profile of the alternative. Additional details about
this practical alternative are provided in preliminary design documents and are available on
request.
Figure 5-14 Profile of Alternative MI-7 + LCA5-1

Project
Chapter 5

force main, Mather Interceptor construction and includes a 20 percent construction

The NPV engineering cost was estimated as $18,893,000 for the pump station, force main,
and Mather Interceptor. It was assumed the NPV of the Mather Interceptor engineering
would be incurred during 2007 through 2010.

which may continue into and beyond the construction period.

The NPV environmental impacts of this alternative are similar to those for Alternative MI-
1. The NPV of the environmental mitigation cost was estimated as $11,297,000. The

31,260 feet of 24-inch-diameter force main and 14,230 feet of gravity sewer between 54
inches and 72 inches in diameter. The Mather Pump Station would require four 250 hp
pumps with an average total dynamic head of 77 feet at start-up to 154 feet at buildout.
The force main would include 18 ARVs and 12 blow-offs. O&M costs were calculated
over the 80-year life cycle of the facility.


Project
Chapter 5
It should be noted that the schedule above does not assume double shift for tunnel
construction operations. No delay costs have been assumed for this alternative.

The total temporary public impact cost in net present value for dust, noise, and vibration
for Alternative MI-7 + LCA5-1 was estimated to be $284,200. The noise mitigation cost
associated with building soundwalls was estimated to be $95,200, assuming that 2,000
linear feet of soundwall would need to be built. The dust mitigation cost was estimated as
$35,000. The dust mitigation cost included the following mitigation costs: HVAC
cleanings at $24,600; house cleanings at $4,000; power washes at $5,400; window and
blinds cleaning at $500; and car washes at $500. No pools were located within the buffer
zone; therefore, no mitigation cost was estimated for pool cleanings. The total vibration
mitigation cost of preconstruction and postconstruction, monitoring during construction,
and potential damage claims was estimated to be $154,000. The total cost of
preconstruction and postconstruction and monitoring during construction was estimated as
$14,600, and total potential damage claims were estimated as $139,400.
The total traffic delay for the proposed interceptor Alternative MI-7 + LCA5-1 would
result in 46,508 hours of delay, which was converted into $398,700 of delay cost in NPV.
Detailed assumptions of delay cost analysis are also shown in Table 3 of the Technical
Memorandum; Potential Traffic Delay Cost Due to Construction in Appendix I. The
indirect impact to traffic of Alternative MI-7 + LCA5-1 Alternative would be incurred by
requiring lane closures on Sunrise Boulevard, Chrysanthy Boulevard, and Kiefer
Boulevard. In addition, a road closure to through traffic would be required on Recycle
Road. However, a single reversible lane would be provided to local traffic to access
business on Recycle Road. For the segment of the interceptor running along the west side
of Sunrise Boulevard, only the southbound approach would be impacted. The potential
traffic impacts of the MI-7 + LCA5 alternative on various roadways are shown in Table 3
of the Technical Memorandum; Potential Traffic Delay Cost Due to Construction in
Appendix I. As shown in Table 3 of Appendix I, the LOS on various roadways for the
proposed project are at LOS D or better. The LOS on Sunrise Boulevard between Recycle
Road and Douglas would decrease from LOS A to LOS F. Sunrise Boulevard south of
Kiefer Road would decrease from D to F. LOS F is below the City of Rancho Cordova’s
acceptable standard, and indicates over-capacity conditions with excessive delays.
The total temporary public impact cost, including dust, noise, vibration and traffic delays,
is $683,000.
5.4.3.3.1.8 Risk Cost

The total cost associated with risk was calculated to be $820,000 which consisted entirely
of construction risks for traffic.
The Alternative MI-7, NPV is shown in Figure 5-15.

Project
Chapter 5
Risk, $820,000
Schedule, $0
O&M, $8,264,000
Total $112,192,000
5%/yr Discount Rate
Figure 5-15 Mather Interceptor Alternative MI-7 Net Present Value
Related additional costs of Alternative MI-7 + LCA5-1 were identified as the additional
cost to construct AJ4 in the future, and the cost to construct the MAE Trunk Sewer from
Douglas Road to the Bradshaw Interceptor, approximately 6,000 feet of 21-inch-diameter
gravity sewer. Related additional costs for both items above include the cost of
engineering, construction, O&M and public impacts (see Figure 5-16).
An estimate was also made for traffic delays for the future construction of AJ4. Tunneling
of most of the alignment is expected, but at least three shafts along Sunrise Boulevard can
be expected to impact one travel lane for most of a construction season. The NPV of this
traffic delay cost in 2029 is $920,000. The NPV of the public impact cost due to dust,
noise and vibration is $388,000, so the total NPV of the public impacts is $1,308,000.
LCA5-1 ROW acquisition. Finally, due to the large uncertainties associated with project
construction in 2030, unique risks were not quantified.
The MAE Trunk Sewer extension cost includes the cost of construction, engineering, and
O&M for the 6,000-foot extension (see Figure 5-17). The CSD-1 Master Plan stated the
MAE Trunk Sewer would be required between 2011 and 2020; therefore, a construction
period of 2015 was assumed. It was assumed the MAE Trunk Sewer would be constructed
within the Zinfandel Drive ROW; therefore, no additional environmental, ROW, or public

Project
Chapter 5
impacts would occur beyond those already included in the Total Cost to the Community
for Alternative MI-7 + LCA5-1.
O&M, $573,000
Mather Interceptor
Net Present Value
Total $61,613,000
5%/yr Discount Rate
O&M, $126,000
Mather Interceptor
MAE Trunk
Net Present Value
Total $18,997,000
5%/yr Discount Rate
Figure 5-17 Mather Interceptor MAE Trunk Net Present Value

Project
Chapter 5
The total cost of Alternative MI-7 + LCA5-1 was estimated to be:

NPV of MAE Stub Out $18,997,000
NPV of MI-7+LCA5 $112,192,000
Total NPV $192,802,000

5.4.3.3.3 Summary of Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Alternative MI-7
costs of Alternative MI-7 and the future construction of the AJ4 Interceptor and MAE
Trunk Sewer extension. This is shown graphically in Figure5-18.

for
Alternative = Alternative
MI-7 As + Future
Aerojet 4 + MAE
Extension
MI-7 Designed
The Alternative MI-7 total NPV (including additional costs) is shown in Figure 5-19.
Risk, $820,000
Schedule, $0
O&M, $8,963,000
Total $192,802,000
5%/yr Discount Rate
Figure 5-19 Alternative MI-7 Total Net Present Value (including additional
costs)
• Reduces interference with roadway construction in Zinfandel Drive and Douglas
Road.

Project
Chapter 5
• Construction of the MAE Trunk Sewer 5 years after completion of the Mather
Interceptor in the same area.
• Negative image to SRCSD due to major construction activity in and adjacent to a
major roadway.
5.4.3.4 Alternative AJ4 Zinfandel + Aerojet 4

Alternative AJ4 includes approximately 15,121 linear feet of 72-inch-diameter gravity
interceptor, 15,625 linear feet of dual force main to serve LCA5, and 19,875 linear feet of
AJ4 gravity pipeline. Alternative AJ4 includes the Mather Interceptor and force main to
convey flow from the Sunrise/Douglas development east of Sunrise Boulevard to the
Bradshaw 7B Interceptor on an interim basis. Compared to the other Mather Interceptor
alternatives, this alternative would add construction of the AJ4 Interceptor. The capacity
of the pump station would be 13 mgd. The pump station would be located approximately
1,200 feet northeast of the intersection of Sunrise Boulevard and Jackson Road. Figure 5-
20 shows a schematic of the alignment of the alternative. Additional details about this
practical alternative are provided in the Technical Memorandum; Preliminary Design
Mather Interceptor – Alternative AJ4 Assumed Construction Approach found in Appendix
P.
Boulevard ROW across from the Chrysanthy Boulevard intersection. Flow discharged
Interceptor that was formerly pumped by the Chrysanthy Pump Station, and then flow
north in a 72-inch-diameter gravity sewer for 4,150 feet to the Mather Junction Structure at
the northwest intersection of Douglas Road and Sunrise Boulevard. The Mather Junction
Structure would include a stub for the future connection of Aerojet 2 Interceptor and a stub
for the future connection of the AJ4 Interceptor. Flow from the Mather Junction Structure
would flow west in a 72-inch-diameter gravity sewer along Douglas Road, drop to a lower
elevation to pass under the FSC and continue west along Douglas Road. The total length
of the interceptor in Douglas Road would be 4,920 feet. At the future intersection with an
extension of Zinfandel Drive, the sewer would flow north along Zinfandel Drive in a 72-
inch-diameter gravity sewer for 5,980 feet to the Mather/Bradshaw Junction Structure,
where it would discharge to the 84-inch-diameter Bradshaw Interceptor. The AJ4
Alternative includes a 72-inch-diameter gravity sewer from the Mather Junction Structure
that would flow south along Sunrise Boulevard to the Mather Pump Station, paralleling the
Mather Interceptor pipelines. It was assumed this pipeline would be left dry and would
serve as the AJ4 Interceptor when construction of the Laguna Creek Interceptor is
completed. The profile figure below shows a schematic illustration of the alternative.
Additional details about this practical alternative are provided in the preliminary design
documents and are available on request.

Project
Chapter 5
Figure 5-20 Profile of Mather Interceptor Alternative AJ4
5.4.3.4.1 Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Alternative AJ4

The NPV Probable Construction Cost was estimated as $124,913,000, which includes a 20
percent construction contingency. It was assumed that the majority of this cost would be
incurred during the two seasons (2009 and 2010) planned for construction of the project.

The NPV engineering cost was estimated as $37,576,000. It was assumed that this cost
would be incurred over the life of the project design and construction (2007 through 2010).

Project
Chapter 5

(44 percent of total) for temporary easements, for $3,177,000 (44 percent of total)
which may continue into and beyond the construction period.

Environmental mitigation impacts would be identical to MI-1. The NPV of the mitigation
costs were estimated as $12,407,000. The environmental mitigation cost would consist of
$12,213,000 (98 percent of total) for vernal pool impacts, $171,000 (1 percent of total) for
channel/wetland impacts, $0 for GGS habitat impacts, $0 for VELB habitat impacts,
$1,000 for tree impacts, and $22,000 for impacts to other species. It was assumed that this
cost would be incurred in 2008 because mitigation costs typically must be paid prior to
final approval of some environmental permits.

31,200 feet of 24-inch-diameter force main and 15,100 feet of 72-inch-diameter gravity
sewer for the Mather Interceptor and 19,800 feet of 72-inch-diameter gravity sewer for the
AJ4 Interceptor. O&M costs for this alternative assume the AJ4 Interceptor would be
cleaned and CCTV-inspected to verify no significant corrosion had occurred before it
would be put into service. The Mather Pump station would require four 250 hp pumps
with an average total dynamic head of 77 feet at start-up to 154 feet at buildout. The force
main would include 18 ARVs and 12 blow-offs. O&M costs were calculated over the 80-
year life cycle of the facility.

• 03/10/11 for completion of the Mather Interceptor gravity sewer
It should be noted that the schedule above assumes double shifts for tunnel construction
operations. This alternative would not be substantially complete until May 2012 and
would not be able to accept flow from the LCA5 shed until July 2012. This is because of
the additional tunneling that would be required to complete the AJ4 Interceptor pipeline. It
was also assumed that the force main could not be completed until the AJ4 pipeline was
complete because the force main and pipeline would parallel each other in the same
corridor, and the force main would be above the Aerojet pipeline. Alternative methods of
construction would be considered during final design for potential to accelerate force main
construction. However, for purposes of this analysis, a delay cost was assumed for the
additional O&M cost of the Chrysanthy Pump Station after December 2010, and the cost

Project
Chapter 5
of an interim pump station in the LCA5 shed. This would result in a schedule NPV cost of
$7,354,000.

The total temporary public impact cost for dust, noise, and vibration for Alternative AJ4
was estimated to be $147,200 in net present value. The noise mitigation cost associated
with building sound walls was estimated to be $93,700, assuming that 9,000 linear feet of
sound wall would need to be built. The dust mitigation cost was estimated as $21,500.
The dust mitigation cost included the following mitigation costs: HVAC cleanings at
$12,000; house cleanings at $3,600; power washes at $4,800; window and blinds cleaning
at $500; and car washes at $600. No pools were located within the buffer zone; therefore,
no mitigation cost was estimated for pool cleanings. The total vibration mitigation cost of
preconstruction and postconstruction, monitoring during construction, and potential
damage claims was estimated to be $21,500. The total cost of preconstruction and
postconstruction and monitoring during construction was estimated as $4,200, and total
potential damage claims were estimated as $27,800.
The proposed Alternative AJ4 has the same alignment as Alternative MI-1 + LCA5-1 and
would therefore experience the same traffic impacts. However, the NPVs would be
slightly different because of the difference in the time period of construction. The
proposed interceptor Alternative AJ4 would result in 2,464 hours of delay, which was
converted into $20,800 of delay cost in NPV. Detailed assumptions of delay cost analysis
are also shown in Table 1 of the Technical Memorandum; Potential Traffic Delay Cost
Due to Construction, in Appendix I.
The total temporary public impact cost, including dust, noise, vibration and traffic delays,
is $168,000.
5.4.3.4.1.8 Risk Cost

The total cost associated with risk for Alternative AJ4 was calculated to be $233,000
which consisted entirely of construction risks presented in the discussion of Alternative
MI-1 + LCA5-1 in 5.4.3.1.1 above.
5.4.3.4.2 Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Alternative AJ4 Related Additional Costs
Alternative AJ4 includes construction of the AJ4 Interceptor; therefore, the only related
additional cost would be the cost to provide a stub out for the CSD-1 Trunk Sewer at the
intersection of Douglas Road and Zinfandel Drive.
The cost of the MAE stub includes only the cost of construction. It was assumed that the
stub out to allow for the future connection of the CSD-1 flows would be constructed as
part of the MI construction, and that the stub out would be constructed within the
Alternative MI-1 + LCA5-1 limits of disturbance. Thus, it was assumed that there would
be insignificant additional engineering, environmental, ROW, O&M, or public impacts
beyond those already included in the Total Cost to the Community for Alternative AJ4.

Project
Chapter 5
The total cost of Alternative AJ4, including related additional costs, was estimated to be as
follows (see Figure 5-21):

NPV of AJ4 $199,069,000
Total NPV $199,135,000

Schedule, $7,354,000
Risk, $233,000
O&M, $9,272,000
Total $199,069,000
5%/yr Discount Rate
Figure 5-21 Alternative AJ4, Net Present Value
5.4.3.4.3 Summary of Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Alternative AJ4

costs of the MAE Trunk Stub Out Alternative AJ4 as it was designed. This is shown
graphically in Figure 5-22.
Total NPV NPV for

for
Alternative = Alternative
AJ4 As + NPV of MAE
Trunk Stub
AJ4 Designed Out
Figure 5-22 Alternative AJ4 BCE Summary of Costs
Total alternative AJ4 NPV (including additional costs) is shown in Figure 5-23.

Project
Chapter 5

Risk, $233,000
O&M, $9,272,000
Total $199,135,000
5%/yr Discount Rate
Figure 5-23 AJ4 Alternative Total Net Present Value

(including additional costs)
• Early construction of the AJ4 Interceptor avoids future impacts to the public, and
removes risk of higher than average cost escalation.
roadway
• Start-up of the Mather Pump Station is not scheduled until July 20, 2012. Either
development may be delayed, or interim facilities may need to be constructed.
5.4.4 Summary of Results of the Business Case Evaluation
To select the preferred alternative, the Total Cost to the Community (total NPV) and any
key intangibles for each practical alternative should be compared. Below is a discussion of
the comparison between the practical alternatives (see Table 5-8).

Project
Chapter 5
5.4.4.1 Construction Cost

Alternative MI-1 has the lowest NPV of construction cost of the four alternatives. The
construction cost NPV of MI-1 is 4 percent to 5 percent lower than for MI-2 and MI-7,
respectively, and 6 percent lower than for AJ4.
5.4.4.2 Engineering Cost

Because engineering cost was calculated at a percent of construction cost, engineering cost
is not a differentiating BCE parameter.
5.4.4.3 Right-of-Way Cost

The ROW cost for MI-1 is $212,000 (3 percent) less than MI-2, $2,541,000 (27 percent)
less than MI-7, and $256,000 (4 percent) less than AJ4. All the alternatives have similar
ROW acquisition requirements except MI-7, which requires permanent and temporary
easements along Sunrise Boulevard north of Douglas Road.
5.4.4.4 Environmental Mitigation Cost

Most of the environmental impacts and mitigation costs for all four alternatives are south
of Chrysanthy Boulevard along Sunrise Boulevard and across private property. The
primary difference is that the MI-1 and AJ4 alignments impact more vernal pools north of
Douglas Road. Costs for MI-1 and AJ4 are $868,000 (8 percent) higher than for MI-2, and
$1,110,000 (10 percent) higher than for MI-7.
5.4.4.5 Operation and Maintenance Cost

Since the pump station and force main are identical for all four alternatives, the O&M costs
are not significantly different, except AJ4. The O&M cost for AJ4 is $309,000 more than
the lowest alternative because of the cost to clean and CCTV-inspect the unused AJ4
Interceptor before it is put into service in 2030.
5.4.4.6 Schedule Cost

Reasonable construction schedules project that Alternatives MI-1, MI-2, and MI-7 would
be complete prior to or close to the December 31, 2010 deadline. Alternative AJ4 would
not be complete prior to the deadline and a $7,354,000 NPV cost has been added to the
alternative cost to cover schedule delays.
5.4.4.7 Temporary Public Impact Cost

Alternative AJ4 has the lowest public impact costs because it avoids additional impacts to
the public when the AJ4 Interceptor is constructed in 2030. MI-7 has the greatest impacts
because of the construction in Sunrise Boulevard, which would require closure of one lane
of traffic and associated costs of traffic delays. MI-1 costs were virtually identical to MI-2,
$512,000 less than for MI-7, and $1,311,000 higher than for AJ4.
Although the temporary public impact cost accounts for impacts to the public caused by
traffic delays and construction-related nuisance impacts (noise, dust, vibration), some key

Project
Chapter 5
intangible public impacts may be caused as a result of construction of these alternatives.

Many of these were common to all the alternatives, including the following:
intersection of Sunrise Boulevard and Douglas Road.
• Impacts to traffic along Sunrise Boulevard south of Douglas Road
5.4.4.8 Risk Cost

Risk costs are nearly identical for MI-1 and AJ4, but are significantly less than for MI-7
and MI-2. Risk costs for MI-1 and AJ4 are $1,287,000 less than for MI-2 because of the
higher risk of encountering contaminated soil and groundwater. Risk costs for MI-1 and
AJ4 are $582,000 less than for MI-7 because of the increased risk of traffic accidents.
5.4.4.9 Summary
The Total Cost to the Community and key comments and intangibles are captured in Table
5-8.

Project
Chapter 5
Table 5-8 BCE Results Comparison Among Alternatives

Total Cost to the Community
Alt. NPV Key Comments/Intangibles
(2007 $)

Schedule, $0
O&M, $8,879,000 Risk, $238,000
• Double shift tunnel construction

operations.
• Facility start-up on 10/14/10. Service to
Chrysanthy Pump Station and LCA5
shed provided by December 2010.
MI-1 • Potential conflict with Zinfandel Drive
construction and Douglas road-
widening.
Mather Interceptor
Total Alt. 1
• Potential loss of business at shopping
Net Present Value centers.
(including Add. Costs)
Total $182,808,000
5%/yr Discount Rate
Risk, $1,525,000
Schedule, $0
O&M, $8,987,000
• Construction near known area of

contaminated soil and groundwater.
Environmental, $11,539,000 • Double shift tunnel construction
operations.
•
Facility start-up on 01/24/11. Service to
MI-2 Chrysanthy Pump Station and LCA5
shed is late by 3-1/2 weeks. Continued
Construction, $122,827,000 operation of CSD-1 interim pump
stations until this date.
Mather Interceptor
Total Alt. 2 • Potential loss of business at shopping
Net Present Value
(including Add. Costs) centers.
Total $190,388,000
5%/yr Discount Rate

Project
Chapter 5
Total Cost to the Community

Alt. NPV Key Comments/Intangibles
(2007 $)
Risk, $820,000
Schedule, $0
O&M, $8,963,000
• Single shift tunnel operations.
• Facility start-up on 10/06/10. Provides
MI-7 Right of Way, $9,422,000 service to Chrysanthy Pump Station and
LCA5 shed by December 2010.
• More construction in and along Sunrise
Construction, $123,239,000 Boulevard.
Mather Interceptor
Total Alt. 7
Net Present Value
Total $192,802,000
5%/yr Discount Rate

Risk, $233,000
• Avoids impact to developed area by
O&M, $9,272,000
Engineering, $37,576,000 constructing the Aerojet 4 Interceptor in
2010 rather than 2019.
• Double shift tunnel operations
Environmental, $12,407,000 • 03/10/11 for start-up of gravity
sewer serving Chrysanthy Pump
Station.
AJ4 • 07/20/12 for completion of start-up
and testing of Mather Pump Station
and service to LCA5 shed.
• Service to Chrysanthy Pump Station

Mather Interceptor
Total Alt. AJ4
is 3-1/2 months late. Continued
Net Present Value operation by CSD-1 until this date.
Total $199,135,000
• Service to LCA5 is 1 ½ years late.
5%/yr Discount Rate Interim facilities may be necessary if
development occurs by 2011.

Project
Chapter 5
5.4.4.10 Construction Cost Escalation Rate Sensitivity Analysis

An analysis was performed to determine the sensitivity of the BCE results to fluctuations
in the escalation rate for construction cost. The NPV for each alternative was calculated
assuming a 3 percent per year escalation rate, a 5 percent per year discount rate, and an 80-
year life cycle. The 3 percent per year escalation rate and 5 percent per year discount rate
were applied to all costs. In addition, the NPV of the construction costs was recalculated
assuming a 5, 7.5, and 10 percent escalation rate to determine if the ranking between
alternatives would be affected (see Table 5-9).
Table 5-9 Construction Cost Escalation Rate Sensitivity

Total NPV at 5 Total NPV at 5 Total NPV at 5 Total NPV at 5
percent percent percent percent Discount
Alternative Discount Rate Discount Rate Discount Rate Rate and 10
and 3 percent and 5 percent and 7.5 percent percent Escalation
Escalation Rate Escalation Rate Escalation Rate Rate
MI-1 $181,920,000 $208,940,000 $259,250,000 $337,800,000
MI-2 $189,500,000 $216,780,000 $267,420,000 $346,320,000
MI-7 $191,910,000 $219,220,000 $269,890,000 $348,810,000
AJ4 $199,130,000 $207,810,000 $219,330,000 $231,650,000
Key:
NPV = net present value
MI = Mather Interceptor
AJ = Aerojet
As shown above, MI-1 has the lowest NPV at a 5 percent discount rate and a 3 percent
escalation rate. If construction costs are escalated at 5 percent, and other factors are the
same, AJ4 has the lowest NPV. This is because of the increased cost of the future
construction of AJ4 Interceptor if costs escalate between now and 2029. The gap between
AJ4 widens if higher construction cost escalation rates are assumed, as shown in Figure 5-
24.
At the 3 percent escalation rate, MI-1 is 4 percent lower in cost than MI-2, which has the
next lowest NPV. At the 5 percent escalation rate, AJ4 has an NPV of less than 1 percent
less than MI-1 (see Figure 5-24).

Project
Chapter 5
$290,000,000
$270,000,000
$250,000,000
NPV (2007$)
$230,000,000
$210,000,000
$190,000,000
$170,000,000
$150,000,000
Total NPV [j] Total NPV Total NPV
3%/yr Escalation Rate 5%/yr Escalation Rate 7.5%/yr Escalation Rate
5%/yr Discount Rate 5%/yr Discount Rate 5%/yr Discount Rate
Escalation Rate (%)
MI-1 + LCA5-1 MI-2 + LCA5-1
MI-7 + LCA5-1 AJ4 (MI-1 + LCA5-1 + AJ4)
Figure 5-24 BCE Results at Various Construction Cost Escalation Rates
5.4.5 Recommendation of Preferred Alternative
Alternative MI-1 is the Preferred Alternative for the Mather Interceptor project. However,
it is also recommended that implementation of Alternative AJ4 be studied further under the
Basis of Design Report to be conducted by the final designer, CDM. Further study of AJ4
is possible without delaying the design task because the MI-1 and AJ4 alignments overlap
each other; therefore, no additional survey other field work is necessary. The preliminary
design and BCE-assumed construction of AJ4 would be very difficult in 2029. However,
the final designer can study the constructability of AJ4 further and more carefully analyze
different construction methods. The final designer can also determine if land can be
reserved now to facilitate construction of tunnel shafts or other construction features in the
future. This would allow AJ4 construction to take place in the future and avoid a
significant increase in current construction budgets. The final designer will be directed to
provide a recommendation on the AJ4 constructability in a Basis of Design Report.
The recommendation of Alternative MI-1 and the further study of Alternative AJ4 was
made to the PAC on April 18, 2007. However, there was concern that a regional pump
station to serve the LCA5 shed was recommended as part of all the alternatives, and the
use of multiple, interim pump stations had not been analyzed. It was also stated that the
pace of development had slowed significantly and the pump station would not be needed
for some time. As a result, the PAC directed program management staff to conduct further
analysis of the development and flow estimates, and compare the use of multiple
developer-constructed interim pump stations. Previous discussions with SRCSD staff had
assumed that a regional solution was appropriate because the 10 mgd threshold for SRCSD
responsibility would be reached by 2015.

Project
Chapter 5
The PAC also expressed concern that further modeling to be conducted under the
Sequencing Study may show that the Bradshaw Interceptor may have enough capacity to
handle buildout flows from the Aerojet sewer sheds. If that is the case, Aerojet 4
Interceptor would not be necessary. It is also possible that if Aerojet 4 Interceptor is
needed, it may not be needed for 30 years or more. It was felt that constructing but not
using an interceptor for 30 years or more would be a waste. However, the PAC did
approve the analysis of the constructability of Aerojet 4 in the future.
The MI-1 route for the gravity portion of the Mather Interceptor was accepted by the PAC
and the PAC agreed that it should be designed and constructed on the schedule described
in this PDP. There was concern that the Mather Interceptor may not be ready when the
Chrysanthy pump station runs out of capacity. Plans for development in the area served by
the Chrysanthy pump station have been approved and the estimated flow from those
developments exceeds the design capacity of the pump station.
The portion of the Preferred Alternative (Alternative MI-1) that provides sewer service to
LCA5 was removed and will receive further analysis in a separate PDP. That analysis will
include a refinement of the development pace in the LCA5 shed, a sensitivity analysis of
the development pace, an estimate of future flows and a comparison of several developer
constructed interim pump stations to the single, regional pump station and force main built
by SRCSD.

Project
Chapter 6
Selected Alternative Design Assumptions
CHAPTER 6.0 SELECTED ALTERNATIVE DESIGN

ASSUMPTIONS
This chapter describes the design concept and routing of the Mather Interceptor Preferred
Alternative (MI-1). This chapter also lists major features of significance along the
interceptor route and explains the reasons the pipeline was aligned as shown on
preliminary design drawings. Also included in this chapter is a list of known key issues to
be resolved or followed up on by the final designer.
For the purpose of describing Alternative MI-1, the alignment was divided into four
segments:
• Zinfandel Drive (MI station 1+00 to 59+80)
• Douglas Road west of and including the FSC (station 59+80 to 82+32)
• Douglas Road east of the FSC (station 82+32 to 108+99)
• Sunrise Boulevard, Douglas Road to Chrysanthy Boulevard (station 108+99 to
152+21)
6.1 HYDRAULIC CONTROL POINTS
6.1.1 Downstream – Bradshaw Interceptor
The Mather Interceptor will discharge to the Bradshaw Interceptor at the southwest corner
of the Zinfandel Drive/Mather Boulevard intersection. This is at approximately Bradshaw
Station 319+00, where the invert elevation is approximately 60.5 feet and the crown of the
84-inch diameter pipe is approximately 67.5 feet (refer to the Bradshaw Plans for survey
datum information). For the purposes of this preliminary design, matching crowns were
assumed.
6.1.2 Upstream – Aerojet Section 1
MP2000 called for the Mather Interceptor to collect flow from the Mather Junction
Structure, which would collect flow from Aerojet Sections 1, 2, and 2S. However, a
portion of Aerojet Section 1 was constructed by the developer of the Anatolia 1
development during the construction of Chrysanthy Boulevard and the Chrysanthy Pump
Station. The developer left the downstream end of Aerojet 1 on the east side of the
Chrysanthy Boulevard/Sunrise Boulevard intersection. To provide relief to the Chrysanthy
Pump Station, specified in the PDP, the Mather Interceptor must be extended south along
Sunrise Boulevard to Chrysanthy Boulevard and tied into the end of the existing Aerojet
Section 1. As a result, the Mather Interceptor would be longer than anticipated by
MP2000. The record drawings for Aerojet Section 1 show the invert elevation as 138.14
feet.

Project
Chapter 6
6.1.3 Mather Junction Structure
The Mather Junction Structure was planned by MP2000 to allow flow to be collected from
Aerojet Sections 1, 2, and 2S and discharged to the Mather Interceptor, and also to the AJ4
Interceptor when it is constructed. Although schematic diagrams in MP2000 show Aerojet
2 and 2s individually discharging to the Mather Junction Structure, it is anticipated they
would combine in a junction structure on the east side of Sunrise Boulevard and the
combined flow would cross under Sunrise Boulevard to the Mather Junction Structure.
This allows a single crossing of Sunrise Boulevard and a simpler Mather Junction
Structure. This was discussed and agreed to in concept by SRCSD staff. It also appears
this is how the sewer system is being laid out in the Rio Del Oro Sewer Facilities Plan.
Key elevations for the Mather Junction Structure are the incoming Aerojet 2 and the
upstream portion of the Mather Interceptor. The preliminary design used MP2000 to
estimate the Aerojet 2 elevations and incoming elevation. The MP2000 invert for Aerojet
2 at the connection to the Mather Interceptor would be 119.24, but the MP2000 pipe
diameter is 60-inch-diameter for Aerojet 2. For matching pipe crowns with the Mather
Interceptor 72-inch-diameter pipe, and allowing for some drop across one or more
structures, an invert of 118.05 would be needed for the Mather Interceptor leaving the
structure. The incoming elevation of the upstream Mather Interceptor is set by the existing
elevation of Aerojet 1 and the pipe slope from Chrysanthy Boulevard to the Mather
Junction Structure. There is sufficient elevation drop to provide the slope of 0.0013
assumed in the preliminary design. The Mather Junction Structure should also be deep
enough to allow the existing 10-inch-diameter sewer in Douglas Road to tie in by gravity.
The 10-inch-diameter sewer would be served by a pump station on Douglas Road that
should be abandoned after the construction of Mather Interceptor. The 10-inch-diameter
sewer may also connect to a downstream manhole if one is closer to the end of the sewer.
The downstream elevation of the 10-inch-diameter sewer is 127.21 feet.
6.1.4 MAE Junction
The CSD-1 Master Plan calls for the MAE Trunk Sewer to discharge to the Mather
Interceptor at the intersection of Eagles Nest Road and Douglas Road. The Master Plan
calls for a 21-inch-diameter diameter trunk at a tie-in elevation of 78.71. The estimated
flow from the trunk shed is about 5 mgd. According to discussions with CSD-1, the
elevation is lower than required to serve the trunk shed, and the Master Plan is taking
advantage of the depth of the Mather Interceptor. Matching crowns was assumed for the
preliminary design. Changes in the elevation should be discussed with CSD-1. A stub
across Douglas Road should be considered.
6.1.5 Folsom South Canal Crossing
The preliminary design assumed a minimum clearance from the bottom of the FSC to the
top of the interceptor sewer of 15 feet. This distance was based on the rule of thumb that
calls for three pipe diameters of minimum clearance under structures. Less clearance
would affect the slope and create velocities less than cleansing velocities. The USBR has

Project
Chapter 6
stated it prefers a clearance of 25 feet, but is willing to consider less clearance if it can be
demonstrated that damage to the canal would not occur.
6.1.6 Summary of Mather Interceptor Hydraulic Design Control Points
Table 6-1 summarizes the Mather Interceptor hydraulic design control points.
Table 6-1 Summary of Mather Interceptor Hydraulic Design Control Points

Control Point Station Elevation Description
Bradshaw Interceptor 0+00 67.5 Crown of Pipe (approx.)
Aerojet 1 152+21 138.14 Invert of existing Aerojet 1
Aerojet 2 109+00 118.05 Invert of future Aerojet 2
Aerojet 3 80+00 80.0 Interceptor crown, max
6.2 PRELIMINARY DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE INTERCEPTOR
During the preliminary design effort, several key assumptions were made that affected the
alignment of the interceptor pipelines:
• Tunneling method was assumed for construction of the entire alignment based on
the depth of the pipeline as well as for limiting impacts to the community (traffic)
along Sunrise Boulevard and Douglas Road.
• Pipe jacking was determined to be more practical than two-pass tunneling since for
much of the route, limiting the number and location of shafts would not be
necessary. As a result, the interceptor alignment consists of straight sections
between manholes, and does not follow road curvatures.
• Standard drive length for pipe jacking was assumed to be 750 feet. Jacking length
may be extended up to 1,000 feet if local conditions prevent lesser spacing, or to
eliminate short drives requiring additional shafts. It was assumed an earth pressure
balance (EPB) TBM operated in open mode would be used most of the time. EPB
mode would be used where perched water is encountered and in locations such as
the FSC crossing where significant water heads are anticipated.
• Shafts were assumed to be circular.
• Standard SRCSD standard manhole design was assumed (refer to preliminary
drawings details).
• Pipe material is assumed to be reinforced concrete pipe (RCP), T-loc lined.
• Although a 54-inch-diameter pipe has sufficient capacity to convey the required
Mather Interceptor flows, a 72-inch-diameter pipe was used for design purposes.
Construction efficiency increases significantly from 54-inch-diameter to 72-inch-
diameter pipe sizes, resulting in comparable construction costs. The pipe diameter
assumption during preliminary design was that 54-inch-diameter to 72-inch-
diameter pipe sizes would be allowed for pipe jacking. The 72-inch-diameter pipe

Project
Chapter 6
is conservative for estimating impacts to the environment and community, as well

as allowing use of the same machine for MI-1 and potentially AJ4.
• RCP was assumed since it is suitable for gravity sewer, can be installed by
tunneling methods, and is likely to be the least cost pipe material for the range of
pipe diameters for this project.
• Shaft diameters are as listed in Table 6-2.
Table 6-2 Shaft Dimensions for Pipe Jacking and Receiving
Single Pipeline in Shaft Two Pipelines in Shaft
Preferred
Minimum Diameter Preferred Minimum Diameter
Diameter
Shaft Type (confined work Diameter (confined work
(space
area) (space available) area)
available)
Jacking Shaft 31 feet 22 feet 36 feet 30 feet
Receiving Shaft 22 feet 16 feet 25 feet 22 feet
6.3 ZINFANDEL DRIVE (STATION 0+00 TO 59+88)
The Mather Interceptor alignment begins at its tie-in location to Bradshaw 7B on Zinfandel
Drive just south of the intersection with North Mather Boulevard and Baroque Drive. The
interceptor routes southerly along the future extension of Zinfandel Drive for
approximately 5,880 lineal feet to Douglas Road. Pipe depth to invert averages nearly 55
feet in this segment.
Key considerations in siting the interceptor in this segment include the following:
• Morrison Creek would be crossed by tunneling.
• The 21-inch-diameter MAE trunk sewer connection would connect to the turning
structure at the intersection with Douglas Road.
6.3.1 Preliminary Design Construction and Alignment Decision Summary
6.3.1.1 Vertical Constraint

The primary factor in determining the vertical alignment was the elevation of the
Bradshaw Interceptor and the FSC. Matching crown to crown was assumed for the
Bradshaw connection and 15 feet (about three pipe diameters) of cover was assumed under
the canal. This resulted in a slope of 0.0015 in this section.
The following utilities were identified and are located between STA 0+28 to STA 24+00:
• A 16-inch-diameter water line near the east edge of pavement (northbound lanes)
• An 8-inch-diameter sanitary sewer in the west (southbound) lanes
• 12-inch-diameter to 36-inch-diameter storm drains approximately 5 feet east of the
median

Project
Chapter 6
However, because of the depth of the sewer, no utilities are known to constrain the vertical
alignment. Many utilities are crossed at an angle, but this should not be an issue during
construction because the pipeline would be tunneled. However, this makes repairs more
difficult if O&M must excavate in this area. The plans appear to show the interceptor
conflicting with storm drains in the area, but this is due to the limited accuracy of the
unrectified aerial photographs. It is expected that shafts can be located to avoid utilities in
most locations.
6.3.1.2 Slopes and Velocity

Slopes were limited by hydraulic control points throughout the alignment. From the MAE
Junction Structure connection to the Mather Bradshaw Interceptor, slopes ranging from
0.0016 to 0.008 were assumed. Calculated average daily flow velocities at start-up and
buildout for this segment range from 2.80 ft/sec to 4.10 feet per second (ft/sec) and 4.30
ft/sec to 7.40 ft/sec, respectively.
6.3.1.3 Horizontal Constraints

The Bradshaw Interceptor diameter increases from 72 inches to 84 inches near the
centerline of Zinfandel Drive. The Mather/Bradshaw Junction Structure was sited on the
west side of Zinfandel Drive to take advantage of the larger diameter and capacity of the
84-inch portion. It was also thought that M&O would prefer to have the structure off the
pavement so it was sited just to the west of the curb.
Currently, approximately 2,500 linear feet of the Zinfandel Drive extension have been
completed south of North Mather Boulevard The road in this section is asphalt-paved,
three lanes in each direction, with a raised 12-foot-wide median. The remaining 3,380
linear feet to the future intersection with Douglas Road are scheduled for construction in
2009. As a result, Zinfandel Drive would be completed through to Douglas Road by the
time Mather Interceptor construction starts, therefore, it is expected that traffic volume
would be very low. It is assumed that closing about one half of the completed portion of
the road and routing traffic to the other half of the road would not be a problem. Manholes
were placed (which would be shaft locations) along the west side of the road and within
the 108-foot-wide road ROW in locations that would be clear of the sanitary sewer.
A 108-foot-wide road ROW exists where the road has been constructed. The same ROW
width is expected for the planned road expansion.
6.3.1.4 Structures Required

The Mather/Bradshaw Junction Structure is currently under design by Black and Veatch
and would be constructed under a separate project. The Bradshaw 7C project will leave a
72-inch-diameter stub for the Mather Interceptor tie-in.
The MAE Junction Structure would be located in the northeast corner of the Zinfandel
Drive/Douglas Road intersection. It was located off the road to avoid placing the structure
in a busy intersection. This structure would serve as a tie-in for the future MAE Trunk
Sewer to serve the areas south of Douglas Road and a turning structure. A 21-inch stub
out is required for the future connection of the MAE Trunk Sewer.

Project
Chapter 6
6.3.1.5 Environmental Issues
• Vernal pools along the alignment

• Potential for contaminated groundwater or soil
• Closed landfills nearby
6.3.1.6 Right-of-Way Needs

Preliminary plans assumed the 108-foot ROW acquisition would be completed and
available for use when the Mather Interceptor is constructed, and the alignment would stay
within the ROW. If the ROW for the extension has not been obtained, the county will
grant a license for construction of the interceptor. During recent negotiations with the
Creekside development owner, SRCSD agreed to move the interceptor to private property
on the east side of Zinfandel Drive for the first 1,200 feet of the alignment. Temporary
construction easement needs were estimated and are shown on the plans.
6.3.2 Final Design Considerations
Items to be resolved or finalized in this section of the interceptor during final design
include the following:
• Coordination with Bradshaw 7C designer (Black and Veatch) for connection point
• Coordination with road designer (Wood Rodgers) and City of Rancho Cordova to
mitigate construction conflicts and the location of the MAE Junction Structure.
Road construction is scheduled for 2009; therefore, the Mather Interceptor may
need to be accelerated.
• Minimizing wetland resource impacts south of the existing Zinfandel Drive, where
feasible.
6.4 DOUGLAS ROAD WEST OF AND INCLUDING FOLSOM SOUTH CANAL

(STATIONS 59+80 TO 82+32)
This section includes 2,325 feet of interceptor parallel to Douglas Road. The interceptor
turns eastward at the future intersection with Zinfandel Drive, routes parallel to Douglas
Road, and crosses under the (FSC) approximately 2,000 feet east of Zinfandel Drive. The
total span of the canal cut is approximately 210 feet. Pipe depth to invert averages about
65 feet in this stretch. Key features of this subsection include the following:
• TRACON facility along the north side of Douglas Road
• Utilities along the north side of Douglas Road
• Mather Lake on the south side of Douglas Road
• FSC under crossing
• Business park located on the north side of Douglas Road immediately east of the
canal

Project
Chapter 6
6.4.1.1 Vertical Constraints

The primary vertical constraint in this segment is the FSC. The assumptions for the design
of the interceptor are discussed above.
The following utilities are known to exist in this section:

• Underground telephone in a concrete duct.
• 2-inch-diameter gas line. At the time the pipe was aligned, the gas line was not
known to exist and the utility does not appear on the drawings. However, the gas
line was potholed and the location is noted in the general sheets of the drawings.
• 16-inch-diameter water main
• 2-inch-diameter sewer force main that originates from a septic tank on the
southwest corner of the TRACON site and routes just north of the Douglas Road
pavement. The sewer force main has the potential to conflict with construction
only at the shaft on the corner of Douglas Road and Zinfandel Drive.
• 1.5-inch-diameter streetlight conduit.
• 12-inch-diameter water main.
• 10-inch-diameter storm drain and catch basins.
The 12-inch-diameter water main at the back of the sidewalk and 10-inch-diameter storm
drain catch basins must be avoided or relocated.

Slope for this segment ranges from 0.0016 to 0.0015.

The interceptor was located in the north side of the road because there is much more room
off the roadway than on the south side of the road, and is further away from Mather Lake
and its wetlands. The Northern California TRACON facility is located in the north side of
Douglas Road. At the normal drive length of 750 feet, the first shaft east of the Douglas
Road/Zinfandel Drive intersection would have been located within the main entranceway
to the TRACON facility. It was therefore moved easterly so that the work area would not
obstruct the entranceway. The next shaft east is near the gated emergency exit from the
facility at approximately Station 74+85 to 75+25.
East of the FSC at the shaft site, the interceptor is shown closer to the roadway pavement
to avoid private landscaping and parking lot improvements on the public ROW. However,
it would likely be necessary to use the entire ROW for construction purposes so the
manhole could be moved further to the north.

Project
Chapter 6

A vortex manhole east of the FSC would be required.

The primary environmental issue is Mather Lake south of Douglas Road.

The preliminary road alignment plans show Douglas Road being expanded in a northerly
direction and much of the frontage at the TRACON facility being removed. Temporary
construction areas were assumed to be located within the ROW.
6.4.2 Final Design Issues
• Permitting from USBR to place pipeline within its property.
• Coordination with TRACON to avoid its critical facilities, time construction, and
locate shafts. (At the February 2007 meeting, TRACON offered a triangle-shaped
piece of land east of its facility as a staging and work area to avoid construction in
front of the rest of its facility. A probable result is that the first two pipe drives to
the west would be longer, on the order of 900 feet, with a drive under the canal of
about 525 feet).
• Coordination with road designer (Wood Rodgers) and the City of Rancho Cordova
to avoid construction conflicts, including the new bridge piers.
• Coordination with CSD-1 for a MAE Trunk Sewer stub out potentially crossing
Douglas Road to avoid future impacts.
6.5 DOUGLAS ROAD EAST OF CANAL TO SUNRISE BOULEVARD

(STATIONS 82+32 TO 108+99)
The principal features of this section are as follows:

• Business park frontage on the north side of the road for the first 900 east of the
canal.
• Underground utilities along the north side of the road.
• Wetlands immediately east of the business park and Morrison Creek Crossing
approximately 500 feet west of Sunrise Boulevard.
• Utility poles and associated overhead lines, including power lines, along the north
side of the road.

Project
Chapter 6
• Retail shopping center development under construction on the southwest corner of

Douglas Road and Sunrise Boulevard.
• Future Douglas Road Sewer Lift Station just west of the shopping center and
associated incoming 8-inch-diameter gravity line.
• Mather Junction Structure, with at least four interceptor pipes entering and exiting.
6.5.1.1 Tunneling vs. Open Cut

The pipe depth is in the range where open-cut or tunneling methods would have
comparable costs. However, pipe jacking is the presumed construction method to
minimize impacts to traffic, businesses, and wetland-type features. In addition, the
corridor in some areas is narrow for open-cut construction to be used. The pipeline is also
recommended to be tunneled in front of the business park because the limited corridor is
expected to make tunneling more cost effective as well as minimize impacts to
stakeholders.
6.5.1.2 Vertical Constraints

The primary vertical constraint is the elevation of the Mather Junction Structure and the
incoming Aerojet 2 Interceptor. The preliminary design estimated Aerojet 2 would enter
the Mather Junction Structure at 118.05 feet. A slope of 0.0016 out of the structure was
assumed. For the first two drives east of the canal, the interceptor routes between the road
and utility poles, minimizing disruption to traffic and business. For the third drive, the
interceptor was routed north of the overhead power lines to allow construction of the
Mather Junction Structure.
The length of the three tunneling drives averages nearly 900 feet. Shorter drive lengths
would have resulted in an additional shaft.
The Mather Interceptor was routed between known utilities to allow shaft construction and
minimize utility relocation. The following utilities are known to exist in this segment of
Douglas Road:
• Underground telephone in a concrete duct bank
• 12-inch-diameter storm drains
• 8-inch-diameter sewer
• 12-inch-diameter water main

Slope for this segment ranges from 0.0016 to 0.0017. Calculated average daily flow
velocities at start-up and buildout for this segment range from 2.80 ft/sec to 4.10 ft/sec and
2.90 ft/sec to 4.30 ft/sec, respectively.

Project
Chapter 6

The pipe is aligned on the north side of the street to stay consistent with the alignment
from the west side of the canal and avoid a future shopping center. It is assumed that
construction must remain off Douglas Road and should not significantly impede access to
the business park or shooting club.

The Mather Junction Structure was located on the northwest corner of Sunrise Boulevard
and Douglas Road because other corners have existing or pending development. This is a
large junction structure that would connect the incoming Mather, Aerojet 2, and Aerojet 2
Stub Out interceptors with the AJ4 and Mather interceptors.
Maintenance and flow routing gates to switch between Mather Interceptor and AJ4
Interceptor flows once capacity in the Bradshaw Interceptor has been reached, coupled
with high traffic volumes, make locating the structure well outside the traveled way
desirable.
Also, it was assumed that the Aerojet 2 and Aerojet 2 Stub Out would be combined into a
single pipe before entering the Mather Junction Structure. This assumption was discussed
with SRCSD staff.

Environmental features in the area may be impacted during construction. Provisions
would need to be made to minimize these impacts during construction of the interceptor.
Environmental features include the following:
• Morrison Creek
• Wetlands and vernal pools

The interceptor was assumed to be constructed within the widened Douglas Road ROW.
Permanent and temporary easements would be required for construction of the Mather
Junction Structure and work staging areas.
• Connecting the 8-inch-diameter local collector sewer line that goes to the future
Douglas Road Sewer Lift Station to the Interceptor. SRCSD agreed that the line
could be connected directly to its system rather than routed to a trunk, as long as
the line did not connect to a structure like the Mather Junction Structure.
• Finalizing the flow scheme for the Mather Junction Structure.

Project
Chapter 6
• Property acquisition from Mather Parks and Recreation District for the Mather
Junction Structure and nearby incoming and outgoing pipes.
6.6 SUNRISE BOULEVARD, DOUGLAS ROAD TO CHRYSANTHY

BOULEVARD (MI STATION 108+99 TO 152+21, AJ4 STATION 1051+85
TO 1010+33)
This segment is within the Sunrise Boulevard ROW between Douglas Road and
Chrysanthy Boulevard. As part of the Mather Interceptor discussion, a segment of AJ4
would be included for future constructability evaluation. This segment includes
approximately 4,150 feet of the Mather Interceptor and the planned 72-inch-diameter AJ4
Interceptor aligned parallel to each other along Sunrise Boulevard, plus 167 feet of the
Mather Interceptor crossing Sunrise Boulevard to an existing 42-inch-diameter Aerojet 1
Stub Out.
The Mather Interceptor flows south to north and would be located at a higher elevation
than the AJ4 Interceptor, which would flow in the opposite direction. The average
elevation of the AJ4 Interceptor would be about 15 feet lower than the Mather Interceptor
in this segment.
Principal features of this section are as follows:

• Future business and existing residential development along the entire eastern
frontage of Sunrise Boulevard south of Douglas Road.
• Retail shopping center development, construction of which recently began on the
southwest corner of Douglas Road and Sunrise Boulevard, with proposed
condominium development immediately south.
• The FSC to the west and parallel to Sunrise Boulevard, with the USBR ROW
adjacent to the road ROW.
6.6.1.1 Vertical and Horizontal Constraints

USBR will not allow permanent pipeline easements parallel to the FSC. Therefore, the
interceptor alignment is shown off the existing pavement and within the west side of the
Sunrise Boulevard ROW. The west side was chosen because of the number of existing
utilities in the east side, the high voltage power lines, and a lack of available land for
temporary construction easements due to existing residents adjacent to the ROW.

The slope for this Mather Interceptor segment is 0.0013.

Project
Chapter 6

Wetland and vernal pools exist west of Sunrise Boulevard.

USBR has indicated that it is willing to allow temporary construction easements.
Issues to be resolved during final design include the following:

• Coordination with the developer of the Sundance property for location of manholes
and resolution of construction issues.
• Defining the ROW required for AJ4 if it is constructed in the future.

Project
Chapter 7
References
CHAPTER 7.0 REFERENCES
Black & Veatch. 2000. Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District Interceptor
System Master Plan.
Black & Veatch. 2002. Bradshaw Interceptor 7 Routing Study.
Black & Veatch. 2003. Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District Interceptor
System Master Plan Reconciliation Report.
Black & Veatch. 2003. Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District Master Plan
Reconciliation Report.
City of Rancho Cordova. 2006. General Plan of the City of Rancho Cordova.
CSD-1. 2006. CSD-1 Master Plan.
ESA. 2007. Environmental Site Assessment, Phase I Report.
JMM. 1993. Sanitary Sewer Expansion Study.
Kleinfelder. 2007. Preliminary Geotechnical Report.
MWH. 2007. SIAMI Interceptor Design Guidelines.
MWH. 2007. Pump Station Design Guidelines.
Nolte. 2005. Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District and County Sanitation
District -1 Sewage Pump Station Design Manual.
SRCSD. 2003. Interceptor Design Manual.
SRCSD. 1996. Sacramento Regional Wastewater Management Program Master

Interagency Agreement.

Project
Chapter 7
References

Project

Mather Interceptor Project

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

Mather Interceptor Project

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL FORM

FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS GREATER THAN

MATHER INTERCEPTOR PROJECT

Senior Engineer Date

Principal Engineer Date

District Asset Management Coordinator Date

Division Chief Date

District Engineer Date

Mather Interceptor ES-1 October 2007

Modeling conducted by Capacity Management, using criteria supplied by the SIAMI

October 2007 ES-2 Mather Interceptor

Figure ES-1 Schematic of Mather Interceptor Practical Alternatives

Mather Interceptor ES-3 October 2007

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

Mather Interceptor ES-4 October 2007

Table ES-1 Mather Interceptor BCE Results Summary

Mather Interceptor ES-5 October 2007

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

October 2007 ES-6 Mather Interceptor

Mather Interceptor i October 2007

5.3.1 Screening Analysis Criteria......................................................................................... 5-2

October 2007 ii Mather Interceptor

Mather Interceptor iii October 2007

October 2007 iv Mather Interceptor

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

Mather Interceptor v October 2007

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

October 2007 vi Mather Interceptor

CHAPTER 1.0 PROBLEM STATEMENT

Figure 1-1 Mather Interceptor and LCA5 Project Area

Mather Interceptor 1-1 October 2007

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

October 2007 1-2 Mather Interceptor

CHAPTER 2.0 BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM

Mather Interceptor 2-1 October 2007

October 2007 2-2 Mather Interceptor

Figure 2-1 Mather Interceptor and LCA5 Service Area

Mather Interceptor 2-3 October 2007

Figure 2-2 Mather Interceptor and LCA5 Planned Developments

October 2007 2-4 Mather Interceptor

2.2 SERVICE AREA AND SERVICE LEVEL IMPACTS

Mather Interceptor 2-5 October 2007

October 2007 2-6 Mather Interceptor

Figure 2-3 Mather Interceptor and LCA5 Schedule Summary

Mather Interceptor 2-7 October 2007

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

October 2007 2-8 Mather Interceptor

CHAPTER 3.0 CONSTRAINTS

3.1 PHYSICAL CONDITION

Anticipating the likelihood of development in the Aerojet sheds would occur 10 to 20

Mather Interceptor 3-1 October 2007

3.2 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS IN THE POJECT AREA

3.2.1 Soils and Groundwater

According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation conducted by Kleinfelder (2007),

October 2007 3-2 Mather Interceptor

Research conducted during the Reconnaissance Phase of the Preliminary Geotechnical

3.2.2 Environmental Features

Environmental conditions could present a problem for SRCSD, depending on which

Mather Interceptor 3-3 October 2007

3.2.5 Zinfandel Drive

3.2.6 Douglas Road

October 2007 3-4 Mather Interceptor

3.2.7 Eagles Nest Road