Y R N RUBLE RD Legend ER AT B T IO D R N L IL U A A R O T $+ Pump Stations W S L D C P S M I S K Y U A E L LEM L R UEL LA L M L Force Main T C A T ÜF L C E !( T N A A All Manholes S A MAGGIES M K R E D R TO CT I MS R Gravity Main RD F L C A A H H D Y U R RD RYBoonesboroR Town LimitON R N MAR D BU M C E SAN R ROX R A H RD H Y R A L CHURC S M A H ILL EVOLA R S RI H BEN D A A B R N EN R RE D G SWOPE RD

MER RD NEWCO LA A EVO L BEN L L Greenbrier O S B M

D T S O T

R State Park A O P L N E A

S L U B L I R O A

V R R E E

L O C L

A R P P

D D I A B K I

A A E M R N L D A E T R S IN PO R LL D MI E M

A

C N I T N N C I O E A D C W T R N L S K AP IE N L E P V U E AD AN O R LE S M U R R A D D L

E T !( Y !(!( L C !( !( !( !( !( !(!(A P E R !( !( A V E !(W !( !( M A R E R !( A D !( !(!( !( D NET T !( !(!( !(!( WA !( E!( B R S !( !( UR G!( TO D N I!( N !( L I !(!(!(IE A T!( WA !( F !( T !( !(!(!( Y !(A !( !( !( N !( !( !( N !( !( !(!( R U !(!( !( A !( I!( N !( !( !( L !( !(C!( O !( !( !( !( !( !( M R M !(!( !( !( !( !( O E A!( !( !( R L !( !( !( !( !( !( I !( !( C O N !( !( E !( !( B E D !( !( !( !( !( !( A S S A N H !( !( M R !( D !( !( !( T !( O W !( !( !( !( V !( !( !( P !( !( E !(!( O !( !( !(E B M !( L !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(U !( !( !( !(L !( O !( S !( !( A!( !( !( !( N !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( L !( !( !( R !(!( !(!( !(!( !( A !( !(!( !( !(!( T !( O !( !( !( Town of !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( S!( E !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( RD!( L!( R !( O !( !( Boonsboro !( !( !( F !( !( U!( !( !(!( !( D D !( !( !(!(!( V!(E!( A!( A R !( !( P H !( !( !( !( !( !( !( A !( !( T!( I E !( !( !(!( !( K !( !( S C AR !( !(!( !( R P!( !( A !( W!( !( !( !( A !( !( !( IE!( !( !( !( !( N !( !( V !( !( !(H!( M WWTP!( !( !( !( !( R !( !( !( !( !( G!( G T !( D !( !( !( I !(!( U !( !( !( N!( !( U !( S G R W O !( !( H F IL Y!( !( !( S!( A !( E!( !( R I H ST AV!( !( DI E !( !( M R D C !( !( !(!( !(!( D A !( !( A R E $+!( M $+!( !( L O !(!( !(!(!( I A W T !( !( !( !( !( !( N E O !( !(!( !( L P !( !( I R A !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( S R !( !(!(!(!( !(!( !( G !(ELM !( !( !( T R E R !( !( !( !( !( !( D IK !( !( !(!(!( !( !( P !( I !(!( !( !( !( N !( !(!( O CR!( E!( ST !( W !( !(!( $+ TO !( !( !( !( S !(!( !(R !( WASHINGTON RD !( !( AVE HE B !( !( !( !(!( EP !(!( L MONUMENT RD H !( V O E S !( D N M $+!(!( N A !( N W

O T D D E R T L R B N S P O N O D I P N W N A R A S O M O B T T N T O S K R N G O E G I D E N L N P N I I R I T M R G NETZ R K D H D E IT P N U

S S R R Z

N

W A D

D O O W

R T M Keedysville E N L

O

P W H THA W CK ERWastewater SystemP Master Plan and O D O R A L D T O R LL D C I T M N T T HydraulicS Model U B A C M U E CK L M S S D E K O L O IN C V E I C S N T E A Boonsboro Municipal Utilities CommissionE L D H R C R C I R E M D D O Boonsboro, MD L G L ST I R V EE D

T S T R R R R M NovemberD 2020 C EN A O MO H E NU T M MEN C O T R B R D R O R H N U S I E A DRAFT ReportH O

R R R C R R E D L E D E R D M L E L R R A A H C R T FIGURE 1.1 D K M 0 R950 1,900 3,800 A 0 250500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 Date: 11/9/2020 Boonsboro Town Limits and Vicinity Map P FeetFeet 1 inch = 2,500 feet Boonsboro Municipal Utilities Commission (BMUC) • Town of Boonsboro, Maryland Wastewater System Master Plan and Hydraulic Model November 11, 2020

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ...... i List of Tables ...... i List of Figures ...... ii Appendices ...... ii 1 Background & Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Town of Boonsboro ...... 1 1.2 Purpose and Objectives...... 1 1.2.1 Scope of Work ...... 2 1.2.2 Data Collection ...... 3 2 Basis of System Assessment ...... 6 2.1 Flow Analysis Summary ...... 6 2.2 Model Development and Calibration Summary ...... 9 2.3 Existing System Updates ...... 9 3 Model Development of Buildout Conditions ...... 13 4 Comparison of Existing and Buildout Conditions ...... 15 5 System Improvements ...... 23 6 Recommendations ...... 27 6.1 Development Contributions ...... 27 6.1.1 Cost Estimates ...... 27 6.1.2 Summary of Recommended Improvements ...... 28

List of Tables

Table 2.1: Basin & Flow Analysis Overview ...... 6 Table 2.2: Calibrated Model Overview ...... 9 Table 2.3: Pipeline Segments Lined Using CIPP ...... 11 Table 3.1: Proposed Development Overview ...... 13 Table 4.1: Peak Flows Under Wet Weather Conditions ...... 15 Table 4.2: Buildout Flow Percentage of Contributions by Development ...... 16 Table 4.3: Pipeline Capacity Restrictions for Existing System Under Existing Conditions ...... 18 Table 4.4: Pipeline Capacity Restrictions for Existing System Under Buildout Conditions ...... 20 Table 6.1: Improvement Cost Estimates ...... 27 Table 6.2: Developer Contributions ...... 28

Page i

Boonsboro Municipal Utilities Commission (BMUC) • Town of Boonsboro, Maryland Wastewater System Master Plan and Hydraulic Model November 11, 2020

List of Figures

Figure 1.1: Town of Boonsboro Wastewater System ...... 2 Figure 2.1: Town of Boonsboro System Basin Boundaries ...... 7 Figure 2.2: Town of Boonsboro Sewer System Manhole Identification ...... 8 Figure 2.3: Location of Sycamore Run Development ...... 10 Figure 2.4: CIPP Lined Segments ...... 12 Figure 3.1: Proposed Development Tie-In Locations ...... 14 Figure 4.1: Pipeline Capacity Restrictions for Existing System Under Existing Conditions ...... 17 Figure 4.2: Pipeline Capacity Restrictions for Existing System Under Buildout Conditions ...... 19 Figure 4.3: Hydraulic Grade Line and Depth of Flow from Manhole N34 to Manhole N46: Existing and Buildout Scenario Results ...... 21 Figure 4.4: Hydraulic Grade Line and Depth of Flow from Manholes 62-50, 50-N46, and M1-WWTP: Buildout Scenario Results ...... 22 Figure 5.1: Pipe Segments Considered for Improvements ...... 25 Figure 6.1: Sewer System Capacity After Implementation of Improvements Under Buildout Flows ...... 29

Appendices

Appendix 1 Flow Analysis Memorandum dated May 2020 ...... 30 Appendix 2 Model Calibration Memorandum dated September 2020 ...... 31 Appendix 3 Profiles of Selected Pipe Segments ...... 32 Appendix 4 Detailed List of Improvements per Pipe Segment ...... 33 Appendix 5 Cost Estimates ...... 34 Appendix 6 List of Abbreviations ...... 35

Page ii

Boonsboro Municipal Utilities Commission (BMUC) • Town of Boonsboro, Maryland Wastewater System Master Plan and Hydraulic Model November 11, 2020

1 Background & Introduction

1.1 Town of Boonsboro

The Town of Boonsboro (Town) was founded in 1792 by George and William Boone, cousins of noted frontiersman Daniel Boone. The Town was officially incorporated and held its first election in 1831. The construction of the National Road, the nation’s first publicly financed road connecting Baltimore to the Ohio River Valley, fueled Boonsboro’s early growth and prosperity. The road network in Boonsboro today is characterized by the convergence of several important state highways, including Maryland route 66, 67, and 68, and US Alternate Route 40. The Town grew at a slow but steady pace throughout the 20th century, generally through small annexations and primarily along Main Street and Potomac Street. The pace of growth in and around Boonsboro increased during the last decade of the 20th century due to expansions in regional employment opportunities and an improved regional transportation network. In 2006, the Town significantly increased its size by annexing nearly 1,000 acres of new land, primarily characterized by undeveloped agricultural land, which more than doubled the size of the municipality. As the second largest municipality in Washington County behind Hagerstown, the town has a currently estimated population of almost 3,600 residents.

The Boonsboro Municipal Utilities Commission (BMUC) oversees the operation of the Town’s water treatment, storage and distribution system, as well as sewer collection, conveyance and treatment. The BMUC is comprised of six members and a Mayor and Council Liaison.

1.2 Purpose and Objectives

The Town operates a wastewater collection, conveyance and treatment system which consists of approximately 15 miles of 8-inch, 10-inch, and 12-inch gravity sewers, 371 manholes, 5 pumping stations, and one wastewater treatment facility. The Town’s system is generally depicted in Figure 1.1. The design capacity of the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) is 860,000 gallons per day (GPD), with historic average daily flows of 360,000 GPD (2016- 2019) and peak flows exceeding 2.11 MGD (March 2019) recorded by the Town. The Town has been undergoing further development, with multiple developments slated to come online between now and 2050.

The purpose of this project is to determine how much capacity is available for additional flows from proposed developments and what improvements may be needed based on existing conveyance and treatment capacity. Modeling of the existing wastewater system will provide the Town with an understanding of how to address current flows as well as plan for developments’ impacts on collection, conveyance, and treatment capacity.

Page 1

Boonsboro Municipal Utilities Commission (BMUC) • Town of Boonsboro, Maryland Wastewater System Master Plan and Hydraulic Model November 11, 2020

Figure 1.1: Town of Boonsboro Wastewater System

1.2.1 Scope of Work

The Town of Boonsboro contracted with Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP (WRA) to construct a system hydraulic water model and establish the Town’s master planning document. WRA’s scope of work includes the following:

Data Collection and Review—review of existing system maps, as-built drawings, pump station information, influent WWTP data, rainfall data, and water meter records, and collection of necessary field surveys. Evaluation of record drawings, county topographic data and benchmarks, and field surveys will determine the elevation of major facilities (i.e. manholes, pump station wet wells, and the influent chamber at the WWTP). WRA will develop physical and

Page 2

Boonsboro Municipal Utilities Commission (BMUC) • Town of Boonsboro, Maryland Wastewater System Master Plan and Hydraulic Model November 11, 2020

operational attributes within the hydraulic model software for major system components including pipelines, pump stations, and wastewater treatment facilities.

Wastewater System Hydraulic Model—development of a GIS-compatible hydraulic model, including system design criteria consistent with industry and MDE standards, to be used in the modeling process. Flow analysis and model calibration using available flow data will be documented in memorandums and used to build multiple scenarios in the hydraulic model. Scenarios to be modeled include the existing system, the existing system under wet weather conditions, the existing system under buildout conditions, and the existing system under wet weather buildout conditions.

Wastewater System Master Plan Report Development—the Wastewater System Master Plan will include existing and future system requirements and develop recommendations for the enhancement of system performance and operations. Recommendations will include improvements for the existing wastewater system and proceeding through the currently anticipated buildout.

1.2.2 Data Collection

Data collection consisted of evaluating system pipeline and facility as-built drawings, flow records and maps, existing AutoCAD drawing files, and ArcGIS shapefiles. Drawings, records, metering data, and maps were provided by the Town. Additionally, surveys of existing manholes were collected to supplement available elevation data and to verify manhole locations. All data that was collected as part of this project and utilized in the development of the master plan is listed below.

Survey

• 346 manholes surveyed o 8 manholes surveyed with inverts but no rim o 45 manholes surveyed with rims but no inverts

As-built & Design Drawings

Note: Survey information was prioritized whenever available to spot check as-built elevations and obtain data that was not covered by the as-built and design drawings. Elevations from as-builts were adjusted to the current datum whenever necessary.

• Crestview Development: o Chestnut Avenue (1973) • Fletcher’s Grove Development: o Fletcher’s Grove (2004) ▪ Chase Six Boulevard entrance & Tiger Way intersection o Fletcher’s Grove Commercial Lot 2 (2015) ▪ C-6 Site Details and Profiles (cleanouts and sewer house connections only) ▪ C-6A Water Sewer Details o Boonsboro Dollar General (2016): ▪ Note: force main from Dollar General discharges into Fletcher’s Grove. ▪ Approved Construction Set ▪ As-Built 11 • Graystone Hills: o Graystone Drive and Della Lane (1974): o Graystone Drive (1986): ▪ Graystone Drive from Della Lane to Winner Lane

Page 3

Boonsboro Municipal Utilities Commission (BMUC) • Town of Boonsboro, Maryland Wastewater System Master Plan and Hydraulic Model November 11, 2020

▪ Note: Elevations (including manhole rims / existing grade) were approximately 40’ off from surveyed elevations and from 1974 drawings. No datum specified. Survey elevations were used as much as possible in this area. o Greystone Hills East (1988): ▪ Kerns Drive and David Drive intersection o Greystone Hills Pump Station (2012): ▪ TT&K proposed development tie-in • Park View Drive Interceptor Upgrade (2004): • Park Main (N46 to N54): o Park Main – As-Built Submittal (2019) o Park Main – As-Built Submittal Hand Drawing (No Date) • Easterday: o Osterag Pass Entrance Plans (2016) o South End Pump Station Plans (2014) o Pump Station Plans – S3.0 (2016) ▪ Pump station section views only • Sycamore Run: o Note: Sycamore Run is still under construction. o Phase 1 As-Built (2018) o Phase 2 As-Built (2018) o Phase 3 As-Built (2018) o Young Ave Pump Station Bypass As-Built (2018) o AutoCAD drawings • WWTP (2005): o Treatment plant plans only (no upstream manholes or collection system pipes) • SHA Roadway and Stormwater Plans: o US 40 Alt Boonsboro from MD 68 to 0.5 Miles West of MD 67 (2000) o Roadway plan: Intersection of US 40 and MD 68 (2003)

ADS Flow Metering Data

• 5-Minute Rainfall Data (April 11, 2016 – August 29, 2016) • 5-Minute Gravity Sewer Meter Data: (April 7, 2016 – August 29, 2016) o Meter locations: Manholes H, 51, 54A, 45, and 33A ▪ Meter 45: No data from August 23, 2020 – August 29, 2020 ▪ Meter 33A: No data from July 8, 2016 – July 20, 2016

Data Collected by the Town

• WWTP: o Daily influent and effluent flow rates (January 2016 – October 2019) o Daily rainfall depth (January 2016 – October 2019) • Pump Stations: o Weekly run times: ▪ Route 34 Pump Station (January 2016 – December 2019) ▪ Crestview Pump Station (January 2018 – December 2019) ▪ Young Ave Pump Station (January 2016 – December 2019): o Daily run times: ▪ South End Pump Station (January 2016 – December 2019)

Page 4

Boonsboro Municipal Utilities Commission (BMUC) • Town of Boonsboro, Maryland Wastewater System Master Plan and Hydraulic Model November 11, 2020

• Water Data: o Monthly water pumped from source (January 2016 – September 2018) o Monthly usage per town (January 2016 – September 2018) o Residential distribution records (September 2016 – September 2018)

GIS Databases

Note: Elevations in manhole and gravity main databases were updated whenever survey or as-built information was available. XY (Northing and Easting) coordinates were used to match survey points to existing manholes in the database. Surveyed pipe invert elevations were assigned to existing pipes in the GIS database based on the relative XY position of survey points around manholes. Some new manholes and pipes were added to the databases (i.e. Sycamore Run development). Updated GIS databases will be provided to the Town.

• Manholes o Approximate XY coordinates were included in the original GIS database o Some rim elevations were included in the original GIS database • Gravity Mains o Pipe lengths and diameters were included in the original GIS database o Some invert elevations were included in the original GIS database • Pump Stations o Approximate XY coordinates were included in the original GIS database • Forcemains o Lengths and diameters were included in the original GIS database

Other Data Sources

• NOAA Precipitation Frequency / Return Interval Estimates (Keedysville) • NOAA Daily Precipitation Summaries o Boonsboro (June 2016 - January 2020) o Keedysville (November 2018 – March 2020) • USGS: o Boonsboro Water Table Levels (January 2016 - December 2019)

Page 5

Boonsboro Municipal Utilities Commission (BMUC) • Town of Boonsboro, Maryland Wastewater System Master Plan and Hydraulic Model November 11, 2020

2 Basis of System Assessment

2.1 Flow Analysis Summary

Detailed flow analysis was performed based on flow metering data collected from five sites in 2016, including both dry and wet weather flows, and was used to ascertain and quantify flow components in each basin. The results of the flow analysis are summarized in terms of gallons per minute (GPM) in Table 2.1 below. The meter basins and corresponding boundaries were utilized for both flow analysis and model calibration. As part of flow analysis, meter data was used to characterize inflow & infiltration (I/I) in the wastewater collection system in terms of both groundwater infiltration (GWI) and rain-derived inflow and infiltration (RDII). The results of the flow analysis were then used to determine basin-specific modeling parameters as part of model calibration. The entire process of flow metering data analysis is included in the Flow Analysis Memorandum dated May 2020, included in Appendix 1.

Table 2.1: Basin & Flow Analysis Overview Basin Meter H Meter 51 Meter 54A Meter 45 Meter 33A Crestview

Total Parcel Area (Acres) 112.47 39.42 106.80 101.25 109.04 80.00

Total Pipe Length (Inch-Diameter-Mile) 16.02 10.78 116.26 25.63 20.53 18.03

ADF* (GPM) 37.73 22.25 20.78 75.74 101.68 23.38

BSF (GPM) 21.91 12.83 12.65 27.13 20.03 16.60

GWI (GPM) 15.83 9.42 8.13 48.62 81.65 6.79

Peak Flow (GPM) 260.19 185.42 339.41 425.12 353.70 88.80

Where: ADF = average daily flow, BSF = base sanitary flow, GWI = ground water infiltration

Note: ADF = BSF + GWI

Figure 2.1 shows meter locations, basin boundaries, and pipeline locations and sizes. Figure 2.2 shows the locations of key pump stations and all manholes in the wastewater system.

Page 6

Legend D

R

E

L L

Basin I

V E

H L B

P EL RAN A C o HO RD

51 o M Ü

n B 54A s O b O o N S 45 r B o O !( !( P R !( !( 33A O !( !( !(Y k !( A P !( !( I W K !( !( Crestview E R E !( V L E A !( A G P !( I E $+ P L Pump AStation T!( N !(!( !( P S !(!( !(!( !( A R !( !( M Force MainD !( !( !( !(!( !( D !( e R Gravity Sewer B U v !( !(!( L !( R !( E T A !( d 8" Diameter !( CH !(!(!( O !( R Lappans Rd !( AS !( N e !( !( U R E l A !( !( S W !( !( l I !( A p !( E L !( X B Y !( e 10" Diameter !( !( !( a V!( !( N !( L !( I r !( VD!(!( A !( !( !( M L A u !( L T a 12" Diameter O !( N R R !( L D!( U !( !( R !( !( A!( N !( O n Unkown Diameter !( !( C O M i !( !( !( !( D !( a L t !( !( !( E !( Manholes W !( n !( !( u !( K !( N !( o G !( !( O !( ! ADS Meters DE R !( !( K !( C M !( A !( !( N !( IR Y O # !( D !( !( 3!( S D!( A !(!( !( !( T E V !( O !( !( !( I C !( N D !( !( D !( I !(!( !( !( E !( N R !( !( E !( D !( !( E V !( !( !( D R L M # A 2 R L A !( A S !( !( I N !( U L !( Boon !( P s !(!( K !( A S b E A !( !( o M R M !( N!( L T !( !( r o S !( L A !( !( !( E !( !( DR !( !( C !( Y !(!( !(!( !( !( R !( 1 !( !( D !( !( LA RD E !( HA !(!( !( !( !(!( !(OV RC !( !( 54A R !( O !( ! G !( !( !( T !( !( !( S !( !( ! !( !( VE !(L !( ! !( D A U!( !( !( R !( A 51 !( C O 45 !( !(!( F !( P !( !(!(!( E !( T !( !( N !( S !( !( T !( !( !( E !( !( !( R !( Y !( S !( LL!(E !( T LL A !( !(!( !( !( !( HA !(!( !(!( !(IRE 33A F H !( A I !( !( L G ! L !( !( !( !( H !( E !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( Y S !( !( !( T M !( !(11 !( !( 1 !( !( !( Y 3 O !( !(!( LE ST !( N !( !( AL AC !( !( R !( !!( M !( !( !( O !( S O !( T !( !( H PO E !( E V M !( A !( C G A R N !( E !( !( U I !( O !( N D !( Y !( M !( !( E S !( T !( T E !( !( R !( Crestview$+ $+ Y

!( L !( A !( Rd !( !(!( !( n R !( w D !( !(!( to E e t GE !( !( !( s S ID !( V L u c R A P o a K !( N !( M m O !( !( T !( R !( o O A FE !( t t R !( !( U !( o L D !( !( B E !( S P N !( R !( N!( !( !(!( !( T !( !( W A g $+!( !( S !( T A !( E !( B !( n R F!( !( !( i !( H o R E !( I !( I C E o !( O!( LM CRES K H T !( R !( AVE n C !( !( B !( !( !( s L b !( V !( D o !( ro !( P k !(!( !( D R N W O T E L P d P R A e l l K i

I N v G s

r R e D r h o FIGURE 2.1 R0 375 750 1,500 Town of Boonsboro Sewer System Basin Boundaries Feet

Legend D

R

E L

$+ Pump Station L

I

V E

Force Main L B

P EL RAN A C o HO RD

!( Manholes o M Ü

n B s O Gravity Main b O o N S 8" Diameter r B FG41 o O !( FG19 !(FG21 P R FG18!( !( 10" Diameter O !( !( !(Y k !( A FG22 P FG16 !( FG20!( I W K !( !( FG24 12" Diameter E FG15 R E !( V L E FG14 A !( A G P FG111!( I E P FG13 L A FG112 T!( N !(!( !( P S !(!( !(!( FG9!( FG12 A R FG110!( !( M D !( FG8!( !( !(!( FG10 K28 FG7 !( D !( e K11 R FG6 B U v !( !(!( L !( FG33 K19 E FG3 R A !( K8 !( d C T K9 R FG5 !( H !(!(!( O K30 !( Lappans Rd !( A N e K17 U R S !( l K6!( !( FG4 !( E!( W !( K10 !( A l S L IX !( A p !( E !( B Y !(K5 e !( !( !( a V!( K14 !(K16 N N26 FG1 !( L !( I r !( VD!(!( A !( !( !( M L A u !( FG29 L FG38 K25 T a O !(K4 N N30B R R !( L D!( U R !( !( N29 K2b !( O N30 !( N6a A!(K3 N !( n !( !( C O K22 M i !( N25 !(N6 !( !( D !( a L t !( N24 !( K1 E !( !(K21 n N32 T1 W !( N23!( N5 u N34a !( K N7 !( N !( o G !( N33 !( O !( N35 N34 T2 DE R !( !( K !( C M !( A N32b !( N19!( N !( IR N4 Y O # N36 !( D !( !( 3!( S 66 D!( N8 A !(!( !( !( T E HS3 V N13 !( O !( !( !( HS4 I C 59 N3 !( HS5 HS6 N D 65 !( !( D N17 !( I !(!( !( !( E !( R !( !( E !( D !( !( E N18 N2 HS2 V !( !( !( N37 D R L N # A 2 R L O10 N39!( !( A !(N21 M S A !( U O9 !( L !( Boon !( K I 58 P s !( 63 !( A N O8!( b E A V2 !( o M R L M N!( S !( !( r o N41 !( L A !( S !( T !( !( E 104 V5!( V9 N42 !( DR !( !( C 68-5 V8 !( Y !(!( O7 !(!( !( 62 102 !( R V1 !( 1 !( 68-4 !( D N42a !( 54 !( RD 100 69 A !( HA !(!( !(75 N44 61 !( !(!( !( E L RC O5!( !( 54A OV !( O3 O 74 !( GR !( !( !( T 60 !( E !( !( O4 S AV !( O2 !( 53 R O1 L N45 FE !(50 68 !( VE !( !( F 67 !( D A U!(76 !( U !(51 R !( A O !( C O T !( !(!( 46 F P S 52 68C !( !( 45 !( !(!(!( E 70a !( !( !( T N !( 70 N47 N46 52a S SH3 48 47 !( T !( E 44 !( SH1!( !( 43 !( !( 39 !(38 R 42 !( Y N48 S LE N49 36d!( T !( L !( N50 !( LL A !( !(!( !( !( 40 41 !( HA 17 N51 D!(!(R !(!( !(IRE 16 K 36 F H !( AR A !( P L I !( G A B N52 31 L !( !( !( !( H !( !( C N53 !( !( E D !( !(L 34!( 14 !( Y !( 32 8 9 !( S !( K !( !( T M !( G !(11 !( 7A 13 1 !( WWTP3!( J !( 3 O F !( EY T WWTP1!( !(!( H LL S !( N E !( !( A AC !( !(19 R !( !( M 7 10 !( !( N54!(I O !( S O WWTP2 !( T !( 10A !( PO E !( E 6 V M 22 4 !( A !( C 5 G A R M1 UN !( E !( !( !( O I D Y 11 M !( N !( !( !( Y3 E !( Y1 S Y2 T !( !( T M2 M3 E Crestview R !(!( C1 !( Pump Station $+ $+ Y 24 !( C2 L !( C16 Young Ave Pump Station A !( 26 d C13 !(!( !( R C32 C3 !( C15 25 n R C12!( 27 w D !( !(!( C14 to E e t GE !( !( !( s S ID !( V C4 L C17 28 u c R C33 A P o a K !( N !( M m O !( !( T !( R !( o O A FE !( t t R !( !( U !( o C54 L D !( C23 C18 !(29 B E !( S P N !( R !( N!( !( !( T C39!(!( C53 !(C25!( 30 W A C29 g $+!( !( S C6 !( C27 T A !( E !( B !( n F C28 R !( !( !( i C60 !(C51 H o R E C30 !( I !( I C o !( O!( ELM CRE K H ST AV C41 !( R !( E n C C50 !( !( B C7 !( !( !( s L C8 C9 C11 b C42 !( V !( D o C45!( ro !( P C46 C47 k !( !(C48 !( D R N W O T E L P d P R A e l l K i

I N v G s

r R e D r h o FIGURE 2.2 R0 375 750 1,500 Town of Boonsboro Sewer System Manhole Identification Feet Boonsboro Municipal Utilities Commission (BMUC) • Town of Boonsboro, Maryland Wastewater System Master Plan and Hydraulic Model November 11, 2020

2.2 Model Development and Calibration Summary

In order to evaluate the sewer system, a hydraulic model was developed using InfoSewer software. Gravity main pipe and manhole databases were updated in ArcGIS and imported into InfoSewer using record drawings and survey data. The InfoSewer model was calibrated using flow monitoring data from 2016. The calibration process included the adjustment of roughness coefficients and breakdown of different flow loads for each basin. Calibrated peak flows and other modeling parameters are summarized in Table 2.2 below. The Model Calibration Technical Memorandum dated September 2020 is included in Appendix 2.

Table 2.2: Calibrated Model Overview Basin Meter H Meter 51 Meter 54A Meter 45 Meter 33A Crestview

Roughness Coefficient 0.008 0.028 0.028 0.017 0.015 0.012

BSF (GPM) 17.39 15.78 10.09 27.13 20.03 16.60

BSF / Acres 0.15 0.40 0.09 0.27 0.18 0.22

GWI (GPM) 20.35 9.42 8.13 48.62 81.65 6.79

GWI / IDM 1.27 0.87 0.50 1.90 3.98 0.38

RDII (GPM) 222.45 176.87 304.68 349.37 252.02 65.42

RDII / IDM 13.89 16.41 18.73 13.63 12.28 3.63

Where: RDII = rain derived inflow and infiltration, IDM = inch-diameter-mile

Note: Flows in meter basins H, 51, and 54A were adjusted during calibration to match recorded data.

2.3 Existing System Updates

Following calibration of the existing system, upgrades and developments that are currently under construction were incorporated into the model. This included the new Sycamore Run development and CIPP lining of several pipe segments. These projects are currently ongoing and expected to be completed in the near future. Because these updates were not completed during flow metering, which was used for model calibration, they were deactivated during the calibration process. After calibration was deemed complete, the flow changes due to the Sycamore Run development and CIPP lining were incorporated into the model of the existing system.

The new Sycamore Run development ties into meter basin H via the Young Avenue pump station as shown on Figure 2.3. All pipes in Sycamore Run were assigned roughness coefficients of 0.011, and the BSF for the development was assumed to be 250 GPD per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU).

Page 9

Legend

$+ Pump Station

Force Main B o !( Manholes o Ü n s Gravity Main b o Existing Sewer System r o !( !(!( Sycamore Run Development (NotP Included in Model Calibration)!( !( !( k !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( e !( !( v !( !( A !( !( d !( !(!(!( Lappans Rd !( !( e !( R !( l !( !( !( !( !( !( l !( p !( !(!( !( !( !( e !( a !( !( r !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( M u !( a !( !( L !( !( !( !( !( !( n !( !( i !( !( !( !( !( a !( !( t !( !( n !( !( u !( !( !( !( !( !( o !( !( !( M !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( Crestview Young Ave !( !(!( Pump Station $+ $+!( !( Pump Station !( !( d !(!( !( R !( !( wn !( !(!( eto St !( !( !( us ac !( o m !( !( !( !( !( !( M o !( t ot !( !( !(!(!( !( P S !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( g $+!( !( !( B !( !( n !( !( !( i !( !( o !( !( K o !( !( n !( !( !( !( !( s !( b !( o !( ro !( P k !(!( !(

d R

e l l i v s r e r h o FIGURE 2.3 R0 375 750 1,500 Location of Sycamore Run Development Feet Boonsboro Municipal Utilities Commission (BMUC) • Town of Boonsboro, Maryland Wastewater System Master Plan and Hydraulic Model November 11, 2020

The pipe segments listed in Table 2.3 below and shown in Figure 2.4, provided by the Town of Boonsboro, are scheduled to be lined using CIPP by the end of 2020. The reduction of I/I as a result of lining can be difficult to quantify. Typically, a 10 to 25 percent reduction of I/I, which includes both GWI and RDII components, can be anticipated. As a conservative estimate, the I/I flows corresponding to each of these pipe segments were reduced by 10 percent in the model, and roughness coefficients were reduced to 0.012 to represent smoother pipe walls.

Table 2.3: Pipeline Segments Lined Using CIPP Diameter Number of Total Length Load From MH To MH (Inches) Pipes (LF) Manhole Basin N43 N46 10 3 1,180 N43 45 N36 N41 10 5 990 N34 45 26 30 8 4 1,080 26 H K1 N3 8 3 1,080 K5, N5 54A N32 N36 10 4 960 N34, T2 45 K5 K19 8 7 1,320 K19 54A K8 K12 8 2 410 K12 54A K4 K26 8 1 290 K5 54A

Page 11

Boonsboro Municipal Utilities Commission (BMUC) • Town of Boonsboro, Maryland Wastewater System Master Plan and Hydraulic Model November 11, 2020

Figure 2.4: CIPP Lined Segments

Page 12

Boonsboro Municipal Utilities Commission (BMUC) • Town of Boonsboro, Maryland Wastewater System Master Plan and Hydraulic Model November 11, 2020

3 Model Development of Buildout Conditions

In order to determine the effect of future flows on the existing sewer system, data on the proposed developments was gathered and included location, number of sewer connections (or “taps”), and potential connections into the system. Overall, six proposed developments were added into the model as listed in Table 3.1.

The proposed developments were assigned an assumed BSF of 250 GPD/EDU. GWI was assumed to be negligible due to new sewer construction. A peaking factor (PF) was estimated and applied based on the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) Design Guidelines for Wastewater Facilities (2016). Per MDE recommendations, the PF was determined based on average daily flows at the WWTP of 0.36 MGD and utilizing the following equation:

5/6 PF = 3.2×퐷푒푠푖푔푛 퐶푎푝푎푐푖푡푦 퐷푒푠푖푔푛 퐶푎푝푎푐푖푡푦

The resulting PF of 3.8 was applied to the BSF for each development in order to estimate peak flows under wet weather conditions. For modeling purposes, each proposed development was assumed to have one corresponding tie-in manhole in the existing system, and all proposed development flows were assumed to discharge into that tie- in manhole. The tie-in locations for each proposed development, as shown on Figure 3.1, were verified with Town officials and include flow contributions as listed below in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1: Proposed Development Overview Tie-In Proposed Number BSF Peak Flow Manhole Connects Development of Taps (GPM) (GPM) Location to Basin Lakin 50 8.68 32.97 N26 45 Flook 33 5.73 21.76 N30 45 Fletcher's 91 15.80 60.00 FG38 45 TT&K 360 62.50 237.35 N43 45 Easterday 193 33.51 127.25 25 H King Road 554 96.18 365.26 STR2-4 H

Page 13

Legend

$+ Pump Station Force Main B !( All Existing Manholes o o Ü ! Load Manholes (Point of Flow Inputn in Model) s Existing Gravity Sewer System b o r Existing Gravity Sewer System (Noto Included in Model) !( FG17 !(!( P !( !( !( k !( !( !( !( !( FG27 !( !( FG24 !( !( FG111!( FG14 !(!( !(!( Fletcher's (91 taps) !(!( FG109 FG107 !(!( !(!( Tie-In Manhole: FG38 !( !( !( !( !(!( K28 !( !( K12 e !( !( v !( !( K19 A !( !( d !( !(!(!( Lappans Rd !( !( e !( R !( l !( !( !( !( !( !( l !( p !( K5 !(!( !( FG38 !( !( e !( a !( !( r N26 !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( M u Lakin (50 taps) !( a !( !( L !( !( !( Tie-In Manhole: N26 !( !( !(K22 n N30!( N6A !( i !( !( !( !( !( a !( !( t !( !( n !( !( N23 N5 u Flook (33 taps) !( !( !( !( !( !( o Tie-In Manhole: N30 N34 T2 !( !( !( M !( !( N19!( !( !( !( !( N11 N1A!( 66 N13!( !( !( !( !(!( !( N32D!( !( !( !( HS6 !( !( N18!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( N17A!( ! !( N42C!( !( O10 !( !( !( V3 !(!( !( !( !( V6 !( !( 62A 55 !( !( !( !(!( 105 !(!( !( N43!( !( 68-5 !( V8 !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( 100!( !( !( !( !( !( !( 54A !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( 77 !( !(!( !( !( TT&K (360 taps) !( !( !( !( !( 67 !( !( !( 52A!( SH6!( !( Tie-In Manhole: N43 !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( 44 !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(44A !( !( !(17 !( !( !(!( !( !( 40A!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( 33A!( !( !( !( 40B !( !( !( !( !( !( !(34 !( !( !( 9 !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( 19 !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( 23 !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( M1!( Y1 !(!( !( !( !( Y3!( 12 Easterday (193 taps) !( !( 24A Crestview !!STR2-4 !( Young Ave !( !( Tie-In Manhole: 25 Pump Station $+ $+ STR7-2 !( Pump Station 25 d !( C16 !( 26 R !( !(!( STR9-1 !( n !( STR13-2! w !( !(!( ! STR15-3 to t !( !( STR17-3 !( se S !( !! u ac C58 C18 o m C35!( !( !( !( !( !( M o !( t ot !( !( !(!(!( !( P C26 S !( !(!( !( !( !( C39!(!( !( C30 King Road (554 taps) !( !( g $+!( !( !( B !( !( n Tie-In Manhole: STR2-4 C60 !( !( !( i o !( C50 !( !( !( C7 K o !( !( C10 n !( !( !( !( !( s !( b !( o !( ro !( P k !( !(C48 !(

d R

e l l i v s r e r h o FIGURE 3.1 R0 375 750 1,500 Proposed Development Tie-In Locations Feet Boonsboro Municipal Utilities Commission (BMUC) • Town of Boonsboro, Maryland Wastewater System Master Plan and Hydraulic Model November 11, 2020

4 Comparison of Existing and Buildout Conditions

Two independent scenarios were created in the model and used to evaluate existing and future capacities. Existing capacity was evaluated using the existing system scenario, which included the updates from Sycamore Run and the sewer lining as described in Section 2. Future capacity was evaluated using the buildout scenario, which modeled the existing system with all future loads from proposed developments added to tie-in manholes. Note that internal pipe layouts within proposed developments were not modeled in the buildout scenario, but all proposed developments were assumed to have completed construction and connected to the existing system at the tie-in locations previously described in Section 3.

The purpose of evaluating each scenario was to determine which improvements are needed immediately and which will be needed as the developments come online. The evaluation of existing conditions also offers a baseline on the contribution required from each development as additional improvements are needed to support the flow increases.

Each scenario was run under wet weather conditions, which assumes peak flow and accounts for RDII, to assess the impacts of peak flows on the collection system. In the existing system, 2016 flow metering data was used to find the peak flow in each basin based on the measured peaks listed previously in Table 2.1, and RDII loads were applied to each basin as listed previously in Table 2.2. The PF for existing metered basins ranged from 2.7 (basin 33A) to 15.9 (basin 54A) with an average PF of 7.6. Compared to the PF of 3.8 estimated for the overall system per MDE recommendations, as previously described in Section 3, these factors are high and indicate excessive I/I in certain parts of the system. This comparison also suggests that the estimated PF is a reasonable value for future development areas, where the pipes will be newer than the existing system and I/I is expected to be lower. In the buildout model scenario, the estimated PF of 3.8 was applied to proposed development flows to represent peak flows under wet weather conditions.

Table 4.1 summarizes the peak flow for each metered basin, relevant pump stations, and the WWTP for existing and buildout scenarios. Flows are the same under existing and buildout conditions for meters 51, 54A, 33A, and Crestview because there are no proposed development tie-ins upstream from these locations. Note that flows increase from the existing to buildout scenarios in Basins H, 45, and the Young Avenue Pump Station, as can be expected due to the upstream locations of proposed developments.

Table 4.1: Peak Flows Under Wet Weather Conditions Existing System Buildout Increase Basin, Pump Station, Peak Flow Peak Flow (GPM) or WWTP (GPM) (GPM) H 333 1190 857 51 184 184 0 54A 325 325 0 45 417 769 352 33A 354 354 0 Crestview Pump Station 86 86 0 Young Ave Pump 370 Station 201 571 1,779 2,989 1,210 WWTP (2.56 MGD) (4.30 MGD) (1.74 MGD)

Page 15

Boonsboro Municipal Utilities Commission (BMUC) • Town of Boonsboro, Maryland Wastewater System Master Plan and Hydraulic Model November 11, 2020

Table 4.2 lists flow contributions by development for each basin. The range indicates that some pipe segments receive more flow from proposed developments than others within the basin. Flow contributions from proposed developments were used to ascertain each development’s share of improvements required due to increased flows.

Table 4.2: Buildout Flow Percentage of Contributions by Development Basin or Location Development Contribution (Percent of Flow in Buildout Scenario) Fletcher Lakin Flook TT&K King Easterday 45 8-22 0-10 0-6 0-31 0 0 H 0 0 0 0 31-66 0-11 Shafer Park to WWTP 0-2 0-1 0-0.8 0-8 12-23 4-8

When evaluating pipe capacity in both the existing and buildout model scenarios, pipes were evaluated based on depth of flow, flow rate, and capacity. Depth of flow is typically defined as a ratio “d/D”, where d indicates the depth of flow and D indicates the pipeline diameter. This ratio can identify pipeline capacity issues or pipeline surcharges. Wherever depth of flow exceeds the pipeline diameter, or d/D is greater than or equal to 1.0, the pipeline is surcharged. In order to have adequate capacity within the system, it is recommended that pipelines be considered for improvements if the depth of flow exceeds 80 percent of pipeline diameter (d/D of 0.8 or greater). In addition to capacity restrictions, pipeline surcharge can also be caused by faulty installation, such as inadequate or negative slope. The primary reasons for surcharge can typically be determined based on modeling results and evaluation of pipeline profiles.

Pipelines with a d/D of 0.8 or greater in the existing system under existing conditions are shown on Figure 4.1 and listed in Table 4.3. Pipelines with a d/D of 0.8 or greater in the existing system under buildout conditions, which includes flows from all proposed developments as previously described in Section 3, are shown on Figure 4.2 and listed in Table 4.2.

Page 16

Legend Gravity Main Ü D_OVER_D Less than 0.5 FG17 !Z 0.5-0.8 B A O C Y H O A FG24 N A W R ! ! 0.8-1.0 S B Y R FG14 !E O C R T G I O 1.0 FG111 T

L P A I ! P K P E A FG109 N FG107 ManholeS ! D R R D ! E L K28 SURCHDEPTH IL V ! K12 R E D L P !! K19 Existing Manhole Y A E B M L U R LANAFIELD CT G T Existing Manhole (Surcharged) N C O I HA N R SE W SI A K5 IR X B Y LD C ! Load Manhole (Point of Flow Input in Model) LV ! AFIE N26 D E LAN ! V A ! FG38 L L Pump Stations & WWTP O R R A Outlet (Point of Flow Output in Model) C R N30 N6A D N K22 ! ! O ! D L N E

M W D A R I N5 N N23 L

S ! ! E N34 T R T2 U ! A L ! N19 2 # N11 N1A N ! ! I R ! I ! A 66 T N13 C D N A ! E U V D E N32D HS6 O I D O V ! M A ! N D K E R D ! O N17A L R A E C R L P H NE L ! WIN N18 A A L RD N42C A M M L ! A ! N V3 T A O C R CA O10 ! MPUS AV V6 W K A E E E I RN L S L 55 105 ! V DR ! E ! 68-5 Y Y ! E V8 !L ! 1 ! 62A L R N43 D A D V 100 AR CH ! LA OR 54A OVE ! GR 77 E T! AV S ER UFF E L TO R 67 AV U S D RD A FO P K ! ! 52A R! SH6 T A C S P E R N E T 44 F E ! A E R AV H N KI S S LA T 17 LEY! AL ! 44A 40A ALL E H ! FIR E AC W PL VIE ES K P ! IN 40B A A PAR G R ! K 9 D ! R C ! T 1 E 34 S 1 EY M 19 LL T H A S E C !G MA T I O E H T R 23 PO R ! E Y S E E M V L A D M O G A UN E A N O Y R I M1 N U ! ! S ! M S Y3 A Y1 T E L N ! L T ! STR2-4 E Y 24A D ! ! M R STR7-2

O

N

R 25 O C16 ! 26 E

! R STR9-1 !

D D E STR13-2! RD IK R N P R N D ! STR15-3 TOW E G STR17-3 E W G OUS O ID N ! M T I S R E ! D K K R O C58 V C18 E O A L PH BR P ! T ! HE ! RN U E S ! C35 DF N A RE T C26 L

C39 S N E ! C30 A B ! H O T

C F ! O W N E C60 A I S R H B R O ! C C7 IO ELM CREST AVE C10 R R ! O ! B C50 ! P L I V K D E

D R

C48 E L ! L I V S R E R H FIGURE 4.1 O Pipeline Capacity Restrictions for Existing System 0 375 750 1,500R Under Existing Conditions Feet Table 4.3 Pipeline Capacity Restrictions for Existing System Under Existing Conditions

Upstream and Length Existing Recommended Diameter Downstream Average d/D Maximum d/D Proposed Improvements Approximate Area/Address (LF) Diameter for Upsizing Manhole ID Combination of Upsizing and FG1-N32 1,442 8" 0.88 1.00 8" and 10" Fletcher's Grove to Graystone CIPP

Combination of Upsizing and Graystone Drive, Kerns Drive, and N41-N46 1,763 10" 0.62 1.00 10" and 12" CIPP Thompson Court

H-WWTP 3,355 8", 10", and 12" 0.86 1.00 Upsize 10", 15", and 18" Shafer Park to WWTP

N3-50 1,936 8" 0.88 1.00 CIPP N/A Maple Ave and Main Street

62A-50 1,547 8" 0.87 1.00 CIPP N/A Della Lane

50-N46 1,401 8" 1.00 1.00 Upsize 10" and 12" Main Street and Shafer Park

39-33 1,292 8" 0.87 1.00 CIPP N/A Park Drive and McKeldin Drive Legend Gravity Main Ü D_OVER_D Less than 0.5 FG17 !Z 0.5-0.8 B A O C Y H O A FG24 N A W R ! ! 0.8-1.0 S B Y R FG14 !E O C R T G I O 1.0 FG111 T

L P A I ! P K P E A FG109 N FG107 ManholeS ! D R R D ! E L K28 SURCHDEPTH IL V ! K12 R E D L P !! K19 Existing Manhole Y A E B M L U R LANAFIELD CT G T Existing Manhole (Surcharged) N C O I HA N R SE W SI A K5 IR X B Y LD C ! Load Manhole (Point of Flow Input in Model) LV ! AFIE N26 D E LAN ! V A ! FG38 L L Pump Stations & WWTP O R R A Outlet (Point of Flow Output in Model) C R N30 N6A D N K22 ! ! O ! D L N E

M W D A R I N5 N N23 L

S ! ! E N34 T R T2 U ! A L ! N19 2 # N11 N1A N ! ! I R ! I ! A 66 T N13 C D N A ! E U V D E N32D HS6 O I D O V ! M A ! N D K E R D ! O N17A L R A E C R L P H NE L ! WIN N18 A A L RD N42C A M M L ! A ! N V3 T A O C R CA O10 ! MPUS AV V6 W K A E E E I RN L S L 55 105 ! V DR ! E ! 68-5 Y Y ! E V8 !L ! 1 ! 62A L R N43 D A D V 100 AR CH ! LA OR 54A OVE ! GR 77 E T! AV S ER UFF E L TO R 67 AV U S D RD A FO P K ! ! 52A R! SH6 T A C S P E R N E T 44 F E ! A E R AV H N KI S S LA T 17 LEY! AL ! 44A 40A ALL E H ! FIR E AC W PL VIE ES K P ! IN 40B A A PAR G R ! K 9 D ! R C ! T 1 E 34 S 1 EY M 19 LL T H A S E C !G MA T I O E H T R 23 PO R ! E Y S E E M V L A D M O G A UN E A N O Y R I M1 N U ! ! S ! M S Y3 A Y1 T E L N ! L T ! STR2-4 E Y 24A D ! ! M R STR7-2

O

N

R 25 O C16 ! 26 E

! R STR9-1 !

D D E STR13-2! RD IK R N P R N D ! STR15-3 TOW E G STR17-3 E W G OUS O ID N ! M T I S R E ! D K K R O C58 V C18 E O A L PH BR P ! T ! HE ! RN U E S ! C35 DF N A RE T C26 L

C39 S N E ! C30 A B ! H O T

C F ! O W N E C60 A I S R H B R O ! C C7 IO ELM CREST AVE C10 R R ! O ! B C50 ! P L I V K D E

D R

C48 E L ! L I V S R E R H FIGURE 4.2 O Pipeline Capacity Restrictions for Existing System 0 375 750 1,500R Under Buildout Conditions Feet Table 4.4 Pipeline Capacity Restrictions for Existing System Under Build-Out Conditions

Upstream and Recommended Length Proposed Percentage of Flow from Proposed Downstream Existing Diameter Average d/D Maximum d/D Diameter for Approximate Area/Address (LF) Improvements Developments Manhole ID Upsizing Fletcher's 15.3% FG1-N32 8" 1442 1.00 1.00 Upsize 10" Fletcher's Grove to Graystone Lakin 8.4% Flook 5.5% Fletcher's 7.8% Graystone Drive, Kerns Drive, and Thompson Lakin 4.3% N41-N46 10" 1763 0.80 1.00 Upsize and Adjust Slope 12" Court Flook 2.8% TT&K 30.9% Fletcher's 2.0% Lakin 1.1% Flook 0.7% M1-WWTP 8", 10", and 12" 3980 1.00 1.00 Upsize and Adjust Slope 10", 12", 18", 21" Shafer Park to WWTP TT&K 7.9% King Road 12.2% Easterday 4.3% Pump Station Upgrade, Upsize From Tie-In to Sycamore Run from King Road Tie-In to Young STR2-M3 8" 178 1.00 1.00 Pump Station, or Adjust 10" King Road 66.0% Ave Pump Station Proposed Development Tie-In Location

N3-50 8" 1936 0.88 1.00 CIPP N/A Maple Ave and Main Street N/A

62A-50 8" 1547 0.87 1.00 CIPP N/A Della Lane N/A

50-N46 8" 1401 1.00 1.00 Upsize 10" and 12" Main Street and Shafer Park N/A

CIPP, Parallel Piping, or 39-33 8" 1292 0.87 1.00 Replace Pipes with N/A Park Drive and McKeldin Drive N/A Same Size Boonsboro Municipal Utilities Commission (BMUC) • Town of Boonsboro, Maryland Wastewater System Master Plan and Hydraulic Model November 11, 2020

It is apparent that d/D ratios increase as flows increase in the basins where proposed development flows are being discharged, causing pipeline surcharges. Figure 4.3 shows the hydraulic grade line (HGL) and depth of flow for the same pipe segment, from Manhole N34 to N46 on Graystone Drive, Kerns Drive, and Thomspon Court, under existing and buildout conditions. Note that when the depth of flow / HGL is equal or greater than the manhole rim elevation, this indicates a sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) condition. Under existing conditions, the surcharged HGL in this segment is primarily shown for the pipes with negative or inadequate slopes. Under buildout conditions, the surcharge is higher and shown for more pipes within the segment. Note that the TT&K development is expected to tie into this segment via manhole N43.

Figure 4.3: Hydraulic Grade Line and Depth of Flow from Manhole N34 to Manhole N46: Existing and Buildout Scenario Results

Profiles of three segments under buildout conditions are included in Figure 4.4. Profiles for existing and buildout conditions for other pipe segments are included in Appendix 3. Some areas, such as the segment of pipes in the vicinity of wastewater treatment facility, experience surcharge under both existing and buildout conditions, indicating a current capacity restriction.

Page 21

Boonsboro Municipal Utilities Commission (BMUC) • Town of Boonsboro, Maryland Wastewater System Master Plan and Hydraulic Model November 11, 2020

Figure 4.4: Hydraulic Grade Line and Depth of Flow from Manholes 62-50, 50-N46, and M1-WWTP: Buildout Scenario Results

Page 22

Boonsboro Municipal Utilities Commission (BMUC) • Town of Boonsboro, Maryland Wastewater System Master Plan and Hydraulic Model November 11, 2020

5 System Improvements

Improvements were modeled to eliminate system surcharge and reduce d/D to a maximum ratio of 0.8 in most locations under peak conditions. Improvements were modeled independently in both the existing and buildout scenarios in order to determine the minimum improvements required to provide adequate capacity in each scenario.

Based on the results from both the existing and buildout model scenarios, pipe segments considered for improvements are shown on Figure 5.1 and include the following:

a) The 8-inch sewer that begins on Chase Six Boulevard and extends 1,442 LF from Manhole FG1 to Manhole N32: - This segment includes three tie-in locations for proposed developments. The proposed Fletcher’s, Lakin, and Flook developments are expected to tie into Manholes FG38, N26, and N30, respectively, adding a total of 174 taps or 43,500 gpd of flow. See Figure 3.1 for development tie-in locations. b) The 10-inch sewer along Graystone Drive, Kerns Drive, and Thompson Court that extends 1,763 LF from Manhole N42 to N46: - The proposed TT&K development is expected to tie into Manhole N43, adding a total of 360 taps or 90,000 gpd to the system. The Fletcher’s, Lakin, and Flook developments are proposed upstream from this segment and contribute a total of 174 taps or 43,500 gpd of flow. - Note that pipes between Manhole N43 and Manhole N46 have already been lined as a part of existing system upgrades. - Pipe between Manhole N46 and Manhole N45 shows a d/D of 1.0 due to its negative slope of -0.30% based on surveyed and as-built elevations. c) Three segments of 8-inch sewer that intersect on Main Street show a d/D > 0.8: - The 8-inch sewer that begins in front of the Boonsboro school complex and extends 1936 LF from Manholes N3 to 50 along Maple Ave and Main Street. - The 8-inch sewer on Della Lane extending 1,547 LF from Manholes 62A to 50. - The 8-inch sewer that begins on Main Street and extends 1,401 LF through Shafer Park from Manholes 50 to N46. d) A section of 8-inch sewer starting at Main Street and extending 1,292 LF along Park Drive to McKeldin Drive from Manholes 48 to 33. e) The 8-inch, 10-inch, and 12-inch sewer located in Shafer Park and extending 3,980 LF from Manhole M1 to the WWTP. - In the existing system scenario, this surcharged segments only extends 3,355 LF from Manhole H to the WWTP. Under buildout conditions, the surcharged length expands to include the segment from Manhole M1 (the discharge manhole for the Young Avenue pump station force main) to the WWTP. - Based on survey elevations, the pipe segment between Manholes WWTP3 and WWTP2 has a negative slope of -0.60% as shown on the profile on the third graph in Figure 4.4. - The King’s Road development is expected to tie into the Young Avenue Pump Station, which would cause both the pump station and the adjacent upstream pipes (from Manhole STR2 to Manhole M3) to be surcharged.

The following improvements were modeled for pipelines in paragraphs a) through e) as described above under both existing and buildout scenarios. The improvements were modeled iteratively until the pipes in the segment showed a d/D ratio of less than 0.8. For each type of improvement, the parameters that were adjusted included the following:

• Pipe Lining: o Reduce roughness coefficient to 0.012 o Reduce I/I loads by 10 percent

Page 23

Boonsboro Municipal Utilities Commission (BMUC) • Town of Boonsboro, Maryland Wastewater System Master Plan and Hydraulic Model November 11, 2020

• Pipe Upsizing: o Reduce roughness coefficient to 0.012 o Reduce I/I loads by 10 percent o Increase size of pipeline sequentially (from 8-inch to 10-inch, 10-inch to 12-inch, etc.) o Adjust downstream or upstream pipe sizes, if necessary o Adjust slopes of upsized pipes if necessary and possible based on elevations

The iterative process was repeated for both the existing conditions and buildout conditions to determine the most effective way to reduce the capacity issues. Lining was found to be effective and upsizing not needed for both existing and buildout conditions for the following pipe segments (Manhole to Manhole):

• 39-33 • N3-50 • 62A-50

Segment between Manholes 50 and N46, which is immediately downstream from segments between Manholes N3 and 50 and Manholes 62A and 50, required upsizing to a combination of 10-inch and 12-inch pipes under both existing and buildout conditions. The remaining segments identified for improvements showed different improvement requirements under existing conditions compared to buildout conditions. For example, the pipe segment directly upstream from the wastewater treatment facility requires upsizing under both existing and buildout conditions, but a larger pipe diameter is required under buildout conditions to accommodate future flows. Similarly, pipe segments between Manholes FG1 and N30 and Manholes N41 and N46 require a combination of CIPP and upsizing for one or two pipes under existing conditions, but the entirety of the segments require upsizing under buildout conditions. Note that some individual pipes in the segment between Manholes N41 and N46 have already been lined as a part of recent system upgrades, but these same pipes would require upsizing to provide adequate capacity for future developments. A detailed list of improvements required to eliminate surcharge in the pipe segments previously listed in paragraphs a) through e) is included in Appendix 4.

Additionally, several pipes in the existing system appear to have negative slopes based on survey and as-built elevations. It is assumed that any new pipes in the system would be installed with adequate slope, if elevations allow it. Therefore, within segments considered for upsizing or replacement due to capacity issues, negative slopes were adjusted before increasing pipe diameter as a part of the iterative process of modeling improvements. Original and adjusted slopes for each pipe considered for improvements are included in Appendix 4. Some pipes with negative slopes, such as the pipe segment from Manhole 105 to 103, were not a part of segments considered for improvement because they did not have any other capacity issues.

Figure 5.1 shows the improvements needed for the segments described above and under the conditions modeled and presented herein.

Page 24

Legend Manholes Existing Manhole (Surcharged Under Build-Out Conditions Only) !( B O !( Existing Manhole (Surcharged Under Existing & Build-Out Conditions)O N H !( O !( !( Existing Manhole S FG17 L !( B !( C D O !( !!( !( T E !( ! Load Manhole (Point of Flow Input in Model) Z R R !( A Y Ü O !( FG27 !( A C Gravity Main Improvements P H W FG24 !!( ! !( I K G A R R Improvements Needed Under Build-Out Conditions Only E E R EN !E!( FE !( Y R G Additional Improvements Needed Under Build-Out Conditions N C I FG14 C T IR !( T Improvements Needed Under Existing & Build-Out Conditions !(!!( !(!( D !(!( R No Improvements Needed FG107 FG111!(!( !( E B !( L !!( L O !!( !( I O V !( FG109!( E N !( L S P B A !!( K12 K19 O !( M R BURTON K28 !( !!(!!( L O !( C IR A H WAY C !( PP P AS !( AN I !( S E D S K IX !( !( R !( B !( !( L D E !( LV D !( !( IE!( !( !( !( F !( !( K5 A !( !( !( N !( !( FG38 A !( N26!( !( !!( L !( !( !(!!( !( !( !!( !( !( FG1-N32 N !( O !( !( !( !( D !( !( L R !( N30 N6A E !( !( D !!( !!( !( !( W !!( K22 !( !( !( !( !( !( N23 N5 !( !( !( !!( !( !!( N34 N T2 !( M !( !!( D A !( G !!( !( R

I !( E R N L V A !( ! !!( N13 !( !( E S A Y N11 66 !( !!( !!( N1A R T S !( E !( N19 E E U T !( !( L !!( D 2 V A O N32D P D !( # A HS6 L O A N !( A !( S N R N E !!( V !( I M!(!( I !( !( !(U !!( !( K !( !( I C A D D !( P !( !!( N18 T !( R M D N A R D !!( U E C O10 !( O !( L !( N3-50 L N17A !( !!( O M N42C A V3 !!( M R !(!( !( L C !( !( A A !!( H 62A-50 N V6!( !( A !( !( 55 O

R !( R !( 105 !(!!( !( N43 !!( 62A !!( D N 68-5 C !( !( T !!( !( !(V8 M E !!( !!( H !!( A N !( O A !( I T !( N M L E !( L A !( !(!( !( P E S R L R !( T !( E N41-N46 S Y !!( V D !( S O D !( O R !( R !( !( 1 T G A T N !( 100 !( H !( S !!( C !( R !( C !( O L!!( 77 U T 54A !( A !( !(P !( 67 !( E !( !( SH6 AV !( T !( 52A !( D S !( !(!( OR !( !(!( F !( !!( !( !( !( !( !( 44 !( !( !( !!( !( VE !( IN A !( 44A LAK ALL !( !(E H !!( 50-N46 IR Y T!!( 17 !( !( 40A !( F LE S M1-WWTP !( AL L U !(!( !(!( !( A P 39-33 33A T !( !( S !( !( !!( 40B !( !( !( !( !( !( !!( !( !( 9 34 !(!(S !( !( !!( !( !!( M !( !( T !( A S !(!( !( I !( 11 N H !( Y !( !!( 19 !( E S !( !( LL !( G !( !( A 0 !( T I 1 H !( !( EY !( !!( 23 LL E !( A AV !( NG M1 OU !( !( !( M !( 12 Y !( O !!( !!( R N E !!( E V E R A !( G Y1 D O UN !!( !( 24A O Y3 E E Y !!( R !!( STR7-2 !( R !!( !( S T !( S D S !( !( STR2-4 A AC M M !( L !( TO !( L A O E I P !( !( N !( !( Y C C16 !(!( 26 !( !( !( !!( S O !( T L !( !!( !!( N !( D 25 W !( STR9-1 STR13-2 ETO S !!( OUS R !(!( T M D !( R !!( R D !(!( !( !( STR17-3!( IKE GE !( E !( STR15-3!( !!( P D A !( !( N RI !( STR2-M3 !( !( !( !( !!( W C58 M TO OK !( S O C34 C18 !( RD R !!( !!( !( !( !!( C !( E B A T !( PH !!( G E !( !( !( E !( V H C35 TO !( !( S A L !( C26 S E !( P C B C39 !( N T !( !( T !( F O !( R C I O U !!( N !(!( S C30 O C E !( N R !!( !( H N E T E S !( I !!( K W N S !( F B

A !( O !( !( G E C60 D L !(R R !( B R H E A L A !( O !!( !(I L C R V O D D C10 P R N R I !( !!( K A !!( C7 !( !( E T !!( !( G F C50 N IE I !(H K C!( !( !(

!( C48!( D !!( R

E L L I V S D R R E N R H W O O R T E FIGURE 5.1 0 375 750 L 1,500 P Date: 11/8/2020 P A Feet Pipe Segments Considered for Improvements 1 inch = 833 feet Boonsboro Municipal Utilities Commission (BMUC) • Town of Boonsboro, Maryland Wastewater System Master Plan and Hydraulic Model November 11, 2020

Recommended improvements have been summarized previously in Tables 4.3 and 4.4. Appendix 4 lists detailed improvements including recommended pipe diameters and slope adjustments in each pipe segment, as well as percentage of flow contributions from each proposed development per pipe segment. For ease of reference, the table in Appendix 4 contains improvements under existing conditions and under buildout conditions.

It is important to note that parallel installations, in lieu of pipeline upsizing, may be possible in some locations. The advantage to parallel installation is the ability to avoid extensive by-pass pumping during construction. Additionally, having a dual system enables future lining of the existing sewer without the need for by-pass pumping. For example, for a recommended upsize of 12-inch pipe to an 18-inch pipe, the existing 12-inch could remain in service (to be lined at a later date), and an additional 15-inch sewer main would be installed for adequate capacity, roughly equivalent to a new 18-inch sewer. The disadvantages to parallel installation include the required alignment studies and additional linear footage within the system which may require more frequent cleaning and maintenance due to splitting of low flows. The decision on parallel installation vs. in-trench pipe upsizing would be vetted for each pipe segment during preliminary engineering and design. However, for comparison of required improvements and costs, upsizing of existing pipelines was assumed in the following analysis.

Page 26

Boonsboro Municipal Utilities Commission (BMUC) • Town of Boonsboro, Maryland Wastewater System Master Plan and Hydraulic Model November 11, 2020

6 Recommendations

Recommended improvements for surcharged pipe segments include a combination of CIPP lining, replacement with new pipes of the same diameter, parallel piping, and upsizing. CIPP lining or replacement with the same diameter are two options that would be expected to improve pipe smoothness and reduce RDII, whereas upsizing is necessary for pipes that require additional capacity under existing conditions, buildout conditions, or both. Recommended improvement options for each pipe segment were previously summarized in Tables 4.3 and 4.4, and detailed improvement requirements for individual pipes are included in Appendix 4.

To summarize, pipe segments from Manhole N3 to 50, Manhole 62A to 50, and Manhole 39 to 33 are recommended for CIPP lining or replacement with new pipes of the same diameter under both existing and buildout conditions. Pipe segments from Manhole FG1 to N32, Manhole N41 to N46, Manhole H to WWTP (or M1-WWTP under buildout conditions), and Manhole 50 to N46 are recommended for upsizing. Segment from Manhole 50 to N46 is recommended for upsizing to 10-inch and 12-inch diameters regardless of future development flow, whereas the required diameters and number of individual pipes to be upsized depends on proposed development flows for segments from Manhole FG1 to N32, Manhole N41 to N46, and Manhole M1 to WWTP.

6.1 Development Contributions

6.1.1 Cost Estimates

The flow contributions for each pipe segment from the developments as described in this report will correspond to cost assigned to each development for improvement needed. The improvements necessary under existing conditions are a baseline of costs that the Town would need to spend to assure adequate capacity within the system. The additional improvements necessary under buildout conditions will be divided up amongst the flow contributors for each segment.

The improvements described above were broken down into 8 segments with costs estimated for existing and buildout recommended improvements. Table 6.1 compares the construction costs under existing and buildout conditions. Detailed estimates for each segment are included in Appendix 5.

Table 6.1: Improvement Cost Estimates Segment Existing Scenario Buildout Scenario (MH to MH) Improvement Cost Improvement Cost Cost Increase FG1-N32 $246,000 $571,000 $325,000 N41-N46 $329,000 $739,000 $410,000 N3-50 $225,000 $225,000 $0 62A-50 $179,000 $179,000 $0 50-N46 $574,000 $574,000 $0 39-33 $258,000 $258,000 $0 M1-WWTP $1,439,000 $1,758,000 $319,000 STR2-M3 $0.00 $133,000 $133,000 Total $3,250,000 $4,437,000 $1,187,000

Based on Table 6.1, the total cost of improvements within the Town under existing conditions is approximately $3.25 million, and that increases by almost $1.2 million to account for buildout improvements. Because segments

Page 27

Boonsboro Municipal Utilities Commission (BMUC) • Town of Boonsboro, Maryland Wastewater System Master Plan and Hydraulic Model November 11, 2020

between Manholes N3-50, 62A-50, 50-N46, and 39-33 do not have any future flow contributions from proposed developments, the cost of improvements does not change from existing to buildout conditions.

The increase in cost for improvements required beyond the existing conditions are considered the responsibility of the developers due to the flows being introduced to the system. The flow contributions of the developments were compared to the total additional flow included in buildout for each segment in Table 6.1. As noted above there is no increase in cost for segments where cost increase is $0. The developer contribution cost was estimated by assigning a percentage of the increase in cost based on the corresponding proportion of flow added to that segment. The cost contribution breakdown is included in Table 6.2.

Table 6.2: Developer Contributions

Additional Total Flow from Flow from Percent of Increase in Segment Developers Connected Development Additional Cost for Developer (MH to MH) (GPM) Developments (GPM) Flow Buildout Contribution Fletcher's 60.0 52.3% $169,970 FG1-N32 114.7 Lakin 33.0 28.7% $325,000 $93,280 Flook 21.8 19.0% $61,750 Fletcher's 60.0 17.0% $69,700 Lakin 33.0 9.4% $38,540 N41-N46 352.1 $410,000 Flook 21.8 6.2% $25,420 TT&K 237.4 67.4% $276,340 Fletcher's 60.0 7.1% $22,650 Lakin 33.0 3.9% $12,440 Flook 21.8 2.6% $8,290 M1-WWTP 844.6 $319,000 TT&K 237.4 28.1% $89,640 King Road 365.3 43.2% $137,810 Easterday 127.2 15.1% $48,170 STR2-M3 365.3 King Road 365.3 100.0% $133,000 $133,000 TOTAL $1,187,000 $1,187,000

6.1.2 Summary of Recommended Improvements

While the analysis presented herein focused on both the existing conditions and buildout conditions, the improvements planned by the Town should aim to satisfy the overall increase on the Town’s system that is anticipated. As such, the improvements should aim to satisfy the final buildout flows and include:

• CIPP lining of 4,800 LF of 8-inch sewer • 3,250 LF of new 10-inch sewer • 2,400 LF of new 12-inch sewer • 3,100 LF of new 18-inch sewer • 150 LF of new 21-inch sewer

Figure 6.1 shows the modeled system with peak buildout flows and the improvements listed above. The model of the sewer system indicates that surcharge is minimized or eliminated.

Page 28

Legend Gravity Main Ü D_OVER_D Less than 0.5 FG17 !Z 0.5-0.8 B A O C Y H O A FG24 N A W R ! ! 0.8-1.0 S B Y R FG14 !E O C R T G I O 1.0 FG111 T

L P A I ! P K P E A FG109 ManholeN FG107 S ! D R R D ! E L K28 SURCHDEPTH IL V ! K12 R E D L P !! K19 Existing Manhole Y A E B M L U R LANAFIELD CT G T Existing Manhole (Surcharged) N C O I HA N R SE W SI A K5 IR X B Y LD C ! Load Manhole (Point of Flow Input in Model) LV ! AFIE N26 D E LAN ! V A ! FG38 L L Pump Stations & WWTP O R R A Outlet (Point of Flow Output in Model) C R N30 N6A D N K22 ! ! O ! D L N E

M W D A R I N5 N N23 L

S ! ! E N34 T R T2 U ! A L ! N19 2 # N11 N1A N ! ! I R ! I ! A 66 T N13 C D N A ! E U V D E N32D HS6 O I D O V ! M A ! N D K E R D ! O N17A L R A E C R L P H NE L ! WIN N18 A A L RD N42C A M M L ! A ! N V3 T A O C R CA O10 ! MPUS AV V6 W K A E E E I RN L S L 55 105 ! V DR ! E ! 68-5 Y Y ! E V8 !L ! 1 ! 62A L R N43 D A D V 100 AR CH ! LA OR 54A OVE ! GR 77 E T! AV S ER UFF E L TO R 67 AV U S D RD A FO P K ! ! 52A R! SH6 T A C S P E R N E T 44 F E ! A E R AV H N KI S S LA T 17 LEY! AL ! 44A 40A ALL E H ! FIR E AC W PL VIE ES K P ! IN 40B A A PAR G R ! K 9 D ! R C ! T 1 E 34 S 1 EY M 19 LL T H A S E C !G MA T I O E H T R 23 PO R ! E Y S E E M V L A D M O G A UN E A N O Y R I M1 N U ! ! S ! M S Y3 A Y1 T E L N ! L T ! STR2-4 E Y 24A D ! ! M R STR7-2

O

N

R 25 O C16 ! 26 E

! R STR9-1 !

D D E STR13-2! RD IK R N P R N D ! STR15-3 TOW E G STR17-3 E W G OUS O ID N ! M T I S R E ! D K K R O C58 V C18 E O A L PH BR P ! T ! HE ! RN U E S ! C35 DF N A RE T C26 L

C39 S N E ! C30 A B ! H O T

C F ! O W N E C60 A I S R H B R O ! C C7 IO ELM CREST AVE C10 R R ! O ! B C50 ! P L I V K D E

D R

C48 E L ! L I V S R E R H FIGURE 6.1 O Sewer System Capacity After Implementation 0 375 750 1,500R Feet of Improvements Under Build-Out Flows Boonsboro Municipal Utilities Commission (BMUC) • Town of Boonsboro, Maryland Wastewater System Master Plan and Hydraulic Model November 11, 2020

Appendix 1 Flow Analysis Memorandum dated May 2020

Page 30

MEMORANDUM

Date: May 28, 2020

To: Paul Mantello, Town of Boonsboro Work Order Number: 14421.001 From: Francis Bonkowski, PE Contract Number: Contract number Subject: Flow Analysis Project: Boonsboro Sewer Study CC: File

1 Introduction

The goal of this flow analysis was to characterize inflow & infiltration (I/I) in the Boonsboro wastewater collection system. The flow analysis focused on the sewer basins created by the 2016 ADS flow meters and existing pump stations. The basins are summarized in terms of area, collection system size, and average daily flow (ADF) in Table 1 below. The system size is characterized by inch-diameter-mile, which weights the diameter of the pipe to account for increased surface area allowing for additional potential sources of I/I.

Table 1: Basin Summary

Basin Meter H Meter 54A Meter 51 Meter 45 Meter 33A Crestview Area (Acres) 133.7 158.2 46.0 164.4 102.3 94.2 System Size (IDM) 16.5 16.7 9.8 25.7 19.9 18.5 ADF (GPD) 54,337 29,923 32,042 109,071 146,418 33,383

See Figure 1 for a map of the overall system with basin boundaries.

2 Data Sources

The flow analysis study used 5-minute meter data from ADS Environmental Services covering the period of April through August of 2016, which included rainfall depth as well as meter flow rate (Q), velocity (V), and depth (D). The ADS data was used to identify dry days and storm events and to estimate dry weather flow (DWF) patterns, groundwater infiltration (GWI), and rain derived inflow & infiltration (RDII) for each meter. See Figure 2 for all ADS rainfall and meter flow rate data over time.

The Town of Boonsboro also provided wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and pump station data ranging from January, 2016, through December, 2019, which included daily treatment plant flow rates, daily or weekly pump station run times, and daily rainfall depth. Monthly water distribution data ranging from January, 2016, through September, 2018, was also available to compare with the collection system data. Additional sources of data, such as water table elevations from USGS and return interval criteria from NOAA, were used to supplement the wastewater and precipitation data. See Figure 3 for monthly rainfall, WWTP flow, and water table elevation for all four years.

N:\14421-001\Corresp\Memos\Flow Analysis Memo Draft_Review.docx B O Legend D

O R N

S E L B Basin Boundaries L O I

R V

O E

+$ Pump Station L

B P P

I D

o K A R

E

Force Main o M Ü L

n E

s R

Gravity Sewer b U

o A L 8" Diameter r

o N I

A P 10" Diameter T k E N

V U A

O 12" Diameter E L L M A P P P A UnkownA Diameter M N S R Manholes D

ADS Meters e v A d Lappans Rd e R l p l e a r M u a L

n i a t n u o M

Boonsb o r o M

54A

45 51

33A

M O N R O H E

R D

ST AC +$ OM +$ Crestview OT P d n R R w D to E e t GE s S ID V u c R A o a K M m O T o O A t t R U o L B S P N

N T

W A g +$ S A T E n B R F i H o R E I I C E o O LM CRES K R H T AVE n B C s L V b D o ro P k

D R N W O T E L P d P R A e l l K i

I N v G s

r R e D r h o R

0 100200 400 600 800 1,000 FIGURE 1 Feet FIGURE 2

All Meter and Rain Data

4/8/2016 5/8/2016 6/8/2016 7/8/2016 8/8/2016 600 0

500 0.5

400 1 ) ) s M e P h G c (

n I e ( t

300 1.5 l a l a R f

n w i o a l R F

200 2

100 2.5

0 3 4/8/2016 4/22/2016 5/6/2016 5/20/2016 6/3/2016 6/17/2016 7/1/2016 7/15/2016 7/29/2016 8/12/2016 8/26/2016 Date

Rainfall MH_H MH_54_A MH_51 MH_45 MH_33_A FIGURE 3 Monthly Rain and WWTP Flow Data for 2016-2019 40 475

35 470

30 465 ) G M ( )

t f ( w

25 o n l o F i

460 t P a T v e W l E W 20

e l &

b ) a s T e 455 r h e c t n a I

( 15

W n i a R 450 10

445 5

0 440 January April July October January April July October January April July October January April July October

2016 2017 2018 2019

Total Rain (Inches) Total WWTP Flow (MG) Water Table Level (ft)

May 28, 2020 Page 2 14421.001

3 Dry Weather Analysis

In order to apply the Wastewater Production Method of estimating GWI, dry weather periods were identified based on the following criteria. First, the dry weather period must be part of a minimum of 7 consecutive dry days total. Second, there must be a minimum of 3 consecutive dry days before the start of the dry weather period. Given these two conditions, the shortest possible dry weather period is 4 days.

Out of the 5 months of ADS data, 3 dry weather periods were identified: 4/16/2016 – 4/21/2016, 7/9/2016 – 7/13/2016, and 8/25/2016 – 8/28/2016. Within these dry weather periods, meter data was averaged on an hourly basis to determine average daily flow (ADF) patterns. See Appendix A for graphs of the diurnal ADF patterns. The following equations were then applied to estimate GWI as part of the Wastewater Production Method, where BSF = base sanitary flow, ANF = average nightly flow (12:00 AM – 6:00 AM), and F = fraction of BSF during nighttime operations. F was assumed to be 0.75, which is typical for basins with an ADF less than 2 MGD (ADS, “Quantifying Base Infiltration in Sewers”). Table 2 summarizes the results in terms of gallons per day (GPD).

퐵푆퐹 = (퐴퐷퐹 − 퐴푁퐹)/퐹 퐺푊퐼 = 퐴퐷퐹 − 퐵푆퐹 퐷푊퐹 = 퐴퐷퐹 − 퐺푊퐼

Table 2: Meter Summary (all units in GPD).

Basin Meter H Meter 54A Meter 51 Meter 45 Meter 33A

ADF 54,337 29,923 32,042 109,071 146,418

ANF 30,678 16,257 18,185 79,774 124,785

BSF 31,546 18,222 18,476 39,062 28,845 GWI 22,791 11,701 13,566 70,008 117,574 GWI/ADF 41.9% 39.1% 42.3% 64.2% 80.3%

Because the WWTP data was limited to daily totals, the ANF could not be calculated and the above methodology could not be applied to the same extent. However, dry weather periods were selected using the same criteria in order to determine the steady-state ADF on a monthly and annual basis. Out of the 4 years of WWTP data, 25% of days fit the criteria for dry weather. Table 3 summarizes the annual WWTP data. For comparison, Table 4 summarizes the water distribution data and Table 5 summarizes the pump station data.

Table 3: Annual Summary of Town Data Average Dry Total Rain Weather Flow Peak Daily Year (Inches) (GPD) Flow (GPD) Peak Day 2016 41.5 328,349 1,540,000 2/5/2016 2017 38.6 261,366 784,000 10/31/2017 2018 67.1 481,200 1,870,000 11/17/2018 2019 51.0 466,407 2,110,000 3/23/2019 Average* 49.5 384,331 2,110,000 3/23/2019 *Note: in the “peak daily flow (GPD)” column, the “average” value represents the maximum value.

N:\14421-001\Corresp\Memos\Flow Analysis Memo Draft_Review.docx

May 28, 2020 Page 3 14421.001

Note that WWTP flows were much lower than average in 2017 and much higher than average in 2018. ADF was approximately 123,000 GPD below average in 2017 and 97,000 GPD above average in 2018. Compared to the NOAA 100-year average annual rainfall for Washington County, 39.1 inches, rainfall was only 0.5 inches below average in 2017 and 28 inches above average in 2018. This suggests that data from 2017 may be more representative of the long-term local precipitation and WWTP flow patterns despite being below average for the data set used in this study.

Table 4: Annual Summary of Water Distribution Records. Year Average Daily Water Usage (GPD) Peak Month Daily Flow (GPD) Peak Month 2016 377,038 392,545 December 2017 379,487 417,113 April 20181 380,478 365,948 March Average2 379,001 417,113 April 2017 *Notes: 1. The data for 2018 was limited to January through September, so the value for total annual water used is disproportionately low. 2. In the “peak daily flow (GPD)” column, the “average” value represents the maximum value.

Table 5: Annual Summary of Pump Station Flows Average Daily Flow (GPD) Year Rt. 34 Crestview Young Ave South End 2016 25,496 29,752 7,317 3,800 2017 22,156 30,523 7,380 3,244 2018 28,653 - - 8,117 2019 25,386 - - 6,019 Average 25,423 30,138 7,348 5,295

Data was available on daily basis for the South End pump station and on a weekly basis for the other three pump stations, so it was not possible to distinguish between dry and wet weather flows.

4 Wet Weather Analysis

Out of the 5 months of ADS data, several storms were identified using 5-minute rainfall data. Return intervals were estimated using local data from NOAA, and all identified storms had a return interval of 1 year or less, as shown on Figure 4. See Figures 5-10 for graphs of hourly rainfall, flow rate, and RDII for each storm. The graphed storms are summarized in Table 6.

Hourly RDII was determined by subtracting the average DWF pattern from the hourly flow rate during storm events. The cutoff time for RDII after each storm was determined based on visual inspection of RDII graphs (Figures 6, 8, and 10). Because RDII was based on the average DWF pattern and some meters fluctuated significantly from the average even in dry weather, the RDII period ended when at least 2/5 meters returned to a normal diurnal pattern. See Figures 11-15 for total RDII volume vs. total rainfall for each meter.

N:\14421-001\Corresp\Memos\Flow Analysis Memo Draft_Review.docx FIGURE 4 Return Intervals of Storms Included in RDII Analysis 5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5 ) s

e 3.0 h c n I ( l l a f 2.5 n i 6/21/2016 a R l a t

o 2.0

T 7/30/2016

1.5

8/17/2016 1.0

8/16/2016 7/28/2016 0.5

8/21/2016 0.0 0 12 24 36 48 Storm Duration (Hours)

ADS Storm Data 1-Year Return Interval 2-Year Return Interval 5-Year Return Interval FIGURE 5 Storm Event 6/21/2016

Hour 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 600 0

500 0.5

400 1 ) ) s M e P h G c (

n I e ( t

300 1.5 l a l a R

f n w i o a l R F

200 2

100 2.5

0 3 6/20/2016 6/21/2016 6/22/2016 6/23/2016 6/24/2016 6/25/2016 6/26/2016 6/27/2016 6/28/2016 6/29/2016 6/30/2016 7/1/2016 Date

Rainfall MH_H MH_54_A MH_51 MH_45 MH_33_A FIGURE 6 RDII for Storm Event 6/21/2016

Hour 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 600 0

500 0.5

400 1 ) s ) e h M c P n I G ( (

300 1.5 l

l I I a f D n i R a R

200 2

100 2.5

0 3 6/20/2016 6/21/2016 6/22/2016 6/23/2016 6/24/2016 6/25/2016 6/26/2016 6/27/2016 6/28/2016 6/29/2016 6/30/2016 Date

Rainfall MH_H MH_54_A MH_51 MH_45 MH_33_A RDII Start RDII End FIGURE 7 Storm Events 7/28/2016 & 7/30/2016

Hour 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 600 0

500 0.5

400 1 ) ) M s P e G h (

c e t n

300 1.5 I a (

R n

i a w o R l F

200 2

100 2.5

0 3 7/26/2016 7/27/2016 7/28/2016 7/29/2016 7/30/2016 7/31/2016 8/1/2016 8/2/2016 Date

Rainfall MH_H MH_54_A MH_51 MH_45 MH_33_A FIGURE 8 RDII for Storm Events 7/28/2016 & 7/30/2016

Hour 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 600 0

500 0.5

400 1 ) ) s e M h P c G n ( 300 1.5 I

( I

I n i D a R R

200 2

100 2.5

0 3 7/26/2016 7/27/2016 7/28/2016 7/29/2016 7/30/2016 7/31/2016 8/1/2016 8/2/2016 Date

Rainfall MH_H MH_54_A MH_51 MH_45 MH_33_A RDII Start RDII End RDII Start 2 RDII End 2 FIGURE 9 Storm Event 8/17/2016

Hour 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 600 0

500 0.5

400 1 ) ) s M e P h G c (

n I e ( t

300 1.5 l a l a R

f n w i o a l R F

200 2

100 2.5

0 3 8/13/2016 8/14/2016 8/15/2016 8/16/2016 8/17/2016 8/18/2016 8/19/2016 8/20/2016 8/21/2016 8/22/2016 8/23/2016 8/24/2016 8/25/2016 8/26/2016 Date

Rainfall MH_H MH_54_A MH_51 MH_45 MH_33_A FIGURE 10 RDII for Storm Event 8/17/2016

Hour 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18 0 600 0

500 0.5

400 1 ) s e ) h M c P n I ( G

(

300 1.5 l

l I I a f D n i R a R

200 2

100 2.5

0 3 8/13/2016 8/14/2016 8/15/2016 8/16/2016 8/17/2016 8/18/2016 8/19/2016 8/20/2016 8/21/2016 8/22/2016 8/23/2016 8/24/2016 8/25/2016 8/26/2016 Date

Rainfall MH_H MH_54_A MH_51 MH_45 MH_33_A RDII Start RDII End RDII Start 2 RDII End 2 RDII Start 3 RDII End 3 FIGURE 11 RDII Flow Rate vs. Rainfall Intensity MH_H 6

5

4

) y = 1.7726x - 1.0895 G R² = 0.5999 M (

e 3 m u l o V

2

1

0 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 Rainfall Intensity (Inches)

MH_H RDII Volume (MG) Linear (MH_H RDII Volume (MG)) FIGURE 12 RDII Flow Rate vs. Rainfall Intensity MH_51 1.2

1.0

y = 0.4654x - 0.271 R² = 0.9259

0.8 ) G M (

e 0.6 m u l o V

0.4

0.2

0.0 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 Rainfall Intensity (Inches)

MH_51 RDII Volume Linear (MH_51 RDII Volume) FIGURE 13 RDII Flow Rate vs. Rainfall Intensity MH_54_A 12

y = 4.8998x - 1.8918 R² = 0.8477 10

8 ) G M (

e 6 m u l o V

4

2

0 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 Rainfall Intensity (Inches)

MH_54_A RDII Volume Linear (MH_54_A RDII Volume) FIGURE 14 RDII Flow Rate vs. Rainfall Intensity MH_45 14

12

y = 5.1043x - 2.2075 R² = 0.8783 10

) 8 G M ( e m u l o

V 6

4

2

0 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 Rainfall Intensity (Inches)

MH_45 RDII Volume Linear (MH_45 RDII Volume) FIGURE 15 RDII Flow Rate vs. Rainfall Intensity MH_33_A 9

8

y = 3.41x - 1.5148 7 R² = 0.9074

6 )

G 5 M ( e m u l o 4 V

3

2

1

0 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 Rainfall Intensity (Inches)

MH_33_A RDII Volume Linear (MH_33_A RDII Volume)

May 28, 2020 Page 4 14421.001

Table 6: Storm Summary

Storm Start Date Storm End Date Storm Duration Total Rainfall & Time & Time (Hours) (Inches)

6/21/2016 13:00 6/23/2016 8:00 44 2.5 7/28/2016 15:00 7/29/2016 4:00 14 0.8 7/30/2016 10:00 7/31/2016 16:00 31 2.1 8/16/2016 15:00 8/16/2016/16:00 2 0.9 8/17/2016 18:00 8/18/2016 3:00 10 1.2 8/21/2016 9:00 8/21/2016 15:00 7 0.2

For the WWTP data, a “storm event” was defined as all consecutive days with rain plus the following 2 dry days (or one day if a new storm began on the second dry day) to account for the delayed effect on WWTP flow after a storm. See Figure 16 for a typical flow response after a storm event.

Wet weather WWTP flow vs. rainfall depth was graphed in terms of entire storm events rather than individual days. The total volume during a storm event was adjusted by the ADF in order to estimate RDII volume per storm event as shown on Figure 17. See Figure 18 for the distribution of maximum peak factors per storm event.

5 Results Review

Meters 54A and 45, which represent the largest basins in terms of surface area, displayed the highest peak RDII volume per storm and highest rate of RDII per inch of rainfall, as shown in Table 11 below. Note that the meter 33A basin is larger than the meter 54A basin in terms of IDM but that the meter 54A basin still exhibits higher rates of RDII even after normalizing linear regression slopes by IDM. These results imply that surface area is the primary factor that influences RDII in the system overall. For all meters, the average x-intercept, which represents the threshold of total rainfall per storm for RDII to occur, is 0.5 inches. For meters 54A and 45, the x-intercepts are both 0.4 inches of rain, which further demonstrates that the larger basins are more sensitive to rainfall and more likely to experience RDII even during minor storm events. Note that the applicability of the linear regressions is limited by the lack of data for storms with return intervals greater than 1 year. In particular, the linear regression for meter H had the lowest R2 value at 0.6.

Table 11: RDII Summary by Meter. Maximum RDII occurred during the storm event beginning on 6/21/2016.

Basin Meter H Meter 54A Meter 51 Meter 45 Meter 33A Area (Ac) 133.7 158.2 46.0 164.4 102.3 Size (IDM) 16.5 16.7 9.8 25.7 19.9 Maximum RDII Volume per Storm (Gallons) 5,184,894 11,633,419 1,028,075 11,691,026 7,782,334 Slope of Linear Regression (Gallons of RDII / Inches of Rain) 1,773,000 4,899,800 465,400 5,104,300 3,410,000 Normalized Slope (Gallons of RDII / Inches of Rain / IDM) 107,325 293,050 47,441 198,843 171,185 X-intercept of Linear Regression (Threshold of Total Inches of Rain for RDII to Occur) 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.4 R2 Value of Linear Regression 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9

N:\14421-001\Corresp\Memos\Flow Analysis Memo Draft_Review.docx FIGURE 16 WWTP Flow Response After 7/23/2019 Storm Event 3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0 7/22/19 7/23/19 7/24/19 7/25/19 7/26/19 7/27/19 Rainfall (Inches) WWTP Flow (MGD) Peak Factor FIGURE 17 WWTP Flow During Storm Events 2016-2019 7

6

5

) y = 0.7668x G 4

M R² = 0.3018 ( e m u l o V

I I

D 3 R

2

1

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 Total Rainfall (Inches) FIGURE 18 Maximum Peak Factor During Storm Events 2016-2019 70

60 60

50 s t n e v 39

E 40 m r o t S f o r e

b 30 m u N

20 17 16 16 17 14

10 10 8 7 5 5 4 4 5 4 2 2 0 0 0 0-0.5 0.5-0.75 0.75-1 1-1.25 1.25-1.5 1.5-1.75 1.75-2 2-2.25 2.25-2.5 2.5-2.75 2.75-3 3-3.25 3.25-3.5 3.5-3.75 3.75-4 4-4.25 4.25-4.5 4.5-4.75 4.75-5 5+ Peak Factor Range

May 28, 2020 Page 5 14421.001

As shown on Figure 17, a linear regression of the WWTP data resulted in a slope of 766,800 gallons of RDII per inch of rainfall. Normalizing the slope by the overall system size of 126.9 IDM yields a slope of 6,043 gallons of RDII per inch of rainfall per IDM of pipe. Note that the treatment plant data was less detailed than the meter data but that it covered a broader range of time.

The Crestview basin is monitored by a pump station on a weekly basis rather than an ADS meter, so it could not be included in the RDII analysis. However, Crestview is part of the overall WWTP basin, so its normalized rate of RDII per inch of rainfall per IDM was assumed to be equal to the normalized rate for the WWTP. For Crestview, scaling the normalized slope by a basin size of 18.5 IDM yields a slope of 111,787 gallons of RDII per inch of rainfall. This is lower than expected considering the basin’s surface area is between that of meters 51 and 33A and its IDM system size is between that of meters 54A and 33A.

The ranking of the meter basins—in order from highest to lowest rate of RDII per inch of rainfall per IDM—is 54A, 45, 33A, H, and 51. Meter 51 has a higher rate than the WWTP by one order of magnitude and the rest of the meters have a higher rate than the WWTP by two orders of magnitude.

F:\Flow Analysis Memo Draft_.docx Boonsboro Municipal Utilities Commission (BMUC) • Town of Boonsboro, Maryland Wastewater System Master Plan and Hydraulic Model November 11, 2020

Appendix 2 Model Calibration Memorandum dated September 2020

Page 31

MEMORANDUM

Date: September 17, 2020

To: Paul Mantello, Town of Boonsboro Work Order Number: 14421.001 From: Francis Bonkowski Contract Number: - Subject: Model Calibration Project: Boonsboro Sewer Study CC: File

1 Introduction

As part of the model development, gravity main pipe and manhole databases were updated in GIS using as-builts and survey data. Pipe and manhole databases were then imported into InfoSewer to represent the Town’s wastewater collection system. The InfoSewer model was calibrated by comparing model results to flow data from meters, pump stations, and the wastewater treatment plant. Modeling parameters were adjusted as necessary to match the model results to the observed flow data.

2 Basin Overview

The gravity sewer system consists of five metered basins based on the 2016 ADS flow monitoring and one basin connected to a downstream pump station. All basins drain to the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). See Figure 1 for a map of the overall system and basin boundaries.

5-minute data for flow rate, velocity, depth, and rainfall was available for all metered basins. This data was previously used during the flow analysis phase to find average daily flow (ADF), base sanitary flow (BSF), and groundwater infiltration (GWI) during dry weather conditions as well as peak flow during storm events. Results from the flow analysis are summarized in Table 1 below.

The unmetered basin is served by the Crestview pump station, which had weekly flow rates available from 2016-2017. Because the pump station data was limited to weekly averages, BSF, GWI, and peak flow rates could not be estimated using the same method that was applied to the metered basins. BSF and GWI were estimated for Crestview using water distribution records from 2016-2017 and assuming 80% of water demand is returned to the wastewater system as BSF, which is typical for basins of its size. Peak flow was estimated using a peak factor of 3.8 based on the MDE recommendations (Design Guidelines for Wastewater Facilities, MDE, 2016).

Table 1: Flow Analysis Results Review Basin Meter H Meter 51 Meter 54A Meter 45 Meter 33A Crestview ADF (GPM) 37.73 22.25 20.78 75.74 101.68 23.38

BSF (GPM) 21.91 12.83 12.65 27.13 20.03 16.60 GWI (GPM) 15.83 9.42 8.13 48.62 81.65 6.79 Peak Flow (GPM) 260.19 185.42 339.41 425.12 353.70 88.80 *Note: ADF = BSF + GWI

N:\14421-001\Corresp\Memos\2 - Calibration Memo\Calibration_Memo_Draft.docx

Legend D

R

E

L L

Basin I

V E

H L B

P EL RAN A C o HO RD

51 o M Ü

n B 54A s O b O o N S 45 r B o O !( !( P R !( !( 33A O !( !( Y!( k !( A P !( !( I W K !( !( Crestview E R E !( V L !( E A A G P !( I E +$ P L Pump AStation !( T!( N !( !( P S !(!( !(!( !( A R !( !( M Force MainD !( !( !(!( !( D !( e R Gravity Sewer B U v !( !(!( L !( R !( E T A !( d 8" Diameter !( CH !(!(!( O !( R Lappans Rd !( AS !( N e !( !( U R !( E l !( A !( S W !( l I !( A p !( E L !( X B Y !( e 10" Diameter !( !( !( a V!( !( N !( L !( I r !( VD!(!( A !( !( !( M L A u !( L T a 12" Diameter O !( N R R !( L D!( U !( !( R !( !( A!( N !( O n Unkown Diameter !( !( C O M i !( !( !( !( D !( a L t !( !( !( E !( Manholes W !( n !( !( !( K u !( N !( o G !( !( O !( ! ADS Meters DE R !( !( K !( C M !( A !( !( N !( IR Y O # !( D !( !( 3!( S !( D!( !( A !( !( T E !( V !( O !( !( I C !( N D !( !( D !( I !(!( !( !( E !( N R !( !( E !( !( D !( E V !( !( !( D R L M # A 2 R L A !( A S !( !( I N !( U !( !( L Boon P s !(!( K !( A S b E A !( !( o M R M !( N!( L T !( !( r o S !( L A !( !( !( E !( !( DR !( !( C !( !( Y !(!( !( !( !( !( !( R 1 !( D !( !( LA RD E !( HA !(!( !( !( !(!( !(OV RC !( !( 54A R !( O !( ! G !( !( !( T !( !( !( S !( !( ! !( !( VE !(L !( !!( !( D A U!( !( R !( A !( 51 !( C O 45 !(!( F !( P !( !(!(!( E !( !( T !( N !( S !( !( T !( !( !( E !( !( !( R !( Y !( S !( LLE!( T A !( !(!( LL !(!( !( !( HA !(!( !(!( I!(RE 33A F H !( A I !( !( L G !( !!( L !( !( H !( E !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( Y S !( !( !( T M !( !(11 !( !( 1 !( !( !( Y 3 O !( !(!( LE ST !( N !( !( AL AC !( !( R !( !!( M !( !( !( O !( S O !( T !( !( H PO E !( E V M !( A !( C G A R UN !( E !( !( !( O !(I D !( Y !( M N !( !( E S !( T !( T E R !(!( !( Crestview+$ +$ Y

!( L !( A !( d !( !( !( R !( !( n R w D !( !(!( to E !( e t GE !( !( s S ID !( V L u c R A P o a K!( !( N !( M m O !( T !( R !( o O A FE !( t t R !( !( U !( o L D !( !( B E !( S P N !( R !( !( N!( !( !(!( T !( !( W A g +$!( !( S !( T A !( E !( B !( n R F!( !( !( i !( H o !( R E I !( I C o !( O!( ELM CRE K H ST AV !( R !( !( E n C !( B !( !( !( s L b !( V !( D o !( ro !( P k !(!( !( D R N W O T E L P d P R A e l l K i

I N v G s

r R e D r h o R

0 100200 400 600 800 1,000 FIGURE 1 Feet

September 18, 2020 Page 2 14421.001

3 Load Allocations

Individual parcels were assigned a subcatchment corresponding to a load manhole. See Figure 2 for a map of load manholes and associated subcatchment areas. Pipes that were upstream from a terminal load manhole were excluded from the model as shown on Figure 2. This was typically because the actual terminal manhole was missing survey or as-built data, so the next manhole was used as the load manhole instead.

Subcatchment assignments were used to find the total effective area for each load manhole and each basin. Table 2 lists the total parcel area and total pipe length for each basin. These values were used to distribute basin loads to load manholes based on the area and pipe length included in the subcatchment for that load manhole.

Table 2: Basin Sizes Basin Meter H Meter 51 Meter 54A Meter 45 Meter 33A Crestview Total Parcel Area (Acres) 112.47 39.42 106.80 101.25 109.04 80.00 Total Pipe Length (Inch-Diameter-Mile) 16.02 10.78 116.26 25.63 20.53 18.03

4 Dry Weather Flow Calibration

GWI and BSF were added into the model as Loads 1 and 2, respectively. Both loads were considered unpeakable. An additional load was added to forcemain discharge manholes to account for flow from the corresponding pump station. Flows in metered basins H, 51, and 54A were adjusted to minimize the difference between model results and expected values. Final flows used in the dry weather scenario are listed in Table 3. Dry weather model results are summarized in Table 4.

Table 3: Adjusted Dry Weather Flows

Basin Meter H Meter 51 Meter 54A Meter 45 Meter 33A Crestview GWI (GPM) 20.35* 9.42 8.13 48.62 81.65 6.79 GWI / IDM 1.27 0.87 0.50 1.90 3.98 0.38 BSF (GPM) 17.39 15.78* 10.09* 27.13 20.03 16.60 BSF / Acres 0.15 0.40 0.09 0.27 0.18 0.22 *Note: Flows in meter basins H, 51, and 54A were adjusted during calibration to match recorded data.

Table 4: Dry Weather Results Average Dry Meter Flow Dry Model Flow Basin Error (GPM) (GPM)

H 37.73 41.29 9% 51 22.25 21.99 -1% 54A 20.78 21.54 4% 45 75.74 75.85 0% 33A 101.68 101.89 0% Crestview 23.38 23.34 0%

N:\14421-001\Corresp\Memos\2 - Calibration Memo Legend

+$ Pump Stations Force Main Ü ! Load Manholes Gravity Mains Included in Model Excluded from Model Deactivated for Model Calibration FG17 ! FG27 !!FG14 ! FG111 FG24 ! FG107! ! K28 FG109 ! K19 K12 !!

K5 N26 FG38 ! ! !

N30 N6A K22 ! ! ! N23 N5 ! N34 T2 ! ! ! N13 !! ! ! N1A N32D ! N19 N11 ! HS6 66 N17A ! ! N18 N42C ! O10 ! V3 ! ! 62A 55 N43 ! ! 105 68-5 ! V6 ! ! ! ! 100 V8 54A ! 77 ! ! 52A SH6 ! ! ! 67 44 ! 17! 40A ! 44A ! 33A 40B ! ! 34 !9 ! 19 ! ! 23 M1 12 ! Y3 !! ! Y1 24A !! ! +$ +$ STR2-4 STR7-2 25 C16 ! ! STR13-2 ! 26 STR9-1 !! C34 C58 C18 STR15-3 !! STR17-3 ! ! ! ! C35 C26 C39 ! C30 ! ! +$ C60 ! C50 C7 C10 ! ! !

+$C48 !

Date: 9/17/2020 FIGURE 12 0 100200 400 600 800 1,000 1 inch = 1,000 feet Feet

September 18, 2020 Page 3 14421.001

5 Wet Weather Flow Calibration

For the wet weather scenario, dry weather flows were included as unpeakable loads, and a third unpeakable load was added to represent RDII. Flows in metered basins 51 and 54A were adjusted as part of wet weather calibration, and final flows for all basins are listed in Table 5. Note that a bypass pump may have been used during some storm events in basin 51, so wet weather flows may need to be verified in this basin. Wet weather model results are summarized in Table 6.

Table 5: Adjusted Wet Weather Flows

Basin Meter H Meter 51 Meter 54A Meter 45 Meter 33A Crestview RDII (GPM) 222.45 176.87* 304.68* 349.37 252.02 65.42 RDII / IDM 13.89 16.41 18.73 13.63 12.28 3.63 *Note: Flows in meter basins 51 and 54A were adjusted during calibration to match recorded data.

Table 6: Wet Weather Results Peak Meter Flow Total Wet Model Flow Percent (GPM) (GPM) Error Basin H 260.19 265.26 2% 51 185.42 184.02 -1% 54A 339.41 340.66 0% 45 425.12 425.04 0% 33A 353.70 353.68 0% Crestview 88.80 85.73 -3%

6 Pipe Roughness Calibration

The Manning’s coefficient was initially assumed to be 0.012 for all pipes. Meter data for depth and velocity was used to calibrate pipe roughness. All pipes in Crestview were left as 0.012 since no depth or velocity data was available for that basin. Pipes that were outside of any basin, such as near the treatment plant, were also left as 0.012. Final calibrated Manning’s coefficients are summarized in Table 7. Results of the dry and wet weather depth and velocity calibration are summarized in Tables 8 and 9, respectively.

Table 7: Calibrated Pipe Roughness Coefficients Basin Manning's Coefficient H 0.008 51 0.028 54A 0.028 45 0.017 33A 0.015 Crestview 0.012

N:\14421-001\Corresp\Memos\2 - Calibration Memo

September 18, 2020 Page 4 14421.001

Table 8: Dry Weather Depth and Velocity Calibration Results Meter Depth (ft) When Basin Model Depth (ft) Error Within 20% of ADF

H 0.06 0.07 13% 51 0.16 0.14 -9% 54A 0.14 0.13 -4% N45 0.19 0.17 -9% 33A 0.26 0.24 -5% Meter Velocity (ft/s) When Basin Model Velocity (ft/s) Error Flow Within 20% of ADF

H 5.07 4.70 -7% 51 0.83 0.90 8% 54A 0.87 0.95 10% N45 1.96 2.11 8% 33A 1.88 1.97 5%

Table 9: Wet Weather Depth and Velocity Calibration Results Meter Depth (ft) When Flow Model Depth (ft) Error Basin Within 20% of Peak H 0.17 0.17 5% 51 0.28 0.47 64% 54A 0.50 0.67 33% N45 1.27 0.42 -67% 33A 0.47 0.54 14% Meter Velocity (ft/s) When Model Velocity (ft/s) Error Basin Flow Within 20% of Peak H 8.50 8.15 -4% 51 2.51 1.57 -37% 54A 2.37 2.18 -8% N45 1.93 3.42 77% 33A 2.63 2.62 -1%

N:\14421-001\Corresp\Memos\2 - Calibration Memo Boonsboro Municipal Utilities Commission (BMUC) • Town of Boonsboro, Maryland Wastewater System Master Plan and Hydraulic Model November 11, 2020

Appendix 3 Profiles of Selected Pipe Segments

Page 32

Profile of Pipe Segment Between Manholes FG2-N34: Existing System Scenario Steady-State HGL of Segment FG2-N34 (Wet Existing System Scenario) Ground Level Link Node Depth Head

548.0 FG1 N26

545.6 N27

543.2

FG2

540.8

N29

538.4

536.0 N33 Head/Elevation (ft) Head/Elevation

FG2-FG1 N30 N34 533.6 FG1-N26 N32 N26-N27 531.2 N27-N29

N29-N30 528.8

30N-32N N32-N33 526.4 N33-N34

524.0 0.0 208.7 417.4 626.1 834.8 1043.5 1252.2 1460.9 1669.6 1878.3 2087.0

Distance (ft) Profile of Pipe Segment Between Manholes FG2-N34: Existing System Scenario (After Improvements) Steady-State HGL of Segment FG2-N34 (Wet Existing System Scenario After Improvem Ground Level Link Node Depth Head

548.0 FG1 N26

545.6 N27

543.2

FG2

540.8

N29

538.4

536.0 N33 Head/Elevation (ft) Head/Elevation

FG2-FG1 N30 N34 533.6 FG1-N26 N32 N26-N27 531.2 N27-N29

N29-N30 528.8

30N-32N N32-N33 526.4 N33-N34

524.0 0.0 208.7 417.4 626.1 834.8 1043.5 1252.2 1460.9 1669.6 1878.3 2087.0

Distance (ft) Profile of Pipe Segment Between Manholes FG2-N34: Buildout Scenario Steady-State HGL of Segment FG2-N34 (Wet Buildout Scenario) Ground Level Link Node Depth Head

548.0 FG1 N26

545.6 N27

543.2

FG2

540.8

N29

538.4

536.0 N33 Head/Elevation (ft) Head/Elevation

FG2-FG1 N30 N34 533.6 FG1-N26 N32 N26-N27 531.2 N27-N29

N29-N30 528.8

Proposed Development Lakin 30N-32N Tie-In Manhole N26 (50 taps) N32-N33 526.4 N33-N34

Proposed Development Flook Tie-In Manhole N30 (33 taps) 524.0 0.0 208.7 417.4 626.1 834.8 1043.5 1252.2 1460.9 1669.6 1878.3 2087.0

Distance (ft) Profile of Pipe Segment Between Manholes FG2-N34: Buildout Scenario (After Improvements) Steady-State HGL of Segment FG2-N34 (Wet Buildout Scenario After Improvements) Ground Level Link Node Depth Head

548.0 FG1 N26

545.6 N27

543.2

FG2

540.8

N29

538.4

536.0 N33 Head/Elevation (ft) Head/Elevation

FG2-FG1 N30 N34 533.6 FG1-N26

N32 N26-N27 531.2 N27-N29

N29-N30 528.8 30N-32N Proposed Development Lakin Tie-In Manhole N26 (50 taps) N32-N33 526.4 N33-N34

Proposed Development Flook Tie-In Manhole N30 (33 taps) 524.0 0.0 208.7 417.4 626.1 834.8 1043.5 1252.2 1460.9 1669.6 1878.3 2087.0

Distance (ft) Profile of Pipe Segment Between Manholes N34-N46: Existing System Scenario Steady-State HGL of Segment N34-N46 (Wet Existing System Scenario) Ground Level Link Node Depth Head

542.0 N36 N40 N39

538.6 N41

N37 N35 535.2 N38 N34 N42

N42A 531.8 N43

528.4

N34-N35 525.0 N35-N36

Head/Elevation (ft) Head/Elevation N36-N37 N37-N38 N38-N39 N44 N39-N40 521.6 N40-N41 N41-N42 N42-N42A N42A-N43 N45 518.2 N43-N44

514.8

N44-N45 511.4 N45-N46 N46

508.0 0.0 330.8 661.6 992.4 1323.2 1654.0 1984.8 2315.6 2646.4 2977.2 3308.0

Distance (ft) Profile of Pipe Segment Between Manholes N34-N46: Existing System Scenario (After Improvements) Steady-State HGL of Segment N34-N46 (Wet Existing System Scenario After Improvem Ground Level Link Node Depth Head

542.0 N36 N40 N39 N41 538.1 N37 N35 N38 N34 N42 534.2

N42A

N43 530.3

526.4 N34-N35 N35-N36 N36-N37 N37-N38 522.5 N44 N38-N39N39-N40

Head/Elevation (ft) Head/Elevation N40-N41 N41-N42 N42-N42AN42A-N43 518.6 N45 N43-N44

514.7

N44-N45

510.8 N46

N45-N46 506.9

503.0 0.0 330.7 661.4 992.1 1322.8 1653.5 1984.2 2314.9 2645.6 2976.3 3307.0

Distance (ft) Profile of Pipe Segment Between Manholes N34-N46: Buildout Scenario Steady-State HGL of Segment N34-N46 (Wet Buildout Scenario) Ground Level Link Node Depth Head

542.0 N36 N40 N39

538.6 N41

N37 N35 535.2 N38 N34 N42

N42A 531.8 N43

528.4

N34-N35 525.0 N35-N36

Head/Elevation (ft) Head/Elevation N36-N37 N37-N38 N38-N39 N44 N39-N40 521.6 N40-N41 N41-N42 N42-N42A N42A-N43 N45 518.2 N43-N44

514.8 Proposed Development TT&K Tie-In Manhole N43 (360 Taps) N44-N45 511.4 N45-N46 N46

508.0 0.0 330.8 661.6 992.4 1323.2 1654.0 1984.8 2315.6 2646.4 2977.2 3308.0

Distance (ft) Profile of Pipe Segment Between Manholes N34-N46: Buildout Scenario (After Improvements) Steady-State HGL of Segment N34-N46 (Wet Buildout Scenario After Improvements) Ground Level Link Node Depth Head

542.0 N36 N40 N39 N41 538.1 N37 N35 N38 N34 N42 534.2

N42A

N43 530.3

526.4 N34-N35 N35-N36 N36-N37 N37-N38 522.5 N44 N38-N39N39-N40

Head/Elevation (ft) Head/Elevation N40-N41 N41-N42 N42-N42A N42A-N43 518.6 N45 N43-N44

514.7

N44-N45

510.8 Proposed Development N46 TT&K Tie-In Manhole N43 (360 Taps) N45-N46 506.9

503.0 0.0 330.7 661.4 992.1 1322.8 1653.5 1984.2 2314.9 2645.6 2976.3 3307.0

Distance (ft) Profile of Pipe Segment Between Manholes H-WWTP: Existing System Scenario Steady-State HGL of Segment H-WWTP (Wet Existing System Scenario) Ground Level Link Node Depth Head

503.0 H

E 498.6

GN54

494.2

H-G F 489.8 54-G N54-F

F-E D 485.4

C B D-F A 481.0 Head/Elevation (ft) Head/Elevation C-D

476.6 B-C

A-B WWTP4

472.2 WWTP3 WWTP2

A-WWTP4 467.8

WWTP1 463.4 WWTP4-WWTP3 WWTP2-WWTP1 WWTP3-WWTP2

459.0 0.0 335.5 671.0 1006.5 1342.0 1677.5 2013.0 2348.5 2684.0 3019.5 3355.0

Distance (ft) Profile of Pipe Segment Between Manholes H-WWTP: Existing System Scenario (After Improvements) Steady-State HGL of Segment H-WWTP (Wet Existing Scenario After Improvements) Ground Level Link Node Depth Head

503.0 H

E 498.7

GN54

494.4

H-G F 490.1 54-G N54-F

F-E 485.8 D

C D-F B A 481.5 Head/Elevation (ft) Head/Elevation C-D

477.2 B-C

A-B WWTP4 472.9

A-WWTP4 WWTP2 WWTP3

468.6 WWTP4-WWTP3

464.3 WWTP3-WWTP2 WWTP1 WWTP2-WWTP1

460.0 0.0 335.5 671.0 1006.5 1342.0 1677.5 2013.0 2348.5 2684.0 3019.5 3355.0

Distance (ft) Profile of Pipe Segment Between Manholes M1-WWTP: Buildout Scenario Steady-State HGL of Segment M1-WWTP (Wet Buildout Scenario) Ground Level Link Node Depth Head

518.0 M1 4

M1-4 512.1

506.2 4-I H I 500.3 E

GN54 I-H 494.4

H-G F 54-G 488.5 N54-F

Head/Elevation (ft) Head/Elevation F-E D

C B 482.6 D-F A

C-D

476.7 B-C A-B WWTP4

WWTP2 470.8 WWTP3 A-WWTP4

464.9 WWTP1 WWTP4-WWTP3 WWTP2-WWTP1 WWTP3-WWTP2

459.0 0 398 796 1194 1592 1990 2388 2786 3184 3582 3980

Distance (ft) Profile of Pipe Segment Between Manholes M1-WWTP: Buildout Scenario (After Improvements) Steady-State HGL of Segment M1-WWTP (Wet Buildout Scenario After Improvements) Ground Level Link Node Depth Head

518.0 M1 4

M1-4 512.2

506.4 4-I H I 500.6 E

GN54 I-H 494.8

H-G F 54-G 489.0 N54-F Head/Elevation (ft) Head/Elevation F-E D

483.2 D-F C B A

C-D

477.4 B-C

A-B WWTP4

471.6 A-WWTP4 WWTP3 WWTP2

WWTP4-WWTP3

465.8 WWTP3-WWTP2 WWTP1 WWTP2-WWTP1

460.0 0 398 796 1194 1592 1990 2388 2786 3184 3582 3980

Distance (ft) Profile of Pipe Segment Between Manholes STR2-M3: Buildout Scenario Steady-State HGL of Segment STR2-M3 (Wet Buildout Scenario) Ground Level Link Node Depth Head

504 STR1

503 STR2 M3

502

501

500

499 Head/Elevation (ft) Head/Elevation

498

497

496 STR2-STR1

42 495

494 0.0 17.8 35.6 53.4 71.2 89.0 106.8 124.6 142.4 160.2 178.0

Distance (ft) Profile of Pipe Segment Between Manholes STR2-M3: Buildout Scenario (After Improvements) Steady-State HGL of Segment STR2-M3 (Wet Buildout Scenario After Improvements) Ground Level Link Node Depth Head

504 STR1

503 STR2 M3

502

501

500

499 Head/Elevation (ft) Head/Elevation

498

497

STR2-STR1 496

42

495

494 0.0 17.8 35.6 53.4 71.2 89.0 106.8 124.6 142.4 160.2 178.0

Distance (ft) Profile of Pipe Segment Between Manholes N3-50: Existing & Buildout Scenarios Steady-State HGL of Segment N3-50 (Wet Existing System Scenario) Ground Level Link Node Depth Head

560.0 N3

N2 N1 556.4 59

552.8 3N-2N N2-N1 549.2 N1-59 58

545.6 55 59-58

542.0 Head/Elevation (ft) Head/Elevation 58-55

538.4

54 534.8 55-54 54A

531.2 50

54-54A

527.6 54A-50

524.0 0.0 193.5 387.0 580.5 774.0 967.5 1161.0 1354.5 1548.0 1741.5 1935.0

Distance (ft) Profile of Pipe Segment Between Manholes N3-50: Existing & Buildout Scenarios (After Improvements) Steady-State HGL of Segment N3-50 (Wet Buildout Scenario After Improvements) Ground Level Link Node Depth Head

560.0 N3

N2 N1 556.4 59

552.8 3N-2N N2-N1 549.2 N1-59 58

545.6 55 59-58

542.0 Head/Elevation (ft) Head/Elevation 58-55

538.4

54 534.8 55-54 54A

531.2 50

54-54A

527.6 54A-50

524.0 0.0 193.5 387.0 580.5 774.0 967.5 1161.0 1354.5 1548.0 1741.5 1935.0

Distance (ft) Profile of Pipe Segment Between Manholes 62A-50: Existing & Buildout Scenarios Steady-State HGL of Segment 62-50 (Wet Existing System Scenario) Ground Level Link Node Depth Head

543.0

53

541.1 60

539.2

52 61 537.3 6262A

535.4

533.5 62-62A 51

Head/Elevation (ft) Head/Elevation 62A-61

531.6 61-60

60-53 50

529.7 53-52

527.8 52-51

525.9 51-50

524.0 0.0 156.4 312.8 469.2 625.6 782.0 938.4 1094.8 1251.2 1407.6 1564.0

Distance (ft) Profile of Pipe Segment Between Manholes 62-50: Existing & Buildout Scenarios (After Improvements) Steady-State HGL of Segment 62-50 (Wet Buildout Scenario After Improvements) Ground Level Link Node Depth Head

543.0

53

541.1 60

539.2

52 61 537.3 6262A

535.4

533.5 62-62A 51

Head/Elevation (ft) Head/Elevation 62A-61

531.6 61-60

60-53 50

529.7 53-52

527.8 52-51

525.9 51-50

524.0 0.0 156.4 312.8 469.2 625.6 782.0 938.4 1094.8 1251.2 1407.6 1564.0

Distance (ft) Profile of Pipe Segment Between Manholes 50-N46: Existing & Buildout Scenarios Steady-State HGL of Segment 50-N46 (Wet Existing System Scenario) Ground Level Link Node Depth Head

532.0 SH6 50 SH5

529.7 SH4

527.4 SH3

525.1 50-SH6

6SH-5SH 522.8

SH5-SH4

520.5

Head/Elevation (ft) Head/Elevation SH4-SH3 SH2

518.2

SH3-SH2 515.9

SH1 513.6

511.3 SH2-SH1 SH1-N46

N46 509.0 0.0 140.1 280.2 420.3 560.4 700.5 840.6 980.7 1120.8 1260.9 1401.0

Distance (ft) Profile of Pipe Segment Between Manholes 50-N46: Existing & Buildout Scenarios (After Improvements) Steady-State HGL of Segment 50-N46 (Wet Buildout Scenario After Improvements) Ground Level Link Node Depth Head

532.0 SH6 50 SH5

529.7 SH4

527.4 SH3

525.1 50-SH6

6SH-5SH

522.8

SH5-SH4

520.5

Head/Elevation (ft) Head/Elevation SH4-SH3 SH2

518.2

SH3-SH2 515.9

SH1 513.6

511.3 SH2-SH1 SH1-N46

N46 509.0 0.0 140.1 280.2 420.3 560.4 700.5 840.6 980.7 1120.8 1260.9 1401.0

Distance (ft) Profile of Pipe Segment Between Manholes 38-33: Existing & Buildout Scenarios Steady-State HGL of Segment 38-33 (Wet Existing System Scenario) Ground Level Link Node Depth Head

535.0 38

532.8

530.6

36 528.4

33A 526.2 39 36D

36C 524.0 33 Head/Elevation (ft) Head/Elevation

36B 36A 521.8

38-39

519.6 39-36C 36C-36B 36B-36A36B-36A-ACTUAL 36A-36 517.4 36-33A

515.2 33A-33

513.0 0.0 129.2 258.4 387.6 516.8 646.0 775.2 904.4 1033.6 1162.8 1292.0

Distance (ft) Profile of Pipe Segment Between Manholes 48-33: Existing & Buildout Scenarios (After Improvements) Steady-State HGL of Segment 48-36A (Wet Buildout Scenario After Improvements) Ground Level Link Node Depth Head

535.0 38

533.2 48

531.4

529.6

527.8

526.0 39 Head/Elevation (ft) Head/Elevation 36D

524.2 36C

522.4 36B 48-38

520.6 38-39

39-36C 36C-36B 518.8 36B-36A

517.0 0.0 68.1 136.2 204.3 272.4 340.5 408.6 476.7 544.8 612.9 681.0

Distance (ft) Boonsboro Municipal Utilities Commission (BMUC) • Town of Boonsboro, Maryland Wastewater System Master Plan and Hydraulic Model November 11, 2020

Appendix 4 Detailed List of Improvements per Pipe Segment

Page 33

Appendix 4: Detailed List of Pipe Improvements Per Segment for Existing and Build-Out Conditions

Recommended Recommended Recommended Recommended Pipe Original d/D Under Improvement Diameter Under d/D Under Diameter Under Peak Build- Upstream Downstream Length Proposed Improvement Option Fletcher's Lakin Flook TT&K King Easterday Location Diameter Pipe Existing Option Under Existing Buildout Build-Out Out Flow MH ID MH ID (LF) Slope Under Buildout Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow (Inches) Slope Conditions Existing Conditions Conditions Conditions (GPM) Conditions Conditions (Inches) (Inches) FG1 N26 8 210 0.2% 0.2% 1.00 CIPP 8 1.00 Upsize 10 272.8 22.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% N26 N27 8 390 0.5% 0.5% 0.70 N/A 8 1.00 Upsize 10 329.9 18.2% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Fletcher's Grove to Graystone N29 N30 8 220 0.5% 0.5% 0.70 N/A 8 1.00 Upsize 10 346.6 17.3% 9.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% N27 N29 8 224 0.1% 0.1% 1.00 Upsize 10 1.00 Upsize 10 346.6 17.3% 9.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% N30 N32 8 397 0.3% 0.3% 1.00 CIPP 8 1.00 Upsize 10 392.7 15.3% 8.4% 5.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% N41 N42 10 295 0.3% 0.3% 0.82 CIPP 10 1.00 Upsize 12 490.3 12.2% 6.7% 4.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% N42 N42A 10 124 0.4% 0.4% 0.66 N/A 10 1.00 Upsize 12 490.3 12.2% 6.7% 4.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% N42A N43 10 162 0.1% 0.1% 1.00 Upsize 12 1.00 Upsize 12 508.5 11.8% 6.5% 4.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Graystone Dive, Kerns Drive, and Thompson Court N43 N44 10 385 1.1% 1.1% 0.42 N/A 10 0.61 Upsize 12 768.7 7.8% 4.3% 2.8% 30.9% 0.0% 0.0% N44 N45 10 397 1.2% 1.2% 0.41 N/A 10 0.59 Upsize 12 768.7 7.8% 4.3% 2.8% 30.9% 0.0% 0.0% N45 N46 10 401 -0.3% 1.3% 1.00 Upsize 12 1.00 Upsize 12 768.7 7.8% 4.3% 2.8% 30.9% 0.0% 0.0% H G 8 155 3.2% 3.2% 0.61 Upsize 10 1.00 Upsize 10 1576.9 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 23.2% 8.1% G N54 10 19 1.3% 1.3% 0.55 N/A 10 1.00 Upsize 12 1576.9 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 23.2% 8.1% N54 F 8 349 0.6% 0.6% 1.00 Upsize 15 1.00 Upsize 18 2900.0 2.1% 1.1% 0.8% 8.2% 12.6% 4.4% F E 12 349 0.7% 0.7% 1.00 Upsize 15 1.00 Upsize 18 2900.0 2.1% 1.1% 0.8% 8.2% 12.6% 4.4% E D 12 386 1.3% 1.3% 0.72 Upsize 15 1.00 Upsize 18 2900.0 2.1% 1.1% 0.8% 8.2% 12.6% 4.4% D C 12 241 0.8% 0.8% 1.00 Upsize 15 1.00 Upsize 18 2900.0 2.1% 1.1% 0.8% 8.2% 12.6% 4.4% Shafer Park to WWTP C B 12 250 0.8% 0.8% 1.00 Upsize 15 1.00 Upsize 18 2900.0 2.1% 1.1% 0.8% 8.2% 12.6% 4.4% B A 12 321 0.8% 0.8% 1.00 Upsize 15 1.00 Upsize 18 2900.0 2.1% 1.1% 0.8% 8.2% 12.6% 4.4% A WWTP4 12 418 2.0% 0.9% 0.61 Upsize 15 1.00 Upsize 18 2900.0 2.1% 1.1% 0.8% 8.2% 12.6% 4.4% WWTP4 WWTP3 12 387 1.1% 0.9% 0.81 Upsize 15 1.00 Upsize 18 2988.8 2.0% 1.1% 0.7% 7.9% 12.2% 4.3% WWTP3 WWTP2 12 336 -0.6% 0.9% 1.00 Upsize 15 1.00 Upsize 18 2988.8 2.0% 1.1% 0.7% 7.9% 12.2% 4.3% WWTP2 WWTP1 12 145 0.2% 0.2% 1.00 Upsize 18 1.00 Upsize 21 2988.8 2.0% 1.1% 0.7% 7.9% 12.2% 4.3% I H 8 45 4.1% 4.1% 0.36 N/A 8 1.00 Upsize 10 1190.4 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30.7% 10.7% Young Ave Force Main Discharge Manhole 4 I 8 331 4.1% 4.1% 0.36 N/A 8 1.00 Upsize 10 1190.4 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30.7% 10.7% M1 4 8 249 1.5% 1.5% 0.20 N/A 8 0.66 Upsize 10 822.9 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 44.4% 0.0% STR1 M3 8 98 0.8% 0.8% 0.41 N/A 8 1.00 Upsize 10 553.5 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 66.0% 0.0% Sycamore Run to Young Ave Pump Station STR2 STR1 8 80 0.4% 0.4% 0.47 N/A 8 1.00 Upsize 10 553.5 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 66.0% 0.0% Recommended Recommended Recommended Recommended Pipe Original d/D Under Improvement Diameter Under d/D Under Diameter Under Peak Build- Upstream Downstream Length Proposed Improvement Option Fletcher's Lakin Flook TT&K King Easterday Location Diameter Pipe Existing Option Under Existing Buildout Build-Out Out Flow MH ID MH ID (LF) Slope Under Buildout Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow (Inches) Slope Conditions Existing Conditions Conditions Conditions (GPM) Conditions Conditions (Inches) (Inches) 50 SH6 8 266 0.5% 0.5% 1.00 Upsize 10 1.00 Upsize 10 530.436 SH6 SH5 8 29 1.1% 1.1% 1.00 Upsize 10 1.00 Upsize 10 554.37 SH5 SH4 8 93 0.9% 0.9% 1.00 Upsize 10 1.00 Upsize 10 554.37 Main Street and Shafer Park SH4 SH3 8 161 2.1% 2.1% 1.00 Upsize 10 1.00 Upsize 10 554.37 N/A SH3 SH2 8 272 1.2% 1.2% 1.00 Upsize 10 1.00 Upsize 10 554.37 SH2 SH1 8 264 0.2% 0.2% 1.00 Upsize 12 1.00 Upsize 12 554.37 SH1 N46 8 316 0.2% 0.2% 1.00 Upsize 12 1.00 Upsize 12 554.37 N3 N2 8 203 0.9% 0.9% 1.00 CIPP 8 1.00 CIPP 8 255.32 N2 N1 8 44 1.0% 1.0% 1.00 CIPP 8 1.00 CIPP 8 255.32 N1 59 8 40 4.1% 4.1% 0.54 N/A 8 0.54 N/A 8 288.144 59 58 8 390 1.8% 1.8% 0.71 N/A 8 0.71 N/A 8 288.144 Maple Ave and Main Street N/A 58 55 8 401 0.7% 0.7% 1.00 CIPP 8 1.00 CIPP 8 288.144 55 54 8 410 2.0% 2.0% 0.76 N/A 8 0.76 N/A 8 325.289 54 54A 8 225 0.9% 0.9% 1.00 CIPP 8 1.00 CIPP 8 325.289 54A 50 8 221 0.9% 0.9% 1.00 CIPP 8 1.00 CIPP 8 346.276 62A 61 8 264 0.4% 0.4% 1.00 CIPP 8 1.00 CIPP 8 178.738 61 60 8 298 0.3% 0.3% 1.00 CIPP 8 1.00 CIPP 8 178.738 60 53 8 302 0.4% 0.4% 1.00 CIPP 8 1.00 CIPP 8 178.738 Della Lane N/A 53 52 8 207 0.6% 0.6% 0.75 N/A 8 0.75 N/A 8 178.738 52 51 8 246 0.8% 0.8% 0.70 N/A 8 0.70 N/A 8 184.16 51 50 8 230 0.6% 0.6% 0.77 N/A 8 0.77 N/A 8 184.16 39 36D 8 148 0.4% 0.4% 1.00 CIPP 8 1.00 CIPP 8 339.723 38 39 8 341 0.5% 0.5% 0.80 CIPP 8 0.80 CIPP 8 339.723 36D 36C 8 33 1.3% 1.3% 0.58 N/A 8 0.58 N/A 8 339.723 36C 36B 8 37 0.4% 0.4% 1.00 CIPP 8 1.00 CIPP 8 339.723 Park Drive and McKeldin Drive N/A 36B 36A 8 81 0.6% 0.6% 0.77 N/A 8 0.77 N/A 8 339.723 36A 36 8 199 0.3% 0.3% 1.00 CIPP 8 1.00 CIPP 8 339.723 36 33A 8 200 0.6% 0.6% 0.81 CIPP 8 0.81 CIPP 8 353.704 33A 33 8 253 0.5% 0.5% 1.00 CIPP 8 1.00 CIPP 8 386.472 Boonsboro Municipal Utilities Commission (BMUC) • Town of Boonsboro, Maryland Wastewater System Master Plan and Hydraulic Model November 11, 2020

Appendix 5 Cost Estimates

Page 34

Section Start MH End MH Existing Cost Buildout Cost Cost Increase Developer Flow % By % Cost 1 FG1 N32 $246,377.70 $570,572.10 $324,194.40 29.2% $166,607.05 2 N42 N46 $328,696.65 $738,961.65 $410,265.00 45.8% $338,444.44 3N3 N50 $225,315.00 $225,315.00 $0.00 0.0% $0.00 4 62A 50 $179,212.50 $179,212.50 $0.00 0.0% $0.00 550 N46 $574,449.30 $574,449.30 $0.00 0.0% $0.00 648 33 $257,526.00 $257,526.00 $0.00 0.0% $0.00 7M1 WWTP $1,438,946.10 $1,757,501.55 $318,555.45 28.3% $497,372.94 8 STR2 M3 $0.00 $132,993.90 $132,993.90 66.0% $87,775.97 Total $3,250,523.25 $4,436,532.00 $1,186,008.75 Description Start MH FG1 End MH N32

Demo Ex New MH (6 New MH Add Bypass Bypass Traffic Improvement Demo Ex S MH New 10" VF) VF Pumping Setup Control CIPP Unit LF EA LF EA VF Day EA Day LF Unit Cost $10.00 $500.00 $178.00 $7,000.00 $875.00 $1,750.00 $9,800.00 $1,000.00 $70.00

Existing Quantity 224 2 224 2 14 15 3 15 607 Cost $2,240.00 $1,000.00 $39,872.00 $14,000.00 $12,250.00 $26,250.00 $29,400.00 $15,000.00 $42,490.00 Subtotal $182,502.00 Mobilization $18,250.20 Contingency $45,625.50 Total $246,377.70

Buildout Quantity 1442 6 1442 6 32 25 1 25 Cost $14,420.00 $3,000.00 $256,676.00 $42,000.00 $28,000.00 $43,750.00 $9,800.00 $25,000.00 $0.00 Subtotal $422,646.00 Mobilization $42,264.60 Contingency $105,661.50 Total $570,572.10 Description Start MH N42 End MH N46

Demo Ex New MH (6 New MH Add Bypass Bypass Traffic Improvement Demo Ex S MH New 10" New 12" VF) VF Pumping Setup Control CIPP Unit LF EA LF LF EA VF Day EA Day LF Unit Cost $10.00 $500.00 $178.00 $198.00 $7,000.00 $875.00 $1,750.00 $9,800.00 $1,000.00 $70.00

Existing Quantity 563 4 563 4 17 15 2 15 295 Cost $5,630.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 $111,474.00 $28,000.00 $14,875.00 $26,250.00 $19,600.00 $15,000.00 $20,650.00 Subtotal $243,479.00 Mobilization $24,347.90 Contingency $60,869.75 Total $328,696.65

Buildout Quantity 1763 7 1763 7 41 30 1 30 Cost $17,630.00 $3,500.00 $0.00 $349,074.00 $49,000.00 $35,875.00 $52,500.00 $9,800.00 $30,000.00 $0.00 Subtotal $547,379.00 Mobilization $54,737.90 Contingency $136,844.75 Total $738,961.65 Description Start MH N3 End MH N50

Improvement Demo Ex S Demo Ex MHBypass Pumping Bypass Setup Traffic Control CIPP Unit LF EA Day EA Day LF Unit Cost $10.00 $500.00 $1,750.00 $9,800.00 $1,000.00 $70.00

Existing Quantity 15 5 15 1095 Cost $0.00 $0.00 $26,250.00 $49,000.00 $15,000.00 $76,650.00 Subtotal $166,900.00 Mobilization $16,690.00 Contingency $41,725.00 Total $225,315.00

Buildout Quantity 15 5 15 1095 Cost $0.00 $0.00 $26,250.00 $49,000.00 $15,000.00 $76,650.00 Subtotal $166,900.00 Mobilization $16,690.00 Contingency $41,725.00 Total $225,315.00 Description Start MH 62A End MH 50

Improvement Demo Ex S Demo Ex MHBypass PumpingBypass SetupTraffic Control CIPP Unit LF EA Day EA Day LF Unit Cost $10.00 $500.00 $1,750.00 $9,800.00 $1,000.00 $70.00

Existing Quantity 12 4 12 865 Cost $0.00 $0.00 $21,000.00 $39,200.00 $12,000.00 $60,550.00 Subtotal $132,750.00 Mobilization $13,275.00 Contingency $33,187.50 Total $179,212.50

Buildout Quantity 12 4 12 865 Cost $0.00 $0.00 $21,000.00 $39,200.00 $12,000.00 $60,550.00 Subtotal $132,750.00 Mobilization $13,275.00 Contingency $33,187.50 Total $179,212.50 Description Start MH 50 End MH N46

Demo Ex New MH (6 New MH Add Bypass Bypass Traffic Improvement Demo Ex S MH New 10" New 12" VF) VF Pumping Setup Control Unit LF EA LF LF EA VF Day EA Day Unit Cost $10.00 $500.00 $178.00 $198.00 $7,000.00 $875.00 $1,750.00 $9,800.00 $1,000.00

Existing Quantity 1401 7 822 579 7 16 27 1 27 Cost $14,010.00 $3,500.00 $146,316.00 $114,642.00 $49,000.00 $14,000.00 $47,250.00 $9,800.00 $27,000.00 Subtotal $425,518.00 Mobilization $42,551.80 Contingency $106,379.50 Total $574,449.30

Buildout Quantity 1401 7 822 579 7 16 27 1 27 Cost $14,010.00 $3,500.00 $146,316.00 $114,642.00 $49,000.00 $14,000.00 $47,250.00 $9,800.00 $27,000.00 Subtotal $425,518.00 Mobilization $42,551.80 Contingency $106,379.50 Total $574,449.30 Description Start MH 48 End MH 33

Improvement Demo Ex S Demo Ex MHBypass PumpingBypass SetupTraffic Control CIPP Unit LF EA Day EA Day LF Unit Cost $10.00 $500.00 $1,750.00 $9,800.00 $1,000.00 $70.00

Existing Quantity 18 6 18 1178 Cost $0.00 $0.00 $31,500.00 $58,800.00 $18,000.00 $82,460.00 Subtotal $190,760.00 Mobilization $19,076.00 Contingency $47,690.00 Total $257,526.00

Buildout Quantity 18 6 18 1178 Cost $0.00 $0.00 $31,500.00 $58,800.00 $18,000.00 $82,460.00 Subtotal $190,760.00 Mobilization $19,076.00 Contingency $47,690.00 Total $257,526.00 Description Start MH M1 End MH WWTP

Demo Ex New MH (6 New MH Improvement Demo Ex S MH New 10" New 12" New 15" New 18" New 21" VF) Add VF Unit LF EA LF LF LF LF LF EA VF Unit Cost $10.00 $500.00 $178.00 $198.00 $218.00 $238.00 $258.00 $7,000.00 $875.00

Existing Quantity 3337 13 155 3037 145 13 30 Cost $33,370.00 $6,500.00 $27,590.00 $0.00 $662,066.00 $34,510.00 $0.00 $91,000.00 $26,250.00 Subtotal $1,065,886.00 Mobilization $106,588.60 Contingency $266,471.50 Total $1,438,946.10

Buildout Quantity 3981 16 780 19 3037 145 16 31 Cost $39,810.00 $8,000.00 $138,840.00 $3,762.00 $0.00 $722,806.00 $37,410.00 $112,000.00 $27,125.00 Subtotal $1,301,853.00 Mobilization $130,185.30 Contingency $325,463.25 Total $1,757,501.55 (Continued from Previous Page) Start MH M1 End MH WWTP

Bypass Bypass Traffic Improvement Pumping Setup Control Unit Day EA Day Unit Cost $1,750.00 $9,800.00 $1,000.00

Existing Quantity 60 2 60 Cost $105,000.00 $19,600.00 $60,000.00 Subtotal $ 1,065,886.00 Mobilization $ 106,588.60 Contingency $ 266,471.50 Total $ 1,438,946.10

Buildout Quantity 70 2 70 Cost $122,500.00 $19,600.00 $70,000.00 Subtotal $ 1,301,853.00 Mobilization $ 130,185.30 Contingency $ 325,463.25 Total $ 1,757,501.55 Description Start MH STR2 End MH M3

Demo Ex New MH (6 New MH Bypass Bypass Improvement Demo Ex S MH New 10" VF) Add VF Pumping Setup Traffic Control Unit LF EA LF EA VF Day EA Day Unit Cost $10.00 $500.00 $178.00 $7,000.00 $875.00 $1,750.00 $9,800.00 $1,000.00

Existing Quantity Cost $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Subtotal $0.00 Mobilization $0.00 Contingency $0.00 Total $0.00

Buildout Quantity 178 3 178 3 6 10 1 10 Cost $1,780.00 $1,500.00 $31,684.00 $21,000.00 $5,250.00 $17,500.00 $9,800.00 $10,000.00 Subtotal $98,514.00 Mobilization $9,851.40 Contingency $24,628.50 Total $132,993.90 Boonsboro Municipal Utilities Commission (BMUC) • Town of Boonsboro, Maryland Wastewater System Master Plan and Hydraulic Model November 11, 2020

Appendix 6 List of Abbreviations

Page 35

Boonsboro Municipal Utilities Commission (BMUC) • Town of Boonsboro, Maryland Wastewater System Master Plan and Hydraulic Model November 11, 2020

Units

• GPM: gallons per minute • GPD: gallons per day • MGD: million gallons per day • EDU: equivalent dwelling unit • IDM: inch-diameter-mile (diameter of pipe in inches × length of pipe in miles) • LF: linear feet • d: depth of flow (inches) • D: pipe diameter (inches) • d/D: ratio of depth of flow (inches) / Diameter of pipe (inches)

Other

• WWTP: wastewater treatment plant or wastewater treatment facility • MH: manhole • SSO: sanitary sewer overflow • HGL: hydraulic grade line • I/I: inflow and infiltration • GWI: ground water infiltration • RDII: rain derived inflow and infiltration • BSF: base sanitary flow • ADF: average daily flow (or average dry flow) o Note: ADF = BSF + GWI • PF: peaking factor (or peak factor) • PS: pumping station (or pump station) • CIPP: cured in place pipe • NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration • USGS: United States Geological Survey • MDE: Maryland Department of the Environment • El: Elevation • Typ: typical

Page 36