Attachment 06. IOI Rehab Design Report woE_20180411.pdf

U.S. International Boundary and Water Commission United States Section

Rehabilitation Improvements Trunkline and International Outfall Interceptor

Santa Cruz County, Arizona

Contract No. IBM09D0008

Order No. IBM14T0007

Design Summary Report Final Submittal

April 11, 2018

Prepared by:

333 East Wetmore Road, Suite 400

Tucson, AZ 85705

Rehabilitation Improvements – Trunkline and IOI Contract No. IBM09D0008 Santa Cruz County, AZ Order No. IBM14T0007

March 2018 ii

Table of Contents

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 1-1

2.0 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS REPORTS AND DRAWINGS ............................................. 2-1

2.1 Previous Reports and Drawings Obtained ........................................................... 2-1

2.2 As-Built Drawings ............................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 Report Findings .................................................................................................... 2-1

Design Parameters and Capacity Calculation .......................................... 2-2 2.3.1 Manhole Conditions ................................................................................. 2-2 2.3.2 Summary of Lateral Connections ............................................................ 2-6 2.3.3 Closed-Circuit Television Inspections ..................................................... 2-7 2.3.4 Recent Breaches ..................................................................................... 2-10 2.3.5

3.0 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY............................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Survey Control ..................................................................................................... 3-1

Horizontal Control ................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Vertical Control ....................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.2

3.2 Buried Manholes .................................................................................................. 3-1

4.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION ........................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Subsurface Soil Conditions .................................................................................. 4-1

4.2 Groundwater Conditions ...................................................................................... 4-2

5.0 ROW/EASEMENTS........................................................................................................ 5-1

5.1 Original Construction........................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 IBWC Study of Easements .................................................................................. 5-1

5.3 Surveyor's Description of Easements .................................................................. 5-1

5.4 Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) ........................................................................... 5-2

6.0 PERMITTING ................................................................................................................. 6-1

6.1 Work within UPRR ROW ................................................................................... 6-1

6.2 Work within Waters of the United States ............................................................ 6-2

6.3 Work within Impaired Waters ............................................................................. 6-2

6.4 Work within ADOT ROW ................................................................................... 6-3

6.5 Work within City of Nogales and Santa Cruz County ROWs ............................. 6-3

7.0 MAJOR ENGINEERING DECISIONS .......................................................................... 7-1

7.1 Rehabilitation Methods Considered ..................................................................... 7-1

7.2 Selection of Rehabilitation Method ..................................................................... 7-1

7.3 Implementation Phasing....................................................................................... 7-2

7.4 Bypass Pumping .................................................................................................. 7-2

Trunkline/IOI Bypass Pumping ............................................................... 7-3 7.4.1 Lateral Bypass Pumping .......................................................................... 7-4 7.4.2

March 2018 iii

8.0 REHABILITATION METHODS .................................................................................... 8-1 Resin ........................................................................................................ 8-1 8.1.1 Structural Requirements ........................................................................... 8-2 8.1.2 Chemical Resistance ................................................................................ 8-2 8.1.3 Benefits of CIPP ...................................................................................... 8-3 8.1.4

8.2 Manhole Exterior Protection ................................................................................ 8-3

8.3 Hydraulic Water Plug .......................................................................................... 8-3

8.4 Manhole Protective Lining Systems .................................................................... 8-3

Protective Lining System – Precast Concrete Manholes ......................... 8-4 8.4.1 Structural Manhole Rehabilitation – Brick Manholes and Poor 8.4.2

Condition Concrete Manholes ................................................................. 8-4

8.5 Other Rehabilitation Methods .............................................................................. 8-5

8.6 Manhole Rehabilitation Methods ......................................................................... 8-5

9.0 RAISING MANHOLES TO/ABOVE GRADE .............................................................. 9-1

10.0 PIPELINE SECURITY .................................................................................................. 10-1

10.1 Intrusion Detection System Using Powerless Fiber Optic Sensors ................... 10-1

10.2 Intrusion Detection System Using Wireless Satellite Communication ............. 10-1

10.3 Comparison of Intrusion Detection Systems ..................................................... 10-2

11.0 DIVERSION AND CARE OF WATER ....................................................................... 11-1

12.0 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE ........................................................... 12-1

13.0 OPINION OF PROBABLE COST/PHASING ............................................................. 13-2

13.1 Summary of Bid Items ....................................................................................... 13-2

14.0 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 14-1

Appendix A Terracon Site Plan and Boring Location Diagrams

Appendix B IBWC Study of Easements

Appendix C Surveyor's Description of Easements

Appendix D CIPP Product Information

Appendix E Manhole Lining Product Information

Appendix F Intrusion Detection Systems Information

Appendix G Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost

March 2018 iv

List of Tables

Table 2.1 – Manhole Inspection Summary .................................................................................. 2-3

Table 2.2 – Summary of Direct Lateral Connections .................................................................. 2-7

Table 2.3 – CCTV Inspection Summary ...................................................................................... 2-7

Table 8.1 – Minimum CIPP Physical Properties ......................................................................... 8-2

Table 8.2 – Design Parameters for CIPP ..................................................................................... 8-2

Table 8.3 – Manhole Rehabilitation Method ............................................................................... 8-6

Table 9.1 – Manhole Grade Adjustments .................................................................................... 9-1

Table 13.1 – Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost .................................................................... 13-3

March 2018 1-1

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The cities of Nogales, Sonora, Mexico and Nogales, Arizona, United States, located in the south-central portion of Arizona, as illustrated on Figure 1.1, and referred to jointly as Ambos Nogales, have historically approached the issues regarding wastewater treatment and disposal as a regional issue, due in part to the natural gradient of the land. The Nogales International Sanitation Project was first conceived in 1943 and constructed in 1951 to provide for the needs of 20,000 people within Ambos Nogales and the surrounding Santa Cruz County. The facilities constructed by this project consisted of a treatment plant in the United States and a main collector line extending

1.4 miles in Mexico and about 2.1 miles in the United States. Due to population growth and urbanization along the border, the treatment plant was relocated and expanded farther north in 1970 and 1971. The relocation of the Nogales International Wastewater Treatment Plant (NIWTP) also required extension of the main collector line from the plant's original location to its new site located about 6.7 miles northward. The extended portion of the main collector line is known as the International Outfall Interceptor (IOI), while the main collector line is known as the Trunkline. The transport of Ambos Nogales wastewater to the NIWTP is done via means of the Trunkline and the IOI.

The existing pipeline, consisting of the Trunkline and the IOI, was installed between 1970 and 1971 and is comprised of unlined, reinforced and unreinforced concrete pipe that ranges in size between 24 inches and 42 inches in diameter. The Trunkline extends approximately 8,146 feet from MH #1 at the border to MH #27, from which the IOI begins and extends about 38,290 feet to MH #99 at the NIWTP. The pipeline is approximately 46,436 linear feet in total length and has over one-hundred (100) manholes within its alignment. Currently, domestic and industrial wastewater generated in Nogales, Sonora is conveyed north through the main collector line in Mexico and across the border into Nogales, Arizona, where Mexican wastewater is eventually combined with Arizona wastewater in the Trunkline and the IOI for treatment at the NIWTP and discharge into the Santa Cruz River.

The pipe joints are tongue and groove or bell and spigot with a gasket, and the manholes are constructed of brick or precast concrete. The pipeline between MH #1 and MH #16 was constructed within the concrete-lined tunnel that conveys surface water from Mexico north into the United States. The IOI was constructed directly on top of the concrete tunnel floor and encased in 8 inches of concrete. The other sections of pipeline were installed by conventional open-cut construction. The pipeline between MH #16 and MH #32 was constructed within the concrete-lined open Nogales Wash, which is a stormwater channel that empties into the Santa Cruz River. Maintenance of the lined and unlined portions of the channel in the future will be critical to maintaining the integrity of the Trunkline and IOI. The pipeline alignment generally follows the Nogales Wash and the Union Pacific Railroad, as shown on Figure 1.2.

As a result of the topography and development of the area, monsoon rains regularly cause flooding in Ambos Nogales. It is common practice in Nogales, Sonora to mitigate flooding by removing the manhole covers of the main collector line in Mexico, and allowing stormwater to drain into and combine with the wastewater flows conveyed to the NIWTP through the Trunkline and the IOI.

March 2018 1-2

The security threat of illegal drug smuggling is also an issue unique to the Trunkline and IOI.

Breaches have occurred at several locations along the pipeline. The need to discourage illegal breaches of the Trunkline and IOI should also be addressed during the rehabilitation. Systems that will aid in the detection of intrusions and line ruptures should be considered.

Due to the lack of system maintenance, increasing demand for wastewater management from Ambos Nogales, and the proximity of the infrastructure's service life, the IOI requires rehabilitation. The purpose of the rehabilitation for the IOI sewer infrastructure is to maintain safe collection of sewage, avert a public health crisis, and safeguard the health and welfare of the communities of Ambos Nogales as well as the downstream communities along the Nogales Wash and Santa Cruz River in Arizona.

March 2018 2-1

2.0 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS REPORTS AND DRAWINGS

2.1 Previous Reports and Drawings Obtained

The following documents were obtained from the United States International Boundary Water Commission (USIBWC) and the City of Nogales and reviewed for information:

1. 11"x17" pdf files of the Nogales International Sanitation Project Outfall Pipeline As- Built drawings dated 05/01/71.

2. Construction Report for Nogales International Sanitation Project, dated 1969-1972.

3. Evaluation of the International Outfall Interceptor for the City of Nogales, Arizona, Brown and Caldwell, dated March 2005.

4. Survey Control data for the City of Nogales and Santa Cruz County.

5. Geographic Information System (GIS) data for the City of Nogales.

6. Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) survey conducted by Professional Pipe Services (Pro-Pipe) for IOI between MHs #26 and #29 and between MHs #39 and #44.

7. Report discussing investigations and locations of previously installed but not surveyed manholes.

8. Locations of direct lateral connections to the Trunkline and IOI.

2.2 As-Built Drawings

USIBWC supplied as-built drawings to URS showing the original construction of the IOI. The information included 11"x17" pdf files of the Nogales International Sanitation Project Outfall Pipeline As-Built drawings dated 05/01/71. URS used these as-built drawings to become familiar with the route of the line and to assist in the location of each manhole during the topographic survey that was performed by Meridian Surveying. Additional manholes have been added to the IOI since the 1971 As-Built drawings were completed; therefore, the topographic survey completed by Meridian Survey in 2014 was used to develop the construction drawings for the project.

2.3 Report Findings

USIBWC supplied a report to URS titled Evaluation of the International Outfall Interceptor for the City of Nogales, Arizona. This report, dated March 2005, was completed by Brown and Caldwell. The purpose of the report was to inspect and evaluate the IOI, assess the condition, and develop rehabilitation recommendations. The investigation included manhole assessments, CCTV, sonar, and flow metering. URS reviewed this report and incorporated its findings in the design for the rehabilitation of the Trunkline and the IOI.

USIBWC also supplied the original Construction Report to URS. This report was titled Construction Report – Nogales International Sanitation Project, dated 1969-1972. Highlights from the Construction and 2005 Evaluation Reports are described in the following sections.

March 2018 2-2

Design Parameters and Capacity Calculation 2.3.1

The Construction Report for Nogales International Sanitation Project provided the following design parameters for the Trunkline and IOI:

Design Year 2000 Population Served Nogales, Sonora 100,000 Nogales, Arizona 50,000 Total 150,000 Average Daily Flow (based on 90 gal/capita/day, including industrial and infiltration) Nogales, Sonora 9.0 mgd Nogales, Arizona 4.5 mgd Total 13.5 mgd Maximum Hourly Flow (based on a peaking factor of 150% of average daily flow) Nogales, Sonora 13.5 mgd Nogales, Arizona 6.75 mgd Total 20.25 mgd

Based on the 2005 Evaluation Report, the limiting capacity of the pipeline varies but ranges from

12.9 million gallons per day (mgd) at MH #7 near the Mexican border to 19.1 mgd at the parshall flume located immediately prior to the NIWTP. The current pipeline is not able to convey the maximum hourly flow.

Manhole Conditions 2.3.2

The 2005 Evaluation Report contained a summary of manhole inspections performed for the study. The latest National Association of Sewer Service Companies (NASSCO) defect codes were used to record defects identified during the inspections. Results of those inspections, including laterals, are shown in Table 2.1, along with other comments added to reflect more recent relevant observations.

The 2005 Evaluation Report separated the condition of the manholes into the following groups:

MHs #1-16: The frames of the manholes constructed in the concrete encasement are experiencing slight deterioration, and no major defects were observed. These manholes were found to be in fair condition.

MHs #17-32: MHs #17 to #32 were constructed of brick and are located within the Nogales Wash. The 2005 Evaluation found heavy infiltration and inflow associated with these manholes; however, a project performed by the City of Nogales rehabilitated these manholes within the past few years, resulting in a reduction in the infiltration and inflow.

MHs #33-99: MHs #33 to #99 make up the largest group and were found to be in fair to good condition.

March 2018 2-3

MH #87: MH #87 has a broken manhole riser that has created a hole with exposure to the surrounding soil. There is a potential for the surrounding soil to be compromised and a sinkhole created.

MH #96: M H #96 is the discharge for the Rio Rico force main. This manhole has been replaced once due to heavy corrosion associated with the force main discharge.

The current condition of the replacement manhole is showing signs of heavy corrosion. Top of manhole has been recently raised due to concerns about surcharging.

MHs #97, #97A, and #97B: These manholes were constructed during the re-alignment of the IOI and appear to be typically surcharged. There are signs of corrosion due to hydrogen sulfide gas production. These manholes experienced surcharge in 2015 due to illegal smuggling activity causing plugging of the pipe, and thus, additional manhole rings were added to raise the rims further above ground.

The defects identified in the 2005 Evaluation Report have been addressed in the design of the rehabilitation of the Trunkline and IOI.

Table 2.1 – Manhole Inspection Summary

Manhole Number

Manhole Condition Comments

Lateral Summary

MH #1 Fair Water tight manhole frame and cover only MH #2 Fair Water tight manhole frame and cover only MH #3 Fair Water tight manhole frame and cover only MH #4 Fair Water tight manhole frame and cover only MH #5 Fair Water tight manhole frame and cover only MH #6 Good New Manhole constructed to allow lateral discharge

MH #6-A NA Not accessible 6”, 16" MH #7 Fair Water tight manhole frame and cover only MH #8 Fair Water tight manhole frame and cover only MH #9 Fair Water tight manhole frame and cover only MH #10 Fair Water tight manhole frame and cover only MH #11 Fair Water tight manhole frame and cover only MH #12 Fair Water tight manhole frame and cover only MH #13 Fair Water tight manhole frame and cover only; first manhole outside of covered floodway

MH #14 Fair Water tight manhole frame and cover only MH #15 Fair Pocket formed from missing concrete encasement above effluent pipe MH #16 Fair Water tight manhole frame and cover only; approx. 5-foot drop manhole

MH #17 Poor Dome riser not properly attached and covers access point; inflow present. Manhole has been rehabilitated under separate project.

MH #18 Poor Dome riser not properly attached and covers access point; inflow

14" N

MH #19 Poor Dome riser not properly attached and covers access point; inflow

MH #20 Poor Infiltration present. Manhole has been rehabilitated under separate project.

March 2018 2-4

Manhole Number

Manhole Condition Comments

Lateral Summary

MH #21 Poor Infiltration present. Manhole has been rehabilitated under separate

MH #22 Poor Heavy Infiltration present around lateral. Manhole has been rehabilitated under separate project.

12" W

MH #23 Poor Heavy Infiltration present around lateral and in riser. Manhole has been rehabilitated under separate project.

12" W

MH #24 Poor Infiltration and inflow present. Manhole has been rehabilitated under separate project.

10" W

MH #25 Poor Infiltration present. Manhole has been rehabilitated under separate

MH #26 Poor Infiltration present. Manhole has been rehabilitated under separate

24" E

MH #27 Fair Manhole has been rehabilitated under separate project.

MH #28 Poor Infiltration present. Manhole has been rehabilitated under separate project.

6" W

MH #29 Fair Manhole has been rehabilitated under separate project.

MH #30 Fair Manhole has been rehabilitated under separate project.

MH #31 NA Not accessible. Manhole has been rehabilitated under separate

MH #32 Fair 45-degree turn right. Manhole has been rehabilitated under separate

MH #33 Good Debris observed on steps identifying signs of surcharging 21" SE MH #33-A NA Not accessible MH #33-B NA Not accessible

MH #34 Good Needs to be raised 4" E MH #35 NA Not accessible MH #36 Good Approx. 3-inches of asphalt cover on manhole 12" SW, 4”NE

MH #37 Good 6" NE, 8" N MH #38 Good 8" E MH #39 Good Debris observed on steps identifying signs of surcharging MH #40 NA Not accessible 8"SE , 4"E MH #41 Good Debris observed on steps identifying signs of surcharging 6" E MH #42 Good Debris observed on steps identifying signs of surcharging MH #43 Good Debris observed on steps identifying signs of surcharging MH #44 Fair Defective concrete manhole top; observed rebar and broken concrete

MH #44-A Fair New Brick Manhole constructed to allow lateral discharge; Crown not completely removed which limits accessibility if needed; Debris piled on top of unremoved crown

8" NE, 8"

SE, 8" N

MH #44-A1 Fair New Precast Manhole constructed to allow lateral discharge; Crown not completely removed which limits accessibility if needed; Debris piled on top of unremoved crown

8" E

MH #44-B Fair New Brick Manhole constructed to allow lateral discharge; Crown not completely removed which limits accessibility if needed; Debris piled on top of unremoved crown

8" E

MH #44-C Fair New Precast Manhole constructed to allow lateral discharge; Crown not completely removed which limits accessibility if needed; Debris piled on top of unremoved crown. Corrosion observed near frame

6" NE, 6" E

MH #45 Good Defective tap observed 6" E MH #46 Fair Missing Concrete in manhole top 21" E, 4”

NE

March 2018 2-5

Manhole Number

Manhole Condition Comments

Lateral Summary

MH #47 Good Defective tap observed 12" E, MH #48 Good Construction debris (concrete) in flow path of IOI from lateral tap 8" E MH #49 Good MH #50 Good Manhole buried and needs to be raised MH #51 Good No frame, manhole lid sits on cone and needs to be raised 8" NE, 4"

SE, 4" E

MH #52 Good Constructed shelf above manhole base 8"

MH #52-A Good Light inflow observed from surface runoff near manhole frame and cover

MH #52-B NA Not accessible 4" MH #53 NA Not accessible MH #54 Good MH #55 Good 4" SE MH #56 Good MH #57 Good Minor corrosion observed in concrete manhole top 8" E MH #58 Good Roots observed in pipe downstream from manhole MH #59 Fair Constructed shelf near lateral tap; Ring and cover not secure to concrete top; Debris observed on steps identifying signs of surcharging; Grease observed on wall and bench

8" SE

MH #60 Fair Top part of MH is brick and wall/bench appears to be precast; Heavy infiltration around defective lateral tap; Debris observed on bench and steps identifying signs of surcharging.

12" SW, 10"

NW,

MH #61 Good 4" E MH #62 Good MH #63 Fair Minor corrosion observed in concrete manhole top MH #64 Good Top of MH is brick and wall/bench appears to be precast 4" SW, 4"

W, 4" NW

MH #64-A Fair New Manhole constructed to allow lateral discharge; manhole is lined.

12" NW

MH #65 Good Debris observed on steps identifying signs of surcharging 8" W, 8”NW

MH #66 Good Debris observed on steps identifying signs of surcharging MH #67 Good Wet surface observed due to possible light infiltration from riser, debris observed on steps identifying signs of surcharging

MH #68 Good Wet surface observed due to possible light infiltration from riser, debris observed on steps identifying signs of surcharging

8" NW

MH #69 Good Debris observed on steps identifying signs of surcharging MH #70 Good Top of MH is brick and wall/bench appears to be precast; minor defects observed in concrete top.

10" W

MH #71 Good Debris observed on steps identifying signs of surcharging MH #72 Good Debris observed on steps identifying signs of surcharging 6" SW MH #73 Good Top of MH is brick and wall/bench appears to be precast; dirt visible around lateral.

8" NW

MH #74 Good MH #75 Fair Root intrusion through frame from surrounding ground cover; minor corrosion in concrete top near frame.

MH #76 Good 10" NW MH #77 Good One layer of bricks between frame and concrete top 15" W MH #78 Good MH #79 Fair Root intrusion from surrounding ground cover; corrosion observed below frame for about 3 inches

March 2018 2-6

Manhole Number

Manhole Condition Comments

Lateral Summary

MH #80 Good MH #81 Good Root intrusion through frame from surrounding ground cover; debris observed on steps identifying signs of surcharging

MH #82 Good Debris observed on steps identifying signs of surcharging MH #83 Fair Corrosion observed below frame; debris observed on steps identifying signs of surcharging

MH #84 Good Debris observed on steps identifying signs of surcharging MH #85 Good One layer of bricks between frame and concrete top; debris observed on steps identifying signs of surcharging

MH #86 Fair Minor corrosion observed in wall; debris observed on steps identifying signs of surcharging; sharp bend (approx. 90-degree) left.

MH #87 Poor PVC liner becoming detached from wall, heavy root intrusion and possible hole; exposed Aggregate near frame and base; debris observed on steps identifying signs of surcharging.

12" W

MH #88 Fair Minor corrosion in concrete top near frame; debris observed on steps identifying signs of surcharging; sharp bend (approx. 90-degree) right.

8" W

MH #89 Good Manhole has been rehabilitated under separate project.

MH #90 Good Debris observed on steps identifying signs of surcharging MH #91 Good Debris observed on steps identifying signs of surcharging MH #92 Good Minor corrosion in concrete top near frame MH #93 Good MH #94 Good Manhole buried and needs to be raised, approximately 2-3 feet below grade

MH #95 Good Minor corrosion in concrete top near frame MH #96 Very Poor Heavy exposed aggregate throughout manhole; sand bags restricting flow from northwest (Rio Rico); manhole is surcharged more than 5 feet above invert, could not determine manhole depth. Top of manhole has been recently raised.

12” Force Main

MH #97 Poor Exposed Aggregate above flow line; manhole is surcharged, could not determine manhole depth; possible erosion occurring on walls and bench. Top of manhole has been recently raised.

MH #97-A Poor Exposed Aggregate above flow line; manhole is surcharged, could

MH #97-B Poor Exposed Aggregate above flow line; manhole is surcharged, could

MH #98 Fair Manhole surcharged MH #99 Good Manhole surcharged, influent to parshall flume at NIWWTP, appears structurally sound

Note: Laterals listed are from the Brown and Caldwell Report, March 2005, combined with the potential laterals identified by the City of Nogales.

Summary of Lateral Connections 2.3.3

The 2005 Evaluation Report contained a summary of all lateral connections observed at manholes and between manholes during the CCTV inspections performed for the evaluation.

The lists of laterals have been updated based upon recent information provided by the City of

March 2018 2-7

Nogales. Table 2-2 provides an updated listing of the lateral connections made at each of the manholes. Table 2.2 provides a list of laterals that tie-in directly to the pipeline along with the disposition proposed by the City of Nogales and USIBWC for whether the lateral connection with the IOI should be either abandoned or re-established during the CIPP rehabilitation.

However, for bidding purposes URS has been directed by the USIBWC to indicate on the drawings that all direct connected laterals should be re-established by the Contractor. The decision as to whether to re-establish or abandon the lateral will be made in the field during the construction phase.

Table 2.2 – Summary of Direct Lateral Connections

Upstream Manhole

Downstream Manhole

Lateral Distance from Upstream Manhole at Tie-In Location Diameter

Disposition by

CON/USIBWC

MH #2 MH #3 351.1 feet at 2 o'clock 4-inch diameter To be Abandoned MH #27 MH #28 Unknown 6-inch diameter To be Re-established MH #36 MH #37 180 feet at 12 o'clock 4-inch diameter To be Re-established MH #39 MH #40 12.2 feet at 10 o'clock

155.50 feet at 12 o'clock 4-inch diameter 8-inch diameter

To be Abandoned To be Re-established

MH #51 MH #52 407.7 feet at 12 o'clock 4-inch diameter To be Abandoned MH #52-A MH #53 276.70 feet at 12 o'clock 4-inch diameter To be Abandoned

Closed-Circuit Television Inspections 2.3.4

The 2005 Evaluation Report included results of CCTV inspections performed to investigate the existing condition of the Trunkline and the IOI. Results of the CCTV inspections along with a few recent ground level observations are included in Table 2.3 – CCTV Inspection Summary.

Table 2.3 – CCTV Inspection Summary

Upstream MH Downstream MH Diameter (in.) Structural Defects

Start of IOI MH #1 24 MH #1 MH #2 24 Exposed aggregate MH #2 MH #3 24 Exposed aggregate MH #3 MH #4 30 Exposed aggregate, deteriorated joints MH #4 MH #5 30 Crack at joint @ 319', exposed aggregate, deteriorated joints MH #5 MH #6 30 Exposed aggregate and crack at joint @ 13.6', grout missing at joint @166' MH #6 MH #7 30 Exposed and corroded rebar, exposed aggregate, defective joint @375.8' MH #7 MH #8 24 Corroded rebar, exposed aggregate joint separations throughout MH #8 MH #9 24 Exposed aggregate, offset joint @498' MH #9 MH #10 24 Cracked pipe @ 72.6', exposed aggregate MH #10 MH #11 24 Heavy exposed aggregate, joint separations throughout MH #11 MH #12 24 Heavy exposed aggregate MH #12 MH #13 24 Heavy exposed aggregate MH #13 MH #14 30 Deteriorated joints MH #14 MH #15 30 Offset joint at 83.3'

March 2018 2-8

Upstream MH Downstream MH Diameter (in.) Structural Defects MH #15 MH #16 30 Exposed aggregate MH #16 MH #17 30 Not inspected MH #17 MH #18 30 Heavy exposed aggregate, core drill at 7' appears to be

2 - 3" sidewall remaining MH #18 MH #19 30 Heavy exposed aggregate, rebar ripples MH #19 MH #20 30 Exposed aggregate, exposed rebar at joint @ 166.7', rebar ripples MH #20 MH #21 30 Exposed aggregate and defective joint at 154' MH #21 MH #22 30 Exposed aggregate MH #22 MH #23 30 Exposed aggregate MH #23 MH #24 30 Exposed aggregate, object/debris at 223' MH #24 MH #25 30 Exposed aggregate MH #25 MH #26 30 Exposed aggregate MH #26 MH #27 30 Exposed aggregate, missing grout at joint @ 166.1' MH #27 MH #28 30 Exposed aggregate, defective joints at 38', 131.5', 170' MH #28 MH #29 30 Exposed aggregate MH #29 MH #30 30 Possible offset joint at 150.2' MH #30 MH #31 30 Minor exposed aggregate, deteriorated joint @ 109' MH #31 MH #32 30 Exposed aggregate, deteriorated joint @ 275.4' MH #32 MH #33 30 Exposed aggregate MH #33 MH #33-A 30 Exposed aggregate

MH #33-A MH #33-B 30 Exposed aggregate MH #33-B MH #34 30 Exposed aggregate

MH #34 MH #35 30 Exposed aggregate MH #35 MH #36 30 Exposed aggregate MH #36 MH #37 30 Exposed aggregate MH #37 MH #38 30 Exposed aggregate MH #38 MH #39 30 Exposed aggregate MH #39 MH #40 30 Exposed aggregate MH #40 MH #41 30 Exposed aggregate MH #41 MH #42 30 Exposed aggregate MH #42 MH #43 30 Exposed aggregate MH #43 MH #44 30 Exposed aggregate, possible defective joint MH #44 MH #44-A1 30 Exposed aggregate, defective joints at 63', 70.6', 78.7'

MH #44-A1 MH #44-A 30 Exposed aggregate MH #44-A MH #44-B 30 Exposed aggregate MH #44-B MH #44-C 30 Exposed aggregate MH #44-C MH #45 30 Exposed aggregate

MH #45 MH #46 30 Exposed aggregate MH #46 MH #47 30 Exposed aggregate MH #47 MH #48 30 Exposed aggregate MH #48 MH #49 30 Exposed aggregate MH #49 MH #50 30 Exposed aggregate, core drill at 11.7' appears to be 2 -

3" sidewall remaining MH #50 MH #51 30 Exposed aggregate, root intrusion at 185' MH #51 MH #52 30 Exposed aggregate, peeling surface at 367.3' MH #52 MH #52-A 30 Exposed aggregate

MH #52-A MH #52-B 30 Exposed aggregate MH #52-B MH #53 30 Exposed aggregate

MH #53 MH #54 30 Exposed aggregate MH #54 MH #55 30 Exposed aggregate

March 2018 2-9

Upstream MH Downstream MH Diameter (in.) Structural Defects MH #55 MH #56 30 Exposed aggregate, root intrusion at 31' MH #56 MH #57 30 Exposed aggregate, root intrusion at 205' MH #57 MH #58 30 Exposed rebar at joint @ 34.3', exposed aggregate MH #58 MH #59 30 Cracked pipe @ 19.6', exposed aggregate, root intrusion at various locations, rebar ripples MH #59 MH #60 30 Exposed aggregate, joint missing grout @ 93.2' MH #60 MH #61 30 Exposed aggregate MH #61 MH #62 30 Exposed aggregate, offset joint @ 9' MH #62 MH #63 30 Exposed aggregate, core drill at 14' appears to be 2 - 3" sidewall remaining MH #63 MH #64 30 Exposed aggregate MH #64 MH #64-A 30 Exposed aggregate

MH #64-A MH #65 30 Exposed aggregate MH #65 MH #66 30 Hole in pipe at joint @ 196', exposed to heavy exposed aggregate, object at 1434 ' MH #66 MH #67 30 Exposed aggregate MH #67 MH #68 30 Exposed aggregate, defective joint @ 140.5' MH #68 MH #69 30 Exposed aggregate MH #69 MH #70 30 Exposed aggregate defective joint @ 1146', root intrusion at various locations MH #70 MH #71 30 Exposed aggregate MH #71 MH #72 30 Exposed aggregate MH #72 MH #73 30 Exposed aggregate MH #73 MH #74 30 Exposed aggregate MH #74 MH #75 30 Exposed aggregate MH #75 MH #76 30 Exposed aggregate, root intrusion at 156' MH #76 MH #77 30 Exposed aggregate, rebar ripples at 228' MH #77 MH #78 30 Exposed aggregate, defective joint @ 139' MH #78 MH #79 30 Exposed aggregate MH #79 MH #80 30 Exposed aggregate MH #80 MH #81 30 Exposed rebar at joint @ 109.8', 334', exposed aggregate MH #81 MH #82 30 Exposed rebar at joint @ 186', heavy corrosion at

188.6' MH #82 MH #83 30 Exposed aggregate MH #83 MH #84 30 Exposed aggregate MH #84 MH #85 30 Exposed rebar at joint @ 1256', exposed aggregate, defective joint @ 165' , root intrusion at various locations

MH #85 MH #86 30 Core drill 8', exposed rebar at 347', rebar ripples at 349'Core drill 8', exposed rebar at 347', rebar ripples at

MH #86 MH #87 30 Exposed aggregate349'. Pipe depth is relatively shallow under wash and has been previously exposed due to scouring.

MH #87 MH #88 30 Exposed aggregate MH #88 MH #89 30 Heavy exposed aggregate, possible fracture at 125', rebar ripples. Exposed aggregate MH #89 MH #90 30 Heavy exposed aggregate, possible hole @ 535' appears to be broken joint, Heavy exposed aggregate, possible fracture at 125', rebar ripples

March 2018 2-10

Upstream MH Downstream MH Diameter (in.) Structural Defects MH #90 MH #91 30 Defective core drill at 14', hole with roots at 20', exposed rebar at joints at 150.3', 227, exposed rebar, Heavy exposed aggregate, possible hole @ 535' appears to be broken joint, object/debris at 134'

MH #91 MH #92 30 Exposed aggregate, Defective core drill at 14', hole with roots at 20', exposed rebar at joints at 150.3', 227, exposed rebar. Pipe depth is relatively shallow under wash and has been previously exposed due to scouring.

MH #92 MH #93 30 Minor exposed aggregate, exposed rebar at joint at 22.6'Exposed aggregate

MH #93 MH #94 30 Initial stages at rebar ripples, exposed aggregate, deteriorated joint @ 347'Minor exposed aggregate, exposed rebar at joint at 22.6'

MH #94 MH #95 36 Numerous cracked sections and rebar ripples from 239' to MH #95, Initial stages at rebar ripples, exposed aggregate, deteriorated joint @ 347', root intrusion at various locations, isolated debris throughout reach

MH #95 MH #96 36 Exposed aggregate, Numerous cracked sections and rebar ripples from 239' to MH #95, heavy debris throughout reach

MH #96 MH #97 36 Exposed aggregate

MH #97 MH #97-A 42

MH #97-A MH #97-B 42

MH #97-B MH #98 42

MH #98 MH #99 42 Heavy debris throughout reach.

Recent Breaches 2.3.5

The City of Nogales has reported recent breaches of the Trunkline/IOI related to illegal drug trafficking activity at the following locations:

Morley Avenue, 350 feet north of MH #9;

Nogales Wash channel, 50 feet north of MH #26, also known as the Doghouse; and

20 feet south of MH #46, also known as the Jack's 5th Wheel location.

These breaches have been repaired by either the City of Nogales or the Department of Homeland Security. These repairs have most likely left an uneven surface on the interior of the pipe, which needs to be taken into consideration during the rehabilitation process.

March 2018 3-1

3.0 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY

To obtain a current, accurate survey of the Trunkline and the IOI, URS obtained the services of Meridian Surveying to perform a topographic survey. Meridian used RTK GPS to establish horizontal and vertical controls and a combination of GPS and LiDAR to collect all cultural features and existing improvements. The survey was limited to the right-of-way (ROW) of the pipeline (approximately 50 feet on either side of the existing pipeline alignment). The survey also collected data on rim elevations of each manhole, invert of the pipeline at each manhole, and inverts of laterals present in each manhole.

Final survey drawing was dated 4/13/15 and submitted to USIBWC for their records.

3.1 Survey Control

Horizontal and vertical controls used for the survey and design drawings are based on the following control points provided by the City of Nogales and Santa Cruz County Flood Control District.

Horizontal Control 3.1.1

Santa Cruz County GIS Datum Survey 2014, Spatial Projection: Arizona State Plane, Central Zone, North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). Control points are D423 (located at N. Morley Avenue and North Wayside Drive in the rock face south of Wayside Drive) and SCC-23 (located at top of slope at the south west corner of USIBWC WWTP, south of entrance). Basis of bearing between these points is N13055'59”W with a distance of 39,147.11 feet.

Vertical Control 3.1.2

North American Vertical Datum of 1998 (NAVD 88). The basis of elevation is NGS Vertical Control Point No. N1-A located at N-126,226.78, E-1,007,480.94, with an elevation of 3826.27.

3.2 Buried Manholes

Some manholes could not be located during the topographic survey. URS obtained the services of Pro-Pipe to perform CCTV of these sections of the pipeline to determine the exact distance from an accessible upstream manhole to the buried manhole(s). These distances were then provided to Meridian Surveying, who used this information to mark the apparent location of each buried manhole on the ground surface. Meridian Surveying then coordinated these locations with the City of Nogales Utility Department, who excavated each location until the manholes were uncovered. After Meridian Surveying collected the necessary data for each manhole, the City of Nogales re-covered each manhole located near or within existing road surfaces.

The following pictures show the manholes that were uncovered. Each of these manholes will be raised to above grade as part of this project.

March 2018 3-2

Manhole 33-A Manhole 33-B

Manhole 34 Manhole 35

Manhole 42 Manhole 50

March 2018 3-3

Manhole 52 Manhole 52-A

Manhole 52-B Manhole 53

Manhole 85 Manhole 94

March 2018 4-1

4.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

URS obtained the services of Terracon Consultants, Inc. to perform a geotechnical subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and preparation of a Geotechnical Data Report and a Geotechnical Engineering Analysis to be provided in a Geotechnical Baseline Report. The City of Nogales Utility Department expedited the acquisition of all necessary permits and assisted Terracon with traffic control. A total of 35 test borings were drilled at the site during the periods from July 28 to August 4, 2014 and September 8 to September 12, 2014. The borings were drilled to depths of 12½ to 51½ feet below ground surface (bgs). The approximate boring locations are shown in Appendix A on the Terracon Site Plan and Boring Location Diagrams, Exhibits A-1a through A-1i. Boring locations were also located by Meridian Surveying during the topographic survey and are included on the design drawings.

Both the final Geotechnical Baseline Report and the Geotechnical Data Report were sealed, signed, and dated January 21, 2015. Copies of these reports were included with the 30% Design Deliverable submitted to USIBWC on January 30, 2015.

4.1 Subsurface Soil Conditions

Specific conditions encountered at each boring location are indicated on the individual boring logs included in the Geotechnical Reports. Fence diagrams showing the relationship of the existing pipeline to the subsurface profile at the boring locations are shown in Appendix A on Terracon Subsurface Profile Exhibits C-1 through C-9.

Based on conditions encountered in the borings, conditions on the project site can be generalized as follows:

Boring Locations B-1 to B-6

Description Approximate Depth to

Bottom of Stratum (feet) Material Encountered Consistency/Relative

Density Stratum 1 7 to 14 Fill: Sand soils with variable amounts of clay, silt and gravel Very loose to very dense

Stratum 2 51.5 Sandy soils with variable amounts of clay, silt and gravel

Very loose to very dense

Boring Locations B-7 to B-14, B-18 to B-20, B-29 to B-31, and B-35

Bottom of Stratum (feet) Material Encountered Consistency/Relative

Density Stratum 1 51.5 Interbedded sand soils with variable amounts of clay, silt and gravel/lean clay with variable amounts of sand/silt with variable amounts of sand

Very soft to very stiff/ very loose to very dense

March 2018 4-2

Boring Locations B-15 and B-16, B-21, B-33, and B-34

Bottom of Stratum (feet) Material Encountered Consistency/

Relative Density Stratum 1 (Borings B-16, B-21, B-33 and B-34)

6 to 10 Gravel soils variable amounts of clay, silt and sand/silty clayey sand with gravel

Loose to very dense

Stratum 1 (Boring B-15)

12 Fill: Clayey sand with gravel/poorly graded gravel with clay and sand/silty sand

Loose

Stratum 2 26 Sandy soils with variable amounts of clay, silt and gravel

Medium dense to very dense

Boring Locations B-17, B-22 to B-28, and B-32

Bottom of Stratum (feet) Material Encountered Consistency/ Relative

Density Stratum 1 6 to 20 Fill: Sand soils with variable amounts of clay, silt and gravel Very loose to very dense

Stratum 2 26.5 Interbedded sand soils with variable amounts of clay, silt and gravel/lean clay with variable amounts of sand

Soft to very stiff /very loose to very dense

4.2 Groundwater Conditions

Groundwater was observed in 11 of the 35 test borings at the time of field exploration. The depth where groundwater was initially encountered in the test borings varied from approximately

9.5 to 32 feet bgs. This included test borings B-1 through B-4, B-10, B-20, B-28 through B-31, and B-35. These observations represent groundwater conditions at the time of the field exploration and may not be indicative of other times or at other locations. Groundwater conditions can change with varying seasonal and weather conditions and other factors.

Five of the borings (i.e., Borings B-1, B-10, B-20, B-31, and B-35) were completed with the installation of open well piezometers for delayed groundwater measurements. The remainder of the test borings was either backfilled with soil cuttings or cement-bentonite grout (where groundwater was encountered) upon completion of the field exploration. Monitoring of the piezometers has not yet commenced.

March 2018 5-1

5.0 ROW/EASEMENTS

5.1 Original Construction

At the time of the original installation of the IOI, the ROW for construction through the properties of the City of Nogales, Arizona, Santa Cruz County and the Southern Pacific Railroad was "that right-of-way reasonably required for construction purposes." The ROW limits were:

40 feet wide from the Treatment Plant south to MH #90 (located just south of Ruby Road) through private property; and

50 feet wide for construction through all other private property.

No record of permanent ROW could be obtained from the City of Nogales; however, the City did provide documentation of some easements documented in its files.

5.2 IBWC Study of Easements

Because of the lack of information, the IBWC conducted a detailed research of its files and prepared a study dated August 2, 2016 that summarized the easements discovered during this process. In general, the Trunkline and IOI easements can be categorized into four distinct categories:

1. MH #1 to near MH #41: Most southern part, traversing through and in the Nogales Wash and City Streets. No easements required.

2. Near MH #41 to MH #53: Private land, traversing through the Mastic, Bejarano, Border Terminal, Baffert, Ahumada, Borderland Enterprises, Nogales Tomato, and Pierson tracts. With the exception of the Baffert tract, easements for the IOI were acquired by condemnation via the Arizona Superior Court. Easement width is 20 feet.

3. Near MH #53 to MH #90: State of Arizona (County) and Southern Pacific Railroad (now UPRR) lands, which includes the small Keehn tract. The 20-foot wide Keehn track was acquired by condemnation and the Southern Pacific and State of Arizona easements which had unspecified widths, were acquired via negotiation.

4. From MH #90 to MH #98: Private land, The easement through the Gulf American Corporation land for the IOI, which had an unspecified width, was acquired via condemnation.

Additional details may be obtained from the IBWC Study of Easements report available in Appendix B.

5.3 Surveyor's Description of Easements

Meridian Surveying has done significant research into the existing easements for the Trunkline and IOI and has determined that much of the original monumentation used to define the location

March 2018 5-2 of the easements is based on old General Land Office (GLO) monuments, which is lost or otherwise not available. In addition, the bearings noted in the easement documents are based off the true meridian ascertained from solar observations in the 1960s, which is no longer a valid survey technique.

As a result, Meridian Surveying was directed to develop new easement documentation for the Trunkline and the IOI by tying the Santa Cruz County GIS control network to existing section and quarter section corners. A new easement (based on "apparent easement") was developed using the locations of the existing manholes from MH #1 to the existing wastewater treatment plant and the dimensions (either 40 feet or 50 feet widths) obtained from the construction report.

This permanent easement is shown on the contract drawings for this project. The description for each of the pipeline easements may be found in Appendix C.

Meridian Surveying also developed new temporary construction easements (TCEs) with a minimum width of 40 feet adjacent to the permanent easements where additional space would be required for construction, bypass piping, and temporary access roads where required for the Contractor to access the manholes. These temporary easements are shown on the contract drawings for the project. The description for each of the TCEs may be found in Appendix C.

All construction work will be confined to the permanent and temporary easements, as defined on the drawings. Contractor's access to the pipeline, when not within a road or railroad ROW, shall be limited to the temporary easements as defined on the drawings.

5.4 Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR)

ROW information for the current UPRR was obtained by copy of a lease between the Southern Pacific Transportation Company and the City of Nogales dated February 12, 1979. The Lease Agreement shows a 200-foot-wide railroad ROW, 100 feet each way from the center of the rail line. This ROW line is shown on the contract drawings for the project.

March 2018 6-1

6.0 PERMITTING

6.1 Work within UPRR ROW

URS contacted Alexander Popovici, Manager Industry & Public Projects (602-322-2510) for UPRR to discuss the Nogales Trunkline and IOI Rehabilitation Project and determine the requirements for working within the UPRR ROW. Based on the rehabilitation being limited to CIPP and manhole recoating, the UPRR will consider this project to be a maintenance activity.

The following requirements will need to be followed prior to and during the construction phase of the project:

1. It was decided at the Final Stakeholder Meeting that USIBWC will be responsible for coordination with UPRR. USIBWC will need to submit an application for a Maintenance Agreement to UPRR. UPRR will then provide a letter to USIBWC allowing access onto the ROW for maintenance (rehabilitation). Approval of the permit takes approximately 45 days, but may take longer. The Contractor and all subcontractors shall comply with all the requirements of the UPRR Maintenance Agreement for access to the ROW for maintenance (rehabilitation), including the insurance provisions.

2. The Contractor will not be allowed to excavate within 12 feet of the main railroad line centerline.

3. If any equipment comes within 25 feet of the rail line centerline, a flagman will be required. The Contractor will need to procure the flagman through the UPRR. A request will need to be submitted by the Contractor in the name of the Owner.

Approval by UPRR takes approximately 45 days.

4. A possible route for bypass piping, a portion of which is located within the UPRR ROW, is shown on the plans. This route includes two crossings under the UPRR by way of existing box culverts. The UPRR requires a flagman from UPRR to be on site when bypass pumping lines are being installed beneath any rail line. The Contractor shall request a flagman directly from UPRR as described in the previous paragraph.

5. USIBWC is responsible for obtaining approval from UPRR for work within the UPRR ROW.