Now on Record
On March 28th, the Save Hinkle Creek Work Group went on public record at the Folsom City Council meeting making our request for an alternative to the road in Hinkle Creek formal. We asked the City Council 1) for each City Council member to meet with us and 2) for the Folsom City staff to hold another public forum. We believe that the city’s goal has been misguided from the onset. Their goal has been to access each manhole with a Vactor truck. We contend that the goal should be to assure proper pipeline maintenance which will avoid sewage overflows by other industry methods not requiring the road.
You can watch John’s brief City Council presentation at the link below.
https://youtu.be/YPa_BDu-IOA

​
Folsom City Council March 28, 2017
youtu.be
John makes request to Folsom City Council 1) meet with Council Members 2) Hold a public forum
​This is a link to a text copy of John's presentation.
https://drive.google.com/open…

​​
This or This
THE TIME FOR ACTION IS NOW!
SaveHinkleCreek.com
City of Folsom Staff Recommends Building the Hinkle Creek Sewer Road Proceeding to Get City Council Approval

Time for Us to Speak Up!!
The City of Folsom City Manager and Staff have decided that a road is necessary to allow vactor
trucks into the Hinkle Creek Nature Area to maintain the sewer line. They have informed us they
are moving forward with the project and will be asking the City Council for project approval
within Mid May to Mid June.We believe the objective of the City of Folsom should be to ensure that the sewer line is repaired
and properly maintained to avoid overflows into Hinkle Creek with minimum negative impact on
the nature area. Our recommendation is:
* Complete maintenance work on the sewer line with a keen eye to minimizing damage and
destruction of trees. After construction, return the area to as natural condition as possible.
* Contract with a qualified company to clean and camera inspect the lines annually (vs. the
current standard of every five years) and use the video images to provide early warning of
maintenance issues.
* Install strategically located wireless flow monitors to provide early warning of potential
overflows.

Chronological Order of Status Updates are below:

August 10, 2016 – Sewer Line Successfully Cleaned and Camera Inspected by Qualified Contractor. 
​
What we learned during the sewer cleaning process.  Overall the 6” pipe is in very good shape, especially considering it had not been flushed in over 5 years and is over 40 years old. The basic shape of the line is a Y.  Day 1 we started around 180 River Ridge with manhole 7526 and camera/flushed/cleaned to manhole 7522.  Day 2 we started in Rock Ravine Court with manhole 7508 and camera/flushed/camera down to Oak Avenue to manhole 7545.  Manhole 7545 was the point where they vacuumed out all of the waste flushed from the lines.    Total time was just over 1 ½ days to complete the pre-flush camera inspection, flush the line, then conduct a post-flush camera video.   As a first time sewer observer, We were shocked at how clean the lines were.  The Coastline Water Resources team did a very good job.  They have plenty of experience servicing the equivalent of Folsom’s entire sewer system annually for the City of San Jose, Los Altos, Belmont, Atherton, Palo Alto, etc. and remarked how much better our lines looked than those in the Bay Area.  They also provide sewer maintenance services for the entire sewer network in Rancho Cordova and Citrus Heights.  They mentioned that many of the lines they work on are steeper and more difficult to access than ours.    We were pleasantly surprise that so few neighbors’ yards needed to be crossed to access the manholes.   There were a total of 21 manholes serviced:  only 6 required accesses through a neighbor’s property, 7 could be camera inspected and flushed without accessing the manhole through adjacent manholes (bypass) and 8 could be accessed from the street, an existing easement or Hinkle Creek Park.
​
​

September 2016 Proposed Repairs in Hinkle Creek Sewer Line
September 2016
Repairs Required in Hinkle Creek Sewer Line
Representatives of the Hinkle Creek Work Group met with Evert Palmer, Folsom’s City Manager, and Marcus Yasutake, Director of Environmental and Water Resources, last week to discuss the results of the camera inspection and routine maintenance of the Hinkle Creek sewer line.  The city advised us that they are concerned about three sections of the line feel they need to be replaced for various reasons like pipe corrosion, pipe offsets, and pipe sag.  (See attached diagram.)  Red – first priority, Pink – second priority, Yellow-third priority. 
Our next step is to work with the city to identify a qualified contractor who can make the repairs with minimal impact to the nature area.  We will be meeting with experts to gain their insights on the urgency of the repairs and the various methods to implement the repairs.  If you know of a contractor knowledgeable in commercial sewer systems please make an introduction to us
 We know that it was possible to refurbish the line without trenching for a new pipe but that process would be less effective if the problems are related to the slope of the existing line. We believe that the sections of iron pipe that are corroded could be replaced without massive excavation using current equipment and technology that is very cost effective and quite quickly.      
At the meeting with the city, we were also provided with information from the final arborist report with the tree counts that would be impacted if the road is built.   If a road is built 81 trees, of the total 197 trees affected, will be removed or critically impacted.  The city has a formula for how they grade trees and not all trees are created equal in the city’s eyes.  Some trees are not valued at all like gray pines, buckeye and non-natives.  Of the protected trees, they grade them based on the trees condition from 0-5 with zero being a dead tree and 5 being a perfect specimen.  Of the 197 trees within the 50 foot road impact area, according to the city, 74 are in the 0-2 condition range.  An  additional 107 are in the 3-5 range and 16 were not assessed because they are categorized as too small or are not protected.  We expect others would die within a number of years due to soil and root disturbances which is very typical for oaks in construction areas. 
We were hoping that that the city was going to table their pursuit of the road but that is not what we heard last week so we continue to investigate options and alternatives for maintenance of the sewer line.  The Hinkle Creek Work Group will continue to work with Folsom City Executives to reduce the impact on Hinkle Creek Nature Park and keep you all updated on our progress. 
Keep the signs up. They show our elected representatives and city workers that people care about Hinkle Creek Park.  If you know of people that would like a yard sign, please email your name and address to SaveHinkleCreek@gmail.com and don’t forget to sign the petition on Change.org.  

 

March 17, 2017 City has decided to proceed to build a road in Hinkle Creek
​Hinkle Creek Sewer Road
March 17, 2017

Attachment 1

​Today we met with Evert Palmer, Folsom’s City Manager, and Marcus Yasutake, Director of Environmental and Water Resources, to discuss the recommendations presented by Quincy Engineering who was contracted by the City to recommend repairs to the Hinkle Creek sewer line.    Marcus began by outlining four alternatives for each of the segments needing attention:  1)  Leave alone and maintain annually, 2) Pipe bursting – and inserting a new line into the existing pipe 3) Replace by trenching 4) Replace by trenching and redirecting.  In all alternatives except #1, the pipe diameter would be increased from 6 inches to 8 inches. 
Recommendations to Repair: 
We will provide a summary of the recommendation for each section line needing repair and provide comments/alternative recommendations later in this document.  Refer to Attachment 1 March 2017 Proposal and Attachment 2 Existing Hinkle Creek Sewer for visual depiction of the recommendations.  Each section of the line needing repair is treated in a slightly different manor as detailed below:
Section 4 (from 128 to 144 Canyon Rim Drive).   The issue with this section the slope is not sufficient allow the sewer to drain properly.  Either it wasn’t properly designed/constructed has settled over time creating low spots in the line where waste builds up.  The recommendation was to redirect and trench a new PVC line.  A road would be built to support construction of the new trench and maintained long term to allow access by a vactor truck to pump out sewage from the manholes.
Section 5 and 8a/b.  Section 5a is the segment we could not get the cleaning equipment through due to iron corrosion.  This is a steep downhill section.  The recommendation is to build a temporary road to construct a new trench from manhole 5 to 7.  This road would be abandoned after construction and replaced with a 720 feet long road highlighted in blue on Attachment 1 allow vactor track truck access to manholes for maintenance.   
Section 9.  This is a critical section of pipe as it runs under Hinkle Creek.  The recommendation is to pipe burst from manhole 7 to 8 and replace with an 8” line.  A road would be constructed to support construction and maintained long term to allow vactor truck access to manholes for maintenance.
Section 10.  This is a section that runs under Oak Hill Road that would be trenched and replaced with an 8” line. 
Tree Impact
A total of 175 trees are impacted (approximately 50 feet from the road) of which 141 are protected trees.  77 of these trees would either be cut down (quantity not yet determined) or have impact to more than 20% of their root zone, which might cause the tree to die.  A more detailed summary is outlined in Attachment 3 Arborist Report Summary and we will receive an amendment to the original arborists report shortly.
Road Construction
Attachment 4 Table 1 Summary of Issues provides a summary of the camera inspections from our line successful cleaning last August.  Under each section the City highlights that, while we were able to flush and camera inspect the line, they want to be able to access each manhole with a vacuum truck to suck out waste.  This is a very key point discussed later in this document.
Cost
The cost estimated by Marcus Yasutake was $435,000 to place and realign the pipe, pipe bursting, road construction, restoration of the road segment between manholes 5-7 and temporary bridge over Hinkle Creek.  It excludes tree mitigation; building a permanent bridge over Hinkle Creek and extending the road (in light blue) form 108 Rock Ravine Court to 128 Canyon Rim Drive and from 144 Canyon Rim Drive, past Rock Canyon Court 176 River Ridge Way which could/would(?) be done at a later date.  See Attachment 5 Costs for more details.
City Comments 
Pick up Size Vactor Truck – See Attachment 6 Light Weight Vactor Truck for an illustration of the type of vactor truck they would purchase to access the manholes.  The truck is a modified version of a heavy duty pick up (~1.5 ton) and would require about a 12 foot wide road.
Trees – they emphasized that the tree count represented the maximum impact and they would do their best to minimize the number of trees cut down during construction.
Roads – they would build the road with a solid fill to support the weight of the truck but cover with dirt so the grass could grow back and minimize the negative impact to the park.  They offered to provide us some locations with similar roads we could go and see firsthand.  
Manhole Flow Sensors – We recommended putting manhole flow sensors on strategically located manholes to provide early warning of potential spills.  They indicated they use these in other sections of sewer line in the City they were not included in the budget for Hinkle Creek. 
Timing – they gave us a heads up that they were planning to move forward with City Council approval in the next few weeks. 
Hinkle Creek Working Group Comments
The key element that decides the need for a permanent road is the requirement to access the manholes with a vactor truck.  During the meeting we discussed that we were able to flush the entire line end to end and vacuum out waste using a vactor truck from manhole 8 on Oak Avenue.  They were concerned if there was an up line blockage the line could be flushed down to manhole 8 where the waste could be vacuumed out.  Their concern was if the blockage could not be cleared by flushing it could back up and create a spill.   The requirement to vacuum waste from manholes is the key fact that determines the necessity to build a permanent road. 
ACTION – If you know of any experts in this area please put them in touch with us.  We need as much professional feedback as possible.
Obviously, after construction there will be a lot of manholes that will still not have access via a vacuum truck since the road only extends to about half of the sewer line.  We did not press this point as it could make a case to build all roads. 
Next Steps
With your help we will connect with as many experts as possible.  If we conclude that accessing the manholes with a vactor truck is not required we will be reaching out all to support a campaign with City Council Members to reject staff’s recommendation for a road.  
​

---

Attachment 2

Arborist Report
​Hinkle Creek- Canyon Rim location with only priority sewer repairs
 
 
LSA- they also used previous report prepared by Abicus Consulting Arborists Inventoried trees within SO feet of the development area (proposed access road) Used common rating system of 0 (dead} through 5 (excellent)
*** Only includes the updated project scope for segments 4,5,8,9,and 10  ***
 
 
 
Total number oftrees inventoried= 175
Of these 175, 141 are protected tree species
 
Total Trees Inventoried 175
Protected Trees per FMC 141
Impacts to Critical Root Zone 121
Impacts to Root 77
 
A. Critical root zone impacts  > 20% typically require mitigation

Sewer Repair Impacts- Impacts to trees due to sewer repairs
Total number of trees that  would need to be removed due to the repairs= 60
Total number of trees that  would be removed rated 3 or above= 25
Of the 25,25 are listed as protected trees and require mitigation
Total number of trees that  would be removed rated at 2 or less= 35
Total number of unprotected species that would  be removed = 7
 
 
Additional Impacts to include  720 feet of permanent access road
Total number of trees that would need to be removed fortruncated permanent access road= 17
Total number of trees that would be removed rated 3 or above= 9
Of the 9,9 are listed as protected trees and require mitigation
Total number of trees that would be removed rated at 2 or less= 8

Total number of unprotected species that would be removed = 7
 
 
Summary

 
Total number of protected trees to be removed or criticallyl
Totalnumber of protected trees to be removed that require    
This means that 29 of the trees do not require mitigaiton because the existing tree rating (2 or less) per FMC.

A summary of the preliminary project costs for the best apparent alternatives is provided in Table 5. Due to the preliminary nature of the design at this time a contingency of 20% has been added to the costs.
 
Segment    Total
4-3 -Replace & Realign    $86,025
5-3-Replace & Realign    $44,190
8-2-Replace in Place    $36,880
9-1B- Pipe Bursting    $23,000
10-2-Replace in Place    $31,540
Temporary Access Road lnstallation 1    $40,000
Temporary Access Road Restoration 2    $50,000
Temporary Bridge Across Hinkle Creek    $20,00
Sub   total    $331,635
    
20% Contingency    $66,327
Total Project Cost (Rounded) 2    $398,000   
   


1The additional cost to upgrade the Temporary Access Road to a Permanent Access Road
would be approximately $47,500 ($31,500 for construction and $16,000 for tree mitigation).  A permanent bridge across the creek is not included in this cost.
2A localcontractor  estimates that removal and restoration of the temporary access road is approximately $50,000 due to the steep terrain
3 Total project cost does not include all construction costs such as mobilization,
demobilization,pipeline testing,and erosion control,nor does it include environmental permitting,engineering design costs,construction management,and engineering services during construction.
 
8.       CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A summary of our recommendations for the best apparent alternatives to consider for this
Project is as follows:
 
•    Replace and realign the existing 6-inch diameter sewer pipeline in Segments 4 and 5 with an 8-inch PVC pipe between existing MH 1and MH 5,including two new manholes (MH 2P and MH 3P),reducing the sewer length by 100 feet (as shown in Figure 2).
•    Replace in place the existing 6-inch sewer pipeline in Segment 8 with an 8-inch PVC pipe in the same alignment. The new pipeline will be tied into new manhole (MH 3P) at the downstream end of Segment 5 and the existing manhole (MH 7) at the upstream end of Segment 9.
•    Repair in place the existing 150 If of 6-inch diameter CIP in Segment 9 with new 8-inch diameter HOPE pipe using pipe bursting methods.The existing manholes will remain.
•    Replace in place the existing 6-inch diameter sewer pipeline in Segment 10 with a new
8-inch PVC pipe between the two existing manholes.Sags will be eliminated,preventing backups into Segment 9.

 
Table 1. Summary of CCTV Inspection
 
 
Segment
Length
(If)
Pipe Dia.
and Type
 
Slope(%)
 
Identified Problems and Observations

4
575
6-inch VCP
0.5

​• 350 If within private property including 5 laterals
• MH 2 and MH 3 located within  private property
• No Vactor truck access to manholes (MH 1, 2,& 3)
• Sags throughout the alignment
• Grease deposits after flushing and cleaning
• City's 1st priority for repair due to SSO's and access

Sa
105
6-inch CIP
34.8
• MH 3 within private property
• No Vactor truck access to manholes {MH 3 & 4)
• CCTV was not able to be performed in this area
• Encrustation reduces effective pipe diameter
• City's 2nd priority for repair due to SSO's

Sb
175
6-inch VCP
0.5
• No Vactor truck access to manholes {MH 4 & 5)
• Sags throughout the alignment
• City's 2nd priority for repair due to SSO's

8a
85
6-inch CIP
36
• No Vactor truck access to manholes {MH 5 & 6)
• Offsets
• City's 3rd priority for repair

8b
120
6-inch VCP,
6-inch HOPE
8.3
• No Vactor truck access to manholes {MH 6 & 7)
• Offsets
• City's 3rd priority for repair

9
150
6-inch CIP
0.5
• Creek Crossing
• No Vactor truck access to upstream manhole (MH 7)

10
65
6-inch VCP
0.5
• Sags

March 22 2017 Our Response to Evert Palmer After Meeting with a Sewer Expert.

March 22, 2017

Evert

We wanted to follow up with our recommendations for the Hinkle Creek Nature Area sewer line project you and Marcus shared with us last Friday. 
When we closed the meeting, we discussed that the key item that needs to be investigated is the requirement to access each of the manholes with a vactor truck.  When we monitored the cleaning/camera work by Coastline Water Resources they flushed the lines for the high points at either end of the ‘T’, to the center and down the steep section s of pipe to manhole 8 which provides vactor access from Oak Avenue and vacuumed out the waste.  Camera inspection verified that the line was cleaned using this process.  You ask the question what happens if the high pressure hose is not able to push the waste all the way to manhole 8 which could require vactor truck to remove the waste from the adjacent downhill manhole.  So yesterday we met with the owner of the organization that recently won the bid to clean and re-line 26,000 feet of sewer not accessible from a road for Sacramento Area Sewer valued at $1.2M.  This organization cleaned and camera inspected over 3 million feet of line last year.  So we asked him the question of removing waste without a vactor truck to vacuum out the waste.  To our surprise, he responded that in the 3 million feet of line they cleaned last year less than 1% was vacuumed out using vactor trucks.  His organization uses their vactor trucks to supply water for the high pressure hoses inserted into the man holes to pressure clean, but he said the best way to remove waste is simply to put a basket in the downhill manhole that allows liquid to pass and captures waste (see illustration below).  The basket is then extracted from the bottom of the manhole and the waste is removed.  This method has been used for years and does not require a road or expensive equipment to implement. 
Back in 2000, we know that the City of Folsom was surprised to learn that their sewer system was not being properly maintained, resulting is a large and embarrassing fine imposed by the State Water Quality Board.  Seventeen years later, Folsom is the sewer maintenance model for other cities to follow.  Maybe it is time to thoughtfully re-evaluate some of our standards, like requiring vactor truck access for all manholes, to determine if there are methods that are as effective, but live up to the City’s motto of being “Distinctive by Nature”.  We are completely supportive of ensuring our sewers are properly maintained and specific to Hinkle Creek, preventing waste from running into the creek and down into the American River.  After 17 years of hard work by the City of Folsom we are down to the more difficult, costly and most environmentally impactful sections of sewer that need to be maintained.  We would encourage you and your team to step back and thoughtfully evaluate alternatives that might not exactly match the current standards, but achieves the critical objective of ensuring the sewer line does into overflow into Hinkle Creek.   We encourage you to employ methods such as flushing and camera inspection the Hinkle Creek line annually and completing the necessary sewer line improvements.  But allowing potential overflows to be handled with equally effective sewer maintenance standards (collection baskets) that eliminate the vactor truck road through the Hinkle Creek Nature area.  Given the remote location of these manholes we would also suggest that wireless flow monitors be installed in strategic locations to provided early warnings of any potential backups.  If a sewer overflows in the middle of a street it is easy to detect.   When the manhole is buried in a Nature Area overflows and odors are much easier to overlook. 
In summary we believe that the following will provide protection against sewer over flows and preservation of the Hinkle Creek Nature Area:

• Complete maintenance work on the sewer line with a keen eye to minimizing damage and destruction of trees.  After construction, return the area to as natural condition as possible. 
• Contract with a qualified company to clean and camera inspect the lines annually (vs. the current standard of every five years) and using the video images to provide early warning of maintenance issues.
• Install strategically located wireless flow monitors to provide early warning of potential overflows.  
• If there is an up line blockage that needs to be cleared, using collection baskets vs. a vactor truck to remove the waste.

We believe this plan is very prudent as it provides complete protection against sewer overflows and also protects our beautiful nature area. 
We are pleased to meet to discuss at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Hinkle Creek Working Group



/search?
q=Debris+and+Grit+basket+for+a+manhole&espv=2&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&X-jSAhUDwmMtSyfMDt2u

​March 23, 2017 Response from Marcus Yasutake "We will present this information before City Council within the next 30-60 days."