Visioning and Preliminary Facilities Assessment for Camp Mather

Transcription

1 Visioning and Preliminary Facilities Assessment for Camp Mather October 2011 Draft

2 1 Executive Summary Introduction Camp Mather History Summary of Findings From the 1949 Master Plan Stakeholders Consultation Process Core Findings Recommendations from Stakeholders Consultation Process Camp Mather Operations and Facilities Camp Season Current Camp Season Potential Change to Camp Season Camp Capacity Current Camp Capacity Under Typical Operations Camp Capacity during Strawberry Festival Potential Camp Capacity Expansion Typical Water and Wastewater Flows Water System Raw Water Source and Conveyance Water Treatment Treated Water Distribution Wastewater System Overview Collection System Treatment and Disposal Electrical Power Distribution System Site Power Distribution System Water Treatment Facility Other Camp Buildings Structures/Buildings Site Features Preliminary Assessment of Camp Mather Utilities and Structures Approach for Developing Cost Estimates Water, Sewer and Power Utilities Structures and Site Improvements Approach for Prioritizing Utilities Improvements Water, Sewer and Power Utilities Structures and Site Improvements Table of Contents

3 7.3 Alternatives Evaluation Alternative 1. Improvements needed under current configuration Alternative 2. Additional improvements needed for the season extension (i.e. winterization) Alternative 3. Additional improvements needed to expand the camp capacity to 700 guests Next steps Follow-up Studies Appendix References...60 List of Drawings: Figure 1: Camp Mather Overview Map Figure 2: Typical Annual Operations at Camp Mather Figure 3: Potential Future Annual Operations at Camp Mather Figure 4: Camp Mather Water Treatment Process Figure 5: Camp Mather Water System Figure 6: Camp Mather Water System (Main Camp Area) Figure 7: Hydraulic profile of Camp Mather Water Supply Figure 8: Camp Mather Wastewater Process Figure 9: Camp Mather Sewer System Figure 10: Camp Mather Electrical Power System Figure 11: Camp Mather Structures Layout Figure 12: Recommended Modifications to Water System Figure 13: Recommended Modifications to Sewer System Figure 14: Assumed Location of Cabins to Be Winterized and Camp Expansion Areas Figure 15: Recommended Follow-up Evaluations List of Tables: Table 1: Stakeholder Groups Consulted Table 2: Number and Size of Cabins at Camp Mather Table 3: Typical Water Use at Camp Mather Table 4: Modeled Scenarios and Water Usage Table 5: Leach Field Estimated Capacity Table 6: Priority Criteria for Alternative 1 Water, Sewer and Power Improvements Table 7: Alternative 1 Water, Sewer and Power improvements Table 8: Alternative 1 Structure and Site Improvements Table 9: Additional Improvements Associated with Alternative 2 Table 10: Additional Improvements Associated with Alternative 3 Table 11: Wish List from Stakeholders Consultation Process 2 Table of Contents

4 Under Development Original painting from Laurie Wigham, artist in residence at Camp Mather Executive Summary 3

5 From Michael Buck s Camp Mather In May 2, 2011, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors requested the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department (SF Recreation & Park Department) and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) to report on the long-term plans for Camp Mather. To partially address this request, the SFPUC and the SF Recreation & Park Department initiated this study to provide a vision for future operating scenarios and documentation of costs for improvements to camp buildings and utilities. The 88-year old Camp Mather started as a construction camp used during the construction of the O Shaughnessy Dam. Located in the Hetch Hetchy Valley, this area was Miwok and Paiute Indian tribes territory and largely unknown to the public until backcountry camping enthusiasts organized by the Sierra Club and livestock operators took knowledge of the valley beauty and resources. Since 1923, and completion of the construction activities at the dam, Camp Mather has served as a municipal camp targeted for San Francisco residents eager to escape urban life. Today as then, Camp Mather encompasses an area of approximatively 350 acres. While the land belongs to the City of San Francisco, it is located, at an altitude of 4,520 feet, approximately 180 miles away from the City and within Tuolumne County and United States Forest Service lands (Stanislaus National Forest) and is surrounded by National Park Service (Yosemite National Park) lands, as illustrated in Figure 1. Since the inception of the camp, the only significant study that has explored both immediate and long-term capital needs at the camp is the Master Plan for the San Francisco Municipal Recreation Camp Mather (1949 Master Plan) prepared by the San Francisco Recreation Commission on October Additional details on the Master Plan are provided in Section 4. The development of the 1949 Master Plan was followed by decades of status quo as no major improvements were conducted at the camp. The lack of improvements has been compounded by minimal maintenance over the years. Today, as Camp Mather enjoys as much popular appeal as it has in its past, and the cost of reactive maintenance is emerging, there is recognition that an ongoing capital planning program is needed. This evaluation is the first step in a series of planning efforts to define a long-term planning program for Camp Mather Introduction

6 P:\ SFPUC Water CS-971.A\B. Task Orders\TO-14 Camp Mather Visioning Process\B. Project Work\Task5- Condition Assessment\GIS_ Basemap\Camp Mather.mxd Mather Rd Birch Lake Meters Figure 1: Camp Mather Overview Map ,500 3,000 Source: RMC Water & Environment, SF Public Utilites Commission, ESRI Hetch Hetchy Rd Feet Legend Existing Boundary Proposed Extension Structures Forest Rte 1S32 Camp Mather!( Miles Gravel and Dirt Road Paved Roads 2. Introduction 5

7 The purpose of this study is two-fold. First, a stakeholders consultation process, with various stakeholders vested in Camp Mather s future, was conducted. Interviewees were selected jointly by the SFPUC and SF Recreation & Park Department to represent a wide array of the public including camp neighbors, camp users and camp managers. Findings from the stakeholders consultation process are summarized in Section 5 and Appendix A. The second aspect of the study was to perform a preliminary assessment of the water, sewer, and power utilities at Camp Mather (Section 6 and Section 7). This evaluation has focused on collecting information from visual inspections of the camp utilities, review of existing reports, and interviews with staff from both the SFPUC and the SF Recreation and Park Department. The preliminary utilities assessment augments previous work done to assess the condition of camp buildings. As for buildings and structures, it should be noted that the findings identified in this study are solely based on findings described in the 2006 Camp Mather Facility COMET Report of the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department. Structural and building improvements identified herein have been adjusted to reflect 2011 cost values. Overall, recommended improvements fall into the five following categories: Water system improvements Sewer system improvements Electrical power system improvements Structural improvements Site improvements In accordance with the 1949 Master Plan findings and the feedback gathered as part of the stakeholders consultation process, several alternatives were envisioned to frame the proposed improvements. Back in 1949, the Master Plan laid the foundation for two major themes. The first theme was the expansion of the capacity of the camp from 400 to 600 guests; the second theme was the expansion of the operating season from summer only to year-round. The menu of alternatives considered in this study consists of the following: Alternative 1. Identification of camp improvements needed under current configuration (i.e. assuming no expansion of the camp capacity, no extended season, and no major changes to the camp layout). Alternative 2. Additional camp improvements needed for an extended season (i.e. winterization). Alternative 3. Additional camp improvements needed to accommodate the expansion of the camp capacity from 500 to 700 guests Introduction

8 A series of projects was identified for each alternative and planning-level project costs were assigned. In addition, the recommended water, sewer and power improvements identified under Alternative 1 were scored on a 0 to 4 scale based on a set of criteria (structural and site improvements were not ranked). Project scores were applied to rank identified improvements, thereby providing a framework for prioritization of the numerous improvements to be undertaken. It should be noted that the improvements, and the associated cost estimates developed as part of this preliminary assessment are to be considered tentative and will need to be corroborated through the undertaking of additional, more specific assessments as identified in Chapter 8, Next Steps. Camp Mather entrance 2. Introduction 7

9 From Michael Buck s Camp Mather Views of Birch Lake area In 1890, Yosemite National Park was created under the charismatic influence of John Muir. When San Francisco first sought approval to dam the Hetch Hetchy Valley in order to create its municipal water supply, few people had visited the valley or knew of its existence aside from the local Miwok and Paiute Indian tribes and Sierra Club members led on camping expeditions. This changed when, in 1916, the Raker Act permitted the City to embark on the construction of the O Shaughnessy Dam. Construction of the Hetch Hetchy Railroad was needed to bring equipment and supplies to the dam site. At that time, a construction camp was built at Hog Ranch, six miles from the valley, to deliver the necessary supplies for construction of the O Shaughnessy dam, and a sawmill was built there to prepare lumber for the project. Eventually, Hog Ranch, as the railroad railhead, became a prime location for visitors passing through on their way to the Hetch Hetchy Valley. After construction of the Hetch Hetchy Railroad was completed in 1917, and despite the sheer distance from San Francisco, access to the Hetch Hetchy valley occurred on a larger scale. After the dam was completed in 1923, excursions to both the dam and the Hetch Hetchy Valley continued to be activities of great recreational value. It is on her way to the dedication ceremony of the O Shaughnessy Dam that Margaret Mary Morgan, a City supervisor, noticed the City of Oakland s municipal camp along the Middle Fork of the Tuloumne River. Upon arrival at Mather Station, she conceived the idea of a San- Francisco owned municipal park in the vicinity to take advantage of the unique setting of the camp as a gateway to the Hetch Hetchy and all the wonderful back country. Camp Mather was inaugurated on July 5, 1924 after the San Francisco Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No on October 29, 1923 whereby a site for a municipal camp was designated at Mather. On July 1924, the Playground Commission of San Francisco inaugurated the first mountain camp at Mather in the old buildings of the Hetch Hetchy construction camp on the south side of the Hetch Hetchy railroad. A year later, the San Francisco Playground Commission took over the Yosemite Park and Curry Company 8 3. Camp Mather History

10 Camp on the north side of the Hetch Hetchy Railroad in exchange for $12,500 and an additional $3,000 for cots, mattresses and similar equipment per Ordinance No approved on June 30, Per the same ordinance, the land at Mather was transferred from the San Francisco Board of Public Works to the San Francisco Playground Commission. Then, in 1928, the Playground Commission made extensive improvements to the camp accommodations. Since that date, major additions and renovations to Camp Mather occurred in the mid-1950s. These improvements were informed by the 1949 Master Plan. However, the major recommendations of the 1949 Master Plan were not addressed in the decades following its publication. Interestingly enough, these recommendations remain pertinent today, as discussed later in this document. Since the mid-1950s, more sporadic improvements were made to the camp, such as replacement of sections of the sewer system (i.e. leach field) in the 1970s, the addition of two cabins in the 1990s and more recent improvements to the water and sewer systems and to some of the cabins (e.g. replacement of a section of the 8-inch sewer line, replacement of water tanks, etc.). However, no major capital planning effort has provided a framework for systemic implementation of improvements at Camp Mather since the 1949 Master Plan. The lack of capital planning combined with deferred maintenance over the past 50 years has increased the urgency to develop long-term capital and operational forecasting for the camp. From Michael Buck s Camp Mather Camp Mather History 9

11 As mentioned earlier, the San Francisco Recreation Commission issued a Master Plan for the San Francisco Municipal Recreation Camp at Camp Mather in The key elements of the program outlined in the 1949 Master Plan included: 1. Rehabilitation of existing structures and utilities. 2. Enlargement of the camp in the immediate future to accommodate up to 400 guests per day (which at the time supposed a capacity expansion of 100 guests). 3. Evaluation of the possibility of lengthening the camp season from May 1 through October 1 (for a total of 22 weeks per year instead of the 12-week summer season). 4. Enlargement of the camp in the longer term to accommodate up to 600 guests per day (which at the time supposed a capacity expansion of 300 guests). 5. Winterization of some cabins for use of the camp during the winter season. From Michael Buck s Camp Mather The 1949 Master Plan also provided immediate actions to accomplish for implementation of the recommendations, as follows: 1. Complete an engineering survey. The survey would include all new underground utilities such as the irrigation systems, domestic water system, sewer system and electrical system as well as any changes made to the structures since the original map was drawn. 2. Prepare drawings and specifications for rehabilitation of the existing camp structures. 3. Prepare a study on the future economic status of the Camp Mather and a plan that would reflect the nature of the proposed program (i.e. capacity expansion and season extension). 4. Prepare drawings and specifications for expansion of Camp Mather based on the findings of the study described above Summary of Findings From the 1949 Master Plan

12 In addition, specific recommendation that were identified in the 1949 Master Plan included: Construction of a new lodge. The 1949 Master Plan proposed that the new lodge be located to the north of Beach Lake. The lodge, that could include a mezzanine, would consist of the dining hall, administrative office, lounge area, store and rest room. The new lodge would be constructed near the sewer and water lines running north of Birch Lake. In addition, an expansion of the dining capacity from 200 to 350 persons was envisioned. Winterization of cabins that would accommodate up to 200 guests for both summer and winter use. These cabins were sought to be located by the lake, and would be located in the vicinity of the new lodge for easy access and convenience, especially during the winter months. Relocation of crew members to cabins in the vicinity of the Manager s cabin. It was envisioned that the bunkhouse that was already used at that time to lodge crew members would be used as an infirmary/hospital. All crew and personnel members would be displaced and lodged within the same area, somewhat isolated from guests housing for more privacy. These cabins would be located in the vicinity of a bath house. A new parking area was called for at the entrance of the camp, northwest of Birch lake. Other improvements called for in the 1949 Master Plan have been implemented and are part of camp s facilities. These improvements include: Construction of laundry facilities, store and permanent personnel houses. Construction of a corporation yard. Construction of two additional 20,000-gallon tanks to supplement the initial two 20,000-gallon tanks to provide 80,000 gallons of potable water for all purposes (The estimated potable water need for a total guest count of 700 was estimated at 35,000 gallons. Note that today the potable water storage at the camp is 120,000 gallons). Construction of a new septic tank and disposal field to the southeast of the camp and an 8-inch sewer line. Installation of a new transformer. It is interesting to note that the key elements of the program outlined in the 1949 Master Plan are still relevant today, as will be apparent from the findings of the stakeholders consultation process discussed in the following section. From Michael Buck s Camp Mather Summary of Findings From the 1949 Master Plan 11

13 As mentioned earlier, a key aspect of this study was to undertake a consultation process with a series of stakeholders that have a interest in the future of Camp Mather. Interviewees were selected jointly by the SFPUC and SF Recreation & Park Department to represent a wide array of the public including camp neighbors, camp users and camp managers. Overall, a total of 28 interviews were conducted from March through June The interviewees can be organized in four stakeholders groups as shown below in Table 1: Table 1: Stakeholder Groups Consulted Stakeholders Group San Francisco Public Utilities Commission San Francisco Recreation & Park Department Camp Neighbors Camp Users Stakeholders Various staff Various staff US National Park Service US Forest Service Evergreen Lodge Strawberry Music Festival Camp Mather Horse Concession Friends of Camp Mather Regular campers First-time campers Senior Week campers The interviews sought to determine the respondents current perceptions of Camp Mather and their attitudes and opinions regarding the potential implementation of improvements at the camp. The ultimate objective was to gain a consensus in the development of a global vision for the camp. The interviews were conducted using the In-Depth Interview (IDI) technique. This investigative technique is based on a one-on -one or small group approach to information gathering that allows an open exchange of ideas. It should be noted that while the IDI approach seeks to develop insights and understanding of the people and issues involved, the findings are not considered scientific or statistically applicable to a larger population. Discussion guides were customized for each stakeholders group to elicit the respondents unique perspectives on the condition of the camp and a range of potential improvements. A summary of core findings are presented on the following pages Stakeholders Consultation Process

14 5.1 Core Findings Camp Perception Camp Mather is many things to many San Franciscans. It has provided generations of City residents and families with an opportunity to relax, connect and recreate in a beautiful mountain setting. Its historic and recreational value is unquestioned. Among all those interviewed, whether it was camp staff, campers or stakeholders, Camp Mather is almost universally considered to be a jewel in the crown of San Francisco s parks system. Preservation of Camp Mather s Rustic Character There is general agreement that any improvements to the camp facilities should maintain their rustic character, preserve historic features and be sensitive to the camp s traditions and users. In fact, a few camp users would rather see things stay exactly as they are rather than risk making changes that will alter the camp s character. Need for Camp Improvements Camp Mather is acknowledged by most as one of the City s treasures that has fallen into disrepair after years of deferred and inadequate maintenance and general neglect. This situation is a result of a number of factors, including the camp s distance from San Francisco, multi-agency involvement in its management, bureaucratic City policies and budgetary limitations, the relatively limited number of San Franciscans it serves, fear of change among camp regulars, and geographic and environmental challenges such as the mountainous terrain and climate. Nearly everyone interviewed agreed that Camp Mather is in dire need of repair, and that a systematic approach to replace and repair structures and utilities, and enhance health and safety and sanitary conditions, is a top priority. Capacity Expansion and Season Extension The prospect of expanding Camp Mather s capacity and extending the camping season to allow greater access to San Francisco residents, and increase revenues, elicited a variety of responses. Some see the camp as underutilized; others would like to see the spring and fall shoulder seasons available for conferences, retreats or other events. Some even envision the potential of a partial to full year-round facility. Expanding the camp s footprint to allow more capacity is an option some would like to see evaluated. Others, particularly some camp users, maintenance staff, and neighbors, see potential problems with an expanded capacity or extended season. Long-term Capital Planning Before any expansion ideas are pursued, it is clear that the camp s basic infrastructure the sewer, water and electrical systems must be evaluated and upgraded for enhanced reliability, health and safety. Repairs to the camp s cabins and dining hall were identified as a top priority. Many of those interviewed wanted to see a systematic approach to replacing aging structures on an incremental basis, rather than using a reactionary approach. An expanded outdoor dining area and improved kitchen facility was another item that emerged as a priority. A common theme throughout the interview process was the need for a long-range plan for Camp Mather s operations and maintenance. Management Structure The camp s organizational and management structure is considered by many to be a major obstacle to getting projects completed efficiently and effectively. Having to navigate multiple agencies and City policies (particularly as they relate to hiring outside trades people) is viewed as a costly barrier to successful seasonal maintenance programs or dealing with day-to-day maintenance issues that arise. The multiple agency structure also makes it difficult to identify the go to person for specific issues. This concern was echoed by camp staff, neighbors and even some camp users. 5. Stakeholders Consultation Process 13

15 Reservations Lastly, there are concerns about the lottery system and gaining access to the camp. Relatively few residents (less than 550 guests per week for 12 weeks in a City of 800,000) have ever been to the camp, or even know about it. In particular, it is recognized that low-income residents and minorities groups access to the camp could be enhanced. This represents a dilemma because the camp is full most of the time, so there has not been a need to market the camp. 5.2 Recommendations from Stakeholders Consultation Process The main recommendations from the stakeholders consultation process can be summarized as follows: Create and expound a Next Step vision for Camp Mather while establishing goals and a timetable for slated camp improvements. This should be communicated to all staff, operational partners, visitors and related Camp stakeholders, thereby setting a tone and focus, as to where the Camp is headed, helping all to see and support improvements that will likely take years to achieve. Develop a systematic and incremental approach for upgrading Camp Mather s utilities and facilities through the development of a long-term capital plan. Improve communication among the various agencies and neighboring entities, such as SF Recreation and Park, SFPUC, U.S. Forestry Service (USFS) and U.S. National Park Service (NPS) to encourage collaboration on common issues of concern such as jurisdictional matters within and around the camp. Some are already holding routine meetings with noted success. These successful processes should be replicated where they do not currently occur. In addition, establishing periodic meetings with the Evergreen Lodge and Strawberry Music Festival management would likely prove beneficial as well, especially if utilizing a designated contact who could gain and maintain familiarity with issues over time. Evaluate camp management structure and establish a clear chain-of-command to clarify decision-making responsibilities, promote continuity in policies and practices, and foster operational efficiencies Stakeholders Consultation Process

16 6.1 Camp Season Current Camp Season Camp Mather is typically operated from the last week of May through the first week of September, during twelve consecutive weeks. The operating season opens and closes with the two Strawberry Music Festivals that have been regularly organized for the past 29 years over the Memorial Day and Labor Day week-ends. Other programming activities include two senior Get-Away weeks at the beginning of June and the end of August, and a Teen Camp Mather Experience week, scheduled the last week of August. The nine other summer weeks, the camp is dedicated as a family camp. Before and after the twelve weeks of camp summer operations, and the two long week-ends reserved for the Strawberry Festival, approximately six weeks prior to the beginning of the season (starting early April) and four weeks after closure of the season (ending Mid-October) are dedicated to maintenance activities. These fringe weeks before and after the camp season are critical for proper camp maintenance, as maintenance is typically minimal from mid- October to early April due to unsuitable weather conditions. Typical annual operations of Camp Mather are illustrated in Figure 2. Figure 2: Typical Annual Operations at Camp Mather Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Off Season Off Season Camp Maintenance Strawberry Festival Senior Senior Gateway Gateway Family Camp Camp Maintenance Strawberry Festival Teen Camp Mather Experience 6. Camp Mather Operations and Facilities 15

17 6.1.2 Potential Changes to Camp Season The Civil Grand Jury for the City and County of San Francisco prepared a report titled Sharing Camp Mather, San Francisco Secret Jewel, With All San Franciscans that has addressed the utilization of Camp Mather. One recommendation from the Civil Grand Jury report was to study and improve the usage of the Camp Mather facilities and grounds. More specifically, the report findings argued that if the camping season can be extended and /or additional cabins and tent sites built, more San Francisco residents will be able to take advantage of its facilities. Extension of the camping season is a recurring theme that deserves thoughtful consideration. As mentioned, it could result in increased accessibility to the camp for guests that could not attend during the regular summer season. In addition, it would generate additional revenues by targeting new markets such as corporate retreats, conferences, private events, or school outings. However, enjoyment of the camp by guests during the fall and spring (and possibly during winter) is not conceivable without upgrading some of the cabins (with proper heating and insulation and possibly built-in bathrooms and kitchens), dining hall and bathrooms that would be dedicated for winter use. Extension of the camp season could be designed to accommodate a fraction of the total camp capacity during the spring and fall from April through mid-october. For example, initially about 24 cabins could be dedicated for the extended season (e.g. 14 cabins with a capacity of up to 6 guests and 10 cabins of 2 guests for a total of 25 cabins and up to 104 guests). Such an extended season could be tested during a couple of years to evaluate its success. After this two-year timeframe, if that scheme proves to be successful, the initial number of cabins targeted for use during the extended season could be increased. Otherwise, the extended season could be cancelled. In any case, a thoughtful evaluation to compare the costs of upgrading the cabins and employing staff versus the revenues generated by renting the cabins during the extended season should be completed prior to determining the total number of cabins that could be dedicated for use during Spring and Fall or whether this option should be pursued at all. It Figure 3: Potential Future Annual Operations at Camp Mather Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Winter Season Extended Season Extended Season Winter Season Private events, Retreats Strawberry Festival Senior Gateway Family Camp Senior Gateway Private events, Retreats Strawberry Festival Teen Camp Mather Experience or Other Camp Mather Operations and Facilities

18 should be noted that operations of the camp during these additional twelve weeks would impact the current operations and maintenance schedule. Under the extended fall and spring schedule, it is unlikely that crews could start working much earlier or complete their activities much later, as the weather conditions may prove too difficult. Therefore, it is likely that maintenance crews would have to operate around the guests during the additional weeks that the camp would be partially occupied. After the trial period for the extended season is over, and if there appears to be a strong demand and interest for an extended season, a year-round utilization of the camp could also be tested for a couple of seasons. Again, the benefits of running the camp year-round versus the operational costs of running the camp should be evaluated before further changes to the camp season are implemented. Potential changes to the seasonal operations of Camp Mather are illustrated on Figure 3. Note that in that figure, the first Senior Get-Away week is rescheduled to the last week of May. This change of schedule would allow families with children on vacation to start enjoying the camp the first week of June thereby maximizing the use of the camp. The Senior Get-Away week would occur one week earlier than it does now, therfore with no anticipated impacts to the senior community it serves. 6.2 Camp Capacity Current Camp Capacity Under Typical Operations Camp Mather consists of 95 cabins that can host from two to six guests and 20 tent sites that can host from four to six guests. When full, the camp can accommodate up to 538 people during a regular week. The details of the type and number of cabins are shown in Table Camp Capacity during Strawberry Festival The Strawberry Festival has typically been held for the past 29 years during the Memorial Day and Labor Day week-ends, which mark the beginning and end of the operations at the camp. During five consecutive days during each festival, Camp Mather accommodates on average 5,000 guests, more than ten Table 2: Number and Size of Cabins at Camp Mather Cabin Size Number of Cabins Number of Guests Total Cabin Sites Tent Site Total Tent Sites Total Notes: SF Recreation and Park Department Camp Mather Cabin and Tent Site Information ( times more than the camp accommodates on an average week. Guests during the festivals are lodged in cabins within the camp, recreational vehicles (RVs), or camp outside of the camp Potential Camp Capacity Expansion As mentioned earlier, expansion of the camp capacity has been discussed in multiple occurrences throughout the existence of the camp, whether it is in the 1949 Master Plan, the Civil Grand Jury report, or as part of the stakeholders consultation process undertaken under this study. The rationale behind the camp capacity expansion is two-fold: on one hand, the added capacity would enhance the camp accessibility to a larger audience; on the other hand, increasing the camp capacity would generate additional revenues. It is the reason why, in 1995, the camp capacity was increased by 100 through the addition of 20 tent sites (see Table 2). Recent estimates recommend an capacity increase of 150 to 200 guests, bringing the camp capacity from the current 538 to a maximum of 738 guests. A proper economic evaluation of the camp size increase needs to be conducted prior to committing to a larger camp. In particular, additional costs needed for the camp expansion need to be weighted against the potential revenues generated by the additional rentals. Also, the size and timing of the expansion needs to be 6. Camp Mather Operations and Facilities 17

19 carefully planned as significant costs need to be incurred in the short and medium term to maintain the existing structures at the camp, as is discussed in Section 7. In addition, expansion of the camp will be controversial; it will be critical to maintain the rustic feel of the camp and maximize the guests experience in a denser camp. Also, the type of additional lodging to be constructed (i.e. cabins versus tent cabins versus tent sites) should be considered as part of that evaluation. Lastly, careful placement of the additional sites shall be evaluated to maximize the guests experience while limiting the number of additional structures (i.e. bath houses) needed to accommodate the additional capacity at the camp. 6.3 Typical Water and Wastewater Flows The approximate water usage at the camp incurs large fluctuations throughout the year, as shown in Table 3. Winter demand is minimal at the camp and is used to supply the camp caretaker needs. In summer time, the average water use at the camp averages 23,300 gallons per day (gpd) (excluding irrigation, which accounts for an additional 8,300 gpd). Summer water use peaks at 57,200 gpd during the Strawberry Festival, almost 2.5 times more than the average summer demand. It should be noted that the treated water flow estimates are based on meter readings kept by the SF Recreation & Park Department. However, irrigation water use is estimated as there is no meter that tracks the current irrigation consumption currently. Similarly, wastewater flows are not metered; they are assumed to be 90 percent of potable water use under normal circumstances and 70 percent during the Strawberry Festivals. The reduced percentage during the Strawberry Festivals is attributed to the extensive use of portable toilets and RVs with offsite disposal at that time. Table 3: Typical Water Use at Camp Mather Water Usage Water Flow Rate (gpd) Wastewater Flow Rate (gpd) Wastewater Flow Rate Assumptions Average Summer Potable Demand (3 months) 23,300 21,000 Estimated at 90% of water use Average Irrigation Demand 1 (Summer) 8,300 NA Winter Average (8 months) Estimated at 90% of water use Average Annual 7,900 Average Spring Strawberry Festival Week 45,300 31,700 Estimated at 70% of water use Average Fall Strawberry Festival Week 52,600 36,800 Estimated at 70% of water use Peak Daily Strawberry Festival Flow 57,200 40,000 Estimated at 70% of water use Notes: 1. SF Recreation and Park Depatment Estimates for 2008 and Camp Mather Operations and Facilities

20 6.4 Water System Raw Water Source and Conveyance Camp Mather s primary potable water is Cottonwood Creek. Water in the creek is retained by a permanent dam. Raw (untreated) water from the creek is first conveyed by gravity to a 3,000 gallon, steel-bolted holding tank adjacent to the dam. This holding tank serves as the primary sedimentation basin in the system, allowing the larger suspended solids to settle out before raw water is conveyed to the camp. The raw water pipeline from the initial holding tank to the camp is a 2.6-mile long, 2-inch and 3-inch diameter, galvanized steel pipeline. This pipeline is installed above grade and is exposed for most of its alignment. This exposure subjects the pipeline to freezing in the winter if not drained. Two-inch drains are located along the alignment to facilitate dewatering. Camp maintenance staff have indicated that the raw water pipeline is generally in good condition, though its exposed installation leaves it subject to occasional damage. There is also a secondary diversion on Cottonwood Creek, located downstream of the main diversion point. At that location, the water in the creek is retained at Scoggins Dam and conveyed to the water treatment plant for treatment prior to distribution to the camp. This secondary diversion is used rarely and only when the Cottonwood Creek has run dry at the primary diversion location. A groundwater well, located at the Camp Mather water treatment plant, serves as an alternative water supply for the camp during the winter. This well has an installed pumping capacity of 8 gallons per minute, suitable for use during winter but not sufficient to be used as a year-round water supply. When used, the well water is pumped to one of the storage tanks at the treatment plant and is subsequently distributed to the camp. Camp maintenance personnel have indicated that the groundwater well is currently not operable due to a failure of either the controls or pumping equipment. Above-grade raw water pipeline (2-inch diameter) with drain port. 6. Camp Mather Operations and Facilities 19

21 Cottonwood Creek Raw Water Supply Primary 3 Figure 4: Camp Mather Water Treatment Process Backwash Supply Tanks (32,000 gallons) Secondary (Scoggins Dam) (Winter Bypass) Chlorine Contact Tanks (60,000 gallons) Treated Water Storage Tanks (120,000 gallons) Raw Water Overflow 50 Raw Water Storage 42 Backwash Storage Filter Building Footprint Sand Filter Multimedia Filter Chlorine Analyzer 50 M Steel Tank Wooden Tank Tank Capacity (x 1000 gal) Water Meter Pump Normal Flow Path Polymer Feed Static Mixer Backwash Disposal Pump Backwash Pumps (2) Turbidity Meter M Chlorine Feed Ball Field Irrigation (by gravity) Irrigation Water Storage Tanks (90,000 gallons) Groundwater Well (Winter Use Only) M Filter Backwash Flow Path Winter Flow Path Turf Lake Irrigation Pump Station Camp Water Usage Camp Mather Operations and Facilities

22 6.4.2 Water Treatment Water treatment occurs at the Camp Mather water treatment plant, located approximately 4,000 feet from the main camp area. The schematic of the treatment process is presented in Figure 4. Holding Tank Prior to entering the treatment process, raw water first enters a 20,000-gallon holding tank that serves two purposes: breaking hydraulic head and solids settlement. By virtue of the tank s elevation below the source water intake, water always flows through the tanks overflow pipeline and is conveyed to a nearby stream. The elevation of the overflow at the top of the tank therefore corresponds to the normal high water level in the tank. This holding tank thereby serves to break the hydraulic head provided by the source water elevation. The holding tank also serves to provide additional settling of suspended solids prior to treatment, though maintenance staff have indicated that the amount of settled material is modest relative to the initial holding tank at the water source. This tank is a steel-bolted tank with a wooden roof support structure. Recently, the roof structure collapsed under snow loads, forcing an emergency repair. The tank was repaired using the original construction details (wood trusses) and has functioned well since. Maintenance staff have indicated that the roof structure failed after 25 years of service and that this is likely an indicator of the service life of the wood roof structures under typical conditions. Treatment Plant Building Water is conveyed directly from the holding tank to the treatment plant building for filtration. The treatment building itself is a simple wood structure constructed atop a concrete slab. The wood stud walls are sheathed with exterior grade plywood that also serves as the building siding. The walls are uninsultated and the stud cavities are exposed on the building interior. The building slab does not have a drain, and leaks or spills within the station building will pool and eventually flow toward the perimeter of the building where flows can directly contact the unprotected base of the wood walls. The base of the walls show evidence of direct contact with water on the interior. On the exterior, the plywood sheathing also shows signs of degradation due to contact with snow in winter months; the plywood is unpainted and unprotected from contact with snow. At the top of the walls, wood trusses support a plywood roof deck and an asphalt shingle roofing system. The wood trusses appear to be in good condition. Raw water holding tank upstream of treatment facility. The raw water tank overflow discharges water anytime the tank is in operation. Foreground: The treatment plant building exterior exhibits signs of water/snow damage. Background: The backwash holding tank. 6. Camp Mather Operations and Facilities 21

23 Raw Water Filters The filters housed within the treatment plant building are vertical pressure vessels configured in series. Both filter vessels are identical in construction but contain different filtration media. Raw water is dosed with polymer before entering the first filter vessel, which is filled with sand media. Effluent from the first filter then flows directly to the second filter for multi-media filtration through a combination of anthracite and sand. Turbidity is monitored downstream of the second filter. Raw water filters and associated piping. Foreground: Static mixer for polymer, upstream of filtration. Background: The Makeshift gang planks for access to top of filters is not ideal. The backwash storage tanks are banded wood structures exhibiting signs of ongoing repair and leakage. Access to the interior of the tanks is provided via manways at the top of the tanks. This presents some difficulty for operators when access to the top of the tanks is required, as the top of the tanks and manways extend nearly to the bottom of the roof trusses. To accommodate access, operators have installed a series of wooden gang planks (boards) across the trusses, a configuration which requires operators to crawl along the planks for maintenance activities. It would be preferable to replace these gang planks with catwalks (typically galvanized steel with handrails). However, the existing building size and structure affords no space for installation of catwalks. Filter Backwash The raw water filters are backwashed using filter effluent stored in two wooden tanks. These tanks are the first two of seven tanks that are located across the access road from the building. There are two backwash tanks: one tank with a 12,000-gallon capacity and one tank with a 20,000 gallon capacity. The first of these tanks is dedicated solely to backwash, while the second also serves as the first chlorine contact tank for disinfection of treated water. Both tanks are constructed of banded wooden slats, supported by concrete pier foundations, and have undergone significant repairs over time, as evidenced by steel-bolted patches on the tank exterior. However, both tanks currently leak to a significant degree; a constant stream of water is present beneath the base of the tanks. Water from the backwash tanks is pumped back through the filters, as required, based on filter head loss (an indicator of filter clogging). Operators have indicated that the current backwash configuration and procedure is challenging, time intensive, and not efficient. First, backwashes must typically be completed every other day due to relatively high turbidity in the source water. Two backwash pumps are located adjacent to the filters, both of which are required for Camp Mather Operations and Facilities

24 backwashing (there is no standby pump). The existing piping configuration within the treatment plant building does not permit a single filter to be isolated for backwash. This configuration requires that backwashing occur in series through the tank. Because the second, multi-media filter may become significantly clogged, there is is often insufficient head to efficiently and fully backwash the first filter when backwashing in series. Operators would prefer to be able to isolate individual filters to permit more efficient backwash. Operators have also indicated that the filtration would be more efficient if the first filter were converted to a multi-media filter to match the second filter. Backwash water exits the filters and is conveyed to a 20,000 gallon steel-bolted backwash holding tank adjacent to the building. Backwash water is pumped from this holding tank, over time to a nearby spray field for disposal. The spray field pump is located in the treatment building. Operators have indicated that this water is a potential source of irrigation water for Camp Mather, though a dedicated pipeline would be required for conveyance to the irrigation system. Disinfection Disinfection is accomplished via the introduction of sodium hypochlorite solution (HCS) following filtration. The HCS and chemical metering equipment are housed in a shed adjacent to the backwash tanks. Three wooden tank serve as chlorine contact vessels to provide chlorine contact time for treated water. As discussed previously, the first of these tanks also serves as a backwash water supply tank. The chlorine contact tanks are each 20,000-gallon capacity banded wood tanks. All tanks have undergone significant repairs over time, as evidenced by bolted steel patches on the tank exterior, however, both currently leak to a significant degree; a constant stream of water is present beneath the base of the tanks. The tanks are connected in series to provide contact time, and chlorine residual is monitored in a downstream treated water storage tank. The two end-suction backwash pumps are both required for filter backwash. Interior of the disinfection shed. Sodium hydrochlorite storage tank is on the left. No containment curb is apparent. Treated Water Storage Treated water is stored in tanks at the treatment plant site. A total of 120,000 gallons of water is stored in three tanks. Note that the final chlorine contact tank is also a treated water storage tank. Foreground: Wooden chlorine contact tanks. Background: Steel treated water storage tanks. 6. Camp Mather Operations and Facilities 23

25 6.4.3 Treated Water Distribution General Overview Treated water is conveyed to the camp proper via a 4-inch diameter distribution main from the treated water storage tanks at the treatment plant site. The distribution system is illustrated in Figures 5 and 6. Generally, the distribution system consists of 2-inch and 4-inch diameter mains connecting to various facilities throughout the camp with water usage being metered at a single location. Facilities connected to the water system include staff housing, bathhouses, the dining hall, special service cabins (e.g. the nurse station), the swimming pool and irrigation systems. All pipelines are understood to be galvanized steel and pipeline alignments, as shown in Figures 5 and 6, are approximate. The layout of camp roadways and building locations have changed over time, and the exact location of water pipeline is difficult to confirm using available design drawings and data. System Hydraulics and Water Usage A preliminary spreadsheet model was developed by RMC to quantify the hydraulic capacity of the camp water distribution system. It is important to note that this modeling effort has relied upon a number of significant assumptions relative to the layout of the water distribution system (see above), and, more critically, with respect to the water usage for both irrigation and domestic demands (cooking, bathing, etc.). Key assumptions are discussed below; all assumptions are included in Appendix C. Water demand data was provided by the SF Recreation and Park Department, as summarized in Table 3. However, these numbers are largely unconfirmed against actual usage. As previously discussed, there is a significant amount of treated water that is lost to leakage at the storage and treatment tanks of the water treatment plant which cannot be accounted for when assessing true water demands. Also, the amount of total water usage that is used for irrigation at the camp cannot be directly confirmed, as irrigation usage is not metered and two of the three irrigation tanks also leak to a significant degree. For purposes of this evaluation, the estimates provided by the SF Recreation and Park Department were used directly to assess typical usage at the camp. To complete the preliminary modeling, RMC developed peaking factors, applied on top of the typical water usage provided, to estimate water demands during maximum day, peak hour and festival time periods. These water use scenarios represent the periods at which the hydraulic capacity of the system is most stressed. The modeled scenarios, peak water usage, and assumed peaking factors are summarized in Table 4. To be conservative, it was assumed that irrigation demands are constant over an 8-hour window that coincides with peak hour usage. The hydraulic profile presented in Figure 7 summarizes the results of modeling under these scenarios. Table 4: Modeled Scenarios and Water Usage Scenarios Peaking Factor Total Peak Water Usage (gpm ) Static NA 0 Average Summer Day 1: Irrigation 22 Summer Maximum Day, Peak Hour Festival, Max Day Peak Hour 1: Irrigation 2: maximum day 2: peak hour 1: Irrigation 2: maximum day 2: peak hour Camp Mather Operations and Facilities

26 P:\ SFPUC Water CS-971.A\B. Task Orders\TO-14 Camp Mather Visioning Process\B. Project Work\Task5- Condition Assessment\GIS_Basemap\Camp_Mather_Water Main Camp Birch Lake Irrigation Pump Station Potable Water Treatment and Storage Tanks Forest Rte 1S32 Figure 5: Camp Mather Water System <Double-click to enter text> 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 Feet Hetch Hetchy Rd Scoggins Dam Irrigation Storage Tanks Water Supply Line OHLN Elec To Camp Mather Legend Water Supply Pipeline Irrigation Pipeline Structure Well Water Pump OHLN W H=11.5' W H=12' W H=12' W H= GS D=25' H=14' GS D=25' H=15' Water Source Bachwash Water Tank Water Treatment Bldg W H=9' Upper Pretreatment Tank 4" Galvanized Pipe GS D=25' H=14' Chlorine Gas Shed Propane Tank Paved Road Gravel and Dirt Road Source: RMC Water & Environment, SF Public Utilites Commission, ESRI 6. Camp Mather Operations and Facilities 25

27 P:\ SFPUC Water CS-971.A\B. Task Orders\TO-14 Camp Mather Visioning Process\B. Project Work\Task5- Condition Assessment\GIS_ Basemap\Camp_Mather_Water_Main_Camp Mather Rd Evergreen Rd Birch Lake Figure 6: Camp Mather Water System (Main <Double-click Camp Area) to enter text> ,200 Feet Source: RMC Water & Environment, SF Public Utilites Commission, ESRI Hetch Hetchy Rd Legend Water Irrigation Structure To Filtration Plant and Storage Tanks Paved Road Gravel and Dirt Road Camp Mather Operations and Facilities

28 Figure 7: Hydraulic Profile of Camp Mather Water Supply Hydraulic Grade Line (HGL), ft 4685 ft 4650 ft 4600 ft 4550 ft 4490 ft Treated Water Storage Water Surface Elevation 4,692 ft Static Hydraulic Grade Line = 85 psi Approximate Ground Elevation Tank Static Summer Average Day Summer Max Day Peak Hour Strawberry Festival Max Day Peak Hour Camp 4,692 ft (69 psi) 4,689 ft (68 psi) 4,678 ft (63 psi) 4,636 ft (45 psi) 4,529 ft 0 Approximate Distance from Treated Water Storage, ft 4,200 ft Camp staff report that water pressure, a measure of the system s capacity, is not an issue at the camp even during peak usage, suggesting that the distribution system has the capacity to meet current needs. The static head available from the treated water storage tanks is estimated to be 69 psi at the camp (actual pressure will vary with elevation). Average day usage will reduce this to 68 psi with head loss, and the peak hour of the maximum day still provides 63 psi camp pressure. Both of these pressures are sufficient for typical domestic water use and indicate no issues meeting typical demands. Festival usage results in the greatest stress to the system. Under the modeled assumptions, pressure in the camp may drop to 45 psi during maximum festival day and peak hour events. While significantly lower than typical pressures, these pressures are still sufficient for typical cooking and bathing activities. These pressures may be low for direct irrigation (irrigation fed directly off of the potable main) depending on the design of the irrigation system; however, the Birch Lake irrigation system is hydraulically isolated from the potable system via storage tanks and is equipped with its own booster pump station. Fire Suppression Fire hydrants are located throughout Camp Mather and typically consist of a 2-inch diameter water pipe riser and a manual valve with hose connection. Most hydrant locations also have a 2-inch diameter fire hose (length may vary). Camp staff have indicated that fire suppression systems are not routinely tested. Static pressure from the storage tanks at the treatment plant is well above required pressures, as discussed above. As much as 85 psi may be available under normal conditions, however, this static pressure will quickly 6. Camp Mather Operations and Facilities 27

29 be depleted under fire flow conditions when a hydrant is opened. Due to the relatively small diameter of the distribution system pipelines, fire flows available at camp hydrants will be limited. Assuming a minimum fire flow pressure requirement of 20 psi at a flowing hydrant, available flow may be as little as 50 to 100 gallons per minute based on preliminary analyses conducted for this report. This flow rate may be sufficient to extinguish single cabin fires if the response occurs before fire grow out of control, but this flow rate will provide limited protection from larger fires or fires occurring at more than one location. Irrigation Irrigation at Camp Mather is limited to two primary locations: the ball field and the lawn area at Birch Lake. The ball field is fed directly off of the potable water main serving the camp. The Birch Lake irrigation area, however, draws water from three irrigation tanks located at higher elevations in the camp. These tanks are fed via a branch from the potable water main and water flow to the irrigation system may be isolated using a manual valve but is not separately metered to determine the volume of water used for irrigation. Two of the tanks are banded wood structures on concrete pier foundations and exhibit significant leaking despite signs of repair over many years. The third tank is a newer bolted steel tank. A typical fire hydrant and hose station. Left: Wooden irrigation tank. Right: Newer steel irrigation tank. Water is piped (diameter unknown), from the irrigation tank to a pump station located adjacent to Birch Lake. The pump station is a wood structure and houses various electrical panels and a single irrigation pump in addition to serving as storage for camp supplies and equipment. The irrigation pump show signs of significant deterioration and seal leakage and is likely due for an overhaul or replacement. The center area of this building contains an open wet well that has been covered with planks and plywood, which may represent a safety hazard for camp staff. The lake irrigation system was not evaluated as part of this study, however, camp staff has indicated that it may not be designed for efficient operation: too few sprinker heads may be too installed, requiring higher service pressures from the pump station to irrigate the lawn area. Staff have suggested that head from the irrigation tanks may be sufficient to irrigate the lawn without pumping (using just the head from the tank) if the irrigation system were redesigned for better efficiency. The lake irrigation pump station: the existing irrigation pump is in need of repair or replacement Camp Mather Operations and Facilities

30 6.5 Wastewater System It should be noted that the information presented in the following section, in addition to discussions with camp staff and review of drawings, is largely informed by the Camp Mather Report of Waste Discharge For Permitting and Improvements to Wastewater Collection, Treatment and Disposal, prepared by Kennedy Jenks in June Overview Camp Mather utilizes an onsite wastewater collection, treatment and disposal system. The wastewater collected throughout the site is discharged into one of two pump stations which pumps flow to the main septic tank for treatment. Treated wastewater is then dosed periodically to leach fields located west of the camp for disposal. During the winter, there is a small septic tank and leach field near the dining hall that is used to collect and dispose wastewater flows from the caretaker s house. Figure 8 shows the process flow diagram for the wastewater collection and disposal system Collection System The wastewater collection system consists of one force main, three primary gravity pipelines and two pump stations, as shown on Figure 8 and Figure 9. The Pump Station A Sewer Force Main is a 4-inch diameter cast iron pipeline that connects Pump Station A to Manhole 8 (M8). Flow travels by gravity from M8 through the main camp section. The Main Camp Sewer consists of a 6-inch and 8-inch diameter vitrified clay collection pipeline. The pipe begins as a 6-inch diameter pipe at Manhole 1 (M1) at the south portion of the camp to Manhole 8 (M8), and continues as an 8-inch diameter pipe from M8 to M19 (the inlet of the septic tank), and further to M21 (at the exit of the septic tanks). The pipe then connects to the beginning of the Leach Field Line. Portions of the Main Camp Sewer near Birch Lake have been replaced with HDPE pipe. The Paul Spring Sewer is an 8-inch diameter cast iron collection pipeline that begins close to the Caretaker s residence and runs to Pump Station A behind the dining hall. In winter, this pipeline is connected to a small 1,000 gallon septic tank. This section includes twelve cleanouts for access rather than manholes; cleanouts are numbered C1 through C Camp Mather Operations and Facilities 29

31 Figure 8: Camp Mather Wastewater Process Auxiliary Septic Tank Bath House A Bath House B Bath House C Dining Hall (Winter use only) Leach Field Grease Trap Caretaker Residence 6 Paul Spring Line 1.0 Pump Station A 300 GPM) 4 Force Main 6 Sewer Main 4 Sewer Main Restroom D 8 Sewer Main 4 Force Main Pump Station B Lakeside 200 GPM) Bath House Main Septic Tanks 6 Gravity Sewer Monitoring Port Leach Field 1 (Active) Leach Field 2 (Inactive) Leach Field 3 (Inactive) Leach Field 4 (Inactive) Bath Houses E, F 4 Leach Field 5 (Active) Diversion Boxes Camp Mather Operations and Facilities

32 Leach Field (winter use only) Hetch Hetchy Rd P:\ SFPUC Water CS-971.A\B. Task Orders\TO-14 Camp Mather Visioning Process\B. Project Work\Task5- Condition Assessment\GIS_ Basemap\Camp_Mather_Sewer Mather Rd Septic Tank (summer use)!! L6 L5 Leach Field 5 Figure 7: Camp Mather Sewer System <Double-click to enter text> ,000 1,500 Feet Source: RMC Water & Environment, SF Public Utilites Commission, ESRI! L4!! L2 L3! L1! 19 Leach Field 1 Figure 9: Camp Mather Sewer System Pump Station A Septic Tank (winter use only)! 14 Evergreen Rd! 13!12 Birch Lake! 11 Legend!! 9! 10 Sewer Structure! 8! 1!!7 6! 5! 4!3! 2 Manhole Number Bath House Pump Station Paved Road Gravel and Dirt Road 6. Camp Mather Operations and Facilities 31

33 The Leach Field Sewer, numbered L1 to L6, which receives the camp s septic tanks effluent, is a 6-inch diameter vitrified clay pipe extending from the two septic tanks to the leach field distribution boxes. Pump Station A is located in back of the dining hall and discharges through the 4-inch diameter sewer force main to the 8-inch Main Camp Sewer. Wastewater from the dining hall passes through a 1,000 gallon grease trap and then a 1,500 gallon auxiliary septic tank before discharging to Pump Station A. There is a single 7 ½ hp 1750 RPM Yeomans vertical, nonclog, wet pit pump within the pumphouse. This pump has a capacity of approximately 300 gpm, and provides a peak flow capacity of more than twelve times the average daily flow. The pump appears to be in good condition. The pump sump was cleaned and sealed in July 2009 and has no apparent odor issues. The Bath House Pump Station is located by the swimming pool and is adjacent to the Lakeside Bath House. The station has a submersible pump located in a concrete vault next to the building. The pump discharges through a 4-inch diameter cast iron force main into the Main Camp Sewer between M10 and M11 and has a capacity of approximately 200 gpm. There is a 4-inch diameter pipe vent from the pump sump through the roof. All of the equipment appears in good condition and no difficulties or odors were reported by camp maintenance staff. Pump Station A pump Treatment and Disposal Septic Tanks As shown Figure 8, the camps existing camp septic tank is a duplex, dual chamber, mostly exposed, concrete structure with siphon discharges to the leach fields. Each septic tank is divided by an interior baffle and each chamber is 10 feet long, 4 feet wide, and 6 ½ feet deep with a capacity of 4,300 gallons. The total septic tank capacity is 17,200 gallons. Dual dosing siphons at the ends of each side of the septic tanks have a capacity of 600 gallons each, for a total of 1,200 gallons, resulting in a total septic tank and siphon chamber capacity of 18,400 gallons. Peak wastewater flow during the festival season is 40,000 gallons per day, which equates to a septic tank detention time of approximately 11 hours. This detention time falls within the typical septic tank design range of 6 to 24 hours of peak daily flow capacity. Because the camp currently removes sewage in the tanks annually, much more frequently than Camp Mather Operations and Facilities

34 typical operation (3-year intervals), and the festival season only occurs several days in a year, it is implied that the septic tanks are sized adequately for the current operation. During a site visit by Kennedy Jenks in July 2009, it was observed that the septic tanks were in a relatively good condition with minor deterioration of less than ½-inch concrete loss near the top manhole sides and roof interior. The observed low deterioration is most likely due to hydrogen sulfide attack on concrete and steel. Leach fields Leach Fields There are five leach fields that receive septic tank effluent. They are located in relatively shallow, gravelly loam soils that exist between rocky outcrops of the mountainous terrain, to the west of the camp. Wastewater percolates through drain rock trenches into the soil mantle where it is then further treated by bacteria and other microorganisms before passing as soil water above the bedrock. The only two leach fields that are currently being used are the newer fields, Leach Fields 1 and 5. Plans indicate that Leach Fields 1 and 2 may have originally been constructed to serve Camp Mather and were of serial or serpentine construction. They were most likely constructed of 4-inch-diameter and 12 or 18-inch-long vitrified clay tile pipe, placed end to end with a space of about ¼-inch between ends, with the top half covered by tar impregnated roofing paper. The trenches were likely 3 ½ feet deep and 18-inch wide, with an effective infiltration surface area of the bottom trench side walls of 5 1/2 square feet per linear foot (excluding the top 18-inch of the side walls). The review of original drawings indicates that Leach Fields 3 and 4 were constructed in 1955, and have a total of 3,000 linear feet between them. Leach Fields 2,3 and 4 are currently considered inactive, as they are overgrown with mature trees thereby impeding their proper functioning. Leach Field 1 was replaced in 1973 by a parallel distributed field of 4-inch, perforated Orangeburg asphalt impregnated fiber pipe. It was built with a total of approximately 950 feet of trench that are 5 feet deep and 2 feet wide with 3 ½ feet of drain rock beneath the pipe. This corresponds to an effective infiltration surface area of the trench side walls of 9 square feet per linear foot (excluding the top 18 inches of the trench side walls). It is likely that Leach Field 1 will have to be replaced within the next ten years or so, as it currently exceeds average life expectancy. 6. Camp Mather Operations and Facilities 33

35 The newer 1,500-foot Leach Field 5 was constructed in 1988 of 4-inch diameter, perforated PVC pipe in two-foot wide trenches with 2 ½ feet of rock beneath the pipe in parallel pipes of varying lengths connected to distribution boxes. Camp staff have indicated that while Leach Field 2 may also be used and will accept some water, usually without overflow at the distribution box, both Leach Fields 3 and 4 will not accept much effluent water or overflow at their respective distribution boxes when water is directed to them. It was reported that the leach fields have been used in this way for approximately the last 20 years. An analysis of the capacity at each leach field was performed by Kennedy Jenks in June The short-term and long-term capacity of the leach fields were estimated to be 1.7 gpd/sf and 0.6 gpd/sf, respectively, based on estimated absorption rates. Because Camp Mather leach fields are not operated as a standard leach field system and have a significant annual rest period to restore capacity, it is assumed that the leach fields experience a higher absorption rate than typical during the summer and that the shortterm capacity is more representative of what is actually seen at the camp. Table 5 summarizes the current conditions at each leach field. Leach Fields Table 5: Leach Field Estimated Capacity Operating Current Infiltration Surface (SF) Long Term Capacity (GPD) Short Term Capacity (GPD) 1 Yes 8,433 5,066 14,336 2 Standby 7,073 4,630 13,117 3 No 8,635 5,652 16,014 4 No 7,865 4,148 14,586 5 Yes 14,987 8,980 25,444 Total 23,420 14,046 39,780 Notes: 1. From Kennedy Jenks Camp Mather Report of Waste Discharge For Permitting and Improvements to Wastewater Collection, Treatment and Disposal. June Totals are calculated assuming only Leach Fields 1 and 5 are in operation. 6.6 Electrical Power Distribution System Electric power is provided by the SFPUC Hetch Hetchy Water and Power (HHWP) from primary 12kV overhead lines routed along Mather Road. HHWP manages and maintains the overhead power distribution for up to approximately 21 pole-mounted and 2 pad-mounted utility transformers located throughout the camp. Power is typically routed overhead from these transformers to individual facilities using trees to support the lines, as illustrated in Figure 10. Electrical equipment and wiring for each of the camp s facilities is a compilation of original materials installed in the 1920s mixed with various upgrades performed since Original wiring is outdated, not codecompliant, beyond of its useful life, and should be replaced. The assessment of the electric power distribution system is based on available drawings and the field investigations of the following facilities/ subsystems: Site Power Distribution System Water Treatment Facility/Storage Tanks Sewage Pumphouse (Lift Station) Jack Springs Dining Hall Bathhouses B, C, E, and Lakeside Main Office Laundry B & C Restroom D Pool Pumphouse Irrigation Pumphouse Cabin Camp Mather Operations and Facilities

36 Hetch Hetchy Rd Visioning and Preliminary Facilities Assessment for Camp Mather P:\ SFPUC Water CS-971.A\B. Task Orders\TO-14 Camp Mather Visioning Process\B. Project Work\Task5- Condition Assessment\GIS_ Basemap\Camp_Mather_Power Mather Rd Figure 9: Camp Mather Electrical Power System <Double-click to enter text> ,000 1,500 Feet Source: RMC Water & Environment, SF Public Utilites Commission, ESRI Evergreen Rd Birch Lake Figure 10: Camp Mather Electrical Power System Legend Utility Transformer Power (1952) Power (surveyed) Structure Paved Road Gravel and Dirt Road 6. Camp Mather Operations and Facilities 35

37 6.6.1 Site Power Distribution System Site power distribution to the individual structures is routed overhead. These overhead lines are undesirable on many counts: The web of overhead lines branching out from hub locations detracts from the camp aesthetics. The lines are expensive to maintain, with seasoned replacement of power lines due to downed trees and branches being typical. The downed lines are a safety hazard, with some overhead lines no more than 8 feet above finished grade. Therefore, it would be desirable to relocate these overhead lines to underground service from the utility transformers to individual buildings Water Treatment Facility Power for the water treatment plant is fed overhead beginning at a pole-mounted utility transformer, proceeding to a 200-amp pole-mounted disconnect, and then continuing underground to a 240/120-volt local panelboard located in the water treatment building. The panel and distribution are relatively new and are adequate for the facility. Overhead lighting is comprised of strip fluorescents and is adequate. Two other overhead power feeds are tapped off the pole-mounted transformer: The first feed serves a decommissioned 2-hp well pump located in a pump shed near the water tanks protected by a 60-amp pole-mounted disconnect; The second feed comes from a single-phase local panelboard in the nearby hypochlorite metering shed. The panelboard ground to the adjacent water pipe is not properly secured. Lighting in the shed is comprised of switched incandescent and is not functional. In addition, the water treatment facility does not have any standby power capabilities such that, during a power outage, potable water is not available(with the exception of treated water in the chlorine contact tanks and storage water tanks). Overhead lines near main office Overhead lines to Pump Station A Other Camp Buildings Pump Stration A Building. Power is fed overhead from a nearby ground-mounted transformer bank to a 100-amp disconnect and panelboard located in the lift station building. At its low point, the overhead power line is only 7 feet above finished grade and poses a safety hazard. The weatherhead on the pumphouse roof is partially detached and Camp Mather Operations and Facilities

38 Dining hall main fuse panel should be reinstalled or replaced altogether. Power distribution within the building, along with T-8 fluorescent lighting is adequate. There is no standby power for this facility such that no pumping can occur during power outage. Dining Hall. Three-phase power is fed overhead from a transformer bank located behind the dining hall to a 400-amp disconnect which serves the main fuse panel, both of which are located in the facility basement. The disconnect and fuse panel appear to be original facility equipment. The fuse panel is subjected to significant steam condensation from an indirect drain located on the adjacent wall and, as a result, shows signs of rust. The condensation penetrates into the interior of the fuse panel; however, the condition of the panel interior was not assessed. Dining hall lighting is both T-8 fluorescent and incandescent and is adequate. Bath House B. Power is fed overhead to a local panel B1 (150-amp) which subfeeds panels B2 (100-amp) and B3 (100-amp). The power distribution equipment appears relatively new. Some receptacles in the bathroom are GFCI (ground-fault circuit interrupter). One of the GFCI receptacle s test button did not open the circuit and requires replacement. Non- GFCI receptacles should be removed or replaced with GFCI receptacles to meet National Electrical Code requirements. The is T-8 fluorescent lighting is adequate. Bath House C. Power is fed overhead to a local 100-amp panel with a 30-amp main circuit breaker. The power distribution equipment appears relatively new. Exterior receptacles are either GFCI or fed by a GFCI breaker. Non-GFCI receptacles are present near the sinks and should be demolished or replaced with GFCI receptacles. Lighting is generally T-8 fluorescent and is adequate. Bath House E. Power is fed overhead to a 225-amp local panelboard with a tap upstream of the panelboard feeding a 175-amp water heater disconnect. Exterior receptacles are comprised on GFCI circuits (in local panelboard). The restrooms contain both GFCI receptacles and non-gfci receptacles. One GFCI receptacle failed to open the circuit on depressing the test button and should be replaced. Non-GFCI receptacles should be demolished or replaced. Lighting is generally T-8 fluorescent and is adequate. Bath House Pump Stations. Bathhouse power is fed overhead to a local 125-amp panel (125-amp main breaker). In addition to bathhouse facilities, the local panel subfeeds the adjacent bathhouse pump station (lift station). Some interior receptacles in the bathhouse are GFCI. Non-GFCI receptacles should be removed or replaced with GFCI receptacles to meet NEC requirements. Lighting is generally T-8 fluorescents and is adequate. 6. Camp Mather Operations and Facilities 37

39 Main Office. Power is fed overhead to a local 150-amp panel (main lugs only). This panel feeds both the office building as well as nearby exterior area lighting. Interior raceways and receptacles are comprised of surface-mounted EMT conduit. The T-8 fluorescent lighting is adequate. Laundry B. Power is fed overhead to a utility meter upstream of a local 100-amp panel (100-amp main circuit breaker), with branch circuits for the separate washers and dryers. Receptacles are a combination of surface- and flush-mounted non-gfci receptacles. The washing machines are located in a water-containment trough recessed into the floor. For life safety considerations, replacement of these receptacles with GFCI receptacles is recommended. Lighting is a combination of switched incandescent fixtures and T-8 fluorescents. For energy efficiency, replacement of the incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescents is recommended. Laundry C. Power is fed overhead to a utility meter upstream of a local 100-amp, singlephase panel (100-amp main circuit breaker). Receptacles are a combination of surfaceand flash-mounted non-gfci receptacles. The washing machines are located in a watercontainment trough recessed into the floor. For life safety considerations, replacement of these receptacles with GFCI receptacles is recommended. Restroom D. Power is fed overhead to a local 100-amp panel. The power distribution equipment appears less than 15 years old and is adequate. Restroom receptacles are GFCI, however, one of the GFCI receptacles failed to open when depressing the test switch and should be replaced. The is T-8 fluorescent lighting and is adequate. Pool Pump House. Power is fed from a pole-mounted transformer to a main, 400-amp, 3-phase disconnect which subfeeds a 200-amp heater disconnect, a 100-amp disconnect (feeding a 45kVA single-phase transformer and 100-amp panelboard), and a 400-amp, 480-volt, 3-phase panelboard. The distribution equipment is of recent vintage and is adequate. Lighting is comprised of switched T-8 fluorescent fixtures. Irrigation Pump House. Power is fed from an adjacent pole-mounted utility transformer to a 480-volt, 125-amp, 3-phase fused disconnect which subfeeds a single-phase lighting transformer and a 20-hp irrigation pump. Power distribution is of a recent vintage and is adequate. Exterior receptacles are non-gfci and require replacement with GFCI receptacles for code compliance. The T-8 fluorescent lighting is adequate. Laundry B Camp Mather Operations and Facilities

40 Cabins. Cabin 35 was the only cabin investigated, however, due to the similarly of the cabins age and conditions, similar improvements as those identified for Cabin 35 are anticipated for the other camp cabins as camp staff have reported that in the last 2 years, electrical circuits and receptacles were replaced in only four cabins. Interior cabin receptacles are required by the National Electrical Code (NEC) to be protected by arcfault circuit interrupters (NEC ). Additionally, exterior receptacles on cabins are required by NEC to have found fault circuit interrupter protection. Future cabin upgrades should conform to these requirements. Overhead lines in proximity of Bathhouse C 6.7 Structures/Buildings As shown in Table 2, the camp consists of 95 cabin sites and 20 tent sites that are rented to guests. In addition to these cabin and tent sites, there are multiple buildings that provide support functions to the camp guests. These support cabins include bath houses, laundry, staff dormitories such as the bunk house, the Lower and Upper Shang buildings, management and personnel cabins such as the Commissioner s cabin, the Manager s cabin, the Caretaker s cabin, the Plumber s cabin and the Trucker s cabin. Other support structures include the dining hall, the nurses cabin, the first aid station, the arts and crafts building, the general store, the main office, and the stage. Lastly, there are storage cabins for various equipment, including buildings that house the pump stations and the water treatment building. Overall, there are approximately 50 support structures at the camp, and a total of 145 structures including guest cabins. The layout of the cabins and other camp structures is shown on Figure 11. Most of the these cabins were constructed in 1920 and are 90-year old, but, a few newer cabins were constructed in 1953 (ten cabins that host a total of 120 guests). All of the cabins constructed in 1920 were repaired and upgraded in some form in 1953, at the same time the ten new cabins were added. More recently, a couple of prefabricated cabins were constructed in 2001 (cabins 60 and 61). As the life cycle of the cabins is estimated to average 77 years, all of the cabins built in 1920 are past their useful life. Only the most recent cabins built in 1953 and 2001 are not past their typical operational life time. The cabins are rudimentary and typically consist of a raised wood floor on concrete piers and wood posts. The exteriors consist of painted wood and wood shingle roofing while the interiors have painted walls and ceilings. There is no mechanical cooling or heating in 6. Camp Mather Operations and Facilities 39

41 the cabins, nor typically, plumbing. The electrical system consists of one or two interior lights. More recently, electrical outlets have been installed in anticipation of electric heating. Finally, all cabins are equipped with a household smoke detector. Examples of repair and maintenance activities that have been conducted over the past two years include replacement of electrical circuits and outlets in four cabins (cabins 30, 31, 32 and 33). Other cabins have had their roof removed and replaced (cabins 10, 12, 13 and 14), while others have had their lead paint removed (cabins 100 through 105)and exterior painted. Others had their deck, stairs or window replaced (cabins 15, 37, 42, 88, 89 and Shang buildings) 1. In addition, Bath House A has been remodeled for ADA compliance. New fixtures, wall panels, dividers and electrical system have been installed and lead and asbestos abatement was conducted on walls and ceilings. Finally, a new lifeguard shed was constructed by Birch lake, and two new buildings were constructed to house the Lakeside Pump Station and swimming pool chemicals. As a result of deferred maintenance for the past 50 years, all of the cabins require significant repairs and upgrades, whether it is to the foundations, to the building shell, the interior, roofing, floor or electrical system. Whether these cabins are fully replaced or repaired will require thoughtful consideration by the SF Recreation and Park Department and will be based on several considerations including available funding. This decision process can be future aided by use of a properly thought-out prioritization program for cabin maintenance. The decision to replace or repair the cabins versus repairing them will have to be evaluated in the context of the potential season extension and camp capacity expansion, as discussed in Section 6.1 and 6.2, respectively. Additional information on the identified costs of the repair and replacement of the camp cabins and structures is provided in Section 7.3. Typical Camp Mather guest cabins 1. Communications with Jared P. Dunn dated August 15, 2011 (See Appendix B for additional details) Camp Mather Operations and Facilities

42 P:\ SFPUC Water CS-971.A\B. Task Orders\TO-14 Camp Mather Visioning Process\B. Project Work\Task5- Condition Assessment\GIS_ Basemap\Camp_Mathe r Main_Area_Zoomed Mather Rd Mather Rd Jack Springs Dining Hall Bath House A Figure 10: 11: Camp Mather Structures Layout ,000!(!(!(!( Evergreen Rd Source: RMC Water & Environment, SF Public Utilites Commission, ESRI!( Feet!( Birch Lake Bath House B Office!( Bath House C Hetch Hetchy Rd!( Laundry Lakeside Bath House Legend Bath House E!( Cabins with Water Connection!( Gravel and Dirt Road!( Bath House F Structure Paved Road 6. Camp Mather Operations and Facilities 41

43 6.8 Site Features In addition to the water, sewer and power facilities, and structures described earlier, a wide array of site features are located within the camp. Most of these features are recreational amenities and include a swimming pool, two tennis courts, basketball field, softball field, horse corral, the Birch Lake lawn area, a playground structure, and bike and pedestrian paths. Other features within the camp include natural resources such as trees and sensitive areas within the camp. Additional features may be less noticeable to guests but are necessary for proper site operations; such as access roads and parking areas, a waste disposal system and recycling center. Most recreational features were built in the 1950s, have suffered a lack of maintenance similar to that of the other camp facilities, and are due for repair or replacement. Paved roads, parking areas, and pedestrian and bike paths date back to the 1980 s. Safety is a key values guests recognize in Camp Mather, but in order to maintain optimized safety, it would be beneficial to improve traffic signaling throughout the camp as well as a establish a parking plan for guests (especially critical during the Strawberry Festivals). Better signage throughout the camp would be a benefit, as SF Recreation and Park Department signs are few in number and could be increased. An additional information kiosk could also supplement the existing activities kiosk located by the dining hall. Finally, additional efforts should be made to identify and preserve the camp s sensitive areas, clear hazardous trees around the cabins and create a fire protection break around the camp. Camp activities kiosk Camp playground slide Camp Mather Operations and Facilities

44 Three preliminary alternatives were developed to inform the needed improvements identified as part of this study; they include the following: Alternative 1. Improvements needed under the current camp configuration Alternative 2. Additional improvements needed for the season extension (i.e. winterization) Alternative 3. Additional improvements needed for the camp expansion The assumptions used in the development of the cost estimates for each improvement are discussed in Section 7.1. The prioritization process for the water, sewer and power improvements is presented in Section 7.2. Finally, details on the alternatives developed are presented in Section 7.3. It should be noted that multiple assumptions were made in the development of the three alternatives presented herein. If the SF Recreation and Park Department foresees changes to the camp season and/or capacity, the types of improvements presented in the following section would need reevaluation. As mentioned earlier, findings from the present study are based on multiple sources of information including visual assessments of Camp Mather facilities conducted over two field trips, interviews of camp and SFPUC staff, and review of existing reports and drawings (in particular, sewer system recommendations were largely informed by the Kennedy Jenks report prepared in June 2010). No visual assessment of the cabins or other camp structures was conducted as part of this study and structural and site improvements presented herein are based solely on the COMET Facility Report. In addition to the three alternatives addressed presently, a wish list of improvements was compiled from the stakeholders consultation process and is presented in Table 11. Many wish list items have been touched upon as part of this study. The wish list is provided for reference only and no cost estimates have been developed for items that are not already identified as improvements under Alternatives 1, 2 or 3. However, the wish list should be carefully reviewed by the SF Recreation and Park Department before embarking on its long-term planning program as suggested in Section Approach for Assigning Project Costs Water, Sewer and Power Utilities Each of the improvement projects identified and described in this report addresses a need or concern expressed to RMC and/or included in previous evaluations of the camp facilities, as described above. As a basis for understanding potential project costs, RMC has assigned a preliminary construction cost to each project. These construction costs are based on limited available information and RMC s understanding of the magnitude and scope of each project, each of which may vary significantly from actual conditions. Documentation for many camp facilities is outdated and/or incomplete, and RMC s efforts to quantify the potential construction costs are based on significant assumptions that have not been confirmed through direct measurement or a detailed review of site conditions. As such, the costs assigned to each project should only be considered preliminary and not be used for project selection. Project details must be confirmed and refined through additional analysis to determine true project costs. The assigned project costs include multiple contingencies as described below: Estimating contingency at 35 percent of raw construction cost Implementation cost at 13 percent of construction cost (including estimating contingency) Contractor overhead, profit and mobilization estimated at 20 percent of construction cost (including estimating contingency and implementation cost) Construction contingency estimated at 20 percent of construction cost (including contractor overhead, profit and mobilization) Construction management estimated at 20 percent of construction cost (including construction contingency) Summary of cost estimates associated with utilities improvements for Alternative 1, 2 and 3 are provided in Tables 7, 9, and 10, respectively. 7. Preliminary Assessment of Camp Mather Utilities and Structures 43

45 7.1.2 Structures and Site Improvements The existing COMET report prepared in 2006 for the SF Recreation and Park Department has been used to determine the costs of both repair and replacement of camp structures (including cabins and support buildings) and site improvements. Costs developed as part of the COMET Facility Report are based on extensive review of SF Recreation and Park Department data and visual assessment of Camp Mather facilities. Due to the high level of detail of costs of the COMET Facility Report, no further analysis of the camp structures was conducted as part of this study. 7.2 Approach for Prioritizing Utilities Improvements Water, Sewer and Power Utilities Prioritization of the water, sewer and power improvements is based on the scoring of each identified improvement. Each utility improvement was scored against a set of five criteria relevant to Camp Mather. The ratings of each improvement against the five criteria were combined into a final score assigned to each improvement. The results of this preliminary analysis provides a quantitative assessment of how proposed improvements will best meet the set criteria and thus address the most urgent needs at Camp Mather. Using this approach, the highest ranked projects are those that best address the identified criteria. The criteria, their definition, relative weight and scoring rationale are presented on Table 6. Detailed rankings of the recommended water, sewer and power improvements associated with Alternative 1 are provided in Table 7. As described in Section 7.1.2, potential construction costs are preliminary and have not been used as a basis for project prioritization Structures and Site Improvements As mentioned above, scoring and prioritization were not conducted for structural and/or site improvements. However, it should be noted that the Table 6: Priority Criteria For Alternative 1 Water, Sewer and Power Improvements Criteria Definition Relative weighting Scoring Health and Safety 1. Addresses public and worker health and safety issues 5 1 No impact (Neutral) 2 Minimal benefits 3 Some benefits 4 Significant benefits Reliability 1. Addresses reliable and uninterrupted water and electrical power supply and wastewater disposal in response to aging infrastructure 4 Same as u u Implementability 1. Fits within the implementation timing of other projects(i.e. sequencing) 2. Addresses regulatory compliance Operational Efficiency 1. Addresses operational efficiency of water/power/sewer systems 3 Same as u Natural Resources 1. Assures protection and management of local and natural resources 3 Same as u Preliminary Assessment of Camp Mather Utilities and Structures 3 1 No compliance or timing issue 2 Minimal compliance or timing issue 3 Some compliance or timing issue 4 Significant compliance or timing issue

46 COMET report has its own set of ranking criteria including five ranking categories as shown on the following page: Ranking 1. Critical (immediate improvement needed) Ranking 2. Trending Critical (12-month timeframe) Ranking 3. Necessary (2-5 year timeframe) Ranking 4. Recommended (3-10 year timeframe) Ranking 5. Grandfathered (not applicable to Camp Mather) The current COMET ranking report shows that, of the overall improvements needed at the camp, only 2 percent are estimated to be critical while the large majority (98 percent) are ranked as a 3 (necessary within the next 2 to 5 years). This ranking should be reviewed and updated in order to better reflect the priority of camp structure and site improvements and appropriately identify total and annual expenditures needed to improve the camp structures and site features over the next 10 years. 7.3 Alternatives Evaluation Alternative 1. Improvements needed under current configuration It is assumed that under the current configuration, the water treatment capacity will be sufficient provided that the additional storage capacity described on the following pages is provided at the water treatment plant site. Water distribution system capacity is also considered to be sufficient, setting aside fire flow improvements that would be beneficial to improve fire flows. The preliminary hydraulic profile presented in Figure 7 generally indicates that available water pressures in the camp are appropriate even during the Strawberry Festivals. Overall, the sewer system capacity is adequate but it is recommended to replace any sewer piping that is beyond its typical life cycle in age, replace three leach fields that are currently inactive, as well as perform improvements to the pump houses and septic tanks. Generally, the existing HHWP primary power distribution system has sufficient ampacity to support the existing camp capacity. However, undegrounding of power distribution lines is recommended for safety and modifications to the structures electrical systems are needed for NEC compliance. Improvements needed under Alternative 1 are classified by type (i.e. water, sewer, power, and structures and site improvements) and are summarized on the following pages. Proposed water and wastewater system improvements are illustrated on Figure 12 and Figure 13, respectively. The estimated cost of Alternative 1 water, sewer and power improvements is estimated at $6.02 million. The cost of repair and replacement of both structures and site improvements are estimated at $11.35 million and $24.67 million, respectively. Overall, the costs of Alternative 1 range from $17.37 million to $30.69 million, based on whether the camp structures are repaired or replaced. Water System Improvements 1.1 Pipe connection between backwash tank and irrigation tanks. Backwash water is currently conveyed to spray field nears the water treatment plant site, but this water represents a valuable resource worthy of consideration at the camp because of its contribution to conservation of potable water. The project would require construction of approximately 2,500 feet of 4-inch diameter buried galvanized steel piping from the backwash tank to the irrigation tanks. A backflow preventer would be required to protect the potable system from contamination by irrigation water. Note that the potable water connection would still be required to make up additional irrigation water demands. 1.2 Modify backwash piping to allow isolation of individual filters. Backwashing individual tanks would be more effective and efficient than backwashing in series. Piping modifications within the building are required as well as additional manual isolation valves. 1.3 Modify filter sand media to multi-media (first filter). The first filter is currently configured with sand media. Based on the operator s experience with raw water turbidity, multi-media filtration (anthracite and sand) would be more efficient. This project includes removal and disposal of existing sand media and replacement with new media. 1.4 Add spare pump for backwash. Both of the existing backwash pumps 7. Preliminary Assessment of Camp Mather Utilities and Structures 45

47 are required for backwash of the raw water filters. If a pump fails, operation of the treatment plant would be threatened. There is no space for a new pump installation at this location. This improvement involves a spare pump and motor to be stored on a shelf, available to quick replace failing parts when needed. 1.5 Treatment plant building modifications. Repair building exterior and perform preventative maintenance. This project would not address existing filter access issues but would replace damaged exterior sheathing/siding and provide protective coating (paint) for all exposed surfaces against ongoing exposure to the weather. The project would also add a drain to the building to route spills and leaks away from the wood structure. Alternatively, the building could be replaced with a larger structure for improved access to filter and other equipment. The total square footage would be increased by 50% and building height increased by a minimum of 6 feet to allow for construction of catwalks for tank access. The new building would need to be designed for access and winter snow loading. 1.6 Replace existing wooden backwash tanks with steel tanks (2). The existing backwash tanks (2) are banded wooden structures with significant leaks. An unknown amount of filtered water is lost to leakage and could be saved with tank replacement. Camp Mather staff have defaulted to bolted steel tanks for new tank installation. The two existing 12,000- and 20,000-gallon tanks should be replaced with new 12,000- and 30,000-gallon tank for additional capacity. This project would include demolition and removal of the existing tanks. 1.7 Replace existing wooden chlorine contact tanks with steel tanks (2). The existing chlorine contact tanks are banded wooden structures with significant leaks. An unknown amount of filtered and disinfected water is lost to leakage and could be saved with tank replacement. Two new 30,000-gallon tanks would be installed to replace the existing 20,000-gallon tanks. This project would include demolition and removal of the existing tanks. 1.8 Replace existing treated water tanks with steel tanks (2). Two of the existing treated water storage tanks are banded wooden structures with significant leaks. An unknown amount of filtered and disinfected water is lost to leakage and could be saved with tank replacement. Two new 50,000 gallon tanks would be installed, an increase of 80,000 gallons over the current storage capacity. This additional storage provides increased reliability during treatment plant outages and is considered critical by plant operators. This project would include demolition and removal of existing tanks. 1.9 Replace existing wood irrigation tanks with steel tanks (2). Two of the existing irrigation tanks (2) are banded wooden structures with significant leaks. An unknown amount of filtered water is lost to leakage and could be saved with tank replacement. Two 20,000-gallon wooden tanks would be replaced with bolted steel tanks of equal size. This project would include demolition and removal of existing tanks Protect existing raw water pipeline. Add support to existing 2-inch and 3-inch diameter raw water pipeline. This project assumes that the existing raw water pipeline (13,800 feet) would remain in place as is (predominantly above grade). The existing configuration is vulnerable to damage and requires the pipeline to be drained in the winter to avoid freezing. The pipeline is not fully supported along its alignment, increasing the chances of damage. This project includes an assessment of the pipeline alignment for vulnerable areas and an allowance for limited placement of pipe supports (wooden or concrete) without the use of large construction equipment. Alternatively, the existing 2-inch and 3-inch diameter raw water pipeline could be replaced along the entire 13,800-foot long alignment with a buried pipeline following the same alignment Construct improved roadway to water treatment plant. The existing access road is dirt and unimproved. Access during wet weather is difficult and access during the winter is not possible by vehicle. This project would install an all-weather accessible roadway (aggregate base) for improved access. The roadway would not be suitable for Preliminary Assessment of Camp Mather Utilities and Structures

48 deep winter snow as it may not be possible to plow it effectively Repair or replace existing well pump and controls. The existing groundwater well is not functional. This project would replace or repair the failed components Provide roof over propane tank. The existing propane tank is not used in the winter but is exposed to winter snows. A support structure already exists around the tank and a simple corrugated metal roof designed to meet show loads could be added to protect the tank from snow exposure Improve chemical containment shed. The existing shed does not have a chemical containment curb. Without such a curb, chemical spills could leak from the building and create hazardous conditions in the surrounding environment. Typically, 110% of stored volume is provided in covered containment areas, and a simple 12-inch concrete curb with water stops would be poured within the existing walls to provide such containment Upsize water distribution piping for fire flow. The existing water distribution pipelines are insufficiently sized for providing significant fire flow. Existing 2-inch and 4-inch diameter pipelines would be replaced with 6-inch diameter pipelines, at a minimum, to provide additional fire water supply capacity. Approximately 8,300 feet of buried pipeline would be replaced Repair or replace Birch Lake irrigation pump station. The existing irrigation pump is in poor condition and in need of repair or replacement. The pump would be sized in accordance with the new irrigation system design resulting from Project Modify pump station access/remove hazards at Birch Lake irrigation pump station. An opening in the center of the pump station building is haphazardly protected by wood planks and plywood. This project would install grating and metal support for improved safety Install meter for irrigation water usage upstream of irrigation tanks. The camps potable water usage and irrigation water usage are currently not metered independently. As such, operators do not know how much treated water is supplied for each use and cannot accurately determine where inefficiencies or leaks may occur in the system. This project would install a meter at the existing split between the camp potable supply and irrigation supply pipelines Evaluate roof structures of existing steel tanks (1 irrigation tank + 4 water treatment plant storage tanks). The raw water holding tank roof structure failed after 25 years of service. Other tanks should be evaluated to determine the remaining life of the roof structures. This project includes a one day evaluation and simple report Spot inspect water distribution pipeline condition throughout camp. Operators have indicated that galvanized steel piping has performed well in the camp, with few repairs needed on an annual basis. However, portions of the distribution system have been in service for nearly 100 years and should be assessed to determine their remaining useful life. Under this project, the existing water pipes would be exposed at four locations for visual inspection and corrosion testing. Results would be summarized in a report and recommendations would be made to ensure the reliability of the water distribution system in the future Evaluate efficiency of lake irrigation system. Camp staff believe that the irrigation pump station could be reduced in size or eliminated if the lake irrigation system were redesigned for better efficiency (too few spray heads are now in use, requiring higher operating pressures). This project would evaluate the design and operation of the existing system and determine if potential improvements are needed Perform engineering survey of the camp above-ground structures. This survey would be used to develop a base map with accurate location of above structures and infrastructure. Note that this survey would not include topography Perform fire flow testing of fire hose stations. The testing would consist of verifying fire flows and pressures at all fire hose stations to determine potential deficiencies of the fire protection system. 7. Preliminary Assessment of Camp Mather Utilities and Structures 47

49 Figure 12: Recommended Modifications to Water System Raw Water Supply Primary 3 Raw Water Supply Piping Supports Backwash Supply Tanks (42,000 gallons) Secondary (Scoggins Dam) (Winter Bypass) Chlorine Contact Tanks (60,000 gallons) Treated Water Storage Tanks (200,000 gallons) 50 Raw Water Storage 42 Backwash Storage Filter Building Footprint Back-up Power M Steel Tank Tank Capacity (x 1000 gal) Water Meter Pump Normal Flow Path Filter Backwash Flow Path Winter Flow Path Back Flow Prevention Device Polymer Feed Static Mixer Multimedia Filter Multimedia Filter Backwash Pumps (2) Turbidity Meter M PH, Temperature Controls Modification to existing Filter Building g Chlorine Feed Ball Field Irrigation Irrigation Water Storage Tanks (90,000 gallons) 20 Turf 20 Replace/Repair Irrigation PS at Birchlake 50 Chlorine Analyzer M Install new groundwater pump and controls Groundwater (Winter Use Only) M Camp Water Usage Preliminary Assessment of Camp Mather Utilities and Structures

50 Sewer System Improvements 1.24 Spot inspect 4-inch diameter force main from Pump Station A to Manhole 8. The integrity of this pipe has not been determined or reported in the Kennedy Jenks report and requires evaluation. Under this project, the existing 4-inch diameter sewer main would be exposed at two locations for visual inspection and corrosion testing Replace approximately 3,000 feet of the existing main camp sewer with new 6-inch and 8-inch diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) sewer pipe. This project would improve the reliability of the collection system as the main camp sewer is an aging pipeline with root intrusion and settlement issues Replace the existing 6-inch diameter vitrified clay leach field sewer and distribution boxes with new 6-inch diameter PVC sewer pipe. Each leach field includes pipe segments that vary in length from 100 to 160 feet and serve a distribution box, resulting in a total length of approximately 630 feet for the five pipe segments. This project would improve the reliability of the distribution pipe to the leach fields, as this existing pipe section is impaired with roots and offset joints Recoat the interior of the concrete septic tanks (used in summer) and siphon chamber s roof, ports and side walls, with an epoxy or polyurethane corrosion resistant liner. This project would recoat approximately 1,700 square feet of surface in order to provide corrosion deterioration and seepage protection Replace leach fields 2, 3 and 4 with a total of 4,300 feet of 6-inch diameter PVC perforated pipe in drain rock. This project would lay perforated pipe in a trench 3-feet wide and 3-feet deep, below one foot of ground cover to provide a minimum of two feet above bedrock. In addition to the 4,300 feet of 6-inch diameter PVC perforated pipe, approximately 50 leach field inspection ports should be installed at the end of each trench. Replacement of leach fields 2, 3, and 4 would increase the infiltration surface from approximately 23,400 square feet to 46,800 square feet. This increase would create a total short term treatment capacity of 83,500 gallons per day when all five leach fields are in operation Provide three ground water monitoring wells. This project would place one monitoring well above gradient from the septic tanks and two wells located below down gradient from the leach fields. This project would monitor leach field activity and potential leakage of the septic tanks Clear, grub and remove all mature trees from the leach fields to prevent and minimize root blockage. This project would ensure proper functioning of the leach fields and maximize their treatment and disposal capacity Implement improvements at Pump Station A. Because Pump Station A is a main pump station for the camp, it is recommended to install a new standby 7 ½ hp, 300 gpm 60 - foot pumping head submersible pump and motor control, with connecting piping and valves in the pump station A building. An automatic level control system would be added to actuate the standby pump upon duty pumping failure. Other improvements at the pump station would include sealing the wet well lid penetrations and installing a granular activated carbon odor scrubber at the sump vent to provide odor control around the dining hall Implement improvements at the Bath House Pump Station. Because the Bath House Pump Station is not as critical as Pump Station A, it is recommended that a spare 5 hp, 200 gpm 30 - foot pumping head submersible pump be provided on the shelf for quick replacement. Other improvements include adding a floor slab or an equivalent measure, to reduce run-off into the structure, and installing a granular activated carbon odor scrubber at the sump vent to provide odor control to the areas nearby. 7. Preliminary Assessment of Camp Mather Utilities and Structures 49

51 Figure 13: Recommended Modifications to Sewer System Auxiliary Septic Tank Bath House A Bath House B Bath House C Dining Hall (Winter use only) Leach Field Grease Trap Caretaker Residence 6 Paul Spring Line 1.0 Pump Station A 300 GPM) 4 Force Main 6 Sewer Main 4 Sewer Main Restroom D 8 Sewer Main 4 Force Main Pump Station B Lakeside 200 GPM) Bath House Main Septic Tanks 6 Gravity Sewer Monitoring Port Leach Field 1 (Active) Leach Field 2 (Inactive) Leach Field 3 (Inactive) Leach Field 4 (Inactive) Bath Houses E, F 4 Leach Field 5 (Active) Diversion Boxes Preliminary Assessment of Camp Mather Utilities and Structures

52 1.33 Construct improved and maintainable roadways to the leach fields. The existing access road is dirt and unimproved. Access during wet weather is difficult and vehicular access during winter is not possible by vehicle. This project proposes to build a wet weather accessible roadway (aggregate base) for improved access. Electrical System Improvements 1.34 Relocate overhead site power distribution lines to underground service from the 21 utility transformers to individual buildings. This project would address health and safety issues posed from lowlying distribution lines throughout the camp Add a standby generator system with an automatic transfer switch at the primary substation. This standby generator would provide back-up power, facility-wide, in the event of a power outage. Alternatively, a couple of standby generators could be installed at the water treatment plant and the dining. This project would improve power supply reliability camp-wise. Other electrical improvements identified as part of the field visit are related to individual structures and buildings. In particular, electrical deficiencies were observed in Bath Houses B, C, E, Lakeside Bath House, Restroom D, Laundry B and C, and the irrigation pump station building. At these locations, it is recommended that all non-gfci interior receptacles be replaced with GFCI receptacles to meet the National Electric Code (NEC) requirements and that non-gfci receptacles be demolished. Also, failed GFCI receptacles and/or test buttons shall be replaced when failed (at Bath House B and Restroom D). Lastly, exterior non-gfci receptacles shall also be replaced with codecomplaint GFCI receptacles (irrigation pump house). It is also recommended to replace the incandescent lighting with compact fluorescents for energy efficiency at Laundry B. At the dining hall, the power distribution equipment should be replaced and the indirect drain should be relocated further from any electrical equipment at the dining hall. Finally, all interior cabin receptacles should be upgraded and new exterior receptacles should be installed on the cabins where they have not already been installed. Interior cabin receptacles need to be protected by arc-fault circuit interrupters for compliance with the NEC (per NEC ). Similarly, exterior receptacles on cabins are also required (per NEC 210.8) to have found fault-circuit interrupter protection. Costs associated with the electrical deficiencies at the camp cabins and support structures are assumed to be included in the costs associated with camp structures that are presented in Table 8. Therefore, in order to avoid double - counting, no additional costs have been developed for electrical improvements. Structures and Site Improvements The summary of cost estimates associated with structures and site improvements is provided in Table 8. Repair and replacement costs shown in Table 8 are taken from the COMET Report and adjusted to 2011 dollars. COMET cost estimates are detailed and include multiple components to address the building exterior, interior, foundation, roof, as well as electrical wiring, power service, and plumbing when available (most of the cabins do COMET Report not have plumbing). The COMET report also includes cost-estimates associated with site features including recreational amenities (e.g. paved courts, play structure), irrigation systems, signage and lighting. Not included in Table 8 is the cost to perform a thorough evaluation of the dining hall. This evaluation should include a structural analyzes of the dining hall and deck area and consider the expansion of the deck area. The evaluation should also include an assessment by a kitchen design consultant for the potential dining hall upgrade, expansion and redesign for year-round use. Items that require special consideration include: the replacement of refrigeration units with new, consolidated equipment; installation of new 7. Preliminary Assessment of Camp Mather Utilities and Structures 51

53 walk-in refrigerators and freezers; abatement of asbestos boiler tanks; replacement of deteriorated building siding; and the reconfiguration of the drain piping to contain steam and humidity in the dining hall basement. Furthermore, the addition of a second serving line, a new beverage bar and dessert and fruit station should be considered given the potential for camp expansion. Construction of an expanded deck with retractable awnings for increased sitting capacity during bad weather conditions and new bathrooms in the vicinity of the dining hall should also be considered as part of the dining hall evaluation. Concerns about the dining hall structural integrity and functionality make that evaluation a high priority item Alternative 2. Additional improvements needed for the season extension (i.e. winterization) Winterization of a selected number of cabins would be required to accommodate guests in winter. As mentioned earlier, an economic evaluation would be needed to determine the number, size and location of cabins that would be winterized. For the purpose of this study, it was assumed that (14) 6-people cabins and (10) 2-people cabins would be winterized along with the dining hall, one bath house and the main office. The assumed location of cabins to be winterized under Alternative 2 and the assumed location of the additional facilities needed under camp expansion (Alternative 3) are shown on Figure 14. Winterization of Camp Mather would require significant modifications to the camp s water supply and support structures. Currently, winter water is provided via an 8-gallon per minute groundwater well located at the water treatment plant site. This flow rate is sufficient to meet limited winter staff needs but unable to support higher occupancy under proposed winter operation. For winter time guest occupancy, additional groundwater pumping capacity and reliability are required. In addition, the existing maintenance roads would need to be improved to allow access to water and sewer facilities at all times, and the exposed water pipelines would need to be winterized against freezing. The existing HHWP primary power distribution system has sufficient ampacity to support winterization, but modifications to the building power distribution system equipment (panelboards and branch circuiting) at each of the structures are needed. The additional estimated cost to implement Alternative 2 would be $1.18 million, as shown on Table 9. Water Improvements 2.1 Provide winter access to the treatment plant site. The roadway to the treatment plant site is unimproved and not accessible during high snow season. A paved plowable road, like those in the center of camp, would provide necessary access. This project would install an asphalt concrete (AC) roadway over an aggregate base subgrade so that the treatment plant site could be accessed year round. 2.2 Evaluate groundwater aquifer capacity for winter pumping. The existing groundwater well has a limited pumping capacity, and the hydrologic capacity of the screened well is not known. Pumping tests could be performed to determine the ability of the well to provide sustained higher flowrates throughout the winter. 2.3 Install a new, higher capacity groundwater well. Summer time treatment capacity at the treatment plant is approximately 85 gpm. Winter capacity, assuming a reduced guest capacity, would be less. Assuming that the groundwater well has sufficient hydrologic capacity, a minimum 50-gpm well should be installed. Spare equipment would be needed in the event of equipment failure. 2.4 Winterize all exposed piping throughout the camp. Exposed (not buried) piping to be left in service for winter operation must be properly protected against freezing. Ideally, winter lodging would be consolidated to discreet areas of the camp, allowing for isolation of specific pipelines to be kept in service Preliminary Assessment of Camp Mather Utilities and Structures

54 P:\ SFPUC Water CS-971.A\B. Task Orders\TO-14 Camp Mather Visioning Process\B. Project Work\Task5- Condition Assessment\GIS_ Basemap\Camp_Mathe r Main_Area_Zoomed Mather Rd Mather Rd Assumed Area for Potential Winterization of Cabins Figure 14 13: Assumed Location of Cabins to be Winterized and Camp Expansion Areas ,000!(!(!(!( Evergreen Rd Source: RMC Water & Environment, SF Public Utilites Commission, ESRI!( Feet!( Birch Lake!( Hetch Hetchy Rd Assumed Location of New Bathhouse!( Assumed Area for Potential Expansion Legend 7. Preliminary Assessment of Camp Mather Utilities and Structures!(!( Cabins with Water Connection Gravel and Dirt Road Assumed Location of New Bathhouse!( Assumed Area for Potential Expansion Structure Paved Road 53