Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. R2026-20 RESOLUTION NO. R2026-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIENDSWOOD, TEXAS, ADOPTING THE FRIENDSWOOD WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ********************************************************************************* WHEREAS, the City of Friendswood initiated the Wastewater Master Plan (the "Plan") to develop a comprehensive, data-driven framework for evaluating the City's wastewater collection system and identifying infrastructure improvements needed to support future growth, improve system reliability, and maintain regulatory compliance; and WHEREAS, the Plan included the development of an updated city-wide hydraulic model, wastewater flow monitoring,assessment of existing infrastructure,evaluation of inflow and infiltration ("I&I"), lift station optimization, and preparation of a long-term Capital Improvement Plan ("CIP"); and WHEREAS,the updated wastewater flow monitoring represents the first city-wide monitoring effort since the 2016 Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Study and provides valuable information to measure the impact of previous I&I reduction projects while identifying additional opportunities for system improvements; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Friendswood desires to adopt the Plan, including its methodology, key findings, recommended capital improvement projects, system capacity evaluation, and implementation strategy;NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIENDSWOOD,STATE OF TEXAS: Section 1. That the facts and matters set forth in the preamble of this resolution are hereby found to be true and correct. Section 2. That the City Council of the City of Friendswood hereby adopts the Friendswood Wastewater Master Plan,which is attached hereto as Exhibit"A"and incorporated herein for all intents and purposes. Section 3. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon its passage and approval. INTRODUCED,READ,AND PASSED by the affirmative vote of the City Council of the City of Friendswood on this the 3rd day of August, 2026. KE F P ' EMAN Mayor ATTEST: ; tkLfMaii1 O� RIEIV�S RAQU L A TINEZ, City Seer- U '`5 >r.•`:; 0 K: * * APPROVED AS TO FORM: (S/>, co -9T�OF ; .- KAREN L. HORNER, City Attorney H:1City Council\Resolutions\2026108-03-2026\Resolution-Adopt the Fricndswood Wastewater Master Plan docx Private LS jr FM-61 b I LS912 MG MUD 55 L5 LS FF I FM-04 LSO 3 FM-03 304",— Lg* it FM-05 FM -Of, PriVaIC LS IN FM-12 LS9 �W 0- pm-i3 FM-10 LS # i0 HC MUD 55 Ls FM -id FrA-07 -08 FM-11 LS * 27 FM-09 FM-1 4S N 15 LS 0 29 4 #34 Private LS FM.17 )5 LS 916 LSV 32 LS A 33 • LS07 RO-01 LS 1it 24 FOX 17 FM-18 LS#38 LS N 30 PREPARED BY: Freese and Nichols, Inc. 11200 Broadway St., Suite 2320 Pearland, Texas 77584 832-456-4700 z NFREESE MI III 0< N I C H 0 LS M,C'rM1A1A'rM0 AAA C'rCD In PREPARED FOR: City of Friendswood DRAFT 2026 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN Prepared for: City of Friendswood DRAFT THIS DOCUMENT IS RELEASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERIM REVIEW UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF ISHITA RAHMAN, P.E., TEXAS NO. 134745 ON 722/2026. IT IS NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION, BIDDING OR PERMIT PURPOSES. FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. TEXAS REGISTERED ENGINEERING FIRM F- 2144 DRAFT THIS DOCUMENT IS RELEASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERIM REVIEW UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF BAILEY KELLER, P.E., TEXAS NO. 149628 ON 7/22/2026. IT IS NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION, BIDDING OR PERMIT PURPOSES. FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. TEXAS REGISTERED ENGINEERING FIRM F- 2144 Prepared by: FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. 11200 Broadway Street, Suite 2320 Pearland, Texas 77584 832-456-4700 FNI Project No.: FSW24674 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan r--FREESE 11 �WICHOLS City of Friendswood TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................... ES-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Scope of Work.....................................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 List of Abbreviations........................................................................................................................1-2 1.3 Wastewater Master Plan Study Area.........................................................................................1-2 2.0 EXISTING WASTEWATER SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE .............................................. 2-1 2.1 Wastewater Treatment...................................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Gravity Lines.......................................................................................................................................2-1 2.3 Lift Stations and Force Mains.......................................................................................................2-3 3.0 WASTEWATER SYSTEM FIELD DATA COLLECTION.................................................... 3-1 3.1 Lift Station and Manhole Survey.................................................................................................3-1 3.2 Wastewater Flow Monitoring.......................................................................................................3-4 3.2.1 Flow Meter Locations.............................................................................................................3-4 3.2.2 Flow Meter and Rain Gauge Data Collection.................................................................3-8 3.2.3 Flow Monitoring Data Analysis..........................................................................................3-8 3.2.4 Infiltration and Inflow Results......................................................................................... 3-13 4.0 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS..................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Historical Population.......................................................................................................................4-1 4.2 Projected Future Development....................................................................................................4-1 5.0 WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS............................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Historical Wastewater Flows........................................................................................................5-1 5.2 Wastewater Planning Criteria......................................................................................................5-3 5.3 Projected Wastewater Flows........................................................................................................5-5 6.0 LIFT STATION RISK -BASED ASSESSMENT AND CONSOLIDATION ......................... 6-1 6.1 Lift Station Risk -Based Assessment...........................................................................................6-1 6.1.1 Condition Assessment............................................................................................................6-1 6.1.2 Criticality Assessment............................................................................................................ 6-5 6.1.3 Lift Station Risk Assessment................................................................................................ 6-8 6.2 Lift Station Consolidation............................................................................................................ 6-13 7.0 HYDRAULIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT............................................................................... 7-1 7.1 Modeled Network..............................................................................................................................7-1 7.1.1 Data Sources...............................................................................................................................7-1 7.1.2 Modeled Manholes...................................................................................................................7-4 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan r--FREESE 11 �WICHOLS City of Friendswood 7.1.3 Modeled Wastewater Lines and Force Mains............................................................... 7-4 7.1.4 Modeled Lift Stations.............................................................................................................. 7-5 7.1.5 Modeled Subcatchments....................................................................................................... 7-5 7.2 Wastewater Flow Distribution.....................................................................................................7-5 7.3 Hydraulic Model Calibration.........................................................................................................7-6 7.3.1 Dry Weather Calibration.......................................................................................................7-6 7.3.2 Wet Weather Calibration...................................................................................................... 7-7 7.3.3 Summary of Model Calibration........................................................................................... 7-9 8.0 I/I REDUCTION AND SSES PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS ................................... 8-1 8.1 Inflow and Infiltration Summary................................................................................................8-1 8.2 SSES Basin Prioritization................................................................................................................8-2 8.3 SSES and Rehabilitation Program Process..............................................................................8-5 8.4 SSES Program Recommendations and Costs..........................................................................8-6 9.0 WASTEWATER SYSTEM CAPACITY ASSESSMENT....................................................... 9-1 9.1 System Analysis Approach............................................................................................................9-1 9.2 Design Storm.......................................................................................................................................9-1 9.3 Design Criteria and Lift Station Influence................................................................................9-3 9.3.1 Design Criteria for Manholes and Gravity Lines..........................................................9-3 9.3.2 Design Criteria for Lift Stations and Force Mains........................................................9-5 9.3.3 Lift Station Influence...............................................................................................................9-5 9.4 Existing and Future Wastewater System Analyses..............................................................9-5 9.5 Peak Flow Management Strategies......................................................................................... 9-10 10.0 WASTEWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN......................................................10-1 10.1 Summary of SSES Program Recommendations..................................................................10-3 10.2 Capital Improvements Plan........................................................................................................10-5 10.2.1 Ongoing Wastewater Capital Improvement Projects.............................................10-9 10.2.2 Capacity CIP: Five -Year Projects (2026 - 2031)........................................................10-9 10.2.3 Capacity CIP: Ten -Year Projects (2031 - 2036)......................................................10-10 10.2.4 Capacity CIP: Buildout Projects (Beyond 2036).....................................................10-15 10.3 Lift Station Renewal Plan......................................................................................................... 10-17 List of Figures Figure 1-1: Wastewater Master Plan Study Area...................................................................1-3 Figure 2-1: Gravity Line Length by Diameter.......................................................................... 2-1 Figure 2-2: Existing Wastewater System................................................................................ 2-2 Figure 2-3: Lift Station Schematic........................................................................................... 2-5 Figure 3-1: Lift Station and Manhole Survey Locations..........................................................3-2 a�Nosu�_d+� DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood Figure 3-2: GIS Update Example............................................................................................. 3-3 Figure 3-3: Flow Meter Locations...........................................................................................3-6 Figure 3-4: Flow Meter Schematic.......................................................................................... 3-7 Figure 3-5: ADS Flow Meter and Rain Gauge Equipment....................................................... 3-8 Figure 3-6: Normalized 1/1 by Flow Meter Basin (Gal/LF/in).................................................3-17 Figure 4-1: Anticipated Future Developments.......................................................................4-4 Figure 4-2: Future Land Use....................................................................................................4-5 Figure 4-3: Historical and Projected City -Wide Population....................................................4-7 Figure 4-4: Projected City-wide Non -Residential Acreage.....................................................4-7 Figure 5-1: Friendswood Wastewater Average Daily Flows to the Blackhawk WWTP .......... 5-2 Figure 5-2: Projected Average Day Wastewater Flows.......................................................... 5-6 Figure 6-1: Number of Lift Stations Per Criticality Parameter ................................................ 6-6 Figure 6-2: Number of Lift Stations by Risk Category............................................................. 6-9 Figure 6-3: Lift Station Risk -Based Assessment....................................................................6-12 Figure 7-1: City of Friendswood Wastewater Hydraulic Model ............................................. 7-1 Figure 7-2: Dry Weather Calibration Results.......................................................................... 7-7 Figure 7-3: RTK Parameters.................................................................................................... 7-8 Figure 7-4: RTK Component Hydrographs.............................................................................. 7-8 Figure 7-5: Wet Weather Calibration Results......................................................................... 7-9 Figure 8-1: Wastewater SSES Areas........................................................................................ 8-4 Figure 8-2: SSES and Rehabilitation Program Approach for 1/1 Reduction .............................. 8-5 Figure 9-1: 5-Year, 6-Hour Design Storm Hyetograph............................................................9-2 Figure 9-2: 2015 Observed Flow and Existing System Design Storm Comparison.................9-3 Figure 9-3: Existing System Analysis....................................................................................... 9-8 Figure 9-4: Future System Analysis.........................................................................................9-9 Figure 10-1: CIP Overview.......................................................................................................10-1 Figure 10-2: FY27-32 SSES Approach for 1/1 Reduction..........................................................10-3 Figure 10-3: Wastewater System Capacity CIP......................................................................10-8 List of Tables Table 1-1: List of Abbreviations.............................................................................................1-2 Table 2-1: Lift Station Inventory............................................................................................ 2-4 Table 2-2: Lift Station Inventory............................................................................................ 2-5 Table 3-1: Flow Meter, Rain Gauge, and Level -Only Meter Locations .................................. 3-5 Table 3-2: Observed Rainfall Events During Flow Monitoring .............................................. 3-9 Table 3-3: Dry Weather and Wet Weather Flow Data ........................................................ 3-10 Table 3-4: Flow Depths and Surcharging Summary............................................................ 3-12 Table 3-5: Million Gallons (MG) of 1/1 per Rainfall Event....................................................3-14 Table 3-6: Normalized 1/1 (Gal/LF/in) per Rainfall Event ..................................................... 3-15 Table 3-7: Categories of 1/1..................................................................................................3-16 Table 3-8: Flow Meter Basin Ranking by 1/1.........................................................................3-18 Table 4-1: Historical Population............................................................................................4-1 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood a`E$DS l Texnsf Table 4-2: Anticipated Future Population and Non -Residential Acreage Growth Projections byPlanning Period.......................................................................................................................4-6 Table 5-1: Historical WWTP Effluent Flows........................................................................... 5-1 Table 5-2: Historical Wastewater Effluent Flows by Development Type .............................. 5-3 Table 5-3: Comparison of Historical Water Production and Wastewater Effluent Flows..... 5-4 Table 5-4: Planning Criteria Evaluation based on Water Criteria and Return Ratio ............. 5-4 Table 5-5: Wastewater Planning Criteria...............................................................................5-4 Table 5-6: Population and Non -Residential Acreage Growth by Planning Period ................ 5-5 Table 5-7: Projected Average Day and Peak Wastewater Flows ........................................... 5-6 Table 6-1: Condition Assessment Component Groups and Weightings ............................... 6-2 Table 6-2: Lift Station Site Visit Schedule.............................................................................. 6-2 Table 6-3: Guidelines for Condition Scores........................................................................... 6-3 Table 6-4: Condition Score Ranges and Summary................................................................. 6-3 Table 6-5: Lift Station Condition Score Summary.................................................................. 6-4 Table 6-6: Criticality Component Groups and Weightings.................................................... 6-5 Table 6-7: Equivalent Dwelling Units..................................................................................... 6-6 Table 6-8: Criticality Score Ranges and Summary................................................................. 6-7 Table 6-9: Lift Station Criticality Score Summary.................................................................. 6-7 Table 6-10: Lift Station Risk Categories................................................................................... 6-8 Table 6-11: Lift Station Risk Rating Matrix............................................................................ 6-10 Table 6-12: Summary of Lift Station Risk -Based Assessment ................................................ 6-11 Table 6-13: Lift Station Consolidation Plan........................................................................... 6-13 Table 7-1: Format of Unique IDs for Wastewater Collection System Components .............. 7-2 Table 7-2: Record Drawing and As -Built Information............................................................ 7-3 Table 7-3: Wastewater Model Information Flags.................................................................. 7-3 Table 7-4: Calibration Results Summary.............................................................................. 7-10 Table 8-1: SSES Basin Prioritization....................................................................................... 8-3 Table 8-2: SSES Planning Level Unit Costs.............................................................................8-8 Table 8-3: SSES Steps 2-4 Budget Methodology.................................................................... 8-8 Table 8-4: SSES and Rehabilitation Plan by Fiscal Year ......................................................... 8-9 Table 9-1: Comparison of Peak Flows to WWTP Influent Lift Stations ................................. 9-3 Table 9-2: City of Friendswood Design Criteria Manual Maximum Manhole Spacing.......... 9-4 Table 9-3: Manhole Size by Pipe Diameter........................................................................... 9-4 Table 9-4: City of Friendswood Design Criteria Manual Minimum Slopes ............................ 9-4 Table 9-5: TCEQ Minimum Pump Cycle Times...................................................................... 9-5 Table 10-1: Wastewater CIP Summary..................................................................................10-2 Table 10-2: SSES and Rehabilitation Plan by Fiscal Year.......................................................10-4 Table 10-3: Wastewater Capital Improvements Plan Unit Costs..........................................10-6 Table 10-4: Wastewater Capacity CIP Summary...................................................................10-7 Table 10-5: Lift Station Renewal Capital Improvements Plan.............................................10-18 Table 10-6: Near Term Lift Station Quick Connect/Generator Recommendations ............ 10-19 iv DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood Appendices rFREESE -1 "NICHOLS Appendix A Wastewater CIP Opinion of Probable Construction Costs (OPCCs) Appendix B Lift Station Survey Information Appendix C Manhole Survey Information Appendix D Friendswood RDII Analysis (by ADS) Appendix E Flow Meter Hydrographs and Depth Plots Appendix F Lift Station Condition Assessment Summary Appendix G Lift Station Consolidation Appendix H Flow Meter Diurnal Patterns Appendix I Wastewater Model Calibration Results LI M v DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 INTRODUCTION a`E$DS FREESE l Texnsf The City of Friendswood (City) is an established community located primarily in Galveston County, Texas. The City has a population of approximately 43,190 residents that are served through a wastewater collection system consisting of approximately 185 miles of gravity lines, 42 lift stations, and contracted treatment capacity at the Blackhawk Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). This 2026 Wastewater Master Plan was developed to evaluate the existing wastewater collection system, assess current and future capacity needs, and develop prioritized recommendations for rehabilitation and capital improvements. This plan has been prepared to provide Friendswood with a planning tool to guide the implementation of 5-year, 10-year, and Buildout capital improvements to the City's wastewater system infrastructure. As part of this study, FNI completed the following major tasks: • Field survey of lift stations and manholes • City-wide flow monitoring and inflow/infiltration (1/1) analysis • Growth and wastewater flow projections for the City's wastewater service area • Wastewater model build and calibration • Lift station risk -based assessment and consolidation analysis • Existing and future wastewater collection system analyses • 1/1 reduction and SSES program recommendations • Wastewater system capital improvements plan development 2.0 EXISTING WASTEWATER SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE The City of Friendswood owns and operates a wastewater collection system that serves approximately 43,190 residents. The existing wastewater system includes approximately 185 miles of gravity wastewater lines ranging from 4-inches to 36-inches in diameter, approximately 4,500 manholes, and 42 lift stations. Friendswood contracts with Gulf Coast Authority (GCA) for wastewater treatment at the Blackhawk Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). ES-1 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood 3.0 WASTEWATER SYSTEM FIELD DATA COLLECTION Station and Manhole Surve a`E$DS FREESE l Texnsf FNI retained Spooner & Associates, Inc. (Spooner) to conduct a lift station and manhole field survey in the City's collection system. As part of this effort, 41 collection system lift stations and 291 manholes were surveyed in 2025. The surveyed manholes included those directly upstream of the lift stations as well as manholes identified for the hydraulic wastewater modeling effort to populate portions of missing data in the City's existing GIS and confirm gravity line inverts. The lift stations surveyed included all of the City's lift stations with the exception of Lift Station 40 which is currently being decommissioned. Wastewater Flow Monitoring FNI conducted City-wide flow monitoring and rainfall data collection from February through May 2025. Flow monitoring data was collected at 26 locations throughout the collection system. The flow monitoring and rainfall data were utilized to characterize dry weather and wet weather wastewater flows at key points within the collection system, evaluate inflow and infiltration (1/1), calibrate the hydraulic model and prioritize flow meter basins for future sanitary sewer evaluation study (SSES) projects. The flow meter basins were categorized into High, Moderate, or Low 1/1 and ranked from 1 (Highest) to 26 (Lowest), as shown on Figure ES-1. The results of the evaluation indicated that 1/1 has a significant impact on the City's peak wet weather system response and contributes to observed capacity limitations. Figure ES-1: Normalized 1/1 by Flow Meter Basin (Gal/LF/in) 12 2 ES-2 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood 4.0 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS rFREESE -I 11111CHOLS Population and land use are important elements in the analysis of wastewater collection systems. Wastewater flows are dependent on the residential population and non-residential developments served by the system and affect the sizing and location of system infrastructure. During this study, FNI worked with the City's Community Development Department to evaluate historical population and develop 5- year, 10-year, and Buildout land use assumptions and projections. The City-wide population projections are graphed along with historical population data on Figure ES-2, and City-wide projected growth in non- residential acreage is shown on Figure ES-3. Figure ES-2: Historical and Projected City -Wide Population 80,000 Historical Population j Projected Population 70,000 6o,000 I �111,..Iiilwuilldi so,000 o 40,000 a ao Historical Average 30,000 Annual Grow[h 20,000 10,000 0 zozD Figure ES-3: 1,200 46,751 48,273 49,974 43,406 Projected Phased Growth from Anticipated Future Developments )10-Near (2026-2036) Average Annual Growth Rate 1.1%) . I I 2026 1 2031 I 2036 Buildout Projected City-wide Non -Residential Acreage 1,000 B55 8W 737 74fi m d a Q fin0 A m E Projected Phased Growth from Anticipated Future E Developments u 400 (10-Year(2025-2030) Average Annual Growth Rate 200 0 2026 1 2031 203fi ES-3 1027 Buildoul DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood 5.0 WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS 0FREESE �I lUICHOLS To develop future wastewater system improvements, an understanding of existing and future wastewater flow projections is necessary. FNI developed projected average day and peak wastewater flows for the Existing, 5-year, 10-year, and Buildout planning periods based on the historical effluent data and land use assumptions. These flows were utilized in the hydraulic modeling and system planning to identify future wastewater system improvements needs. The projected average day wastewater flows are shown on Figure ES-4. Figure ES-4: Projected Average Day Wastewater Flows 10 Future Flow: 85 gpcd used to calculate residemial flows Existing Average daily Flow ha sed on Annual Average Flow Data from 2024 480 gpcd used to calculate commercial flows 9 ❑ Infill Growth ® Known Developments ® Septic Conversion S 7 6 0 Purchased Monthly Average Daily Flow Capacity = 5.5 MGD � 5 3 0 q 3.9MGDDp2 3.5 MGD 3.6 MGD 0.01 0.3 3.2 MGD 0 3 0.01 0 4 0.05 0.4 3 2 1 0 2026 2a31 2036 Buildout 6.0 LIFT STATION RISK -BASED ASSESSMENT AND CONSOLIDATION Lift Station Risk -Based Assessment A risk -based assessment (RBA) was conducted on the City's existing collection system lift stations. This task assigned a risk of failure to each lift station, which considered the probability of asset failure (condition) and the expected impact of that failure (criticality). The results of this assessment informed the Lift Station Renewal Plan. The lift stations assessed included all of the City's lift stations with the exception of Lift Station 40, which is currently being decommissioned. In order to prioritize rehabilitation recommendations, the lift stations were divided into four risk categories: Extreme Risk, High Risk, ES-4 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan r--FREESE 11 �WICNOLS City of Friendswood Moderate Risk, and Low Risk. A summary of the number of lift stations by risk category is included on Figure ES-5. Figure ES-5: Number of Lift Stations by Risk Category 20 18 16 M 15 J c 1a `m z5 3 4 a Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Extreme Risk Station Consolidation FNI evaluated potential opportunities to consolidate lift stations within Friendswood's collection system in order to simplify system operations. The feasibility of consolidating each lift station was assessed based on the lift station and manhole survey data collected during this study and Friendswood's minimum slope guidelines from the Design Criteria Manual. Overall, five (5) of the City's 41 lift stations were identified as potential consolidation candidates based on the available existing wastewater system information, including Lift Station 15, 7, 9, 14, and 39. Lift station 15 consolidation was incorporated into the City's CIP due to its high -risk score. The remaining consolidation opportunities are recommended to be considered in conjunction with future infrastructure improvements or if operational concerns arise. 7.0 HYDRAULIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT FNI developed Friendswood's wastewater collection system hydraulic model using the InfoWorks° ICM software by Autodesk. As part of this project, FNI utilized the City's wastewater system GIS shapefiles to develop the existing collection system network within the hydraulic model. Wastewater system facility information was incorporated into the model based on as -built drawings, survey data, and other available information. Figure ES-6 illustrates the City's wastewater collection system hydraulic model interface. ES-5 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood t% 511 1`G lUICHOLSK �pir/ N ?Fl(AYf Figure ES-6: City of Friendswood Wastewater Hydraulic Model The hydraulic model was then calibrated to the flow monitoring data collected as part of this project. The dry and wet weather calibration results provide a high level of confidence that the model is closely matching real world conditions and is suitable to use for hydraulic analyses and CIP development. 8.0 1/1 REDUCTION AND SSES PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS As part of this study, FNI evaluated inflow and infiltration (1/1) throughout Friendswood's wastewater collection system based on the flow monitoring data collected. 1/1 refers to the unwanted entry of stormwater or groundwater into the collection system through defective manholes, pipes, service connections, cleanouts, etc. The results of the evaluation indicated that 1/1 has a significant impact on the City's peak wet weather system response and contributes to observed capacity limitations. Based on these findings, 1/1 reduction is a critical component of the City's wastewater capital improvements plan (CIP) recommendations. Due to the level of 1/1 throughout Friendswood's wastewater collection system, FNI recommends the City prioritize investment in wastewater rehabilitation and 1/1 reduction over the next 5-years. Prioritizing 1/1 reduction will help the City regain existing system capacity, reduce peak wet weather flows, minimize potential regulatory compliance concerns, and potentially defer or minimize the scale of future capacity - driven CIP projects. This study recommends implementation of a phased Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Study (SSES) program. The SSES project approach is shown on Figure ES-7. ES-6 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood a`Et% S11 y 1UICHOLSK �pi�rj N ?Fl(AYf The recommended SSES and Rehabilitation program is intended to function as an ongoing, systematic rehabilitation effort where field investigations and rehabilitation construction proceed concurrently throughout prioritized sub -basins. r1 Figure ES-7: SSES and Rehabilitation Program Approach for 1/1 Reduction .----------------------------- r� I Micro Metering Field Design & R I Inspections I I ,Mot tltilire micro Conduct CCN, i f]esign andrehab jmetering to identify MACP Manhole I improvements field inspection Inspections, and afterirrspeciians ` locations Smoke Testing are performed '------------------------------0rCSPF. Package 2: CSP Package I: SSES Field Investigation Services Rehabilitation Construction Package 9.0 WASTEWATER SYSTEM CAPACITY ASSESSMENT Hydraulic capacity analyses were completed utilizing the calibrated hydraulic model and a 5-year, 6-hour design storm to evaluate the performance of the wastewater collection system under existing and projected future peak wet weather conditions. The analyses indicate that excess wet weather flow from 1/1 is a major contributor to the observed capacity limitations throughout the system. For development of the capacity CIP recommendations, the analyses incorporated an assumed 30% reduction in 1/1 based on coordination with City staff and implementation of the recommended SSES and rehabilitation program. Achieving this level of 1/1 reduction is generally considered aggressive and will require sustained infrastructure investment and proactive rehabilitation efforts throughout the collection system. 10.0 WASTEWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN This study developed a prioritized, phased wastewater Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for the City of Friendswood based on the flow monitoring, hydraulic modeling, lift station risk -based assessments, and system analyses. The recommended CIP is intended to address aging infrastructure and 1/I, address existing capacity deficiencies, reduce risk of asset failure, improve system reliability, and provide capacity to accommodate projected future growth. The wastewater CIP includes the following components: ES-7 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood • SSES and Rehabilitation Program rFREESE -I lUICHOLS a�Nosu�_d+� ?Fl(AYf • Capacity Improvement Projects • Lift Station Renewal Projects An overview of the wastewater CIP is included on Figure ES-8 and the wastewater CIP recommendations are summarized in Table ES-1. Figure ES-8: CIP Overview CIP Recommendation: G Prioritize investment in wastewater rehabilitation and III reduction over the next 5-years G Reevaluate the system to confirm future infrastructure needs 22 Projects Identified --------------------------------------------------- 5-Year: $70.5M Q Projects) 10-Year: $125.6M (10 Projects) Buildout: $19.2M (5 Projects) Project sizing and costs assume 1/1 reduction is achieved within the next —5 years ES-8 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood Table ES-1: Wastewater CIP Summary rFREESE -I "NICHOLS LI M SSES and Rehabilitation Program SSES and Rehabilitation Total Pilot Program Cost Perform a pilot study of the recommended Pilot Program In FY27 Dollars' SSES and Rehabilitation Program to evaluate Timeframe: FY27 $2,627,000 and refine the approach. City -Wide SSES and Total Program Cost Perform field inspections such as micro Rehabilitation ram Pro g In FY33 Dollars' metering, CCTV, manhole inspections, and $55,410,000 smoke testing, and perform wastewater system Timeframe: FY28 -FY33 rehabilitation to target high 1/1 basins. Update the city-wide wastewater system flow Wastewater Master Total Program Cost monitoring and the Wastewater Master Plan to Plan Update P In FY33 Dollars' evaluate 1/1 reduction achieved and reassess $978,000 the need and sizing of capacity -driven CIP Timeframe: FY33 projects within the 10-year and Buildout planning periods. Capacity CIP 5 year Summary Total 5-Year Cost Timeframe: by FY31 in FY26 Dollars' Prioritize immediate rehab needs and .............................................................................................................................................. $11,498,900 infrastructure to serve new development. CIP Projects: 1-4 Capacity improvements sized for 30% 1/1 10 year Summary Total 10-Year Cost reduction and prioritized based on areas within Timeframe: by FY36 in FY26 Dollars' the existing system with greater risk of ........................................................................................................ $125,630,200 overflows. Reevaluate sizing and need for projects following completion of the City -Wide CIP Project: 5-14 SSES and Rehabilitation Program. Remaining capacity needs within the existing Buildout Summary Total Buildout Cost system that are sized for 30% 1/1 reduction. Timeframe: by FY51 in FY26 Dollars' Reevaluate sizing and need for projects ............................................................................................................................................... $19,215,600 following completion of the City -Wide SSES and CIP Projects: 15-19 Rehabilitation Program. Lift Station Renewal Plan Lift Station Rehabilitation Total Program Cost Perform rehab of all moderate risk lift stations Timeframe: Goal of rehabbing all In FY26 Dollars' in the next 10-years, and all low risk lift stations lift stations with a 15-20 year $7,327,320 in the next 25-years. serviceable life window. (1) Planning level costs, including contingency and engineering/survey. Costs only include escalation where noted. It is recommended to include an annual escalation for projects budgeted after FY26. Additional expenses related to construction management/inspection, materials testing, change order contingency, soft costs, and legal fees are not included. ES-9 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood 1.0 INTRODUCTION a`E$DS l Texnsf The City of Friendswood (City) is an established community located primarily in Galveston County, Texas. The City has a population of approximately 43,190 residents that are served through a wastewater collection system consisting of approximately 185 miles of gravity lines, 42 lift stations, and contracted treatment capacity at the Blackhawk Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). This 2026 Wastewater Master Plan was developed to evaluate the existing wastewater collection system, assess current and future capacity needs, and develop prioritized recommendations for rehabilitation and capital improvements. This plan has been prepared to provide Friendswood with a planning tool to guide the implementation of 5-year, 10-year, and Buildout capital improvements to the City's wastewater system infrastructure. 1.1 SCOPE OF WORK The goals of this study included an evaluation of the existing wastewater system and the development of capacity and renewal recommendations for 5-year, 10-year, and Buildout wastewater capital improvement plans (CIPs). These recommended improvements will serve as a basis for the financing, design, and construction of projects required to meet Friendswood's existing and anticipated future wastewater capacity and system renewal needs. As part of this study, FNI performed the following major tasks: • Field survey of lift stations and manholes • City-wide flow monitoring and inflow/infiltration (1/1) analysis • Growth and wastewater flow projections for the City's wastewater service area • Wastewater model build and calibration • Lift station risk -based assessment and consolidation analysis • Existing and future wastewater collection system analyses • 1/1 reduction and SSES program recommendations • Wastewater system capital improvements plan development 1-1 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood 1.2 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS The list of abbreviations utilized in this report are provided in Table 1-1. 1.3 Table 1-1: List of Abbreviations 0FREESE �I lUICHOLS 7EDU Closed-Circuit Television Capital Improvement Plan Equivalent Dwelling Unit FLUP Future Land Use Plan FNI Freese and Nichols, Inc. FY Fiscal Year GIS Geographic Information System gpad Gallons per Acre per Day gpcd Gallons per Capita per Day HGL Hydraulic Grade Line in/hr Inches per hour ID Unique ID 1/1 Inflow and Infiltration LF Linear Feet LiDAR Light Detecting and Ranging LS Lift Station LUA Land Use Assumptions MGD Million Gallons per Day NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration OPCC Opinion of Probable Construction Cost PVC Polyvinyl Chloride RDII Rainfall -Derived Infiltration and Inflow RJN RJN Group, Inc. SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition SSES Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Study TAC Texas Administrative Code TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality TIRZ Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN STUDY AREA The study area for this 2026 Wastewater Master Plan is shown in on Figure 1-1. a`EKoswo. ¢+r/_ y ?Fl(AYf 1-2 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of R@ ndswood Figure 11 Wastewater Master Plan Study Area ��® v . � e- � ® ' O ■hm,R441A11 ^ � J WWTP /_..� / , z _ 2 ' Lem&may {� � ...,.., ha E) R < e..w, » , 1-3 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood 2.0 EXISTING WASTEWATER SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE �`EKosi n ta„ WNICHOLS �.. / ?exnsf The City of Friendswood owns and operates a wastewater collection system that serves approximately 43,190 residents. The existing wastewater system is shown on Figure 2-2 and includes approximately 185 miles of gravity wastewater lines ranging from 4-inches to 36-inches in diameter, approximately 4,500 manholes, and 42 lift stations. 2.1 WASTEWATER TREATMENT Friendswood contracts with Gulf Coast Authority (GCA) for wastewater treatment at the Blackhawk Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). Based on the February 2022 contract, Friendswood owns 5.499 million gallons per day (MGD) of the plant's 30-day average treatment capacity of 9.250 MGD, representing approximately 59.4% of the total plant capacity. The agreement also limits the City's 2-hour peak flow to 2.5 times its contracted average capacity, resulting in a maximum allowable 2-hour peak flow of 13.75 MGD. The contract allows the participants to request future plant expansions, with expansion costs paid by the requesting party. 2.2 GRAVITY LINES Friendswood's existing wastewater system includes approximately 185 miles of wastewater gravity lines. Pipeline diameters range in size from 4-inches to 36-inches. Figure 2-1 illustrates the percentage of pipe length by diameter. Figure 2-1: Gravity Line Length by Diameter 70% 60% 50% ou 40% c m J a 30% 20% 10% 0.1% 0.1 0% 69.8% 14.5% 5.3% 2.7% 2.0% LIM 1.7% 1.7% \t`4" :oLr \��r :nor ir4r ., C)C% `�Lr 1a' Zl ?p' L�, so 36 2-1 Jr 4�e 4 V, of .r A -I IF ..0 If 1•� 1\ �' _ f' y 4_ ''fly ' �y `. l' � •1• f .�'�`.� yYl'Fy ♦� -T �; .u' A /� 4b OKI& 44k .All ME 4 -33M p I 4t,. vk� s .4 IJR 14 f-"L iL X Aw St_: I v IT LUNDY LN Lap #n- I I % MWA - _ - ., SCHULTE LN 0 L E .\ k f S'' .. _�W hVIL DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood 2.3 LIFT STATIONS AND FORCE MAINS �`EKosi n ta„ WNICHOLS �.. / ?exnsf As of April 2025, the City owns and maintains 42 lift stations. These lift stations have approximately 20 miles of associated force mains, with diameters ranging from 2-inches to 28-inches. During this study, the City was in the process of decommissioning Lift Station 40 and adding City Center Lift Station. Station Inventory and Schematic During the development of this master plan, the City provided available information on their lift stations. This data was supplemented by field survey (discussed in Section 3.1), as -built drawings, and Geographic Information System (GIS) data to develop a lift station inventory, shown in Table 2-1. A lift station schematic was also developed based on the wastewater GIS network, lift station service areas, and information provided from City staff. The lift station schematic shows the relative lift station hierarchy and firm capacity of each lift station and is illustrated on Figure 2-3. 2-3 EMM7 MICHO�s City of Friendswood Draft Wastewater Master Plan Table 2-1: Lift Station Inventory Lift Station #1 Info. & Firm AddressName Physical 159 Imperial CapacityGeneral 2 Firm .. 625 0.90 8 618 6.7 .. 24.1 .. 6.6 17.6 Point , 10.7 14.2 .- .- 12 16.5 Lift Station #2 1306 Deepwood 6 5,205 7.50 22 2,850 36.0 24.5 -10.0 34.4 -8.0 -7.5 -6.5 -5.5 -4.0 -2.5 -0.8 Lift Station #3 410 N.Friendswood 2 800 1.15 10 5,737 10.0 30.8 8.9 21.9 800 35 11.1 12.6 14.1 - - - - 18 14.7 Lift Station #4 2510 Airline 2 856 1.23 6 3,357 4.0 15.0 -1.4 16.4 5.3 2.5 10 2.8 Lift Station #5 1901 Eagles Cove 2 280 0.40 4 1,273 4.0 16.8 7.8 9.0 8 11.6 Lift Station #6 901 Buckingham 2 258 0.37 6 3,263 10.0 27.5 6.9 20.6 480 97 11.1 13.3 14.3 - - 11.1 13.8 10 14.2 Lift Station #7 900-1/2 Layfair Pl. 2 260 0.37 4 1,913 4.0 24.4 12.7 11.7 8,8 17.8, 16.0 Lift Station #8 1511 Sum Meadow 2 985 1.42 8 2,978 10.7 35.4 12.0 23.4 15.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 15.0 16.0 16.5 17.0 18 16.2 Lift Station #9 507 Old Course 2 98 0.14 4 35 4.0 34.5 19.1 15.4 50 16 8,8 22.3, 30.0 Lift Station #10 516 Belmont 2 154 0.22 4 71 4.0 35.1 16.0 19.1 50 16 16.5 19.1 8,10 19.0, 28.8 Lift Station #11 506 E.Castleharbour 2 103 0.15 4 22 4.0 34.2 19.5 14.7 50 16 8,8 16.7, 23.7 Lift Station #12 115 Estates 2 250 0.36 6 4,150 6.7 39.3 18.4 20.9 225 37 22.4 27.6 15,12 20.2, 24.0 Lift Station #13 2501 S.Friendswood 2 610 0.88 4 1,014 4.0 20.5 -2.3 22.8 750 42 2.7 5.0 6.0 5.5 12 3.4 Lift Station #14 1306 Deepwood Or 2 60 0.09 N/A 2,903 6.7 37.5 26.4 11.1 12 29.2 Lift Station #15 909-1/2 Greenbriar 1 80 0.12 4 199 4.0 27.6 16.5 11.2 8 20.7 Lift Station #16 1120 W.Castlewood 2 380 0.55 6 2,662 6.7 29.1 7.2 21.9 300 31 10.7 13.0 12 11.0 Lift Station #17 5403 FM 2351 2 1,300 1.87 8 1,393 - 22.9 2.0 20.9 4.2 5.3 8, 18, 21 13.6, 13.7, 7.2 Lift Station #18 5140 Whittier Oaks 2 410 0.59 6 1,587 6.7 19.6 -6.2 25.7 -2.7 3.6 18 1.6 Lift Station #19 4111 Friendswood Link 2 176 0.25 4 1,397 4.0 19.0 5.7 13.4 8 9.9 Lift Station #20 1800 San Joaquin 4 490 0.71 6 4,723 6.7 33.9 12.8 21.1 14.8 19.8 20.8 21.8 22.8 14.8 15.8 16.8 17.8 12 15.7 Lift Station #21 1000 Middlecreek 2 340 0.49 6 2,595 6.7 26.4 6.2 20.2 9.8 11.8 10 7.9 Lift Station #22 4444 FM 528 3 1,725 2.48 8 6,491 - 22.3 -2.7 25.0 -0.2 1.3 21 -1.5 Lift Station #23 2101 S.Friendswood 4 3,000 4.32 12 8,359 - 24.1 2.2 21.9 3,125 44 5.2 6.6 8.1 9.5 13.1 20 10.1 Lift Station #24 108 Eagle Lakes 2 270 0.39 4 518 4.0 18.2 4.9 13.4 7.4 9.5 10 7.5 Lift Station #25 114 Oak Drive 2 160 0.23 4 934 4.0 19.6 11.8 7.7 8 14.1 Lift Station #26 2890 W. Parkwood 2 240 0.35 6 4,960 6.7 37.6 17.8 19.8 19.8 21.9 10,10 21.8, 21.8 Lift Station #27 3202 Bay Area Blvd. 2 1,160 1.67 10 4,128 8.0 19.4 -11.7 31.1 1,163 65 -9.0 -4.0 -3.0 - -8.0 15 -4.0 Lift Station #28 503 Woodland Trail 2 350 0.50 8 171 6.7 29.6 4.6 24.9 476 18 7.1 10.1 10.6 12.6 13.6 7.1 7.1 9.1 9.6 12 10.4 �es^__ �•. menv/u,.�e�,ory �via�/n�-a��n�c� e•/Ma��ai. �•. m•xi s��.,ev �•rvi assumed �saoo�e.s�rv� 511512026 EMM7 MICHO�s City of Friendswood Draft Wastewater Master Plan Table 2-1: Lift Station Inventory Lift Station #29 Info. & Firm AddressName Physical 1110 Falling Leaf CapacityGeneral 2 Firm .. 280 0.40 4 80 6.7 .. 28.4 .. 15.6 12.9 Point , 18.6 19.7 .- .- 10 18.4 Lift Station #30 1800 Sandy Lakes 3 980 1.41 6 2,531 6.7 32.3 4.9 27.4 350 37 8.9 14.1 12 11.1 Lift Station #31 213 Del Monte Dr. 2 110 0.16 4 289 6.7 29.6 12.0 17.6 3.00 6.00 6.50 8 17.6 Lift Station #32 701 Baker Road 2 90 0.13 8 652 4.0 34.7 22.8 11.9 8 24.7 Lift Station #33 199 Hunters Lane 2 190 0.27 4 764 6.7 25.3 5.8 19.5 80 26 8 8.5 Lift Station #34 3403 West Bay Area 2 725 1.04 6 925 6.7 24.7 13.0 11.7 350 37 16.0 18.0 10 5.5 Lift Station #35 2311 John Dr. 2 260 0.37 4 1,848 6.7 34.2 13.3 20.9 80 26 8 16.9 Lift Station #36 1325 West Road 2 700 1.01 12 4,456 10.0 33.3 0.1 33.2 156 78 8.2 9.3 10.0 9.5 18 5.0 Lift Station #37 4428A FM 2351 (@SWS#2) 3 825 1.19 8 5,976 10.0 30.4 4.0 26.5 8.3 9.9 12 7.0 Lift Station #38 1901 Wilderness Trails 2 140 0.20 4 4,318 6.7 32.0 10.5 21.6 8 18.1 Lift Station #39 2910 W Parkwood Ave 2 80 0.12 N/A 4.0 35.0 20.0 15.1 258 43 10 24.0 Lift Station #40 3539 FM 528 2 110 0.16 3 6.7 22.0 2.5 23.0 72 51 4.50 6.00 6.50 8 7.5 Lift Station #41 2101 S.Friendswood 2 100 0.14 N/A 4.0 22.9 7.8 15.1 10.6 11.6 10 11.9 Lift Station #42 1758 Lake Crest Ln 2 532 0.77 4 152 10.0 35.0 7.8 27.2 253 40 9.6 11.1 12.1 10 8.9 �es^__ �•. menv/u,.�e�,ory �via�/n�-a��n�c� e•/Ma��ai. �•. m•xi s��.,ev �•rvi assumed �saoo�e.s�rv� 511512026 W NICHOLS City of Friendswood Draft Wastewater Master Plan Figure 2-4: Lift Station Schematic Lift Station #37 • 1 Lift Station #17 1.19 1 1.87 Lift Station #35 Lift Station #3 Lift Station #1 0.37 1.15 0.90 • Lift Station #18 0.59 Lift Station #19 0.25 • Lift Station #28 0.50 Lift Station #32 • Lift Station #31 0.13 0.16 Lift Station #38 Lift Station #16 0.20 0.55 Lift Station #15 Lift Station #29 0.12 0.40 Lift Station #6 0.37 Lift Station #33 0.27 Lift Station #11 0.15 Lift Station #9 • • Lift Station #30 1.41 Lift Station #42 0.77 Lift Station #8 Lift Station #7 0.37 Lift Station #21 0.49 0.14 1.42 Lift Station #10 • Lift Station #20 Lift Station #5 0.22 • 0.71 0.40 • Lift Station #26 Lift Station #24 0.35 0.39 Legend Lift Station #14 Lift Station 0.09 Lift Station #36 Firm Capacity (MGD) 1.01 • Flow Monitor(s) Directly Upstream of Lift Station Lift Station #39 Lift Station Does Not Have Capacity to Serve Upstream Lift Stations 0.12 Lift Station #13 0.88 Lift Station #12 0.36 Lift Station #41 0.14 • Lift Station #27 1.67 • • • Lift Station #2 7.50 Lift Station #22 2.48 Lift Station #25 Lift Station #4 0.23 1.23 Lift Station #23 4.32 • Lift Station #34 1.04 0 <7 2 Ln th I Y CIO v a L 2 N 0 LD Ln I O L.L T cc 0 v tL0 cc L i Q 'v tp iS U a 41 Y 3 s Y u to m co 7 u cts L r- O U O O 3 .a C GJ �L LL DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood 3.0 WASTEWATER SYSTEM FIELD DATA COLLECTION 3.1 LIFT STATION AND MANHOLE SURVEY �`EKosi n ta„ WNICHOLS �.. / ?exnsf FNI retained Spooner & Associates, Inc. (Spooner) to conduct a lift station and manhole field survey in the City's collection system. As part of this effort, 41 collection system lift stations and 291 manholes were surveyed in 2025. The surveyed manholes included those directly upstream of the lift stations as well as manholes identified for the hydraulic wastewater modeling effort (Section 7.0) to populate portions of missing data in the City's existing GIS and confirm gravity line inverts. The lift stations surveyed included all of the City's lift stations with the exception of Lift Station 40 which is currently being decommissioned. The lift station and manhole survey locations are shown on Figure 3-1. Lift station and manhole data collected from the survey effort is included in Appendix B and C, respectively along with digital deliverables of the data. General comments and field notes relevant to the lift station and manhole survey effort are included. The survey was referenced to Harris -Galveston Subsidence District's Monument #54 located near the intersection of FM 528 and Whitaker Drive (NGS PID AW5596). The following information was collected: Lift Stations • Survey (Northing, Easting, Elevation values) of the wet well cover or top of slab of the lift station • Number of incoming lines to the wet well • Inverts, diameters, and direction of incoming and outgoing wastewater gravity lines with pipe IDs • Wet well floor elevation and area (diameter for circles and length / width for rectangular structures) • Crown elevation of force main leaving the lift stations • General site photos, photo of the view into the open lift station, and photos of all gravity line inverts • Shapefiles of lift stations with updated GPS location nnn„ti„io� • Survey (Northing, Easting, Elevation values) of the manhole cover/rim • Inverts, diameters, and direction of incoming and outgoing wastewater gravity lines • Pipe IDs for incoming and outgoing gravity sewer lines • General site photos and photos of all gravity line inverts 3-1 .. .; : ,e_iq`• .-t - rc �,. •- '@ , :. 7" �e� NIIII iNmv� ram'+' I ,�I . w air e r - •. �'� I . ►: S�, act' - •. S•:, '._ >r ''.r?! "S ` W. / }ti \ !• .5a ■ � ;. + • , @eG �' ".*.>i �'1''y ' _ �`ti l� JJ'//� r '.y ,' �► �'1 .-•'M . ,. , } ... y + - ­­ " , ��, 0 � ,�!, Y ( . � . - I . . . / . I - , W . _\__� . - \, . ):� , W �•r. �^ f�` .�! 'c! ®� a� '' , rr ,'' Q Dads' Club •,x . s ,r ■ i 4� %%+�t 8: % `•; r� 'r`',# �m�i •�w'=c - a• w \ 1Sports Park . ; r * M \ �` �` - _ Veil. I - _ten �'a �v �-:'* - A. , tom .' "'.`. ^ t.• --,-I re, rr} . �11 � e fly ` ' F I , - S �/ •` fie\-' /. % �jr k •� .r * r r a • �' r ti r f Y + i�v y- "' s r�'s r w. :�" , `' L' _ ''.. -� -- i -.S,y�.•'( J�, ' s ..- s' �� ❑ . 41i 1.$-.w / • _ _ fir. s ik - ••Fy''11 . ` f ! dy 0 - i . f is J '� �Q j� D 6r f-�T` `i \ r , • r ^; � �o r • ,1•- 11 / v im, :+� : ..-A _ . . � . s awe •,i,• 4 r •11 - ♦ S tip,, f • @ .s • • rt* .t - a . . J'r..yp� '.w�'., +� ' .'Y �, • 1 `_ • , t- '' R' p'` +� Y tip. r , •'% ;�.^ V ". �. "ur r_. ; - •' i •1 45 �f -- {+° . r ■. y ~ rlUb at;4� �s ■f• m''• .• AC,- t. / i 1 I ik®'da t,, . "'~ Y- �'�+ ' G: ❑ixie Farm , A r - '.'' s: ' �.•,. . Road Park •+_.- -%.. � yy~ � r '� .= •.. r +� •y r . . +. } • ` - ;.^may . ��: ' _ ,,` , ... •t ' .. +' . f+ . • �� (( • !r d ` y �. ` may_ + +, ` % r • .'. k r' \d, / ' M - r a .a �••"�, ',+ '•■ y+ •++ `-. f• `.+� `+ 4 - . -" Ate• i ^ _.. + + _ _• . P t° Y, • �- d • : 4 •' ► I; ' , • Tumber CreekI 1. O : y� r' . - . ••� Golf CIUh y"v V / a' j: 3 11 . •[ • •:� . • c ' r , s • 47° a , n., � Al 1+ -�.. #tot . x . , - rS T 1411Y • N +•l-,i't.. ,)C irk.. - : M7 - ,�p�°' y • +J '� ,K 'J G.L- •i •S_ •; t 'l04 >_. ¢>O `�+`• i- CW'4 `x'� ��- � SQr Q` �• �'- r' t� + - `I- -11. .4, +• r 'W�'Y7r'' \ �, '�'Y-L �p IV I -lp 7. 01 e G {ee ..Tip �+'c,,� ti, . v '� i .- , !y - ���k' d .y ' 4 r�,a •. F � ■ l pi a f • p� :� •$ ' � O o (,� .. �',/ 4 �'o a. t � tom= ■L- ► +� �r.,e� , t o �•':. + �•.lr_ '. • 4Vr �� I ': i n ►• ai�8�V, � 6. 't ••, - "•r CI'ear B aok x j o �N _ �r y F` Qr , �; _ , High School �, �'.'. �? r - .- Vo d r e ar �,-f l Y �': � y� r 9 �4 4c�• Frankie • arter r "� •...� . r ` r __ `,. A oil , _ t y �• ti rr /.t e�� J�� O� `� '° ., Randolph Park • _ w oa r. e. 'y, �.. • i 1 . ... "' �° • It ' y 'fit . ! - r , , .®y I ! I. ' - '�• r y7. 1 ��^� n . _ . r .. `• Lid t .y ^"r'� y �.-I. �� r 'M1} , .. .CEO .. ��wv:� ■ •*r±. y ..o' • rw- F -i �� ., - v f IL.. 7rr.....yy' J �n ° [d'�' rr l ;, i� o ,K . __ • , . .. �e� x.'�( •. ;�- �rQ. des, Qe. Bayhraok Mall °.. r .� i (6i • .. -i , • •r+{ . . �1 - •�r� ��0 , 11 p r s� y' g Y •' :`4 '�IJ► � . 4 •F•. - 1 .. $ .. Cam+- • T.•- `•■ r r•%_ .,_.4 - ' ..µ _A 1 /" �\ y.r' .. _r .► ®�' 5, 1,N• . •,na�C` WOOD ❑T, ip ••0 • ►J , . k \4• . J7rY,y r..i , � 5 • e ((. Q`a r y - st A. �(5JE?� �.G� ?j '�;� r�. _ ■ • ,� •. •A' Ap: �°\ '�• .yl ` t r�. . y -. •� • \�P•e ; ^ 'r�. `® - iyp� • , e + t' Memonal Park' a •s -'� ''.` +. , • 1. f• a , . , -Via ': . r - � �' y] �..,-w 4 .taz ,. F ' :mac x � , _ ,�� �, � - Arg v + f�. ens �4f�Y • ��f; �x • ' ..o .. y a , i � i i • F '% y'?, .1'.. : e.�+� .I. /'�•'M1 1ra R.`4 rY i' e' ) ' ' ��•T ' Iai. y.'f1 d . -1. F r., 4. Y-.I .• .. '1S+ :+ •' =,-+� y� tiopq, �4. I`- + r,���� 'r l' •°gym ' y.0 '• .� .'`.\ 's •'- ••. y►► %�:" I -cl . . . . . . , &JA J. � I . k `1,* '4F6 _., ., . . r: r f -.. 1 , .. a . ° i ` °a ( �. re `., r + .. �L •�. :� y� Y + • t W. •. r. - ,. • r _ , - �'•r. { QQ. ,".fir a°/-,1i `'r# .� 'f ; , a I 1. `� •tiS� t .. vA �Qr(� ti �• i• is p\4 • �\,, .. '� �j A ? 5 �+ �: t Y: • , . 9L kr O e .� \� m+ °� i �. fg'�: a = ti h �fj� ftt, 'lac ?edr ' i . si , 'O F •4 .- Q y� el- �. Q yY m 0� f ) '• 1 t •S �t�1 QO 41 .. ,�c9r. ,�e� • ', '_Z .► !•.'�_ i •,� l „ '�� ', •• { y ' -% T 9f. Q ' �o• ti4. pr at a< + - .. • r. +� ' •.. .� � '1 f l `a .a + . i M . � ,. . -•. ► �.• J%'� w / Q�• �Y' YWe$tWBo `�." y� •�' IUJ C:Rb �; q fo } �- �;' ' � vQ ,p q S4 Elements �� > } Q- . :• f . _ °11 J '11 O ■ 4i. ❑�. / �• .T \ yr. 1 r ,� �o s�� s�nool .:. q��- F.rier�dsw�od •, �• .�r :+~ T `� ��• �, 4 7„` *ti ..P. r Y • � s �►irj •'Q? �w� ° Gs� .oa 'v L �,,e . ' , ., "r�e.L CS p gg '� Y 7 1 �. k' ,' - �� //�� 'o �J+. ��� *'�' 4t,1�, 'Sid T° 0 .IV�i , �. A.' i ,;� ' .ti 'fir r', .. . . '. I % I H • _ _� nm \ { 1C. _ , • ��.` .�l_,,, � - 'L * -4 .. . - ti�,y• /St, iY' • J'a � ` t -- '-4 • O r- x' , • �(�.cl�(:6d7 r' ��3 ..� 'C/[b � e Y� - ` J k� .. F': �t�. y,� . Gs ry `« L t� - ti,. a�� FM s2g R .• v`? • • , . �!i w r - :.1., .4 • f ��g P� �, j:. I Of�q ��4 r�0 'A9 o ` '_ •,• •- �•'a - :'' tp p�8r'keti5x y,A �r r� " ° ,°. �O ` 4 ♦ ''�; , ��' R�!• �'�• r�P ... �t, ,i•.w� �.ar.m tr':':' t �' C'p". ^ o o,-.Y\r�``" '$ ��'5tc [,,,snn Per *:f �: ■ Park 1!-s�ti r , 0 . _14 Pearland a �f y�° I N h* ' r�,, •.� - 0' r `: : 0 , + r: -�: . ;'' Regional Airport t -a .. . �✓ �� " 0 :I `CND �• � �w r `r � f ..■. ��• ��� or I r23 , 1 ° Q ` r ..n 5pt" - a '� •' • � rf r, ^' • �� \� __ + •� p'�a nt ) i/ - Ju .• a,,e� r r t _ I • n / •�� •. > : ► K ♦ .: .r P '• `4D�ti� ! ' r' t o i2ai V r ` P9 f r 'I •• ' 9,��, r° r.. . .�'`''' Gpwards�e.. c SO �. ly�,}yA/y tic r'I •� �. yf�lN. M' •V ` •1 I• .. - . ' , Q . C �. �/S r,a�i 'V 1I • �,, ♦ e , k' ;� .• r --�, i 11 i o� ,4 � r. pry v, 9i r'•'' ° ^ry `�' o ti s , 4 - , Ilr + '�' 4; r ,lr -f�v ' �e��� + aQ ^ t' - ae drOr ' � d� r i °o - P �.. "� �r �7 Q� �,rr . '� • ,. J¢ e nl \•' a° , , . m c1`' , '\'� .tio Q•• - - �. ..Jr ` .� � 1 s , V - •4 N • i''r } • + y i:• i �+ -91 ^ 'Aif1.- • ! . 4 • ` +fit \_• °o • r 4� o� . lei ���, • i t s �' �� J iyc. .;- 1 4°1F� _ Friendswood �' - Gy. �" e`y °IrlMF ip6 � Y� ! � .Q�y 90 ti � • ' I -II SCf1001 - .) 0" / �. 1 - 1 ¢ p . SFTQ � ,. ,� % �/ I) +' r• ■ • �y , �0 �1 it • [°r ■4f5TRW r ,Y\, (h�•7� E,J Q SB �� .3'. _ - .S '% •Y" 1 y r' t0 w. (4 F` , �� \ ❑Yq 6r g�'. [n •�F �Q �� r.S i - �, °O ��{•� :' E a , y J '■y r , C11•+' „� "f .(-S'^ _ � ^, I °+/. r '�1d� , 4 - /jrrc,4 .�.,� . . 4 °�y' .�� - � ~ r T Q _ r- a - )' ', C . a •�.IF 0 tikes . 4 -n r •�� ? ? ± � `� 9��".p9 �g�k., I I % �9 �7- , 6 • 1` _ S • • i, r.r• �'� - cow `� ► . 4 J�4. c9SQ- +.. .. l4 `L°j r '�Q�..n • • �.t'Q as °.L" r• 'ti „�'-.� ■ 1 ■ - .,K � - . 4 ,­ � - �� � - . %. . - - , , be _ii?u1mP"`;1k1Y.1 '0 OF I " , . . � 61 q'%0 Co4ntyRasa 'A' d4• }"r s' ... OPT �4Q aQy�4`' *+`f� ..o,J� �o •' ��� - ,�.`�11sC r►� _' ..•• p i' _ - ' :� �� �8s �9� `� `'� • ❑ w J.•t�o �p� i . tom. % C, mmwirmmm�, r Y a'Ar ti+ r ,Tl f* 9 i r lr • r r - . • - ! r fs F ri. + tis , f _ ,,.- ....Wildernes w' � 7 `¢ r. �+ �'-.a ►. j' r o�� "� �t>� '%r -t - ��' 4 ~ �. '�a� _ _ _ Lynn Gripan -?� 4;: �r,.. f 41 16 " r �.�; , ��►� �y1P'I i wZ ' Park for 'ar�r4 t ) � - N I, `,+ .� •w. . ,�; - _ Np%' IP y a r . ' countryside �F.�:I'k "J { _' : :e- tip. f ! •� ROAD NO tSAME , •' .Y' :. Fa: '•,: ' 'O.; • i i' •,7 a - n■;� . �y -r f biro • . III t • en#ennial Park.0 _ . Q A ��.`,' -■.+ n . a r i 1 - �° . W1fVI350NG �; - . . � r� v' it • `r._ S , 2, Q,� 1' 'o w e o1. coy .� l S - e �r %9;.' ` *• sr■ n . _ r {1 ..ter r i , 1' � i�. .: v„ :' - - o a o° �f - ` �T�� , may.. ��RI �� ■ • 8 •. • , -, h�16 , , ^ t •' l x 1 eII"" i , ;r , • , Via.,- .y ey+�• , . ' a ,�,�.t.,r„A;- �`q , I ' �NL15• � �± ti ,��YI ` - ` r•tj' ■ -� 1 ��• �r'.. .} to Rd. - + , k - �,� ° . $ :7r�.. e .'' '.�' - : �OQp^ I •r� J4:- . !k'+ ;,l • •+ , .: Dhna I `• L '.■ e . .4 14. � - a l -` s .9. DR t. V,. ° :r 11 -r m , ' I w - M v `�I''.c J '�i h 1. - +�-- i-L.E.#= V'1:�? r. _ i• r r on. :L7 , �.:* Q .w , 6. ► %':r die c�• ,,1 ►._�' I};t'y�.. _ 1j Mk r' Ouse Rd. �j 4 - w, +■ -.i � • '�.: e .1 aQ' - - av - �- 1.1eIll - �' reenh • ., , '� i + s. - i , Li:• t ,, a 's . •, , 4, .• r� i L r��� r•• a •, •` .�;' Y. jr 33 !' 41, 14 1. r 1 L y ti. r, �� .`�� 7m-o °. ;a + q:' _ . A' Q �.' Qa'Dr; y •'r • , 11-7 . _ 1. 0 /����.�c(jrt�, ,� • - m•[°, ,m `'. r' .., .r.Y�Eh� Y - �`, - y..� +O� v yd�• r �'._. ./,k, + ''\,x t + J 'r - i, .1' �' :� v. t .� .1 . i., •:/' wo i. m N "r ; .�:•' 'a" r�7 Q`%`. s' Westover. Park- Y_' .. , .; i k• . 1 i , .2 .- }ti. • 1 •• •, •.dal .,i ;} ` I.o' f• °o.i '`�A� O ''1 ~ 3 ,�I P�t ..` 1 •- ` -I "� s. _4 ,. ; �,�`- r, /' %► Wy IJ ti rr� • r. �l _ s r M �l/ er�t i ` : �^ �j P. I7'!<MIM��., 0 . CA: S 1, • a f ,;.� r+' r.' r j - �. i GAt1: a . �. r ti11%.i ! - ''•' W, - Countrysides'- rr' �' .� c w =�=;R, =� ;•*' ...•� r�rT *� r' t�. ■ �' Westwood'_. r _� �� Li n • U:' Ir ';o f r - e•. 4A , - - j , I ! ! I I I � , % . . . - __ I - 11 . . I . �j .- . .4 , .y �! a `. . - .� - y Q�- oR .. J Dp �, ;tw.°.. } m' -�� i._ - a - ••1,�- m.,4.. lly . _. . °O ,� 3'' N °: • ` - or !i �' 0Q ROIV RIfiGE LN mow..: 1 _ • w.. Frle ds W k ra, ° tint• - . W �. +:� . "✓._ _ �� Y r fag r ,� I. 1 °�a:T�, _. �°p - f }�; 4 j :�' of . �: ,a,s i��{ _ - 4®,Cl�r' .�.�i H4�t =•' + . _: " r . _ ��. �' , x . FAIRWM-DR _. i i . I •' Is-'3111, : �. q�7pr�yy�r. r.. - IC } m - "" i Q rs 4. ~r fu', r +�Ir It 1O O ate,., k \e r ■ r +� . e. - , a:• . { V o ji r - c r - O ■ �eaQ T y y +�. f - y �' % u Y RDad-I$3.. • ' • to11 m PMORE RE) r • ; _ Lu n[LLJNDY LN - . ': 1: 6 R �■ + ',` • - ,* r y. .. , v �� Schufte Ln SGHULTE LN - d = s ! - - 1 : * T.' i 1 w " ❑anbury Cir _ I- - .. e\mIllil, ll'Rd-HOLLIERR� _ � F _ 4 .p1ar�r F� fi w - - �Y D w I." r ■ _ 4 .- r - - __ - - v �• � • - _ • f � ■ -� �� \ 6 .w ■ - wo . Lrw '¢ ! 1 ti r,' . �r -I..- a • LLiLiL� . RAW ■ a ti • ��y i ■ 4 ► yA _ �� . r ,e , f. • LI .1 r y t �i. W.' '. __I - - -_@.-11�. 3�- I .- T I . . __ ­ ___ LL .It ice. . .. . ...,,,, ,%t -. .L % • TEXASrol DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood Lift Station and Manhole Location Updates in GIS �`EKosi n ta„ FREESE �.. ?exnsf The lift station and surveyed manhole locations were updated in the hydraulic model based on the field survey locations and exported to GIS. Figure 3-2 shows an example of the updated lift station and manhole locations. Figure 3-2: GIS Update Example 3-3 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood 3.2 WASTEWATER FLOW MONITORING �`EKosi n ta„ WNICHOLS �.. / ?exnsf FNI conducted City-wide flow monitoring and rainfall data collection as part of this study. The flow monitoring and rainfall data were utilized to characterize dry weather and wet weather wastewater flows at key points within the collection system, calibrate the hydraulic model, and prioritize flow meter basins for future sanitary sewer evaluation study (SSES) projects, discussed further in Section 8.0. This section summarizes the field collected flow and rainfall data, as well as the characterization of 1/1 levels within the City's collection system. FNI retained ADS Environmental Services, Inc. (ADS) to install and maintain the flow meters and rain gauges and provide an evaluation of the flow meter and rainfall data. 3.2.1 Flow Meter Locations A total of twenty-six (26) flow meters, five (5) rain gauges, and two (2) level -only monitors were installed as part of this study. The flow meter and level -only locations were chosen in coordination with City staff to support the goal of developing capacity and SSES capital improvements plans (CIPs). Consideration was also given to the hydraulic conditions of the existing system, areas with known or suspected 1/1 issues, proximity to lift stations, and flow meter basin sizes. FNI utilized the City's wastewater GIS database, wastewater system connectivity information provided by the City, and the flow meter locations to delineate 26 flow meter basins. These basins represent the portion of the collection system upstream of each flow meter. The flow meters, rain gauges, level -only monitors, and flow meter basins are shown on Figure 3-3. A schematic showing the flow meter basin connectivity is included on Figure 3-4. The rain gauge, level -only monitors, and flow meter installation locations and corresponding gravity line diameters and GIS manhole IDs are provided in Table 3-1. Flow meter, rain gauge, and level -only monitors site installation reports with more detailed location information are provided in the Friendswood RD11 Analysis 2025 Report (by ADS) located in Appendix D. 3-4 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan FREESE 7 �NICHOLS City of Friendswood 0 Table 3-1: Flow Meter, Rain Gauge, and Level -Only Meter Locations Flow Meter Line Diameter(Illinear (in) 12.0 Foota' of Gravity LineRIW 36,239 Location / Addresg On Woodland Trail Dr FM-01 SANSEW MH 28-10 293 FM-02 21.0 39,188 5211 E Edgewood Dr SANSEW MH 17-3 144 FM-03 27.0 56,796 101 Imperial Dr FNI-01 297 FM-04 12.0 38,690 412 FM518 SANSEW MH 3-121 145 FM-05 12.0 30,331 412 FM518 SANSEW MH 3-121 97 FM-06 15.0 35,328 5234 Whittier Oaks Dr SANSEW MH 18-55 146 FM-07 15.0 28,464 1001 Tall Pines Dr SANSEW MH 2-876 92 FM-08 24.0 26,272 607 W Spreading Oaks Ave SANSEW MH 2-608 93 FM-09 15.0 49,876 1105 W Windingway Dr SANSEW MH 2-379 165 FM-10 15.0 28,950 1322 Deepwood Dr SANSEW MH 2-85 124 FM-11 24.0 63,595 1212 Arbre Ln SANSEW MH 2-366 218 FM-12 27.0 53,810 1322 Deepwood Dr SANSEW MH 2-225 185 FM-13 21.5 52,415 Behind 4411 Ravind Dr SANSEW MH 22-1 193 FM-14 12.0 9,996 Near 3102 Bay Ridge Ct SANSEW MH 27-113 69 FM-15 12.0 21,063 Behind 3135 Red Maple Dr SANSEW MH 27-4 137 FM-16 12.0 18,623 3418 Queensburg Ln SANSEW MH 34-3 131 FM-17 12.0 33,470 1121 W Castlewood Ave SANSEW MH 16-30 141 FM-18 36.0 44,493 325 Overlook Dr SANSEW MH 23-65 196 FM-19 24.0 54,376 Near 101 Century Dr SANSEW MH 23-269 314 FM-20 12.0 29,433 Behind 1127 Barillos Creek Ln SANSEW MH 36-181 197 FM-21 27.0 58,784 Behind 1401 Eagle Falls Dr SANSEW MH 23-190 297 FM-22 27.0 29,536 Behind 2176 Blossom Landing Ln SANSEW MH 2O-133 129 FM-23 12.0 20,336 1800 San Joaquin Pkwy FNI-04 80 FM-24 10.0 11,877 1800 San Joaquin Pkwy FNI-04 58 FM-25 15.0 44,951 1521 Sun Meadow Blvd SANSEW—MH-8-8 221 FM-26 10.0 15,587 Near 2853 Everett Dr SANSEW MH 26-1 65 L-04 - - Lift Station 4 - - L-13 - - Lift Station 13 - - Rain Gauge ID RG-01 Location / Address Friendswood OPS Headquarters / Deepwood Drive RG-02 LS #3 / 503 N Friendswood Dr RG-03 LS #36 / 1325 West Blvd RG-04 LS #26 / 1498 Moore Rd RG-05 LS #16 / 1118 W Castlewood Ave (1) Diameter from City GIS. (2) FM-03, FM-23, and FM-24 were installed at manholes that were not in the City's GIS and were given unique FNI IDs, L-04 and L-13 were installed in the corresponding lift station wet wells. 3-5 's 14 lu li Ain �m� rn K37 t. 40 7N, it Y, I 414 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood FREESE UI �NICHQLS Figure 3-4: Flow Meter Schematic FM-12 FM-13 Die m ete r: 2 7- in Diameter:21-in 53,810 LF 52,415 LF F M-11 Diameter: 24-in 53,595 LF FM-06 FM-03 FM-08 Diameter:18-in Diameter:27-in F25,272 iameter:24-in 35,328 LF 57,796 LF LF I Blackhawk I WWTP FW16 FM-18 FM-19 FM-14 FM-15 Diameter:12-in11 1)iameter:35-in 1)iameter:24-in Diameter:12-in11 Diameter:12-in 1$,623 LF 44,493 LF 54,375 LF 9,996 LF 21,053 LF E FM-10 FM-21 FM-20 meter:l5-in Diameter:27-in 11iameter:12-in 28,950 LF 58,784 LF 29,433 LF FM-09 FM-22 Diameter:15-in Diameter:27-in 49,976 LF 29,535 LF FM-07 Diameter:12-in 29,454 LF FM-17 Diameter:12-in 3 3,470 LF FM-02 FM-04 FM -OS FM7 Diameter:21-in ❑iameter:12-in Diameter:12-in 11 Diameter:12-in 11 39,188 LF 38,694 LF 36,331 LF 36,233 LF FW26 FM-25 FW23 FM-24 Diameter:10-in 1 Diameter:18-in Diameter:12-in 1 Diameter:10-in 15,587 LF 44,351 LF 20,335 LF 11,877 LF 3-7 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood 3.2.2 Flow Meter and Rain Gauge Data Collection rFREESE -I �WICHOLS ADS installed the wastewater flow meters and rain gauges in February 2025. The flow monitoring and rainfall data collection began on February 14, 2025, and continued through May 15, 2025, for a total duration of 90 days. Flow monitoring and rainfall data were collected in 5-minute intervals. Flow Meter and Rain Gauge Equipment Wastewater flow monitoring was performed utilizing Triton+® flow meters manufactured, installed, and maintained by ADS. Flow meters were mounted near the top of each manhole and were connected to depth and velocity sensors positioned in the incoming wastewater pipe. Each flow meter was equipped with an ultrasonic depth sensor and a velocity sensor. A pressure depth sensor was also mounted at or near the invert to measure water depths during surcharge events. Rainfall during the study period was captured using ADS RainAlert III rainfall monitors and tipping buckets. Figure 3-5 shows an ADS Triton+ flow meter and RainAlert III rainfall monitor. Figure 3-5: ADS Flow Meter and Rain Gauge Equipment r Yll j� 3.2.3 Flow Monitoring Data Analysis FNI reviewed and evaluated the rain gauge and flow meter data collected during the field data collection period. The rainfall data and associated flow responses were utilized to calibrate the hydraulic model to observed dry and wet weather conditions. The following sections discuss the evaluation of the observed dry weather flow, wet weather flow, and rainfall data. Rain Gauge Data Evaluation A total of seven (7) storm events were observed during the field data collection period. Table 3-2 summarizes the duration and rainfall depth observed during these storm events. The observed 5-minute rainfall intensities are plotted along with the flow meter data included in Appendix E. DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan rFREESE --111�WICNOLS City of Friendswood Table 3-2: Flow Meter Data Evaluation Observed Rain Event D. 2/11/2025 Rainfall Events Duration 19.5 During Flow Total Rainfall(') 1.1 2/22/2025 24 1.3 3/28/2025 20 0.7 4/21/2025 2.5 1.6 4/23/2025 7.5 1.6 5/2/2025 1.1 0.5 5/7/2025 2.8 0.5 (1) Total rainfall based on the average of all five rain gauges Monitoring Hydrographs and flow depth plots for each flow meter site are provided in Appendix E. The hydrographs display flow rate data vs. time for the duration of the field testing period, along with the observed rainfall intensities. Similarly, the depth plots show the depth of flow vs. time. FNI evaluated dry and wet weather flow conditions during the field data collection period. Dry weather flow conditions are characterized by evaluating flow meter data observed during normal conditions, excluding wet weather events and the periods associated with the recovery from these events. The average dry weather and peak wet weather flow rates observed at each flow meter site are provided in Table 3-3, along with the wet weather to dry weather peaking factors. Wet weather peaking factors greater than four are generally considered to be high and are highlighted in red in Table 3-3. A total of 24 out of the 26 flow meter sites observed peaking factors greater than four (4.0) during the flow monitoring period. DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan IBIICHOLS FREESE City of Friendswood Table 3-3: Dry Weather and Wet Weather Flow Data Flow Meter 'IW ID F M-01 Average Dry Weather Flow (MGD) 0.09 Peak Wet Weather Flow �Jret (MGD) Weather Peaking Factor Peak Wet Flow Average Dry Flow 13.0 1.17 FM-02 0.34 1.98 5.8 FM-03 0.84 5.22 6.2 FM-04 0.18 1.17 6.5 FM-05 0.05 1.08 21.6 FM-06 0.29 1.43 4.9 FM-07 0.06 1.03 17.2 FM-08 0.26 2.55 9.8 FM-09 0.20 1.93 9.7 FM-10 0.09 0.91 10.1 FM-11 0.56 4.43 7.9 FM-12 1.45 4.02 2.8 FM-13 0.30 2.03 6.8 FM-14 0.07 0.90 12.9 FM-15 0.07 0.94 13.4 FM-16 0.16 0.66 4.1 FM-17 0.16 1.09 6.8 FM-18 0.62 3.31 5.3 FM-19 0.37 1.84 5.0 FM-20 0.11 0.70 6.4 FM-21 0.57 2.95 5.2 FM-22 0.58 2.24 3.9 FM-23 0.09 0.55 6.1 FM-24 0.03 0.16 5.3 FM-25 0.13 0.65 5.0 FM-26 0.07 0.34 4.9 3-10 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood Dry Weather Depths (d/D) a`E$DS FREESE l Texnsf The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Water Environment Federation (WEF) recommend that sewers with diameters up to 15 inches be designed to flow with dry weather d/D ratios of <_ 0.5, and sewers with diameters 18 inches and larger be designed to flow with dry weather d/D ratios of <_ 0.75. The dry weather d/D ratios for all but four flow meter locations meet the recommended criteria. This indicates adequate capacity in the system to convey existing dry weather flows at the majority of the flow meter sites. Four sites have an observed dry weather d/D ratio that exceeded the ASCE and WEF criteria. The meters exceeding the criteria are highlighted in green in Table 3-4. Wet Weather Depths (d/D) Wet weather d/D ratios should not exceed 1.0, as this indicates surcharging in the collection system. Twenty-two (22) sites recorded wet weather d/D ratios greater than 1.0, indicating insufficient capacity to convey the observed peak wet weather flows. These ratios are highlighted in brown in Table 3-4. Surcharge Height and Depth from Rim The last two columns in Table 3-4 show the maximum surcharge height above the top of the gravity pipe, as well as the resulting depth from the rim (top) of the manhole. Twenty-two (22) of the meter sites indicated a surcharge during the flow monitoring period. At two of these locations, the water level rose to within 3 feet of the manhole rim, indicating a lack of conveyance or pumping capacity in the system. This is highlighted red in Table 3-4. Level -Only Data Two level -only devices were utilized in the collection system to capture water levels at lift stations chosen by the City. Plots showing the depth of water are included with the flow meter plots in Appendix E. 3-11 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan IN11CHOLS FREESE City of Friendswood Table 3-4: Flow Depths and Surcharging Summary Dry Weather Wet Weather��A.AL- .. . 1.5 ' 11.6 Flow Meter FM-01 Pipe Diameter(l) 12 Manhole Depth(') 169.2 (in) A 4.5 0.4 30.0 2.5 FM-02 21 198.0 4.0 0.2 73.0 3.5 4.3 10.4 FM-03 27 112.8 14.0 0.5 94.0 3.5 5.6 1.6 FM-04 12 177.0 1.0 0.1 122.0 10.2 9.2 4.6 FM-05 12 177.0 3.5 0.3 1 133.0 11.1 10.1 3.7 FM-06 15 219.6 10.0 168.0 11.2 12.8 4.3 FM-07 15 102.0 2.8 0.2 34.5 2.3 1.6 5.6 FM-08 24 102.0 6.0 0.3 58.0 2.4 2.8 3.7 FM-09 15 141.6 5.4 0.4 66.0 4.4 4.3 6.3 FM-10 15 279.6 2.0 0.1 110.0 7.3 7.9 14.1 FM-11 24 99.6 12.0 0.5 87.0 3.6 5.3 1.1 FM-12 27 248.4 15.0 0.6 155.0 5.7 10.7 7.8 FM-13 21.5 156.0 9.0 0.4 59.0 2.7 3.1 8.1 FM-14 12 225.6 3.1 0.3 9.0 0.8 -0.3 18.1 FM-15 12 240.0 3.8 0.3 10.5 0.9 -0.1 19.1 FM-16 12 205.2 5.0 0.4 17.0 1.4 0.4 15.7 FM-17 12 183.6 12.0 1.0 102.0 8.5 7.5 6.8 FM-18 36 133.2 6.0 0.2 40.0 1.1 0.3 7.8 FM-19 24 90.0 7.5 0.3 35.0 1.5 0.9 4.6 FM-20 12 273.6 6.0 0.6 175.0 14.6 13.6 8.2 FM-21 27 168.0 12.0 0.4 21.0 0.8 -0.5 12.3 FM-22 27 168.0 16.0 0.6 24.5 0.9 -0.2 12.0 FM-23 12 176.4 2.0 0.2 116.0 9.7 8.7 5.0 FM-24 10 176.4 3.0 0.3 116.0 11.6 8.8 5.0 FM-25 15 188.4 7.0 0.5 71.0 4.7 4.7 9.8 FM-26 10 171.6 3.0 0.3 33.0 3.3 1.9 11.6 (1) Diameters are from City GIS and manhole depths measured during flow meter installations. Source: ADS Friendswood RD11 Analysis 2025 (Appendix D). 3-12 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood 3.2.4 Infiltration and Inflow Results a`E$DS FREESE l Texnsf A wet weather analysis was performed to calculate the rate of 1/1 observed in each flow meter basin. 1/1 refers to the unwanted entry of stormwater or groundwater into the collection system through defective manholes, pipes, service connections, cleanouts, etc. This excess water is undesirable because it reduces the capacity of the collection system and can lead to sanitary sewer overflows that endanger the public and the environment and result in fines. Discrete 1/1 generated within each of the flow meter basins was calculated by subtracting 1/1 from any upstream flow meter basins. These discrete 1/1 volumes were then normalized based on the linear footage of wastewater gravity line within each meter basin and the rainfall from each storm event. Table 3-5 shows the volume (in millions of gallons) of 1/1 generated within each flow meter basin during each rainfall event and Table 3-6 shows the normalized 1/1 generated within each flow meter basin during each rainfall event. The results are shown in gallons of 1/1 per linear foot of sewer line per inch of rainfall. Normalized 1/1 above 4 Gal/LF/in is considered to be high and indicates the need for future sanitary sewer evaluation study (SSES) projects. 3-13 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan ,.,C.,LS FREESE City of Friendswood IFIII Table 3-5: Million Gallons (MG) of 1/1 per Rainfall Event Flow FM-01 FootageLine 36,239 0.14 0.17 0.03 0.15 -IF 0.15 - 0.01 Y 0.01 Average 0.09 FM-02 39,188 - 0.94 0.21 0.37 0.54 0.05 0.04 0.36 FM-03 56,796 - 0.33 0.05 0.32 0.57 0.13 0.15 0.26 FM-04 38,690 0.55 0.61 0.03 0.3 0.46 0.02 0.04 0.29 FM-05 30,331 0.48 0.54 0.02 0.21 0.42 0.02 0.02 0.24 FM-06 35,328 0.48 0.56 0.11 0.2 0.51 0.01 0.05 0.27 FM-07 28,464 0.36 0.45 0.07 0.2 0.35 0.02 0.03 0.21 FM-08 26,272 0.58 0.93 0.09 0.18 0.52 0.04 0.08 0.35 FM-09 49,876 0.57 0.67 0.18 0.34 0.72 0.05 0.13 0.38 FM-10 28,950 0.3 0.51 0.14 0.17 0.35 0 0.03 0.21 FM-11 63,595 0.3 0.09 0.14 0.11 0.54 0.04 0.1 0.19 FM-12 53,810 0.63 0.26 0.12 0.35 - - - 0.34 FM-13 52,415 0.26 0.78 0.07 0.24 0.54 0.04 0.08 0.29 FM-14 9,996 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.03 FM-15 21,063 0.09 0.11 0.02 0.07 0.07 0.02 0.03 0.06 FM-16 18,623 - 0.09 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.04 FM-17 33,470 0.19 0.38 0.04 0.07 0.28 0.01 0.09 0.15 FM-18 44,493 - 0.38 0.13 0.16 0.25 0.04 0.14 0.18 FM-19 54,376 0.28 0.47 0.11 0.19 - 0.08 0.23 0.23 FM-20 29,433 0.06 0.1 0.02 0.05 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.06 FM-21 58,784 0.14 0.22 0.07 0.11 0.16 0.04 0.1 0.12 FM-22 29,536 - - 0.11 0.15 - - - 0.13 FM-23 20,336 0.09 - 0.03 0.03 - - 0.04 0.05 FM-24 11,877 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.01 - 0.02 FM-25 44,951 - - 0.04 0.06 0.23 0.02 0.02 0.07 FM-26 15,587 0.05 0.11 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.02 0.04 0.05 3-14 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan 1UICHOLS FREESE City of Friendswood Table 3-6: Normalized 1/1 (Gal/LF/in) per Rainfall Event Flow FM-01 Lin Gravity Lines 36,239 e 2.7 Feb 3.0 mar 1.4 Apr 1.8 Apr 2.2 may 0.3 may 1.1 Average 1/1 1.8 FM-02 39,188 - 15.3 10.0 4.2 7.4 2.7 3.4 7.2 FM-03 56,796 4.5 3.7 1.7 2.5 5.4 4.7 8.2 4.4 FM-04 38,690 10.1 10.1 1.5 3.4 6.4 1.1 3.3 5.1 FM-05 30,331 11.2 11.4 1.3 3.1 7.4 1.5 2.4 5.5 FM-06 35,328 9.6 10.2 5.6 2.6 7.7 0.7 4.9 5.9 FM-07 28,464 10.8 11.6 3.6 4.8 6.2 1.5 2.4 5.8 FM-08 26,272 18.9 25.8 4.6 4.7 10.1 3.4 5.9 10.5 FM-09 49,876 8.6 10.5 4.3 3.7 9.6 2.4 6.2 6.5 FM-10 28,950 7.8 13.8 5.7 3.2 8.1 0.3 2.5 5.9 FM-11 63,595 3.6 1.0 2.6 0.9 5.6 1.3 3.5 FM-12 53,810 15.5 4.5 3.6 5.3 - - - 7.2 FM-13 52,415 3.8 11.5 1.6 2.5 6.9 1.6 3.3 4.5 FM-14 9,996 1.2 3.2 2.5 3.0 3.5 1.2 4.3 2.7 FM-15 21,063 3.2 3.9 1.4 1.7 2.1 2.6 2.9 2.5 FM-16 18,623 - 3.6 1.5 1.3 1.0 1.8 2.8 2.0 FM-17 33,470 4.8 8.3 1.9 1.5 4.3 0.9 5.3 3.9 FM-18 44,493 - 7.7 4.7 2.9 3.6 1.4 3.9 4.0 FM-19 54,376 6.9 7.9 3.3 2.8 - 2.6 5.3 4.8 FM-20 29,433 2.7 3.0 1.4 1.3 2.8 0.8 1.3 1.9 FM-21 58,784 3.2 3.4 2.1 1.6 1.7 1.2 2.0 2.2 FM-22 29,536 10.1 9.1 6.0 4.1 7.4 1.5 5.3 6.2 FM-23 20,336 5.5 - 1.8 1.3 - - 3.2 3.0 FM-24 11,877 2.3 2.4 1.6 2.1 1.7 1.2 - 1.9 FM-25 44,951 - - 1.1 1.1 3.1 0.9 0.7 1.4 FM-26 15,587 4.1 6.3 2.0 1.6 2.8 3.2 4.0 3.4 3-15 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood Inflow and Infiltration Summary rFREESE -I lUICHOLS The flow meter basins were categorized into High, Moderate, or Low 1/1 and ranked from 1(Highest) to 26 (Lowest). The categories are based on the rate of 1/1 as gallons per linear foot per inch of rainfall (Gal/LF/in) calculated within each basin. Table 3-7 shows the categories of 1/1. All 26 flow meter basins are ranked by the measured rate of 1/1 in Table 3-8 and shown on Figure 3-6. In summary, the meter basin 1/1 ranking results are: • 14 basins with high levels of 1/1 • 8 basins with moderat, levels of 1/1 • 4 basin with a low level of 1/1 The results of the evaluation indicated that 1/1 has a significant impact on the City's peak wet weather system response and contributes to observed capacity limitations as observed in the peaking factor, d/D, and 1/1 data. Based on these findings, it is recommended the City implement an SSES and Rehabilitation Program to address 1/1, discussed further in Section 8.0. Table 3-7: Categories of 1/1 1/1 Greater than 4.0 High 1/1 1/1 between 2.0 — 3.9 Moderate 1/1 1/1 less than 2.0 Low 1/1 3-16 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood 12 11 10 9 2 1 0 �a ENo s Wpoo .. q FREESE -OWNICHOLS M k ?FKASy tY Figure 3-6: Normalized 1/1 by Flow Meter Basin (Gal/LF/in) A$ titi Ati AA titi tiA 1' 0 tit ti� ti� ti3 tia yti yti titi ti6 yo ya Ati by e� e� e� e� e� e� e� e� e� e� e� I�p e e e e e ee, Moderate i/i ■ 3-17 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan �IIIICHOLS FREESE City of Friendswood Table 3-8: Flow Meter Basin Ranking by 1/1 �Basin Ranlking by 1 Flow Meff FM-08 IINE Basin Footag 36,239 Average Volume of 1/1 6.3 Average 1/1 10.5 2 FM-12 39,188 5.7 7.2 3 FM-02 56,796 4.6 7.2 4 FM-09 38,690 4.8 6.5 5 FM-22 30,331 4.9 6.2 6 FM-10 35,328 2.4 5.9 7 FM-06 28,464 3.1 5.9 8 FM-07 26,272 2.2 5.8 9 FM-05 49,876 1.8 5.5 10 FM-04 28,950 2.2 5.1 11 FM-19 63,595 5.2 4.8 12 FM-13 53,810 4.8 4.5 13 FM-03 52,415 6.4 4.4 14 FM-18 9,996 5.4 4.0 15 FM-17 21,063 1.5 3.9 16 FM-26 18,623 0.5 3.4 17 FM-23 33,470 0.4 2.9 18 FM-14 44,493 0.3 2.7 19 FM-11 54,376 3.9 2.7 20 FM-15 29,433 0.6 2.5 21 FM-21 58,784 3.4 2.2 22 FM-16 29,536 0.4 2.0 23 FM-20 20,336 0.6 1.9 24 FM-24 11,877 0.2 1.9 25 FM-01 44,951 0.7 1.8 26 FM-25 15,587 0.6 1.4 3-18 I 0 1,500 3,000 SCALE IN FEET N • q'Li F�'PO r 4.♦ FM-02 I1. .7 t' d �AIA FM-08 10.5 FMWlr7�j to F�9 o_ 0 D ILLUNDY LN • , SCHULTE LN NINC= I I . ;;�A4 , League DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood 4.0 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS a`E$DS FREESE l Texnsf This section describes the land use assumptions for the 2026 Wastewater Master Plan. Population and land use are important elements in the analysis of wastewater collection systems. Wastewater flows are dependent on the residential population and non-residential developments served by the system and affect the sizing and location of system infrastructure. During this study, FNI worked with the City's Community Development Department to evaluate historical population and develop 5-year, 10-year, and Buildout land use assumptions and projections. A description of the methodology utilized is included in the following sections. 4.1 HISTORICAL POPULATION Historical city-wide population provided by the City is presented in Table 4-1. The City's population data shows that since 2020, the City of Friendswood has experienced an approximately 0.9% annual average growth in population. Table 4-1: Historical Population Year 2020 City Limits Population(') 41,740 Annual Growth Rate 1.1% 2021 41,974 0.6% 2022 42,268 0.7% 2023 42,815 1.3% 2024 43,190 0.9% 2025 43,406 0.5 2026(2) 43,406 0.9% Average Annual Growth Rate 0.8% (1) Historical population from City staff. (2) Assumed population remained the same from 2025-2026 4.2 PROJECTED FUTURE DEVELOPMENT FNI worked with the City's Community Development and Engineering Departments to develop population and non-residential acreage projections for the 5-year, 10-year, and Buildout planning periods. The data sources utilized to develop population and non-residential acreage projections included: • Friendswood's latest Future Land Use Plan (FLUP), adopted in 2021 and updated in 2024 • Information on anticipated known developments 4-1 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood • Latest parcel shapefile • Active water meter billing data (October 2023 to September 2024) • Existing septic connections within City limits a`ENDS FREESE ?exne • Density and growth projection assumptions from the City's Community Development Department Utilizing the data sources listed above, FNI developed projections for the following two categories of future growth: Known Developments and Infill Growth. A brief description of the methodology utilized for each of these categories is included below. Known Developments The City staff identified areas where future residential and non-residential developments are anticipated to occur as well as an expected timeline for each development. These anticipated known developments are shown on Figure 4-1. This list includes the Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone #2 (TIRZ#2) development that includes a collection of single-family, multi -family, and commercial developments. Where available, the City provided development -specific information such as number of single-family lots, number of multi- family units, and non-residential acreage. Where detailed information was not available, density assumptions based on direction from the City staff were utilized. These growth projections by development are included in Table 4-2. Infill Growth Where development information was unknown, FNI utilized active water meter locations and future land use information from the City's latest FLUP as shown on Figure 4-2 to identify future developable areas. These areas included currently vacant parcels outside of known developments that are not within the Parks, Public and Semi -Public, and Regional Detention land use types per the FLUP. The identified parcels are shown as purple colored infill polygons on Figure 4-1. Density and growth assumptions for infill parcels were developed in coordination with the City's Community Development Department to calculate projected population and non-residential acreage by planning period and are included in Table 4-2. In addition to the Known Developments and Infill Growth areas, FNI also reviewed areas with potential for septic conversions. This category includes the City's water customers who are currently within the City limits but are not served wastewater by the City. The City provided the location of existing septic customers within the Friendswood City limits. FNI worked with the Community Development and 4-2 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood a`E$DS FREESE l Texnsf Engineering staff to identify the areas that are anticipated to be served by the City in the future and an anticipated timeline for the conversion from septic to sewer system. The septic system locations anticipated to be served wastewater by the City in future are shown in green polygons on Figure 4-1. 4-3 7.14 rl WINDSCING LN, 1:11 111111111rin Ul —1 1 A ... to I. ........ m.lfl ... F I Its O ■ No. age ISO uIIIIIIIIIo 1191659 .III II . . ....... .. oil_ @WOZ9 0A ftq�v _1A m F1 F: M 11CHC � ..r. y-- v, - _ by / i' pf ,� �� a\ i '+� - ,h1 f7 1• t1. t ,�,� .- X. ")• �A• \ ter �`~ ry, '' ! ,. i '� • ` = k � -�, , A- t' l ,•r .�/ t`•Xv ' ^`_ r- �,..,` " 0. ♦ Jt'l?,'' yJ}J'f,�, '� I ,(`�� , lX •_ a{ •✓I , \•,r' r, � • � • , :Y,�.,/`. , �' . �V- - f , �J7♦' M y. 1 11% Yr • / , i , � • , .. i � � ' 1 r / ♦ \ �? w. 11 + . +< / �. III / } J► .,/ _� i?�� - 1 4 _4 01 . / f ;? - y ti y :r +�' �`��(/', - Y , y - y_ - / `� fir, �* ,- • F� . /' .�"'. i , / , -, . . " I - / , � /�� -,� "' , , - . / , * . , , N . , , . . 0 h .4J�' I l \ \,\ N . it y� \ t <. , I I . .. I '. - , ., .1 . " A 41 - _,�_ ?_ - . , 4 .,. �� - /X\ ,/ . , \/. t-l- of l : / / } I .r' -�11 1. , . 4 ,A 1\ [/,�� � ` Ir- , ��lll I .1 '. . - .- . , S. 0 0 •i� I . . .. I 4, . . I - . I � "I . �* 17�r- * k , 1_.' . I •r 4. Z- 14 :, » _ .. aO ':.' �,� ; ,\\ , air .� �.•V .1,` ��� r. .' 1 ~' ; �. yam,; �' \', k I - � , ,. 40 "O�-. . - may/ j0 .i ,1 �� +, , f f ' ; r L 'r� f • `, % Jt - j /I/ .+ r QL ^s , M • , , . r'.. v,� `, • if __ ,' `' - y '4 . a i •, . r',� ' z sTFF( r 'r , � RF g Z / f ' i t �+ � '�'�' �. •� „d. '� Y /� L• + "�l. r Fp /ZO De D UDCT:.Q 4• \� ?C. % 0 9 .,' ./ �' O a l. AV., 1 -, — �,,:, � � � ­� f kj . I I A lq-, ,�! _ 00 Id I I 11 I I I 'It " ,-- ,.,/\ , ,�, �b 101p, I \ . % , ,w t11 I . %+:-a" .r '� , 1 !� r J J i�,� ^ s �FIO '%eF�ip/(� ' `K ' y r . �S\�O �c�� 1�' J•`. , +' »•v . ` v bbP- S , " . '. f. r, "D lei / / . �•�O /°G, t <16 �p �.. ./ , :, < } �, �. ` ! /' 1 '' \ \ 1' T ^'k / ) > t ' �� 00� \ sOG� TSB/ 9 �' sC ` // / [*``. ZL• '` `' 1� N� 1` . i ' a'. ` \ �• i. , 11 .* •'• /•� `. 00 �O O� y�/Fl Flp'O r Flv/C I/lv yR° �TFj��,;' `1• • ' it r , ; c 1 x l 1i / ♦ti ' d a j O O O OIP Y .C� b?/i (y f� / -' T � \O \' O 9r J Q�S I — r ei . r a ,.. \ 1\ * - It d 0 f 4 \ CC� , .S�\�O QQ\�� \ ( I �QrFQ t� � • x �' f `�+ r i /". � �` . ► , r 4+ 4 - !' I � \ yy r bIR \` •i, `� `�• A �i 1 . �/ ,vESj�OOD 00� ���? 1 t \ l� �: Myy .` ' `� -4, •f a � 1 \ , "', �f ` . ' '�' i�,. 'S / . f t ✓f i ��q+�' w ' /�1� "0� PQ, 'FIO Il "!ram t�_,*,,�9�r• `. ��20 OZ' �09' �`, +� y i� �` ie! k dt`,�'• '.\'\ r :•'• �. - F•1 ly '�, {'-,��� .• �!•/:/A' 2 ��,� Gq/�,`�`S � • J - r // , �iR .�• r'�, • { s h y A r r �jV, / + ' 20 F,p/q C J � . 9� G, • n ' � ' %r • �j•'+� , i a ` . 4 . • �, ✓ h ^ ` ; FR/Fi�,O \ ♦ r • �� l'G \ _N (p� ' c/ry (!q� I i ` a'+ •P a _ •r' ` 1.WS3 ` •r - )1_1 . � .. f • . • i �,C . / ,,. e�( ^ . y4Q' O� _ ��� ' � • ' .1 90`q , /%// r lL0 . `\ ! + - I �:..i .�,, - 3Y` C .` / . � " % ./,, y • • /•� 'r, �"� Jam• J, - ,,, *.,-•,, OQ: C�� i \ SHADY-OAKSLN O- 6 .11 :r -' Mr �J'. • 2r`".• i+ I r4. t, �- G t„ , fJ O%`i O ii.VJ,�j�t i �`� O ``V,,� i i to ✓ • • it1. • �.- . . / -j / . o R OQ� ! , \�i \ QUO /� 1-- 5��� 'P/( \F , . 6 9/�'/� l� ' t ~.� ) , '� ' �i ' If ■ ` ' `' I -jN` ��` ��\� �'k is ' 4' ,4 OCR / 00 y , �`C� • •:y( 9'PC ?( _ . /"' •t s, / , . ,y; ' PND`l�N �QP F((q . _ \0 'Picr�a, ,� �\ Qt�/ / , r'2P O,yO �� / T/ F10� q(+ 1 � / �f `Y - *yy'�I \ •- t . C7 gR !, cT v �. 49) S •yt" / 1 c� OQ OQ + l+ �I FT 9 . I .: \\7 *R ' o y , •I 'f/�, C'qh C , �O9(t JQ .f(►�'OoI,� / S7 QO� 4Ggy \Q? �CQ �/ % .9° 09 eOG ` , +� \ �'" _ / • / , r «� l i , 4 1. , .l \ h� z % T(Fl 9,-/', ' iY � '� �00�' � \� F,PO I �Olc ��/ � � j %` , 1 "Al G9i , , • ?� ' � .1 .1 Jr , \r '` t - I ! I 1. \ , , ,'t\ N.. , • h+ • e •qL G,P _,,'r � I Q" l � � it FQ � � 9 LO Qri \S� J ,�`� S e �'/., . r t A, a f .4 h • \ i = i ' k / H O,t, i( ° l y c //i �'2 `s� Q OQ oe !\ Q PJ eq l9 llq ` r f y %� W� , 1 e ,"• '& 09 2 s' 9jF FO Q,��v : ��/ 09 Gl \� Q\� '%Jr% 0AV S� T/B `PCF C'Fy Ilk . L 1 I - } I - � ' , J. ` r < � `+, (! !F 'yp 9,F Q,O� ��' 'LG •FL Fiy \ ' ' P Q GQS FT l0 9 4/ l i 7. J� . , . i' 2/ l '0 s � ., O 's/ p� 4s/ /s lF \ �� SQ 9 �' • F 9,p1 �' �O 99/p 'FryO .tip. \<Q���� i/,Mr.Ot�O Tq , qp ' �c S P� O 90 del •� - �I`"'� ti 1 • ` ,' !TV , u ti P� , /F ll, r�QQ6f �I�ta� '� r� e\ p9 PJ • FQP /� 'O 9 !.O 90G r'�` "", f ` 1 • I. w i% ✓` r • r` ' '. i ' + ( / 1 `h, a Pam, s ` (Zjl p ;,,ly �� JJJ1�5�i'"."��Pil,! / J\Q`� ♦ L\ .. a� ` f29 �QO B(9C G9/� f '`. i ` Y r �y • . �/ r \ ! • k z ' rS� . " OP Y; i.�+ •} J �,+. � �'O \e\ IFS /'/ i" 1 t i 1' ^r • ` t " r'f . 'i ,y /ZOO ' / 49(/,pl ar mr . � ° ` / , T , 4 t2 ` p�\. , \, Bq qk, !l9 ♦ ,' 1\ . I - I t , . v . +' .*(, SG 6 sT9 Q , p(9 ! ��l� �y ;J\�, J� �'Yj/ 031�� , O \: �CF �6'!/� `�'' .' •.I ' b, ,1 ;.. .Y 2s 9, °/ ^• , O f r GL t. � P T, ,g . /� r^ ti. �� cp Ti l0 O ._ . � r FT Gq G O f , 2 �, 4G F W O O ,p K r. / A ' p O 2, O- O � - \Q 9 9 � r \ O FS• eFT v9 . Y - . 110 9 '� % • t �. • ,�' , Sj l,1, C' O J�� ti 9.� O \� / O C'l �'O a x, T �,�.. { �� . t FP FO G 9/i/ QO y C" °•p QG Al ' �\ Q`�`� v� y GG,y Fiy 9/i \� .2 �,' 1 ") . h • ' '� J "l z ► �9 �. `� �9p _ ps �`' LS C� .�/'� i % qir Z QO ev /dj FS OI, F v `� q " �! �' . fir_ a' r . % y • ? � , .yp, SF 00 �lll�\<c 0� �\ , AJ l 9eF Jt' ! Aq� CGS O \`i JJ .� , _i,.++3 _ r 9, ' ' f ' ' " :P °O \ y� • by P��• 1 9G ,yp 0� \ , r tiT lti Q • t r ,y • , GST/, • P9 P �� `'P ! +�k� P�, �0 /. chi ql C, / // t -, PJ�, a ► 28 RD `�� ♦ 1 C . ' 1 Clti ' �. f I °9 r'QQrc ��!S �JF PQO �C. %-��0 +✓ !%l0 w _ ? C,F�p �OQ TOE FM 5 y, , i \ ; t•. / JJ " ti (IV � �, yt'/?'O i• .% Q`'�(�y� O O �O J\4 2F \�, � ,����'' .� �� `. t � I- i . I r i . • ' _ � ` ; A//y t i 1 .,i\ -- 000� y'*•\• Q\# 0 _POF 1P IS- I _ �� "- t���.�� r ". jk `00. % / / •1 ♦ < ( Q. I// 7777 �' �.' , F i a„ I , fit, SSSrrr___ ti • •% \ . l 1 ,C ,. � 'N '( a , �� 'OQ`' ` -/� Q\C\ ,• ;' X X , -< ' • �(��q - i� �. \�jQ�` FDI l �,. F r�� - « -r J V _ ,• - . ,`Q�''•.. �I \ ` �' �i • .1 \ OOO .'` :��0yJ CT/ #_�: . �''�� /j// `// IOC, v\��1``iS�? �.,ew,oO� ,� o • . O O ,J. ,• C �` / 9 Sv 1 9 r \' +` ; • w• y 11111,1111 O.. /Q\�' �!� I SOP\ - i �jjS O - ` f - m� E R�'� �11 . p \ •` . SY' ! / • t .� /i1 QP` c\ •, , RED MAPL D - 11. 11 :/ lt', , �> S, ,; - ,� - + . ,,lo a /' \5 O !� y • 7 • !y �' 2 p0 ti O .. �. I I11 � .� fir, %�• ` �/ .\ ... /1.. Y.'.li ! •' ^� - . ^t , • , • L �'A lkv/ �Fjl/F F6'giF • ` ` �' /'�'pi2.�• �0 , Q�SJO // �O pPR�BENDDlk q'j'lp /p ,�, ♦/ r �� .1� i ,yet •t� t�\ _ 4 . �OQ . -+^ t_ �� , OQ \� �.�!. 1 l� �LO00 G�q.v • �� P P �QP ,�� ,: ,' - ,lk • kQ GFT9Am • ., ,r, _ . tillt� Fl \ ? SLQ J f + OQQ' ' f, \ `O j' ` �O 4� � /, " � � . � _ �• ♦ � �/ �� O >!` \ ,i / �Q /Gl 'o ` <:Q \� sill 'r J11 PJrc Q _ I -, . •,, s �O �i, .. �,✓ j L/ +�PQ l ` • �J !p ,\ y �� FI, � O Off. / . +yr , N �is� 9 Gc DP J + �{j �p ` a / S OQ/ , . • • 9. ��'_ P Jtr lFq� ` /� (Z O0 Off' �F ■ r �, 3 _ lijG 9f, J�Q �: ♦e/%, O t. 01 • �� <•r 4..'�; °ti �P� �%, i - , • �. �``°p ., q�• /tip, O O� ��� , �0; �� e p 2iti 'hqA ono 1♦ \• ` , '� 0 F ` �• . o %It :✓i%G C P Q [r ,�f CyF. 9,p CT o �.,* , ,, .7 ,�.' B9,yF �, \?: � �C{O� F!1'6q, I . \\\) ` ��FP Off_ I� +<'�q j Q\2�' �L�Q \Q\r'J � � �u G `!/ SSA GIST `ll � i �� Q Pp - , FQO QP ,h�P r / 9,p0 �` i\� • Q\P \ `� �.\F_ ` �,�i,,�� y p _�_ . d. p/C �� qp�. pp Q\� . \ �_ - . - 1 . s`i, Q . ♦ I ST -� ' t _ . J rP' Qd p QP \\ w •T' ��� y OQ T` Sy ✓!�, Q . / j �• Qh`�90 •z. i �� �! .'1' . JQ t J� ♦`` .�� `-. �� y^ • �� �� O� llp 9p '�. �� i �,1. t �P t _ a ��iO t > i • , q7 �. }O 1p/ ,P�F �LSFT /, �(� �-~ . A�" \Q\O �� O J. . . l�Q . Q,\ O� PJ'i , / . c ' - '.- ` �hc� 'Le O� p� f �� . , �y Q `Q� \ h Q�Q J�O O� Q�5 JPJ �PJIre f ' / Q y0 .Oi . '. y - 11 s Z"I p # �� \ \, O� `l J\ 00 \\P QQ 0 ,`. , O 9 '' ' �� GiY �_ O 2 J • a+ - l '�, 6 ' . �<c Q 0 Q �\ �Q ��, • � \S r I �►a/ ���� `Y1, TO s' 'Y 7' C+ 9 h�' `2 PC ,i '. O % • ` �` . d 9 S� Q, P _ . l . .. .t /r19 reQ'� �� �O OQl\QQ r��P. 1� r��` ' \ C�� 9 ` P�, �q�/,e��. !9 O 9 t r ! �' • q J �O 0 O OS t'I `' \�. FG � yJ✓, \4 iF . GIF 'LO,p y j •t .t �• . • 8 09 ��G 2 ��Zr 2 , `�t- •� �s O' �\ Q\O OD Q T \k \ L� / •/L, F + S , . .4 (/ F ar a r y - //� Q �J P 0 D y0 10 O �2 0 \ \' Q,J �'° tiC/' r' ,� Jam, tlOs O 'CL '' « ' JIFR R yF90 NO DR , , • • C / \F G P�' O JJ °9 �h \� 'j'O r �jYr1 O ! 2 L1VOR v< 'r �� . ' r 4' I .� �Q0 C J� .O .� �� 's.; �. �9 , ERS.+; q/Rl/•�•/• ,�•♦_ v 2 Y h � Q\\'� °`' �Q`' <`; � k z ' 6. � , . �o�'� I � ti / FOR `. �� - / y , /,*, —"" t -, , . � ://, 1� gtiF/ q°O ,O lF/Z ,DJ . • �' ~ 9/'p o �i\O� �QJ F�'O t �\ x-� / lt, IFO,j, 000 0P • - r��P „`' " F : , \Q�Q \P �\P� , - C • OR r .` ^, � 4 - ` • , .� 0\ ^ P� cam. 0 ► Off' a' ' /fF { �P OQ ' `� / 0� r r Qi r`\O 2lO �� ` �.; (, ' l ` e9, O�'F �0O 'V • a O0� )r _ , . r 1� .. W \ 0\��\ (02 sj 1p p ` �+ �p { �. "4111, l':. Ali ll0 O'p pit C9<c /rS,O `O� v J�Q\ t ;� e V` u ' \ _ Gl 9,F �., • • /Ii- y/T y, 9 ��� F"'r Fp' QQj o� .: ,0 \ 'i.J On. ., 4 it s- F F •' ,CT • p`l �',� ( F � /O 'r,', Q . I ; I. MO §7 . u, • � �,• - - 9 Cl. NPRCUP� jQrl����i:99 � 4/,1, I \ O�<i; �Oe FO0 ` \1 �OQ 'I �, / Irk . _. 1'� . U�'TA/ly.F =0.. Q... r,•, i j • \ 1P ,�i� 90P`�• GC/ ` v \O lGF S� �OC�� • •' J. r gl[S CT (•. , z , .� 1 , , ,r Iq ROAD NO NAM alb 1� O� �A I 0m O L9/l \0 . R O s'TON ' r .1�,� c�' ; `� •QP� r'OQ vQ�X�, . r �4 9.0 +'.- r l G9 ROC h •a « s �� �' �' C'V/ ` r , I- 4 1 1 . * ,`) C+- - . -.• � . . '.� . \ y� / EF ?� 1gil pp 1. - OIll IOQ �O� • . , �4� RiVFT,c/Fl k0,,7, , 1 �<' o lit / ' '.s . *I ', ' �t • L `_ it ,I , tf tom, \ OQ /fi, t. `\. ,� ' �F O \, ��(�Q �OQ !/��r / SFR/�cN ' 'y �' �': / ' a'6 :+y _f 1VO 0. os 4lC O + OO• f i�. ���.,� t \{ \ Z- ,v `- '*- - `^ _ . � ' � � - -may • ` ' o C :�QS•; A\ � �(IOP . •�O -. �p QOO,P, Fe6(ll k / F, /�n r r - ,' 1 O \ ,- \ �j 3 j2 . r . � ` , �- 4 4-4,j a �� . ,' , - �i" ` •u Z J� G l! r �9 �` z f . ^^ lam` l Q ,i '' _ \ ''1 ,ti'- S ' ;1 - 00 \0e\ OQ, APO \�(� GrT . mpl, FpO Q . r 2 >: ` \ T .. 1) �i • �. r� "t ,' , \ _'� _ y 0 i f �O t �� P, otiF z 9 �O a h • `• ! / Q.`� + \ . , o ,(`� Q Q� v� . `� P QQ 9L 9/F 9 O O �' %`� SC (� i . -� Q . �. ;r1, ,. ,• L o �j �Q Q PQ �' 9y °s �/2 Q� . �'t'tw m ,� �. N/Cy ' ,x ! 1 '; ,,\� ? .a I 0 m r h� O lqs P \\P ', 1,� Vt fy0 /02 Q\J n e i r /(,150�O c (. ` `CC • 1 m ', . I FSO 9llF \\\ \Q • p° o Cj v 1 .. R- . Oy O 4i 4/" �+r �� r' i '� - - -� -i. = G� • r . - '(/ Vql 9p s /: m w; i O p a t J, \ . \ �,`;. r •1 : Sq FRO 9 tv ,\P JS�jr AQ • w ,. ` � .�`� '� ,'+,, �hh - : i J �j ` ( a A ROB J� W : Lot? FST `\Q t' ' ' 1AF, r�QQ`�Q0`�JOS� l/lqr O _ `� :' / S\. •���0 7* • 4. ,ter.+ ? `\. L ! l _ ./ �0J R / lqV Op `Oe\ �.. ` , �Z Sky/�N " ., ` • vJ�� . ' ' - K`% • .�_ .... - `.k -- -. •I c . � ,e 00 = 4Cq \yr� O� } 1' y0J t. FR%FN - 'A �' �4a ^ -� _- rr i 4 . i . w I \ _ _ _a 0 i ,� ALP Q Qv `' O P l0 �'✓O �0 t ti .i p/((I, �y . 04 . R • • . �,, +4 J ' Qj% = 0J Q °URO qQG e\� N MIGUEL DR 1 y S7q, - } 1 v' '� . r f I, v~i T�7 >�0 QJ Q� c' /iyp �Q SA s /R/F•l / J .y� , ^'. _-' 10 , IT r —�_ , ` o , 4r �\O OQ �. �-� / , � ROYAL FIELD LN 4 j ' , T.-J. .- J - $. t 1 -� ` O Ln li:J� 2 ep` OJ r 1 I. W IR ' r t f :� 4' a.r 0 Q r� , ORLANDO STi / - der r '[ �. c� . �ti - _ I- r ?,e• - r FRIENDSWOOD TRL4COU ' if �P r ' • LESCIE'S' CT .¢ ; ?' , '_', � i r •r C I � � , - . __�_. /,. I' 1NTRY CLUB DR r ` �^ NILELAKE CT t ` r - i. ._ - . e HARVEST VINE•CT ' / l , --L'AKEWAY DR, TANNER!BRO.OK.LN i r._�` �• v\ I - y06 _ ' f i / FAIRWAY DR'r' ... 0�� - ` (, �w , �- - - 0. . . ,` I - - t--L- , , - i .1 ' 1 7> O • � y Aw I m - - L _ c -- - 3 'EVERE'TT DRix f • - f MOORE RD, , _ i - ,LUNDY LN .I I -., . . / L 1-� •. IQ IN - j SCHULTE LN _' v�"'` a ..17 . -� . ,,rf..i •1 m ,TT 4 - ems" - � A t) J�_• 1 . j o CANAL DR Dp n� � , �� ` :. �i TOWER DR .. �� /.; t�-1 Q. ESTATE DR -4 - _ W 't - - -_ - _; - -- 6%411IJJII "__0* � r ,� T ..Lw �I •. " i• s I unn� r Af'-J \\\ — IV, - -, 1; _ • a ' , I cI I� ' • -* r • ' v ! i 9 1 1 1 1 1 �- -1 4r - 1��e . t : r --s► �C •f_�:rc�a u \, \-_����� I II �- 1 • - - �- i_ !, j-1 ,I � �_�, �L! I DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan Update FREESE '1 �NICHQLS City of Friendswood Table 4-2: Anticipated Future Population and Non -Residential Acreage Growth Projections by Planning Period Category •.. Existing 5-Year 10-Year Buildout .tal Existing Non -Residential 5-Year Acreage 10-Year Buildout Avalon 340 358 358 358 0 0 0 0 Georgetown 0 454 908 908 0 0 0 0 Friendswood Trails 0 635 847 847 0 0 0 0 Friendswood City Center Apartments 0 1,115 1,115 1,115 0 9 9 9 Estates at Wilderness Trails 0 119 119 119 0 0 0 0 Known Developments(l) Falling Leaf Ranch 0 128 128 128 0 0 0 0 West Ranch Village Cente 0 0 401 401 0 0 30 30 TIRZ #2 0 44 393 611 0 0 0 0 The Bristol (Multi -Family) 0 517 517 517 0 0 0 0 The Albritton (Multi -Family) 0 248 248 248 0 0 0 0 One Sixty One 0 67 67 67 0 0 0 0 Infill Growth Total Septic Conversions 0 I' 0 0 I 131 106 I,81 131 1,589 131 0 ' 0 0 79 251 0 0 22 (1) Developments from City. (2) Population based on City provided data where available; where not available, estimated using approximately 2.91 people/unit for single family residential developments and 2.23 people/unit for Multi-Family/Retirement Home developments. E DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan Update lUICHOLS FREESE City of Friendswood 011 The City-wide population projections are graphed along with historical population data on Figure 4-3. City- wide projected growth in non-residential acreage is shown on Figure 4-4.The projected average annual population growth rate in the next 10 years (2026-2036) is approximately 1.1%. This is similar to the historical growth rate observed between 2020 and 2026. Projected non-residential growth rate based on the infill and known developments in the next 10 years (2026-2036) is approximately 1.5%. Figure 4-3: Historical and Projected City -Wide Population 80,000 Historical Population Projected Population 70,000 60,000 50,000 43,406 c O M 40,000 3 a a Historical Average 30,000 Annual Growth Rate o.8% 20,00, 10,000 0 46,751 48,273 49,974 "l Projected Phased Growth from Anticipated Future Developments (",-Year (2,26- 2036) Average Annual Growth Rate 1.1%) 2020 2026 2031 1 2036 Buildout Figure 4-4: Projected City-wide Non -Residential Acreage 1,200 1,000 855 800 37 746 -- m M R m `v Q 600 m V E Projected Phased Growth from Anticipated Future E Developments u 400 (30-Year (2026-2036) Average Annual Growth Rate 1.5%) 200 1027 2026 2031 2036 Buildout F 4-7 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan Update F �7 1NICHOL CHOLS City of Friendswood 0 5.0 WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS The performance of wastewater collection systems is dependent on the amount of flow being conveyed. To develop future wastewater system improvements, an understanding of existing and future wastewater flow projections is necessary. FNI developed projected average day and peak wastewater flows for the Existing, 5-year, 10-year, and Buildout planning periods based on the historical effluent data and land use assumptions discussed in Section 4.0. These flows were utilized in the hydraulic modeling and system planning to identify future wastewater system improvements needs. The collection system infrastructure, including lift stations, is sized to convey peak wet weather wastewater flows. 5.1 HISTORICAL WASTEWATER FLOWS The City provided WWTP monthly effluent flow data from 2018 through 2024. This flow represents the flow pumped to Blackhawk WWTP from the City of Friendswood. FNI analyzed the historical flow data and population to assess the historical trends in system -wide average daily wastewater flow and per -capita flow, discussed further in Section 5.2. The historical average day flow is summarized in Table 5-1. Historical annual average wastewater flows from 2018 to 2024 are graphed against the City's current purchased monthly average daily capacity on Figure 5-1. Table 5-1: Historical WWTP Effluent Flows Year Annual Average Daily Effluent Flow(l) (MGD) Average Maximum 3.1 3.2 (1) Annual average daily flow based on data received from City. 5-1 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood s 7 6 Pt 5 _ C9 4 Q l 3 2 1 0 Figure 5-1: Friendswood Wastewater Average Daily Flows to the Blackhawk WWTP rFREESE -I �NICHOLS m m m W W m a m m a a a O O O O O O 14 !-1 sd rd !i ri N N N N N N m M m m m m V V V V V V r4 r4 �4 r4 r4 .4 r4 �4 r4 r4 r4 r4 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ._d 4; 7 n 8 I_ ._d f ] n T ._: ._-I f ] n T I_ ._-I [ ] n T I_ : ; 7 n T : ._: ; . 7 n T ;: ._d 1 ] . 7 n T ._d O O O O O . O O O O O . O O O O O . O O O O O . O O O O O . O O O O O . O O O O O � 5-2 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood 5.2 WASTEWATER PLANNING CRITERIA WNICHOLS' TE%PSf Planning criteria for average day wastewater flows for the 5-year, 10-year, and Buildout planning periods were developed by analyzing historical WWTP effluent flows for City of Friendswood, water meter billing records, historical water production data, service area population, and non-residential acreage. FNI utilized water meter billing data provided by the City to attribute percentages of the total WWTP effluent flow to residential and non-residential sources. The City's population and non-residential acreage was then utilized to calculate historical wastewater flows per person (gpcd) and per non-residential acre (gpad). This breakdown of historical WWTP flows, population, and non-residential acreages and the resulting gpcd and gpad values are shown in Table 5-2. The historical residential wastewater flows ranged between approximately 63 — 71 gpcd and the non-residential flows ranged between approximately 391 - 442 gpad. Table 5-2: Historical Wastewater Effluent Flows by Development Type Non - Year City residential (3) ay Flow (3) Population(') Acreage(z) (acres) (yMGD ) Percent (4) (MGD ) (gpcd) Percent (4) (MGD ) (gpad) Maximum 3.2 90% 2.9 71 10% 0.3 44 (1) Historical population data received from City. (2) This is the sum of the acreage of active parcels with a zoning of retail, industrial, and office, business park in the City's Zoning by Parcels shapefiles. (3) Historical WWTP effluent data. (4) Percentage distribution based on the assumption that the residential and non-residential wastewater effluent splits will be similar to the water usage per water meter billing data from 2024. Additionally, FNI evaluated City's historical water production data between 2018 and 2024 with the City's annual average wastewater effluent flows for each year to identify return ratios. This data is presented in Table 5-3. The calculated return ratios ranged between 0.5 —0.64 and averaged to 0.6. The average return 5-3 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood WNICHOLS' TE%PSf ratio was applied to the City water system planning criteria developed as part of the 2023 Water System Improvements Report. This calculation is presented in Table 5-4. Table 5-3: Comparison of Historical Water Production and Wastewater Effluent Flows Y Average Daily ater Demand(') (MGD) Average Daily Wastewater Flow(Z) (MGD) Wastewater to Water Return Ratio Average 0.60 (1) Historical Daily Water Production 2018-2024. (2) Historical WWTP effluent data 2018-2024. Table 5-4: Planning Criteria Evaluation based on Water Criteria and Return Ratio Based on review of the historical residential and non-residential wastewater flow generation and with input from City staff, a rate of 85 gpcd was chosen for future residential wastewater flows. A wastewater flow rate of 480 gpad was chosen for future non-residential acreage. The average day wastewater flow planning criteria are summarized in Table 5-5. This selected criteria was applied to anticipated future residential and non-residential growth to develop future wastewater flow projections. Table 5-5: Wastewater Planning Criteria Residential 85 gpcd Non-residential 480 gpad For the peak flow calculation, a peak flow to average day peaking factor of 4.0 was utilized based on guidance from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) regulations in the Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 217. 5-4 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood WNICHOLS' TE%PSf The future population and non-residential acreage discussed in Section 4.0 were utilized to develop flow projections for the Existing, 5-year, 10-year, and Buildout planning periods. The methodology utilized during this process is summarized in this section. The population and non-residential acreage projections by planning period is shown in Table 5-6. Table 5-6: Population and Non -Residential Acreage Growth by Planning Period Average Day Wastewater Flows All future average day wastewater flows were calculated by applying the planning criteria as shown in Table 5-5 to the future projected residential population and non-residential acreage. The average day wastewater flow projections for future anticipated residential and non-residential developments were added to the existing effluent flows to calculate the total projected average day wastewater flows for each future planning period. The projected future flows also include anticipated conversion from septic to sewer system as discussed in Section 4.2. These were calculated using the planning criteria described in Table 5-5 with a unit density per residential parcel of 2.91 people/unit. Peak Wet Weather Wastewater Flows Existing peak flows in each flow meter basin were developed by applying the 5-year 6-hour design storm to the calibrated hydraulic model, discussed further in Section 7.0. Future peak wastewater flows were calculated by applying peaking factor of 4.0 to the projected future average daily flows. Projected Flow Summary The projected growth in average daily flow from residential populations and non-residential acreage are presented in Table 5-7. The projected average day wastewater flows are shown on Figure 5-2. The infrastructure recommendations in this study are based on the projected average day and peak wastewater flows per planning period. 5-5 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood Table 5-7: �`�posi o rFREESE -111,111111CHOLSr� *exns Projected Average Day and Peak Wastewater Flows (1) Calculated using 85 gpcd and 480 gpad added to the existing average daily flow of 3.2 MGD Figure 5-2: Projected Average Day Wastewater Flows 10 Future Flow: 85 gpcd used to calculate residential flows Existing Average Daily Flow based on Annual Average Flow Data from 2024 480 gpad used to calculate commercial flows 9 - ❑ Irdill Growth ®Itnown Developments ❑ Septic Conversion 7 6 0 Purchased Monthly Average Daily Flow Ca W � 5 3 0 L6 4 3.2 MGD 3 2 1 0 2026 3.5 MGD 0.3 M 0.01 2031 = 5.5 MGD 3.6 MGD 0.01 �� 0.as 2036 3.9 MGD 0.02 0 0.3 Buildout 5-6 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood 4P,%DS a FREESE 6.0 LIFT STATION RISK -BASED ASSESSMENT AND CONSOLIDATION 6.1 LIFT STATION RISK -BASED ASSESSMENT A risk -based assessment (RBA) was conducted on the City's existing collection system lift stations. This task assigned a risk of failure to each lift station, which considered the probability of asset failure (condition) and the expected impact of that failure (criticality). The results of this assessment informed the Lift Station Renewal Plan, discussed further in Section 10.0. The condition assessment included a visual inspection of each lift station and its components. The criticality assessment included an analysis of the proximity of each lift station to critical or environmentally sensitive areas, connections served, as well as the lift station hierarchy in the City's wastewater collection system. Each lift station was assigned overall condition and criticality scores based on the results of the assessments. These scores were used to assign a risk category (extreme, high, medium, or low) to each asset. The highest risks to the City's wastewater system are associated with assets where the chances of asset failure occurring are relatively high and where such a failure would be expected to have major impacts (e.g., widespread interruptions of service to customers). The results of the RBA were considered in conjunction with the flow monitoring and hydraulic modeling results to develop the lift station rehabilitation recommendations presented in Section 10.3. Stations Assessed The lift stations assessed included all of the City's lift stations with the exception of Lift Station 40, which is currently being decommissioned. 6.1.1 Condition Assessment FNI developed a list of electrical, structural, mechanical, and site components to be inspected at each lift station site. A condition weighting factor was assigned to each component group based on the relative importance of the component to the overall function of the lift station and input from City staff. Major components in each of these categories were evaluated separately. Table 6-1 lists the condition component groups, parameters, and weighting for the lift stations. 6-1 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan posFREESE � a City of Friendswood Table 6-1: Condition Assessment Component Groups and Weiehtines dAF. TV._ Z Site — Drainage, Fencing, Access, Pavement, Potable Water 5% 5% Mechanical (above ground) — Crane/Locking Mechanism, Hoist, 5% N/A Trolley, Odor Control Instrumentation — Monitoring/SCADA Condition, Alarms 15% 15% Electrical — Generator/Quick Connect/ATS, Panel Condition, Utility Service Connection, Cables, Conduit 20% 20% Structure — Structure Condition, Hatch/Grating, Wet Well Material, Wet Well Infiltration/Inflow, Wet Well Condition, Wet Well Piping 20% 25% Pumps and Motors — Pump Rails, Pump Chain, Power Lead 20% 20% Piping and Valves — Piping Condition, Valve Vault, Valve Vault Hatch, Valve Condition 15% 15% Total Weighting 100% 100% Site Visits Site visits for 41 lift stations were performed during two (2) sessions in April of 2025 as shown in Table 6-2. The condition inspections were conducted by a team of design, electrical and planning engineers from FNI, as well as wastewater operations staff from the City. Table 6-2: Lift Station Site Visit Schedule Number of Lift Stations Visited Date 26 April 7, 2025 15 April 8, 2025 Data Collection FNI developed a list of condition assessment questions for each of the components listed in Table 6-1, which was utilized to assess the condition of each of the lift stations. During the site visits, the inspection team recorded notes and took pictures of the lift station assets. The records were compiled and analyzed during the risk -based assessment. The notes from the site visits are included in Appendix F. Condition Ratina Guidelines FNI assigned scores ranging from 1 to 5 to each component group based on the physical condition as seen during the inspection and information provided by City staff relating to its operational performance. Table 6-3 shows the guidelines used during assignment of the scores per component group. Once the assessment was performed, each lift station was assigned an overall condition score based on the 6-2 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood yP�Nos"'� 4 FREESE individual condition scores of each component and the weighting factors shown in Table 6-3. The resulting overall condition scores were categorized based on the ranges shown in Table 6-4. A summary of the number of lift stations per condition rating ais included in Table 6-4 and the overall condition scores per lift station are shown in Table 6-4. Table 6-3: Guidelines for Condition Scores Condition Score 1 Scoring Guidelines Very good condition: New/no improvements recommended 2 Good condition: Continued maintenance recommended to maintain function 3 Fair condition: Minor improvements recommended to improve performance or efficiency 4 Poor condition: Improvements/rehab recommended to maintain reliability 5 Very poor condition: Replacement/major rehab required Table 6-4: Condition Score Ranges and Summary Condition Rating Very Good Conditionof Min 1.00 M 1.50 Lift Stations 3 Good 1.51 2.50 19 Fair 2.51 3.00 12 Poor 3.01 3.75 4 Very Poor 3.76 5.00 3 Electrical Observations During the site visits, seven lift stations were identified as missing quick connects or generators, as required by TCEQ § 217.63. It is recommended to install quick connects or generators at the following locations, discussed further in Section 10.3: • Lift Station 1 • Lift Station 4 • Lift Station 11 • Lift Station 15 • Lift Station 19 • Lift Station 38 • Lift Station 39 6-3 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood Table 6-5 Lift Station Condition Score Summary rFREESE -7 N11cHoLS Station 1 ConditionLift . 4.85 Very Poor 2 3.35 Poor 3 2.05 Good 4 3.75 Poor 5 1.95 Good 6 1.80 Good 7 2.45 Good 8 1.65 Good 9 2.95 Fair 10 2.95 Fair 11 2.60 Fair 12 3.00 Fair 13 2.15 Good 14 2.60 Fair 15 3.55 Poor 16 3.00 Fair 17 3.90 Very Poor 18 1.70 19 4.25 Very Poor 20 2.85 Fair 21 3.20 Poor 22 1.70 Good 23 1.55 Good 24 1.95 Good 25 1.80 Good 26 2.90 Fair 27 1.80 Good 28 1.50 Very Good 29 2.50 Good 30 1.95 Good 31 1.50 Very Good 32 2.30 Good 33 2.35 Good 34 2.60 Fair 35 1.95 Good 36 2.55 Fair 37 2.00 Good 38 2.90 Fair 39 3.00 Fair 41 1.60 Good 42 1.00 Very Good y�NosWo _" 6-4 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood 6.1.2 Criticality Assessment FNI performed a criticality assessment for each lift station based on five (5) categories: 1. Total served EDUs 2. Proximity to High Impact Areas 3. Proximity to Bodies of Water 4. Lift Station Hierarchy 5. On Private Property 4P,%DS a FREESE Table 6-6 shows the scoring parameters used and the weighting factors assigned to each lift station criticality category. 6-5 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood yP�Nos"'� 4 FREESE Geocoded water meters were used to determine the served connections and calculated Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU) within each lift station service area using the 2024 meter billing data and the EDU/ water meter size table from the 2023 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update as shown in Table 6-7. GIS tools were utilized to determine the distance from each lift station to the high impact areas and bodies of water. The water bodies evaluated during this process included creeks, lakes, ponds, and canals. Educational institutions parcels were identified based on the review of the geocoded water meters with a school account class and through review digitally available sources and aerial image. Park locations were determined based on the City's Zoning by Parcels shapefile. Major roads were identified using the City's major thoroughfare plan shapefile. Lift station hierarchy was developed based on City's wastewater GIS and information from City staff as discussed in Section 2.3. The number of lift stations per criticality parameter is shown in Figure 6-1. Figure 6-1: Number of Lift Stations Per Criticality Parameter ATotal Served EDUs BProximity to Body of Water ON Private Property n 1,100 21 t 1.000 It from lakesiponds 9 1.100 - 600 6 4600 - 400 5 <500 ft from canals/creeks 17 yes 17 e400 - 250 6 r 250 3 1No 1 24 6Lift Station Hierarchy E Proidmity to High Impact Are25 4+ upstream lift stations 3 <_ 1,000 1 from educational institution 6 3 upstream lift stations 2 <_ 50011 from golf course/park 11 2 upstream lift stations 0 s 500 ft from major road 11 1 upmarn lift slauon 3 0 upstrearn lift sladon 1 33 Table 6-7: Equivalent Dwelling Units Water Meter Size 1" Equivalent Dwelling Units(l) 1.0 1-1/2" 2.3 2" 2.9 3" 9.1 4" 22.7 6" 36.4 8" 72.7 10" 118.2 12" 145.5 (1) Equivalent service units are rounded to nearest single decimal point. 5/8-inch and 3/4- inch are assumed to be equivalent to one single family connection. DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan r' NICHQ E City of Friendswood Once the proximity and connection analyses were completed, ranges were assigned for the criticality scores, and categories were designated from very low impact to very high impact. Table 6-8 shows the scores associated with the rating categories of the criticality assessment. Final criticality scores for each lift station are shown in Table 6-9. Table 6-8: Criticality Score Ranges and Summary Table 6-9: Lift Station Criticality Score Summary 723 Criticality Score 2.30 Rating Moderate Impact 3.15 Very High Impact 2.05 Moderate Impact 4 2.85 High Impact 5 1.95 Low Impact 6 1.55 Low Impart 7 1.95 Low Impact 8 2.60 High Impact 9 2.40 Moderate Impac 10 1.65 Low Impact 11 2.75 High Impact 12 1.15 Very Low Impact 13 1.55 Low Impact 14 0.85 Very Low Impact 15 3.35 Very High Impact 16 2.75 High Impact 17 2.45 Moderate Impact 18 2.65 High Impact 19 1.95 Low Impa. 20 2.95 High Impact 21 2.00 N Imps 22 3.45 Very High Impact 23 3.55 Very High Impact 24 2.30 Moderate Impact 25 1.95 Low Impact 26 2.80 High Impact 6-7 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood 6.1.3 yP�Nos"'� 4 FREESE Lift Station No. 27 Criticality Score 2.60 Rating High Impact 28 2.35 Moderate Impact 29 1.60 Low Impact 30 2.15 Moderate Impact 31 1.95 Low Impact 32 0.85 Very Low Impact 33 2.60 High Impact 34 2.15 Moderate Impact 35 1.20 Very Low Impact 36 2.95 High Impact 37 1.45 Very Low Impact 38 1.15 Very Low Impact 39 0.85 Very Low Impact 41 1.90 Low Impact 42 2.15 Moderate Impact Lift Station Risk Assessment FNI utilized the results of the condition and criticality assessments to conduct a risk -based assessment of the City's lift stations. Detailed lift station risk -based assessment sheets including facility information, individual component group scores for condition and criticality, and additional comments for each lift station are included in Appendix F. In order to prioritize rehabilitation recommendations, the lift stations were divided into four risk categories: Extreme Risk, High Risk, Moderate Risl, and Low Risk. Table 6-9 shows the relationship between condition and criticality for each risk category. Risk scores were calculated by combining the condition and criticality scores for each lift station. Table 6-10: Lift Station Risk Cateeories Condition Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor Very Low Impact Moderate High Low Impact Moderate Moderate High Moderate Impact Moderate Moderate High High High Impact Moderate Moderate Moderate High Very High Impact Moderate Moderate HighAm", The lift stations were arranged into a risk rating matrix as shown in Table 6-11, which graphically shows the condition and criticality ratings. Table 6-12 shows the condition, criticality, and overall risk of failure .M, DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood t;DS WO FREESE 4 A" ratings in a tabular format. A summary of the number of lift stations by risk category is included on Figure 5-2, and a map of the lift stations with risk scores is shown on Figure 6-3. Figure 6-2: Number of Lift Stations by Risk Category 20 1 c 16 15 J O 10 N = 5 3 4 z 0 Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Extreme Risk DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood Table 6-11: Lift Station Risk Rating Matrix DS FROESIE 91801WAICHOLS�yN PE%S Condition Ranking Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor 13 10 24 12 Very Low Impact 31 25 14 32 38 35 39 5 6 9 28 Low Impact 42 7 11 21 19 29 26 30 as c 3 Moderate 33 34 15 Impact 37 u 41 •L U 18 20 High Impact 27 36 8 Very High 22 16 Impact 23 6-10 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan FREESE AICHOLS City of Friendswood 0 Table 6-12: Summary of Lift Station Risk -Based Assessment Lift Station NrEc-ondition Rating IVCriticality RatinMWisk High Impact Rating 1 Very Poor Extreme Risk 17 Very Poor High Impact Extreme Risk 2 Poor Very High Impact Extreme Risk 4 Poor Very High Impact Extreme Risk 19 Very Poor Low Impact High Risk 15 Poor Moderate Impact High Risk 16 Fair Very High Impact High Risk 20 Fair High Impact Moderate Risk 36 Fair High Impact Moderate Risk 8 Good Very High Impact Moderate Risk 22 Good Very High Impact Moderate Risk 23 Good Very High Impact Moderate Risk 21 Poor Low Impact Moderate Risk 34 Fair Moderate Impact Moderate Risk 9 Fair Low Impact Moderate Risk 11 Fair Low Impact Moderate Risk 26 Fair Low Impact Moderate Risk 18 Good High Impact Moderate Risk 27 Good High Impact Moderate Risk 3 Good Moderate Impact Moderate Risk 33 Good Moderate Impact Moderate Risk 37 Good Moderate Impact Moderate Risk 41 Good Moderate Impact Moderate Risk 10 Fair Very Low Impact IrLow Risk 12 Fair Very Low Impact Low Risk 38 Fair Very Low Impact Low Risk 39 Fair Very Low Impact Low Risk 14 Fair Very Low Impact Low Risk 5 Good Low Impact Low Risk 6 Good Low Impact Low Risk 7 Good Low Impact Low Risk 29 Good Low Impact Low Risk 30 Good Low Impact Low Risk 13 Good Very Low Impact Low Risk 24 Good Very Low Impact Low Risk 25 Good Very Low Impact Low Risk 32 Good Very Low Impact Low Risk 35 Good Very Low Impact Low Risk 28 Very Good Low Impact Low Risk 42 Very Good Low Impact Low Risk 31 Very Good Very Low Impact Low Risk 6-11 _J^ V 7 x 4�e 0 :ON 4k > 4b < A An Private LS . 1c, ;e. AP le 4S -A a, A 14- 1410 ly. lop- not m J?Qu� N )r 40 441\ , A •A, • °ZFllAl ••••A • AV 7 A.- wwwo 0,11 z VIM % I WAFA % 04r N 7c Is IPA ON .4 Jl� ALTO,&= IZZ . •Ik ROAD NON ME\, .4 I .7 4r ............ oo",,� V • gx •• A • ix Lw r � 170 / J f _ a Aw J M kIRD •LUNDY LN 41 SCHULTE LN -3 DRAFT FIGURE 6 OLLIER,RD CITY OF FRIENDSWOOD WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN Full -- LIFT STATION RISK BASED ASSESSMENT 4k LEGEND Manhole L City Limit DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan a�ENoswo. FREESE City of Friendswood 6.2 LIFT STATION CONSOLIDATION FNI evaluated potential opportunities to consolidate lift stations within Friendswood's collection system. The feasibility of consolidating each lift station was assessed based on the lift station and manhole survey data collected during this study and Friendswood's minimum slope guidelines from the Design Criteria Manual. Available LiDAR ground elevation data from the City was also reviewed to evaluate potential crossings at rivers, channels, and drainage ditches. Proposed consolidation routes were analyzed at minimum slope and compared against existing gravity line invert elevations to perform the preliminary feasibility analysis. Overall, five (5) of the City's 41 lift stations were identified as potential consolidation candidates based on the available existing wastewater system information. These consolidation opportunities should be considered conceptual planning -level recommendations, and additional survey, field investigation, utility coordination, and design evaluation will be required to confirm feasibility. A summary of the lift station candidates identified for potential consolidation is included in Table 6-13 and figures of the preliminary consolidation routes evaluated are included in Appendix G. The proposed gravity line diameters forthe consolidation lines were determined based on minimum slope requirements necessary to achieve consolidation. It should be noted that at the required slope, the potential consolidation lines may experience lower velocities during normal operating conditions, which could increase long-term maintenance considerations. Table 6-13: Lift Station Consolidation Plan Consolidation Firm Capacity Consolidation Length Downstream Lift Station Lift Station (MGD) (LF) after Consolidation 1 111 1 •11 1 1• • 1 1 1 1 Of the potential consolidation candidates, Lift station 15 consolidation was incorporated into the City's CIP, as discussed in Section 10.2, due to its high -risk score. The remaining consolidation opportunities are recommended to be considered in conjunction with future infrastructure improvements or if operational concerns arise. Additional consolidation opportunities may also become more feasible in the future if downstream infrastructure improvements are implemented, such as gravity line and lift station 6-13 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan a�ENoswo. FREESE City of Friendswood expansions, that provide more depth for proposed consolidation lines. It is recommended to reevaluate lift station consolidation opportunities as part of a Wastewater Master Plan Update project (discussed in Section 10.0). 6-14 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood 7.0 HYDRAULIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT LfENOS x'O, FREESE �x xf FNI developed Friendswood's wastewater collection system hydraulic model using the InfoWorks° ICM software by Autodesk. As part of this project, FNI utilized the City's wastewater system GIS shapefiles to develop the existing collection system network within the hydraulic model. Wastewater system facility information was incorporated into the model based on as -built drawings, survey data, and other available information. Data sources utilized for model build, along with any engineering assumptions were documented. Figure 7-1 illustrates the City's wastewater collection system hydraulic model interface. Figure 7-1: City of Friendswood Wastewater Hydraulic Model 7.1 MODELED NETWORK In this study, all gravity wastewater lines from the City's GIS with diameters of 10 inches or larger and critical lines of smaller diameter were included along with corresponding lift stations. This includes approximately 29% of the City's collection system lines (approx. 53 miles). The remaining collection system lines (approx. 132 miles) were not included due to the diameters being 8-inches or smaller. The model includes 1 outfall, 27 lift stations, 66 pumps, 1,456 links and 1,483 nodes. 7.1.1 Data Sources The basis of the wastewater model was the City's wastewater GIS database. The manhole, gravity main, lift station, and force main shapefiles were imported into the modeling software and the wastewater network was reviewed for proper connectivity. Where connectivity questions were identified, FNI 7-1 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan a�ENoswo. FREESE City of Friendswood coordinated with City staff to address those areas and update the model accordingly. Other data such as manhole rim elevations and lift station information were imported in phases from the following sources: • City of Friendswood's GIS (received December 2024) • As -Built Plans • August 2025 Lift Station and Manhole Survey (Section 3.1) • LiDAR Elevation Data Unique Model Asset IDs Unique IDs are required by modeling software and are a best practice for maintaining and updating utility system assets in a GIS database. The City's GIS included a unique identifier (ID) for each collection system component. FNI created and assigned unique IDs to collection system components that were not included in the City's GIS but were identified during the manhole survey or flow meter installation. The format of the assigned unique IDs utilized within the model is shown in Table 7-1. For manholes, the 'Node ID' field represents the model -specific identifier, while the 'Asset ID' field is a text field that was used to store the City's existing GIS ID associated with the asset. Table 7-1: Format of Unique IDs for Wastewater Collection Svstem Components Wastewater System Unique ID Format within ..ue ID Format from GIS Model Node ID: XX-XX Manhole SANSEW_MH_XX-XXX Asset ID: SANSEW MH XX-XXX Gravity Main SANSEW_GM_XX Asset ID: SANSEW_GM_XX Force Main SANSEW FM XX Asset ID: SANSEW FM XX Lift Station Lift Station XX Asset ID: LS XX Record Drawing and As -Built Information During the wastewater model development, record drawings and as -built plans received from the City were utilized to populate fields such as pipe inverts, pipe diameters, manhole ground elevations, lift station pumping capacities, and wet well sizes. As -built drawings were also utilized to verify force main routes and system connectivity. The wastewater model includes information from the as-builts presented in Table 7-2. 7-2 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood Table 7-2: Record Drawing and As -Built Information r--012 FREESE NICHOLS a�ENoswo. x xf Lift Station LS 3 Plan Name LS 3 Plans —Record Drawing Year 2015 LS 6 Lift Station No. 6 Reconstruction As-Builts 2012 LS 13 LS#13 As-Builts 2010 LS 18 LS18 Drawings 2015 LS 23 Friendswood LS #23 Reconstruction —As -built Drawings_20220128 2022 LS 27 LS#27 Construction Plans 1998 LS 36 LS#36 as-builts 2010 LS 40 LS40 Construction Plans Signed Set - Rev 1 (2-28-19) 2019 LS 41 Friendswood LS #23 Reconstruction —As -built Drawings_20220128 2022 LS 42 Signed Plans —Avalon Lift Station 2020 City of Friendswood Elevation Data The City provided Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data in February 2025. This data was used to assign ground elevations to all nodes within the model that did not contain data from GIS, survey, or as - built drawings. Information Flaps FNI created information flags in the wastewater model during network development that indicate the source of the information used to populate the model component data. A summary of the information flags utilized in the wastewater model are listed in Table 7-3. These flags are discussed further in the following sections and denoted by the use of brackets'[ ]'. Table 7-3: Wastewater Model Information Flags Information Flag ADS Description Information from ADS site reports collected during 2025 flow meter installation CIP Proposed CIP Project Recommendations LIDR LiDAR data received from City in February 2025 FNI FNI Modified Data GIS City of Friendswood GIS (Received December 2024) INT Interpolation INV From City's Lift Station Inventory MIN Minimum Slope from Friendswood's 2020 Design Criteria Manual REC Record Drawings/As-Built Information SHIFT FNI shifted City GIS invert information based on surrounding survey information SURV 2025 Manhole and Lift Station Survey 7-3 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan a�ENoswo. FREESE City of Friendswood 7.1.2 Modeled Manholes Rim Elevations Rim elevations were populated based on the following data sources and assigned the following information flags, listed in brackets [Information Flag]: • City of Friendswood LiDAR [LIDR] • 2025 Lift Station and Manhole Survey [SURV] 7.1.3 Modeled Wastewater Lines and Force Mains Manning's roughness coefficients between 0.009 to 0.015 were assigned to all gravity lines in the hydraulic model depending on the calibration for each flow meter basin. A Hazen -Williams C-Factor of 120 was used for all force mains in the model. Line Diameters Gravity line and force main diameters were populated based on the following data sources, in the priority order listed below: • Record Drawing/As-Built Plan Information [REC] • 2025 Lift Station and Manhole Survey [SURV] • City of Friendswood GIS [GIS] • Associated/nearby line diameters [FNI] Inverts Gravity line inverts were populated based on the following data sources: • Record Drawing/As-Built Plan Information [REC] • 2025 Lift Station and Manhole Survey [SURV] • City of Friendswood GIS [GIS] • Interpolation between known inverts [INT] • Datum shift of City GIS based on known upstream/downstream line inverts [SHFT] • Minimum Slope from Friendswood's 2020 Design Criteria Manual [MIN] • FNI Modified Data/Modeling Assumption [FNI] 7-4 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan a�ENoswo. FREESE City of Friendswood Fnrry Mninc Force mains were entered into the model based on GIS files and as -built and record drawings. Force main high point elevations were found using the LiDAR data. Inverts were populated assuming the force main crown is 4-feet below ground elevation. 7.1.4 Modeled Lift Stations Lift stations were created in the model based on GIS data, as -built and record drawings, survey data, and other information from the City. Twenty seven (27) of the City's collection system lift stations were included in the model based on those that had 10-inch and larger gravity lines upstream or were identified as critical. Wet Well Dimensions Lift Station wet well dimensions and invert elevations were measured and documented during the lift station field survey effort described in Section 3.1. This information was utilized during modeling the lift stations. Pump Capacities Pumping capacities were input into the model based on the following data sources: • Pump curves or design points obtained from as -built and record drawings [REC] • Pump curves or design points obtained from the City [INV] • Model assumption based on lift station runtime data [FNI] 7.1.5 Modeled Subcatchments InfoWorks° ICM stores all loading information in subcatchments. The subcatchments were generated from parcels received from the City in November 2024. The subcatchments are assigned a manhole where the wastewater flow enters the collection system in the model. 7.2 WASTEWATER FLOW DISTRIBUTION Initial average day wastewater flows were generated by geocoding active meters from 2024 water meter billing data. The meter data was allocated to the subcatchments within the hydraulic model based on the geocoded meter location. The meter data represented winter months and excluded irrigation meters. The loads were then scaled based on the flow monitoring data during the dry weather calibration process. 7-S DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan a�ENoswo. FREESE City of Friendswood The existing wastewater flows were allocated to the 'Additional Foul Flow' field, and future wastewater flows were allocated to the 'Trade Flow' field within the model. A representative average day diurnal was applied to all existing flows based on the flow meter data. 7.3 HYDRAULIC MODEL CALIBRATION 7.3.1 Dry Weather Calibration Dry weather calibration is conducted so that the hydraulic model closely matches observed dry weather flows. These dry weather flows represent residential, commercial, and groundwater flows during a period without any additional measurable 1/1 due to rainfall. FNI chose a five-day period from March 30 to April 3, 2025, for the dry weather calibration. Diurnal patterns for each flow meter basin were developed and loaded into the model, based on the patterns observed during the flow monitoring period (included in Appendix H). The distributed wastewater flows based on the geocoded water meter billing data were adjusted as necessary until the aggregate flows in each flow meter basin closely matched the observed flow meter data. Discrete lift station service area flows were adjusted to be within 20% of average daily volume calculated from 2025 lift station runtime data when possible, during dry and wet weather calibration. For the dry weather calibration, the goal tolerance of +/- approximately 5% between observed and modeled average daily flow was achieved at 25 out of the 26 flow meter sites. FM-03 modeled flows were within 0.03 MGD of the observed due to lift station influence, and the calibration was considered to be acceptable. Dry weather calibration results are shown on Figure 7-2 and individual plots demonstrating the dry weather model calibration results are provided in Appendix I. 7-6 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood 2 1.8 0 L7 1.6 5 3 1.4 0 LL a 1.2 0 0.4 13 0.2 0 Figure 7-2: Dry Weather Calibration Results LfEN OS x'O, FREESE �x xf 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Observed Average Daily Flow (MGD) 7.3.2 Wet Weather Calibration Wet weather calibration builds upon the dry weather calibration and is performed so that the model closely matches observed wet weather flows during storm events. These wet weather flows represent the sum of the dry weather flows plus the additional 1/1 that enters the wastewater system during a rainfall event. FNI utilized one storm event to perform the wet weather calibration and verification of results. This event occurred on April 21, 2025. During this process, FNI also utilized the City's lift station runtime data where available to calibrate the portions of lift station service areas that were not captured during flow monitoring. The lift station runtimes and firm capacities were used to estimate the volume entering the wet well. FNI utilized the RTK hydrograph method to model the additional flows that entered the wastewater system during the observed calibration storm. This method utilizes three hydrographs that each contain three parameters which are adjusted to achieve calibration: flow of water into the system (R), the time to peak flow (T), and the ratio of time until normalization of flow to time to peak (K). The combination of the three component hydrographs form the total response (additional 1/1) that is observed in the wastewater system. The RTK parameters and the component hydrographs are illustrated on Figures 7-3 and 7-4. 7-7 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood Figure 7-3: RTK Parameters Figure 7-4: RTK Component Hydrographs LfENOS x'O, FREESE �x xf Separate RTK hydrographs were developed for each flow meter basin to account for the different land uses, soil properties, amounts of impervious cover, and condition of the wastewater lines in each basin. In the Infoworks ICM model, the RTK hydrographs were applied to the catchments in each wastewater basin. The observed rainfall hyetographs measured during the calibration rainfall events were then applied to the model. The model calculates the I/I that enters the wastewater system utilizing the values in the RTK hydrographs and the contributing area of each catchment. These values were adjusted until the modeled wet weather flows closely matched the observed wet weather flows. For the wet weather calibration, the goal tolerance of +/- approximately 20% between observed and modeled average daily flow was achieved at 25 out of the 26 flow meter sites. FM-10 modeled flows were within 0.4 MGD of the observed due to lift station influence, and the calibration was considered to be acceptable. Wet weather calibration results are shown on Figure 7-5 and individual plots demonstrating the dry weather model calibration results are provided in Appendix I. 7-8 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood 16 Figure 7-5: Wet Weather Calibration Results 2 4 6 8 10 12 Observed Wet Weather Peak Flow (MGD) rFREESE -I �NICHOLS 14 16 7.3.3 Summary of Model Calibration The summary of calibration results is presented in Table 7-4. The dry and wet weather calibration results provide a high level of confidence that the model is closely matching real world conditions and is suitable to use for hydraulic analyses and CIP development. a�ENoswo. �x xf 7-9 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood Table 7-4: Calibration Results Summary LfENOS x'O, FREESE �x xf Average Dry Weather Flow(') (MGD) Peak Wet Weather FIow(2) (MGD) FM-01 •. 0.10 .. 0.10 1.1% •.V,.. 1.18 1.20 2.3% FM-02 0.34 0.35 -1.0% 2.23 2.27 1.8% FM-03 0.89 0.91 6.2% 5.27 5.49 4.1% FM-04 0.18 0.18 1.4% 1.26 1.33 5.3% FM-05 0.06 0.06 -1.5% 0.94 0.92 -1.6% FM-06 0.27 0.28 3.9% 1.20 1.13 -5.8% FM-07 0.06 0.06 0.1% 1.06 1.09 2.3% FM-08 0.27 0.27 -1.4% 2.59 2.48 -4.1% FM-09 0.21 0.21 1.4% 1.98 2.01 1.2% FM-10 0.09 0.09 -2.4% 1.58 1.22 -22.6% FM-11 0.58 0.57 -1.2% 4.73 4.39 -7.1% FM-12 1.53 1.59 4.7% 4.18 5.01 20.0% FM-13 0.29 0.29 -0.8% 1.97 2.01 2.0% FM-14 0.07 0.08 -0.1% 1.08 1.06 -1.9% FM-15 0.07 0.07 -3.3% 1.02 0.99 -3.1% FM-16 0.15 0.15 1.0% 0.68 0.71 4.6% FM-17 0.17 0.17 -1.2% 1.11 1.15 3.5% FM-18 0.65 0.68 5.3% 3.44 3.75 8.90//0- FM-19 0.39 0.39 -1.6% 1.97 1.91 -2.9% FM-20 0.12 0.12 3.7% 0.78 0.82 5.8% FM-21 0.58 0.61 5.9% 2.99 2.90 -2.9% FM-22 0.59 0.55 -5.5% 2.29 2.39 4.3% FM-23 0.10 0.10 1.5% 0.60 0.59 -1.3% FM-24 0.03 0.03 2.5% 0.16 0.17 0.6% FM-25 0.14 0.14 0.6% 0.68 0.73 7.2% FM-26 0.07 0.07 5.2% 0.34 0.35 1.4% (1) Average dry weather flow calibrated over the calibration period of March 30 - April 2, 2025 (2) Peak wet weather calibration period was April 21, 2025 for all meters. 7-10 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood FREESE 1 {yM TpX Ysy 8.0 1/1 REDUCTION AND SSES PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS As part of this study, FNI evaluated inflow and infiltration (1/1) throughout Friendswood's wastewater collection system. 1/1 refers to the unwanted entry of stormwater or groundwater into the collection system through defective manholes, pipes, service connections, cleanouts, etc. This excess water reduces available system capacity and can contribute to surcharging and sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), which pose risks to public health and regulatory compliance. The analysis utilized observed wet weather response data from each of the 26 flow meter basins (discussed in Section 3.0) to characterize both the magnitude and distribution of 1/1 across the City. The results of the evaluation indicated that 1/1 has a significant impact on the City's wastewater system response to peak wet weather flows and contributes to observed capacity limitations. Based on these findings, 1/1 reduction is a critical component of the City's wastewater capital improvements plan (CIP) recommendations. It is recommended that the City implement a Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Study (SSES) program to systematically identify and remove sources of 1/1. The SSES program is intended to address aging infrastructure, reclaim system capacity, reduce peak wet weather flows, and minimize the need for costly capacity -related capital improvements. The program recommendation developed as part of this study includes basin inspection and rehabilitation prioritization, planning -level cost estimates in 2026 dollars, and a multi -year implementation schedule focused on high 1/1 areas. 8.1 INFLOW AND INFILTRATION SUMMARY As discussed in Section 3.3, FNI evaluated 1/1 and wet weather to dry weather peaking factors at 26 locations throughout the collection system. The results of the 1/1 analysis were as follows: • 24 of the 26 flow meter basins observed wet weather peaking factors greater than 4.0, which is generally considered excessive. • 14 flow meter basins observed an average 1/1 greater than 4.0 gal/LF/in of rainfall, indicating high levels of 1/I. • 22 of the 26 basins experienced surcharged pipe conditions during the flow monitoring period, demonstrating that portions of the collection system do not have sufficient capacity to convey peak wet weather flows under existing conditions. E:� DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood FREESE CHOLS {yM TpX Ysy Based on these results, it is recommended that the City prioritize 1/1 reduction efforts in the basins identified as high 1/1 (greater than 4.0 gal/LF/in of rainfall), along with additional areas identified by City staff as having known operational concerns during wet weather events. 8.2 SSES BASIN PRIORITIZATION The recommended basin prioritization for the SSES and Rehabilitation Program is shown in Table 8-1 and on Figure 8-1. The prioritization of the basins was determined based on multiple factors including proximity to creeks, amount of infrastructure within the floodplain and floodway, results of the flow monitoring 1/1 analysis discussed in Section 3.0, areas with identified capacity constraints, and areas with higher overflow potential. Gravity Lines Along Creeks The City of Friendswood has three major creeks with wastewater gravity lines that are in close proximity: Clear Creek, Mary's Creek and Cowart Creek. The gravity lines that parallel the creeks are more likely to experience higher 1/1 during storm events if defects are present, as the creek levels can potentially reach the manholes and gravity lines. Due to the increased risk of 1/I, these gravity lines were recommended to be prioritized for the SSES program. Lift Station 4 Service Area and FM-25 Basin The City requested that the Lift Station 4 service area and the FM-25 flow meter basin be included in the SSES program due to observed condition and operational concerns. The Lift Station 4 service area was not monitored as part of this study but was identified as a high 1/1 basin during the City's 2015 Sanitary Sewer System Assessment — Phase 1. DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood Table 8-1: SSES Basin Prioritization � `ENosw° FREESE � y %Yfy Priority 1 SSES Basin SSES-01 —7m a FM-12 50,841 185 2 SSES-02 Along Clear Creek (Outside of FM-12) 17,118 28 3 SSES-03 Along Cowart Creek 15,991 89 4 SSES-04 Along Mary's Creek 10,723 32 5 SSES-05 FM-08 21,449 69 6 SSES-06 FM-07 28,171 92 7 SSES-07 FM-09 49,876 165 8 SSES-08 FM-10 28,950 124 9 SSES-09 FM-03 51,525 273 10 SSES-10 FM-04 35,722 135 11 SSES-11 FM-05 30,331 97 12 SSES-12 FM-02 34,176 119 13 SSES-13 FM-18 44,493 196 14 SSES-14 FM-06 35,328 146 15 SSES-15 FM-19 54,376 314 16 SSES-16 FM-13 52,415 193 17 SSES-17 Lift Station 4 Service Area 18,479 67 18 SSES-18 FM-22 29,536 129 19 SSES-19 FM-25 44,951 221 10 14 V-' t 0 ROAD eQ 0 0 49 HULTE LN IY no 0 aftRepm Pro Proje eDmft Report Pm Prcppm DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood 8.3 SSES AND REHABILITATION PROGRAM PROCESS � �ENos wo FREESE 9-0111'NICHOLS {yM TpX Ysy FNI recommends an SSES and Rehabilitation program approach for 1/1 reduction as shown on Figure 8-2. This programmatic approach enables SSES field investigations and rehabilitation construction to proceed as coordinated, continuous efforts, helping accelerate 1/1 reduction and maximize rehabilitation efficiency throughout the 5-year program. Figure 8-2 fdentify Basins with high Ul for SSES SSES Steps SSES and Rehabilitation Program Approach for 1/1 Reduction ------------------------------ r -� r � r � I12Inspections Micro Metering Field i a i Utilize micro Conduct CCTV, i Design andrehab jmetering to identify MACP Manhole i improvements field inspection inspections, and after inspections locations Smoke Testing are performed i '-----------------------------`r CSPPacker e2- g CSP Package 1: SSES Field Investigation Services Rehabilitation Construction Package 1. The Large Scale Flow Monitoring was completed as part of this Wastewater Master Plan project and is described in Section 3.0. 2. The Micro Metering utilizes level -only monitors to break down the high 1/1 basins into smaller sub -basins. 3. Results from Micro Metering inform decisions on where to perform Field Inspections, that may include manhole inspection, closed-circuit television (CCTV) and smoke testing on lines. 4. Based on the findings from Field Inspections, Design and Rehab improvements will be implemented after inspections are performed. Under this approach, the City would advertise the following two primary Competitively Sealed Proposal (CSP)packages: • SSES Field Investigation Services Package and • Rehabilitation Construction Package. E� DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood FREESE CHOLS {yM TpX Ysy The SSES Field Investigation Package would include unit -price bid items for level -only monitors manhole inspections, CCTV inspection, smoke testing, and other related investigation services. This package would allow the City to perform field investigations within prioritized sub -basins as they are identified through micro metering. The Rehabilitation Construction Package would include unit -price bid items for sanitary sewer rehabilitation, manhole rehabilitation, service lateral repairs, and other rehabilitation improvements identified through the SSES field investigations. Rehabilitation construction is anticipated to primarily focus on methods such as pipe bursting, cured -in -place pipe (CIPP), point repairs, and related rehabilitation work. Pipe segments requiring open -cut replacement may require additional field investigation, utility coordination, and design evaluation, but would still be addressed through the rehabilitation construction package as they are identified and scoped. The SSES program would also include a separate Program Management and Rehab Design effort. Under this effort, an engineer would coordinate micro metering and field investigations, prioritize field inspection locations, review inspection results, develop rehabilitation recommendations, issue work assignments to the rehabilitation contractor, and coordinate construction implementation. This approach allows rehabilitation recommendations and construction activities to be continuously developed and advanced as field investigation data becomes available. 8.4 SSES PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS AND COSTS Due to the level of 1/1 throughout Friendswood's wastewater collection system, FNI recommends the City prioritize investment in wastewater rehabilitation and 1/1 reduction over the next 5-years. Prioritizing 1/1 reduction will help the City regain existing system capacity, reduce peak wet weather flows, minimize potential regulatory compliance concerns, and potentially defer or minimize the scale of future capacity - driven CIP projects. The capacity improvement recommendations developed as part of this Wastewater Master Plan assume a 30% reduction in 1/1 resulting from implementation of the recommended SSES and Rehabilitation Program (discussed further in Section 9.0). Achieving this level of 1/1 reduction is generally considered aggressive and will require sustained investment and a proactive rehabilitation strategy throughout the collection system. W. DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood FREESE CHOLS {yM TpX Ysy Once the 5-year SSES program is complete, it is recommended that the City perform city-wide flow monitoring and an update to the Wastewater Master Plan in order to evaluate the 1/1 reduction achieved and reassess the need and sizing of the capacity -driven CIP projects. SSES Pilot Study FNI recommends the City perform a pilot study of the proposed SSES approach prior to the implementation of the City-wide SSES and Rehabilitation Program. The pilot study would evaluate a smaller portion of the collection system and include micro metering, CCTV inspection, manhole inspections, smoke testing, and target rehabilitation recommendations. The purpose of the pilot study is to validate and refine the recommended SSES methodology, rehabilitation approach, and anticipated program implementation strategy before advancing into the larger city-wide effort. For the purposes of this report, FM-12 is shown as the pilot basin due to the basin's high 1/1, proximity to Clear Creek, and observed capacity limitations within the Lift Station 2 service area. The pilot study would include full inspection of the gravity line along Clear Creek, as well as targeted micro metering and field investigations within a select sub -basin upstream of the trunk line in order to evaluate both localized and trunk line 1/1 sources. Budgetary costs for the pilot study are included in Table 8-4. The pilot study area will be determined during the pilot study. Budgetary Costs Budgetary costs for Steps 2 — 4 on Figure 8-2 were developed in 2026 dollars based on the SSES basin recommendations and utilizing the unit costs shown in Table 8-2. and the assumptions in Table 8-3. These unit costs are based on previous similar SSES studies. GIS information was utilized to approximate the linear footage of gravity lines and number of manholes for micro metering and field inspections (Steps 2 and 3). The inspection costs include smoke testing, line cleaning, CCTV inspections, and manhole inspections. The planning level costs also include allowances for 30% contingency, program management, rehab design, and construction costs. The programmatic SSES recommendations were broken down by fiscal year, as shown in Table 8-4. The total SSES program cost was developed based on the total recommended SSES basin linear footages and manholes (shown in Section 8.2) and was inflated to the final program year. The costs were then divided equally between Fiscal Year (FY) 2028 and FY 2033. Ell DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood Table 8-2: SSES Planning Level Unit Costs �7 NICHOLS Activity CCTV Inspection Unit $5.10 Unit Cost LF Smoke Testing $0.75 LF Manhole Inspection $200 Manhole Level -Only Monitor $1.50 LF Manhole Rehab $11,000 Manhole Gravity Line Rehab $200 LF a�ENos wont, 4aa+/,p TpX. Syy Table Component.... 8-3: SSES Steps 2-4 Budget Methodology Smoke Testing Assuming 100% of lines tested CCTV and Manhole Assuming 25% of lines CCTV'd and 75% of manholes inspected Inspection Program Management $100,000 for basins <30,000 LF and $150,000 for basins >30,000 LF & Rehabilitation Design Rehab Design $100,000 for basins <30,000 LF and $150,000 for basins >30,000 LF Micro Metering Assuming 100% of basin is micro metered • Assumes 50% of manholes inspected and 50% of gravity lines CCTV'd Rehab Bid & will be rehabbed Construction • Includes 30% Contingency • Includes 5% Annual Inflation W,, DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood FREESE `F ' K TsKn�y Table 8-4: SSES and Rehabilitation Plan by Fiscal Year Proje cl FMO FY27 Cost FY28 Cost FY29 Cost FY30 Cost FY31 Cost FY32 Cost FY33 Cost No. Project Total Cost Component (2027 Dollars) (2028 Dollars) (2029 Dollars) (2030 Dollars) (2031 Dollars) (2032 Dollars) (2033 Dollars) Program Management & $316,000 Rehab Design Field Inspections $236,000 1 SSES Pilot $2,627,000 Rehab Bid & $2,075,000 Construction Program Management & $275,000 $1,270,000 $1,270,000 $1,270,000 $1,270,000 $1,270,000 Rehab Design City Wide SSES 2 & Rehabilitation $55,410,000 Field Inspections $190,000 $877,000 $877,000 $877,000 $877,000 $877,000 Program Rehab Bid & $1,835,000 $8,475,000 $8,475,000 $8,475,000 $8,475,000 $8,475,000 Construction City -Wide Flow City -Wide Flow Monitoring and Monitoring and 3 Wastewater $978,000 Wastewater Master $978,000 Master Plan Plan Update Update (1) City-wide SSES costs inflated to final program year using 5% annual inflation. M DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood 9.0 WASTEWATER SYSTEM CAPACITY ASSESSMENT �Y4P�wosw o0'�j FREESE M �y TE% Ki This study conducted hydraulic capacity analyses of Friendswood's wastewater collection system to identify existing capacity deficiencies and assess the need for improvements to convey projected wastewater flows through the Buildout planning period. The data documented in this report, including the flow monitoring results and wastewater flow projections, were utilized in the capacity analyses. Hydraulic modeling was performed to assess peak wet weather flows within the collection system under a design storm. Various combinations of improvements were evaluated to assess the most appropriate approach for conveying the projected peak wastewater flows. Development of the wastewater capacity capital improvement plan (CIP) considered system reliability, operational simplicity, accommodation of peak wet weather flows, and reduction of system surcharging and sanitary sewer overflows. 9.1 SYSTEM ANALYSIS APPROACH The hydraulic capacity analyses completed as part of this study considered the recommended SSES and Rehabilitation Program discussed in Section 8.0. Based on coordination with City staff, the capacity CIP recommendations were developed assuming an approximately 30% reduction in 1/1 resulting from implementation of the recommended rehabilitation program. Achieving this level of 1/1 reduction is generally considered aggressive and will require sustained investment and a proactive rehabilitation strategy throughout the collection system. It is recommended that the City reevaluate future capacity - driven CIP projects following completion of the recommended SSES program to confirm the level of 1/1 reduction achieved and refine long-term infrastructure needs. 9.2 DESIGN STORM Design storms are utilized in wastewater hydraulic models to develop peak wastewater flows that inform the sizing of capital improvements. A 5-year, 6-hour 1't quartile design storm with a 10% occurrence interval was utilized to project existing peak flows for this study. The design storm was selected by City staff based on an analysis of historical rainfall data. Information from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atlas 14 database was utilized to develop the depth, peak intensity, and distribution characteristics of the 5-year, 6-hour design storm. The 5-year 6-hour design storm for the City of Friendswood is an approximately 5.16-inch rainfall event and is shown on Figure 9-1. 9-1 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood Figure 9-1: 2.5 Peak Intensity = 2.0 2.1in/hr 0.5 5-Year, 6-Hour Design Storm Hyetograph �Y4P�wosw o0'�j FREESE M �y TE% Ki 0.0 00 00 .00 00 Q0 00 00 00 QO 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 Q0 00 .00 N. 4i. v `1' O. g. y01 y�. y1 • -' 11 ,gyp;• ��. y�. ,'1 • y�. ,oi• �O. ,Lti• �1 • ri. , O. Time (hours) Hydraulic Model Validation During the City's 2015 Flow Monitoring Study, Friendswood experienced a storm event comparable to the rainfall depth and peak intensity of the 5-year 6-hour design storm selected as part of this study. Flow meters captured the system's response to this storm event throughout the collection system. FNI utilized the 2015 data to compare the modeled system response at the 2015 flow meter locations to the observed data to validate the model. The modeled peak flows at each of the flow meter locations were comparable to the peak flows observed during the 2015 storm event, as shown in Table 9-1 and on Figure 9-2. Differences between the modeled and 2015 observed peak flows may be attributable to changes in development since 2015, changes in system condition or 1/1 levels, and slight differences between the observed storm event and the selected design storm. This analysis provides a high level of confidence that the model closely matches real world conditions and is suitable to use for hydraulic analyses and CIP development. 9-2 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood (1) Modeled peak flows based on existing system scenario �i��oswo FREESE �zKt Figure 9-2: 2015 Observed Flow and Existing System Design Storm Comparison 12 10 8 0 C7 6 O LL 4 2 0 FM-09 FM-10 FM-14 FM-12 FM-08 FM-07 FM-15 FM-13 FM-06 ■ FNI Design Storm Data 2015 Observed Data GAM17*1MZ1187:711104NF-IT_1ZIBIIIA I&I CIA 0101ZIIZIaILI]4Z IN: 9.3.1 Design Criteria for Manholes and Gravity Lines Friendswood's Design Criteria Manual guides that manholes must be placed at all changes in alignment, changes in grade, junction points, dead-end mains, laterals, and at street, alley, or easement intersections as design may require. When determining the number of manholes for proposed wastewater lines, the City of Friendswood Design Criteria Manual provides specific spacing requirements, as shown in Table 9-2. Additionally, TCEQ §217.55 notes that manholes must be at least 48-inch in diameter. Table 9-3 shows the manhole sizing guideline used based on pipe diameter. 9-3 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood Table 9-2: Citv of Friendswood �Y4P�wosw o0'�j FREESE M �y TE% Ki Criteria Manual Maximum Manhole Spacing 8-48 350 > 48 To be determined on individual project basis Table 9-3: Manhole Size by Pipe Diameter 6-12 48 15 - 24 60 27 or larger 72 The City of Friendswood Design Criteria Manual notes that the minimum slope for gravity lines is to be calculated using Manning Formula with n=0.013 and must be designed to maintain a velocity of 2 feet/second. This guidance aligns with TCEQ §217.53 (1)(1). Maintaining these velocities discourages the settling of solids. Additionally, TCEQ §217.53 (j)(3) states "An owner must ensure that the collection system has capacity to prevent a surcharge." Friendswood's minimum slope requirements are presented in Table 9-4. Table 9-4: City of Friendswood Design Criteria Manual Minimum Slopes Diameter of Gravity Line(') (in) Minimum Slope (Percent) (1) For pipelines greater than 27-inches in diameter, the slope is determined by Manning formula, n= 0.013, to maintain a velocity greater than 2.0 feet/second and less than 10 feet/second when flowing full. 9-4 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood 9.3.2 Design Criteria for Lift Stations and Force Mains �Y4P�wosw o0'�j FREESE M �y TE% Ki TCEQ design criteria §217.61 (c) states "The firm pumping capacity of a lift station must handle the peak flow." The firm pumping capacity is defined as the maximum pumping capacity with the largest pumping unit out of service. The City of Friendswood Design Criteria Manual states that force mains shall be sized to convey the lift station pumping capacity at a minimum velocity greater than three (3) feet per second and less than eight (8) feet per second. At lift stations where expansion in firm pumping capacity is recommended, the existing wet wells were evaluated for capacity based on the TCEQ minimum pump cycle times. These cycle times are listed in Table 9-5. Table 9-5: TCEQ Minimum Pump Cycle Times Pump Minimum Cycle Times Horsepower (minutes) The proposed wastewater lines, force mains, and lift station firm pumping capacities in the wastewater CIP (Section 10.0) are sized to convey the projected peak wastewater flows in accordance with the above criteria. 9.3.3 Lift Station Influence The majority of the wastewater in Friendswood's collection system is pumped by one or more lift stations en -route to the Blackhawk WWTP. A lift station schematic was created (Figure 2-3) to document the hierarchy and relationship of each lift station to any upstream and downstream lift stations. The existing and future system analyses in this study considered the firm pumping capacities of any upstream lift stations, as detailed on the lift station schematic. 9.4 EXISTING AND FUTURE WASTEWATER SYSTEM ANALYSES The critical flow condition for analyzing a wastewater collection system is peak wet weather. Flow, depth, and velocity are important factors when analyzing peak wet weather simulations. FNI performed existing and future system analyses on the modeled wastewater infrastructure based on the 5-year, 6-hour design storm event for existing flows, and utilizing a peak flow to average day peaking factor of 4.0 for future developments. Future system analysis was performed for the 5-year, 10-year, and Buildout planning periods. 9-5 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan FREESE City of Friendswood 9-07°NICHOLS When the design storm is applied to the calibrated model, the effects of 1/1 in the system can be seen. As the storm intensifies, additional flow enters the system. The model determines the point in time at which the amount of water from the design storm event reaches the peak within the system. This peak represents the most taxing load the system experiences under the design storm event. Color -coded maps were prepared to illustrate the surcharged state of modeled lines and manholes under existing and Buildout peak conditions based on the 5-year, 6-hour design storm. The existing and Buildout system analysis results are shown on Figure 9-3 and Figure 9-4, respectively. Locations where the predicted maximum hydraulic grade line (HGL) rises to within 3 feet of the manhole rim are shown as yellow circles on the map, and the locations of predicted sanitary sewer overflows are shown as red circles. The blue lines indicate a downstream capacity restriction, while the red lines indicate surcharging above the pipe due to a lack of capacity in the gravity line segment. In certain areas of the existing wastewater system, the hydraulic model indicated surcharge conditions that may be influenced by flat or nearly -flat slopes, shallow manholes, or limited invert information within portions of the collection system. In areas where surcharge conditions were potentially influenced by limited survey data, or were not supported by observed system performance concerns, capacity projects were not recommended at this time. Capacity improvement projects were generally recommended only in areas where the modeled surcharge conditions were supported by observed flow monitoring data, significant modeled surcharging, known operational concerns, or projected future development. Summary of System Analysis Results The existing and future system analyses indicate that significant portions of the wastewater collection system experience surcharging during peak wet weather conditions. These results are consistent with expectations based on the observed wet weather peaking factors, surcharge conditions, and high levels of 1/I identified throughout the system during flow monitoring. The analyses indicate that excess wet weather flow from 1/1 is a major contributor to the observed capacity limitations. The system analysis results also indicate that projected future growth has a relatively minor impact on overall system performance compared to the influence of existing 1/I, as many of the modeled surcharge conditions are already present within the existing system analysis scenario. The system analyses incorporated the assumed 30% reduction in 1/1, as discussed in Section 9.1, resulting from implementation of the recommended SSES and Rehabilitation Program. Without 1/1 reduction, additional capacity deficiencies and larger infrastructure improvements may be required in the future. W. DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan FREESE City of Friendswood U-07JNICHOLS The results of the analyses were utilized to develop and prioritize the recommended wastewater capacity CIP projects discussed in Section 10.0. 9-7 if J ., � �\ � , , K � � .tip„ *. •� . .L' ` pf i�. _`, ` ' - .M '�7 11 , � ` jol 4�e e> i r i �� Y it`d` '� - Y \ rr • ~� / \ It" Private LS _� „fir• • _ I••' � �` ♦ /',• , � I, � • '• •.'• '• �'•'i• ( V , I `Iw• Cf 46'.• 7 ��. .y J ' � _.• • '(� t� •1 \ i (� �'• ' r'r , . , .,, • \ .�<\ \ . �`\ • • '• • • ' � � e* l 5.,� }i�v�f`�� , I �J• � � J ,�` � -.� . y_ 11 s,��i•-�3 S �f • y,%•~ .J� N '� ••-+a i • I i • •.I� ' o•'_.�• • '` ,i/ ,� FT p_ • 'rr{ / >' . 1 ' y �� �_ _ ,. ice_• , • / + J� �` It 40 • ' ,\ ,, • \\ •• •• •• : • ,�� ,• _. ,eT'••f '•. ` ,Y it .�- f - �•`► eLi ��• 1'r ftt ok dw FIE .. 'I - ., ri F9� \� •� / ` ���' . , .•J •' ',:. �I '� �., -"�' FM 528 RD � : •...'�rrN�•�" i♦•` '/ • �•' 1. : '•, .,. � �.n � �� ` ♦ j• ` � • III �\ - � , • I � �. .I, ' ` • • .. w �: e0 ,, ••••• `� PSI' ` •. C4 F, • °• •• � . `�'". � '• ��• ' • .ram ••�• � • � •• �� • N! am• :- , ••. .' /' . ,• ,... �■���• ' , ; ' ' . � M j" NPR o ., •. _ ti• /1 \ • " • 'i� !' ROAD NO NAME •,� � 1 � � - � t,. ° 'WIN • �QQ�.� � ' ,• : '' •''•' •• �'• + • �'a •' a � � -�'.•• r F*t •�5�1 4. • .. J� ' o . , 00 •� f y ' , �� ��O • w +' a I•' °° /' j•,� • • • r '!sr a� 1• 3 " t 1 •'�`� 1 • • •,• , • ',=':QQ• ',r•-�"• �.3'�: '.�':. 'l �', .+.'.',•r '. • • `' •` ', �•--�1•i+- `I• -:tit, \�- wm Yk ..• - •� � 1ST , , I � o' `• • II► •,• �r+--�; ` • •' .. , I III • \� �. ' � y''S� � = a.. - •� � � " - • � - �,• -, ,�,, ._ .�-' . "X� . R- � _. ._J• '• :' • • ,/ • • `fit. ' 1A: • •y' •. o.•', •% _ `Y4 ' • ,• \\`33 A� i '�♦ O 1_1- • —� • } _ �, r Q,Q` IRON•RIDGEJL'N' kIM➢ •r. Lu ix + � 111 •`•�'�� . 1 - E '' of � 1 - �' `_ lot Q an It _ / s~• ' Ali..' - �_- 1 , - , . �',•-i r •� HOLLIERRD t AT N - I iw r<VbulLb It:WIt:bt:IlL -. if J ., � • - - - � �, �\ � , , K ��� . tip„ ~ \ / I *. •� . .L' ` pf � �� i�'. • �� -`�, ` •," � � ' r, ^ 7'� - .M:�'r7 .i'" t , `� �• '\ ♦ /� -/ /�-. �� .J! .! •f ,�S` 'may • Jf..� 1 �i .w \ �y < ♦< r •� , "� .y\ y 1" �J J ! y. °, • yam_ ,* /.. �, /i. • r'` < i�1 /� t s♦ `�i - ♦ 1 l 11 . r . � • ! / - + of • ,1. „i / ` l / `T' 1..: . J•,t..l•� r •► * / \' A In Private LS eo :� l413 ,��• '� ~ :.,, 1� � � �} ` �+•�, \,� fir r l /C • .` 1 •po , . • ' � �y�a j i bk •, •~:. • .,Y' a' '/ 1 ,r. .< •Y r i ` , i �R� •'' •�' •• •_ '•fir. ` ( , 1 ec 04 •, � `,�. �:' . � + .� ���• •�, 'MOOD' • •'•�r •l, � •• .. ,I' e ` • - . ' ,\ 17 R I 4. WF ` ;•'% •tom y�. .� � ;� •:• .; . •/'' -: . � •. . /' - ��� - i •K � .'� . � • \ II _ , i' •! • • � /� • •• < •••' / -mot • •i. `` � ••' _ .r♦y � r -2Y'• �. - . � � •� C • �,(�S` 7 its r : ° � • •' �� . • � � -1-• � \'p.�` - ,.. . v . .. - .r ri STF�, \ ' / ,.O��y • � �•'• • • •' •' '"" f '� ..:3 � � FM 528 RD IVA EN �.� ` � ;', °•~ • •, ••�•. ' +\• ,� � �•:� � � � �' ,MARLED ' •: OF 'e \ ' % � � � � � III ' + - - �O� •`�� • • ' A � �Q. I • • •••• �' �, -+•s'✓ , � � `�� Jam• `.� a. �09 ` • • • ••• r• • '•• .•;•• �• •• • •• '�. �/• . •`•. �`•',' • � ROAD NO NAME Q�P. '. ` o •' •j t,• • + WIN • �Q .� ' . : •' • ••' . j.a a w � rti' DSONG LN L .©• •• 1 #. 010 goo Ix MOM Is lio ..• � ' it '• � • • r i III � �. - (� , ,{�• �� ��' ^ i•.` • •'�`�..1. 1 `• �—' - At Aw • • • (` r ' �_ ••• , •• • `�0 ° , _�. _ •� _ 1, � y •o �J _,.. OO� ,�� � eei. ' •'OAk .° ^•�: - _ � � � �`- T • +I ;—� - �_ r r � � � Q` IRON•RIDGEJL'N .y •r. F , � � , $• �' .� �: � . •„�,,.,.� � • 1 W , Pit, �,: _ t' � • - - {.Y • �.•. .� / of — t, • � .Y • � _ + Ali..' _ � J ♦y •' Q�' LUNDY LN + " �•�r ;Immmu gem • , � � / , r .-`fir_—� • /LS # 26 r' - r / : �'�•-i r •� HOLLIERRD E. ✓�' 1 �L'i 1 n n� __� N - I iw F%VbUIIS It::Wlt::bt::I1L DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan FREESE City of Friendswood 9-07°NICHOLS 9.5 PEAK FLOW MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES The City's wastewater collection system experiences significant peak wet weather flows based on flow monitoring results. The model indicates the projected 2-hour peak flows during the design storm exceed the City's contracted peak flow capacity at the Blackhawk WWTP when upstream collection system capacity constraints are removed. During development of the wastewater CIP, the City and FNI discussed alternatives for managing projected peak flows conveyed to the Blackhawk WWTP in addition to 1/1 reduction, including expansion of peak flow treatment capacity at the WWTP and implementation of peak flow storage facilities within the collection system. Based on discussions with City staff, peak flow storage was identified as the preferred strategy. Peak flow storage facilities temporarily store excess wet weather flow during storm events and release the flow back into the system after peak conditions subside. The need and sizing of future peak flow storage facilities should be reevaluated following the completion of the recommended SSES and Rehabilitation Program to confirm the level of 1/1 reduction achieved throughout the collection system. K DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan ? klFREESE � �I '�1 w City of Friendswood 10.0 WASTEWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN This study developed a prioritized, phased wastewater Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for the City of Friendswood based on the flow monitoring, hydraulic modeling, lift station risk -based assessments, and system analyses. The recommended CIP is intended to address aging infrastructure and 1/I, address existing capacity deficiencies, reduce risk of asset failure, improve system reliability, and provide capacity to accommodate projected future growth. The wastewater CIP includes the following components: • SSES and Rehabilitation Program — documented in Section 10.1 • Capacity Improvement Projects — documented in Section 10.2 • Lift Station Renewal Projects - documented in Section 10.3 An overview of the wastewater CIP is included on Figure 10-1 and the wastewater CIP recommendations are summarized in Table 10-1. Figure 10-1: CIP Recommendation: G Prioritize investment in wastewater rehabilitation and 1/1 reduction over the next 5-years G Reevaluate the system to confirm future infrastructure needs CIP Overview 22 Proiects Identified --------------------------------------------------. 5-Year: $70.5M (7 Projects) ' --------------------------------------------------- 1 0-Year: $125.6M (10 Projects) Buildout: $19.2M (5 Projects) Project sizing and costs assume iR reduction is achieved within the next —5 years 10-1 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan ? klFREESE � �I '�1 w City of Friendswood Table 10-1: Wastewater CIP Summary SSES and Rehabilitation Program SSES and Rehabilitation Total Pilot Program Cost Perform a pilot study of the recommended Pilot Program In FY27 Dollars' SSES and Rehabilitation Program to evaluate Timeframe: FY27 $2,627,000 and refine the approach. City -Wide SSES and Total Program Cost Perform field inspections such as micro Rehabilitation Program g In FY33 Dollars' metering, CCTV, manhole inspections, and Timeframe: FY28 - FY33 $55,410,000 smoke testing, and perform wastewater system rehabilitation to target high I/I basins. Update the city-wide wastewater system flow Wastewater Master Total Program Cost monitoring and the Wastewater Master Plan to Plan Update P In FY33 Dollars' evaluate I/I reduction achieved and reassess Timeframe: FY32 $978,000 the need and sizing of capacity -driven CIP projects within the 10-year and Buildout planning periods. Capacity CIP 5 year Summary Total 5-Year Cost Timeframe: by FY31 in FY26 Dollars' Prioritize immediate rehab needs and ............................................................................................................................................... $11,498,900 infrastructure to serve new development. CIP Projects: 1-4 Capacity improvements sized for 30% I/I 10 year Summary Total 10-Year Cost reduction and prioritized based on areas within Timeframe: by FY36 in FY26 Dollars' the existing system with greater risk of ....................................................................................................... . $125,630,200 overflows. Reevaluate sizing and need for projects following completion of the City -Wide CIP Project: 5-14 SSES and Rehabilitation Program. Remaining capacity needs within the existing Buildout Summary Total Buildout Cost system that are sized for 30% 1/1 reduction. Timeframe: by FY51 in FY26 Dollars' Reevaluate sizing and need for projects $19,215,600 following completion of the City -Wide SSES and CIP Projects: 15-19 1 Rehabilitation Program. Lift Station Renewal Plan Lift Station Rehabilitation Total Program Cost Perform rehab of all moderate risk lift stations Timeframe: Goal of rehabbing all In FY26 Dollars' in the next 10-years, and all low risk lift stations lift stations with a 15-20 year $7,327,320 in the next 25-years. serviceable life window. (1) Planning level costs, including contingency and engineering/survey. Costs only include escalation where noted. It is recommended to include an annual escalation for projects budgeted after FY26. Additional expenses related to construction management/inspection, materials testing, change order contingency, soft costs, and legal fees are not included. 10-2 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood 10.1 SUMMARY OF SSES PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS ? klFREESE � �I '�1 w --NICHOLS� �yY An SSES and Rehabilitation Program was developed for each fiscal year over the next 5-years, as discussed in Section 8.0. Due to the level of 1/1 throughout Friendswood's wastewater collection system, FNI recommends the City prioritize investment in wastewater rehabilitation and 1/1 reduction over the next 5- years. Prioritizing 1/1 reduction will help the City regain existing system capacity, reduce peak wet weather flows, minimize potential regulatory compliance concerns, and potentially defer or minimize the scale of future capacity -driven CIP projects. The recommended SSES approach is shown on Figure 10-2 and the budgetary costs by fiscal year are shown in Table 10-2. ❑✓ Flow Monitoring Identify Basins with high Ili for SSES SSES Pilot Study Figure 10-2: FY27-32 SSES Approach for 1/1 Reduction FY27-FY32 Micro Metering Field 6esign 8 Rehab Inspections Utilize micro Conduct CC'V, Design andrehab metering to identify MACP Manhole improvements as field inspection inspections, and inspections are locations Smoke Testing performed FY33 System Wide Flow Monitoring to Evaluate Ill Reduction Achieved & Update Wastewater Master Plan FNI recommends the City perform a pilot study of the proposed SSES approach prior to the implementation of the City-wide SSES and Rehabilitation Program. The pilot study would evaluate a smaller portion of the collection system and include micro metering, CCTV inspection, manhole inspections, smoke testing, and target rehabilitation recommendations. The purpose of the pilot study is to validate and refine the recommended SSES methodology, rehabilitation approach, and anticipated program implementation strategy before advancing into the larger city-wide effort. For the purposes of this report, FM-12 is shown as the pilot basin due to the basin's high 1/1, proximity to Clear Creek, and observed capacity limitations within the Lift Station 2 service area. The pilot study would include full inspection of the gravity line along Clear Creek, as well as targeted micro metering and field investigations within a select sub -basin upstream of the trunk line in order to evaluate both localized and trunk line 1/1 sources. Budgetary costs for the pilot study are included in Table 8-4. The pilot study area will be determined during the pilot study. 10-3 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood ya �Q %DS �y >EK Kf Table 10-2: SSES and Rehabilitation Plan by Fiscal Year Project Project Component FY27 Cost FY28 Cost FY29 Cost FY30 Cost FY31 Cost FY32 Cost FY33 Cost Total Cost Program Management & $316,000 Rehab Design Field Inspections $236,000 1 SSES Pilot $2,627,000 Rehab Bid & $2,075,000 Construction Program Management & $275,000 $1,270,000 $1,270,000 $1,270,000 $1,270,000 $1,270,000 City Wide SSES Rehab Design 2 & Rehabilitation $55,410,000 Field Inspections $190,000 $877,000 $877,000 $877,000 $877,000 $877,000 Program Rehab Bid & $1,835,000 $8,475,000 $8,475,000 $8,475,000 $8,475,000 $8,475,000 Construction City -Wide Flow City -Wide Flow Monitoring and Monitoring and 3 Wastewater $978,000 $978,000 Master Plan Wastewater Master Update Plan Update (1) City-wide SSES costs inflated to final program year using 5% annual inflation. 10-4 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood 10.2 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 4�NP51'o ?y IMICHOLS r The CIP recommendations are based on the wastewater system flow monitoring, land use assumptions, flow projections, hydraulic modeling, and system analyses discussed in this report. The recommended capacity projects improve the collection system's ability to convey existing wastewater flows and provide the required conveyance capacity to serve the projected growth through the Buildout planning period. The projects were developed assuming a 30% reduction in 1/1 resulting from the implementation of the recommended SSES and Rehabilitation Program. It is recommended that the City reevaluate the sizing and need for future capacity -driven CIP projects following completion of the recommended SSES program to confirm the level of 1/1 reduction achieved. The recommended wastewater collection system projects are shown in Table 10-4 and on Figure 10-3. Wastewater projects currently ongoing are not included in the CIP and are shown in orange on Figure 10-3. Planning level OPCCs for each project are included in Appendix A. The wastewater CIP projects are arranged and prioritized by planning period (5-year, 10-year, and Buildout) based on the following: • 5-Year Projects: These are shown in red and are recommended to be designed and constructed within the next 5 years (by 2031). These projects prioritize immediate rehab needs and infrastructure to serve new development. • 10-Year Projects: These are shown in blue and are recommended to be designed and constructed within the next 10 years (by 2036). These projects prioritize areas within the existing system with risk of overflows based on the hydraulic modeling analysis. It is recommended that the City reevaluate the sizing and need for these projects, following completion of the recommended SSES and Rehabilitation Program. • Buildout Projects: These are shown in green and are recommended to be designed and constructed by Buildout. These projects address remaining capacity needs within the existing system. It is recommended that the City reevaluate the sizing and need for these projects, following completion of the recommended SSES and Rehabilitation Program. It is recommended that these projects be constructed generally in the order presented; however, development patterns may make it necessary to construct some projects sooner than anticipated. Locations shown for new lines and lift stations are generalized for hydraulic analyses. Specific alignments and sites will be determined as part of the design process. 10-5 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood Development of Capital Costs 4�NP51'o ?y IMICHOLS r Planning -level opinion of probable construction costs (OPCCs) were developed in 2026 dollars based on previous similar engineering experience and include allowances for the following: • Contingencies: A 30% contingency was utilized for all future projects. This is the cost assigned to the unknowns in the definition of the project. The contingency is intended to account for construction costs that have not yet been identified due to the project's maturity and should be expected to be fully utilized during construction. • Engineering/Survey: For this study, engineering and survey was set at 20% for vertical projects including facilities and at 15% for linear -only projects. The engineering and survey portion of the OPCC accounts for costs projected to be incurred for design, geotechnical, subsurface utility engineering, environmental engineering, and survey tasks during the design of a project. The planning level costs do not include financing escalation, individual service connections, subdivision lines, or land acquisition. It is recommended to include an annual escalation for projects budgeted after FY26. The unit costs for wastewater gravity lines, force mains, and manholes are shown in Table 10-3. Wastewater lift station OPCCs were developed for each facility based on operational needs and identified improvements. Table 10-3: Wastewater Capital Improvements Plan Unit Costs Pipelines . D. Force Mains $20 Gravity Lines < 8-feet deep $18 Gravity Lines 8 - 16-feet deep $20 Gravity Lines > 16-feet deep Manholes $22 Cost/Manhole a, 8-ft —16-ft depth $17,500 E >16ft — 24-ft depth $21,500 .10 >24-ft — 30-ft depth $25,500 a, 8-ft —16-ft depth $21,500 E >16ft — 24-ft depth $25,500 >24-ft — 30-ft depth $29,500 a, 8-ft —16-ft depth $23,500 E c� >16ft — 24-ft depth $28,500 >24-ft — 30-ft depth $33,500 10-6 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood Table 10-4: Wastewater Capacity CIP Summary 4�NP51'o ?y IMICHOLS r Project Cost(l) Phase Number Project Name (2026 D. 1 Lift Station 15 Consolidation and Replacement 10-Inch Gravity Line Along Killarney $697,400 Avenue L r, 2 New 0.6 MGD Parkwood Avenue Lift Station and 8-Inch Gravity Lines Along $6,388,200 NWindsong Lane In .. 3 New 8-Inch Gravity Lines Along West Parkwood Avenue $2,900,300 4 New 8-Inch Gravity Lines on Falling Leaf Drive $1,513,000 Total 2026 - 2031 $11,498,900 5 Lift Station 2 Firm Capacity Expansion to 22.1 MGD and 4.0 MG Peak Flow Storage $47,970,000 6 Replacement 18/30/36-inch Gravity Lines Along Clear Creek to Lift Station 2 $17,990,100 7 Lift Station 23 Firm Capacity Expansion to 11.30 MGD $23,132,600 8 Lift Station 3 Firm Capacity Expansion to 3.0 MGD $5,785,500 9 Replacement 18-inch Gravity Line Along North Friendswood Drive $3,027,400 CM } N 10 Lift Station 17 Firm Capacity Expansion to 2.5 MGD $4,510,000 o >. 11 Replacement 18/24-inch Gravity Line along Woodland Trail Drive $4,739,200 12 Replacement 30/36-inch Gravity Line Along Cowart Creek to Lift Station 2 $13,407,200 13 Replacement 18-Inch Gravity Line Along Greenbriar Avenue $1,901,700 14 Replacement 12/18-Inch and 24-inch Gravity Line Along Briarmeadow Avenue and $3,166,500 Winding Way Total 2031 - 2036 $125,630,200 15 Lift Station 22 Firm Capacity Expansion to 3.1 MGD $5,477,400 16 Lift Station 18 Firm Capacity Expansion to 1.5 MGD $2,828,300 0 17 Lift Station 28 Firm Capacity Expansion to 1.75 MGD $3,082,600 .5 m 18 Lift Station 26 Firm Capacity Expansion to 1.0 MGD and New 8-Inch Gravity Lines $3,627,000 19 New 0.07 MGD Lift Station and 8-Inch Gravity Lines Along Beamer Road $4,200,300 Total Buildout $19,215,600 Total Wastewater CIP Cost 44 00 (1) The Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or the Contractor's methods of determining prices, nor over competitive bidding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to the Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Additionally, fluctuations in material costs due to tariffs, trade policies, or supply chain disruptions may further impact pricing in ways that are difficult to predict. 10-7 Created By Freese and Nichols, Inc. Job No.: FSW24674 Location: HAW WW PLANNING\01_DELIVERABLES\00_ DRAFT _REPORTOraft_Report _Prc_Projecl\Draft_ Report _Pon _PmjeOtapm\(Figure_10-3)-WW_CIP Updated: Sunday, May 17, 2026 10:35 AM User Name: 08810 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood 10.2.1 Ongoing Wastewater Capital Improvement Projects �4a�Np w�oy Y The following projects are currently in progress. A brief description of the planned improvements is provided for each project. Expansion of Lift Station 8 The City is currently expanding Lift Station 8 permitted capacity from 1.4 MGD to 1.7 MGD. This project also includes the construction of a replacement 10-inch force main. Replacement 21/24-inch Gravity Lines Along Sunset Drive and Falling Leaf Drive The City is currently replacing the existing 15/18-inch gravity lines along Sunset Drive and Falling Leaf Drive with 21/24-inch gravity lines. Lift Station 40 Decommissioning and New City Center Lift Station The City is currently decommissioning Lift Station 40 and constructing a new lift station to serve the City Center development. 10.2.2 Capacity CIP: Five -Year Projects (2026 - 2031) Project 1— Lift Station 15 Consolidation and Replacement 10-Inch Gravity Line Along Killarney Avenue Project Description: This project includes a replacement 10-inch gravity line along Killarney Avenue to Leprechaun Drive and new 10-inch gravity line that extends to Lift Station 15. This project will allow for the decommissioning of Lift Station 15 and is sized to serve the model predicted buildout peak wet weather flow. Protect Driver: This lift station was observed to be in poor condition and identified as high -risk during the lift station condition assessment completed as part of this study. Based on the available manhole survey and GIS information, this lift station was identified as a potential consolidation project. It is recommended to confirm the inverts of the nearby gravity line infrastructure to confirm the feasibility of the lift station consolidation. The 10-inch gravity line is recommended in order to achieve the slope needed in order to consolidate the Lift Station. 10-9 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood �4a�Np w�oy Y Project 2 — New 0.6 MGD Parkwood Avenue Lift Station and 8-Inch Gravity Lines Along Windsong Lane Proiect Description: This project includes the construction of a new 0.6 MGD Parkwood Avenue Lift Station, 6-inch force main, and 8-inch gravity lines to serve new development along Windsong Lane and the Friendswood Trails. Project Driver: This project is driven by projected future development along Windsong Lane and Friendswood Trails and is sized to serve projected buildout peak wet weather flow. Project 3 — New 8-Inch Gravity Lines Along West Parkwood Avenue Project Description: This project includes the construction of new 8-inch gravity lines along West Parkwood Avenue to the Parkwood Avenue Lift Station (Project 2). Project Driver: This project is driven by projected future development near West Parkwood Avenue and is sized to serve projected buildout peak wet weather flow. Project 4 — New 8-Inch Gravity Lines Near Falling Leaf Ranch Proiect Description: This project includes the construction of a new 8-inch gravity line along Falling Leaf Drive to the ongoing Falling Leaf Lift Station. Project Driver: This project is driven by future development near Falling Leaf and is sized to serve projected buildout peak wet weather flow. 10.2.3 Capacity CIP: Ten -Year Projects (2031 - 2036) Project 5 — Lift Station 2 Firm Capacity Expansion to 22.1 MGD and 4.0 MG Peak Flow Storage Project Description: This project includes the expansion of Lift Station 2 from 7.5 MGD to 22.1 MGD firm pumping capacity and includes a new wet well, pumps, electrical, generator, and piping and valves. This project also includes the construction of a 4.0 MG peak flow storage basin. The expanded Lift Station 2 is sized to pump partial flows to the peak flow storage basin via a new 36-inch force main and partial flows to the Blackhawk WWTP via the existing 28-inch force main. Project Driver: The hydraulic model indicates surcharging in the existing system due to capacity constraints at Lift Station 2. This project is recommended to provide increased pumping capacity to serve projected buildout peak wet weather flows from the Lift Station 2 service area. The peak flow storage 10-10 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood 4�NP51'o ?y IMICHOLS r basin is recommended in order to store projected peak wet weather flows and maintain the City's existing 2-hour peak flow limit of 13.75 MGD to GCA. During a wet weather event, it is assumed the City would pump partial flows from Lift Station 2 to the Blackhawk WWTP, and partial flows to the recommended peak flow storage basin. It is recommended to perform a siting study for the peak flow storage basin within the Lift Station 2 service area. The additional capacity provided by the lift station expansion and peak flow storage will help the City maintain regulatory compliance regarding the prevention of surcharging and sanitary sewer overflows (TCEQ 217.53). The need and sizing of this project would be impacted by the amount of 1/1 reduction achieved as part of the City -Wide SSES and Rehabilitation Program. It is recommended to reevaluate the need and sizing for this project once the Program has been completed. Project 6 — Replacement 18/30/36-inch Gravity Lines Along Clear Creek to Lift Station 2 Project Description: This project includes the construction of a replacement 18-inch gravity line along East Edgewood Drive near Melody Lane to Diamond Lane and replacement 30/36-inch gravity lines along Clear Creek from Diamond Lane to Lift Station 2. Project Driver: The hydraulic model indicates surcharging in the existing gravity lines to convey the projected peak wet weather flow. The recommended replacement gravity line is sized to serve projected buildout peak wet weather flows. The additional capacity provided by these replacement gravity lines will help the City maintain regulatory compliance regarding the prevention of surcharging and sanitary sewer overflows (TCEQ 217.53). The need and sizing of this project would be impacted by the amount of 1/1 reduction achieved as part of the City -Wide SSES and Rehabilitation Program. It is recommended to reevaluate the need and sizing for this project once the Program has been completed. Project 7 — Lift Station 23 Firm Capacity Expansion to 11.30 MGD Protect Description: This project includes the expansion of Lift Station 23 from 4.3 MGD to 11.3 MGD firm pumping capacity and includes a new wet well, pumps, electrical, generator, and piping and valves. This project also includes the construction of a replacement 30-inch force main from LS 23 to the Blackhawk WWTP. It is recommended to perform a surge analysis to evaluate the need for the force main expansion. Protect Driver: The hydraulic model indicates surcharging in the existing system due to capacity constraints at Lift Station 23. This project is recommended to provide increased pumping capacity to serve projected buildout peak wet weather flows within the LS 23 service area. The additional capacity provided 10-11 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood 4�NP51'o ?y IMICHOLS r by the lift station expansion will help the City maintain regulatory compliance regarding the prevention of surcharging and sanitary sewer overflows (TCEQ 217.53). The need and sizing of this project would be impacted by the amount of 1/1 reduction achieved as part of the City -Wide SSES and Rehabilitation Program. It is recommended to reevaluate the need and sizing for this project once the Program has been completed. Project 8 — Lift Station 3 Firm Capacity Expansion to 3.0 MGD Proiect Description: This project includes the expansion of Lift Station 3 from 1.2 MGD to 3.0 MGD firm pumping capacity and includes a new wet well, pumps, electrical, and piping and valves. This project also includes a replacement 16-inch force main that is planned to be re-routed from the existing 12-inch gravity line along Edgewood Drive that flows to Lift Station 1, to the proposed parallel 18-inch line along Edgewood Drive (Project 6). Protect Driver: The hydraulic model indicates surcharging in the existing system due to capacity constraints at Lift Station 3. This project is recommended to provide increased pumping capacity to serve projected buildout peak wet weather flows within the LS 3 service area. The additional capacity provided by the lift station expansion will help the Clty maintain regulatory compliance regarding the prevention of surcharging and sanitary sewer overflows (TCEQ 217.53). The need and sizing of this project would be impacted by the amount of 1/1 reduction achieved as part of the City -Wide SSES and Rehabilitation Program. It is recommended to reevaluate the need and sizing for this project once the Program has been completed. Additionally, the proposed re-routing of the existing force main will help alleviate modeled capacity constraints within Lift Station 1's service area. Project 9 — Replacement 18-inch Gravity Line Along North Friendswood Drive Protect Description: This project includes the construction of a replacement 18-inch gravity line along North Friendswood Drive to Lift Station 3. Project Driver: The hydraulic model indicates surcharging in the existing gravity lines to convey the projected peak wet weather flow. The recommended replacement gravity line is sized to serve projected buildout peak wet weather flows. The additional capacity provided by these replacement gravity lines will help the City maintain regulatory compliance regarding the prevention of surcharging and sanitary sewer overflows (TCEQ 217.53). The need and sizing of this project would be impacted by the amount of 1/1 10-12 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood 4�NP51'o ?y IMICHOLS r reduction achieved as part of the City -Wide SSES and Rehabilitation Program. It is recommended to reevaluate the need and sizing for this project once the Program has been completed. Project 10 — Lift Station 17 Firm Capacity Expansion to 2.5 MGD Protect Description: This project includes the expansion of Lift Station 17 from 1.9 MGD to 2.5 MGD firm pumping capacity and includes a new wet well, pumps, electrical, and piping and valves. This project also includes a replacement 12-inch force main. Protect Driver: The hydraulic model indicates surcharging in the existing system due to capacity constraints at Lift Station 17. This project is recommended to provide increased pumping capacity to serve projected buildout peak wet weather flows within the LS 17 service area. The additional capacity provided by the lift station expansion will help the City maintain regulatory compliance regarding the prevention of surcharging and sanitary sewer overflows (TCEQ 217.53). The need and sizing of this project would be impacted by the amount of 1/1 reduction achieved as part of the City -Wide SSES and Rehabilitation Program. It is recommended to reevaluate the need and sizing for this project once the Program has been completed. Project 11— Replacement 18/24-inch Gravity Line along Woodland Trail Drive Project Description: This project includes the construction of replacement 18-inch gravity lines along Woodland Trail Drive from Lift Station 28 to Trail Head Street. This project also includes a replacement 24-inch gravity line from Trail Head Street to East Edgewood Drive. This project will connect to the expanded 30/36-inch gravity line to Lift Station 2 (Project 6). Project Driver: The hydraulic model indicates surcharging in the existing gravity lines to convey the projected peak wet weather flow. The recommended replacement gravity line is sized to serve projected buildout peak wet weather flows. The additional capacity provided by these replacement gravity lines will help the City maintain regulatory compliance regarding the prevention of surcharging and sanitary sewer overflows (TCEQ 217.53). The need and sizing of this project would be impacted by the amount of 1/1 reduction achieved as part of the City -Wide SSES and Rehabilitation Program. It is recommended to reevaluate the need and sizing for this project once the Program has been completed. 10-13 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood Project 12 — Replacement 30/36-inch Gravity Line Along Cowart Creek to Lift Station 2 �4a�Np w�oy Y Proiect Description: This project includes a replacement 30/36-inch gravity line along Cowart Creek from Cowards Creek Drive to Lift Station 2. Project Driver: The hydraulic model indicates surcharging in the existing gravity lines to convey the projected peak wet weather flow. The recommended replacement gravity line is sized to serve projected buildout peak wet weather flows. The additional capacity provided by these replacement gravity lines will help the City maintain regulatory compliance regarding the prevention of surcharging and sanitary sewer overflows (TCEQ 217.53). The need and sizing of this project would be impacted by the amount of 1/1 reduction achieved as part of the City -Wide SSES and Rehabilitation Program. It is recommended to reevaluate the need and sizing for this project once the Program has been completed. Project 13 — Replacement 18-Inch Gravity Line Along Greenbriar Avenue Project Description: This project includes the construction of a replacement 18-inch gravity line along Greenbriar Avenue from West Edgewood Drive to the 24-inch gravity line currently under design along Cowards Creek Drive. Project Driver: The hydraulic model indicates surcharging in the existing gravity lines to convey the projected peak wet weather flow. The recommended replacement gravity line is sized to serve projected buildout peak wet weather flows. The additional capacity provided by these replacement gravity lines will help the City maintain regulatory compliance regarding the prevention of surcharging and sanitary sewer overflows (TCEQ 217.53). The need and sizing of this project would be impacted by the amount of 1/1 reduction achieved as part of the City -Wide SSES and Rehabilitation Program. It is recommended to reevaluate the need and sizing for this project once the Program has been completed. Project 14— Replacement 12/18-Inch and 24-inch Gravity Line Along Briarmeadow Avenue and Winding Way Project Description: This project includes the construction of a replacement 24-inch gravity line along East Winding Way Drive near intersection of Winding Way and South Friendswood Drive to the proposed 30/36-inch gravity line (Project 12). This project also includes the construction of a replacement 12/18- inch line along Briarmeadow Avenue between Merriewood Drive and Sunset Drive to Winding Way Drive. 10-14 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood 4�NP51'o ?y IMICHOLS r Protect Driver: The hydraulic model indicates surcharging in the existing gravity lines to convey the projected peak wet weather flow. The recommended replacement gravity line is sized to serve projected buildout peak wet weather flows. The additional capacity provided by these replacement gravity lines will help the City maintain regulatory compliance regarding the prevention of surcharging and sanitary sewer overflows (TCEQ 217.53). The need and sizing of this project would be impacted by the amount of 1/1 reduction achieved as part of the City -Wide SSES and Rehabilitation Program. It is recommended to reevaluate the need and sizing for this project once the Program has been completed. 10.2.4 Capacity CIP: Buildout Projects (Beyond 2036) Project 15 — Lift Station 22 Firm Capacity Expansion to 3.1 MGD Project Description: This project includes the expansion of Lift Station 22 from 2.5 MGD to 3.1 MGD firm pumping capacity and includes a new wet well, pumps, electrical, and piping and valves. This project also includes a replacement 16-inch force main. Project Driver: The hydraulic model indicates surcharging in the existing system due to capacity constraints at Lift Station 22. This project is recommended to provide increased pumping capacity to serve projected buildout peak wet weather flows within the LS 22 service area. The additional capacity provided by the lift station expansion will help the City maintain regulatory compliance regarding the prevention of surcharging and sanitary sewer overflows (TCEQ 217.53). The need and sizing of this project would be impacted by the amount of 1/1 reduction achieved as part of the City -Wide SSES and Rehabilitation Program. It is recommended to reevaluate the need and sizing for this project once the Program has been completed. Project 16 — Lift Station 18 Firm Capacity Expansion to 1.5 MGD Protect Description: This project includes the expansion of Lift Station 18 from 0.8 MGD to 1.5 MGD firm pumping capacity and includes a new wet well, pumps, electrical, and piping and valves. This project also includes a replacement 10-inch force main. Protect Driver: The hydraulic model indicates surcharging in the existing system due to capacity constraints at Lift Station 18. This project is recommended to provide increased pumping capacity to serve projected buildout peak wet weather flows within the LS 18 service area. The additional capacity provided by the lift station expansion will help the City maintain regulatory compliance regarding the prevention of surcharging and sanitary sewer overflows (TCEQ 217.53). The need and sizing of this project would be 10-15 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood �4a�Np w�oy t-r�p5f Y impacted by the amount of 1/1 reduction achieved as part of the City -Wide SSES and Rehabilitation Program. It is recommended to reevaluate the need and sizing for this project once the Program has been completed. Project 17 — Lift Station 28 Firm Capacity Expansion to 1.75 MGD Protect Description: This project includes the expansion of Lift Station 28 from 0.5 MGD to 1.75 MGD firm pumping capacity and includes a new wet well, pumps, electrical, and piping and valves. This project also includes the construction of a 10-inch force main. It is recommended to perform a surge analysis to evaluate the need for the force main expansion. Protect Driver: The hydraulic model indicates surcharging in the existing system due to capacity constraints at Lift Station 28. This project is recommended to provide increased pumping capacity to serve projected buildout peak wet weather flows within the LS 18 service area. The additional capacity provided by the lift station expansion will help the City maintain regulatory compliance regarding the prevention of surcharging and sanitary sewer overflows (TCEQ 217.53). The need and sizing of this project would be impacted by the amount of 1/1 reduction achieved as part of the City -Wide SSES and Rehabilitation Program. It is recommended to reevaluate the need and sizing for this project once the Program has been completed. Project 18 — Lift Station 26 Firm Capacity Expansion to 1.0 MGD and New 8-Inch Gravity Lines Project Description: This project includes the expansion of Lift Station 26 from 0.4 MGD to 1.0 MGD firm pumping capacity, including a new wet well, pumps, electrical, and piping and valves. This project also includes the construction of new 8-inch gravity lines to serve projected future infill. This project also includes the construction of an 8-inch force main to connect to the existing 10-inch force main. Project Driver: This project is recommended to serve projected infill growth near West Parkwood Avenue and Lundy Lane. The project is sized to serve the projected buildout peak wet weather flows. Project 19 — New 0.07 MGD Lift Station and 8-Inch Gravity Lines Along Beamer Road Project Description: This project includes the construction of new 8-inch gravity lines along Beamer Road and Dixie Farm Road. This project also includes the construction of a 0.07 MGD firm capacity lift station and 4-inch force main along Beamer Road to the existing 12-inch gravity line that flows to LS 37. 10-16 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan r' NICHO E City of Friendswood Protect Driver: This project is recommended to serve infill along Dixie Farm Road and provide service to existing septic users along Beamer Road. 10.3 LIFT STATION RENEWAL PLAN A lift station rehabilitation plan was developed based on the results of the lift station risk -based assessment discussed in Section 6.0. Planning level costs were calculated for the recommended lift station rehabilitations in 2026 dollars. Ongoing and Recently Completed Lift Station Rehabilitation Projects The City has ongoing or recently completed rehabilitation and expansion projects at multiple lift stations, including: • Lift Station 1 • Lift Station 2 • Lift Station 4 • Lift Station 8 • Lift Station 16 • Lift Station 17 • Lift Station 19 • Lift Station 22 • Lift Station 27 • Lift Station 30 These ongoing lift station rehabilitations were excluded from the lift station renewal plan. Lift Station Renewal Plan FNI developed a lift station renewal plan utilizing the risk -based assessment scoring (Section 6.0) and input from City staff. This lift station renewal CIP is summarized in Table 10-5. This plan considers the following: • The rehabilitation of all moderate risk lift stations within the next 10 years, and low risk lift stations within the next 25 years. For low risk lift stations, it was assumed one lift station rehab would be completed per year • The development of lift station specific rehabilitation costs. 10-17 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood 4�NP51'o ?y IMICHOLS r • The inclusion of all lift stations with the exception of facilities planned to be decommissioned or expanded based on the Wastewater Master Plan analysis, or facility rehabilitations that are currently in progress. • Prioritization based on lift station risk -based assessment results presented in Section 6.0. Planning level costs are provided in 2026 dollars and include rehabilitation of pumps and motors, structural, electrical and instrumentation, piping and valves, and improvement of site conditions at each lift station. All costs include 30% contingency and 20% engineering. • 1 Table 10-5: Lift Station LS 20 Litt Station RehabPriority Year 2031 Renewal Capital Risk Moderate Improvements Plan Cost D. $483,600 Yearly Tota I Cost D. $483,600 2 LS 36 2032 Moderate $163,800 $517,920 3 LS 9 Moderate $354,120 4 LS 11 2033 Moderate $592,800 $592,800 5 LS 21 2034 Moderate $624,000 $624,000 6 LS 33 2035 Moderate $180,960 $959,400 7 LS 34 Moderate $327,600 8 LS 37 Moderate $450,840 9 LS 5 2036 Low $115,440 $115,440 10 LS 6 2037 Low $249,600 $249,600 11 LS 7 2038 Low $243,360 $243,360 12 LS 10 2039 Low $471,120 $471,120 13 LS 12 2040 Low $255,840 $255,840 14 LS 13 2041 Low $304,200 $304,200 15 LS 14 2042 Low $332,280 $332,280 16 LS 24 2043 Low $241,800 $241,800 17 LS 29 2044 Low $246,480 $246,480 18 LS 30 2045 Low $687,960 $687,960 19 LS 32 2046 Low $304,200 $304,200 20 LS 35 2047 Low $279,240 $279,240 21 LS 38 2048 Low $262,080 $262,080 22 LS 39 2049 Low $156,000 $156,000 During the lift station condition assessment, seven (7) lift stations were identified as missing quick connects or generators. Of these, Lift Stations 1, 4, 15, and 19 are either currently being rehabbed or are recommended to be decommissioned in the future. FNI recommends the City prioritize installation of quick connects or generators at the remaining Lift Stations 11, 38, and 39 in the near term. A planning level OPCC was developed based on the addition of quick connects, and is included in Table 10-6 below. 10-18 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood Table 10-6: Near Term Lift Station Quick Connect/Generator Recommendations (1) Assumed 30% contingency and 20% engineering 10-19 DRAFT 2026 Wastewater Master Plan City of Friendswood y�NDS Wo � r++ w x y (yN ��PSfy Y APPENDIX A Wastewater CIP Planning Level Opinion of Probable Construction Costs (OPCC) A-1 City of Friendswood Irm,11 NiCHO�s CIP - Opinion of Probable Construction Cost* May 17, 2026 *PlanningWastewater Dollars CIP Project Number: O Phase: 5-Year Lift Station 15 Consolidation and Replacement 10-Inch Gravity Line Along Killarney Avenue This project includes a replacement 10-inch gravity line along Killarney avenue to Leprechaun Drive and new 10-inch gravity line that extends to Lift Station 15. This project will allow for the decommissioning of Lift Station 15 and is sized to serve the model predicted buildout peak wet weather flow. Project Drivers: This lift station was observed to be in poor condition and identified as high -risk during the lift station condition assessment completed as part of this study. Based on the available manhole survey and GIS information, this lift station was identified as a potential consolidation project. It is recommended to confirm the inverts of the nearby gravity line infrastructure to confirm the feasibility of the lift station consolidation. The 10-inch gravity line is recommended in order to achieve the slope needed in order to consolidate the Lift Station. Opinion of Probable ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 Decommission Lift Station (Smaller LS) 1 EA $ 75,000 $ 75,000 2 10" Pipe < 8 feet deep 1,000 LF $ 180 $ 180,000 3 60" Diameter Manhole (<= 8 feet deep) 4 EA $ 18,000 $ 72,000 4 Pavement Repair 150 LF $ 200 $ 30,000 5 20" Boring and Casing 100 LF $ 900 $ 90,000 SUBTOTAL: $ 447,000 CONTINGENCY 30% $ 134,100 SUBTOTAL: $ 581,100 ENG/SURVEY 20% $ 116,300 SUBTOTAL: $ 697,400 „ Estimated697,400 The Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or the Contractor's methods of determining prices, nor over competitive bidding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to the Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Additionally, fluctuations in material costs due to tariffs, trade policies, or supply chain disruptions may further impact pricing in ways that are difficult to predict. City of Friendswood Irm,11 NiCHO�s Wastewater CIP - Opinion of Probable Construction Cost* May 17, 2026 Vlanning Level Cost in 2026 Dollars CIP Project Number: O2 Phase: 5-Year • - New 0.6 MGD Parkwood Avenue Lift Station and 8-Inch Gravity Lines Along Windsong Lane This project includes the construction of a new 0.6 MGD Parkwood Avenue Lift Station, 6-inch force main, and 8-inch gravity lines to serve new development along Windsong Lane and the Friendswood Trails. This project is driven by projected future development along Windsong Lane and Friendswood Trails and is sized to serve projected buildout peak wet weather flow. .. . . .... . . . ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 8" Pipe 8- 16 feet deep 6,500 LF $ 160 $ 1,040,000 2 60" Diameter Manhole (<= 8 feet deep) 19 EA $ 18,000 $ 342,000 3 6" Force Main by HDD 4,600 LF $ 275 $ 1,265,000 4 Pavement Repair 1,000 LF $ 200 $ 200,000 5 16" Boring and Casing 400 LF $ 720 $ 288,000 6 Parkwood Avenue Wet Well 1 LS $ 500,000 $ 500,000 7 Parkwood Avenue Pumps 1 LS $ 170,000 $ 170,000 8 Parkwood Avenue Electrical 1 LS $ 200,000 $ 200,000 9 Parkwood Avenue Piping and Valves 1 LS $ 90,000 $ 90,000 SUBTOTAL $ 4,095,000 CONTINGENCY 30% $ 1,228,500 SUBTOTAL $ 5,323,500 ENG/SURVEY 20% $ 1,064,700 SUBTOTAL:1 $ 6,388,200 The Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or the Contractor's methods of determining prices, nor over competitive bidding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to the Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Additionally, fluctuations in material costs due to tariffs, trade policies, or supply chain disruptions may further impact pricing in ways that are difficult to predict. City of Friendswood Irm,11 NiCHO�s CIP - Opinion of Probable Construction Cost* May 17, 2026 *PlanningWastewater Dollars CIP Project Number: O3 Phase: 5-Year ' New 8-Inch Gravity Lines Along West Parkwood Avenue Project Description: is project includes the construction of new 8-inch gravity lines along West Parkwood Avenue to the Parkwood Avenue F Station (Project 2). Project This project is driven by projected future development near West Parkwood Avenue and is sized to serve projected buildout peak wet weather flow. Opinion of Probable ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 8" Pipe 8- 16 feet deep 5,500 LF $ 160 $ 880,000 2 60" Diameter Manhole (8 - 16 feet deep) 16 EA $ 22,000 $ 352,000 3 Pavement Repair 300 LF $ 200 $ 60,000 4 16" Boring and Casing 900 LF $ 720 $ 648,000 SUBTOTAL: $ 1,940,000 CONTINGENCY 30% $ 582,000 SUBTOTAL: $ 2,522,000 ENG/SURVEY 15% $ 378,300 SUBTOTAL: $ 2,900,300 „ Estimated2,900,300 The Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or the Contractor's methods of determining prices, nor over competitive bidding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to the Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Additionally, fluctuations in material costs due to tariffs, trade policies, or supply chain disruptions may further impact pricing in ways that are difficult to predict. City of Friendswood Irm,11 NiCHO�s CIP - Opinion of Probable Construction Cost* May 17, 2026 *PlanningWastewater Dollars CIP Project Number: O4 Phase: 5-Year ProjectNew 8-Inch Gravity Lines on Falling Leaf Drive Project Description: This project includes the construction of a new 8-inch gravity line along Falling Leaf Drive to the ongoing Falling Leaf Lift Station. Project Drivers: This project is driven by future development near Falling Leaf and is sized to serve projected buildout peak wet weather flow. Opinion of Probable ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 8" Pipe 8- 16 feet deep 2,250 LF $ 160 $ 360,000 2 60" Diameter Manhole (8 - 16 feet deep) 7 EA $ 22,000 $ 154,000 3 16" Boring and Casing 650 LF $ 720 $ 468,000 4 Pavement Repair 150 LF $ 200 $ 30,000 SUBTOTAL: $ 1,012,000 CONTINGENCY 30% $ 303,600 SUBTOTAL: $ 1,315,600 ENG/SURVEY 15% $ 197,400 SUBTOTAL: $ 1,513,000 Estimated 00, The Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or the Contractor's methods of determining prices, nor over competitive bidding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to the Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Additionally, fluctuations in material costs due to tariffs, trade policies, or supply chain disruptions may further impact pricing in ways that are difficult to predict. City of Friendswood Irm,11 NicHOLS Wastewater CIP - Opinion of Probable Construction Cost* May 17, 2026 Vlanning Level Cost in 2026 Dollars CIP Project Number: CD Phase: 10-Year ProjectLift Station 2 Firm Capacity Expansion to 22.1 MGD and 4.0 MG Peak Flow Storage Project Description: This project includes the expansion of Lift Station 2 from 7.5 MGD to 22.1 MGD firm pumping capacity and includes a new wet well, pumps, electrical, generator, and piping and valves. This project also includes the construction of a 4.0 MG peak flow storage basin. The expanded Lift Station 2 is sized to pump partial flows to the peak flow storage basin via a new 36-inch force main and partial flows to the Blackhawk WWTP via the existing 28-inch force main. Project Drivers: The hydraulic model indicates surcharging in the existing system due to capacity constraints at Lift Station 2. This project is recommended to provide increased pumping capacity to serve projected buildout peak wet weather flows from the Lift Station 2 service area. The peak flow storage basin is recommended in order to store projected peak wet weather flows and maintain the City's existing 2-hour peak flow limit of 13.75 MGD to GCA. It is recommended to perform a siting study for the peak flow storage basin within the Lift Station 2 service area. The additional capacity provided by the lift station expansion and peak flow storage will help the City maintain regulatory compliance regarding the prevention of surcharging and sanitary sewer overflows (TCEQ 217.53). The need and sizing of this project would be impacted by the amount of 1/1 reduction achieved as part of the City -Wide SSES and Rehabilitation Program. It is recommended to reevaluate the need and sizing for this project once the Program has been completed. Opinion of Probable ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 Lift Station 2 Wet Well Replacement 1 LS $ 4,280,000 $ 4,280,000 2 Lift Station 2 Pumps 1 LS $ 5,040,000 $ 5,040,000 3 Lift Station 2 Electrical 1 LS $ 5,227,000 $ 5,227,000 4 Lift Station 2 Generator 1 LS $ 2,553,000 $ 2,553,000 5 Lift Station 2 Piping and Valves 1 LS $ 750,000 $ 750,000 6 36" Force Main < 8 feet deep 500 LF $ 720 $ 360,000 7 4.0 MG Peak Flow Storage 4.0 MG $ 3,000,000 $ 12,000,000 8 60" Pipe < 8 feet deep 500 LF $ 1,080 $ 540,000 SUBTOTAL: $ 30,750,000 CONTINGENCY 30% $ 9,225,000 SUBTOTAL:1 $ 39,975,000 ENG/SURVEY 20% $ 7,995,000 SUBTOTAL: $ 47,970,000 Estimated Project Total: $ 0„ The Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or the Contractor's methods of determining prices, nor over competitive bidding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to the Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Additionally, fluctuations in material costs due to tariffs, trade policies, or supply chain disruptions may further impact pricing in ways that are difficult to predict. City of Friendswood Irm,11 NicHOLS CIP - Opinion of Probable Construction Cost* May 17, 2026 *PlanningWastewater Dollars CIP Project Number: O Phase: 10-Year • Replacement 18/30/36-inch Gravity Lines Along Clear Creek to Lift Station 2 Project Description: This project includes the construction of a replacement 18-inch gravity line along East Edgewood Drive near Melody Lane to Diamond Lane and replacement 30/36-inch gravity lines along Clear Creek from Diamond Lane to Lift Station 2. Project Drivers: The hydraulic model indicates surcharging in the existing gravity lines to convey the projected peak wet weather flow. The recommended replacement gravity line is sized to serve projected buildout peak wet weather flows. The additional capacity provided by these replacement gravity lines will help the City maintain regulatory compliance regarding the prevention of surcharging and sanitary sewer overflows (TCEQ 217.53). The need and sizing of this project would be impacted by the amount of 1/1 reduction achieved as part of the City -Wide SSES and Rehabilitation Program. It is recommended to reevaluate the need and sizing for this project once the Program has been completed. Opinion of Probable ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 36" Pipe < 8 feet deep 400 LF $ 648 $ 259,200 2 48" Boring and Casing 1,500 LF $ 2,160 $ 3,240,000 3 36" Pipe 8- 16 feet deep 5,000 LF $ 720 $ 3,600,000 4 36" Pipe > 16 feet deep 2,600 LF $ 792 $ 2,059,200 5 30" Pipe < 8 feet deep 1,100 LF $ 540 $ 594,000 6 72" Diameter Manhole (<= 8 feet deep) 8 EA $ 20,000 $ 160,000 7 72" Diameter Manhole (8 - 16 feet deep) 29 EA $ 24,000 $ 696,000 8 72" Diameter Manhole (16 - 24 feet deep) 9 EA $ 27,000 $ 243,000 9 72" Diameter Manhole (24 - 30 feet deep) 2 EA $ 32,000 $ 64,000 10 18" Pipe 8- 16 feet deep 1,700 LF $ 360 $ 612,000 11 60" Pipe 8- 16 feet deep 5 LF $ 1,200 $ 6,000 12 Pavement Repair 2,500 LF $ 200 $ 500,000 SUBTOTAL: $ 12,033,400 CONTINGENCY 30% $ 3,610,100 SUBTOTAL: $ 15,643,500 ENG/SURVEY 15% $ 2,346,600 SUBTOTAL:1 $ 17,9901100 Estimated •, ,0 The Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or the Contractor's methods of determining prices, nor over competitive bidding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to the Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Additionally, fluctuations in material costs due to tariffs, trade policies, or supply chain disruptions may further impact pricing in ways that are difficult to predict. City of Friendswood Irm,11 NicHOLS Wastewater CIP - Opinion of Probable Construction Cost* May 17, 2026 *Planning Level Cost in 2026.. . CIP Project Number: 7O Phase: • - Lift Station 23 Firm Capacity Expansion to 11.30 MGD This project includes the expansion of Lift Station 23 from 4.3 MGD to 11.3 MGD firm pumping capacity and includes a new wet well, pumps, electrical, generator, and piping and valves. This project also includes the construction of a replacement 30- inch force main from LS 23 to the Blackhawk WWTP. It is recommended to perform a surge analysis to evaluate the need for the force main expansion. The hydraulic model indicates surcharging in the existing system due to capacity constraints at Lift Station 23. This project is recommended to provide increased pumping capacity to serve projected buildout peak wet weather flows within the LS 23 service area. The additional capacity provided by the lift station expansion will help the City maintain regulatory compliance regarding the prevention of surcharging and sanitary sewer overflows (TCEQ 217.53). The need and sizing of this project would be impacted by the amount of 1/1 reduction achieved as part of the City -Wide SSES and Rehabilitation Program. It is recommended to reevaluate the need and sizing for this project once the Program has been completed. ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 Lift Station 23 Wet Well Replacement 1 LS $ 1,886,000 $ 1,886,000 2 Lift Station 23 Pumps 1 LS $ 2,577,000 $ 2,577,000 3 Lift Station 23 Electrical 1 LS $ 2,879,000 $ 2,879,000 4 Lift Station 23 Generator 1 LS $ 1,306,000 $ 1,306,000 5 Lift Station 23 Piping and Valves 1 LS $ 367,000 $ 367,000 6 30" Force Main < 8 feet deep 6,400 LF $ 600 $ 3,840,000 7 36" Boring and Casing 300 LF $ 1,620 $ 486,000 8 30" Force Main by HDD 1,750 LF $ 450 $ 787,500 9 Pavement Repair 3,100 LF $ 200 $ 620,000 10 20-Inch Force Main Surge Analysis 1 LS $ 80,000 $ 80,000 SUBTOTAL: $ 14,828,500 CONTINGENCY 30% $ 4,448,600 SUBTOTAL: $ 19,277,100 ENG/SURVEY 20% $ 3,855,500 SUBTOTAL: $ 23,132,600 The Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or the Contractor's methods of determining prices, nor over competitive bidding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to the Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Additionally, fluctuations in material costs due to tariffs, trade policies, or supply chain disruptions may further impact pricing in ways that are difficult to predict. City of Friendswood Irm,11 NicHOLS Wastewater CIP - Opinion of Probable Construction Cost* May 17, 2026 *Planning Dollars P Project Number: O8 Phase: 10-Year Fa ProjectIt Station 3 Firm Capacity Expansion to 3.0 MGD Project Description: This project includes the expansion of Lift Station 3 from 1.2 MGD to 3.0 MGD firm pumping capacity and includes a new wet well, pumps, electrical, and piping and valves. This project also includes a replacement 16-inch force main that is planned to be re-routed from the existing 12-inch gravity line along Edgewood Drive that flows to Lift Station 1, to the proposed parallel 18-inch line along Edgewood Drive (Project 6). Project Drivers: The hydraulic model indicates surcharging in the existing system due to capacity constraints at Lift Station 3. This project is recommended to provide increased pumping capacity to serve projected buildout peak wet weather flows within the LS 3 service area. The additional capacity provided by the lift station expansion will help the City maintain regulatory compliance regarding the prevention of surcharging and sanitary sewer overflows (TCEQ 217.53). The need and sizing of this project would be impacted by the amount of 1/1 reduction achieved as part of the City -Wide SSES and Rehabilitation Program. It is recommended to reevaluate the need and sizing for this project once the Program has been completed. Additionally, the proposed re-routing of the existing force main will help alleviate modeled capacity constraints within Lift Station Vs service area. Opinion of Probable ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 Lift Station 3 Wet Well Replacement 1 LS $ 521,000 $ 521,000 2 Lift Station 3 Pumps 1 LS $ 913,500 $ 913,500 3 Lift Station 3 Electrical 1 LS $ 742,613 $ 742,613 4 Lift Station 3 Piping and Valves 1 LS $ 135,450 $ 135,450 5 16" Force Main by HDD 5,400 LF $ 240 $ 1,296,000 6 Pavement Repair 500 LF $ 200 $ 100,000 SUBTOTAL: $ 3,708,600 CONTINGENCY 30% $ 1,112,600 SUBTOTAL: $ 4,821,200 ENG/SURVEY 20% $ 964,300 SUBTOTAL: $ 5,785,500 Estimated Project Total: $ 00 The Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or the Contractor's methods of determining prices, nor over competitive bidding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to the Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Additionally, fluctuations in material costs due to tariffs, trade policies, or supply chain disruptions may further impact pricing in ways that are difficult to predict. City of Friendswood Irm,11 NicHOLS Wastewater CIP - Opinion of Probable Construction Cost* May 17, 2026 *Planning Dollars CIP Project Number: O9 Phase: 10-Year ProjectReplacement 18-inch Gravity Line Along North Friendswood Drive Project Description: This project includes the construction of a replacement 18-inch gravity line along North Friendswood Drive to Lift Station 3. Project Drivers: The hydraulic model indicates surcharging in the existing gravity lines to convey the projected peak wet weather flow. The recommended replacement gravity line is sized to serve projected buildout peak wet weather flows. The additional capacity provided by these replacement gravity lines will help the City maintain regulatory compliance regarding the prevention of surcharging and sanitary sewer overflows (TCEQ 217.53). The need and sizing of this project would be impacted by the amount of 1/1 reduction achieved as part of the City -Wide SSES and Rehabilitation Program. It is recommended to reevaluate the need and sizing for this project once the Program has been completed. Opinion of Probable ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 18" Pipe 8- 16 feet deep 2,800 LF $ 360 $ 1,008,000 2 60" Diameter Manhole (8 - 16 feet deep) 11 EA $ 22,000 $ 242,000 3 Pavement Repair 500 LF $ 200 $ 100,000 4 30" Boring and Casing 500 LF $ 1,350 $ 675,000 SUBTOTAL: $ 2,025,000 CONTINGENCY 30% $ 607,500 SUBTOTAL:1 $ 2,632,500 ENG/SURVEY 15% $ 394,900 SUBTOTAL:1 $ 3,027,400 Estimated Project Total: $ i 00 The Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or the Contractor's methods of determining prices, nor over competitive bidding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to the Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Additionally, fluctuations in material costs due to tariffs, trade policies, or supply chain disruptions may further impact pricing in ways that are difficult to predict. City of Friendswood Irm,11 NicHOLS Wastewater CIP - Opinion of Probable Construction Cost* May 17, 2026 *Planning Dollars P Project Number: 10 Phase: 10-Year Fa ProjectLift Station 17 Firm Capacity Expansion to 2.5 MGProject Description: This project includes the expansion of Lift Station 17 from 1.9 MGD to 2.5 MGD firm pumping capacity and includes a new wet well, pumps, electrical, and piping and valves. This project also includes a replacement 12-inch force main. Project Drivers: The hydraulic model indicates surcharging in the existing system due to capacity constraints at Lift Station 17. This project is recommended to provide increased pumping capacity to serve projected buildout peak wet weather flows within the LS 17 service area. The additional capacity provided by the lift station expansion will help the Clty maintain regulatory compliance regarding the prevention of surcharging and sanitary sewer overflows (TCEQ 217.53). The need and sizing of this project would be impacted by the amount of 1/1 reduction achieved as part of the City -Wide SSES and Rehabilitation Program. It is recommended to reevaluate the need and sizing for this project once the Program has been completed. Opinion of Probable ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 Lift Station 17 Wet Well Replacement 1 LS $ 624,000 $ 624,000 2 Lift Station 17 Pumps 1 LS $ 761,000 $ 761,000 3 Lift Station 17 Electrical 1 LS $ 634,000 $ 634,000 4 Lift Station 17 Piping and Valves 1 LS $ 136,000 $ 136,000 5 12" Force Main < 8 feet deep 1,100 LF $ 240 $ 264,000 6 Pavement Repair 200 LF $ 200 $ 40,000 7 24" Boring and Casing 400 LF $ 1,080 $ 432,000 SUBTOTAL: $ 2,891,000 CONTINGENCY 30% $ 867,300 SUBTOTAL: $ 3,758,300 ENG/SURVEY 20% $ 751,700 SUBTOTAL:1 $ 4510,000 Estimated 000 The Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or the Contractor's methods of determining prices, nor over competitive bidding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to the Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Additionally, fluctuations in material costs due to tariffs, trade policies, or supply chain disruptions may further impact pricing in ways that are difficult to predict. City of Friendswood Irm,11 NicHOLS CIP - Opinion of Probable Construction Cost* May 17, 2026 *PlanningWastewater Dollars CIP Project Number: 11 Phase: 10-Year • Replacement 18/24-inch Gravity Line along Woodland Trail Drive This project includes the construction of replacement 18-inch gravity lines along Woodland Trail Drive from Lift Station 28 to Trail Head Street. This project also includes a replacement 24-inch gravity line from Trail Head Street to East Edgewood Drive. This project will connect to the expanded 30/36-inch gravity line to Lift Station 2 (Project 6). Project Drivers: The hydraulic model indicates surcharging in the existing gravity lines to convey the projected peak wet weather flow. The recommended replacement gravity line is sized to serve projected buildout peak wet weather flows. The additional capacity provided by these replacement gravity lines will help the City maintain regulatory compliance regarding the prevention of surcharging and sanitary sewer overflows (TCEQ 217.53). The need and sizing of this project would be impacted by the amount of 1/1 reduction achieved as part of the City -Wide SSES and Rehabilitation Program. It is recommended to reevaluate the need and sizing for this project once the Program has been completed. Opinion of Probable ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 24" Pipe 8- 16 feet deep 700 LF $ 480 $ 336,000 2 60" Diameter Manhole (<= 8 feet deep) 1 EA $ 18,000 $ 18,000 3 60" Diameter Manhole (8 - 16 feet deep) 24 EA $ 22,000 $ 528,000 4 18" Pipe 8- 16 feet deep 2,100 LF $ 360 $ 756,000 5 Pavement Repair 100 LF $ 200 $ 20,000 6 36" Boring and Casing 600 LF $ 1,620 $ 972,000 7 30" Boring and Casing 400 LF $ 1,350 $ 540,000 SUBTOTAL: $ 3,170,000 CONTINGENCY 30% $ 951,000 SUBTOTAL: $ 4,121,000 ENG/SURVEY 15% $ 618,200 SUBTOTAL:1 $ 4,739,200 Estimated Project ii The Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or the Contractor's methods of determining prices, nor over competitive bidding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to the Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Additionally, fluctuations in material costs due to tariffs, trade policies, or supply chain disruptions may further impact pricing in ways that are difficult to predict. City of Friendswood Irm,11 NicHOLS Wastewater CIP - Opinion of Probable Construction Cost* May 17, 2026 *Planning Level Cost in 2026.. . Phase:placement 30/36-inch Gravity Line Along Cowart Creek to Lift Station 2 6iii 9 all This project includes a replacement 30/36-inch gravity line along Cowart Creek from Cowards Creek Drive to Lift Station 2. Mct Drivers: The hydraulic model indicates surcharging in the existing gravity lines to convey the projected peak wet weather flow. The recommended replacement gravity line is sized to serve projected buildout peak wet weather flows. The additional capacity provided by these replacement gravity lines will help the City maintain regulatory compliance regarding the prevention of surcharging and sanitary sewer overflows (TCEQ 217.53). The need and sizing of this project would be impacted by the amount of 1/1 reduction achieved as part of the City -Wide SSES and Rehabilitation Program. It is recommended to reevaluate the need and sizing for this project once the Program has been completed. ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 36" Pipe 8- 16 feet deep 2,200 LF $ 720 $ 1,584,000 2 48" Boring and Casing 600 LF $ 2,160 $ 1,296,000 3 30" Pipe 8- 16 feet deep 4,000 LF $ 600 $ 2,400,000 4 30" Pipe < 8 feet deep 1,300 LF $ 540 $ 702,000 5 72" Diameter Manhole (8 - 16 feet deep) 36 EA $ 24,000 $ 864,000 6 72" Diameter Manhole (<= 8 feet deep) 17 EA $ 20,000 $ 340,000 7 72" Diameter Manhole (16 - 24 feet deep) 3 EA $ 27,000 $ 81,000 8 42" Boring and Casing 900 LF $ 1,890 $ 1,701,000 SUBTOTAL $ 8,968,000 CONTINGENCY 30% $ 2,690,400 SUBTOTAI $ 11,658,400 ENG/SURVEY 15% $ 1,748,800 SUBTOTAL: $ 13,407,200 The Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or the Contractor's methods of determining prices, nor over competitive bidding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to the Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Additionally, fluctuations in material costs due to tariffs, trade policies, or supply chain disruptions may further impact pricing in ways that are difficult to predict. City of Friendswood Irm,11 NicHOLS Wastewater CIP - Opinion of Probable Construction Cost* May 17, 2026 *Planning Dollars CIP Project Number: 13 Phase: 10-Year • Replacement 18-Inch Gravity Line Along Greenbriar Avenue Project Description: This project includes the construction of a replacement 18-inch gravity line along Greenbriar Avenue from West Edgewood Drive to the 24-inch gravity line currently under design along Cowards Creek Drive. Project Drivers: The hydraulic model indicates surcharging in the existing gravity lines to convey the projected peak wet weather flow. The recommended replacement gravity line is sized to serve projected buildout peak wet weather flows. The additional capacity provided by these replacement gravity lines will help the City maintain regulatory compliance regarding the prevention of surcharging and sanitary sewer overflows (TCEQ 217.53). The need and sizing of this project would be impacted by the amount of 1/1 reduction achieved as part of the City -Wide SSES and Rehabilitation Program. It is recommended to reevaluate the need and sizing for this project once the Program has been completed. Opinion of Probable ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 18" Pipe 8- 16 feet deep 2,700 LF $ 360 $ 972,000 2 60" Diameter Manhole (8 - 16 feet deep) 10 EA $ 22,000 $ 220,000 3 Pavement Repair 400 LF $ 200 $ 80,000 SUBTOTAL: $ 1,272,000 CONTINGENCY 30% $ 381,600 SUBTOTAL: $ 1,653,600 ENG/SURVEY 15% $ 248,100 S1UBTOTAL:1 $ 1,901,700 Estimated •000 The Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or the Contractor's methods of determining prices, nor over competitive bidding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to the Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Additionally, fluctuations in material costs due to tariffs, trade policies, or supply chain disruptions may further im act pricing in ways that are difficult to predict. City of Friendswood Irm,11 NicHOLS CIP - Opinion of Probable Construction Cost* May 17, 2026 *PlanningWastewater Dollars CIP Project Number: 14 Phase: 10-Year Replacement 12/18-Inch and 24-inch Gravity Line Along Briarmeadow Avenue and Winding Way This project includes the construction of a replacement 24-inch gravity line along East Winding Way Drive near intersection of Winding Way and South Friendswood Drive to the proposed 30/36-inch gravity line (Project 12). This project also includes the construction of a replacement 12/18-inch line along Briarmeadow Avenue between Merriewood Drive and Sunset Drive to Winding Way Drive. Project Drivers: The hydraulic model indicates surcharging in the existing gravity lines to convey the projected peak wet weather flow. The recommended replacement gravity line is sized to serve projected buildout peak wet weather flows. The additional capacity provided by these replacement gravity lines will help the City maintain regulatory compliance regarding the prevention of surcharging and sanitary sewer overflows (TCEQ 217.53). The need and sizing of this project would be impacted by the amount of 1/1 reduction achieved as part of the City -Wide SSES and Rehabilitation Program. It is recommended to reevaluate the need and sizing for this project once the Program has been completed. 16 Opinion of Probable ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 24" Pipe 8- 16 feet deep 1,600 LF $ 480 $ 768,000 2 18" Pipe 8- 16 feet deep 500 LF $ 360 $ 180,000 3 12" Pipe 8- 16 feet deep 700 LF $ 240 $ 168,000 4 60" Diameter Manhole (8 - 16 feet deep) 7 EA $ 22,000 $ 154,000 5 48" Diameter Manhole (8 - 16 feet deep) 2 EA $ 20,000 $ 40,000 6 36" Boring and Casing 400 LF $ 1,620 $ 648,000 7 Pavement Repair 800 LF $ 200 $ 160,000 SUBTOTAL: $ 2,118,000 CONTINGENCY 30% $ 635,400 SUBTOTAL: $ 2,753,400 ENG/SURVEY 15% $ 413,100 SUBTOTAL:1 $ 30166,500 Estimated Project Total: $ 0i The Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or the Contractor's methods of determining prices, nor over competitive bidding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to the Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Additionally, fluctuations in material costs due to tariffs, trade policies, or supply chain disruptions may further im act pricing in ways that are difficult to predict. 701 City of Friendswood Irmill .KHOLS Wastewater CIP - Opinion of Probable Construction Cost* May 17, 2026 Vlanning Level Cost in 2026 Dollars CIP Project Number: 15 Phase: Buildout ProjectLift Station 22 Firm Capacity Expansion to 3.1 T; Project Description: This project includes the expansion of Lift Station 22 from 2.5 MGD to 3.1 MGD firm pumping capacity and includes a new wet well, pumps, electrical, and piping and valves. This project also includes a replacement 16-inch force main. Project Drivers: The hydraulic model indicates surcharging in the existing system due to capacity constraints at Lift Station 22. This project is recommended to provide increased pumping capacity to serve projected buildout peak wet weather flows within the LS 22 service area. The additional capacity provided by the lift station expansion will help the City maintain regulatory compliance regarding the prevention of surcharging and sanitary sewer overflows (TCEQ 217.53). The need and sizing of this project would be impacted by the amount of 1/1 reduction achieved as part of the City -Wide SSES and Rehabilitation Program. It is recommended to reevaluate the need and sizing for this project once the Program has been completed. Opinion of Probable ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 Lift Station 22 Wet Well Replacement 1 LS $ 1,156,050 $ 1,156,050 2 Lift Station 22 Pumps 1 LS $ 942,900 $ 942,900 3 Lift Station 22 Electrical 1 LS $ 854,910 $ 854,910 4 Lift Station 22 Piping and Valves 1 LS $ 277,200 $ 277,200 5 16" Force Main < 8 feet deep 200 LF $ 320 $ 64,000 6 24" Boring and Casing 200 LF $ 1,080 $ 216,000 SUBTOTAL: $ 3,511,100 CONTINGENCY 30% $ 1,053,400 SUBTOTAL: $ 4,564,500 ENG/SURVEY 20% $ 912,900 SUBTOTAL: $ 5,477,400 Estimated Project Total: $ 4,0 The Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or the Contractor's methods of determining prices, nor over competitive bidding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to the Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Additionally, fluctuations in material costs due to tariffs, trade policies, or supply chain disruptions may further impact pricing in ways that are difficult to predict. 701 City of Friendswood Irmill .KHOLS Wastewater CIP - Opinion of Probable Construction Cost* May 17, 2026 Vlanning Level Cost in 2026 Dollars CIP Project Number: 16 Phase: Buildout ProjectLift Station 18 Firm Capacity Expansion to 1.5 MGD Project Description: This project includes the expansion of Lift Station 18 from 0.8 MGD to 1.5 MGD firm pumping capacity and includes a new wet well, pumps, electrical, and piping and valves. This project also includes a replacement 10-inch force main. Project Drivers: The hydraulic model indicates surcharging in the existing system due to capacity constraints at Lift Station 18. This project is recommended to provide increased pumping capacity to serve projected buildout peak wet weather flows within the LS 18 service area. The additional capacity provided by the lift station expansion will help the City maintain regulatory compliance regarding the prevention of surcharging and sanitary sewer overflows (TCEQ 217.53). The need and sizing of this project would be impacted by the amount of 1/1 reduction achieved as part of the City -Wide SSES and Rehabilitation Program. It is recommended to reevaluate the need and sizing for this project once the Program has been completed. Opinion of Probable ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 Lift Station 18 Wet Well Replacement 1 LS $ 544,000 $ 544,000 2 Lift Station 18 Pumps 1 LS $ 458,000 $ 458,000 3 Lift Station 18 Electrical 1 LS $ 417,000 $ 417,000 4 Lift Station 18 Piping and Valves 1 LS $ 124,000 $ 124,000 5 10" Force Main < 8 feet deep 600 LF $ 200 $ 120,000 6 10" Force Main by HDD 1,000 LF $ 150 $ 150,000 SUBTOTAL: $ 1,813,000 CONTINGENCY 30% $ 543,900 SUBTOTAL: $ 2,356,900 ENG/SURVEY 20% $ 471,400 SUBTOTAL: $ 2,828,300 Estimated Project Total: $ 00 The Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or the Contractor's methods of determining prices, nor over competitive bidding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to the Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Additionally, fluctuations in material costs due to tariffs, trade policies, or supply chain disruptions may further impact pricing in ways that are difficult to predict. 701 City of Friendswood Irmill .KHOLS Wastewater CIP - Opinion of Probable Construction Cost* May 17, 2026 Vlanning Level Cost in 2026 Dollars CIP Project Number: 17 Phase: Buildout ProjectLift Station 28 Firm Capacity Expansion to 1.75 MGD Project Description: This project includes the expansion of Lift Station 28 from 0.5 MGD to 1.75 MGD firm pumping capacity and includes a new wet well, pumps, electrical, and piping and valves. This project also includes the construction of a 10-inch force main. It is recommended to perform a surge analysis to evaluate the need for the force main expansion. Project Drivers: The hydraulic model indicates surcharging in the existing system due to capacity constraints at Lift Station 28. This project is recommended to provide increased pumping capacity to serve projected buildout peak wet weather flows within the LS 18 service area. The additional capacity provided by the lift station expansion will help the City maintain regulatory compliance regarding the prevention of surcharging and sanitary sewer overflows (TCEQ 217.53). The need and sizing of this project would be impacted by the amount of 1/1 reduction achieved as part of the City -Wide SSES and Rehabilitation Program. It is recommended to reevaluate the need and sizing for this project once the Program has been completed. Opinion of Probable ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 Lift Station 28 Wet Well Replacement 1 LS $ 617,000 $ 617,000 2 Lift Station 28 Pumps 1 LS $ 534,000 $ 534,000 3 Lift Station 28 Electrical 1 LS $ 471,000 $ 471,000 4 Lift Station 28 Piping and Valves 1 LS $ 126,000 $ 126,000 5 Pavement Repair 50 LF $ 200 $ 10,000 6 24" Boring and Casing 100 LF $ 1,080 $ 108,000 7 8-Inch Force Main Surge Analysis 1 LS $ 70,000 $ 70,000 8 10" Force Main < 8 feet deep 200 LF $ 200 $ 40,000 SUBTOTAL: $ 1,976,000 CONTINGENCY 30% $ 592,800 SUBTOTAL: $ 2,568,800 /SURVEY 20% $ 513,800 PNG SUBTOTAL:1 $ 3,082,600 Estimated 3,082,600 The Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or the Contractor's methods of determining prices, nor over competitive bidding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to the Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Additionally, fluctuations in material costs due to tariffs, trade policies, or supply chain disruptions may further impact pricing in ways that are difficult to predict. 701 City of Friendswood Irmill .KHOLS Wastewater CIP - Opinion of Probable Construction Cost* May 17, 2026 Vlanning Level Cost in 2026 Dollars CIP Project Number: 18 Phase: Buildout ProjectLift Station 26 Firm Capacity Expansion to 1.0 MGD and New 8-Inch Gravity Lines Project Description: This project includes the expansion of Lift Station 26 from 0.4 MGD to 1.0 MGD firm pumping capacity, including a new wet well, pumps, electrical, and piping and valves. This project also includes the construction of new 8-inch gravity lines to serve projected future infill. This project also includes the construction of an 8-inch force main to connect to the existing 10-inch force main. Project Drivers: This project is recommended to serve projected infill growth near West Parkwood Avenue and Lundy Lane. The project is sized to serve the projected buildout peak wet weather flows. Opinion of Probable ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 Lift Station 26 Wet Well Replacement 1 LS $ 428,000 $ 428,000 2 Lift Station 26 Pumps 1 LS $ 305,000 $ 305,000 3 Lift Station 26 Electrical 1 LS $ 308,000 $ 308,000 4 Lift Station 26 Piping and Valves 1 LS $ 110,000 $ 110,000 5 Pavement Repair 100 LF $ 200 $ 20,000 6 8" Pipe 8- 16 feet deep 5,100 LF $ 160 $ 816,000 7 60" Diameter Manhole (8 - 16 feet deep) 15 EA $ 22,000 $ 330,000 8 8" Force Main < 8 feet deep 50 LF $ 160 $ 8,000 SUBTOTAL: $ 2,325,000 CONTINGENCY 30% $ 697,500 SUBTOTAL: $ 3,022,500 ENG/SURVEY 20% $ 604,500 SUBTOTAL: $ 3,627,000 Estimated Project Total: $ 000 The Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or the Contractor's methods of determining prices, nor over competitive bidding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to the Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Additionally, fluctuations in material costs due to tariffs, trade policies, or supply chain disruptions may further impact pricing in ways that are difficult to predict. City of Friendswood INIRMCSHOL *PlanningWastewater CIP - Opinion of Probable Construction Cost* May 17, 2026 Dollars PProject Number: 19 Phase: Buildout C - New 0.07 MGD Lift Station and 8-Inch Gravity Lines Along Beamer Road This project includes the construction of new 8-inch gravity lines along Beamer Road and Dixie Farm Road. This project also includes the construction of a 0.07 MGD firm capacity lift station and 4-inch force main along Beamer Road to the existing 12-inch gravity line that flows to LS 37. . . This project is recommended to serve infill along Dixie Farm Road and provide service to existing septic users along Beamer Road. ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 Beamer Road Wet Well 1 LS $ 245,000 $ 245,000 2 Beamer Road Pumps 1 LS $ 24,000 $ 24,000 3 Beamer Road Electrical 1 LS $ 107,000 $ 107,000 4 Beamer Road Piping and Valves 1 LS $ 86,000 $ 86,000 5 4" Force Main by HDD 6,100 LF $ 100 $ 610,000 6 8" Pipe > 16 feet deep 4,200 LF $ 176 $ 739,200 7 60" Diameter Manhole (16 - 24 feet deep) 12 EA $ 26,000 $ 312,000 8 8" Pipe < 8 feet deep 800 LF $ 144 $ 115,200 9 60" Diameter Manhole (<= 8 feet deep) 3 EA $ 18,000 $ 54,000 10 16" Boring and Casing 500 LF $ 720 $ 360,000 11 Pavement Repair 200 LF $ 200 $ 40,000 SUBTOTA1 • $ 2,692,400 CONTINGENCY 30% $ 807,800 SUBTOTAL- $ 3,500,200 ENG/SURVEY 20% $ 700,100 SUBTOTAL:1 $ 4,200,300 The Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or the Contractor's methods of determining prices, nor over competitive bidding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to the Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Additionally, fluctuations in material costs due to tariffs, trade policies, or supply chain disruptions may further impact pricing in ways that are difficult to predict.