City of Brantford Water Pressure District #1 Storage

Class Environmental Assessment Study Council Presentation - April 19, 2016

Phase 1

Problem or Opportunity -Update and calibrate City water distribution model -Identify problem/deficiency and opportunity -Notification of Project Commencement to public and agencies

2011 - 2012

Phase 2

Alternative Solutions -Identify and evaluate alternative solutions

- In-ground vs elevated storage - Alternative sites

- Public & agency consultation - Proposed shortlisted sites: A & D

- Round #1 – May/June 2015 - Round #2 – Sept/Oct 2015

- Based on public feedback, long-list of sites revisited, and site F added to short list for further evaluation

- Round #3 – Feb 2016 - Establish preferred solution

Class EA Process – Schedule B

30 day Public Review Period Project File Report

Implementation Design and Construction

Summer 2015 to Winter 2016

Spring 2016

2016 - 2018

Project Chronology

2014 Master Servicing Plan

Timing

2

Phase 1 – Identify Problem / Opportunity

Pressure District #4 Pressure District #2/3

Pressure District #1

Holmedale Water Treatment Plant

3

Problem / Opportunity Statement

Determine the need for additional water storage in Pressure District #1 (PD#1)

Develop alternatives to meet water storage requirements and address low

pressure problem areas within PD#1

update and calibrate hydraulic model using results of field testing

comparison of in-ground vs. elevated storage tanks

evaluate feasibility of new storage at alternative locations

review options to address low pressure problem areas

Evaluate alternatives and identify a preferred solution to ensure that the City will

be provided with adequate water storage and pressures within PD#1 in a safe,

sustainable and cost-effective manner

Phase 1 – Identify Problem / Opportunity

4

Problems / Issues to Address 1. Water Storage: Pressure District #1 (PD#1) does not have adequate storage to

meet current or future requirements:

Water Storage

2011 2031

Required volume (m3) 17,850 22,000

Existing volume (m3): 17,000 17,000

Storage Deficit (m3) (850) (5,000)

2. Low Pressure Areas*: Low Pressure Areas

Existing System 2011 2031

Number (and %) of Properties experiencing <40psi

120 (1%)

186 (1.3%)

Number (and %) of Properties experiencing <50psi

1123 (8%)

1486 (10%)

Low pressure problem areas: • Colborne St. W • Strawberry Hill

Low pressure areas during Maximum Day Demand

* MOECC recommends a pressure range of 350 to 480 kPa (50 to 70 psi) under normal operating conditions (MOE Design Guidelines, 2008)

Phase 1 – Identify Problem / Opportunity

5

Why is more storage needed in PD#1? Holmedale Water Treatment Plant supplies Maximum Day Demand (MDD)

In each Pressure District, water storage is needed for: o A – Fire Storage o B – Equalization – meets the diurnal peaks in demand o C – Emergency Storage

This figure shows shortage of water storage in Pressure District #1 now and in future

This restricts the City’s ability to approve new development

Phase 1 – Identify Problem / Opportunity

6

Water Storage Options: In-Ground vs. Elevated Storage Tank (EST)

Recommendation: Elevated storage tank to address water storage issues in PD#1

ISSUE ELEVATED STORAGE TANK IN-GROUND RESERVOIR WITH BOOSTER STATION

Life cycle cost Lower Operating & Maintenance (O&M) costs X Requires re-coating every 15-20 years

X Higher O&M costs

Footprint/ area required Low X High Distribution system Positive impacts (More pressure stability, No

reliance on pumps to maintain minimum pressures, Reduces watermain failures; Reduces chances of leaks due to surges from pump shutdowns and power failures – less risk with respect to potential Water Quality impacts)

X Negative impacts (High dependence on pumps and high pressure fluctuations, especially during power outages)

On-site generator and approvals

Not required X Required

Effect on WTP Positive (Eliminates need for firm capacity pumping redundancy, Saves energy costs)

X Negative (Higher pumping requirements and energy costs)

Site selection Greater flexibility (site elevation and size) X Higher restrictions (elevation and size requirements)

Aesthetics X Visual impact of tower; tanks cast shadows

Better; residents do not see underground tanks

Safety considerations X Risks (working at heights during construction) Lower risk

Alternative Storage volume (m3)

Capital cost ($)

Annual O&M Cost ($/yr)

LCC ($/20 yr)

Average cost per year ($/yr)

Elevated Tank 5,000 $5,324,500 $201,250 $9,356,400 $467,820 In-ground Reservoir & Booster station 5,000 $6,198,500 $339,250 $12,983,500 $649,175

Life Cycle Cost (LCC)

(2016$):

Phase 2 – Alternative Solutions

7

Elevated Storage Alternative Sites – Site Selection Process Site Identification Criteria • Preference for vacant land/ open space/

City owned land within PD#1 or within 5 km of Water Treatment Plant

• Need to avoid close proximity to residential areas and other non-compatible lands (i.e. environmentally sensitive areas, archaeological potential, watercourses, etc.)

• Preference for sites at high elevations Fourteen (14) sites were

identified for preliminary screening by Project Team/City staff

Five (5) sites were initially shortlisted (A, B, C, D, E)

Based on public feedback received through public consultation, the Project Team reviewed the original sites, and shortlisted an additional site (F) for consideration

F

Phase 2 – Alternative Solutions

8

Phase 2 – Alternative Solutions

Water Storage: Site Location Evaluation Process

Each site was evaluated for potential impacts to the following:

Public Health & Safety - Potential impact from construction

and long term use of EST on: - ground/surface water quality, - air quality - land use

- Impact due to watermain construction

Natural Environment - Terrestrial – ecological impacts

(Species at Risk) - Aquatic – ecological impacts

(watermain crossings; Species at Risk)

- Disruption of green space

Legal & Jurisdictional - Availability of land - Compatibility with current zoning

Social & Cultural - Displacement of current land use - Proximity to residential areas –

aesthetic concerns - Disruption to surrounding residences &

businesses due to construction - Impact to future potential land use - Impact to archaeological/ heritage

resources

Technical considerations - Ability to mitigate low pressures - Ability to mitigate high pressures - Tank turnover - Constructability of EST & watermains - Constructability of access roads - Proximity to trunk watermains - Elevation of site - Proximity to storm water

management system - Geotechnical suitability

Financial - Capital cost estimate

Risk of impacts were summarized as: • High impacts

• Moderate impacts

• Low impacts

• No impacts

9

Elevated Storage Tank Site Alternatives - Evaluation Matrix

Impact Parameter

Do

Nothing

A Colborne St

W

B Stanley St

C Henry St

D John Noble Home site

E Spring

Gardens Park

F Shellard

Lane

Public Health and Safety High Moderate

Moderate to

high

Moderate to

high Moderate High Moderate

Natural Environment None Moderate

Low

Low

Low to Moderate Moderate Low

Social and Cultural

Environment High Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

High Low

Legal and Jurisdictional No Low Low Low Low High Low

Technical Considerations High Low High

Moderate to

high Low Low Low

Summary / Overall

Evaluation High Low to

Moderate Moderate to

High Moderate to

High Low to moderate Moderate to

high Low

Capital cost estimate* for EST

(2016$) $6.9 – 8.1 M $6.1 – 7.3 M $6.8 – 7.9 M $6.0 –

7.2 M $5.2 – 6.4 M

$6.4 – 7.6 M

Indicates shortlisted preferred alternative water storage sites

Note that ratings apply to level of Risk of Potential Impact *Cost includes EST and connecting watermains and land acquisition; does not include booster pumping stations

Phase 2 – Alternative Solutions

10

Preferred Alternative Elevated Storage Tank Site

• Elevated tank in proposed development • New 400mm watermain along Shellard Lane Advantages: • City owned land • Construction of EST prior to residential/commercial areas • Lower impacts on local residents due to distance to existing neighbourhoods

• Sufficient hydraulic connection - improves Strawberry Hill area low-pressure issues

• Greenfield site, cleared for development • Natural environment issues addressed through site development planning studies; buffers implemented to mitigate impacts

Disadvantages: • Watermain crossing of creek on Shellard Lane • Lower elevation = higher tank cost Conceptual Cost Estimate ($2016): $6.43 – 7.56 M* *Potential for cost sharing: • timing to coincide with Shellard Lane reconstruction

(2018) • timing to coincide with water servicing of other future

development areas (estimated 2017-2018)

Site F: Shellard Lane

Phase 2 – Alternative Solutions

11

Preferred Water Storage and Servicing Solution Elevated storage tank (TWL ~

270m) located at Shellard Lane (Site F) with associated watermains will address water storage needs and mitigate Strawberry Hill area’s low pressure issues

Isolation of Colborne St. W. pressure zone and addition of localized booster pumping station to address low pressures and allow future development

Ongoing monitoring of distribution pressure in the Strawberry Hill area to determine need for future localized booster pumping station as required and to accommodate growth

Isolate pressure zone

and add booster pumping station

Elevated storage tank –

Shellard Lane (Site F)

Monitor pressure to determine need for

future booster pumping station

Phase 2 – Alternative Solutions

12

For more information, please contact:

Next Steps

Mr. Paul Eldridge, C.E.T. Manager, Technical Services City of Brantford 100 Wellington Square P.O. Box 818 Brantford, ON N3T 5R7 Tel: 519-759-1350 ext. 5485 Fax: 519-754-0724 Email: PEldridge@brantford.ca

Ms. Patricia Quackenbush, P.Eng. Senior Project Manager AECOM 50 Sportsworld Crossing Rd Suite 290 Kitchener, ON N2P 0A4 Tel: 519-650-8691 Fax: 519-650-3424 Patty.Quackenbush@aecom.com

Project File Report (30-day Review) May 2016 Preliminary Design 2016 Detailed Design 2016 - 2017 Construction 2017 - 2018

13