City of Brantford Water Pressure District #1 Storage Class Environmental Assessment Study. Council Presentation - April 19, 2016

Transcription

1 City of Brantford Water Pressure District #1 Storage Class Environmental Assessment Study Council Presentation - April 19, 2016

2 Project Chronology Class EA Process Schedule B Timing 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 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 Round #2 Sept/Oct Based on public feedback, long-list of sites revisited, and site F added to short list for further evaluation - Round #3 Feb Establish preferred solution 2014 Master Servicing Plan Summer 2015 to Winter day Public Review Period Project File Report Spring 2016 Implementation Design and Construction

3 Phase 1 Identify Problem / Opportunity Pressure District #4 Pressure District #2/3 Holmedale Water Treatment Plant Pressure District #1 3

4 Phase 1 Identify Problem / Opportunity 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 4

5 Phase 1 Identify Problem / Opportunity 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 Required volume (m 3 ) 17,850 22,000 Existing volume (m 3 ): 17,000 17,000 Storage Deficit (m 3 ) (850) (5,000) 2. Low Pressure Areas*: Low Pressure Areas Low pressure problem areas: Colborne St. W Strawberry Hill Existing System Number (and %) of Properties experiencing <40psi Number (and %) of Properties experiencing <50psi 120 (1%) 1123 (8%) 186 (1.3%) 1486 (10%) 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) 5

6 Phase 1 Identify Problem / Opportunity 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 6

7 Water Storage Options: In-Ground vs. Elevated Storage Tank (EST) ISSUE ELEVATED STORAGE TANK IN-GROUND RESERVOIR WITH BOOSTER STATION Life cycle cost Lower Operating & Maintenance (O&M) costs X Requires re-coating every years X Higher O&M costs Footprint/ area required Low X High Distribution system On-site generator and approvals Effect on WTP Positive impacts (More pressure stability, No X Negative impacts (High dependence on pumps reliance on pumps to maintain minimum pressures, and high pressure fluctuations, especially during power Reduces watermain failures; Reduces chances of leaks outages) due to surges from pump shutdowns and power failures less risk with respect to potential Water Quality impacts) Not required X Required 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 Safety considerations X Risks (working at heights during construction) Lower risk Life Cycle Cost (LCC) (2016$): Phase 2 Alternative Solutions Better; residents do not see underground tanks Alternative Storage Capital Annual O&M LCC Average cost volume (m 3 ) cost ($) Cost ($/yr) ($/20 yr) 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 Recommendation: Elevated storage tank to address water storage issues in PD#1 7

8 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 noncompatible 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 F sites, and shortlisted an additional site (F) for consideration Phase 2 Alternative Solutions 8

9 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 Risk of impacts were summarized as: High impacts Moderate impacts Low impacts No impacts Financial - Capital cost estimate 9

10 Elevated Storage Tank Site Alternatives - Evaluation Matrix Impact Parameter Do Nothing Phase 2 Alternative Solutions 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$) $ M $ M $ M $ M $ M $ M 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 Indicates shortlisted preferred alternative water storage sites 10

11 Preferred Alternative Elevated Storage Tank Site Site F: Shellard Lane Elevated tank in proposed development New 400mm watermain along Shellard Lane Phase 2 Alternative Solutions 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): $ 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 ) 11

12 Phase 2 Alternative Solutions 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 12

13 Next Steps Project File Report (30-day Review) May 2016 Preliminary Design 2016 Detailed Design Construction For more information, please contact: Mr. Paul Eldridge, C.E.T. Manager, Technical Services City of Brantford 100 Wellington Square P.O. Box 818 Brantford, ON N3T 5R7 Tel: ext Fax: Ms. Patricia Quackenbush, P.Eng. Senior Project Manager AECOM 50 Sportsworld Crossing Rd Suite 290 Kitchener, ON N2P 0A4 Tel: Fax: