city of brantford 2014 master servicing plan (msp) for water, … · 2019. 2. 10. · city of...

City of Brantford

2014 Master Servicing Plan (MSP)

for Water, Sanitary and Stormwater Services

Volume III - Water Master Plan

Final Report

July, 2014

Prepared by:

In Association With:

City of Brantford

2014 Master Servicing Plan (MSP) for Water, Sanitary and Stormwater Services

Volume III

July, 2014

Page i

Table of Contents – Volume III - Water Master Servicing Plan page

1 Introduction and Background....................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background .................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Master Servicing Plan Objectives .................................................................................... 2 1.3 Master Servicing Plan Documentation Layout ................................................................. 3 1.4 Master Servicing Plan Report Volume III ......................................................................... 5

2 Water System Policy and Criteria ................................................................................. 6

2.1 Design Criteria................................................................................................................ 6 2.1.1 Water Treatment Plant ....................................................................................... 6 2.1.2 Watermains........................................................................................................ 7 2.1.3 Water Pumping Stations ..................................................................................... 7 2.1.4 Water Storage Facilities ..................................................................................... 8

2.2 Service Levels ................................................................................................................ 8 2.2.1 Customer Level of Service ................................................................................. 8 2.2.2 Technical Level of Service.................................................................................. 8

2.3 Costing Methodology ...................................................................................................... 8 2.3.1 Unit Rates .......................................................................................................... 8 2.3.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs ..................................................................... 9 2.3.3 Final Project Costs ............................................................................................. 9

3 Existing Water Distribution System ........................................................................... 10

3.1 Existing Water Infrastructure ......................................................................................... 10 3.1.1 Water Treatment Plant ..................................................................................... 10 3.1.2 Water Pumping Stations and Storage Facilities ................................................ 12

3.2 Hydraulic Water Model ................................................................................................. 12

4 Assessment of the Existing and Future Water Infrastructure .................................. 14

4.1 Opportunities and Constraints ....................................................................................... 14 4.1.1 Water Distribution System ................................................................................ 14

4.2 Hydraulic Analysis ........................................................................................................ 16 4.2.1 Water Treatment Plant ..................................................................................... 19 4.2.2 Trunk Watermains ............................................................................................ 20 4.2.3 Water Pumping Stations ................................................................................... 20 4.2.4 Water Storage .................................................................................................. 21

5 Evaluation of Strategies .............................................................................................. 22

5.1 Objectives .................................................................................................................... 22 5.2 Description of the Evaluation Process ........................................................................... 22 5.3 Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................................................ 24 5.4 Servicing Concepts ....................................................................................................... 26

5.4.1 Servicing Concept Evaluation ........................................................................... 26 5.5 Servicing Strategies ...................................................................................................... 27

5.5.1 Servicing Strategy Evaluation ........................................................................... 33

City of Brantford


Volume III

July, 2014

Page ii

6 Preferred Water Servicing Strategy............................................................................ 34

6.1 Preferred Servicing Strategy ......................................................................................... 34 6.2 Capital Program for the Preferred Water Servicing Strategy .......................................... 36 6.3 Implementation & Class EA Requirements .................................................................... 38

7 Post-2031 Vision .......................................................................................................... 41

City of Brantford


Volume III

July, 2014

Page iii

List of Figures

Figure 3.1 – Master Servicing Plan Document Layout .............................................................................. 3

Figure 3.2 – Existing Water Distribution System ..................................................................................... 11

Figure 3.3 – Opportunities and Constraints ............................................................................................ 15

Figure 3.4 – Traffic Zones ...................................................................................................................... 17

Figure 3.5 – Intensification Zones .......................................................................................................... 18

Figure 3.6 – Projected Holmedale Water Treatment Plant Demands ...................................................... 19

Figure 3.7 – Servicing Option Evaluation Flow Diagram ......................................................................... 23

Figure 3.8 – Servicing Strategy 1: Optimize Pumping to Upper Zones and Add New Elevated Storage .. 29

Figure 3.9 – Servicing Strategy 2: Optimize Pumping to Upper Zones and Downtown South Pressure

Zone Re-Alignment ............................................................................................................. 30

Figure 3.10 –Strategy 3: Eliminate Albion PS Feed, New/Modified Northwest Feed & Optimize Storage 31

Figure 3.11 – Strategy 4: Prioritize Albion PS Feed & Optimize Storage ................................................. 32

Figure 3.12 – Preferred Water Servicing Strategy .................................................................................. 35

Figure 3.13 – Potential Post Period Considerations................................................................................ 42

List of Tables

Table 3.1 – Water Design Criteria ............................................................................................................ 6

Table 3.2 – Pumping Station and Storage Facility Summary .................................................................. 12

Table 3.3 – Maximum Day Demand Projections ..................................................................................... 16

Table 3.4 – Water Pumping Requirements ............................................................................................. 20

Table 3.5 – Future Water Storage Needs ............................................................................................... 21

Table 3.6 – Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................................................... 24

Table 3.7 – Servicing Strategy Evaluation .............................................................................................. 33

Table 3.8 – Preferred Water Servicing Strategy Capital Program ........................................................... 37

Table 3.9 – Capital Program Scheduling and Implementation................................................................. 40

Appendices

Appendix 3A – Water Demand Projections

Appendix 3B – Historical Water Demands

Appendix 3C – Water Evaluation Tables

Appendix 3D – Unit Costs

Appendix 3E – Preliminary Water Model Results

City of Brantford 2014 Master Servicing Plan (MSP)

for Water, Sanitary and Stormwater Services Volume III

July, 2014

Page 1

1 Introduction and Background

1.1 Background

The City of Brantford is located in southwest Ontario along the banks of the Grand River, and is within

close proximity to the City of Hamilton and the County of Brant. The City of Brantford is responsible for:

water treatment, trunk and distribution mains, storage facilities and pumping stations; wastewater

treatment, sewers, forcemains and sewage pumping stations; as well as, stormwater sewers, drainage

ditches, culverts, and stormwater management ponds.

The City of Brantford owns and operate its water system, which draws water from the Grand River and

distributes treated water to its residents. The City employs the Ontario Clean Water Agency (OCWA) to

operate, maintain and manage the Brantford Water Pollution Control Plant and nine sewage pump

stations. The entirety of the City is located within the Grand River Watershed. The majority of the City

drains directly to the Grand River or Grand River tributaries, Mohawk Lake and D’Aubigny Creek, via City

owned stormwater infrastructure; however, a significant portion of the northeastern segment of the City

discharges to local creeks along the City’s north and east boundaries.

The City of Brantford is part of the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) area situated on the Grand River in

the heart of Southern Ontario. The Government of Ontario’s legislative growth plan, Places to Grow Act,

2005, and its Amendment 2, 2013, identifies substantial population and employment growth for the City to

2031.

Readily available and accessible public infrastructure is essential to the viability of existing and growing

communities. Infrastructure planning, land use planning and infrastructure investment require close

integration to ensure efficient, safe and economically achievable solutions to provide the required water,

wastewater and stormwater infrastructure.

To balance the needs of growth with the protection and preservation of natural, environmental and

heritage resources, the City of Brantford initiated the preparation of a Master Servicing Plan for water,

wastewater and stormwater services under the Municipal Engineers Association (MEA) Master Plan

Class Environmental Assessment process.

As the study proponent, the City of Brantford retained BluePlan Engineering Limited as lead consultant, in

association with Associated Engineering, GeoAdvice, Watson & Associates and McLeod Wood, to

complete the Master Plan through an integrated process with City Staff, stakeholders and the public.

The 2014 Master Servicing Plan provides a review, evaluation and development of water, wastewater and

stormwater servicing strategies to support existing needs and projected growth within the City. The

Master Plan uses updated population and employment growth forecasts based on a 2031 planning

horizon.

The 2014 Master Servicing Plan is being completed concurrently with the City’s Transportation Master

Plan Update to enable, where advantageous, alignment of recommended work or capital projects,

minimizing potential impacts and disruptions to the public. The 2014 Master Servicing Plan is a critical

component of the City’s planning for growth and will provide the framework and vision for the



July, 2014

Page 2

management, expansion and funding of the water, sanitary and storm systems for the entire City to 2031

and beyond.

1.2 Master Servicing Plan Objectives

The Master Servicing Plan for Water, Sanitary and Stormwater Services comprehensively documents the

development, evaluation and selection of the preferred water, wastewater and stormwater servicing

strategies to meet the servicing needs of existing and future development to 2031.

The 2014 Master Servicing Plan evaluates the ability of existing and planned water, wastewater and

stormwater infrastructure in the City of Brantford to efficiently and effectively service the City’s existing

and anticipated growth, and to evaluate and develop recommended servicing strategies.

The key objectives of the 2014 Master Servicing Plan are as follows:

Review planning forecasts to 2031 and determine the impacts on servicing needs for the City’s

water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure;

Consider and incorporate proposed water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure needs

beyond 2031;

Undertake a comprehensive review and analysis for the water, wastewater and stormwater

servicing requirements;

Complete the Master Servicing Plan in accordance with the MEA Class EA process (further

described in Volume II)

Address key servicing considerations as part of the development and evaluation of servicing

strategies including:

o Level of service to existing users and approved growth

o Operational flexibility and security of supply

o Mitigation of impacts to natural, social and economic environments

o Opportunity to meet policy, policy statements, regulations and technical criteria

o Opportunity to optimize existing infrastructure and servicing strategies

o Ensuring the strategies are cost effective

Consider and develop sustainable servicing solutions;

Utilize updated industry trends and more detailed information from relevant City studies and

projects to provide better capital cost estimates;

Utilize recently completed and on-going projects to update infrastructure status, capacity and cost

estimates;

Utilize the updated water, wastewater and stormwater hydraulic models for the analysis of

servicing alternatives;

Establish a complete and implementable water, wastewater and stormwater capital program; and

Extensive consultation with the public and stakeholders.



July, 2014

Page 3

1.3 Master Servicing Plan Documentation Layout

The 2014 Master Servicing Plan Report, including all supporting volumes, is the documentation placed on

public record for the prescribed review period. The documentation, in its entirety, describes all required

phases of the planning process and incorporates the procedure considered essential for compliance with

the Environmental Assessment Act.

The Master Servicing Plan Report is organized into six volumes as illustrated in Figure 3.1 and as

described below:

Figure 3.1 – Master Servicing Plan Document Layout

Volume I – Executive Summary

Volume I provides a brief overview of the 2014 Master Servicing Plan. It summarizes the information

contained in Volumes II, III, IV, V and VI, including problem statement, purpose of the study, significant

planning, environmental and technical considerations, description of the analysis performed and final

solutions and recommendations.

Volume II – Background and Planning Context

Volume II details the master planning process including the Master Plan Class EA process, related

studies, legislative and policy planning context, water, wastewater and stormwater servicing principles

and policies, population and employment growth forecasts, existing environmental and servicing

conditions and future considerations. This volume also introduces the existing infrastructure conditions for

the water, wastewater and stormwater systems. The appendices in this volume contain relevant baseline

and planning information including:

Appendix 2A – Water and Wastewater Servicing Principles and Policies Paper

Appendix 2B – Planning Data and Memo

Appendix 2C – Environmental Mapping



July, 2014

Page 4

Volume III – Water Master Plan

Volume III consists of the principal document summarizing the study objectives, approach,

methodologies, technical analyses, evaluation and selection of the preferred water servicing strategy.

This volume outlines the water policies, design criteria and level of service needed to be achieved by the

water network. In addition, Volume III identifies the existing water network and describes the hydraulic

modelling tool used for the analysis. Further in Volume III is the detailed evaluation and decision-making

as well as the preferred servicing strategy and associated capital program.

A significant amount of technical background information has been compiled, which is critical to the

development of the Water Master Servicing Plan. This information is included as appendices of Volume

III. The technical appendices contain relevant project, implementation and technical analysis information,

including:

Appendix 3A – Water Demand Projections

Appendix 3B – Historical Water Demand

Appendix 3C – Water Evaluation Tables


Appendix 3E – Preliminary Water Model Results

Volume IV – Wastewater Master Plan

Volume IV consists of the principal document summarizing the study objectives, approach,

methodologies, technical analyses, and evaluation and selection of the preferred wastewater servicing

strategy. This volume outlines the wastewater policies, design criteria and level of service needed to be

achieved by the wastewater network. In addition, Volume IV identifies the existing wastewater network

and describes the hydraulic modelling tool used for the analysis. Further in Volume IV is the detailed

evaluation and decision-making as well as the preferred servicing strategy and associated capital

program.

A significant amount of technical background information has been compiled, which is critical to the

development of the Wastewater Master Servicing Plan. This information is included as appendices of

Volume IV. The technical appendices contain relevant project, implementation and technical analysis

information, including:

Appendix 4A – Wastewater Flow Projections

Appendix 4B – Historical Wastewater Flows

Appendix 4C – Wastewater Evaluation Tables


Appendix 4E – Preliminary Wastewater Model Results



July, 2014

Page 5

Volume V – Stormwater Master Plan

Volume V consists of the principal document summarizing the study objectives, approach, methodologies,

technical analyses, evaluation and selection of the preferred stormwater servicing strategy. This volume

outlines the stormwater policies, design criteria and level of service needed to be achieved by the

stormwater network. In addition, Volume V identifies the existing stormwater network and describes the

hydraulic modelling tool used for the analysis. Further in Volume V is the detailed evaluation and

decision-making as well as the preferred servicing strategy and associated capital program.

Background information is included as appendices of Volume V. The technical appendices contain

relevant project, implementation and technical analysis information, including:

Appendix 5A – Introduction to Stormwater Management

Appendix 5B - Stormwater Evaluation Tables

Appendix 5C – Unit Costs

Volume VI – Public and Agency Consultation

Volume VI contains all relevant documentation of the public consultation process including notices,

comments and responses, and distribution information. Presentation material from all Public Information

Centres (PICs) held during the process is included. Other presentation material and discussion

information from workshops held with relevant agencies, approval bodies and other stakeholders are also

included.

1.4 Master Servicing Plan Report Volume III

This current volume provides the analysis and summary of the preferred 2031 water servicing strategy for

the City of Brantford. It also provides the background support for satisfying Phase I and II of the Class EA

process.

Volume III is organized into the following sections:

1. Introduction

2. Water System Policy and Criteria

3. Existing Water Distribution System

4. Assessment of Existing and Future Water Infrastructure

5. Evaluation of Strategies

6. Preferred Water Servicing Strategies

7. Post 2031 Vision

Volume III is one of six volumes that make up the complete Master Servicing Plan Class EA Study Report and should be read in conjunction with the other volumes.



July, 2014

Page 6

2 Water System Policy and Criteria

2.1 Design Criteria

A guiding principle for the design criteria is to ensure that demand projections are accurately predicted

with an appropriate level of safety and risk management. This overall principle also ensures that

infrastructure has sufficient capacity to meet the growing needs of the City and does not impede the

approved/planned growth.

The design criteria was reviewed as part of this Master Servicing Plan to ensure water demands are

accurate and will support sizing and timing of future infrastructure such as pipes and facilities.

The development of design criteria utilized historical billing data in combination with Ontario Ministry of

Environment (MOE) Design Standards and Guidelines. Level of service and water policies were

discussed and established at the outset of the project.

Table 3.1 summarizes the City of Brantford water design criteria used at a Master Servicing Planning

level.

Table 3.1 – Water Design Criteria

Type of Development Average Day Demand Maximum Day Factor Peak Hour Factor

Residential 300 L/person/day 2.0 3.0

Employment 300 L/employee/day 2.0 3.0

The water billing analysis indicated that an average day demand of 300 L/cap/d is considered reasonable

for residential development. Employment demands were based on an equivalent population and

300 Lpcd. A minimum of 28 m3/ha/d was assumed as the minimum demand requirement for employment

in accordance with MOE Guidelines.

The rated capacity of a water treatment plant is defined as the maximum daily flow that the works is

approved to treat. Water treatment capacity is based on meeting maximum day water demand

requirements with an additional factor for in-facility uses such as filter backwashing.

Existing water demands were established based on water billing records. The approach for projecting

future growth demands was based on planning data for residential and non-residential users provided in

small geographic units (SGU) and applying the design criteria outlined in Table 3.1.

2.1.1 Water Treatment Plant

Under this Master Servicing Plan, the future maximum day demands were estimated based on historical

review of the production data at the Holmedale Water Treatment Plant (WTP). The approach for

projecting the future City-wide demands was carried out using a starting point methodology.



July, 2014

Page 7

Under this approach, the equivalent per capita consumption was calculated for the Holmedale WTP for

each of the last five years and averaged to establish an appropriate historical per capita consumption.

This rolling average of the per capita consumption was then used with the 2011 population and

employment to obtain the 2011 starting point. In order to project future demands from the 2011 starting

point, the design criteria listed in the previous section was applied to the population and employment

growth and added to the starting point.

This approach provided an assessment of the existing capacity at the Holmedale WTP and was used to

determine future servicing needs. The starting point developed using this approach may be updated over

time as a rolling average, thereby incorporating future consumption trends. The calculated 2011

maximum day demand starting point used under this Master Servicing Plan is 53 ML/d and the current

Holmedale WTP rated capacity is 100 ML/d.

2.1.2 Watermains

Theoretical transmission capacities were estimated using capacity calculations with a reasonable

allowable head loss. For larger watermains, a factor of 1.5 m/km of head loss was typically used.

The City of Brantford full pipe hydraulic model was used to assess the ability of the water distribution

network to deliver adequate flows and pressures throughout the City of Brantford as well as to further

refine watermain capacities. Four hydraulic modelling scenarios (minimum hour, maximum day, peak

hour and maximum day plus fire) were evaluated to confirm watermain requirements.

Additional criteria considered typical of best practices were also referenced to establish existing and

future watermain capacities. These criteria are as follows:

Watermains that are part of the local distribution system are sized for the greater of maximum day

demand plus fire or peak hour demand

Watermain sizing is based on flow demands and pressure requirements which include

maintaining pressures in the distribution system between 40 and 100 psi.

Velocities within trunk watermains should be maintained below 2.0 m/s.

Trunk watermain capacity expansions are based on service level (e.g., pressure, velocity, head

loss). Oversizing was considered in areas where future potential growth and build out is

expected to occur.

2.1.3 Water Pumping Stations

Water pumping stations (PS) are rated based on their firm capacity, which is defined as the capacity of

the pumping station with the largest pump out of service. For each pressure zone, the pumping stations



July, 2014

Page 8

should be able to provide peak hour demands in the immediate serviced pressure zone and have

sufficient capacity to transfer maximum day demands to the upper serviced pressure zones.

Capacity expansions are triggered once the pumping station’s firm capacity reaches the required

maximum day demand or peak hour demand, depending on high-lift or low-lift requirement.

2.1.4 Water Storage Facilities

The quantity of required storage within a given water pressure zone is dictated by the ability to provide

the required equalization storage, fire storage, and emergency supply to maintain a satisfactory level of

service. Reservoir storage capacity at each pumping station is based on typical MOE criteria:

Equalization storage – 25% of the maximum day demand for serviced pressure zone

Fire storage – minimum 250 L/s for 4 hours depending on Equivalent Population within each

pressure zone

Emergency storage – 25% of the equalization plus fire storage for the lower pressure zone at the

reservoir’s HGL.

2.2 Service Levels

Guiding policies and principles for the design and operation of the City’s water distribution system were

established at the outset of the Master Servicing Plan. These policies and principles are presented in the

following sections.

2.2.1 Customer Level of Service

Customer levels of service are in place to ensure that pressures to end users are adequate, water supply

is reliable, and water quality meets local and agency regulatory guidelines. Furthermore, the City of

Brantford endeavours to minimize service interruptions whenever possible.

2.2.2 Technical Level of Service

Technical levels of service specify the actual operating ranges under which the water distribution system

is expected to perform. A minimum operating pressure of 40 psi (275 kPa) and a maximum operating

pressure of 100 psi (690 kPa) shall be maintained within the distribution system under maximum day

demand and a minimum operating pressure of 40 psi shall be maintained under peak hour demand.

Under fire flow conditions, it is allowable for pressures to drop to a minimum of 20 psi (140 kPa).

2.3 Costing Methodology

2.3.1 Unit Rates

Unit cost rates were used as a baseline approach in determining estimated linear project costs. The

linear unit rates used for this Master Servicing Plan are based in 2014 dollars and take into consideration



July, 2014

Page 9

southern Ontario prices of labour and availability of materials. The unit rates are the result of preparing

multiple Master Planning Studies and have undergone independent peer reviews in order to further refine

and ensure overall accuracy of the cost estimates. Estimates were favorably compared to costs of recent

capital projects within Brantford, the GTA and southern Ontario to support validation of the unit rates. A

summary of the linear unit water costs for the Master Servicing Plan is provided in Appendix 3D.

2.3.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs

Operation and Maintenance Costs (O & M) have been qualitatively considered during the evaluation of

servicing alternatives. The development of alternatives has strived to reduce O & M costs wherever

possible. For example, the ongoing operation and maintenance costs of a pumping station or storage

facility will have a larger financial impact on a servicing strategy than one that does not include such a

facility.

2.3.3 Final Project Costs

The 2014 Master Servicing Plan includes the calculation of capital costs for all proposed projects. These

costs were calculated using a combination of methods. For the majority of the water projects, a base

construction cost was obtained using either unit rate construction cost based on pipe diameter or unique

project analysis. The base construction cost considers several factors unique to each project such as

approximate depth of installation, creek, railway and highway crossings, tunneling requirements,

Greenfield versus urban construction and various other construction challenges. Design, administration,

contingency and non-recoverable HST costs were added to arrive at a final project cost. Detailed costing

sheets were developed to support the financial evaluation for each linear and facility projects. The final

project costs are shown in the Capital Program within Section 6.2.



July, 2014

Page 10

3 Existing Water Distribution System

3.1 Existing Water Infrastructure

The City of Brantford’s water system consists of three pressure zones: Zone 1, Zone 2/3, and Zone 4.

Water supply originates from the Grand River, and is treated at the Holmedale Water Treatment Plant

(WTP). The Holmedale high lift pump station delivers water to Zone 1, while secondary pump stations

deliver water from Zone 1 to Zone 2/3 and Zone 4. The boundaries along the pressure zones consist of a

series of closed valves and pipes, and pressure regulating valve (PRV) stations to decrease the pressure

to an acceptance range of level of service. Water storage for emergency, fire and flow equalization is

achieved at a series of in-ground reservoirs located at the Pumping Stations as well as a single elevated

storage tank.

The water system consists of one (1) water treatment plant, four (4) pumping stations, five (5) storage

reservoirs, and one (1) elevated storage tank. There are approximately 126 km of trunk watermains and

354 km of distribution watermains.

Pressure Zone 1 generally consists of the lower elevation areas within south Brantford, along the Grand

River. This is a large pressure zone that includes the residential Greenfield growth area in southwest

Brantford along Shellard Lane as well as the downtown Brantford Urban Growth Centre. Pressure Zone

1 is fed directly from the Holmedale WTP site via feedermains ranging in diameter from 500 mm to 750

mm.

Pressure Zone 2/3 is a large, combined pressure zone that comprises the residential and commercial

areas in north Brantford, Industrial area in east Brantford and small Greenfield growth area in east

Brantford. In addition, the intensification growth areas along King George Road, Wayne Gretzky Parkway,

West St and Lynden Rd also lie within Pressure Zone 2/3. Water is pumped into the zone from the

Holmedale WTP via several pumping stations and storage facilities. Storage and pumping for Pressure

Zone 2/3 comes from the Tollgate Road Reservoir (Res) and Pumping Station (PS), Wayne Gretzky

Parkway Res and PS, Albion St PS and King George Road Elevated Tank.

Pressure Zone 4 comprises an industrial area serviced by Northwest Pumping Station and Reservoir.

The Northwest Pumping Station and Reservoir services Pressure Zone 4 and is fed by a 900 mm

diameter watermain from the WTP High Lift PS. The feed from the North West PS into Zone 4 is 750

mm. An overview of the existing water distribution system is provided in Figure 3.2.


The Holmedale Water Treatment Plant is located at 324 Grand River Avenue, drawing water from

Holmedale Canal in the Grand River, 1.5 km upstream of the Water Treatment Plant. The water facility

has a treatment capacity of 100 ML/d and was recently upgraded with a new Peroxone Treatment System

and a new filtration/administration facility.

Figure 3.2 - Existing Water Distribution System



July, 2014

Page 12

3.1.2 Water Pumping Stations and Storage Facilities

There are currently four (4) pumping stations, four (4) reservoirs, and one (1) elevated tank in the City of

Brantford water distribution system. Table 3.2 summarizes the pumping and storage facilities and their

capacities.

Table 3.2 – Pumping Station and Storage Facility Summary

Facility Pressure

Zone No. of Pumps

Installed Capacity (L/s)

Firm Capacity (L/s)

Reservoir Capacity (m3)

Holmedale WTP 1 10 1,060 920 4,500 &

18,250

Tollgate Road Res & PS 2/3 4 1,080 810 11,365

Wayne Gretzky Res & PS 2/3 5 259 (Low Lift)

786 (High Lift) 783 11,365

Albion Street PS 2/3 2 530 265 N/A

North West Res & PS 4 6 550 420 12,500

King George Road

Elevated Tank 2/3 N/A N/A N/A 2,770

The existing water pumping and storage facilities are highlighted in Figure 3.2.

3.2 Hydraulic Water Model

Analysis of the current and future water distribution system was undertaken using a hydraulic simulation

model. The City of Brantford water model used for the 2014 Master Servicing Plan was updated based

on the GIS data received in May 2013. The City’s existing water model consists of an all-pipe model in

InfoWater (Innovyze), which includes all distribution and trunk watermains. The existing model includes

approximately:

3,900 pipes

2,900 nodes

5 storage reservoirs

1 elevated tank

4 pumping stations



July, 2014

Page 13

The model used for this Master Servicing Plan consists of a steady state model with the following

modelling scenarios:

Existing System

o Average Day Demand

o Max Day Demand

o Peak Hour Demand

2031 System

o Average Day Demand

o Max Day Demand

o Peak Hour Demand

Subsequent to the update of the hydraulic model, the model was calibrated to confirm the hydraulic model

accuracy. Hydraulic model calibration is the process of testing and adjusting the model to ensure that

model results bear reasonable close comparison to actual performance of the water distribution system

over a range of operating conditions. Calibration is mandatory prior to use of the model for any capital

works decision-making analysis, as well as further applications of the model such as water quality,

operations or energy management modelling. The benefits of calibration include discovering and correcting

discrepancies in the model data and, occasionally, identification of problems in the field.

Model calibration essentially encompasses all aspects of the model development and field data collection

process. The process makes extensive use of the City’s meter and plant records. This calibrated model

was used as part of the 2014 Master Servicing Plan analysis.



July, 2014

Page 14

4 Assessment of the Existing and Future Water Infrastructure

The first step in the detailed analysis of the Master Servicing Plan is assessment of the existing

infrastructure capacity and conditions. Establishing accurate existing conditions will ensure further

accuracy of the future recommendations. Once the existing system conditions are established, the

impacts of future growth demands on the water distribution system were analyzed to develop and

evaluate servicing alternatives.

The following sections describe the current infrastructure constraints, as well as opportunities for

developing and expanding the water system to meet growing demands to the 2031 planning horizon.

4.1 Opportunities and Constraints

Existing Opportunities and Constraints were identified through preliminary infrastructure review and

discussions with City staff. In addition, the opportunities and constraints were further validated through

preliminary modelling results, which can be found in Appendix 3E. The opportunities and constraints are

shown in Figure 3.3 and are further outlined in the following sections.

4.1.1 Water Distribution System

In general, the water distribution has adequate capacity to deliver water at acceptable service levels,

though there are some areas at the higher or lower end of the acceptable pressure range. The hydraulic

water model as well as input from City staff was used to identify these areas. The following Opportunities

and Constraints for the City of Brantford water distribution system were identified:

General

Future intensification within downtown core requires accommodating growth while maintaining

level of service

Holmedale WTP has sufficient capacity to support growth to 2031

Growth in southwest Zone 1 Brantford along Shellard Lane and in Northwest Zone 4

Sufficient pumping capacity in Northwest Brantford to support growth

Several environmentally sensitive areas within Brantford

Operation

Operational issues in North West Brantford Zone 4

Low Pressures in Strawberry Hill / Hillcrest area

High Pressures within Downtown South

Surplus pumping capacity to upper Pressure Zone 2/3 and Zone 4

High headlosses through existing local, small diameter watermains

Several environmental constraints and

environmentally sensitive areas

throughout Brantford.

Environmental

Low pressures experienced within areas

of higher elevation.

Potentially high pressures within areas

of lower elevation.

Pressure

Servicing the downtown core will require

integration with rehabilitation programs

for old assets as well as complementing

the Transportation Master Plan.

Downtown Core

Sufficient treatment capacity at the

Holmedale WTP.

Treatment Plant

Exploring ways to minimize new

infrastructure needs in busy urban areas

whilst maintaining levels of service will

be a focus for intensification areas.

Intensification Areas

North West PS has ample pumping

capacity, however operational issues

exist.

Multiple Pressure Zone 2/3 PS with

spare capacity; provides operational

flexibility.

Pumping Stations

Increased velocities and headlosses in

watermains could potentially impact

pressure in the system.

Operational Issues

Intensification growth within corridors may

result in capacity deficiencies/ reduced

level of service.

Intensification Areas

Growth in Southwest and Northwest

Brantford requires extension and looping

of existing network.

Growth

The growth to the University campus

has been included to ensure that the

final servicing strategy is

comprehensive.

University



July, 2014

Page 16

4.2 Hydraulic Analysis

Analysis and water demand from existing and future population and employment growth is based on the

City’s Traffic Zones. These Traffic Zone polygons containing growth data were supplied by the City as

shown in Figure 3.4.

Within areas of expected intensification, such as within the intensification corridors or within the

downtown core and the Traffic Zones were more narrowly defined as Intensification Zones. The

Intensification Zones are shown in Figure 3.5.

Once the population had been calculated for each Traffic Zone and Intensification Zone, an average daily

water demand was calculated using the design criteria methodology described in Section 2.1. This

average day water demand criteria is 300 L/person/day and 300 L/employee/day with maximum day

factor of 2.0. The maximum day demand is the primary infrastructure planning criteria used for evaluating

the capacity of the system.

Water demand requirements were developed for each system to identify existing and potential future

supply deficiencies. Based on the planning projections, maximum day demand projections for the City

are summarized in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3 – Maximum Day Demand Projections

Pressure Zone 2011 MDD (L/s)

2016 MDD (L/s)

2021 MDD (L/s)

2026 MDD (L/s)

2031 MDD (L/s)

1 236 265 315 360 408

2 255 261 272 180 284

3 96 104 123 134 142

Zone 2/3 Subtotal 351 365 395 314 426

4 30 31 33 52 64

Total 617 660 743 825 897

1

10

11

12

13

14

15

1617

17

18

19

2

20

21

22 23

24

25 26 2727

2829

3

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

39

39

45

4647

48

49

5

5

6

8

9RailRoadsMunicipal BoundaryRiversSix Nations of the Grand River Territory

´City of Brantford2014 Master Servicing Plan (MSP)for Water, Sanitary and Stormwater Services

4 Figure 3.4 - Traffic Zones

June 20141:44,000 | UTM83-17n

21 Traffic Zone

GROWTH AREASGreenfield AreaIntensification AreaUnder OMB ReviewUrban Growth CentreRailRoadsMunicipal BoundaryRiversSix Nations of the Grand River Territory


Figure 3.5 - Intensification Zones

June 20141:44,000 | UTM83-17n



July, 2014

Page 19


The 2014 Master Servicing Plan analyzed the projected growth demand within the Holmedale Water

Treatment Plant (WTP) service area to ensure that the facility had adequate capacity within the 2031

growth horizon.

The starting point methodology previously identified in Section 2.1.1 was used to calculate the projected

demands for the Holmedale WTP shown in Figure 3.6. The current plant capacity of 100 ML/d is also

represented. There is sufficient total treatment capacity to service the City’s needs to 2031. However,

should historical peak instantaneous flows at the WTP be projected to 2031, the Holmedale WTP is seen

to be approaching approximately 95 per cent of its current plant capacity.

Figure 3.6 – Projected Holmedale Water Treatment Plant Demands



July, 2014

Page 20

4.2.2 Trunk Watermains

The City’s hydraulic water model was used to support the assessment of the water system’s watermain

capacity. Based on the hydraulic modelling results, the existing trunk watermains generally have

sufficient capacity to move water to the next pumping station under maximum day conditions.

However, modelling results have shown capacity deficiencies and reduction in level of service along King

George Rd, north of Fairview Dr. High head losses under model runs along this future intensification

corridor will result in the need for a transmission capacity upgrade. Servicing Strategies and Concepts

are further described in Section 5

4.2.3 Water Pumping Stations

Assessment of pumping capacity was based on the ability of the pumping stations to provide firm capacity

to meet the required demands in the system on a zone by zone basis. Table 3.4 demonstrates the

pumping station requirements within the Brantford Pressure Zones to 2031.

Table 3.4 – Water Pumping Requirements

Pumping / Reservoir Facility Firm

Capacity (L/s)

Historical Max Day Demand: 2012

Starting Point (L/s)

Water Demand Increase: 2011-

2031 (L/s)

Projected Max Day Demand:

2031 (L/s) Pressure Zone 1

(Including transfer to upper

pressure zones) 1,115 617 281 897

Pressure Zone 2/3 - Tollgate Rd PS and Res - Wayne Gretzky PS and

Res LL - Wayne Gretzky PS and

Res HL - Albion St PS

1,176 351 74 425

Pressure Zone 4 - North West PS and Res 290 30 34 73



July, 2014

Page 21

4.2.4 Water Storage

Water storage is provided throughout the City of Brantford at several facilities. Capacities for these

facilities were previously identified in Table 3.2. Storage demands increase with increased growth, in

accordance to MOE guidelines and City of Brantford Design Criteria. Table 3.5 summarizes existing

storage volumes by pressure zone, 2031 maximum day demands (MDD), and projected 2031 storage

requirements by pressure zone.

Table 3.5 – Future Water Storage Needs

Pressure Zone

Total Volume

(m3)

2031 MDD

(m3/d)

2031 Storage Requirement (m3)

Surplus / (Deficit)

(m3)

Equalization Fire Emergency Total

Zone 1

-WTP 22,750 35,231

Determined through Class EA Feasibility

of Water Storage Facility Study

Zone 2/3

- King George

-Tollgate

-Wayne Gretzky

25,500 36,800 9,200 8,100 4,300 22,000 3,500

Zone 4

-North West 12,500 5,500 1,400 3,600 1,200 6,200 6,300

There is currently no floating storage provided in Zone 1. However, the calculated storage need within

Zone 1 based on the 2031 MDD and MOE design criteria, is being achieved at the existing Holmedale

WTP Reservoir. However, low pressures are experienced at the top end of Pressure Zone 1, particularly

within the Strawberry Hill/Hillcrest area. Implementation of an elevated storage facility presents an

opportunity to address these pressure issues and adds additional floating storage redundancy and

reduces dependency on pumped storage capacity.

A sensitivity analysis for storage requirements in Zone 1 was carried out, to consider higher demands

based on peak instantaneous historical flows and greater fire flow requirements. Coordination with the

ongoing Class EA Feasibility of Water Storage Facility Study was undertaken and included in the

sensitivity analysis to determine Zone 1 water storage requirements and confirm sizing of the elevated

storage tank. Through discussions with the City, it was agreed that the size of the proposed elevated

tank in the MSP would be based on the recommendations of the Class EA Feasibility Study.

The Class EA Feasibility Study identified a 2031 storage requirement of approximately 4.9 ML. As such,

a 5.0 ML elevated tank has been carried in the Water Capital Program, presented in Section 6.2.

Servicing Strategies and Concepts related to storage needs are further described within Section 5.



July, 2014

Page 22

5 Evaluation of Strategies

The identification and evaluation of servicing options is a critical component of the Master Servicing

Planning process because it enables a comprehensive review of a reasonable range of alternatives while

documenting the process in a transparent manner. The evaluation process that has been undertaken is

described in the following sections.

5.1 Objectives

The identification and evaluation of servicing options is the comprehensive review of a reasonable range

of alternatives while documenting the process in a transparent manner.

The 2014 Master Servicing Plan sets out to meet the Approach 2 requirements under the Municipal

Engineers Association (MEA) Class EA process. Under Approach 2, a Master Servicing Plan Report is

prepared at the conclusion of Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA process. This approach allows for all

Schedule A, A+ and select Schedule B projects identified in the Master Servicing Plan to move forward to

implementation. To achieve this objective, systematic evaluation and documentation is required to

support the Schedule B Class EA requirements along with any applicable review agency commitments

prior to implementation. Any Schedule C projects identified will also require supporting information and

decision making to proceed onto separate studies and continue to Phases 3 and 4 of the Class EA

process.

The evaluation approach has been designed to ensure a logical and transparent process that can

document the evaluation and decision making that will ultimately develop a capital program that is

defensible. Sustainability principles will also be considered in the development of the 2014 Master

Servicing Plan, and will be integrated within the five-point evaluation, such as:

making best use of existing infrastructure;

minimizing the cost of new infrastructure;

considering operation and maintenance costs to ensure financial sustainability and;

ensuring the long term reliability and security of the water, wastewater and stormwater systems.

5.2 Description of the Evaluation Process

The Evaluation Process undertaken for the development and selection of a preferred servicing strategy is

described in this section and is graphically depicted in Figure 3.7

A broad range of water serving concepts were established based on high level feasibility to meet the

servicing requirements for the growth within the City of Brantford. These high level concepts included but

were not limited to: Expand the Existing Network, Inter-Regional/County Agreements, Optimized Storage

and Zone Boundary Re-Alignments. These concepts also included Do Nothing and Limit Growth as

required for the Class EA Process.

To evaluate the Servicing Concepts, the advantages and disadvantages for each were established based

on several evaluation criteria. This preliminary evaluation examined the concepts from an ability to meet

the servicing needs as well as a high level examination based on the 5-point criteria outlined in Section



July, 2014

Page 23

5.3. Each concept was given a Low, Medium or High rating with concepts receiving a Low rating being

screened out and not carried further to detailed evaluation.

The Servicing Concepts that were carried forward were then combined in order to build overall Servicing

Strategies that would alleviate any existing constraints and satisfy the projected growth within Brantford to

2031. The complete Servicing Strategies were also evaluated using a detailed 5-point strategy evaluation

described in Section 5.5. The result of this evaluation was the selection of the Preferred Servicing

Strategy.

Figure 3.7 – Servicing Option Evaluation Flow Diagram



July, 2014

Page 24

5.3 Evaluation Criteria

Detailed evaluation matrices supporting the evaluation of servicing options within the localized areas were

developed and used for selection of preferred servicing for the 2014 Master Servicing Plan. The

complete evaluation matrices are included in Appendix 3C. The servicing strategies were subject to a 5-

point evaluation which includes five major areas of impact: Technical, Environmental, Financial,

Legal/Jurisdictional, and Socio-Cultural. The 5-point evaluation criteria and their associated impacts are

described in Table 3.6.

Table 3.6 – Evaluation Criteria

CRITERIA DESCRIPTION

Technical Impact

Describes any overall technical advantage/disadvantage to an option related to:

o capacity requirements and level of service

o performance under power outage conditions

o alignments that can maximize a service area

o utilization of existing infrastructure

Describes difficulty of construction (construction in limited areas, crossings,

protection of utilities, trees or structures)

Assesses whether existing infrastructure upgrades are required

Describes risk considerations:

o Level of security of water supply/transmission or wastewater

treatment/conveyance

Describes the ability for phasing:

o staged growth and maximizing the use of existing or planned infrastructure

o incremental extensions of infrastructure as growth progresses

o balanced infrastructure costs with staged level of growth (high-level

comment)

Describes impact on the sizing of planned and existing infrastructure

Highlights trunk infrastructure that potentially should be oversized to benefit future

growth

Comments on whether growth areas will need to be serviced by existing or new

infrastructure

Compares relative sizing differences between alternatives

Describes the technical consideration required for construction:

o Highlights need for deep pipe construction, creek/highway/railway crossings,

alignment changes, and potential challenges during construction

o Where applicable, comments on construction of projects that can be

coordinated with road improvements or construction

o Describes potential opportunities/constraints to servicing build out

o Notes flexibility of servicing the mature state growth (post Places to Grow)



July, 2014

Page 25

CRITERIA DESCRIPTION

Environmental Impact

Describes the potential impacts of the option on the natural environment,

proximity to existing natural features and designations including but not limited

to: ESAs, ANSIs, conservation authority regulation limits, vegetation, woodlands,

wildlife, aquatic resources and fisheries

Highlights requirements for major environmental crossings, development through

environmental designated areas, and requirements for mitigative action

Financial Impact

Describes the capital cost relative to other options

Considers construction costs for new infrastructure and for upgrades to existing

system

Highlights major projects that differ from other options that significantly contribute

to the capital costs

Describes large up-front costs required for phasing of growth

Comments on post-construction impacts such as operation and maintenance

costs and requirements, and compares to other options

Legal/Jurisdictional Impact

Notes any land requirement issues and agency concerns that may arise related to

project alignments, land acquisition, planning permits, crossings etc.

Comments on compliance with Regional Guidelines and Policies

Describes the potential impacts related to opportunity or requirements for

integrated planning, design, construction with other servicing such as bridge, road

construction etc.

Notes if coordination with involved parties is required

Socio-Cultural Impact

Describes the potential impacts to residents, archaeological/heritage resources,

and visual aesthetics

Describes any potential noise, dust, vibrations, traffic disruptions to residents and

businesses during and following construction



July, 2014

Page 26

5.4 Servicing Concepts

The water network, along with the previously identified Opportunities and Constraints, were examined

within the larger, City-wide context as well as at a local level. A long list of high level Servicing Concepts

were introduced early in the analysis and were investigated. The Concepts are listed below and were

evaluated to determine which concepts are feasible to carry forward to make up City-Wide Servicing

Strategies.

1. Do Nothing & Limit Community Growth

2. Water Conservation and Efficiency

3. Expand Existing System

Optimize pumping station feeds

Prioritize Albion Feed

Eliminate Albion Feed

4. New Feed to move water through Northwest

5. Optimized/New Storage (Pumped and Elevated)

6. Zone Boundary Re-Alignment

Southwest service area

Downtown/Grand River

7. Inter-Regional/County Agreements

5.4.1 Servicing Concept Evaluation

A preliminary evaluation process for the servicing concepts was undertaken to determine which high level

concepts should be carried forward or screened out.

The results of the screening evaluation process is provided in Appendix 3C and is summarized below.

1. Do Nothing & Limit Community Growth – Screened Out

2. Water Conservation and Efficiency – Carried Forward

3. Expand Existing System – Carried Forward




4. New Feed to move water through Northwest – Carried Forward

5. Optimized/New Storage (Pumped and Elevated) – Carried Forward

6. Zone Boundary Re-Alignment - Carried Forward



7. Inter-Regional/County Agreements – Screened Out

The advantages and disadvantages for each of the concepts is outlined in Appendix 3C. For the Do

Nothing and Limit Community Growth options, it is recognized that these alternatives are required for

evaluation under the Class EA process. It essentially identifies the existing conditions, and helps to define

the extent of the problem. In this case the “Do Nothing” alternative does not address the problem and

needs of the study. The Do nothing alternative would not alleviate existing wastewater servicing



July, 2014

Page 27

deficiencies or meet the servicing needs of population and employment growth mandated through the

Province’s Places to Grow Act and the City’s growth conformity. For this reason the Do Nothing

Alternative is not considered a viable alternative and has been screened out. Similarly, the Limit Growth

alternative does not meet growth conformity and has also been screened out as a viable alternative.

5.5 Servicing Strategies

The following servicing concepts were carried forward through the preliminary evaluation and were

combined to create City-wide Servicing Strategies:

1. Water Conservation and Efficiency – Common to All Strategies

2. Expand Existing System




3. New Feed to move water through Northwest

4. Optimized/New Storage (Pumped and Elevated)

5. Zone Boundary Re-Alignment



While each of these concepts on their own may not satisfy all growth and capacity constraints within the

system, they have been combined to generate the Servicing Strategies.

At the servicing strategy level of detail, additional development of infrastructure location, capacity and

purpose has been undertaken. The application of the servicing concepts as they related to the unique

service areas across the City, including Greenfield and intensification areas, has been completed to

determine the proposed infrastructure requirements.

Four Servicing Strategies were developed and evaluated. The descriptions for the Strategies are shown

below and are depicted in Figure 3.5 to Figure 3.8.

Strategy 1 – Optimize Pumping to Upper Zones and Add New Elevated Storage

Select system-wide water transmission capacity increases and extension to Greenfield and future

service areas

Optimize pumping feeds to Pressure Zones 2/3 via the Tollgate PS, Wayne Gretzky PS and

Albion PS. Operational improvements within the three pumping stations to supply demand in

Zone 2/3

Satisfy storage requirements within Pressure Zone 1 by construction of new elevated tank

Strategy 2 – Optimize Pumping to Upper Zones and Downtown South Pressure Zone Re-Alignment



July, 2014

Page 28


service areas

Optimize pumping feeds to Pressure Zones 2/3 via the Tollgate PS, Wayne Gretzky PS and

Albion PS. Operational improvements within the three pumping stations to supply demand in

Zone 2/3

Pressure Zone Re-Alignment within Downtown South in order to improve operational conditions

within areas of lower elevation and higher pressure Strategy 3 – Eliminate Albion PS Feed, New/Modified Northwest Feed & Optimize Storage


service areas

Remove the Albion PS Feed and decommission Albion PS. Supply to Zones 2/3 will be achieved

via Wayne Gretzky PS and Tollgate PS

Modification of the operation of the 400 mm watermain and PRVs along Hardy Rd to promote

transmission from Zone 4 to Zone 2/3.


Strategy 4 – Prioritize Albion PS Feed & Optimize Storage


service areas

Prioritize the supply of Pressure Zone 2/3 from Albion PS.


Common Elements:

Common to all Servicing Strategies is the requirement for extension of the water distribution network into

the Northwest growth area and Southeast Greenfield growth area. This will enable growth to progress

towards the Municipal Boundary. Also common to all Strategies is the need for upgrades to the existing

watermain network within intensification corridors and the Urban Growth Centre. Since the timing and

scale of intensification growth within the downtown core is relatively uncertain, a lump sum amount of

intensification servicing upgrades have been recommended. Within the intensification corridors, a trunk

watermain upgrade along King George Road has been recommended within all Strategies to service the

Zone 2/3 growth north of Fairview Drive.

Capacity Upgrades along King George Road

Extend existing system to unserviced areas

Optimize PS feeds

Implement Water

Conservation and

Efficiencies

Figure 3.8 – Strategy 1 – Optimize Pumping to Upper Zones and Add New Elevated Storage

New Elevated Storage for Zone I


Optimize PS feeds

Implement Water

Conservation and

Efficiencies

Figure 3.9 – Strategy 2 – Optimize Pumping to Upper Zones and Downtown South Pressure Zone Re-Alignment


Zone Boundary re-alignment in Downtown South to improve

service levels. Achieved through valving, new tank and new feeds

Modify operation of existing 400 mm feed along

Hardy RoadDecommission Albion St PS

Implement Water

Conservation and

Efficiencies

Figure 3.10 – Strategy 3 – Eliminate Albion PS Feed, New/Modified Northwest Feed & Optimize Storage





Implement Water

Conservation and

Efficiencies

Figure 3.11 – Strategy 4 – Prioritize Albion PS Feed & Optimize Storage


Reinforce feed from Albion to Zone 2/3




July, 2014

Page 33

5.5.1 Servicing Strategy Evaluation

At this stage, each Strategy was subjected to a five-point evaluation, which includes environmental,

technical, socio/cultural, financial, and legal/jurisdictional impacts. Each Strategy was scored based on

the positive and negative aspects identified for each impact category using a rating system of high,

medium and low, where high indicates “more favorable”.

The results of the Servicing Strategy evaluation process is provided in Appendix 3C and is summarized

below.

Table 3.7 – Servicing Strategy Evaluation

Strategy Overall Score

Strategy 1 – Optimize Pumping to Upper Zones and Add New Elevated

Storage

High

Selected as Preferred

Strategy 2 – Optimize Pumping to Upper Zones and Downtown South

Pressure Zone Re-Alignment Medium

Strategy 3 – Eliminate Albion PS Feed, New/Modified Northwest Feed &

Optimize Storage Low

Strategy 4 – Prioritize Albion PS Feed & Optimize Storage Medium



July, 2014

Page 34

6 Preferred Water Servicing Strategy

This section summarizes the preferred Water Servicing Strategy for the City of Brantford to service

projected growth to 2031. In addition, this section includes the capital costing and implementation plan

for the preferred solution.

6.1 Preferred Servicing Strategy

Several separate water servicing components are recommended throughout the City of Brantford that

collectively make up the overall Preferred Strategy. Strategy 1 was determined to be the Preferred

Servicing Strategy from the 5-point evaluation to satisfy growth to 2031. This Strategy consists of

expansion of the existing network into Greenfield growth areas as well as optimization of pumping feeds

into the upper zones as well as the addition of new elevated storage.

Greenfield growth within the 2031 horizon extends along Shellard Lane west of McGuiness Drive. The

Preferred Water Servicing Strategy within this area requires extension of the trunk watermain along

Shellard Lane. In addition, a local network of local watermains along the future road alignments will be

required to support growth in the area.

Greenfield growth will also extend north of Hwy 403 on either side of Oak Park Road. Extension of the

water network into this area, crossing Hwy 403 will service the new growth. Local loop of watermains

within the growth area is also recommended.

The main components that make up the Preferred Servicing Strategy are as follows:

New 5.0 ML Zone 1 Elevated Tank (TWL: 271 m)

New Zone 4 watermains to service Northwest Brantford

New Zone 1 watermains to service Southwest Brantford

Twinning of Zone 2/3 Watermain on King George Rd

Intensification Upgrades (as required under further detailed study)

Holmedale WTP Raw Water Canal Storage Capacity Upgrade

Key benefits of the preferred Water Servicing Strategy include:

Provision of floating storage within Pressure Zone 1, that will improve pressures to existing users

in the Strawberry Hill area and provide additional storage to service future growth

Maximizing use of existing feeds to Pressure Zone 2/3

Extension of existing servicing to future growth areas, in the northwest and southwest parts of the

City

Reinforcing feed on King George Street., which will support future intensification along the

corridor

Setting the stage for future servicing of growth post-2031

The preferred Water Servicing Strategy can be seen in Figure 3.12. Each individual project is listed with

its respective estimated capital cost in Table 3.8.

Figure 3.12 - Preferred Water Servicing Strategy



July, 2014

Page 36

6.2 Capital Program for the Preferred Water Servicing Strategy

As described in the previous sections and depicted in Figure 3.9, the Preferred Water Servicing Strategy

has been developed to satisfy the existing and growth areas within Brantford to 2031. The capital costs

for each project within the Preferred Strategy were developed according to the costing methodology

presented in Section 2.3. These projects are listed according to their project number and are shown in

Table 3.8. Included in the Water Capital Program, is the project description, proposed timing, sizing, and

estimated total project cost. Further timing and implementation details are shown in Section 6.3.

BRANTFORD MASTER SERVICING PLAN Manually Entered in Capital Program Table

Lookup in Project Detail Sheet

Table 3.8 Preferred Water Servicing Strategy Capital Program DC Compone

Project

Number Project Name Project Description Year In Service Class EA Schedule Project Type Size/ Capacity Length (m)

Total Project Cost

(2014$)

1 North West Brantford Watermain 1New 400 mm watermain from existing 750 mm watermain stub on Fen Ridge Ct north aproximately 1,100 m on easement,

Hwy 403 crossing and future road alignment (shared easement with wastewater project WW-9)2021-2026 A+ WDM 400 mm 1100 m $3,170,000

2 North West Brantford Watermain 2New 300 mm watermain along future east west road connecting to future watermain projects W-1 and W-3 on new road

alignments 2026-2031 A+ WDM 300 mm 992 m $1,586,000

3 North West Brantford Watermain 3New 300 mm watermain along new road alignment connecting to future 300 mm watermain projects W-2 and W-10 on new

road alignments 2026-2031 A+ WDM 300 mm 635 m $1,033,000

4 West of Conklin Watermain 4New 300 mm watermain along future road north of Shellard Lane conecting to new 400 mm watermain W-7 to the east and

W-7 to the west south of Shellard Lane2021-2026 A+ WDM 300 mm 1678 m $3,128,000

5 West of Conklin Watermain 5New 300 mm watermain along future road south of Shellard Lane from the new 400 mm watermain W-7 to existing 300 mm

watermain on Powell Rd 2016-2021 A+ WDM 300 mm 2112 m $3,789,000

6 West of Conklin Watermain 6New 300 mm watermain along future road south of Shellard Lane connecting to new 400 mm watermain W-7, 300 mm

watermain W-5 and connecting to existing 300 mm watermain on Blackburn Dr. 2016-2021 A+ WDM 300 mm 1138 m $2,054,000

7 West of Conklin Watermain 7New 400 mm watermain west along Shellard Lane from existing 400 mm watermain, south on future road connecting to new

300 mm watermain W-6, west on future road connecting to new 300 mm watermain W-5.2014-2016 A+ WDM 400 mm 1604 m $3,310,000

8 King George Rd Watermain New 300 mm watermain along King George Rd from Dunsdon St to Powerline Rd. 2026-2031 A+ WDM 300 mm 1531 m $3,530,000

9 Elevated Storage Tank Elevated Storage Tank in PD1 located in the vicinity of the John Noble Home site 2016-2021 B (Separate) WS 5 ML 0 m $7,319,000

10 North West Brantford Watermain 10New 300 mm watermain along new road alignments from future 400 mm watermain W-1 to future 300 mm watermain W-3

on new road alignments2021-2026 A+ WDM 300 mm 1493 m $2,865,000

11 North West Brantford Watermain 11New 300 mm watermain from existing 400 mm watermain on Savannah Oak Dr. north on future easement including Hwy

403 crossing and connecting to new 300 mm watermain W-102026-2031 A+ WDM 300 mm 741 m $2,405,000

12 General Intensification Upgrades Lump Sum cost for pipe upgrades within intensification areas (Approx 2,000 m of 300mm at urban construction costs) 2014-2031 A+ WDM 300 mm 2000 m $5,598,000

13 Holmedale WTP Raw Water Canal UpgradesUpgrades to existing Holmedale Canal to expand its capacity from 16 ML to 74 ML providing security of supply and

emergency2016-2021 A+ WDM 58 ML $5,598,000

$45,385,000



July, 2014

Page 38

6.3 Implementation & Class EA Requirements

As outlined in Volume II of the Master Plan, this Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Master Servicing

Plan sets out to satisfy the EA Approach II requirements according to the MEA Class EA document.

The Preferred Water Servicing Strategy will support the servicing needs of the City of Brantford’s

Greenfield and urban growth to 2031. This Strategy will be implemented in accordance with each

projects Class EA schedule. The Class EA requirements for each project have been identified in the

Capital Program Table 3.8. Schedule A and A+ projects may move forward to design and construction,

with A+ projects requiring public notification prior to implementation. A separate Class EA for the

proposed Elevated Tank (Schedule B) is currently underway and will proceed to implementation upon

Schedule B completion. The Preferred Water Strategy does not identify any other Schedule B or

Schedule C projects.

During the next steps of the implementation program, primarily during detailed design of the projects, the

following requirements will be considered:

Finalization of property requirements

Refinement of infrastructure alignment

Identification of preferred construction methodologies

Completion of additional supporting investigations as required (geotechnical, hydrogeological, etc)

Review and mitigation of potential construction related impacts

Satisfying of all provincial, municipal and conservation authority approval requirements

Based on the consultation undertaken with the review agencies during the Master Plan process, it is

recommended that all key projects undertake a pre-design consultation with the applicable review

agencies. This early consultation prior to the detailed design will ensure sufficient technical and

environmental information is available to support the preferred design and that the project scope is well

understood. Ultimately this process will facilitate project approvals moving forward.

With respect to City planning and budgeting, these program will be utilized as high level baseline

estimates for the City capital budgets. These costs will be further developed and refined during the

implementation phases as more detailed information becomes available. For example, effort has been

given during the Master Servicing Plan analyses to identify potential impacts related to the natural

environment such as environmental features and endangered species. Despite these efforts, there is

potential that additional project requirements, costs and implementation time may be required to obtain

approvals and mitigate the impacts.

Given the growth-related nature of the servicing strategies, the capital programs form the foundation for

the water, wastewater and stormwater components of the City of Brantford Development Charges (DC)

By-Law.

The anticipated timing of each project within the Preferred Strategy has been established based on the

projected population and employment growth within the City of Brantford. The water program’s project

scheduling has also been cross referenced with water program to ensure project coordination along

common alignments. The project timing has been broken down according to the anticipated duration of



July, 2014

Page 39

the design and construction of the projects. This implementation schedule for the program is shown in

Table 3.9.

In addition to the coordination of water and wastewater timing, other opportunities to coordinate the

Master Servicing Plan projects were investigated to potentially achieve cost savings and efficiencies.

The Preferred Water Servicing Strategy, Wastewater Servicing Strategy (Volume IV) and Transportation

Master Plan Preferred Strategies were overlaid to determine the opportunities to coordinate works along

common alignments.

Additionally, the City of Brantford updates its Water, Sewer and Road asset condition ratings on an

annual basis. As part of the Master Servicing Plan, the aggregated condition of the three assets were

compiled and analyzed to determine priority alignments for State of Good Repair works. As

intensification growth occurs within the City, and infrastructure upgrades are required based on capacity

needs, this State of Good Repair coordination analysis will provide a baseline condition reference for

coordination of upgrades. On a go forward basis, there will be opportunity to align growth-related and

State of Good Repair Projects.

BRANTFORD MASTER SERVICING PLAN STUDY

DESIGN

Table 3.9 -Capital Program Scheduling and Implementation CONSTRUCTION

Project

Number Project Name Project Description

1 North West Brantford Watermain 1

New 400 mm watermain from existing 750 mm watermain stub on Fen Ridge Ct north aproximately 1,100 m on easement, Hwy 403 crossing and future road alignment (shared easement with

wastewater project WW-9)

2 North West Brantford Watermain 2New 300 mm watermain along future east west road connecting to future watermain projects W-1 and W-3 on new road alignments

3 North West Brantford Watermain 3New 300 mm watermain along new road alignment connecting to future 300 mm watermain projects W-2 and W-10 on new road alignments

4 West of Conklin Watermain 4New 300 mm watermain along future road north of Shellard Lane conecting to new 400 mm watermain W-7 to the east and W-7 to the west south of Shellard Lane

5 West of Conklin Watermain 5New 300 mm watermain along future road south of Shellard Lane from the new 400 mm watermain W-7 to existing 300 mm watermain on Powell Rd

6 West of Conklin Watermain 6New 300 mm watermain along future road south of Shellard Lane connecting to new 400 mm watermain W-7, 300 mm watermain W-5

and connecting to existing 300 mm watermain on Blackburn Dr.

7 West of Conklin Watermain 7

New 400 mm watermain west along Shellard Lane from existing 400

mm watermain, south on future road connecting to new 300 mm

watermain W-6, west on future road connecting to new 300 mm

watermain W-5.

8 King George Rd WatermainNew 300 mm watermain along King George Rd from Dunsdon St to

Powerline Rd.

9 Elevated Storage TankElevated Storage Tank in PD1 located in the vicinity of the John

Noble Home site


New 300 mm watermain along new road alignments from future 400

mm watermain W-1 to future 300 mm watermain W-3 on new road

alignments


New 300 mm watermain from existing 400 mm watermain on

Savannah Oak Dr. north on future easement including Hwy 403

crossing and connecting to new 300 mm watermain W-10

12 General Intensification UpgradesLump Sum cost for pipe upgrades within intensification areas

(Approx 2,000 m of 300mm at urban construction costs)

13 Holmedale WTP Raw Water Canal UpgradesUpgrades to existing Holmedale Canal to expand its capacity from

16 ML to 74 ML providing security of supply and emergency

2030 20312014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2029

IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM - SCHEDULE

2026 2027 2028



July, 2014

Page 41

7 Post-2031 Vision

The 2014 Master Servicing Plan has put forward a comprehensive water servicing strategy to service

growth within the City of Brantford to the approved Places to Grow 2031 forecast. While the approved

urban boundary and growth targets are to 2031, the Master Servicing Plan also considered implications of

potential post-2031 growth on the system. Post-2031 growth is anticipated to occur within both

Intensification and Greenfield Areas.

The Preferred Water Servicing Strategy addresses the growth needs to 2031, and also establishes

flexibility within the system to implement a post-2031 strategy, once the long-term targets are confirmed

and approved.

The majority of the water and wastewater infrastructure extensions have occurred towards the north and

west, following the residential and employment growth within the City of Brantford. Throughout this

growth, the City of Brantford has incorporated some minor strategic oversizing of trunk infrastructure to

support development beyond existing growth horizons. Though 2031 is the planning horizon for this

Master Servicing Plan, there is an expectation that there could be post-2031 growth extending further into

Greenfield areas outside of the current urban boundary.

In developing the Preferred Water Servicing Strategy and recommending specific capital projects, this

Master Servicing Plan has considered the long-term Greenfield growth that could occur and ensured that

flexibility is built into the program.

Based on information available at this time, the potential post-2031 period considerations are depicted on

the following Figure 3.13.

#

#

#"

$

#

WayneGretzky PSand Res

North WestPS and Res

Tollgate RdPS and Res King George

Rd El Tank

HolmedaleWTP

AlbionSt PS

EXISTING WATER INFRASTRUCTURE" Elevated Tank# PS & Reservoir$ Water Treatment Plant

<250>= 250

PRESSURE ZONESPressure Zone 1Pressure Zone 2/3Pressure Zone 4Municipal BoundaryRiversSix Nations of the Grand River TerritoryWater_Post 2031 Vision


Figure 3.13 - Potential Post Period Considerations

July 20141:44,000 | UTM83-17n

Appendix 3A - Water Demand Projections

BRANTFORD MASTER SERVICING PLAN

Water Demand Projections

Avg day (lpcd)

Max Day

Factor

Peak Hour

FactorResidential 300 2 3Employment 300

Pressure Zone 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 Pressure Zone 2011* 2016 2021 2026 20311 32,614 36,101 41,757 46,958 52,860 1 20,542 21,224 22,831 24,062 25,0942 44,766 45,155 46,486 47,235 47,722 2 14,391 14,778 15,104 15,410 15,6013 12,016 12,713 13,995 15,159 16,195 3 9,415 9,856 11,371 11,727 11,8334 4,254 4,256 4,486 4,487 4,487 4 2,544 2,725 2,744 5,483 7,151

Total 93,650 98,225 106,723 113,839 121,264 Total 46,892 48,582 52,049 56,682 59,678* Forecast

Population Growth Population Growth

Pressure Zone 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 Pressure Zone 2011 2016 2021 2026 20311 0.35 3,487 9,143 14,344 20,246 1 0.44 682 2,289 3,520 4,5522 0.48 389 1,720 2,469 2,956 2 0.31 387 713 1,019 1,210 5.384102098 16.89143521 24.21909917 28.9325573 0.13 697 1,979 3,143 4,179 3 0.20 441 1,956 2,312 2,418 5.38 16.89 24.22 28.934 0.05 2 232 233 233 4 0.05 181 200 2,939 4,607 5.38 16.89 24.22 28.93

Total 4,575 13,073 20,189 27,614 Total 1,690 5,157 9,790 12,786

Water Demand Calculation

Pressure Zone 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 Pressure Zone 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 Pressure Zone 2011 2016 2021 2026 20311 7,450 8,497 10,193 11,754 13,524 1 5,623 5,828 6,310 6,679 6,989 1 13,074 14,324 16,503 18,433 20,5132 10,227 10,343 10,742 10,967 11,113 2 3,939 4,055 4,153 4,245 4,302 2 14,166 14,399 14,896 15,212 15,4163 2,745 2,954 3,339 3,688 3,999 3 2,577 2,710 3,164 3,271 3,303 3 5,322 5,664 6,503 6,959 7,3014 972 972 1,041 1,042 1,042 4 696 751 756 1,578 2,078 4 1,668 1,723 1,798 2,620 3,120

Total 21,394 22,766 25,316 27,450 29,678 Total 12,836 13,343 14,383 15,773 16,672 Total 34,230 36,110 39,699 43,224 46,350

Pressure Zone 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 Pressure Zone 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 Pressure Zone 2011 2016 2021 2026 20311 11,598 13,690 17,084 20,205 23,746 1 8,754 9,163 10,127 10,866 11,485 1 20,352 22,853 27,211 31,070 35,2312 15,920 16,153 16,951 17,401 17,694 2 6,132 6,364 6,560 6,744 6,858 2 22,052 22,517 23,512 24,145 24,5523 4,273 4,692 5,460 6,159 6,781 3 4,012 4,277 5,186 5,399 5,463 3 8,285 8,968 10,646 11,558 12,2434 1,513 1,514 1,652 1,653 1,653 4 1,084 1,193 1,204 2,847 3,848 4 2,597 2,706 2,856 4,500 5,501


Pressure Zone 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 Pressure Zone 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 Pressure Zone 2011 2016 2021 2026 20311 22,351 25,490 30,580 35,261 40,573 1 16,870 17,483 18,929 20,038 20,966 1 39,221 42,973 49,509 55,299 61,5392 30,680 31,029 32,227 32,901 33,340 2 11,818 12,166 12,460 12,735 12,907 2 42,498 43,196 44,687 45,637 46,2473 8,235 8,863 10,016 11,063 11,996 3 7,732 8,129 9,492 9,812 9,908 3 15,967 16,991 19,508 20,876 21,9044 2,915 2,917 3,124 3,125 3,125 4 2,089 2,252 2,269 4,734 6,235 4 5,005 5,169 5,394 7,860 9,360


Pressure Zone 2011 2016 2021 2026 20311 235.6 264.5 314.9 359.6 407.82 255.2 260.6 272.1 279.5 284.23 95.9 103.8 123.2 133.8 141.74 30.1 31.3 33.1 52.1 63.7

Total 616.7 660.2 743.3 824.9 897.3

Total Water Demands

Average Day Demands (m3/d) Average Day Demands (m3/d) Average Day Demands (m3/d)

Maximum Day Demands (L/s)

Maximum Day Demands (m3/d)

Peak Hour Demands (m3/d) Peak Hour Demands (m3/d) Peak Hour Demands (m3/d)

Population Projections Employment Projections

Water Design Criteria

Maximum Day Demands (m3/d) Maximum Day Demands (m3/d)

Residental Demands Employment Demands

for Water, Sanitary and Stormwater Services2014 Master Servicing Plan (MSP)

ordCity of Brantf

Appendix 3B - Historical Water Demand

BRANTFORD MASTER SERVICING PLAN

Historical Water Demand

Monthly Average Max Day Total Monthly Monthly Average Max Day Total Monthly

Date Supply in ML/D Supply in ML/D Supply in ML/D Date Supply in ML/D Supply in ML/D Supply in ML/D

Jan-08 32.03 33.39 992.83 Jan-09 32.32 36.20 1001.92

Feb-08 31.66 33.41 918.05 Feb-09 31.72 34.22 888.21

Mar-08 31.87 34.00 988.04 Mar-09 31.19 35.19 967.00

Apr-08 33.13 36.98 993.87 Apr-09 31.63 35.93 948.83

May-08 34.65 39.59 1074.06 May-09 34.61 41.81 1072.83

Jun-08 36.51 42.81 1095.23 Jun-09 37.79 47.98 1133.57

Jul-08 42.08 53.54 1304.59 Jul-09 36.54 44.78 1132.75

Aug-08 36.22 39.73 1122.93 Aug-09 35.31 40.39 1094.48

Sep-08 36.28 41.81 1088.51 Sep-09 35.63 39.10 1068.93

Oct-08 33.16 35.91 1027.83 Oct-09 31.84 34.75 987.06

Nov-08 31.67 35.65 950.09 Nov-09 30.50 33.87 915.02

Dec-08 31.55 34.24 978.20 Dec-09 30.43 33.27 943.43

Total 410.81 12534.23 Total 399.51 12154.02

Peak Instantaneous Demand 10-Jul 71.14 Peak Instantaneous Demand 17-Jul 74.46



Jan-10 31.77 33.70 984.92 Jan-11 30.20 34.76 936.24

Feb-10 30.91 32.90 865.50 Feb-11 30.47 33.56 944.59

Mar-10 30.46 31.92 944.11 Mar-11 30.48 32.88 944.91

Apr-10 31.31 37.80 939.43 Apr-11 30.01 32.06 930.36

May-10 36.12 48.05 1119.71 May-11 32.59 39.81 1010.14

Jun-10 34.83 38.21 1079.64 Jun-11 37.60 43.56 1165.49

Jul-10 38.55 50.68 1194.97 Jul-11 47.47 57.50 1471.54

Aug-10 38.90 45.79 1167.15 Aug-11 37.64 42.26 1166.80

Sep-10 35.68 43.99 1070.41 Sep-11 34.24 38.02 1061.56

Oct-10 32.33 37.51 1002.19 Oct-11 31.28 35.71 969.67

Nov-10 30.71 36.12 921.34 Nov-11 30.52 51.11 946.12

Dec-10 30.64 36.34 949.69 Dec-11 30.46 42.03 944.26

Total 402.21 12239.09 Total 402.96 12491.68

Peak Instantaneous Demand 20-Aug 61.84 Peak Instantaneous Demand 22-Jul 71.74



Jan-12 31.00 37.41 961.19 Jan-13 32.21 38.39 998.57

Feb-12 30.86 33.09 895.11 Feb-13 30.97 33.68 867.16

Mar-12 32.41 34.23 939.90 Mar-13 30.27 32.47 938.31

Apr-12 33.20 36.12 995.91 Apr-13 30.68 35.74 920.42

May-12 40.96 52.71 1269.60 May-13 35.71 47.16 1106.90

Jun-12 42.21 53.56 1266.50 Jun-13 36.37 43.71 1091.00

Jul-12 49.25 56.73 1526.89 Jul-13 37.51 45.88 1162.72

Aug-12 41.54 48.93 1287.95 Aug-13

Sep-12 38.20 45.78 1145.97 Sep-13

Oct-12 34.58 37.18 1071.99 Oct-13

Nov-12 31.63 34.51 885.67 Nov-13

Dec-12 30.82 32.39 984.40 Dec-13

Total 436.66 13231.08 Total 233.72 7085.08

Peak Instantaneous Demand 16-Jul 88.08


ordCity of Brantf

Appendix 3C - Water Evaluation Tables

Water Concepts Evaluation Tables

Brantford Water Concept Evaluation

Concept Number Concept Description Advantages Disadvantages Rating Carried forward/ Screened out

1

Do nothing or limit growth No cost in the short term Existing and future capacities issues not solved

Does not address growth within existing urban boundary

Would limit growth

Does not comply with Places to Grow targets

Low Screened out

2

Water Conservation and Efficiency Maximizes use of existing infrastructure

Potentially no major facility or conveyance upgrades

required

Would reduce demand flow in system, creating savings in

pumping, treatment

Minimize total upgrades needed

Requires implementation of major flow reduction program

High potential not to meet flow reduction targets

Dependent on public and private participation and

commitment

Not considered feasible as a complete solution

Medium Carried Forward

3

Expand existing system

● Optimize pumping station feeds

● Prioritize Albion

● Eliminate Albion

Addresses growth within existing urban boundary

Optimize/maximize use of existing PS and WTP

May trigger linear infrastructure upgrades

May trigger capacity constraints and PS upgradesHigh Carried Forward

4

New zone 2/3 feed from zone 4 Provides security of supply

Provides additional capacity and increases potential to

service growth areas outside existing urban boundary

Utilizes surplus capacity in Zone 4. Helps to reduce current

operational and maintenance issues.

Potentially high capital and construction costs

Most costly water transfer option

Potentially greater impact to the environment Medium Carried Forward

5

New/optimize storage (pumped and

elevated)

Maximizes use of existing infrastructure

Would minimize the need for upgraded infrastructure

Cost effective in the long and short term

Provides security of supply and system operation

Resolves local pressure fluctuation issues.

High capital and construction cost

Unlikely to be able to efficiently solve all constraints

Site acquisitions required for storage facilities; locating

sufficient land supply for required volumes may be difficult

Increases asset stock; New storage facility will incur

additional O&M costs


6

Zone Boundary Realignment Addresses growth within existing urban boundary

Optimize/maximizes use of existing PS and WTP

Moderate cost associated with valve installation

May require high capital cost; construction of new trunk

main

Not considered feasible as a complete solution on its own


7

Inter-Municipal agreements Existing neighboring infrastructure in close proximity to

Brantford service areas

Potential to free-up capacity in Brantford system

Fundamentals of agreement need to be established

Confirmation of available capacity and trunk system impacts

need to be confirmed

Need to enter into Inter-Municipal cost sharing supply

agreements

Low Screened out


2014 Master Servicing Plan (MSP)ordCity of Brantf

Water Strategy Evaluation Tables

Brantford Water Strategy Evaluation

Strategy Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3 Strategy 4

Description

Expand existing system optimizing pumping feeds to upper zones, new storage and implement water conservation and efficiency measures

Expand existing network optimizing pumping feeds to upper zones, pressure zone realignment Downtown South, and implement water conservation and efficiency measures

Expand existing network eliminating the Albion PS feed, new feed to move water through the Northwest, new storage, and implement water conservation and efficiency measures

Expand existing network prioritizing the Albion PS feed, new storage, and implement water conservation and efficiency measures

EnvironmentalFocused infrastructure on existing and future roads, minimizing environmental impacts Focused infrastructure on existing and future roads, minimizing environmental impacts Focused infrastructure on existing and future roads, minimizing environmental impacts Focused infrastructure on existing and future roads, minimizing environmental impacts

Projects do not require crossings of the Grand River. Projects do not require crossings of the Grand River. Projects do not require crossings of the Grand River. Projects do not require crossings of the Grand River.

New watermains in the Northwest (Zone 4) area, to service industrial lands, will require crossing of

Hwy 403 to service lands to the north.







Greater potential for environmental impact during construction of new elevated tank, compared to

Strategy 2

Greater potential for environmental impact during construction of new elevated tank, compared to

Strategy 2

Greater environmental impact due to construction of new elevated tank, compared to Strategy 2

Impact to be mitigated through completion of Class EA procedure subsequent mitigative measures

and construction technique





Sub-Score (1, 2, or 3) 2 3 2 2

TechnicalMaximizes use of existing Albion St PS, Tollgate Rd PS, and Wayne Gretzky PS feeds to Zone 2/3. Maximizes use of existing Albion St PS, Tollgate Rd PS, and Wayne Gretzky PS feeds to Zone 2/3. New feed to move water through the Northwest, to provide supply to Zone 2/3 via PRV, not

considered a sustainable or efficient mode of operation.

Elimination of Albion PS and establish a new primary zone 2/3 feed via existing zone 4 Hardy Road

PRV.

New Hardy Road feed not considered a sustainable or efficient mode of operation. New feed may

cause high pressure issues along Hardy Road and Golf Road area.

Prioritizing the feed from Albion Zone 2 PS feed could provide increased supply to the King George

St. However, there is limited benefit to other areas of the water distribution system.

There is currently no floating storage provided within Zone 1. The introduction of a new elevated

tank (TWL = 271 m) to service Zone 1 will improve pressure in the Strawberry Hill area, address

increased storage required due to growth in the west, ensure adequate provision of fire flow, and

balance pressures in the Zone 1 system overall.

Pressure zone re-alignment through pressure reducing valves and increase to existing zone 1 HGL

to improve level of service in Zone 1 (high pressure in low areas and low pressure in Strawberry

Hill). Zone split will be difficult and may require the construction of new trunk mains and/or

modifications to existing mains









Future demands due to growth would require a series of watermain extensions in the northwest and

in the West Conklin development, as well as plans for new watermains in intensification areas where

rehabilitation is already required.











Hwy 403 to service lands to the north. Future looping with Zone 2/3 via PRV in the Northwest will be

required for security of supply










New watermain from Tollgate PS helps improve pressures in the intensified area of Zone 2/3. New

feed on King George St. will improve pressures along the intensification corridor.





West Conklin Development will require extension of existing watermain and watermain looping, via

Shellard Lane extension.







Maximizes use of existing pumping capacity at Water Treatment Plant Zone 1. Maximizes use of existing pumping capacity at Water Treatment Plant Zone 1. Maximizes use of existing pumping capacity at Water Treatment Plant Zone 1.

Sub-Score (1, 2, or 3) 3 1 2 2

Socio / CulturalStrategy balances conveyance solutions with storage. Strategy balances conveyance solutions with storage. Strategy balances conveyance solutions with storage.

As new infrastructure will be constructed within built-up areas, there is some potential for

impact/disruption to residents and local traffic.

As new infrastructure will be constructed within built-up areas, there is some potential for

impact/disruption to residents and local traffic.

Class EA Feasibility Study for a storage tank is currently underway. Preliminary preferred site was

identified at the John Noble Home site (Mt Pleasant St and Veterans Memorial Pkwy).





Construction could cause temporary traffic disruption to (Mt Pleasant St and Veterans Memorial

Pkwy).


Pkwy).


Pkwy).

Potential for perceived visual impact caused by elevated tank, to neighbouring community and Home

for the Aged. This is being addressed through the public consultation process as part of the Class

EA Feasibility Study.







Potential to cause high pressure issues along Hardy Road and Golf Road area.

Sub-Score (1, 2, or 3) 2 3 2 2

Financial Strategy 1 and 4 have approximately equivalent cost Highest cost option due to pressure zone modifications Mid cost option Strategy 1 and 4 have approximately equivalent cost

Total cost lower than strategies 2 and 3 Total cost lower than strategies 2 and 3

Sub-Score (1, 2, or 3) 3 1 2 3

Legal / Jurisdictional Will require land acquisition for new elevated tank. Will not require land acquisitions. Will require land acquisition for new elevated tank. Will require land acquisition for new elevated tank.

Permitting required from the Ministry of Transportation for the Hwy 403 watermain crossing(s). Permitting required from the Ministry of Transportation for the Hwy 403 watermain crossing(s). Permitting required from the Ministry of Transportation for the Hwy 403 watermain crossing(s). Permitting required from the Ministry of Transportation for the Hwy 403 watermain crossing(s).

Sub-Score (1, 2, or 3) 2 3 2 2

Total Score 12 11 10 11

Overall Score High Medium Low Medium


ordCity of Brantf

Appendix 3D - Unit Costs

CITY OF BRANTFORD MASTER SERVICING PLAN

WATER LINEAR UNIT RATES Valves Trenchless Crossings, all include a valve at each side of crossing

For Creeks & Trans Canada For Regional Roads, Rail and Hydro Corridors For Freeways, Major Creek Crossings Trenchless Rates

Inflation 0.00% Inflation 0% Length = 20 Length= 60 Length= 150 Inflation 0%Pipe

Diameter

(mm)

#REF!

Cost 2013$

Diameter (mm)

Cost 2012$ Cost 2013$

Diameter

(mm)Cost 2013$

Diameter

(mm)Cost 2013$

Diameter

(mm)Cost 2013$

Diameter

(mm) Cost 2012$

Unit Rate

2013$

250 $916 $916 250 27,703 $27,703 250 $140,130 250 $308,610 250 $688,500 250 4,220 4,220

300 $1,018 $1,018 300 30,781 $30,781 300 $155,700 300 $342,900 300 $765,000 300 4,689 4,689

400 $1,131 $1,131 400 34,201 $34,201 400 $173,000 400 $381,000 400 $850,000 400 5,210 5,210

450 $1,260 $1,260 450 36,565 $36,565 450 $185,000 450 $408,000 450 $911,000 450 5,588 5,588

500 $1,434 $1,434 500 41,746 $41,746 500 $203,000 500 $442,000 500 $979,000 500 5,967 5,967

600 $1,584 $1,584 600 54,320 $54,320 600 $243,000 600 $512,000 600 $1,117,000 600 6,725 6,725

750 $1,835 $1,835 750 75,595 $75,595 750 $308,000 750 $623,000 750 $1,330,000 750 7,861 7,861

900 $2,176 $2,176 900 80,675 $80,675 900 $341,000 900 $701,000 900 $1,511,000 900 8,997 8,997

1050 $2,548 $2,548 1050 107,935 $107,935 1050 $419,000 1050 $824,000 1050 $1,736,000 1050 10,134 10,134

1200 $3,961 $3,961 1200 138,012 $138,012 1200 $501,000 1200 $952,000 1200 $1,967,000 1200 11,270 11,270

1350 $4,500 $4,500 1350 161,148 $161,148 1350 $570,000 1350 $1,067,000 1350 $2,183,000 1350 12,406 12,406

1500 $5,383 $5,383 1500 195,550 $195,550 1500 $662,000 1500 $1,204,000 1500 $2,422,000 1500 13,543 13,543

1650 $6,034 $6,034 1650 223,816 $223,816 1650 $741,000 1650 $1,328,000 1650 $2,649,000 1650 14,679 14,679

1800 $7,083 $7,083 1800 282,059 $282,059 1800 $880,000 1800 $1,513,000 1800 $2,936,000 1800 15,815 15,815

2100 $7,715 $7,715 2100 327,728 $327,728 2100 $1,017,000 2100 $1,741,000 2100 $3,369,000 2100 18,088 18,088

2400 $8,191 $8,191 2400 373,396 $373,396 2400 $1,154,000 2400 $1,968,000 2400 $3,801,000 2400 20,360 20,360

Valve Spacing

Diameter (mm)Valve Spacing

(m)

150 300200 300250 300300 300400 300450 600500 600600 600750 600900 6001050 600

1200 2000

1350 2000

1500 2000

1650 2000

1800 2000

2100 2000

2400 20001 Taken from MOE maximum spacing


2014 Master Servicing Plan (MSP)ordCity of Brantf

Appendix 3 E - Preliminary Water Model Results

FMs & SiphonsFMSiphon

Pipe d/D< 0.5 d/D0.5 - 0.75 d/D0.75 - 0.85 d/D0.85 - 1.0 d/D> 1.0 d/DMunicipal BoundaryRivers


Preliminary Wastewater Model Results2011 PDWF

July 20141:44,000 | UTM83-17n

snaime

Textbox

Preliminary Model results based on 2011/2031 flow/demand conditions without MSP upgrades.




Preliminary Wastewater Model Results2011 PWWF

July 20141:44,000 | UTM83-17n

snaime

Textbox





Preliminary Wastewater Model Results2031 PDWF

July 20141:44,000 | UTM83-17n

snaime

Textbox





Preliminary Wastewater Model Results2031 PWWF

July 20141:44,000 | UTM83-17n

snaime

Textbox


city of brantford 2014 master servicing plan (msp) for water, … · 2019. 2. 10. · city of...

Documents