city of guelph water - wastewater servicing master...

City of GuelphWater - Wastewater Servicing Master Plan

Public Meeting #1Presentation

Wednesday March 5th, 2008

Water –

Wastewater

Servicing

Master Plan

Public Meeting #1

March 5 th, 2008

2

Welcome/Introduction

� Opening Remarks

Water –

Wastewater

Servicing

Master Plan

Public Meeting #1

March 5 th, 2008

3

Municipal Act

City to Meet Servicing Requirements

Official Plan

• Population Projections

• Land Use/Community Development

Planning Act

City to Meet Available Land Requirements

Infrastructure Master Plans

• Water Distribution / Storage & Wastewater Conveyance (2008 ) *

•Water Supply (2006)

• Wastewater Treatment (2008)

• Transportation

• Others

Ontario Places To Grow Plan

Local Growth Management

Strategy

• Implementation

• Monitoring

• Adjustment as required

City of Guelph Master Plan Studies

* Project web link:guelph.ca > living > planning&building > master plans > click on the Presentations PDF

Water –

Wastewater

Servicing

Master Plan

Public Meeting #1

March 5 th, 2008

4

Agenda

4) EA – Evaluation and Outputs

5) Recommended Alternatives

6) Next Steps

A question and answer period will follow the presentation8:00 pm

Adjourn9:00 pm

Open House – Registration

Opportunity for participants to view displays and meet informally with City staff and Consultant Project Team members

7:00 pm

3) Wastewater Conveyance SystemExisting SystemNeedsAlternatives

2) Water Distribution / Storage SystemExisting SystemNeedsAlternatives

1) Overview of Master Plan and Class EA Process

Introduction to the Water Wastewater Servicing Mast er Plan Study7:30 pm

DESCRIPTIONTIME

Welcome and Opening Remarks – Don Kudo, City of Guel ph7:20 pm

Water –

Wastewater

Servicing

Master Plan

Public Meeting #1

March 5 th, 2008

5

Purpose of Today’s Meeting

� To re-introduce the City of Guelph Water Distribution/ Storage and Wastewater Conveyance Master Plan project to the public and stakeholders.

�Class EA Phase 1 Purpose Statement – confirms project need and that improvements are required to meet current and future growth.

�Class EA Phase 2 Alternative Solutions – identifies alternatives for water distribution and wastewater conveyance systems, evaluates them and recommends preferred solutions.

� To seek stakeholder feedback on alternatives, evaluation outputs and preferred alternative solutions.

Water –

Wastewater

Servicing

Master Plan

Public Meeting #1

March 5 th, 2008

6

Master Planning Process

Water –

Wastewater

Servicing

Master Plan

Public Meeting #1

March 5 th, 2008

7

� Master Plans are broad in scope and outline a framework for the provision of future works.

Master Planning Process

� Specific projects recommended in a Master Plan are part of a larger management system and may be distributed geographically throughout the study area.

� A Class EA Master Plan satisfy Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA process (for the most part).

� A Master Plan defines a “suite” of projects required to implement the plan over the planning period. The listing will include:

• Project description/location

• Phasing-implementation schedule (triggers)

• Recommended Class EA Planning Schedule (i.e. Schedule B or Schedule C or Individual EA).

Water –

Wastewater

Servicing

Master Plan

Public Meeting #1

March 5 th, 2008

8

Purpose Statement

The goal of this Master Plan Study is to identify strategies that will optimize existing systems and increase capacities of the City ofGuelph’s existing water distribution and wastewater conveyance systems to provide servicing into the future. The strategies are to ensure that:

• an adequate amount of water can be provided in a safe, reliable and cost-effective manner to satisfy current and long-term requirements

• wastewater can be conveyed in a safe, reliable and cost-effective manner to satisfy capacity requirements for treatment at the City’s wastewater treatment plant

The study will have regard for established sustainability and environmental planning principles that properly consider potential impacts to sensitive land uses such as the natural environment and agriculture in the City of Guelph. Furthermore, the study will define and factor in the role of water conservation/efficiency including decrease in water losses and inflow/infiltration reduction measures, and innovative technologies which can extend the life of existing infrastructure along with future water storage/distribution and/or wastewater conveyance systems.

Water –

Wastewater

Servicing

Master Plan

Public Meeting #1

March 5 th, 2008

9

Evaluation Criteria/ Process

Water –

Wastewater

Servicing

Master Plan

Public Meeting #1

March 5 th, 2008

10

Evaluation Criteria

� Public Health & Safety

� Natural Environment Considerations

� Social/Cultural Considerations

� Economic/Financial Considerations

� Legal/Jurisdictional Considerations

� Technical Considerations

Water –

Wastewater

Servicing

Master Plan

Public Meeting #1

March 5 th, 2008

11

Use of Descriptive Information and

Qualitative Evaluation Process

� Assessment of each water and wastewater servicing alternative completed based on evaluation criteria and process.

� Evaluation is not based on a numerical ranking or weighting system.

� The evaluation is based on a descriptive or qualitative evaluation that considers the suitability of alternative solutions/strategies based on advantages and disadvantages.

� Mitigate disadvantages to address a higher priority consideration.

� Comparisons and trade-offs are made between alternatives to form rationale for the identification of a preferred solution.

High (Least Preferred)

Moderate to High

LEGEND Lowest Impact(Most Preferred)

Low to Moderate

Moderate50 %

75 %

25 %

50 %

75 %

50 %

75 %

50 %

75 %

Water –

Wastewater

Servicing

Master Plan

Public Meeting #1

March 5 th, 2008

12

Identification of Alternative Solutions: Water Distribution / Storage System

• Continue to develop water conservation strategy

• Reduce water losses

• Reduce water use

C. Water Conservation/ Demand Management

• Alt Solution 1. –Zone 1 (south) - Split in existing PZ 1 to create new pressure zone 1b (south of Kortright Rd); –New Zone 3 (south of Clair Rd)–Improvements to Zone 2 (north of Speedvale) –transmission/ supply/ storage/ pumping

• Alt Solution 2. –New Zone 1 (south) elevated tank – centrally located; decommission existing tanks (Verney & Clair)–New Zone 3 (south of Clair Rd)–Improvements to Zone 2 (north of Speedvale) –transmission/ supply/ storage/ pumping

• Alt Solution 3. –Zone 1 (south) – change to Closed System; decommission elevated tanks; increase storage and pumping capacity at Woods –New Zone 3 (south of Clair Rd)–Improvements to Zone 2 (north of Speedvale) –transmission/ supply/ storage/ pumping

D. Improvements to Existing System: New Facilities and Watermains

• Reduce future water storage and distribution needs by limiting the extent, density, type and/or location of future residential, industrial, commercial and institution al growth in the City.

B. Limit Community Growth

• The “Do Nothing” alternative represents what would l ikely occur if none of the alternative solutions were imp lemented.

A. Do Nothing: Status quo

DescriptionAlternative

Water –

Wastewater

Servicing

Master Plan

Public Meeting #1

March 5 th, 2008

13

Identification of Alternative Solutions: Wastewater Conveyance System

• Alt Solution 1. - Replace main trunk sewers (with storage options)

• Alt Solution 2. - Interceptor: Consolidate main tru nk sewers to York Trunk (with storage options)

• Alt Solution 3. - Interceptor: Consolidate main tru nk sewers to Speed River Trunk (with storage options)

D. Improvements to Existing System: New Trunk Sewers

• Implement reuse of grey water and implement inflow/infiltration reduction options.

C. I/I Reduction and Re-Use Alternatives

• Alt Solution 4. - New main Pumping Station from Yor k Trunk with Forcemain to WWTP

E. Improvements to Existing System: Pumping Station & Forcemain

• Reduce future sanitary collection system needs by l imiting the extent, density, type and/or location of future residential,industrial, commercial and institutional growth in the City.


• The “Do Nothing” alternative represents what would l ikely occur if none of the alternative solutions were imp lemented.

A. Do Nothing: Status quo

DescriptionAlternative

Water –

Wastewater

Servicing

Master Plan

Public Meeting #1

March 5 th, 2008

14

Water Distribution/Storage Alternatives

Water –

Wastewater

Servicing

Master Plan

Public Meeting #1

March 5 th, 2008

15

Existing Water Distribution/Storage System

• Two pressures zones – open systems (pressures moderated by elevated tanks in each zone)

• Storage:– Zone 1 (south) – Woods Reservoirs (3), University Reservoir, Verney

ET, Clair ET– Zone 2 (north) – Paisley Reservoir, Speedvale ET

• Based on several groundwater supply locations – located throughout City with main supply via Woods Reservoir/ Pumping Station

• Deficiencies in existing system: – Zone 1 – need to improve north-south transmission; difficulty operating

with two elevated tanks in one zone– Pipes in older areas of the City have poor conveyance characteristics– Zone 2 – need to improve east-west transmission

Water –

Wastewater

Servicing

Master Plan

Public Meeting #1

March 5 th, 2008

16

Existing Water Distribution System

Water –

Wastewater

Servicing

Master Plan

Public Meeting #1

March 5 th, 2008

17

Water Alternative Solution 1• Zone 1 (south) – split into two zones

– Split into two zones 1a and 1b (at Kortright Rd) each with elevated tanks: Verney in 1a & Clair in 1b

– Reinforce existing mains in City core– New Booster Pumping Station – PZ1a-PZ1b– New E-W and N-S transmission mains

• Zone 2 (north) – distribution system improvements– Increase in E-W transmission– New supplies/storage

• Zone 3 (south of Clair Rd) – new zone (open or closed)– New storage (in-ground or elevated)– New Booster Pumping Station – PZ1b-PZ3

Water –

Wastewater

Servicing

Master Plan

Public Meeting #1

March 5 th, 2008

18

Water Alternative Solution 1

Water –

Wastewater

Servicing

Master Plan

Public Meeting #1

March 5 th, 2008

19

Water Alternative Solution 2• Zone 1 (south) – maintain one zone with new elevated

tank, centrally located– Reinforce existing mains in City core to upgrade existing and

meet intensification requirements – New storage facility – elevated tank for open system– Decommission Verney & Clair ETs– New E-W and N-S transmission mains to service northward and

southward from new tank


• Zone 3 (south of Clair Rd) – new zone (open or closed)– New storage (in-ground or elevated)– New Booster Pumping Station – PZ1-PZ3

Water –

Wastewater

Servicing

Master Plan

Public Meeting #1

March 5 th, 2008

20


Water –

Wastewater

Servicing

Master Plan

Public Meeting #1

March 5 th, 2008

21


• Zone 1 (south) – convert to closed system– Reinforce existing mains in City core– Decommission elevated tanks (Verney & Clair) – New in-ground storage and pumping facilities through zone– Upgrades at Woods PS to provide peak and fire supply

pumping– New E-W and N-S transmission improvements through zone


• Zone 3 (south of Clair Rd) – new zone (open or closed)– New storage (in-ground or elevated)– New Booster Pumping Station – PZ1b-PZ3

Water –

Wastewater

Servicing

Master Plan

Public Meeting #1

March 5 th, 2008

22


Water –

Wastewater

Servicing

Master Plan

Public Meeting #1

March 5 th, 2008

23

Evaluation Output Summary: Water

"Do Nothing" Limit Community Growth

Public Health and Safety

Cannot meet water security needs in long term. Ongoing impacts; problem areas with respect to system pressures and fireflows in south end

Does not address existing system deficiencies



Existing and long term requirements can be metAdditional zone to maintain Zone split may result in increased dead-ends/increased flushing requirements (water quality issues)

Existing and long term requirements can be metMaintain as single zone easiest to operate and maintain emergency response

Can meet long term requirements System more difficult to operate to meet emergency requirements

Natural Environment

Does not address City adopted growth strategy

Counter to adopted growth strategy.

Impact from intensification results in reduced servicing to City core.

Low impact to natural environment. Low impact, non-invasive for added short term supply.

Preferred alternative.

Low to moderate impacts from new transmission pipes through utility corridors/existing roadways. Need for land for booster pumping stations and reservoirs.

Meets growth needs for long term.

Moderate impacts from new elevated tank in central Zone 1 location; new transmission pipes - number of water crossings to service zone 1. Need for land for booster pumping station and reservoir for Zone 3.

Meets growth needs for long term.

Moderate to high impacts from new in-ground reservoir and expanded central pumping station in Zone 1; new transmission pipes - number of water crossings to service zone 1. Need for land for booster pumping station and reservoir for Zone 3.

High energy use/emissions due to pumping to meet all system requirements

Social/Cultural

Cannot meet growth objectives, triple bottom line

Social cost high, benefit low

Physical impact low due to inaction

Cannot meet growth objectives, triple bottom line

Social cost high, benefit low

Physical impact low due to inaction

Partly meets growth objectives.Meets triple bottom line with low benefit potential.

Social cost high, benefit very low.

Low physical impacts

Partly meets growth objectives, preferred for short term. Meets triple bottom line with low benefit potential

Social cost high, benefit very low.

Low physical impacts

Preferred alternative.Meets growth requirements over mid to long termMeets triple bottom line with moderate impacts.

Moderate social cost/impact.

Physical impact due to new facilities

Meets growth requirements over long termMeets triple bottom line with moderate impacts.

Moderate social cost/impact.

Social impact due to new elevated tank in zone 1

Meets growth requirements over long termMeets triple bottom line with moderate impacts.

Moderate to high social cost/impact.

Economic/Financial

Moderate capital, operational, lifecycle cost due to inaction.

Likelihood of emergency response to impact infrastructure cost/user rates.

Low capital, operational, lifecycle costs and user rate/infrastructure aspects due to growth limitations.

Minimal capital, operational, lifecycle costs and user rate/infrastructure aspects.

Minimal capital, operational, lifecycle costs, infrastructure aspects with user rate increases.

Moderate to high capital ($125 M), low operational - gravity system, lifecycle costs and user rate/infrastructure aspects.

Preferred alternative.

High capital ($142 M), low operational - gravity system,lifecycle costs and user rate/infrastructure aspects.

High capital ($146M), high operational - energy costs for pumping (could potentially offset pumping costs at WWTP), high lifecycle costs and user rate/infrastructure aspects.

Legal/Jurisdictional

Moderate impact due to inaction/emergency response.

No land required as a result.

Minimal impact due to growth limitations. No land needs.Negative economic development as a result.

No land Geopolitical issues.Entirely within City.

No land Geopolitical issues.Entirely within City.

Land likely required for booster pumping stations and zone 3 storage.

Land likely required for booster pumping stations and zone 1 and 3 storage; new elevated tank in zone 1

Land likely required for booster pumping stations and zone 3 storage. New zone 1 storage in ground (possibly at existing PS)

Technical

Does not address criteria. Emergency response only.

Addresses some issues by limiting growth, but not others.

Mimimal impact for most issues but does not address a few.

Mimimal impact for most issues but does not address a few.

Low to moderate impacts for most issues; open system provides most stable operation. Easiest to implement with phased approach.

Moderate impacts for most issues with new infrastructure; open system provides most stable operation - single elevated tank in Zone 1 resolves operational issues but large transmission mains required north-south. Less use of existing infrastructure.

Moderate to high impacts for most issues with new infrastructure; Zone 1 closed system reliant on pumping to meet all conditions - pressure swings less moderated than open system.

OVERALL EVALUATION

Not an option Subject to City direction Should be part of any plan. To be addressed as part of Bill 175 requirements currently underway

preferred strategy

LEGEND LOWEST IMPACT MOST

PREFERREDLOW TO MODERATE IMPACT MODERATE IMPACT

MODERATE TO HIGH IMPACT

Improvements to Existing System: New Facilities and Watermains

2. Zone 1 - new elevated tank 3. Zone 1 – change to Closed System

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

HIGH IMPACT

1. Zone 1 - Split in existing PZ 1

Evaluation Criteria

Unaccounted for Water Pricing/Controls/Education

Water Conservation/Demand Management

50 % 50 %50 % 50 %50 %

Water –

Wastewater

Servicing

Master Plan

Public Meeting #1

March 5 th, 2008

24

Preferred Alternative: Water Distribution / Storage System

• Alternative Solution 1– Zone 1:

� Best use of existing infrastructure� Can be phased in with improvements in tank operation� Eliminates operational issues associated with two elevated

tanks in one zone� New transmission mains and pumping stations to improve

pressures in south areas – Zone 2:

� Addresses deficiencies in existing system� Increased storage requirements met through anticipated

water supply facilities near Guelph Lake– Zone 3:

� Required to meet system pressures and fireflows for areas south of Clair Road at higher elevation

– Lowest capital cost and lowest life cycle cost

Water –

Wastewater

Servicing

Master Plan

Public Meeting #1

March 5 th, 2008

25

Wastewater Conveyance Alternatives

Water –

Wastewater

Servicing

Master Plan

Public Meeting #1

March 5 th, 2008

26

Existing Wastewater Conveyance System

• Primarily gravity system

• City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant at Wellington Road, west of Hanlon Expressway – Discharges to Speed River

• Deficiencies in existing system:– Inflow/Infiltration – is a significant issue in some areas

identified through flow monitoring– Sanitary sewers in some areas are in structurally poor

condition

• Increase in population due to intensification will require significant upgrades

• Increase in population in new areas require servicing

Water –

Wastewater

Servicing

Master Plan

Public Meeting #1

March 5 th, 2008

27

Existing Wastewater Conveyance System

Water –

Wastewater

Servicing

Master Plan

Public Meeting #1

March 5 th, 2008

28

WW Alternative Solution 1• Replace main trunk sewers

– York– Waterloo– Speed River

• Upgrade gravity system– Reinforce City core sanitary sewers to service

intensification

• Storage options to provide moderation of peak flows to WWTP– Oversize trunk sewers– Underground storage tanks along Speed River– Equalization tanks at the WWTP

• New growth– Gravity sanitary sewers feed into existing conveyance

system

Water –

Wastewater

Servicing

Master Plan

Public Meeting #1

March 5 th, 2008

29

WW Alternative Solution 1

Water –

Wastewater

Servicing

Master Plan

Public Meeting #1

March 5 th, 2008

30

WW Alternative Solution 2• Create Interceptor System: Consolidation of Waterloo

and Speed River Trunks into York Trunk– Replace York trunk: Victoria to Gordon– Provide connections between upper trunks (Waterloo &

Speed River) to York trunk– Repairs to Waterloo and Speed River trunks– Increase York trunk capacity from Gordon to WWTP


intensification


• New growth– Via gravity sanitary sewers to existing conveyance system

Water –

Wastewater

Servicing

Master Plan

Public Meeting #1

March 5 th, 2008

31


Water –

Wastewater

Servicing

Master Plan

Public Meeting #1

March 5 th, 2008

32

WW Alternative Solution 3• Create Interceptor System: Consolidation of York and

Waterloo Trunks into Speed River Trunk – Replace York trunk: Victoria to Gordon– Provide connections between York and Waterloo trunks to

Speed River trunk– Repairs to Waterloo and York (Gordon to WWTP) trunks– Lower depth and increase Speed River trunk capacity


intensification



Water –

Wastewater

Servicing

Master Plan

Public Meeting #1

March 5 th, 2008

33


Water –

Wastewater

Servicing

Master Plan

Public Meeting #1

March 5 th, 2008

34

WW Alternative Solution 4• Pumping and Storage of York Trunk at Gordon St.

– Replace York trunk: Victoria to Gordon– Structural repair of York trunk from Gordon to WWTP– Replace Waterloo and Speed River trunks– Provide storage and pumping station along Royal

City/Silvercreek Parks downstream of dam with forcemain from PS to WWTP


intensification

• Storage options to provide moderation of peak flows to WWTP– Underground storage tanks along Speed River– Equalization tanks at the WWTP


Water –

Wastewater

Servicing

Master Plan

Public Meeting #1

March 5 th, 2008

35


Water –

Wastewater

Servicing

Master Plan

Public Meeting #1

March 5 th, 2008

36

Evaluation Output Summary: Wastewater

Natural Environment Considerations

- impacts due to infrastructure works needed to service

Social Cultural

Economic

Legal

Technical

OVERALL EVALUATION

Not an option Subject to City direction Should be part of any plan.preferred alternative

High (Least Preferred)

D. Upgrade Existing Wastewater Conveyence System E. Pumping Station and Forcemain

Moderate to High

2. Interceptor: Consolidation of Waterloo & Speed River Trunks into YorkTrunk


- facilitates long term growth

- short term construction and long term impacts

- high capital/low operating costsEst Capital (without storage) = $75MEst Capital (with storage in pipe) = $85MEst Capital (with storage in tanks) = $80M- rate impacts- good use of City infrastructure

- normal process and approach with some added planning implications

- some land implications for infrastructure/facilities

- meets short/long term servicing needs with minimal operational complexity

- land contraints and constructability impacts

- somewhat flexible and readily implementable

- moderate infrastructure with little innovation opportunities

- meets short /long term servicing needs with minimal operational complexity




- facilitates short and long term growth




- not as readily implementable

- high cost infrastructure with some innovation opportunities; possible to offset pumping at WWTP



- very high capital and operating costsEst Capital (without storage) = $81MEst Capital (with storage in tanks) = $88M - rate impacts- use of existing infrastructure plus completely new infrastructure - additional process and approach activities

- land required for facilities and infrastructure

4. Pumping and Storage of York Trunk3. Interceptor: Consolidation of Waterloo & York Trunks into Speed River Trunk

- moderate capital/low operating costsEst Capital (without storage) = $68MEst Capital (with storage in pipe) = $79MEst Capital (with storage in tanks) = $75M - rate impacts- good use of City infrastructure






- high capital/low operating costsEst Capital (without storage) = $76MEst Capital (with storage in pipe) = $86MEst Capital (with storage in tanks) = $81M- rate impacts- good use of City infrastructure





Lowest Impact(Most Preferred)

Low to Moderate ModerateLEGEND

Evaluation Criteria

1. Replace Main Trunk Sewers




- facilitates short term growth only

- little construction/safety impacts

- low cost and rate impacts

- maximizes infrastructure use

- reduced process and approach needs

- reduced land requirements

A. Do Nothing

- little impact

- degradation of water quality

- does not facilitate growth

- no temporary construction/safety aspects

- emergency costs and impacts

- degradation of existing facilities

- emergency process and approach requirements

- no additional land requirements

- does not meet servicing needs

- degradation of existing operations/facilities

- emergency infrastructure/ energy needs

- little flexibility and innovation


- little impact

- some improvement to water quality

- meets short term servicing to some extent

- maintains current operations

- reduced infrastructure/energy requirements

- readily implementable and flexibility

- little innovation opportunities

- additional process and approach requirements

- significant land requirements

- meets short and long term servicing needs to some extent

- considerable infrastructure/ energy requirements for re-use

- longer term implementation, less flexibility, innovation can be applied

C. I/I Reduction & Re-Use Alternatives

Re-Use- greater potential impact due to infrastructure requirements- improved water quality but lower degree than othersI/I Reduction- benefits Natural Environment by reduced infrastructure needs in collection system and at WWTP; potential for improved effluent quality

- re-use and reduced I/I - facilitates some short/long term growth

- short and long term construction impacts for re-use

- high costs and rate impacts

- reuses some infrastructure, but new/additional required

50 %

75 %

25 %

50 %

75 %

50 %

75 %

50 %

75 %

50 %50 %

50 %

50 %

Water –

Wastewater

Servicing

Master Plan

Public Meeting #1

March 5 th, 2008

37

Preferred Alternative: Wastewater Conveyance System

• Alternative Solution 1 – Optimization:

� Addresses deficiencies in existing system and poor structural condition of older trunk sewers

� Can be phased in with road improvements and watermain installation

� Increase in diameter of main trunk sewers reduces upgrades upstream in system

� Further storage could be implemented to minimize peak to ADF ratio

– Intensification:� Results in major upgrades through core of City and east-

west trunk sewers– New growth:

� New sewers to accommodate growth can be implemented within existing gravity system

– Lowest capital cost

Water –

Wastewater

Servicing

Master Plan

Public Meeting #1

March 5 th, 2008

38

Next Steps

�Public Information Centre #1

�Receive and consider agency/ stakeholder comments

�Confirm preferred alternative solutions

�Public Information Centre #2 (early Spring ‘08)

�Receive and consider agency/ stakeholder comments

�Prepare draft Master Plan Study Report

�Present to City Committee/ Council (Spring ’08)

�30 day Public review period

�Finalize Master Plan Study Report (Spring/ Summer ’08)

�Proceed to implement preferred alternative solutions (Summer ’08)

Water –

Wastewater

Servicing

Master Plan

Public Meeting #1

March 5 th, 2008

39

Questions & Discussion

city of guelph water - wastewater servicing master...

Documents