You are on page 1of 503

Tri-City Water Distribution Master Plan Final Report

Prepared By: Earth Tech Canada Inc. 101 Frederick Street, Suite 702 Kitchener, Ontario N2H 6R2
July 2008 93489 Project:

The Regional Municipality of Waterloo Transportation & Environmental Services Department 7th Floor Water Services Division 150 Frederick Street Kitchener, Ontario N2G 4J3 Project 81539

AECOM 101 Frederick Street, Suite 702 Kitchener, Ontario N2H 6R2

May 2009

Region of Waterloo

Tri-City Water Distribution Master Plan Final Report

Prepared by: AECOM 702-101 Frederick Street Kitchener, ON N2H 6R2

Date: May 2009

May 2009

Project Number: 81539

Mr Jorge Cavalcante Manager Engineering & Planning Region of Waterloo 150 Frederick Street 7th Floor Water Services Division Kitchener, ON N2G 4J3

Dear Mr Cavalcante: Re: Tri-City Water Distribution Master Plan Final Report We are pleased to provide our report of the Tri-City Water Distribution Master Plan. This report outlines the existing water distribution system within the urban boundaries of the cities of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge. It characterizes some of the constraints and opportunities within the existing system and provides an outline for upgrades to the water distribution system to meet the demands of the Region of Waterloo through to 2031.

Sincerely, AECOM

Duncaun McLeod Senior Project Manager duncaun.mcleod@aecom.com


DM:jk Encl. cc: File

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Signature Page
Report Prepared By: Report Reviewed By:

Joe Gemin Senior Project Manager

Duncaun McLeod Senior Project Manager

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Executive Summary
Overview The Region of Waterloo (ROW) initiated this study to review the existing water distribution system within the urban boundaries of the cities of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge. The intent of the study was to review the existing infrastructure, identify opportunities and constraints within the system and to provide a framework for future growth within the Tri-City urban boundaries. Section 1 of this report provides an introduction to the study. It outlines the objectives of the study, describes the current Water Distribution Master Plan and provides a description of background information used to support this document. Section 2 provides a description of the methodology used to complete this study. The section introduces the project team and organization structure. This study is being completed under the Guidance of the Master Plan requirements of the Class Environmental Assessment Process as amended in 2007. As such, public involvement into the project was very important. Outlined within this section are:

Project Steering Committee; Project Agency and stakeholder contact list; Notices of Project Commencement and Study completion; Project Workshops held; and Public Information Centres including dates and locations

In 2003 the Region developed a Long Term Regional Growth Management Strategy (RGMS) to plan for and guide future population and employment growth in the ROW. The RGMS concluded that over the next several decades it is realistic to anticipate that the Region will grow to approximately 700,000 by 2041. Subsequently, the Province of Ontario identified the Region as a Future Growth Area in the Places to Grow Act, passed in June 2005, and designated the downtowns of Kitchener and Waterloo as Priority Urban Centres and Downtown Cambridge as an Emerging Urban Centre. Places to Grow indicates that the population of the ROW will be 729,000 by 2031. The RGMS helps to ensure that Smart Growth principles are realized in the Region. As part of this, the RGMS recommended the Water Distribution Master Plan be updated to provide a plan for water distribution services to meet the needs of customers in a safe, efficient, cost effective and fiscally responsible manner. As a result the ROW initiated this study to determine and evaluate water distribution and servicing strategies to meet the long term needs of residents and business until 2026. The study was to be completed as a Master Plan under the Environmental Assessment Act in accordance with Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MEA) requirements. The objectives of the Master Plan are as follows: 1. Determination of the future demand requirements on the Regions Water supply and distribution systems. 2. Identification of future demand requirements. 3. Determination of the feasibility of upgrading or expanding the Regions water distribution system to meet the capacity requirements determined above.

Final Report

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

4. 5.

6.

Identification and evaluation of a range of alternatives to meet the water distribution needs of the Region as a whole. Provide sufficient and meaningful public and agency consultation at appropriate stages of Master Plan development being completed to fulfill Municipal Class Environmental Assessment requirements, so that the preferred strategy can have the support of the Ministry of the Environment (MOE), the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA), other agencies and local municipalities. Determination of a preferred approach to providing water distribution upgrades or expansions of existing Regional water distribution facilities, and any new Regional water distribution or facilities required.

The updated Water Distribution Master Plan provides an overall plan for the upgrade and expansion of facilities to ensure adequate water distribution capacity for the Region until 2026. Public Consultation Based on the work presented, and comments received from the public, agencies, and other stakeholders throughout the project and at three Public Information Centres (PICs) held in June 2008, the preferred water distribution strategy until the year 2026 was completed. The following is a chronology of the opportunities for public involvement during the WWTMP Update: June 2005: Notice of Commencement Advertisements were placed in local newspapers informing the public of the commencement of the Water Distribution Master Plan. In addition, the local area municipalities, potential concerned area municipalities, neighbouring municipalities, provincial agencies, federal agencies, First Nations and the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) were notified by letter.

Steering Committee Meetings The scope of work of the Steering Committee was to comment on and give directions to the Project Team on the development of the Water Distribution Plan update. It consisted of the project consultant, assigned Regional Councilors, and representatives of the Regions Water Services, Planning and Finances, the local area municipalities, GRCA, and MOE. A total of seven Steering Committee meetings were held throughout the project. June, 2008: Notice of Public Information Centres Advertisements were placed in local newspapers informing the general public of the PICs.

June 17, 24 and 25, 2007: Public Information Centres The PICs were held in the Cambridge Centre Mall (Cambridge), Conestoga Mall (Waterloo), and Regions Administration Headquarters (Kitchener) to request input from interested parties on the Master Plan. Spring, 2009: Notice of Completion Following Council approval April 2009, advertisements were placed in the local newspapers informing the general public of the 30 day review period for the Final Report. All comments received became part of the Update project file.

Final Report

ii

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Section 3 establishes current water demand for the Tri-City area. The first step in determining water demand was to identify current and proposed population between the years 2003 and 2026. The total equivalent population of the Tri-City was in 2026 was determined to be 936,490 people year. The year 2003 was selected to be used as the basis of water demand since it represents a typical demand year for the Region Waterloo. To determine water demand, the 2003 population for both residential and employment lands were provide by the Region. In addition to the population and water demand information, a review was conducted of the water demand by landuse to determine current and future patterns of use. Through the review, it was identified that the residential areas placed the largest water demand on the system accounting for almost 70% of the total water demand. A listing of the top 50 water users was identified to determine how the major water users affected the overall water distribution system. Based on the sensitivity analysis conducted, it was noted that the top 50 users were not sensitive to the Residential Zonal consumption rate. However, it was also noted that the top 50 users were very sensitive to the Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Zonal consumption rates. As a result of this analysis a common Residential consumption rate was identified for Residential users while a distinct consumption rate was applied to each municipality to better describe consumption characteristics. Finally, the amount of Unaccounted For Water (UFW) was reviewed to determine the current overall water demand requirements. With the base information collected and analysed, projection of present and future trends in water demand were identified. Using projected populations and per capita consumption, the total average day and total maximum day and total maximum week demands were determined The total average demand ranged from 35.7mgd to 46.3 mgd from 2003 through 2026. Similarly the total maximum day demand ranged from 48.2 mgd to 62.5mgd and the total maximum week demand ranged from 44.6mgd to 57.9mgd for the time period from 2003 through to 2026 respectively. ICI Diurnal patterns were developed for each of the pressure zones, where applicable. A common residential diurnal pattern was identified for residential usage (based on Kitchener Zone 5). Finally Peaking factors for maximum day and maximum week usage were identified. For the purposes of this study, the following factors were used: Maximum Day Demand factor 1.44 Maximum Week Demand factor 1.25 Section 4 of this report describes the existing water distribution system. The distribution system is made up of Region watermains, dual purpose watermains and local municipality owned watermains. It operates using 14 separate existing pressure zones: Cambridge Zones 1, 1A, 2E, 2W and 3 Kitchener Zones 2, 4, 5 and future 6 Waterloo Zones 4, 4B, 4C, 5, 6, 7

Final Report

iii

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

The water distribution system operates with a number of elevated storage tanks and at grade reservoirs. The storage vessel capacities are identified in Table 4.3 of Section with actual operating levels noted in Table 4.4. Each of the storage tanks and reservoirs constraints and opportunities were identified. The Regulatory and Policy Framework of this report is identified in Section 5. Section 6 is an update of the Water Distribution Master Plan. The Regions hydraulic model H2OMAP was used assess the water distribution system behaviour and capability for different design year scenarios. The following conditions were modeled: Maximum Week Demand 48 Hour Extended Period Simulations; and Fire Flow conditions. In assessing the fire flow events, two fire events based of Fire Underwriters Survey (FUS) were assigned to one critical consumer r node in the distribution system and one local residential area in any location within the Region simultaneously. This approach asses the water transfer capability in the event of two simultaneous fire events in lieu of a major fire in each zone simultaneously (which is considered unrealistic). Together with Regional staff, 39 predefined critical water consumers were identified across the Region. A review of the pressure zone boundaries was completed to determine high and low pressure areas within the distribution system. The evaluation criteria used to identify the hydraulic performance of the system falls under three categories: maintaining minimum system pressures, limiting maximum system pressures and observing pipeline velocities or headloss gradients. The following pressure zone boundaries were identified: Expansion of the Cambridge Zone 1A pressure zone into Cambridge Zone 1; Modification of the Cambridge Zone 1 operating strategy i.e. new TWL; Expansion of Kitchener Zone 2E into Breslau South (East Side); Modifications to the Kitchener Zone 2W with possible inter-connection with Kitchener Zone 2E with Kitchener Zone 2W (detailed review undertaken by others); Modification to the Kitchener Zone 4 system (i.e. new elevated reservoir); Modifications to the Waterloo Zone 4/5 pressure zone including incorporation of sub zones 4B and 4C to Zone 5; amd Detailed analysis is incorporated into Technical Memorandum #6 (included in Appendix F) A detailed storage analysis was completed. The evaluation used three different approaches: MOE Storage Capacity Evaluation Criteria; Alternate Capacity Evaluation Approach (Zonal); and Integrated System Approach. The storage analysis indicated that there is sufficient storage within the Cambridge, Kitchener and Waterloo Integrated Supply System. In order to determine key infrastructure that will cause a major impact if taken out of service, a criticality assessment was completed. Critical infrastructure was identified as: Infrastructure when taken out of service would result in zone pressure below 140kpa and/ or not sustain fire pressure; and Infrastructure that is a lone or single point of supply into a zone or subzone.

Final Report

iv

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

The following infrastructure was considered critical Manitou PRV; River Road MTV; New Dundee PRV; MV2; University Tank inlet; and University Tank outlet. The impacts and solutions for critical infrastructure is listed on Table 6.9 The hydraulic model was used to identify upgrades or modifications to the water distribution system to meet current demands and demands up to 2026. Table 6.11 outlines a number of modifications that were identified. Each of the modifications has been costed to provide a preliminary estimate of the work to be completed. It is expected that the total medication costs will be in the range of $65,000,000 to $80,000,000. In addition to the costs for the modifications Table 6.11 outlines the Class EA schedule that would be required for each project modification. Estimated capital costs in 2009 dollars are also summarized for each of the recommendations outlined for capital works budgeting purposes. Budgetary estimates for the mid to long-term recommendations are preliminary in nature and are subject to Class EA and Preliminary Design recommendations to confirm the estimated costs provided and relative timing shown. The Master Plan should be revisited every five years to update population projections and water demand requirements (incorporating the success of water conservation and I/I reduction), to review regulatory status and to include advances in water technologies. Following the main body of this report are Appendices A through G. Each of these appendices were developed as a Technical Memorandum to discuss and provide details for the summaries in this Executive Summary and in the main body of this report. Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G Tech Memo 1 Tech Memo 2 Tech Memo 3 Tech Memo 4 Tech Memo 5 Tech Memo 6 Landuse, Population, Demand Analysis and Projections Pressure Zone Boundary Analysis and Rationalization Storage Analysis and Projection Review and Assessment of Existing Infrastructure Evaluation Methodology Criteria Water Servicing Alternatives Public Consultation

Final Report

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table of Contents
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background............................................................................................................................ 1
1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3 1.1.4 Changes from a Planning Perspective .....................................................................................1 Objectives of the Water Distribution Master Plan Update ........................................................1 Current Water Distribution Master Plan....................................................................................2 Related Studies ........................................................................................................................2

2.

UPDATE METHODOLOGY .................................................................................... 3


2.1 Project Organization .............................................................................................................. 3
2.1.1 2.1.2 Project Team and Consulting Team .........................................................................................3 Steering Committee ..................................................................................................................4 Overview...................................................................................................................................4 Public and Agency Notifications ...............................................................................................7 Project Discussion Meetings ....................................................................................................9 Public Information Centres (PICs) ..........................................................................................10 Internal Project Workshops ....................................................................................................11

2.2

Public and Agency Consultation Program ............................................................................. 4


2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4

2.3

Workshops and Technical Memoranda ............................................................................... 11


2.3.1

3.

WATER DEMAND ................................................................................................ 13


3.1 Population and Water Demand Projections ......................................................................... 13
3.1.1 3.1.2 Population Projections............................................................................................................13 Water Demand Projections.....................................................................................................14

3.2 3.3 3.4

Definitions ............................................................................................................................ 16 Water Demand Forecast...................................................................................................... 16 Residential and ICI Diurnal Patterns.................................................................................... 20
3.4.1 3.4.2 Residential Diurnal Pattern.....................................................................................................20 ICI Diurnal Pattern ..................................................................................................................20 Impact of Water Efficiency on Demand ..................................................................................24 Impact of Outdoor Water Use Restrictions on Demand .........................................................25

3.5

Max Day and Max Week Peaking Factors........................................................................... 24


3.5.1 3.5.2

3.6

Summary ............................................................................................................................. 25

4.

WATER DISTRIBUTION....................................................................................... 27
4.1 4.2 4.3 Description of Existing Water Distribution System............................................................... 27 Existing System Pressure Zone Boundary Analysis ............................................................ 40 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 43

5. 6.

REGULATORY AND POLICY


5.1

FRAMEWORK................................................. 44

Applicable Legislation, Regulation and Policy Initiatives ..................................................... 44

UPDATED WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN ........................................ 45

Final Report

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table of Contents
6.1 6.2 Updated Master Plan ........................................................................................................... 45
6.1.1 6.2.1 6.2.2 6.2.3 6.2.4 6.2.5 6.2.6 6.2.7 6.2.8 Infrastructure and System Evaluation Criteria........................................................................45 Hydraulic Modeling and Analysis............................................................................................46 Fire Flow Analysis...................................................................................................................47 Summary Modeling Results....................................................................................................53 Pressure Zone Boundary Analysis and Rationalization .........................................................57 Storage Capacity Evaluation ..................................................................................................82 Criticality Analysis...................................................................................................................84 Eastside and Future Servicing Areas .....................................................................................88 Lake Based Water Supply System .........................................................................................91

Components of Updated Water Master Plan ....................................................................... 46

6.3 6.4 6.5

Estimated Costs................................................................................................................... 94 Future Updates .................................................................................................................. 103 Summary and Recommendations ..................................................................................... 103

Final Report

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table of Contents
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 - Organization of Master Plan ..................................................................................................................3 Figure 2.2 - Master Planning Process ........................................................................................................................6 Figure 3.1 - Water Demand Projection Process.......................................................................................................17 Figure 3.2 - Residential Diurnal Pattern (Based on Kit Zone 5) ...............................................................................20 Figure 3.3 - ICI Diurnal Pattern (CAM 1 + CAM3)....................................................................................................21 Figure 3.4 - ICI Diurnal Pattern (CAM2E).................................................................................................................21 Figure 3.5 - ICI Diurnal Pattern (CAM2W)................................................................................................................22 Figure 3.6 - ICI Diurnal Pattern (KIT2 + KIT2A) .......................................................................................................22 Figure 3.7 - ICI Diurnal Pattern (KIT2B + KIT4 + BreslauN + BreslauS) .................................................................23 Figure 3.8 - ICI Diurnal Pattern (WAT5 + WAT4 + KIT4A + Market) .......................................................................23 Figure 4.1 - Pressure Zones.....................................................................................................................................28 Figure 4.2 - Existing Water Supply System..............................................................................................................29 Figure 4.3 - Ownership of Watermains ....................................................................................................................35 Figure 4.4 - Future Water Supply System (New KIT4 Storage Facility)...................................................................36 Figure 4.5 - Future Water Supply System (New CAM1 Storage Facility) ................................................................37 Figure 4.6 - Definition of Elevated Storage .............................................................................................................40 Figure 6.1 Fire Flow Locations ..............................................................................................................................51 Figure 6.2 - Future Cambridge Pressure Zone 1A Boundary ................................................................................59 Figure 6.3 Location Options for New Cambridge Storage Facility ........................................................................60 Figure 6.4 - Potential Option No. 1 for new CAM1 Storage Facility.........................................................................61 Figure 6.5 - Potential Option No.2 for new CAM1 Storage Facility..........................................................................61 Figure 6.6 - Potential Option No.3 for new CAM1 Storage Facility..........................................................................62 Figure 6.7 - Potential Option No.4 for new CAM1 Storage Facility..........................................................................62 Figure 6.8 - Potential Option No.5 for new CAM1 Storage Facility..........................................................................63 Figure 6.9 - Tank Cycling Pattern for Location 1......................................................................................................63 Figure 6.10 - Tank Cycling Pattern for Location 2....................................................................................................64 Figure 6.11 New Zone 1 Turnbull Pumping Station (located adjacent to Turnbull Reservoir)..............................66 Figure 6.12 Areas within Cambridge Zone 1 Low and High Pressure Issues.......................................................67 Figure 6.13 Areas at Location 1 with Low and High Pressure Issues...................................................................68 Figure 6.14 Areas within Location 2 with Low and High Pressure Issues ............................................................69 Figure 6.15 Areas within Location 3 with Low and High Pressure Issues ............................................................70 Figure 6.16 -Potential Watermain Connection for System Integration.....................................................................72 Figure 6.17 - Kitchener Zone 2W Change in Pressure ...........................................................................................73 Figure 6.18 -Change in Zone 2E Storage Level (Freeport Tank).............................................................................73 Figure 6.19 - Change in Flow at Manitou PRV.........................................................................................................74 Figure 6.20 -Change in Flow at River Road PRV ....................................................................................................74 Figure 6.21 Existing Waterloo Pressure Boundary Zone 5 ..................................................................................76

Final Report

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table of Contents
Figure 6.22- Future Boundary for Waterloo Zone 5 ...............................................................................................77 Figure 6.23 - System Pressure Differences in Cambridge Zone 1A ........................................................................78 Figure 6.24 - System Pressure Differences in Existing Waterloo Zone 4C .............................................................78 Figure 6.25 - System Pressure Differences in Existing Waterloo Zone 4 ................................................................79 Figure 6.26 - Potential Location No.1 for KIT4 Storage ...........................................................................................80 Figure 6.27 - Potential Location No.2 for KIT4 Storage ...........................................................................................81 Figure 6.28 - System Pressure Comparison - St. George ET vs. New KIT4 Tank ..................................................81 Figure 6.29 - Storage Evaluations Methodology ......................................................................................................83 Figure 6.30 - Eastside Servicing Area Location .......................................................................................................89 Figure 6.31 - Infrastructure Requirements 1 for Eastside Servicing Areas..............................................................90 Figure 6.32 - Infrastructure Requirements 2 for Eastside Servicing Area................................................................90 Figure 6.33 - Preferred Ultimate Supply Strategy ....................................................................................................92 Figure 6.34 - Lake Based Supply Option 1 ..............................................................................................................93 Figure 6.35 Recommended Upgrades for Cambridge ........................................................................................100 Figure 6.36 Recommended Upgrades for Kitchener...........................................................................................101 Figure 6.37 Recommended Upgrades for Waterloo ...........................................................................................102

Final Report

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table of Contents
List of Tables
Table 2.1 - Steering Committee Members .................................................................................................................4 Table 2.2 - List of Agency and Stakeholder Contacts ................................................................................................8 Table 2.3 Project Discussion Meetings ...................................................................................................................9 Table 2.4 Master Plan Update Municipality Workshops..........................................................................................12 Table 3.1- Existing Population 2003 ........................................................................................................................13 Table 3.2 - Total Projected Equivalent Population*..................................................................................................14 Table 3.3 - 2003 Demand Summary per Landuse ...................................................................................................14 Table 3.4 - Total Demand for the Top 50 Water Billing Records Ranked by Landuse ............................................15 Table 3.5 - UFW in Each City (2003) .......................................................................................................................16 Table 3.6 - Average Residential and ICI Water Per Capita Consumption Rate.......................................................17 Table 3.7 - Total Average Day Demand (L/s)...........................................................................................................18 Table 3.8 - Total Maximum Day Demand (L/s) ........................................................................................................19 Table 3.9 - Total Maximum Week Demand (L/s)......................................................................................................19 Table 3.10 - Max Day/Max Week Demand (L/s) (2003)...........................................................................................24 Table 3.11 - Projected Average Day Demand with Water Efficiency Consideration ...............................................25 Table 3.12 - Recommended ICI Consumption Rate by Zone ..................................................................................26 Table 4.1 - Water Supply Information.......................................................................................................................30 Table 4.2 - Hydraulic Modeling Results - Water Facility Outputs Summary ............................................................33 Table 4.3 - Existing Storage Facility Information......................................................................................................38 Table 4.4 - Actual Operating Levels in Existing Water Systems ..............................................................................39 Table 4.5 - Summary of Pressure Issues and Possible Mitigation...........................................................................41 Table 5.1 - List of Legislation, Regulations and Policy Initiatives.............................................................................44 Table 6.1 - Water Distribution Master Plan Scenarios Maximum Week ...............................................................46 Table 6.2 - Fire Flow Locations ................................................................................................................................48 Table 6.3 - Hydraulic Results for Potential High/Low Pressure Problems ...............................................................53 Table 6.4 - Summary of Watermain Deficiencies .....................................................................................................56 Table 6.5 - Summary of Technical Feasibility for CAM1 Storage ............................................................................71 Table 6.6 - Summary of Infrastructure Requirements ..............................................................................................82 Table 6.7 - Storage Evaluation Summary for Cambridge Integrated Supply System .............................................83 Table 6.8 - Storage Evaluation Summary for Kitchener and Waterloo Integrated Supply System..........................84 Table 6.9 - Criticality Analysis Results for Watermains............................................................................................85 Table 6.10 - Criticality Analysis Results for Booster Pumping Stations ...................................................................86 Table 6.11 - Cost Estimate Summary ......................................................................................................................94

Final Report

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table of Contents
Appendices
A B C D E F G Technical Memo 1 Technical Memo 2 Technical Memo 3 Technical Memo 4 Technical Memo 5 Technical Memo 6 Public Consultation Landuse, Population, Demand Analysis and Projection Pressure Zone Boundary Analysis and Rationalization Storage Analysis and Projections Review and Assessment of Existing Infrastructure Evaluation Methodology Criteria Water Servicing Alternatives

Final Report

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

1.
1.1

Introduction
Background

The Region of Waterloo (The Region) awarded the Tri-City Water Master Plan Study to AECOM (formerly Earth Tech Canada Inc.). The Master Plan is intended to provide a framework to ensure that the Tri-City area has sufficient water distribution infrastructure to meet the demands until 2026. The basis for the framework was established through a review of the existing water distribution system in the cities of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge, and an assessment of the current and future needs of the population based on the Regions Long Term Growth Management Strategy, the Province of Ontarios 2005 Places to Grow Act and the Regional Official Plan (ROPP). The following sections outline the information reviewed during the project and the desired objectives from each stage of investigation.

1.1.1

Changes from a Planning Perspective

As part of the deliverables for the project, AECOM provided recommendations for required infrastructure upgrades to the existing water distribution system based on the current supply system. However, since the inception of this project, a fundamental development occurred that necessitated a revision in focus for the project. This change in focus was initiated by the development of the Province of Ontarios Places to Grow strategy. The Places to Grow plan outlined areas in Ontario that were expected to expand over the next 40 years. The plan outlined expected population growth patterns and clearly identified the Region of Waterloo as a prime growth area within the province. This anticipated population and demand growth necessitated a review of the water distribution system based not only on the existing well based system but also on the short term and longer term impacts of switching to a lake based system.

1.1.2

Objectives of the Water Distribution Master Plan Update

The primary objective of the Master Plan Update was to rationalize the Region of Waterloos water distribution system configuration/requirements in conjunction with the various options associated with the Long Term Water Supply Strategy (LTWSS). A phased water distribution plan was proposed to achieve this objective. As stated above, due to the information provided in Places to Grow, the proposed plan needed to ensure that the system upgrades met the demands of future population scenarios while coinciding with the future lake based water supply system. Although the Regions hydraulic water model (H2OMAP) served as a basis for the project, a high level conceptual review of the water distribution system based on the Long Term Water Supply Strategy (LTWSS) was also provided as part of this study. To complete the Master Plan Update, AECOM provided the findings as a series of Technical Memoranda that addressed each concern individually. A total of six memoranda were produced and are included in Appendices A through F of this report. This Final Master Plan report serves as a summary of the Technical Memoranda and provides broad longrange plans for The Regional Municipality of Waterloo. This report outlines required projects, implementation plans and development scenarios.

Final Report

Page 1 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

1.1.3

Current Water Distribution Master Plan

The existing and proposed infrastructure was reviewed for the traditional/conventional water distribution analyses which are typically demand side driven, i.e. maximum day, maximum week, peak hour, minimum hour, fire flow, etc. However, in order to determine the true robustness of a distribution system, emergency planning and facility outage planning principles need to be adopted and these issues were studied in this project. Emergency planning focuses on modeling a variety of unplanned and undesired facility outages. The purpose of this part of the distribution master plan is to determine the criticality of water distribution elements. These elements have been identified and recommendations are formulated in Section 6 (of this report) to reinforce these facilities. Additional facilities and systems modifications have been identified to compensate for taking a facility out of service. Technical Memoranda have been prepared to fully detail these requirements and are located in Appendices A through F. Section 4 of this report discusses the status of the existing water distribution infrastructure. This is supported by Technical Memorandum No. 4(Appendix D) and 6 (Appendix F), the latter for detailed analysis of existing and future infrastructure improvements.

1.1.4

Related Studies

To begin the project, AECOM met with Regional and local Municipal Administrative, Operations and Planning staff to identify, review and catalogue all available background information. Additional required information was gathered and reviewed. This information included but was not limited to: Operating records Maintenance records Oral histories As-recorded drawings Operating and maintenance manuals SCADA information Agency policies and codes Municipal records (as cited in attached Bibliography). As well, the Region of Waterloos Tri-City Hydraulic Model (H2OMAP) was reviewed and suggestions for refinements were recommended.

Final Report

Page 2 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

2.
2.1

UPDATE METHODOLOGY
Project Organization

The Tri-City Water Distribution Master Plan was conducted by AECOM and the Region of Waterloo. The overall project organization is outlined in Figure 2.1 below.

2.1.1

Project Team and Consulting Team

The project team was made up of individuals who were responsible for day-to-day activities involved in the project. The project team included: Jorge Cavalcante Edvin Yohanna Joe Gemin Duncaun McLeod Region of Waterloo Region of Waterloo (prior Reg Russwurm, Samuel Ziemann) AECOM AECOM

Figure 2.1 - Organization of Master Plan 1

Figure 2.1 and further information included in Appendix G

Final Report

Page 3 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

2.1.2

Steering Committee

A Steering Committee was established at the project initiation to provide guidance to the Project Team and the Consulting Team. The Steering Committee was comprised of the following: Designated Regional politicians with a direct interest in the project; Representatives from the Cities of Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the Township of Woolwich; and Staff from the Region of Waterloo Steering Committee Members (Table 2.1) were involved in several meetings during the course of the project. Further detail of these proceedings can be found in Section 6 of this report. Table 2.1 - Steering Committee Members Edvin Yohanna Jorge Cavalcante John Holowackyj Lane Stevens John Melfi Nancy Kodousek Jim Robinson John Lubczynski Jo-Anne Ing Jim Wideman Phil Antoniuow Bill Garibaldi Dan Ditaranto Cam Rapp Mayor Carl Zehr Nancy Corbett Rod Kruger Joe Gemin Devan Thomas/Benny Wan Karl Grueneis Duncaun McLeod Engineering & Planning Engineering & Planning Engineering & Planning Water Operations Water Operations Director of Water Services Water Resources Community Planning Design and Construction Regional Councillor Region of Waterloo Region of Waterloo Region of Waterloo Region of Waterloo Region of Waterloo Region of Waterloo Region of Waterloo Region of Waterloo Region of Waterloo Region of Waterloo City of Cambridge City of Waterloo City of Waterloo City of Waterloo City of Kitchener City of Kitchener Township of Woolwich AECOM AECOM AECOM AECOM

Regional Councillor

2.2
2.2.1

Public and Agency Consultation Program


Overview

The Master Plan process included consultation with the public, agencies and stakeholders through the issuance of a Notice of Commencement, the development and regular updating of a contact list and one Public Information Centre (PIC) (per City) to present findings and receive comments. A process map of the Master Plan is provided in Figure 2.2.

Final Report

Page 4 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

The public and agency consultation program was multi-faceted and involved the following: Steering Committee Meetings; Public and Agency Notifications; Project Mailing List; An Internal Project Workshop; and Public Information Centres (PICs) for each City. Further details on the public and agency consultation program are provided in following Sections 2.3.1 to 2.3.4. Additional materials on the public and agency consultation program are included in Appendix G.

Final Report

Page 5 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 2.2 - Master Planning Process

Figure 2.2 from PIC slides included in Appendix G

Final Report

Page 6 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

2.2.2

Public and Agency Notifications

Notice of Commencement A Notice of Commencement was issued June 17, 2005. The Notice of Commencement was advertised in local newspapers, on the Region of Waterloo website and by direct mail out to stakeholders. The Notice of Commencement included Steering Committee Member contact information so that members of the public who had questions or wanted more information on the project could participate in the Master Plan. Federal, provincial and municipal agencies, along with stakeholders, were also notified of the project by letter. An example of the Notice of Commencement Letter is included in Appendix G. Table 2.2 outlines agencies and stakeholders who were notified throughout the project. There were no responses from the Public regarding the Notice of Commencement. There were no responses from the Agencies regarding the Notice of Commencement. Notice of Public Information Centres The Public Information Centres (PICs) were advertised in advance on the Region of Waterloos website, as well as twice in local newspapers and posted on the Region of Waterloo website. A Notice of PICs was also sent to those on the project mailing list, which consisted of those agencies and stakeholders listed in Table 2.2. Notice of Completion A Notice of Completion, including the compilation of the Water Distribution Master Plan and the availability of the draft report for public review and comment, was published in the following newspapers:

The Record Waterloo Chronicle Cambridge Times

A Notice of Completion was also mailed to all those on the project mailing list. The Notice of Completion was advertised in advance on the Region of Waterloos website, as well as twice in local newspapers.

Final Report

Page 7 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table 2.2 - List of Agency and Stakeholder Contacts Ministry of the Environment Grand River Conservation Authority Ministry of Natural Resources Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Ministry of Culture Ministry of Transportation Fisheries and Oceans Canada Region of Waterloo City of Cambridge City of Kitchener City of Waterloo Township of North Dumfries Township of Wellesley Township of Wilmot Township of Woolwich County of Brant County of Oxford County of Perth County of Wellington Kitchener Utilities Union Gas Limited Cambridge-North Dumfries Hydro Waterloo-North Hydro Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Hydro One Networks Rogers Cable TV Bell Canada Six Nations of the Grand River Territory Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation University of Waterloo Wilfred Laurier University Conestoga College Waterloo Public Interest Research Group Friends of the Grand River Cambridge Environmental Advisory Committee City of Waterloo Environmental Advisory Committee Kitchener Environmental Advisory Committee Canadian Water Resources Association Waterloo Federation of Agriculture Greater KW Chamber of Commerce Cambridge Chamber of Commerce Kitchener Downtown Business Association Waterloo Region Home Builders Association

Federal/Provincial

Municipal

Utilities

First Nations

Institutions

Environmental Groups

Agricultural Group

Business Groups

Final Report

Page 8 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

2.2.3

Project Discussion Meetings

A total of 17 Project Discussion meetings were held with interested stakeholders such as the Steering Committee, Operations and Maintenance staff, local municipal Engineering and Planning staff and other interested parties. The meetings occurred as follows: Table 2.3 Project Discussion Meetings Meeting Date January 07, 2005 Meeting No. 1 (Steering Committee) January 31, 2005 (additional meeting) (Project Team) March 30, 2005 Meeting No. 2 (Steering Committee) April 25, 2005 (Project Team) May 31, 2005 Meeting No. 3 (Steering Committee) June 16, 2005 (EA Subcommittee Meeting) October 3, 2005 (Operations Subcommittee Meeting) October 5, 2005 (EA Subcommittee Meeting) May 5, 2006 Meeting No. 4 (Steering Committee) May 30, 2006 City of Cambridge October 16, 2007 (Project Team) November 29, 2007 Findings Workshop (Steering Committee) December 07, 2007 City of Waterloo Operations Purpose of Meeting Review Draft Report Review results of zone boundary comparison Review status of deliverables Discuss format of an Evaluation Workshop

Discuss delivery of population projections Review revised Workplan Schedule Evaluation of Workshop agenda and timing Provide internal update and co-ordinate the staff efforts on this project Review Project Work completed to date Discuss EA Process Review Project work since last meeting Review Revised Steering Committee List Revised Purpose Statement Review Technical Memoranda #1, #2 & #4 Technical Memorandum #5- Review and Assessment of Existing Infrastructure Review Tech Memoranda #1, #2 & #4 Technical Memorandum #1-Landuse Population, Demand Analysis and Projection Review Places to Grow Information Review Population Forecasts Discuss City of Cambridge Personnel issues with water distribution system Provide a strategy for future work on the project Identification of Concerns

Discuss the operation of the water distribution system issues with City of Waterloo Personnel Continued

Final Report

Page 9 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Continuation December 14, 2007 City of Kitchener Operations December 18, 2007 City of Cambridge Operations May 15, 2008 Meeting No. 5 (Project Team) May 23, 2008 (Project Team) Discuss the operation of the water distribution system issues with City of Kitchener Personnel Discuss the operation of the water distribution system issues with City of Cambridge Personnel Review boards for PIC Review Project Schedule Review Technical Memorandum #6 Review boards for PIC

2.2.4

Public Information Centres (PICs)

PICs were held at the following locations to provide an opportunity for the public to review the results of the work completed to date and to provide comments on the Master Plan. City of Cambridge Date: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 Time: 5:00-8:00 PM Location: Cambridge Place Mall City of Kitchener Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 Time: 5:00-8:00 PM Location: Region of Waterloo Headquarters 150 Frederick Street City of Waterloo Date: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 Time: 5:00-8:00 PM Location: Conestoga Mall A copy of the notification for the PICs is provided in Appendix G. Agencies and stakeholders on the project mailing list were also sent a letter notifying them of the PIC. Steering Committee members were available to provide information, answer questions and discuss comments. Sign-in sheets were provided at all three PICs. Original copies of the sign-in sheets are in the AECOM file copy. They have not been included in this report to safeguard privacy. Following the PIC, only one comment sheet was received from the public. A copy of all of the display board materials is included in Appendix G. The display boards were used to provide the general public with some of the pertinent findings of the Master Plan study. The details described on the display boards at the PIC were derived from the study results and recommendations (see Appendix F for more detailed study information).

Final Report

Page 10 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

2.3

Workshops and Technical Memoranda

The project was organized around six Technical Memoranda, individual meetings with each of the three municipalities (Cambridge, Kitchener and Waterloo) and Public Information Centres within each of the municipalities. The six Technical Memoranda* summarized the following topics: Technical Memo 1 Technical Memo 2 Technical Memo 3 Technical Memo 4 Technical Memo 5 Technical Memo 6 Landuse, Population, Demand Analysis and Projection (Appendix A) Pressure Zone Boundary Analysis and Rationalization (Appendix B) Storage Analysis and Projections (Appendix C) Review and Assessment of Existing Infrastructure (Appendix D) Evaluation Methodology Criteria (Appendix E) Water Servicing Alternatives (Appendix F)

* Copies of all the Technical Memoranda are provided in Appendices A through F. Prior to meeting with the individual municipalities, the project team prepared the background work on the existing water distribution system (Technical Memoranda 1-4). Subsequent to stakeholders meeting and public consultation the final two (Technical Memoranda 5-6) were prepared.

2.3.1

Internal Project Workshops

Three internal project workshops were individually held with the staff from the three municipalities; City of Waterloo, Kitchener and Cambridge. The workshops were facilitated by the consulting teams and Regional staff from the Transportation and Environmental services departments participated. These meeting were held in the Cities of Waterloo, Kitchener and Cambridge on December 7, 14 and 18, 2007 respectively (See Table 2.4).

Final Report

Page 11 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table 2.4 Master Plan Update Municipality Workshops Date Municipality Purpose of Workshops Discussed and presented key assumptions in the Water Distribution Master Plan, including demand scenarios (average max, week, fire etc) population forecasts and allocations Reviewed preliminary results of existing and future hydraulic modeling including, pressure issues, water quality and servicing problems Discussed current pressure issues and proposed revisitation through hydraulic modeling Identified and reviewed criticality and infrastructure assessment Discussed reassessment of Zone 1 either by sporting or rearranging zone Also involved enlargement of Zone 1A Discussed and presented key assumptions in the Water Distribution Master Plan including demand scenarios (average max, week, fire etc) population forecasts and allocations Reviewed preliminary results of existing and future hydraulic modeling including pressure issues, water quality and servicing problems Discussed current pressure issues and proposed revisitation through hydraulic modeling Identified and reviewed criticality and infrastructure assessment Reviewed criticality of mains Bridgeport, Zone 3 PRV settings (Deer Ridge, Manitou) Decommissioning of St. George and new tank or direct pressure system Discussed and presented key assumptions in the Water Distribution Master Plan including demand scenarios (average max, week, fire etc) population forecasts and allocations Reviewed preliminary results of existing and future hydraulic modeling including pressure issues, water quality and servicing problems Discussed current pressure issues and proposed revisitation through hydraulic modeling Identified and reviewed criticality and infrastructure assessment Reviewed incorporation of Zone 4B, 4C and part of University Research Park from existing Zone 4 to Zone 5 Reviewed pipe, decommissioning fluoridation and impending Zone 6 amalgamation


2008 Cambridge

2008

Kitchener

2008

Waterloo

Final Report

Page 12 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

3.

WATER DEMAND

A review of existing water demand data was conducted based on 2003 billing records received from the Region of Waterloo. The 2003 demand data was selected since it best represents a typical demand year for the Region of Waterloo. It is noted that for this study the total demand at St. Jacobs Market, Breslau North and Breslau South was estimated since no billing information was available for those areas. The following information was found: The total average water demand for 2003 was approximately 132.3 ML/d or 1531.3L/s; and Overall, approximately 69% of the total billed authorized consumption is residential and the remaining 31% is attributed to Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI) consumption for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The baseline or existing information on the Tri-City water users has been supplied by the Region and the three local cities including demand data, water billing information and GIS data. A more detailed analysis of landuse, population, demand analysis and projections can be found in Technical Memorandum #1 (included in Appendix A of this report). Technical Memorandum #1 provides information on existing unaccounted for water (UFW), identified the top 50 water users, prepared diurnal patterns based on land use on a zone by zone basis (residential and ICI basis) and summarized existing water use for the Tri-City area.

3.1
3.1.1

Population and Water Demand Projections


Population Projections

An interpolation method was applied to estimate the 2003 population for both residential and employment population since data for 2001 and 2006 was provided. Both residential population and equivalent population were provided by the Region. Table 3.1 presents a summary of population data in each city for 2003. Table 3.1- Existing Population 2003 3 City Cambridge Kitchener Waterloo North Dumfries* Wilmot** St. Jacob Elmira Total * Included Lloyd Brown Subdivision ** Included Mannheim and Shingletown
3

Residential Population 117,704 202,860 104,769 108 700 1,436 8,024 435,601

Equivalent Employment Population 64,761 93,979 60,175 7 98 1,864 5,003 225,887

Table 3.1 from page 7 of Technical Memorandum #1

Final Report

Page 13 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Projected population information was provided by the Region in May 2006. Table 3.2 details the projected residential equivalent and employment equivalent populations to the year 2026 by the Municipality. Table 3.2 - Total Projected Equivalent Population*4 Municipality Cambridge Kitchener Waterloo North Dumfries Wilmot(1) Woolwich(2) Total 2003 182,465 296,839 164,944 115 799 16,326 661,488 2006 196,290 314,192 180,986 115 804 17,510 709,897 2011 212,947 339,300 195,152 115 808 19,560 767,882 2016 227,536 365,676 207,621 115 813 21,614 823,375 2021 240,479 394,658 218,399 115 821 24,630 879,102 2026 255,431 422,132 230,670 115 827 27,315 936,490

* residential and equivalent employment population (ICI)

3.1.2

Water Demand Projections

The 2003 Water Billing Records for the three cities were reviewed. It was determined that residential users comprised the majority of the water demand as outlined in Table 3.3. Table 3.3 - 2003 Demand Summary per Landuse5 Landuse Type Commercial Industrial Institutional Other Residential Total (Source: 2003 Water Billing Records) However, further examination was completed to identify the top 50 water billing records in order to determine any significant and/or special water users. This analysis determined that the Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI) sectors comprised the majority of the Top 50 billing record group. Table 3.4 details the Top 50 User percentage distribution.
4 5

Total Demand (L/s) 111.3 252.0 98.3 5.2 1064.3 1531.1 L/s

Total Demand (%) 7.3% 16.5% 6.4% 0.3% 69.5% 100.0%

Table 3.2 from page #22 of Technical Memorandum#1 Table 3.3 from page #3 of Technical Memorandum #1

Final Report

Page 14 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN Table 3.4 - Total Demand for the Top 50 Water Billing Records Ranked by Landuse6 Top 50 Billing Land Use Records Demand (L/s) Commercial Industrial Institutional Other Residential Total 2.1 162.0 38.6 0 18.7 221.4 L/s Total Demand per landuse in RMOW (L/s) 111.3 252.0 98.3 5.2 1064.3 1531.1 L/s Percent Distribution per Landuse (%) 1.9% 64.3% 39.3% 0.0% 1.8% 14.5%

The influence of the top 50 customer demands was evaluated and the methodology used to determine the approximate population for each top 50 billing account is provided below: Scenario 184 of the Regions Planning Department population data set was used as the baseline population and population distribution. An equivalent population from the PLUM (Population Land Use Model) zone was assigned to each Top 50 Users based on their shared geography The Zonal populations in Scenario 184 and the final population data set were compared. Adjustment factors were calculated based on population growth and distribution The adjustment factor for each zone was applied to each Top 50 User and the equivalent population for each user was adjusted to match the final population data set For each PLUM zone that contains one or more Top 50 billing records, a specific consumption rate was calculated based on the total water consumption and total population associated with that particular PLUM zone Water consumption and population data associated with these PLUM zones (i.e. the zones where the Top 50 billing records are located) are then subtracted from the total water consumption and total population of that particular pressure zone Water consumption and population data sets for the remaining PLUM zones are obtained and the consumption rate for the remaining PLUM zones was calculated The impacts of the Top 50 User on the residential and ICI consumption rates were evaluated. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine how the Top 50 water users affected the water distribution system. The detailed results were presented in Technical Memorandum #1 (Appendix A). According to the sensitivity results, the Top 50 Users were not sensitive to the zonal residential consumption rate. Conversely, the Top 50 Users were very sensitive to the zonal ICI consumption rate. As a result of the analysis, a common residential consumption rate was applied for the municipalities consumption rates. Conversely, a distinct ICI consumption rate for each zone was applied for each municipality to better describe the consumption characteristics.

Table 3.4 from page #5 of Technical Memorandum #1

Final Report

Page 15 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

3.2

Definitions

Average daily water demand, maximum weekly water demand, and total annual water use projections were used as part of this report. The consumption data presented in this report is based on the per capita demands shown in Table 3.5. A maximum week factor of 1.25 was used in this Master Plan (See Technical Memorandum # 1 for details). Unaccounted for Water (UFW) is the amount of water in the distribution system which is not billed due to leakage, inaccurate system flow meters, illegal water taking, water system maintenance, and fire fighting. UFW was calculated by pressure zone through the use of SCADA records and water billing data. (Note: SCADA limitations required the combination of some zones. Details of the zone changes are presented in Technical Memorandum #2-Appendix B). A summary of UFW by city is presented in Table 3.5. Table 3.5 - UFW in Each City (2003)7 Total Demand Based Municipality on SCADA Record (L/s) Cambridge Kitchener Waterloo Total 588.0 819.5 404.0 1832.0 Total Demand Based on Billing Record (L/s) 482.4 681.6 370.6 1531.3 UFW (L/s) 105.6 158.4 34.2 300.7 %UFW per Municipality 18% 19% 8% 16%

3.3

Water Demand Forecast

In order to estimate future water use projections, two types of information are required: population data and water consumption data. Both were reviewed and the findings were listed above in Section 3.1.1 and Section 3.1.2. It should be noted that, in addition to billing information, the following was reviewed: GIS data including Land Use, Parcel Fabric for spatial allocation of demands Population projections approved by the Regions Planning Department Diurnal Water Demand Patterns developed by AECOM in conjunction with the RMOW Figure 3.1 illustrates how the generation of the water demand projections were accomplished.

Table 3.5 from page #12 of Technical Memorandum #1

Final Report

Page 16 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 3.1 - Water Demand Projection Process

Unaccounted For Water (UFW)

Water Consumption Rates (Residential & ICI, etc.)

Water Demand Projections for Each Service Area

Historical SCADA Water Use

Historical Serviced Populations

Projected Water Service Areas

Water Billing Information

Land Use Information

Population Projections per Service Area

Hydraulic Model Demand Sets

Following the process outlined in the above diagram, water consumption rates were calculated for both residential and ICI users for each zone using the water consumption data as provided in the 2003 billing records, the UFW calculated information and the 2003 population data (as noted in Table 3.1 above). Detailed water consumption rate calculations were done and included in Technical Memorandum #1Appendix A. Table 3.6 illustrates the results of the detailed water consumption calculation rates Table 3.6 - Average Residential and ICI Water Per Capita Consumption Rate8 Residential City Consumption Rate (L/cap/d) Cambridge Kitchener Waterloo Overall Tri-City 204.7 227.7 214.7 218.0 ICI Consumption Rate (L/cap/d) 280.8 178.6 156.9 203.1

*to be applied to equivalent employment populations (ICI) Therefore, with the different consumption rates for residential and ICI water users, it is useful to review the average consumption rates of other municipalities outside of the Region of Waterloo before determining the rate that will be utilized in projecting future water demand in the system. AECOMs National Water and Wastewater Benchmarking Initiative collects relevant information for more than 35 Canadian cities and regional organizations, including the Region of Waterloo who has been a participant in this project over the last several years. Average day water consumption from participating
8

Table 3.6 from page #8 of Technical Memorandum #1

Final Report

Page 17 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

municipalities/cities was reviewed to compare the average water consumption rate determined in this study. From the data provided by the Region of Waterloo (1994-2004) it was determined that the summer population was lower than the winter population, due to the absence of students who lived outside of the Region of Waterloo however, the water consumption rates were acutely higher during summer months. Therefore, the summer population data (higher consumption rates) was used to calculate the total per capita consumption to ensure that a conservative scenario would be utilized. It should be noted that there was a noticeable decline in the overall water consumption rate over the past ten year period. Part of the decline may be attributed to the water efficiency program initiated in the Tri-Cities (further discussion of water efficiency program in Section 3.5.1 of this report). Detailed analysis and all data used can be found in Technical Memorandum #1 in Appendix A. Using projected populations (Table 3.2) and per capita consumption (Table 3.6), AECOM projected Total Average Day Demand, Total Maximum Day Demand and Total Maximum Week Demand (Tables 3.7 to 3.9 respectively). Table 3.7 - Total Average Day Demand (L/s)9 Municipality Cambridge Kitchener Waterloo North Dumfries Wilmot(1) Woolwich(2) Total Total (MGD
)(4)

2003 587 812 431 0 2 46 1,879 35.7

2006 596 812 488 0 2 47 1,906 36.2

2011 639 869 478 0 2 51 2,040 38.8

2016 677 931 504 0 2 56 2,170 41.2

2021 709 999 527 0 2 64 2,302 43.7

2026 746 1,063 553 0 2 72 2,436 46.3

Table 3.7 from page #22 of Technical Memorandum #1

Final Report

Page 18 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN Table 3.8 - Total Maximum Day Demand (L/s)10 Municipality Cambridge Kitchener Waterloo North Dumfries Wilmot(1) Woolwich(2) Total Total (MIGD) 2003 793 1,096 582 1 3 63 2,537 48.2 2006 805 1,097 605 1 3 63 2,8572 48.9 2011 863 1,174 645 1 3 69 2,754 52.3 2016 913 1,257 680 1 3 76 2,930 55.7 2021 975 1,349 711 1 3 87 3,107 59.1 2026 1,007 1,435 747 1 3 97 3,289 62.5

Table 3.9 - Total Maximum Week Demand (L/s)11 Municipality Cambridge Kitchener Waterloo North Dumfries Wilmot(1) Woolwich(2) Total Total (MIGD) 1. 2. 3. 4. 2003 734 1,014 539 1 3 58 2,349 44.6 2006 745 1,016 560 1 3 58 2,382 45.3 2011 799 1,087 597 1 3 64 2,550 48.5 2016 846 1,164 630 1 3 70 2,713 51.6 2021 886 1,249 658 1 3 81 2,877 54.7 2026 933 1,328 691 1 3 90 3,045 57.9

Municipality of Wilmot includes Mannheim and Shingletown Municipality of Woolwich includes Elmira and St. Jacob Tables 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4 have been updated based on a residential per capita consumption of 209 l/cap/day as detailed in the conclusions of this report Includes water efficiency saving of 1.64 MGD

10 11

Table 3.8 from page #23 of Technical Memorandum #1 Table 3.9 from page #23 of Technical Memorandum #1

Final Report

Page 19 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

3.4

Residential and ICI Diurnal Patterns

A key aspect of the demand analysis portion of the project was the development of diurnal patterns for each pressure zone that were utilized in the hydraulic model.

3.4.1

Residential Diurnal Pattern

As noted previously, the water consumption rate for the residential sector did not vary greatly from pressure zone to pressure zone. A common diurnal pattern was developed to illustrate the residential usage throughout the Tri-City study area. Kitchener Zone 5 (+Waterloo Zone 5A) was used to develop a common residential diurnal pattern because the residential demand accounted for over 90% of the total. Fig. 3.2 below illustrates the Residential Diurnal Pattern (based on Kit Zone 5). Detailed information on the residential diurnal pattern is noted in Technical Memorandum 1 (Appendix A). Figure 3.2 - Residential Diurnal Pattern (Based on Kit Zone 5)12
1.60

1.40

Peaking Factor [/]

1.20

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00

Avg Day

Max Day

3.4.2

ICI Diurnal Pattern

The ICI Diurnal Patterns for each pressure zone were calculated for different demand conditions: average day, maximum week and maximum day demand. Since 95% of the water demand for zones Cam 1A, KIT 5, Wat 4B, Wat 4C and Wat 6 is from residential demands, no ICI diurnal patterns were generated for these zones. Figures 3.3 to 3.9 illustrate the various ICI diurnal patterns

12

Figure 3.2 from page #14 of Technical Memorandum #1

Final Report

Page 20 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN Figure 3.3 - ICI Diurnal Pattern (CAM 1 + CAM3)13

2.00 1.80 1.60 1.40 Peaking Factor [/] 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00

Ave

MaxDay

MaxW eek

Figure 3.4 - ICI Diurnal Pattern (CAM2E)

2.50

2.00 Peaking Factor [/]

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00

Ave

MaxDay

MaxW eek

13

Figures 3.3 to 3.9 from pages 16 to 18 of Technical Memorandum #1

Final Report

Page 21 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 3.5 - ICI Diurnal Pattern (CAM2W)


1.80 1.60 1.40 Peaking Factor [/] 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00

Ave

MaxDay

MaxW eek

Figure 3.6 - ICI Diurnal Pattern (KIT2 + KIT2A)

2.00 1.80 1.60 1.40 Peaking Factor [/] 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00

Ave

MaxDay

MaxW eek

Final Report

Page 22 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 3.7 - ICI Diurnal Pattern (KIT2B + KIT4 + BreslauN + BreslauS)


1.60 1.40 1.20 Peaking Factor 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00

Ave

MaxDay

MaxW eek

Figure 3.8 - ICI Diurnal Pattern (WAT5 + WAT4 + KIT4A + Market)


2.50

2.00 Peaking Factor [/]

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00

Ave

MaxDay

MaxW eek

Using these overall diurnal patterns (blending residential and ICI), AECOM developed segregated diurnal patterns for each land use type by considering the land use and point source users in each zone. By establishing these segregated patterns, more accurate overall diurnal patterns for service areas having different proportions of residential versus ICI demands can be readily generated for the hydraulic model.

Final Report

Page 23 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

3.5

Max Day and Max Week Peaking Factors


Table 3.10 - Max Day/Max Week Demand (L/s) (2003)14 Zone AVG Day Demand (L/s) 347.52 10.86 187.52 29.54 43.57 619.01 694.47 7.33 138.18 701.8 336.02 29.59 3.16 35.21 403.98 1724.79 MAX Day Demand (L/s) 501.54 21.96 269.32 84.64 78.26 955.72 907.71 16.25 237.16 923.96 463.52 43.65 5.91 62 575.08 2454.76 MAX Week Demand (L/s) 399.54 19.36 239.54 48.8 74.56 781.8 826.59 14.67 202.39 841.26 411.37 38.75 5.13 51.81 507.06 2130.12 6-Jul-03 6-Jul-03 6-Jul-03 14-Sep-03 6-Jul-03 6-Jul-03 6-Jul-03 Week of MAX Day Demand Factor 1.44 2.02 1.44 2.87 1.80 1.54 1.31 2.22 1.72 1.38 1.38 1.48 1.87 1.76 1.42 1.42 MAX Week Demand Factor 1.15 1.78 1.28 1.65 1.71 1.26 1.19 2.00 1.46 1.24 1.22 1.31 1.62 1.47 1.26 1.24

Using the Region of Waterloo Population data, water demand on a zone by zone basis was developed.

Cam1 Cam 1A Cam 2E Cam 2W Cam3 CAM Kit 2W & Kit 4 Kit 2E Kit 5 KIT Wat 4 & Wat 5 Wat 4B Wat 4C Wat 6 WAT Overall RMOW

6-Jul-03 6-Jul-03 6-Jul-03 12-Oct-03 6-Jul-03

For this study the following factors were used

Maximum Day Demand Factor Maximum Week Demand factor

1.44 1.25

3.5.1

Impact of Water Efficiency on Demand

Water efficiency can be improved by implementing water conservation programs on a year round basis. Such programs have resulted in a decrease in the average daily per capita water demands. The Regions Water Efficiency Master Plan Update 2006 was reviewed, interpreted and incorporated to the future water demand estimation. However, in order to evaluate the sensitivity of the target water savings to the projected water demands, the savings in water consumption were regarded in three scenarios: Effective Water Efficiency Program (100% saved), Average Water Efficiency Program (50% saved) and No Participation (0% saved). Table 3.12 details the altered demands when the efficiency programs are taken into account.

14

Table3.10 from page #7 of Technical Memorandum #1s- Appendix E

Final Report

Page 24 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN Table 3.11 - Projected Average Day Demand with Water Efficiency Consideration15
Design Year Unit ML/d 2006 164.6 2011 170.3 2016 179.3 2021 190.7 2026 202.3 Note: Low Demand Projection MGD Average Water Efficiency Program (50% of target saving achieved). ML/d No Participation** MGD * ** 36.2 38.8 41.2 43.7 46.3 164.6 176.3 187.5 198.9 210.5 High Demand Projection MGD 36.2 38.1 40.3 42.8 45.4 ML/d 36.2 164.6 37.5 173.3 39.5 183.4 41.9 194.8 44.5 206.4 Med Demand Projection

Effective Water Efficiency Program*

3% average day demand adjustment factor was excluded from the Low Demand Projection Demand incorporates the estimated savings of 1.21MGD that is already considered to have been achieved through efficiency projects but assumes that no savings would be made in the 2007-2015 water efficiency programs (worst case scenario)

3.5.2

Impact of Outdoor Water Use Restrictions on Demand

Outdoor water use restrictions have been implemented by the Region (in the past) on a seasonal basis to reduce water use during high demand periods. In 2005 the Region implemented a once a week lawn watering restriction. It is now a permanent mandate. These restrictions serve to decrease the maximum week demands. It was noted that if no participation in the water efficiency program occurred implementation of seasonal outdoor water restrictions would reduce the estimated maximum week factor from 1.28 to 1.25.

3.6

Summary

ICI Consumption Rate ICI consumption rates vary by zone as they largely depend on the type of ICI activities that exist. As a result, ICI consumption rates on a zone by zone basis were recommended and the ICI consumption rates for each zone are summarized below. For a detailed breakdown of ICI consumption rates please refer to Technical Memorandum #1-Appendix C found in Appendix A.

15

Table3.11 from page #25 of Technical Memorandum #1

Final Report

Page 25 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN Table 3.12 - Recommended ICI Consumption Rate by Zone16 ICI Consumption Rate (L/cap/d)

Zone The City of Cambridge Cam 1 Cam 1A Cam 2E Cam 2W Cam 3 The City of Kitchener Kit 2 Kit 2A Kit 2B Kit 4 Kit 4A Breslau N * Breslau S * Kit 5 WIL 5A * Kit 6** The City of Waterloo Wat 4 Wat 4B Wat 4C Wat 5 Wat 6 Wat 7 * Market *

347 84 220 255 195 112 383 200 183 90 177 177 133 177 59 166 65 10 198 59 59 157

* Due to insufficient data, these zones used the Citys average consumption Rate ** Recommended by the Region

Residential Consumption Rate The recommended daily residential consumption rate is 225 /cap/day Maximum Day Peaking Factor The recommended max day peaking factor is 1.44 Maximum Week Peaking Factor The recommended max week peaking factor is 1.25
16

Table3.12 from page #28 of Technical Memorandum #1

Final Report

Page 26 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

4.
4.1

WATER DISTRIBUTION
Description of Existing Water Distribution System

The Regions water supply and distribution system is complex and highly integrated. The water supply is comprised of groundwater, surface water and aquifer storage and recovery from the Mannheim (surface) water treatment plant. The distribution system comprises a number of Regional (transmission), dual purpose and local municipality distribution mains operating within fourteen existing pressure zones as follows: Cambridge: Kitchener: Waterloo: Zones 1, 1A, 2E, 2W, 3 Zones 2, 2A, 2B, 4, 5 (future 6) Zones 4, 4B, 4C, 5, 6, 7

Technical Memoranda #1, 2, 3 and 4 (Appendices A, B, C and D) describe system demand and supplies in considerable detail. These technical memoranda also describe system operation and pressure zone boundary issues and possible solutions. Refer to Figure 4.1 for pressure zone delineation and Figure 4.2 for the Existing Water Supply System. Population projections and population allocation were provided by the Region. These residential and ICI demands were reviewed in detail in Technical Memorandum #1 (included in Appendix A). Residential per capita consumption of 225 L/cap/day was recommended through review of historical information available from Regional records and as noted in Section 3 of this report. This is a testimony to the excellent demand management strategy undertaken by the Region since the last Water Distribution Master Plan. In the 1992 WDMP these values ranged from 211 Lpcd (Kitchener) to 234 Lpcd (low density residential).

Final Report

Page 27 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 4.1
Existing

Figure 4.1 - Pressure Zones17

17

Figure4.1 from page #2 of Technical Memorandum #4

Final Report

Page 28 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 4.2 - Existing Water Supply System

18

18

Figure 4.2 from page #2 of Technical Memorandum #2

Final Report

Page 29 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN Tables 4.1 and 4.2 summarize the existing supply capacity at each zone and details each pumping station and direct input well supply. Table 4.1 - Water Supply Information19 PUMPS ZONE Existing Pumping Station Modeling Pump ID CB-21 CB-22 CB-23 CB-24 CB-37 CB-38 CB-16 CB-17 CB-28 CB-27 CB-27 CB-28 CB-29 CB-30 CB-31 CB-32 CB-8 CB-9 CB-10 Total Capacity (L/s) 150 150 150 150 150 150 100 100 120 120 120 120 840(1)(4) 22 82 82 82 268 152 151 151 303(1) CB-34 CB-35 CB-36 KB-10 KB-11 KB-12 KB-5 KB-6 KB-1 KB-2 70 70 182 140(1) 80 50 80 95 95 130 130 Booster Booster Fire Booster Booster Booster Duty Duty Duty Standby Type Duty Duty Duty Standby Duty Standby Duty Duty Duty Standby Duty Standby Duty Duty Duty Standby 268 Duty Standby Fire H3 H4 H5 G5 TOTAL P16 G4 P_H3 P_H4 P_H5 P_G5 P_P16 P_G4 19 24 23 50 116 22.7 22 DIRECT WELL SUPPLY TO SYSTEM Total Total Modeling Well ID Capacity Capacity Pump ID (L/s) (L/s) G9 P6 G6 P9 P15 P_G9 P_P6 P_G6 P_P9 P_P15 38 23 22 30 19

Middleton (2) Shades Mill (5) Cam 1 Rahmans Pinebush WTP (3) Turnbull WTP (6) TOTAL

TOTAL

132

972

Cam 1A

South Cambridge TOTAL Turnbull Pumping Station TOTAL TOTAL

Cam 2E

Cam2W

419 22.7

Cam 3

St. Andrew TOTAL

Kit 4 Parkway (9) Strange St. (10) Greenbrook (7)


19

TOTAL K34 K36

KB28 P_K36

22 53 27

162 2719

Table4.1 from page #3 of Technical Memorandum #2

Final Report

Page 30 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

PUMPS ZONE Existing Pumping Station Modeling Pump ID KB-3 KB-4 Mannheim (8) KB-19 KB-20 KB-21 KB-15 KB-16 KB-17 KB-18 WB-1 WB-2 WB-3 WB-13 WB-14 WB15 WB-6 WB-7 WB-8 WB-16 WB-17 WB18 WB19 Total Capacity (L/s) 70 85 608 608 608 2,639 94 250 250 250 844 100 100 100 300 300 15 600(1) 29 53 77 159 15 15 15 114 45 279(11) 105 54 105 189 264(1) Type Duty Duty Duty Duty Standby Duty Booster Booster Standby Duty Standby Duty Standby Standby Recirc.

DIRECT WELL SUPPLY TO SYSTEM Total Total Modeling Well ID Capacity Capacity Pump ID (L/s) (L/s)

TOTAL Mannheim (8) TOTAL William St. (12) Wat 4 Laurel TOTAL Northfield Dr. TOTAL Lakeshore West TOTAL Erb Street Reservoir Rummelhardt Pumping Station TOTAL

TOTAL K18

P_K18

80 60

Kit 5

TOTAL

60

904

600 Duty Duty Standby 159 Duty Duty Duty Fire 45 NA Duty Duty Standby Fire W10 P_W10 36 315

Wat 4B

Wat 4C

Wat 5

Wat 6

NA WB-9 WB-10 WB-11 WB-12

264

Final Report

Page 31 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

(1)The total available pumping capacity in each zone excluded Fire Pumps, Standby Pumps and Recirculation Pumps, etc. (2) Middleton PS was supplied by Middleton Well System (G1, G1A, G2, G3 and G14) with a total supply capacity of 40.5ML/d (467L/s) (3) Pinebush Treatment Plant was supplied by Pinebush Well System (P11, P11 and P17) with a total supply capacity of 10.4ML/d (120L/s) (4) Excludes Rahmans (5) Shaes Mill Treatment Plant was supplied by Shades Mill Well System (G7, G8, G38 and G39) with a total supply capacity of 13ML/d (150L/s) (6) Turnbull Treatment Plant was supplied by Turnbull Well System (G16, G17 and G18) with a total supply capacity of 10.4Ml/d (120L/s) (7) Greenbrook Water Treatment Plant was supplied by Greenbrook Well System (K1, K2, K4B, K5A and K8) with a total supply capacity of 12.3ML/d (142L/s) (8) Mannheim Treatment plant was supplied by Mannheim Well System (K21, K25, K29), (K22A, K23, K24, K26), (K91, K92, K93, K94) with a total supply capacity of 72.6ML/d (840L/s) (9) Parkway Treatment Plant was supplied by Parkway Well System (K31, K32 and K33) with a total capacity of 13.7ML/d (159L/s) (10) Strange Street P.S. was supplied by Strange Street Well System (K10A, K11, K13) with a total capacity of 9.03ML/d (104.5L/s) (11) Erb Street Reservoir was supplied by Erb Street Well System (W6A, W6B, W7, W8) with a total capacity of 24.11ML/d (279L/s) (12) William Street PS was supplied by William Street Well system (W1B, W1B, W2, W3) with a total capacity of 16.8ML/d (195L/s)

Final Report

Page 32 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN Table 4.2 - Hydraulic Modeling Results - Water Facility Outputs Summary20 Design Data Design Design Head Capacity (L/s) (m) Hydraulic Modeling Results 2006 Average Flow (L/s) Middleton Shades Mill Rahman South Cambridge Turnbull St. Andrew Parkway Strange St. Greenbrook Grand Mannheim (Z4) Mannheim (Z5) Mannheim (Z6) William St. Laurel Northfield Dr.
1

2011 Average Flow (L/s) 73.2 70.4 21.7 58 46 46.8 72.9 78.5 65.1 5 40.7 59.4 65.3 26.2 53 60.1 79 13.5 40.5 50 112 121.9 63.2 222.4 56.5 129.4 36.1 118.4 26.4 122.1 70 177.3 324 691.2 323.1 128.9 151.3 0 38.9 6.4 71.1 68.7 15.8 57.9 46 47 74.1 78.7 65.8 45 5.3 40.1 44.63 67.3 27.4 54.4 61.3 Max Head (m)

2016 Average Flow (L/s) 237.4 57.1 128.5 41 128.1 36.8 126.1 70 199.7 327 709.4 335.3 141 153.4 0 70.4 70.3 14.7 57.6 46.1 78.6 73.8 78.7 65.5 45 5.2 39.4 44.03 67.3 27.5 Max Head (m)

2021 Average Flow (L/s) 239.2 56.6 124 44.2 138.7 30.9 153.1 70 205.5 331 722.8 345.4 138.1 183.3 0 71.8 70.4 15.8 57.9 46.4 47.5 74.9 78.7 65.8 45 5.2 40.9 44.03 67 27.9 Max Head (m)

2026 Average Flow (L/s) 252.7 57.7 129.8 54 147.1 42.8 166 70 244.6 333.1 739.2 352.4 140.7 188.5 0 73 70.4 19.7 57.9 47.2 46.6 76 78.7 66.1 45 5.2 40.9 42.93 67.8 28.2 Max Head (m)

Water Facility

Zone

Max Head (m)

Cam1 Cam1 Cam1 Cam1A Cam2E Cam3 Kit4 Kit4 Kit4 Kit4 Kit4 Kit5 Kit6 Wat4 Wat4 Wat4B Wat4C Wat6 Cam 2W to Cam 2E Kit2E to Cam1 Kit 4 to Kit 2E Kit 4 to Kit 2W Kit 4 to Wat 4 Kit 4 Kit2E 2

450 150 168 268 303 140 210 190 415 Future 1824 844 301.5 300 300 159 45 264 381 365 Future

74 55 11 50 55 45 76 65 105 21 23 48 67 16 20 24 40

211.6 58.8 102.5 30.2 112.9 28.7 112.5 37.5 206.1 622.1 304.7 61.1 134.1 0 39.6 6 56.4 38.9 50 85.8 113.5 79 7.6 7.4

Lakeshore West1 Rummelhardt Briadean MTV New Dundee PRV River Road PRV Manitou PRV MV2 St. George ET* Freeport ET**
1

Inactive 40.5 50 119.1 130.2 59 12.7 21.05 39.9 50 126.8 134.7 59.9 -19.5 38.3 50 132.8 136.9 64.4 -

Zones Wat 4B and Wat4C have been incorporated into Wat 5 2 Rummelhardt PS was inactivated due to the activation of Zone 6 Elevated Tank 3 Zone 6 Elevated Tank was activated * Net flow from all floating storages (e.g. St. George Elevated Tank, Freeport Elevated Tank) was approximately zero since the water level at the end of the simulation was almost identical to the initial tank level. * Assumed to be decommissioned prior 2011 Design Year ** positive and negative flow represents the total net accumulated flow at the storage over a 48 hr extended period simulation (2days)

20

Table 4.2 from page #16 of Technical Memorandum #6

Final Report

Page 33 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN The complexity and integration/interconnectivity of the Integrated Urban System (IUS) is demonstrated in Figure 4.2. In many cases, some facilities supply more than one pressure zone (i.e. Mannheim). Further, many zones are interconnected to each other through Pressure Reducing Valves (PRVs) and or motorized Throttle Valve (MTVs), allowing supply from one zone to satisfy demand to an adjacent zone (e.g. Kitchener Zone 4 to interconnect to Kitchener Zone 2 and is interconnected with Cambridge 2E by River Road PRV. Kitchener Zone 2 is further interconnected to Cambridge Zone 1 by New Dundee Road PRV.). Transmission/Distribution System Information As noted above, there are three categorizations of watermains within the three major municipalities. Regional watermains are described as trunk watermains wholly owned and operated by the Region of Waterloo. Dual watermains are characterized as larger watermains that are used by the Region of Waterloo as distribution mains and also used by the local municipality (Cambridge, Kitchener or Waterloo) for local water supply. Local watermains are owned and operated by the local municipalities for water supply within the municipality. The existing hydraulic model contains all of Regional and Dual watermains and only local watermains needed to complete hydraulic connectivity. Figure 4.3 illustrates the three categories for watermains in the hydraulic model. Storage The existing storage facilities are documented in Technical Memorandum #3. The current design maximum and emergency operating levels for each storage facility are documented in Table 4.3. SCADA records for each facility were reviewed in order to identify the actual maximum and minimum operating levels and the actual lowest operation level. It is noted that the total storage that is being used in normal operation is not equal to the total theoretical useable storage. Figure 4.6 demonstrates the terminology such as useable storage and total design capacity as well as operating levels.

Final Report

Page 34 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Current as of

Figure 4.3 - Ownership of Watermains 21

21

Figure 4.3 from page #11 of Technical Memorandum #6

Final Report

Page 35 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 4.4 - Future Water Supply System (New KIT4 Storage Facility)

Final Report

Page 36 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 4.5 - Future Water Supply System (New CAM1 Storage Facility)

Final Report

Page 37 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table 4.3 - Existing Storage Facility Information22

Zone

Storage Facility

Design Storage Capacity (m3) 4,380 2,273


(1)

Total Design Capacity (m3)

Overflow Level (m) 339.52 329.18

Emergency Low Elevation (m) 325.50 320.47 326.80 266.60 322.50 304.40 333.50 335.20 357.07 353.15 306.90 369.10 328.40 320.60 322.20 361.87 317.98 319.74 319.74 319.74 402.00 402.00 378.32 379.10

Maximum Operating Elevation (m) 337.40 329.10 327.90 269.95 326.14 311.15 359.50 347.10 365.70 365.15 310.20 380.90 333.70 321.70 325.10 380.50 321.80 321.80 321.80 321.80 404.80 404.80 384.36 383.90

Lowest Water Elevation (m)

Theoretical Storage Capacity (m3) 2,795


(2)

% of Total Design Capacity 64%

Total Theoretical Capacity (m3) Stand Pipe

Comments

St. Andrew Shantz Hill Cam 1 Rahman Middleton Turnbull Cam 1A Cam 2E Cam 3 Cam 2W / Kit 2 / Kit 2A South Cambridge Pinebush Edward St Inverness Freeport Parkway St. George Kit 4 Strange St Greenbrook (old) Greenbrook (new) Laurel William St #1 Wat 4 William St #2 William St #3 William St #4 Wat 5 Kit 4 / 5 & Wat 4/5
1

320.87 317.45 323.85 264.80 321.26 304.40 325.43 323.00 353.68 352.67 303.89 364.24 326.60 319.07 320.69 356.35 316.84 318.50 318.97 318.84 400.51 400.51 377.76 377.46

Elevated Tank (not in use) 4,000 59% 64% 75% 100% 76% 4,500 14,812 1,624 7,011 27,022 Ground Level Reservoir Two Cells Ground Level Reservoir Two Cells In-ground Reservoir Two Cells In-ground Reservoir Stand Pipe Stand Pipe (not in use) 1,624 7,011 13,300(2) 1,988 3,900 1,100 9,100
(2) (2) (2)

6,800 5,000 22,800 4,500 19,500 3,306


(1)

38,980

329.18 270.00 326.14

3,221 17,007 4,500 14,812

4,500 19,500 2,273 7,291

311.15 359.66 348.69 365.76 365.15 310.28 381.00

2,273 7,291 14,269 2,824 4,200 2,421 9,969 27,418 315 686 1,146
(1) (1) (1)

71% 96% 93% 70% 93% 45% 91% 100%

Elevated Tank Elevated Tank Two Cells In-ground Reservoir Elevated Tank

33,683

333.80 321.79 325.20 381.00 321.80

29,388

Ground Level Reservoir One Treated Water Cell In-ground Reservoir In-ground Reservoir Ground Level Reservoir In-ground Reservoir (not in use)

27,418

29,665

322.80 322.10 322.30

29,318
(2)

In-ground Reservoir (not in use) In-ground Reservoir (not in use)

2,247 9,296 9,125 51,049 50,298 101,347 18,421

1,900

85% 96% 95% 92% 72% 82,806 17,600

In-ground Reservoir Two Cells In-ground Reservoir In-ground Reservoir Two Cells In-ground Reservoir Three Cells In-ground Reservoir

Erb St (old) Erb St (new) Mannheim (new) Mannheim (old)

404.90 404.90 348.36 384.15

8,900(2) 8,700
(2)

46,718 36,088

Currently not in use and excluded from the calculation of the total storage capacity. Current Operating Usable Storage (greater than the values provided in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Water Resources Information)

22

Table 4.3 from page #6 of Technical Memorandum #3

Final Report

Page 38 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN Table 4.4 - Actual Operating Levels in Existing Water Systems23

Zone

Storage Facility

SCADA Maximum Operating Elevation (m) 334.50 329.00 269.95 326.00 358.60 358.60 364.50

SCADA Minimum Operating Elevation (m) 330.00 327.50 266.60 325.60 357.20 357.20 363.70

SCADA Lowest Operating Elevation (m) 330.00 327.50 264.80 325.60 357.20 357.20 363.70

Normal Operating Storage (ML) 2.2 4 0.9 7.6 1.6 3.8 0.7

% of Total Design Storage Capacity 50% 59% 18% 33% 36% 19% 31%

St. Andrew Rahman Middleton Cam 1 Cam 1A Cam 2E Cam 3 Cam 2W / Kit 2 / Kit 2A Turnbull South Cambridge Pinebush Inverness

Freeport Parkway St. George Strange St Greenbrook (old)

363.40 310.20 380.00 333.70 321.70 325.10 380.00 St 321.80 404.70 404.70 384.15 384.15

363.00 306.90 378.00 328.40 320.60 322.20 376.00 319.74 403.80 403.80 381.56 381.56

360.00 303.89 375.00 326.60 319.07 320.69 372.00 318.84 403.00 403.00 381.56 381.56

6.5 13.3 1.3 3.9 1.1 6.4 8.9 1.9 8.9 8.7 18.5 18.4

89% 93% 46% 93% 45% 91% 32% 85% 96% 95% 36% 34%

Kit 4

Greenbrook (new) Laurel

Wat 4

William #4

Erb St (old) Wat 5 Erb St (new) Mannheim (new) Mannheim (old)

Kit 4 / 5 & Wat 4 /5

23

Table 4.4 from page #7 of Technical Memorandum #3

Final Report

Page 39 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 4.6 - Definition of Elevated Storage 24

4.2

Existing System Pressure Zone Boundary Analysis

A detailed review of the existing pressure zones was undertaken in Technical Memorandum #2 (included in Appendix B). Operating records and existing reservoir levels were used to evaluate operational pressures. Expected high and low pressures are documented, as well as target hydraulic gradelines for each pressure zone were also documented. Table 4.5 provides the HGL for each pressure zone within the IUS. Based on topographic plots and the existing HGL pressure, issues not meeting Regional criteria (< 240 kPa and > 700 kPa) were plotted. These can be seen on Figures 2 to 18 in Technical Memorandum #2.

24

Figure 4.6 from page #5 of Technical Memorandum #3

Final Report

Page 40 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table 4.5 - Summary of Pressure Issues and Possible Mitigation

Zone
Cambridge

Comments

Based on an approximate HGL of 334m (St. Andrews and Turnbull/Rahmans) most significant area of pressure issues exists around Clyde Road and the Landfill Site (ground elevation 319 m ) Pressures at or below 140-150 kPa High pressure areas next to Grand River (may need level PRVs) requires local booster station if developed Based on an HGL of 345.2m Ground elevation approx 318 to 320m (2 areas of concern both vacant and residential) Raise operating range of South Cambridge station Based on Pinebush at 359m Ground areas around 287 drive pressures slightly greater than 700 kPa Possible level PRVs could be installed Based on Freeport at 365m Ground area around 287 drives pressures greater than 780 kPa which would require PRV Low pressure area around Highway 24/Hespler Rd if developed may require local booster station Based on Inverness at 366m Areas with elevation around 288 (residential area) have pressures greater than 800 kPa. This will require localized PRVs or a pressure managed area Parkwood Area/Blenheim Rd affected by G4 operation (pressures greater than 785 kPa) may require pressure reduction from G4 Based on Freeport HGL at 365m No pressure issues Based on HGL at 346m (current Deeridge PRV setting) Based on HGL at 365m (current setting of Manitou PRV) Four residential areas (Doon South/New Dundee Rd) with elevations around 287m exhibit high pressures exceeding 765kPa One low pressure area in vicinity of radio antenna tower with ground elevation around 337m. Localized booster is solution Localized PRV should be considered Based on St. George HGL at 381m 3 high pressure residential areas, two industrial, one municipal park exhibit high pressures with elevations greater than 304m (pressures greater than 750 kPa. Localized PRVs or pressure managed area recommended) 2 minor low pressure areas, one ski facility no action required Based on HGL from Falconbridge PRV set at 357m No pressure issues found

1A

2E

2W

Kitchener 2 2A

2B

4A

Final Report

Page 41 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Waterloo

Based on HGL of 407.4m which is the design operating point of the Manheim Zone 5 pumping station 4 high pressure areas, three in residential or potential residential areas. The latter two areas could be potentially serviced through Zone 4. Other areas need to consider PRVs 2 low pressure areas which will be eventually serviced through Zone 6

4B

4C

Based on HGL of 381m from Laurel Reservoir Low Pressure areas exhibited in area near University Still within acceptable pressure limits. Consider transferring University part of area into Zone 5 Based on HGL of 401m delivered through Northfield Drive pumping station No pressure issues however, consideration should be given to connecting this zone to pressure district 5 Based on HGL of 405m through Lakeshore Pumping Station Nor Pressure issues however consideration should be given to connecting this zone to pressure district 5 Based on HGL of 405m from Erb Street Reservoir No pressure issues however opportunities exist to incorporate Zones 4B and 4C and a small portion of Zone 4 (near University Area) Based on HGL of 428m which is the design operating point of the Rummelhart Pumping Station 4 high pressure issues were analyzed all in residential areas with pressures over 700 kPa Further analyses warranted solution would be to provide localized/individual PRVs or connect area to Zone 5 Based on HGL of 440m which is the design point for the Zone 7 pumping station No pressure issues were determined

As part of this assignment, the Region of Waterloo requested that a review of a number of facilities be completed. The facilities included: William Street Facility St. George Tower Shantz Hill Elevated Tank Kress Hill Booster Station Edward Street Standpipe

Final Report

Page 42 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

The following is a summary review of the five facilities. Appendix D includes full details of the facility review.

Technical Memorandum #4 (included in

Both the Edward Street Standpipe and Shantz Hill Elevated Tank serve no useful purpose for the current and future water distribution system and should be decommissioned Three of the original William Street Reservoirs (No. 1 , 2 , 3) should be decommissioned, suction piping modifications and/or booster pump relocation in order to draw directly from Reservoir No. 4 (constructed in 1950s) should be immediately undertaken Kress Hill Booster Station should be converted to a pressure reducing station to provide backup to the New Dundee PRV. The booster pump should be decommissioned. St. George tower should be decommissioned and replaced with a new tower, most likely on the East side of Zone 4. Refer to Section 7.2 of this report for further discussion.

4.3

Summary

In summary, there are few pressure problems given the complexity and interconnectivity of the Regional water distribution network and the rolling topography in each pressure zone. Detailed hydraulic analysis using the Regions updated computer model was undertaken and is discussed in Section 6.1 and 6.2. A further complicating issue in the IUS system is the one way delivery of water from Kitchener to Waterloo (and to St. Jacobs and Elmira) due to the need to fluoridate all water supplied to the City of Waterloo. The IUS system would be more flexible and less costly to operate if water supply would flow to and from Waterloo. Although this is a public decision, the decommissioning of fluoridation should be explored in the future. If the decision is to cease fluoridation, all current metering systems would need to be converted to bi-directional in order to properly capture billing information to each local municipality.

Final Report

Page 43 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

5.
5.1

REGULATORY AND POLICY FRAMEWORK


Applicable Legislation, Regulation and Policy Initiatives

The Water Supply Strategy Update Final Report provided a list of regulatory and policy initiatives that were identified as potentially having an impact on the Water Supply Strategy Update. This table was reviewed and modified to identify the regulatory and policy initiatives that were identified as potentially having an impact on the Tri-City Water Distribution System. These identified policies are provided in Table 5.1. Table 5.1 - List of Legislation, Regulations and Policy Initiatives Category Legislation, Regulation and Policy Initiatives Provincial Policy Statement 2005 Places to Grow Act, 2005 Growth Plan for the Greater Horseshoe, 2006 Planning Act, 1990 Planning and Conservation Land Statue Law Amendment Act Bill 51 (Royal Assent, October 19, 2006) Conservation Lands Act, 1990 Greenbelt Act, 2005 Greenbelt Plan, 2005 Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agency, Boundary Water Treaty, U.S.-Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, Great Lakes Charter25 Ontario Water Resources Act Clean Water Act-Bill 43 (October 2006) Sustainable Water and Sewage Systems Act, 2002 Watertight (Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal Expert Panel) Ontario Environmental Assessment Act Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Canada-Ontario Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Fisheries Act Species at Risk Act Navigable Waters Protection Act National Energy Board Act Draft Guidelines for Ministries on Consultation with Aboriginal Peoples Related to Aboriginal Rights and Treaties Public Transportation and Highways Improvement Act

Planning

Water

Environmental

Other

25

The Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem (2002) is being updated by the governments of Canada and Ontario in 2007. A draft document has been produced that indicates that the purpose of the Agreement is to restore, protect and conserve the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem in order to assist in achieving the vision of a healthy, prosperous and sustainable basin Ecosystem for present and future generations.

Final Report

Page 44 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

6.

UPDATED WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

6.1 Updated Master Plan


One of the main objectives of the Master Plan was to identify the optimal servicing alternatives given the proposed demands and existing infrastructure. In order to analyze the infrastructure alternatives hydraulic modeling was undertaken. The Regions existing hydraulic model (H2OMAP) was used where future population projections and allocations (as outlined in Section 3) were incorporated to analyze the various demand scenarios. As noted in Section 4, the Regions water distribution system is highly integrated. Accordingly the model tested the transfer capability of the system under normal (average and maximum day, maximum week) and abnormal events (fire and critical component failure/malfunction (criticality)). Future demands within existing pressure zones as well as future servicing area in Breslau South (Eastside) were modeled and analyzed under similar normal and abnormal events. A high level review of the future Lake Erie Based supply system was undertaken.

6.1.1

Infrastructure and System Evaluation Criteria

The Cities of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge were consulted through a series of workshops to determine their current criteria for watermain replacement and review current operational issues and discussion on proposed system improvements. All three cities used similar criteria the first being break history. If a section of watermain has a history of breaks in a short distance, the watermain may be replaced locally as a maintenance decision. The second and more important criterion is the economical value of replacement cost. The watermain replacement programs are part of a matrix decision process for the reconstruction of a street. The decision for replacement takes place when it has been decided to completely reconstruct the roadway. At that time, the additional cost to replace the watermain is part of the overall project, thereby reducing unit costs for watermain replacement. For future replacement decisions, age and pipe material should be added as criterion.

Final Report

Page 45 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

6.2 Components of Updated Water Master Plan


6.2.1 Hydraulic Modeling and Analysis

Scenarios were developed using the Regional hydraulic (H2OMAP) model to assess the water distribution system behaviour and capability for different design years. All scenarios were evaluated using a 48hr extended period simulation under maximum week and maximum week plus fire condition as outlined in Technical Memorandum #6. Population projections were prepared by Regional Planning staff and distributed throughout the distribution system. New growth within the Tri-City was accounted for in the hydraulic model. Further, all new distribution system modifications were also incorporated since the last model update. New growth outside the Tri-City i.e. St. Jacobs and Elmira were modeled with the existing demand and analyzed as a single demand. Previous studies (Elmira West Side Project) undertaken in the Elmira-St. Jacobs distribution system were analyzed. This area of the IUS and as such only the updated demand was used in order to correctly analyze its effect on the Kitchener/Waterloo distribution systems. The most significant new development that was evaluated is the area east of the Grand River (East Side) from Breslau in the north to the City of Cambridge city boundary. Table 6.1 summarized the system maximum week demand requirements under the six demand year conditions. Table 6.1 - Water Distribution Master Plan Scenarios Maximum Week26 Projected System Demand (L/s) 2,382 2,550 2,713 2,877 3,045 3,045 (ML/d) 205.8 220.3 234.4 248.6 263.1 263.1 (MIGD) 45.3 48.5 51.6 54.7 57.9 57.9

Scenarios Year 2006 Year 2011 Year 2016 Year 2021 Year 2026 Ultimate

The Regions hydraulic modeling was used to determine if the existing and future distribution system had limitations or significant deficiencies. The hydraulic model was also used to review system performance including zone pressures, pipe velocity/headloss gradient, storage facility operations. The following conditions were analyzed under the criteria discussed in Section 6.2.4. These conditions offer the most stress to the water distribution and, as such, if the system meets the Regions operating criteria under these conditions, then under less severe conditions the system should respond meeting the acceptance parameters outlined in Section 6.2.4.
26

Table6.1 from page #14 of Technical Memorandum #6

Final Report

Page 46 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Modeled Conditions were: Maximum week demand 48 hour extended period simulation Fire flow conditions (refer to Section 6.2.2 ) As discussed previously in this report, the following features were considered: Existing and planned infrastructure and water facilities No water backfeed from Waterloo to Kitchener Limiting of water transfer to a maximum of 50 L/s through the New Dundee PRV from Kitchener to Cambridge Inactivation of the following water facilities Kress Hill PS (although through a criticality analysis the facility was analyzed as backfeed from Zone 2 (Kit) to Zone 1 through the existing PRV located at the Kress Hill Pumping Station) Shantz Hill Elevated Tank Edward Street Tank St. George Elevated Tank (although the system was reviewed for a new storage vessel on the east side of Zone 4 as well as a direct pressure system i. without an elevated tank) As a further stress condition, modeling was undertaken to identify watermains that will cause significant inputs in the distribution system when the watermain is out of service. The criticality analysis is described in Section 6.2.4. Hydraulic analysis discovered eleven watermain sections which did not comply with the performance and design criteria outlined in Section 6.2.1. One of these violations is covered under the conversion of the St. Andrews Tank as a suction side vessel only for Zone 3. Table 6.4 summarizes the watermain deficiencies. Pressure Zone boundary adjustments are warranted and discussed in Section 6.2.2. It is clear that the system as designed and upgraded has and will service the Region well into the next two decades. This is in part due to the design parameters used in the 1960s and 70s where average day per capita demand allowances was 450 L/c/d and the maximum day factors were 1.8 to 2. The current proposed per capita values are less than 50 percent of the criteria used in the 1960s and similarly the maximum week demand factor is 33 to 40 percent or less. The reduction in these key system input parameters is significant to have yield a functional distribution system 50 to 60 years into the future and hence not requiring significant modifications.

6.2.2

Fire Flow Analysis

As described in Technical Memorandum #3 (Appendix C), the integrated system approach was used to analyze system storage. In this analysis two fire events based on Fire Underwriters Survey (FUS) were assigned to one critical water consumer or node in the distribution system and one local residential area in any location within the Region simultaneously. This approach assesses the water transfer capability in the event of two simultaneous fire events in lieu of a major fire in each zone simultaneously (which was considered unrealistic). Together with Regional staff, 39 predefined critical water consumers were identified across the Region. Table 6.2 describes the municipality, street, consumer pressure zone and fire flow used for each of the zones. Figure 6.1 maps the location of the fire flow locations used for this study.

Final Report

Page 47 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN Table 6.2 - Fire Flow Locations27

Street Name City of Cambridge 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Industrial Rd. / Eagle St. N. Concession Rd. / Dunbar Rd. Myers Rd. / Christopher Dr. Dundas St. N. / Main St. Franklin Blvd. / Clyde Rd. Fountain St. N. / Cherry Blossom Rd. Franklin Blvd. / Pinebush Rd. Queen St. E. / Guelph Ave. Blair Rd. / Bismark Dr. Cedar St. / Grand Ridge Dr. Myers Rd. and Gatehouse Dr.

Development Type

Pressure Zone

Fire Flow (L/s)

Note

Industrial Industrial (Hospital) Institutional (School) Commercial (Shopping Mall) Industrial Industrial (Toyota Manufacturing Plant) Industrial (Industrial Park) Commercial (Downtown) Institutional (School) Institutional (School) Institutional (School) Institutional Institutional (Conestoga College) Industrial (Hospital) Industrial (Hospital) Industrial (Hospital) Institutional (High School) Commercial (Shopping Mall)

CAM1 CAM1 CAM1 CAM1 CAM1 CAM2W CAM2E CAM2E CAM3 CAM3 CAM 1a

333 67 / 150 250 367 333 271 233 367 250 250 250

1 2 3 4 1 10 5 4 3 3 3

City of Kitchener Homer Watson Blvd. & Manitou Dr. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Homer Watson Blvd. & Doon Valley Dr. King St. / Union St. Queens Blvd. / Westmount Rd. E. School & Arena King St. E. / Morrison Rd. Weber St. E & King St. E Fairway Rd. S. & Courtland Ave. E

KIT2W KIT2W KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4

250 250 67 / 150 67 / 150 67 / 150 250 367

3 3 2 2 2 3 4

27

Table6.2 from page #22 of Technical Memorandum #6

Final Report

Page 48 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Street Name 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Huron Rd. & Strasburg Rd. Victoria St. N. & Lackner Blvd. Ottawa St. N. & Lackner Blvd. Fisher-Hallman Rd. & Ottawa St. S. Falconridge Dr. & Hawkswood Dr. Vacant Site Fisher-Hallman Rd. & Ottawa St. S. Bleams Rd. & Fisher-Hallman Rd. Fisher-Hallman Rd. & Forest Hill Dr. Huron Rd. & Fisher-Hallman Trussler Rd. & Highview Dr. Fountain St. N. & Townsend Dr.

Development Type Institutional (High School) Commercial (Business Park) Institutional (High School) Commercial (Commercial Plaza) Institutional (High School) Commercial (Commercial Plaza) Commercial (Business Park) Institutional (High School) Commercial Institutional (Elementary School) Commercial (Mixed Residential and Commercial) Industrial (Airport)

Pressure Zone KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4a KIT5 KIT5 KIT5 KIT5 KIT6 Breslau N.

Fire Flow (L/s) 250 267 250 367 250 367 267 250 367 250 367 / 200 333/ 200

Note 3 6 3 7 3 7 6 3 7 3 7

30

Fountain St. N.

Breslau S.

City of Waterloo University Ave. & Albert St. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Columbia & Albert St. Bridge St. E & University Ave E. University Ave. & Fisher-Hallman Laurelwood Dr. & Beaver Creek Road Columbia & Westmount Erb St. W (West of roundabout)

Institutional (University) Institutional (University) Industrial (Food Factory) Institutional (High School) Institutional (High School) Commercial (Business Park) Commercial (Small Shopping Mall)

WAT 4 WAT 4 WAT4 WAT5 WAT5 WAT5 WAT6

250 250 124 250 250 267 367 / 180 3 6

3 3 8 3

4/4a

Final Report

Page 49 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Street Name 38 39 Elmira System Farmers Market Rd & Benjamin Rd.

Development Type Major Fire Commercial (Farmers Centre)

Pressure Zone Woolwich Stockyard Woolwich

Fire Flow (L/s) 362 367 / 200

Note

Market

Final Report

Page 50 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 6.1 Fire Flow Locations28

28

Figure 6.1 from page #21 of Technical Memorandum #6

Final Report

Page 51 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Results of the fire flow analyses are documented in Technical Memorandum # 3 ( Section 4.3.1 of Appendix C). Nine low pressure areas were identified throughout the entire distribution system during the modelled fire scenario. These locations are: Cam 1 Blair Rd & Esther Ave: 150MM diameter dead end insufficient to sustain residential fire. Consider reconnection to watermain on St. George N (City). Cam 1 - Dundas St N/Main St: 150mm diameter pipe insufficient to assist in ponding fire flows. Replace this section with 300mm pipe on Dundas St N between Main St and MacLaren Ave. (City) Cam 2E - Lewis St & Hungerford Rd: 150mm diameter pipe insufficient to assist in simultaneous major and minor fire event. Replace 150mm water main with 300mm (City). Cam 3 - North Cambridge: Single 200mm watermain services North Cam 3 insufficient pressure under residential fire. Install new 450mm watermain between Kent St and Bismark Dr part on easement. Prior to the installation of this main The Region should consider the impact this main may have on water quality. Kit 2W - Tilt Rd & Appleby Dr: Supply of area through single 300mm insufficient pressure during simultaneous residential and major fire. Install new 300mm watermain on Tilt Dr. The Region is investigating under separate study detailed upgrade to Zone 2W. Wat 4 - Farmers Market Area: Supply of area through a single 300mm insufficient pressure during simultaneous residential and major fire. Install 500mm watermain from Weber St to Scott St. The fire flow allotment of 367 L/s was assumed due to the limited knowledge of the construction of the facilities in the area that need protection. Accordingly, a more modest value of 150 l/s to 200 l/s should be considered in the interim until more detailed analysis is undertaken. Furthermore, easements and EA considerations for the routing of a new main for this area need to be considered. Wat 6 - Erb St west of Ira Needles Blvd: Insufficient pressure if 367 L/s assumed. Previous Westside study allowed for 180 L/s (if new University Tank in use). The fire demands of 367 L/s was assumed based on the very limited knowledge of the facility. The previously undertaken West Side Study recommended a 180 l/s fire flow. Adopt 180 L/s for this Zone or keep fire pump at Zone 6 Rummelhart pumping station. Kit 4a - Falconbridge Dr/Hawkswood Dr Area: Insufficient pressure when proposed school fire at 250 L/s and residential fire analyzed. Adopt 220 L/s for the major fire or replace existing 200mm watermains with 300mm will satisfy fire issues in this area. Kit 4 - Breslau North: This area is an extension of Kitchener Zone 4 and currently is serviced through a single main extending from Victoria Street. Once the village is fully serviced, fire demand conditions will increase. A high fire flow allocation was considered due to the uncertainty of the commercial facility construction in this area. In the interim moderate fire flow conditions in the order of 150 L/s to 200 L/s should be considered. Insufficient pressure under simultaneous major and residential fire. In order to deal with larger fire forces in the future consideration should be given to the relocation existing Breslau S. PRV to eastside of Grand River and install 300mm watermain from relocated PRV through existing village to connect to existing 200mm on Victoria. The limited number of issues resulting from the fire flow analyses demonstrates that the integrated system approach is sound. Only minor system improvements are warranted to ensure a minimum operating pressure of 140 kPa at the fire node. Most of these Improvements are required to various city/ municipality owned mains.

Final Report

Page 52 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

6.2.3

Summary Modeling Results

Section 4 of this report described the pressure issues of concern within the existing system zone boundary. Detailed analyses are provided in Technical Memorandum #2 (included in Appendix B). The existing and future system, under existing and future demand conditions were analyzed under dynamic conditions using the hydraulic model. Table 6.3 summarizes the results for areas within pressure zones with water pressure issues and provides alternatives and solutions to low, high and deficient areas/zones. The most significant difference to the pressure zones is the impending implementation of the Kitchener Zone 6 pressure district and the separation of higher ground elevations from Zone 5 to Zone 6. Modeling runs also included the rearrangement of the Waterloo Zone 6 being supplied through the proposed Zone 6 Elevated Tank in lieu of the Rummelhardt pumping station. Section 6.2.4 outlines other significant zone boundary modifications. Table 6.3 - Hydraulic Results for Potential High/Low Pressure Problems29 Area Descriptions Low pressure concerns in the south side of South Cambridge PS High pressure concerns in the area adjacent to Moffat Creek Potential high pressure problem Commercial development on McGovern Dr. Potential high pressure problem Medium Industrial Users; Just north of Hwy 401 in Zone 2W Potential high pressure problem Parkwood Area / Blenheim Road Hydraulic Results The discharge total head of the station is about 364m. No low pressure problems were observed. 66psi 85psi Considered acceptable Alternatives

Cambridge Zone 1A

Cambridge Zone 1A

Cambridge Zone 2E (Figure 4.15)

90 psi 105psi

Install PRVs to reduce 10m of head (~14psi) or more

Cambridge Zone 2W (Figure 4.16)

96 psi 104 psi

PRV may be required

80 psi 117 psi

Cambridge Zone 3

Install localized PRV to reduce pressure for individual customer if required Turning off Well G4

29

Table 6.3 from page #36 of Technical Memorandum #6

Final Report

Page 53 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Area

Descriptions

Hydraulic Results

Kitchener Zone 2W

Potential high pressure problem Old Mills Road

92 102 psi (high pressure range) Slightly high but acceptable

Alternatives would reduce pressures by 10 psi Modify the existing well pump for G4 to reduce discharge head by 10psi Could consider pressure management in lower elevations (modifying the existing PRV will cause lower pressures in the higher elevations)

Kitchener Zone 2W

Kitchener Zone 4 (Figure 4.17) Kitchener Zone 4 (Figure 4.18)

Potential high pressure problem Homer Watson Blvd / Conestoga College Blvd Potential high pressure problem Potential high pressure problem Subdivision located in the westside of Morrison Road Potential high pressure problem Near K34TP on Biehn Dr Potential high pressure problem North of Zone 6; Creekside Dr. / Erbsville Rd. Potential high pressure problem Erbsville Rd. / Columbia Forest Blvd.

80 87psi System pressure appears acceptable

90 120 psi

86 102.9 psi Slightly high but acceptable

Install localized PRV for individual customer if required Consider pressure management in localized areas with high pressure Install localized PRV for individual customer if required

Kitchener Zone 4 (Figure 4.19)

95 125 psi

Waterloo Zone 6

81 89 psi Within acceptable pressure range

Waterloo Zone 6

78 86 psi Within acceptable pressure range

Final Report

Page 54 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Area

Waterloo Zone 6

Waterloo Zone 6

Descriptions Potential high pressure problem South of Columbia St. W; Clair Creek Blvd. / Bushwood Crt. Potential high pressure problem Amberwood Dr.

Hydraulic Results 88 96 psi Slightly high but within acceptable pressure range 82 90 psi Within acceptable pressure range

Alternatives

Where localized zonal water pressure issued occurred, low pressure issues were resolved once zone boundary modifications and minor pipe changes were added. Due to the undulating topography encountered in many of the pressure districts localized high pressure issues are noted. Predominately these issues can be reduced by either individual PRVs or pressure management with small area PRVs. Figure 4.15 to 4.19 in Technical Memorandum #6 (included in Appendix F) graphically illustrate the few areas which require some mitigative measures. Analyses were undertaken using the hydraulic model to identify critical infrastructure and its impact on the distribution system if taken out of service. The integration of proposed infrastructure to the IUS based on hydraulic modeling is illustrated in Figure 4.4 and 4.5 in Section 6. These show the major storage additions to Cambridge Zone 1 and Kitchener Zone 4 as well as servicing to the East Side limits.

Final Report

Page 55 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN Table 6.4 - Summary of Watermain Deficiencies30

Infrastructure Information

Hydraulic Performance Max Headloss Gradient (m/km)

Municipality

Descriptions

Diameter (mm)

Length (m)

Material

Installation Year (to nearest decade)

C-Factor

Max Flow (L/s)

Max Velocity (L/s)

Max HeadLoss (m)

Scenario

Cambridge Zone 1

400mm on Franklin Blvd from Turnbull PS to Avenue Rd.

400

1,481

Cast Iron

1960

100

172

1.38

6.1

2006

Cambridge Zone 1

150mm on Main St. from Dundas to Alexander Av.

150

127

Cast Iron

1940

90

15.7

0.80

1.5

11.8

2006

Cambridge Zone 1

250mm inlet for St. Andrew Reservoir

250

17

Ductile Iron

1990

120

305

6.2

6.2

364.7

2006

Cambridge Zone 1

300/400mm on Pinebush Rd., from Rahman PS to Industrial Rd 300mm on Eagle St. N., from Industrial Rd. to Providence Dr. 300mm on Industrial Rd., from Eagle St. N. to Lang's Dr. 450mm on Ottawa St. S., from Mannheim PS to David Bergey Dr.

300/400

1875

Cast Iron

1960

100/130

118

1.67

5.6

3.0

2006

Cambridge Zone 1

300

663

Cast Iron

1960

100

59

0.8

2.6

3.9

2021

Cambridge Zone 1

300

777

Cast Iron

1960

100

60

0.8

3.1

4.0

2006

Kitchener Zone 5

450

1270

Asbestos Cement

1960

140

306

1.9

8.6

6.8

2016

Kitchener Zone 5

300mm on Westheight Dr., from MacGarry Dr. to Driftwood Dr. & on Driftwood Dr., from Westheight Dr. the west of Parkland Cres.,

300

1500

Ductile Iron

1970

120

91

1.29

8.6

5.7

2006

30

Table6.4 from page #18 of Technical Memorandum #6

Final Report

Page 56 of 100

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

6.2.4

Pressure Zone Boundary Analysis and Rationalization

Technical Memorandum #2 (included in Appendix B) summarized the findings following a review of pressure zone boundaries. Operation records (SCADA information), existing reservoir levels (SCADA information) and existing pumping facilities (RMOW- Water Resources information) were used to evaluate operational pressures and determine whether system pressures were within prescribed limits (i.e. 350-560 kPa) under normal operating conditions. To summarize, the evaluation criteria used to identify potential limitations the hydraulic performance falls under three categories: maintaining minimum system pressures, limiting maximum system pressures and observing normal pipeline velocity or headloss gradient. These are: 1. Minimum System Pressure a) Under maximum week demand ~ 350 kPa (~50psi) b) Under Peak Hour Demand ~ 275 kPa (~40psi) c) Under Maximum Week plus fire flow ~140 kPa (~20psi) 2. Maximum System Pressure d) Under Maximum Week Demand static pressures below ~700kPa (~100psi) 3. Pipe Line Characteristics e) Maximum velocity ~1.5 m/s (under maximum week demand, velocities may be higher under fire flow conditions) f) Maximum headloss gradient ~2.5m/km (for mains 300mm diameter or larger) The existing and proposed water system in conjunction with topographical information (elevations) were reviewed to rationalize appropriate pressure zone boundaries that minimized the number of pressure reducing valves (PRVs) and pumping stations. From that basis, target hydraulic grade lines were established for each pressure zone. The results of this initial analysis are detailed in Technical Memoranda #2 & #3. Detailed computer modeling was undertaken to confirm existing system constraints as well as identifying areas of high and low pressure based on the evaluation criteria established above. In conjunction with the workshops undertaken with the three municipalities modifications to the existing pressure zone boundaries were modeled and improvements were identified. The following major pressure zone boundary modifications are proposed:

Expansion of the Cambridge Zone 1A pressure zone into Cambridge Zone 1 Modification of the Cambridge Zone 1 operating strategy i.e. new TWL Expansion of Kitchener Zone 2E into Breslau South (East Side) Modifications to the Kitchener Zone 2W with possible inter-connection with Kitchener Zone 2E with Kitchener Zone 2W (detailed review undertaken by others) Modification to the Kitchener Zone 4 system (i.e. new elevated reservoir) Modifications to the Waterloo Zone 4/5 pressure zone including incorporation of sub zones 4B and 4C to Zone 5 Detailed analysis is incorporated into Technical Memorandum #6 (included in Appendix F)

Minor system modifications and pressure zone changes are elaborated and discussed in Section 4 of this report and Technical Memorandum # 4 (included in Appendix D). Table 6.3 also demonstrates some of these minor pressure zone deficiencies.

Final Report

Page 57 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN Expansion of Cambridge Zone 1A In reviewing servicing reports for the South Cambridge area located in pressure Zone 1 particularly those bounded east of Franklin Blvd between Clyde Road and Main St, significant pockets of pressures below 350 kPa would exist when operating at TWL or below 330m. By relocating much of the south east portion of the above noted area to Zone 1A pressures improved by nearly 140 kPa. Reference to Figure 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4 identify the realigned pressure zones. A more detailed analysis of the South Cambridge Pumping Station and watermains will need to be undertaken. The analysis is required due to the changes in the development in the South Cambridge area affected by this new development concept. Modification of Cambridge Zone 1 The control of the Top Water Level (TWL) within Cambridge Zone 1 is completed through previous amalgamation of the old Preston and Galt Systems. Three floating storage reservoirs are responding to system demands. These include Turnbull (326m), Rahman (328m) and St. Andrews (339m). Theoretically there is a 13m differential between St. Andrews in the southwest of the zone and Turnbull/Rahmans in the northeast. System operators balance the TWL. This typically results in operating the St. Andrews tank 5 to 8m below the TWL and operating the in ground reservoirs within 0.5 to 1m of overflow levels. Clearly a new storage vessel with an appropriate TWL and location would improve the hydraulics of the Cambridge Zone 1 pressure district and provide consistent operating pressures. Figure 6.1 shows the delineation of pressures within the existing Zone 1A pressure zone. At an operating level above 330m there are areas in the north west bounded by the Kitchener Zone 2 pressure zone and the south east near the Cambridge landfill site (east of Franklin Blvd) that are below acceptable pressures (<350 kPa). Further areas in the southwest nest to the Grand River will exhibit pressures above 650 kPa.

Final Report

Page 58 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 6.2 - Future Cambridge Pressure Zone 1A Boundary

31

31

Figure6.2 from page #53 of Technical Memorandum #6

Final Report

Page 59 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN It is proposed that the new elevated storage facility have a TWL in the range of 334 to 336m. The location of this storage facility for Zone 1 should ideally be located in Zone 1 however this would require a ground elevation in the order of 290m to limit the effective construction height to a constructible level in the order of 50m. The elevations that seem to agree with this requirement are to be found in Cambridge Zone 2E. Location analysis identified five (5) possible locations (refer to Figure 6.3). These locations were identified, modeled and are shown in Figures 7.3 to 7.7. The five locations reviewed are: Option 1: Pinebush Rd east of Franklin Blvd (Figure 6.4) Option 2: Townline Rd at CanAmera Parkway (Figure 6.5) Option 3: North of Saginaw Parkway (Figure 6.6) Option 4: At the existing reservoir and Treatment Plant (Figure 6.7) Option 5: Between Clyde Rd and Avenue Rd (near Cambridge landfill site) (Figure 6.8) Model runs were used to confirm reservoir operability with the existing Zone 1 facilities (existing pumping stations). Figure 6.9 and 6.10 demonstrate full cycling for locations 1 and 2 (for sites 3 to 5 refer to Appendix F) in an extended (48 hr) period simulation. The hydraulic functionality of the new tank was tested based on the use of an elevated tank with a useable volume of 8.5ML. This would displace the potential loss of the Rahman (4000m3) and St. Andrews (2797m3) theoretical storage capacity. The existing Rahman and Turnbull reservoirs which currently act as floating storage are proposed to act as pumped storage while the proposed tank will act as new floating storage. Accordingly to access the storage capacity of the Rahman and Turnbull reservoirs, the existing Rahmans pumping station will need to be utilized and a new Zone 1 Turnbull station will need to be constructed. Figure 6.3 Location Options for New Cambridge Storage Facility32

Location 1 CAM2E

Location 2

Location 4

Location 3

Existing Turnbull Location

CAM1

Location 5

32

Figure from page #40 of Technical Memorandum #6

Final Report

Page 60 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 6.4 - Potential Option No. 1 for new CAM1 Storage Facility33

Figure 6.5 - Potential Option No.2 for new CAM1 Storage Facility

33

Figures 6.4 to 6.8 from page # 40 to #42 of Technical Memorandum #6

Final Report

Page 61 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 6.6 - Potential Option No.3 for new CAM1 Storage Facility

Figure 6.7 - Potential Option No.4 for new CAM1 Storage Facility

Final Report

Page 62 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 6.8 - Potential Option No.5 for new CAM1 Storage Facility

% Full (%)
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Figure 6.9 - Tank Cycling Pattern for Location 134

34

Figures 6.9 and 6.10 from page #43 of Technical Memorandum #6

Final Report

Page 63 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

% Full (%) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Figure 6.10 - Tank Cycling Pattern for Location 2

Final Report

Page 64 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 6.12 and 6.13 show areas within Zone 1 that would have low and high pressure issues (i.e. below 345 kpa(35m) and above 685 kpa (70m)). These are: Low pressure in the southeast in the vicinity of the landfill site Low pressure in the north between Shantz Hill Rd and Fountain St adjacent to Highway 401 High pressure along the Grand River These areas are similar to those experienced in the current operating system pressure issue and require some localized mitigation in high pressure areas (i.e. individual PRVs) in the low areas in turn the central business district Zone 1 Pump Station Modification Impacts The higher operating level eliminates the need for throttling the discharge pressure from the Shades Mill Pumping Station. The current pumps are reduced to 26 from 28m via a throttling valve. New Turnbull Zone 1 Station One way to utilize the existing Turnbull storage station and Wells G16, 17 and 18 with the proposed storage tank is to construct a new Zone 1 pumping facility next to the existing Turnbull reservoir. This station would provide access to the existing Turnbull storage volume and the well supplies from the Turnbull WTP. This new station as well as the Rahmans, Pinebush, Shades Mills and Middleton pumping stations will be operated from level in the new reservoir with pressure at each of the respective stations as back-up. The new Turnbull Zone 1 Pumping Station would serve to accommodate normal and peak hour demands as the new tank level decreases. As a preliminary guide to station sizing Figure 6.10 shows a four unit facility with three units installed immediately on building the facility. The station would be interconnected to the Turnbull reservoir. A split interconnected pump well is proposed with ultimately two vertical turbine pumps in each well. Rating of each pump would be in the order of 100 to 120 L/s which could be used for fire flow back-up in the event that the new Zone 1 reservoir is taken out of service. See Figure 6.11 below. The new Zone 1 Turnbull pumping station as well as other Zone 1 pumping stations control programs will need to be modified for control by the level in the new Zone 1 elevated tank. The new Zone 1 Turnbull station should also be equipped with a stand-by power unit for system back-up under power failure. Consideration should be given to variable speed operation for energy optimization and flow control. Control of flow into the reservoir is also recommended in order to supplement the reservoir in the event that the supply to the Turnbull WTP is insufficient to maintain level. Accordingly, a new control valve on the inlet to the station is recommended. This operation would be in periods of low demand where water from other Zone 1 sources can be used to fill the Turnbull Reservoir. Under the Environmental Assessment Act a Schedule B EA undertaking will be necessary for the new reservoir and pumping station. This Master Plan undertook the hydraulic analysis of a number of reservoir locations. A more detailed analysis is required to confirm the optimum location and size of the

Final Report

Page 65 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

new reservoir. Furthermore this detailed analysis will be required for routing and sizing the feeder mains to this new reservoir and for the sizing of the pumping units at the Zone 1 Turnbull facility.
RELIEF VALVE

PG

CONNECT TO EXISTING TURNBULL RES

CONNECT TO EXISTING TURNBULL RES

AI

PIT

M
FUTURE

TO CAM ZONE 1

NEW SPLIT PUMP

Figure 6.11 New Zone 1 Turnbull Pumping Station (located adjacent to Turnbull Reservoir)

Final Report

Page 66 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Cambridge Zone 1
1
Legend
Elevation Pressure (kPa)
Based on HGL of 340m

< 257m 257m 260m 260m 270m 270m 280m 280m 290m 290m 300m

> 767kPa 738 767Pa 639 738kPa 541 639kPa 443 541kPa 344 443kPa 295 344kPa 246 295kPa 49 246Pa < 49kPa

3 2

300m 305m 305m 310m 310m 330m 330m 340m Parcel

Pressure Zone Boundary Road

Min. elevation to be serviced: 265m To maintain Pressure between 35m 70m (343kPa 686kPa): Max. HGL to be maintained: 335m Max. elevation could be serviced: 300m

Possible problem area with elevation higher than 305m

Figure 6.12 Areas within Cambridge Zone 1 Low and High Pressure Issues

Final Report

Page 67 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Location 1

Legend
Elevation < 257m 257m 260m 260m 270m 270m 280m 280m 290m 290m 300m 300m 305m 305m 310m 310m 330m 330m 340m Parcel Pressure Zone Boundary Road Pressure (kPa)
Based on HGL of 340m

> 767kPa 738 767Pa 639 738kPa 541 639kPa 443 541kPa 344 443kPa 295 344kPa 246 295kPa 49 246Pa < 49kPa

Figure 6.13 Areas at Location 1 with Low and High Pressure Issues

Final Report

Page 68 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Location 2

Legend
Elevation < 257m 257m 260m 260m 270m 270m 280m 280m 290m 290m 300m 300m 305m 305m 310m 310m 330m 330m 340m Parcel Pressure Zone Boundary Road Pressure (kPa)
Based on HGL of 340m

> 767kPa 738 767Pa 639 738kPa 541 639kPa 443 541kPa 344 443kPa 295 344kPa 246 295kPa 49 246Pa < 49kPa

Figure 6.14 Areas within Location 2 with Low and High Pressure Issues

Final Report

Page 69 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Location 3

Legend
Elevation < 257m 257m 260m 260m 270m 270m 280m 280m 290m 290m 300m 300m 305m 305m 310m 310m 330m 330m 340m Parcel Pressure Zone Boundary Road Pressure (kPa)
Based on HGL of 340m

> 767kPa 738 767Pa 639 738kPa 541 639kPa 443 541kPa 344 443kPa 295 344kPa 246 295kPa 49 246Pa < 49kPa

Figure 6.15 Areas within Location 3 with Low and High Pressure Issues

Final Report

Page 70 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Ultimate Supply System Considerations The new storage facility in Cambridge Zone 1 could serve an immediate and possible long term purpose. Immediately and near term a new tank would provide a single floating storage and control the operation of the five pumping stations (Middleton, Shades Mill, Rahmans, Turnbull and Pinebush). If the Region were to consider the location of this storage facility for a future lake based supply then this storage location may be the start of a terminal storage complex to serve the needs of Cambridge system (Zone 1, 1A, 2 and 3). Supply of Lake Erie based water would require substantially greater energy if supplied from Mannheim (Kitchener) to Cambridge rather than directly to Cambridge. Table 6.5 outlines the transmission lines needed to service the five sites outlined in the investigation. Additional analysis should be conducted for evaluating the feasibility of each storage location. Table 6.5 summarized the technical feasibility of each storage option. Table 6.5 - Summary of Technical Feasibility for CAM1 Storage35
Ease of Option Hydraulic Considerations 5 5 4 4 4 Implementation including land availability 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 5 4 2 3 2 2 1 4 5 3 Costs

Ultimate Servicing Strategy Consideration 5 5 2 3 3

Note: 5 most desirable to 1 least desirable Expansion of Kitchener Zones into Breslau South (East Side) Section 6.2.7 of this report discusses the expansion of pressure zones into the Breslau South (East Side). This is accomplished by providing service through pressure reduction directly from Kitchener Zone 4 through the Ottawa Street connection and future extension of Fairway Road or through Kitchener 2E from the extension of this main on Fountain Street. This would provide a TWL of 365 from the Freeport Tank. Future water supplies in this area could serve demands in the new and existing commercial and residential areas. Modifications to Kitchener Zone 2W A detailed review of this area is being undertaken by others. Under this Master Plan consideration has been given to connecting Kitchener 2E with Kitchener 2W by a new watermain as shown on Figure 6.16.

35

Table 6.5 from page #51 of Technical Memorandum #6

Final Report

Page 71 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN Kitchener 2W is supplied through the Manitou PRV and existing wells K34 and new well K36. This area provides flow to Zone 1 Cambridge through the New Dundee PRV. Under high demand conditions and/or in the event of a loss of the Manitou PR this zone will encounter low pressures. Stable or moderated pressures can be achieved through connection of Kitchener zone 2E. This is from the effect of the Freeport Tank. It is noted that pressures difference of 40 kPa exists between Zone 2E and 2W. A PRV could alleviate this difference. Hydraulic analysis indicates that the interconnection could be accomplished using a 300mm main between King Street and Maple Grove Road and Homer Watson Boulevard. However, more detailed analysis is required to confirm system control since the new combined zones would be controlled from the Freeport Tank. This zone is also being affected through the expansion of the East Side leads and system integration and control issues will need to be reviewed in greater detail than undertaken in this Master Plan. Kitchener Zone 2 Water System Integration The existing Kitchener Zone 2 is separated into 2 sub-zones, Zone 2 West and Zone 2 East, by Grand River. According to the information provided, the design hydraulic grade line (HGL) for these zones is differed by 3.0m; HGL for Zone 2W and Zone 2 East is 361m (controlled by Manitou PRV) and 365m (controlled by TWL of Freeport Elevated Tank), respectively. Since Kitchener Zone 2 West is currently supplied by a single water supply point at Manitou PRV without any storage facilities in this zone, the opportunity of integrating Zone 2W and Zone 2E was investigated so that Freeport elevated tank can provide pressure moderation under peak hour demand and increase the system supply redundancy. Figure 6.16 shows the potential connecting watermain for integrating Zone 2W and Zone 2E and Figures 6.17 to 6.20 demonstrate the potential changes in system hydraulics when two zones are integrated.

Figure 6.16 -Potential Watermain Connection for System Integration

Final Report

Page 72 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Kitchener Zone 2W Pressure


130

120

369.4

110 359.4 100 Pressure (Psi) 349.4 90 Existing Max With Zone Integration Max 339.4 Existing Min With Zone Integration Min HGL (m)

80

70 329.4 60

50 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 Time (hr) 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48

319.4

Figure 6.17 - Kitchener Zone 2W Change in Pressure


Freeport Tank Level
80

70

60

50 % Level

40 Existing Condition With Zone Integration 30

20

10

0 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 Time (hr) 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48

Figure 6.18 -Change in Zone 2E Storage Level (Freeport Tank)

Final Report

Page 73 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Manitou PRV
140

120

100 Existing Average Flow = 87L/s 80

Flow (L/s)

60

Average Flow under integration = 52L/s

40

20 Existing Condition With Zone Integration 0 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 Time (hr) 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48

Figure 6.19 - Change in Flow at Manitou PRV

River Road PRV


450

400

350

300

Flow (L/s)

250

200 Existing Average Flow = 165L/s 150 Average Flow under integration = 136L/s 100

50

Existing Condition With Zone Integration 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 Time (hr) 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48

Figure 6.20 -Change in Flow at River Road PRV

Final Report

Page 74 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN According to the hydraulic modelling results, the integration of Kitchener Zone 2 West and Kitchener Zone 2 East will not cause significant impacts to the system in terms of pressure, tank level and flow transfer via each supply PRVs. As a result, this system integration strategy is considered as a feasible servicing option. However, the hydraulic modelling results have also shown that the potential high pressure could occur in the existing Zone 2West system and system pressure will be increased after the zone integration; field test in the existing Kitchener Zone 2 West system is strongly recommended prior to the zone integration. Waterloo Zone 4/5 Boundary Rationalization Figures 6.21 and 6.22 present the differences in system pressure when parts of Zone 4 and subpressure zones 4B and 4C are included in Zone 5. The major impacts are inactivating (decommissioning) the existing Northfield Booster (Zone 4B) and the Lakeshore Booster (Zone C). System modeling demonstrated minimal impact to the Zone 5 system when Zone 4B and 4C are connected. Indeed operations and maintenance cost savings could be realized once these facilities are decommissioned. An area from Columbia St (in the south), Bearinger Rd (in the west), Westmount Rd N, Benjamin (in the north), Expressway/Parkside/Hagey Blvd (to the east) was connected to the Zone 5 system (taken from the Zone 4 system). Modeling confirmed a 210 kPa system pressure improvement in the area. Figure 6.23 demonstrates that no significant dead ends were created. Detailed analysis of piping interconnections should be undertaken prior to any changes. Communications with the affected customers should be considered prior to this undertaking. Figures 6.24 and 6.25 demonstrate pressure changes in the affected areas.

Final Report

Page 75 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 6.21 Existing Waterloo Pressure Boundary Zone 5 36

36

Figure 6.21 from page #55 of Technical Memorandum #6

Final Report

Page 76 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 6.22- Future Boundary for Waterloo Zone 5

37

37

Figure6.22 from page #56 of Technical Memorandum #6

Final Report

Page 77 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

700

600

500 With Cambridge Zone 1A Boundary Changes Average Pressure Gain = 288kPa Pressure (kPa) 400

300

200

100

Without Cambridge Zone 1A Boundary Changes

0 0 10 20 30 Time (hrs) 40 50 60

Pressure at Junction ID: NODE1293

Figure 6.23 - System Pressure Differences in Cambridge Zone 1A38

500

490 Without Waterloo Zone 5 Boundary Changes Average Pressure Reduction = 49kPa 470

480

Pressure (kPa)

460

450

440

430

420

410

With Waterloo Zone 5 Boundary Changes

400 0 10 20 30 Time (hrs) 40 50 60

Pressure at Junction ID: 1713

Figure 6.24 - System Pressure Differences in Existing Waterloo Zone 4C

38

Figure 6.23 to 6.25 from pages #57 to 58 of Technical Memorandum #6

Final Report

Page 78 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

600

500 With Waterloo Zone 5 Boundary Changes 400 Average Pressure Gain = 248kPa Pressure (kPa)

300

200 Without Waterloo Zone 5 Boundary Changes 100

0 0 10 20 30 Time (hrs) Pressure at Junction ID: 1042 40 50 60

Figure 6.25 - System Pressure Differences in Existing Waterloo Zone 4 Kitchener Zone 4 Modifications Although technically not a considered Zone boundary modification, the consideration of a new elevated tank to replace the aging St. George storage facility is sufficient to warrant discussion in this section. Technical Memorandum #4 recommended that the St. George Elevated Tank be decommissioned due to its age and that it hydraulically limits the Kitchener Zone 4 pressure gradeline. This gradeline limitation (reduction) would be more pronounced once the lands east of the Grand River (in Woolwich) are developed. There are plans to decommission the St. George tank and operate this significant pressure district as a closed zone (i.e. direct pumping from booster pumps). Operating this zone as a direct pumping district could be challenging as it is one of the largest demand and geographical zones in the Region. Furthermore, controlling five pumping stations (Manheim, Greenbrook, Parkway, Strange Street and future Grand Reservoir PS) would require a complex control algorithm for marshalling the numerous pumping units under constantly changing demand conditions. An ideal system configuration is provided by facilities/pumping stations and storage supplying water from opposite ends. Since much of the sources are provided from the south and west and parts of the pressure district, it would be prudent to provide a water facility such as a storage tank on the east. This facility would also assist in providing a slightly higher gradeline through out the central portions of the zone aiding in greater water transfer capability to Waterloo and poised to aid in the servicing of the East Side lands. This will slightly raise the pressure across Zone 4 in the west and central areas of the Zone by 62 kPa. This may be similar to Zone 4 operation when the Greenbrook facility is in operation. This station has the ability to raise the pressure locally due to encountering less friction from long delivery lines from other booster stations.

Final Report

Page 79 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN Figures 6.26 and 6.27 are two possible locations for Kitchener Zone 4 storage. Further hydraulic analysis should be conducted for evaluating the feasibility of storage locations once this approach is adopted. Indeed a Class Environmental Assessment (Schedule B) needs to be undertaken. Appendix B of Technical Memorandum #6 presents the possible locations with elevations above 330m which could satisfy the location of a new storage facility. The ideal location for a new tank located on the east side of the zone is adjacent to the future Grand Reservoir and Pumping Station. However, there is limited area with suitably high ground elevation on the east side of the zone (east of the Grand River). Other areas exist on the east side of the Grand River and in the Central Business District. The areas analyzed in the hydraulic analysis would satisfy the requirements of this zone. Alternative areas should be considered during the Environmental Assessment. Figure 6.28 demonstrates a system pressure improvement. An extended series simulation of pressures shows a 35 to 40 kPa pressure increase using the same top water level as the St. George Tank but in a location on the east side. Table 6.6 summarizes the infrastructure required for two locations reviewed in this analysis. Although the Kitchener-Waterloo portion of the IUS does not warrant additional storage (as explained in Technical Memorandum #3) a new facility with a large surface area would greatly assist in moderating system pressures. A strict replacement of the St. George Tank (2824m3) would limit the surface area. Hydraulic analysis was undertaken with a tank operating over a 10m range and a nominal capacity of 8.5mL. This vessel would control the four existing pumping stations (Greenbrook, Storage, Parkway and Zone 4 Mannheim) and a future pumping station (Grand).

Figure 6.26 - Potential Location No.1 for KIT4 Storage39

39

Figure6.26 and 6.27 from page #48 of Technical Memorandum #6

Final Report

Page 80 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 6.27 - Potential Location No.2 for KIT4 Storage

80 System Pressure with New Kit4 Tank Activated 70

60

System Pressure (psi)

50

40 System Pressure with St. George Elevated Tank Activated

30

20

10

0 0 10 20 30 Time (hrs) 40 50 60

Figure 6.28 - System Pressure Comparison - St. George ET vs. New KIT4 Tank40

40

Figure 6.28 from page #50 of Technical Memorandum #6

Final Report

Page 81 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table 6.6 - Summary of Infrastructure Requirements41 Option 1. 2. 1-2 1-2* Descriptions 600mm WM on Ebydale Dr, from the new storage location to Lackner Blvd. 600mm WM on Keewatin Ave., from the new storage location to Heritage Dr. New Elevated Storage Cost Decommission St. George Talk Total Length 220 m 700 m Costs $0.4M $1.1M $4.0 4.5M $1.0 M

* not including land purchases

6.2.5

Storage Capacity Evaluation


Three

Detailed storage analysis was conducted and documented in Technical Memorandum #3. different approaches were evaluated as follows: MOE Storage Capacity Evaluation Approach Alternate Capacity Evaluation Approach (Zonal) Integrated System Approach

Figure 6.29 shows the schematic to describe the general evaluations methodology that was used. Due to the level of interconnections in the Regional distribution system and the ability of sharing existing storage facilities among many pressure zones the Integrated Approach is recommended.

41

Table 6.6 from page #51 of Technical Memorandum #6

Final Report

Page 82 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

General Storage Evaluation Methodology A. Fire Storage + B. Equalization Storage + C. Emergency Storage

MOE
A1 Zonal Basic
Major Fire In Every Zone Simultaneously

FUS

MOE
B1 25% of Max Week Demand

Alternate
B2 15% of Max Week Demand

MOE
C1 25% (A + B)

A2 System Basis
One Major Fire In Downtown plus One Residential Fire In Peripheral Area

A3 Zonal Basis
Major Fire In Every Zone Simultaneously

1. 2. 3.

MOE Approach: A1 + B1 + C1 FUS/Alternate Approach (Zonal): A3 + B2 + C1 FUS/Alternate Approach (Integrated): A2 + B1 + C1

Figure 6.29 - Storage Evaluations Methodology Table 6.7 and 6.8 summarize the storage evaluation results for the Cambridge and Kitchener Waterloo Integrated Supply System. This review considers only the traditional components of storage (equalization, emergency and fire demands). Other factors such as water quality and operational flexibility need to be incorporated into the storage volume. Table 6.7 - Storage Evaluation Summary for Cambridge Integrated Supply System42 Design Year A. Fire Storage (ML) B. Emergency Storage (ML) C. Equalization Storage (ML) Total Recommended Storage as per FUS / Alternate Approach (ML) Total Designed Storage (ML) Total Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) Theoretical Storage Surplus (+) / Deficit (-) (ML) ML = Million Litres 2006 7.80 4.20 9.01 21.0 65.3 48.0 27.0 2011 7.80 4.35 9.58 21.7 65.3 48.0 26.3 2016 7.80 4.47 10.09 22.4 65.3 48.0 25.6 2021 7.80 4.58 10.53 22.9 65.3 48.0 25.1 2026 7.80 4.72 11.06 23.6 65.3 48.0 24.4

42

Table 6.7 from page #12 of Technical Memorandum #6

Final Report

Page 83 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN Table 6.8 - Storage Evaluation Summary for Kitchener and Waterloo Integrated Supply System43 Design Year A. Fire Storage (ML) B. Emergency Storage (ML) C. Equalization Storage (ML) Total Recommended Storage as per FUS/Alternate Approach (ML) Total Designed Storage (ML) Total Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) Theoretical Storage Surplus (+) / Deficit (-) (ML) 2006 8.79 7.65 21.82 38.3 76.7 66.4 28.2 2011 8.79 8.06 23.43 40.3 89.1 76.6 36.3 2016 8.79 8.46 25.04 42.3 89.1 76.6 34.3 2021 8.79 8.88 26.73 44.4 89.1 76.6 32.2 2026 8.79 9.29 28.37 46.4 89.1 76.6 30.2

There is sufficient storage capacity in both the Cambridge and Kitchener Waterloo Integrated Supply systems. The integrated approach offers the most realistic approach if only two fire events, a major and minor (residential) event are considered to occur at the same time. Operations staff is unaware of simultaneous fire events occurring at any time and/or to the extent simulated in the hydraulic modeling discussed in this section.

6.2.6

Criticality Analysis

In order to identify key infrastructure that will cause a significant impact when taken out of service, the hydraulic model was used to perform criticality assessment. The technical steering committee identified critical infrastructure when taken out of service would: result in system (zone) pressures below 140 kPa and/or not sustain a fire flow or in itself is the lone single point of supply into a zone or subzone (subdivision) Table 6.9 summarizes the critical infrastructure (control valves and water mains) identified under normal operating conditions.

43

Table 6.8 from page #12 of Technical Memorandum #6

Final Report

Page 84 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table 6.9 - Criticality Analysis Results for Watermains44 Critical Watermains Manitou PRV (Figure 7.1) Descriptions Hydraulic Impacts Alternatives

River Road MTV (Figure 7.2)

Transfer flow from KIT4 to KIT2W and CAM1 Transfer flow from KIT 4 to KIT2E / CAM2W / CAM2E

Kitchener Z2W will be totally out of supply Freeport tank depleted to 28% Insufficient pressure

Install PRV for 2nd supply connection from Z4 to Z2W Install new watermain on Fountain Street to connect Breslau South to CAM2W Operate Kress Hill PS Install new PRV in the Kress Hill PS to transfer flow from CAM2W to CAM1 under emergency conditions Close Erb St. MTV (transfer flow from WAT5 to WAT4)

New Dundee PRV (Figure 7.3)

Transfer flow from KIT2W to CAM1

MV2

Transfer flow from KIT5 to WAT5

Insufficient pressure occurred in the Northwest area of CAM1 (near Kress Hill PS) Insufficient pressure Erb St. Reservoir level dropped below 20% in 2 days University Tank depleted in 19hrs

Only source of supply to WAT6

University Tank Inlet (KIT6)


University Tank Outlet (WAT6) Only source of supply to WAT6

Install by-pass through the pump station to transfer water from Wat 5 to Wat 6 Install by-pass pipe or additional watermain to transfer flow from Kit 5 to Wat 6 Install bypass around tank Install by-pass pipe or additional watermain to transfer flow from KIT6 to WAT6 Install bypass around tank Install new watermain to connect the subdivision to the existing 300mm on Shirley Ave. (N of Victoria St. N.) Install parallel pipe on Bridge St. E. (River

No service be available in WAT6


Kitchener Zone 4 450mm to Bridge St. East Only one watermain to the subdivision located east of Bridge St. E.

Subdivision will be out of service

44

Table6.9 from page #59 of Technical Memorandum #6

Final Report

Page 85 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Critical Watermains

Descriptions

Hydraulic Impacts

Alternatives

Crossing) (Figure 7.5)

Breslau North (refer Figure 4.15)

Single 300mm watermain provide water supply from Kit4

Zone Breslau North will be out of service

Install new watermain on Fountain St. and relocate the existing PRV to Breslau South for providing additional supply from KIT4

Loss or out of service for key storage elements was also evaluated under maximum day continuous key single storage facilities such as Freeport, Laurel, St. George & Pinebush tanks. The hydraulic model indicates that each zone operated within Regional prescribed operating pressures with the exception of the Waterloo Zone 4 system. The single reservoir zones would act as closed systems i.e. direct pressure until the storage vessel is placed back into service. Under maximum day conditions, some areas around the Laurel tank would experience pressures less than 140 kPa if the facility was out of service. In this event the existing pump back-up system would need to be operated to alleviate these low pressure issues. Criticality analysis was also undertaken for the booster stations under maximum week demand conditions. Table 6.10 indicates the level of redundancy under a significant demand condition. Table 6.10 - Criticality Analysis Results for Booster Pumping Stations45 PS Name Middleton Cam 1 Zone Pump ID CB21 CB22 CB23 CB24 SMTP Rahmans SCAM Cam 1 Cam 1 Cam 1A CB37 CB38 CB16 CB17 CB29 CB30 CB31 CB32 Turnbull Cam 2E CB8 Capacity 150 150 150 150 150 150 100 100 22 82 82 82 152 ON ON OFF OFF ON ON ON OFF ON ON OFF OFF ON Status

45

Table 6.10 from page #61 of Technical Memorandum #6

Final Report

Page 86 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

PS Name

Zone CB9

Pump ID

Capacity 151 151 70 70 182 50 50 105 105 80 50 80 130 130 70 85 95 95 608 608 608 94 250 250 250 95 90 90 90 100 100 100 300 300 20 20 ON OFF OFF ON OFF OFF OFF ON ON ON OFF ON OFF ON ON OFF ON OFF

Status

CB10 St Andrew Cam 3 CB34 CB35 CB36 Grand


(2)

Kit 4

GR1 GR2 GR3 GR4

Parkway

(2)

Kit 4

KB10 KB11 KB12

Greenbrook(2)

Kit 4

KB1 KB2 KB3 KB4

Strange St Mannheim

(2)

Kit 4 Kit 4

KB5 KB6 KB19 KB20 KB21

OFF(1) OFF(1) OFF(1) OFF OFF OFF ON OFF ON ON OFF ON ON OFF OFF OFF ON OFF

Mannheim

Kit 5

KB15 KB16 KB17 KB18

Mannheim

Kit 6

Z6P1_2022 Z6P2 Z6P3 Z6P4

William

Wat 4

WB1 WB2 WB3

Laurel Zone 7PS


1

Wat 4 Wat 7

WB13 WB14 PCP_ZONE7 PCP_FTC

Gravity Feed from Mannheim Reservoir (reservoir level at ~ 383m). With the proposed elevated tank in the eastside of KIT4, operation of one booster pump from Mannheim Z4 would be required 2 The operation of this pump is controlled by the level of the new elevated tank

Final Report

Page 87 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN The loss of a large pump during a maximum week demand condition has a consequence on the following facilities Shades Mill Pumping station (both pumps are operating hence no firm capacity alternatively proposed pumping units at the Turnbull Zone 1 station could be operated) Proposed size of the smaller pumping units at Grand Pumping Station should be sized to provide backup in the event of the loss of one of the major pumps e.g. GR1 and GR2 should require the capacity of either GR3 or GR4 Replacement of the small pumping unit (KB11) with equal size to KB 10 or 12 or install a new unit (i.e. four pumps) William St. requires two boosters operational. Upgrade of the station section piping is necessary to provide a sustainable flow of 200 L/s Again the robustness of the existing system IUS is demonstrated through the minor upgrades identified in this assessment.

6.2.7

Eastside and Future Servicing Areas

Growth allocations were provided by the Regions Planning Department. The growth projections take into account the Regional Growth Management Strategy (RGMS) and the Provinces Places to Grow Act. These initiatives require future growth be diverted to existing urbanized areas.

Final Report

Page 88 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN Figure 6.30 - Eastside Servicing Area Location46 The total area within the RGMS defined Eastside servicing area boundary is approximately 4,000 ha. Figure 6.30 illustrates the location of the Eastside servicing areas and the existing water distribution infrastructure represented in the Hydraulic model. The projected water demands up to 2026 are in the order of 40 L/s. However, based on FUS fire rating the International Airport would warrant a fire flow supply of 362 L/s. Accordingly, growth projecteions have been accounted for in the hydraulic model. The Regions RGMS has recommended new employment lands to be developed east of the Grand River mainly in the Township of Woolwich and in the North of Cambridge. The existing serviced area on the East Side lands is serviced by pressure reducing from Kitchener Zone 4 in Breslau North and through Kitchener Pressure Zone 2 in North Cambridge area. The southerly area pressure is moderated from the Freeport Elevated Tank. Once development of this area commences and converges, additional supplies will be required. Since at this time there are no sources located in this area demand in the east side needs to be met through supply from Kitchener Zone 4 and Zone 2. The existing Ottawa St. connection can effectively deliver 143 L/s with a headloss gradient of 2m/km. Accordingly, connection to the infrastructure to the South in Kitchener Zone 2E and a third service connection will be warranted as demand increases. Once the East Side area is connected most likely through an extension of a transmission main on Fountain St pressure control will be necessary. Pressure regulation/sustaining will become very erratic through PRVs discharging into a developing area. Accordingly, it is proposed that all PRVs be converted or installed as MTV/Flow Control Valves. This tank should control the following existing pressure regulating valves future supplies: Existing River Road pressure reducing/regulating valves Existing Ottawa Street N Regulating valve Future Fairway Rd extension regulating valve Future water supplies (most likely PI6) The PRV regulation system should include a similar arrangement to the River Road regulation facility (i.e. small control valve for normal demands with a larger control valve for fire flows). These control elements will need to be outfitted with stand along and remote terminal units accepting control signals through a stand alone controller from the Freeport Tank and from Mannheim central. In amalgamation of eastside infrastructure elements a control algorithm will need to be developed in order to regulate pressure through this new development area. Proposed infrastructure is illustrated in Figure 6.31 and 6.32.

46

Figure 6.9 from page #63 of Technical Memorandum #6

Final Report

Page 89 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 6.31 - Infrastructure Requirements 1 for Eastside Servicing Areas47

Figure 6.32 - Infrastructure Requirements 2 for Eastside Servicing Area48 Fire flow analysis indicates that a simultaneous major and minor (residential type) fire in this expanded Zone 2E can be delivered while still maintaining 140 kPa system pressure.
47 48

Figure6.31 from page #64 from Technical Memorandum #6 Figure 6.32 from page #65 from Technical Memorandum #6

Final Report

Page 90 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

As part of future master water distribution upgrades, it is recommended that further infrastructure evaluation be undertaken to determine the location and optimal sizing of transmission and distribution mains. For the purpose of this master plan the integration of the two existing small pressure zones through interconnection of the Fountain Street Main and integration of the pressure regulating and control valves is a key starting point. Flow metering should be implemented at these control points and at current municipal boundaries to determine use and billing. A ringmain concept for the area should be developed and installed/located along key major roads. As the proposed road network is not developed it would be prudent to consider the new major water infrastructure being installed with the sanitary sewer collection system.

6.2.8

Lake Based Water Supply System

This Water Distribution Master Plan projects water demands to 2026. However, the Regions Updated Water Supply strategy extends these projections to 2041 in keeping with the Wastewater Treatment Master Plan. The former study confirms that in due course the construction of a Great Lakes displacement pipeline will be a required measure to meet the future demands. This significant supply measure is contemplated by 2033/34 or earlier (2029) if water efficiency measures and water restrictions are not maintained. Accordingly, it is plausible that the manner of delivering water to the existing and future pressure zones analyzed in this update could be impacted by a lake based water supply scheme. Accordingly, it is prudent to consider these impacts and contemplate possible delivery options so that minimal infrastructure changes are necessary. Historically the existing Mannheim facility has been analyzed as a key location for terminal storage and supply of lake water to the Region of Waterloo primarily supplying the City of Kitchener and Waterloo. Pending future separate studies by the Region the ultimate servicing scheme for the Cambridge area remains conceptual. In previous studies terminal storage for the Cambridge area was from an area south and west of the city in the Cherry Hill area in the Township of North Dumfries. The hydraulic model was utilized to examine at a high level two water servicing options for the City of Cambridge: Service from Mannheim TS via existing water distribution system New transmission to Cambridge

The following assumptions were made during the undertaking of the 48 hour extended period simulation: Sufficient infrastructure is in place to deliver water from the Lake either in a one TS (Mannheim only) or two TS (Mannheim and Cambridge)system Two 900mm diameter transmission mains are required to deliver water to Zone 4 Kitchener (central core) and to Waterloo Zone 4 All well supply sources are inactivated or partially maintained off for emergency supply only

Final Report

Page 91 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

IMP1: 900mm from Mannheim to Wat 4 IMP2: 900mm from Mannheim to Kit 4

IMP1 IMP2

Lake-Based Supply
Figure 6.33 - Preferred Ultimate Supply Strategy49

Option 1 Mannheim Terminal Storage (TS) Supply to Cambridge This option supplies and transmits water from the Mannheim TS to the existing water distribution system. This would significantly change the hydraulics in the City of Cambridge. The bulk of the water supply to Cambridge would be a pipeline from the Mannheim TS through a manifold of PRVs located near the New Dundee PRV and from there a pipeline to other terminal reservoirs at Turnbull and South Cambridge. This would require over 50 km of pipeline much within urbanized areas in the City of Cambridge. From these terminal reservoirs redistribution would remain essentially intact. As a specific note, energy loss would be substantial since terminal storage at Mannheim is 385 m and ground storage in Zone 1 is substantially lower (325m or lower).

49

Figure 6.33 from page #72 of Technical Memorandum #6

Final Report

Page 92 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

IMP1: 900mm from Gravity Main to Turnbull IMP2: 900mm from Gravity Main to S. Cambridge GRAVITY MAIN: 1050mm from Mannheim to Cam 1

IMP1 GRAVITY MAIN IMP2

Figure 6.34 - Lake Based Supply Option 150 Option 2 Lake Based Supply directly to Cambridge Terminal Storage In order to avoid the significant changes proposed in Option 1 it is appropriate to consider the direct supply of lake based water to existing and enlarged reservoirs for use as terminal storage or control terminal storage and distribution/connection to existing water facilities such as the Turnbull, Middleton or new Zone 1 reservoir. It is envisioned that the existing major storage facilities with expansion would be used as pumped supply to the existing pressure zones during the day and augmented by a feed from Cambridge Terminal Storage. In this option, Cambridge Terminal Storage could be fed through a PRV off the supply to the Mannheim Terminal Storage or as a re-pump from Cambridge TS to Mannheim TS. The latter may be more desirable since any excess at the Cambridge TS can be shared between all three municipalities in the event of a pipeline out of service issue. Figure 6.34 schematically presents the new transmission system under a lake based supply scheme. Technical Memorandum #6 (included in Appendix F) provides further description on Option 2. High level hydraulic modeling was undertaken to provide conceptual routing and interconnectivity to the existing distribution system. A more detailed analysis is required to confirm infrastructure requirements and location when more details for the Great Lake supply are available. Critical infrastructure location should then be reviewed and it will be necessary to consider routes and siting of infrastructure in nonurbanized areas. The availability of uncongested utility corridors and lands suited for terminal storage are limited at this time and in the future it is doubtful that there would be relief to this congestion.

50

Figure 6.34 from page #67 of Technical Memorandum #6

Final Report

Page 93 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN At a conceptual/high level, the provision of lake supply through terminal storage in Cambridge offers the following benefits: Less improvement works through urbanized areas and existing water distribution systems Least impact to existing hydraulics and pressure zones Effective balancing of storage Higher level of water supply security of the pipeline is out of service

6.3 Estimated Costs


Hydraulic analysis was used to confirm upgrades/modifications to the existing infrastructure and water distribution to accommodate existing and new demands forecasted up to 2026. In addition zone boundary modifications, new storage and central facilities decommissioning of redundant systems have also been estimated. Costs for implementing solutions for backup to critical infrastructure and addressing system deficiencies found during fire flow analysis have also been considered. Allowances for individual PRVs and local pressure management areas have been provided. At this time no allowance has been made for future lake based infrastructure pending future analyses. Allowances have been provided for extension of infrastructure to the East Side lands. Future hydraulic and water quality modeling and system recalibration have been recommended in Sections 6.4. Estimates/allowances have been provided for future studies. Table 6.11 summarized the recommended improvements and works/studies discussed in Section 6.2 together with the proposed implementation date, Class EA schedule and estimated cost. A total of $64,475,000 to $79,662,500 works/upgrades/studies has been recommended.

Table 6.11 - Cost Estimate Summary Proj. No. 1 2 Project Description Decommission Shantz Reservoir Decommission Edward St. Reservoir Upgrade 300m of 300mm to 400mm on Industrial Rd from Eagle St. N to Langs Dr Pinebush Tank recircuiting pump/emergency storage reuse pump New Zone 4 to Zone 2W PRV station for backup of existing PRV Cost Est. $1.0M $500,000 EA Schedule A,A+ A Rationale SI RI Prop. Date 2010 2010

Cambridge

$900,000

SI

2010

$300,000

2012

$500,000

2012

Final Report

Page 94 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Proj. No.

Project Description Modify Zone2W controls to incorporate Freeport Tower to control existing River Rd, Fairway Rd and Ottawa St PRVs and proposed wells in area Decommission Kress Hill Booster Pumps and modify PRV for transfers of Cam 2W to Cam1 Provide backup to New Dundee PRV upgrade Kress Hill from booster station to PRV Shades Mill Pumping unit upgrade or incorporate into item 14 New Storage Tank for Zone 1 New 600mm diameter WM on Franklin & Eagle St OR 2.5 km New 400mm diameter WM on Franklin, Eagle & CanAmera Parkway OR New 400 mm diameter WM through existing park to Saginaw Parkway OR 400mm diameter connect to existing 600mm at Turnbull Reservoir Site OR New 400m diameter WM from Franklin Blvd to site between Avenue Rd & Clyde Rd Inactivation of 400mm diameter WM from Turnbull Reservoir to Cam1 system (dedicate storage for pumped storage for Zone1 and Zone 2E

Cost Est.

EA Schedule

Rationale

Prop. Date

$100,000

ES

2012

$500,000

2013

$250,000

2013

$250,000

2013

Cambridge

10

$4.5M

SI

2018

11 a

$3.8M

SI

2018

$6.7M

SI

2018

$1.5M

SI

2018

$250,000

SI

2018

$2.0M

SI

2018

12

$200,000

SI

2018

Final Report

Page 95 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Proj. No.

Project Description Install new 450mm WM from Kent St to Bismark Dr (Cambridge) New Zone 1 PS (for reallocation of Turnbull as pumped storage for Zone1) Extend 300mm diameter Fountain St main into Breslau S area and flowmeter (at Cambridge Woolwich boundary) New Control Valve and check valve on inlet to St. Andrew Reservoir Upgrade 1.5km of 400mm WM on Franklin Blvd to min. 500mm Upgrade 1.9km of 300/400mm to 500 mm equivalent on Pinebush Rd from Rahmans PS to Industrial Rd Upgrade 700m of 300mm to 500mm equivalent on Eagle St N from Industrial Rd to Providence Rd Expansion of Cambridge Zone 1A pressure zone into Zone 1 (allowance) Decommission St. George Tank Relocate existing PRV on Ottawa St. to east side of Grand River and new 450mm diameter main for backup to Breslau N. and flow meter Install/upgrade small booster pump of Parkway PS

Cost Est.

EA Schedule

Rationale

Prop. Date 2018

13

$900,000

14

$5.0M

SI

2020

15

$750,000

ES

2020

Cambridge

16

$300,000

SI

2020

17

$1.5M

SI

2021

18

$1.6M

SI

2021

19

$800,000

SI

2021

20

$500,000

ZB

As required 2010

$1.0M

A or A+

SI

Kitchener

$500,000

ES

2012

$150,000

2012

Final Report

Page 96 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Proj. No.

Project Description Modify pumping at William St (or refer to Tech Memorandum #4) for station upgrade Lancaster St main replicate existing main or connect to existing main at Shirley Ave/Victoria St N New 300mm WM from Apple Ridge Dr/Hilt Dr to Doon Village Rd (allowance investigation by others) Duplicate Manitou PRV (smaller or could be incorporated into Cambridge Item #20) New storage tank for Zone 4 600mm diameter WM on Ebydale Rd from Lackner to new tank OR 600mm diameter on Keewatin for storage tank to Heritage Dr Install new PRV and extend 600mm diameter main on Fairway Rd. across Grand River and connect to Fountain St. main complete with flow meter ( 2.2 km) Modifications to Kitchener Pressure Zone 2 (allowance) Upgrade 1500m of 300mm to 400mm on Westheight Dr. from MacGarry Dr to Driftwood Dr and on Driftwood Dr from Westheights Dr to west of Parkland Cres Interconnection of Zone 2E & Zone 2W complete with

Cost Est.

EA Schedule

Rationale

Prop. Date

$200,000

A/B

2012

$900,000

A+/B

2012

$1.0M

A/B

2013

$400,000

2013

$4.5M

SI

2014

Kitchener

9a

$500,000

SI

2014

9b

10

$1.0M

A+

ES

2015

11

$500,000

TBA

By others

12

$1.8M

SI

2015

13

$2.0M

ZB/C

2015

Final Report

Page 97 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Proj. No.

Project Description river crossing Duplicate River Rd MTV (integrate Ottawa St/Fairway Rd and Front St main) Modifications to Kitchener Pressure Zone 2 (allowance) New 500mm WM to Farmers Market area Baffling of the William St. Reservoir cell 4 for improvement to CT Install new 300mm WM diameter from Bridge St E 450mm diameter WM on Bridge St. W Add bypass piping around proposed University Tank Decommission William St. Reservoir Decommission Zone 6 pumps (after installation of University Avenue Elevated Tank) Decommission Zone 4B Booster Station and relief valve chambers and connect existing Zone 4B to Zone 5 Decommission Zone 4C Booster Station and relief valve chambers and connect to Zone 5 Reconfiguration of existing northeast portion Zone 4W into Zone 5W i.e. incorporation of Zone 4B and 4C (minor dead end & valving improvements) Implementation of localized individual PRVs and pressure management areas as required

Cost Est.

EA Schedule

Rationale

Prop. Date

Kitchener

14

$700,000

2020

15

$500,000

TBA

By others

$750,000

2011

$600,000

SI

2012

3a 3b 4 5

$1.0M $850,000 $250,000 $1.0M

A A A A

C C C RI

2012 2012 2012 2013

Waterloo

$500,000

RI

2015

$500,000

A,A+

ZB

2016

$500,000

A,A+

ZB

2016

$500,000

ZB

2016

Others

$0.5-1.0M (allowance)

ZB

20112015

Final Report

Page 98 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Proj. No. 2

Project Description 300m WM to Breslau N area New transmission mains in East Side Servicing Area (allowance) Breslau North backup from Ottawa St PRV/Fountain St extension

Cost Est. $750,000

EA Schedule A+

Rationale C

Prop. Date 2012

3 Others

$5-10M

ES

2015 to 2020

(refer to Others item #2)

A+/B

Sub-total Cost Estimating Range (25%) Total Works Costs

$47,500,000 to $61,650,000 $11,875,000 to $15,412,500 $59,375,000 to 77,062,500

Studies 1 Update Tri-City Master Plan (on a 5-10 year cycle) Calibrate Tri-City model (hydraulically and water quality) $1.0M Update after10 yrs start as C A 2015 and 2020

$500,000

2012

Incorporate all distribution pipe in 3 model and complete water quality modeling Undertake energy optimization analysis and incorporate 4 forecasting program into SCADA system Undertake conceptual level 5 hydraulic analysis for Lake based system Total Studies Costs Total Works Costs TOTAL COSTS ZB = Zone Boundary ES = East Side C = Criticality F = Fire SI = System Improvements RI = Redundant Infrastructure

$500,000

2013

$300,000

2012

$300,000

As part of future EA

2015 and 2020

$2.6M $61,875,000 to $77,062,500 $64,475,000 to $79,662,500

Final Report

Page 99 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

RECOMMENDED UPGRADES CAMBRIDGE FIGURE 6.35

Figure 6.35 Recommended Upgrades for Cambridge

Final Report

Page 100 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

RECOMMENDED UPGRADES KITCHENER FIGURE 6.36

Figure 6.36 Recommended Upgrades for Kitchener

Final Report

Page 101 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

RECOMMENDED UPGRADES WATERLOO FIGURE 6.37

Figure 6.37 Recommended Upgrades for Waterloo

Final Report

Page 102 of 103

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

6.4 Future Updates


The Region should review and update the Water Distribution Master Plan on a regular basis to ensure that the assumptions regarding servicing and managing the existing and future water demands are still valid. Special issues which would consider updating the Master Plan are: The redistribution of demands based on more up-to-date planning information The realization of new supplies within the IUS Climatic changes requiring the Region to undertake drastic demand management which would further reduce perception and ICI demands or accelerate the need for a lake based supply alternative In considering future updates the Region may wish to consider a total pipe model in lieu of the partial model that is in use. The total pipe model would be of value in significant ways:

Use for water quality modeling in the future During the workshops undertaken with the Cities of Cambridge, Kitchener and Waterloo the City attendees expressed interest of a total pipe model may assist their utility in system troubleshooting and development application review (especially in areas of redevelopment).

In the undertaking of this study minimal allowance has been provided for aging infrastructure. Clearly this should be reviewed for future studies. Indeed consideration should be given to a system recalibration in order to confirm and therefore rely on the converging capacity of existing transmission and distribution mains.

6.5 Summary and Recommendations


The following summarizes the findings of the hydraulic modeling and analysis The hydraulic assessment demonstrated that the serviceability of the existing distribution system with some upgrades could be maintained for the analyzed years 2006, 2011, 2016, 2021 and 2026 under maximum week demand conditions Infrastructure improvements projects were identified to satisfy design criteria, criticality, pressure zone modifications, new storage, new pumping station and upgrade to firm capacity A comprehensive water storage and fire flow analysis identified solutions to potential pressure areas Inter zone and boundary analysis identified some realized low and high pressure issues and mitigative measure were determined Eastside lands were reviewed with focus on future infrastructure to assist in servicing this new development area Conceptual strategies for a lake based water supply were developed and evaluated. Both strategies warrant further investigation however, the concept of providing terminal storage in Cambridge and distribution through to existing infrastructure and storage facilities has some clear advantages Future hydraulic calibration analysis and water quality modeling is recommended in order to assist the Region in identifying future infrastructure improvements due to changes in demands, implementation of infrastructure and assistance in meeting provincial legislation

Final Report

Page 103 of 103

Appendix A Technical Memorandum #1 Landuse, Population, Demand Analysis and Projection

Tri-City Water Distribution Master Plan


Technical Memorandum #1
Landuse, Population, Demand Analysis and Projection

The Regional Municipality of Waterloo Transportation & Environmental Services Department 7th Floor Water Services Division 150 Frederick Street Kitchener, Ontario N2G 4J3 Project 81539

AECOM 101 Frederick Street, Suite 702 Kitchener, Ontario N2H 6R2

May 2009

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 1. 2. Section 1: Existing Landuse and Demand Data Analysis ........................... 2 Section 2: Top 50 Water Billing Records Analysis (2003)........................... 5
2.1 2.2 2.3 Top 50 Water Billing Records by Landuse ..................................................................... 5 Top 50 Water Billing Records by City............................................................................. 6 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 6

3. 4. 5.

Demand Consumption Rate Analysis ........................................................... 7


3.1 Consumption Rate Considering Top 50 Billing Records Water Consumption................ 8

Unaccounted for Water (UFW) Estimation.................................................. 12 Residential and ICI Diurnal Pattern Computation ...................................... 13
5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Residential Diurnal Pattern Calculation ........................................................................ 13 ICI Diurnal Pattern Calculation ..................................................................................... 15 Max Day and Max Week Peaking Factors ................................................................... 19 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 20

6.

Future Water Demand Projections .............................................................. 21


6.1 6.2 Projected Water Demand Calculation .......................................................................... 21 Sensitivity of Water Efficiency to Projected Water Demand ......................................... 24

7. 8.

Conclusions................................................................................................... 27 Recommendations ........................................................................................ 28

Technical Memorandum # 1

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

List of Figures
Figure 1.1 2003 Demand Summary per City ...................................................................................................3 Figure 3.1 - Tri-City 10 Years Water Consumption Rate..................................................................................10 Figure 5.1 - Residential Diurnal Pattern (Based on Zone Kit 5) .......................................................................14 Figure 5.2 ICI Diurnal Pattern (Cam 1 + Cam 3) ...........................................................................................16 Figure 5.3 - ICI Diurnal Pattern (Cam 2E) ........................................................................................................16 Figure 5.4 - ICI Diurnal Pattern (Cam 2W) .......................................................................................................17 Figure 5.5 - ICI Diurnal Pattern (Kit 2 + Kit 2A ) ...............................................................................................17 Figure 5.6 - ICI Diurnal Pattern (Kit 2B + Kit 4 + Breslau N + Breslau S ) .......................................................18 Figure 5.7 - ICI Diurnal Pattern (Wat 5 + Wat 4 +Kit 4A + Market ) .................................................................18 Figure 6.1 - Projected Average Day Demand Comparisons ............................................................................26

List of Tables
Table 1.1 - 2003 Demand Summary ..................................................................................................................2 Table 1.2 2003 Demand Summary per Landuse ............................................................................................3 Table 2.1 Total Demand for the Top 50 Water Billing Records Ranked By Land Use (Year 2003) ...............5 Table 2.2 - Top 50 Water Billing Records Ranked By City (Year 2003) ............................................................6 Table 3.1 Existing Population 2003 .................................................................................................................7 Table 3.2 Average Residential and ICI Water Consumption Rate ..................................................................8 Table 3.3 - Historical Water Consumption for Tri-City........................................................................................9 Table 4.1 - UFW in Each City (2003)................................................................................................................12 Table 5.1 Percentage of Residential Demand per Zone ...............................................................................13 Table 5.2 - Maximum Day and Maximum Week Peaking Factors (2003)........................................................19 Table 5.3 - Maximum Day Demand Factor for Tri-City (Provided by the Region)............................................19 Table 6.1 - Total Projected Equivalent Population ...........................................................................................22 Table 6.2 - Total Average Day Demand (L/s)...................................................................................................22 Table 6.3 - Total Maximum Day Demand (L/s) (3) .............................................................................................23 Table 6.4 - Total Maximum Week Demand (L/s)..............................................................................................23 Table 6.5 - Projected Average Day Demand with Water Efficiency Consideration..........................................25

Appendices
A. B. C. D. E. Meter Billing Records Analysis Per City Top 50 Water Billing Records Water Consumption Rate Calculation Unaccounted For Water (UFW) Diurnal Pattern

Technical Memorandum # 1

ii

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Introduction
The principal reason for conducting this master plan is to determine required improvements for the existing water distribution infrastructure, as well as new distribution infrastructure required for Regional growth. The objective is to determine how the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (RMOW) will provide the water requirements of its growing community. The next task in this study is to determine future water requirements based on the analysis of existing landuse, water consumption, and population projections. This Technical Memo summarizes the work we have completed, namely: Section 1: Existing Landuse and Demand Data Analysis Section 2: Top 50 Water Billing Records Analysis Section 3: Demand Consumption Rate Analysis Section 4: Unaccounted For Water (UFW) Estimation Section 5: Residential and ICI Diurnal Pattern Computation. Section 6: Conclusions Section 7: Recommendations Zone names and corresponding locations within the Tri-City system are presented in Figure 1 as a reference point before going into any detailed discussions in the sections to follow.

Technical Memorandum # 1

Page 1 of 29

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

1.

Section 1: Existing Landuse and Demand Data Analysis

This section analyzes existing landuse and demand information on a zone and municipality basis. Water billing information collected from RMOW to complete this analysis was reviewed. A list of the sources of billing data is presented in Appendix A. All existing water demand data is based on 2003 billing records received from the Region of Waterloo; which was originally provided by the City. The 2003 demand data was selected for this study since it best represents a typical demand year for the Region of Waterloo. Figure 1.1 summarizes the 2003 water demand data by City. For the purpose of this study, external water demand from adjacent systems such as Mannheim, Shingletown, Elmira and St. Jacobs is excluded from the demand consumption analysis. However, the projected water demand for these municipalities will be estimated based on the information provided by the Region. In addition, the water demand analysis for Wilmot 5A (WIL5A) is included since this zone is interconnected with Kit 5. The total demand at St Jacobs Market, Breslau North and Breslau South included in Table 1.1 was estimated by the Region since no billing records were available for these areas. In terms of total consumption, Kitchener has the highest percentage of water use at 44.5 %, followed by Cambridge at 31.5 %, and Waterloo at 24 %.

Table 1.1 - 2003 Demand Summary Total Demand (L/s) 482.3 681.5 367.3 1531.1 L/s Total Demand (%) 31.5 44.5 24.0 100 %

City Cambridge Kitchener Waterloo(1) Total


(Source: 2003 Water Billing Records) (1) Includes Kitchener Zone 4A

Technical Memorandum # 1

Page 2 of 29

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 1.1 2003 Demand Summary per City

The 2003 billing records also contained landuse type for each billing account. Table 1.2 summarizes the demand consumption characteristic by landuse throughout the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.

Table 1.2 2003 Demand Summary per Landuse Landuse Type Commercial Industrial Institutional Other Residential Total (Source: 2003 Water Billing Records) Total Demand (L/s) 111.3 252.0 98.3 5.2 1064.3 1531.1 L/s Total Demand (%) 7.3% 16.5% 6.4% 0.3% 69.5% 100.0%

Technical Memorandum # 1

Page 3 of 29

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

A detailed demand analysis for each of the zones in Kitchener, Waterloo, and Cambridge is compiled in Appendix A. Summary The following is a list of key conclusions based on the 2003 demand data: The total water demand is approximately 132.3 ML/d or 1531.3 L/s; and Overall, approximately 69 % of the total billed authorized consumption is residential and the remaining 31% is attributed to ICI consumption (i.e., Industrial, Commercial and Institutional) for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.

Technical Memorandum # 1

Page 4 of 29

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

2.

Section 2: Top 50 Water Billing Records Analysis (2003)

This section identifies the top 50 water billing records for 2003 to determine significant and/or special water users. They will be analyzed separately in Section 3, when determining water consumption (L/cap/day) in each zone. The water billing information collected from RMOW was reviewed to complete the top 50 water meter billing analysis. The sources for the billing data are presented in Appendix A.

2.1

Top 50 Water Billing Records by Landuse

Table 2.1 presents the total water demand for the 50 largest water billing records for year 2003 for different landuse type. The major records represent industrial, institutional, residential, and commercial water billing records. Details of the top 50 water billing records are presented in Appendix B. Table 2.1 Total Demand for the Top 50 Water Billing Records Ranked By Land Use (Year 2003) Top 50 Billing Land Use Records Demand (L/s) Commercial Industrial Institutional Other Residential Total 2.1 162.0 38.6 0 18.7 221.4 L/s Total Demand per landuse in RMOW (L/s) 111.3 252.0 98.3 5.2 1064.3 1531.1 L/s Percent Distribution per Landuse (%) 1.9% 64.3% 39.3% 0.0% 1.8% 14.5%

Technical Memorandum # 1

Page 5 of 29

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

2.2

Top 50 Water Billing Records by City

Table 2.2 presents the 50 top water billing records in each City in year 2003.

Table 2.2 - Top 50 Water Billing Records Ranked By City (Year 2003) Top 50 Billing Ranking City Records Demand (L/s) 1 2 3 Cambridge Kitchener Waterloo Overall Tri-City 98.3 86.7 36.4 221.4 482.3 681.5 367.3 1531.1 Total Demand per City (L/s) Percent Distribution per City (%) 20.4% 12.7% 9.9% 14.5%

Figure 2.1 shows the location of the top 50 billing records based on 2003 data. Each red node in the figure below represents a Top 50 billing record and the annotation corresponds to their ranking.

2.3

Summary

The following is a list of key conclusions based on the 2003 data: The top 50 water billing records are comprised of mainly industrial companies (~64.0% of total industrial demand in RMOW); Approximately 2 % of the top 50 water records are residential users; and The top 50 water billing records consume 221.4 L/s representing about 15 % of the total water consumption (1531.3 L/s).

Technical Memorandum # 1

Page 6 of 29

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

3.

Demand Consumption Rate Analysis

In this section, average demand per capita consumption rate (L/cap/day) in 2003 for each city is presented. This information is important in estimating future water use projections. There are two types of information required in this analysis: population data and water consumption data. Both of these data sets need to be classified based on its land use type, i.e., Residential and Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI). The population and water consumption data collected from RMOW was reviewed to complete this task. The source of the data is presented in Appendix C. An interpolation method was applied to estimate the 2003 population for both residential and employment population since data for 2001 and 2006 was provided. Both residential population and equivalent employment population are provided by the Region. Table 3.1 presents a summary of population data in each city for year 2003. Table 3.1 Existing Population 2003 Equivalent Employment Population 64,761 93,979 60,175 7 98 1,864 5,003 225,887

City Cambridge Kitchener Waterloo North Dumfries* Wilmot** St. Jacob Elmira

Residential Population 117,704 202,860 104,769 108 700 1,436 8,024 435,601

Total * Included Llyod Brown Subdivision ** Included Mannheim and Shingletown

Utilizing the water consumption data as provided in the 2003 billing records and the 2003 population data, water consumption rates for both residential and ICI users for each zone can be calculated and the results are presented in the Table 3.2. A detailed water consumption rate calculation by Zone is presented in Appendix C.

Technical Memorandum # 1

Page 7 of 29

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table 3.2 Average Residential and ICI Water Consumption Rate Residential City Consumption Rate (L/cap/d) Cambridge Kitchener Waterloo Overall Tri-City 204.7 227.7 214.7 218.0 ICI Consumption Rate (L/cap/d) 280.8 178.6 156.9 203.1

3.1

Consumption Rate Considering Top 50 Billing Records Water Consumption

The influence of the top 50 customer demands has been evaluated and the methodology used to determine the approximate population for each top 50 billing account is provided below in bullet point format. Used the previous population data set from the Regions Planning Department (Scenario 184) and assigned the equivalent population from the PLUM zone to each Top 50 User based on their shared geography. Compared the Zonal populations in Scenario 184 and the final population data set and calculated the adjustment factors. Applied the adjustment factor for each zone to each Top 50 User and adjusted the equivalent population for each user to match the final population data set. For each PLUM zone that contains one or more Top 50 billing records, a specific consumption rate was calculated based on the total water consumption and total population associated with that particular PLUM zone. Water consumption and population data associated with these PLUM zones (i.e., the ones where the Top 50 billing records are located) are then subtracted from the total water consumption and total population of that particular pressure zone. Water consumption and population data sets for the remaining PLUM zones are obtained and the consumption rate for the remaining PLUM zones was calculated. The impacts of the Top 50 User to the residential and ICI consumption rates were evaluated and the detailed results are presented in Appendix C Tables C.6 and C.7. In addition, Appendix C also presents the compiled water consumption rate for each PLUM that has one or more Top 50 billing records and the adjustment factor in each zone. According to the sensitivity results, the Top 50 User was not sensitive to the zonal residential consumption rate. Conversely, the Top 50 User was very sensitive to the zonal ICI consumption rate. As a result, it is appropriate to apply a common residential consumption rate for the municipalities and

Technical Memorandum # 1

Page 8 of 29

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

apply a distinct ICI consumption rate for each zone in each municipality to better describe the consumption characteristic. With different consumption rates for residential and ICI water users, it is useful to review the average consumption rates of other municipalities before determining the rate that will be utilized in projecting future water demand in the system. AECOMs National Water and Wastewater Benchmarking Initiative collects relevant information for more than 35 Canadian cities and regional organizations, including the Region of Waterloo who has been a participant in this project over the last several years. Average day water consumption from participating municipalities/cities was reviewed to compare the average water consumption rate determined in this study. From the data provided by the Region of Waterloo, Table 3.3 and Figure 3.1 present total water consumptions (RES + ICI) for the past 10 years. According to the Regions historical population, the summer population is lower but with a higher per capita consumption than the winter population, and therefore the summer population was utilized to calculate the total per capita consumption for a conservative scenario (higher consumption rate). Table 3.3 - Historical Water Consumption for Tri-City Average Water Consumption in Tri-City (ML/d) 143 147 143 141 148 157 152 161 161 156 155 157 151 Total Summer Population 362,625 364,580 368,490 374,520 380,180 386,470 395,860 402,890 411,550 420,438 431,036 412,355 390785 Total per Capita Consumption During Summer (L/cap/d) 394 403 388 376 389 406 384 400 391 371 360 381 388

Year 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003* 2004 5-year Average 10-year Average

* Design average consumption for Residential and ICI was evaluated in Technical Memo 2 for this year

Technical Memorandum # 1

Page 9 of 29

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 3.1 - Tri-City 10 Years Water Consumption Rate

The average per capita consumption for the past 5 years was 381 L/cap/d and it was approximately 3% higher than the consumption rate in 2003, however the trend from 2001 has been downwards. Water consumption records were also reviewed for other municipalities/cities. According to the review, the per capita average day consumption very much depends on the landuse type. In general the total per capita consumption ranged from 318 to 833 L/cap/d. In Table 3.2, it has been shown that the calculated average residential consumption rate in Tri-City is approximately 218 L/ca/day. A design consumption rate of 218 L/ca/day was lower than all other municipalities that were reviewed. This low water consumption rate and the declination of the water consumption rate presented in Figure 3.1 above could be associated with the water efficiency program in Tri-City and also the proactive water recycling program that the larger industrial users have implemented. In addition, 218 L/ca/day did not include the unaccounted for water (UFW). If UFW is applied, the design consumption rate will be closer to other municipalities design rates. Summary The following is a section summary: The city by city residential consumption rate in the Tri-City area ranges from 205L/cap/day to 228 L/cap/day, with an average of 218 L/cap/day; which is lower than the MOE recommended residential consumption rate (MOE suggests 270-450 L/cap/day). In the Tri-City area, the city by city ICI consumption rates range from 157 L/cap/day to 281 L/cap/day, with an average of 203 L/cap/day.

Technical Memorandum # 1

Page 10 of 29

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

It has been shown that the top 50 water billing records give a significant contribution in determining the consumption rate, mainly for ICI consumption. Therefore, these high billing records should be considered seriously when calculating future water projection in the system. The residential and ICI consumption rates should be increased by 3% in order to coincide with the consumption rates to the 5 year average water consumption rate (e.g. 218L/cap/day * 1.03 = 225 L/cap/day for Residential consumption rate).

Technical Memorandum # 1

Page 11 of 29

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

4.

Unaccounted for Water (UFW) Estimation

This section presents the methodology used in estimating the UFW by pressure zone. UFW is the amount of water in the distribution system which is not billed due to leakage, inaccurate system flow meters, illegal water taking, water system maintenance, and fire fighting. SCADA records and water billing data that was provided by the Region was utilized to complete the analysis. The source of data is presented in Appendix D. In the subsequent calculation of UFW, due to limitations in the SCADA data, some zones are combined. The combined zones are presented in Appendix D. In addition, SCADA records for Kit 2B and Kit 4 are combined because these zones were connected (as per 2003 condition) with a non metered boundary connection. A meter has been installed in the system since 2003 to record flows into Kit 2B. The same condition applied to Wat 4 and Wat 5. The City of Cambridge, Zones Cam 1 and Cam 3 were analyzed together since interconnecting bypass lines between these zones were opened during winter season. Given the above, the overall average UFW in each city was calculated and is presented in Table 4.1, while a more detailed calculation for each zone is presented in Appendix D. Table 4.1 - UFW in Each City (2003) Total Demand Based Municipality on SCADA Record (L/s) Cambridge Kitchener Waterloo Total 588.0 819.5 404.0 1832.0 Total Demand Based on Billing Record (L/s) 482.4 681.6 370.6 1531.3 UFW (L/s) 105.6 158.4 34.2 300.7 %UFW per Municipality 18% 19% 8% 16%

It should be noted that the UFW percentage shown in this table includes Unbilled Authorized Water Consumption, for instance: hydrant flushing, fire fighting, and so on. Therefore, the actual water losses are likely to be less than the UFW listed in Table 4.1. It should be noted that City of Kitchener has the highest UFW of 19%. As per additional data provided by the City of Cambridge shown in Table D.3, Appendix D, UFW in 2003 is approximately 16%. It should be noted that from these records, water loss ranged between 10 and 26% over the last several years. Also, in these records, the UFW for the City of Cambridge for the previous 5 years averaged 18%. Summary The following is a list of key conclusions: The UFW ranges from 8% to 19 % for the different cities in the system. The average UFW (which includes unbilled authorized consumption) in Tri-City is 16%

Technical Memorandum # 1

Page 12 of 29

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

5.

Residential and ICI Diurnal Pattern Computation

Two different baseline demand patterns have been created based on land use classification (Residential and ICI). The SCADA record, provided by the Region, for each zone was used to complete this task.

5.1

Residential Diurnal Pattern Calculation

One unique residential diurnal pattern has been calculated for the entire Tri-City water distribution system. This approach is based on the assumption that residential diurnal patterns typically follow the same pattern from one area to the other especially when property types are similar. A comparison of the diurnal pattern for each zone that is predominantly residential development is presented in Appendix E Figure E1. There are several zones with residential demand of more than 90% of its total demand. These zones are: Kit 5 (+ WIL 5A), Cam 1A, Wat 4B, Wat 4C and Wat 6. These zones produced similar diurnal patterns, nevertheless since Kit 5 (+ WIL 5A) has the largest population and the water consumption is predominantly generated by residential landuse, this zone was chosen to generate the residential pattern for the entire system. The percentage of residential demand per zone is calculated based on the Meter Billing Record Databases utilized in Section 3, is shown in Table 5.1. Table 5.1 Percentage of Residential Demand per Zone % Residential Water demand 63% 99% 63% 0.3% 50% 69% 93% 66% 97% 99.9% 96%

Zone Cam 1 + Cam 3 Cam 1A Cam 2E Cam 2W Kit 2 + Kit 2A Kit 2B + Kit 4 + Breslau N + Breslau S Kit 5 + WIL 5A Wat 5+ Wat 4 + Kit 4A+ Market Wat 4B Wat 4C Wat 6

Technical Memorandum # 1

Page 13 of 29

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

The following method was used to determine the residential diurnal pattern: Step 1. Using SCADA records to calculate the hourly water consumption for the entire one (1) year record period available; Step 2. Based on the hourly water consumption from Step 1, the average water consumption for the each timestep is calculated using the following equation.
i =365

AVG Demand t = n =

Demand
i =0

t =i

365 ( AVG Demand ) t = n n = 23 AVG Demand / 24 t =n n =0

Step 3. Determine the hourly demand multiplier by applying the following equation

Demand Multiplier =

Residential diurnal pattern was calculated for three different water consumption conditions: average day, maximum week, and maximum day demand. Figure 5.1 presents the result.

Figure 5.1 - Residential Diurnal Pattern (Based on Zone Kit 5)

1.60

1.40

Peaking Factor [/]

1.20

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00

Avg Day

Max Day

Technical Memorandum # 1

Page 14 of 29

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Note: The Maximum Day Demand occurred on June 23rd, 2003 According to the weather information from Environment Canada, the maximum temperature in June 23rd, 2003 was 30oC. The Maximum Week Demand occurred from June 30th, 2003 to July 6th, 2003 According to the weather information from Environment Canada, the average temperature in that week was 29.4oC. The maximum week demand consistently occurred in the week of July 30th, 2003 for the other Zones except CAM 2W and WAT6. Appendix E presents the details of water consumption patterns for the other zones.

5.2

ICI Diurnal Pattern Calculation

A separate ICI diurnal pattern was calculated for each zone. In calculating the ICI diurnal pattern, the same method as explained in the previous section was applied to calculate the hourly average water demand (Step 1 and Step 2) for each zone in terms of TOTAL water usage (i.e., residential plus ICI). In order to have ICI water usage only, the residential demand was then subtracted from the hourly TOTAL demand by considering the residential diurnal pattern developed earlier and the percentage of residential water consumption in that particular zone (summarized in Table 5.1). Having established the hourly ICI water demand, the ICI demand multiplier was then calculated in accordance with Step 3s equation. In summary, in order to determine the ICI diurnal pattern, the residential diurnal pattern together with the percentage allocation of Residential versus ICI water usage in each zone was required. The percentage of residential demands in each zone has been presented in Table 5.1. The ICI diurnal pattern was also calculated for several different demand conditions: average day, maximum week, and maximum day demand. The SCADA Data provided by the Region did not include records for all of the zones in the Tri-City. Several zones in the system are combined in the same manner as the ones that were described earlier in Section 3 and Section 4. In addition, since more than 95% of the water demand in Cam 1A, Wat 4B, Wat 4C and Wat 6 is residential, no ICI diurnal pattern was generated for these zones based on the existing data. The results of the ICI pattern calculations for these zones for average day, maximum week, and maximum day demand are presented in the following figures. A complete peaking factor at each time step in each zone is compiled in Appendix E.

Technical Memorandum # 1

Page 15 of 29

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 5.2 ICI Diurnal Pattern (Cam 1 + Cam 3)

2.00 1.80 1.60 1.40 P eaking Factor [/] 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00
21:00

22:00
22:00

Ave

MaxDay

MaxW eek

Figure 5.3 - ICI Diurnal Pattern (Cam 2E)

2.50

2.00 Peaking Factor [/]

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 23:00

Ave

MaxDay

MaxW eek

Technical Memorandum # 1

Page 16 of 29

23:00

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 5.4 - ICI Diurnal Pattern (Cam 2W)

1.80 1.60 1.40 Peaking Factor [/] 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00

Ave

MaxDay

MaxW eek

Figure 5.5 - ICI Diurnal Pattern (Kit 2 + Kit 2A )

2.00 1.80 1.60 1.40 Peaking Factor [/] 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 Ave 9:00

MaxDay

MaxW eek

Technical Memorandum # 1

Page 17 of 29

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 5.6 - ICI Diurnal Pattern (Kit 2B + Kit 4 + Breslau N + Breslau S )


1.60 1.40 1.20 Peaking Factor 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 Ave 9:00

MaxDay

MaxW eek

Figure 5.7 - ICI Diurnal Pattern (Wat 5 + Wat 4 +Kit 4A + Market )


2.50

2.00 Peaking Factor [/]

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00

Ave

MaxDay

MaxW eek

Technical Memorandum # 1

Page 18 of 29

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

5.3

Max Day and Max Week Peaking Factors

Maximum day and maximum week demand peaking factors were calculated as part of this section. Table 5.2 summarizes the peaking factors for each city, where a detailed zone calculation is compiled in Appendix E.5. Table 5.2 - Maximum Day and Maximum Week Peaking Factors (2003) Max Day Peaking Factor 1.42 1.38 1.42 1.40* Max Week Peaking Factor 1.26 1.24 1.26 1.25*

Zone Cambridge Kitchener Waterloo Tri-City

*this excludes Elmira and St. Jacob Based on the data provided by the Region, the maximum day peaking factor for the past 10 years for the Tri-City area (including Cambridge, Kitchener, Waterloo, Elmira and St. Jacob) was calculated to be 1.35, which is slightly lower than the figure of 1.44 calculated for this report. The historical maximum day demand factor for the Tri-City is presented in Table 5.3. Table 5.3 - Maximum Day Demand Factor for Tri-City (Provided by the Region) YEAR 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 10 Years Average 5 Years Average KITCHENER 1.58 1.50 1.33 1.25 1.74 1.64 1.19 1.49 1.45 1.37 1.21 1.45 WATERLOO 1.31 1.54 1.60 1.27 1.54 1.45 1.18 1.54 1.43 1.43 1.25 1.43 CAMBRIDGE 1.25 1.56 1.29 1.36 1.56 1.46 1.21 1.34 1.42 1.41 1.21 1.38 ELMIRA 1.59 1.90 2.62 1.35 2.06 2.41 1.53 2.27 1.86 1.64 1.44 1.92 ST.JACOBS 1.86 2.11 1.94 1.77 1.58 1.59 2.01 1.71 1.81 1.54 1.58 1.79 TOTAL 1.31 1.39 1.23 1.25 1.50 1.42 1.18 1.45 1.43 1.37 1.19 1.35

1.34

1.36

1.32

1.75

1.73

1.32

Technical Memorandum # 1

Page 19 of 29

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

As a part of the National Benchmarking project completed by AECOM, maximum day demand factors were also collected for other cities or municipalities. According to the review, in general, maximum day peaking factor ranges from 1.25 to 1.73.

5.4

Summary

In this section, one residential pattern and various ICI diurnal patterns have been developed. The residential diurnal pattern shows a common water usage pattern with two peaks occurring, one in the early morning and the other in mid evening. ICI patterns have been generated for several pressure zones. For the zones with low ICI water consumption (due to high percentage of residential water usage), the residential diurnal pattern is assumed to be the total diurnal pattern. Finally, it is important to consider multiple pattern types in running a hydraulic simulation to closely resemble the real water distribution system. It is proposed that the following factors are recommended for this study:

Maximum Day Demand Factor Maximum Week Demand Factor

1.40 1.25

Technical Memorandum # 1

Page 20 of 29

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

6.

Future Water Demand Projections

The projected population was provided by the Region in May 2006. Based on the per capita consumptions for both residential and ICI development, unaccounted for water and peaking factors, the future water demands were determined. As the Region has conducted a water efficiency exercise and is about to commence an updated program of efficiency initiatives, water savings were incorporated into the future water demand calculations. The sensitivity of the degree of saving achievable (high/medium/low) will be reviewed in Task #6 to identify the effect on water infrastructure upgrades.

6.1

Projected Water Demand Calculation

The following tables summarize the projected population for each zone and the calculated future demand for each zone to 2026 in 5 year intervals. The details of the projected population and future demands for both residential and employment are presented in Appendix F. Based on the original scope of this study, the water consumption characteristics (e.g. rates, diurnal pattern, etc.) for the Municipalities of North Dumfries, Wilmot and Woolwich were not evaluated. As a result, the projected water demands for these municipalities were evaluated based on the following information that provided by the Region: Average residential consumption of 250 L/cap/day was applied to St. Jacob and Elmira; this consumption rate was obtained from the Pre-design Report for Elmira and St. Jacob Westside Storage, which were produced by AECOM in 1996. Average ICI Consumption of 146 L/cap/day was applied; this consumption rate was estimated based on the information obtained from the Pre-design Report for Elmira and St. Jacob Westside Storage, which was produced by AECOM in 1996. The average consumption rates for North Dumfries and Wilmot (Mannheim & Shingletown) are estimated based on the meter records that were provided by the Region and the total population (residential + employment). These rates were evaluated based on the meter records; which already included UFW, billing record error, etc. The equivalent consumption rates are: North Dumfries = 278 L/ca/day Mannheim = 203 L/ca/day Shingletown = 248 L/ca/day

Technical Memorandum # 1

Page 21 of 29

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table 6.1 - Total Projected Equivalent Population Municipality Cambridge Kitchener Waterloo North Dumfries Wilmot(1) Woolwich(2) Total 2003 182,465 296,839 164,944 115 799 16,326 661,488 2006 196,290 314,192 180,986 115 804 17,510 709,897 2011 212,947 339,300 195,152 115 808 19,560 767,882 2016 227,536 365,676 207,621 115 813 21,614 823,375 2021 240,479 394,658 218,399 115 821 24,630 879,102 2026 255,431 422,132 230,670 115 827 27,315 936,490

Table 6.2 - Total Average Day Demand (L/s) Municipality Cambridge Kitchener Waterloo North Dumfries Wilmot(1) Woolwich(2) Total Total (MGD)(4) 2003 587 812 431 0 2 46 1,879 35.7 2006 596 812 488 0 2 47 1,906 36.2 2011 639 869 478 0 2 51 2,040 38.8 2016 677 931 504 0 2 56 2,170 41.2 2021 709 999 527 0 2 64 2,302 43.7 2026 746 1,063 553 0 2 72 2,436 46.3

Technical Memorandum # 1

Page 22 of 29

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN


Table 6.3 - Total Maximum Day Demand (L/s) (3) Municipality Cambridge Kitchener Waterloo North Dumfries Wilmot(1) Woolwich(2) Total Total (MIGD) 2003 793 1,096 582 1 3 63 2,537 48.2 2006 805 1,097 605 1 3 63 2,8572 48.9 2011 863 1,174 645 1 3 69 2,754 52.3 2016 913 1,257 680 1 3 76 2,930 55.7 2021 975 1,349 711 1 3 87 3,107 59.1 2026 1,007 1,435 747 1 3 97 3,289 62.5

Table 6.4 - Total Maximum Week Demand (L/s) Municipality Cambridge Kitchener Waterloo North Dumfries Wilmot(1) Woolwich(2) Total Total (MIGD) 1. 2. 3. 4. 2003 734 1,014 539 1 3 58 2,349 44.6 2006 745 1,016 560 1 3 58 2,382 45.3 2011 799 1,087 597 1 3 64 2,550 48.5 2016 846 1,164 630 1 3 70 2,713 51.6 2021 886 1,249 658 1 3 81 2,877 54.7 2026 933 1,328 691 1 3 90 3,045 57.9

Municipality of Wilmot includes Mannheim and Shingletown Municipality of Woolwich includes Elmira and St. Jacob Tables 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4 have been updated based on a residential per capita consumption of 209 l/cap/day as detailed in the conclusions of this report Includes water efficiency saving of 1.64 MGD

Technical Memorandum # 1

Page 23 of 29

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

6.2

Sensitivity of Water Efficiency to Projected Water Demand

The Regions Water Efficiency Master Plan Update 2006 has been reviewed and the following key points can be made: The estimated water savings to 2005 through water efficiency initiatives was 1.64 MGD (7.45ML/d). This figure was derived by subtracting the 2003 saving of 0.88MGD (i.e. already saved figure) from the 2005 total water savings figure of 2.52 MGD The target accumulative water savings over 9 years (2007 to 2015) through water efficiency initiatives is approximately 1.8 MGD (8.1ML/d) The above summary was interpreted as follows and was incorporated to the future water demand estimation: The estimated water savings of 1.64 MGD through efficiency initiatives would be applied the 2006 design year which in turn would be projected through future design years (i.e. the saving will not be lost). The target water savings of 0.2 MGD per year (1.8MGD over 9 years) would be applied to each design year. By comparing the estimated actual water savings and target water savings to the total projected average day demand, the percentage water savings for each design year were calculated as follows: Design Year Existing Water Efficiency Savings L/s (MGD) Target Water (1) Savings (1.8MGD initiative) L/s (MGD) Total Projected Saving
(1)

2006 86.2 L/s (1.64MGD)

2011 86.2 L/s (1.64MGD)

2016 86.2 L/s (1.64MGD)

2021 86.2 L/s (1.64MGD)

2026 86.2L/s (1.64MGD)

0.0

69.3 L/s (1.3 MGD) 155.5 L/s (3.0 MGD)

94.6 L/s (1.8 MGD) 180.8 L/s (3.4 MGD)

94.6 L/s (1.8 MGD) 180.8 L/s (3.4 MGD)

94.6 L/s (1.8MGD) 180.8 L/s (3.4 MGD)

86.2 L/s (1.64MGD)

L/s (MGD)

(1) Savings are accumulative to the year

In order to evaluate the sensitivity of the target water savings to the projected water demands, the target water savings were altered and the definitions of the alteration are as follows:

Effective Water Efficiency Program (100% saved) apply the above noted percentage target water savings to the projected average day demand calculation. Average Water Efficiency Program (50% saved) multiply the above noted percentage target water savings by 50% and apply it to the projected average day demand calculation No Participation (0% saved) Do not apply the percentage target water savings to the projected average day demand calculation.

Technical Memorandum # 1

Page 24 of 29

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

The future water demands were calculated with the above noted alterations and Table 6.5 summarizes the results. Figure 6.1 graphically presents the difference in system demand when considering each water efficiency level of saving. Appendix F presents the detailed water demand projection results. Table 6.5 - Projected Average Day Demand with Water Efficiency Consideration Design Year Effective Water Efficiency Program* MGD Average Water Efficiency Program (50% of target saving achieved). ML/d No Participation** MGD 36.2 38.8 41.2 43.7 46.3 164.6 176.3 187.5 198.9 210.5 High Demand Projection MGD 36.2 38.1 40.3 42.8 45.4 ML/d 36.2 164.6 37.5 173.3 39.5 183.4 41.9 194.8 44.5 206.4 Med Demand Projection Unit ML/d 2006 164.6 2011 170.3 2016 179.3 2021 190.7 2026 202.3 Note: Low Demand Projection

* 3% average day demand adjustment factor was excluded from the Low Demand Projection ** Demand incorporates the estimated savings of 1.264MGD that is already considered to have been achieved through was efficiency projects but assumes that no savings would be made in the 2007-2015 water efficiency program (worst case scenario)

Technical Memorandum # 1

Page 25 of 29

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 6.1 - Projected Average Day Demand Comparisons

Technical Memorandum # 1

Page 26 of 29

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

7.

Conclusions

Utilizing all available data, water consumption behavior in Tri-City has been characterized and the following points conclude the observations from Technical Memo 1: Based on the Meter Billing Record, City of Kitchener has the largest water demand (45%) followed by City of Cambridge (31%) and City of Waterloo (24%). According to the 2003 billing records (billed authorized consumption records), residential users contribute around 69% (1064 L/s) of the total water demand in the system. The analysis for the Top 50 billing records in the system reveals that Top 50 billing records contribute approximately 15% (221.4L/s) of the total water consumption in 2003 (1531 L/s). Industrial activities are responsible for 64.3% of the Top 50 billing records water consumption in 2003. Detailed and auditable calculations have undertaken that establish a Tri-City residential per capita consumption of 218 l/cap/day as summarized in table 3.2 (detailed analysis is provided in Appendix 2 tables C2 and C3) The analysis removed figures considered anomalies from the calculations such as excessively high or low per capita consumptions for individual zones. However, following direction from the Region, a residential per capita consumption of 209 l/cap/day is to be adopted and this was derived by dividing the total residential consumption (see table C2) by the total population (excluding St Jacobs, Elmira and North Dumfries, see table 3.1) ICI consumption rate in each City range from 156.9 L/cap/d to 280.8 L/cap/d, with an average consumption rate in Tri-City of 203.1 L/cap/d. As expected, ICI consumption rates vary quite considerably depending on the predominant ICI activities in that particular zone. The Top 50 billing records play a significant role in determining the zonal consumption rates, mainly affecting the ICI consumption rates. Therefore, these high water users should be assessed carefully when calculating future water demand projection. One unique residential diurnal pattern has been generated for the entire system based on the assumption that residential diurnal patterns typically do not differ much from one area to the other. Distinct ICI diurnal patterns were developed for several zones in the system, as they vary largely depending on the predominant ICI activities in that particular zone. The maximum day peaking factor for each zone in the system ranged from 1.3 to 2.8 with an average of 1.4. The highest max day peaking factor was encountered in Cam 2W, a small zone where more than 99% of its users are ICI.

Technical Memorandum # 1

Page 27 of 29

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

8.

Recommendations

Based on the results from this study, the following is recommended for the Region: Average Residential Consumption Rate = 209 l/cap/day ICI consumption rates will be varied by zone as they largely depend on the type of ICI activities that exist. As a result, ICI consumption rates in a zone by zone basis are recommended and the ICI consumption rates for each zone are summarized below. The details of the ICI consumption rates are presented in Appendix C, Table C.3. Zone The City of Cambridge Cam 1 Cam 1A Cam 2E Cam 2W Cam 3 The City of Kitchener Kit 2 Kit 2A Kit 2B Kit 4 Kit 4A Breslau N * Breslau S * Kit 5 WIL 5A * Kit 6** The City of Waterloo Wat 4 Wat 4B Wat 4C Wat 5 Wat 6 Wat 7 * 166 65 10 198 59 59 112 383 200 183 90 177 177 133 177 59 347 84 220 255 195 ICI Consumption Rate (L/cap/d)

Market * 157 * Due to insufficient data, these zones used the Citys average ICI Consumption Rate ** Recommended by the Region

Technical Memorandum # 1

Page 28 of 29

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

It is understood that water efficiency plans have been in progress and further funding has been made available to enable continued savings. UFW has been amended for future design years to incorporate these projected savings. Where a water efficiency program has not been planned (2015 onwards) it is assumed a proactive leakage and asset management program would maintain volumetric UFW at 300 L/s for future years. The maximum day peaking factor that should be used is 1.44 as this number is consistent with the 5yr average maximum day peaking factor in Tri-City. A maximum week demand factor of 1.25 is recommended Diurnal patterns as per Figure 5.1 and 5.2 to 5.7 are recommended for Residential and ICI demand, respectively.

Technical Memorandum # 1

Page 29 of 29

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Bibliography Section 1

Wat 2003 Billing_point.dbf (GIS Point Shapefile) Kit 2003 billing_point.dbf (GIS Point Shapefile) Cam 2003 billing_point.dbf (GIS Point Shapefile) landuse_rollup_codes_20051006.mdb

Section 2 Wat 2003 Billing_point.dbf (GIS Point Shapefile) Kit 2003 billing_point.dbf (GIS Point Shapefile) Cam 2003 billing_point.dbf (GIS Point Shapefile) landuse_rollup_codes_20051006.mdb Section 3 Population Database:

Emp61_region.dbf (GIS Polygon Shapefile) NetPop61_region.dbf (GIS Polygon Shapefile) Sc184Emp_region.dbf (GIS Polygon Shapefile) Sc184Pop_region.dbf (GIS Polygon Shapefile) zone_pres2003_region.dbf (GIS Polygon Shapefile) Water Consumption Database: Wat 2003 Billing_point.dbf (GIS Point Shapefile) Kit 2003 billing_point.dbf (GIS Point Shapefile) Cam 2003 billing_point.dbf (GIS Point Shapefile) landuse_rollup_codes_20051006.mdb

Section 4 Total Water Produced:

Raw SCADA data record for each zone, for example: DOCS_ADMIN-#117094-v1-CAM_1__RAW_2003_SCADA_10MIN_DATA.XLS

Total Water Billed:

Wat 2003 Billing_point.dbf (GIS Point Shapefile) Kit 2003 billing_point.dbf (GIS Point Shapefile) Cam 2003 billing_point.dbf (GIS Point Shapefile) landuse_rollup_codes_20051006.mdb

Section 5 Raw SCADA data record for each zone, for example: DOCS_ADMIN-#117094-v1-CAM_1__RAW_2003_SCADA_10MIN_DATA.XLS

Appendix A Meter Billing Record Analysis Per City

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Appendix A: Meter Billing Record Analysis Per City Source of Billing Data: Wat 2003 Billing_point.dbf (GIS Point Shapefile) Kit 2003 billing_point.dbf (GIS Point Shapefile) Cam 2003 billing_point.dbf (GIS Point Shapefile) landuse_rollup_codes_20051006.mdb

1. City of Kitchener Table A.1a 2003 Demand Summary per Landuse in the City of Kitchener Landuse Type Commercial Industrial Institutional Other Residential Total Total Demand (L/s) 55.9 84.4 40.7 1.7 498.8 681.5 Total Demand (%) 8.2% 12.4% 6.0% 0.3% 73.2% 100.0%

Table A.1b 2003 Demand Summary per Zone in the City of Kitchener Zone Kit 2 + Kit 2A Kit 2B Kit 4 + Breslau N + Breslau S Kit 5 + WIL 5A Total Demand (L/s) 5.9 37.9 531.4 106.3 681.5 Demand (%) 0.9% 5.6% 78.0% 15.6% 100.0%

Technical Memorandum # 1 - Appendix A

Page 1 of 3

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

2. City of Waterloo Table A.2a 2003 Demand Summary per Landuse in the City of Waterloo Landuse Type Commercial Industrial Institutional Other Residential Total Total Demand (L/s) 30.1 33.6 41.0 0.7 261.8 367.3 Total Demand (%) 8.2% 9.2% 11.2% 0.2% 71.2% 100 %

Table A.2b 2003 Demand Summary per Zone in the City of Waterloo Zone ID Wat 4 + Kit 4A+ Market WAT4B WAT4C WAT5 WAT6 Total Total Demand (L/s) 252.2 28.1 3.5 50.7 32.9 367.3 Total Demand (%) 68.7% 7.7% 0.9% 13.8% 9.0% 100.0%

Technical Memorandum # 1 - Appendix A

Page 2 of 3

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

3. City of Cambridge

Table A.3a 2003 Demand Summary per Landuse in the City of Cambridge Landuse Type Commercial Industrial Institutional Other Residential Total Total Demand (L/s) 25.3 134.0 16.6 2.8 303.7 482.3 L/s Total Demand (%) 5.2% 27.8% 3.4% 0.6% 63.0% 100.0%

Table A.3b 2003 Demand Summary per Zone in the City of Cambridge Zone ID Cam 1 + Cam 3 Cam 1A Cam 2E Cam 2W Total Total Demand (L/s) 287.8 10.4 156.1 28.0 482.3 L/s Total Demand (%) 59.7% 2.2% 32.4% 5.8% 100.0%

Technical Memorandum # 1 - Appendix A

Page 3 of 3

Appendix B Top 50 Water Billing Records

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Appendix B: Top 50 Water Billing Records Table B.4 - Top 50 Billing Records Ranked by Demand (Year 2003) ID TOP3 TOP5 TOP10 TOP11 TOP12 TOP14 TOP23 TOP31 TOP36 TOP48 TOTAL TOP19 TOP24 TOP28 TOP33 TOP34 TOP35 TOP40 TOTAL TOP2 TOTAL TOP15 TOTAL TOP1 TOP6 TOP7 TOP8 TOP13 TOP16 TOP17 TOP18 TOP20 TOP22 TOP25 TOP27 TOP30 TOP32 TOP39 TOP42 TOP43 TOP44 TOP45 AVG_DEMAND 21.31 15.39 5.01 4.19 3.83 3.6 2.25 2.07 1.96 1.47 61.08 3.04 2.19 2.12 2.03 2.03 2 1.69 15.1 22.12 22.12 3.48 3.48 23.03 7.98 7.27 5.87 3.72 3.45 3.23 3.12 2.59 2.3 2.17 2.12 2.09 2.04 1.72 1.54 1.54 1.52 1.51 ZONEID CAM1 CAM1 CAM1 CAM1 CAM1 CAM1 CAM1 CAM1 CAM1 CAM1 CAM2E CAM2E CAM2E CAM2E CAM2E CAM2E CAM2E CAM2W KIT2B KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 LANDUSE Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Institutional Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Institutional Industrial Industrial Industrial Institutional Institutional Industrial Industrial Residential Residential Industrial Industrial Industrial Commercial Residential Industrial Residential Institutional Residential Residential

Technical Memorandum # 1 Appendix B

Page 1 of 3

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

ID TOP46 TOP47 TOTAL TOP50 TOTAL TOP4 TOP9 TOP21 TOP26 TOP29 TOP37 TOP38 TOP41 TOP49 TOTAL TOP3 TOP5 TOP10 TOP11 TOP12 TOP14 TOP23 TOP31 TOP36 TOP48 TOTAL TOP19 TOP24 TOP28 TOP33 TOP34 TOP35 TOP40 TOTAL TOP2 TOTAL TOP15 TOTAL TOP1 TOP6 TOP7 TOP8 TOP13 TOP16 TOP17

AVG_DEMAND 1.51 1.49 81.81 1.45 1.45 18.02 5.06 2.31 2.12 2.1 1.85 1.82 1.64 1.45 36.37 21.31 15.39 5.01 4.19 3.83 3.6 2.25 2.07 1.96 1.47 61.08 3.04 2.19 2.12 2.03 2.03 2 1.69 15.1 22.12 22.12 3.48 3.48 23.03 7.98 7.27 5.87 3.72 3.45 3.23

ZONEID KIT4 KIT4 KIT5 WAT4 WAT4 WAT4 WAT4 WAT4 WAT4 WAT4 WAT4 WAT4 CAM1 CAM1 CAM1 CAM1 CAM1 CAM1 CAM1 CAM1 CAM1 CAM1 CAM2E CAM2E CAM2E CAM2E CAM2E CAM2E CAM2E CAM2W KIT2B KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4

LANDUSE Residential Industrial Residential Institutional Industrial Industrial Institutional Industrial Institutional Residential Residential Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Institutional Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Institutional Industrial Industrial Industrial Institutional Institutional Industrial Industrial

Technical Memorandum # 1 Appendix B

Page 2 of 3

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

ID TOP18 TOP20 TOP22 TOP25 TOP27 TOP30 TOP32 TOP39 TOP42 TOP43 TOP44 TOP45 TOP46 TOP47 TOTAL TOP50 TOTAL TOP4 TOP9 TOP21 TOP26 TOP29 TOP37 TOP38 TOP41 TOP49 TOTAL

AVG_DEMAND 3.12 2.59 2.3 2.17 2.12 2.09 2.04 1.72 1.54 1.54 1.52 1.51 1.51 1.49 81.81 1.45 1.45 18.02 5.06 2.31 2.12 2.1 1.85 1.82 1.64 1.45 36.37

ZONEID KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT5 WAT4 WAT4 WAT4 WAT4 WAT4 WAT4 WAT4 WAT4 WAT4

LANDUSE Residential Residential Industrial Industrial Industrial Commercial Residential Industrial Residential Institutional Residential Residential Residential Industrial Residential Institutional Industrial Industrial Institutional Industrial Institutional Residential Residential Industrial

Technical Memorandum # 1 Appendix B

Page 3 of 3

Appendix C Water Consumption Rate Calculation

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Appendix C: Water Consumption Rate Calculation Source of Data Population Database:

Results for Demand Polygons_May23.xls zone_pres2003_region.dbf (GIS Polygon Shapefile)

Water Consumption Database: Wat 2003 Billing_point.dbf (GIS Point Shapefile) Kit 2003 billing_point.dbf (GIS Point Shapefile) Cam 2003 billing_point.dbf (GIS Point Shapefile) landuse_rollup_codes_20051006.mdb (All of these meter billing record databases have been compiled and analyzed in Section 1)

Technical Memorandum # 1 Appendix C

Page 1 of 7

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

1. No consideration was taken with regards to the Top 50s water billing records Table C.1 Existing Population 2003

Zone

Residential Population

Equivalent Employment Population 28,274 768 24,976 9,488 1,255 64,761 2,248 82 2,568 80,298 36 200 837 5,513 25 2,172 93,975 53,021 1,311 122 2,657 2,004 152 907 60,174

Cam 1 Cam 1A Cam 2E Cam 2W Cam 3 Cambridge Summary Kit 2 Kit 2A Kit 2B Kit 4 Kit 4A Breslau N Breslau S Kit 5 WIL 5A Kit 6 Kitchener Summary Wat 4 Wat 4B Wat 4C Wat 5 Wat 6 Wat 7 Market Waterloo Summary

62,378 5,431 37,735 906 11,254 117,704 821 748 13,469 136,471 349 111 595 35,778 352 14,169 202,863 61,276 10,853 1,397 19,063 12,088 74 18 104,769

Technical Memorandum # 1 Appendix C

Page 2 of 7

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table C.2 Water Consumption 2003 (Based on Meter Billing Record)

Zone

Residential Demand (L/s) 143.91 9.64 92.42 0.07 27.56 273.60 0.76 1.91 31.92 360.58 1.06 N/A N/A 96.88 0.90 494.02 150.38 27.12 3.44 47.68 31.52 N/A N/A

ICI Demand (L/s) 113.54 0.75 63.64 27.99 2.84 208.74 2.91 0.36 5.94 169.80 0.04 N/A N/A 8.50 0.00 187.56 101.76 0.99 0.01 3.03 1.36 N/A N/A

Total Demand (L/s)

Cam 1 Cam 1A Cam 2E Cam 2W Cam 3 Cambridge Summary Kit 2 Kit 2A Kit 2B Kit 4 Kit 4A Breslau N Breslau S Kit 5 WIL 5A Kitchener Summary Wat 4 Wat 4B Wat 4C Wat 5 Wat 6 Wat 7 Market

257.45 10.39 156.05 28.06 30.39 482.34 3.67 2.28 37.87 530.38 1.10 N/A N/A 105.38 0.90 681.58 252.14 28.11 3.45 50.71 32.88 N/A N/A 367.29

260.14 107.15 Waterloo Summary * Billing Records for Breslau N, Breslau S, WAT7 and Market are not available

Technical Memorandum # 1 Appendix C

Page 3 of 7

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table C.3 Residential and ICI Water Consumption Rate

Zone

Residential Consumption Rate (L/cap/d) 199.3 153.4 211.6 6.9 211.5 200.8 204.7 79.7 221.1 204.8 228.3 263.4

ICI Consumption Rate (L/cap/d)

Cam 1 Cam 1A Cam 2E Cam 2W Cam 3 Cambridge Cambridge without Highlighted Zone(s) (2) Kit 2 Kit 2A Kit 2B Kit 4 Kit 4A Breslau N Breslau S Kit 5 WIL 5A Kitchener Kitchener without Highlighted Zone(s)(2) Wat 4 Wat 4B Wat 4C Wat 5 Wat 6 Wat 7
(1) (1) (1) (1)

346.9 84.0 220.1 254.9 195.3 278.5 280.8 111.9 382.7 200.0 182.7 90.3 N/A N/A 133.2 0.0 178.5 178.6 165.8 65.3 9.8 98.4 58.6 N/A N/A 156.6 156.9 203.1

N/A N/A 233.9 222.0 227.1 227.7 212.0 215.9 212.5 216.1 225.3 N/A N/A 214.7 214.7 218.0

Market

Waterloo Waterloo without Highlighted Zone(s) (2) Tri-City

Technical Memorandum # 1 Appendix C

Page 4 of 7

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Note: 1. The per capita consumption for Residential and ICI for Breslau N, Breslau S, Wat7 and Market can not be evaluated since billing records for these zones are not available. 2. The highlighted per capita consumptions are not included in the calculation due to the calculated per capita consumption for these zones are unreasonable. The unreasonable per capita

consumption may be attributed to a number of users within a zone utilizing private water services. 3. Table 7 shows insignificant impacts in per capita consumptions when the highlighted zones are being excluded.

2. Consumption Rate of the Top 50 Billing Records Table C.4 Top 50 Residential Billing Records Consumption Rate

Zone

PLUM Zone ID

Top 50 Billing Records Consumption Rate (L/cap/d) 2236 302 383 431 294 270 309 226 280 157 760 204

Kit 4 Kit 4 Kit 4 Kit 4 Kit 4 Kit 4 Kit 4 Kit 4 Kit 5 Kit 5 Wat 4 Wat 4

132 149 1240 1405 1468 1509 1526 Remaining Plum Zone 1531 Remaining Plum Zone 506 Remaining Plum Zone

Technical Memorandum # 1 Appendix C

Page 5 of 7

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table C.5 Top 50 ICI Billing Records Consumption Rate

Zone

PLUM Zone ID

Top 50 Billing Records Consumption Rate (L/cap/d) 3324 253 2163 1988 1535 6176 3960 29 288 521 1128 375 294 493 110 394 99 1.8 364 17 307 155 333 389 520 2316 185 171 902 180

Cam 1 Cam 1 Cam 1 Cam 1 Cam 1 Cam 1 Cam 1 Cam 1 Cam 2E Cam 2E Cam 2E Cam 2E Cam 2E Cam 2E Cam 2E Cam 2W Cam 2W Cam 3 Cam 3 Kit 2B Kit 2B Kit 2B Kit 4 Kit 4 Kit 4 Kit 4 Kit 4 Kit 4 Kit 4 Kit 4

253 259 509 602 608 1194 1202 Remaining Plum Zone 453 490 496 587 1377 1560 Remaining Plum Zone 203 Remaining Plum Zone 259 Remaining Plum Zone 159 168 Remaining Plum Zone 68 83 97 113 122 133 147 148

Technical Memorandum # 1 Appendix C

Page 6 of 7

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Zone

PLUM Zone ID

Top 50 Billing Records Consumption Rate (L/cap/d) 585 447 285 97 88 2986 1115 1829 802 83

Kit 4 Kit 4 Kit 4 Kit 4 Kit 4 Wat 4 Wat 4 Wat 4 Wat 4 Wat 4

159 503 539 1291 Remaining Plum Zone 21 26 41 450 Remaining Plum Zone

Table C.6 Residential Consumption Rate Comparison (2003) Overall City Consumption Rate Including Top 50 Records (L/cap/d) Cambridge Kitchener Waterloo Overall Tri-City 204.7 227.7 214.7 218 204.7 223.2 209.7 214.4 0% -2% -2% -2% Rate Excluding Top 50 Records (L/cap/d) Difference (%)

Table C.7 ICI Consumption Rate Comparison (2003) Overall City Consumption Rate Including Top 50 Records (L/cap/d) Cambridge Kitchener Waterloo Overall Tri-City 280.8 178.6 156.9 203.2 123.0 104.2 83.4 102.9 -56% -42% -47% -49% Rate Excluding Top 50 Records (L/cap/d) Difference (%)

Technical Memorandum # 1 Appendix C

Page 7 of 7

Appendix D Unaccounted for Water

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Appendix D: Unaccounted For Water (UFW) Source of Data: Total Water Produced: Raw SCADA data record for each zone, for example: DOCS_ADMIN-#117094-v1-CAM_1__RAW_2003_SCADA_10MIN_DATA.XLS Total Water Billed: Wat 2003 Billing_point.dbf (GIS Point Shapefile) Kit 2003 billing_point.dbf (GIS Point Shapefile) Cam 2003 billing_point.dbf (GIS Point Shapefile) landuse_rollup_codes_20051006.mdb

(These databases have been compiled and analyzed in Section 1)

Table D.1 Combined Zones in the Tri-City System Combined Zones Cam 1 & Cam 3 Kit2 & Kit 2A Kit 4 & Breslau North & Breslau South Kit5 & WIL 5A Wat 4 & Kit 4A & Market

Technical Memorandum # 1 Appendix D

Page 1 of 4

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table D.2 Unaccounted For Water at Each Zone (2003) Total Demand Based Zone on SCADA Record (L/s) Cam 1 + Cam 3 Cam 1A Cam 2E Cam 2W Sub-Total Kit 2 + Kit 2A Kit 2B + Kit 4 + Breslau N + Breslau S Kit 5 + WIL 5A Sub-Total Wat 4 + Kit 4A+ Market + Wat 5 Wat 4B Wat 4C Wat 6 Wat 7 Sub-Total Total 371.54 10.30 177.83 28.33 588.0 7.15 677.54 134.81 819.5 336.9 29.59 3.16 35.2 NA 404.8 1832 Total Demand Based on Billing Record (L/s) 287.8 10.4 156.1 28.1 482.3 5.9 569.3 106.3 681.6 306.1 28.1 3.5 32.9 NA 370.6 1531.3 UFW (L/s) 83.74 0 21.73 0.23 105.7 1.39 125.17 31.90 158.4 30.73 1.5 -0.3* 2.33 NA 34.2 331.7

%UFW per Zone

23% 0% 12% 1% 18% 19% 18% 24% 19% 9% 5% -9%* 7% NA 8% 16%

* This negative UFW may be attributed to an error in one of the data source: SCADA record and/or Billing record. Again since this is a relatively small zone, with subsequently small demand, there might be a high sensitivity in the data recording process.

Technical Memorandum # 1 Appendix D

Page 2 of 4

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN Table D.3 UFW History in the City of Cambridge

Technical Memorandum # 1 Appendix D

Page 3 of 4

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN Table D.4 UFW History in the City of Cambridge (Contd) Residential Consumption

General Service C i

Water Purchase

Water Loss

Technical Memorandum # 1 Appendix D

Page 4 of 4

Appendix E Diurnal Pattern

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Appendix E: Diurnal Pattern

Figure E.1: Diurnal Patterns for Various Zones

Technical Memorandum # 1 Appendix E

Page 1 of 7

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table E.1 - Residential Diurnal Pattern (Based on Kit 5 SCADA Record) Time Period 00:00 to 01:00 01:00 to 02:00 02:00 to 03:00 03:00 to 04:00 04:00 to 05:00 05:00 to 06:00 06:00 to 07:00 07:00 to 08:00 08:00 to 09:00 09:00 to 10:00 10:00 to 11:00 11:00 to 12:00 12:00 to 13:00 13:00 to 14:00 14:00 to 15:00 15:00 to 16:00 16:00 to 17:00 17:00 to 18:00 18:00 to 19:00 19:00 to 20:00 20:00 to 21:00 21:00 to 22:00 22:00 to 23:00 23:00 to 24:00 PEAKING FACTOR Max Week Max Day 0.65 0.66 0.55 0.58 0.65 0.66 0.67 0.79 1.03 1.14 1.21 1.21 1.15 1.06 1.04 0.99 0.97 1.00 1.06 1.19 1.38 1.48 1.48 1.18 0.88 0.59 0.63 0.68 0.69 0.74 0.96 1.24 1.21 1.11 1.06 1.00 0.98 0.95 0.96 0.95 1.02 1.09 1.19 1.38 1.43 1.43 1.19 0.87

Avg Day 0.62 0.55 0.60 0.63 0.60 0.64 0.91 1.27 1.22 1.21 1.22 1.19 1.14 1.09 1.04 1.04 1.10 1.17 1.27 1.29 1.23 1.15 1.00 0.81

Technical Memorandum # 1 Appendix E

Page 2 of 7

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table E.2 - ICI Diurnal Pattern for Selected Zones PEAKING FACTOR Time Period Ave Day 00:00 to 01:00 01:00 to 02:00 02:00 to 03:00 03:00 to 04:00 04:00 to 05:00 05:00 to 06:00 06:00 to 07:00 07:00 to 08:00 08:00 to 09:00 09:00 to 10:00 10:00 to 11:00 11:00 to 12:00 12:00 to 13:00 13:00 to 14:00 14:00 to 15:00 15:00 to 16:00 16:00 to 17:00 17:00 to 18:00 18:00 to 19:00 19:00 to 20:00 20:00 to 21:00 21:00 to 22:00 22:00 to 23:00 23:00 to 24:00 0.91 0.96 0.94 0.99 0.91 1.00 1.18 1.19 1.15 1.19 1.03 1.04 1.06 1.05 1.00 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.00 0.93 0.87 0.82 0.79 0.80 Cam 1 + Cam 3 Max Week 0.79 0.69 0.41 0.40 0.68 0.35 0.69 0.93 0.94 1.16 1.02 1.33 1.09 1.13 0.95 0.97 0.89 1.00 1.53 1.75 1.68 1.82 1.06 0.73 Max Day 0.70 0.73 0.62 0.53 0.67 0.70 0.65 1.23 1.32 1.29 1.23 1.21 1.32 1.08 1.06 1.25 1.01 1.10 1.19 1.36 1.35 1.24 0.74 0.44 Ave Day 0.55 0.58 0.67 0.66 0.59 0.75 1.00 1.20 1.24 1.32 1.39 1.36 1.31 1.27 1.24 1.21 1.13 1.12 1.12 1.09 1.01 0.90 0.72 0.55 Cam 2E Max Week 0.40 0.31 0.28 0.50 0.48 0.39 0.68 0.98 1.00 1.14 1.19 1.21 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.93 1.08 1.20 1.50 1.70 2.20 2.16 1.41 0.66 Max Day 0.50 0.53 0.61 0.75 0.67 0.55 0.62 0.89 1.08 1.25 1.32 1.23 1.23 1.15 1.14 1.14 1.10 1.13 1.30 1.61 1.61 1.42 0.72 0.44

Technical Memorandum # 1 Appendix E

Page 3 of 7

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table E.3 - ICI Diurnal Pattern for Selected Zones PEAKING FACTOR Time Period Ave Day 00:00 to 01:00 01:00 to 02:00 02:00 to 03:00 03:00 to 04:00 04:00 to 05:00 05:00 to 06:00 06:00 to 07:00 07:00 to 08:00 08:00 to 09:00 09:00 to 10:00 10:00 to 11:00 11:00 to 12:00 12:00 to 13:00 13:00 to 14:00 14:00 to 15:00 15:00 to 16:00 16:00 to 17:00 17:00 to 18:00 18:00 to 19:00 19:00 to 20:00 20:00 to 21:00 21:00 to 22:00 22:00 to 23:00 23:00 to 24:00 0.98 1.05 1.04 1.01 0.89 0.81 0.75 0.83 1.02 1.12 1.14 1.17 1.14 1.10 1.33 1.09 0.99 1.02 0.88 0.89 0.93 0.96 0.93 0.92 Cam 2W Max Week 0.92 0.69 1.01 0.81 0.81 0.67 1.01 0.83 0.78 0.88 1.24 1.33 1.28 0.89 1.17 0.85 0.93 1.61 1.24 1.17 0.77 1.23 0.93 0.94 Max Day 0.93 0.87 1.30 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.75 0.59 0.63 0.84 1.23 1.21 1.32 1.29 1.36 1.16 1.20 1.08 0.97 0.80 0.81 1.23 0.90 0.66 Ave Day 0.58 0.53 0.82 1.09 1.02 1.12 0.76 0.88 0.91 0.98 0.98 1.01 1.04 1.16 1.14 1.07 1.01 1.07 1.18 1.38 1.41 1.26 0.99 0.61 Kit 2 + Kit 2A Max Week 0.44 0.34 0.55 0.58 0.70 0.76 0.90 1.05 0.97 0.79 1.58 1.37 1.16 0.95 1.35 1.07 1.03 1.05 1.21 1.59 1.11 1.50 1.13 0.83 Max Day 0.39 0.23 0.79 0.93 1.01 0.79 0.71 0.49 0.78 0.42 0.51 0.95 1.03 1.18 1.72 1.79 1.75 1.85 1.41 1.15 0.67 0.97 1.13 1.35

Technical Memorandum # 1 Appendix E

Page 4 of 7

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table E.4 - ICI Diurnal Pattern for Selected Zones Time Period 00:00 to 01:00 01:00 to 02:00 02:00 to 03:00 03:00 to 04:00 04:00 to 05:00 05:00 to 06:00 06:00 to 07:00 07:00 to 08:00 08:00 to 09:00 09:00 to 10:00 10:00 to 11:00 11:00 to 12:00 12:00 to 13:00 13:00 to 14:00 14:00 to 15:00 15:00 to 16:00 16:00 to 17:00 17:00 to 18:00 18:00 to 19:00 19:00 to 20:00 20:00 to 21:00 21:00 to 22:00 22:00 to 23:00 23:00 to 24:00 PEAKING FACTOR Kit 2B + Kit 4 + Breslau N + Breslau S Wat 5 + Wat 4 + Kit 4A + Market Ave Day Max Week Max Day Ave Day Max Week Max Day 0.73 0.58 0.60 0.75 0.57 0.57 0.66 0.36 0.52 0.65 0.48 0.58 0.61 0.38 0.57 0.60 0.47 0.64 0.58 0.48 0.61 0.53 0.39 0.61 0.62 0.56 0.67 0.53 0.52 0.59 0.74 0.63 0.74 0.52 0.68 0.71 0.88 0.79 0.88 0.63 0.58 0.65 0.95 1.26 1.21 1.16 0.97 1.11 1.22 1.23 1.33 1.40 1.41 1.28 1.35 1.27 1.38 1.47 1.29 1.24 1.38 1.25 1.37 1.48 1.45 1.51 1.36 1.23 1.26 1.45 1.40 1.30 1.37 1.17 1.35 1.41 1.04 1.21 1.33 1.31 1.22 1.38 1.07 1.20 1.31 1.16 1.19 1.31 0.97 1.18 1.25 1.07 1.17 1.22 1.02 1.05 1.15 1.08 1.11 1.07 0.68 1.06 1.14 1.22 1.06 1.20 0.90 0.96 1.06 1.30 1.08 1.00 1.05 1.09 0.97 1.29 1.14 0.91 1.61 1.22 0.94 1.45 1.18 0.88 1.91 1.44 0.85 1.21 0.93 0.85 1.57 1.09 0.80 0.89 0.71 0.83 1.19 0.94 0.76 0.81 0.72 0.78 0.76 0.78

Technical Memorandum # 1 Appendix E

Page 5 of 7

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table E.5 - Maximum Day and Maximum Week Peaking Factors (2003) Average Day Demand (L/s) 391.8 10.9 187.5 29.9 620.03 7.3 Max Day Demand (L/s) 501.5 22 269.3 84.6 877.4 16.3 Max Day Peaking Factor 1.3 2.0 1.4 2.8* 1.4 2.2 Max Week Demand (L/s) 399.5 19.4 239.5 48.8 707.2 14.7 Max Week Peaking Factor 1.02 1.8 1.3 1.6 1.1 2.0

City

Zone Cam 1 + Cam 3 Cam 1A

Cambridge

Cam 2E Cam 2W Sub-Total Kit 2 + Kit 2A Kit 2B + Kit 4 +

Kitchener

Breslau N + Breslau S Kit 5 + WIL 5A Sub-Total Wat 5+ Wat 4 + Kit 4A+ Market

694.5

907.7

1.3

826.6

1.2

138.2 840.0 336.9 29.6 3.16 35.2 404.8 1864.9

237.2 1161.2 463.5 43.7 5.9 62 575.1 2613.7

1.7 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.9 1.8 1.4 1.4

202.4 1043.7 411.4 38.8 5.1 51.8 507.1 2258.0

1.5 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.2

Waterloo

Wat 4B Wat 4C Wat 6 Sub-Total

Total

* Max day peaking factor for this zone is too high and this problem may be attributed to the small size of the system as well as to the high ICI consumption (more than 99%) in the zone.

Technical Memo # 1 Appendix E

Page 6 of 7

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table E.6: Max Day and Max Week Demand (L/s) Zone AVG Day Demand (L/s) 347.52 10.86 187.52 29.54 43.57 619.01 694.47 7.33 138.18 701.8 336.02 29.59 3.16 35.21 403.98 1724.79 MAX Day Demand (L/s) 501.54 21.96 269.32 84.64 78.26 955.72 907.71 16.25 237.16 923.96 463.52 43.65 5.91 62 575.08 2454.76 MAX Week Demand (L/s) 399.54 19.36 239.54 48.8 74.56 781.8 826.59 14.67 202.39 841.26 411.37 38.75 5.13 51.81 507.06 2130.12 6-Jul-03 6-Jul-03 6-Jul-03 14-Sep-03 6-Jul-03 6-Jul-03 6-Jul-03 Week of MAX Day Demand Factor 1.44 2.02 1.44 2.87 1.80 1.54 1.31 2.22 1.72 1.38 1.38 1.48 1.87 1.76 1.42 1.42 MAX Week Demand Factor 1.15 1.78 1.28 1.65 1.71 1.26 1.19 2.00 1.46 1.24 1.22 1.31 1.62 1.47 1.26 1.24

Cam1 Cam 1A Cam 2E Cam 2W Cam3 CAM Kit 2W & Kit 4 Kit 2E Kit 5 KIT Wat 4 & Wat 5 Wat 4B Wat 4C Wat 6 WAT Overall RMOW

6-Jul-03 6-Jul-03 6-Jul-03 12-Oct-03 6-Jul-03

Technical Memo # 1 Appendix E

Page 7 of 7

Appendix F System Demand

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Technical Memorandum #1 Appendix F

Page 1 of 3

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Technical Memorandum #1 Appendix F

Page 2 of 3

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Technical Memorandum #1 Appendix F

Page 3 of 3

Appendix B Technical Memorandum #2 Pressure Zone Boundary Analysis and Rationalization

Tri-City Water Distribution Master Plan


Technical Memorandum #2
Pressure Zone Boundary Analysis and Rationalization

The Regional Municipality of Waterloo Transportation & Environmental Services Department 7th Floor Water Services Division 150 Frederick Street Kitchener, Ontario N2G 4J3 Project 81539

AECOM 101 Frederick Street, Suite 702 Kitchener, Ontario N2H 6R2

May 2009

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table of Contents
1. Summary of Existing Facilities in Each Zone............................................... 1
1.1 1.2 Pumping Capacity .......................................................................................................... 1 Reservoirs ...................................................................................................................... 7

2.

Section 2: Existing Pressure Zone Boundary Analysis .............................. 8


2.1 2.2 2.3 System Pressures .......................................................................................................... 8 Hydraulic Grade Line...................................................................................................... 8 Pressure Zone Topography............................................................................................ 9
2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4 2.3.5 2.3.6 2.3.7 2.3.8 2.3.9 2.3.10 2.3.11 2.3.12 2.3.13 2.3.14 2.3.15 2.3.16 2.3.17 2.3.18 Cambridge Zone 1 ..........................................................................................................10 Cambridge Zone 1A........................................................................................................12 Cambridge Zone 2E........................................................................................................12 Cambridge Zone 2W (Supplied by Kit 2) (Under Normal Conditions) ............................15 Cambridge Zone 2W (Supplied by Pinebush Reservoir)................................................15 Cambridge Zone 3 ..........................................................................................................18 Kitchener Zone 2.............................................................................................................18 Kitchener Zone 2A ..........................................................................................................21 Kitchener Zone 2W .........................................................................................................21 Kitchener Zone 4.............................................................................................................24 Kitchener Zone 4A ..........................................................................................................27 Kitchener Zone 5.............................................................................................................27 Waterloo Zone 4 .............................................................................................................30 Waterloo Zone 4B ...........................................................................................................30 Waterloo Zone 4C...........................................................................................................33 Waterloo Zone 5 .............................................................................................................33 Waterloo Zone 6 .............................................................................................................33 Waterloo Zone 7 .............................................................................................................37

3.

Conclusions................................................................................................... 39

Technical Memorandum # 2

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

List of Figures
Figure 1 Water Supply Schematic ...................................................................................................................2 Figure 2 Zone 1 Cambridge............................................................................................................................11 Figure 3 Zone 1A Cambridge .........................................................................................................................13 Figure 4 Zone2E Cambridge .........................................................................................................................14 Figure 5A - Zone 2W Cambridge (Supplied by Kit2) ........................................................................................16 Figure 5B - Zone 2W Cambridge (Supplied by Pinebush Reservoir).16 Figure 6 Zone 3 Cambridge...........................................................................................................................19 Figure 7 Zone 2A Kitchener...........................................................................................................................20 Figure 8 Zone 2E Kitchener...........................................................................................................................22 Figure 9 Zone 2W Kitchener..........................................................................................................................23 Figure 10 Zone 4 Kitchener ...........................................................................................................................25 Figure 11 Zone 4A Kitchener.........................................................................................................................28 Figure 12 Zone 5 Kitchener ...........................................................................................................................29 Figure 13 Zone 4 Waterloo ............................................................................................................................31 Figure 14 Zone 4B Waterloo..........................................................................................................................32 Figure 15 Zone 4C Waterloo .........................................................................................................................34 Figure 16 Zone 5 Waterloo ............................................................................................................................35 Figure 17 Zone 6 Waterloo ............................................................................................................................36 Figure 18 Zone 7 Waterloo ............................................................................................................................38

List of Tables
Table 1.1 Existing Pump Capacity in Each Zone ............................................................................................3 Table 1.2 - Wells Supply.....................................................................................................................................6 Table 1.3 Existing Reservoir Capacity per Zone .............................................................................................7 Table 2.1 Existing Design Hydraulic Grade for Each Zone .............................................................................9

Technical Memorandum # 2

ii

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Introduction
This Technical Memorandum (#2) summarizes the findings following a review of pressure zone boundaries to establish whether system pressures are generally within prescribed limits (i.e. 350-560 kPa) under normal operating conditions. Operational records and existing reservoir levels were used to evaluate operational pressures. This Memorandum also provides information on where high and low pressures are expected (confirmed by local operational staff where possible) and where rationalization is likely to be required to minimize the number of pressure reducing valves (PRVs) and pumping stations. Target hydraulic grade lines for each pressure zone have been established on this basis. Pressure problems identified together with potential solutions was analyzed and evaluated as part of Task #6 and reported in Technical Memorandum #6: Determination and Analysis of Infrastructure Upgrade Alternatives.

1.

Summary of Existing Facilities in Each Zone

The Tri-City water distribution system, which includes Cambridge, Kitchener, and Waterloo, is a relatively complex system with numerous pumping stations, reservoirs, and wells supplying the system demand. Therefore, it was considered important to develop a thorough schematic of the interconnected water distribution system. In order to develop this system schematic, Technical Information System (TIS) zone by zone figures received from the Region and the system layout in the Model were both utilized. The schematic developed is provided as Figure 1. In addition to the schematic of the system, a list of key assets on a zone by zone basis were established and relevant information associated with pump and storage capacities were obtained utilizing the following sources of information: Regions hydraulic model dated April 25, 2005 Regional Municipality of Waterloo Water Resources Information MOEs Certificate of Approval dated November 30, 2004

1.1

Pumping Capacity

Table 1.1 presents the total supply capacity for each zone. This number is obtained by combining the total pump capacity with the total well capacity (the ones that are supplying the zones demand directly). The wells that are not supplying the system directly but supply storage facilities are listed in Table 1.2.

Technical Memorandum # 2

Page 1 of 39

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

St. Jacobs PRV Station Local St. Jacobs

Local Elmira Birdland PS (Elmira) Elmira W West Side Elevated Tank 422.7m (Elmira) Local WAT 7 W6a, W6b, W7, W8 Local WAT 6 Rummelhardt PS 427m (WAT 6) Local WAT 5 Erb St. Control Valve W10 William St. PS 391m (WAT 4) St. Jacobs RES 348.9m (WAT 4) St. Jacob PS (Elmira) Local WAT 4C Laurel RES 380.5m (WAT 4) Lakeshore PS Laurel PS 372.2m 380m (WAT 4C) (WAT 4) Northfield Dr. PS 375m (WAT 4B) PRV Falconridge Local KIT 4A Local Breslau North Local KIT 4A PRV Hawkswood Strange St. PS 395.5m (KIT 4) Strange St. RES 333.7m (KIT 4) Local Breslau South

Legend
M

Pumping Station

Reservoir KIT 2 KIT 2A KIT 2B KIT 4 KIT 4A KIT 5 Kit 5B KIT 6

Well

Valve WAT 4 WAT 4B WAT 4C WAT 5 WAT 6 WAT 7

Flow Monitor Mannheim Victoriaburg Breslau North Breslau South Elmira St. Jacobs

Local WAT 4B

Woolwich Stockyard

CAM 1 CAM 1A CAM 2E CAM 2W CAM 3

CV

Water Facility Name Design HGL

Pinebush RES 359.5m (CAM 2E)

Zone ID

Erb RES 404.8m (WAT 5)

William St. RES 321.8m (WAT 4) W1c, W1b, W2 Local WAT 4

Grand Hill PS (KIT 4) K13, K10A, K11 Grand Hill RES 360m (KIT 4) & UV Station Local KIT 4 K70, K71, K72, K73, K74, K75, K80, K81, K82 River Rd. PRV Freeport RES 365.2m (KIT 2) Local CAM 2E Local KIT 2 Local CAM 2W Pinebush RES 359.5m (CAM 2E) H3 H5 G5 H4

Zone 7 Booster Station 440m (WAT 7) Local WAT 7

MV3 MV2 K18 K19

Deerridge PRV

Briardene Valve

Local KIT 5

Greenbrook PS 424m (KIT 4) Greenbrook RES 325.1m (KIT 4) K1, K2, K4, K5A, K8

St. George RES 380.9m (KIT 4)

Local KIT 2A 347m

MTV K50 Local Local Victoriaburg Mannheim

Mannheim WTP & ASR & RES 384.4m

Mannheim PS 399.4m (KIT 4) Mannheim PS 402.1m (KIT 5)

P16

Parkway PS 383m (KIT 4) Parkway RES 310.2m (KIT 4) Manitou Dr. PRV Kress Hill PS 346m (CAM 2W) Rahman PS 349.6m (CAM 1) Rahman RES 327.9m (CAM 1) PBTP PS 323.2m (CAM 1) P11,P10,P17 Shantz RES 329.1m (CAM 1) (currently decommissioned) Middleton PS 340.5m (CAM 1) Middleton RES 269.95m (CAM 1) G1, G1A, G2, G3, G14, G15 St. Andrews PS 368m (CAM 3) G4 Local (CAM 3) St. Andrews RES 337.4m (CAM 1) Llyod Brown & North Dumfries Inverness RES 365.7m (CAM 3) S. Cambridge RES 311.2m (CAM 1) G9 Local (CAM 1A) S. Cambridge PS 358.5m (CAM 1A) Shades Mill Treatment Plant 350.8m (CAM 1) Shades Mill RES 294.5m (CAM 1) G7, G8, G37, G38 PBTP RES 323.2m (CAM 1) P6 P9, P15 Turnbull PS 377.17m (CAM 2E) Turnbull RES 326.1 m (CAM 1) Turnbull TP G16, G17, G18

G6

K50, K51

Mannheim Z5B K26, K22, K23, K24 K91, K92, K93, K94, K21, K25, K29 Local KIT 5 Stonehenge PS (KIT 5B) Local Stonehenge

K31, K32, MTV Bleam K33 Dundee Rd. PRV PRV Bleam K34WTP PS 405.3m (KIT 4) K34WTP RES 302.9m (KIT 4) K36 K34 Local KIT 2B (Kit 2W)

Cambridge Kitchener Waterloo Figure 1 - Existing Water Supply System

Figure 1 Water Supply Schematic

Technical Memorandum # 2

Page 2 of 39

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table 1.1 Existing Pump Capacity in Each Zone PUMPS ZONE Existing Pumping Station Modeling Pump ID CB-21 CB-22 CB-23 Middleton (2) Shades Mill (5) Cam 1 Rahmans Pinebush WTP (3) Turnbull WTP (6) TOTAL CB-29 CB-30 Cam 1A South Cambridge TOTAL CB-8 Cam 2E Turnbull Pumping Station TOTAL Cam2W TOTAL CB-34 Cam 3 CB-35 St. Andrew TOTAL Kit 4 Parkway (9) Strange (10) St. KB-10 KB-11 KB-12 KB-5 KB-6 KB-1 KB-2 CB-36 70 70 182 140(1) 80 50 80 95 95 130 130 Booster Booster Booster Duty Duty Duty Standby Booster Booster Fire TOTAL K34 K36 KB28 P_K36 22 53 27 162 2719 CB-9 CB-10 CB-31 CB-32 CB-24 CB-37 CB-38 CB-16 CB-17 CB-28 CB-27 CB-27 CB-28 Total Capacity (L/s) 150 150 150 150 150 150 100 100 120 120 120 120 840(1)(4) 22 82 82 82 268 152 151 151 303(1) Duty Standby Fire H3 H4 H5 G5 TOTAL P16 G4 P_P16 P_G4 P_H3 P_H4 P_H5 P_G5 19 24 23 50 116 22.7 22 419 22.7 Duty Duty Duty Standby 268 Duty Duty Duty Standby Duty Standby Duty Duty Duty Standby Duty Standby TOTAL 132 972 G9 P6 G6 P9 P15 P_G9 P_P6 P_G6 P_P9 P_P15 38 23 22 30 19 Type DIRECT WELL SUPPLY TO SYSTEM Well ID Modeling Pump ID Total Capacity (L/s) Total Capacity (L/s)

Greenbrook (7)

Technical Memorandum # 2

Page 3 of 39

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

PUMPS ZONE Existing Pumping Station Modeling Pump ID KB-3 KB-4 Mannheim (8) KB-19 KB-20 KB-21 TOTAL KB-15 Kit 5 Mannheim (8) TOTAL William St. (12) Wat 4 Laurel TOTAL WB-6 Wat 4B Northfield Dr. TOTAL WB-16 Wat 4C Lakeshore West TOTAL Wat 5 Erb Street Reservoir Rummelhardt Pumping Station TOTAL NA WB-9 WB-10 WB-11 WB-12 WB-17 WB18 WB19 WB-7 WB-8 WB-1 WB-2 WB-3 WB-13 WB-14 WB15 KB-16 KB-17 KB-18 Total Capacity (L/s) 70 85 608 608 608 2,639 94 250 250 250 844 100 100 100 300 300 15 600(1) 29 53 77 159 15 15 15 114 45 279(11) 105 54 105 189 264(1) NA Duty Duty Standby Fire Duty Duty Duty Fire Duty Duty Standby Duty Standby Duty Standby Standby Recirc. Duty Booster Booster Standby Duty Duty Duty Duty Standby Type

DIRECT WELL SUPPLY TO SYSTEM Well ID Modeling Pump ID Total Capacity (L/s) Total Capacity (L/s)

TOTAL K18 P_K18

80 60

TOTAL

60

904

600

159

45 W10 P_W10 36 315

Wat 6

264

Technical Memorandum # 2

Page 4 of 39

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

(1)The total available pumping capacity in each zone excluded Fire Pumps, Standby Pumps and Recirculation Pumps, etc. (2) Middleton PS was supplied by Middleton Well System (G1, G1A, G2, G3 and G14) with a total supply capacity of 40.5ML/d (467L/s) (3) Pinebush Treatment Plant was supplied by Pinebush Well System (P11, P11 and P17) with a total supply capacity of 10.4ML/d (120L/s) (4) Excludes Rahmans (5) Shaes Mill Treatment Plant was supplied by Shades Mill Well System (G7, G8, G38 and G39) with a total supply capacity of 13ML/d (150L/s) (6) Turnbull Treatment Plant was supplied by Turnbull Well System (G16, G17 and G18) with a total supply capacity of 10.4Ml/d (120L/s) (7) Greenbrook Water Treatment Plant was supplied by Greenbrook Well System (K1, K2, K4B, K5A and K8) with a total supply capacity of 12.3ML/d (142L/s) (8) Mannheim Treatment plant was supplied by Mannheim Well System (K21, K25, K29), (K22A, K23, K24, K26), (K91, K92, K93, K94) with a total supply capacity of 72.6ML/d (840L/s) (9) Parkway Treatment Plant was supplied by Parkway Well System (K31, K32 and K33) with a total capacity of 13.7ML/d (159L/s) (10) Strange Street P.S. was supplied by Strange Street Well System (K10A, K11, K13) with a total capacity of 9.03ML/d (104.5L/s) (11) Erb Street Reservoir was supplied by Erb Street Well System (W6A, W6B, W7, W8) with a total capacity of 24.11ML/d (279L/s) (12) William Street PS was supplied by William Street Well system (W1B, W1B, W2, W3) with a total capacity of 16.8ML/d (195L/s)

Technical Memorandum # 2

Page 5 of 39

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table 1.2 - Wells Supply Total Capacity (L/s) 467 207 66 120 23 22.7 30 19 150 120 142 70 60

Well ID G1, G1A, G2, G3, G14 G4, G5, G6, G9, G15 H3, H4, H5 P10, P11, P17 P6 P16 P9 P15 G7, G8, G38, G39 G16, G17, G18 K1, K2, K4B, K5A, K8 K36 (1) K34 K18 (1) K21(2), K25(2), K29(2), K22A(2), K23(2), K24(2), K26(2), K91, K92, K93, K94 K50, K51 K31, K32, K33 K10A, K11, K13 W6A, W6B, W7, W8 W10

Supply To Middleton Res Cambridge Distribution System Cambridge Distribution System Pinebush WTP Cambridge Distribution System Cambridge Distribution System Rahman Res Shades Mills WTP Turnbull WTP Greenbrook WTP Kitchener Distribution System Kitchener Distribution System Kitchener Waterloo and

Zone Cam 1 Cam 1 Cam 2E Cam 1 Cam 1 Cam 2W Cam 1 Cam 1 Cam 1 Kit 4 Kit 4 Kit 5

531

Kit 4, Kit 5 K4, Shingletown Kit 4 Kit 4 Wat5 Wat 5

158 159 104.5 279 36.4

Kitchener Distribution System Parkway Res Strange St. Res Erb St. Res Waterloo System Distribution

W1B, W3, W1C, W2

195

William St. Res

Wat 4

(1) Total capacity for K18 + K36 restricted to 37.9 L/s (2) These wells have a total restricted capacity of 531 L/s per calendar year, 631 L/s for 90days per calendar year, and 721 L/s for an additional 30 days per calendar year.

Technical Memorandum # 2

Page 6 of 39

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

1.2

Reservoirs

In addition to pumping stations and wells, the reservoirs are also important facilities in providing stability and durability of supply, they help minimize transient and peak demand effects in the water supply system and provide certain levels of protection under emergency conditions; e.g. fire event. Table 1.3 summarizes the capacities of the existing storage facilities in each zone along with the total zone capacities. Table 1.3 Existing Reservoir Capacity per Zone

Zone

Reservoir

Capacity per Regions Water Resources Information (m3) 4,382 2,270(1) 6,800 5,000 22,800 4,500 19,500(2) 3,306(1) (3) 2,273 7,000 14,270 2,824 4,200 12,390 27,418 4,300 18,000

Total Capacity(m3)

Cam 1

St. Andrew Shantz Hill Rahmans Middleton Turnbull South Cambridge

43,482

Cam 2E Cam 3 Kit 2

Kit 4

Wat 4 Wat 5
(1)

Pinebush Edward St Inverness Freeport Parkway St. George Strange St Greenbrook Laurel William St Erb St

19,500 2,273 7,000

33,684

31,718 18,000

(2) (3)

Shantz Hill Reservoir and Edward Street Reservoir are currently not in operation and is excluded from the Total Capacity figure Restricted Operating Capacity = 7,000m3 Edward Street Reservoir is currently Off Line

Detailed analyses was conducted to evaluate the hydraulic implications and operational considerations of each storage facility to the system in Technical Memorandum #3; and the physical conditions of each storage facility were evaluated in Technical Memorandum#4.

Technical Memorandum # 2

Page 7 of 39

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

2.

Section 2: Existing Pressure Zone Boundary Analysis

Pressure zone boundaries for the Tri-City water distribution system established by the Region were reviewed as part of this task. Hydraulic grade lines were established and system pressures evaluated utilizing the information detailed below: Operational Records (SCADA Information) Existing water levels of the reservoir/storage (SCADA information) Existing pumping facilities (Regional Municipality of Waterloo Water Resources Information).

2.1

System Pressures

The Region/ MOE guidelines for operating pressures in distribution are as follows: Normal Operating Pressures demand) Minimum Operating pressures Maximum Operating Pressures (under average day and 350-550 kPa (50-80 psi) Maximum day (under peak demand) (Max day plus fire flow) 275 kPa 140 kPa 700kPa (40 psi) (20 psi) (100 psi)

Pressures outside of the range 50-80psi are acceptable to the limits described above but, are not desirable.

2.2

Hydraulic Grade Line

Having reviewed the above noted information, the design hydraulic grade line (HGL) for each zone and the elevation ranges that will meet the pressure constraints of 40 100 psi for each zone boundary were determined. The minimum operating pressure of 40 psi is approximately 28m available head and the maximum operating pressure of 100 psi is approximately 70m available head. These values were subtracted from the target HGLs to determine the elevation ranges. (For this task it has been assumed that there is little headloss across the system, therefore detailed analysis of system headlosses were undertaken as part of Technical Memorandum #6). The results are summarized in Table 2.1.

Technical Memorandum # 2

Page 8 of 39

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table 2.1 Existing Design Hydraulic Grade for Each Zone Optimum Operating Elevations in Zone (m) Zone HGL (m) Sources Lowest (100psi) 250.0 288.2 289.5 295.2 289.5 295.7 295.2 276.1 295.0 310.9 287.0 338.4 352.5 330.5 334.5 335.0 358.0 370.0 Highest (40psi) 306.0 330.2 331.5 337.2 331.5 337.7 337.2 318.1 337.0 352.9 329.0 380.4 310.5 372.5 376.5 377.0 400.0 412.0 Figure #

Cam 1 Cam 1A Cam 2E Cam 2W Cam 2W Cam 3 Kit 2 Kit 2A Kit 2B Kit 4 Kit 4A Kit 5 Wat 4 Wat 4B Wat 4C Wat 5 Wat 6 Wat 7

334.0 345.2 359.5 365.2 359.5 365.7 365.2 346.1 365.0 380.9 357.0 407.4 380.5 400.5 404.5 405.0 428.0 440.0

based on Current Operating Strategy (Turnbull TWL < HGL < St. Andrew TWL) based on S. Cam RES TWL (311.2m) + S. Cam PS Design Operating Head (34m) based on Pinebush RES TWL based on Kitchener Zone 2E (Kit 2) HGL (Freeport Res. TWL) based on Pinebush RES TWL based on Inverness RES TWL based on Freeport RES TWL based on PRV_Deerridge Setting based on PRV_Manitou based on St. George Elevated Tank TWL based on PRV_Falconridge Setting based on Mannheim RES + Mannheim Z5 PS Design Operating Head (23m) based on Laurel RES TWL based on WAT 4 HGL + Northfield PS Design Operating Head (20m) based on Wat 4 HGL + Lakeshore PS Design Operating Head (24m) based on Erb RES Based on Rummelhart Z6 Pumping Station Provided by the Region - PS operating point 430 kPa

Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5A Fig. 5B Fig. 6 Fig. 7 Fig. 8 Fig. 9 Fig. 10 Fig. 11 Fig. 12 Fig. 13 Fig. 14 Fig. 15 Fig. 16 Fig. 17 Fig. 18

2.3

Pressure Zone Topography

With the information above, a topographic analysis for each zone was performed for the delineation of pressure zone boundaries. Figures 2 to 19 present the topographic plots for each zone. Based on the elevation ranges for each HGL, the figures identify the areas that meet the acceptable pressure range (40 100 psi) as well as those which have lower (<40 psi) or higher (>100 psi) pressure than the prescribed limit. Each topographic plot identifies where potential pressure problems may exist in the zone. The land use type for the potential pressure problem areas were established using the Regions land use map for 2004 (LU_MAP_2004_D_Region.shp) and aerial photos.

Technical Memorandum # 2

Page 9 of 39

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

For each Zone, preliminary solutions to mitigate any pressure problems were identified. The hydraulic analyses were performed in Task #6 Determine and Analyze Infrastructure Upgrade Alternatives to validate any solution in addition to confirming whether the available model predicts potential pressure problems in the system. If any potential pressure problem areas are confirmed by the hydraulic model, operational improvements (reduce pump head by throttling down the duty pump or installing PRV, etc.) or pressure boundary realignment were considered, assessed and proposed.

2.3.1

Cambridge Zone 1

The following key points summarize the results from the topographic analysis for Cambridge Zone 1: A topographic plot is presented as Figure 2 It is understood that based on information received at a meeting with the City of Cambridge, the current operating hydraulic grade line in Cambridge Zone 1 varies between the top water level of St. Andrew Reservoir (337.4m) and the top water level of Turnbull Reservoir (326.1m), with an approximate hydraulic grade line of around 334m being applied in Cambridge Zone 1 in order to manage the pressure in the zone. Based on the topographic plot, two potential pressure problem areas were identified and the locations are shown in Figure 2. Summary details are provided below. Area 1: Potential low pressure problem. It is an existing landfill site. Three buildings are located within this area with the highest ground elevation of 319m. The static pressure for these buildings is 15m (334319m) or 21psi. A low pressure problem on Clyde Road was confirmed by the Citys staff. Even though this area is serviced by St. Andrew Reservoir, the static pressure will be still lower than 40psi (337.4m-319m = 18.4m ~ 26psi). As a result a local booster station on Clyde Road. to provide additional pressure to these buildings may need to be considered to mitigate the low pressure problem. Area 2: Potential low pressure problem To mitigate low pressure problem, promotion of this area to Zone 1A should be considered. Since the top water levels for St. Andrew Reservoir and Turnbull Reservoir differ by 11.3m, it would be difficult to maintain the balance of both storage top water levels. Based on discussions with the City of Cambridge, AECOM investigated the opportunity to separate Zone 1 into 2 separate zones; one potentially operated by St. Andrew Reservoir and the other by Turnbull Reservoir. A detailed hydraulic analysis was undertaken in Task #6 in order to investigate the feasibility of this operational change. Technical Memorandum #6 has addressed the potential for separating Zone 1 as well as providing a new reservoir and not using St. Andrew or Turnbull to control the HGL in Zone 1.

Technical Memorandum # 2

Page 10 of 39

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 2 Zone 1 Cambridge

Technical Memorandum # 2

Page 11 of 39

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

2.3.2

Cambridge Zone 1A

The following key points summarize the results from the topographic analysis for Cambridge Zone 1A: A topographic plot is presented as Figure 3. The topographic plot was created based on a hydraulic grade line of 345.2m; the sum of the top water level of the South Cambridge Reservoir (311.2m) and the design operating head of the South Cambridge Pumping Station (34m). Based on the topographic plot, two potential pressure problem Areas were identified and the locations are shown in Figure 3. Summary details are provided below. Area 1: Potential low pressure problem. The land use is vacant residential. The ground level is approximately 320m. Static pressures are around 25.2m (345.2 320m) or 36psi. City staff members are aware of the poor pressure problems. Provision of a local pumping station may mitigate the low pressure problem or possibly raise the pump operating pressure. Area 2: Potential low pressure problem. The land use is residential. Ground elevation is around 318m. Static pressures are around 27.2m 3(45.2318m) or 39psi. City staff are aware of the poor pressure problems. Provision of a local pumping station or raising the zone operating pressure may mitigate the low pressure problem. City of Cambridge staff reported that the area adjacent to Moffat Creek may have high pressure problems due to its low elevation. The topographic survey results did not confirm this and therefore this issue was further investigated in Task #6.

2.3.3

Cambridge Zone 2E

The following key points summarize the results from the topographic analysis for Cambridge Zone 2E: A topographic plot is presented as Figure 4. The topographic plot was created based on a hydraulic grade line of 359m; which is the top water level of Pinebush Reservoir. Based on the topographic plot, one potential pressure problem Area was identified and the location is shown in Figure 4. Summary details are provided below. Area 1: Potential high pressure problem. Existing commercial users. The lowest elevation in the area is around 287m. Static pressure is around 72m (359287m) or 102psi. System pressure to this area might be lower than 102psi due to the headloss in the distribution system. However, hydraulic analysis was performed in Task #6 to validate the topographic analysis results.

Technical Memorandum # 2

Page 12 of 39

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 3 Zone 1A Cambridge

Technical Memorandum # 2

Page 13 of 39

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 4 Zone2E Cambridge

Technical Memorandum # 2

Page 14 of 39

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

A pressure reducing valve could be installed to mitigate the potential high pressure problems.

2.3.4

Cambridge Zone 2W (Supplied by Kit 2) (Under Normal Conditions)

The following key points summarize the results from the topographic analysis for Cambridge Zone 2W: A topographic plot is presented as Figure 5A. The topographic plot was created based a hydraulic grade line of 365m; which is the hydraulic grade line of Kitchener Zone 2 (top water level of Freeport Reservoir). Based on the topographic plot, one potential pressure problem Area was identified and the location is shown in Figure 5A. Summary details are provided below. Area 1: Potential high pressure problem Based on an aerial photo, the existing development in the area is considered to be a medium industrial user (e.g. storage) The elevation in the area is around 287m The static pressure is around 78m (365287m) or 111psi To mitigate high pressure problems, installation of a pressure reducing valve would be an option.

2.3.5

Cambridge Zone 2W (Supplied by Pinebush Reservoir)

The following key points summarize the results from the topographic analysis for Cambridge Zone 2W: A topographic plot is presented as Figure 5B. The topographic plot was created based a hydraulic grade line of 359.5m; which is also the top water level of Pinebush Reservoir. Based on the topographic plot, one potential pressure problem Area was identified and the location is shown in Figure 5B. Summary details are provided below. Area 1: Potential high pressure problem. Based on an aerial photo, the existing development in the area is considered to be a medium industrial user (e.g. storage). The elevation in the area is around 287m. The static pressure is around 72.5m (359.5287m) or 103psi. System pressures in this area may be lower than 103psi due to the possible headloss across the distribution system. However, hydraulic analyses was performed in Task #6 to validate the topographic analysis results. To mitigate high pressure problems, installation of a pressure reducing valve would be an option.

Technical Memorandum # 2

Page 15 of 39

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 5A - Zone 2W Cambridge (Supplied by Kit2)

Technical Memorandum # 2

Page 16 of 39

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 5B Zone 2W Cambridge (Supplied by Pinebush Reservoir)

Technical Memorandum # 2

Page 17 of 39

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

2.3.6

Cambridge Zone 3

The following key points summarize the results from the topographic analysis for Cambridge Zone 3: A topographic plot is presented as Figure 6. The topographic plot was created based on a hydraulic grade line of 366m; which is based on the top water level of Inverness Reservoir. Based on the topographic plot, two potential pressure problem Areas were identified and their locations are shown in Figure 6. Summary details are provided below Area 1: Potential high pressure problem. The existing land use is residential. The elevation in the areas is around 288m. Static pressures are around 78m (366288m) or 111psi. City staff confirmed that high pressures (~114psi) have been observed in this area. Two alternatives could be considered to mitigate high pressure problems: 1. Reconfigure the zonal boundary to include part of the area in Cambridge Zone 1 (Cam 1) where static pressures of around 46m (334-288m) or 65psi are to be expected. It should be noted that analyses would be required to investigate the impact of reconfiguration on pressures around Westcliff Way. 2. Consider the possibility of introducing a pressure managed area. Options were investigated as part of Task #6. Area 2: Potential high pressure problem. A recreational park (Victoria Park) is located in this area and will not be developed. City of Cambridge staff identified the Parkwood Area/Blenheim Road area as experiencing high pressures (as high as 114psi). However, the topographic review indicated that static pressures are around 90psi. It is thought that the high pressure problem might be attributable to the G4 well operation. It may be possible to reduce the operating head, however a detailed investigation was undertaken in Task #6 in order to assess the potential problem and propose a solution.

2.3.7

Kitchener Zone 2

The following key points summarize the results from the topographic analysis for Kitchener Zone 2: A topographic plot is presented as Figure 7. The topographic plot was created based a hydraulic grade line of 361m; which is the top water level of Freeport Reservoir. Based on the topographic plot, the zone is considered to operate within the guidelines recommended by MOE.

Technical Memorandum # 2

Page 18 of 39

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 6 Zone 3 Cambridge

Technical Memorandum # 2

Page 19 of 39

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 7 Zone 2A Kitchener

Technical Memorandum # 2

Page 20 of 39

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

2.3.8

Kitchener Zone 2A

The following key points summarize the results from the topographic analysis for Kitchener Zone 2A: A topographic plot is presented as Figure 8. The topographic plot was created based on a hydraulic grade line of 346m; which is equivalent to the current PRV setting on the Derridge PRV. Based on the topographic plot, the zone is considered to operate within the guidelines recommended by MOE.

2.3.9

Kitchener Zone 2W

The following key points summarize the results from the topographic analysis for Kitchener Zone 2W: A topographic plot is presented as Figure 9. The topographic plot was created based on a hydraulic grade line of 361m; which is equivalent to the current setting of the Manitou PRV. Based on the topographic plot, five potential pressure problem Areas were identified and their locations are shown in Figure 9. Summary details are provided below. Area 1 & Area 2: Potential high pressure problem. Existing land use is residential. Elevations in the area are around 287m Static pressure is around 74m (361287m) or 105psi. To mitigate high pressure problem, a localized PRV could be considered. Area 3: Potential high pressure problem. Based on an aerial photo and a land use map, the land use can be described as residential condominium but also includes a post secondary school. Elevations are around 293m. Static pressures are around 68m (361293m) or 97psi. Headloss is not taken into account in this assessment; however the effect of headloss on pressures in this area was assessed as part of Task #6. A localized PRV could be considered to mitigate any high pressure problem. Area 4: Potential low pressure problem. Following a review of an aerial photo and the Regions land use map, it was established that this area includes an antenna tower, detached residential properties and municipal parks. City staff members have indicated that poor pressures have been observed in this area. Ground elevation for the residential area is around 333m.

Technical Memorandum # 2

Page 21 of 39

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 8 Zone 2E Kitchener

Technical Memorandum # 2

Page 22 of 39

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 9 Zone 2W Kitchener

Technical Memorandum # 2

Page 23 of 39

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Static pressures are around 24m (361333m) or 34psi. It should be noted that any headloss across the zonal network will reduce pressures to below 40psi. Two alternatives could mitigate low pressure problems: 1. A watermain upgrade could be considered to reduce the headloss in the system and improve the pressure in this area. 2. A localized booster pump could be considered, to increase the system pressure. Area 5: Potential low pressure problem. Following a review of an aerial photo and the Regions land use map, it was established that this area includes an antenna tower, detached residential properties and municipal parks. City staff members have indicated that poor pressures have been observed in this area. Ground elevation for the residential area is around 337m. Static pressures are around 24m (361337m) or 34psi. It should be noted that any headloss across the zonal network will reduce pressures to below 40psi. Some of the existing residences are on private services Two alternatives could mitigate low pressure problems: 1. A watermain upgrade could be considered to reduce the headloss in the system and improve the pressure in this area. 2. A localized booster pump could be considered, to increase the system pressure.

2.3.10

Kitchener Zone 4

The following key points summarize the results from the topographic analysis for Kitchener Zone 4: A topographic plot is presented as Figure 10. The topographic plot was created based a hydraulic grade line of 381m; which is the top water level of St. George Elevated Tank. Based on the topographic plot, eight potential pressure problem Areas were identified and their locations are shown in Figure 10. Summary details are provided below. Area 1: Potential high pressure problem. The land use is detached residential. Ground elevations are around 304m. Static pressures are around 77m (381304m) or 109psi. A localized PRV could be considered to mitigate any high pressure problem. Area 2: Potential high pressure problem. Land use is mainly industrial. Ground elevations are around 306m. Static pressures are around 75m (381306m) or 107psi.

Technical Memorandum # 2

Page 24 of 39

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 10 Zone 4 Kitchener

Technical Memorandum # 2

Page 25 of 39

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

A localized PRV could be considered to mitigate any high pressure problem.

Area 3: Potential high pressure problem. Land use Under plan of subdivision to future residential development Localize PRV could be considered to mitigate any high pressure problem. Area 4: Potential high pressure problem. The land use is detached residential. Ground elevations are around 306m. Static pressures are around 75m (381306m) or 107psi. Headloss is not taken into account in this assessment; however the effect of headloss on pressures in this area was assessed as part of Task #6. There are two possible alternatives that may mitigate high pressure problems: 1. Install a localized PRV 2. Supply the area from Zone 2 Kitchener. Static pressures in Zone 2 Kitchener are around 60m (85psi). Area 5: Potential high pressure problem. This is the site of an existing municipal park and residential housing. Localize PRV could be considered to mitigate any high pressure problem. Area 6: Potential low pressure problem This area will not be developed; it is currently used as a ski trail. Area 7: Potential high pressure problem. Land use is detached residential. Ground elevation is around 306m. Static pressures are around 71m (381310m) or 101psi. Headloss is not taken into account in this assessment; however the effect of headloss on pressures in this area was assessed as part of Task #6. There are two possible alternatives that may mitigate high pressure problems: 1. The introduction of a localized PRV. 2. Supply the area from Zone 2 Kitchener where static pressures have been assessed as around 55m (365-310m) or 78psi. Area 8: Potential low pressure problem. Former landfill site which is now a park

Technical Memorandum # 2

Page 26 of 39

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

It should be noted that six of the eight locations have potential high pressure problems and they are all located along the Rivers bank with possibility to moving to an adjacent lower HGL pressure zone. Investigation of whether system head can be lowered was investigated as part of Technical Memorandum #6.

2.3.11

Kitchener Zone 4A

The following key points summarize the results from the topographic analysis for Kitchener Zone 4A A topographic plot is presented as Figure 11. The topographic plot was created based on a hydraulic grade line 357m; which is equivalent to the current setting on the Falconridge PRV. Based on the topographic plot, the zone is considered to operate within the guidelines recommended by MOE.

2.3.12

Kitchener Zone 5

The following key points summarize the results from the topographic analysis for Kitchener Zone 5: A topographic plot is presented as Figure 12. A topographic plot was created based on a hydraulic grade line 407.4m; which is the sum of the top water level of Mannheim Reservoir (384.4m) and the design operating head for the Mannheim Zone 5 Pumping Station (23m). Based on the topographic plot, six potential pressure problem Areas were identified and their locations are shown in Figure 12. Summary details are provided below. Area 1: Potential low pressure problem. Current land use is detached residential. This area also includes the Mannheim Water Treatment Plant and Pumping Station Low pressure problems could be mitigated by rezoning this area to be part of Kitchener Zone 6.

Area 2: Potential low pressure problem. Current land use is detached residential. The area also contains a water treatment plant. Mannheim Reservoir & P.S. Low pressure problems could be mitigated by rezoning this area to be part of Kitchener Zone 6. Area 3: Potential high pressure problem. A special industrial user (gravel pit) currently occupies this area and therefore no service would be provided to this area.

Technical Memorandum # 2

Page 27 of 39

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 11 Zone 4A Kitchener

Technical Memorandum # 2

Page 28 of 39

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 12 Zone 5 Kitchener

Technical Memorandum # 2

Page 29 of 39

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Area 4: Potential high pressure problem. Current land use is for farming and contains a single residential property. The water service to this area may be from private wells as no Regional billing information was available. If the area is to be developed by the Region then solutions was investigated as part of Technical Memorandum #6. Area 5: Potential high pressure problem. Existing land use is for farming and no water service is provided. This area could be serviced by Kitchener Zone 4 in order to mitigate high pressure problem if development was to take place in the area. Area 6: Potential high pressure problem. Existing land use is for farming and no water service is provided. This area could be serviced by Kitchener Zone 4 in order to mitigate high pressure problem if development was to take place in the area. Area 7: Potential high pressure problem Existing residential development, vacant land and farmer land High pressure problems could be mitigated by rezoning this area to be part of Kitchener Zone 4.

2.3.13

Waterloo Zone 4

The following key points summarize the results from the topographic analysis for Waterloo Zone 4: A topographic plot is presented as Figure 13. The topographic plot was created based on a hydraulic grade line of 381m; which is the top water level of Laurel Reservoir (381m) Based on the topographic plot, the zone is considered to operate within the guidelines recommended by MOE.

2.3.14

Waterloo Zone 4B

The following key points summarize the results from the topographic analysis for Waterloo Zone 4B: A topographic plot is presented as Figure 14. The topographic plot was created based on a hydraulic grade line 401m; which is the sum of the existing Waterloo Zone 4 HGL (381m) and the design operating head for Northfield Pumping Station (20m). Based on the topographic plot, the zone is considered to operate within the guidelines recommended by MOE.

Technical Memorandum # 2

Page 30 of 39

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 13 Zone 4 Waterloo

Technical Memorandum # 2

Page 31 of 39

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 14 Zone 4B Waterloo

Technical Memorandum # 2

Page 32 of 39

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

2.3.15

Waterloo Zone 4C

The following key points summarize the results from the topographic analysis for Waterloo Zone 4: A topographic plot is presented as Figure 15. The topographic plot was created based on a hydraulic grade line 405m; which is the sum of the existing Waterloo Zone 4 HGL (381m) and the design operating head of Lakeshore Pumping Station (24m). Based on the topographic plot, the zone is considered to operate within the guidelines recommended by MOE.

2.3.16

Waterloo Zone 5

The following key points summarize the results from the topographic analysis for Waterloo Zone 5: A topographic plot is presented as Figure 16. The topographic plot was created based on a hydraulic grade line 405m; which is the top water level of Erb Street Reservoir. Based on the topographic plot, the zone is considered to operate within the guidelines recommended by MOE.

2.3.17

Waterloo Zone 6

The following key points summarize the results from the topographic analysis for Waterloo Zone 6: A topographic plot is presented as Figure 17. The topographic plot was created based on a hydraulic grade line 428m; which is the sum of the existing Waterloo Zone 5 HGL (405m) and the design operating head of Rummelhart Pumping Station (23m) Based on the topographic plot, four potential pressure problem Areas were identified and their locations are shown in Figure 17. Summary details are provided below.

Area 1: Potential high pressure problem. The land is vacant. Ground elevation is around 352m. Static pressures are around 76m (428352m) or 108psi. There are two potential alternatives that may mitigate the high pressure problem: 1. The introduction of a localized PRV. 2. Rezone the area so that it would be included in Waterloo Zone 5. This would reduce static pressures to around 53m (405-352m) or 75psi. Area 2: Potential high pressure problem. The existing landuse is residential and parkland. Ground elevations are around 352m

Technical Memorandum # 2

Page 33 of 39

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 15 Zone 4C Waterloo

Technical Memorandum # 2

Page 34 of 39

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 16 Zone 5 Waterloo

Technical Memorandum # 2

Page 35 of 39

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 17 Zone 6 Waterloo

Technical Memorandum # 2

Page 36 of 39

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Static pressures are around 76m (428352m) or 108psi. There are two potential alternatives that may mitigate the high pressure problems: 1. The introduction of a localized PRV. 2. Rezone the area so that it would be included in Waterloo Zone 5. This would reduce static pressures to around 53m (405-352m) or 75psi. Area 3: Potential high pressure problem. Existing land use is residential. Ground elevations are around 354m. Static pressures are around 74m (428354m) or 105psi. Headloss has not been considered in deriving where high or low pressures might be, therefore pressures was assessed further as part of Technical Memorandum #6 when hydraulic analysis was conducted to assess the system pressure in this area. There are two potential alternatives that may mitigate high pressure problems: 1. The introduction of a localized PRV. 2. Rezone the area so that it would be included in Waterloo Zone 5. This would reduce static pressures to around 51m (405-354m) or 73psi. Area 4: Potential high pressure problem. Existing land use is residential. Ground elevations are around 356m. Static pressures are around 72m (428356m) or 102psi. Headloss has not been considered in deriving where high or low pressures might be, therefore pressures was assessed further as part of Technical Memorandum #6 when hydraulic analysis was conducted to assess the system pressure in this area. There are two potential alternatives that may mitigate high pressure problems: 1. The introduction of a localized PRV. 2. Rezone the area so that it would be included in Waterloo Zone 5. This would reduce static pressures to around 49m (405-356m) or 70psi.

2.3.18

Waterloo Zone 7

The following key points summarize the results from the topographic analysis for Waterloo Zone 7: A topographic plot is presented as Figure 18. The topographic plot was created based a hydraulic grade line 440m; Based on the topographic plot, the zone is considered to operate within the guidelines recommended by MOE.

Technical Memorandum # 2

Page 37 of 39

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 18 Zone 7 Waterloo

Technical Memorandum # 2

Page 38 of 39

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

3.

Conclusions

From an analysis of elevations and static heads within each of the pressure zone boundaries a number of potential high and low pressure areas have been identified with some being confirmed by the Region. Potential solutions such as implementation of pressure management through the introduction of pressure reducing valves to resolve pressure problems have been identified in this report, however the pressure problems identified together with potential solutions was analyzed and evaluated as part of Task #6 and reported in Technical Memorandum #6: Determination and Analysis of Infrastructure Upgrade Alternatives.

Technical Memorandum # 2

Page 39 of 39

Appendix C Technical Memorandum #3 Storage Analysis and Projections

Tri-City Water Distribution Master Plan


Technical Memorandum #3
Storage Analysis and Projection

The Regional Municipality of Waterloo Transportation & Environmental Services Department 7th Floor Water Services Division 150 Frederick Street Kitchener, Ontario N2G 4J3 Project 81539

AECOM 101 Frederick Street, Suite 702 Kitchener, Ontario N2H 6R2

May 2009

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table of Contents
Executive Summary1 1. 2. 3. Introduction ............................................................................................... 4 Summary of Existing Storage and Pumping Capacity .......................... 4 Storage Capacity Evaluations Methodology .......................................... 9
3.1 3.2 MOE Storage Capacity Evaluation Approach ......................................................... 9 Alternate Capacity Evaluation Approach (Zonal) .................................................... 9
3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 FUS Alternate Approach (Zonal) Fire Storage Evaluation ...................................... 9 Alternate Approach (Zonal) Equalization Storage Evaluation ............................... 10 FUS Alternate Approach (Zonal) Emergency Storage Evaluation ........................ 11

3.3 3.4

Alternate Capacity Evaluation Approach (Integrated Systems) ............................ 11 Summary of Storage Capacity Evaluations Methodology ..................................... 11

4.

Storage Capacity Evaluation Results.................................................... 12


4.1 MOE and Alternate (Zonal) Storage Evaluation Approaches................................ 12
4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3 4.1.4 4.1.5 4.1.6 4.1.7 4.1.8 4.1.9 4.1.10 4.1.11 4.1.12 Cambridge Zone 1 ................................................................................................. 13 Cambridge Zone 1A............................................................................................... 15 Cambridge Zone 2E............................................................................................... 17 Cambridge Zone 3 ................................................................................................. 19 Cambridge Zone 2W + Kitchener Zone 2 + Kitchener Zone 2A............................ 21 Kitchener Zone 2W ................................................................................................ 23 Kitchener Zone 4 + Breslau North + Breslau South .............................................. 25 Kitchener Zone 5 + Wilmot Zone 5 (Mannheim).................................................... 27 Kitchener Zone 6 (Future)...................................................................................... 29 Waterloo Zone 4/4b/4c + Kitchener 4a + Market (Woolwich)................................ 31 Waterloo Zone 5 .................................................................................................... 33 Waterloo Zone 7 .................................................................................................... 35

4.2 4.3

Summary of MOE and FUS Alternate (Zonal) Storage Evaluation Approaches ........................................................................................................... 36 FUS Alternate Supply-Based Storage Capacity Evaluation Approach.................. 37
4.3.1 4.3.2 Integrated System for the City of Cambridge ........................................................ 38 Integrated System for the City of Kitchener and the City of Waterloo ................... 40

5. 6. 7. 8.

Summary of Storage Capacity Evaluation............................................ 41 Supply Strategy ....................................................................................... 42 Reservoir Turn Over Rate and Contact Time ....................................... 43 Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................... 46

Technical Memorandum # 3

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

List of Figures
Figure 2.1 - Definition of Elevated Storage Type ...................................................................................... 5 Figure 2.2 - Definition of Pumped Storage Type ...................................................................................... 5 Figure 3.1 - Diurnal Residential Demand Pattern................................................................................... 10 Figure 3.2 - Storage Evaluations Methodology ...................................................................................... 12 Figure 4.1 - Cambridge Zone 1 System Schematic ............................................................................... 13 Figure 4.2 - Cambridge Zone 1A System Schematic .............................................................................. 15 Figure 4.3 - Cambridge Zone 2E System Schematic ............................................................................. 17 Figure 4.4 - Cambridge Zone 3 System Schematic ............................................................................... 19 Figure 4.5 - Cambridge Zone 2W, Kitchener Zone 2, Kitchener Zone 2A System Schematic ............... 21 Figure 4.6 - Kitchener Zone 2W System Schematic .............................................................................. 23 Figure 4.7 - Kitchener Zone 4 System Schematic.................................................................................. 25 Figure 4.8 - Kitchener Zone 5 System Schematic.................................................................................. 27 Figure 4.9 - Waterloo Zone 6 System Schematic.................................................................................... 29 Figure 4.10 - Waterloo Zone 4 System Schematic.................................................................................. 31 Figure 4.11 - Waterloo Zone 5 System Schematic.................................................................................. 33 Figure 4.12 - Turnbull Supply System Schematic ................................................................................... 38 Figure 4.13 - Mannheim Supply System Schematic .............................................................................. 40 Figure 7.1 - Reservoir Turnover Rate for City of Cambridge ................................................................. 44 Figure 7.2 - Reservoir Turnover Rate for City of Kitchener..................................................................... 44 Figure 7.3 - Reservoir Turnover Rate for City of Waterloo...................................................................... 45

Technical Memorandum # 3

ii

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

List of Tables
Table 2.1 - Existing Storage Facility Information....................................................................................... 6 Table 2.2 - Actual Operating Levels in Existing Water System................................................................ 7 Table 2.3 - Existing Urban Supply System Capacity ............................................................................... 8 Table 4.1 - MOE Storage Evaluation Summary for Cambridge Zone 1 ................................................. 14 Table 4.2 - FUS/Alternate Storage Evaluation Summary for Cambridge Zone 1 ................................... 14 Table 4.3 - MOE Storage Evaluation Summary for Cambridge Zone 1A............................................... 16 Table 4.4 - FUS/Alternate Storage Evaluation Summary for Cambridge Zone 1A ................................. 16 Table 4.5 - MOE Storage Evaluation Summary for Cambridge Zone 2E............................................... 18 Table 4.6 - FUS/Alternate Storage Evaluation Summary for Cambridge Zone 2E ................................. 18 Table 4.7 - MOE Storage Evaluation Summary for Cambridge Zone 3 ................................................. 20 Table 4.8 - FUS/Alternate Storage Evaluation Summary for Cambridge Zone 3 .................................. 20 Table 4.9 - MOE Storage Evaluation Summary for Cam2W+Kit2+Kit2A............................................... 22 Table 4.10 - FUS/Alternate Storage Evaluation Summary for Cam2W+Kit2+Kit2A ............................... 22 Table 4.11 - MOE Storage Evaluation Summary for Kitchener Zone 2W .............................................. 24 Table 4.12 - FUS/Alternate Storage Evaluation Summary for Kitchener Zone 2W ................................ 24 Table 4.13 - MOE Storage Evaluation Summary for Kitchener Zone 4 +Breslau North + Breslau South.................................................................................................................................... 26 Table 4.14 - FUS/Alternate Storage Evaluation Summary for Kitchener Zone 4 +Breslau North + Breslau South ................................................................................................................... 26 Table 4.15 - MOE Storage Evaluation Summary for Kitchener Zone 5 + Wilmot Zone 5...................... 28 Table 4.16 - FUS/Alternate Storage Evaluation Summary for Kitchener Zone 5 + Wilmot Zone 5 ........ 28 Table 4.17 - MOE Storage Evaluation Summary for Kitchener Zone 6 and Waterloo Zone 6 .............. 30 Table 4.18 - FUS/Alternate Storage Evaluation Summary for Kitchener Zone 6 Waterloo Zone 6 ........ 30 Table 4.19 - MOE Storage Evaluation Summary for Waterloo Zone 4/4b/4c + Kitchener 4a + Market (Woolwich) + Elmira + St. Jacobs ............................................................................ 32 Table 4.20 - FUS/Alternate Storage Evaluation Summary for Waterloo Zone 4/4b/4c + Kitchener 4a + Market (Woolwich) + Elmira + St. Jacobs ................................................... 32 Table 4.21 - MOE Storage Evaluation Summary for Waterloo Zone 5 .................................................. 34 Table 4.22 - FUS/Alternate Storage Evaluation Summary for Waterloo Zone 5..................................... 34 Table 4.23 - MOE Storage Evaluation Summary for Waterloo Zone 7 .................................................. 35 Table 4.24 - FUS/Alternate Storage Evaluation Summary for Waterloo Zone 7..................................... 35 Table 4.25 - Summary of MOE Storage Evaluation Approach Surplus / Deficit ..................................... 36 Table 4.26 - Summary of FUS Alternate (Zonal) Evaluation Approach Surplus/Deficit .......................... 37 Table 4.27 - Storage Evaluation Summary for Turnbull Supply System ................................................. 39 Table 4.28 - Storage Evaluation Summary for Manheim Supply System ............................................... 41

Appendices
A. B. Appendix Title Appendix Title

Technical Memorandum # 3

iii

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Executive Summary
The objective of Task #3 is to assess the equalization, fire, and emergency storage based on maximum week criteria for design years for 2006, 2011, 2021, and 2026. This memorandum focuses on the following major items: Existing storage and pumping capacity Storage Capacity Evaluations Future Storage Facilities Operation Strategies Reservoir turnover rates and contact times under projected water demands and recommendations for booster disinfection (if necessary) The Regions existing storage was reviewed, including design capacities, theoretical capacities, and the normal operating storage. Design capacities for storage are not entirely usable due to various operation constraints. The theoretical storage capacity considers system constraints. The normal operating storage is the utilized storage observed from SCADA operating levels. Considering the total theoretical useable storage is less than the total design storage, the Storage capacity within the Region was evaluated with three approaches: 1. MOE Storage Capacity Evaluation Approach based on MOE Guidelines, Design Criteria for Sizing Water Storage Facilities-Appendix N, and calculated based on population in each zone 2. Alternate Capacity Evaluation Approach (Zonal) Based on the fire flows recommendations by the Insurers Advisory Organization Fire Underwriters Survey (FUS) in each zone, average percentage equalization value (15%) and Emergency as per MOE guidelines. 3. Alternate Capacity Evaluation Approach (Integrated System) Based on fire flow recommendations by the Insurers Advisory Organization Fire Underwriters Survey (FUS) for the two major supply systems (Kitchener/Waterloo, and Cambridge) and equalization and emergency as per MOE guidelines. The MOE storage capacity evaluation approach, which considers fires occurring simultaneously in each zone, is overly conservative. It is the least realistic as the likelihood of a fire occurring simultaneously in each zone is small. The fire flow storage requirements as recommended by MOE are also considered less accurate since it is identified based on equivalent population rather than actual building type. The Alternate Zonal Approach, which considers fire flows based on the FUS occurring simultaneously in each zone, is also conservative as fire events are set to occur simultaneously in each zone. It is more realistic than the MOE storage capacity approach; however, as the fire storage requirements are identified based on specific building type. In addition, the percent equalization used represents the Region more accurately. The Alternate Integrated System Approach is the most realistic approach and therefore recommendations will be based on this approach. This approach considers the most realistic scenario where two fire events, a large fire and a small fire, occur at the same time in each integrated water supply system within the Region. The fire flow requirements are evaluated based on FUS approach and the percent equalization used represents the Region more accurately.

Technical Memorandum # 3

1 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

As shown in the tables below, overall, the Region has sufficient storage to supply the demands of each zone. Hydraulic Transfer capabilities for this system based approach was further evaluated and confirmed in Task 6.

Summary of MOE Evaluation Approach Surplus / Deficit

Zone

Theoretical Storage Capacity (ML) 27.0 4.5 14.8 1.6 7 0 29.4 0 7.2 29.3 17.6 0 83.3

2006

2011

2016

2021

2026

Cam 1 Cam 1A Cam 2E Cam 3 Cam 2W / Kit 2 / Kit 2A Kit 2W Kit 4 Kit 5 Kit 6/Wat 6* Wat 4 Wat 5 Wat 7 Mannheim Total Net Storage Surplus/Deficit as per MOE Guidelines (ML)

16.1 3.6 8.1 0.3 4.4 -2.0 -1.2 -4.3 -3.3 15.0 15.3 -1.8 83.3

15.8 3.4 7.6 0.1 4.0 -2.3 8.0 -4.7 3.5 14.0 15.1 -2.1 83.3

15.4 3.2 7.1 0.0 3.7 -2.6 6.7 -5.2 3.2 12.5 15.0 -2.2 83.3

15.0 3.1 6.7 -0.1 3.4 -2.7 5.1 -5.8 3.1 11.5 14.9 -2.3 83.3

14.7 2.7 6.2 -0.2 3.2 -2.8 3.8 -6.4 2.7 10.5 14.6 -2.4 83.3

221

132.8

145

139.4

134.5

129.2

* Proposed storage (University) is included for Kit6/Wat6 in the above figures starting in 2011. It is assumed that the theoretical storage is equivalent to the design storage.

Technical Memorandum # 3

2 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Summary of Alternate (Zonal) Evaluation Approach Surplus / Deficit

Zone

Theoretical Storage Capacity (ML) 27 4.5 14.8 1.6 7 0 29.4 0 7.2 29.3 17.6 0

2006

2011

2016

2021

2026

Cam 1 Cam 1A Cam 2E Cam 3 Cam 2W / Kit 2 / Kit 2A Kit 2W Kit 4 Kit 5 Kit 6/Wat 6* Wat 4 Wat 5 Wat 7

12.5 2.5 6.8 -1.4 1.7 -5.0 -2.2 -6.4 3.5 11.9 14.1 -1.5

12.3 2.4 6.4 -1.5 1.5 -5.2 7.4 -6.6 3.2 11.4 14.0 -1.6

12.1 2.3 6.2 -1.6 1.4 -5.3 6.7 -6.8 3.1 10.9 14.0 -1.6

11.9 2.3 5.9 -1.6 1.2 -5.4 5.8 -7.1 2.7 10.4 13.9 -1.7

11.7 2.1 5.7 -1.6 1.1 -5.4 5.0 -7.5 -3.3 9.9 13.8 -1.7

Mannheim 83.3 83.3 83.3 83.3 83.3 83.3 Total Net Storage Surplus/Deficit as per FUS Alternate Zonal Approach (ML) 221 119.1 126.3 124 120.9 112.4 * Proposed storage (University) is included for Kit 6/Wat6 in the above figures starting in 2011. It is assumed that the theoretical storage is equivalent to the design storage.

Technical Memorandum # 3

3 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

1.

Introduction

Water storage serves three main purposes: 1. 2. 3. Stabilize the system during peak hour demand, Provide additional water to be available to the system during emergency conditions, and Provide additional water to be available to the system during single or multiple fire events.

MOE Guidelines suggest the storage capacity for each system should be designed proportional to the serviced population. Section 3 of this memorandum compares the MOE Guidelines recommended storage design approach and the storage design approach that was applied in the Kitchener-Waterloo Zone 5 and 6 Water Supply Project and the Elmira / St. Jacobs storage project; which were completed by AECOM (formerly Earth Tech) in 2002 and 1990s, respectively. An appropriate approach is selected and utilized as a basis to evaluate the storage capacity recommendations in each pressure zone for each planning horizon in Section 5. In addition, the following items are also discussed: Existing storage capacity vs. Projected storage capacity recommendation Future storage facility operation strategy (e.g. recommended top water level (TWL), low water level for equalization (LWLeq) and minimum water levels for existing facilities, pumping storage or additional storage facilities) Proposed locations and timing for new storage facilities and facility expansions Reservoir turnover rates and contact times under projected water demands and recommendations for booster disinfection (if necessary)

2.

Summary of Existing Storage and Pumping Capacity

Following a review of the information listed below, a summary of the existing storage facilities in the TriCity water distribution system is presented in Table 2.1. 1. Regional Municipality of Waterloo Water Resources Information (storage facility design information). 2. Regional Municipality of Waterloo MOE Amended Certificate of Approval, Municipal Drinking Water Systems. The current design maximum and emergency operating levels for each storage facility is documented in the Regions Water Resources Information; these values were considered as suggested operating levels without taking into account the existing system constraints. Table 2.1 notes that the total theoretical useable storage that is presented is less than the total design storage. SCADA records for each storage facility were reviewed in order to identify the actual current maximum operating levels, minimum operating levels and the actual lowest operation level (bottom level). This information was reviewed with the Regions operation staff and is summarized in Table 2.2. It is

Technical Memorandum # 3

4 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

recognized the total storage that is being used in normal operation is not equal to the total theoretical useable storage that is identified in Table 2.1. Throughout this document, designed storage refers to the actual design volume of the storage facility. The theoretical usable capacity assumes the usable storage is the volume from the maximum operating level and the emergency low elevation as per the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Water Resources Information. In addition, the current operating storage is calculated from the current operating

maximum elevation and operating low elevation. Figure 2.1 graphically presents the definition of each storage type and generally summarizes the results of the existing storage assessment.

Figure 2.1 - Definition of Elevated Storage Type


Overflow Level Max. Operation Elv.

Total Theoretical Useable Storage

Total Design Capacity

SCADA Highest Opt. Elv.

SCADA Lowest Opt. Elv. NPSHR

Emergency Low Elv. Lowest Water Elv.

Figure 2.2 - Definition of Pumped Storage Type

Technical Memorandum # 3

Normal Operating Storage

5 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table 2.1 - Existing Storage Facility Information

Zone

Storage Facility

Design Storage Capacity (m3) 4,380 2,273


(1)

Total Design Capacity (m3)

Overflow Level (m) 339.52 329.18

Emergency Low Elevation (m) 325.50 320.47 326.80 266.60 322.50 304.40 333.50 335.20 357.07 353.15 306.90 369.10 328.40 320.60 322.20 361.87 317.98 319.74 319.74 319.74 402.00 402.00 378.32 379.10

Maximum Operating Elevation (m) 337.40 329.10 327.90 269.95 326.14 311.15 359.50 347.10 365.70 365.15 310.20 380.90 333.70 321.70 325.10 380.50 321.80 321.80 321.80 321.80 404.80 404.80 384.36 383.90

Lowest Water Elevation (m)

Theoretical Storage Capacity (m3) 2,795


(2)

% of Total Design Capacity 64%

Total Theoretical Capacity (m3) Stand Pipe

Comments

St. Andrew Shantz Hill Cam 1 Rahman Middleton Turnbull Cam 1A Cam 2E Cam 3 Cam 2W / Kit 2 / Kit 2A South Cambridge Pinebush Edward St Inverness Freeport Parkway St. George Kit 4 Strange St Greenbrook (old) Greenbrook (new) Laurel William St #1 Wat 4 William St #2 William St #3 William St #4 Wat 5 Kit 4 / 5 & Wat 4/5
1

320.87 317.45 323.85 264.80 321.26 304.40 325.43 323.00 353.68 352.67 303.89 364.24 326.60 319.07 320.69 356.35 316.84 318.50 318.97 318.84 400.51 400.51 377.76 377.46

Elevated Tank (not in use) 4,000 59% 64% 75% 100% 76% 4,500 14,812 1,624 7,011 27,022 Ground Level Reservoir Two Cells Ground Level Reservoir Two Cells In-ground Reservoir Two Cells In-ground Reservoir Stand Pipe Stand Pipe (not in use) 1,624 7,011 13,300(2) 1,988 3,900 1,100
(2) (2) (2)

6,800 5,000 22,800 4,500 19,500 3,306


(1)

38,980

329.18 270.00 326.14

3,221 17,007 4,500 14,812

4,500 19,500 2,273 7,291

311.15 359.66 348.69 365.76 365.15 310.28 381.00

2,273 7,291 14,269 2,824 4,200 2,421 9,969 27,418 315 686
(1) (1)

71% 96% 93% 70% 93% 45% 91% 100%

Elevated Tank Elevated Tank Two Cells In-ground Reservoir Elevated Tank

33,683

333.80 321.79 325.20 381.00 321.80

29,388

Ground Level Reservoir One Treated Water Cell In-ground Reservoir In-ground Reservoir Ground Level Reservoir In-ground Reservoir (not in use)

9,100

27,418

29,665

322.80 322.10 322.30

29,318
(2)

In-ground Reservoir (not in use) In-ground Reservoir (not in use)

1,146(1) 2,247 9,296 9,125 51,049 50,298 101,347 18,421

1,900

85% 96% 95% 92% 72% 82,806 17,600

In-ground Reservoir Two Cells In-ground Reservoir In-ground Reservoir Two Cells In-ground Reservoir Three Cells In-ground Reservoir

Erb St (old) Erb St (new) Mannheim (new) Mannheim (old)

404.90 404.90 348.36 384.15

8,900(2) 8,700
(2)

46,718 36,088

Currently decommissioned and excluded from the calculation of the total storage capacity. Current Operating Usable Storage (greater than the values provided in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Water Resources Information)

Technical Memorandum # 3

6 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table 2.2 - Actual Operating Levels in Existing Water System

Zone

Storage Facility

SCADA Maximum Operating Elevation (m) 334.50 329.00 269.95 326.00 358.60 358.60 364.50

SCADA Minimum Operating Elevation (m) 330.00 327.50 266.60 325.60 357.20 357.20 363.70

SCADA Lowest Operating Elevation (m) 330.00 327.50 264.80 325.60 357.20 357.20 363.70

Normal Operating Storage (ML) 2.2 4 0.9 7.6 1.6 3.8 0.7

% of Total Design Storage Capacity 50% 59% 18% 33% 36% 19% 31%

St. Andrew Rahman Middleton Cam 1 Cam 1A Cam 2E Cam 3 Cam 2W / Kit 2 / Kit 2A Turnbull South Cambridge Pinebush Inverness

Freeport Parkway St. George Strange St Greenbrook (old)

363.40 310.20 380.00 333.70 321.70 325.10 380.00 St 321.80 404.70 404.70 384.15 384.15

363.00 306.90 378.00 328.40 320.60 322.20 376.00 319.74 403.80 403.80 381.56 381.56

360.00 303.89 375.00 326.60 319.07 320.69 372.00 318.84 403.00 403.00 381.56 381.56

6.5 13.3 1.3 3.9 1.1 6.4 8.9 1.9 8.9 8.7 18.5 18.4

89% 93% 46% 93% 45% 91% 32% 85% 96% 95% 36% 34%

Kit 4

Greenbrook (new) Laurel

Wat 4

William #4

Erb St (old) Wat 5 Erb St (new) Mannheim (new) Mannheim (old)

Kit 4 / 5 & Wat 4 /5

Table 2.3 summarizes the existing supply system capacity within each zone. The table was obtained from the Regions Water Supply Strategy Report, dated May 25, 2007.

Technical Memorandum # 3

7 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table 2.3 - Existing Urban Supply System Capacity

Water Service Area

Well Field/Facility Name Blair Road Clemens Mill Dunbar Road Elgin Street Fountain Street Hespeler Middleton Street Pinebush Road Shades Mills Willard Cambridge Sub-Total Greenbrook Mannheim East Peaking Parkway Pompeii, Forwell and Woolner Strange Street Strausburg Mannheim WTP Mannheim West Wilmot Centre Kitchener Sub-Total Waterloo North William Street Erb Street Waterloo Sub-Total L/s ML/d MIgd

Maximum Source Capacity (1) (L/s) 17 140 18 30 20 46 405 177 100 50 1,003 142 332 180 95 254 100 35 840 167 87 2,232 47 100 140 287 3,522 304 67.0

Cambridge

Kitchener

Waterloo

IUS Total Capacity

Notes: (1) Capacity of each system running under theoretical conditions (includes near-term upgrades)

Technical Memorandum # 3

8 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

3.

Storage Capacity Evaluations Methodology

Storage capacity within the Region was evaluated with three approaches: 1. MOE Storage Capacity Evaluation Approach 2. FUS Alternate Capacity Evaluation Approach (Zonal) 3. FUS Alternate Capacity Evaluation Approach (Integrated System) The three approaches are further described in the sections below.

3.1

MOE Storage Capacity Evaluation Approach

The MOE Guidelines, Design Criteria for Sizing Water Storage Facilities-Appendix N, provide the basis for calculated storage recommendations based on the population of each zone. The population is comprised of both residential and ICI components. The total storage recommendation is the sum of the following equation; Total Storage Recommendation = A + B + C Where: A = Fire Storage B = Equalization Storage (25% of Maximum Day Demand) C = Emergency Storage (25% of A + B) Fire storage is calculated based on equivalent population in each zone, fire flow rate (L/s), and duration of flow (hours), as provided in Table 2 of Appendix N. Rather than using the maximum day demand to calculate the equalization storage as recommended by MOE, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (RMOW) uses the Maximum Week Demand. This concept was approved by Ministry of Environment. Based on the MOE guidelines, it is recommended that area occupied by the commercial/industrial complex be considered at an equivalent population density to the surrounding residential areas. Therefore, in order to calculate the fire flow demand, GIS processing was performed to compile the demand polygon and parcel information provided by the Region in order to obtain an employment population per parcel. The largest employment population represented by a parcel was used to determine the corresponding fire flow rate indicated by the MOE guidelines. The storage recommendations have been calculated on a zone by zone basis which automatically considers simultaneous fires in each zone. Since many of the Regions zones are interconnected, they are capable of battling multiple fires as calculated.

3.2
3.2.1

Alternate Capacity Evaluation Approach (Zonal)


FUS Alternate Approach (Zonal) Fire Storage Evaluation

The fire storage volume is calculated using the fire flows recommended by the Insurers Advisory Organization Fire Underwriters Survey (FUS). The FUS fire criteria are based on the largest single fire demand within each pressure zone. Fire flow recommendations for various structures depend on the type of occupancy and construction material. Storage capacity is evaluated on a zone by zone basis, therefore the possibility of simultaneous fires in the Region is considered, which is similar to the MOE method. The fire flow recommendations using the FUS fire criteria for each zone, based on industrial, commercial, institutional, and residential use, are summarizes in Table A.1, Appendix A.

Technical Memorandum # 3

9 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

3.2.2

Alternate Approach (Zonal) Equalization Storage Evaluation

Equalization storage is the volume of water recommended to meet the instantaneous water demands that exceed the maximum week demand. Many municipalities utilize a variety of percentages of maximum day to formulate the volume apportioned to equalization (10 to 25 %). A review of the combined residential and employment diurnal demand pattern for each zone provides an estimate of the equalization volume recommended. Applied to a maximum week demand, the area above the average maximum week demand represents the peak volume which must be taken from storage. A sample diurnal residential demand pattern is shown below. The storage equalization results for each zone are summarized in Table A.2, Appendix A.

Figure 3.1 - Diurnal Residential Demand Pattern The average percentage equalization values for each zone are 15% for Cambridge, 20% for Kitchener, and 25 % for Waterloo. The data used to support these calculations is from 2003. There are a number of factors that can influence the percentage equalization storage, for example; a higher demand may exist during a warmer year. The impact of these variables is even greater for zones which have a smaller population; these zones are more sensitive to variances in diurnal demand. For design purposes, 15% of maximum week demand has been adopted as a nominal minimal allowance for equalization storage. Under MOE Guidelines 25% is recommended, therefore utilizing 15% will provide the approximate range of equalization storage recommended.

Technical Memorandum # 3

10 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

3.2.3

FUS Alternate Approach (Zonal) Emergency Storage Evaluation

The emergency storage in this alternate approach is calculated in the same manner as the MOE guidelines, i.e. 25% of the fire and equalization storage.

3.3

Alternate Capacity Evaluation Approach (Integrated Systems)

The storage capacity evaluation approach described in Section 3.2 assumes the fire event occurs in each zone simultaneously; this situation is unlikely. As a result, the storage capacity evaluation is conducted based on an integrated supply system approach with two simultaneous fire events occurring in each major integrated supply system Cambridge and Kitchener/Waterloo. This approach utilizes fire storage volume calculated using the fire flows recommended by the Insurers Advisory Organization Fire Underwriters Survey (FUS) as previously described above. A design value of 15% was utilized for the equalization storage volume. The emergency storage is calculated according to MOE guidelines, which corresponds to an emergency storage that is 25% of the fire and equalization storage.

3.4

Summary of Storage Capacity Evaluations Methodology

The following sections summarize storage capacity evaluation results for each zone based on the MOE Guidelines and also the FUS alternate storage capacity evaluation approaches. Figure 3.2 shows the schematic to describe the general evaluation methodology that was employed in this technical memorandum.

Technical Memorandum # 3

11 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

General Storage Evaluation Methodology A. Fire Storage + B. Equalization Storage + C. Emergency Storage

MOE
A1 Zonal Basic
Major Fire In Every Zone Simultaneously

FUS

MOE
B1 25% of Max Week Demand

Alternate
B2 15% of Max Week Demand

MOE
C1 25% (A + B)

A2 System Basis
One Major Fire In Downtown plus One Residential Fire In Peripheral Area

A3 Zonal Basis
Major Fire In Every Zone Simultaneously

1. 2. 3.

MOE Approach: A1 + B1 + C1 FUS/Alternate Approach (Zonal): A3 + B2 + C1 FUS/Alternate Approach (Integrated): A2 + B1 + C1

Figure 3.2 - Storage Evaluations Methodology The recommended storage capacity for each zone is compared with the theoretical useable storage in the following section to identify storage capacity surplus or deficit.

4.
4.1

Storage Capacity Evaluation Results


MOE and Alternate (Zonal) Storage Evaluation Approaches

The sections below evaluates the Regions storage capacity for each zone and provides details on the storage surplus or deficit for each zone based on the MOE Storage Capacity Evaluation Approach and the FUS Alternate Zonal Capacity Evaluation Approach. The pumping capacity of each station is also noted, indicating the ability to transfer water between zones.

Technical Memorandum # 3

12 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

4.1.1

Cambridge Zone 1

The Cambridge Zone 1 system schematic is shown below. The system currently consists of five storage facilities: St. Andrew Tank (old), St. Andrew Tank (new), Rahman Reservoir, Middleton Reservoir, Turnbull Reservoir, as well as transfer from Kitchener via New Dundee Rd PRV (Shantz Hill Reservoir is currently not in use).

Figure 4.1 - Cambridge Zone 1 System Schematic

Total storage recommendations for Cambridge Zone 1 (Cam1) were evaluated and are summarized in Table 4.1 and Table 4.2. The detailed results are presented in Appendix B Table B.1, and Table B.2. The following points summarize the storage evaluation in Cam1: Cambridge Zone 1 has sufficient storage capacity and pumping capacity to meet the MOE Guidelines. Cambridge Zone 1 has sufficient storage capacity to meet the storage recommendations for the FUS/alternate evaluation approach. Since the top water level (TWL) for Turnbull Reservoir and St. Andrew Tank are different, the current operating hydraulic grade line (HGL) is maintained at approximately 330m; which is between the TWL of St. Andrew Tank (335.3m) and the TWL of Turnbull Reservoir (325.6m). Due to the TWL differences, the total theoretical useable storage capacity is lower than the total designed storage capacity. Transfer of water is available from other zones

Technical Memorandum # 3

13 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table 4.1 - MOE Storage Evaluation Summary for Cambridge Zone 1 Design Year A. Fire Storage (ML) B. Emergency Storage (ML) C. Equalization Storage (ML) Total Recommended Storage as per MOE (ML) Total Designed Storage (ML) Total Theoretical Usable Storage (ML) Storage Surplus (+) / Deficit (-) (ML) 10.9 39.0 11.3 39.0 11.6 39.0 12.0 39.0 12.3 39.0 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026

0.36 2.18 8.36

0.41 2.25 8.60

0.45 2.33 8.86

0.47 2.40 9.13

0.49 2.47 9.39

27.0 16.1

27.0 15.8

27.0 15.4

27.0 15.0

27.0 14.7

Table 4.2 - FUS/Alternate Storage Evaluation Summary for Cambridge Zone 1 Design Year A. Fire Storage (ML) B. Emergency Storage (ML) C. Equalization Storage (ML) Total Recommended Storage as per FUS/ Alternate Approach (ML) Total Designed Storage (ML) Total Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) Storage Surplus (+) / Deficit (-) (ML) 14.5 39.0 14.7 39.0 14.9 39.0 15.1 39.0 15.3 39.0 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026

6.6 2.90 5.01

6.6 2.94 5.16

6.6 2.98 5.32

6.6 3.02 5.48

6.6 3.06 5.63

27.0 12.5

27.0 12.3

27.0 12.1

27.0 11.9

27.0 11.7

Technical Memorandum # 3

14 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

4.1.2

Cambridge Zone 1A

The Cambridge Zone 1A system schematic is shown below. The system currently consists of one storage facility; South Cambridge Reservoir.

Cambridge Zone 1A

From Cambridge Zone 1

South Cambridge Pumping Station

Figure 4.2 - Cambridge Zone 1A System Schematic Total storage recommendations for Cambridge Zone 1A (Cam1A) were evaluated and are summarized in Table 4.3 and Table 4.4. The detailed results are presented in Appendix B Table B.3 and Table B.4. The following points summarize the storage evaluation in Cam1A: Cam1A has sufficient storage capacity to meet the storage requirements of the FUS evaluation approach in each design year. Cam1A has sufficient storage capacity to meet the storage requirements of the FUS evaluation approach in each design year. Storage in CAM1A is provided by pumping from South Cambridge Reservoir via South Cambridge Pumping Station; therefore, 100% of the storage capacity in South Cambridge Reservoir is theoretically useable. However, the Net Positive Suction Head requirement (NPSHr) may reduce the total useable storage. Cam1A does not have floating storage; therefore South Cambridge PS must provide sufficient pumping capacity to supply maximum week demand and fire flow. The MOE evaluation requires 83.8 L/s and the FUS Alternate Approach requires 222 L/s for maximum week demand and fire supply, however the firm capacity is only 186 L/s. As a result, additional pumping capacity is required for FUS Alternate Approach Transfer is available from CAM 1 to CAM 1A

Technical Memorandum # 3

15 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table 4.3 - MOE Storage Evaluation Summary for Cambridge Zone 1A Design Year A. Fire Storage (ML) B. Emergency Storage (ML) C. Equalization Storage (ML) Total Recommended Storage as per MOE (ML) Total Designed Storage (ML) Total Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) Storage Surplus (+) / Deficit (-) (ML) 0.9 4.5 4.5 3.6 1.1 4.5 4.5 3.4 1.3 4.5 4.5 3.2 1.4 4.5 4.5 3.1 1.8 4.5 4.5 2.7 2006 0.09 0.18 0.63 2011 0.11 0.22 0.77 2016 0.13 0.25 0.87 2021 0.17 0.28 0.97 2026 0.21 0.35 1.20

Table 4.4 - FUS/Alternate Storage Evaluation Summary for Cambridge Zone 1A Design Year A. Fire Storage (ML) B. Emergency Storage (ML) C. Equalization Storage (ML) Total Recommended Storage as per FUS/ Alternate Approach (ML) Total Designed Storage (ML) Total Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) Storage Surplus (+) / Deficit (-) (ML) 2.0 4.5 4.5 2.5 2.1 4.5 4.5 2.4 2.2 4.5 4.5 2.3 2.2 4.5 4.5 2.3 2.4 4.5 4.5 2.1 2006 1.20 0.39 0.38 2011 1.20 0.42 0.46 2016 1.20 0.43 0.52 2021 1.20 0.44 0.58 2026 1.20 0.48 0.72

Technical Memorandum # 3

16 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

4.1.3

Cambridge Zone 2E

The Cambridge Zone 2E system schematic is shown below. The system currently consists of two storage facilities; Pinebush Reservoir and Turnbull Pumping Station, in addition to supply from Freeport via Briardene valve.

Cambridge Zone 2 (Hespeler)


Briardene Valve

H5

H3

H4

G5

Pinebush Tank

Turnbull Pumping Station

From Cambridge Zone 1

Figure 4.3 - Cambridge Zone 2E System Schematic Total storage recommendations for Cambridge Zone 2E (Cam2E) were evaluated and are summarized in Table 4.5 and Table 4.6. The detailed results are presented in Appendix B Table B.5 and Table B.6. The following points summarize the storage evaluation in Cam2E: Cam2E has insufficient storage capacity to meet the MOE Guidelines for all design years. Cam2E has sufficient storage capacity to meet the FUS/Alternate evaluation approach for all design years. The lowest design operating level of Pinebush Reservoir is 325m; however the water level must be maintained above 339m in order to provide sufficient pressure to Cam 2E under fire and emergency condition. The elevations for the serviced area in Cam2E range from 280m to 320m; with a water level of 339m in Pinebush Tank, the static pressure to the area located at the high point is approximately 20psi (14m).

Technical Memorandum # 3

17 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table 4.5 - MOE Storage Evaluation Summary for Cambridge Zone 2E Design Year A. Fire Storage (ML) B. Emergency Storage (ML) C. Equalization Storage (ML) Total Recommended Storage as per MOE (ML) Total Designed Storage (ML) Total Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) Storage Surplus (+) / Deficit (-) (ML) 6.7 19.5 14.8 8.1 7.3 19.5 14.8 7.6 7.7 19.5 14.8 7.1 8.1 19.5 14.8 6.7 8.6 19.5 14.8 6.2 2006 0.29 1.33 5.05 2011 0.30 1.45 5.50 2016 0.31 1.54 5.86 2021 0.32 1.62 6.16 2026 0.34 1.72 6.53

Table 4.6 - FUS/Alternate Storage Evaluation Summary for Cambridge Zone 2E Design Year A. Fire Storage (ML) B. Emergency Storage (ML) C. Equalization Storage (ML) Total Recommended Storage as per 8.0 19.5 14.8 6.8 8.4 19.5 14.8 6.4 8.5 19.5 14.8 6.2 8.9 19.5 14.8 5.9 9.1 19.5 14.8 5.7 2006 3.40 1.61 3.03 2011 3.40 1.68 3.30 2016 3.40 1.73 3.52 2021 3.40 1.77 3.70 2026 3.40 1.83 3.92

FUS/Alternate Approach (ML) Total Designed Storage (ML) Total Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) Storage Surplus (+) / Deficit (-) (ML)

Technical Memorandum # 3

18 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

4.1.4

Cambridge Zone 3

The Cambridge Zone 3 system schematic is shown below. The system currently consists of one storage facility; Inverness Spheroid, in addition to the pumped storage from St. Andrews Pumping Station.

G4

Cambridge Zone 3

St. Andrews Pumping Station


To/From Cambridge Zone 1

Inverness Spheroid

Figure 4.4 - Cambridge Zone 3 System Schematic Total storage recommendations for Cambridge Zone 3 (Cam3) were evaluated and are summarized in Table 4.7 and 4.8. The detailed results are presented in Appendix B Table B.7 and Table B.8. The following points summarize the storage evaluation in Cam3: Cambridge Zone 3 has insufficient storage capacity to meet the MOE Guidelines for year 2021 and 2026 Cambridge Zone 3 has insufficient storage capacity to meet the storage recommendations when considering the FUS evaluation approach for all design years. Cambridge Zone 3 requires a pumping capacity of76.6 L/s under the MOE evaluation and 260L/s with the FUS Alternate Storage Evaluation to provide sufficient fire protection and maximum week demand. Fire pumps of 182L/s at St. Andrews Pump Station have not been included in the above calculation According to Section 4.1.1, Cambridge Zone 1 has sufficient surplus storage to offset the storage deficit in Zone 3

Technical Memorandum # 3

19 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table 4.7 - MOE Storage Evaluation Summary for Cambridge Zone 3 Design Year A. Fire Storage (ML) B. Emergency Storage (ML) C. Equalization Storage (ML) Total Recommended Storage as per MOE (ML) Total Designed Storage (ML) Total Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) Storage Surplus (+) / Deficit (-) (ML) 2006 0.08 0.24 0.98 2011 0.09 0.30 1.10 2016 0.10 0.33 1.22 2021 0.11 0.35 1.28 2026 0.11 0.36 1.32

1.3
2.3 1.6 0.3

1.5
2.3 1.6 0.1

1.6
2.3 1.6 0.0

1.7
2.3 1.6 -0.1

1.8
2.3 1.6 -0.2

* According to Table 4.25 on Page 43, sufficient storage was determined in the Region

Table 4.8 - FUS/Alternate Storage Evaluation Summary for Cambridge Zone 3 Design Year A. Fire Storage (ML) B. Emergency Storage (ML) C. Equalization Storage (ML) Total Recommended Storage as per 3.0 2.3 1.6 -1.4 3.1 2.3 1.6 -1.5 3.2 2.3 1.6 -1.6 3.2 2.3 1.6 -1.6 3.2 2.3 1.6 -1.6 2006 1.80 0.60 0.59 2011 1.80 0.61 0.66 2016 1.80 0.63 0.73 2021 1.80 0.64 0.77 2026 1.80 0.65 0.79

FUS/Alternate Approach (ML) Total Designed Storage (ML) Total Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) Storage Surplus (+) / Deficit (-) (ML)

* According to Table 4.26 on Page 44, sufficient storage was determined in the Region

Technical Memorandum # 3

20 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

4.1.5

Cambridge Zone 2W + Kitchener Zone 2 + Kitchener Zone 2A

The Cambridge Zone 2W, Kitchener Zone 2, Kitchener Zone 2A system schematic is shown below. The system consists of one storage facility; Freeport Tank, in addition to the supply from Mannheim Zone 4 Pumping Station via River Road PRV. Kress Hill Pumping Station is normally inactive.

Figure 4.5 - Cambridge Zone 2W, Kitchener Zone 2, Kitchener Zone 2A System Schematic Since Cambridge Zone 2W (Cam2W), Kitchener Zone 2 (Kit2) and Kitchener Zone 2A (Kit2A) are interconnected and receiving water supply from Kitchener Zone 4 (Kit 4) and Cambridge Zone 2E (Cam2E), these zones were combined when evaluating the total storage recommendation. Total storage recommendations are summarized in Table 4.9 and Table 4.10. The detailed results are presented in Appendix B Table B.9 and B.10. The following points summarize the storage evaluation for Cam2W+Kit2+Kit2A: The total useable storage can meet the MOE Guidelines recommendation for all design years. With the FUS/Alternate evaluation approach, sufficient storage was calculated for all years. This zone contains only P16 to provide pumping to the zone; the transfer capabilities into the zone via the River Rd. PRV was evaluated in Tech Memorandum 6 Additional storage from Kit 4 is available (refer to Table 4.26, Page 44).

Technical Memorandum # 3

21 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table 4.9 - MOE Storage Evaluation Summary for Cam2W+Kit2+Kit2A Design Year A. Fire Storage (ML) B. Emergency Storage (ML) C. Equalization Storage (ML) Total Recommended Storage as per MOE (ML) Total Designed Storage (ML) Total Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) Storage Surplus (+) / Deficit (-) (ML) 2006 0.73 0.53 1.37 2.6 7.3 7.0 4.4 2011 0.80 0.61 1.65 3.1 7.3 7.0 4.0 2016 0.84 0.67 1.85 3.4 7.3 7.0 3.7 2021 0.87 0.72 2.01 3.6 7.3 7.0 3.4 2026 0.90 0.76 2.13 3.8 7.3 7.0 3.2

Table 4.10 - FUS/Alternate Storage Evaluation Summary for Cam2W+Kit2+Kit2A Design Year A. Fire Storage (ML) B. Emergency Storage (ML) C. Equalization Storage (ML) Total Recommended Storage as per FUS/Alternate Approach (ML) Total Designed Storage (ML) Total Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) Storage Surplus (+) / Deficit (-) (ML) 5.3 7.3 7.0 1.7 5.5 7.3 7.0 1.5 5.6 7.3 7.0 1.4 5.8 7.3 7.0 1.2 5.9 7.3 7.0 1.1 2006 3.40 1.06 0.82 2011 3.40 1.10 0.99 2016 3.40 1.13 1.11 2021 3.40 1.15 1.21 2026 3.40 1.17 1.28

Technical Memorandum # 3

22 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

4.1.6

Kitchener Zone 2W

The Kitchener Zone 2W system schematic is shown below. The system currently does not have its own storage; it is supplied by Kitchener Zone 4 via the Manitou Dr. PRV.

Kitchener Zone 2 West


(Demand Combined With Kitchener Zone 4)
Manitou Dr. PRV From Kitchener Zone 4 (no metering)

Dundee Rd. PRV To Cambridge Zone 1

Figure 4.6 - Kitchener Zone 2W System Schematic Total storage recommendations for Kitchener Zone 2W (Kit2W) were evaluated and are summarized in Table 4.11 and Table 4.12. The detailed results are presented in Appendix B Table B.11 and Table B12. The following points summarize the storage evaluation in Kit2W: Kit2W is currently supplied from Kitchener Zone 4 storage via a PRV on Manitou Dr. There are no storage facilities within the zone. As calculated using MOE storage recommendation guidelines, a storage shortfall of 8.5 ML will occur in 2026. A storage shortfall of 5.7 ML for 2026 was calculated when using the FUS/Alternate evaluation approach. This zone does not have pumping capacity; the transfer capabilities into the zone via Manitou Dr. PRV was evaluated in Tech Memorandum 6. Section 6.1.5 will discuss the available storage options in further details. Additional storage from Kit 4 is available (Refer to Table 4.25/4.26 on P43/44)

Technical Memorandum # 3

23 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table 4.11 - MOE Storage Evaluation Summary for Kitchener Zone 2W Design Year A. Fire Storage (ML) B. Emergency Storage (ML) C. Equalization Storage (ML) Total Recommended Storage as per MOE (ML) Total Designed Storage (ML) Total Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) Storage Surplus (+) / Deficit (-) (ML) 2.0 0 0 -2.0 2.3 0 0 -2.3 2.6 0 0 -2.6 2.7 0 0 -2.7 2.8 0 0 -2.8 2006 0.21 0.40 1.38 2011 0.26 0.46 1.57 2016 0.30 0.51 1.74 2021 0.34 0.55 1.84 2026 0.36 1.56 1.89

* According to Table 4.25 on Page 43, sufficient was determined in the Region

Table 4.12 - FUS/Alternate Storage Evaluation Summary for Kitchener Zone 2W Design Year A. Fire Storage (ML) B. Emergency Storage (ML) C. Equalization Storage (ML) Total Recommended Storage as per FUS/Alternate Approach (ML) Total Designed Storage (ML) Total Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) Storage Surplus (+) / Deficit (-) (ML) 5.0 0 0 -5.0 5.2 0 0 -5.2 5.3 0 0 -5.3 5.4 0 0 -5.4 5.4 0 0 -5.4 2006 3.20 1.01 0.83 2011 3.20 1.03 0.94 2016 3.20 1.06 1.05 2021 3.20 1.08 1.11 2026 3.20 1.08 1.13

Technical Memorandum # 3

24 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

4.1.7

Kitchener Zone 4 + Breslau North + Breslau South

The Kitchener Zone 4 system schematic is shown below. The system currently includes five storage facilities: Parkway Reservoir, St George Tank, Strange Street Reservoir, Greenbrook Reservoir (old), and Greenbrook Reservoir (new), in addition to supply pumped from Mannheim Reservoir.

Kitchener Zone 4
(Demand Combined With Kitchener Zones 2W)
Strange St. Pumping Station Grand River Wells (emergency use only)

MV3 To Waterloo Zone 4

Bleams Rd PRV From Kitchener Zone 5

Greenbrook Pumping Station

St. George Tank

River Rd. PRV To Kitchener Zone 2 East and Cambridge Zone 2 Toyota

Zone 5 P.S. Mannheim Wells (K90s) Zone 4 P.S.

Parkway Pumping Station

Mannheim Reservoir

Manitou Dr. PRV To Kitchener Zone 2 West (no metering) K34

Mannheim Wells (K20s, K50s)

Mannheim WTP

K36

Figure 4.7 - Kitchener Zone 4 System Schematic Breslau North (Breslau_N) and Breslau South (Breslau_S) are connected to the Kitchener Zone 4 (Kit4) water supply system and are supplied from Kit4. As a result, the total storage recommendations for Kitchener Zone 4 (Kit4) include these two zones. Table 4.14 and Table 4.15 summarize the results of the storage capacity evaluation. The detailed results are presented in Table B.13 and Table B.14, Appendix B. The following points summarize the storage evaluation of Kit4: St. George Elevated Tank is the only floating storage in Kit4 with a total design capacity of 2.8ML. St. George Elevate Tank will be taken out of service in 2011 Greenbrook Reservoir is currently off line for upgrade and will be available by 2011 Three pumping storage facilities, Mannheim, Parkway and Strange Street Due to the complexity of identifying the storage supply arrangement in Mannheim Reservoir (providing storage to Zone 4, Zone 5 and Zone 6), the storage evaluation only considered Parkway and Strange Street and a storage of 17.2ML were provided to Kit4) Sufficient storage was identified to meet MOE Guidelines for all design years except the existing (2006) scenario. With the FUS/Alternate approach there is sufficient storage in all design years except the existing (2006) scenario.

Technical Memorandum # 3

25 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

When Greenbrook Reservoir is on line, a surplus of 3ML will be available in 2026 Mannheim Reservoir can provide a maximum pumping storage of 82.8ML to Kit4 and Kit5; which can offset the existing storage deficit in this zone. Usable storage of 82.8 ML(Mannheim) has not bee included in the evaluation

Table 4.13 - MOE Storage Evaluation Summary for Kitchener Zone 4 +Breslau North + Breslau South Design Year A. Fire Storage (ML) B. Emergency Storage (ML) C. Equalization Storage (ML) Total Recommended Storage as per MOE (ML) Total Designed Storage (ML) Total Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) Storage Surplus (+) / Deficit (-) (ML) 20.4 21.3 19.2 -1.2 21.4 33.7 27.4 6.0 22.7 33.7 27.4 4.7 24.3 33.7 27.4 3.1 25.5 33.7 27.4 1.9 2006 0.53 4.08 15.80 2011 0.54 4.29 16.61 2016 0.55 4.54 17.60 2021 0.55 4.85 18.85 2026 0.56 5.11 19.87

* Greenbrook pump station is proposed in 2011 * St. George Elevated Tank is assumed to be out of service in 2011 Table 4.14 - FUS/Alternate Storage Evaluation Summary for Kitchener Zone 4 +Breslau North + Breslau South Design Year A. Fire Storage (ML) B. Emergency Storage (ML) C. Equalization Storage (ML) Total Recommended Storage as per FUS/Alternate Approach (ML) Total Designed Storage (ML) Total Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) Storage Surplus (+) / Deficit (-) (ML) 21.3 21.3 19.2 -2.2 21.9 33.7 27.4 5.5 22.7 33.7 27.4 4.7 23.6 33.7 27.4 3.8 24.4 33.7 27.4 3.0 2006 7.59 4.27 9.48 2011 7.59 4.39 9.97 2016 7.59 4.54 10.56 2021 7.59 4.73 11.31 2026 7.59 4.88 11.92

Technical Memorandum # 3

26 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

4.1.8

Kitchener Zone 5 + Wilmot Zone 5 (Mannheim)

The Kitchener Zone 5 system schematic is shown below. The system currently does not contain floating storage within the zone. Mannheim Reservoir currently supplies the zone.
K18 MV2 To Waterloo Zone 5
To Westmount Golf Course

Kitchener Zone 5
(Demand Combined With Kitchener Zone 5B)
Zone 5 P.S.
To Kitchener Zone 4

Mannheim Wells (K90s) Mannheim Reservoir

Zone 4 P.S.

Mannheim Wells (K20s, K50s) Mannheim WTP

Bleams Rd PRV From Kitchener Zone 5

Figure 4.8 - Kitchener Zone 5 System Schematic Kitchener Zone 5 (Kit5) and Wilmot Zone 5 (Wil5) are both supplied via Mannheim Pumping Station. As a result, the total storage recommendations cover both zones. Table 4.15 and Table 4.16 summarize the results of the storage capacity evaluation for Kit4. The detailed results are presented in Appendix B Table B.15 and Table B.16. The following points summarize the storage evaluation for Kit5: Kit5 is currently supplied by Mannheim Reservoir. No floating storage facility is currently available. A 6.4ML of floating storage shortfall will occur in 2026, when calculating storage recommendations in accordance with MOE Guidelines. A floating storage deficit of 7.5ML was calculated for the ultimate design year when using the FUS/Alternate evaluation approach. Mannheim Reservoir can provide a maximum pumping storage of 82.8ML to Kit4 and Kit5; which can offset the storage deficit in this zone which will be discussed further in Section 6.

Technical Memorandum # 3

27 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table 4.15 - MOE Storage Evaluation Summary for Kitchener Zone 5 + Wilmot Zone 5 Design Year A. Fire Storage (ML) B. Emergency Storage (ML) C. Equalization Storage (ML) Total Recommended Storage as Per MOE (ML) 4.3 Total Designed Storage (ML) Total Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) Storage Surplus (+) / Deficit (-) (ML) -4.3 -4.7 -5.2 -5.8 -6.4 0 0 4.7 0 0 5.2 0 0 5.8 0 0 6.4 0 0 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026

0.20 0.86 3.22

0.25 0.95 3.55

0.29 1.04 3.86

0.36 1.16 4.28

0.40 1.27 4.69

Table 4.16 - FUS/Alternate Storage Evaluation Summary for Kitchener Zone 5 + Wilmot Zone 5 Design Year A. Fire Storage (ML) B. Emergency Storage (ML) C. Equalization Storage (ML) Total Recommended Storage as Per FUS/Alternate Approach (ML) Total Designed Storage (ML) Total Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) Storage Surplus (+) / Deficit (-) (ML) 6.4 0 0 -6.4 6.6 0 0 -6.6 6.8 0 0 -6.8 7.1 0 0 -7.1 7.5 0 0 -7.5 2006 3.15 1.27 1.93 2011 3.15 1.32 2.13 2016 3.15 1.37 2.31 2021 3.15 1.43 2.57 2026 3.15 1.49 2.81

Technical Memorandum # 3

28 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

4.1.9

Kitchener Zone 6 (Future)

Kitchener Zone 6 (Kit6) is a proposed open system (i.e. with proposed floating storage) zone within the City of Kitchener. A storage facility with a capacity of about 7.2ML is proposed to serve future Kitchener Zone 6 and Waterloo Zone 6. The Waterloo Zone 6 system schematic is shown below.

Waterloo Zone 6

To Waterloo Zone 5

Zone 6 Pumping Station

From Erb St. Reservoir

Figure 4.9 - Waterloo Zone 6 System Schematic Waterloo Zone 6 (Wat6) is currently supplied from Wat5 via Waterloo Zone 6 Booster Station. No storage facility currently exists within zone Wat6 however fire pumps are available in the existing zone 6 pumping station to provide fire protection. (Zone 6 Pumping Station is to be decommissioned, and an elevated reservoir is proposed, which will provide fire protection) The following points summarize the storage evaluation in Wat6: There is currently no floating storage. A storage recommendation of 4.51ML was calculated for the ultimate design year when assessing storage recommendations using MOE Guidelines. A storage recommendation of 5.6ML was calculated for the ultimate design year when using the FUS/Alternate evaluation approach. Erb Street Storage (Wat5) is available but is not included in the evaluation below

Technical Memorandum # 3

29 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table 4.17 - MOE Storage Evaluation Summary for Kitchener Zone 6 and Waterloo Zone 6 Design Year A. Fire Storage (ML) B. Emergency Storage (ML) C. Equalization Storage (ML) Total Recommended Storage as per MOE (ML) Total Designed Storage (ML) Total Theoretical Useable Storage (ML)* Storage Surplus (+)/Deficit (-) (ML) 2006 0.26 0.66 2.36 3.3 0 0 -3.3 2011 0.36 0.74 2.61 3.7 7.2 7.2 3.5 2016 0.42 0.80 2.79 4.0 7.2 7.2 3.2 2021 0.45 0.83 2.86 4.1 7.2 7.2 3.1 2026 0.47 0.90 3.13 4.5 7.2 7.2 2.7

* Theoretical useable storage is assumed to be the same as the proposed design storage Table 4.18 - FUS/Alternate Storage Evaluation Summary for Kitchener Zone 6 Waterloo Zone 6 Design Year A. Fire Storage (ML) B. Emergency Storage (ML) C. Equalization Storage (ML) Total Recommended Storage as per FUS/Alternate Approach (ML) Total Designed Storage (ML) Total Theoretical Useable Storage (ML)* Storage Surplus (+)/Deficit (-) (ML) 5.0 0 0 -5.0 5.2 7.2 7.2 2.0 5.3 7.2 7.2 1.9 5.4 7.2 7.2 1.8 5.6 7.2 7.2 1.6 2006 2.60 1.00 1.41 2011 2.60 1.04 1.57 2016 2.60 1.07 1.67 2021 2.60 1.08 1.72 2026 2.60 1.12 1.88

Technical Memorandum # 3

30 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

4.1.10

Waterloo Zone 4/4b/4c + Kitchener 4a + Market (Woolwich)

A Waterloo Zone 4 system schematic is provided below. The system currently contains two storage facilities; Laurel Tank and William #4 Reservoir. (William #1, #2, and #3 are not in use). The existing firm capacity is 205L/s or 17.7ML/d.

Waterloo Zone 4
(Demand Combined With Waterloo Zone 5)
Laurel Tank and Pumping Station

To Elmira & St. Jacob

William St. Pumping Station

W4

Erb St. Control Valve Z5 to Z4 From Waterloo Zone 5 (no metering)

MV3 From Kitchener Zone 4

Figure 4.10 - Waterloo Zone 4 System Schematic Waterloo Zone 4 (Wat4) supplies water to Waterloo Zone 4b (Wat4b), Waterloo Zone 4c (Wat4c), Kitchener 4a (Kit4a), the Market area in Woolwich, Elmira, and St. Jacobs. As a result, the projected populations for these areas were included in the storage capacity evaluation. Table 4.19 and Table 4.20 summarize the results of the storage analysis for Wat4 for each design year considered. Detailed results are presented in Appendix B Table B.19 and Table B.20. The following points summarize the storage evaluation for Wat4: The Wat4 has sufficient storage capacity to meet the MOE Guidelines for each of the design years. A storage surplus of 10.5ML was calculated for the ultimate design year when calculating storage recommendations in accordance with MOE Guidelines. When considering the FUS/Alternate evaluation approach, the Wat4 zone was calculated as having sufficient storage capacity. Since Laurel Pumping Station is designed to provide additional pumping to Wat4 under emergency and fire conditions, the total useable storage for Laurel Tank is 100% (27ML). Comprised with the available storage in the William Street Reservoir, Wat4 has sufficient storage capacity to meet the MOE Guidelines for each of the design years. Wat4 is currently supplied by Wat5 via Erb St. control valve and Kit4 via MV3. The transfer capability from Erb St. Control valve and MV3 was evaluated in Tech Memorandum 6. Erb St. and Mannheim storage can supply this zone, but have been excluded from the evaluation below.

Technical Memorandum # 3

31 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table 4.19 - MOE Storage Evaluation Summary for Waterloo Zone 4/4b/4c + Kitchener 4a + Market (Woolwich) + Elmira + St. Jacobs Design Year A. Fire Storage (ML) B. Emergency Storage (ML) C. Equalization Storage (ML) Total Recommended Storage as per MOE (ML) Total Designed Storage (ML) Total Useable Storage (ML) Storage Surplus (+) / Deficit (-) (ML) 14.3 29.6 29.3 15.0 15.3 29.6 29.3 14.0 16.8 29.6 29.3 12.5 17.8 29.6 29.3 11.5 18.8 29.6 29.3 10.5 2006 0.88 2.86 10.56 2011 0.97 3.05 11.23 2016 1.58 3.37 11.88 2021 1.67 3.56 12.56 2026 1.82 3.76 13.21

Table 4.20 - FUS/Alternate Storage Evaluation Summary for Waterloo Zone 4/4b/4c + Kitchener 4a + Market (Woolwich) + Elmira + St. Jacobs Design Year A. Fire Storage (ML) B. Emergency Storage (ML) C. Equalization Storage (ML) Total Recommended Storage as per 17.4 29.6 29.3 11.9 17.9 29.6 29.3 11.4 18.4 29.6 29.3 10.9 18.9 29.6 29.3 10.4 19.4 29.6 29.3 9.9 2006 7.60 3.48 6.34 2011 7.60 3.58 6.74 2016 7.60 3.68 7.13 2021 7.60 3.78 7.54 2026 7.60 3.88 7.93

FUS/Alternate Approach (ML) Total Designed Storage (ML) Total Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) Storage Surplus (+) / Deficit (-) (ML)

Technical Memorandum # 3

32 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

4.1.11

Waterloo Zone 5

The Waterloo Zone 5 system schematic is shown below. The system currently contains two storage facilities; Erb Street Reservoir (old), and Erb Street Reservoir (new).

Waterloo Zone 5
(Demand Combined With Waterloo Zone 4)

Erb St. Control Valve Z5 to Z4 To Waterloo Zone 4 (no metering) W10 To Waterloo Zone 7 W6 Erb St. Reservoir
To Z.6 Pumping Station
`

W7

W8

MV2 From Kitchener Zone 5

Figure 4.11 - Waterloo Zone 5 System Schematic Table 4.21 and Table 4.22 summarize the results from the storage recommendations for Waterloo Zone 5 (Wat5) for each design year. The detailed results are presented in Appendix B Table B.21 and Table B.22. The following points summarize the storage evaluation in Wat5: Both MOE Storage evaluation approach and FUS/Alternate storage evaluation approach identifies storage surplus. This zone is currently supplied by Erb St. Reservoir (gravity feed) and Kitchener Zone 5 via MV2. In addition, this zone also supplies water to Waterloo Zone 4 via Erb St. Control Valve. The transfer capabilities into and out of this zone was evaluated in Tech Memorandum 6. Mannheim Reservoir is available to this zone but is excluded in the evaluation below.

Technical Memorandum # 3

33 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table 4.21 - MOE Storage Evaluation Summary for Waterloo Zone 5 Design Year A. Fire Storage (ML) B. Emergency Storage (ML) C. Equalization Storage (ML) Total Recommended Storage as per MOE (ML) Total Designed Storage (ML) Total Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) Storage Surplus (+) / Deficit (-) (ML) 2.3 18.4 17.6 15.3 2.5 18.4 17.6 15.1 2.6 18.4 17.6 15.0 2.7 18.4 17.6 14.9 3.0 18.4 17.6 14.6 2006 0.22 .047 1.66 2011 0.25 0.50 1.76 2016 0.28 0.53 1.84 2021 0.30 0.55 1.90 2026 0.35 0.59 2.03

Table 4.22 - FUS/Alternate Storage Evaluation Summary for Waterloo Zone 5 Design Year A. Fire Storage (ML) B. Emergency Storage (ML) C. Equalization Storage (ML) Total Recommended Storage as per FUS / Alternate Approach (ML) Total Designed Storage (ML) Total Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) Storage Surplus (+) / Deficit (-) (ML) 3.5 18.4 17.6 3.6 18.4 17.6 3.6 18.4 17.6 3.7 18.4 17.6 3.8 18.4 17.6 2006 1.80 0.70 0.99 2011 1.80 0.71 1.05 2016 1.80 0.73 1.10 2021 1.80 0.73 1.14 2026 1.80 0.75 1.22

14.1

14.0

14.0

13.9

13.8

Technical Memorandum # 3

34 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

4.1.12

Waterloo Zone 7

Waterloo Zone 7 (Wat7) is an existing pressure zone in the City of Waterloo and no floating storage facility is currently available. Table 4.23 and 4.24 summarize the results of the storage analysis for Wat7 for each design year. The detailed results are presented in Appendix B Table B.25 and Table B.26. Storage can be supplied by Erb Street Reservoir via the existing zone 7 pump station, but is not included in the evaluation below.

Table 4.23 - MOE Storage Evaluation Summary for Waterloo Zone 7 Design Year A. Fire Storage (ML) B. Emergency Storage (ML) C. Equalization Storage (ML) Total Recommended Storage as per MOE (ML) 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.7 2006 0.05 0.02 0.01 2011 0.10 0.05 0.08 2016 0.15 0.08 0.16 2021 0.20 0.11 0.26 2026 0.26 0.15 0.33

Table 4.24 - FUS/Alternate Storage Evaluation Summary for Waterloo Zone 7 Design Year A. Fire Storage (ML) B. Emergency Storage (ML) C. Equalization Storage (ML) Total Recommended Storage as per 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 2006 1.20 0.30 0.01 2011 1.20 0.31 0.05 2016 1.20 0.32 0.09 2021 1.20 0.34 0.14 2026 1.20 0.35 0.20

FUS/Alternate Approach (ML)

Technical Memorandum # 3

35 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

4.2

Summary of MOE and FUS Alternate (Zonal) Storage Evaluation Approaches

The summary of the storage surplus and capacity for the MOE and Alternate Zonal Storage Evaluation Approach are presented below in Table 4.25 and Table 4.26. Even though both tables show storage deficit occurred in the individual zone, both approaches indicate a storage surplus in a Region wide storage evaluation. In both cases, the transfer capability was examined in Tech Memorandum 6 to determine the ability for zones with surplus to compensate zones with deficits. Table 4.25 - Summary of MOE Storage Evaluation Approach Surplus / Deficit Theoretical Storage Capacity (ML) 27.0
(1) (1)

Zone

2006

2011

2016

2021

2026

Cam 1 Cam 1A Cam 2E

16.1 3.6 8.1 0.3 4.4 -2.0 -1.2 -4.3 -3.3 15.0 15.3 -1.8

15.8 3.4 7.6 0.1 4.0 -2.3 8.0 -4.7 3.5 14.0 15.1 -2.1

15.4 3.2 7.1 0.0 3.7 -2.6 6.7 -5.2 3.2 12.5 15.0 -2.2

15.0 3.1 6.7 -0.1 3.4 -2.7 5.1 -5.8 3.1 11.5 14.9 -2.3

14.7 2.7 6.2 -0.2 3.2 -2.8 3.8 -6.4 2.7 10.5 14.6 -2.4

4.5 14.8 1.6 7 0 29.4 0


(2)

Cam 3 Cam 2W / Kit 2 / Kit 2A(1) Kit 2W Kit 4 Kit 5


(2) (2) (2)

(1)

Kit 6/Wat 6 Wat 4 Wat 5 Wat 7


(3) (3) (4)

7.2 29.3 17.6 0

Mannheim 82.8 82.8 82.8 82.8 82.8 82.8 Total Net Storage Surplus/Deficit as per MOE Guidelines (ML) 221 132.8 145 139.4 134.5 129.2 * Propose storage (University) is included for Kit6/Wat6 in the above figures starting in 2011. It is assumed that the theoretical storage is equivalent to the design storage (1) Additional Capacity is available from CAM1 (2) Additional Capacity is available from Mannheim (3) Additional Capacity is available from Zone 4 (Mannheim) (4) Additional Capacity is available from Erb Street Reservoir

Technical Memorandum # 3

36 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table 4.26 - Summary of FUS Alternate (Zonal) Evaluation Approach Surplus/Deficit Theoretical Storage Capacity (ML) 27
(1) (1)

Zone

2006

2011

2016

2021

2026

Cam 1 Cam 1A Cam 2E

12.5 2.5 6.8 -1.4 1.7 -5.0 -2.2 -6.4 -5.0 11.9 14.1 -1.5 82.8

12.3 2.4 6.4 -1.5 1.5 -5.2 7.4 -6.6 2.0 11.4 14.0 -1.6 82.8

12.1 2.3 6.2 -1.6 1.4 -5.3 6.7 -6.8 11.9 10.9 14.0 -1.6 82.8

11.9 2.3 5.9 -1.6 1.2 -5.4 5.8 -7.1 1.8 10.4 13.9 -1.7 82.8

11.7 2.1 5.7 -1.6 1.1 -5.4 5.0 -7.5 1.6 9.9 13.8 -1.7 82.8

4.5 14.8 1.6 7 0 29.4 0


*(2)

Cam 3 Cam 2W / Kit 2 / Kit 2A(1) Kit 2W Kit 4 Kit 5


(2) (2) (2)

(1)

Kit 6/Wat6 Wat 4 Wat 5 Wat 7


(3) (3) (4)

7.2 29.3 17.6 0 82.8

Mannheim

Total Net Storage Surplus/Deficit as per Alternate Zonal Approach (ML) 221 111 125 123 120 117 * Proposed storage (University) is included for Kit6/Wat6 in the above figures starting in 2011. It is assumed that the theoretical storage is equivalent to the design storage (1) Additional Capacity is available from CAM1 (2) Additional Capacity is available from Mannheim (3) Additional Capacity is available from Zone 4 (Mannheim) (4) Additional Capacity is available from Erb Street Reservoir

4.3

FUS Alternate Approach

Supply-Based

Storage

Capacity

Evaluation

The storage capacity evaluation approaches applied in Section 4.1 assume fire events occurred in each zone simultaneously; the occurrence frequency for such phenomenon could be rare. As a result, the storage capacity evaluation is therefore conducted for a supply based water distribution system with two simultaneous fire events occurring in each major integrated water supply system in the Region, Cambridge System and Kitchener/Waterloo System.

Technical Memorandum # 3

37 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

In general, the water service in the Region is maintained by two major source of supply: 1. Integrated System for the City of Cambridge 2. Integrated System for the City of Kitchener and the City of Waterloo The fire flow requirements for each supply-based system is calculated based on two simultaneous fire events; one major fire event in downtown area and second fire event in the residential area outside of downtown area. The water transfer capability between zones was investigated in Task #6.

4.3.1

Integrated System for the City of Cambridge

The City of Cambridge integrated system schematic is shown below and the total storage requirement in the system is summarized in Table 4.27. The detailed storage evaluation results are presented in Appendix C Table C.1.

Figure 4.12 - Turnbull Supply System Schematic

Technical Memorandum # 3

38 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table 4.27 - Storage Evaluation Summary for Turnbull Supply System Design Year A. Fire Storage (ML) B. Emergency Storage (ML) C. Equalization Storage (ML) Total Recommended Storage as per FUS / Alternate Approach (ML) Total Designed Storage (ML) Total Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) Storage Surplus (+) / Deficit (-) (ML) 21.0 65.3 48.0 27.0 21.7 65.3 48.0 26.3 22.4 65.3 48.0 25.6 22.9 65.3 48.0 25.1 23.6 65.3 48.0 24.4 2006 7.80 4.20 9.01 2011 7.80 4.35 9.58 2016 7.80 4.47 10.09 2021 7.80 4.58 10.53 2026 7.80 4.72 11.06

Technical Memorandum # 3

39 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

4.3.2

Integrated System for the City of Kitchener and the City of Waterloo

The City of Kitchener and City of Waterloo integrated system schematic is shown below and the total storage requirement in the system is summarized in Table 4.28. The detailed storage evaluation results are presented in Appendix C Table C.2.

Figure 4.13 - Mannheim Supply System Schematic

Technical Memorandum # 3

40 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table 4.28 - Storage Evaluation Summary for Manheim Supply System Design Year A. Fire Storage (ML) B. Emergency Storage (ML) C. Equalization Storage (ML) Total Recommended Storage as per 38.3 76.7 66.4 40.3 89.1 76.6 42.3 89.1 76.6 44.4 89.1 76.6 46.4 89.1 76.6 2006 8.79 7.65 21.82 2011 8.79 8.06 23.43 2016 8.79 8.46 25.04 2021 8.79 8.88 26.73 2026 8.79 9.29 28.37

FUS/Alternate Approach (ML) Total Designed Storage (ML) Total Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) Storage Surplus (+) / Deficit (-) (ML)

28.2

36.3

34.3

32.2

30.2

5.

Summary of Storage Capacity Evaluation

The previous section outlined three different storage evaluations approach. The results from each approach are summarized as follow: Approach 1 - MOE Storage Capacity Evaluation Approach: The MOE Guidelines consider fire storage recommendations based on population, and equalization of 25% of the maximum day demand, (maximum week demand in the Regions case). This approach assumes simultaneous fire event occur in each zone. As a result, Approach 1 would provide a most conservative estimation in storage requirement. Based on the evaluations, the following zones required additional storage: Cambridge Zone 3 with a storage deficit of 0.2ML by 2026 Kitchener Zone 2W with storage deficit of 2.8 in 2026 Kitchener Zone 5 + Wilmot Zone 5 with storage deficit of 6.4ML in 2026 Waterloo Zone 6 with storage deficit of 2.4ML in 2026 Waterloo Zone 7 with storage deficit of 0.7ML in 2026 The above noted storage deficits can be offset by storage surpluses from other zones and there is no storage issues in the Region wide basis as indicated in Table 4.25. The transfer capability was investigated in Technical Memorandum 6.

Approach 2 - Alternate Capacity Evaluation Approach (Zonal): In this approach, fire storage is calculated using the fire flow recommended by FUS, based on the two simultaneous fires in each zone. Similar to Approach 1, this approach also assumes fire event occur in each zone simultaneously. The equalization storage is lower than the MOE guidelines at 15% of the maximum week demand. In almost all zones the storage requirement are lower than those

Technical Memorandum # 3

41 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

calculated in Approach 1. As a result, Approach 2 is considered as less conservative approach. Based on the evaluations, the following zones required additional storage: Cambridge Zone 3 with a storage deficit 1.6ML in 2026 Kitchener Zone 2W with a storage deficit of 5.4ML in 2026 Kitchener Zone 5 + Wilmot Zone 5 with a storage deficit of 7.5ML in 2026 Waterloo Zone 6 with a storage deficit of 4.3ML in 2026 Waterloo Zone 7 with a storage deficit of 1.7ML in 2026 The above noted storage deficits can be offset by the storage surpluses from other zones and there is no storage issue in the Region wide basis as indicated in Table 4.26. The Transfer capability was investigated in Technical Memorandum #6.

Approach 3 FUS Alternate Capacity Evaluation Approach (Integrated Systems): This approach provides the most realistic estimates in terms of fire storage. According to the storage evaluation results, both Cambridge Integrated Water Supply System and Kitchener/Waterloo Integrated Water Supply System do not require any additional storage. This approach assumes that the transmissions and distribution network can support the ability to convey the storage volumes from terminal storage to the appropriate zone. This concept was further assessed in Task#6.

6.

Supply Strategy

Three approaches were used to evaluate storage capacity within the Region: 1. MOE Storage Capacity Evaluation Approach based on Moe Guidelines, Design Criteria for Sizing Water Storage Facility Appendix N, and calculated based on equivalent employment population in each zone 2. Alternate FUS Capacity Evaluation Approach (Zonal) Based on the fire flows recommendations by the Insurers Advisory Organization Fire Underwriters Survey (FUS) in each zone, average percentage equalization value (15%) and Emergency as per MOE guidelines. 3. Alternate FUS Capacity Evaluation Approach (Integrated System) Based on fire flow recommendations by the Insurers Advisory Organization Fire Underwriters Survey (FUS) for the two major supply systems (Kitchener/Waterloo, and Cambridge), average percentage equalization of 15% and emergency as per MOE guidelines The MOE storage capacity evaluation approach, which considers fires occurring simultaneously in each zone, is overly conservative. It is the least realistic as the likelihood of a fire occurring simultaneously in each zone is small. The fire flow storage requirements as recommended by MOE are also considered less accurate since it is identified based on equivalent population rather than actual building type. In addition, the uncertainty of evaluating the equivalent employment population per parcel in each ones through the GID processing cause the fire flow storage requirement more inaccurate.

Technical Memorandum # 3

42 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

The Alternate Zonal Approach, which considers fire flows based on the FUS occurring simultaneously in each zoned, is also conservative as fire events are set to occur simultaneously in each zone. It is more realistic than the MOE storage capacity approach; however, as the fire storage requirements are identified based on specific building type. In addition, the percent equalization used represents the Region more accurately. The Alternate Integrated System Approach is most realistic approach and therefore recommendations will be based on this approach. This approach considers the most realistic scenario where two fire events, a large and small fire, occur at the same time in each integrated water supply system within the Region. The fire flow requirements are evaluated based on FUS approach and the percent equalization used represents the Region more accurately. Overall, the Region has sufficient storage to supply the demands of each zone. Hydraulic Transfer capabilities for this Integrated Supply System based approach was further evaluated and confirmed in Task #6. Problems in the zone; as a result, based on desired operating conditions there is actually a storage deficit of 15.6ML. Since the total designed storage capacity (19.5ML) in the Pinebush Reservoir can satisfy the MOE storage capacity recommendation (18.4ML), a new pumping system similar to the Laurel Pumping Station should be installed to utilize the total storage when system demands require additional supply. In addition, a new inlet valve should be installed to stop the inflow to the reservoir while the new pump is operating. Figure 6.1 presents the flow schematic for the recommended improvement work in Pinebush Reservoir. The feasibility of this alternative was validated and confirmed with the hydraulic model in Task #6.

7.

Reservoir Turn Over Rate and Contact Time

Reservoir turnover rate is an important indicator in establishing the necessity of additional booster disinfection to the system. Utilizing the recommended storage facility (floating storage) and projected water demand under average day demand conditions, the reservoir turnover rate was determined. Figures 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3 present the reservoir turnover rate on a zone by zone basis for each design year for City of Cambridge, City of Kitchener and City of Waterloo, respectively.

Technical Memorandum # 3

43 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 7.1 - Reservoir Turnover Rate for City of Cambridge

Figure 7.2 - Reservoir Turnover Rate for City of Kitchener

Technical Memorandum # 3

44 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 7.3 - Reservoir Turnover Rate for City of Waterloo

Based on the above results, the maximum reservoir storage turnover rate was calculated for Waterloo Zone 5+7 at approximately 64 hours in the ultimate design year. The turnover rate for the other zones ranges from 2.5 hour to 64 hours. On one hand, the result shows no significant decrease in turnover rate is anticipated that might lead to a reduction in the quality of the water supplied. Therefore, the current disinfection system can be considered appropriate for the system and no booster disinfection is considered to be recommended. On the other hand, the turnover rate for Cam1N, Cam2W+Kit2+Kit2E and Wat5+Wat7 are higher than the average turnover rate of the other municipalities that participated to the AECOM National Benchmarking Initiative project of 20 hours. As a result, it is recommended that the Region conduct a detailed water quality (water age) analysis to accurately address the oldest water in the system and determine whether a hydrant flushing program and/or booster disinfection facility in the system is recommended.

Technical Memorandum # 3

45 of 46

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

8.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Future storage facilities operation strategies have been provided for zones where storage deficits occur for both the MOE Storage Capacity Evaluation Approach and the Alternate Capacity Evaluation Approach (Zonal). The MOE storage capacity evaluation approach with fires occurring simultaneously in each zone is the overly conservative and least realistic. The FUS Alternate Zonal Approach with fire flows based on the FUS occurring simultaneously in each zone is also conservative as fires are considered to occur simultaneously in each zone as in the MOE approach; however, the fire flow storage evaluation is considered more accurate than as those used in MOE approach since FUS utilizes the actual building type in identifying the required fire flow and duration. The FUS Alternate Integrated Approach is most realistic as only two fire events, a major and minor event, are considered to occur at the same time. Statistically speaking, the likelihood of a fire occurring simultaneously in each zone is small. As a result, recommendations will be based on the FUS Alternate Integrated Approach. As shown in Table 4.25 and Table 4.26, regardless of storage evaluation approach, overall the Region has sufficient storage to supply the demands of each zone. Hydraulic Transfer capabilities for the FUS Alternate Integrated Approach were further evaluated and confirmed in Task #6.

Technical Memorandum # 3

46 of 46

Appendix A Fire Flow Requirements and Equalization Results

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Appendix A: Fire Flow Requirement (Utilizing Fire Underwriters Survey) Table A.1: Fire Flow Requirement for the First Fire Event Fire Flow Fire Flow Fire Duration Zone (L/min) (L/s) (hrs) CAM 1 CAM 1A 22,000 10,000 367 167 5.0 2.0

Fire Storage Vol. (ML) 6.6 1.2

Notes Large mall shopping centre, no exposure, in one are of 16,000m2 (Fire Resistive) Modern Row or Town House groups = 10,000L/min Individual department store, fire resistive 16,000 L/min Commercial Buildings, Individual department store 4,600m2, 3 storey & fire resistive Small open shopping centre or part of large one, 5000m2 3 storey, brick ordinary school of 2,300 m2 = 15,000 L/min (post secondary school) Moderately large shopping centre, no exposure, in one area of 9,300m2 (Ordinary) Institutional Building 3 storey, brick ordinary school of 2,300m2 AECOM Report Moderately large shopping centre, no exposure in one area of 9,3000m2 (Ordinary) Small shopping centre, non-combustible, 12,000L/min AECOM Report AECOM Report

CAM 2E CAM 2W + KIT2 + KIT2A CAM 3 KIT2W

22,000 16,000 12,000 15,000

267 267 200 250

3.5 3.5 2.5 3.5

3.4 3.4 1.8 3.2

KIT4 + Breslau N + Breslau S KIT5 + WIL5 KIT6 (FUTURE) WAT4/4B/4C+KIT4A+Market WAT5 WAT6 WAT7

23,000 15,000

383 250 180 383 200 180 167

5.5 3.5 4.0 5.5 2.5 4.0 2

7.59 3.15 2.6 7.59 1.8 2.6 1.2

23,000 12,000

Technical Memorandum # 3 Appendix A

1 of 2

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table A.2: Percent Equalization for 2003 Zone CAM 1 CAM 1A CAM 2E CAM 2W + KIT2 + KIT2A CAM 3 KIT2W KIT4 + Breslau N + Breslau S KIT5 + WIL5 KIT6 (FUTURE) WAT4/4B/4C+KIT4A+Market WAT5 WAT6 WAT7 Cambridge Kitchener Waterloo Tri-City From AECOM Report 1076 1442 772 3342 913 1161 575 2649 From AECOM Report 689 689 96 513 513 62 2003 Max Week Demand (L/s) 668 48 383 1170 111 1170 1170 298 2003 Max Day Demand (L/s) 502 22 269 950 78 950 950 237 % Equalization. 25% 54% 30% 19% 29% 19% 19% 21% 15% 26% 26% 36% 15% 15% 20% 26% 21%

Technical Memorandum # 3 Appendix A

2 of 2

Appendix B Storage Evaluations

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Appendix B: Storage Evaluations Table B.1: Cambridge Zone 1 Storage Capacity Evaluation (MOE) Population 2006 Residential Employment Total Equivalent Population Water Storage Required as per MOE 2006 Maximum Week Demand (ML/d) % Equalization Equalization (ML) Fire - Flow (L/s) - Duration (hr) - Total Fire (ML) Emergency (ML) Total Storage (ML) as per MOE Existing Storage (ML) - Turnbull - St. Andrew - Rahman - Middleton (Pumping Storage) Total Storage (ML) as per design Existing Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) - Turnbull - St. Andrew - Rahman - Middleton (Pumping Storage) Total Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) Storage Surplus(+) / Deficit(-) as per MOE Guidelines (ML) 17.01 2.79 4.00 3.22 27.0 6.4 17.01 2.79 4.00 3.22 27.0 6.1 17.01 2.79 4.00 3.22 27.0 5.7 17.01 2.79 4.00 3.22 27.0 5.4 17.01 2.79 4.00 3.22 27.0 5.1 22.8 4.4 6.8 5 39.0 22.8 4.4 6.8 5 39.0 22.8 4.4 6.8 5 39.0 22.8 4.4 6.8 5 39.0 22.8 4.4 6.8 5 39.0 378.00 6.00 8.16 4.13 20.7 378.00 6.00 8.16 4.19 21.0 378.00 6.00 8.16 4.26 21.3 378.00 6.00 8.16 4.32 21.6 378.00 6.00 8.16 4.39 21.9 33.43 25% 8.36 2011 34.41 25% 8.60 2016 35.45 25% 8.86 2021 36.54 25% 9.13 2026 37.56 25% 9.39 64,858 29,369 94,227 2011 67,062 30,643 97,705 2016 67,062 31,686 101,418 2021 72,704 32,629 105,333 2026 75,513 33,520 109,033

Technical Memorandum # 3 Appendix B

1 of 26

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table B.2: Cambridge Zone 1 Storage Capacity Evaluation (FUS) Population 2006 Residential Employment Total Equivalent Population 64,858 29,369 94,227 2011 67,062 30,643 97,705 2016 69,732 31,686 101,418 2021 72,704 32,629 105,333 2026 75,513 33,520 109,033

Water Storage Required as per Alternate Approach 2006 Maximum Week Demand (ML/d) % Equalization Equalization (ML) Fire (ML) Emergency (ML) Total Storage (ML) as per Alternate Approach Existing Storage (ML) - Turnbull - St. Andrew - Rahman - Middleton (Pumping Storage) Total Storage (ML) as per design Existing Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) - Turnbull - St. Andrew - Rahman - Middleton (Pumping Storage) Total Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) 17.01 2.79 4.00 3.22 27.0 17.01 2.79 4.00 3.22 27.0 17.01 2.79 4.00 3.22 27.0 17.01 2.79 4.00 3.22 27.0 17.01 2.79 4.00 3.22 27.0 22.8 4.4 6.8 5 39.0 22.8 4.4 6.8 5 39.0 22.8 4.4 6.8 5 39.0 22.8 4.4 6.8 5 39.0 22.8 4.4 6.8 5 39.0 33.43 15% 5.01 6.60 2.90 2011 34.41 15% 5.16 6.60 2.94 2016 35.45 15% 5.32 6.60 2.98 2021 36.54 15% 5.48 6.60 3.02 2026 37.56 15% 5.63 6.60 3.06

14.5

14.7

14.9

15.1

15.3

Storage Surplus(+) / Deficit(-) as per Alternate Approach (ML)

12.5

12.3

12.1

11.9

11.7

Technical Memorandum # 3 Appendix B

2 of 26

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table B.3: Cambridge Zone 1A Storage Capacity Evaluation (MOE) Population 2006 Residential Employment Total Equivalent Population Water Storage Required as per MOE 2006 Maximum Week Demand (ML/d) % Equalization Equalization (ML) Fire - Flow (L/s) - Duration (hr) - Total Fire (ML) Emergency (ML) 189.79 3.00 2.05 0.68 210.28 3.00 2.27 0.76 225.03 3.00 2.43 0.84 237.59 3.00 2.57 0.88 263.57 4.00 3.80 1.25 2.53 25% 0.67 2011 3.07 25% 0.77 2016 3.49 25% 0.87 2021 3.86 25% 0.97 2026 4.79 25% 1.20 8,085 1,258 9,343 2011 9,794 1,798 11,592 2016 11,166 2,202 13,368 2021 12,367 2,618 14,985 2026 15,419 3,221 18,640

Total Storage (ML) as per MOE Existing Storage (ML) - South Cambridge (Pumping Storage) Total Storage (ML) as per design Existing Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) - South Cambridge (Pumping Storage) Total Theoretical Useable Storage (ML)

3.4

3.8

4.1

4.4

6.2

4.5 4.5

4.5 4.5

4.5 4.5

4.5 4.5

4.5 4.5

4.50 4.5

4.50 4.5

4.50 4.5

4.50 4.5

4.50 4.5

Storage Surplus(+) / Deficit(-) as per MOE Guidelines (ML)

1.1

0.7

0.4

0.1

-1.7

Technical Memorandum # 3 Appendix B

3 of 26

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table B.4: Cambridge Zone 1A Storage Capacity Evaluation (FUS) Population 2006 Residential Employment Total Equivalent Population 8,085 1,258 9,343 2011 9,794 1,798 11,592 2016 11,166 2,202 13,368 2021 12,367 2,618 14,985 2026 15,419 3,221 18,640

Water Storage Required as per Alternate Approach 2006 Maximum Week Demand (ML/d) % Equalization Equalization (ML) Fire (ML) Emergency (ML) Total Storage (ML) as per Alternate Approach Existing Storage (ML) - South Cambridge (Pumping Storage) Total Storage (ML) as per design Existing Useable Storage (ML) - South Cambridge (Pumping Storage) Total Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) 4.50 4.5 4.50 4.5 4.50 4.5 4.50 4.5 4.50 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 2.53 15% 0.38 1.20 0.39 2011 3.07 15% 0.46 1.20 0.42 2016 3.49 15% 0.52 1.20 0.43 2021 3.86 15% 0.58 1.20 0.44 2026 4.79 15% 0.72 1.20 0.48

2.0

2.1

2.2

2.2

2.4

Storage Surplus(+) / Deficit(-) as per Alternate Approach (ML)

2.5

2.4

2.3

2.3

2.1

Technical Memorandum # 3 Appendix B

4 of 26

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table B.5: Cambridge Zone 2E Storage Capacity Evaluation (MOE) Population 2006 Residential Employment Total Equivalent Population Water Storage Required as per MOE 2006 Maximum Week Demand (ML/d) % Equalization Equalization (ML) Fire - Flow (L/s) - Duration (hr) - Total Fire (ML) Emergency (ML) 378.00 6.00 8.16 3.30 378.00 6.00 8.16 3.42 378.00 6.00 8.16 3.51 378.00 6.00 8.16 3.58 378.00 6.00 8.16 3.67 20.19 25% 5.05 2011 22.02 25% 5.50 2016 23.44 25% 5.86 2021 24.64 25% 6.16 2026 26.13 25% 6.53 40,134 27,051 67,185 2011 43,911 29,940 73,851 2016 47,186 32,000 79,186 2021 50,104 33,657 83,761 2026 54,151 35,222 89,373

Total Storage (ML) as per MOE Existing Storage (ML) - Pinebush Total Theoretical Useable Storage (ML)

16.5

17.1

17.5

17.9

18.4

19.5 14.8

19.5 14.8

19.5 14.8

19.5 14.8

19.5 14.8

Storage Surplus(+) / Deficit(-) as per MOE Guidelines (ML)

-1.7

-2.3

-2.7

-3.1

-3.6

Technical Memorandum # 3 Appendix B

5 of 26

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table B.6: Cambridge Zone 2E Storage Capacity Evaluation (FUS) Population 2006 Residential Employment Total Equivalent Population 40,134 27,051 67,185 2011 43,911 29,940 73,851 2016 47,186 32,000 79,186 2021 50,104 33,657 83,761 2026 54,151 35,222 89,373

Water Storage Required as per Alternate Approach 2006 Maximum Week Demand (ML/d) % Equalization Equalization (ML) Fire (ML) Emergency (ML) Total Storage (ML) as per Alternate Approach Existing Storage (ML) - Pinebush Total Useable Storage (ML) 19.5 14.8 19.5 14.8 19.5 14.8 19.5 14.8 19.5 14.8 20.19 15% 3.03 3.40 1.61 2011 22.02 15% 3.30 3.40 1.68 2016 23.44 15% 3.52 3.40 1.73 2021 24.64 15% 3.70 3.40 1.77 2026 26.13 15% 3.92 3.40 1.83

8.0

8.4

8.6

8.9

9.1

Storage Surplus(+) / Deficit(-) as per Alternate Approach (ML)

6.8

6.4

6.2

5.9

5.7

Technical Memorandum # 3 Appendix B

6 of 26

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table B.7: Cambridge Zone 3 Storage Capacity Evaluation (MOE) Population 2006 Residential Zone 3 North Dumfries Employment Zone 3 North Dumfries Total Equivalent Population Water Storage Required as per MOE 2006 Maximum Week Demand (ML/d) % Equalization Equalization (ML) Fire - Flow (L/s) - Duration (hr) - Total Fire (ML) Emergency (ML) Total Storage (ML) as per MOE Existing Storage (ML) - Inverness Total Storage (ML) as per design Existing Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) Inverness Total Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) Storage Surplus(+) / Deficit(-) as per MOE Guidelines (ML) 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 225.58 3.00 2.44 0.86 4.3 238.57 3.00 2.58 0.92 4.6 251.22 3.00 2.71 0.98 4.9 258.49 4.00 3.72 1.25 6.3 262.38 4.00 3.78 1.27 6.4 3.94 25% 0.98 2011 4.39 25% 1.10 2016 4.86 25% 1.22 2021 5.13 25% 1.28 2026 5.26 25% 1.32 1,346 7 13,437 1,536 7 15,115 1,727 7 16,851 1,839 7 17,893 1,898 7 18,463 11,976 108 13,464 108 15,009 108 15,939 108 16,450 108 2011 2016 2021 2026

-2.7

-3.0

-3.3

-4.6

-4.7

Technical Memorandum # 3 Appendix B

7 of 26

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table B.8: Cambridge Zone 3 Storage Capacity Evaluation (FUS) Population 2006 Residential Zone 3 North Dumfries Employment Zone 3 North Dumfries Total Equivalent Population 1,346 7 13,437 1,536 7 15,115 1,727 7 16,851 1,839 7 17,893 1,898 7 18,463 11,976 108 13,464 108 15,009 108 15,939 108 16,450 108 2011 2016 2021 2026

Water Storage Required as per Alternate Approach 2006 Maximum Week Demand (ML/d) % Equalization Equalization (ML) Fire (ML) Emergency (ML) Total Storage (ML) as per Alternate Approach Existing Storage (ML) - Inverness Total Storage (ML) as per design Existing Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) - Inverness Total Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 3.94 15% 0.59 1.80 0.60 2011 4.39 15% 0.66 1.80 0.61 2016 4.86 15% 0.73 1.80 0.63 2021 5.13 15% 0.77 1.80 0.64 2026 5.26 15% 0.79 1.80 0.65

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.2

3.2

Storage Surplus(+) / Deficit(-) as per Alternate Approach (ML)

-1.4

-1.5

-1.6

-1.6

-1.6

Technical Memorandum # 3 Appendix B

8 of 26

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table B.9: Cambridge Zone 2W + Kitchener 2 & 2a Storage Capacity Evaluation (MOE) Population 2006 Residential Cam 2W Kit 2 (East) Kit 2A Employment Cam 2W Kit 2 (East) Kit 2A Total Equivalent Population Water Storage Required as per MOE 2006 Maximum Week Demand (ML/d) % Equalization Equalization (ML) Fire - Flow (L/s) - Duration (hr) - Total Fire (ML) Emergency (ML) Total Storage (ML) as per MOE Existing Storage (ML) - Freeport Total Storage (ML) as per design Existing Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) - Freeport Total Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) Storage Surplus(+) / Deficit(-) as per MOE Guidelines (ML) 7.0 7.0 0.7 7.0 7.0 0.0 7.0 7.0 -0.6 7.0 7.0 -1.0 7.0 7.0 -2.8 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 254.02 4.00 3.66 1.26 6.3 277.54 4.00 4.00 1.41 7.1 293.96 4.00 4.23 1.52 7.6 306.37 4.00 4.41 1.61 8.0 315.43 5.00 5.68 1.95 9.8 5.48 25% 1.37 2011 6.59 25% 1.65 2016 7.41 25% 1.86 2021 8.05 25% 2.01 2026 8.54 25% 2.13 11,197 2,587 146 17,248 13,715 2,938 193 20,778 15,500 3,159 226 23,448 16,956 3,305 240 25,578 18,204 3,409 248 27,195 1,016 971 1,331 1,084 1,084 1,764 1,328 1,165 2,070 1,666 1,204 2,207 1,833 1,225 2,276 2011 2016 2021 2026

Technical Memorandum # 3 Appendix B

9 of 26

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table B.10: Cambridge Zone 2W + Kitchener 2 & 2a Storage Capacity Evaluation (FUS) Population 2006 Residential Cam 2W Kit 2 (East) Kit 2A Employment Cam 2W Kit 2 (East) Kit 2A Total Equivalent Population 11,197 2,587 146 17,248 13,715 2,938 193 20,778 15,500 3,159 226 23,448 16,956 3,305 240 25,578 18,204 3,409 248 27,195 1,016 971 1,331 1,084 1,084 1,764 1,328 1,165 2,070 1,666 1,204 2,207 1,833 1,225 2,276 2011 2016 2021 2026

Water Storage Required as per Alternate Approach 2006 Maximum Week Demand (ML/d) % Equalization Equalization (ML) Fire (ML) Emergency (ML) Total Storage (ML) as per Alternate Approach Existing Storage (ML) - Freeport Total Storage (ML) as per design Existing Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) - Freeport Total Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) Storage Surplus(+) / Deficit(-) as per Alternate Approach (ML) 7.0 7.0 1.7 7.0 7.0 1.5 7.0 7.0 1.4 7.0 7.0 1.2 7.0 7.0 1.1 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 5.48 15% 0.82 3.40 1.06 5.3 2011 6.59 15% 0.99 3.40 1.10 5.5 2016 7.41 15% 1.11 3.40 1.13 5.6 2021 8.05 15% 1.21 3.40 1.15 5.8 2026 8.54 15% 1.28 3.40 1.17 5.9

Technical Memorandum # 3 Appendix B

10 of 26

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table B.11: Kitchener Zone 2W Storage Capacity Evaluation (MOE) Population 2006 Residential Employment Total Equivalent Population Water Storage Required as per MOE 2006 Maximum Week Demand (ML/d) % Equalization Equalization (ML) Fire - Flow (L/s) - Duration (hr) - Total Fire (ML) Emergency (ML) Total Storage (ML) as per MOE Existing Storage (ML) 265.49 4.00 3.82 1.30 6.5 0 282.88 4.00 4.07 1.41 7.0 0 298.90 4.00 4.30 1.51 7.6 0 307.75 4.00 4.43 1.57 7.8 0 312.31 4.00 4.50 1.60 8.0 0 5.53 25% 1.38 2011 6.26 25% 1.57 2016 6.98 25% 1.74 2021 7.37 25% 1.84 2026 7.56 25% 1.89 15,683 3,244 18,927 2011 17,601 4,028 21,629 2016 19,620 4,665 24,285 2021 20,767 5,055 25,822 2026 21,362 5,271 26,633

Storage Surplus(+) / Deficit(-) as per MOE Guidelines (ML)

-6.5

-7.0

-7.6

-7.8

-8.0

Technical Memorandum # 3 Appendix B

11 of 26

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table B.12: Kitchener Zone 2W Storage Capacity Evaluation (FUS) Population 2006 Residential Employment Total Equivalent Population 15,683 3,244 18,927 2011 17,601 4,028 21,629 2016 19,620 4,665 24,285 2021 20,767 5,055 25,822 2026 21,362 5,271 26,633

Water Storage Required as per Alternate Approach 2006 Maximum Week Demand (ML/d) % Equalization Equalization (ML) Fire (ML) Emergency (ML) Total Storage (ML) as per Alternate Approach Existing Storage (ML) 5.53 15% 0.83 3.20 1.01 2011 6.26 15% 0.94 3.20 1.03 2016 6.98 15% 1.05 3.20 1.06 2021 7.37 15% 1.11 3.20 1.08 2026 7.56 15% 1.13 3.20 1.08

5.0 0

5.2 0

5.3 0

5.4 0

5.4 0

Storage Surplus(+) / Deficit(-) as per Alternate Approach (ML)

-5.0

-5.2

-5.3

-5.4

-5.4

Technical Memorandum # 3 Appendix B

12 of 26

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table B.13: Kitchener Zone 4 + Breslau North + Breslau South Storage Capacity Evaluation (MOE) Population 2006 Residential Zone 4 Breslau N Breslau S Employment Zone 4 Breslau N Breslau S Total Equivalent Population Water Storage Required as per MOE 2006 Maximum Week Demand (ML/d) % Equalization Equalization (ML) Fire - Flow (L/s) - Duration (hr) - Total Fire (ML) Emergency (ML) Total Storage (ML) as per MOE Existing Storage (ML) - Parkway (Pumping Storage) - St. George - Strange St. (Pumping Storage) - Greenbrook (Pumping Storage) Total Storage (ML) as per design Existing Useable Storage (ML) - Parkway (Pumping Storage) - St. George - Strange St. (Pumping Storage) - Greenbrook (Pumping Storage) Total Useable Storage (ML) Storage Surplus(+) / Deficit(-) as per MOE Guidelines (ML) 13.30 1.99 3.90 0.00 19.2 -10.8 13.30 1.99 3.90 10.20 29.4 -1.6 13.30 1.99 3.90 10.20 29.4 -2.8 13.30 1.99 3.90 10.20 29.4 -4.4 13.30 1.99 3.90 10.20 29.4 -5.7 14.3 2.8 4.2 0.0 21.3 14.3 2.8 4.2 12.4 33.7 14.3 2.8 4.2 12.4 33.7 14.3 2.8 4.2 12.4 33.7 14.3 2.8 4.2 12.4 33.7 378.00 6.00 8.16 5.99 30.0 378.00 6.00 8.16 6.19 31.0 378.00 6.00 8.16 6.44 32.2 378.00 6.00 8.16 6.75 33.8 378.00 6.00 8.16 7.01 35.0 63.21 25% 15.80 2011 66.45 25% 16.61 2016 70.40 25% 17.60 2021 75.41 25% 18.85 2026 79.48 25% 19.87 139,896 112 597 83,654 200 1,048 225,507 2011 147,728 298 599 88,888 221 1,387 239,121 2016 158,526 552 602 93,375 249 1,646 254,950 2021 172,689 770 656 98,034 438 1,938 274,525 2026 182,877 953 1,402 102,536 673 2,444 290,885

Technical Memorandum # 3 Appendix B

13 of 26

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table B.14: Kitchener Zone 4 + Breslau N + Breslau S Storage Capacity Evaluation Population 2006 Residential Zone 4 Breslau N Breslau S Employment Zone 4 Breslau N Breslau S Total Equivalent Population 83,654 200 1,048 225,507 88,888 221 1,387 239,121 93,375 249 1,646 254,950 98,034 438 1,938 274,525 139,896 112 597 147,728 298 599 158,526 552 602 172,689 770 656 2011 2016 2021

(FUS)

2026 182,877 953 1,402 102,536 673 2,444 290,885

Water Storage Required as per Alternate Approach 2006 Maximum Week Demand (ML/d) % Equalization Equalization (ML) Fire (ML) Emergency (ML) Total Storage (ML) as per Alternate Approach Existing Storage (ML) - Parkway (Pumping Storage) - St. George - Strange St. (Pumping Storage) - Greenbrook (Pumping Storage) Total Storage (ML) as per design Existing Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) - Parkway (Pumping Storage) - St. George - Strange St. (Pumping Storage) - Greenbrook (Pumping Storage) Total Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) Storage Surplus(+) / Deficit(-) as per Alternate Approach (ML) 13.30 1.99 3.90 0.00 19.2 -2.2 13.30 1.99 3.90 10.20 29.4 7.4 13.30 1.99 3.90 10.20 29.4 6.7 13.30 1.99 3.90 10.20 29.4 5.8 13.30 1.99 3.90 10.20 29.4 5.0 14.3 2.8 4.2 0.0 21.3 14.3 2.8 4.2 12.4 33.7 14.3 2.8 4.2 12.4 33.7 14.3 2.8 4.2 12.4 33.7 14.3 2.8 4.2 12.4 33.7 63.21 15% 9.48 7.59 4.27 21.3 2011 66.45 15% 9.97 7.59 4.39 21.9 2016 70.40 15% 10.56 7.59 4.54 22.7 2021 75.41 15% 11.31 7.59 4.73 23.6 2026 79.48 15% 11.92 7.59 4.88 24.4

Technical Memorandum # 3 Appendix B

14 of 26

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table B.15: Kitchener Zone 5 + Wilmot Zone 5 (Mannheim) Storage Capacity Evaluation (MOE) Population 2006 Residential Zone 5 Zone 5 (M) Wilmot Employment Zone 5 Zone 5 (M) Wilmot Total Equivalent Population Water Storage Required as per MOE 2006 Maximum Week Demand (ML/d) % Equalization Equalization (ML) Fire - Flow (L/s) - Duration (hr) - Total Fire (ML) Emergency (ML) Total Storage (ML) as per MOE Existing Storage (ML) 378.00 6.00 8.16 2.85 14.2 0 378.00 6.00 8.16 2.93 14.6 0 378.00 6.00 8.16 3.01 15.0 0 378.00 6.00 8.16 3.11 15.6 0 378.00 6.00 8.16 3.21 16.1 0 12.89 25% 3.22 2011 14.19 25% 3.55 2016 15.43 25% 3.86 2021 17.11 25% 4.28 2026 18.74 25% 4.69 6,229 31 46,079 7,062 37 51,186 7,762 41 56,080 8,646 44 62,555 9,498 45 68,895 39,413 406 43,630 457 47,781 496 53,341 524 58,810 542 2011 2016 2021 2026

Storage Surplus(+) / Deficit (-) as per MOE Guidelines (ML)

-14.2

-14.6

-15.0

-15.6

-16.1

Technical Memorandum # 3 Appendix B

15 of 26

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table B.16: Kitchener Zone 5 + Wilmot Zone 5 (Mannheim) Storage Capacity Evaluation (FUS) Population 2006 Residential Zone 5 Zone 5 (M) Wilmot Employment Zone 5 Zone 5 (M) Wilmot Total Equivalent Population 6,229 31 46,079 7,062 37 51,186 7,762 41 56,080 8,646 44 62,555 9,498 45 68,895 39,413 406 43,630 457 47,781 496 53,341 524 58,810 542 2011 2016 2021 2026

Water Storage Required as per Alternate Approach 2006 Maximum Week Demand (ML/d) % Equalization Equalization (ML) Fire (ML) Emergency (ML) Total Storage (ML) as per Alternate Approach Existing Storage (ML) 12.89 15% 1.93 3.15 1.27 2011 14.19 15% 2.13 3.15 1.32 2016 15.43 15% 2.31 3.15 1.37 2021 17.11 15% 2.57 3.15 1.43 2026 18.74 15% 2.81 3.15 1.49

6.4 0

6.6 0

6.8 0

7.1 0

7.5 0

Storage Surplus(+) / Deficit (-) as per Alternate Approach (ML)

-6.4

-6.6

-6.8

-7.1

-7.5

Technical Memorandum # 3 Appendix B

16 of 26

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table B.17: Kitchener Future Zone 6 Storage Capacity Evaluation (MOE) Population 2006 Residential Employment Total Equivalent Population 15,314 2,487 17,801 2011 17,107 2,925 20,032 2016 18,670 3,257 21,927 2021 19,351 3,433 22,784 2026 22,457 3,992 26,449

Water Storage Required as per MOE 2006 Maximum Week Demand (ML/d) 4.71 2011 5.23 2016 5.68 2021 5.85 2026 6.75

% Equalization Equalization (ML) Fire - Flow (L/s) - Duration (hr) - Total Fire (ML) Emergency (ML)

25% 1.18

25% 1.31

25% 1.42

25% 1.46

25% 1.69

257.86 4.00 3.71 1.22

272.75 4.00 3.93 1.31

284.73 4.00 4.10 1.38

289.97 4.00 4.18 1.41

311.28 4.00 4.48 1.54

Total Storage (ML) as per MOE Existing Storage (ML)

6.1 0

6.5 0

6.9 0

7.0 0

7.7 0

Storage Surplus(+) / Deficit (-) as per MOE Guidelines (ML)

-6.1

-6.5

-6.9

-7.0

-7.7

Technical Memorandum # 3 Appendix B

17 of 26

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table B.18: Kitchener Future Zone 6 Storage Capacity Evaluation (FUS) Population 2006 Residential Employment Total Equivalent Population 15,314 2,487 17,801 2011 17,107 2,925 20,032 2016 18,670 3,257 21,927 2021 19,351 3,433 22,784 2026 22,457 3,992 26,449

Water Storage Required as per Alternate Approach 2006 Maximum Week Demand (ML/d) % Equalization Equalization (ML) Fire (ML) Emergency (ML) Total Storage (ML) as per Alternate Approach Existing Storage (ML) 4.71 15% 0.71 2.60 0.83 2011 5.23 15% 0.78 2.60 0.85 2016 5.68 15% 0.85 2.60 0.86 2021 5.85 15% 0.88 2.60 0.87 2026 6.75 15% 1.01 2.60 0.90

4.1 0

4.2 0

4.3 0

4.3 0

4.5 0

Storage Surplus(+) / Deficit (-) as per Alternate Approach (ML)

-4.1

-4.2

-4.3

-4.3

-4.5

Technical Memorandum # 3 Appendix B

18 of 26

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table B.19: Waterloo Zone 4/4b/4c + Kitchener 4a + Market (Woolwich) Storage Capacity Evaluation (MOE) Population Residential Zone 4 Zone 4b Zone 4c Kit 4a Market Elmira St. Jacobs Employment Zone 4 Zone 4b Zone 4c Kit 4a Market Elmira St. Jacobs Total Equivalent Population Water Storage Required as per MOE Maximum Week Demand (ML/d) % Equalization Equalization (ML) Fire - Flow (L/s) - Duration (hr) - Total Fire (ML) Emergency (ML) Total Storage (ML) as per MOE Existing Store (ML) - Laurel - William St. Total Storage (ML) as per design Existing Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) - Laurel - William St. Total Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) Storage Surplus(+) / Deficit(-) as per MOE Guidelines (ML) 27.40 1.90 29.30 5.9 27.40 1.90 29.30 5.1 27.40 1.90 29.30 4.2 27.40 1.90 29.30 3.4 27.40 1.90 29.30 2.6 55,902 1,330 159 84 914 5,544 2,088 156,802 2006 42.24 25% 10.56 378.00 6.00 8.16 4.68 23.4 27.4 2.2 29.6 60,205 1,353 177 139 924 6,283 2,500 168,304 2011 44.92 25% 11.23 378.00 6.00 8.16 4.85 24.2 27.4 2.2 29.6 63,860 1,370 185 189 932 6,883 2,853 179,297 2016 47.54 25% 11.88 378.00 6.00 8.16 5.01 25.1 27.4 2.2 29.6 67,115 1,383 187 211 1,074 7,493 3,138 190,273 2021 50.23 25% 12.56 378.00 6.00 8.16 5.18 25.9 27.4 2.2 29.6 70,502 1,397 189 221 1,261 8,002 3,356 200,966 2026 52.84 25% 13.21 378.00 6.00 8.16 5.34 26.7 27.4 2.2 29.6 67,297 11,110 1,718 759 19 8,278 1,600 71,717 11,128 1,868 1,214 19 8,954 1,823 76,429 11,135 1,939 1,625 19 9,856 2,022 80,751 11,139 1,958 1,805 20 11,806 2,193 85,039 11,156 1,975 1,891 20 13,646 2,311 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026

Technical Memorandum # 3 Appendix B

19 of 26

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table B.20: Waterloo Zone 4/4b/4c + Kitchener 4a + Market (Woolwich) Storage Capacity Evaluation (FUS) Population Residential Zone 4 Zone 4b Zone 4c Kit 4a Market Elmira St. Jacobs Employment Zone 4 Zone 4b Zone 4c Kit 4a Market Elmira St. Jacobs Total Equivalent Population 55,902 1,330 159 84 914 5,544 2,088 156,802 60,205 1,353 177 139 924 6,283 2,500 168,304 63,860 1,370 185 189 932 6,883 2,853 179,297 67,115 1,383 187 211 1,074 7,493 3,138 190,273 70,502 1,397 189 221 1,261 8,002 3,356 200,966 67,297 11,110 1,718 759 19 8,278 1,600 71,717 11,128 1,868 1,214 19 8,954 1,823 76,429 11,135 1,939 1,625 19 9,856 2,022 80,751 11,139 1,958 1,805 20 11,806 2,193 85,039 11,156 1,975 1,891 20 13,646 2,311 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026

Water Storage Required as per Alternate Approach 2006 Maximum Week Demand (ML/d) % Equalization Equalization (ML) Fire (ML) Emergency (ML) Total Storage (ML) as per Alternate Approach Existing Storage (ML) - Laurel - William St. Total Storage (ML) as per design Existing Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) - Laurel - William St. Total Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) Storage Surplus(+) / Deficit(-) as per Alternate Approach (ML) Technical Memorandum # 3 Appendix B 27.40 1.90 29.30 11.9 27.40 1.90 29.30 11.4 27.40 1.90 29.30 10.9 27.40 1.90 29.30 10.4 20 of 26 27.40 1.90 29.30 9.9 42.24 15% 6.34 7.60 3.48 17.4 27.4 2.2 29.6 2011 44.92 15% 6.74 7.60 3.58 17.9 27.4 2.2 29.6 2016 47.54 15% 7.13 7.60 3.68 18.4 27.4 2.2 29.6 2021 50.23 15% 7.54 7.60 3.78 18.9 27.4 2.2 29.6 2026 52.84 15% 7.93 7.60 3.88 19.4 27.4 2.2 29.6

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table B.21: Waterloo Zone 5 Storage Capacity Evaluation (MOE) Population 2006 Residential Employment Total Equivalent Population Water Storage Required as per MOE 2006 Maximum Week Demand (ML/d) % Equalization Equalization (ML) Fire - Flow (L/s) - Duration (hr) - Total Fire (ML) Emergency (ML) Total Storage (ML) as per MOE Existing Storage (ML) as per design - Erb St. Existing Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) - Erb St. 17.6 17.6 17.6 17.6 17.6 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 297.05 4.00 4.28 1.48 7.4 306.65 4.00 4.42 1.54 7.7 314.68 5.00 5.66 1.88 9.4 320.43 5.00 5.77 1.94 9.6 331.37 5.00 5.96 2.03 10.0 6.62 25% 1.66 2011 7.02 25% 1..76 2016 7.36 25% 1.84 2021 7.60 25% 1.90 2026 8.11 25% 2.03 21,203 2,767 23,970 2011 22,658 2,970 25,628 2016 23,920 3,140 27,060 2021 24,854 3,257 28,111 2026 26,695 3,471 30,166

Storage Surplus(+) / Deficit (-) as per MOE Guidelines (ML)

10.2

9.9

8.2

8.0

7.6

Technical Memorandum # 3 Appendix B

21 of 26

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table B.22: Waterloo Zone 5 Storage Capacity Evaluation (FUS) Population 2006 Residential Employment Total Equivalent Population Water Storage Required as per MOE 2006 Maximum Week Demand (ML/d) % Equalization Equalization (ML) - Total Fire (ML) Emergency (ML) Total Storage (ML) as per MOE Existing Storage (ML) as per design - Erb St. Existing Useable Storage (ML) - Erb St. 17.6 17.6 17.6 17.6 17.6 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 6.62 15% 0.99 1.80 0.70 3.5 2011 7.02 15% 1.05 1.80 0.71 3.6 2016 7.36 15% 1.10 1.80 0.73 3.6 2021 7.60 15% 1.14 1.80 0.73 3.7 2026 8.11 15% 1.22 1.80 0.75 3.8 21,203 2,767 23,970 2011 22,658 2,970 25,628 2016 23,920 3,140 27,060 2021 24,854 3,257 28,111 2026 26,695 3,471 30,166

Storage Surplus(+) / Deficit (-) as per MOE Guidelines (ML)

14.1

14.0

14.0

13.9

13.8

Technical Memorandum # 3 Appendix B

22 of 26

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table B.23: Waterloo Zone 6 Storage Capacity Evaluation (MOE) Population 2006 Residential Employment Total Equivalent Population Water Storage Required as per MOE 2006 Maximum Week Demand (ML/d) % Equalization Equalization (ML) Fire - Flow (L/s) - Duration (hr) - Total Fire (ML) Emergency (ML) Total Storage (ML) as per MOE Existing Storage (ML) as per design 260.76 4.00 3.75 1.23 6.2 0 277.14 4.00 3.99 1.32 6.6 0 285.94 4.00 4.12 1.37 6.9 0 290.45 4.00 4.18 1.40 7.0 0 295.65 4.00 4.26 1.43 7.1 0 4.72 25% 1.18 2011 5.22 25% 1.31 2016 5.49 25% 1.37 2021 5.61 25% 1.40 2026 5.78 25% 1.44 15,185 3,039 18,224 2011 16,804 3,912 20,716 2016 17,700 4,423 22,123 2021 18,146 4,717 22,863 2026 18,790 4,942 23,732

Storage Surplus(+) / Deficit (-) as per MOE Guidelines (ML)

-6.2

-6.6

-6.9

-7.0

-7.1

Technical Memorandum # 3 Appendix B

23 of 26

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table B.24: Waterloo Zone 6 Storage Capacity Evaluation (FUS) Population 2006 Residential Employment Total Equivalent Population 15,185 3,039 18,224 2011 16,804 3,912 20,716 2016 17,700 4,423 22,123 2021 18,146 4,717 22,863 2026 18,790 4,942 23,732

Water Storage Required as per Alternate Approach 2006 Maximum Week Demand (ML/d) % Equalization Equalization (ML) Fire (ML) Emergency (ML) Total Storage (ML) as per Alternate Approach Existing Storage (ML) as per design 4.72 15% 0.71 2.60 0.83 2011 5.22 15% 0.78 2.60 0.85 2016 5.49 15% 0.82 2.60 0.86 2021 5.61 15% 0.84 2.60 0.86 2026 5.78 15% 0.87 2.60 0.87

4.1 0

4.2 0

4.3 0

4.3 0

4.3 0

Storage Surplus(+) / Deficit (-) as per Alternate Approach (ML)

-4.1

-4.2

-4.3

-4.3

-4.3

Technical Memorandum # 3 Appendix B

24 of 26

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table B.25: Waterloo Zone 7 (Future) Storage Capacity Evaluation (MOE) Population 2006 Residential Employment Total Equivalent Population Water Storage Required as per MOE 2006 Maximum Week Demand (ML/d) % Equalization Equalization (ML) Fire - Flow (L/s) - Duration (hr) - Total Fire (ML) Emergency (ML) Total Storage (ML) as per MOE Existing Storage (ML) as per design 38.00 2.00 0.27 0.07 0.4 0 77.41 2.00 0.56 0.16 0.8 0 102.72 2.00 0.74 0.22 1.1 0 123.70 2.00 0.89 0.28 1.4 0 144.07 2.00 1.04 0.34 1.7 0 0.06 25% 0.01 2011 0.34 25% 0.08 2016 0.63 25% 0.16 2021 0.94 25% 0.23 2026 1.30 25% 0.33 148 195 343 2011 1,047 370 1,417 2016 2,015 554 2,569 2021 3,052 746 3,798 2026 4,273 960 5,233

Storage Surplus(+) / Deficit (-) as per MOE Guidelines (ML)

-0.4

-0.8

-1.1

-1.4

-1.7

Technical Memorandum # 3 Appendix B

25 of 26

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table B.26: Waterloo Zone 7 (Future) Storage Capacity Evaluation (FUS) Population 2006 Residential Employment Total Equivalent Population 148 195 343 2011 1,047 370 1,417 2016 2,015 554 2,569 2021 3,052 746 3,798 2026 4,273 960 5,233

Water Storage Required as per Alternate Approach 2006 Maximum Week Demand (ML/d) % Equalization Equalization (ML) Fire (ML) Emergency (ML) Total Storage (ML) as per Alternate Approach Existing Storage (ML) as per design 0.06 15% 0.01 1.20 0.30 2011 0.34 15% 0.05 1.20 0.31 2016 0.63 15% 0.09 1.20 0.32 2021 0.94 15% 0.14 1.20 0.34 2026 1.30 15% 0.20 1.20 0.35

1.5 0

1.6 0

1.6 0

1.7 0

1.7 0

Storage Surplus(+) / Deficit (-) as per Alternate Approach (ML)

-1.5

-1.6

-1.6

-1.7

-1.7

Technical Memorandum # 3 Appendix B

26 of 26

Appendix C Storage Evaluations for Supply Based Water Systems

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Appendix C: Storage Evaluations for Supply-Based Water System Table C.1: Storage Evaluation for Turnbull Supply System Population 2006 Residential Employment Total Equivalent Population 125,161 59,031 184,192 2006 Maximum Week Demand (ML/d) % Equalization Equalization (ML) Fire 1 Major Fire (ML) - 2nd Residential Fire (ML) Total Fire (ML) Emergency (ML) Total Storage (ML) as per Alternate Approach Existing Store(ML) - Turnbull - St. Andrew - Rahman - Middleton (Pumping Storage) - South Cambridge (Pumping Storage) - Pinebush - Inverness Total Storage (ML as per Design) Existing Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) - Tunbull - St. Andrew - Rahman - Middleton (Pumping Station) - Pinebush - Inverness Total Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) 17.01 2.79 4.00 3.22 14.8 1.6 48.0 17.01 2.79 4.00 3.22 14.8 1.6 48.0 17.01 2.79 4.00 3.22 14.8 1.6 48.0 17.01 2.79 4.00 3.22 14.8 1.6 48.0 17.01 2.79 4.00 3.22 14.8 1.6 48.0 22.8 4.4 6.8 5 4.5 19.5 2.3 65.3 22.8 4.4 6.8 5 4.5 19.5 2.3 65.3 22.8 4.4 6.8 5 4.5 19.5 2.3 65.3 22.8 4.4 6.8 5 4.5 19.5 2.3 65.3 22.8 4.4 6.8 5 4.5 19.5 2.3 65.3
st

2011 134,339 63,924 198,263 2011 63.89 15% 9.58 6.60 1.20 7.80 4.35 21.7

2016 143,201 67,622 210,823 2016 67.24 15% 10.09 6.60 1.20 7.80 4.47 22.4

2021 151,222 70,750 221,972 2021 70.17 15% 10.53 6.60 1.20 7.80 4.58 22.9

2026 161,641 73,868 235,509 2026 73.74 15% 11.06 6.60 1.20 7.80 4.72 23.6

Water Storage Recommended as Per Alternate Approach 60.09 15% 9.01 6.60 1.20 7.80 4.20 21.0

Storage Surplus(+) / Deficit(-) as per MOE Guidelines (ML)

27.0

26.3

25.6

25.1

24.4

Technical Memorandum # 3 - Appendix C

1 of 2

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN Table C.2: Cambridge Zone 1 South Storage Capacity Evaluation Population 2006 Residential Employment Total Equivalent Population 342,056 182,845 524,901 2006 Maximum Week Demand (ML/d) % Equalization Equalization (ML) Fire 1st Major Fire (ML) - 2 Residential Fire (ML) Total Fire (ML) Emergency (ML) Total Storage (ML) as per Alternate Approach Existing Store(ML) - Freeport - Parkway (Pumping Storage) - St. George - Strange St. (Pumping Storage) - Greenbrook (Pumping Storage) - Laurel - William St. - Erb St. Total Storage (ML as per Design) Existing Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) - Freeport - Parkway (Pumping Storage) - St. George - Strange St. (Pumping Storage) - Greenbrook (Pumping Storage) - Laurel - William St. - Erb St. Total Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) 7.0 13.3 2.0 3.9 0.0 20.7 1.9 17.6 66.42 7.0 13.3 2.0 3.9 10.2 20.7 1.9 17.6 76.62 7.0 13.3 2.0 3.9 10.2 20.7 1.9 17.6 76.62 7.0 13.3 2.0 3.9 10.2 20.7 1.9 17.6 76.62 7.0 13.3 2.0 3.9 10.2 20.7 1.9 17.6 76.62 7.3 14.3 2.8 4.2 0.0 27.4 2.2 18.4 76.7 7.3 14.3 2.8 4.2 12.4 27.4 2.2 18.4 89.1 7.3 14.3 2.8 4.2 12.4 27.4 2.2 18.4 89.1 7.3 14.3 2.8 4.2 12.4 27.4 2.2 18.4 89.1 7.3 14.3 2.8 4.2 12.4 27.4 2.2 18.4 89.1
nd

2011 368,584 200,227 568,811 2011 156.22 15% 23.43 7.59 1.20 8.79 8.06 40.3

2016 397,470 214,269 611,739 2016 166.91 15% 25.04 7.59 1.20 8.79 8.46 42.3

2021 428,899 227,410 656,309 2021 178.18 15% 26.73 7.59 1.20 8.79 8.88 44.4

2026 459,533 240,621 700,154 2026 189.11 15% 28.37 7.59 1.20 8.79 9.29 46.4

Water Storage Recommended as Per Alternate Approach 145.47 15% 21.82 7.59 1.20 8.79 7.65 38.3

Storage Surplus(+) / Deficit(-) as per MOE Guidelines (ML) Technical Memorandum # 3 - Appendix C

28.2

36.3

34.3

32.2 2 of 2

30.2

Appendix D Technical Memorandum #4 Review and Assessment of Existing Infrastructure

Tri-City Water Distribution Master Plan


Technical Memorandum #4 Review and Assessment of Existing Infrastructure

The Regional Municipality of Waterloo Transportation & Environmental Services Department 7th Floor Water Services Division 150 Frederick Street Kitchener, Ontario N2G 4J3 Project 81539

AECOM 101 Frederick Street, Suite 702 Kitchener, Ontario N2H 6R2

May 2009

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table of Contents
1. Inspection of Water Reservoirs and Pumping Stations .............................. 1
1.1 William Street Facility ..................................................................................................... 3
1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3 1.1.4 1.1.5 1.1.6 Background.......................................................................................................................3 1999 Water Supply System Facility Replacement Project ...............................................3 Site Inspection ..................................................................................................................3 Comments from Maintenance Staff ..................................................................................4 Hydraulic Analysis.............................................................................................................4 Recommendations ............................................................................................................4 Background.......................................................................................................................5 1999 Water Supply System Facility Replacement Project ...............................................5 Site Inspection ..................................................................................................................5 Comments from Maintenance Staff ..................................................................................5 Hydraulic Analysis.............................................................................................................5 Recommendations ............................................................................................................6 Background.......................................................................................................................7 1999 Water Supply System Facility Replacement Project ...............................................7 Site Inspection ..................................................................................................................7 Comments from Maintenance Staff ..................................................................................7 Hydraulic Analysis.............................................................................................................7 Recommendations ............................................................................................................8 Background.......................................................................................................................8 1999 Water Supply System Facility Replacement Project ...............................................8 Site Inspection ..................................................................................................................9 Hydraulic Analysis.............................................................................................................9 Recommendations ............................................................................................................9 Background.....................................................................................................................10 1999 Water Supply System Facility Replacement Project .............................................10 Site Inspection ................................................................................................................10 Comments from Maintenance Staff ................................................................................10 Hydraulic Analysis...........................................................................................................10 Recommendations ..........................................................................................................11

1.2

St. George Tower ........................................................................................................... 5


1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.2.4 1.2.5 1.2.6

1.3

Shantz Hill Elevated Reservoir ....................................................................................... 7


1.3.1 1.3.2 1.3.3 1.3.4 1.3.5 1.3.6

1.4

Kress Hill Pumping Station ............................................................................................. 8


1.4.1 1.4.2 1.4.3 1.4.4 1.4.5

1.5

Edward Street Standpipe.............................................................................................. 10


1.5.1 1.5.2 1.5.3 1.5.4 1.5.5 1.5.6

2.

Evaluation of Existing Buried Infrastructure.............................................. 12


2.1 2.2 2.3 Reliability of the Water Distribution System.................................................................. 12 Condition of the Water Distribution Infrastructure in North America............................. 14 Materials ....................................................................................................................... 14
2.3.1 Cast Iron .........................................................................................................................14

Technical Memorandum # 4

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4

Ductile Iron......................................................................................................................15 Asbestos Cement............................................................................................................15 PVC.................................................................................................................................15

2.4 2.5

Breaks .......................................................................................................................... 15 Current Buried Infrastructure ........................................................................................ 16

3. 4. 5. 6.

Break History of Watermains ....................................................................... 19 Replacement Criteria .................................................................................... 19 Recommendations: ....................................................................................... 20 Bibliography .................................................................................................. 21

List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Regional Pressure Zones...............................................................................................................2 Figure 2.1 - Material Distribution ......................................................................................................................17 Figure 2.2 - Age Distribution .............................................................................................................................17

List of Tables
Table 2.1 Watermain Distribution by Age ......................................................................................................13 Table 2.2 Average Breaks per Material .........................................................................................................16 Table 2.3 -History of Watermain Installation.....................................................................................................18 Table 2.4 - Watermain Age Breakdown by Pressure Zone. .............................................................................18

Technical Memorandum # 4

ii

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Appendices
Appendix A William Street Facility 1999 Facility Report Summary 2005 Site Inspection 2005 Hydraulic Assessment St George Reservoir 1999 Facility Report Summary 2005 Site Inspection Shantz Hill Elevated Reservoir 1999 Facility Report Summary 2005 Site Inspection Kress Hill Pumping Station 1999 Facility Report Summary 2005 Site Inspection Edward Street Reservoir 1999 Facility Report Summary 2005 Site Inspection Watermain Distribution by Zone and City City of Cambridge Watermain Break Repairs and Reporting

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F Appendix G

Technical Memorandum # 4

iii

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Introduction
In the fall of 2004, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo engaged the services of AECOM (formerly Earth Tech Canada Inc) to provide engineering services related to the preparation of the Tri-City Water Distribution Master Plan. The scope of this assignment was to update the 1992 Tri-City Water Distribution Study and to provide and implementation strategy for the water distribution system improvements for the next 20 years. This Technical Memo summarizes the work we have completed, namely:

Section 1: Details the visual inspection of the William Street Reservoir, St. George Reservoir, Shantz Tank, Kress Hill PS and Pressure Reducing Valve and the Edward Street Reservoir; Section 2 : Evaluate buried existing infrastructure and future replacement needs

Refer to Figure 1.1 Regional Pressure Zones

1.

Inspection of Water Reservoirs and Pumping Stations

The project work plan for the Tri-City Water Distribution Master Plan stated that 4 existing facilities (pumping stations, storage facilities, etc) were to be assessed to determine if the facilities would be an integral part of the water distribution system for some or all of the next 20 years. These facilities include the William Street Reservoir, St. George Reservoir, Kress Hill Pumping Station and Shantz Hill Reservoir. In addition to the original facilities, the Region requested that the Edward Street Water Standpipe in Cambridge be reviewed as part of this Technical Memo. The review of the facilities is comprised of background information, information generated through visual inspections of each facilitys overall condition and functional adequacy, interviews with Regional staff for documentation and a hydraulic assessment of the facilities. In 1999, the Region of Waterloo hired AECOM to complete the Water Supply System Facility Replacement Project. This scope of the project was to undertake a comprehensive audit of all the water supply facilities within the Region of Waterloo that are currently used for production purposes. William St. Reservoir, St. George Tank, Shantz Tank, Edward Street and the Kress Hill PS are facilities that were reviewed by AECOM in the 1999 study. The utilization of the previous observations and recommendations and comparison with the current conditions will allow for a life cycle cost of the facilities to be projected. This technical memo will provide recommendations on whether these facilities will remain as part of the short term or long term water distribution system, whether they should be updated or upgraded or whether they should be decommissioned.

Technical Memorandum # 4

Page 1 of 21

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 1.1 Regional Pressure Zones

Technical Memorandum # 4

Page 2 of 21

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

1.1
1.1.1

William Street Facility


Background

The William Street facility is one of the oldest facilities within the Regional watermain system. The existing main building has been designated as a historic site and three of the four existing reservoirs are near or over 100 years old. The existing facility is comprised of three wells (W1B, W2 and W3), four water storage tanks and a pumping station. Of the three wells, only two are currently in production with Well W3 permanently shut down because of high sulphur content. The four underground storage facilities have a cumulative storage capacity of approximately 4.04 ML and top operating elevation of 321.95m. The existing facility draws water from the on-site wells and distributes the water to Waterloo Pressure Zone 4 (see Figure 1.1 Regional Pressure Zones). The quality of the water supplied from the wells at this site has a high chloride level (over 250mg/l) and is very hard. Although there are water storage reservoirs on site, the existing facility currently functions more as a chlorine-contact chamber for the distribution system.

1.1.2

1999 Water Supply System Facility Replacement Project

The 1999 report outlined a number of upgrades for the wells, pump station and the storage reservoirs that should have been completed between 1999 and 2005. The recommended upgrades for the wells and pump station included new piping and process equipment and a new roof for the pump station. The scheduled cost for these upgrades was approximately $200,000. The upgrades for the reservoirs included equipment and a new roof for Reservoirs 2 and 3. The scheduled cost for the upgrades was approximately $600,000. To date only a small portion of this work has been completed. For a summary review of the 1999 Facility report, see Appendix A William Street Facility

1.1.3

Site Inspection

The visual inspection of the site noted some minor deficiencies within the well houses and the main pump station. These deficiencies included chemical etching of concrete and steel, minor electrical deficiencies, etc. The process equipment on site was noted as being outdated and in need of upgrades. Upon visual inspection of the reservoirs, a number of potentially major concerns with the structural integrity and the functioning of the reservoirs were identified. The Region authorized a structural evaluation of the reservoirs. The structural review of Reservoir 4 indicated that it was in good condition with very minor improvements to the entrance/ exit ladder.

Technical Memorandum # 4

Page 3 of 21

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

The review of Reservoirs 1, 2 and 3 indicated some serious problems. The review noted leaking infiltration of water through the side walls of the reservoirs, holes through the floor of the reservoirs and pressure relief holes within the floor that allowed cross migration of treated water and ground water. Overall, the review recommended that Reservoir 4 should remain in service but Reservoirs 1, 2 and 3 should be taken out of service and decommissioned. For a full review of the site inspection, see Appendix A William Street Facility. For a structural report on the reservoirs, see William Street Reservoirs Structural Review by AECOM Canada Inc dated August 2005.

1.1.4

Comments from Maintenance Staff

The overall operation of this facility is not difficult to maintain. Currently, there is a project underway to place a meter chamber on the outside of the pump station. With the excavation underway, it was noted that there were a number of old watermains and fixtures in varying condition that had been uncovered. Maintenance staff noted that this facility did not provide a great deal of water storage capacity but the reservoirs do provide chlorine contact time.

1.1.5

Hydraulic Analysis

Subsequent to the structural issues with the reservoirs at the William Street site, H2OMAP Water hydraulic modeling software was used to evaluate two new modeling alternatives as follows:

William Street Reservoir site with 4 reservoirs with a total capacity of about 1 MG. William Street Reservoir site with 1 reservoir with a total capacity of about 0.5 MG.

The model was used to predict with some level of certainty, how the system will react to the operational changes of de-activating three existing reservoirs at the William Street Reservoir site. For each scenario the system hydraulics were determined and analyzed. The hydraulic modeling results demonstrate that the removal of 3 existing reservoirs does not have any impact on the existing hydraulic performances. For a full review of the hydraulic modeling, see Appendix A William Street Facility.

1.1.6

Recommendations

As per the recommendation of the Structural Report, Reservoirs 1, 2 and 3 should be decommissioned. Reservoir 4 should remain in service. Reservoir 4 should be reviewed to ensure appropriate chlorine contact time is achieved. If not, baffling or other means should be set up within the tank to maintain appropriate chlorine contact time.

Technical Memorandum # 4

Page 4 of 21

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

For the short term, this facility should remain as a functioning part of the overall distribution system because of the wells (water supply) within the site. When new sources are available or after the lake based supply is completed, this site could be decommissioned and used for other purposes.

1.2
1.2.1

St. George Tower


Background

The St. George facility is a steel water tank located on St. George Street in Kitchener. It can store approximately 3.8 ML of water and has a top operating elevation of 381.0m. The water tower is currently still in use and provides some water storage for Pressure Zone 4 in Kitchener (see Figure 1.1 Regional Pressure Zones).

1.2.2

1999 Water Supply System Facility Replacement Project

The 1999 Facility Replacement Project reviewed this facility and identified an extensive list of repairs and upgrades required that would be required for this facility to last another 25 years. Approximately $1.6 million in upgrades would have to be completed between 1999 and 2006. These upgrades have not been completed to date.

1.2.3

Site Inspection

The site inspection of this facility notes a great deal of rusting on the tank and roof structure. This structure is an old facility (1927) that will require a great deal of upgrades to make the tower function effectively. For a full review of the site inspection, see Appendix B St. George Street Tank Inspection dated April 30, 2005.

1.2.4

Comments from Maintenance Staff

The overall operation of this facility is not difficult to maintain. The tank provides additional storage for the system. However, there are some concerns with the functioning of the tank. Although the tank provides elevated storage, the tank drains very quickly under fire/emergency conditions and then becomes more of a hindrance than a benefit. After emptying in a fire, the increase water flow goes to the tank which can overflow because there is no altitude valve. 1.2.5 Hydraulic Analysis

H2OMAP hydraulic modeling software was used to assess several modeling alternatives. The approach consisted of re-running the hydraulic network model several times by starting off with the facilities (listed below) in service and then progressively eliminating them.

Technical Memorandum # 4

Page 5 of 21

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

St. George Tower Kitchener; Shantz Hill Tower Cambridge; Edward Street Stand Pipe Cambridge; and Kress Hill Pump Station Cambridge.

Using the MAX_DAY_2003 scenario, a hydraulic model simulation was first completed to determine the nodal pressures and tank levels. The hydraulic modeling predictions from the Benchmark Model were then used to assess the impact of de-activating these facilities. St. George Tower Kitchener The hydraulic modeling results are as follows: Average Pressure (m) Zone St George Reservoir (on) Kit 4 47 Entire Network 42 Average Reservoir Level (%) Zone St George Reservoir (on) Kit 4 86 Entire Network 96

Average Pressure (m) St George Reservoir (off) 56 46 Average Reservoir Level (%) St George Reservoir (off) 87 95

The average nodal pressure increases from 42m to 46m when St. George Tower is de-activated; and The average reservoir level percentage decreases from 96% to 95% when the St. George Tower is de-activated.

The hydraulic results were compared for all the junctions and all the tanks for the 24 hour simulation duration using the H2OMAP Statistical Range Reports. In conclusion, the hydraulic results are very similar with no major differences demonstrating that the removal of the St. George site has almost no hydraulic impact.

1.2.6

Recommendations

The St. George Tank is too low in elevation and too small in size to be effective in the present or future water distribution system. The cost of repairs and upgrades that would be required for this site to be effective for the next 25 years is between $1.5 2.0 million as a minimum. The benefit of this site does not warrant that amount of investment.

It is recommended that this site be decommissioned. Given the physical condition of the tank and the cost to renovate the tank, it is recommend that the tank be demolished and the site used for other purposes.

Technical Memorandum # 4

Page 6 of 21

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

1.3
1.3.1

Shantz Hill Elevated Reservoir


Background

The Shantz Hill Reservoir is a hydropillar constructed in 1974. It holds approximately 2.3 ML of water and has a top operating elevation of 329.1m. It is located within Cambridge Pressure Zone 1. The Shantz Hill Reservoir has been out of service since 2004 and currently does not provide any storage capacity within the distribution system.

1.3.2

1999 Water Supply System Facility Replacement Project

The 1999 Facility Replacement Project reviewed this facility and identified a number of piping, electrical and process upgrades to the facility. The total cost of these upgrades would be approximately $120,000. For a summary of the 1999 Facility Report see Appendix C - Shantz Hill Reservoir

1.3.3

Site Inspection

The site inspection noted only minor deficiencies at the site. This reservoir requires cleaning and painting along with local insulation on the inside of the exterior pipe and the outside of the interior pipe to prevent freezing.

1.3.4

Comments from Maintenance Staff

The Shantz Reservoir is operated in Cambridge Pressure Zone 1 (see Figure 1.1 Regional Pressure Zones). Because of its size and operating elevations (329.1m and 320.47m), the tank had a number of problems. It is too low in elevation as compared to other reservoirs servicing Zone 1 such as St. Andrews and Middleton with elevations of 365.7 and 337.4 respectively. Therefore it did not have a continuing turn over of water within the tank.

1.3.5

Hydraulic Analysis

H2OMAP hydraulic modeling software was used to assess several modeling alternatives. The approach consisted of re-running the hydraulic network model several times by starting off with the facilities (listed below) in service and then progressively eliminating them.

St George Tower Kitchener; Shantz Hill Tower Cambridge; Edward Street Stand Pipe Cambridge; and Kress Hill Pump Station Cambridge.

Using the MAX_DAY_2003 scenario, a hydraulic model simulation was first completed to determine the nodal pressures and tank levels. The hydraulic modeling predictions from the Benchmark Model were then used to assess the impact of de-activating these facilities.

Technical Memorandum # 4

Page 7 of 21

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Shantz Hill Tower Cambridge The hydraulic modeling results are as follows:

The nodal pressures do not change when Shantz Hill Tower is de-activated; and The reservoir levels do not change when Shantz Hill Tower is de-activated. The average available Fire Flow in the Preston area decreases from 389 L/s to 329 L/s when the Shantz Hill Reservoir is deactivated.

The hydraulic results were compared for all the junctions and all the tanks for the 24 hour simulation duration using the H2OMAP Statistical Range Reports. In conclusion, the hydraulic results are very similar with no major differences demonstrating that the removal of the Shantz Hill site has almost no hydraulic impact.

1.3.6

Recommendations

Under existing conditions, the Shantz Hill Reservoir is not in operation and would provide little benefit to the water distribution system. However if the pressure zone boundaries shift, this reservoir could be part of the re-commissioned system.

It is recommended that further hydraulic review of this reservoir be undertaken to establish whether it can be part of a future water distribution system. A hydraulic review should be completed to determine if the Shantz Hill Reservoir could be switched to operate in another pressure zone or possibly a separate pressure zone. This review was completed in Technical Memorandum # 3 Pressure Zone Analysis and Rationalization.

1.4
1.4.1

Kress Hill Pumping Station


Background

Kress Hill Pumping Station was constructed in 1986 and was built primarily to service the Toyota area in Cambridge Zone 2 (see Figure 1.1 Regional Pressure Zones). The pump station has a max fire flow of 49.64 l/s with a fire flow of 147 l/s. The upstream and downstream elevations are 363.8 and 330.0 m respectively. The pump station has not been in use for about 5 years.

1.4.2

1999 Water Supply System Facility Replacement Project

The 1999 study of this site recommended that approximately $276,000 worth of electrical, mechanical and process equipment be upgraded between 2000 and 2004. To date, none of this work has been completed. For a summary of the site inspection, see Appendix D - Kress Hill Pumping Station.

Technical Memorandum # 4

Page 8 of 21

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

1.4.3

Site Inspection

The site inspection identified a well maintained site. There were very few visible improvements that would have to be completed to get this system back in operation. For a full review of the site inspection, see Appendix D - Kress Hill Pumping Station.

1.4.4

Hydraulic Analysis

H2OMAP hydraulic modeling software was used to assess several modeling alternatives. The approach consisted of re-running the hydraulic network model several times by starting off with the facilities (listed below) in service and then progressively eliminating them. Using the MAX_DAY_2003 scenario, a hydraulic model simulation was first completed to determine the nodal pressures and tank levels. The hydraulic modeling predictions from the Benchmark Model were then used to assess the impact of de-activating these facilities. The hydraulic modeling results are as follows: Average Pressure (m) Zone Kress Hill Reservoir (on) Cam 1 28 Cam 2W 56 Entire Network 41

Average Pressure (m) Kress Hill (off) 31 51 42

Nodal pressure increases for Cambridge zone 1 from 28m to 31m when the Kress Hill Pump Station is de-activated. Nodal pressure decreases for Cambridge zone 2W from 56m to 51m when the Kress Hill Pump Station is de-activated. The average nodal pressure increases from 42m to 41m (for the entire network) when Kress Hill Pump Station is de-activated.

The hydraulic results were compared for all the junctions and all the tanks for the 24 hour simulation duration using the H2OMAP Statistical Range Reports. In conclusion, the hydraulic results are very similar with no major differences demonstrating that the removal of the 4 sites (St. George, Shantz Hill, Kress Hill and Edward Street) has almost no hydraulic impact.

1.4.5

Recommendations

The current design of the water distribution system has rendered the Kress Hill facility redundant. Unless the pressure zone boundary analysis re-defines the distribution requirement, this plant will remain redundant and can be decommissioned. There is a potential for the Kress Hill facility to be utilized as a backup, however, it requires repairs along with a well planned maintenance schedule. Also, due to the capacity of the Freeport tower, which services the same area, it would again be redundant.

Technical Memorandum # 4

Page 9 of 21

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

1.5
1.5.1

Edward Street Standpipe


Background

The Edward Street standpipe is a concrete standpipe located in Cambridge Pressure Zone 2. The standpipe holds approximately 3.3 ML of water. The top operating elevation is 347.1m. This standpipe has been out of service in for approximately 10 years. This standpipe was taken out of service in 1995 after the Pinebush Reservoir was constructed.

1.5.2

1999 Water Supply System Facility Replacement Project

The 1999 report identified only minor deficiencies worth approximately $20,000 to upgrade this facility to operational status. For a summary review of the 1999 Report, see Appendix E - Edward Street Stand Pipe

1.5.3

Site Inspection

Only an exterior site inspection of the Edward Street facility was completed. Access to the inside was not available. The standpipe looked in good condition with very minor surface rust showing in a few locations. For a full review of the site inspection, see Appendix E - Edward Street Stand Pipe

1.5.4

Comments from Maintenance Staff

The need for this facility was minimized with the construction of the Pinebush Tower. This structure is smaller and lower in elevation than the Pinebush Reservoir. The Edward Street Reservoir has a top operating elevation of 347.1m and storage of 3.3ML while the Pinebush Reservoir has a top operating elevation of 359.5m and a storage capacity of 19.4ML. In addition, the Freeport Reservoir can be utilized in emergencies with the introduction of the new Beaverdale watermain to Hespeler.

1.5.5

Hydraulic Analysis

H2OMAP hydraulic modeling software was used to assess several modeling alternatives. The approach consisted of re-running the hydraulic network model several times by starting off with the facilities (listed below) in service and then progressively eliminating them.

St George Tower Kitchener; Shantz Hill Tower Cambridge;

Technical Memorandum # 4

Page 10 of 21

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Edward Street Stand Pipe Cambridge; and Kress Hill Pump Station Cambridge.

Using the MAX_DAY_2003 scenario, a hydraulic model simulation was first completed to determine the nodal pressures and tank levels. The hydraulic modeling predictions from the Benchmark Model were then used to assess the impact of de-activating these facilities. Edward Street Stand Pipe Cambridge The Edward Street Stand pipe has been out of service for approximately 10 years and is not included in the current H2OMAP hydraulic modeling software. For purposes of this evaluation the following parameters were input to simulate the Edward Street Stand Pipe. They are as follows: The tank is 87 4 tall and 42 0 in diameter Low water level is 1059.4 feet High water level is 1144.0 feet Total volume is 3,426 m3 The hydraulic modeling results are as follows: When the Edward Street Stand Pipe is activated, a noticeable, localized drop in pressure would result in Hespeler. The nodal pressures do not change when Edward Street Stand Pipe is de-activated since the main supply is from Preston; and The reservoir levels do not change when Edward Street Stand Pipe is de-activated. The hydraulic results were compared for all the junctions and all the tanks for the 24 hour simulation duration using the H2OMAP Statistical Range Reports.

In conclusion, the hydraulic results are very similar with no major differences demonstrating that the removal of the 4 (St. George, Shantz Hill, Kress Hill and Edward Street) sites has almost no hydraulic impact.

1.5.6

Recommendations

Since the Edward Street Stand Pipe is lower in elevation and substantially smaller than the Pinebush Reservoir, its effectiveness within the operating system is greatly reduced. The water distribution system has worked effectively for the past 10 years without this reservoir being on-line. It is recommended that the Edward Street Stand Pipe be decommissioned and the site used for other purposes.

Technical Memorandum # 4

Page 11 of 21

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

2.

Evaluation of Existing Buried Infrastructure

The buried infrastructure within the Tri-City area was assessed to provide a comprehensive review of the water distribution systems reliability. This analysis included the use of the water distribution system data provided by the Region as well as information provided by the Cities of Waterloo, Kitchener and Cambridge. This data is organized into pressure zones by diameter, age, and material (Appendix B). The general distribution of pipe by age and material is important to note, as it is these factors among others that affect the performance and life span of a pipe. Table 2.1 shows the distribution of watermain by age among Cambridge, Kitchener, and Waterloo.

2.1

Reliability of the Water Distribution System

One of the fundamentals in operating a water distribution system is to ensure that the system is reliable enough to meet the requirements of that system. A reliable water distribution system must be able to deliver potable water to the users during peak demand times as well as during average demand periods. There are a number of factors that can affect the reliability of the system:

Age of the system Older pipes will reach or exceed their design life span. Water disruptions Breaks in the watermain can cause either a temporary or continual disruption to the delivery of water. Catastrophic breaks will cause an immediate drop of pressure (head/losses) in the water supply system. Minor breaks or leaks in watermain can go unnoticed underground for years thereby causing a continual drain on the water supply system. Pipe condition The condition of the pipe can reduce the water delivery system. Corrosion/scaling inside of the pipe can effectively reduce the pipe diameter and the water delivered throughout the system. Roughness within the pipe can cause higher head losses and necessitate higher energy costs to pump water through the system. Pipe size - As with any system, the smallest watermain within a trunk watermain system can effectively dictate the supply of water throughout the system.

Technical Memorandum # 4

Page 12 of 21

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Watemain System by Age (Pipes of any Diameter) Zone Cam 1 Cam 1A Cam 2E Cam 2W Cam 3 Cambridge Total 32 Yrs or Older ### ### 49 ### 0 48109 21550 49 8605 0 78314 50 Yrs. or Older ### ### 0 ### 0 15480 5866 0 2222 0 23567 75 Yrs or Older 10886 1781 0 0 0 12667 Zone Cam 1 Cam 1A Cam 2E Cam 2W Cam 3 Cambridge Total

Regional Watermain System by Age (Pipes > 400mm) 32 Yrs or Older ### ### 0 0 0 14086 8494 0 0 0 22580 50 Yrs. or Older 53 0 0 0 0 2238 0 0 0 0 2238 75 Yrs or Older 2185 0 0 0 0 2185

Zone Kit 2E Kit 2W Kit 4 Kit 4A Kit 5 Kit 6 Kitchener Total

32 Yrs or Older 0 ### ### 0 ### 0 0 6616 103157 0 10498 0 120271

50 Yrs. or Older 0 0 ### 0 ### 0 0 0 21450 0 3043 0 24493

75 Yrs or Older 0 0 8726 0 0 0 8726

Zone Kit 2E Kit 2W Kit 4 Kit 4A Kit 5 Kit 6 Kitchener Total

32 Yrs or Older 0 ### ### 0 ### 0 0 2886 39709 0 4534 0 47129

50 Yrs. or Older 0 0 ### 0 ### 0 0 0 4996 0 3043 0 8039

75 Yrs or Older 0 0 0 0 702 0 0 0 702

Zone Wat 4 Wat 4B Wat 4C Wat 5 Wat 6 Wat 7 Waterloo Total

32 Yrs or Older ### ### 0 ### ### 0 40259 3051 0 13410 1167 0 57887

50 Yrs. or Older ### 0 0 ### 0 0 9251 0 0 2025 0 0 11276

75 Yrs or Older 1282 0 0 0 0 0 1282

Zone Wat 4 Wat 4B Wat 4C Wat 5 Wat 6 Wat 7 Waterloo Total

32 Yrs or Older ### 0 0 ### ### 0 10344 0 0 2143 1167 0 13654

50 Yrs. or Older ### 0 0 0 0 0 3879 0 0 0 0 0 3879

75 Yrs or Older 1282 0 0 0 0 0 1282

Table 2.1 Watermain Distribution by Age

Technical Memorandum # 4

Page 13 of 21

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

2.2

Condition of the Water Distribution Infrastructure in North America

Canadas water infrastructure is aging and requires substantial investment and attention over the next 25 years. The needs for investments are not isolated to Canada, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the United States predict that 1 trillion dollars will be spent on needed repairs and replacements of water infrastructure between 2010-2020 in the US alone1. The Ontario Sewer and Water Construction Association (OSWCA) are calling for 12 billion dollars to be allocated in Ontario for the replacement and rehabilitation of water infrastructure. 40% of these funds will be needed for water main replacement and water treatment upgrades1. According to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), the aging water systems in Ontario can no longer meet the change in environmental and heath standards as well as the population increase from when is was originally implemented.

2.3

Materials

In recent history, (late 1880s to present) there have been a number of different materials used in the construction of watermains. The most common pipe material from the late 1800s to mid 1940s was Cast Iron. Since the 1940s, the preferred watermain materials have included Asbestos-Cement, Ductile Iron, Poly Vinyl Chloride (PVC) and Hyprescon pipe (Concrete steel liner composites). A change in construction materials after World War II (1940-45) yielded pipes with shorter life spans then the older pipes used in the beginning of the 20th Century. The lifespan of these two generations of pipes are simultaneously coming to an end and therefore, creating a surge in the amount of water infrastructure to be upgraded. The newest of the pipes from the first half of the 20th Century are at least 50 years old and should be at least discussed in detail for possible replacement. In general, pipes between the age of 32 50 years should be considered for replacement. Pipes between the age of 50 75 years should be discussed in detail and seriously considered for replacement. Pipes over the age of 75 years should be replaced or at least considered in great detail.

2.3.1

Cast Iron

Cast Iron has been used to construct pipes for centuries and in North America since 1880. Cast Irons resistance to corrosion qualities, excellent strength properties, and its low price is the reason it was widely used. The majority of Cast Iron pipes in use are reaching the end of their life span and in many areas full or partial cast iron pipe replacement plans are being applied. Early Cast Iron pipes can be classified as either pit cast or spun cast. Pit Cast Developed in the late 1800s, pit cast pipes are formed by pouring molten cast iron into upright sand moulds which are removed when the iron cools. Pit cast pipe typically has a significant presence of pearlite, and large flake sizes. Spun Cast Developed in 1916, spun cast pipes are formed by pouring molten cast iron into cooled spinning sand moulds. The centripetal force caused by the spinning would shape the iron to the inside surface of the mould. Spun cast pipes typically have a ferritic matrix and small flakes.

Technical Memorandum # 4

Page 14 of 21

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Pit cast and spun cast pipes have different strengths and fracture toughness due to the microstructure of the metal. The carbon flakes that make up cast iron initiate cracks in the pipe under stress. The larger flakes of the pit cast iron make it easier for cracks to form and spread. Therefore the spun cast iron has a greater mechanical strength8.

2.3.2 Ductile Iron


Ductile Iron pipes started to replace Cast Iron pipes in the early 1950s. Ductile Iron retained Cast Iron corrosion resistance, but added increased strength and durability. Both Cast and Ductile Irons graphite makeup helps prevent corrosion under normal buried conditions. However, the production of Ductile Iron incorporates significant casting refinements, and superior quality control to that of Cast Iron3.

2.3.3 Asbestos Cement


Asbestos Cement was used for water infrastructure from 1950-1980s. Asbestos fibers re-enforce concrete creating a strong and durable material to be used for under ground pipes. However, Asbestos fibers have been found to cause cancer including lung cancer, if inhaled. Asbestos concentrations are commonly found in water systems that contain Asbestos Cement pipes. The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency of the United States) enforces a maximum contaminant level of Asbestos fibers in drinking water. However, according to the World Heath Organization (WHO), there is no need to establish a health-based guideline for asbestos in drinking water, as there is no evidence of the carcinogenicity of ingested asbestos. Asbestos Cement pipes produce no risk to the water it supplies but it can still be harmful through airborne fibers during repairs or replacements.

2.3.4

PVC

Newer materials such as PVC pipe are now replacing Ductile and Cast Iron, as well as Asbestos Cement, pipes. PVC is desirable for under ground pipe applications because of its high rigidity, high strength, good chemical resistance, and its very low cost. PVC is however, susceptible to failure during low temperatures do to its decrease in impact strength5.

2.4

Breaks

It can be very hard to evaluate when breaks occur in the pipe if the water does not reach ground level, where evidence of a break can be seen. Breaks can go unnoticed for long periods of time causing thousands of liters of treated water to be lost and cross contamination with ground water. Because breaks cant always be determined, it becomes important to predict why excessive amounts of break will occur in a pipe. Breaks are caused by factors such as the age and material of the pipe, soil bedding, backfill materials, ground water conditions, climate, and installation and operation factors6. Static factors, such as the age of pipe, usually follow consistent trends of failure7. To better understand the performance of pipe materials, the National Research Council of Canada (NRC), completed a survey of the water

Technical Memorandum # 4

Page 15 of 21

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

infrastructure of 21 Canadian cities. Table 2.2 lists the average number of breaks in a 100km section of pipe per year (breaks/100km/yr) for a given material.6 Table 2.2 Average Breaks per Material Material Cast Iron Ductile Iron Asbestos-Cement PVC Breaks/100km/yr. 35.9 09.5 05.8 00.7

2.5

Current Buried Infrastructure

The following charts and tables give an overall view of the current buried infrastructure in the Region of Waterloo. The source of the watermain data is the H2OMAP Hydraulic model of the Region of Waterloo water distribution system. The following discriminators were used to assess the buried infrastructure for this project. They are: 1. All Local pipes were removed from the list so that RMOW watermains could be reviewed. 2. All pipes that were referenced as calculator pipes or 999 pipes were removed from the list. 3. All pipes from municipalities outside of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge have been removed. Pipes from Shingletown were included in this evaluation as they supplied water from wells into the Tri- City system. 4. All pipes designated for future installation were removed. 5. Only pipes with either Region or Dual ownership were used for this evaluation. Based on the above mentioned criteria, the Region of Waterloo owns or operates approximately 243,200 metres of watermain within the Tri- Cities. The age of the system dates back the late 19th century to the present, well before the creation of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.

Technical Memorandum # 4

Page 16 of 21

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN The Region of Waterloo has a broad material and age distribution of buried infrastructure. The following figures show the distribution of materials (Figures 1a, 1b, 1c) and age (Figures 2a, 2b, 2c) among Cambridge, Kitchener and Waterloo.

Figure 2.1 - Material Distribution Figure 2.1a - Cambridge


Steel 1% PVC 19% HDPE 0% Asbestos Cement 3% Cast Iron 21%

Figure 2.1b Kitchener


HDPE 0% Asbestos Cement 16% Cast Iron 12%

Figure 2.1c- Waterloo


Steel 1% PVC 8% HDPE 0% Asbestos Cement 10% Cast Iron 19%

Steel 1% PVC 9%

Ductile Iron 51%

CPP 5%

Ductile Iron 36%

CPP 26%

Ductile Iron 25%

CPP 37%

Total Length 86 305m

Total Length 111 099m Figure 2.2 - Age Distribution

Total Length 45 788m

Figure 2.2a Cambridge

Figure 2.2b Kitchener


Pre-1931 (>75 years) 3%

Figure 2.2c - Waterloo

1955-1931 (50 years) 2%

Pre-1931 (>75 years) 6%

1955-1931 (50 years) 9%

1955-1931 (50 years) 7%

Pre-1931 (>75 years) 1%

1973-1956 30%

1973-present 62%

1973-1956 38%

1973present 50%

1973-1956 31%

1973present 61%

Technical Memorandum # 4

Page 17 of 21

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table 2.3 -History of Watermain Installation Cambridge 1966-1980 1900-1968 1987 to present 1960 to present 1973 1994 to present 1948 - 1998 Kitchener 1952-1982 1890- 1983 1958 to present 1949 to present 1990 to present 1962 to present Waterloo 1961- 1980 1890 1965 1968 to present 1954 to present 1994 to present 1954 to present

Asbestos Cement Cast iron CPP Ductile Iron HDPE PVC Steel

Table 2.4, shows a breakdown of the age of pipe in each of the Tri-Citys water pressure zones. As age could be a critical factor in the reliability of the watermain system the distribution of older mains within a specific pressure zone can indicate potential problems or areas of concern.

Table 2.4 - Watermain Age Breakdown by Pressure Zone.

Zone Cam1 Cam 1A Cam 2 E Cam 2W Cam 3 Total Kit 2E Kit 2W Kit 4 Kit 4A Kit 5 Kit 6 Total Wat 4 Wat 4B Wat 4C Wat 5 Wat 6 Wat 7 Total

1973-present 29,818 1,770 11,695 6,880 3,204 3,486 1,420 32,799 18,372

1955-1973 18,658 6,025 1,338

1932-1954 117 1,085 793

pre-1932 4,518 355 49

Total (m) 53 111 1 770 19 160 6 929 5 335 86 305 3 486 4 306 69 568 33 739 111 099 35 278 14 27 7 590 2 174 705 45 788 243 192 100%

2,886 28,454 10,712

4,989 4,655

3,326

21,823 14 27 4,616 1,007 705 137,635 57%

9,851

3,015

589

2,974 1,167

82,064 34%

14,653 6.0%

8,837 4%

Technical Memorandum # 4

Page 18 of 21

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

3.

Break History of Watermains

The local municipalities are responsible for the repair and maintenance of the Region of Waterloos watermains. To complete a review of the break history of Regional watermains, the cities of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge were contacted and each of the municipalities provided a copy of their recorded information. The information received from the municipalities varied:

The City of Waterloo provided information on all sizes of watermain breaks from 1959 to 2005. The information indicated street names of recorded breaks, date of break, pipe size, material and type of break. The municipal addresses or ownership of watermains were not included. The City of Kitchener provided information on all watermain breaks from 1997 to 2004. The information included municipal addresses, year of break but did not provide information on pipe size, material, ownership or reason for break. The City of Cambridge provided information on all sizes of watermain breaks from 1990 to 2004. The information included municipal addresses, year of break, pipe size, material and type of break. The ownership of the watermain was not included.

4.

Replacement Criteria

Comments from Municipal Staff During the review of the linear buried infrastructure representatives from the Cities of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge were interviewed to determine the criteria set by each of the municipalities to determine infrastructure replacement. Each of the municipalities uses similar criteria to determine whether watermains are replaced. The first criterion for watermain replacement is break history. If a section of watermain has a history of a number of breaks in a short distance, the watermain may be replaced locally as a maintenance decision. The second and more important criterion for all three municipalities is the economical value of replacement cost. The watermain replacement programs are part of a matrix decision process for the reconstruction of a street. The decision for replacement takes place when it has been decided to completely reconstruct the roadway. At that time the additional cost to replace the watermain is part of the overall project thereby reducing unit costs for watermain replacement. When interviewed, staff at the municipalities indicated that neither age or pipe materials were major factors that would initiate a watermain replacement program. The age or material of the watermain would be reviewed only when a decision is being made during a road reconstruction.

Technical Memorandum # 4

Page 19 of 21

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

5.

Recommendations:
Maintenance and repair of Regional watermains is the responsibility of the local municipalities. Although all three municipalities keep records of the maintenance / repairs of watermains, there is no co-ordinated reporting procedure in place by the Region to accumulate information on the break history. It is recommended that the Region prepare a common reporting form for the municipalities to complete when they are repairing or maintaining a Regional watermain. In addition to the reporting of common information for break history, all breaks should have a common number/code that can be used to link the break with the Regional data bank for the watermains. Almost 10% of all Region or dual owned watermains within the study area are over 50 years old. These watermains are either at or past their service age. A schedule for replacement should be initiated. Currently, there is no Regional evaluation process in place to target replacement of potential problem water mains. Generally, the current system reviews water main replacement only when the roadway is to be reconstructed. Therefore, there should be an evaluation criteria established by the Region that should be adopted by all municipalities to ensure continuity of documentation. The system should include age of pipe as compared to the service life of the watermain, potential disruption of service to municipal water supply, potential inconvenience to public of disruption of service. The City of Cambridge utilizes a reporting system that includes break types, material, installation date and so on. See appendix G for the City of Cambridge Water main Break Repairs and Reporting. It is recommended that all municipalities adopt a similar recording system. Recommendations for replacement of individual watermains will be reviewed in subsequent Technical Memoranda when future populations will be used to determine if the existing system will support the need of a larger population.

Technical Memorandum # 4

Page 20 of 21

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

6.

Bibliography

1.

Infrastructure Canada Research for Policy and Program Development (2004) The State of Water Infrastructure, Infrastructure Canada Research Gateway, January 2004. The Cast Iron Soil Pipe Institute History of Cast Iron Pipe, Uses and Performance, Cast Iron Soil Pipe Institute. Cast Iron Pipe through the Ages American Cast Iron Pipe Company (ACIPCO). World Health Organization (WHO) Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality, World Health Organization, 1993. Failure Analysis of a PVC Pipe, The Madison Group. National Research Council of Canada (NRC) A-7019.1 Final Water Mains Break Data on Different Pipe Materials, Dr. Rajani, Balvant and Ms. Mcdonald, Shelly, 1995. Forecasting Variations and Trends in Water-Main Breaks, Kliener, Y and Rajani, Balvant, Journal of Infrastructure Systems, December 2002. National Research Council of Canada (NRC) Grey Cast-Iron Water Pipe Metallurgy August 2000 Makar J.M.,

2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7.

8.

Technical Memorandum # 4

Page 21 of 21

Appendix A William Street Facility


1999 Facility Report Summary 2005 Site Inspection 2005 Hydraulic Assessment 1999 Facility Report Summary

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

2005 William Street Site Inspection


Inspections of the William Street reservoirs and pump station were completed on three separate occasions. The first review was completed on April 22, 2005. The second and third reviews were completed on May 6 and May 30th 2005. On May 6 and May 30, structural inspections of the inside of the storage reservoirs were completed by Structural Engineer John Pucchio, P. Eng. Mr. John Pucchios report has been submitted to the Region under separate cover.

Site Visit # 1 (Observations - Friday April 22, 2005. Duncaun McLeod and Joe Gemin met with Ken Lippert at the William Street site in Waterloo to conduct a review of the site. The site well houses, pump house were visited. The operations of the reservoirs were discussed)

Well Houses The exterior of the well houses were generally in good condition with minimal paint cracking or chipping. The windows and metal panels in the well houses were etched. Buildings WIC and W1B had cracking and some spalling in the concrete floor. Equipment within the well houses generally appeared to be in good condition and well maintained. The W3 well has been disconnected and is out of service because of high sulphur content. Comments:

The storage of chemicals in the same room as the electrical panels could cause a safety problem. The chemicals should be stored in a separate facility. The reaction of the chemicals is the probable cause of the etching on the electrical panels and the windows. If the Well W3 is not to be brought back into service, it should be permanently sealed and equipment removed.

Pump Station The pump station is an old building (constructed in 1898) and has been designated as a Heritage Building. The building is in good shape, however, the Heritage Building designation has made it difficult to make changes to the structure. The building has an electronic security system, however the old style windows, doors, etc make it vulnerable to vandalism. The electrical panel operating the pumps is antiquated and according to staff replacement parts are not always available. The entire system will have to be upgraded. The wiring in the basement should be reviewed to bring to Code Standards. A number of unprotected electrical boxes were noted on our visit.

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix A

Page 1 of 14

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Reservoirs (William Street Reservoirs Structural Inspection was completed AECOM in August 2005. It gives an in depth review of the condition of the reservoirs.)

Table 1- Design Information Design Parameter Actual Volume (m ) Total Volume (m3) TWL/ Overflow Elevation (m) Top Operating Level (m) Low Operating Level (m) Height (m) Diameter (m) Date Constructed
3

Res #1 253.45 315.46 322.2* 321.8 316.83 5.37 8.06 1899

Designated Value Res #2 Res #3 521.13 1004.11 640.56 1130.35 321.95 322.1 321.8 321.8 318.97 318.97 3.46 3.13 15.37 21.26 1899 1899

Res #4 1913 2344.65 322.3 321.8 318.94 3.36 668.9 1953

Reservoir 1 (During the week of May 2-6, 2005, the Region of Waterloo drained all the tanks at the William Street reservoir for cleaning purposes. By May 6, all the tanks had been water blasted and the Region requested that AECOM inspect the inside of the tanks. On May 6, 2005, D. McLeod with Regional staff and their contractor review the interior of tanks 1-4.)

Tank 1 is a 69,400 gal tank with a cementatious parging. The walls of the tank are in fairly good condition. There was one area of approximately 300mm in diameter where the parging had spalled off. Another two locations showed signs of a repair that had been complete. The repair appeared to have some bubbling behind the parging.

The interior ceiling showed deterioration with exposed rebar in the slab. At the time of inspection, there was about 150mm of water in the bottom of the tank and therefore a detailed inspection of the floor could not be completed. However, the dished floor slab looked in stable condition as viewed through the water. Ground water pressure relief pipes were located in the floor.

There were two timbers that extended through the sidewalls of the tank. Although presently not connected to anything within the tank, it is assumed that the timbers were used as a support for the intakes from the tank

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix A

Page 2 of 14

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Comments:

The 1999 Facilities Audit recommended that the roof stringers should be replaced in 2004. Ken Lippert stated that upgrades recommended in the 1999 AECOM Facility Audit (see Appendix A) were not completed If these facilities are to continue to be utilized, this work has not been carried out and should be scheduled. The floor drains or pressure relief system should be immediately removed or revised to prevent cross-contamination of potable water and groundwater. This could be repaired by sealing the floor drains with pipes that extend above the high water level to allow groundwater fluctuation independent of the water levels in the tank. See Structural Review by Mr. John Pucchio, P. Eng. (under separate cover) for a structural review and recommendations. The recommendation is to decommission this reservoir within 5 years.

Reservoir 2 Tank 2 is a 140,900 gallon reservoir. It is a round brick wall tank with a mortar block wall section above the water line. The mortar section extends to the underside of the roof structure.

The exterior roof structure of the reservoir is tar and chip. There is a slight slope extending from the center toward the edges. It appears to be in good condition. The interior ceiling structure is in poor shape with exposed rebar. The stringer support system appears to be rusted with probable reduced metal thickness. It is supported on a central concrete pier with a layer of brick (shims) supporting the stringer system. The central piers appear to be in good condition.

The lower section of the walls is brick. There were wet spots on the walls in at least 3 different locations which indicate groundwater seeping through the wall. There was a black coating on the inside of the brick wall which although, undetermined, appears to be a waterproofing membrane or coating. The coating was spalled of with exposed brick in a number of locations.

The floor slab appeared to be in fair condition however there are a number of areas where the concrete floor had spalled. The spalled areas were approximately 600mm in diameter and 050mm in depth. The floor had a number of pipes sticking vertically out of the floor slab. It is assumed that these are ground water pressure relief valves.

Comments:

The 1999 Facilities Audit recommended that the roof stringers should be replaced in 2004. Ken Lippert stated that upgrades recommended in the 1999 AECOM Facility Audit (see Appendix A) were not completed. If these facilities are to continue to be utilized, this work has not been carried out and should be scheduled. Page 3 of 14

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix A

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

The floor drains or pressure relief system should be immediately removed or revised to prevent cross-contamination of potable water and groundwater. This could be repaired by sealing the floor drains with pipes that extend above the high water level to allow groundwater fluctuation independent of the water levels in the tank. The walls should be repaired and reparged to prevent cross-contamination through the wall system. Upon the repairs being completed the reservoirs water levels should not be lowered below the 2 2.5 metre level to maintain an outward pressure on the tank walls The central support system as well as the entire roof structure should be replaced. Without major repairs to the structure, a 5 year timetable should be set up for the reservoir replacement. The reservoir is overall in poor condition. See Structural Review by Mr. John Pucchio, P. Eng. (under separate cover) for a structural review and recommendations. The recommendation is to decommission this reservoir within 5 years.

Reservoir 3 Tank 3 is a 242,640 gal tank built in 1899. The exterior roof structure of the reservoir is tar and chip. There is a slight slope extending from the center toward the edges. It appears to be in good condition. The exterior wall of the reservoirs did not show signs of any major defects, however, Reservoir 3 had mould on the exterior roof of the structure. This was probably due to the close proximity of the nearby trees.

Access into the tank is through an aluminum hatch system (lockable). The access system is in good condition. The interior ceiling structure is in poor shape with exposed rebar. The stringer support system appears to be rusted with probable reduced metal thickness. It is supported on a central steel pier with a layer of brick (shims) supporting the stringer system. The central pier appears to be on good condition.

The tank is a round structure with brick walls and masonry block topping above the water level that extends to the underside of the ceiling system. There was a black coating on the inside of the brick wall which although, undetermined, appears to be a waterproofing membrane or coating. The coating was spalled with exposed brick in a number of locations.

There were floor drains similar to those found within Reservoirs 1 and 2 located in Reservoir 3. These drains had been cut off at floor level and filled in with concrete. The floor slab in Reservoir 3 was rough and uneven and showed signs that a concrete topping had been placed on the floor. The floor slob topping had footprints in the topping. There were small spalled areas where the flooring had holes through to the underside of the slab. These may be cause by exterior water pressure after the floor drains were filled with concrete.

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix A

Page 4 of 14

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Comments:

The 1999 Facilities Audit recommended that the roof stringers should be replaced in 2004. Ken Lippert stated that upgrades recommended in the 1999 AECOM Facility Audit (see Appendix A) were not completed. If these facilities are to continue to be utilized, this work should be scheduled. The floor drains or pressure relief system should be immediately removed or revised to prevent cross-contamination of potable water and groundwater. This could be repaired by sealing the floor drains with pipes that extend above the high water level to allow groundwater fluctuation independent of the water levels in the tank. The walls should be repaired and reparged to prevent cross-contamination through the wall system. The central support system as well as the entire roof structure should be replaced. The reservoir is overall in poor condition. See Structural Review by Mr. John Pucchio, P. Eng. (under separate cover) for a structural review and recommendations. . The recommendation is to decommission this reservoir within 5 years.

Reservoir 4 Tank 4 is a 500,000 gal reinforced concrete tank. It is rectangular in shape with two rows of concrete piers supporting the concrete roof structure. The top of the tank is covered with a mound of topsoil and sod. Access to the tank is by a steel rung ladder at one of the access points. The access points are covered with aluminum doors that are hinged, lockable, and in good condition. The overall condition of the tank is quite good. The concrete did not show signs of spalling. There were no visible indications of rebar showing in the roof, side walls, piers, or floor structure. The steel rung ladder however was rusted and pitted. Structurally, the access/egress ladder seemed safe however the ladder is very abrasive on the hands and should be replaced or repaired. The outlet from the tank is a pit in the southwest corner. The concrete and outlet piping was in good condition. The overall condition of the tank is good. Comments:

The reservoir is in good condition. The ladder rungs should be repaired

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix A

Page 5 of 14

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

2005 Hydraulic Assessment


1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY H2OMAP Water hydraulic modeling software was used to evaluate two new modeling alternatives as follows:

William Street Reservoir site with 4 reservoirs with a total capacity of about 1 MG. William Street Reservoir site with 1 reservoir with a total capacity of about 0.5 MG.

The model was used to predict with some level of certainty, how the system will react to the operational changes of de-activating three existing reservoirs at the William Street Reservoir site. For each scenario the system hydraulics were determined and analyzed. The hydraulic modeling results demonstrate that the removal of 3 existing reservoirs does not have any impact on the existing hydraulic performances. 2. SCENARIOS DEFINITION This section defines the following two scenarios:

CASE 1: Existing William Street Reservoir Configuration (4 reservoirs with a Total Capacity = 1 MG) CASE 2: Future William Street Reservoir Configuration (1 reservoir with a Total Capacity = 0.5 MG)

The MAX_DAY_2003 scenario was used to compare the above two configurations. For each scenario, a 24-hour Extended Period Simulation was completed.

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix A

Page 6 of 14

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

A review of the H2OMAP Water model shows that the current Variable Area Tank Curve WILLIAM defines a total capacity of 4042 m3 which corresponds to 1,067,783 G. This is close enough to the estimated 1,035,000 G (500,000 + 275,000 + 175,000 + 85,000). A new curve was thus created to represent a total capacity of 500,000 G = 1892 m3.

CASE 1 (V = 1 MG)

CASE 2 (V = 0.5 MG)

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix A

Page 7 of 14

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

3. ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS The following figures show the hydraulic results of Tank William for the 2 scenarios.

Tank Level vs. Time

CASE 2 (V = 0.5 MG)

CASE 1 (V = 1 MG)

Tank Volume vs. Time

CASE 2 (V = 0.5 MG)

CASE 1 (V = 1 MG)

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix A

Page 8 of 14

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Tank Percentage Full vs. Time

CASE 2 (V = 0.5 MG)

CASE 1 (V = 1 MG)

Tank Pressure vs. Time

CASE 2 (V = 0.5 MG)

CASE 1 (V = 1 MG)

Tank Flow vs. Time (+ Flow = Filling and - Flow = Emptying)

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix A

Page 9 of 14

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

CASE 2 (V = 0.5 MG)

CASE 1 (V = 1 MG)

The following figures show the flow results for the 2 scenarios for all the pipes connected (5 incoming pipes and 2 outgoing pipes) to the Tank William.

CASE 2 (V = 0.5 MG)

CASE 1 (V = 1 MG)

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix A

Page 10 of 14

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

CASE 2 (V = 0.5 MG)

CASE 1 (V = 1 MG)

CASE 2 (V = 0.5 MG)

CASE 1 (V = 1 MG)

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix A

Page 11 of 14

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

CASE 2 (V = 0.5 MG)

CASE 1 (V = 1 MG)

CASE 2 (V = 0.5 MG)

CASE 1 (V = 1 MG)

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix A

Page 12 of 14

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

CASE 2 (V = 0.5 MG)

CASE 1 (V = 1 MG)

Finally, the following hydraulic results were compared (See William Result.XLS file).

Junction Pressure Pipe Headloss Tank Level Tank Percentage Full Tank Demand Flow

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix A

Page 13 of 14

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

The hydraulic results were compared for all the junctions, all the pipes and all the tanks for the 24 hour simulation duration using the H2OMAP Statistical Range Reports. The hydraulic results are very similar with no major differences. In conclusion, the hydraulic results are almost identical when William tank size is changed from 1MG to 0.5MG.

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix A

Page 14 of 14

Appendix B St. George Reservoir


1999 Facility Report Summary 2005 Site Inspection 1999 Facility Report Summary

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

2005 Site Inspection


(Friday April 30, 2005 - Duncaun McLeod met with Ken Lippert at the 100 St. George Street site in Kitchener to conduct a review of the site. The site pump house was visited.) Table 2 Design Information Design Parameter Actual Volume (m3) Total Volume (m3) TWL/ Overflow Elevation (m) Top Operating Level (m) Low Operating Level (m) Height (m) Diameter (m) Date Constructed The St. George Tower supplies to Kitchener Zone 4. Designated Value 3098 3882 381 380.9 369.1 31.39 18.29 1927

Site The exterior site is surrounded by a chain link fence. The fence was is fair condition with the barbed wire removed from the top of the rail. The front gate is locked. Parts of the fence are covered with vines from neighbouring properties.

Building The exterior of the valve house was generally in fair condition with minimal paint cracking or chipping. The door to the facility is wooden and is in fair shape however, a metal door would provide better security. The windows in the front of the building are old with the paint peeling on the sills both inside and outside. The exterior fascia requires painting also.

The electrical paneling, although old, is in fair condition. The inside upper and lower floors of the facility are in good condition. The lower walls have some cracking and show signs of moisture on the walls. The rebar ladder access from the upper to lower floor is in good condition with no signs of rusting or deterioration.

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix B

Page 1 of 2

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Process Equipment Most of the process equipment showed signs of rusting and paint scaling. It was difficult to tell the extent of rust on some of the valves and whether the rusting inhibited their operation. Elevated Tower Only a visual inspection of the elevated tower was completed. The foundations of the tower and the structural steel piers were in good condition. Signs of recent upgrades to the concrete foundations are visible.

The central tower, elevated tank and roof structure all showed signs of rusting. The rusting is most severe in the seam connections and rivet locations. The underside and the roof of the tank have extensive rusting. Areas of the lower portion of the tower have been repainted probably to cover graffiti on the tank. There are no signs of any leakage from the tank.

The piers (legs), struts and anchor bolts are tight and in good condition.

The exterior tank ladder is in good condition with a locked access prevention devise near the bottom to inhibit unwanted access. An older barred access prevention device is located approximately 3-4 metres above ground level. It was in an open position and did not look to be in use and therefore, should be removed, as it could become a safety hazard. The safety harness for the safety access ladder is located inside the building.

1999 Water Supply System Facility Replacement Project The 1999 study of this tank (Appendix A) indicated that the tank had reached or likely exceeded its life expectancy. The report recommended that a number of repairs, tests, and upgrades be completed. The suggested upgrades totaled $1,022,000.00 and were to be completed between 1999 and 2004. Other than removal of graffiti, there is no indication that the recommendations of the 1999 study have been completed. Comments:

The front door of the building should be replaced with a more secure metal door. The front windows should also be replaced with a more secure window. The recommendations of the 1999 report (Appendix A) should be completed if this facility is to remain in operation. A complete structural review of the tank, roof and rivets should be undertaken to verify that the tank is structurally sound.

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix B

Page 2 of 2

Appendix C Shantz Hill Pumping Station


1999 Facility Report Summary 2005 Site Inspection 1999 Facility Report Summary

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

2005 Site Inspection


(Monday, May 9, 2005 - Duncaun McLeod met with John Melfi on site in Cambridge to conduct a review of the site. The site pump house was visited.)

Table 3- Design Information Design Parameter Actual Volume (m3) Total Volume (m3) TWL/ Overflow Elevation (m) Top Operating Level (m) Low Operating Level (m) Height (m) Diameter (m) Date Constructed Site The site is fenced in, gated, and locked. Building The exterior of the tank appears to be in fair condition but requires cleaning and repainting. The interior of the tank is in good condition. Process Equipment The piping appears to be in good shape with moderate signs of rusting. Insulation surrounds most of the piping system to prevent freezing. The station has apparently been inactive for about 1 year from the time of this inspection, primarily due to the construction and operation of the Freeport tower. Chemical storage is located within the same room as the electrical panels. There is no indication of the etching of steel and/or panels as noted at other sites. Designated Value 2200 2273 329.18 329.1 320.47 34.14 17.98 1974

1999 Water Supply System Facility Replacement Project The 1999 study of this site (Appendix A) recommended that approximately $122,000 worth of electrical, mechanical and process equipment be upgraded in 2000. It is not known if this work has been completed.

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix C

Page 1 of 1

Appendix D Kress Hill Elevated Reservoir


1999 Facility Report Summary 2005 Site Inspection 1999 Facility Report Summary

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

2005 Site Inspection


(Monday, May 9, 2005 Duncaun McLeod met with John Melfi on site in Cambridge to conduct a review of the site. The site pump house was visited.) Kress Hill Pumping Station was constructed in 1986 and was built primarily to service the Toyota area in Zone 2.

Site The site is not gated and consists of a driveway and lawn area. Building The exterior construction of the building is intended to blend in with the local neighbourhood construction styles. The exterior is in good condition. The interior of the building is in very good condition. Process Equipment The piping in the structure appears to be in good shape. The station has been inactive for about 5 years from the time of this inspection. John Melfi indicated that the instrumentation of the site would have to be updated to bring it to current standards.

1999 Water Supply System Facility Replacement Project The 1999 study of this site (Appendix A) recommended that approximately $276,000 worth of electrical, mechanical and process equipment be upgraded between 2000 and 2004. To date, none of this work has been completed.

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix D

Page 1 of 1

Appendix E Edward Street Tank


1999 Facility Report Summary 2005 Site Inspection 1999 Facility Report Summary

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

2005 Site Inspection


(Monday, May 9, 2005 Duncaun McLeod met with John Melfi on site in Cambridge to conduct a review of the site.)

Table 4 Design Information Design Parameter Actual Volume (m3) Total Volume (m3) TWL/ Overflow Elevation (m) Top Operating Level (m) Low Operating Level (m) Height (m) Diameter (m) Date Constructed Edward Street Standpipe was constructed in 1972 Designated Value 3099 3426 348.69 347.1 323 26.8 12.8 1971

Site The site is a fenced in, gated, and locked compound. The lawns are mowed and there are a number of trees within the compound.

Building The exterior of the tank appears in good condition and does not show signs of rust or deterioration. Process Equipment Access to the inside of the tank was not available on the inspection date. The station has apparently been inactive for about 6 years primarily because the construction and operation of the Pinebush tower.

1999 Water Supply System Facility Replacement Project The 1999 study of this site (Appendix A) recommended that approximately $20,000 worth of electrical, mechanical and process equipment be upgraded between 2000 and 2004. This work has not been completed.

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix E

Page 1 of 1

Appendix F Watermain Distribution by Zone and City

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Material and Diameter Distribution in Cambridge Zone 1


Cam 1 1930-before Length (m) Material Asbestos Cement Cast Iron Ductile Iron PVC Steel HDPE CPP Unknown Diameter 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 600 750 900 999 1200 1350 Unknown Total 0 0 0 2286 3202 3213 0 547 1356 282 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10886 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 3.4 3.4 0.0 0.6 1.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.6 0 5 1665 1787 767 316 0 0 0 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4594 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.9 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.888 0 0 1319 2870 8125 7753 715 6503 4363 640 333 0 0 9 0 0 0 32630 0.0 0.0 1.4 3.1 8.6 8.2 0.8 6.9 4.6 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.7 0 48 1625 3313 3664 13803 25 4441 18310 252 264 63 0 37 0 0 0 45846 0.0 0.1 1.7 3.5 3.9 14.7 0.0 4.7 19.5 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 48.8 0 1 4 4 3 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 26 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 10886 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 11.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 4561 0 0 32 0 0 0 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 726 13712 11296 0 4 119 0 0 0.8 14.6 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 2065 643 41295 11 12 0 4582 8863 2.2 0.7 43.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.9 9.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 612 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 2791 24517 52591 11 17 119 4582 9474 93983 0 54 4613 10260 15761 25087 744 11491 24029 1228 597 63 0 55 0 0 0 93982 0.0 0.1 4.9 10.9 16.8 26.7 0.8 12.2 25.6 1.3 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 26.1 56.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 4.9 10.1 % of Zone 1931-1955 Length (m) % of Zone Length (m) 1956-1973 % of Zone 1974-2004 Length (m) % of Zone Year Unknown Length (m) % of Zone Length (m) Total % of Zone

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix F

Page 1 of 20

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Material and Diameter Distribution in Cambridge Zone 1A


Cam 1A 1930-before Length (m) Material Asbestos Cement Cast Iron Ductile Iron PVC Steel HDPE CPP Unknown Diameter 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 600 750 900 999 1200 1350 Unknown Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 4167 695 1412 0 1006 763 36 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 8088 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.5 8.6 17.5 0.0 12.4 9.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 2588 5495 0 0 0 4 0.0 0.0 32.0 68.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 2588 5495 0 0 0 4 8087 0 0 0 4167 695 1412 0 1006 763 36 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 8088 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.5 8.6 17.5 0.0 12.4 9.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.0 68.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 % of Zone 1931-1955 Length (m) % of Zone 1956-1973 Length (m) % of Zone 1974-2004 Length (m) % of Zone Year Unknown Length (m) % of Zone Length (m) Total % of Zone

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix F

Page 2 of 20

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Material and Diameter Distribution in Cambridge Zone 2E


Cam 2E 1930-before Length (m) Material Asbestos Cement Cast Iron Ductile Iron PVC Steel HDPE CPP Unknown Diameter 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 600 750 900 999 1200 1350 Unknown Total 0 0 869 557 0 355 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1781 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0 69 752 1819 1186 259 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4085 0.0 0.1 0.9 2.1 1.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 0 0 74 1810 2006 3301 0 8494 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15684 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.1 2.3 3.8 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.9 0 0 2146 14253 10457 24761 0 3481 10945 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 66061 0.0 0.0 2.4 16.3 11.9 28.3 0.0 4.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.4 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 1781 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 4016 0 0 69 0 0 0 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1119 1862 12693 0 10 0 0 0 1.3 2.1 14.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 31894 33193 16 63 876 20 0.0 0.0 36.4 37.9 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1119 7659 44587 33193 94 63 876 22 87614 0 69 3842 18441 13648 28676 0 11975 10945 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 87614 0.0 0.1 4.4 21.0 15.6 32.7 0.0 13.7 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 8.7 50.9 37.9 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.0 % of Zone 1931-1955 Length (m) % of Zone 1956-1973 Length (m) % of Zone 1974-2004 Length (m) % of Zone Year Unknown Length (m) % of Zone Length (m) Total % of Zone

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix F

Page 3 of 20

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Material and Diameter Distribution in Cambridge Zone 2W


Cam 2W 1930-before Length (m) Material Asbestos Cement Cast Iron Ductile Iron PVC Steel HDPE CPP Unknown Diameter 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 600 750 900 999 1200 1350 Unknown Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0 0 0 59 0 5195 0 0 6343 0 1107 451 0 0 0 0 0 13155 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 39.3 0.0 0.0 48.0 0.0 8.4 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 99.6 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 4071 7041 48 0 1994 0 0.0 0.0 30.8 53.3 0.4 0.0 15.1 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 4120 7041 48 0 1994 2 13205 0 0 0 60 0 5245 0 0 6343 0 1107 451 0 0 0 0 0 13205 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 39.7 0.0 0.0 48.0 0.0 8.4 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.2 53.3 0.4 0.0 15.1 0.0 % of Zone 1931-1955 Length (m) % of Zone 1956-1973 Length (m) % of Zone 1974-2004 Length (m) % of Zone Year Unknown Length (m) % of Zone Length (m) Total % of Zone

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix F

Page 4 of 20

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Material and Diameter Distribution in Cambridge Zone 3


Cam 3 1930-before Length (m) Material Asbestos Cement Cast Iron Ductile Iron PVC Steel HDPE CPP Unknown Diameter 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 600 750 900 999 1200 1350 Unknown Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 500 1722 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2222 0.0 0.0 3.0 10.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.4 0 0 1598 0 878 3908 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6384 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 5.3 23.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.5 0 0 2178 1928 1150 2261 19 422 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7957 0.0 0.0 13.1 11.6 6.9 13.6 0.1 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 48.0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 2222 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 13.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 1771 4587 0 26 0 0 0 0.0 10.7 27.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 4758 3139 26 0 33 0 0.0 0.0 28.7 19.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 3992 9345 3139 52 0 33 1 16562 0 0 4277 3649 2027 6169 19 423 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16564 0.0 0.0 25.8 22.0 12.2 37.2 0.1 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.1 56.4 19.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 % of Zone 1931-1955 Length (m) % of Zone 1956-1973 Length (m) % of Zone 1974-2004 Length (m) % of Zone Year Unknown Length (m) % of Zone Length (m) Total % of Zone

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix F

Page 5 of 20

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Material and Diameter Distribution in Kitchener Zone 2E


Kit 2E 1930-before Length (m) Material Asbestos Cement Cast Iron Ductile Iron PVC Steel HDPE CPP Unknown Diameter 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 600 750 900 999 1200 1350 Unknown Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 3009 0 0 0 0 2626 1668 0 117 0 0 0 7420 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.4 22.5 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 2483 526 0 0 4410 1 0.0 0.0 33.5 7.1 0.0 0.0 59.4 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 2483 526 0 0 4410 2 7421 0 0 0 0 0 3010 0 0 0 0 2626 1668 0 117 0 0 0 7421 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.4 22.5 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.5 7.1 0.0 0.0 59.4 0.0 % of Zone 1931-1955 Length (m) % of Zone 1956-1973 Length (m) % of Zone 1974-2004 Length (m) % of Zone Year Unknown Length (m) % of Zone Length (m) Total % of Zone

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix F

Page 6 of 20

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Material and Diameter Distribution in Kitchener Zone 2W


Kit 2W 1930-before Length (m) Material Asbestos Cement Cast Iron Ductile Iron PVC Steel HDPE CPP Unknown Diameter 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 600 750 900 999 1200 1350 Unknown Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 777 0 2953 0 0 2886 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6616 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 14.2 0.0 0.0 13.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.8 0 0 0 3993 744 7642 0 0 1777 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14156 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.2 3.6 36.8 0.0 0.0 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 68.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 6616 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 31.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 8883 5273 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 42.8 25.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 15499 5273 0 0 0 1 20773 0 0 0 4770 744 10595 0 0 4664 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20772 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.0 3.6 51.0 0.0 0.0 22.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 74.6 25.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 % of Zone 1931-1955 Length (m) % of Zone 1956-1973 Length (m) % of Zone 1974-2004 Length (m) % of Zone Year Unknown Length (m) % of Zone Length (m) Total % of Zone

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix F

Page 7 of 20

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Material and Diameter Distribution in Kitchener Zone 4


Kit 4 1930-before Length (m) Material Asbestos Cement Cast Iron Ductile Iron PVC Steel HDPE CPP Unknown Diameter 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 600 750 900 999 1200 1350 Unknown Total 0 8726 0 0 0 0 0 0 8726 0 0 368 126 1774 5756 0 38 665 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8726 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.9 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 580 11856 289 0 0 0 0 0 12725 0 0 0 1359 153 6918 0 892 3403 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12724 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 3.4 0.0 0.4 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.3 5.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1413 21967 47462 0 99 0 10766 1 81707 0 4 94 3189 1141 42567 0 497 20926 0 9807 3479 4 0 0 0 0 81707 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.6 21.0 0.0 0.2 10.3 0.0 4.8 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.3 0.7 10.8 23.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 1262 1435 63818 20238 367 0 12265 6 99390 0 116 668 3804 701 63824 0 0 9861 17 13408 2205 4671 0 93 30 0 99397 0.0 0.1 0.3 1.9 0.3 31.5 0.0 0.0 4.9 0.0 6.6 1.1 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.1 0 2 2 4 5 4 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.7 31.5 10.0 0.2 0.0 6.1 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3255 43984 111568 20238 466 0 23031 26 202567 0 123 1132 8481 3773 119068 0 1427 34856 17 23215 5684 4675 0 93 30 0 202574 0.0 0.1 0.6 4.2 1.9 58.8 0.0 0.7 17.2 0.0 11.5 2.8 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 21.7 55.1 10.0 0.2 0.0 11.4 0.0 % of Zone 1931-1955 Length (m) % of Zone 1956-1973 Length (m) % of Zone 1974-2004 Length (m) % of Zone Year Unknown Length (m) % of Zone Total Length (m) % of Zone

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix F

Page 8 of 20

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Material and Diameter Distribution in Kitchener Zone 4A


Kit 4A 1930-before Length (m) Material Asbestos Cement Cast Iron Ductile Iron PVC Steel HDPE CPP Unknown Diameter 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 600 750 900 999 1200 1350 Unknown Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 1175 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1175 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 1175 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 1175 0 0 0 0 1175 0 0 0 1175 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1175 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 % of Zone 1931-1955 Length (m) % of Zone 1956-1973 Length (m) % of Zone 1974-2004 Length (m) % of Zone Year Unknown Length (m) % of Zone Length (m) Total % of Zone

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix F

Page 9 of 20

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Material and Diameter Distribution in Kitchener Zone 5


Total Kit 5 1930-before Length (m) Material Asbestos Cement Cast Iron Ductile Iron PVC Steel HDPE CPP Unknown Diameter 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 600 750 900 999 1200 1350 Unknown Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3043 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3043 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.9 0 0 784 765 363 4051 0 0 1491 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7455 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.2 0.6 6.5 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 0 0 2716 3599 0 31962 0 2258 8631 0 2235 0 0 0 0 0 0 51401 0.0 0.0 4.4 5.8 0.0 51.6 0.0 3.6 13.9 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 83.0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3043 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13 771 6138 0 0 0 533 0 0.0 1.2 9.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 1373 0 27976 20825 21 0 1203 5 2.2 0.0 45.2 33.6 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4429 771 34114 20825 21 0 1736 6 61900 0 0 3501 4365 363 36013 0 2258 13165 0 2235 0 0 0 0 0 0 61899 0.0 0.0 5.7 7.1 0.6 58.2 0.0 3.6 21.3 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.2 1.2 55.1 33.6 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 % of Zone 1931-1955 Length (m) % of Zone 1956-1973 Length (m) % of Zone 1974-2004 Length (m) % of Zone Year Unknown Length (m) % of Zone Length (m) % of Zone

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix F

Page 10 of 20

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Material and Diameter Distribution in Kitchener Zone 6


Kit 6 1930-before Length (m) Material Asbestos Cement Cast Iron Ductile Iron PVC Steel HDPE CPP Unknown Diameter 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 600 750 900 999 1200 1350 Unknown Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 72 0 0 1075 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1147 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 93.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 72 1075 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 6.3 93.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 72 1075 0 0 0 0 1147 0 0 0 0 0 72 0 0 1075 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1147 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 93.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 93.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 % of Zone 1931-1955 Length (m) % of Zone 1956-1973 Length (m) % of Zone 1974-2004 Length (m) % of Zone Year Unknown Length (m) % of Zone Length (m) Total % of Zone

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix F

Page 11 of 20

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Material and Diameter Distribution in Waterloo Zone 4


Wat 4 1930-before Length (m) Material Asbestos Cement Cast Iron Ductile Iron PVC Steel HDPE CPP Unknown Diameter 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 600 750 900 999 1200 1350 Unknown Total 0 0 0 693 589 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1282 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0 0 86 726 890 3670 0 2597 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7969 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.9 3.6 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 0 0 0 2649 233 21662 0 0 1857 0 4608 0 0 0 0 0 0 31008 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.2 21.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.1 0 13 1986 4733 1319 33185 0 1470 511 0 14119 5428 0 0 0 0 0 62764 0.0 0.0 1.9 4.6 1.3 32.2 0.0 1.4 0.5 0.0 13.7 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.9 0 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 589 693 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 7906 17 0 47 0 0 0 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 14213 12557 0 0 0 4239 0 0.0 13.8 12.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 354 0 19093 31137 154 1180.79 10843 2 0.3 0.0 18.5 30.2 0.1 1.1 10.5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 354 22708 32359 31137 201 1181 15082 9 103030 0 13 2074 8801 3031 58520 0 4069 2368 0 18727 5428 0 0 0 0 0 103030 0.0 0.0 2.0 8.5 2.9 56.8 0.0 3.9 2.3 0.0 18.2 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 22.0 31.4 30.2 0.2 1.1 14.6 0.0 % of Zone 1931-1955 Length (m) % of Zone 1956-1973 Length (m) % of Zone 1974-2004 Length (m) % of Zone Year Unknown Length (m) % of Zone Length (m) Total % of Zone

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix F

Page 12 of 20

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Material and Diameter Distribution in Waterloo Zone 4B


Wat 4B 1930-before Length (m) Material Asbestos Cement Cast Iron Ductile Iron PVC Steel HDPE CPP Unknown Diameter 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 600 750 900 999 1200 1350 Unknown Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 1572 0 1479 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3051 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.7 0.0 14.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.4 0 0 0 4700 0 2293 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6993 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.8 0.0 22.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 69.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 3051 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 30.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 517 0 2230 4244 0 0 0 2 5.1 0.0 22.2 42.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 517 0 5281 4244 0 0 0 2 10044 0 0 0 6272 0 3772 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10044 0.0 0.0 0.0 62.4 0.0 37.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.0 52.6 42.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 % of Zone 1931-1955 Length (m) % of Zone 1956-1973 Length (m) % of Zone 1974-2004 Length (m) % of Zone Year Unknown Length (m) % of Zone Length (m) Total % of Zone

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix F

Page 13 of 20

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Material and Diameter Distribution in Waterloo Zone 4C


Wat 4C 1930-before Length (m) Material Asbestos Cement Cast Iron Ductile Iron PVC Steel HDPE CPP Unknown Diameter 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 600 750 900 999 1200 1350 Unknown Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 10 10 2025 7 1450 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3502 0.0 0.3 0.3 57.8 0.2 41.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 99.9 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 236 3266 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 6.7 93.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0 0 236 3266 0 0 0 2 3504 0 10 12 2025 7 1450 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3504 0.0 0.3 0.4 57.8 0.2 41.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 93.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 % of Zone 1931-1955 Length (m) % of Zone 1956-1973 Length (m) % of Zone 1974-2004 Length (m) % of Zone Year Unknown Length (m) % of Zone Length (m) Total % of Zone

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix F

Page 14 of 20

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Material and Diameter Distribution in Waterloo Zone 5


Wat 5 1930-before Length (m) Material Asbestos Cement Cast Iron Ductile Iron PVC Steel HDPE CPP Unknown Diameter 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 600 750 900 999 1200 1350 Unknown Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 1690 335 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2025 0.0 0.0 5.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0 0 986 5456 30 1964 806 1187 956 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11385 0.0 0.0 2.9 16.1 0.1 5.8 2.4 3.5 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.5 0 4 1483 4634 9 8897 0 1284 2262 128 1877 0 0 0 0 0 0 20577 0.0 0.0 4.4 13.6 0.0 26.2 0.0 3.8 6.7 0.4 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.5 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 2025 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2644 6331 2345 0 66 0 0 0 7.8 18.6 6.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 595 0 5798 12246 42 0 1896 1 1.7 0.0 17.1 36.0 0.1 0.0 5.6 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3238 8356 8142 12246 109 0 1896 4 33990 0 4 4159 10425 39 10862 807 2470 3219 128 1877 0 0 0 0 0 0 33990 0.0 0.0 12.2 30.7 0.1 32.0 2.4 7.3 9.5 0.4 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.5 24.6 24.0 36.0 0.3 0.0 5.6 0.0 % of Zone 1931-1955 Length (m) % of Zone 1956-1973 Length (m) % of Zone 1974-2004 Length (m) % of Zone Year Unknown Length (m) % of Zone Length (m) Total % of Zone

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix F

Page 15 of 20

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Material and Diameter Distribution in Waterloo Zone 6


Wat 6 1930-before Length (m) Material Asbestos Cement Cast Iron Ductile Iron PVC Steel HDPE CPP Unknown Diameter 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 600 750 900 999 1200 1350 Unknown Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1167 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1167 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.9 0 0 2514 3032 242 5462 0 683 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11933 0.0 0.0 19.2 23.1 1.8 41.7 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 91.1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1167 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 698 11235 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 5.3 85.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1167 0 698 11235 0 0 0 3 13103 0 0 2515 3032 243 5463 0 683 1167 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13103 0.0 0.0 19.2 23.1 1.9 41.7 0.0 5.2 8.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.9 0.0 5.3 85.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 % of Zone 1931-1955 Length (m) % of Zone 1956-1973 Length (m) % of Zone 1974-2004 Length (m) % of Zone Year Unknown Length (m) % of Zone Length (m) Total % of Zone

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix F

Page 16 of 20

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Material and Diameter Distribution in Waterloo Zone 7


Wat 7 1930-before Length (m) Material Asbestos Cement Cast Iron Ductile Iron PVC Steel HDPE CPP Unknown Diameter 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 600 750 900 999 1200 1350 Unknown Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 604 0 101 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 705 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 85.7 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 2 704 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.2 99.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 2 704 0 0 0 0 705 0 0 0 0 0 604 0 101 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 705 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 85.7 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 99.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 % of Zone 1931-1955 Length (m) % of Zone 1956-1973 Length (m) % of Zone 1974-2004 Length (m) % of Zone Year Unknown Length (m) % of Zone Length (m) Total % of Zone

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix F

Page 17 of 20

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Material and Diameter Distribution in Cambridge


Cambridge 1930-before Length (m) Material Asbestos Cement Cast Iron Ductile Iron PVC Steel HDPE CPP Unknown Diameter 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 600 750 900 999 1200 1350 Unknown Total 0 0 869 2843 3202 3568 0 547 1356 282 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12667 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.3 1.5 1.6 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 0 74 2917 5328 1953 575 0 0 0 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10900 0.0 0.0 1.3 2.4 0.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.967 0 0 2991 4679 11008 15011 715 14997 4363 640 333 0 0 9 0 0 0 54747 0.0 0.0 1.4 2.1 5.0 6.8 0.3 6.8 2.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.9 0 48 5949 23720 15965 47432 44 9349 36361 288 1371 514 0 64 0 0 0 141106 0.0 0.0 2.7 10.8 7.3 21.6 0.0 4.3 16.6 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.3 0 1 5 7 3 2 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 32 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 10382 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 7797 0 0 69 0 0 0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1846 17345 28625 0 40 119 0 0 0.8 7.9 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 2065 643 84606 48879 102 63 7485 8886 0.9 0.3 38.5 22.3 0.0 0.0 3.4 4.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 617 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 3911 36168 113231 48879 211 182 7485 9503 219568 0 123 12731 36577 32131 66589 763 24894 42080 1264 1704 514 0 82 0 0 0 219452 0.0 0.1 5.8 16.7 14.6 30.3 0.3 11.3 19.2 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 16.5 51.6 22.3 0.1 0.1 3.4 4.3 1931-1955 % of Zone 1956-1973 Length (m) % of Zone 1974-2004 Length (m) % of Zone Year Unknown Length (m) % of Zone Total Length (m) % of Zone

% of Zone Length (m)

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix F

Page 18 of 20

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Material and Diameter Distribution in Kitchener


Kitchener 1930-before Length (m) Material Asbestos Cement Cast Iron Ductile Iron PVC Steel HDPE CPP Unknown Diameter 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 600 750 900 999 1200 1350 Unknown Total 0 0 368 126 1774 5756 0 38 665 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8726 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.6 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0 0 0 1359 153 6918 0 892 6446 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15767 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 2.3 0.0 0.3 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.345 0 4 878 4731 1504 49571 0 497 25302 0 9807 3479 4 0 0 0 0 95778 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.6 0.5 16.8 0.0 0.2 8.6 0.0 3.3 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.5 0 116 3384 12571 1444 106509 0 2258 21344 17 18269 3873 4671 117 93 30 0 174695 0.0 0.0 1.1 4.3 0.5 36.1 0.0 0.8 7.2 0.0 6.2 1.3 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.2 0 2 2 4 5 5 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 8726 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3623 11856 289 0 0 0 0 0 1.2 4.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1426 22738 60216 0 99 0 11299 1 0.5 7.7 20.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 2635 1435 103231 49112 387 0 17878 12 0.9 0.5 35.0 16.6 0.1 0.0 6.1 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7684 44755 163735 49112 487 0 29177 35 294983 0 123 4632 18791 4880 168758 0 3685 53760 17 28076 7352 4675 117 93 30 0 294988 0.0 0.0 1.6 6.4 1.7 57.2 0.0 1.2 18.2 0.0 9.5 2.5 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 15.2 55.5 16.6 0.2 0.0 9.9 0.0 1931-1955 % of Zone 1956-1973 Length (m) % of Zone 1974-2004 Length (m) % of Zone Year Unknown Length (m) % of Zone Total Length (m) % of Zone

% of Zone Length (m)

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix F

Page 19 of 20

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Material and Diameter Distribution in Waterloo


Waterloo 1930-before Length (m) Material Asbestos Cement Cast Iron Ductile Iron PVC Steel HDPE CPP Unknown Diameter 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 600 750 900 999 1200 1350 Unknown Total 0 0 0 693 589 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1282 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0 0 1776 1061 890 3670 0 2597 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9994 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.6 0.5 2.2 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.080 0 0 986 9676 263 25105 806 1187 3980 0 4608 0 0 0 0 0 0 46611 0.0 0.0 0.6 5.9 0.2 15.3 0.5 0.7 2.4 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.4 0 27 5993 19123 1577 51892 0 3538 2773 128 15996 5428 0 0 0 0 0 106474 0.0 0.0 3.6 11.6 1.0 31.6 0.0 2.2 1.7 0.1 9.7 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.8 0 0 5 2 1 4 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 589 693 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 9931 17 0 47 0 0 0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3810 20544 17952 0 66 0 4239 0 2.3 12.5 10.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 1465 0 28056 62831 197 1181 12739 5 0.9 0.0 17.1 38.2 0.1 0.7 7.7 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5276 31063 46718 62831 310 1181 16977 20 164376 0 27 8760 30554 3320 80671 807 7323 6754 128 20604 5428 0 0 0 0 0 164376 0.0 0.0 5.3 18.6 2.0 49.1 0.5 4.5 4.1 0.1 12.5 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 18.9 28.4 38.2 0.2 0.7 10.3 0.0 1931-1955 % of Zone 1956-1973 Length (m) % of Zone 1974-2004 Length (m) % of Zone Year Unknown Length (m) % of Zone Total Length (m) % of Zone

% of Zone Length (m)

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix F

Page 20 of 20

Appendix G Watermain Break Repairs and Reporting

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix G

Page 1 of 4

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix G

Page 2 of 4

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix G

Page 3 of 4

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Technical Memorandum # 4 Appendix G

Page 4 of 4

Appendix E Technical Memorandum #5 Evaluation Methodology Criteria

Tri-City Water Distribution Master Plan


Technical Memorandum #5 Evaluation Methodology Criteria

The Regional Municipality of Waterloo Transportation & Environmental Services Department 7th Floor Water Services Division 150 Frederick Street Kitchener, Ontario N2G 4J3 Project 81539

AECOM 101 Frederick Street, Suite 702 Kitchener, Ontario N2H 6R2

May 2009

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table of Contents
1. 2. Background ......................................................................................................1 Overview of the Master Plan Process ............................................................1
2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 MEA Master Plan Class EA Approach .......................................................................... 1 Master Plan Features.................................................................................................... 2 Other Master Plan Features.......................................................................................... 2 Master Plan Projects..................................................................................................... 3 Use of Descriptive Information and Qualitative Evaluation ............................................ 3 Long List Screening ...................................................................................................... 4
3.1.1 Development of Screening Criteria...................................................................................4 Development of Evaluation Criteria ..................................................................................5 Evaluation Criteria.............................................................................................................6 Evaluation of Short Listed Servicing Alternatives .............................................................7 Water Management Strategy............................................................................................8 Phase 2: Alternative Solutions..........................................................................................8 Class EA Project Classifications.......................................................................................8

3.

Class EA Evaluation Framework and Master Plan Process.........................4


3.1 3.2

Short List Screening...................................................................................................... 5


3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.2.5 3.2.6

3.3 3.4

Water Distribution Strategies ........................................................................................ 9 Next Steps .................................................................................................................... 9

List of Tables
Table 3.1 - Recommended Evaluation Criteria...................................................................................................6

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

1.

Background

The principal reason for conducting this Master Plan was to determine required improvements for the existing water distribution infrastructure, as well as new distribution infrastructure required for Regional growth. The recent Provincial Places to Grow initiative has identified specific growth and density targets (e.g. RMOW 2031 Population: 729,000) which RMOW has generally accepted and is committed to address. The objective of the master plan is to determine how the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (RMOW) will provide the water servicing requirements of its growing community. Technical Memorandum # 5 of the project involves defining the evaluation framework and criteria for evaluation of water distribution alternatives. Outlined in this technical memorandum are the following: 1. Background 2. Overview of Class EA Master Plan process 3. Class EA Evaluation Framework and Master Plan Process 4. Screening and Evaluation Criteria 5. Alternative Solutions

2.
2.1

Overview of the Master Plan Process


MEA Master Plan Class EA Approach

This project is following the Municipal Engineers Association (MEA) Class EA Master Plan Approach No. 1 (June 2000 MEA Municipal Class EA Document Appendix 4). This approach involves the preparation of a Master plan document at the conclusion of Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class EA process. The Master Plan document would be made available for public comment prior to being approved by the municipality. The Master Plan will be completed based on a broad level of assessment thereby requiring more detailed investigations at the project-specific level in order to fulfill the Municipal Class EA documentation requirements for the specific Schedule B and C projects identified within the Master Plan. The Master Plan would therefore become the basis for, and be used in support of future investigations for the specific Schedule B and C Class EA projects identified within it. Schedule B projects would require the filing a Project File report for public review while Schedule C projects would have to fulfill Phases 3 and 4 prior to filing an Environmental Study Report (ESR) for public review. No schedule C projects have been identified. Over the planning period Class EA approvals for all Schedule B projects can then be easily secured by using the Master Plan as a starting point and completing remaining Class EA requirements (i.e.

Technical Memorandum # 5

Page 1 of 9

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

alternative route and storage site selection exercises, technology evaluations, site specific investigations, notification, consultation and preparation of individual Class EA project documentationProject File). As per the EAA any individual EA would start with the preparation of draft Terms of Reference and MOE EA and Approvals Branch assigning a project coordinator. The Water Distribution Master Plan will also include a comprehensive consultation and communication plan that will: Generate a broad awareness of the Water Distribution Master Plan project and opportunities for involvement throughout the planning process; Facilitate constructive input from public and agency stakeholders at key points in the EA process, well before decisions are made; and Demonstrate the impact of community consultation on EA process decisions and results. Provide an understandable road map for project implementation over the given planning period.

2.2

Master Plan Features

Master Plans have distinguishing features that set them apart from project specific studies. These features include the following: Master Plans are broad in scope. They focus on the analysis of a system for the purpose of outlining a framework for the provision of future works and development. Specific projects recommended in a Master Plan are part of a larger management system and may be distributed geographically throughout the study area. The implementation of specific projects may occur over an extended time frame. According to the Class EA document, a Master Plan must at least satisfy the requirements of 1 Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA process. Figure 2 illustrates the Class EA Master Planning Process.

2.3

Other Master Plan Features

The Master Plan will incorporate the key principles of EA planning (i.e. June 2000 Municipal Class EA document ) as well as the key features captured in master planning. The key principles of successful environmental assessment planning under the EA Act include:

Consultation with affected parties early in and throughout the process, such that the planning process is a cooperative venture. Consideration of a reasonable range of alternatives, both the functionally different alternatives to and the alternative methods of implementing the solution. Identification and consideration of the effects of each alternative on all aspects of the environment.

The Environmental Assessment Act (Section 1. (c) (i) to (vi)) defines the environment as: air, land, water, plant and animal life including humans; the social and cultural conditions that influence the life of humans or a community; any building, structure, machine or other device or thing made by humans; any solid, liquid, gas, odour, heat, sound, vibration or radiation resulting directly or indirectly from human activities; or; any part of combination of the foregoing and the interrelationships between any two or more of them, in or of Ontario. This definition of the environment is used and is reflected in the environmental components used in the Phase 2 evaluation.

Technical Memorandum # 5

Page 2 of 9

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Systematic evaluation of alternatives in terms of their advantages and disadvantages, to determine their net environmental effects. Provision of clear and complete documentation of the planning process followed, to allow traceability of decision-making with respect to the project.

2.4

Master Plan Projects

The Water Distribution Master Plan will clearly define a broad long-range plan for each Region of Waterloo growth scenario, which will consist of a suite of projects that are applied to specific geographic service areas and pressure zones and required to implement the plan over the planning period (2045). The master plan will address Phases 1 and 2 of the June 2000 MEA Class EA document and provide a listing of individual water distribution projects, including:

Project description/location Phasing-implementation Class EA schedule (triggers, e.g. new storage, pipe water crossings) Recommended Class EA Planning Schedule (i.e. Schedule B or Schedule C or Individual EA) Overview of how each project relates to the Study Area Environmental Features, which will be accordingly addressed in each future specific Class EA projects.

2.5

Use of Descriptive Information and Qualitative Evaluation

At this time it is suggested that the evaluation not be based on a numerical ranking system. To ensure statistical validity, such an approach would have to strictly adhere to statistical methods that are often difficult to apply in a multi-faceted issue such as a Class EA. For example, considerable time and resources can be spent on agreeing on evaluation category weightings (e.g. disagreement on weighting or importance given to a specific category or criteria). Instead, a descriptive or qualitative evaluation is used to consider the suitability of alternative solutions/strategies and to identify significant advantages and disadvantages with respect to the evaluation criteria. In this respect, comparisons and trade-offs will be made between alternatives which will be described in the text of the Class EA master plan report and will form the rationale for the identification of the preferred solution or servicing strategy. Trade-offs involve forfeiting an advantage or accepting a disadvantage to address a higher priority consideration. For information purposes only, the alternatives will be ranked in order of preference (based on advantages/disadvantages) under the discussion with respect to each aspect of the environment. For the evaluation summary, the following rating symbols will be applied to each alternative solution and evaluation criteria: Least preferred Neutral Most Preferred The evaluation of alternative solutions will be captured in a matrix format so as to allow direct comparison between alternatives.

Technical Memorandum # 5

Page 3 of 9

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

3.

Class EA Evaluation Framework and Master Plan Process

In November 2004, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (RMOW) initiated a Master Plan to review the water distribution system within the Cities of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge as well as the Township of Woolwich. The following presents the RMOWs approach to completing the Master Plan.

3.1

Long List Screening

The process to develop and assess feasible water servicing solutions commences with developing and describing a long list of alternative solutions for individual geographic service areas to which screening criteria are applied to arrive at a short list. The short list is then evaluated based on applying weighted evaluation criteria, which consider levels of acceptability for such criteria. An evaluation matrix is used to arrive at the preferred alternative.

3.1.1

Development of Screening Criteria

The natural environment, social/cultural and economic consideration for each alternative will be assessed using criteria that meet the EAA. Primary criteria such as ability to address problem statement; ability to meet current and proposed legislation/regulations; capital and life cycle cost; and unacceptable social disruption will be developed. In addition to these, technical screening criteria may include: Technical Criteria System Demand

Description

Based on system base demands, peaking factors and demand from future growth Storage to be equal to maximum day demand Demand in excess of maximum day to be supplied from the Storage Firm pumping station capacity (total installed pumping capacity within a pressure district with largest pump out of service) should equal the maximum day demand if sufficient storage exists in the district If storage is not sufficient then firm pumping station capacity to be equal to largest of peak hour demand or maximum day plus fire flow Transmission main capacity should equal the largest of peak hour flow; maximum week demand (average) plus fire flow; minimum hour flow (reservoir fill) Max recommended pipe velocity in transmission mains to be 1.5 m/s to minimize headloss and avoid potential pressure and transient related problems As a guideline use maximum headloss gradient of 3.0 m/km to identify capacity constraints

Storage Capacity Firm Pumping Station capacity

Transmission Main Capacity

Technical Memorandum # 5

Page 4 of 9

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Technical Criteria System Pressures

Description

Reservoir Storage

Maximum system pressure during minimum hour demand to be 115 psi (Joint Water Supply Study 1995) Maximum system pressure during minimum hour demand to be 100 psi (York Long Term Water Project - YLTWP) Minimum system pressure 40 psi during peak hour demand Minimum system pressure to be 20 psi during maximum week plus fire flow (YLTWP) Allowable Pressure district operating range variation: 30 psi within each pressure district To comprise of the following: Balancing storage to equalize diurnal demand variation Fire storage to provide fire flow protection Emergency reserve capacity to provide additional security for pumping station supply cutbacks or disruptions, facility maintenance, main breaks, abnormal demand conditions Fire storage as per MOE / local requirements / Insurers Advisory Organization Fire Underwriters Survey (FUS) Equalization storage: 100% average winter demands; (JOS 2004 Recommendation) 25% of max day demand (York Study / MOE Guideline) 15% of max day demand (AWWA guideline) Emergency Reserve Storage 10% of the total of fire and equalization storage which comprises of unusable portion of the top and bottom of the reservoir 25% (MOE / York guideline) Such that equalization is 30- 40% of total storage (AWWA)

Other potential criteria will be considered and reviewed at the workshop to obtain input and select/finalize screening criteria.

3.2
3.2.1

Short List Screening


Development of Evaluation Criteria

Following the initial screening, the short listed scenarios would then be considered based on a detailed evaluation. Key considerations include public health and safety, natural environment, social/cultural, financial and technical criteria.

Technical Memorandum # 5

Page 5 of 9

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

3.2.2

Evaluation Criteria

A detailed evaluation of each alternative solution and wastewater treatment/servicing strategy will be completed based on the impact to the following environmental components and related evaluation criteria. Environmental Component Public Health Natural Environmental Social/ Cultural Description Component that has regard to water quality and public health Component having regard for protecting the significant natural and physical elements of the environment (i.e. air, land, water and biota) including natural heritageenvironmentally sensitive policy areas. Component that evaluates potential effects on residents, neighbourhoods, businesses, community character, social cohesion, community features and historical/archaeological and heritage components in addition to municipal and provincial development objectives. Component that addresses the potential effect on water distribution system costs. Component that considers regulatory and land requirements for each alternative Component that considers technical suitability and other engineering aspects of the water distribution system.

Economic/ Financial Legal/ Jurisdictional Technical

The following table presents the draft evaluation criteria. Table 3.1 - Recommended Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Category A. Public Health and Safety Evaluation Criteria 1. Ability of Alternative to meet provincial fire flow and mandated security requirements: Comments

Defined by modeling


B. Natural Environmental Considerations

Large downtown fires Small multiple fires

1. Potential impacts to the aquatic environment water resources (e.g. stream crossings) 2. Potential impacts to terrestrial environment, including provincially significant wetlands (PSWs), significant woodlands, environmentally significant areas (ESAs), Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs), and sensitive species habitat (i.e. vulnerable/threatened/ endangered or locally/regionally rare) 3. Environmental management planning

Captured in Environmental Inventory Addressed through completion of separate Class EA projects initiated based on Schedule B triggers (eg. site new storage)

Technical Memorandum # 5

Page 6 of 9

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Evaluation Category

Evaluation Criteria considerations including mineral resources 4. Hydrogeological impacts, well interference 5. Risk Considerations: impacts on future resources (e.g. groundwater, risk of contamination) 1. Ability to meet municipal and provincial growth targets. 2. Short-term construction related impacts including dust, traffic, access, vibration and noise. 3. Potential land use impacts on cultural/heritage (e.g. archaeological) 4. Compatibility with First Nation Land Uses or Management Plans. 5. Flexibility for scheduling/phasing work 1. Estimated capital costs 2. Estimated operations and maintenance costs 3. Life cycle costs 4. Optimal use of existing infrastructure 1. Location inside vs. outside City boundaries and associated jurisdictional issues 2. Land Requirements 3. Property requirements and easements 4. Approvals 1. Ability to address system security 2. Storage requirements 3. Distribution requirements 4. Ability to implement alternative 5. Constructability 6. System reliability/flexibility 7. Operational Issues such as O&M requirements, Energy Consumption 8. Impact on Utilities 9. Site area requirements 10. Optimization of Existing Facilities / Systems

Comments

C. Social/Cultural Considerations

Assess impact on existing & proposed land uses and development

D. Economic/Financial Considerations E. Legal/Jurisdictional

Based on engineering capital works and O&M costs Dependent on project location and applicable approvals Based on modeling and other engineering analysis

F.

Technical Considerations

3.2.3

Evaluation of Short Listed Servicing Alternatives

Following finalization of the evaluation criteria and buy-in, a rational and traceable evaluation methodology will be applied to rank and prioritize alternatives within each land use/growth scenario. The evaluation will employ both a quantitative and qualitative evaluation approach considering the range of components (i.e., effectiveness, economic, environmental, social, etc.). Ranking/prioritization will be based on the number of advantages/disadvantages attributed to each of the strategies / solutions. This exercise involves consideration of the weight or priority of each criterion and the ranking of alternatives under each criterion. The above evaluation will be summarized in an evaluation matrix table. The short-list of options will be evaluated based on the established criteria and screening process to produce a prioritized suite of distribution projects for consideration and implementation by RMOW.

Technical Memorandum # 5

Page 7 of 9

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

3.2.4

Water Management Strategy

The land use/growth scenarios will be evaluated by modeling the impacts on the water supply and distribution infrastructure. Energy management will be considered on a macro level to determine optional servicing solutions. These solutions will be verified with geographical characteristics (e.g. to resolve pressure problems at the zone boundaries, combine pressure zones etc.). The level of detail for the short-listed scenarios will be compatible with the requirements of Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA process. For example, for a proposed water reservoir, this would include: Land requirements Sizing, overall dimension, approximate elevations of proposed facility Functional water levels Construction implications including access and staging strategy General restoration and landscaping/screening requirements

3.2.5

Phase 2: Alternative Solutions

The following broad based alternative solutions will be evaluated as part of the Master Plan: 1. Limit Community Growth 2. Water Efficiency/Conservation 3. Expanded System - Revision of Pressure Zone Boundaries, which can include new infrastructure as part of specific water distribution strategies. New infrastructure would include siting storage, transmission upgrades and pumping upgrades. 4. Do Nothing

3.2.6

Class EA Project Classifications

Based on the MEA Class EA document, projects are classified as either Schedule A, B or C projects based on the type of environmental effect normally anticipated. Each of these classifications requires a different level of review to complete the requirements of the Class EA, and thus comply with the EAA, as noted below: Schedule A Projects are limited in scale, have minimal adverse effects and include the majority of municipal sewage, stormwater management and water operations and maintenance activities. These projects are approved and may be implemented without following the Class EA planning process. Schedule A projects typically include normal or emergency operational maintenance activities where the environmental effects of these activities are usually minimal. Examples of Schedule A projects include where all such facilities are located within a municipal road allowance or an existing utility corridor. As such, these projects are pre-approved and subsequently do not require any further planning and public consultation. Schedule B Projects have the potential for some adverse environmental effects. The proponent is required to undertake a screening process involving mandatory contact with directly affected public and relevant review agencies to ensure that they are aware of the project and that their concerns are addressed. Schedule B projects require that Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA planning process be followed and an Environmental

Technical Memorandum # 5

Page 8 of 9

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Screening Document be prepared and submitted for review by the public and relevant agencies. If there are no outstanding concerns raised by the public and/or review agencies, then the proponent may proceed to project implementation. If however, the screening process raises a concern that cannot be resolved, then the Part II Order procedure (commonly referred to as a bump-up) may be invoked. Schedule B projects generally include improvements and expansions to existing facilities where there is the potential for some adverse environmental impacts. Examples of Schedule B projects include activities such as siting of water storage facilities or new watermains located outside of existing road allowances or utility corridors. As a result, the proponent is required to proceed through a screening process including consultation with those who may be affected. Schedule C Projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects must proceed under the full planning and documentation procedures (Phases 1 to 4) specified in the MEA Class EA document. Schedule C projects require that an Environmental Study Report (ESR) be prepared and submitted for review by the public. If concerns are raised that cannot be resolved, then the Part II Order procedure may be invoked. Schedule C projects typically include the construction of new facilities, such as water treatment plants, and major expansions to existing facilities. These projects proceed through the complete (Phases 1 to 4) Class EA planning processes outlined in the MEA Class EA document. Major expansion of water or wastewater treatment plants or siting of such new facilities are considered Schedule C projects.

3.3

Water Distribution Strategies

Water Distribution strategies will be developed for individual geographic service areas / development areas and will typically comprise the following project components: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Pumping Facilities (Schedule B) New Trunk Water Distribution Infrastructure (Schedule A, in existing road allowance/utility corridor or Schedule B, outside road allowance /utility corridor and or water crossing) New Storage Towers/ Reservoirs (Schedule B) Decommissioning of Facilities (Schedule B) Pressure Zone Boundary Refinements (Schedule A or B)

3.4

Next Steps

The contents of this technical memorandum will be vetted and further developed in consultation with the Steering Committee (Workshop # 11), key stakeholders, government review agencies and general public and ultimately will form part of the water distribution master plan.

Technical Memorandum # 5

Page 9 of 9

Appendix F Technical Memorandum #6 Water Servicing Alternatives

Tri-City Water Distribution Master Plan


Technical Memorandum #6
Water Servicing Alternatives

The Regional Municipality of Waterloo Transportation & Environmental Services Department 7th Floor Water Services Division 150 Frederick Street Kitchener, Ontario N2G 4J3 Project 81539

AECOM 101 Frederick Street, Suite 702 Kitchener, Ontario N2H 6R2

May 2009

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 1. Design Data Summary .................................................................................... 1
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 System Demands ........................................................................................................... 1 System Performance Criteria ......................................................................................... 2 Storage Usage................................................................................................................ 3 Design Costs .................................................................................................................. 3

2.

Facility information ......................................................................................... 4


2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Water Supply Information ............................................................................................... 4 Transmission System Information .................................................................................. 9 Storage Requirement ..................................................................................................... 9 Pumping Station Control Strategy ................................................................................ 13

3.

Hydraulic Model............................................................................................. 14
3.1 3.2 Hydraulic Analysis Scenarios ....................................................................................... 14 Scenario Results .......................................................................................................... 14
3.2.1 3.2.2 Scenario Descriptions.....................................................................................................14 Scenario Results.............................................................................................................17 Fire Flow Analysis Results..............................................................................................25
3.3.1.1 3.3.1.2 3.3.1.3 3.3.1.4 3.3.1.5 3.3.1.6 3.3.1.7 3.3.1.8 3.3.1.9 Low Pressure Location No.1 .................................................................................25 Low Pressure Location No.2 .................................................................................26 Low Pressure Location No.3 .................................................................................27 Low Pressure Location No.4 .................................................................................28 Low Pressure Location No.5 .................................................................................30 Low Pressure Location No.6 .................................................................................31 Low Pressure Location No.7 .................................................................................32 Low Pressure Location No.8 .................................................................................33 Low Pressure Location No.9 .................................................................................34

3.3

Fire Flow Analysis ........................................................................................................ 21


3.3.1

3.3.2

Fire Flow Results Summary............................................................................................36

3.4

Potential High and Low Pressure Problems ................................................................. 36

4.

REGIONAL SYSTEM MODIFICATION .......................................................... 38


4.1 New Cambridge Zone 1 Storage .................................................................................. 38
4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3 4.1.4 4.1.5 4.1.6 4.1.7 Cambridge Zone 1 Water Facility Modifications .............................................................39 Storage Location Options ...............................................................................................39 Hydraulic Considerations................................................................................................43 Pump Station Modifications ............................................................................................45 Ultimate Supply System Considerations ........................................................................45 Infrastructure Requirements ...........................................................................................46 Summary of Future Storage Location Options for Cambridge Zone 1 ...........................47

Technical Memorandum # 6

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

4.2

New Kitchener Zone 4 Storage .................................................................................... 47


4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.4 4.2.5 Storage Location Options ...............................................................................................47 Hydraulic Considerations................................................................................................49 Eastside Growth Considerations ....................................................................................50 Infrastructure Requirements ...........................................................................................51 Summary of Future Storage Location Options for Kitchener Zone 4 .............................51

5. 6. 7.

Zone Boundary Changes.............................................................................. 52 Criticality Analysis ........................................................................................ 58 Conceptual Servicing Strategy .................................................................... 63
7.1 7.2 Eastside Servicing ........................................................................................................ 63 Lake-Based Water Supply System............................................................................... 66
7.2.1 7.2.2 7.2.3 Option 1: Mannheim Supply to Cambridge.....................................................................66 Option 2: New Transmission System to the City of Cambridge ....................................67 Preferred Ultimate Water Servicing Strategy..................................................................71

8.

Summary and Recommendations ............................................................... 73

Technical Memorandum # 6

ii

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

List of Figures
Figure 1.1 - Typical Storage Level Cycling during a 48 hr Simulation Period ....................................................3 Figure 2.1 Water System Schematic for Existing RMOW Water Distribution System ....................................8 Figure 2.2 - Watermain Ownership...................................................................................................................11 Figure 3.1 - System Balance Summary............................................................................................................17 Figure 3.2 Watermain Deficiencies Cambridge .............................................................................................19 Figure 3.3 Watermain Deficiencies Kitchener ...............................................................................................20 Figure 3.4 Fire Flow Location ........................................................................................................................21 Figure 3.5 - Potential Low Pressure Location No.1..........................................................................................25 Figure 3.6 - Low Pressure Location No.2 .........................................................................................................26 Figure 3.7 - Low Pressure Location No.3 .........................................................................................................27 Figure 3.8 - Low Pressure Location No.4 .........................................................................................................28 Figure 3.9 - Solution for Low Pressure Location No.4......................................................................................29 Figure 3.10 - Low Pressure Location No.5 .......................................................................................................30 Figure 3.11 - Low Pressure Location No.6 .......................................................................................................31 Figure 3.12 - Low Pressure Location No.7 .......................................................................................................32 Figure 3.13- Low Pressure Location No.8 ........................................................................................................33 Figure 3.14 - Low Pressure Location No.9 .......................................................................................................34 Figure 3.15 - Solution for Low Pressure Location No.12..................................................................................35 Figure 4.1 - Locations for New Cambridge Storage Facility.............................................................................40 Figure 4.2 - Potential Location No.1 for New CAM1 Storage Facility...............................................................40 Figure 4.3 - Potential Location No.2 for New CAM1 Storage Facility...............................................................41 Figure 4.4 - Potential Location No.3 for New CAM1 Storage Facility...............................................................41 Figure 4.5 - Potential Location No.4 for New CAM1 Storage Facility...............................................................42 Figure 4.6 - Potential Location No.5 for New CAM1 Storage Facility...............................................................42 Figure 4.7 - Tank Cycling Pattern for Location 1 ..............................................................................................43 Figure 4.8 - Tank Cycling Pattern for Location 2 ..............................................................................................43 Figure 4.9 - Tank Cycling Pattern for Location 3 ..............................................................................................44 Figure 4.10 - Tank Cycling Pattern for Location 4............................................................................................44 Figure 4.11 - Tank Cycling Pattern for Location 5............................................................................................44 Figure 4.12 - Potential Location No. 1 for Kit4 Storage...................................................................................48 Figure 4.13 - Potential Location No. 2 for Kit4 Storage....................................................................................48 Figure 4.14 -Tank Cycling Pattern for New Storage Option 1 for Kit4 .............................................................49 Figure 4.15 - Tank Cycling Pattern for New Storage Option 2 for Kit4 ............................................................49 Figure 4.16 - System Pressure Comparison St. George ET vs. New Kit4 Tank ...........................................50 Figure 5.1 - Existing Zone Boundary for Cambridge Zone 1A .........................................................................53 Figure 5.2 - Future Zone Boundary for Cambridge Zone 1A............................................................................54 Figure 5.3 - Existing Zone Boundary for Waterloo Zone 5 ...............................................................................55 Figure 5.4 - Future Zone Boundary for Waterloo Zone 5 .................................................................................56 Technical Memorandum # 6

iii

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 5.5 - System Pressure Differences in Cambridge Zone 1A ..................................................................57 Figure 5.6 - System Pressure Differences in Existing Waterloo Zone 4C........................................................57 Figure 5.7 - System Pressure Differences in Existing Waterloo Zone 4 ..........................................................58 Figure 7.1 - Eastside Servicing Area Location .................................................................................................63 Figure 7.2 Infrastructure Requirements 1 for Eastside Servicing Areas .......................................................64 Figure 7.3 - Infrastructure Requirements 2 for Eastside Servicing Areas ........................................................65 Figure 7.4 - Lake-Based Supply Option No.1................................................................................................67 Figure 7.5 - Lake-Based Supply Option No.2................................................................................................69 Figure 7.6 - Turnbull Storage as Terminal Storage ..........................................................................................70 Figure 7.7 - Middleton as Terminal Storage .....................................................................................................70 Figure 7.8 - Shades Mill as Terminal Storage ..................................................................................................71 Figure 7.9 - Preferred Ultimate Supply Strategy...............................................................................................72 Figure 8.1 Recommended Upgrades for Cambridge ....................................................................................75 Figure 8.2 Recommended Upgrades for Kitchener.......................................................................................76 Figure 8.3 Recommended Upgrades for Waterloo........................................................................................77

List of Tables
Table 1.1 - Projected Maximum Week Demand(3) (L/s).....................................................................................2 Table 1.2 - Construction Costs per Meter..........................................................................................................4 Table 2.1 - Water Supply Information.................................................................................................................4 Table 2.2 - Storage Evaluation Summary for Cambridge Integrated Supply System ......................................12 Table 2.3 - Storage Evaluation Summary for Kitchener and Waterloo Integrated Supply System ..................12 Table 2.4 - General Water Facility Control Strategy.........................................................................................13 Table 3.1 - Water Distribution Master Plan Scenarios .....................................................................................14 Table 3.2 - Hydraulic Modeling Results Water Facility Outputs Summary....................................................16 Table 3.3 -Summary of Watermain Deficiencies ..............................................................................................18 Table 3.4 - Fire Flow Locations ........................................................................................................................22 Table 3.5 - Hydraulic Results for Potential High / Low Pressure Problems .....................................................36 Table 4.1 - Infrastructure Requirements...........................................................................................................46 Table 4.2 - Summary of Technical Feasibility for Cam1 Storage .....................................................................47 Table 4.3 - Summary of Infrastructure Requirements ......................................................................................51 Table 4.4 - Summary of Technical Feasibility...................................................................................................51 Table 6.1 - Criticality Analysis Results for Watermains....................................................................................59 Table 6.2 - Criticality Analysis Results (Redundancy) for Pump Stations........................................................61 Table 8.1 - Recommended Infrastructure Improvements................................................................................73

Appendices
A. B. Hydraulic Modeling Results Possible New Elevated Storage for Kitchener Zone 4

Technical Memorandum # 6

iv

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Introduction
The purpose of Technical Memorandum # 6 was to identify the optimal water servicing alternative(s) for the Tri-City water distribution system. In order to analyze the infrastructure alternatives, hydraulic modeling was performed, based on a groundwater (except for Mannheim WTP and the ASR system) based supply system. The Regions existing hydraulic model was used where future population projections and allocations were incorporated to analyze the various design scenarios. The hydraulic model analysis also focused on watermain/transmission mains owned by the Region. Due to the level of integration of the water distribution system between the Region of Waterloo municipalities, the transfer capability of the system under fire events and the criticality of the major supply were evaluated. In addition, hydraulic modeling analyses were performed based on the conceptual servicing strategies: Eastside Servicing (Breslau South) and a high level review of the future Lake-Based Supply System. All modeling analysis was performed based on the Regions system performance criteria.

1.
1.1

Design Data Summary


System Demands

Population projections and allocations were provided by the RMOW. Using the respective design water consumption factors for residential development and industrial/commercial/institutional (ICI) development, as detailed in Technical Memorandum #1, the projected water demand was calculated and incorporated into the hydraulic model. Table 1.1 summarizes the projected water demand for the Region that was used in the hydraulic modeling analysis. The detailed projected water demand for each modeling junction equivalent location can be found in Appendix A. .

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 1 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table 1.1 - Projected Maximum Week Demand(3) (L/s) M un i c ip a lit y C a m br i dge K it che ne r W at er l oo Nort h Dumf ries Wilmot ( 1 ) W o o lw ich ( 2 ) L /s I U S T o ta l M I GD M L /d 2 003 7 34 1 014 5 39 1 3 58 2 349 4 4 .6 2 03 2 006 7 45 1 016 5 60 1 3 58 2 382 4 5 .3 2 06 2 011 7 99 1 087 5 97 1 3 64 2 550 4 8 .5 2 20 2 016 8 46 1 164 6 30 1 3 70 2 713 5 1 .6 2 34 2 021 8 86 1 249 6 58 1 3 81 2 877 5 4 .7 2 59 2 026 9 33 1 328 6 91 1 3 90 3 045 5 7 .9 2 63

(1) Wilmot includes Mannheim and Shingletown (2) Woolwich includes Elmira and St. Jacobs (3) Table 2.1 has been updated based on a residential per capita consumption of 209 litres/capita/day (LPCD) as detailed in the Technical Memorandum #1.

1.2

System Performance Criteria

The following evaluation criteria were used as a guideline to identify potential restrictions on hydraulic performance of the Regions water distribution system: 1. Minimum System Pressure: a. Under Maximum Week Demand 350kPa (~50psi) b. Under Peak Hour Demand 275kPa (~40psi) c. 2. Under Maximum Week demand plus fire flow 140 kPa (~20psi)

Maximum System Pressure: a. Under Maximum Week Demand 700kPa (~100psi)

Pipe maximum velocity 1.5m/s 3. Pipe maximum headloss gradient 2.5 m/km for mains 300mm and larger

A hydraulic analysis was also performed on the minimum hour of the max week to confirm that during the lower demand periods there is sufficient pipe capacity to take the excess water to storage.

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 2 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

1.3

Storage Usage

An analysis of optimal storage usage for each scenario was undertaken to maximize the systems use of available equalization storage for supplying each district during the peak hour demand condition, while minimizing the pumping requirements and energy use. Ideally, storage levels should remain between 60% to 90% and at least one complete cycle should appear within the 48 hours simulation period to demonstrate turnover and maintenance of water quality. As an example, Figure 1.1 demonstrates a Laurel Tank storage level variation curve over time starting from the initial level through to the final level as the percent of available storage varies throughout the 48 hour simulation period. Storage levels increased as additional system pumps turned on and/or when demand was low.

Tank LAUREL
100

80

Percentage (%)

60

40

20

0 0 10 20 30 40 50

Time (hour)

Figure 1.1 - Typical Storage Level Cycling during a 48 hr Simulation Period

1.4

Design Costs

The cost for each improvement project was calculated based on installing infrastructure in an urbanized setting. Main reinforcement was not considered when estimating costs. For example, if additional capacity was needed, the main size that was required to meet the capacity was considered. The addition of a parallel main to offset the requirements of the current main was not considered as this increases life cycle costs. Consideration for watermain reinforcement by constructing parallel mains should be considered during subsequent phases of the EA process for each capital work. The unit rates used are presented in Table 1.2 below:

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 3 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Table 1.2 - Construction Costs per Meter Main Size 300 mm 400 mm 500 mm 600 mm 750 mm Construction Costs per Meter $ $ $ $ $ 860 1,110 1,400 1,500 1,600

2.

Facility information

This section presents the background data applied to the hydraulic model. The hydraulic modeling results are discussed in Section 3.0. An overall schematic of the water transmission system outlining the existing transmission system, pumping stations, storage facilities and control valves is presented in Figure 2.1.

2.1

Water Supply Information

Table 2.1 summarizes the existing water supply capacity at each pumping station and the available supply capacity from direct input from wells into the distribution system. The available water supply capacity information was obtained from Application for Approval of Municipal Drinking Water Systems MOE Reference Number 3365-64WTML (2004) provided by the Region. The simulated supply from each water facility and the operating head is summarized in Table 3.2 in Section 3.2 respectively.

Table 2.1 - Water Supply Information PUMPS ZONE Existing Pumping Station Modeling Pump ID CB-21 CB-22 CB-23 Middleton (2) Shades Mill (5) CB-24 CB-37 CB-38 Total Capacity (L/s) 150 150 150 150 150 150 Duty Duty Duty Standby Duty Standby G9 P6 G6 P9 P15 P_G9 P_P6 P_G6 P_P9 P_P15 38 23 22 30 19 Type DIRECT WELL SUPPLY TO SYSTEM Well ID Modeling Pump ID Total Capacity (L/s) Total Capacity (L/s) 972

Cam 1

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 4 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

PUMPS ZONE Existing Pumping Station Rahmans Pinebush WTP (3) Turnbull WTP (6) TOTAL CB-29 CB-30 Cam 1A South Cambridge TOTAL CB-8 Cam 2E Turnbull Pumping Station TOTAL Cam2W TOTAL CB-34 Cam 3 CB-35 St. Andrew TOTAL KB-10 KB-11 Parkway (9) Strange (10) St. KB-12 KB-5 KB-6 KB-1 Kit 4 Greenbrook (7) Mannheim (8) KB-2 KB-3 KB-4 KB-19 KB-20 KB-21 TOTAL CB-36 70 70 182 140(1) 80 50 80 95 95 130 130 70 85 608 608 608 2,639 Booster Booster Booster Duty Duty Duty Standby Duty Duty Duty Duty Standby Booster Booster Fire CB-9 CB-10 CB-31 CB-32 Modeling Pump ID CB-16 CB-17 CB-28 CB-27 CB-27 CB-28 Total Capacity (L/s) 100 100 120 120 120 120 840(1)(4) 22 82 82 82 268 152 151 151 303(1) Duty Standby Fire Duty Duty Duty Standby Duty Duty Duty Standby Duty Standby Type

DIRECT WELL SUPPLY TO SYSTEM Well ID Modeling Pump ID Total Capacity (L/s) Total Capacity (L/s)

TOTAL

132

268 H3 H4 H5 G5 TOTAL P16 G4 P_P16 P_G4 P_H3 P_H4 P_H5 P_G5 19 24 23 50 116 22.7 22 419 22.7

TOTAL K34 K36 KB28 P_K36

22 53 27

162

TOTAL

80

2719

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 5 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

PUMPS ZONE Existing Pumping Station Mannheim (8) TOTAL William St. (12) Wat 4 Laurel TOTAL WB-6 Wat 4B Northfield Dr. TOTAL WB-16 Wat 4C Lakeshore West TOTAL Wat 5 Erb Street Reservoir Rummelhardt Pumping Station TOTAL NA WB-9 WB-10 WB-11 WB-12 WB-17 WB18 WB19 WB-7 WB-8 WB-1 WB-2 WB-3 WB-13 WB-14 WB15 Modeling Pump ID KB-15 KB-16 KB-17 KB-18 Kit 5 Total Capacity (L/s) 94 250 250 250 844 100 100 100 300 300 15 600(1) 29 53 77 159 15 15 15 114 45 279(11) 105 54 105 189 264(1) NA Duty Duty Standby Fire Duty Duty Duty Fire Duty Duty Standby Duty Standby Duty Standby Standby Recirc. Duty Booster Booster Standby Type

DIRECT WELL SUPPLY TO SYSTEM Well ID K18 Modeling Pump ID P_K18 Total Capacity (L/s) 60 Total Capacity (L/s)

TOTAL

60

904

600

159

45 W10 P_W10 36 315

Wat 6

264

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 6 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

(1)The total available pumping capacity in each zone excluded Fire Pumps, Standby Pumps and Recirculation Pumps, etc. (2) Middleton PS was supplied by Middleton Well System (G1, G1A, G2, G3 and G14) with a total supply capacity of 40.5ML/d (467L/s) (3) Pinebush Treatment Plant was supplied by Pinebush Well System (P11, P11 and P17) with a total supply capacity of 10.4ML/d (120L/s) (4) Excludes Rahmans (5) Shaes Mill Treatment Plant was supplied by Shades Mill Well System (G7, G8, G38 and G39) with a total supply capacity of 13ML/d (150L/s) (6) Turnbull Treatment Plant was supplied by Turnbull Well System (G16, G17 and G18) with a total supply capacity of 10.4Ml/d (120L/s) (7) Greenbrook Water Treatment Plant was supplied by Greenbrook Well System (K1, K2, K4B, K5A and K8) with a total supply capacity of 12.3ML/d (142L/s) (8) Mannheim Treatment plant was supplied by Mannheim Well System (K21, K25, K29), (K22A, K23, K24, K26), (K91, K92, K93, K94) with a total supply capacity of 72.6ML/d (840L/s) (9) Parkway Treatment Plant was supplied by Parkway Well System (K31, K32 and K33) with a total capacity of 13.7ML/d (159L/s) (10) Strange Street P.S. was supplied by Strange Street Well System (K10A, K11, K13) with a total capacity of 9.03ML/d (104.5L/s) (11) Erb Street Reservoir was supplied by Erb Street Well System (W6A, W6B, W7, W8) with a total capacity of 24.11ML/d (279L/s) (12) William Street PS was supplied by William Street Well system (W1B, W1B, W2, W3) with a total capacity of 16.8ML/d (195L/s)

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 7 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 2.1 Water System Schematic for Existing RMOW Water Distribution System

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 8 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

2.2
1. 2. 3.

Transmission System Information


Regional Watermains Owned by RMOW; maintained and operated by the local municipality for RMOW Dual Watermains Owned by both RMOW and local municipality; maintained and operated by the local municipality Local Watermains owned, maintained and operated by the local municipality

The water distribution system within the three major municipalities categorized into three (3) types:

The existing RMOW water model contains all Regional and Dual watermains; and only local watermains needed to complete hydraulic connectivity for the system. Figure 2.2 illustrates the three categories of watermain in the existing water distribution system. The review of storage requirements undertaken in Technical Memorandum #3 considers only the major system requirements to satisfy the three traditional components of storage. There are other factors that should also be considered in the review of storage. These include:

The need of maintaining the appropriate levels of disinfection / system inactivation. The use of storage to act as a mixing vessel for the addition of chlorine and ammonia for an ultimate disinfection residual The provision of storage for backwashing treatment systems. The flexibility factor to provide the operator a comfort zone that there is ample for storage band to operate a supply system.

2.3

Storage Requirement

Detailed storage analysis was conducted and documented in Technical Memorandum #3. The storage capacity within the Region was evaluated using three approaches: 1. MOE Storage Capacity Evaluation Approach based on MOE Guidelines, Design Criteria for Sizing Water Storage Facilities- Appendix N, and the required storage was calculated based on population in each zone. Alternate Capacity Evaluation Approach (Zonal) Based on the fire flow recommendations by the Insurers Advisory Organization Fire Underwriters Survey (FUS) in each zone, average percentage equalization value (15%) and Emergency as per MOE guidelines. Integrated System Approach Based on fire flow recommendations by the Insurers Advisory Organization Fire Underwriters Survey (FUS) for the two major supply systems (Kitchener/Waterloo, and Cambridge) and equalization and emergency as per MOE guidelines.

2.

3.

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 9 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 2.2

Figure 2.2 - Watermain Ownership

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 11 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN


Due to the level of interconnections in the RMOW water distribution system and the ability of storage to be shared among many pressure zones, the Integrated System Approach was recommended in Technical Memorandum #3 and accepted by the Region. Tables 2.2 and 2.3 summarize the storage evaluation results for the Cambridge Integration Supply System and the Kitchener/Waterloo Integration Supply System, respectively. Table 2.2 - Storage Evaluation Summary for Cambridge Integrated Supply System Design Year A. Fire Storage (ML) B. Emergency Storage (ML) C. Equalization Storage (ML) Total Recommended Storage as per FUS / Alternate Approach (ML) Total Designed Storage (ML) Total Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) Theoretical Storage Surplus (+) / Deficit (-) (ML) 2006 7.80 4.20 9.01 21.0 65.3 48.0 27.0 2011 7.80 4.35 9.58 21.7 65.3 48.0 26.3 2016 7.80 4.47 10.09 22.4 65.3 48.0 25.6 2021 7.80 4.58 10.53 22.9 65.3 48.0 25.1 2026 7.80 4.72 11.06 23.6 65.3 48.0 24.4

Table 2.3 - Storage Evaluation Summary for Kitchener and Waterloo Integrated Supply System Design Year A. Fire Storage (ML) B. Emergency Storage (ML) C. Equalization Storage (ML) Total Recommended Storage as per FUS/Alternate Approach (ML) Total Designed Storage (ML) Total Theoretical Useable Storage (ML) Theoretical Storage Surplus (+) / Deficit (-) (ML) 2006 8.79 7.65 21.82 38.3 76.7 66.4 28.2 2011 8.79 8.06 23.43 40.3 89.1 76.6 36.3 2016 8.79 8.46 25.04 42.3 89.1 76.6 34.3 2021 8.79 8.88 26.73 44.4 89.1 76.6 32.2 2026 8.79 9.29 28.37 46.4 89.1 76.6 30.2

Although there is sufficient storage in both Integrated Supply Systems, the available storage might not be physically located within the servicing area (pressure zone). For example, Kitchener Zone 2W does not have a storage facility and is supplied by Kitchener Zone 4 via Manitou PRV; the available storage in Kitchener Zone 4 (Mannheim Reservoir) would be conveyed to Zone 2W under fire or emergency conditions. As a result, it is important to review and assess the ability of the transmission system to convey required storage between zones. Hereinafter, this is referred to as transfer capability. The evaluation of the transfer capability within each Integrated Supply System is outlined in Section 3.3 Fire Flow Analysis. Technical Memorandum # 6 Page 12 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

2.4

Pumping Station Control Strategy

Under normal operating conditions, many of the pumps (either booster stations or direct well connections) are controlled by storage level (in the pressure zone that they are to operate in). To reflect these storage levels in the hydraulic model, the normal operating condition parameters were obtained from each local municipality (Tri-City) within the Region. Table 2.4 summarizes the general control strategy at each station. The pump controls in the hydraulic model were established to reflect this normal operating strategy. Table 2.4 - General Water Facility Control Strategy Control Source St. Andrews Tank Level Rahmans Tank Level Shades Mill Treated Water Tank Level Turnbull Treated Water Tank Level Pinebush Tank Level Freeport Tank Level Inverness Tank Level Greenbrook Treated Water Tank Level Strange St. Reservoir Level Parkway Reservoir Level Mannheim Reservoir Level William St Reservoir Level Erb St. Reservoir Level Rummelhardt Pumping Station Zone 7 Pumping Station Source Type Floating Storage to CAM1 Floating Storage to CAM1 Pumping Storage to CAM1 Pumping Storage to CAM1/2 Floating Storage to CAM2E Floating Storage to CAM2W Floating Storage to CAM3 Pumping Storage to KIT4 Pumping Storage to KIT4 Pumping Storage to KIT4 Pumping Storage to KIT4/5/6 Pumping Storage to KIT4 Floating Storage to WAT5 and pumping storage to existing WAT6 and WAT7 Direct pumping to Waterloo Zone 6 Direct pumping to Waterloo Zone 7 Low Level * 25% 55% 80% 80% 24% 51% 28% 64% 25% 47% 76% 23% 33% High Level 89% 76% 96% 96% 100% 100% 100% 97% 99% 98% 98% 100% 95%

Based on discharge pressure Based on discharge pressure

* As the level starts to fall, more pumps will operate.

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 13 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

3.
3.1

Hydraulic Model
Hydraulic Analysis Scenarios

Scenarios were developed using the hydraulic model of the RMOW water transmission system to assess system behaviour and capacity requirements for different design years. All scenarios were evaluated using an extended period simulation of 48hrs under the maximum week demand condition as agreed to by the Region in Technical Memorandum # 4. In addition, the ultimate design year lakebased supply system was also investigated. In the lake-based supply system, all well supply sources were inactivated. Table 3.1 summarizes the scenarios that were completed. Table 3.1 - Water Distribution Master Plan Scenarios Projected System Demand (L/s) Year 2006 Year 2011 Year 2016 Year 2021 Year 2026 Ultimate 2,382 2,550 2,713 2,877 3,045 3,045 (ML/d) 205.8 220.3 234.4 248.6 263.1 263.1 (MIGD) 45.3 48.5 51.6 54.7 57.9 57.9

Scenarios

Section 3.2 outlines the system performance that resulted from the modeling of each design year. A detailed description of the Fire Flow Analysis results is presented in Section 3.3. The fire flow analysis was modeled based on the Integrated System Approach as detailed in Technical Memorandum #3.

3.2
3.2.1

Scenario Results
Scenario Descriptions

To evaluate system deficiencies with the hydraulic model, system performance including system pressure, pipe velocity, headloss gradient and tank operations were assessed for the following conditions:

Maximum Week Demand Conditions 48 Hour Extended Period Simulation Fire flow conditions details are presented in Section 3.3 The following distribution system features were considered: Existing and committed infrastructures and water facilities No backfeed from the City of Waterloo to the City of Kitchener 50L/s maximum allowable transfer through New Dundee PRV Technical Memorandum # 6 Page 14 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Inactivation of the following water facilities: Kress Hill PS Shantz Hill Elevated Tank St. George Elevated Tank Fire flow conditions details are presented in Section 3.3

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 15 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN


Table 3.2 - Hydraulic Modeling Results Water Facility Outputs Summary Design Data 2006 Water Facility Zone Design Capacity (L/s) 450 150 168 268 303 140 210 190 415 Future 1824 844 301.5 300 300 159 45 264 Future 21 23 48 67 16 20 24 40 Design Head (m) 74 55 11 50 55 45 76 65 105 Average Flow (L/s) 211.6 58.8 102.5 30.2 112.9 28.7 112.5 37.5 206.1 622.1 304.7 61.1 134.1 0.0 39.6 6.0 56.4 38.9 50.0 85.8 113.5 79.0 151.6 2.8 Max Head (m) 73.2 70.4 21.7 58.0 46.0 46.8 72.9 78.5 65.1 5.0 40.7 59.4 65.3 26.2 53.0 60.1 79.0 40.5 50.0 112.0 121.9 63.2 157.2 4.4 40.5 50.0 119.1 130.2 59.0 154.9 5.8 39.9 50.0 126.8 134.7 59.9 147.4 6.3 38.3 50.0 132.8 136.9 64.4 141.6 6.6 2011 Average Flow (L/s) 222.4 56.5 129.4 36.1 118.4 26.4 122.1 70.0 177.3 324.0 691.2 323.1 128.9 151.3 0.0 38.9 6.4 Max Head (m) 71.1 68.7 15.8 57.9 46.0 47.0 74.1 78.7 65.8 45.0 5.3 40.1 44.6
3

Hydraulic Modeling Results 2016 Average Flow (L/s) 237.4 57.1 128.5 41.0 128.1 36.8 126.1 70.0 199.7 327.0 709.4 335.3 141.0 153.4 0.0 Max Head (m) 70.4 70.3 14.7 57.6 46.1 78.6 73.8 78.7 65.5 45.0 5.2 39.4 44.0
3

2021 Average Flow (L/s) 239.2 56.6 124.0 44.2 138.7 30.9 153.1 70.0 205.5 331.0 722.8 345.4 138.1 183.3 0.0 Inactive Max Head (m) 71.8 70.4 15.8 57.9 46.4 47.5 74.9 78.7 65.8 45.0 5.2 40.9 44.0
3

2026 Average Flow (L/s) 252.7 57.7 129.8 54.0 147.1 42.8 166.0 70.0 244.6 333.1 739.2 352.4 140.7 188.5 0.0 Max Head (m) 73.0 70.4 19.7 57.9 47.2 46.6 76.0 78.7 66.1 45.0 5.2 40.9 42.93 67.8 28.2

Middleton Shades Mill Rahman South Cambridge Turnbull St. Andrew Parkway Strange St. Greenbrook Grand Mannheim (Z4) Mannheim (Z5) Mannheim (Z6) William St. Laurel Northfield Dr.
1 1

Cam1 Cam1 Cam1 Cam1A Cam2E Cam3 Kit4 Kit4 Kit4 Kit4 Kit4 Kit5 Kit6 Wat4 Wat4 Wat4B Wat4C Wat6 Cam 2W to Cam 2E Kit2E to Cam1 Kit 4 to Kit 2E Kit 4 to Kit 2W Kit 4 to Wat 4 Kit5 to Wat5 Wat4 to Kit4A
2

67.3 27.4 54.4 61.3

67.3 27.5

67.0 27.9

Lakeshore West Rummelhardt Briadean MTV

New Dundee PRV River Road PRV Manitou PRV MV2 MV3 Falconridge PRV
1 2

Zones Wat 4B and Wat4C have been incorporated into Wat 5 Rummelhardt PS was inactivated due to the activation of University Elevated Tank 3 University Tank was activated

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 16 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

3.2.2

Scenario Results

The system supply requirement from each water facility was calculated using the hydraulic model under the various scenarios and is presented in Table 3.2. Figure 3.1 demonstrates the average supply, average demand and average flow stored in the system for each design scenario.

4000

3500

3000

2500 Flow (L/s)

2000

1500

Flow Supplied (L/s) Flow Demanded (L/s) Flow Stored (L/s)

1000

500

0 2001

2006

2011

2016 Design Year

2021

2026

2031

Figure 3.1 - System Balance Summary Based on the hydraulic analyses, a total of 11 watermain sections violated the design criteria set in Section 1.2. Table 3.3 summarizes the watermains with supply deficiencies.

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 17 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN


Table 3.3 -Summary of Watermain Deficiencies Infrastructure Information Installation Year (to nearest decade) Max Flow (L/s) Hydraulic Performance Max Velocity (L/s) Max HeadLoss (m) Max Headloss Gradient (m/km)

Municipality

Descriptions

Diameter (mm)

Length (m)

Material

CFactor

Scenario

Cambridge Zone 1 Cambridge Zone 1 Cambridge Zone 1 Cambridge Zone 1 Cambridge Zone 1 Cambridge Zone 1 Kitchener Zone 5

400mm on Franklin Blvd from Turnbull PS to Avenue Rd. 150mm on Main St. from Dundas to Alexander Av.

400

1,481

Cast Iron

1960

100

172

1.38

6.1

2006

150

127

Cast Iron

1940

90

15.7

0.80

1.5

11.8

2006

250mm inlet for St. Andrew Reservoir 300/400mm on Pinebush Rd., from Rahman PS to Industrial Rd 300mm on Eagle St. N., from Industrial Rd. to Providence Dr. 300mm on Industrial Rd., from Eagle St. N. to Lang's Dr. 450mm on Ottawa St. S., from Mannheim PS to David Bergey Dr. 300mm on Westheight Dr., from MacGarry Dr. to Driftwood Dr. & on Driftwood Dr., from Westheight Dr. the west of Parkland Cres.,

250

17

Ductile Iron Cast Iron

1990

120

305

6.2

6.2

364.7

2006

300/400

1875

1960

100/130

118

1.67

5.6

3.0

2006

300

663

Cast Iron

1960

100

59

0.8

2.6

3.9

2021

300

777

Cast Iron Asbestos Cement

1960

100

60

0.8

3.1

4.0

2006

450

1270

1960

140

306

1.9

8.6

6.8

2016

Kitchener Zone 5

300

1500

Ductile Iron

1970

120

91

1.29

8.6

5.7

2006

The hydraulic modeling analyses were conducted based on the pipe characteristics provided in the hydraulic model, it is recommended to the Region to confirm the C-factor for each pipe with field tests in order to confirm values used in this analysis.

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 18 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN WATERMAIN DEFICIENCIES CAMBRIDGE FIGURE 3.2

Figure 3.2 Watermain Deficiencies Cambridge

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 19 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN WATERMAIN DEFICIENCIES KITCHENER FIGURE 3.3

Figure 3.3 Watermain Deficiencies Kitchener Technical Memorandum # 6 Page 20 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

3.3

Fire Flow Analysis

Fire flow analysis was performed based on the preferred Fire Storage Evaluation Strategy Integrated System Approach as identified in Technical Memorandum #3 Storage Evaluation Analysis. Utilizing the Integrated System Approach, two fire events based on Fire Underwriter Survey (FUS) were assigned to one (1) critical water consumer or node in the distribution system where there are critical consumers and one (1) local residential area in any locations within the Region, simultaneously. The approach is used to assess the water transfer capability in the event of two fire events occurring in the Regions water distribution system simultaneously. The fire flow analysis was repeated for the following 39 pre-defined critical water consumers across the Region. The minor fire event of 2000L/min (33.33L/s) was assigned to each node in the distribution system representing a residential area at a time. Section 3.3.1 contains a detailed discussion on the fire flow analysis results and recommended solutions to locations in which system pressure under fire flow conditions at the point of fire was below 20psi. Table 3.4 below summarizes the fire flow demand applied to the model for each major fire flow location identified for the purpose of this study. Figure 3.2 presents the location of each fire flow location applied in this study.

Figure 3.4 Fire Flow Location

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 21 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN


Table 3.4 - Fire Flow Locations D e ve l o p me nt T yp e Pr ess ur e Z on e F i re F l ow ( L /s) 333 67 / 1 50 2 50 3 67 333 2 71

St reet N ame C it y o f C am b r id ge 1 2 Indus tr ial Rd. / Ea gle St. N. Co ncess ion R d . / Dun bar R d . Myers Rd. / Chr is topher Dr . Du ndas St. N . / Main St. Frank lin Blvd. / Clyd e Rd. F ou n ta in St . N . / C h err y B los s o m Rd.

Note

Indus tr ial In dus tr ia l (H ospital) Ins titu tio nal ( Sch oo l) Co mmerc ial ( Sh opp in g M a ll) Indus tr ial In dus tr ia l ( To yo t a Man u fac turing Plant) In dus tr ia l ( In dus tr ia l P ark ) Co mmerc ial (D own tow n) Ins titu tio nal ( Sch oo l) Ins titu tio nal ( Sch oo l) Ins titu tio nal ( Sch oo l)

CAM1 C AM 1 C AM 1 C AM 1 CAM1 C AM 2W

1 2 3 4 1 10

4 5

F rank lin Blvd . / Pine bus h Rd . Q uee n St. E. / Gu elph Ave . Blair Rd. / Bismark Dr. Ce dar St. / Gr and R i dg e Dr . Myers Rd . a nd G a teho use Dr .

C AM 2 E C AM 2 E C AM 3 C AM 3 C AM 1a

2 33 3 67 2 50 2 50 2 50

5 4 3 3 3

10

11

C it y o f K itc he ne r 12 H o mer W a tso n Bl v d . & M an i tou Dr . Ho mer W a tso n Bl vd . & Do on Valley Dr King St. / Union St. Queens Blvd. / Wes tmount Rd. E. I ns t i tu t io nal Ins titu tio nal (C ones toga Co lleg e) In dus tr ia l (H ospital) In dus tr ia l (H ospital) K I T 2W 2 50 67 / 1 50 67 / 1 50 3 K I T 2W 2 50 3

13

14

KIT4 KIT4

2 2

15

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 22 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

St reet N ame

D e ve l o p me nt T yp e In dus tr ia l (H ospital) Ins titu tio nal ( H ig h Sc hoo l) Co mmerc ial ( Sh opp in g M a ll) Ins titu tio nal ( H ig h Sc hoo l) Co mmerc ial ( Bus in ess Park ) Ins titu tio nal ( H ig h Sc hoo l) Co mmerc ial (C ommerc ial Plaza) Ins titu tio nal ( H ig h Sc hoo l) Co mmerc ial (C ommerc ial Plaza) Co mmerc ial ( Bus in ess Park ) Ins titu tio nal ( H ig h Sc hoo l) C o mm erc ial Ins titu tio nal ( E le men t ary S c h oo l) Co mmerc ial ( Mi xed R es id en t ia l a nd Co mmerc ial) In dus tr ia l ( A irp or t)

Pr ess ur e Z on e KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4 KIT4

F i re F l ow ( L /s) 67 / 1 50 2 50 3 67 2 50 2 67 2 50

Note

16 17 18

King St. E. / Morrison Rd. Weber St. E & King St. E Fairway Rd. S. & Courtland Ave. E Huron Rd. & Strasburg Rd. Victor ia St. N . & Lackner Bl vd. Ottawa St. N. & Lack ner Blvd . F is her-H allman R d . & Ottawa St. S. F a lconr id ge D r. & H awkswo od Dr . F is her-H allman R d . & Ottawa St. S. Blea ms Rd. & F ish er-Ha l lman Rd . F is her-H allman R d . & F ores t H i ll Dr . H u r on R d . & F is h er - H a l lm an T russ ler Rd . & H ig h view D r .

2 3 4 3 6 3

19

20

21

22

KIT4

3 67

23

K I T 4a

2 50

24

KIT5

3 67

25

KIT5 KIT5 KIT5 KIT6

2 67 2 50 3 67 2 50

6 3 7 3

26 27 28

29

F ou n ta in St . N . & To w ns end D r .

B r es la u N .

3 67

1 30 F ou n ta in St . N . B r es la u S . 3 33

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 23 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

St reet N ame C it y o f W at er lo o 31 University Ave. & Al bert St. Columbia & Albert St. Bridge St. E & Univers i ty Ave E. U n i ve r s i t y A v e . & F is h er - H a l lm an L aur elw ood D r. & Bea ver Cre ek Road Co lu mb ia & Wes tmoun t Erb St. W (Wes t o f rou nda bou t) Elmira System F armer s Ma rke t Rd & Be njamin Rd.

D e ve l o p me nt T yp e

Pr ess ur e Z on e

F i re F l ow ( L /s)

Note

Ins titu tio nal (U niversity) Ins titu tio nal (U niversity) In dus tr ia l ( Foo d Fac to r y) Ins titu tio nal ( H ig h Sc hoo l) Ins titu tio nal ( H ig h Sc hoo l) Co mmerc ial ( Bus in ess Park ) Co mmerc ial ( Sma ll Sh op ping M a ll) Major Fire Co mmerc ial ( Far mer s M arke t C e n tr e)

W AT 4 W AT 4 W AT 4 W AT 5 W AT 5 W AT 5 W AT 6 Woolw ich S t ock ya r d W o olw ic h

2 50 2 50 1 24 2 50 2 50 2 67 3 67 / 1 80 3 62 3 67

3 3 8 3 3 6 4 / 4a

32

33 34 35 36

37

38

39

Note: Fire flow requirements are obtained from Water Supply for Public Fire Protection 1999 by Fire Underwriters Survey. 1. Frame warehouse 1 storey. Moderate contents fire load 3700 sq.m = 20000 l/min 2. 3 or more storey, fire resistive hospital with adequate floor separations 1000 sq.m, no exposures = 4000 l/min. AECOM imposed a higher fire flow (150 L/s) than those recommended by EVS. 3. 3 storey, brick ordinary school of 2300 sq.m = 15000 l/min 4. Large mall shopping centre, no exposure, in one area of 16000 sq.m, non-combustible = 22000 l/min 4a. 180L/s was used in RMOW Kitchener-Waterloo Zone 5 and 6 Water Supply Study by AECOM (formerly Earth Tech), 2005 5. Typical industrial park, 1 storey ordinary, area 3700 sq.m with average combustible contents fire load = 14000 l/min 6. High-rise, fire-resistive office building more than 9 storeys, 2500 sq.m, floors not cut-off = 16000 l/min 7. moderately large shopping centre, no exposure, in one area of 9300 sq.m, ordinary = 22000 l/min 8. An estimate of fire flow required for a given area may be determined by formula: F = 220 CA where C = coefficient related to the type of construction, In this case C= 1.0 for ordinary construction (brick or other masonry walls, combustible floor and interior) A = 6,300 sq.m approx. -15% for Limited combustible contents -50% for complete automatic sprinkler protection. Therefore, F = fire flow in l/min = 7,421 l/min 9. Small open shopping centre, or part of large one, 5,000 m2 (Ordinary) = 16,000 L/min 10. An estimate of fire flow required for a given area may be determined by formula: F = 220 CA where C = coefficient related to the type of construction, In this case C= 0.6 for fire-resistive construction (fully protected frame, floors, roof) A = 84000 sq.m approx -15% for Limited combustible contents -50% for complete automatic sprinkler protection. Therefore, F = fire flow in l/mi =16,259 l/min (271L/s)

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 24 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

3.3.1
3.3.1.1

Fire Flow Analysis Results


Low Pressure Location No.1

Location: Blair Rd. & Esther Ave. (Cam1)

Figure 3.5 - Potential Low Pressure Location No.1

Modeling Junction ID: NODE1272 Issue: This is the common location to all major fire flow locations in this system model. In the hydraulic model, this junction is located at the dead end watermain; which has insufficient capacity to sustain a local residential fire flow of 33.33L/s. In 2007, the City of Cambridge replaced the 150mm watermain with a 200mm watermain on Blair Road. Solution: Since the existing hydraulic model represents the Regions trunk main-based water distribution system, some local distribution watermains could appear in the actual system but not in the hydraulic model. The existing 200mm watermain on Blair Road is connected to the watermain on Esther Ave which should help with system looping purposes. Although there is a connection to Princess Street, the connection valve at the intersection is closed to segment pressure zones. However, a connection to a watermain on George St. N. could be used to improve water supply security.

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 25 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

3.3.1.2

Low Pressure Location No.2

Location: Dundas St. N. / Main St. (Cam1)

Figure 3.6 - Low Pressure Location No.2 Modeling Junction ID: C127A Issue: Insufficient pressure appeared at this junction when Major Fire Flow Event No.4 was assigned. A watermain capacity deficiency is identified and is noted as deficiency #2 in Table 3.3. In the hydraulic model, the 150mm watermain is connected between a 300mm watermain to the West on Main Street and 200mm watermain to the East at the intersection of Main Street and Dundas Street South. Solution: It is recommended that the existing 150mm WM on Main St. be replaced with a 300mm watermain. It is also recommended that a 300mm watermain be constructed on Dundas St. N., between Main St. and McLaren Ave.

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 26 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

3.3.1.3

Low Pressure Location No.3

Location: Lewis Street & Hungerford Road (Cam2E)

Figure 3.7 - Low Pressure Location No.3 Modeling Junction ID: C255A Issue: Insufficient pressure appeared at this junction when Major Fire Flow Event No.8 (367 L/s) was assigned to Cam2E Downtown area (C225) and a local residential fire flow was assigned to C255A. Solution: It is recommended that the existing 150mm watermain on Lewis Street and on Hungerford Road be replaced with a 300mm watermain.

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 27 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

3.3.1.4

Low Pressure Location No.4

Location: North of Cambridge Zone 3 (Cam3)

Ex. 200mm

Figure 3.8 - Low Pressure Location No.4 Issue: The network arrangement in the hydraulic model has the areas located in Cam3 North currently supplied by St. Andrew PS via a single 200mm watermain as illustrated in Figure 3.6 and supplemented by Well G4 with a well capacity of 22L/s. Insufficient pressure occurred when local residential fire flow was applied to these areas. Solution: To improve the system pressure under fire conditions, a new 450mm watermain be installed to connect the existing 450mm watermain on Kent Street and the existing 300mm watermain on Bismark Dr. is recommended as indicated in Figure 3.7.

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 28 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Proposed

Figure 3.9 - Solution for Low Pressure Location No.4

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 29 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

3.3.1.5

Low Pressure Location No.5

Location: Tilt Road and Appleby Drive (Kit2W)

Figure 3.10 - Low Pressure Location No.5

Modeling Junction ID: 860, 858 Issue: Insufficient pressure appeared at these junctions when local residential fire flow was assigned and the Major Fire Flow No. 12 Homer Watson Blvd. & Doon Valley Dr was applied to Kit2W. According to the hydraulic model, this subdivision is supplied by a single 300mm watermain on Doon Mills Dr. Solution: Construct a new 300mm watermain, as indicated in Figure 3.8, to improve system pressure and water supply security or equivalent water distribution infrastructure arrangement through the proposed development.

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 30 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

3.3.1.6

Low Pressure Location No.6

Location: Farmer Market Areas (Wat4)

New 500mm

Figure 3.11 - Low Pressure Location No.6 Modeling Junction ID: NODE1967, W087, W087A Issue: Insufficient pressure appeared at these junctions when local residential fire flow was assigned and the Major Fire Flow No. 39 Weber Street N. & Benjamin Road was applied to Wat4. According to the hydraulic model, this subdivision is supplied by a single 300mm watermain on Weber Street N.. Solution: Install new 500mm watermain as indicated in Figure 3.9 to improve system pressure and water supply security.

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 31 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

3.3.1.7 Low Pressure Location No.7 Location: Waterloo Zone 6

Figure 3.12 - Low Pressure Location No.7 Modeling Junction ID: NODE510, NODE1749 Issue: Insufficient pressure appeared in Waterloo Zone 6 when only a major fire flow of 367 L/s (Major Fire Flow No. 37 Erb Street W. (West of roundabout)) was applied to Wat6 with an assumption of commissioning the future University Tank (Z6). However, the fire flow analysis demonstrated sufficient pressure when a major fire flow of 180 L/s and the local residential fire flow was applied in Wat6. Solution: To provide sufficient pressure for a major fire flow of 367 L/s and a local residential fire flow in Wat6, Rummelhardt Booster Station must be operated under this fire condition. Accordingly, the Region may want to consider keeping the existing Rummelhardt Station available if a higher level of fire flow service is deemed necessary.

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 32 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

3.3.1.8

Low Pressure Location No.8

Location: Kitchener Zone 4a

Figure 3.13- Low Pressure Location No.8 Issue: Kitchener Zone 4a is currently supplied by Waterloo Zone 4 via two (2) PRVs on Falconridge Dr. and Hawkswood Dr. Since a new school will be constructed in Kit4a in the future, a major fire flow of 250 L/s (Major Fire Flow No. 23) was applied to the zone. Insufficient pressure was shown in the model when a major fire flow and a local residential fire flow were assigned to Kit4a. The water supply to Kit4a was limited by the capacity of the existing 200mm watermain in the zone. Solution: To provide sufficient pressure in the event of a major fire flow of 250 L/s and a local residential fire flow in Kit4a, the existing 200mm watermain must be upsized to at least 300mm. Without upgrading the existing watermains, the maximum allowable flow to the areas in order to maintain above 140 kPa would be 220L/s

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 33 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

3.3.1.9

Low Pressure Location No.9

Location: Breslau North

Figure 3.14 - Low Pressure Location No.9 Issue: Breslau North is supplied by Kitchener Zone 4 via a single 450mm river crossing watermain. Insufficient pressure occurred when a major fire flow of 367 L/s (Major Fire Flow No. 29) and a local residential fire flow were applied to the zone. Solution: To provide sufficient pressure to Breslau North, the following improvement works are suggested:

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 34 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

As part of the 1999 Breslau Water Distribution System, it was proposed that the 300mm watermain on Woolwich Street S. near Elroy Road would be connected to the watermain at Victoria Road. A normally closed valve would be installed near Schieffle Place connected to the 450mm line river crossing at Ottawa Street. Although this connection would essentially provide Zone 2 pressure (HGL 365m) it would suffice to operate the Breslau North distribution system until the Vicotira Street main is repaired.

Figure 3.15 - Solution for Low Pressure Location No.12

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 35 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

3.3.2

Fire Flow Results Summary

The fire flow analysis results demonstrate the ability of the Regions existing distribution system in conveying flow from zone to zone under the Integrated System Approach storage evaluation philosophy. This provides credence to the concept of sharing the storage capacity amongst pressure zones as along as the conveyance capacity exists in the transmission and distribution mains. The system provides sufficient pressure to the majority of the critical water customers in the system with the exception of the 12 potential low pressure locations as discussed in Section 3.3.1. By implementing the recommended minor improvement works to each potential low pressure location in the existing hydraulic model, it was determined that the recommended improvement works would ensure a minimum operating pressure of 140 kPa (20psi) at the fire node is maintained in the system (as recommended by the Regions system performance design criteria (Section 1.2)) under fire flow conditions.

3.4

Potential High and Low Pressure Problems

In Technical Memorandum #2 Pressure Zone Rationalization, areas with potential topographically induced high and low pressure problems were identified based on a static hydraulic grade line on a per zone basis. As part of this technical memorandum, these potential pressure problems were analyzed under dynamic conditions using the hydraulic model. Alternatives to mitigate the potential pressure problems were also analyzed. Table 3.5 summarizes the hydraulic results for the areas with potential pressure problems.

Table 3.5 - Hydraulic Results for Potential High / Low Pressure Problems

A rea

Ca mbr id ge Z on e 1 A

Descript ions L ow pr essur e co ncer ns in the s o u th s ide o f S o u th C a mb r i dge PS H igh pressu re co ncer ns in the a r ea ad jac e n t to Mo ffa t Cr eek Po ten tia l high p ressur e pr ob lem Co mmerc ial d e ve lop men t on Mc Go ve rn Dr .

Ca mbr id ge Z on e 1 A

H yd r a u l ic R e su lt s T he disc har ge to ta l h ead o f the s ta t io n is ab ou t 3 64 m . No low pressur e p r ob le ms w e r e o bs er v ed . 6 6ps i 8 5ps i Co nsider ed acc ep ta bl e

A lt er nat i ve s

Ca mbr id ge Z on e 2 E ( Figur e 4 .15)

9 0 ps i 1 05 ps i

Ins tal l PR Vs to r educ e 10m o f h ead (~14 ps i) or more

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 36 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

A rea

Ca mbr id ge Z on e 2W ( Figur e 4 .16)

Descript ions Po ten tia l high p ressur e pr ob lem M ed iu m Ind us tr ia l Use rs ; J us t n or th o f Hw y 401 in Z on e 2W Po ten tia l high p ressur e pr ob lem Parkwood Area / Blen he im Ro ad

H yd r a u l ic R e su lt s 9 6 ps i 1 04 psi

A lt er nat i ve s PRV may be r equ ire d

8 0 ps i 1 17 psi

Ca mbr id ge Z on e 3


Kitc he ner Z on e 2W

Po ten tia l high p ressur e pr ob lem O ld M il ls R o ad

9 2 1 02 ps i ( h ig h p ressur e ra nge ) S l i g h t l y h ig h b u t acc ep ta bl e

I n s t a l l loc a l iz e d PRV to reduc e p ressur e for i nd i v idu a l cus tomer if r equ ire d T ur n in g o f f W e l l G 4 w ou ld r e duce p r es s ur es b y 10 ps i Modify th e e xis ting w ell pu mp for G4 to reduce d is c h arg e h ead b y 1 0ps i Co uld conside r pressur e man age men t in l ow e r e le va t io ns ( mod ifying th e exis ting PR V will cause lower p r es s ur es in t he h ig her el e va t io ns)

Kitc he ner Z on e 2W

Kitc he ner Z on e 4 ( Figur e 4 .17) Kitc he ner Z on e 4 ( Figur e 4 .18)

Po ten tia l high p ressur e pr ob lem Ho mer W a tso n Blvd / Co nes toga C o l leg e Blv d Po ten tia l high p ressur e pr ob lem

8 0 8 7ps i Sys te m pressu re a ppe ars acce p tab le

9 0 1 20 ps i

Po ten tia l high p ressur e pr ob lem Su bd i vis ion l oc a t ed in th e

8 6 1 02 .9 ps i S l i g h t l y h ig h b u t acc ep ta bl e

I n s t a l l loc a l iz e d PRV for individual cus tomer if r equ ire d Co nsider pr essure man age men t in loca lized ar eas w i th h ig h pr es s ur e

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 37 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

A rea

Descript ions w es ts id e o f M or r iso n R o ad

H yd r a u l ic R e su lt s

A lt er nat i ve s

Kitc he ner Z on e 4 ( Figur e 4 .19) Water loo Z on e 6

Po ten tia l high p ressur e pr ob lem N e ar K34 TP o n B i eh n D r Po ten tia l high p ressur e pr ob lem N o r th o f Zon e 6 ; Cr eeks ide Dr . / Erbs ville Rd. Po ten tia l high p ressur e pr ob lem Erbs ville Rd. / Co lu mb ia Fo res t Blvd. Po ten tia l high p ressur e pr ob lem S o u th o f Co lu mb ia St. W ; C la ir C r e ek B l v d . / Bushwood Crt. Po ten tia l high p ressur e pr ob lem Amberw ood D r.

9 5 1 25 ps i

I n s t a l l loc a l iz e d PRV for individual cus tomer if r equ ire d

8 1 8 9 ps i W i th in acce p tab le p ressur e ra nge

Water loo Z on e 6

7 8 8 6 ps i W i th in acce p tab le p ressur e ra nge

Water loo Z on e 6

8 8 9 6 ps i S l i g h t l y h ig h b u t w i th in acc ep tab le p ressur e ra nge

Water loo Z on e 6

8 2 9 0 ps i W i th in acce p tab le p ressur e ra nge

Note: Figures can be found in Appendix C

4.
4.1

REGIONAL SYSTEM MODIFICATION


New Cambridge Zone 1 Storage

In Cambridge Zone 1, there are three (3) floating storage facilities located within the zone; Turnbull Reservoir (T.W.L. 326m), Rahman Tank (T.W.L. 328m) and St. Andrew Reservoir (T.W.L. 339m). Since the hydraulic grade line differs by approximately 13m between the northern areas and the southern areas of Cam1, maintaining storage levels that are hydraulically balanced amongst these storage facilities has been extremely challenging. Accordingly, at any time the HGL is compromised such that the St. Andrew Tank is operating 5 to 8 meters below its TWL and Turnbull / Rahman are Shut-In (isolated by a back pressure valve to avoid overflow). Although additional storage is not required under Integrated System Approach, optimization of the hydraulic gradeline for Cam1 is desirable. Accordingly, having a new storage facility accompanied by system modifications in Cam1

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 38 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN


would vastly improve the hydraulics of the system and ultimately provide consistent operating pressures throughout the zone. Since additional storage capacity is not required for Cam 1, the size of the new elevated facility was assumed to be 8.5 ML (2.2MGal) with a total operating level of 10m (Similar size and structure as Freeport elevated tank) in order to provide enough water surface area to moderate system pressure in Cam 1.

4.1.1

Cambridge Zone 1 Water Facility Modifications

In order to activate the new storage facility for Cam1, the following changes were necessary to optimize existing storage. The following modifications were installed in the model: Installation of a control valve to the 250mm watermain inlet of the existing St. Andrew Reservoir in order to dedicate this storage facility as Cambridge Zone 3 pumping storage Inactivation of the 200mm Inlet-outlet watermain to the existing Rahman tank in order to dedicate this storage facility as pumping storage to Cam1 Inactivation of the existing 400mm watermain connection from Turnbull Reservoir to Cam1 system on Franklin Blvd in order to dedicate this storage facility as pumping storage to Cam2E

4.1.2

Storage Location Options

It is proposed that the new elevated storage facility in Cambridge Zone 1 have a top water level of 340m and a total water volume of approximately 8.5ML (2.2MG). In order to achieve this TWL and to ensure that the tank height does not exceed an effective construction height of 50m to 55m, the ground elevation of the new elevated storage facility should be above 290m (allowing reasonable allowances for freeboard, overflow, antenna etc.). The overall locations for each storage facility is presented in Figure 4.1 and the details of the five (5) possible locations that were identified and modeled for the new storage facility and are presented in Figures 4.2 to 4.6.

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 39 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Location 1 CAM2E

Location 2

Location 4

Location 3

Existing Turnbull Location

CAM1

Location 5

Figure 4.1 - Locations for New Cambridge Storage Facility

Figure 4.2 - Potential Location No.1 for New CAM1 Storage Facility

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 40 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 4.3 - Potential Location No.2 for New CAM1 Storage Facility

Figure 4.4 - Potential Location No.3 for New CAM1 Storage Facility

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 41 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 4.5 - Potential Location No.4 for New CAM1 Storage Facility

Figure 4.6 - Potential Location No.5 for New CAM1 Storage Facility

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 42 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

4.1.3

Hydraulic Considerations

With the implementation of each of the five options into the hydraulic model, it was determined that in all five options, each respective tank was hydraulically functional in terms of operational ability with the existing pumping stations in Cam1. Figures 4.7 to 4.11 demonstrate the tank cycling pattern in a 48hr extended period simulation.
% Full (%)
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Figure 4.7 - Tank Cycling Pattern for Location 1


% Full (%) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Figure 4.8 - Tank Cycling Pattern for Location 2

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 43 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

% Full (%) 120

100

80

60

40

20

0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Figure 4.9 - Tank Cycling Pattern for Location 3


% Full (%) 120

100

80

60

40

20

0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Figure 4.10 - Tank Cycling Pattern for Location 4


% Full (%) 120

100

80

60

40

20

0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Figure 4.11 - Tank Cycling Pattern for Location 5

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 44 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

4.1.4

Pump Station Modifications

According to the hydraulic model, the water supply head (pressure) from Shade Mills Pumping Station was reduced by approximately 26 to 28 meters of pressure via a throttling valve (Valve ID: THV_SMTP) in order to prevent overfilling Turnbull and Rahman tanks. With the new storage facility set at a higher top water level (TWL 339m), the throttling at Shade Mills Pumping Station is not required. The pump control for Shade Mills Pumping Station was altered to maintain the new storage facility being operated within 7 to 9 meters of water level (70% to 90%) and the average supply from the pumping station was approximately 86L/s.

4.1.5

Ultimate Supply System Considerations

The new storage facility in Cam 1 could serve two purposes: 1. Single floating storage for well-based water supply (current system) 2. Pressure Terminal Storage for lake-based water supply (ultimate system) In a future lake-based supply, due to the collective headloss through the existing water distribution system, Mannheim WTP could not provide water supply to the City of Cambridge without significant modifications. The operating hydraulic grade line in Kit4 (380-385m) is higher than in Cam 1 (328339m), it is not considered as an energy efficient supply strategy to pump the future lake-based water to Mannheim and reduce the energy by about 40m to service Cam 1. As a result, a new storage facility in the Cam 1 would meet both short term and long term needs. In our opinion, additional analysis should be conducted for evaluating the feasibility of each storage location option under a Class Environmental Assessment (Schedule B).

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 45 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

4.1.6

Infrastructure Requirements

Table 4.1 summarizes the infrastructure requirements for each storage location option for Cam1: Table 4.1 - Infrastructure Requirements Descript ions 600mm WM on Franklin Bl vd, from T urn bu ll TP to th e new s tor ag e loca tio n (Fr ank lin Blvd and Pine bush Rd ) 2. 400mm WM on Franklin Bl vd., from Turnbull TP to Frank lin Rd & Pine bush Rd 4 00 mm W M on P ine bus h R d . , fro m F rank lin Blvd & Pine bus h Rd to th e n ew s tor age loc a tion (Ca n- Amera Pkwy & Townline) 4 00 mm WM on C an-Amera Pkwy, f r o m th e new s t ora ge l oc a t io n to F rank lin Blvd . 3. 6 00 mm o n S a gi naw Pkw y , fro m th e n ew s tor ag e loca tion to Tur nbu ll TP 4. 4 00 mm c o nn ec ti on b e tw e en th e n ew s tor age and e xis ting C am1 wa termain o n Fr ank lin Blvd . 5. 4 00 mm W M on C l yd e R d . , fr om t h e n ew s tor age loc a tion to Fra nklin Blvd. 1-5 N ew E le v a te d T ank C os ts * the features outlined in Section 5.1.1 are also necessary O pt io n 1. T ota l Le ngt h 2.5 km Costs $ 3 .8 M

6.0 km

$ 6 .7 M

1.0 km

$ 1 .5 M

64 m

$ 0 .1 M

2 . 3km

$ 2 .6 M $ 3 .5 M

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 46 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

4.1.7

Summary of Future Storage Location Options for Cambridge Zone 1

Table 4.2 summarizes the feasibility for each storage option. The feasibility of each category was ranked on a scale from 1 to 5, with a ranking of 1 being least desirable and 5 being most desirable. Table 4.2 - Summary of Technical Feasibility for Cam1 Storage
Hydraulic Considerations 5 5 4 4 4 Ease of Implementation including land a va i l a b i l i t y 5 4 2 3 2 2 1 4 5 3 Costs U l t i m a t e S e r vi c i n g Strategy Consideration 5 5 2 3 3

Option 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

4.2

New Kitchener Zone 4 Storage

In Technical Memorandum #4, it was recommended that the St. George Elevated Tank be decommissioned due to the physical conditions of the tank, the age of the tank and the fact that it hydraulically limited the operating hydraulic grade line in Kit4. However, concern was expressed by the City of Kitchener Utilities of transient effects that result from the decommissioning of the St. George Elevated Tank. While formal transient analysis is beyond the scope of this Master Plan, it is doubtful that the St. George facility would moderate transient to a significant degree. It should also be considered that operating Kit4 as a direct pumping district could be extremely challenging as it is one of the largest water service districts in the Region and there are multiple sources supplying water to this system (Greenbrook, Strange, Parkway, Mannheim and future Grand). As a result, options for replacing St. George Elevated Tank were investigated. Although the storage analysis undertaken in Technical Memorandum #3 stresses that no additional storage is required for Kit4, a large surface area from the new storage facility would moderate the system pressure in Kit4. In this study, it was assumed that the size of the new storage facility was approximately 8.5ML (2.2MGal) with a normal operating range of 10m (similar size and design as Freeport Elevated Tank).

4.2.1

Storage Location Options

Ideally, additional water supply from the opposite end of the system during high demand periods would minimize total headloss throughout the system and service the system in a more energy efficient manner. In addition, the existing St. George elevated tank is the limiting factor to the operating hydraulic gradeline. Since the majority of the water supply in Kit4 is conveyed from Mannheim and other suppliers on the west side of Kit4 (west side of Kit4), two possible locations from the east side of the system were identified. Figures 4.12 and 4.13 presents possible sites for the new Kit4 storage. Detailed analysis should be conducted for evaluating the feasibility of each storage location option under Phase 3 and 4 of the Class Environmental Assessment (Schedule B) process. In a Schedule B Class EA undertaking, other considerations should be included such as do nothing i.e. Leave the St. George Tank replace and operation (extensive repairs would be necessary), operate under direct pressure or alternative sites not studied hereon. Appendix B presents the possible locations with elevation of 330m and above within Kitchener Zone 4 for new elevated storage facility.

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 47 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 4.12 - Potential Location No. 1 for Kit4 Storage

Figure 4.13 - Potential Location No. 2 for Kit4 Storage

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 48 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

4.2.2

Hydraulic Considerations

Our analysis determined that the two storage options were hydraulically functional in terms of operating with the existing supplies and pumping stations in Kit4. Figures 4.14 to 4.15 demonstrate the tank cycling pattern for each option in a 48hr extended period simulation.

Figure 4.14 -Tank Cycling Pattern for New Storage Option 1 for Kit4

Figure 4.15 - Tank Cycling Pattern for New Storage Option 2 for Kit4

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 49 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN


With the new tank in the east side of Kit4, the operating hydraulic grade line was increased by about 3.0m and it greatly improved the system pressure in the Kitchener downtown areas. Figure 4.16 demonstrates the system pressure changes. As shown on Figures 4.12 and 4.13 there are minimal infrastructure requirements to make either of these two options feasible. Clearly there may be additional options than those presented herein. Ideally, Option 1 which has available land owned by the Region (re: sets of future Grand Station) is preferable. Option 2 is less favorable due to the height of land requiring the tank to be higher than normal.
80 System Pressure with New Kit4 Tank Activated 70

60

System Pressure (psi)

50

40 System Pressure with St. George Elevated Tank Activated

30

20

10

0 0 10 20 30 Time (hrs) 40 50 60

Figure 4.16 - System Pressure Comparison St. George ET vs. New Kit4 Tank

4.2.3

Eastside Growth Considerations

Due to the availability of developable land in the Region, the potential growth in the eastern areas of Breslau South could be very rapid. Since the water service to the eastside areas would be provided by via Kit4 water distribution system, an accumulative headloss for conveying water from say the Mannheim to the eastern areas would be as high as 24m (based on 16km of distance and 1.5m/km of headloss gradient) without a new storage facility in the east side of Kit4. With a new Kit4 tank, water would be conveyed to the eastern areas in an effective manner. Since storage location 1 is closer to the service connection between Kit4 and Breslau S. than location 2, the water transfer efficiency to eastern areas would be slightly higher.

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 50 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

4.2.4

Infrastructure Requirements

Table 4.3 summarizes the infrastructure requirements for each option and the estimated costs for the additional infrastructures. Table 4.3 - Summary of Infrastructure Requirements O pt io n 1. 2. 1-2 1 - 2* Descript ions 6 00 mm W M on Eb y da le D r , f r om t he n ew s tor age loc a tion to Lackn er Blvd . 6 00 mm W M on Ke ewa t in A v e. , fr om th e n ew s tor age loc a tion to H er i tag e Dr . N ew E le v a te d Stora ge C os t Dec ommission St. G eor ge T alk T ota l Le ngt h 2 20 m 7 00 m Costs $ 0 .4 M $ 1 .1 M $ 4 .0 4 .5M $ 1 .0 M

*not including land purchase

4.2.5

Summary of Future Storage Location Options for Kitchener Zone 4

Table 4.4 summarizes the technical feasibility for each consideration for each storage option. The feasibility of each category was ranked on a scale from 1 to 5, with a ranking of 1 being less desirable and 5 being most desirable. Table 4.4 - Summary of Technical Feasibility Ease of Implementation including land availability 5 4 2 3 2 Ultimate Servicing Strategy Consideration 5 5 2 3 3

Option 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Hydraulic Considerations 5 5 4 4 4

Costs 2 1 4 5 3

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 51 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

5.

Zone Boundary Changes

After reviewing the existing system issues in a workshop environment with the Cities of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge and then meeting with each municipality individually to discuss their concerns, two major zone boundary changes are recommended. These major zone boundaries realignments will assist in mitigating pressure issues. Figures 5.1 and Figure 5.2 present the changes in Cambridge Zone 1a pressure zone. Figure 5.3 and Figure 5.4 present the changes in Waterloo Zone 5 pressure zone. Figure 5.5 presents the differences in system pressure for the zone boundary changes in Cambridge Zone 1A. Figures 5.6 and 5.7 present the system pressure changes when Waterloo Zone 4C and Zone 4 were included in Zone 5, respectively. The following points summarize the results for the zone boundary changes. Significant improvement in system pressure was identified when Cambridge Zone 1a boundary extended to Main Street, East of Franklin Blvd. (reference Figure 5.5) Pressures in the realigned Zone 1 now in Zone 1a improve to nearly 140 kPa. Impacts to system pressure were minimal when Waterloo Zone 5 system included the existing Zone 4B and Zone 4C. With these boundary changes in Waterloo Zone 5, Lakeshore Booster (Zone 4C) and Northfield Booster Station (Zone 4B) could be inactivated to save energy and O&M costs. Significant improvement in system pressure (i.e. 210kPa) occurred at the existing Waterloo Zone 4 areas as these areas were included in Waterloo Zone 5. In the hydraulic model, no dead-ends were created. However, detailed analysis should be undertaken to review the zone boundary changes in order to avoid any dead end watermains.

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 52 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 5.1 - Existing Zone Boundary for Cambridge Zone 1A

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 53 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 5.2 - Future Zone Boundary for Cambridge Zone 1A

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 54 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 5.3 - Existing Zone Boundary for Waterloo Zone 5

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 55 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 5.4 - Future Zone Boundary for Waterloo Zone 5

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 56 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

700

600

500 With Cambridge Zone 1A Boundary Changes Average Pressure Gain = 288kPa Pressure (kPa) 400

300

200

100

Without Cambridge Zone 1A Boundary Changes

0 0 10 20 30 Time (hrs) 40 50 60 Pressure at Junction ID: NODE1293

Figure 5.5 - System Pressure Differences in Cambridge Zone 1A


500

490 Without Waterloo Zone 5 Boundary Changes Average Pressure Reduction = 49kPa 470

480

Pressure (kPa)

460

450

440

430

420

410

With Waterloo Zone 5 Boundary Changes 0 10 20 30 Time (hrs) 40 50 60

400 Pressure at Junction ID: 1713

Figure 5.6 - System Pressure Differences in Existing Waterloo Zone 4C

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 57 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN


600

500 With Waterloo Zone 5 Boundary Changes 400 Average Pressure Gain = 248kPa Pressure (kPa)

300

200 Without Waterloo Zone 5 Boundary Changes 100

0 0 10 20 30 Time (hrs) Pressure at Junction ID: 1042 40 50 60

Figure 5.7 - System Pressure Differences in Existing Waterloo Zone 4

6.

Criticality Analysis

The purpose of this analysis was to identify watermains that will cause significant impact in the water system when the watermain is out of service. The following criteria were used in identifying critical watermains:

System pressure < 20 psi when the watermain is out of service; can not sustain fire flow condition. Single feed for a subdivision or zone

Table 6.1 summarizes the critical watermains that were identified in the analysis (under normal operating conditions). Alternatives for minimizing the impact of failure of these mains are also identified.

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 58 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN


Table 6.1 - Criticality Analysis Results for Watermains C r it ica l Wat ermains M an i to u PR V ( Figur e 7 .1) Descript ions H yd r a u l ic I m p act s A lt er nat i ve s

R i ver R oad MT V ( Figur e 7 .2)

T rans fer flow f r o m K IT 4 to KIT 2W an d C AM1 T rans fer flow f r o m K IT 4 t o K I T 2 E / C AM 2 W / C AM 2 E

Kitc he ner Z 2W w il l b e to tal l y o u t o f s u ppl y F ree por t tank d ep le te d to 2 8 % Ins u ffic ient pressur e

Ins tal l PR V for 2nd su pp ly conn ec tion fr om Z 4 to Z2W Ins tall n ew wa termain o n F oun t ain S tr ee t to co nnec t Bres la u Sou th to CAM2W O per ate Kress H i ll PS I n s t a l l n e w P R V i n the Kress Hill PS to trans fer flow from C AM 2W to C AM 1 un de r e mer genc y co nd itions

New D und ee PRV ( Figur e 7 .3)

T rans fer flow f r o m K IT 2 W to C AM 1

Ins u ffic ient pressur e occ ur r e d i n t h e No r thwes t a rea o f C A M1 ( ne ar Kress Hill PS) Ins u ffic ient pressur e Erb St. Res er vo ir le vel d rop ped below 2 0 % i n 2 da ys Un ive rsity T ank d ep le te d i n 1 9hrs

MV2

T rans fer flow f r o m K IT 5 to W AT 5

C lose Er b S t . M T V ( tr ans fer flow fr om W AT 5 to W A T 4)

O nly s ource o f su pp l y to W AT 6

Un ive rsity T ank Inlet (KIT6)


Un ive rsity T ank O u tl e t (W AT 6)

Ins tall b y-pass thro ugh t h e pu mp s t a t io n to trans fer water from Wat 5 to Wat 6 Ins tall b y-pass pipe o r a dd i ti ona l w a t er m ai n t o trans fer flow from Ki t 5 to Wat 6 Ins tall b ypass aro und tank Ins tall b y-pass pipe o r a dd i ti ona l w a t er m ai n t o trans fer flow from KIT6 to WAT6 Ins tall b ypass aro und tank

O nly s ource o f su pp l y to W AT 6

N o s er v ice b e a vaila ble in W AT 6

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 59 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

C r it ica l Wat ermains

Descript ions

H yd r a u l ic I m p act s

A lt er nat i ve s

Kitc he ner Z on e 4 4 50 mm to Bridge St. Eas t

O nly one wat er m ai n t o t h e su bd i vis io n l oc a t ed e as t o f B r i dge S t. E .

Su bd i vis ion w i ll b e ou t o f s e r vic e

B r es la u N or th (r e fer Figur e 4 .15)

Sing le 300mm watermain p r o v ide w at er su pp ly from Kit4

Z on e Br es la u N o r th w il l b e ou t o f s er vic e

Ins tall n ew wa termain to c onn ec t th e subdivis ion to the e xis ting 300 mm on Sh ir le y Ave . (N o f V i c t o r i a S t . N .) Install parallel pipe on B r i d g e S t. E . ( R i ve r Cr ossing) ( Figur e 7 .5) Ins tall n ew wa termain o n F oun t ain S t . a nd r el oc a te t he e xis t in g PRV to Bres lau South f or pro v id in g ad di t io na l su pp ly from KIT4

Note: Fisher Hallman was also evaluated as a potential critical watermain, however was not determined to be critical with the current model. Figures can be found in Appendix C The impact of the loss of elevated storage was also evaluated under maximum day demand; specifically, for the loss of Freeport, Laurel or St. George. The analysis indicated that the system operated well with the exception of some areas around the Laurel tank where the pressure was less than 20 psi. In this event, Laurel Tank pump back system would need to operate until the level in the Lauren Tank provides sufficient supply for the pumping system. Criticality analyses for the booster stations under maximum week demand conditions were also performed. The status and capacity of each pump for the pumping stations is indicated in Table 6.2, which also indicates the level of redundancy under maximum week demand conditions in each pump station.

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 60 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN


Table 6.2 - Criticality Analysis Results (Redundancy) for Pump Stations PS Name Middleton Cam 1 Zone Pump ID CB21 CB22 CB23 CB24 SMTP Rahmans SCAM Cam 1 Cam 1 Cam 1A CB37 CB38 CB16 CB17 CB29 CB30 CB31 CB32 Turnbull Cam 2E CB8 CB9 CB10 St Andrew Cam 3 CB34 CB35 CB36 Grand
(2)

Capacity 150 150 150 150 150 150 100 100 22 82 82 82 152 151 151 70 70 182 50 50 105 105 80 50 80 130 130 70 85 95 95 608 608 608 94 250 ON ON OFF OFF ON ON ON OFF ON ON OFF OFF ON ON OFF OFF ON OFF OFF OFF ON ON ON OFF ON OFF ON ON OFF ON OFF

Status

Kit 4

GR1 GR2 GR3 GR4

Parkway

(2)

Kit 4

KB10 KB11 KB12

Greenbrook

(2)

Kit 4

KB1 KB2 KB3 KB4

Strange St Mannheim

(2)

Kit 4 Kit 4

KB5 KB6 KB19 KB20 KB21

OFF(1) OFF(1) OFF(1) OFF OFF

Mannheim

Kit 5

KB15 KB16

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 61 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

PS Name

Zone

Pump ID KB17 KB18

Capacity 250 250 95 90 90 90 100 100 100 300 300 20 OFF ON OFF ON ON OFF ON ON OFF OFF OFF ON

Status

Mannheim

Kit 6

Z6P1_2022 Z6P2 Z6P3 Z6P4

William

Wat 4

WB1 WB2 WB3

Laurel Zone 7PS


(1)

Wat 4 Wat 7

WB13 WB14 PCP_ZONE7

PCP_FTC 20 OFF Gravity Feed from Mannheim Reservoir (reservoir level at ~383m). With the proposed elevated tank in the eastside of KIT4, operation of one booster pump from Mannheim Z4 would be required. (2) The operation of this pump is controlled by the level of the new elevated tank. As indicated in the Table 6.2, the loss of one large pump in the SMTP may have a significant impact on the water system since under maximum week conditions when all pumps were operating. In addition, based on the pump status under maximum week demand for Grand and Parkway pump stations, the failure of one large pump cannot be totally compensated by the stand-by pumps. Storage will be depleted in the event of a large pump failure at these stations. Additional pumping capacity (pump redundancy) should be considered at the identified pumping stations. ***Currently there is a suction pipe limitation at this facility to operate only one pump. The model has not been updated to reflect this limitation. It is recommended that the following station upgrades be considered: SMTP - installation pump rated to 80 L/s or upgrade existing pumping unit for a new output of 80 L/s Grand -Upgrade the two smaller booster pumps from 50 L/s to 55 L/s William St. - Modify section piping to transmit 200 L/s or relocate station adjacent to the existing 500,000 gal reservoir

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 62 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

7.

Conceptual Servicing Strategy

As part of the assessments for the ultimate servicing strategy, two servicing concepts were reviewed in the hydraulic model: 1. Eastside Servicing 2. Lake-Based Supply System The sustainability of water service, operation considerations and infrastructure requirements for each of the above listed water servicing concepts are reviewed herein.

7.1

Eastside Servicing

Other than the intensifying growth strategy within the existing servicing boundary, the possibility of growth in the east of Breslau South is high (based on the servicing strategy in the Wastewater Treatment Master Plan) and the servicing strategy for the eastside development was evaluated. The existing Breslau South area is a separate pressure zone which is supplied by Kitchener Zone 4 via a pressure reducing valve on the 450mm watermain in the east side of Ottawa Street North. Figure 7.1 presents the location of the Eastside Servicing areas and the existing water infrastructures as per the hydraulic model.

Figure 7.1 - Eastside Servicing Area Location

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 63 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN


The total area within the Eastside Servicing Area boundary is approximately 4,000ha and the existing 450mm can effectively transfer a total of 143L/s (with a headloss gradient of 2.0m/km) to the Eastside Servicing areas. The projected water demands (in this study time frame) to Breslau South and Eastside Servicing areas are in the order of 30 to 40 L/S and do not and exceed 143L/s. Accordingly a second and/or third service connection(s) should be considered due to the following facts: Headloss gradient at the connection across the river would be higher than 2.5m/km; which will reduce the overall system pressure in Breslau South and the Eastside Servicing areas. The water service to the Eastside Servicing areas rely on a single 450mm watermain connections from Kitchener Zone 4; this connection is considered as critical watermain and the water service to the area should be reinforced by introducing one or more connections. During a major fire event (e.g. 362L/s at the Airport), the existing 450mm watermain connection has insufficient capacity to deliver the required flow What can it deliver? Figures 7.2 and 7.3 present the suggested infrastructures to meet the long-term servicing needs and increased water supply security to the areas.

Figure 7.2 Infrastructure Requirements 1 for Eastside Servicing Areas

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 64 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 7.3 - Infrastructure Requirements 2 for Eastside Servicing Areas The infrastructure improvements presented in Figure 7.2 also reinforced the level of security of the water service to Breslau North; which is currently supplied by a single 300mm watermain from Kitchener Zone 4. Accordingly relocating the existing Ottawa Street PRV to the east side of the Grand River would provide for a second Zone 4 feeder to the Breslau North area. Alternatively a second Zone 4 main could be brought across the River at Ottawa Street for performing the same duty. Fire flow analyses indicates that, with the suggested improvement works, the system is capable to deliver a major fire of 367L/s and a local residential fire flow of 33.33L/s while maintaining the system pressure in the zone above 20psi. The Breslau South area is an extension of the Zone 2E system. The existing Zone 2E system is supplied through the River Road Control Chamber and is controlled by the Freeport Elevated Tank (T.W.L. 365m). As the Breslau South system connects to Zone 2E, the pressure reduced supply from Zone 4 through Ottawa Street (Figure 7.2) and the proposed supply near Fairway Road (Figure 7.3) will need to be integrated with the Fountain Street connection. It is proposed that the existing River Road, Ottawa Street and Fairway Road supplies be controlled by the Freeport Tank level once the Fountain Street main is connected. Accordingly a control algorithm will need to be developed to operate the new control valves at Ottawa Street and the future crossing near Fairway Road similar to the control system that operates the River Road control valves. Alternatives will need to be provided if the Freeport level signal or if the Freeport tank is out of commission. It is also recommended that this area undergo a further detailed infrastructure evaluation in order to determine the location and optimal sizing of transmission and distribution mains for any future built out/ developed areas. For the purpose of the Master Plan a ring main concept should be considered and installed along existing major roads in the area. Given that the existing roads may change and new roads may be constructed, it would be prudent to further consider this major infrastructure with the construction of the possible sanitary sewer collection system. Technical Memorandum # 6 Page 65 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

7.2

Lake-Based Water Supply System

The Region of Waterloo has stated that a lake-based supply would be the ultimate water servicing strategy for the Region beyond the time frame of the study. Historically, the existing Mannheim facility has been analyzed as a key location for terminal storage and supply of lake water to the Region of Waterloo; primarily supplying the City of Kitchener and the City of Waterloo. Pending further separate studies by the Region of Waterloo, the ultimate water servicing scheme for the City of Cambridge remains highly conceptual. In previous analysis terminal storage and supply of lake water was from an area south of the City near Cherry Hill in the township of North Dumfries. As a result, the hydraulic model was utilized to examine the following two water servicing options for the City of Cambridge: 1. Service from Mannheim via the existing water distribution system. 2. New transmission system to Cambridge.

7.2.1

Option 1: Mannheim Supply to Cambridge

In this option, the City of Cambridge would be supplied from Mannheim Terminal Storage (TS) via the existing water distribution system. All well water supply stations in the Region would be inactivated and Mannheim TS would be the only supply to the Region. In order to transfer sufficient water from the Mannheim TS and the Pump Station Complex to the City of Cambridge, approximately 50 km of the existing watermains must be upgraded. In addition, a multiple PRV system (Manifold system) would be required at the existing connections between the City of Kitchener and the City of Cambridge, such as New Dundee PRV, in order to provide sufficient flow to the City. In general, this option significantly changes the hydraulics in the City of Cambridge water system due to the change of water supply source; under this supply strategy, the water supply to Cambridge Zone 1 will be provided by the new Manifold PRV system at New Dundee. In addition, this option implies that the entire Regional water distribution relies on the Mannheim TS facilities. Figure 8.4 demonstrates the concept of this servicing strategy. The Turnbull and South Cambridge reservoirs would be used to pump back water for all system needs. The existing storage facilities and pressure zone would remain essentially intact.

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 66 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

IMP1: 900mm from Gravity Main to Turnbull IMP2: 900mm from Gravity Main to S. Cambridge GRAVITY MAIN: 1050mm from Mannheim to Cam 1

IMP1 GRAVITY MAIN IMP2

Figure 7.4 - Lake-Based Supply Option No.1

7.2.2

Option 2: New Transmission System to the City of Cambridge

In order to avoid the significant changes proposed in Option 1, it is considered appropriate to utilize the existing water facilities as the source of supply. Since Turnbull, Middleton and Shades Mills are the major water supply facilities in the City of Cambridge Zone 1, they would be the primary source for supplying water to the City. Accordingly, these existing points of supply need to be provided from a lake-based source from a Cambridge terminal supply. It is envisioned that the existing major surplus would be used as pump based systems during the day augmented by a feed system from Cambridge Terminal storage. Figure 7.5 schematically presents the new transmission system to the City of Cambridge under a lake-based supply scheme. The hydraulic model was used to analyze the serviceability of this option and the modeling results demonstrated that the impact on system hydraulics was relatively minor. Figures 7.6 to 7.8 present the infrastructure requirements for utilizing each water facility in Cam 1 as the terminal storage for the Lake-Based Supply. Alternative infrastructure routes could be considered perhaps outside of the Cambridge urbanized area such as the extension of Townline Road south. In Section 4.1, it was identified that the recommended new storage facility in Cam1 could be utilized as part of the terminal storage (obviously with the addition of storage) in the ultimate lake-based supply arrangement. Since the location of each alternative identified in Section 4.1.2 was within vicinity of the existing Turnbull Water Treatment Plant, the infrastructure requirements for the new CAM1 storage

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 67 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN


facility under the ultimate supply strategy would be similar to those identified in Figure 4.6 together with the infrastructure requirements for each storage option. The infrastructure requirement for each option represented herein was identified based on a high level evaluation in order to demonstrate that major improvement works in the Cam 1 water transmission system could be required. Further analysis for infrastructure requirements including size and route for each option is strongly recommended to the Region.

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 68 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Figure 4.6

Figure 7.5 - Lake-Based Supply Option No.2

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 69 of 74 7

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Alternative: Turnbull
IMP1: 900mm from Turnbull to South Cambridge

River Rd PRV

PInebush Rahman

Turnbull

Dundee PRV Shades Mill

IMP1 IMP1
St. Andrews

Middleton S. Cambridge

Figure 7.6 - Turnbull Storage as Terminal Storage


Alternative: Middleton
IMP1: 900mm from Middleton to TB

River Rd PRV

PInebush Rahman

Turnbull

Dundee PRV Shades Mill

IMP1 IMP1

Middleton S. Cambridge

Figure 7.7 - Middleton as Terminal Storage

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 70 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Alternative: Shades Mill


IMP1: 900mm from ShadesMill to Turnbull IMP2: 900mm from ShadesMill to South Cambridge

River Rd PRV

PInebush Rahman

Turnbull

Dundee PRV Shades Mill

IMP1 IMP1

Middleton

IMP2 IMP2
S. Cambridge

Figure 7.8 - Shades Mill as Terminal Storage

7.2.3

Preferred Ultimate Water Servicing Strategy

Option 2 is the preferred ultimate water servicing strategy based on the following major factors: 1. Less improvement works within the existing water system are triggered 2. The least impact to the existing hydraulic system is generated 3. The balance of the storage facilities can be maintained effectively 4. The level of security in water supply is increased However, constructability of the new transmission system to bring lake water to the Cambridge system must be considered during the approval process for the entire supply. The ultimate water servicing strategy was completed based on a high level evaluation of the LakeBased supply to the Region. The following assumptions have been made during the analyses and it requires Regions attention to justify these assumptions. 1. Sufficient infrastructures to deliver lake water to the terminal storages in Cambridge and Mannheim. 2. Two 900mm transmission mains to deliver adequate water supply to the central of Kitchener Zone 4 and Waterloo Zone 4 as shown in Figure 7.9 3. All well supply sources are inactivated during the 48 hr extended simulation period.

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 71 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

IMP1: 900mm from Mannheim to Wat 4 IMP2: 900mm from Mannheim to Kit 4

IMP1 IMP1 IMP2 IMP2

Lake-Based Supply
Figure 7.9 - Preferred Ultimate Supply Strategy

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 72 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

8.

Summary and Recommendations

The following summarizes the findings from the hydraulic modeling analyses: The hydraulic assessments demonstrated that the serviceability in the existing water distribution system could be maintained for Years 2006, 2011, 2016, 2021 and 2026 under maximum week demand conditions. Infrastructure improvement projects were identified in order to satisfy the design criteria, criticality, pressure zone modifications, new storage, pump station firm capacity. Based on the fire flow analyses, several areas with potential low pressure areas were identified and the solution to mitigate the low pressure problems was determined. Two strategies for the Lake-Based Water Supply System were evaluated. (Option 2 A strategy to provide terminal storage along the east side of the city) was found to be the technically feasible. This option involved utilizing an existing water facility in Cambridge Zone 1 with a terminal storage to maximize use of existing infrastructure and avoid significantly changing the existing system hydraulics. In identifying the system response, the analyses were conducted using the Regions hydraulic model and the simulation period covered two days (48 hr extended period simulation). It should be noted that the model is not an all pipe model. Therefore a more detailed analysis with an all pipe model is recommended to confirm the identified watermains as critical watermains. In addition, it should be noted that the analyses assume that all water supplies are functioning as intended, and that ground water supply is maintained at capacities identified by the Region. Based on the hydraulic modeling analysis, the infrastructure improvement requirements, schedule, and estimated costs are presented in the following table. Table 8.1 - Recommended Infrastructure Improvements Pr oje ct No. 1 Year Required 2 011 Estimated Cost $million $ 1 .5

M un i c ip a lit y Ca mbr id ge Z on e 1 Ca mbr id ge Z on e 1 Ca mbr id ge Z on e 1 Ca mbr id ge Z on e 1 Ca mbr id ge Z on e 1

Descript ion R e pl ace the e xis t in g 4 00 mm W M on F rank lin Blvd ., fr om Tu rnb ull WTP t o A ve nu e R d . w i th a 6 00 mm W M U p gra de the e xis t in g 1 50 mm W M on Main St., from Dundas St. to Ale xa nder Av., to a 30 0mm e qu i va le nt W M U p gra de the e xis t in g 2 50 mm in le t W M f o r S t . A n d r e w R e s e r vo i r to a 4 00 mm e qu i va le n t W M U p gra de the e xis t in g 3 00 /4 00 mm WM on Pine bush R d , fro m Ra hma ns P u mp ing Sta t io n to Ind us tr ia l R d, t o a 500 mm e qu i va le nt W M U p gra de the e xis t in g 3 00 mm W M on E a g l e S t . N , fro m In d u s tr i a l R d . t o Pro vid ence Dr ., to a 40 0mm e qu i va le nt W M

2 011

$ 0 .2

2 011

$ 0 .1

2 011

$ 2 .6

2 021

$ 0 .8

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 73 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

Pr oje ct No. 6

M un i c ip a lit y Ca mbr id ge Z on e 1 Kitc he ner Z on e 5

Descript ion U p gra de the e xis t in g 3 00 mm W M on Indus tr ial Rd., fr om Eagle St. N. to L ang s Dr ., to a 40 0mm eq uivalen t WM U p gra de the e xis t in g 4 50 mm W M on Ottawa St. S., from Mannheim P u mp ing Sta t io n to D a v id B er gey Dr ., to a 60 0mm eq uiva le n t WM U p gra de the e xis t in g 3 00 mm W M t o a 500 mm eq uivalen t WM for th e fo llow ing loc a tions : - O n W es th ei gh t D r . , f r o m M acGa rr y Dr . to D ri ftwo od Dr . O n Dr iftw oo d Dr ., from Wes theight Dr. to the wes t of Park la nd Cr es.,

Year Required 2 011

Estimated Cost $million $ 0 .9

2 016

$ 1 .4

Kitc he ner Z on e 5

2 011

$ 1 .8

T o ta l Cos ts

$ 9 .02

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 74 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDED UPGRADES CAMBRIDGE FIGURE 8.1

Figure 8.1 Recommended Upgrades for Cambridge

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 75 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDED UPGRADES KITCHENER FIGURE 8.2

Figure 8.2 Recommended Upgrades for Kitchener

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 76 of 77

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN

TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDED UPGRADES WATERLOO FIGURE 8.3

Figure 8.3 Recommended Upgrades for Waterloo

Technical Memorandum # 6

Page 77 of 77

Appendix G Public Consultation

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION M ASTER PLAN

Public Consultation

Page 1 of 20

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION M ASTER PLAN

Public Consultation

Page 2 of 20

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION M ASTER PLAN

Public Consultation

Page 3 of 20

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION M ASTER PLAN

Public Consultation

Page 4 of 20

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION M ASTER PLAN

Public Consultation

Page 5 of 20

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION M ASTER PLAN

Public Consultation

Page 6 of 20

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION M ASTER PLAN

Public Consultation

Page 7 of 20

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION M ASTER PLAN

Public Consultation

Page 8 of 20

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION M ASTER PLAN

Public Consultation

Page 9 of 20

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION M ASTER PLAN

Public Consultation

Page 10 of 20

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION M ASTER PLAN

Public Consultation

Page 11 of 20

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION M ASTER PLAN

Public Consultation

Page 12 of 20

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION M ASTER PLAN

Public Consultation

Page 13 of 20

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION M ASTER PLAN

Public Consultation

Page 14 of 20

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION M ASTER PLAN

Public Consultation

Page 15 of 20

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION M ASTER PLAN

Public Consultation

Page 16 of 20

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION M ASTER PLAN

Public Consultation

Page 17 of 20

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION M ASTER PLAN

Public Consultation

Page 18 of 20

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION M ASTER PLAN

Public Consultation

Page 19 of 20

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO TRI-CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION M ASTER PLAN

Public Consultation

Page 20 of 20

You might also like