Water and Wastewater Systems 2018 and Beyond Study 1

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont Final Report

April 2018

ISL Engineering and Land Services Ltd. is an award-winning full-service consulting firm dedicated to working with all levels of government and the private sector to deliver planning and design solutions for transportation, water, and land projects.

Inspiring sustainable thinking

4015 - 7 Street SE, Calgary, AB T2G 2Y9 T: 403.254.0544 F: 403.254.9186

April 20, 2018 Our Reference: 26900 Town of Beaumont 5600 49 Street Beaumont, Alberta T4X 1A1 Attention:

Mr. Alvaro Soto, C.E.T.

Dear Sir: Reference:

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond – Final Report

Enclosed is a revised copy of the final report for the Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Study. We trust that it meets your expectations.

The key objective of this project is to assess the Town’s current infrastructure and the future needs for projected populations and growth areas. The Study will provide the Town with direction on infrastructure servicing schemes to facilitate the intended population and development growth, while ensuring existing infrastructure remains fully functional in providing appropriate levels of service. This information will aid in making informed decisions on capital projects, and will provide solutions for efficient, economic, and sustainable municipal services to residents.

We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to undertake this project on your behalf. Should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at (403) 254-0544.

Sincerely,

Geoffrey Schulmeister, P.Eng., SCPM Manager, Water and Environment

ISL Engineering and Land Services Ltd. | islengineering.com ISL is proud to be Bullfrog Powered | 2017 Aon Best Small and Medium Employers in Canada – Platinum Level

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

Corporate Authorization This document entitled “Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond” has been prepared by ISL Engineering and Land Services Ltd. (ISL) for the use of the Town of Beaumont. The information and data provided herein represent ISL’s professional judgment at the time of preparation. ISL denies any liability whatsoever to any other parties who may obtain this report and use it, or any of its contents, without prior written consent from ISL.

Geoffrey Schulmeister, P.Eng., SCPM Senior Reviewer

Sarah Barbosa, P.Eng. Technical Author, Wastewater

islengineering.com

Shanna Daly Technical Author, Water

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

Preface This Study is a planning document for short- and long-term infrastructure upgrades, improvements, and future development. It provides the opportunity to manage capital expenditures, identify and repair trouble spots and deficiencies before failure occurs, and prepare for future development in a cost-effective manner.

The Existing System sections examine the current infrastructure. Data was compiled from sources such as shapefiles, as-built drawings, and other reports to create an accurate picture of the system. Details, trends and compliance are noted and discussed.

The Hydraulic Model Development sections discuss the development of the fully dynamic hydrologic and hydraulic models and the software used. Additionally, the calculation methods chosen and how the flows were derived are stated. This process generates additional information about the system, including the wastewater generation rates and water consumption rates of different sources. These sections describe the hydrant testing and flow monitoring that was undertaken, and the subsequent calibration processes to match the models to real life conditions.

The models are valuable products of the Study. Once current and typical operation of the system is established, different scenarios can be tested to see their effects. Multiple scenarios can be simulated, and changes to infrastructure from upsizing of sewers and watermains and reconfigurations to pump stations can be tested.

The Existing System Assessment section examines the current hydraulic performance of the system.

Recommended upgrades and adjustments to the system come from established standard levels of service and legal requirements. Recommendations for the existing system should be implemented as part of Beaumont’s short-term plans.

The Future System Assessment section looks at how the system will operate hydraulically as planned developments occur. Area Structure Plans, Municipal Development Plans and other future guiding documents are combined to create a full build-out scenario of Beaumont. A servicing concept was then developed to support these plans. This includes both new infrastructure and the impact on existing infrastructure. This allows future upgrade requirements to be combined with life cycle planning and maintenance.

Future infrastructure needs can also be used to guide the development. Beaumont and developers can examine the Study, in addition to other planning documents, to determine how tie-in locations will effect staging, where more costly infrastructure will be needed, and how upgrades to the existing system will be triggered. Separate design reports should be prepared to support each subdivision application/development permit to ensure compliance with the overarching Study. Additionally, full build-out sewer and main sizing may not be required in the interim. Smaller diameter sewers and mains may be installed and either upsized or twinned later on to accommodate future populations.

The Blackmud/Whitemud Creek Analysis section summarizes the findings of the Blackmud/Whitemud Creek Surface Water Management Study, 2017. The Study was a collaboration between five member municipalities that span portions of the basins, to assess the hydrologic, hydraulic, and environmental aspects of the Blackmud and Whitemud Creek basins. The section in this Study is intended to provide an overview of the Study, and to direct readers to the full report for more detailed information.

The Study should be reviewed and updated after significant periods of growth or every five years to update the hydrodynamic models and analyses with the any capital upgrades completed by Beaumont, and the most up-to-date growth plans. Detailed reviews of each new development will still be required as separate documents.

islengineering.com

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

Executive Summary Introduction The Town of Beaumont retained ISL Engineering and Land Services Ltd. to undertake the Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Study encompassing water and sanitary infrastructure. The focus of the Study is to meet the long range strategic and sustainable goals of the recently developed “Our Complete Community” plan, while addressing the needs of existing and future systems under key milestone growth scenarios. For that purpose, robust hydrodynamic MIKE URBAN models were constructed and calibrated to enable a comprehensive assessment of the water and sanitary systems. The Study will provide Council and Engineering staff with the information required to assess the Town’s existing infrastructure and the capability of the infrastructure to accommodate short- and long-term growth. This information is useful in order to carry out short and long range planning and budgeting, as well as assist with updating the Town’s Off-site Levy Bylaw. The Study will aid in making informed decisions on capital projects, and will provide solutions for efficient, economic, and sustainable municipal services to residents.

Study Objectives The Study was prepared to achieve the following objectives: 

To inventory and analyze the existing infrastructure under existing conditions



To determine if any upgrades are required to the existing system in order to properly meet the needs of the municipality



To determine if any upgrades are required to allow for future growth to occur: o Firstly focussed on growth to the pre-annexation boundary. o Secondly focussed on maximizing development into the annexation area using existing infrastructure. o Finally focussed on ultimate development servicing.



To develop plans for future growth. Locations and timing of future developments may be dependent on: o Availability of sufficient servicing needs, including spare capacity in the existing systems o Annexed land locations o Community Planning



To provide cost estimates related to required infrastructure upgrades



To comment on possible staging options of upgrades to assist in an overall municipal capital plan



To provide inputs into an off-site levy bylaw

Water Distribution System Conclusions Existing Water System 1. The existing water system exhibits some high pressures in the west under ADD, when the Main Reservoir and Pumphouse has control and when the St. Vital Reservoir and Pumphouse has control.

2. The existing water system exhibits some high pressures in the west under MDD when the St. Vital Reservoir and Pumphouse has control.

3. The existing water system exhibits some high pressures in the west, and some low pressures in the central northeast under PHD when the Main Reservoir and Pumphouse has control.

4. The existing water system exhibits some high pressures in the west under ADD plus St. Vital fill, when the Main Reservoir and Pumphouse has control.

5. Existing mains between the Main Reservoir and Pumphouse and 50 Ave exhibit high velocities under PHD when the Main Reservoir and Pumphouse has control due to small pipe size. islengineering.com

April 2018

|

Page i

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

6. The existing water system has some low fire flows in the south, and in several isolated locations.

7. The existing St. Vital Reservoir and Pumphouse has issues turning over water. This is associated with limited available pumping rates. Main Reservoir and Pumphouse can meet PHD with firm capacity.

8. The existing water system has adequate ADD and FF storage is available.

Future Water System 1. The pre-annexation water system exhibits high pressures in the west under ADD. 2. The pre-annexation water system exhibits some high pressures in the west and some low pressures in the central northeast under MDD when St. Vital and West Reservoirs and Pumphouses have control.

3. The pre-annexation water system exhibits excessive low pressures in the central northeast under PHD when the Main Reservoir and Pumphouse has control.

4. The pre-annexation water system exhibits high pressures in the west under ADD plus St. Vital fill, when the Main Reservoir and Pumphouse has control.

5. Pre-annexation Mains between the Main Reservoir and Pumphouse and 44 Street exhibit high velocities when the Main Reservoir and Pumphouse has control, between RGE 243 and 69 St when West Reservoir and Pumphouse has control, and between the St. Vital Reservoir and Pumphouse and 44 Street due to small pipe size.

6. The pre-annexation water system has some low fire flows in several isolated locations.

7. The pre-annexation Main, West, and St. Vital Reservoir and Pumphouses lack adequate pumping availability.

8. The pre-annexation water system lacks adequate ADD and FF storage.

9. The post-annexation water system exhibits high pressures in the west under ADD, when the Main Reservoir and Pumphouse has control and when the St. Vital Reservoir and Pumphouse has control.

10. The post-annexation water system exhibits high pressures in the west under ADD. 11. The post-annexation water system exhibits some low pressures in the central northeast under MDD when West and St. Vital Reservoirs and Pumphouses have control, as well as some high pressures in the west when West Reservoir and Pumphouse has control.

12. The post-annexation water system exhibits excessive low pressures under PHD when the Main Reservoir and Pumphouse has control.

13. The post-annexation water system exhibits high pressures in the west under ADD plus St. Vital fill, when the Main Reservoir and Pumphouse has control.

14. Various sections of the post-annexation water system exhibit high velocities.

15. The post-annexation water system has some low fire flows in several isolated locations.

16. The post-annexation Main, West and St. Vital Reservoir and Pumphouses lack adequate pumping availability.

17. The post-annexation water system lacks adequate ADD and FF storage.

Recommendations Existing Water System 1. For the pre-annexation system, upsize various mains.

2. For the pre-annexation system, the Main Reservoir and Pumphouse pumps are recommended for upgrade to a firm capacity of 441.9 L/s to meet at least PHD. 3. For the pre-annexation system add 3,900 m3 of storage at Main and West Reservoirs and Pumphouses.

4. For the post-annexation system upsize various mains.

5. For the post-annexation system, the Main Reservoir and Pumphouse pumps are recommended for upgrade to a firm capacity of 1,095.7 L/s to meet at least PHD and the St. Vital and West Reservoirs and Pumphouses are recommended for upgrade to a firm capacity of 547.9 L/s to meet at least MDD. 6. For the post-annexation system add 28,300 m3 of storage at West and Main Reservoir and Pumphouses.

Page ii |

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

7. Add a Northwest Pressure Zone with 40,200 m3 of storage and 874.0 L/s of firm capacity.

Sanitary Collection System Conclusions Existing Sanitary System 1. The existing sanitary system performs adequately under dry weather flow conditions.

2. The performance of the existing system was assessed under the following four scenarios:  Inflow-Infiltration allowance of 0.28 L/s/ha as per the Alberta Environment and Parks’ Guidelines  The City of Edmonton’s 1:5 year 24-hour 4th Quartile Huff Storm as per Beaumont’s General Design Standards  The City of Edmonton’s 1:25 year 24-hour 4th Quartile Huff Storm as per Beaumont’s General Design Standards  The City of Edmonton’s 1:50 year 24-hour 4th Quartile Huff Storm as per Beaumont’s General Design Standards 3. The existing conditions analysis indicated that a number of trunk sewers are surcharged under multiple assessment rainfall even scenarios. Some reoccurring problem areas include Trunk Sewer 1 (SERTS line), Trunk Sewer 3, Trunk Sewer 6, Trunk Sewer 12, and Trunk Sewer 14.

4. Extremely high observed inflow-infiltration rates were calculated based off of the 2014 and 2016 flow monitoring data for areas upstream of Sites 1, 3, and 5, with the rates surpassing the recommended rate stipulated by AEP of 0.28 L/s/ha. These sites are consistent with the sites with high imperviousness and percent RDII values noted during WWF calibration. Significant runoff rates were also projected for areas upstream of flow monitoring Sites 3 and 5 under the assessment rainfall events. This indicates a high likelihood of these areas experiencing above average inflow-infiltration.

5. Weeping tile connections were found to be prominent downtown, which among other sources such as cross-connections, cracks and chips on manhole covers and along pipes, poor seals, or missing cleanout caps, could be causing high the observed high I-I rates.

6. An analysis of basement flooding under the three Huff design storm assessment scenarios indicated that 154, 290, and 404 properties would be inundated under the 1:5 year, 1:25 year, and 1:50 year 24-hour 4th quartile Huff storms, respectively.

7. The 1:25 year 24-hour 4th quartile Huff storm was selected as the desired LOS to assess future system conditions.

Future Sanitary System 1. The existing conveyance system was found to perform adequately under the selected LOS under buildout to the pre-annexation boundary conditions.

2. The proposed sanitary system concept is comprised of gravity sewers, lift stations, and forcemains across four service regions that ultimately connect to the SERTS line.

3. Under build-out to the post-annexation boundary conditions scenario, the existing conveyance system was generally found to perform adequately. Minor surcharging was noted in the 525 mm sewer downstream of the South Service Region network and the extended 900 mm SERTS line recommended as part of the existing system upgrades.

4. Hydraulic assessment of the proposed sanitary system indicates that the conceptual network would be sufficient in managing sewage generated from the future development areas.

islengineering.com

April 2018

|

Page iii

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

Recommendations Existing Sanitary System 1. To mitigate surcharging in the existing system, complete the upsizing upgrades recommended under the LOS design storm scenario. This includes upsizing the sewers along 57 Street, 48 Avenue, and along Trunk Sewer 3.

2. Twin the existing 525 mm sewer with a 1200 mm sewer to alleviate the surcharging in the 525 mm sewer. This will increase flows on the downstream system, and trigger upgrades to the SERTS line.

3. Decommission the existing SERTS Lift Station, and extend the 900 mm trunk sewer west to the 1350 mm trunk on 9 Street. A separate tie in point to the 1350 mm trunk is recommended.

4. Conduct an inflow-infiltration field investigation program in order to pinpoint the sources of I-I. Field investigation could consist of smoke testing, micro flow monitoring, dye testing and CCTV inspections.

Once the field investigation is completed and areas of sources of I-I have been identified, these issues should be mitigated. Additional flow monitoring and WWF calibration would be required following the program to update the runoff and I-I model parameters.

Future Sanitary System 1. The future sanitary system should be designed based on the Town of Beaumont General Design Standards, 2011, and design criteria stipulated in this report.

2. Construct a future sanitary servicing system as denoted in Figure 4.62. The costs of these additions are $37.7 million.

3. To address staging of the future infrastructure, refer to the following: a. Pockets of land in the annexation area include the commercial and industrial parcels surrounding Beaumont’s Public Works building in N-7, the residential and commercial parcels in W-4 and W-6, and the residential parcel in W-3. These were selected to ensure that the combined cost expenditures across the water and wastewater utility systems were the least among all parcels within close proximity to existing infrastructure. Selecting these parcels does not limit the degree of land that is developable, just highlights the sections that are considered growth ready. b. Industrial parcels in the south can be activated by either implementing the gravity system proposed in the Southwest Service Region (if Southwest LS_1 is not constructed right away, roughly 71 ha of industrial lands would be available by gravity, or 98 ha total), or constructing the gravity/pressurized system proposed in the South Service Region (152 ha total). c. Begin development of the service regions subject to development pressures/locations.

4. Set aside sufficient land for a utility corridor to accommodate to the post-annexation boundary and beyond, as shown in Figure 4.69.

5. In the South Service Region, 88 ha of industrial lands could be activated without triggering additional upgrades required to the existing system. This assumes that UPG 1C-1, UPG 1C-2, and the majority of UPG 1C-10 have been implemented, full build-out to the pre-annexation boundary has occurred, and no other post-annexation service regions have been developed.

6. In the Southwest Service Region, approximately 100 ha of non-residential lands can go online with minimal upgrades required. This is assuming full build-out to the pre-annexation boundary has occurred, and no other post-annexation service regions have been developed. The required upgrades occur under existing conditions and include UPG 1C-1, UPG 1C-2, and about 20% of UPG 1C-10.

Page iv |

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

Table of Contents 1.0

Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 1.2 1.3

2.0

9 13 16 17 20 26

Existing System Hydraulic Model Development Design Criteria Existing System Analysis Future System Analysis Next Steps/Staging Plan Recommendations for Optimal Future Servicing

29 32 40 44 54 58

Analysis Background Findings of Study Additional Recommendations

61 61 62

Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................... 63 6.1 6.2

7.0

Existing System Hydraulic Model Development Design Criteria Existing System Analysis Future System Analysis Next Steps/Staging Plan Recommendations

Blackmud/Whitemud Creek Analysis .................................................................... 61 5.1 5.2 5.3

6.0

3 3 3 4 5 8

Sanitary Collection System................................................................................... 29 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6

5.0

Location Annexation Areas Population Horizons Land Use Service Area Delineation Service Regions

Water Distribution System ...................................................................................... 9 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6

4.0

1 1 1

Study Area ............................................................................................................. 3 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6

3.0

Authorization Background Purpose of the Study

Conclusions and Recommendations – Water Servicing Conclusions and Recommendations – Sanitary Servicing

63 65

References........................................................................................................... 67

islengineering.com

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

APPENDICES Appendix A

MIKE URBAN Water Model Files

Appendix B

Hydrant Testing Report

Appendix C

Water System – Detailed Cost Estimate Breakdown

Appendix D

SERTS Lift Station Pump Curve

Appendix E

MIKE URBAN Sanitary Model Files

Appendix F

Existing System Assessments – Longitudinal Profiles

Appendix G

Sanitary System – Detailed Cost Estimate Breakdown

Appendix H

Future Sanitary Servicing Concept Sizing

Appendix I

Future System Assessments – Longitudinal Profiles

Appendix J

Blackmud/Whitemud Creek Study Area

TABLES On page Years Corresponding to Population Horizon ............................................................................. 4 Land Use District Descriptions .................................................................................................. 5 Existing Conditions (2016) Service Area Summary .................................................................. 6 Density Assumptions for Built-out to the Pre-annexation Boundary Scenario ........................... 7 Build-out to the Pre-annexation Boundary Service Area Summary........................................... 7 Build-out to the Post-annexation Boundary Service Area Summary ......................................... 8 Main Size and Material Statistics .............................................................................................. 9 Main Installation Period Statistics ........................................................................................... 10 Reservoir Characteristics ........................................................................................................ 10 Water Pumps .......................................................................................................................... 10 Existing Demand Rates .......................................................................................................... 13 Hydrant Flow Test Results ...................................................................................................... 14 Adjusted Hazen-Williams ‘C’ Value ......................................................................................... 14 Calibrated Model Comparison to Hydrant Flow Tests ............................................................. 15 Existing Pressure Ranges ....................................................................................................... 18 Class D Cost Estimates for Recommended Upgrades to the Existing System ....................... 19 Class D Cost Estimates for Recommended Upgrades to the Existing System ....................... 20

islengineering.com

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

Pre-Annexation Pressure Ranges........................................................................................... 21 Pre-Annexation Upgrade Pressure Ranges ............................................................................ 22 Class D Cost Estimates for Recommended Upgrades to the Existing System ....................... 23 Class D Cost Estimates for Recommended Upgrades to the Existing System ....................... 23 Post-Annexation Pressure Ranges ......................................................................................... 24 Pre-annexation Upgrade Pressure Ranges ............................................................................ 26 Class D Cost Estimates for Recommended Upgrades to the Existing System ....................... 26 Summary of Reservoir and Pumphouse Needs ...................................................................... 27 Sewer Size and Material Statistics .......................................................................................... 29 Sewer Installation Period Statistics ......................................................................................... 30 Manning’s ‘n’ Roughness Coefficient ...................................................................................... 32 Following page Flow Monitoring Catchment Area Summary............................................................................ 32 On page Top Ten Rainfall Events of 2014 and 2016 ............................................................................. 35 Following page Dry Weather Flow Calibration: Results Summary ................................................................... 36 On page Table 4.7:

Wet Weather Flow Calibration: Time-Area and RDII Parameters ........................................... 38

Table 4.8:

Wet Weather Flow Calibration: Results Summary .................................................................. 39 Rainfall Values ........................................................................................................................ 40 Affected Sewer Sections under a Constant I-I Rate of 0.28 L/s/ha Event ............................... 44 Affected Sewer Sections under a 1:5 Year 24-Hour Q4 Huff Storm Event ............................. 45 Affected Sewer Sections under a 1:25 Year 24-Hour Q4 Huff Storm Event ........................... 46 Affected Sewer Sections under a 1:50 Year 24-Hour Q4 Huff Storm Event ........................... 47 Observed Inflow-Infiltration Rates based on 2014 Flow Monitoring Data................................ 48 Observed Inflow-Infiltration Rates based on 2016 Flow Monitoring Data................................ 48 Modelled Inflow-Infiltration Rates based on MIKE URBAN Huff Storm Simulations................ 49 Extent of Basement Flooding per Design Storm ..................................................................... 51 Recommended Upgrades to the Existing System: Constant 0.28 L/s/ha ................................ 51 Recommended Upgrades to the Existing System: 1:5 Year 24-Hour Huff Storm ................... 51

islengineering.com

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

Recommended Upgrades to the Existing System: 1:25 Year 24-Hour Huff Storm ................. 52 Recommended Upgrades to the Existing System: 1:50 Year 24-Hour Huff Storm ................. 53 Class D Cost Estimates for Recommended Upgrades to the Existing System ....................... 53 Minimum Design Slopes for Sewers ....................................................................................... 55 Proposed Lift Station and Forcemain Sizing ........................................................................... 56 Class D Cost Estimates for Recommended Future Sanitary Servicing System ...................... 57 Class D Cost Estimates for Recommended Upgrades under the Full Build-out to the Postannexation Boundary Horizon ................................................................................................. 58

FIGURES Following page Figure 2.1:

Study Area Overview ................................................................................................................ 8

Figure 2.2:

Study Area Topography ............................................................................................................ 8

Figure 2.3:

Study Area Watershed Boundaries ........................................................................................... 8

Figure 2.4:

Study Area 2017 Annexation Lands .......................................................................................... 8

Figure 2.5:

Study Area Population Horizons ............................................................................................... 8

Figure 2.6:

Study Area Land Use Districts .................................................................................................. 8

Figure 2.7:

Study Area Neighbourhoods ..................................................................................................... 8

Figure 2.8:

Study Area Build-out to the Pre-annexation Boundary Delineated Service Areas .................... 8

Figure 2.9:

Study Area Build-out to the Post-annexation Boundary Delineated Service Areas ................... 8

Figure 2.10:

Study Area Service Regions ..................................................................................................... 8

Figure 3.1:

Water Distribution System Existing Network Watermain Size ................................................. 28

Figure 3.2:

Water Distribution System Existing Network Watermain Material ........................................... 28

Figure 3.3:

Water Distribution System Existing Network Watermain Installation Period ........................... 28 On page

Figure 3.4:

Historical Water Production..................................................................................................... 11

Figure 3.5:

Water Production per Person .................................................................................................. 12 Following page

Figure 3.6:

Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model Development 2017 Hydrant Test Locations ....... 28 On page

Figure 3.7:

Static Pressure Calibration Results ......................................................................................... 15

Figure 3.8:

Flowed Pressure Calibration Results ...................................................................................... 16

islengineering.com

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

Following page Figure 3.9:

Water Distribution System Existing System Analysis Average Day Demand Main Reservoir and Pumphouse Control ......................................................................................................... 28

Figure 3.10:

Water Distribution System Existing System Analysis Average Day Demand St. Vital Reservoir and Pumphouse Control ......................................................................................................... 28

Figure 3.11:

Water Distribution System Existing System Analysis Maximum Day Demand St. Vital Reservoir and Pumphouse Control ......................................................................................... 28

Figure 3.12:

Water Distribution System Existing System Analysis Peak Hour Demand Main Reservoir and Pumphouse Control ................................................................................................................ 28

Figure 3.13:

Water Distribution System Existing System Analysis Average Day Demand Plus St. Vital Fill Main Reservoir and Pumphouse Control ................................................................................ 28

Figure 3.14:

Water Distribution System Existing System Analysis Maximum Day Demand Plus Fire Flow Main Reservoir and Pumphouse Control ................................................................................ 28

Figure 3.15:

Water Distribution System Future System Analysis Build-out to the Pre-annexation Boundary Servicing Concept ................................................................................................................... 28

Figure 3.16:

Water Distribution System Future System Analysis Build-out to the Pre-annexation Boundary Average Day Demand Main Reservoir and Pumphouse Control ............................................ 28

Figure 3.17:

Water Distribution System Future System Analysis Build-out to the Pre-annexation Boundary Average Day Demand St. Vital Reservoir and Pumphouse Control........................................ 28

Figure 3.18:

Water Distribution System Future System Analysis Build-out to the Pre-annexation Boundary Average Day Demand West Reservoir and Pumphouse Control ............................................ 28

Figure 3.19:

Water Distribution System Future System Analysis Build-out to the Pre-annexation Boundary Maximum Day Demand St. Vital Reservoir and Pumphouse Control ..................................... 28

Figure 3.20:

Water Distribution System Future System Analysis Build-out to the Pre-annexation Boundary Maximum Day Demand West Reservoir and Pumphouse Control.......................................... 28

Figure 3.21:

Water Distribution System Future System Analysis Build-out to the Pre-annexation Boundary Peak Hour Demand Main Reservoir and Pumphouse Control ................................................ 28

Figure 3.22:

Water Distribution System Future System Analysis Build-out to the Pre-annexation Boundary Average Day Demand Plus St Vital Fill Main Reservoir and Pumphouse Control .................. 28

Figure 3.23:

Water Distribution System Future System Analysis Build-out to the Pre-annexation Boundary Maximum Day Demand Plus Fire Flow Main Reservoir and Pumphouse Control .................. 28

Figure 3.24:

Water Distribution System Future System Analysis Build-out to the Pre-annexation Boundary Upgrades ................................................................................................................................ 28

Figure 3.25:

Water Distribution System Future Upgraded System Analysis Build-out to the Pre-annexation Boundary Average Day Demand Main Reservoir and Pumphouse Control ............................ 28

Figure 3.26:

Water Distribution System Future Upgraded System Analysis Build-out to the Pre-annexation Boundary Average Day Demand St. Vital Reservoir and Pumphouse Control ....................... 28

Figure 3.27:

Water Distribution System Future Upgraded System Analysis Build-out to the Pre-annexation Boundary Average Day Demand West Reservoir and Pumphouse Control............................ 28

islengineering.com

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

Figure 3.28:

Water Distribution System Future Upgraded System Analysis Build-out to the Pre-annexation Boundary Maximum Day Demand St. Vital Reservoir and Pumphouse Control ..................... 28

Figure 3.29:

Water Distribution System Future Upgraded System Analysis Build-out to the Pre-annexation Boundary Maximum Day Demand West Reservoir and Pumphouse Control ......................... 28

Figure 3.30:

Water Distribution System Future Upgraded System Analysis Build-out to the Pre-annexation Boundary Peak Hour Demand Main Reservoir and Pumphouse Control ................................ 28

Figure 3.31:

Water Distribution System Future Upgraded System Analysis Build-out to the Pre-annexation Boundary Average Day Demand Plus St Vital Fill Main Reservoir and Pumphouse Control .. 28

Figure 3.32:

Water Distribution System Future Upgraded System Analysis Build-out to the Pre-annexation Boundary Maximum Day Demand Plus Fire Flow Main Reservoir and Pumphouse Control .. 28

Figure 3.33:

Water Distribution System Future System Analysis Build-out to the Post-annexation Boundary Servicing Concept ................................................................................................................... 28

Figure 3.34:

Water Distribution System Future System Analysis Build-out to the Post-annexation Boundary Average Day Demand Main Reservoir and Pumphouse Control ............................................ 28

Figure 3.35:

Water Distribution System Future System Analysis Build-out to the Post-annexation Boundary Average Day Demand plus St. Vital Fill Main Reservoir and Pumphouse Control .................. 28

Figure 3.36:

Water Distribution System Future System Analysis Build-out to the Post-annexation Boundary Average Day Demand West Reservoir and Pumphouse Control ............................................ 28

Figure 3.37:

Water Distribution System Future System Analysis Build-out to the Post-annexation Boundary Maximum Day Demand St Vital Reservoir and Pumphouse Control ...................................... 28

Figure 3.38:

Water Distribution System Future System Analysis Build-out to the Post-annexation Boundary Maximum Day Demand West Reservoir and Pumphouse Control.......................................... 28

Figure 3.39:

Water Distribution System Future System Analysis Build-out to the Post-annexation Boundary Peak Hour Demand Main Reservoir and Pumphouse Control ................................................ 28

Figure 3.40:

Water Distribution System Future System Analysis Build-out to the Post-annexation Boundary Average Day Demand Plus St Vital Fill Main Reservoir and Pumphouse Control .................. 28

Figure 3.41:

Water Distribution System Future System Analysis Build-out to the Post-annexation Boundary Maximum Day Demand Plus Fire Flow Main Reservoir and Pumphouse Control .................. 28

Figure 3.42:

Water Distribution System Future System Analysis Build-out to the Post-annexation Boundary Upgrades ................................................................................................................................ 28

Figure 3.43:

Water Distribution System Future Upgraded System Analysis Build-out to the Post-annexation Boundary Average Day Demand plus Main Reservoir and Pumphouse Control .................... 28

Figure 3.44:

Water Distribution System Future Upgraded System Analysis Build-out to the Post-annexation Boundary Average Day Demand St Vital Reservoir and Pumphouse Control ........................ 28

Figure 3.45:

Water Distribution System Future Upgraded System Analysis Build-out to the Post-annexation Boundary Average Day Demand West Reservoir and Pumphouse Control............................ 28

Figure 3.46:

Water Distribution System Future Upgraded System Analysis Build-out to the Post-annexation Boundary Maximum Day Demand St Vital Reservoir and Pumphouse Control ...................... 28

islengineering.com

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

Figure 3.47:

Water Distribution System Future Upgraded System Analysis Build-out to the Post-annexation Boundary Maximum Day Demand West Reservoir and Pumphouse Control ......................... 28

Figure 3.48:

Water Distribution System Future Upgraded System Analysis Build-out to the Post-annexation Boundary Peak Hour Demand Main Reservoir and Pumphouse Control ................................ 28

Figure 3.49:

Water Distribution System Future Upgraded System Analysis Build-out to the Post-annexation Boundary Average Day Demand Plus St Vital Fill Main Reservoir and Pumphouse Control .. 28

Figure 3.50:

Water Distribution System Future Upgraded System Analysis Build-out to the Post-annexation Boundary Maximum Day Demand Plus Fire Flow Main Reservoir and Pumphouse Control .. 28

Figure 4.1:

Sanitary Collection System Existing Network Sewer Size ...................................................... 60

Figure 4.2:

Sanitary Collection System Existing Network Sewer Material ................................................. 60

Figure 4.3:

Sanitary Collection System Existing Network Sewer Installation Period ................................. 60

Figure 4.4:

Sanitary Collection System Existing Network Full-flow Sewer Capacity ................................. 60

Figure 4.5:

Sanitary Collection System Existing Network Manhole Depths............................................... 60

Figure 4.6:

Sanitary Collection System Existing Network Trunk Sewers................................................... 60

Figure 4.7:

Sanitary Collection System Hydraulic Model Development Flow Monitoring Locations .......... 60

Figure 4.8:

Sanitary Collection System Hydraulic Model Development 2014 Rainfall Data ...................... 60

Figure 4.9:

Sanitary Collection System Hydraulic Model Development 2016 Rainfall Data ...................... 60

Figure 4.10:

Sanitary Collection System Hydraulic Model Development Beaumont IDF Curve with 2014 and 2016 Rainfall Event Return Periods Superimposed ......................................................... 60

Figure 4.11:

Sanitary Collection System Hydraulic Model Development Dry Weather Flow Calibration Nonresidential Diurnals All Sites.................................................................................................... 60

Figure 4.12:

Sanitary Collection System Hydraulic Model Development Dry Weather Flow Calibration Residential Diurnals Site 1, 2014 ............................................................................................ 60

Figure 4.13:

Sanitary Collection System Hydraulic Model Development Dry Weather Flow Calibration Residential Diurnals Site 2, 2014 ............................................................................................ 60

Figure 4.14:

Sanitary Collection System Hydraulic Model Development Dry Weather Flow Calibration Residential Diurnals Site 3, 2014 ............................................................................................ 60

Figure 4.15:

Sanitary Collection System Hydraulic Model Development Dry Weather Flow Calibration Residential Diurnals Site 4, 2016 ............................................................................................ 60

Figure 4.16:

Sanitary Collection System Hydraulic Model Development Dry Weather Flow Calibration Residential Diurnals Site 5, 2016 ............................................................................................ 60

Figure 4.17:

Sanitary Collection System Hydraulic Model Development Dry Weather Flow Calibration Residential Diurnals Site ACRWC, 2016................................................................................. 60

Figure 4.18:

Sanitary Collection System Hydraulic Model Development Dry Weather Flow Calibration Site 1, August 11 to August 18, 2014 ...................................................................................... 60

islengineering.com

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

Figure 4.19:

Sanitary Collection System Hydraulic Model Development Dry Weather Flow Calibration Site 2, August 11 to August 18, 2014 ...................................................................................... 60

Figure 4.20:

Sanitary Collection System Hydraulic Model Development Dry Weather Flow Calibration Site 3, July 10 to July 17, 2014 ............................................................................................... 60

Figure 4.21:

Sanitary Collection System Hydraulic Model Development Dry Weather Flow Calibration Site 4, October 24 to October 31, 2016 .................................................................................. 60

Figure 4.22:

Sanitary Collection System Hydraulic Model Development Dry Weather Flow Calibration Site 5, October 24 to October 31, 2016 .................................................................................. 60

Figure 4.23:

Sanitary Collection System Hydraulic Model Development Dry Weather Flow Calibration Site ACRWC, October 24 to October 31, 2016 ....................................................................... 60

Figure 4.24:

Sanitary Collection System Hydraulic Model Development Dry Weather Flow Calibration Generation Rates .................................................................................................................... 60

Figure 4.25:

Sanitary Collection System Hydraulic Model Development Wet Weather Flow Calibration Site 1 July 22 to August 9, 2014 ............................................................................................. 60

Figure 4.26:

Sanitary Collection System Hydraulic Model Development Wet Weather Flow Calibration Site 2 July 22 to August 9, 2014 ............................................................................................. 60

Figure 4.27:

Sanitary Collection System Hydraulic Model Development Wet Weather Flow Calibration Site 3 July 22 to August 9, 2014 ............................................................................................. 60

Figure 4.28:

Sanitary Collection System Hydraulic Model Development Wet Weather Flow Calibration Site 4 May 18 to June 3, 2016 ................................................................................................ 60

Figure 4.29:

Sanitary Collection System Hydraulic Model Development Wet Weather Flow Calibration Site 5 May 18 to June 3, 2016 ................................................................................................ 60

Figure 4.30:

Sanitary Collection System Hydraulic Model Development Wet Weather Flow Calibration Site ACRWC May 18 to June 3, 2016 ..................................................................................... 60

Figure 4.31:

Sanitary Collection System Hydraulic Model Development Wet Weather Flow Calibration Percent Impervious Areas ....................................................................................................... 60

Figure 4.32:

Sanitary Collection System Hydraulic Model Development Wet Weather Flow Calibration Percent Area Contributing to RDII ........................................................................................... 60 On page

Figure 4.33:

Storm Rainfall Comparison ..................................................................................................... 41 Following page

Figure 4.34:

Sanitary Collection System Existing System Analysis Peak Discharge Relative to Pipe Capacity and Maximum HGL Elevation Relative to Ground Constant I-I Rate of 0.28 L/s/ha . 60

Figure 4.35:

Sanitary Collection System Existing System Analysis Spare Capacity Constant I-I Rate of 0.28 L/s/ha .............................................................................................................................. 60

Figure 4.36:

Sanitary Collection System Existing System Analysis Peak Discharge Relative to Pipe Capacity and Maximum HGL Elevation Relative to Ground 5Yr 24Hr Q4 Huff Storm............. 60

Figure 4.37:

Sanitary Collection System Existing System Analysis Spare Capacity 5Yr 24Hr Q4 Huff Storm ...................................................................................................................................... 60

islengineering.com

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

Figure 4.38:

Sanitary Collection System Existing System Analysis Peak Discharge Relative to Pipe Capacity and Maximum HGL Elevation Relative to Ground 25Yr 24Hr Q4 Huff Storm ........... 60

Figure 4.39:

Sanitary Collection System Existing System Analysis Spare Capacity 25Yr 24Hr Q4 Huff Storm ...................................................................................................................................... 60

Figure 4.40:

Sanitary Collection System Existing System Analysis Peak Discharge Relative to Pipe Capacity and Maximum HGL Elevation Relative to Ground 50Yr 24Hr Q4 Huff Storm ........... 60

Figure 4.41:

Sanitary Collection System Existing System Analysis Spare Capacity 50Yr 24Hr Q4 Huff Storm ...................................................................................................................................... 60

Figure 4.42:

Sanitary Collection System Existing System Analysis Longitudinal Profile Key Plan .............. 60

Figure 4.43:

Sanitary Collection System Existing System Analysis Peak Discharge Relative to Pipe Capacity and Maximum HGL Elevation Relative to Ground Dry Weather Flows .................... 60

Figure 4.44:

Sanitary Collection System Existing System Analysis Spare Capacity Dry Weather Flows .... 60

Figure 4.45:

Sanitary Collection System Existing System Analysis Weeping Tile Locations ...................... 60 On page

Figure 4.46:

Comparison of Infiltration Rates for Each Catchment Area ..................................................... 50 Following page

Figure 4.47:

Sanitary Collection System Existing System Analysis Inundated Properties per Design Storm ...................................................................................................................................... 60

Figure 4.48:

Sanitary Collection System Existing System Analysis Recommended Upgrades Constant I-I Rate of 0.28 L/s/ha.................................................................................................................. 60

Figure 4.49:

Sanitary Collection System Existing System Analysis Recommended Upgrades 5Yr 24Hr Q4 Huff Storm ............................................................................................................................... 60

Figure 4.50:

Sanitary Collection System Existing System Analysis Recommended Upgrades 25Yr 24Hr Q4 Huff Storm ............................................................................................................................... 60

Figure 4.51:

Sanitary Collection System Existing System Analysis Recommended Upgrades 50Yr 24Hr Q4 Huff Storm ............................................................................................................................... 60

Figure 4.52:

Sanitary Collection System Existing System Analysis Recommended Upgrades Peak Discharge Relative to Pipe Capacity and Maximum HGL Elevation Relative to Ground Constant I-I Rate of 0.28 L/s/ha .............................................................................................. 60

Figure 4.53:

Sanitary Collection System Existing System Analysis Recommended Upgrades Spare Capacity Constant I-I Rate of 0.28 L/s/ha ............................................................................... 60

Figure 4.54:

Sanitary Collection System Existing System Analysis Recommended Upgrades Peak Discharge Relative to Pipe Capacity and Maximum HGL Elevation Relative to Ground 25Yr 24Hr Q4 Huff Storm ................................................................................................................ 60

Figure 4.55:

Sanitary Collection System Existing System Analysis Recommended Upgrades Spare Capacity 25Yr 24Hr Q4 Huff Storm ......................................................................................... 60

Figure 4.56:

Sanitary Collection System Existing System Analysis Recommended Upgrades Peak Discharge Relative to Pipe Capacity and Maximum HGL Elevation Relative to Ground 50Yr 24Hr Q4 Huff Storm ................................................................................................................ 60

islengineering.com

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

Figure 4.57:

Sanitary Collection System Existing System Analysis Recommended Upgrades Spare Capacity 50Yr 24Hr Q4 Huff Storm ......................................................................................... 60

Figure 4.58:

Sanitary Collection System Future System Analysis Build-out to the Pre-annexation Boundary Catchment Connections .......................................................................................................... 60

Figure 4.59:

Sanitary Collection System Future System Analysis Build-out to the Pre-annexation Boundary Peak Discharge Relative to Pipe Capacity and Maximum HGL Elevation Relative to Ground 25Yr 24Hr Q4 Huff Storm ........................................................................................................ 60

Figure 4.60:

Sanitary Collection System Future System Analysis Build-out to the Pre-annexation Boundary Spare Capacity 25Yr 24Hr Q4 Huff Storm .............................................................................. 60

Figure 4.61:

Sanitary Collection System Future System Analysis Build-out to the Pre-annexation Boundary Recommended Upgrades 25Yr 24Hr Q4 Huff Storm .............................................................. 60

Figure 4.62:

Sanitary Collection System Future System Analysis Build-out to the Post-annexation Boundary Servicing Concept................................................................................................... 60

Figure 4.63:

Sanitary Collection System Future System Analysis Build-out to the Post-annexation Boundary Peak Discharge Relative to Pipe Capacity and Maximum HGL Elevation Relative to Ground 25Yr 24Hr Q4 Huff Storm ........................................................................................... 60

Figure 4.64:

Sanitary Collection System Future System Analysis Build-out to the Post-annexation Boundary Spare Capacity 25Yr 24Hr Q4 Huff Storm .............................................................. 60

Figure 4.65:

Sanitary Collection System Future System Analysis Build-out to the Post-annexation Boundary Recommended Upgrades 25Yr 24Hr Q4 Huff Storm .............................................. 60

Figure 4.66:

Sanitary Collection System Future System Analysis Build-out to the Post-annexation Boundary Recommended Upgrades Peak Discharge Relative to Pipe Capacity and Maximum HGL Elevation Relative to Ground 25Yr 24Hr Q4 Huff Storm ................................................. 60

Figure 4.67:

Sanitary Collection System Future System Analysis Recommended Upgrades Build-out to the Post-annexation Boundary Spare Capacity 25Yr 24Hr Q4 Huff Storm ................................... 60

Figure 4.68:

Sanitary Collection System Next Steps/Staging Plan Recommendations Overall Network Upgrades ................................................................................................................................ 60

Figure 4.69:

Sanitary Collection System Next Steps/Staging Plan Recommendations Build-out to the Postannexation Boundary Utility Corridors ..................................................................................... 60

Figure 4.70:

Sanitary Collection System Next Steps/Staging Plan Recommendations Total Upgrades Required for South Service Region ......................................................................................... 60

Figure 4.71:

Sanitary Collection System Next Steps/Staging Plan Recommendations Total Upgrades Required for Southwest Service Region ................................................................................. 60

islengineering.com

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviation AC ACRWC ADD AEP ASP BF CASP CCTV CKif CKof CQof CRSWSC DWF EIA EMRGP ESBCHS FF GIS HGL ICI I-I ISL L LDR LID LiDAR Lini Lmax LOS LP MDD MDP MF PHD PVC QA/QC RDII RDII % R/W SERTS SWMF the Town Umax the Study VCT WaPUG WWF WWTP

Meaning asbestos cement Alberta Capital Region Wastewater Commission average day demand Alberta Environment and Parks Area Structure Plan time constant baseflow Consolidated Area Structure Plan closed-circuit television time constant interflow time constant overland flow overland coefficient Capital Region Southwest Water Services Commission dry weather flow Edmonton International Airport Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan École Secondaire Beaumont Composite High School fire flow geographic information system hydraulic grade line industrial, commercial, institutional inflow-infiltration ISL Engineering and Land Services root zone moisture low density residential low impact development light detection and ranging initial RDII boundary condition for the root zone storage root zone storage level of service longitudinal profile maximum day demand Municipal Development Plan multi-family peak hour demand polyvinyl chloride quality assurance/quality control rainfall dependent inflow-infiltration percent area contributing to RDII right-of-way Southeast Regional Trunk Sewer stormwater management facility the Town of Beaumont surface storage Water and Wastewater: 2018 and Beyond Study vitrified clay tile Wastewater Planning User Group wet weather flow Wastewater Treatment Plan

islengineering.com

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

UNITS Unit

Meaning

%

percentage

du/nrha

dwelling units per net residential hectare

ha

hectares

hp

horsepower

hr

hour

km

kilometres

kPa

kilopascals

L/p/d

litres per person per day

L/ha/d

litres per hectare per day

L/s

litres per second

L/s/ha

litres per second per hectare

m

metres

m/m

metres per metre

m/s

metres per second

m3

cubic metres

m3/p

cubic metres per person

mm

millimetres

mm/hr

millimetres per hour

p/du

persons per dwelling unit

p/nrha

persons per net residential hectare

psi

pounds per square inch

islengineering.com

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

GLOSSARY 1:X Year Event – A rainfall event that has a 1/X chance of occurring in any given year.

ArcGIS – A program for mapping and spatial analysis.

As-Builts – The final drawings showing what was built.

Average Daily Demand – The average amount of water consumed in a community, city or town, by a person in one day.

Calibrate – To adjust model parameters such that model results match known (measured) values.

Capacity – The maximum flow a sewer can handle, typically Manning's capacity which assumes no surcharge.

Commercial – Any development that is used for an activity with the purpose of generating a profit.

Density – A quantitative measure of the number of persons, families or dwelling units per unit of area.

Design Storm – A storm that uses typical rainfall patterns and a statistically determined rate, as opposed to a natural storm.

Developer – A registered owner, agent or any person, firm or company required to obtain or having obtained a development permit.

Diurnal – A daily flow pattern.

Dry Weather Flow – Baseflow and user generated flow, excludes storm effects.

Dummy – A part of the model that does not exist physically, but is included to model connections or other data.

Fire Flow – The quantity of water available for fire protection purposes in excess of that required for other purposes.

Firm Capacity – The maximum flow a pumphouse can handle assuming its largest pump is not operational.

Flooding – When network water levels rise above ground level.

Flow Monitoring – A study of the physical system where devices are installed that are capable of recording the flow through a sewer at the location. Typically put in place for several weeks.

Forcemain – A sewer where water is pumped as opposed to a gravity conduit.

Friction – The resistance that one surface encounters when moving over another surface.

Generation Rate – The rate at which wastewater is generated in a catchment, typically tied to either catchment population or area.

Gravity Sewer – A sewer when water flows by way of gravity, as opposed to a forcemain.

Hydrant Testing – A test conducted to determine the flow rate and pressure at a hydrant within a system.

Often used for calibration or to determine water availability for firefighting.

Hydraulic Grade Line – The surface of water in a sewer, or where the water would surface if the sewer is under pressure.

Hydrodynamic – Analysis of fluids in motion and their interaction with solids.

Imperviousness – The limiting of the infiltration of stormwater; for example, a roadway has high imperviousness and a field has a low imperviousness.

Industrial – Any developments that are used for manufacturing, such as factories.

islengineering.com

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

Inflow-Infiltration – Non-wastewater that makes its way into the network. Inflow refers to sources such as cross-connections and manhole lids. Groundwater entering through cracks and defects is infiltration.

Institutional – Any developments that are used for the public’s interest, such as schools, hospitals and recreation centres.

Invert – The elevation of the lowest inside part of a sewer cross-section.

Lift Station – A facility that moves wastewater from a lower elevation to a higher elevation, typically when a gravity sewer is impractical.

Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) – Remote sensing method that uses a pulsed laser to measure ranges.

Longitudinal Profile – A cross-section cut along the length of sewer(s).

Losses – The energy lost to flowing water as it moves through the network; for instance, as friction as it travels along a sewer.

Manhole – A sewer access chamber.

Manning's Formula – An empirical formula for open channel flow. The Manning's coefficient, n, is an empirical value indicating the channel's resistance to flow or roughness.

Maximum Day Demand – The maximum amount of water consumed in one day throughout the year.

Node – A calculation point in a network model.

Parcel – The aggregate of the one or more areas of land described in a Certificate of Title or described in a Certificate of Title by reference to a plan filed or registered in a Land Titles Office.

Peak Hour Demand – The maximum amount of water consumed in one hour of maximum day during any month of the year.

Pump Curve – A relation of head and flow at which a pump is capable of operating.

Rain Gauge – A device that measures and records rainfall depths.

Rainfall Dependent Inflow-Infiltration Model – Stormwater inflow modelling method that determines short- , intermediate- and long-term response from each rainfall period.

Rainfall Event – Rainfall over a period of time, with a varying intensity that begins and ends at zero.

Residential – Any developments that are used for housing a municipality’s population.

Rim Elevation – The top elevation of a manhole, typically also the ground elevation.

Roughness – The degree a surface will resist fluid flow. A main's roughness will depend on factors such as age and material.

Sewer – An underground conduit for carrying fluid.

Shapefile – An Esri-developed digital format for GIS data that carries both spatial and attribute information.

Slope – A comparison of a line's vertical and horizontal change.

Smoke Testing – A test to assess connections to a sewer network. A non-toxic smoke is introduced into the network and the emergence of the smoke can indicate cross-connections or network defects.

Spare Capacity – How much additional flow a sewer can carry.

Spatial Analysis – Analysis of data based on location.

Study – A guiding plan for a municipality regarding issues like upgrading, maintenance, and preparing for future usage.

Surcharge – When flow exceeds pipe capacity. In a network, water levels in a manhole will be above the top of the pipe.

islengineering.com

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

Topography – The terrain features in three dimensions.

Total Dynamic Head – The total equivalent pressure elevation of a fluid, taking into account friction losses in the pipe.

Trunk – A major sewer line.

Upgrade – To enable a section of the system to handle a greater capacity.

Water – Municipal water is water that has been processed and treated to meet drinking water standards of a given municipality.

Wastewater/Sanitary – Municipal wastewater is water that has been degraded by human activity. Typically, it is collected and treated before release Water Treatment Plant – A facility that produces drinking water for public consumption. Treatment often involves some combination of filtering of sediment and disease-causing organisms and chemical treatment to remove excess minerals and other contaminants.

Wastewater Treatment Plant – A facility that treats wastewater before release into a receiving water.

Treatment often involves physical, chemical and biological processes to remove contaminants and produce environmentally safer treated wastewater.

Weeping Tile – Also called French drain, a weeping tile is a perforated pipe placed in a gravel filled trench that collects groundwater.

Wet Weather Flow – Dry weather flow, with the addition of flow from a rainfall event.

Wet Well – A holding pit for wastewater in a lift station. Typically pumps will activate when well water reaches a specified level, and stop when the water level is reduced to a specified lower level.

islengineering.com

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

1.0 Introduction 1.1

Authorization

The Town of Beaumont (the Town) retained ISL Engineering and Land Services Ltd. (ISL) to undertake the Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Study (the Study) encompassing water and sanitary infrastructure. The focus of the Study is to meet the long range strategic and sustainable goals of the recently developed “Our Complete Community” plan, while addressing the needs of existing and future systems under key milestone growth scenarios. For that purpose, robust hydrodynamic MIKE URBAN models were constructed and calibrated to enable a comprehensive assessment of the water and sanitary systems. The Study will provide Council and Engineering staff with the information required to assess the Town’s existing infrastructure and the capability of the infrastructure to accommodate short- and long-term growth. This information is useful in order to carry out short and long range planning and budgeting, as well as assist with updating the Town’s Off-site Levy Bylaw. The Study will aid in making informed decisions on capital projects, and will provide solutions for efficient, economic, and sustainable municipal services to residents.

1.2

Background

Originally a farming community founded in 1895, Beaumont was incorporated as a town in January, 1980.

The name Beaumont was selected upon its foundation in 1895 and means ‘beautiful hill’ in French to represent the large hill in the center of town. The Town has a current population of approximately 18,320 as per the Municipal Census Population Report, 2017, within a pre-annexation area of roughly 1,069 ha.

Historically, Beaumont recorded populations of 15,828, 16,768, and 17,720 from 2014 to 2016, respectively, according to the Municipal Census Population Report, 2017. As the fastest growing community in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region, Beaumont has maintained an average annual growth rate of 5.4%.

At the start of 2017, Beaumont annexed twenty-one quarter sections of land from Leduc County. As a result, Beaumont has jurisdiction of 2,402 ha of land. With this additional land mass, the Town foresees its population reaching 84,574 by 2073 (midpoint case; see Section 2.3). As a result of the new annexation areas, the Study will provide the Town with direction on various infrastructure implementation alternatives to service the enhanced population, while ensuring the existing infrastructure remains fully functional in providing appropriate levels of service.

Beaumont’s population is currently serviced by 82 km of water supply/distribution mains and 79 km of sanitary gravity sewers. The Town distributes potable water through two reservoirs/pump stations; Main Reservoir and Pumphouse in the west and St. Vital Reservoir and Pumphouse in the east. The Capital Region Southwest Water Services Commission (CRSWSC) supplies the Town with potable water while the Alberta Capital Region Wastewater Commission (ACRWC) provides wastewater transmission and treatment services.

1.3

Purpose of the Study

Generally speaking, the purpose of developing this type of study is: 

To inventory and analyze the existing infrastructure under existing conditions



To determine if any upgrades are required to the existing system in order to properly meet the needs of the municipality



To determine if any upgrades are required to allow for future growth to occur: o Firstly focussed on growth to the pre-annexation boundary

islengineering.com

April 2018

|

Page 1

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

o o

Secondly focussed on maximizing development into the annexation area using existing infrastructure Finally focussed on ultimate development servicing



To develop plans for future growth. Locations and timing of future developments may be dependent on: o Availability of sufficient servicing needs, including spare capacity in the existing systems o Annexed land locations o Community Planning



To provide cost estimates related to required infrastructure upgrades



To comment on possible staging options of upgrades to assist in an overall municipal capital plan



To provide inputs into an off-site levy bylaw

Specifically, the Study includes the following:

Page 2



Compilation and assessment of the existing water and sanitary data: o Development of MIKE URBAN models for the water distribution and sanitary collection systems o Compilation of geographic information system (GIS) compatible files for both networks o Calibration of water and sanitary models to accurately represent the performance of the Town’s existing systems



Analysis of infrastructure under existing and future growth horizons o Five demand scenarios for the water distribution system:  Average day demand (ADD)  Maximum day demand (MDD)  Peak hour demand (PHD)  Reservoir filling under ADD  MDD plus fire flows (FF) o Dry weather flow and wet weather flow assessments of the sanitary system



Identification of the required upgrades to the infrastructure to meet existing and future needs o Rehabilitation of existing pipes o Upgrades to the existing system to resolve capacity constraints o Implementing additional infrastructure to accommodate future developments in three phases:  To pre-annexation boundary  Into annexation lands using existing infrastructure capacity  To the ultimate development horizon for the annexation lands



Detailed evaluation of servicing alternatives analysis, based on the build-out scenario: o Ranking of alternatives o Recommended servicing options o Funding strategies



Development of cost estimates for recommended upgrades for existing and future horizons



Development of a staging plan for implementing infrastructure upgrades in terms of short term and long term needs

|

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

2.0 Study Area 2.1

Location

The Town of Beaumont is situated in mid-central Alberta in Leduc County, and lies south of the City of Edmonton. The town is bounded by Range Road 243 to the west, Range Road 241 to the east, Highway 625 to the south and Township Road 510 to the north. Highway 814 transects the town, and provides a linkage to the City of Edmonton. The town is approximately 3.2 km south of Edmonton, and 6.0 km northeast of Leduc. For this reason, a large percentage of the town’s working population are employed in municipalities other than Beaumont itself.

The overall study area of the Study includes all water and sanitary infrastructure to conduct modelling of the existing system, as well as any annexed land for future growth horizon considerations. The study area encompasses a total area of over 2,400 ha. Figure 2.1 highlights the area that was considered as part of the Study.

The town falls within an elevation between 705 m in the Elan Area Structure Plan (ASP) area and 745 m in Centre-Ville. The topography falls from Centre-Ville in all directions, and generally from the east towards the west and the south towards the north. A topographical map of Beaumont is shown in Figure 2.2.

Beaumont lies in the North Saskatchewan River watershed, which is part of the Nelson-Churchill (Hudson Bay) continental drainage basin. Within the North Saskatchewan River watershed, Beaumont is located in Region 05DF, which represents the Reach of the North Saskatchewan River/above Strawberry Creek to Edmonton Low Level Bridge. A map of the watershed boundaries is shown in Figure 2.3.

2.2

Annexation Areas

On January 1st, 2017, Beaumont annexed twenty-one quarter sections of land from Leduc County after considering the Town’s potential growth over the next 50 years. The annexation application process was supported by the Beaumont Growth Study, 2014 and the Financial Impact Analysis, 2014. One of the main goals of the Beaumont Growth Study was to ensure that sufficient land supply is available to meet the Town’s long-term growth requirements to accommodate future residential, commercial, business park (industrial) and urban services development.

The annexation lands include eight quarter sections to the west of the town’s pre-annexation boundary, nine quarter sections to the north, and four quarter sections to the south. In total, the annexation of twenty-one quarter sections amounts to an additional 1,333 ha of gross area, for a resultant area of 2,402 ha. Figure 2.4 indicates the quarters of land that were annexed by the Town of Beaumont in 2017.

2.3

Population Horizons

Beaumont’s sanitary sewer system and water distribution system were assessed under three scenarios, shown in Figure 2.5:  Existing conditions (population of 17,720)  Build-out to the pre-annexation boundary (population of 30,388)  Build-out to the post-annexation boundary (population of 84,574) The existing conditions was ultimately assessed based on the 2016 census population of 17,720. The 2016 census data was used over the 2017 census data for a number of reasons. At the commencement of this project, the 2017 census data was not yet available. The 2017 population information had not yet been applied geospatially to each neighbourhood, making it more difficult to effectively divide the Town into

islengineering.com

April 2018

|

Page 3

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

service areas for modelling purposes. Flow monitoring data for the sanitary system was provided from 2011 to 2016, with the 2014 and 2016 data ultimately used for calibration purposes. It was necessary to apply the corresponding populations to the years in which calibration was undertaken. The 2014 population was solely used for calibration of the sanitary system. The 2016 population was applied for calibration of both systems and for assessments, and constitutes the existing conditions scenario.

The two remaining population horizons represented the future scenarios. The future scenarios were selected as they represent critical milestones for the Town’s proposed development. The rate at which the Town grows was ultimately based on the new Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan (EMRGP), which aligns with the new Municipal Development Plan (MDP) and the annexation strategy. The timeframe corresponding to each population horizon is presented below in Table 2.1. For the purposes of this study, the EMRGP Midpoint Case stipulated in Section 2.3 of the new MDP was used. The EMRGP Low and High Cases are presented for information purposes.

Years Corresponding to Population Horizon EMRGP Low Case

EMRGP Midpoint Case 2016

EMRGP High Case

30,388

2034 to 2035

2030 to 2031

2027 to 2028

84,574

2098 to 2099

2072 to 2073

2057 to 2058

Population Horizon 17,720

As the rate at which the Town will grow has a degree of uncertainty, the estimated growth horizons associated with each scenario may not be realized until well into the future. This could potentially be beyond the service life of some of the Town’s current infrastructure. This will be a key factor to note under the future system analysis, keeping in mind that these stages may not be fully built-out for potentially numerous decades.

2.4

Land Use

In terms of development type, Beaumont was required to be divided as primarily residential, commercial, mixed use, industrial, and institutional areas. The development type influences water consumption rates and sanitary generation rates, therefore obtaining an appropriate classification was vital in order to ensure an accurate representation of the Town’s water and sanitary conveyance systems could be achieved.

When determining development classification for existing areas in Beaumont, a land use district shapefile provided by the Town was utilized. A land use district map is illustrated in Figure 2.6, while Table 2.2 summarizes all land use district codes and their corresponding descriptions. The land uses were compared to aerial maps and Google Street View to confirm that parcels were properly categorized. For the purposes of the Study, many of these land use districts were grouped together to form an overall land use. In this manner, Beaumont was classified more broadly by a number of unique development types, include:

Page 4



Residential



Commercial



Mixed use



Business park (industrial)



Institutional

|

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

Land Use District Descriptions District Code AR

District Description Agricultural Reserve District

BR

Blended Residential

C1

Neighbourhood Commercial Convenience

District Code R1-B R1-E R2

District Description Low Density Small Lot Residential Residential Estate Residential Semi-Detached / Duplex

C2

Commercial

RCD

Residential Comprehensive Development

DC

Direct Control

RHD1

Residential High Density 1

GC

Golf Course

RMD1

Residential Medium Density 1

IB

Industrial Business Park

RMD2

Residential Medium Density 2

TCMU

Town Centre Mixed Use

LW

Live Work

PRS

Public Recreation Services

USI

Urban Services Institutional

R1-A

Low Density Residential

USR

Urban Services Residential

2.5

Service Area Delineation

2.5.1 Existing Conditions Service Areas Service areas for the existing conditions scenario were delineated based on individual lots, using a parcel shapefile provided by the Town. The land use classification mentioned above, including residential, commercial, mixed use, business park (industrial), and institutional areas were applied to each lot as shown in Figure 2.6. The lots were then required to be assigned 2014 and 2016 populations.

An approach to deriving the 2014 populations was determined and verified by the Town. This approach represented somewhat of a hybrid between the neighbourhood population data that was provided for 2016, the number of lots that were assumed to be developed in 2014, and a number of population densities. The number of lots were assumed using historical aerial imagery to confirm lots that had or had not been developed. A map of the neighbourhoods in Beaumont is illustrated in Figure 2.7.

The following steps were undertaken to achieve the 2014 census population of 15,828.

1. The number of lots were determined for both low density residential (LDR) and multi-family (MF) developments in 2014 and 2016 for each neighbourhood.

2. In the number of lots were identical from 2014 to 2016 in a particular neighbourhood, the total populations in those neighbourhoods remained as the 2016 numbers, resulting in the ‘static neighbourhoods’.

3. For the remaining neighbourhoods, a MF density of 2.6 p/du was assumed. This density was determined through investigation of previous reports, ASPs, and outline plans and was the most consistent value between reports.

4. The static neighbourhood populations and the MF populations were deducted from the desired 15,828 population to determine the remaining LDR population. This LDR population was divided by the remaining LDR lots to derive a LDR density value of 2.76 p/du.

5. This LDR density was then multiplied by the LDR lots to make up the remainder of the populations per neighbourhood.

This approach was ultimately selected as it accurately represents the population spatially by accounting for individual neighbourhood populations. It used the provided neighbourhood population data, and ensured that MF lots were properly accounted for as the number of people per apartment building was appropriately reflected. It also takes into account which neighbourhoods have experienced more growth in the past few years than other neighbourhoods.

islengineering.com

April 2018

|

Page 5

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

The 2016 populations were derived by taking the 2016 neighbourhood population spreadsheet, and deducting the MF populations by applying a density of 2.6 p/du. The remaining population was divided by the remaining number of lots to derive a 2016 density value per neighbourhood, which was then applied to each lot.

Table 2.3 summarizes the existing conditions service areas by development type.

Existing Conditions (2016) Service Area Summary

1

Area1

Development Type

Number of Lots

Population

LDR

5,274

15,362

304.18

MF

305

2,259

17.67

Mixed Use

51

98

6.91

ha

Industrial

3

N/A

1.84

Commercial

15

N/A

16.71

Institutional

27

N/A

35.45

Total

5,675

17,720

382.76

Roads, parks, municipal reserves not included.

2.5.2 Build-out to the Pre-annexation Boundary Service Areas A number of service areas were added to the existing system to represent the build-out to the preannexation boundary scenario. The final concept shown in Figure 2.8, while the process that was taken to arrive at our estimate is described below.

1. Service areas that were already delineated as part of the Town’s parcel shapefile, but are currently undeveloped were firstly included.

2. The most recent ASPs were then utilized to delineate service areas for all remaining sections within the pre-annexation Town boundary without parcels. Types of development were also obtained from the ASPs. 3. Once all service areas were delineated and development types assigned, it was necessary to determine populations for all residential developments. Table 2.4 summarizes the densities that were assumed.

4. As per the EMRGP, 10% of all new units will be developed in the Town’s previously built-up areas.

To accomplish this, 10% of the future pre-annexation population of 11,516, which includes all service areas mentioned in points 1 and 2, was applied uniformly to the existing developments to account for densification.

5. With this, the total population under the build-out to the pre-annexation scenario was calculated to be 30,388.

Page 6

|

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

Density Assumptions for Built-out to the Pre-annexation Boundary Scenario Land Use Designation Low Density Residential

Value 22.5

Density: du/nrha Source Consolidated Area Structure Plan (CASP)

2.8

Medium Density Residential

35

CASP

2.6

High Density Residential

80

CASP

2.6

30

Assumed similar to the Blended Low/Medium Density Residential density per the Consolidated Area Structure Plan

2.6

Mixed Use

Density: p/du Source

Value

2014 Growth Study Assumption of multi-family densities used under existing scenario, previously discussed Assumption of multi-family densities used under existing scenario, previously discussed Assumption of multi-family densities used under existing scenario, previously discussed

The Study and CASP were developed concurrently. The method presented above was based on preliminary density assumptions derived for the CASP. The density assumptions have since been adjusted in the CASP, resulting differences in the population estimates presented in the two documents. As a large portion of the analysis had been completed by the time the density assumptions were revised, it was determined that the values used in this document could remain as is. The populations herein are larger than the final values presented in the CASP, thus provided a more conservative analysis.

Table 2.5 summarizes the build-out to the pre-annexation boundary service areas by development type.

Build-out to the Pre-annexation Boundary Service Area Summary Number of Lots Development Type

Population Incremental (Pre-annex Only)

Densification

Incremental (Pre-annex Only)

Cumulative (Total)

LDR

728

6,002

8,884

10% of Pre-annex Population 999

Cumulative (Total)

Area1 Incremental Cumulative (Pre-annex (Total) Only) ha

25,245

132.69

436.87

MF

77

382

2,160

147

4,567

25.66

43.33

Mixed Use

5

56

472

6

577

6.09

13.01

Industrial

4

7

N/A

6.50

8.33

Commercial

6

21

N/A

12.38

29.10

Institutional

7

34

N/A

8.68

44.13

827

6,502

192.00

574.77

Total 1

11,516

1,152

30,388

Roads, parks, municipal reserves not included.

islengineering.com

April 2018

|

Page 7

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

2.5.3 Build-out to the Post-annexation Boundary Service Areas Within the post-annexation boundary, service areas were primarily divided based on land use. The land use concept presented in the MDP was used to divide the annexed lands and more broadly classify the land uses by the development types stipulated in Section 2.4. The service areas were further divided for the sanitary system to account for topographical differences within each area. Subsequently, areas, X- and Ycoordinates, and populations were determined for each service area.

The gross residential land supply was adjusted such that 36.1% of the land was deducted to account for municipal reserve, public utilities and circulation. This method is consistent with the approach used in the Beaumont Growth Study, 2014. A density of 35 du/nrha per the EMRGP and 2.8 p/nrha per the 2014 Growth Study was applied to all residential service areas within the annexation lands. This resulted in an additional population of 54,186 within the annexation lands, giving an overall population of 84,574. The build-out to the post-annexation boundary service areas are shown in Figure 2.9.

Table 2.6 summarizes the build-out to the post-annexation boundary service areas by development type.

Build-out to the Post-annexation Boundary Service Area Summary Number of Lots Development Type

1 2

Incremental (Post-annex Only)

Cumulative (Total)

Residential1

17

6,457

Industrial

11

18

Commercial

13

Institutional Total

Area2

Population Incremental (Post-annex Only)

Cumulative (Total)

54,185

84,574

Incremental (Post-annex Only)

Cumulative (Total)

ha 863.94

1,357.14

N/A

283.60

291.93

34

N/A

99.43

128.52

-

34

N/A

-

44.13

41

6,543

1,246.97

1,821.73

54,185

84,574

Includes LDR, MF, and mixed use development types.

Roads, parks, municipal reserves not included.

2.6

Service Regions

The future water distribution and sanitary conveyance servicing concepts proposed in the build-out to the post-annexation scenario were divided into four service regions. These regions were split based on the tie in connections of the sanitary system. A summary of each service region is provided below, and shown in Figure 2.10.

Page 8



North Service Region: This service region covers all the quarter sections north of Township Road 510, plus the two northernmost quarter sections of the Elan ASP area, including 73 ha of non-residential land.



West Service Region: This service region covers the three west Elan ASP area quarter sections below the SERTS line, portions of the southernmost east quarter section, and the east quarter section directly below the SERTS line. This region consists of 51 ha of non-residential land.



Southwest Service Region: This service region includes the middle Elan ASP area quarter section south of the SERTS line, a portion of the southeast Elan ASP area quarter section, and approximately one and a half quarter sections south of Township Road 504. This service region includes 100 ha of nonresidential area.



South Service Region: This service region includes the two and a half easternmost quarter sections south of Township Road 504. This service region includes 152 ha of industrial land.

|

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

3.0 Water Distribution System 3.1

Existing System

The Town of Beaumont’s water system is composed of a number of mains that convey water provided by CRSWSC. CRSWSC delivers water to Beaumont, Calmer, Leduc, Hay Lakes, Millet, Camrose County, and Leduc County from E.L. Smith and Rossdale Water Treatment Plants in Edmonton. The water is sourced from the North Saskatchewan River. Beaumont receives its water supply via a 400 mm polyvinyl chloride (PVC) main from west of Beaumont. The water is pumped to the Main Reservoir and Pumphouse. The CRSWSC is responsible for maintenance of the line up to that point. Services are supplied “as required”.

The water system consists of mains that range from 25 mm to 400 mm in diameter, with the majority of the mains being 200 mm. Some of the less-than-100 mm mains may be part of private networks. Mains less than 150 mm were not included in the study. Mains are predominantly PVC in newer areas and asbestos cement (AC) downtown.

Drawings of the water network can be found in Figures 3.1 to 3.3 in terms of main size, material and installation period. A summary of the total main lengths with respect to both main size and material is detailed below in Table 3.1, while total lengths with respect to main installation period are summarized in Table 3.2.

Main Size and Material Statistics Size

Length

Percent of Total

mm

m

%

Unknown

141

0.18

100

568

0.72

150

18635

23.73

200

32883

41.87

250

12843

16.35

300

13418

17.09

400

48

0.06

Total

78,536

100.00

islengineering.com

Material

Length

Percent of Total

m

%

AC

17,244

21.96

PVC

61,289

78.04

Steel

4

0.01

Total

78,536

100.00

April 2018

|

Page 9

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

Main Installation Period Statistics Installation Period

Length

Percent of Total

m

%

Unknown

141

0.18

1960 - 1964

1,354

1.72

1965 - 1969

353

0.45

1970 - 1974

0

0.00

1975 - 1979

12,111

15.42

1980 - 1984

5,099

6.49

1985 - 1989

3,898

4.96

1990 - 1994

6,221

7.92

1995 - 1999

3,419

4.35

2000 - 2004

13,478

17.16

2005 - 2009

20,646

26.29

2010 - 2014

11,440

14.57

2015 - Present

378

0.48

78,395

100

Total

Beaumont has one pressure zone. Water is stored in the Main and St. Vital Reservoir and Pumphouses that cumulatively hold 17,171 m3 of potable water. Reservoir characteristics are summarized in Table 3.3. The Main Reservoir and Pumphouse is filled by the CRSWSC line. St. Vital Reservoir and Pumphouse is filled from the distribution system.

Reservoir Characteristics

Reservoir

Storage Capacity

Reservoir Slab Elevation

Normal Operating Pressure

Hydraulic Grade Line

m³

m

kPa

m

L/s

L/s 233 66

Pumping Capacity

Main

7171

Unavailable

540

771.8

301

St. Vital

10,000

727.000

375

770.2

286

Firm Capacity

3.1.1 Pumps Beaumont has a total of eight pumps, summarized in Table 3.4.

Water Pumps Location

TDH

hp

L/s

m

Lead/Lag/Follow - Duty

60 Variable

55

54.9

2

Lag/Follow – Duty

60 Constant

68

54.9

2

Lead/Lag - Duty

30 Variable

33

53.0

1

Service Pump

200 Engine

220

53.0

3

St. Vital

|

Capacity of Pump

Type of Pump

Main

Page 10

Speed

Number of Pumps

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

St. Vital’s reservoir is filled to its high level from the distribution system between 12:01 AM and 9:00 AM. St. Vital then has control until it reaches its low level when control is passed to Main. St. Vital high and low levels vary with the season.

When St. Vital has control, the lead pump operates and when pressure drops below 375 kPa, the lag pump starts. If pressure cannot be maintained, Main takes control and St. Vital’s pumps stop.

When Main has control one of the variable pumps has lead. When pressure drops below 540 kPa, the lag pump starts, then the three follow pumps. The latest non-constant pump operates variably, while the others operate at full speed. After all five Main pump are operating, the lead, and then lag St. Vital pumps start at full speed. After that the engine driven pump will start and the St. Vital lead and lag pumps will stop, as well as some of the Main follow pumps. The Main follow pumps would then restart, followed by the St. Vital lead and lag pumps.

3.1.2 Historical Water Production Data Historical water data was provided in a spreadsheet format from the Town. Water production has risen steadily for the past several years, along with the Town’s population, see Figure 3.4. Some produced water is lost to sources such as hydrant testing, billing/meter errors and leaks. The difference between produced and consumed water, or non-revenue water, has been around 8%. This is a fairly typical level for a water distribution system. Water production per person has been steadily dropping, see Figure 3.5. Beaumont encourages adopting water conservation measures.

Historical Water Production and Consumption 1,400,000

20,000

Production

18,000

Consumption

1,200,000

Population 16,000

14,000

12,000 800,000 10,000

Population

Water Volume (m3 )

1,000,000

600,000 8,000

6,000

400,000

4,000 200,000 2,000

0 1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

0 2017

Year

Figure 3.4:

Historical Water Production

islengineering.com

April 2018

|

Page 11

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

Water Production Per Person 120.00

100.00

Volume (m3 /person)

80.00

60.00

40.00

20.00

0.00 2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

Year

Figure 3.5:

Water Production per Person

3.1.3 Service Area Demands Demand rates were calculated based on the total population for residential and mixed use areas and the total land area of the for commercial, industrial, institutional and mixed use areas.

Consumption data for recent years was provided by the Town broken down by land use into: 

Town



Vacant



Commercial



Disconnect



Apartments



RT



Rental



Other



Failure



Multi-family and Mixed Use

These were categorized as follows: 

Page 12

|

Single Family 

Rental



RT



Vacant



Disconnect



Other

April 2018

 

 

Apartment

Institutional Town

Commercial and Industrial 

Commercial

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

Consumption data from 2017 was compared with 2016 development areas and populations to determine consumption rates for each land use. These were compared with 2016 and 2014 rates, which were found to be similar. The 2017 rates were then increased to include the non-revenue water. Final Rates are shown in Table 3.5.

Existing Demand Rates

L/p/d

Multi-family and Mixed Use L/p/d

188.8

66.8

Single Family

L/ha/d

Commercial and Industrial L/ha/d

2,524.6

14,245.3

Institutional

For future residential densification, existing rates were used. For new future development 22,500 L/ha/d was used for commercial, industrial and institutional and mixed use and 450 L/p/d for residential and mixed use.

Town of Beaumont General Design Standards, 2011, mandates 360 L/p/d for both water demand and sanitary generation rates. Water demand was increased by 25% to match the commercial/industrial ratios.

3.2

Hydraulic Model Development

The computer model used to assess the Town’s water distribution system was MIKE URBAN 2016 by DHI. MIKE URBAN is a powerful analysis tool that that utilizes pump curve data and routes flows through the physical distribution system. In this manner, pressure results are obtained, and available fire flow at any location in the water distribution system can be estimated. The MIKE URBAN model is significantly integrated with the ArcGIS platform, and this was used to assist in the construction of the model.

To develop the model, all available GIS data relevant to the water system in the study area received from the Town was reviewed in detail. Mains and junctions were then imported into the MIKE URBAN model using the provided shapefiles. Once the data was imported it was inspected to determine what data appeared missing or erroneous. Erroneous or questionable data such as crossing junctions were inspected via as-builts that were provided by the Town. Additional junctions were added as needed. PRVs and reservoir locations, elevations, high ground levels, and settings were obtained from as-builts and reports.

Junction surface elevations were populated using the light detection and ranging (LiDAR) data that was obtained from the Town. This was accomplished by employing a powerful spatial analyst tool, which extracted the elevation from the LiDAR data at each targeted manhole and assigned it as the surface elevation. Hydrants had an additional 0.3 m added. The model was inspected one last time by performing a series of quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) tasks to ensure that all data was detailed and accurate.

The service areas that were delineated and given associated demands were then imported into the model and connected to the nearest junction. All MIKE URBAN water model files developed as part of this project can be found in Appendix A. 3.2.1 Hydrant Testing To produce a model that was similar to the existing system performance, hydrant testing was performed. ISL retained SFE Global to complete hydrant tests at six locations. Two loggers were used during the tests. The report is in Appendix B. Figure 3.6 shows the testing locations. Results are shown in Table 3.6.

Observed pressures from hydrant testing were used to calibrate the water model, subsequently obtaining more accurate scenario results. Surface elevations were obtained via provided light detection and ranging (LiDAR).

islengineering.com

April 2018

|

Page 13

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

Hydrant Flow Test Results Residual Hydrant Test

Time

Hydrant Flow L/s

m

psi

kPa

m

psi

kPa

m

1

10:30

100.70

715.31

84

579.2

774.35

68

468.8

763.10

2

11:05

94.94

723.75

72

496.4

774.35

56

386.1

763.11

3

11:30

85.54

729.62

64

441.3

774.60

50

344.7

764.76

4

13:26

76.45

737.77

55

379.2

776.43

44

303.4

768.69

5

14:00

103.42

717.59

82

565.4

775.22

64

441.3

762.57

6

14:38

94.94

713.49

85

586.1

773.23

60

413.7

755.66

Elevation

Static Pressure

1 Port HGL

Pressure

HGL

Model calibration was performed by using the resultant pressures and associated flow rates obtained from the hydrant testing. This was done to ensure proper Hazen Williams ‘C’ values were used in the MIKE URBAN model to simulate main roughness. All calibration was performed under the ADD scenario. The ‘C’ value was adjusted for all material types to stay within the acceptable error range of +/-30 kPa. As the main materials are dominated by AC and PVC and these materials accord well with main age, only two values were targeted, with other materials combined with PVC. First, the roughness of AC was determined by focusing on matching hydrants within the downtown area. Then the PVC roughness was adjusted to match the remaining hydrants. Final ‘C’ values are shown in Table 3.7.

Adjusted Hazen-Williams ‘C’ Value Material

Roughness

AC

110

PVC, Other and Unknown

150

Calibration was able to achieve errors of less than 30 kPa in most cases. Model pressures were low for the static test, particularly for tests 4 and 5, while model results were generally high for the flow test. Results were deemed acceptable. Results are shown in Table 3.8 and Figures 3.7 and 3.8

Page 14

|

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

Calibrated Model Comparison to Hydrant Flow Tests Residual Hydrant Pressure kPa

Test

Static

1 Port

Field

Model

Error

Field

Model

Error

1

579.2

552.3

-26.8

468.8

499.1

30.3

2

496.4

469.5

-27.0

386.1

426.8

40.7

3

441.3

412.0

-29.3

344.7

384.2

39.5

4

379.2

332.0

-47.2

303.4

294.7

-8.6

5

565.4

530.0

-35.4

441.3

485.1

43.9

6

586.1

570.1

-15.9

413.7

510.0

96.3

Field Versus Model Static Pressure Results 700.0

600.0

-15.9

-26.8

-35.4

-27.0

500.0

Pressure (kPa)

-29.3

400.0

-47.2

300.0

200.0

100.0

0.0 1

2

3

4

5

6

Hydrant Test Field Pressure

Figure 3.7:

Model Pressure

Error Va l ues (kPa)

Static Pressure Calibration Results

islengineering.com

April 2018

|

Page 15

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

Field Versus Model Flow Pressure Results 600.0

96.3

30.3

500.0

43.9

40.7

Pressure (kPa)

400.0

39.5

-8.6 300.0

200.0

100.0

0.0 1

2

3

4

5

6

Hydrant Test Field Pressure

Figure 3.8:

3.3

Model Pressure

Error Va l ues (kPa)

Flowed Pressure Calibration Results

Design Criteria

The design criteria used to assess Beaumont’s water distribution system was based primarily on the Town of Beaumont General Design Standards, 2011, and typical municipal servicing standards in Alberta. The design criteria selected were then used for input into the MIKE URBAN model to design and assess the water distribution system.

The following factors were used to establish MDD and PHD for both the existing and future scenarios: 

MDD = 2.0 x ADD



PHD = 4.0 x ADD

Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) suggests PHD ranges from 2.0 to 5.0 x ADD. Beaumont guidelines fall within this range.

3.3.1 Pressure Assessment Beaumont’s water system was assessed using the following criteria based on a variety of standards, including those stipulated by AEP:

Page 16



Normal pressure range in the system under ADD – 350 kPa to 550 kPa



Minimum residual pressure in the system under PHD – 275 kPa



Minimum residual pressure in the system under MDD + FF – 140 kPa

|

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

Velocities are not to exceed 3.0 m/s in all scenarios.

Fill demands were calculated based on St. Vital filling 0.6 m in 6 hours, a rate of 66.1 L/s. Filling occurs at night and was analyzed under ADD. 3.3.2 Fire Flow The Fire Underwriters Survey (formerly the Insurer’s Advisory Organization) recommendations were considered for fire flow criteria. Fire flow requirements can be reduced by up to 50% for facilities equipped with sprinkler systems. Below are the fire flow rates for various development types: 

Single Family Residential – 76 L/s



Multi-Family Residential / Institutional – 114 to 227 L/s



Industrial – 227 L/s



Commercial – 265 L/s

Beaumont fire flow guidelines require: 

Commercial – 270 L/s



Institutional – 180 L/s



Medium and High Density Residential – 180 L/s



Single Family and low Density Residential – 100 L/s

3.3.3 Reservoir Storage CRSWSC mandates that member municipalities have 2.0 x ADD plus fire flow for storage. The highest fire flow requirement is 270 L/s. The duration of required fire flow was taken as 2.5 hours. The fire flow storage requirement is then 2,430 m3.

3.3.4 Pumps Pumps should be able to handle flows under firm capacity, to ensure the system has sufficient redundancy.

3.4

Existing System Analysis

The existing distribution system was analyzed under four different scenarios to determine system conditions.

These scenarios included: 

ADD throughout the system



MDD throughout the system



PHD throughout the system



Reservoir Filling



MDD + FF at each node

3.4.1 Pressure Assessment Pressure results are shown in Figures 3.9 to 3.13. Pressure ranges are shown in Table 3.9. Velocities are below 3.0 m/s except for the mains connecting to the Main Pumphouse and Reservoir under PHD. Upsizing these mains to 300 mm would relieve the issue.

islengineering.com

April 2018

|

Page 17

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

Existing Pressure Ranges Main Control Scenario

St. Vital Control

Highest Pressure

Lowest Pressure

Highest Pressure

Lowest Pressure

kPa

kPa

kPa

kPa

ADD

634.7

295.5

618.6

280.1

MDD

628.1

288.8

612.4

275.5 258.61 N/A2

PHD

604.3

264.6

589.61

Filling

622.0

279.6

N/A2

1 St.

Vital would not typically have control during PHD.

2 St.

Vital would not have control in the filling scenario.

Results show the west side of Beaumont, the northwest in particular, tend to experience high pressures.

High pressures can exacerbate main leakage. The can also under extreme circumstances burst mains, though this is less likely with new materials like PVC. This might be unavoidable at present, given the topographical variance within Beaumont, and only a single pressure zone. A pressure zone is limited to a 28 m range if pressures are to remain between 275 kPa and 550 kPa. Beaumont service area elevations have a 34 m range. This is not an unusual circumstance, but one where future system planning might help deal with it.

The central northeast tends to experience lower pressures, fitting with higher elevation areas. Increasing pump pressure settings would also increase pressures in the west, which is not recommended. Results do not indicate small mains sizes are causing excessive losses, and the area is well connected to the network.

No complaints within the area are known of regarding water pressure. The fill scenario of indicates that at average day conditions, St. Vital can be successfully filled at 66.1 L/s.

3.4.2 Fire Flow Available fire flow is shown in Figure 3.14. Fire flow analysis was performed on all nodes in the model in an iterative manner using a minimum pressure constraint of 140 kPa. It is noted that in areas with lower flows, results could still be acceptable if buildings have sprinkler systems. Generally demands are able to be met.

Limited flow is available in the southwest. This is likely due to poor connectivity to the network, though it is noted that this area is adequate for residential development, just not higher density or non-residential.

Completion of the ring loop (300 mm at 66 Street) as part of pre-annexation development would improve the flow.

3.4.3 Reservoir Storage Required storage, based on Section 3.3.3, is: FF + ADD *2 2,430 m3 + 39.3 L/s * 2 days = 9,227 m3 A total of 17,717 m3 of storage are available, therefore storage is adequate.

3.4.4 Pumping Issues have been reported regarding water turnover at St. Vital Reservoir and Pumphouse. St. Vital can handle a capacity of 66 L/s before it hands control to Main under the current control narrative. This is below the MDD of 78.7 L/s and PHD of 157.3 L/s. If one of the duty pumps is out of service, it can only handle 33 L/s, which is below the ADD of 39.3 L/s. As the current control narrative has St. Vital running in the

Page 18

|

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

mornings, it is likely having to turn control over to Main before it has pumped its assigned volume. St. Vital is likely only able to meet demand during the night, which is currently its scheduled fill time.

It is recommended that additional pumps be added to St. Vital so it can meet at least MDD with one duty pump out of service and without using the service pump. This would be two additional pumps similar to its current duty pumps.

St. Vital’s settings currently result in pressure ~20 kPa lower than those generated when Main is in control. If complaints are received when St. Vital is operating more regularly, pressure settings could be increased to match Main.

Main Reservoir and Pumphouse can meet the PHD of 157.3 L/s with its firm capacity of 233 L/s, and no upgrades are recommended for the pumping system at the Main Pumphouse to meet existing needs.

3.4.5 Existing System Upgrades On the basis of the existing system assessment, upgrades to rectify areas of concern were developed:   



St. Vital pumps are recommended for upgrade to a firm capacity of 78.7 L/s to meet at least MDD. Upsizing Main Reservoir and Pumphouse to 50 Avenue mains to 300 mm is recommended to reduce velocities below 3.0 m/s. Replacing these AC mains with PVC would also lower losses.

Adding an additional pressure zone for the northwest could be an option to reduce high pressures in the area. This would be recommended to be reviewed done as part of future development where lower elevation terrain is served.

To address some isolated inadequate fire flows in the Town, numerous upgrades would be required. Given the nominal improvement required to meet standards, the cost of upgrading watermains under existing streets, at a cost that could readily exceed $1,000 per metre, may not be justifiable. That said, it is recommended that watermains that are 100 mm or 150 mm be upgraded to 200 mm or 250 mm (or larger) at the time of future roadworks programs, to combine costs. This will improve fire flows to meet standards over time. These programs should also contemplate replacement of any asbestos cement, copper or steel mains with safer and less problematic PVC piping. Particular focus should be put on the central northeast, where pressures tend to be low.

3.4.6 Cost Estimates – Recommended Existing System Upgrades A summary of the costs associated with the recommended existing system upgrades are detailed below in Table 3.10. A full breakdown of the costs has been provided in Appendix C. Class D Cost Estimates for Recommended Upgrades to the Existing System Scenario

Total Cost (Rounded)

Pump Station

$2,100,000

Watermain

$50,000

Pavement Rehabilitation

$50,000

Assumptions: Costs herein are comparable to other municipalities.

Costs are representative of 2017.

The total costs have been rounded to the nearest $50,000.

islengineering.com

April 2018

|

Page 19

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

3.5

Future System Analysis

The future system analysis consists of two population horizons: build-out to the pre-annexation boundary and build-out to the post-annexation boundary.

Under the build-out to the pre-annexation boundary horizon, the existing system is assessed assuming that all parcels within the pre-annexation boundary have been developed. This horizon assesses what (if any) upgrades would be required to the existing system to accommodate this future growth. Service areas are based off of existing ASPs, and tie-in points to the existing system are in line with the ASPs as well. This analysis is described in Section 3.5.1.

The build-out to the post-annexation boundary horizon analysis includes a servicing concept that has been proposed for the area, and an assessment of that servicing concept. The assessment consists of ensuring the proposed servicing concept is adequate, and the impact of the servicing concept on the existing system.

This analysis is described in Section 3.5.2.

3.5.1 Build-out to Pre-annexation Boundary Analysis Water Servicing Concept Servicing concepts were developed for the pre-annexation areas. The following were completed or created:  The ring road loop  The northwest 65 Street loop  The southwest 48 Avenue loop  The southwest Soleil Boulevard loop  The Lakewood Boulevard/ring road connection  The east 48 Avenue loop  The loop south of Coloniale Golf Club The ring loop was set at 300 mm, the rest at 200 mm or 250 mm, with ASPs consulted. Additionally a West Reservoir and Pumphouse was created, as Main and St. Vital reservoirs have limited opportunity for expansion. This new pumphouse is proposed to have pumping capacity for at least MDD. The proposed network is shown in Figure 3.15. Service areas were connected to the nearest junction.

Sufficient pumping capacity was assumed for the analysis to validate pipe sizes. Existing upgrades were assumed to have been completed. Table 3.11 shows costs for the pipe expansion.

Class D Cost Estimates for Expansion of the Existing System Scenario

Total Cost (Rounded)

Watermain

$4,500,000

Pump Station

$2,850,000

Assumptions: Costs herein are comparable to other municipalities.

Costs are representative of 2017.

The total costs have been rounded to the nearest $50,000.

Pressure Assessment Pressure results are shown in Figures 3.16 to 3.22. Pressure ranges are shown in Table 3.12.

Page 20

|

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

Pre-Annexation Pressure Ranges Main Control

St. Vital Control

West Control

Scenario Highest Pressure Lowest Pressure Highest Pressure Lowest Pressure Highest Pressure Lowest Pressure kPa

kPa

kPa

kPa

kPa

kPa

ADD

640.1

300.7

613.2

276.3

610.6

269.5

MDD

620.9

281.1

592.7

261.6

610.0

221.6

208.51

610.01

48.81

n/a2

610.0

240.4

PHD

551.7

210.3

518.41

Filling

630.4

288.4

n/a2

1 St.

Vital and West would not typically have control during PHD.

2 St.

Vital would not have control in the filling scenario.

Results show the west side of Beaumont, particularly the northwest, tend to experience high pressures. High pressures can exacerbate main leakage. The can also under extreme circumstances burst mains, though this is less likely with new materials like PVC. This might be unavoidable at present, given the topographical variance within Beaumont, and only a single pressure zone. A pressure zone is limited to a 28 m range if pressures are to remain between 275 kPa and 550 kPa. Beaumont service area elevations have a 34 m range. This is not an unusual circumstance, but one where future system planning might help deal with it.

The central northeast tends to experience lower pressures, and are unacceptably low during PHD. Velocities are also above 3.0 m/s between St. Vital and 44 Street when St. Vital has control, between RGE 243 and 69 Street when West Reservoir and Pumphouse has control, and between Main Reservoir and Pumphouse 50 Avenue when Main has control.

The network performs adequately under the fill scenario.

Fire Flow Available fire flow is shown in Figure 3.23. Fire flow analysis was performed on all nodes in the model in an iterative manner using a minimum pressure constraint of 140 kPa. It is noted that in areas with lower flows, results could still be acceptable if buildings have sprinkler systems. Generally requirements are able to be met.

Reservoir Storage Required storage, based on Section 3.3.3, is: FF + ADD *2 2,430 m3 + 110.5 L/s * 2 days = 21,519 m3 It is noted that 17,717 m3 of storage are available, therefore storage would need to be increased by 3,900 m3. This storage would be placed at the West Reservoir, per direction from the Town as to that being the preferred course of action.

Three options for filling the west reservoir are available:   

Via the distribution system Via a dedicated main from the Main Reservoir and Pumphouse Via a dedicated main from the CRSWSC connection

While the distribution system would be the cheapest on the surface as it would require no new infrastructure, this would put a great deal of demand on the Main Reservoir and Pumphouse which is already responsible

islengineering.com

April 2018

|

Page 21

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

for filling St. Vital. As the CRSWSC main already passes through the west annexation area where the Northwest Reservoir and Pumphouse will be located, it is recommended that filling be done from that line, subject to dialogue with the CRSWSC. This was the assumption for modelling purposes.

Pumping Additional pumping capacity would be required at both pumphouses, if the current control narrative is to be maintained. St. Vital Reservoir and Pumphouse firm capacity would need to be upgraded to MDD: 220.9 L/s.

As St. Vital requires upgrading to meet existing demands, it is recommended that it be taken directly to the pre-annexation requirements. Main Reservoir and Pumphouse would need to be upgraded to the firm capacity of PHD: 441.9 L/s.

Various pumping options are available to the Town. Use of the service pump on a regular basis during PHD could be considered. Economics and manufacturer recommendation would need to be reviewed. Running St. Vital, Main and West at the same time regularly could also be done, and would limit the pumps required.

More detailed study of daily demand patterns would been needed to ensure Main would have time to refill St. Vital’s reservoir. Pressure settings would also have to be reviewed to ensure the pumphouses were not competing.

Further review of control narrative options is recommended, to determine where to put additional pumps and when.

Build-out to the Pre-annexation Boundary Upgrades Upsizing is recommended for Main and St. Vital connecting mains and along 50 Avenue, as shown in Figure 3.24. This will improve low pressures in the central northeast. As the Main reservoir connecting mains are recommended for upgrades as part of the existing system, they should be taken directly to the preannexation 500 mm.

Beaumont requires an additional 3,900 m3 of storage for a total of 21,600 m3, recommended to be added to the West Reservoir and Pumphouse.

St. Vital Reservoir and Pumphouse firm capacity is recommended to be upgraded to MDD of 220.9 L/s. As St. Vital requires upgrading to meet existing demands, it is recommended that it be taken directly to the preannexation requirements. Main Reservoir and Pumphouse would need to be upgraded to the firm capacity of PHD: 441.9 L/s.

Figures 3.25 to 3.32 show assessments with implemented upgrades, with pressures summarized in Table 3.13.

Pre-Annexation Upgrade Pressure Ranges

Scenario

Page 22

Main Control Highest Lowest Pressure Pressure kPa kPa

St. Vital Control Highest Lowest Pressure Pressure kPa kPa 617.9

ADD

645.2

306.1

MDD

639.6

300.4

609.6

276.3

610.0

266.2

PHD

619.3

280.2

579.71

261.71

610.01

209.91

Filling

642.7

301.7

n/a2

n/a2

614.8

271.2

1 St.

Vital and West would not typically have control during PHD.

2 St.

Vital would not have control in the filling scenario.

|

April 2018

280.4

West Control Highest Lowest Pressure Pressure kPa kPa 621.9

281.8

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

Cost Estimates –Build-out to the Pre-annexation Boundary Horizon A summary of the costs associated with the recommended existing system upgrades are detailed below in Table 3.14. A full breakdown of the costs has been provided in Appendix C. Class D Cost Estimates for Recommended Upgrades to the Existing System Scenario

Total Cost (Rounded)

Watermain

$2,150,000

Pavement Rehabilitation

$2,750,000

Pump Station

$2,350,000

Reservoir Storage

$5,850,000

Assumptions: Costs herein are comparable to other municipalities.

Costs are representative of 2017.

The total costs have been rounded to the nearest $50,000.

3.5.2 Build-out to the Post-annexation Boundary Analysis Water Servicing Concept Only limited servicing concepts were developed for the Post-annexation areas. Each quarter section was looped with 300 mm or larger where required. A new northwest pressure zone was created with a reservoir and pumps, and includes the northwest corner of the pre-annexation development. The new pressure zone will be connected to the main zone with PRVs. Additionally, AC mains in the central northeast were assumed to have been upgraded to at least 200 mm PVC by this stage. Required pre-annexation upgrades were also assumed to have been completed.

The proposed network is shown in Figure 3.33. Each quarter section of a service region was further divided into four service areas, to improve the spatial allocation of the demands in the models. Populations were evenly distributed between the service areas. Service areas were connected to the corner junction.

Additional junctions were added at changes in ground slope to detail low and high points. Sufficient pumping capacity was assumed for the analysis. Table 3.15 shows costs for major infrastructure.

Class D Cost Estimates for Expansion of the Pre-Annexation System Scenario

Total Cost (Rounded)

Watermain

$34,500,000

PRV

$900,000

Pump Station

$9,800,000

Reservoir Storage

$60,100,000

Assumptions: Costs herein are comparable to other municipalities.

Costs are representative of 2017.

The total costs have been rounded to the nearest $50,000.

Pressure Assessment Pressure results are shown in Figures 3.34 to 3.40. Pressure ranges are shown in Table 3.16.

islengineering.com

April 2018

|

Page 23

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

Post-Annexation Pressure Ranges

Scenario

ADD MDD PHD Filling

Main Zone Main Control Highest Lowest Pressure Pressure kPa kPa 636.8 298.1 609.2 271.6 550.1 175.9 632.5 291.0

Main Zone St. Vital Control Highest Lowest Pressure Pressure kPa kPa 604.5 273.5 561.1 251.5 1 413.7 143.81 2 n/a n/a2

1 St.

Vital and West would not typically have control during PHD.

2 St.

Vital would not have control in the filling scenario.

Main Zone West Control Highest Lowest Pressure Pressure kPa kPa 614.0 270.3 610.0 224.5 1 610.0 59.21 610.0 258.2

NW Zone Highest Pressure kPa 519.1 508.2 480.0 n/a

Lowest Pressure kPa 370.6 351.9 284.2 n/a

Results show the west side of Beaumont tend to experience high pressures. High pressures can exacerbate main leakage. The can also under extreme circumstances burst mains, though this is less likely with new materials like PVC. Low pressures are seen throughout the town, particularly the east. High velocities lead to high losses. Upsizing is recommended, as described below.

Fire Flow Available fire flow is shown in Figure 3.41. Fire flow analysis was performed on all nodes in the model in an iterative manner using a minimum pressure constraint of 140 kPa. It is noted that in areas with lower flows, results could still be acceptable if buildings have sprinkler systems. Generally demands are able to be met.

Reservoir Storage Required storage, based on Section 3.3.3, for the Main Pressure Zone is: FF + ADD *2 2,430 m3 + 273.9 L/s * 2 days = 49,766 m3 For this zone, 17,717 m3 of storage is currently available, while a total of 21,519 m3 is required in the preannexation scenario. Additional storage of 28,300 m3 would need to be needed for the post-annexation scenario. This would be added at the West Reservoir and Pumphouse.

Required storage, based on Section 3.3.3, for the Northwest Pressure Zone is: FF + ADD *2 2,430 m3 + 218.5 L/s * 2 days = 40,186 m3

Page 24

|

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

Three options for filling the northwest reservoir are available:  Via the distribution system  Via a dedicated main from the Main Reservoir and Pumphouse  Via a dedicated main from the CRSWSC connection While the distribution system would be the cheapest on the surface as it would require no new infrastructure, this would put a great deal of demand on the Main Reservoir and Pumphouse which is already responsible for filling St. Vital. As the CRSWSC main already passes through the west annexation area where the Northwest Reservoir and Pumphouse will be located, it is recommended that filling be done from that line, subject to dialogue with the CRSWSC. This was the assumption for modelling purposes.

Pumping Additional pumping capacity would be required at both pumphouses if the current control narrative is to be maintained. St. Vital and West Reservoirs and Pumphouses firm capacity would need to be upgraded to MDD: 547.9 L/s. Main Reservoir and Pumphouse would need to be upgraded to the firm capacity of PHD: 1,095.7 L/s. It is noted, however, that subject to the actual allocation of new storage, this could be revised, with more pumping capacity at St. Vital. The new Northwest Pressure Zone would require a firm capacity of the PHD: 874.0 L/s.

At this stage MDD + FF is less then PHD which means Main Reservoir and Pumphouse can handle fire flow without the support of St. Vital. The existing narrative is that Main handles daily pumping and St. Vital handles fire flow and most of the storage. In the post-annexation scenario Vital will still have most of the storage but Main will have the pumping capabilities. This is not generally preferred, however in the case of Beaumont most of the required storage is not intended for fire flow but for ADD. So for example, in a scenario where CRSWSC shuts down the water supply for maintenance St. Vital may be supplying Main Reservoir and Pumphouse water for pumping.

Various pumping options are available to the Town. Use of the service pump on a regular basis during PHD could be considered. Economics and manufacturer recommendation would need to be reviewed. Running St. Vital, Main and West at the same time regularly could also be done, and would limit the pumps required.

More detailed study of daily demand patterns would be needed to ensure Main would have time to refill St. Vital’s reservoir. Pressure settings would also have to be reviewed to ensure the pumphouses were not competing.

Further review of control narrative options is recommended, to determine where to put additional pumps and when.

Build-out to the Post-annexation Boundary Upgrades Various mains require upsizing. This is shown in Figure 3.42. Upgrades mostly relate to water movement from the reservoirs.

The Main Pressure Zone requires an additional 28,300 m3 for a total of 50,000 m3 of storage while the new Northwest Pressure Zone requires 40,200 m3. Main Reservoir and Pumphouse requires 1,095.7 L/s of firm capacity, St. Vital and West requires 547.9 L/s and the Northwest requires 874.0 L/s.

Figures 3.43 to 3.50 show assessments with implemented upgrades, Main Reservoir and Pumphouse control, with pressures summarized in Table 3.17.

islengineering.com

April 2018

|

Page 25

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

Pre-annexation Upgrade Pressure Ranges

Scenario

ADD MDD PHD Filling

Main Zone Main Control Highest Lowest Pressure Pressure kPa kPa 644.2 305.6 635.9 298.7 606.0 274.0 643.3 303.5

Main Zone St. Vital Control Highest Lowest Pressure Pressure kPa kPa 613.9 278.2 595.1 268.6 527.3 233.8 n/a2 n/a2

1 St.

Vital and West would not typically have control during PHD.

2 St.

Vital would not have control in the filling scenario.

Main Zone West Control Highest Lowest Pressure Pressure kPa kPa 622.7 281.9 611.3 266.5 610.0 210.9 620.2 277.3

NW Zone Highest Pressure kPa 519.1 508.2 480.0 n/a

Lowest Pressure kPa 370.6 351.9 284.2 n/a

Cost Estimates –Build-out to the Post-annexation Boundary Horizon A summary of the costs associated with the recommended existing system upgrades are detailed below in Table 3.18. A full breakdown of the costs has been provided in Appendix C. Class D Cost Estimates for Recommended Upgrades to the Existing System Scenario

Total Cost (Rounded)

Watermain

$3,150,000

Pavement Rehabilitation

$3,300,000

Pump Station

$14,650,000

Reservoir Storage

$42,300,000

Assumptions: Costs herein are comparable to other municipalities.

Costs are representative of 2017.

The total costs have been rounded to the nearest $50,000.

3.6

Next Steps/Staging Plan Recommendations

The phasing of the recommended water network to meet the build-out to the post-annexation boundary horizon should occur in the following sequence, and described in Table 3.19: 1. Upgrade St. Vital Reservoir and Pumphouse for a firm capacity of the pre-annexation MDD of 220.9 L/s.

2. Upgrade the Main Reservoir and Pumphouse connecting mains to 500 mm to meet pre-annexation needs.

3. Replace smaller mains and mains made of concrete, copper or steel with at least 200 mm PVC as part of roadworks programs. Upgrade to post-annexation diameters where applicable. Prioritize mains in the central northeast.

4. Upgrade mains along 50 Avenue to post-annexation needs. Ideally, it is suggested that this be paired with roadworks program where possible. Prioritize mains highlighted for pre-annexation upgrade.

5. Upgrade Main Reservoir and Pumphouse for a firm capacity of the pre-annexation PHD of 441.9 L/s.

6. Construct new West Reservoir and Pumphouse with a pre-annexation MDD of 220.9 L/s.

7. Increase storage to pre-annexation requirements at West Reservoir and Pumphouse.

8. Develop the pre-annexation network, particularly the ring road loop. (Note that for non-residential development to proceed in the south, this is particularly necessary).

9. Upgrade all mains to post-annexation levels.

Page 26

|

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

10. Upgrade Main Reservoir and Pumphouse for a firm capacity of the post-annexation PHD of 1,095.7 L/s.

11. Upgrade St. Vital and West Reservoirs and Pumphouses for a firm capacity of the post-annexation MDD of 547.9 L/s.

12. Increase storage to post-annexation requirements West Reservoir and Pumphouse.

13. Develop the post-annexation network, including the Northwest Reservoir and Pumphouse.

Summary of Reservoir and Pumphouse Needs Scenario Existing Pre-Annexation Post-Annexation (Total) Post-Annexation (Main Pressure Zone) Post-Annexation (NW Pressure Zone)

islengineering.com

ADD

MDD

MDD + FF

ADD + Fill

78.7 220.9

PHD L/s 157.3 441.9

378.7 520.9

105.5 176.6

Storage m3 9,497 21,789

39.3 110.5 492.4

984.9

1,969.7

1,284.9

558.6

90,450

273.9

547.9

1095.7

847.9

340.1

49,766

218.5

437.0

874.0

737.0

284.6

40,18

April 2018

|

Page 27

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

Blank page left intentionally

Page 28

|

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

4.0 Sanitary Collection System 4.1

Existing System

The Town of Beaumont’s sanitary system is composed of a number of manholes and pipes that convey sewage to the Southeast Regional Trunk Sewer (SERTS) line. SERTS collects wastewater from Beaumont, Leduc, Nisku and the Edmonton International Airport and ties into the City of Edmonton’s trunk system downstream, which ultimately conveys flows to the Gold Bar Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The ACRWC is responsible for maintenance of the SERTS line.

The sanitary system consists of sewers that range from 150 mm to 2100 mm in diameter, with the majority of the sewers being 200 mm. There are a number of storage pipes in town; the largest being a 2.4 m by 1.2 m box section parallel to 55 Avenue between 56a Street and 57 Street. Sewers are predominantly PVC in newer areas and vitrified clay tile (VCT) downtown. Concrete make up approximately 7% of the sewer material in Beaumont. There is a total of 77.5 km of sanitary sewers in town, consisting of only gravity sewers.

Drawings of the sanitary sewer network can be found in Figures 4.1 to 4.5 in terms of sewer size, sewer material, sewer installation period, full-flow sewer capacity, and manhole depth, respectively. Full-flow sewer capacity is a function of the sewer’s slope, thus sewers with same diameters can vary in terms of full-sewer capacities depending on their slopes. A summary of the total sewer lengths with respect to both sewer size and material is detailed below in Table 4.1, while total lengths with respect to sewer installation period are summarized in Table 4.2.

Sewer Size and Material Statistics Size

Length

Percent of Total

mm

m

%

150

371

0.47

200

48,781

250

Length

Percent of Total

m

%

Concrete

5,345

6.77

61.76

PVC

58,430

73.98

12,627

15.99

VCT

15,204

19.25

300

6,259

7.93

375

3,629

4.59

450

752

0.95

525

3,353

4.25

600

374

0.47

750

1,252

1.59

900

309

0.39

1050

71

0.09

1200

757

0.96

1350

221

0.28

2100

195

0.25

2400 x 1200

28

0.04

78,979

100.00

78,979

100.00

Total

islengineering.com

Material

Total

April 2018

|

Page 29

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

Sewer Installation Period Statistics Installation Period

Length

Percent of Total

m

%

1960 - 1964

1,585

2.01

1965 - 1969

282

0.36

1970 - 1974

0

0.00

1975 - 1979

13,407

16.98

1980 - 1984

5,619

7.11

1985 - 1989

2,272

2.88

1990 - 1994

7,622

9.65

1995 - 1999

4,753

6.02

2000 - 2004

13,462

17.04

2005 - 2009

18,262

23.12

2010 - 2014

9,832

12.45

2015 - Present

1,883

2.38

78,979

100.00

Total

Sanitary sewage flows within the town’s sewershed generally flow from north/south towards the center and from east to west to the SERTS line. A number of sanitary trunk systems are noted, and highlighted in Figure 4.6.

Trunk Sewer 1 (Longitudinal Profile (LP) 1) – This trunk sewer is the SERTS line, which consists of 525 mm and 900 mm sewers running parallel from the east to the west. A lift station, referred to herein as the SERTS Lift Station, is situated west of Range Road 244 and pumps sewage from the 900 mm trunk to the 525 mm trunk. The 525 mm trunk continues to flow by gravity to the west followed by the north, where it ultimately connects to the City of Edmonton trunk system to convey flows to the Gold Bar WWTP. Trunk Sewer 2 (LP 2) – Ranging from 250 mm to 600 mm in size, this trunk sewer is the main backbone in the north. The trunk conveys flows from east to west to the SERTS line from Coloniale Estates, Montalet, Dansereau Meadows, Citadel Ridge, and the north parts of Beauridge and Eaglemont Heights.

Trunk Sewer 3 (LP 3) – This trunk sewer is the main backbone in the south, collecting sewage from all neighbourhoods that are not collected by Trunk Sewer 2. The trunk ranges from 200 mm to 1200 mm in size and flows from east to west and south to north. At 52 Avenue, a 525 mm sewer becomes twinned with a 1200 mm sewer, which ultimately makes up the SERTS line.

Trunk Sewer 4 (LP 4) – A trunk sewer ranging from 200 mm to 300 mm in size, Trunk Sewer 4 conveys flows from the neighbourhood of Montalet north, where it ties into Trunk Sewer 2 and flows to the west towards the SERTS line.

Trunk Sewer 5 (LP 5) – This trunk sewer ranges from 200 mm to 250 mm, and conveys flows from the north portion of Beauridge to Trunk Sewer 2. This trunk slopes towards the west, followed by the north where it ties to Trunk Sewer 2 at the northeast corner of Dansereau Meadows School.

Page 30

|

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

Trunk Sewer 6 (LP 6) – Ranging from 250 mm to 375 mm, Trunk Sewer 6 conveys flows from north to south where it connects to Trunk Sewer 3 at the southeast corner of École Secondaire Beaumont Composite High School (ESBCHS). This trunk sewer collects flows from neighbourhoods such as the south portion of Beauridge, Brookside, Parklane and Centre-Ville.

Trunk Sewer 7 (LP 7) – A trunk sewer ranging from 200 mm to 300 mm in size, this trunk sewer conveys flows to the west to Trunk Sewer 3. This main portion of this trunk sewer is 300 mm, while a portion of the trunk consists of 200 mm and 250 mm sewers twinned alongside the 300 mm trunk. This trunk collects sewage from the east side of Eaglemont Heights, and serves as an overflow route when Trunk Sewer 6 is surcharged.

Trunk Sewer 8 (LP 8) – This trunk sewer collects sewage from St. Vital, Centre-Ville, and Parklane, and consists of sewers ranging from 200 mm to 900 mm in size. The trunk slopes to the south, followed by to the west. A portion of this trunk from 50a Avenue to 50 Street consists of a 250 mm sewer twinned with 450 mm, 525 mm, 600 mm, 750 mm and 900 mm sewers serving as overflow pipes.

Trunk Sewer 9 (LP 9) – Ranging from 250 mm to 375 mm, this trunk sewer conveys flows to the north to Trunk Sewer 3. The sewer collects sewage from Montrose Estates, and a portion of the Montrose Business Centre.

Trunk Sewer 10 (LP 10) – This is a 250 mm trunk sewer conveying flows to the north to Trunk Sewer 11.

This trunk collects sewage from a portion of the Montrose Business Centre, and Four Seasons Estates.

Trunk Sewer 11 (LP 11) – This trunk sewer is the backbone of the far south, and consists of sewers ranging from 250 mm to 750 mm. Generally, this trunk conveys flows to the east, and ties into Trunk Sewer 3 downstream. This trunk collects sewage from Triomphe Estates, Beaumont Lakes, Beau Val, Place Chaleureuse, Four Seasons Estates, Montrose Estates, and the Montrose and Chaleureuse Business Parks. Ultimately, this trunk will also collect sewage from Plaines Royer once it is developed.

Trunk Sewer 12 (LP 12) – Trunk Sewer 12 is situated downtown, and consists of 200 mm sewers and the 2.4 m by 1.2 m storage pipe. Collecting flows from downtown Beaumont, this trunk slopes west then south, where it ties into Trunk Sewer 6.

As mentioned above, there is a minor lift station along the SERTS line referred to in this document as the SERTS Lift Station, which has been included for modelling purposes. The lift station houses two Flygt pumps; the pump curve of these pumps is included in Appendix D. The lift station’s wet well has a diameter of 2.4 m and a depth of 4.23 m for a total wet well volume of 19.14 m3. The bottom elevation of the wet well is 699.00 m, with the 900 mm gravity sewer invert elevation at 700.27 m. The lead pump starts at an elevation of 699.80 m, while the lag turns on at an elevation of 699.95 m. The pumps turn off when the water level reaches an elevation of 699.40 m. A 150 mm forcemain pumps sewage to the northwest, where it connects to the existing 525 mm gravity sewer.

islengineering.com

April 2018

|

Page 31

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

4.2

Hydraulic Model Development

4.2.1 Model Set-Up The computer model used to assess the Town’s sanitary collection system was MIKE URBAN 2016 by DHI. MIKE URBAN is a powerful analysis tool that computes inflow from sewage generation rates and rainfall dependent inflow-infiltration, and routes it through the hydraulics system. Based on the hydraulic simulation the model can be used to evaluate which locations have surcharge or flooding conditions. Sewer flows are also determined, and based on peak flows, over-capacity sewers can be identified. The MIKE URBAN model is significantly integrated with the ArcGIS platform, and this was used to assist in the construction of the model.

To develop the model, all available GIS data relevant to the sanitary sewer system in the study area received from the Town was reviewed in detail. Manholes and sewers were then imported into the MIKE URBAN model using the provided shapefiles. Once the data was imported it was inspected to determine what data appeared missing or erroneous. The only missing information was manhole inverts, and a number of pipe inverts. Erroneous data such as flat sewers, inverse sloping sewers and grade breaks were inspected via as-builts that were provided by the Town. Due to the criticality of the storage sewers, any asbuilts that were available pertaining to these sewers were also obtained and reviewed to ensure the model accurately represented this sections.

At this point, any missing manhole rim elevations were populated using the LiDAR data that was obtained from the Town. This was accomplished by employing a powerful spatial analyst tool, which extracted the elevation from the LiDAR data at each targeted manhole and assigned it as the rim elevation. The model was inspected one last time by performing a series of QA/QC tasks to ensure that all data was detailed and accurate.

Losses were calculated using the Weighted Inlet Energy formulation where links came together or where a sharp turn was involved, otherwise the Flow-Through formulation was assumed. For sewer roughness, Manning’s coefficient was assigned as shown in Table 4.3.

Manning’s ‘n’ Roughness Coefficient Material

Manning’s ‘n’ Coefficient

Concrete

0.013

PVC

0.011

VCT

0.017

These service areas, when multiplied by the associated generation rates (described below) produced the system flows during assessments.

Following service area development, model construction proceeded to development of diurnals and dry weather flows as part of the calibration process. All MIKE URBAN sanitary model files developed as part of this project can be found in Appendix E.

Page 32

|

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

4.2.2 Flow Monitoring To assist in developing realistic sewer flows, flow monitoring and rain gauge data from 2014 to 2016 was obtained from the Town and reviewed for a total of six locations. Flow monitoring data from 2011 to 2013 was also provided, however this data was not considered for calibration as it was assumed to be too dated.

Flow monitor locations remained consistent between the three monitored years being considered. The flow monitoring data in conjunction with rain gauge data, as shown in Figure 4.7, allowed for model calibration of both dry and wet conditions on flows and rainfall data.

The six flow monitoring sites within the study area are summarized below: Site 1: Coloniale – This flow monitor was located in a manhole on Township Road 510 east of 50 Street on the downstream end of the incoming 300 mm sewer. The majority of the upstream catchment area is residential, with roughly four percent commercial and an additional four percent institutional areas.

Site 2: Montalet – The Site 2 flow monitor was located along La Passerelle Trail, between Montalet Street and 60 Avenue. The flow monitor was installed on the downstream end of the incoming 375 mm sewer.

Site 2’s upstream catchments consist of roughly 72% residential, 16% commercial, and 12% institutional developments. Site 1 is located upstream of this flow monitoring site.

Site 3: High School – This flow monitor was installed in a manhole on the downstream end of the incoming 375 mm sewer, on a trail east of Beaumont Composite High School. The upstream catchments consist of roughly 77% residential, 9% mixed use (further divided into residential and commercial land uses), and 15% institutional developments.

Site 4: Four Seasons – The Site 4 monitor was installed in the downstream end of the incoming 750 mm sewer in Four Seasons Park. This site consists of mainly residential developments, with some commercial, industrial, and institutional developments.

Site 5: Lions – This flow monitor is located on the Four Seasons Trail south of 40 Avenue, on the downstream end of the incoming 300 mm sewer. Upstream catchments include primarily residential developments, with 8% of the developments being institutional.

Site ACRWC – This flow monitor was installed independent of the five aforementioned sites by the ACRWC. The monitor is located on the downstream end of Beaumont’s sanitary sewer system, to measure the flows being discharged to the SERTS line. The monitor is located in a manhole on the downstream end of the incoming 525 mm sewer. Upstream catchments include all catchments that have been considered in the study area, including those of Sites 1 to 5.

Table 4.4 summarizes the total populations and areas per development type of the catchments upstream of each flow monitoring site.

Flow monitoring and rainfall data was compiled for use in the subsequent calibration of the MIKE URBAN hydraulic model of the sanitary sewer system in the Town of Beaumont.

The following sections summarize the purpose, procedure, and outcomes of the calibration which was undertaken for the sanitary model. The objective of calibration is to adjust model parameters until results are obtained that match the monitored/observed data. Calibration was crucial in order to ensure that the constructed and calibrated model replicated the 2014 and 2016 observed sanitary flows with high accuracy.

This provides confidence of the model being able to realistically predict the system response under any historical or theoretical design rainfall events.

islengineering.com

April 2018

|

Page 33

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

Blank page left intentionally

Page 34

|

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL Table 4.4: Flow Monitoring Catchment Area Summary Residential FM

Year

Total Population

Total Area

Mixed Use

Commercial

Industrial

Institutional

Parks

Roads

Area

Percent of Area

Area

Percent of Area

Area

Percent of Area

Area

Percent of Area

Area

Percent of Area

Total Area

ha

ha

%

ha

%

ha

%

ha

%

ha

%

ha

1

2014

1,996

47.63

43.81

92.0

0.00

0.0

1.80

3.8

0.00

0.0

2.01

4.2

8.10

20.76

2

2014

2,086

42.38

30.43

71.8

0.00

0.0

6.70

15.8

0.00

0.0

5.25

12.4

4.26

15.69

3

2014

3,003

77.30

59.18

76.6

6.86

8.9

0.00

0.0

0.00

0.0

11.26

14.6

8.80

28.31

4

2014

2,239

52.74

43.71

82.9

0.00

0.0

5.88

11.2

1.84

3.5

1.32

2.5

10.19

23.77

5

2014

1,460

34.32

31.54

91.9

0.00

0.0

0.00

0.0

0.00

0.0

2.78

8.1

9.94

15.92

N/A

2014

5,044

97.02

84.68

87.3

0.00

0.0

0.92

0.9

0.00

0.0

11.42

11.8

17.67

36.99

ACRWC

2014

15,828

351.38

293.36

83.5

6.86

2.0

15.29

4.4

1.84

0.5

34.04

9.7

58.96

141.44

1

2016

2,510

54.57

50.75

93.0

0.00

0.0

1.80

3.3

0.00

0.0

2.01

3.7

8.10

20.76

2

2016

1,984

43.80

30.43

69.5

0.00

0.0

8.12

18.5

0.00

0.0

5.25

12.0

4.26

15.69

3

2016

3,004

77.30

59.18

76.6

6.86

8.9

0.00

0.0

0.00

0.0

11.26

14.6

8.80

28.31

4

2016

2,610

61.34

52.31

85.3

0.00

0.0

5.88

9.6

1.84

3.0

1.32

2.2

10.19

23.77

5

2016

1,522

34.44

31.66

91.9

0.00

0.0

0.00

0.0

0.00

0.0

2.78

8.1

9.94

15.92

N/A

2016

6,090

111.26

97.51

87.6

0.00

0.0

0.92

0.8

0.00

0.0

12.83

11.5

17.67

36.99

ACRWC

2016

17,720

382.70

321.84

84.1

6.86

1.8

16.72

4.4

1.84

0.5

35.45

9.3

58.96

141.44

islengineering.com

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

4.2.3 Rainfall Statistics Rain gauge data was obtained from the Town, in order to review the recorded amount of precipitation accumulated during rainfall events. The main purpose of this data was to determine wet weather periods, and to correlate the observed rainfall with the peak wet weather flows recorded at each of the selected flow monitoring locations. The recorded rainfall data also allowed for an assessment of each rainfall event in order to determine their return periods. As some of the analysis is based on simulating a design storm with a specific return period (either the 1:5, 1:25, or 1:50 year 24-hour Huff storms in this case) using a calibrated model, this information becomes useful when comparing the assessment results to the observed results.

The rainfall data for both 2014 and 2016 was analyzed to establish the total rainfall depths and return period of each major recorded rainfall event. The total rainfall depths observed during the 2014 and 2016 flow monitoring period are presented in Figures 4.8 and 4.9, respectively.

The top ten major rainfall events in terms of intensity are listed below in Table 4.5 for both 2014 and 2016.

Figure 4.10 illustrates the top ten major recorded rainfall events along with their determined return periods for the 2014 and 2016 flow monitoring periods.

Top Ten Rainfall Events of 2014 and 2016 2014 Rainfall ID

Date

2016 Return Period

Rainfall ID

Date

Return Period

1

6/28/14 2:05 PM

<2 Year

11

6/23/16 2:15 AM

<2 Year

2

6/29/14 1:15 PM

<2 Year

12

6/30/16 2:50 PM

<2 Year

3

7/5/14 4:20 AM

2 Year

13

7/3/16 5:20 AM

<2 Year

4

7/6/14 12:30 AM

<2 Year

14

7/10/16 11:45 PM

<2 Year

5

7/17/14 9:35 PM

<2 Year

15

7/13/16 6:45 PM

<2 Year

6

7/19/14 11:05 PM

<2 Year

16

7/15/16 4:10 PM

<2 Year

7

7/20/14 1:55 PM

<2 Year

17

7/26/16 5:35 PM

<2 Year

8

7/26/14 10:20 AM

25 Year

18

7/30/16 2:25 AM

<2 Year

9

9/1/14 6:55 PM

<2 Year

19

7/30/16 7:25 PM

2 Year

10

9/26/14 2:30 PM

<2 Year

20

8/22/16 12:30 PM

<2 Year

islengineering.com

April 2018

|

Page 35

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

4.2.4 Dry Weather Flow Calibration Following the hydraulic model construction and compilation of the flow monitoring data, calibration of the sanitary model was then initiated. Calibration was crucial in order to accurately represent flows under both dry weather and wet weather conditions, as mentioned above.

The first step was to determine a period from the flow monitoring data with little to no rainfall influence on the network for each of the flow monitoring sites. The following weeks were ultimately chosen to represent the sanitary system under dry weather flow (DWF) conditions: 

August 11th to August 17th, 2014 – Sites 1 and 2



July 10th to July 16th, 2014 – Site 3



October 24th to October 31st, 2016 – Sites 4, 5 and ACRWC

The 2014 flow monitoring data displayed the best rainfall response from the three years, thus would produce the most conservative wet weather flow (WWF) calibration based on the observed flows. However, after further investigation of the flow monitoring data in 2014 during WWF calibration, it was determined that the data at three of the sites (Sites 4, 5, and ACRWC) was faulty. As a result, the 2014 flow monitoring data was utilized for Sites 1, 2 and, and 3 for the respective DWF and WWF calibration, and the 2016 flow monitoring data was utilized for the remaining sites for both the DWF and WWF calibration.

After the dry weather flow dates were deduced, it was necessary to establish residential, commercial, industrial and institutional diurnals. This first involved determining baseflows that generally represent infiltration to the system. Baseflows were initially assumed to be 80% of minimum flows (typically nighttime flows), and were adjusted as needed in order to derive accurate diurnals.

Following the establishment of baseflows, to further proceed towards dry weather flow calibration, diurnals were developed. Diurnals were derived by taking the difference between recorded flow rates and the determined baseflow, dividing this value by the average flow from each day, and deducing the average per hour. With this, weekday, Saturday and Sunday diurnals were produced for all flow monitoring sites.

Diurnals were adjusted slightly in many cases in order to meet the peak flows that were observed in the monitored data. In all, seven diurnals were created; graphical representations of the diurnals can be found in Figures 4.11 to 4.17.

Dry weather sewage generation rates were estimated by considering the difference between the average flow rates and the defined baseflows, then taking the difference and dividing it by upstream residential populations and non-residential (commercial, industrial, and institutional) areas based on anticipated flow rates, where applicable. On this basis, residential dry weather flow rates were preliminarily estimated, and tweaked along with the diurnals as necessary. A similar approach was followed for commercial, industrial, and institutional dry weather flow rates.

Successful dry weather flow calibration will produce volume and peak flow errors less than ±10% as stipulated by the industry best practices promoted by the Wastewater Planning User Group’s (WaPUG) guidelines. Table 4.6 indicates that none of the calibration errors surpassed the recommended values. At this point, the dry weather flow calibration of the model was deemed to be complete. Final dry weather week flow comparison plots are shown in Figures 4.18 through 4.23 inclusive, and final dry weather flow generation rates employed for the study are shown in Figure 4.24.

Page 36

|

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Report FINAL

Table 4.6: Dry Weather Flow Calibration: Results Summary Baseflow

2016

2014

Flow Monitor

DWF Period

Flow Rate

Upstream Total Contributing Area

L/s/ha

ha

Upstream Total Contributing Population

Residential

Commercial

Industrial

Institutional

Peak Flow

Volume

DWF Rate

DWF Rate

DWF Rate

DWF Rate

Monitored

Modelled

Difference

Monitored

Modelled

Difference

L/p/d

m3/ha/d

m3/ha/d

m3/ha/d

L/s

L/s

%

m3

m3

%

Site 1

August 11 - August 17

0.00654

76.49

1,996

200.00

5.00

0.00

5.00

10.00

9.84

-1.61

3,110

3,240

4.00

Site 2

August 11 - August 17

0.00963

62.32

2,086

100.00

1.00

0.00

1.00

15.00

14.86

-0.95

4,982

5,151

3.29

Site 3

July 10 - July 16

0.04300

114.41

3,003

180.00

5.00

0.00

1.00

18.00

17.94

-0.32

7,162

7,124

-0.52

Site 4

October 24 - October 30

0.02518

95.31

2,610

245.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

18.00

17.86

-0.78

6,050

6,363

4.92

Site 5

October 24 - October 30

0.01161

60.30

1,522

150.00

0.00

0.00

1.00

8.00

8.05

0.64

2,050

2,045

-0.21

Site ACRWC

October 24 - October 30

0.00603

165.92

6,090

245.00

5.00

0.00

5.00

71.91

71.00

-1.27

26,278

26,754

1.78

Note: Site is located downstream of another identified flow monitoring site Land use type not observed in upstream contributing area Generalized Peak Flows Within +/- 10% Error Margin

islengineering.com

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

4.2.5 Wet Weather Flow Calibration After completion of dry weather flow calibration, it was necessary to perform wet weather flow calibration to ensure the model was accurately representing the amount of inflow-infiltration (I-I) to the sanitary sewer system during wet weather events. To do so, wet weather periods were established during which a response to wet weather was observed in the flow monitoring data. Based on a review of rainfall and flow monitoring data for the monitoring period during 2014 and 2016, the best wet weather periods were identified as: 

July 22nd to August 9th, 2014 – Sites 1, 2, and 3



May 18th to June 3rd, 2016 – Sites 4, 5, and ACRWC

During these timeframes, a major 1:25 year rainfall event occurred between July 24 th and 25th in 2014 (Rainfall ID 8) and approximately 93 mm of rainfall was recorded between May 19th and May 23rd in 2016 (not a single major rainfall event noted in Section 4.2.3 above, rather a series of minor rainfall events).

These events are the most suitable for WWF calibration for the six sites due to the substantial responses.

For modelling the wet weather flow in MIKE URBAN, two separate wet weather flow generation models were used, integrated together to replicate the inflow (i.e. fast system response) and infiltration (slow system response). Consequently, the Time-Area surface runoff method in conjunction with the Rainfall Dependent Inflow-Infiltration (RDII) model, were used to create a robust replication of surface and subsurface processes, respectively. The WWF calibration consisted of an extensive sensitivity analysis performed on a number of Time-Area and RDII parameters. The most notable parameters are as follows: 

Time-Area Model o Percent Imperviousness



Rainfall Dependent Inflow-Infiltration Model o Percent Area Contributing to RDII (RDII %) o Surface Storage (Umax) o Root Zone Storage (Lmax) o Overland Coefficient (CQof) o TC Overland Flow (CKof) o TC Interflow (CKif) o TC Baseflow (BF)

Prior to calibrating the said parameters, the Root Zone Moisture (L) parameter was set to 70 mm from the default value of 0 mm to initialize soil moisture conditions. By doing so, this approach assumes realistic antecedent moisture conditions, and has been successfully proven from a number of past studies that were undertaken by ISL.

islengineering.com

April 2018

|

Page 37

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Report FINAL

The final wet weather flow calibration parameters for the study area are summarized in Table 4.7 below.

Table 4.7:

Wet Weather Flow Calibration: Time-Area and RDII Parameters

Parameter

Units

Site 1

Site 2

Site 3

Site 4

2014

Site 5

Site ACRWC

2016

Model A Imperviousness

%

0.70

0.10

0.90

0.10

0.30

0.50

Initial Loss

mm

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

Time of Concentration

min

7.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

TA Curve 1

TA Curve 1

TA Curve 1

TA Curve 1

TA Curve 1

TA Curve 1

0.9

0.9

0.9

0.9

0.9

0.9

TA Curve Reduction Factor

RDII Model RDI %

%

Snow Melt

40.00

1.00

95.00

5.00

40.00

15.00

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Umax

mm

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

Lmax

mm

140.0

140.0

140.0

140.0

140.0

140.0

Cqof

0.10

0.30

0.12

0.50

0.30

0.30

Carea

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

3

10

1

10

1

10

Ckof

hr

Ckif

hr

300

500

500

1000

20

500

BF

hr

2500

2000

2500

2000

2000

2000

TOF

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

TIF

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

TG

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

mm

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

GWLmin

m

0

0

0

0

0

0

GWLBFO

m

10

10

10

10

10

10

GWLFL1

m

0

0

0

0

0

0

U

mm

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

L

mm

70.0

70.0

70.0

70.0

70.0

70.0

m

10

10

10

10

10

10

OF

mm/hr

0

0

0

0

0

0

IF

mm/hr

0

0

0

0

0

0

Sy

GWL

The imperviousness value used for Site 3, and the percent RDII value applied for Sites 1, 3, and 5 are considered quite high. Though these values are necessary to have a properly calibrated model in terms of wet weather flows, they are not usual. High imperviousness and percent RDII are likely due to weeping tile connections which are prominent in Sites 3 and 5, and other sources of high inflow-infiltration such as crossconnections, cracks and chips on manhole covers and along pipes, poor seals, or missing cleanout caps. An inflow-infiltration field investigation consisting of smoke testing, micro flow monitoring, dye testing and closed-circuit television (CCTV) inspections could be very valuable to the Town in order to pinpoint the sources of I-I. This will be further discussed in Section 4.4.

Page 38

|

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Report FINAL

The results of the WWF calibration, where the aforementioned parameters were adjusted until an acceptable agreement between the modelled and observed peak flows as well as volumes were achieved are tabulated in Table 4.8.

Table 4.8:

Wet Weather Flow Calibration: Results Summary Peak Flow

Year

2014

2016

Flow Monitor

Calibration Period

Monitored

Modelled

Volume Difference

Monitored

Modelled

Difference

m3

%

L/s

L/s

%

m3

Site 1

July 22 to August 9

45.0

44.3

-1.5

5,884

6,118

3.8

Site 2

July 22 to August 9

49.0

49.6

1.2

7,645

8,409

9.1

Site 3

July 22 to August 9

137.0

137.6

0.5

14,657

16,405

10.7

Site 4

May 18 to June 3

25.0

25.9

3.7

16,305

15,877

-2.7

Site 5

May 18 to June 3

46.0

43.6

-5.5

7,981

9,846

18.9

Site ACRWC

May 18 to June 3

145.6

148.9

2.2

68,468

77,182

11.3

Note: Generalized Peak Flows

Comparative graphical calibration results of modelled versus monitored flows during the analyzed period can be seen in Figures 4.25 to 4.30 for all six scenarios, based on wet weather flow data availability. The final percent imperviousness values are shown in Figure 4.31 and the percent area contributing to RDII values are shown in Figure 4.32.

For wet weather flow calibration, it is recommended that the peak flow error ranges from 25% to -15% and the volume error ranges from 20% to -10% as per the WaPUGâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s guidelines. In this case, all of the events fall within the recommended ranges. Overall, the wet weather flow results are therefore suitable for the model.

The network has been deemed calibrated on the basis of visual inspection and by statistical analysis of the peak flows and volume results.

islengineering.com

April 2018

|

Page 39

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

4.3

Design Criteria

4.3.1 Assessment Rainfall Event To properly determine a level of service (LOS), it was necessary to determine the potential extent of surcharge under a number of design storm rainfall events of varying return periods. As a result, the existing system was assessed using four storm events to evaluate the system response in the sanitary system representing wet weather flow conditions.

These include: 

Inflow-Infiltration allowance of 0.28 L/s/ha as per AEP’s Guidelines



The City of Edmonton’s 1:5 year 24-hour 4th Quartile Huff Storm as per Beaumont’s General Design Standards



The City of Edmonton’s 1:25 year 24-hour 4th Quartile Huff Storm as per Beaumont’s General Design Standards



The City of Edmonton’s 1:50 year 24-hour 4th Quartile Huff Storm as per Beaumont’s General Design Standards

The design standard of 0.28 L/s/ha of I-I is generally considered conservative for assessing surcharge when compared to an observed or design rainfall event. Under this scenario, the model was set-up and run for a constant 0.28 L/s/ha I-I rate on top of the existing dry weather flows.

A Huff rainfall distribution replicates a storm with a moderate peak intensity, which is ideal for sanitary system analysis. The initial RDII boundary condition for the root zone storage (Lini) for each catchment was adjusted during the wet weather calibration stage such that the L/Lmax ratio was 50% at the beginning of the design storm simulations. Table 4.9 summarizes key aspects of the Huff design storms for the 5, 25, and 50 year events. The rainfall for these events is compared in Figure 4.33.

Rainfall Values Peak Rainfall Intensity

Duration of Peak Rainfall Intensity

Total Rainfall Depth

mm/hr

hr

mm

1:5 Year 24-Hour Q4 Huff Distribution

11.27

1.2

69.36

1:25 Year 24-Hour Q4 Huff Distribution

16.38

1.2

100.80

1:50 Year 24-Hour Q4 Huff Distribution

18.53

1.2

114.00

Rainfall Distribution

Page 40

|

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

20 18 16

Intensity (mm/hr)

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 12:00 AM

7:12 PM

2:24 PM

9:36 AM

4:48 AM

12:00 AM

Time (hr) 5 Year Figure 4.33:

25 Year

50 Year

Storm Rainfall Comparison

4.3.2 Assessment Criteria The performance of the sanitary system under the existing conditions is ultimately determined based on the available freeboard between the ground elevation and high water level elevation (represented by the maximum hydraulic grade line (HGL)) at each manhole for each assessment design storm. Based on this, the maximum allowable surcharge in the gravity portion of the sanitary sewer system must remain at least 2.6 m from the ground surface during a design storm scenario. The performance of the sanitary network was assessed in terms of two relationships as follows.

Maximum HGL Elevation Relative to the Ground Maximum HGL elevation relative to the ground is the amount of freeboard between the maximum water elevation and ground elevation at each manhole at the moment when maximum flow passes through.

Hence, the maximum HGL elevation relative to the ground with a value of: 

Greater than 0.0 m is denoted as a red dot – indicating surcharge/back-up to surface



Between -2.6 m and 0.0 m is denoted as an orange dot – maximum HGL peaks within 2.6 m below the ground indicating possible basement back-ups



Between -3.5 m and -2.6 m is denoted as a yellow dot – maximum HGL peaks within 2.6 m and 3.5 m below the ground indicating no basement back-ups but possibly an elevated HGL



Less than -3.5 m is denoted as a green dot – maximum HGL peaks 3.5 m below the ground

islengineering.com

April 2018

|

Page 41

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

Peak Discharge Relative to Pipe Capacity Peak discharge relative to pipe capacity indicates the ratio peak flow to pipe capacity in wet weather conditions; as a corollary to this, the data can be interpreted to indicate the amount of spare capacity during peak flows. This is calculated by taking the ratio of the modelled flow in a pipe and its corresponding capacity. Pipes with ratios higher than one are considered to have no spare capacity thus indicating a section of trunk that might require upgrading, particularly where the length of the section is long enough to cause surcharge conditions immediately in the upstream reach.

Hence, the peak discharge relative to pipe capacity with a ratio of: 

Greater than 1.20 is denoted as a red line – over capacity, or in another words the capacity is diminishing as the maximum flow theoretically occurs at roughly 93% of the pipe’s diameter. This means that in principle, pipes with a Q/Qman ratio equal to or less than 1.05 have their flow still contained within the pipe.



Between 1.00 and 1.20 is denoted as an orange line – No spare capacity available, however flows not significantly above the crown of the pipe



Between 0.86 and 1.00 is denoted as a yellow line – less than 14% of spare capacity available



Less than 0.86 is denoted as a green line – spare capacity available

Both relationships should be looked at in conjunction to pin point any potential capacity deficiencies in the system. For example: 

The maximum HGL elevation relative to the ground with a value that is between -2.6 m and 0.0 m (an orange dot) may indicate a location with a possible basement back-up, however the peak discharge relative to pipe capacity ratio at the same location could have a value of less than 0.86 (a green line) indicating the pipe is not surcharged. This could suggest a relatively shallow sewer. An exception to this rule are sewer trunks immediately upstream of lift stations, where a possible back-up could occur due to inadequate capacity of the lift station; and



The ratio of peak discharge relative to pipe capacity for forcemains is always above 1.00 as these operate under pressurized conditions by nature, thus should not be of any concern.

In addition to these two scenarios, the spare capacity of each pipe was determined. This indicates the amount of additional flow each pipe can handle before it becomes completely utilized. The amount of spare capacity ranges from less than 0 L/s to over 100 L/s, with the least capacity illustrated in red and the most capacity depicted in green. In determining the spare capacity, it becomes evident which pipes are available to handle any additional flows due to future development, and which pipes should remain untouched.

4.3.3 Future Conditions Design Criteria For the purpose of developing a sanitary servicing network within undeveloped areas a spreadsheet approach was utilized, while the impact of the development of these lands on the existing sanitary system was assessed using the calibrated hydrodynamic model. As a result, one needs to understand what design parameters were applied in each case. These are discussed in detail below.

DWF Generation Rates In all cases, the DWF generation rates applied to the build-out to the pre-annexation boundary and the buildout to the post-annexation boundary were employed from the Town of Beaumont General Design Standards, 2011. The following rates were therefore applied, which are 80% of the future water consumption rates:

Page 42



Residential Areas (Population Generated) – 360 L/p/d



Non-Residential Areas (Area Generated) – 18,000 L/ha/d

|

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Report FINAL

Peaking Factors Servicing Network Design Peaking factors for the future sanitary system were calculated in accordance with the Town of Beaumont General Design Standards, 2011, and generally align with the AEPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s guidelines. These include the following: ď&#x201A;ˇ

Peaking factor derived based on Harmonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s formula for residential areas:

đ?&#x2018;&#x192;đ??š = 1 +

14 1

4 + đ?&#x2018;&#x192;2 o

Where, P is the design contributing population in thousands

Consequently, the residential peaking factors ranged from 2.39 to 4.20, with an average value of 3.27. ď&#x201A;ˇ

Non-residential flows shall receive a peaking factor of 3

Assessment of the Impact on the Existing System Peaking factors derived during the DWF calibration process, based on the observed flow monitoring data, were applied to the future growth scenario catchments for both the residential and non-residential land uses.

As expected, the observed modelled peaking factors tend to be lower than those stipulated by the AEPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s guidelines and the Townâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s standards. The peaking factors fluctuate between 1.55 and 1.82 for residential areas, and 1.39 and 1.67 for non-residential areas.

WWF Component Servicing Network Design A constant inflow-infiltration allowance of 0.28 L/s/ha as per the Town of Beaumont General Design Standards, 2011 and in line with AEPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s guidelines was applied to each growth catchment to simulate wet weather response.

Assessment of the Impact on the Existing System The wet weather flow response for all future catchments were produced based on the LOS assessment mentioned in Section 4.4. This consisted of the 1:25 year 24-hour Q4 Huff Storm. Catchments were assigned calibrated hydrological properties reflective of the overall existing study area. Consequently, the percent impervious area and percent area contributing to RDII of 0.50% and 15.00%, respectively, were applied. A groundwater infiltration (DWF baseflow) rate of 0.033 L/s/ha for greenfield developments was also incorporated in the model as per typical modelling guidelines.

islengineering.com

April 2018

|

Page 43

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Report FINAL

4.4

Existing System Analysis

The results of the four existing system rainfall event scenarios are detailed in Sections 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.3, and 4.4.4 for the I-I of 0.28 L/s/ha, the 1:5 year 24-hour Q4 Huff Storm, the 1:25 year 24-hour Q4 Huff Storm and the 1:50 year 24-hour Q4 Huff Storm, respectively and illustrated in Figures 4.34 through 4.41.

Longitudinal profiles of major trunks have also been provided in Appendix F; a longitudinal profile key plan can be viewed in Figure 4.42. For comparison purposes, results of the DWF assessment are shown in Figures 4.43 and 4.44 for maximum HGL and peak discharge relative to pipe capacity, and spare capacity, respectively.

The following assessment scenarios were simulated assuming the firm capacity at the SERTS Lift Station.

The firm capacity represents the total pumping capacity assuming that the largest pump has been taken offline, and is used to assess the ensuing pumping capacity under a more redundant scenario, addressing the requirements of system resiliency. In this case, as the two pumps at the lift station are identical, the lag pump was assumed to be offline in order to simulate the firm capacity.

In the following four subsections, sewer sections that have been affected by the design storms being applied on top of the dry weather flow conditions are highlighted in tables. Sewer sections in other locations not listed in the tables, which at first glance may seem to have inadequate capacity based on all or a combination of the individual assessment relationships, were determined to perform adequately once a closer look at the extent of surcharge shown in the corresponding longitudinal profiles was undertaken.

4.4.1 Existing Plus I-I of 0.28 L/s/ha The results of the constant I-I rate of 0.28 L/s/ha scenario are illustrated in Figures 4.34 and 4.35 for maximum HGL and peak discharge relative to pipe capacity, and spare capacity respectively. Generally speaking, the existing system performs adequately under this scenario. A description of the areas of concern with respect to the gravity system are below in Table 4.10.

Affected Sewer Sections under a Constant I-I Rate of 0.28 L/s/ha Event Section ID

Page 44

|

Associated Longitudinal Profile(s)

Affected Sizes mm

Section Length m

1.1

LP 1.2

900

1,800+

1.2

LP 2.4

375

120

1.3

LP 5.2

200

65

April 2018

Comments The relatively flat maximum HGL suggests that the surcharge condition is due to a lack of pumping capacity at the SERTS Lift Station. Following modelling this scenario using the design (total) capacity at the SERTS Lift Station, capacity constraints remained evident, albeit less severe than the firm capacity scenario. That said, constant I-I rate scenarios are not typically used to test the performance of lift stations and forcemains, as the ensuing indefinite inflow rate is likely to always inundate each pumping facility.

EX Pipe_108, which has been flagged as being under capacity in this scenario, is lacking capacity by roughly 13 L/s. Though this is the case, the maximum HGL in this section remains between 3.5 m and 2.6 m below the ground, indicating that basement flooding would be avoided.

This section of pipe is under capacity by approximately 10 L/s for a short length. Along the general length of this trunk sewer pipes are not surcharged. The exception here is that the slope of the pipe is a mere 0.04%, thus minimizing the overall capacity of the pipe. Surcharging minimally exceeds the crown of the pipe, therefore is less concerning.

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Report FINAL

4.4.2 Existing Plus 1:5 Year 24-Hour 4th Quartile Huff Storm The results of the 1:5 year 24-hour Q4 Huff Storm scenario are illustrated in Figures 4.36 and 4.37 for maximum HGL and peak discharge relative to pipe capacity, and spare respectively. Generally speaking, the existing system performs adequately under this scenario. A description of the areas of concern with respect to the gravity system are below in Table 4.11.

Affected Sewer Sections under a 1:5 Year 24-Hour Q4 Huff Storm Event Section ID

Associated Longitudinal Profile(s)

Affected Sizes mm

Section Length m

2.1

LP 1.1

525

1,900+

2.2

LP 3.1 & LP 3.2

250 & 300

1,020

2.3

LP 5.2

200

65

2.4

LP 6.2 & LP 12.2

300, 300 & 375

1,010

Comments The elevated HGL in this section originates from the fact that there is not enough capacity in the 525 mm SERTS line where it is not twinned. The maximum HGL along this trunk sewer remains at least 2.6 m below the ground and runs through a currently undeveloped area, thus is not a major concern.

The HGL of this trunk sewer increases steadily from ESBCHS, where three gravity sewers converge, to roughly 48 Street. These sewers are undersized for this area. That said, the HGL remains at least 2.6 m below the ground therefore may not inundate any properties.

This section of pipe is under capacity by approximately 5 L/s for a short length. Along the general length of this trunk sewer pipes are not surcharged. The exception here is that the slope of the pipe is a mere 0.04%, thus minimizing the overall capacity of the pipe. Surcharging minimally exceeds the crown of the pipe, therefore is less concerning.

The majority of the sewer along 57 Street, from 55 Avenue to ESBCHS, is surcharged. Similar to Section ID 2.2, the surcharging is caused by a combination of three gravity sewers converging at the high school and undersized sewers. Under this scenario, the HGL remains below 2.6 m to the surface.

4.4.3 Existing Plus 1:25 Year 24-Hour 4th Quartile Huff Storm The results of the 1:25 year 24-hour Q4 Huff Storm scenario are illustrated in Figures 4.38 and 4.39 for maximum HGL and peak discharge relative to pipe capacity, and spare respectively. The existing system exhibits a fair number of concerns under this scenario. A description of the areas of concern with respect to the gravity system are below in Table 4.12.

islengineering.com

April 2018

|

Page 45

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Report FINAL

Affected Sewer Sections under a 1:25 Year 24-Hour Q4 Huff Storm Event Section ID

Associated Longitudinal Profile(s)

Affected Sizes mm

Section Length m

3.1

1.1

525

1,900+

3.2

LP 1.2

900

1,800+

3.3

LP 3.1, LP 3.2 & LP 13.1

200, 250 & 300

1,800

3.4

LP 3.3

525

1,600

3.5

LP 5.2

200

65

3.6

LP 6.2 & LP 12.2

300, 300 & 375

1,010

3.7

LP 14.1

200

575

Comments The elevated HGL in this section originates from the fact that there is not enough capacity in the 525 mm SERTS line where it is not twinned. The maximum HGL along this trunk sewer remains greater than 2.6 m below the ground and runs through a currently undeveloped area, thus is not a major concern.

The relatively flat maximum HGL suggests that the surcharge condition is due to a lack of pumping capacity at the SERTS Lift Station. Following modelling this scenario using the design (total) capacity at the SERTS Lift Station, capacity constraints remained evident, albeit less severe than the firm capacity scenario.

The HGL of this trunk sewer increases steadily from ESBCHS, where three gravity sewers converge, to roughly 48 Street.

These sewers are undersized for this area. In certain locations the HGL rises to above 2.6 m below the ground, however always remains below the surface.

From the southwest corner of the ESBCHS up until the trunk is twinned to 525 mm and 1200 mm sewers this gravity sewer is surcharged. Generally speaking, the HGL remains under 2.6 m to the ground, with the exception of adjacent to the Ruisseau North Storm Pond. There are no developments under the existing conditions encroaching this trunk, thus is not a major concern.

This section of pipe is under capacity by approximately 8 L/s for a short length. Along the general length of this trunk sewer pipes are not surcharged. The exception here is that the slope of the pipe is a mere 0.04%, thus minimizing the overall capacity of the pipe. Surcharging minimally exceeds the crown of the pipe, therefore is less concerning.

The majority of the sewer along 57 Street, from 55 Avenue to ESBCHS, is surcharged. Similar to Section ID 3.3, the surcharging is caused by a combination of three gravity sewers converging at the high school and undersized sewers.

Under this scenario, the HGL spikes above 2.6 m to the surface, however never inundates ground level.

This gravity sewer, which connects to the surcharged 57 Street trunk at its downstream end is significantly over capacity. Towards the upstream end of this sewer system, the HGL is within 2.6 m to the ground. As this is a residential community, basement flooding is a concern.

4.4.4 Existing Plus 1:50 Year 24-Hour 4th Quartile Huff Storm The results of the 1:50 year 24-hour Q4 Huff Storm scenario are illustrated in Figures 4.40 and 4.41 for maximum HGL and peak discharge relative to pipe capacity, and spare respectively. The existing system exhibits a number of concerns under this scenario. A description of the areas of concern with respect to the gravity system are below in Table 4.13.

Page 46

|

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Report FINAL

Affected Sewer Sections under a 1:50 Year 24-Hour Q4 Huff Storm Event Section ID

Associated Longitudinal Profile(s)

Affected Sizes mm

Section Length m

4.1

1.1

525

1,900+

4.2

LP 1.2

900

1,800+

4.3

LP 3.1, LP 3.2 & LP 13.1

200, 250 & 300

2,060

4.4

LP 3.3 & LP 3.4

525

2,410

4.5

LP 5.2

200

65

4.6

LP 6.2 & LP 12.2

300, 300 & 375

1,225

4.7

LP 14.1

200

575

4.8

N/A

200

90

4.9

N/A

200

110

islengineering.com

Comments The elevated HGL in this section originates from the fact that there is not enough capacity in the 525 mm SERTS line where it is not twinned. The maximum HGL along this trunk sewer remains below the surface and runs through a currently undeveloped area, thus is not a major concern.

The relatively flat maximum HGL suggests that the surcharge condition is due to a lack of pumping capacity at the SERTS Lift Station. Following modelling this scenario using the design (total) capacity at the SERTS Lift Station, capacity constraints remained evident, albeit less severe than the firm capacity scenario.

The HGL of this trunk sewer increases steadily from ESBCHS, where three gravity sewers converge, to roughly 48 Street. These sewers are undersized for this area. In certain locations the HGL rises to above 2.6 m below the ground, however always remains below the surface.

From the southwest corner of the ESBCHS up until Range Road 243 this gravity sewer is surcharged. Generally speaking, the HGL remains under 2.6 m to the ground, with the exception of near the Ruisseau North Storm Pond and the pond at the north end of 67 Street. There are no developments under the existing conditions encroaching this trunk where basement levels would be exceeded, thus is not a major concern.

This section of pipe is under capacity by approximately 10 L/s for a short length. Along the general length of this trunk sewer pipes are not surcharged. The exception here is that the slope of the pipe is a mere 0.04%, thus minimizing the overall capacity of the pipe.

Surcharging minimally exceeds the crown of the pipe, therefore is less concerning.

The majority of the sewer along 57 Street, from 55 Avenue to ESBCHS, is surcharged, which continues east onto 48 Avenue.

Similar to Section ID 4.3, the surcharging is caused by a combination of three gravity sewers converging at the high school and undersized sewers. Under this scenario, the HGL spikes above 2.6 m to the surface, and spills onto the surface at the end of the 48 Avenue cul-de-sac, therefore is a concern.

This gravity sewer, which connects to the surcharged 57 Street trunk at its downstream end is significantly over capacity. Towards the upstream end of this sewer system, the HGL is within 2.6 m to the ground. As this is a residential community, basement flooding is a concern.

EX Pipe_40, which is situated on 55 Street between 52 Avenue and 51 Avenue, is under capacity by roughly 4 L/s. The extent of surcharge in this scenario is quite minimal, thus is of little concern.

EX Pipe_336, which is situated on 50 Avenue between 50 Street and 51 Street, is under capacity by roughly 7 L/s. The surcharging is dissipated rather quickly and maintains an HGL at least 2.6 m below the ground, thus is of little concern.

April 2018

|

Page 47

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Report FINAL

4.4.5 Inflow-Infiltration Review To estimate the inflow-infiltration rates based on the monitored sewage flows generated in the system, a review of the flow monitoring data was undertaken. Tables 4.14 and 4.15 summarize rates observed through flow monitoring for both the 2014 and 2016 flow monitoring seasons, respectively. The observed I-I rates represent the measured peak WWF minus the measured peak DWF divided by the corresponding total upstream catchment area. Site 2 is located downstream of Site 1 thus represents the total flow observed at that monitor, whereas Site ACRWC is located at the very downstream end of the system therefore it encompasses the entire study area. As a result, the stipulated I-I rates below represent the absolute values.

Observed Inflow-Infiltration Rates based on 2014 Flow Monitoring Data Peak DWF

Peak WWF

Difference

L/s

L/s

L/s

Site 1

10

45

35

Site 2

15

49

Site 3

18

Site 4 Site 5 Site ACRWC

FM Site

Upstream Area

Upstream Pipe Length

2014 I-I Rate1

ha

m

L/s/ha

4.50

76.49

10,969

0.458

34

3.27

138.81

17,905

0.245

137

119

7.61

114.41

14,765

1.040

14

134

120

9.57

86.70

19,240

1.384

5

66

61

13.20

60.18

7,032

1.014

64

76

12

1.19

551.78

79,146

0.022

WWF/DWF Ratio

1

Green shading indicates rates below the 0.28 L/s/ha guideline whereas red shading depicts rates above the 0.28 L/s/ha guideline. Grey shading shows which sites were not included in the analysis for the given year.

Observed Inflow-Infiltration Rates based on 2016 Flow Monitoring Data Peak DWF

Peak WWF

Difference

L/s

L/s

L/s

Site 1

14

22

8

Site 2

16

23

Site 3

22

70

Site 4

19

25

Site 5

10

Site ACRWC

72

FM Site

Upstream Area

Upstream Pipe Length

2016 I-I Rate1

ha

m

L/s/ha

1.57

83.42

10,969

0.096

7

1.44

147.17

17,905

0.048

48

3.18

114.41

14,765

0.420

6

1.32

95.31

19,240

0.063

46

36

4.60

60.30

7,032

0.597

145.6

73.6

2.02

583.11

79,146

0.126

WWF/DWF Ratio

1

Green shading indicates rates below the 0.28 L/s/ha guideline whereas red shading depicts rates above the 0.28 L/s/ha guideline. Grey shading shows which sites were not included in the analysis for the given year.

As noted in Section 4.2, Sites 4, 5, and ACRWC did not produce reliable flow monitoring results in 2014, thus does not provide confidence in the data. Similarly, Sites 1, 2, and 3 did not show significant response to the May 19th â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 23rd 2016 rainfall events. Analysis of the I-I rates was therefore performed in agreeance with the selected WWF calibration periods. That said, the 2014 I-I rates shall be discussed for Sites 1 through 3 and the 2016 rates used to assess Sites 4, 5, and ACRWC.

Page 48

|

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Report FINAL

AEP recommends accommodating an inflow-infiltration rate no larger than 0.28 L/s/ha. From the tables above and noting the selected years for analysis per the WWF calibration periods, it is evident that this criteria was exceeded on numerous occasions. Sites 1, 3, and 5 surpassed the value, which is consistent with the sites with high imperviousness and percent RDII values noted in Section 4.2. Once again, high I-I rates are likely due to weeping tile connections which are prominent in Sites 3 and 5 as shown in Figure 4.45, and other sources of high inflow-infiltration such as cross-connections, cracks and chips on manhole covers and along pipes, poor seals, or missing cleanout caps.

It is recommended that an inflow-infiltration field investigation program which could consist of smoke testing, micro flow monitoring, dye testing and CCTV inspections is undertaken in order to pinpoint the sources of I-I (it is noted that this has recently become required by ACRWC municipalities). Once the field investigation is completed and areas of sources of I-I have been identified and mitigated, it is possible that some of the affected sewer sections (particularly those in the upstream catchments of Sites 3 and 5) could see fewer surcharging issues. Additional flow monitoring and WWF calibration would be required following the field investigation to update the Time-Area surface runoff and RDII model parameters in order to once again produce revised accurate modelling results.

4.4.6 Level of Service Table 4.16 summarizes the I-I rates established in the calibrated model for the 5, 25, and 50 year events, while a rate comparison is presented in Figure 4.46. The flow monitoring rates utilized in Figure 4.46 are based on the 2014 values for Sites 1, 2, and 3 and on the 2016 values for Sites 4, 5, and ACRWC. Modelled Inflow-Infiltration Rates based on MIKE URBAN Huff Storm Simulations

FM Site

Number of Catchments

Catchment Area

1:5 Year 24-Hour Huff Storm

1:25 Year 24-Hour Huff Storm

1:50 Year 24-Hour Huff Storm

I-I Rate

ha

L/s/ha

Site 1

978

83.43

0.280

0.485

0.582

Site 2

1726

147.17

0.171

0.294

0.351

Site 3

1163

114.41

0.766

1.522

1.897

Site 4

1025

95.30

0.037

0.065

0.091

Site 5

603

60.30

0.807

1.525

1.930

Site ACRWC

6518

583.10

0.327

0.609

0.755

islengineering.com

April 2018

|

Page 49

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Report FINAL

2.50

Infiltration Rate (L/s/ha)

2.00

1.93

1.90

1.52

1.52

1.50

1.04

1.00 0.81

0.77

0.61

0.60

0.58 0.49

0.46

0.50

0.75

0.35 0.28

0.33

0.29

0.24

0.28

0.17

0.13

0.06 0.04 0.06 0.09

0.00 Site 1

Site 2

Site 3

Site 4

Site 5

Site ACRWC

Catchment Area

Flow Monitoring

Figure 4.46:

5Yr 24Hr Q4 Huff

25Yr 24Hr Q4 Huff

50Yr 24Hr Q4 Huff

Constant 0.28L/s/ha

Comparison of Infiltration Rates for Each Catchment Area

As shown above, Figure 4.46 provides insight into how each design storm compares to the actual I-I rates observed from flow monitoring. This provides a means to assist with determining the LOS, as it allows for consideration of a LOS that mimics real life conditions. Evidently, the 1:5 year 24-hour Huff storm I-I rates are generally less than the observed I-I rates whereas the 1:50 year 24-hour Huff storm I-I rates are generally more than the observed I-I rates. The comparison indicates that the 1:25 year 24-hour Huff storm provides the closest match to the monitored data for three of the six sites whereas the 1:5 year 24-hour Huff storm correlates better to the remaining three sites.

In addition to the comparison of I-I rates, an analysis was performed for each of the three Huff design storms in order to assess the extents of basement flooding. To complete this analysis, it was assumed that basement flooding would occur whenever the hydraulic grade line of a manhole was less than 2.6 m to the ground. If basement flooding was recorded under the 1:5 year 24-hour event, that same flooding (likely to a greater degree) would be noted in the same properties under the two greater storms. Similarly, flooding under the 1:25 year 24-hour event would also be prevalent in the 1:50 year 24-hour event. The results of this analysis are shown below in Table 4.17, as well as in Figure 4.47.

Page 50

|

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

Extent of Basement Flooding per Design Storm

Design Storm

Area of Flooded Properties

Number of Flooded Properties

ha

Percent of Total Flooded Properties

Incremental

Cumulative

Incremental

Cumulative

Incremental

Cumulative

1:5 Year 24-Hour

154

154

16.86

16.86

55.4%

55.4%

1:25 Year 24-Hour

136

290

7.77

24.63

25.5%

80.9%

1:50 Year 24-Hour

114

404

5.83

30.46

19.1%

100.0%

The summary of the extent of basement flooding indicates that approximately 55% of all inundated properties would occur under the 1:5 year 24-hour Huff storm, while 81% of the properties would be flooded under the 1:25 year 24-hour Huff storm, which accounts for the majority of flooded properties.

The 1:25 year 24-hour Huff storm was selected as the Town’s LOS. This LOS was therefore applied for the future system analysis. The existing system upgrades were completed for each scenario that was assessed.

By selecting the 1:25 year 24-hour Huff storm as the LOS, these upgrades and associated upgrades should take precedence over the remaining three. The purpose of sizing upgrades for each scenario was to provide a cost breakdown comparison between the four scenarios (three Huff design storms and constant 0.28 L/s/ha).

4.4.7 Existing System Upgrades On the basis of the existing system assessment, upgrades to rectify areas of concern were developed.

Upgrades were developed for each of the four assessment scenarios, with the priority being the 1:25 year 24-hour Huff storm. The identified upgrades are summarized below in Tables 4.18 to 4.21 and shown in Figures 4.48 to 4.51 for the constant 0.28 L/s/ha, 1:5 year 24-hour Huff storm, 1:25 year 24-hour Huff storm, and 1:50 year 24-hour Huff storm, respectively. Assessment results with the system upgrades in place are shown in Figures 4.52 to 4.57. Assessment results for the 1:5 year 24-hour Huff storm scenario have not been included, as no upgrading recommendations were proposed.

Recommended Upgrades to the Existing System: Constant 0.28 L/s/ha Item ID

Location

UPG 1A - 1

SERTS Trunk Sewer Pipeline right-of-way (R/W) at Range Road 244

UPG 1A - 2

SERTS Trunk Sewer Pipeline R/W between Range Road 244 and 9 Street

Upgrade    

Decommission the existing SERTS Lift Station Ensure invert elevation at this location is dropped to 696.17 m or lower for future tie-in Twin the existing 525 mm SERTS sewer (downstream of existing SERTS Lift Station) with a 900 mm sewer Tie this sewer directly to the 1350 mm trunk on 9 Street

Recommended Upgrades to the Existing System: 1:5 Year 24-Hour Huff Storm Item ID

Location

Upgrade

No Upgrades Recommended for this Design Storm

islengineering.com

April 2018

|

Page 51

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

Recommended Upgrades to the Existing System: 1:25 Year 24-Hour Huff Storm Item ID

 

Decommission the existing SERTS Lift Station Ensure invert elevation at this location is dropped to 696.17 m or lower for future tie-in Twin the existing 525 mm SERTS sewer (downstream of existing SERTS Lift Station) with a 900 mm sewer Tie this sewer directly to the 1350 mm trunk on 9 Street

SERTS Trunk Sewer Pipeline R/W at Range Road 244

UPG 1C - 2

SERTS Trunk Sewer Pipeline R/W between Range Road 244 and 9 Street

UPG 1C - 3

Southeast corner of ESBCHS to 57 Street at 48 Avenue



Upsize existing 375 mm sewer to a 525 mm sewer

UPG 1C - 4

48 Avenue



UPG 1C - 5

57 Street between 48 Avenue and 50 Avenue



57 Street between 50 Avenue to north of 55 Avenue Southeast corner of ESBCHS, south of 40 Avenue to 53 Street South of 40 Avenue from 53 Street east to 48 Street, north to 43 Avenue 48 Street south to 41 Avenue and east to 45 Street Southwest corner of ESBCHS west along Four Seasons Park, and north past 50 Avenue



Upsize existing 200 mm and 250 mm sewers to a 300 mm sewer Upsize existing 300 mm and 375 mm sewers to a 450 mm sewer Upsize existing 200 mm and 300 mm sewers to a 375 mm sewer

UPG 1C - 7

UPG 1C - 8 UPG 1C - 9

UPG 1C - 10

|

Upgrade

UPG 1C - 1

UPG 1C - 6

Page 52

Location

April 2018

 



Upsize existing 300 mm sewer to a 525 mm sewer



Upsize existing 300 mm sewer to a 450 mm sewer



Upsize existing 200 mm sewer to a 250 mm sewer



Twin the existing 525 mm sewer with a 1200 mm sewer Ensure the invert elevation at the 50 Avenue crossing is 704.375 m or lower for future tie-in



Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

Recommended Upgrades to the Existing System: 1:50 Year 24-Hour Huff Storm Item ID

Location

Upgrade  

Decommission the existing SERTS Lift Station Ensure invert elevation at this location is dropped to 696.17 m or lower for future tie-in Twin the existing 525 mm SERTS sewer (downstream of existing SERTS Lift Station) with a 900 mm sewer Tie this sewer directly to the 1350 mm trunk on 9 Street

UPG 1D - 1

SERTS Trunk Sewer Pipeline R/W at Range Road 244

UPG 1D - 2

SERTS Trunk Sewer Pipeline R/W between Range Road 244 and 9 Street

UPG 1D - 3

Southeast corner of ESBCHS to 57 Street at 48 Avenue



Upsize existing 375 mm sewer to a 600 mm sewer

UPG 1D - 4

48 Avenue



Upsize existing 200 mm and 250 mm sewers to a 300 mm sewer Upsize existing 300 mm and 375 mm sewers to a 525 mm sewer

UPG 1D - 5 UPG 1D - 6 UPG 1D - 7 UPG 1D - 8 UPG 1D - 9

UPG 1D - 10 UPG 1D - 11

UPG 1D - 12

57 Street between 48 Avenue and 50 Avenue 57 Street between 50 Avenue and 51 Avenue 57 Street between 51 Avenue to north of 55 Avenue 55 Avenue to east of 56a Street Southeast corner of ESBCHS, south of 40 Avenue to 53 Street South of 40 Avenue from 53 Street east to 48 Street, north to 43 Avenue 48 Street south to 41 Avenue and east to 45 Street Southwest corner of ESBCHS west along Four Seasons Park, and north past 50 Avenue

 

 

Upsize existing 300 mm sewer to a 450 mm sewer



Upsize existing 200 mm sewer to a 375 mm sewer



Upsize existing 200 mm sewer to a 250 mm sewer



Upsize existing 300 mm sewer to a 525 mm sewer



Upsize existing 300 mm sewer to a 450 mm sewer



Upsize existing 200 mm sewer to a 250 mm sewer



Twin the existing 525 mm sewer with a 1200 mm sewer Ensure the invert elevation at the 50 Avenue crossing is 704.375 m or lower for future tie-in



4.4.8 Cost Estimates – Recommended Existing System Upgrades A summary of the costs associated with the recommended existing system upgrades are detailed below in Table 4.22. A full breakdown of the costs has been provided in Appendix G. Class D Cost Estimates for Recommended Upgrades to the Existing System Scenario

Total Cost (Rounded)

Constant 0.28 L/s/ha

$5,250,000

1:5 Year 24-Hour Huff Storm

$0

1:25 Year 24-Hour Huff Storm

$11,750,000

1:50 Year 24-Hour Huff Storm

$12,150,000

Assumptions: Costs herein are comparable to other municipalities.

Costs are representative of 2017.

The total costs have been rounded to the nearest $50,000.

islengineering.com

April 2018

|

Page 53

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Report FINAL

4.5

Future System Analysis

The future system analysis consists of two population horizons: build-out to the pre-annexation boundary and build-out to the post-annexation boundary.

Under the build-out to the pre-annexation boundary horizon, the existing system is assessed assuming that all parcels within the pre-annexation boundary have been developed. This horizon assesses what (if any) upgrades would be required to the existing system to accommodate this future growth. Catchments are based off of existing ASPs, and tie-in points to the existing system are in line with the ASPs as well. This analysis is described in Section 4.5.1.

The build-out to the post-annexation boundary horizon analysis includes a servicing concept that has been proposed for the area, and an assessment of that servicing concept. The assessment consists of ensuring the proposed servicing concept is adequate, and the impact of the servicing concept on the existing system.

This analysis is described in Section 4.5.2.

4.5.1 Build-out to Pre-annexation Boundary Analysis The performance of the existing system under the build-out to the pre-annexation boundary horizon was assessed using the criteria discussed in Section 4.3. Catchment connections are illustrated in Figure 4.58.

The calibrated existing system model was run under the 1:25 year 24-hour Huff design storm under this horizon. The assessment results of the maximum HGL and peak discharge relative to pipe capacity, and spare capacity are shown in Figures 4.59 and 4.60, respectively. Results of the 1:25 year 24-hour Huff storm scenario indicate that the existing system performs well under the build-out to the pre-annexation boundary horizon.

In the southeast, a large portion of the additional parcels under this horizon tie into Trunk Sewer 11. This trunk was installed as a 750 mm sewer, and was likely sized to account for the additional growth in the southeast, specifically Plaines Royer. This is evident from the existing system results, which indicated that there was a large amount of spare capacity in this trunk sewer. The trunk effectively handles the additional flows from this scenario, and also maintains for spare capacity for potential tie-ins from the post-annexation boundary catchments.

In the west, the majority of the future catchments tie into Trunk Sewer 3. At this point, it is assumed that all existing upgrades have been implemented, thus the additional flows from the new catchments would be alleviated through the 1200 mm sewer anticipated to twin the 525 mm sewer.

Future catchments within the pre-annexation boundary in the north are largely conveyed through Trunk Sewer 2. The main growth area in the north is Dansereau Meadows. In this neighbourhood, sewage is anticipated to tie into the existing 525 mm on 65 Street. Existing system results indicated that this sewer has sufficient capacity to accommodate additional flows. This was confirmed through the build-out to the preannexation boundary, which showed that the sewer handled the flows adequately. A fair amount of growth is also proposed for the south quarter section of Coloniale Estates. A portion of these catchments are expected to flow to the south through the 200 mm trunk on 38 Street. The remaining catchments tie to the north through multiple connection points, ultimately to the 200 mm sewer along Coloniale Way which connects to Trunk Sewer 2. Results from the 1:25 year 24-hour Huff scenario under the build-out to the preannexation boundary horizon indicate that there is sufficient capacity to handle these additional flows.

As the sanitary system was able to effectively handle the additional growth areas within the build-out to the pre-annexation boundary, no upgrades are required as shown in Figure 4.61. This is however dependent on the status of the existing system upgrades, as it assumes that all of these upgrades have been implemented. Further surcharging in Trunk Sewers 3, 6, 12, and 14 is likely to occur if build-out within the pre-annexation boundary is achieved but the existing system upgrades have not been dealt with.

Page 54

|

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Report FINAL

4.5.2 Build-out to the Post-annexation Boundary Analysis Servicing Development Principles The proposed sanitary servicing plan for all developable lands based on the build-out to the post-annexation boundary was sized using a spreadsheet approach. This approach was based on the dry weather residential and industrial, commercial, institutional (ICI) generation rates, peaking factors, and the I-I allowance rate outlined in Section 4.3.

The specified sewer sizes are the smallest possible determined based on the minimum design slope to provide a self-cleansing full-sewer velocity of greater than 0.60 m/s as presented in Table 4.23. This was calculated under the derived peak WWFs, based on a roughness coefficient (n) of 0.013 as per the Town of Beaumont General Design Standards, 2011.

Minimum Design Slopes for Sewers Nominal Sewer Size mm

Minimum Design Slope % m/m

Full-Sewer Velocity m/s

Full-Sewer Capacity L/s

200

0.40

0.0040

0.66

20.7

250

0.28

0.0028

0.64

31.5

300

0.22

0.0022

0.64

45.4

375

0.15

0.0015

0.61

67.9

450

0.15

0.0015

0.69

110.4

525

0.15

0.0015

0.77

166.6

600

0.15

0.0015

0.84

237.8

675

0.15

0.0015

0.91

325.6

750

0.15

0.0015

0.98

431.2

900

0.15

0.0015

1.10

701.1

1050

0.15

0.0015

1.22

1,057.6

If flatter slopes are preferred or required at the detailed design stages, this can be reviewed on a case by case basis, though it would have negative repercussions. If this was acceptable, the determined sewer sizes would need to be increased to meet the specified flow designs.

With regards to pumped flows, a new forcemain is typically designed to operate between 1.1 m/s to 2.0 m/s with a preferred velocity of 1.5 m/s. This approach was utilized to size new forcemains for the purpose of developing future servicing options to minimize the resulting head losses which in turn would yield savings on the energy consumption front. Ensuring that forcemains are sized for a minimum velocity of 1.1 m/s helps to keep materials suspended, thus decreasing sediment build-up in the sewer. Each future forcemain was specified as a twin sewer to provide a degree of redundancy, as well as staging of flows.

The servicing schemes are a conceptual concept of the proposed sanitary system. The proposed trunk routing may not necessarily follow within the roadâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s right-of-way. Ultimately, it will be up to the developer to fulfill the intent of the servicing concept presented herein. Therefore, a developer may choose to adjust the alignment of the specified trunks as needed, to accommodate the sanitary system within future developments. A developer may also choose to connect services directly to the future sanitary trunks if found beneficial, provided the designed system does not result in any negative impacts on the directly connected developments. Specifically, surcharge conditions within the system resulting in basement backups is of concern.

islengineering.com

April 2018

|

Page 55

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Report FINAL

Sanitary Servicing Concept The future network assumes all the recommended existing upgrades are implemented. Figure 4.62 shows the proposed wastewater network under the build-out to the post-annexation scenario. The servicing concept of the build-out to the post-annexation scenario was divided into four service regions, as shown in Figure 2.10: North Service Region This service region covers all the quarter sections north of Township Road 510, plus the two northernmost quarter sections of the Elan ASP area. The majority of this service region ties into the SERTS line where the current SERTS Lift Station is situated, with the portion near Beaumontâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Public Works building tying into Trunk Sewer 2. There are three proposed lift stations accompanied by six forcemains. Gravity sewers vary in size from 200 mm to 900 mm while forcemains vary from 150 mm to 375 mm.

West Service Region This service region covers the three west Elan ASP area quarter sections below the SERTS line, portions of the southernmost east quarter section, and the east quarter section directly below the SERTS line. These quarter sections tie into the SERTS line at four locations. All trunks in this service region are proposed as gravity sewers, ranging from 200 mm to 525 mm in size.

Southwest Service Region The Southwest Service Region includes the middle Elan ASP area quarter section south of the SERTS line, a portion of the southeast Elan ASP area quarter section, and approximately one and a half quarter sections south of Township Road 504. This service region requires one lift station accompanied by a twinned 150 mm forcemain, and gravity sewers ranging from 200 mm to 600 mm in size. All parcels in this service region tie into the existing system, along the 1200 mm trunk sewer that was proposed as part of the existing system upgrades.

South Service Region Approximately two and a half quarter sections, all south of Township Road 504, are included in this service region. This service region ties into the existing system at Lakewood Boulevard, and requires a lift station and twinned 250 mm forcemain to connect to the proper existing invert elevation. Gravity sewers in this service region range from 200 mm to 525 mm in diameter.

Five lift stations are proposed as mentioned above; lift station and forcemain details are shown below in Table 4.24. Appendix H contains the detailed calculations, including the gravity and pressurized systems.

Proposed Lift Station and Forcemain Sizing

Page 56

|

Lift Station

Forcemain Size (Twinned) mm

Pump Flow Rate (Peak WWF) L/s

North LS_1

375

250

North LS_2

150

30

North LS_3

250

115

Southwest LS_1

150

25

South LS_1

250

140

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Report FINAL

Cost Estimates â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Build-out to the Post-annexation Boundary Servicing Concept The summary of Class D cost estimate for the preferred servicing option is summarized below in Table 4.25.

For a detailed cost breakdown, please refer to Appendix G. The costs are stipulated for the pipes necessary for the proposed concept only. An assessment of the servicing concept and required upgrades follows.

Class D Cost Estimates for Recommended Future Sanitary Servicing System Item

Service Region North

West

Southwest

South

Total

Trunk Sewer

$9,650,000

$3,200,000

$3,100,000

$1,900,000

$17,850,000

Forcemain

$4,100,000

$0

$600,000

$200,000

$4,900,000

Lift Station

$10,250,000

$0

$750,000

$3,900,000

$14,900,000

Cost per Service Region

$24,000,000

$3,200,000

$4,450,000

$6,000,000

$37,650,000

Assumptions: Costs herein are comparable to other municipalities.

Costs are representative of 2017.

Costs have been rounded to the nearest $50,000.

Build-out to the Post-annexation Boundary Assessment and Upgrades The performance of the existing system under the build-out to the post-annexation boundary horizon was assessed using the criteria discussed in Section 4.3. The calibrated existing system model was run under the 1:25 year 24-hour Huff design storm under this horizon. The purpose of this assessment was to ensure that the proposed servicing concept is effective and that the trunks that tie into the existing system do not undermine the downstream pipes. Under the LOS design storm applied and with routing effects considered, the proposed concept should be able to handle the associated flows. The results of this analysis are shown in Figures 4.63 and 4.64 for maximum HGL and peak discharge relative to pipe capacity, and spare capacity, respectively.

Results of the 1:25 year 24-hour Huff storm indicate that the servicing concept was appropriately sized using the spreadsheet approach. The proposed gravity sewers have HGLs below the crown of the pipe, and water depths within the manholes remained 2.6 m below the ground. The exception to this were the forcemains, which are expected to show HGLs above the crown of the pipes as they represent pressurized systems.

Regarding the existing system, there were two notable locations where the additional tie-ins caused surcharging in the downstream pipes. The first location was the 525 mm sewer from Canal Leblanc Park, east on Lakeview Crescent, and south on Lakewood Boulevard. This is due to the South Service Region network tying into the upstream end of the Lakewood Boulevard trunk. To alleviate the surcharging along this line, the existing 525 mm sewer should be upsized to a 600 mm sewer. These upgrades would only be warranted if the Town wishes to completely mitigate surcharging in the sanitary system, as the HGL along this sewer remains well below 2.6 m from the surface.

There are two alternatives to this servicing concept that would mitigate the surcharging noted above. The first is that Beaumont can consider revising the proposed servicing concept such that the 250 mm forcemain pumps to the downstream end of UPG 3C-1. This would involve running the alignment adjacent to the storm pond and the backs of properties, which may not be desirable in a constructability point of view. This alternative would cost $6.75 million for the South Service Region, an increase of $750,000 from the preferred concept. The second is that Beaumont can consider moving South LS_1 further south, and discharge sewage west along Highway 625 and then north along 50th Street. Based on existing topography in the area, the system would be pumped via a 250 mm forcemain along Highway 625, and north on 50 th Street up to the Panago Pizza located south of 30 th Avenue. From this point, flows could be conveyed via a 525 mm gravity sewer. This alternative would cost approximately $6.80 million for the South Service Region,

islengineering.com

April 2018

|

Page 57

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Report FINAL

an increase of $800,000 from the preferred concept. Both alternatives could be reviewed at the pre-design stage.

The second location is along the extended 900 mm SERTS line on the west side of Beaumont. Surcharging is observed from the current SERTS Lift Station location (proposed to be decommissioned as part of the existing system upgrades) to the tie in to the 1350 mm trunk location. To mitigate the surcharging within the extended SERTS line, the 900 mm sewer could be upsized to a 1050 mm sewer. This could be done at the original time of construction as part of the existing system upgrades to avoid additional implementation costs. Alternatively, the ACRWC stated that this segment of the existing 525 mm SERTS line was designed to operate under surcharge conditions. If agreed upon by all parties involved, the extended 900 mm sewer could remain that size under this growth horizon and maintain a level of surcharging, given that the HGL remains at least 2.6 m from the surface.

The two upgrades described above are illustrated in Figure 4.65. Modelling results for both the maximum HGL and peak discharge relative to pipe capacity, and spare capacity once the upgrades are in place are shown in Figures 4.66 and 4.67. Future system assessment longitudinal profiles of the build-out to the preannexation boundary, and build-out to the post-annexation boundary along with the associated upgrades are shown in Appendix I. Cost Estimates â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Recommended Existing System Upgrades under the Build-out to the Postannexation Boundary Horizon Class D cost estimates are provided in Table 4.26, while a detailed breakdown of the cost estimate is provided in Appendix G. Class D Cost Estimates for Recommended Upgrades under the Full Build-out to the Postannexation Boundary Horizon Item ID

Upgrade Upsize Pipes to 600 mm

UPG 3C - 1

UPG 3C - 2

Total Cost $500,000

Repaving Along Existing Roadways

$350,000

Twin Existing 525 mm Sewer with 1050 mm Sewer

$5,650,000

Total:

$6,500,000

Assumptions: Costs herein are comparable to other municipalities.

Costs are representative of 2017.

Costs have been rounded to the nearest $50,000.

4.6

Next Steps/Staging Plan Recommendations for Optimal Future Servicing

4.6.1 Staging Plan Recommendations The phasing of the recommended sanitary servicing network to meet the build-out to the post-annexation boundary horizon, as illustrated in Figure 4.68, should occur in the following sequence based on the 1:25 year 24-hour Huff storm LOS: 1. Complete the upsizing upgrades within the existing system along 57 Street, 48 Avenue, and along Trunk Sewer 3.

2. Twin the existing 525 mm sewer with a 1200 mm sewer to alleviate the surcharging in the 525 mm sewer. This will increase flows on the downstream system, and trigger upgrades to the SERTS line.

Page 58

|

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Report FINAL

3. Decommission the existing SERTS Lift Station, and extended the 900 mm trunk sewer west to the 1350 mm trunk on 9 Street. A separate tie in point to the 1350 mm trunk is recommended. Under the build-out to the post-annexation boundary horizon, the additional flows result in some surcharging in the proposed 900 mm sewer. If surcharging is not acceptable, this 900 mm sewer should be installed as a 1050 mm sewer instead. That said, the ACRWC mentioned that the exiting 525 mm was designed to operate under surcharge conditions, therefore minor surcharging in the 900 mm sewer may be approved.

4. Pockets of land in the annexation area include the commercial and industrial parcels surrounding Beaumontâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Public Works building in N-7, the residential and commercial parcels in W-4 and W-6, and the residential parcel in W-3. These were selected to ensure that the combined cost expenditures across the water and wastewater utility systems were the least among all parcels within close proximity to existing infrastructure. Reduced capital costs were a result of little to no upgrades required to the existing system, no additional pressure zones needed, and no major lift stations or forcemains. Selecting these parcels does not limit the degree of land that is developable, just highlights the sections that are considered growth ready.

5. Industrial parcels in the south can be activated by either implementing the gravity system proposed in the Southwest Service Region (if Southwest LS_1 is not constructed right away, roughly 71 ha of industrial lands would be available by gravity, or 98 ha total), or constructing the gravity/pressurized system proposed in the South Service Region (152 ha total).

6. Begin development of the service regions subject to development pressures/locations.

7. Set aside sufficient land for a utility corridor to accommodate to the post-annexation boundary and beyond, as shown in Figure 4.69. Note that the intent of this plan should be met, but exact routing can vary as it fits with future development concepts, provided the connection points for adjacent lands are generally preserved.

4.6.2 Non-Residential Land Requirements The Town has addressed a desire to develop non-residential areas. In terms of the post-annexation lands, the majority of non-residential areas are in the south, covering the entire South Service Region, and a large portion of the Southwest Service Region. To begin development in these service regions, not all upgrades recommended to the existing system will be required. This is discussed in detail below.

In the South Service Region, approximately 152 ha of industrial area is available for development. Assuming build-out to the pre-annexation boundary has occurred, the section of pipe downstream of the proposed 250 mm forcemain along the section identified as requiring upgrades (UPG 3C-1) has a limiting spare capacity of roughly 80 L/s. That said, it would be possible to bring approximately 88 ha of non-residential land online before triggering UPG 3C-1, which is equivalent to about 58% of the South Service Region. If no other development has occurred in the post-annexation boundary, i.e. in any other service regions, UPG 3C2 would not be required. In terms of the existing condition upgrades, UPG 1C-1, UPG 1C-2, and the majority of UPG 1C-10 must be completed prior to development of this service region. The required upgrades for bring the South Service Region online are shown in Figure 4.70.

In the Southwest Service Region, approximately 100 ha of non-residential area, including commercial, industrial, and business park developments, is available for development. To bring this service region online, UPG 1C-1, UPG 1C-2, and approximately 20% of UPG 1C-10 must be completed prior to development of this service region. Assuming build-out to the pre-annexation boundary has occurred and no other service regions have been developed, no other upgrades would be required. Build-out of the Southwest Service Region is shown in Figure 4.71.

islengineering.com

April 2018

|

Page 59

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Report FINAL

Blank page left intentionally

Page 60

|

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

5.0 Blackmud/Whitemud Creek Analysis 5.1

Analysis Background

In 2017, a study was undertaken to assess the hydrologic, hydraulic, and environmental aspects of the Blackmud and Whitemud Creek basins. The findings of this analysis were summarized in a report entitled Blackmud/Whitemud Creek Surface Water Management Study, 2017.

Five municipalities were involved in this regional study, as the basins span portions of each one, including: 

The Town of Beaumont



The City of Edmonton



The City of Leduc



Strathcona County



Leduc County

The Blackmud and Whitemud Creek watersheds are shown in Figure No. 2-1 of the Blackmud/Whitemud Creek Surface Water Management Study, 2017, which is attached in Appendix J. Historically, the Blackmud/Whitemud basins have experienced a number of drainage, flooding, and erosion control issues, which are expected to increase over time. The purpose of the study was to understand the effects on the watersheds, and to ensure the effects are properly mitigated and controlled. In the past, a variety of policies and release rates have been adopted and applied to these basins. Another goal of the study was to recommend policies and design criteria to ensure consistency among the member municipalities. The study, if approved by AEP, will expedite drainage planning and approvals by establishing a single set of stormwater management policies.

5.2

Findings of Study

A summary of the recommendations proposed is provided below. For further detailed information, please reference the Blackmud/Whitemud Creek Surface Water Management Study, 2017 document.

1. A maximum release rate of 3.0 L/s/ha should be adopted, with consideration for higher release rates in Edmonton International Airport (EIA) zones to minimize concerns regarding bird hazards.

2. Protect floodplain land from further development by dedicating floodplain overlay in land use bylaws as Environmental Reserves.

3. Development sites with extensive overland flooding should be considered as wetlands or stormwater management facilities (SWMF).

4. Channel improvement and/or trunk sewers should be used to mitigate impacts of future development within the basins.

5. Detailed drainage planning and floodplain modelling will be required in subsequent planning stages.

6. All environmental precautions should be taken during construction of drainage works.

7. Further analysis will be necessary to integrate existing wetlands into developable areas, establish appropriate water management strategies, and to determine water levels of existing and proposed wetlands.

8. The construction of wet ponds and wetlands over dry ponds within the basins should be promoted, with the exception of in the EIA exclusion zone.

9. The use of low impact development (LID) measures should be promoted to reduce runoff volumes.

10. Erosion sites should be repaired and remediated as required.

11. Future costs and cost sharing for offsite improvements will be determined through further studies.

islengineering.com

April 2018

|

Page 61

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Report FINAL

12. Monitoring programs for water quality, rainfall, and flow data within the basis should be undertaken to help with determining the impacts of development.

13. Water quality assessment should be considered for all areas of the watersheds.

14. Ongoing coordination between the member municipalities will be required to ensure that consistent stormwater management design criteria is applied.

15. Coordination between the member municipalities and AEP will be necessary for future development approvals.

16. A design standard for pond drawdown should be further reviewed by completing subsequent studies.

5.3

Additional Recommendations

It is recommended that when planning out stormwater for future development areas, that utility corridors for the sanitary system as shown in Figure 4.69 be considered for future storm sewer trunks as sanitary tends to be more grade restricted than storm sewer.

Page 62

|

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Report FINAL

6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions and recommendations for the Study are summarized in Section 6.1 for the water distribution system and Section 6.2 for the sanitary conveyance system.

6.1

Conclusions and Recommendations â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Water Servicing

6.1.1 Conclusions Conclusions for the water servicing portion of the Study are as follows: Existing Water System 1. The existing water system exhibits some high pressures in the west under ADD, when the Main Reservoir and Pumphouse has control and when the St. Vital Reservoir and Pumphouse has control.

2. The existing water system exhibits some high pressures in the west under MDD when the St. Vital Reservoir and Pumphouse has control.

3. The existing water system exhibits some high pressures in the west, and some low pressures in the central northeast under PHD when the Main Reservoir and Pumphouse has control.

4. The existing water system exhibits some high pressures in the west under ADD plus St. Vital fill, when the Main Reservoir and Pumphouse has control.

5. Existing mains between the Main Reservoir and Pumphouse and 50 Avenue exhibit high velocities under PHD when the Main Reservoir and Pumphouse has control due to small pipe size.

6. The existing water system has some low fire flows in the south, and in several isolated locations.

7. The existing St. Vital Reservoir and Pumphouse has issues turning over water. This is associated with limited available pumping rates. Main Reservoir and Pumphouse can meet PHD with firm capacity.

8. The existing water system has adequate ADD and FF storage is available.

Future Water System 1. The pre-annexation water system exhibits high pressures in the west under ADD. 2. The pre-annexation water system exhibits some high pressures in the west and some low pressures in the central northeast under MDD when St. Vital and West Reservoirs and Pumphouses have control.

3. The pre-annexation water system exhibits excessive low pressures in the central northeast under PHD when the Main Reservoir and Pumphouse has control.

4. The pre-annexation water system exhibits high pressures in the west under ADD plus St. Vital fill, when the Main Reservoir and Pumphouse has control.

5. Pre-annexation Mains between the Main Reservoir and Pumphouse and 44 Street exhibit high velocities when the Main Reservoir and Pumphouse has control, between RGE 243 and 69 St when West Reservoir and Pumphouse has control, and between the St. Vital Reservoir and Pumphouse and 44 Street due to small pipe size.

6. The pre-annexation water system has some low fire flows in several isolated locations.

7. The pre-annexation Main, West, and St. Vital Reservoir and Pumphouses lack adequate pumping availability.

8. The pre-annexation water system lacks adequate ADD and FF storage.

9. The post-annexation water system exhibits high pressures in the west under ADD, when the Main Reservoir and Pumphouse has control and when the St. Vital Reservoir and Pumphouse has control.

10. The post-annexation water system exhibits high pressures in the west under ADD.

islengineering.com

April 2018

|

Page 63

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Report FINAL

11. The post-annexation water system exhibits some low pressures in the central northeast under MDD when West and St. Vital Reservoirs and Pumphouses have control, as well as some high pressures in the west when West Reservoir and Pumphouse has control.

12. The post-annexation water system exhibits excessive low pressures under PHD when the Main Reservoir and Pumphouse has control.

13. The post-annexation water system exhibits high pressures in the west under ADD plus St. Vital fill, when the Main Reservoir and Pumphouse has control.

14. Various sections of the post-annexation water system exhibit high velocities.

15. The post-annexation water system has some low fire flows in several isolated locations.

16. The post-annexation Main, West and St. Vital Reservoir and Pumphouses lack adequate pumping availability., 17. The post-annexation water system lacks adequate ADD and FF storage.

6.1.2 Recommendations Recommendations for the water servicing portion of the Study are as follows: Existing Water System 1. Upsize the mains linking the Main Reservoir and Pumphouse to 50 Avenue 500 mm.

2. Review adding an additional pressure zone for the northwest as an option to reduce high pressures in the area as part of future development.

3. St. Vital Reservoir and Pumphouse pumps are recommended for upgrade to a firm capacity of 220.9 L/s to meet at least pre-annexation MDD. 4. Upsize watermains that are 100 mm or 150 mm to 200 mm or 250 mm (or larger) at the time of future roadworks programs, to combine costs. Additionally replace any asbestos cement, copper or steel mains with PVC. Particular focus should be put on the central northeast, where pressures tend to be low.

5. Continue developing the ring road to improve south fire flow.

Future Water System 1. For the pre-annexation system, upsize various mains.

2. For the pre-annexation system, the Main Reservoir and Pumphouse pumps are recommended for upgrade to a firm capacity of 441.9 L/s to meet at least PHD. 3. For the pre-annexation system add 3,900 m3 of storage at West Reservoir and Pumphouse.

4. For the post-annexation system upsize various mains.

5. For the post-annexation system, the Main Reservoir and Pumphouse pumps are recommended for upgrade to a firm capacity of 1,095.7 L/s to meet at least PHD and the St. Vital and West Reservoirs and Pumphouses are recommended for upgrade to a firm capacity of 547.9 L/s to meet at least MDD. 6. For the post-annexation system add 28,300 m3 of storage at West Reservoir and Pumphouse.

7. Add a Northwest Pressure Zone with 40,200 m3 of storage and 874.0 L/s of firm capacity.

Page 64

|

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont – Report FINAL

6.2

Conclusions and Recommendations – Sanitary Servicing

6.2.1 Conclusions Conclusions for the sanitary servicing portion of the Study are as follows: Existing Sanitary System 1. The existing sanitary system performs adequately under dry weather flow conditions.

2. The performance of the existing system was assessed under the following four scenarios: 

Inflow-Infiltration allowance of 0.28 L/s/ha as per the Alberta Environment and Parks’ Guidelines



The City of Edmonton’s 1:5 year 24-hour 4th Quartile Huff Storm as per Beaumont’s General Design Standards



The City of Edmonton’s 1:25 year 24-hour 4th Quartile Huff Storm as per Beaumont’s General Design Standards



3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

The City of Edmonton’s 1:50 year 24-hour 4th Quartile Huff Storm as per Beaumont’s General Design Standards The existing conditions analysis indicated that a number of trunk sewers are surcharged under multiple assessment rainfall even scenarios. Some reoccurring problem areas include Trunk Sewer 1 (SERTS line), Trunk Sewer 3, Trunk Sewer 6, Trunk Sewer 12, and Trunk Sewer 14.

Extremely high observed inflow-infiltration rates were calculated based off of the 2014 and 2016 flow monitoring data for areas upstream of Sites 1, 3, and 5, as shown in Tables 4.14 and 4.15 in Section 4.4.5, with the rates surpassing the recommended rate stipulated by AEP of 0.28 L/s/ha. These sites are consistent with the sites with high imperviousness and percent RDII values noted during WWF calibration. Significant runoff rates were also projected for areas upstream of flow monitoring Sites 3 and 5 under the assessment rainfall events. This indicates a high likelihood of these areas experiencing above average inflow-infiltration.

Weeping tile connections were found to be prominent downtown, which among other sources such as cross-connections, cracks and chips on manhole covers and along pipes, poor seals, or missing cleanout caps, could be causing the observed high I-I rates.

An analysis of basement flooding under the three Huff design storm assessment scenarios indicated that 154, 290, and 404 properties would be inundated under the 1:5 year, 1:25 year, and 1:50 year 24-hour 4th quartile Huff storms, respectively.

The 1:25 year 24-hour 4th quartile Huff storm was selected as the desired LOS to assess future system conditions.

Future Sanitary System 1. The existing conveyance system was found to perform adequately under the selected LOS under buildout to the pre-annexation boundary conditions.

2. The proposed sanitary system concept is comprised of gravity sewers, lift stations, and forcemains across four service regions that ultimately connect to the SERTS line.

3. Under build-out to the post-annexation boundary conditions scenario, the existing conveyance system was generally found to perform adequately. Minor surcharging was noted in the 525 mm sewer downstream of the South Service Region network and the extended 900 mm SERTS line recommended as part of the existing system upgrades.

4. Hydraulic assessment of the proposed sanitary system indicates that the conceptual network would be sufficient in managing sewage generated from the future development areas.

islengineering.com

April 2018

|

Page 65

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Report FINAL

6.2.2 Recommendations Recommendations for the sanitary servicing portion of the Study are as follows: Existing Sanitary System 1. To mitigate surcharging in the existing system, complete the upsizing upgrades recommended under the LOS design storm scenario. This includes upsizing the sewers along 57 Street, 48 Avenue, and along Trunk Sewer 3.

2. Twin the existing 525 mm sewer with a 1200 mm sewer to alleviate the surcharging in the 525 mm sewer. This will increase flows on the downstream system, and trigger upgrades to the SERTS line.

3. Decommission the existing SERTS Lift Station, and extend the 900 mm trunk sewer west to the 1350 mm trunk on 9 Street. A separate tie in point to the 1350 mm trunk is recommended.

4. Conduct an inflow-infiltration field investigation program in order to pinpoint the sources of I-I. Field investigation could consist of smoke testing, micro flow monitoring, dye testing and CCTV inspections.

Once the field investigation is completed and areas of sources of I-I have been identified, these issues should be mitigated. Additional flow monitoring and WWF calibration would be required following the program to update the runoff and I-I model parameters.

Future Sanitary System 1. The future sanitary system should be designed based on the Town of Beaumont General Design Standards, 2011, and design criteria stipulated in this report.

2. Construct a future sanitary servicing system as denoted in Figure 4.62. The costs of these additions are $37.7 million.

3. To address staging of the future infrastructure, refer to the following: a. Pockets of land in the annexation area include the commercial and industrial parcels surrounding Beaumontâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Public Works building in N-7, the residential and commercial parcels in W-4 and W-6, and the residential parcel in W-3. These were selected to ensure that the combined cost expenditures across the water and wastewater utility systems were the least among all parcels within close proximity to existing infrastructure. Selecting these parcels does not limit the degree of land that is developable, just highlights the sections that are considered growth ready. b. Industrial parcels in the south can be activated by either implementing the gravity system proposed in the Southwest Service Region (if Southwest LS_1 is not constructed right away, roughly 71 ha of industrial lands would be available by gravity, or 98 ha total), or constructing the gravity/pressurized system proposed in the South Service Region (152 ha total). c. Begin development of the service regions subject to development pressures/locations.

4. Set aside sufficient land for a utility corridor to accommodate to the post-annexation boundary and beyond, as shown in Figure 4.69.

5. In the South Service Region, 88 ha of industrial lands could be activated without triggering additional upgrades required to the existing system. This assumes that UPG 1C-1, UPG 1C-2, and the majority of UPG 1C-10 have been implemented, full build-out to the pre-annexation boundary has occurred, and no other post-annexation service regions have been developed.

6. In the Southwest Service Region, approximately 100 ha of non-residential lands can go online with minimal upgrades required. This is assuming full build-out to the pre-annexation boundary has occurred, and no other post-annexation service regions have been developed. The required upgrades occur under existing conditions and include UPG 1C-1, UPG 1C-2, and about 20% of UPG 1C-10.

Page 66

|

April 2018

Water and Wastewater Systems: 2018 and Beyond Town of Beaumont â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Report FINAL

7.0 References AECOM. 2013 Existing Pumphouse Upgrades â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Updated Control Narrative.

Alberta Environment. 2006. Standards and Guidelines for Municipal Waterworks, Wastewater, and Storm Drainage Systems.

Associated Engineering. 2017. Blackmud/Whitemud Creek Surface Water Management Study.

Capital Region Board. 2016. Edmonton Metropolitan Region Growth Plan.

Challenger Geomatics Ltd. 2008. Montrose Estates Outline Plan.

CORVUS Business Advisors. 2014. Town of Beaumont: Annexation Financial Impact Analysis.

DGE Civil Engineering Consultants. 2017. Beau Val Park/Beaumont Lakes South Area Structure Plan.

Fire Underwriters Survey. 1995. A Guide to Public Fire Protection.

Focus. 2013. Ruisseau Outline Plan.

Focus. 2008. Coloniale Estates Outline Plan.

Invistec Consulting Ltd. 2017. Lakeview Area Structure Plan.

Invistec Consulting Ltd. 2015. Place Chaleureuse Outline Plan.

Invistec Consulting Ltd., Callidus Development Management + Advisory, Balance Landscape Architecture.

2017. Elan Area Structure Plan.

ISL Engineering and Land Services Ltd. 2017. Draft Municipal Development Plan, Our Complete Community.

ISL Engineering and Land Services Ltd. 2014. Beaumont Growth Study 2014 Update.

Our Beaumont. 2017. Our Planned Areas: Consolidated Area Structure Plan.

Select Engineering Consultants Ltd. 2017. Forest Heights Outline Plan Amendment.

Select Engineering Consultants Ltd. 2015. Triomphe Estates Outline Plan.

Town of Beaumont. 2011. General Design Standards.

Town of Beaumont. 2017. Municipal Census Population Report.

UMA, AECOM. 2007. Town of Beaumont Water and Sanitary Sewer Assessment.

Wastewater Planning Users Group. 2002. Code of Practice for the Hydraulic Modelling of Sewer Systems.

islengineering.com

April 2018

|

Page 67