100 water report final rev3 - regional district of central ... 10 hp well pump capacity has been...

Water Water Water Water SystemSystemSystemSystem PrePrePrePre----Design ReportDesign ReportDesign ReportDesign Report

Falcon RidgeFalcon RidgeFalcon RidgeFalcon Ridge Water UtilityWater UtilityWater UtilityWater Utility

MayMayMayMay, 20, 20, 20, 2011115555

Water Abbreviations

AES Atmospheric Environment Service MIgpd Million Imperial gallons per day

ADD Average Daily Demand MCDSC Min. of Community Development Sport & Culture

ALR Agricultural Land Commission MFLNRO Ministry of Forest Land Natural Resource Ops

AO Aesthetic Objective MoH Ministry of Health

AWWA American Water works Association NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit

BMID Black Mountain Irrigation District OCP Official Community Plan

CCI Construction Cost Indices O & M Operations and Maintenance

Cl2 Chlorine or sodium hypochlorite PHD Peak hour demand

CPI Consumer Price Index PRV Pressure reducing valve

DAF Dissolved Air Flotation PS Pump Station

DBP Disinfection by-product psi pounds per square inch (pressure)

DSM Demand Side Management PLC Programmable Logic Controller

DWPA Drinking Water Protection Act PZ Pressure Zone (normal HGL in metres)

DWPR Drinking Water Protection Regulation RDCO Regional District of Central Okanagan

EPA Environment Protection Agency RPBA Reduced Pressure Backflow Assembly

FF Fire flow SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition

FUS Fire Underwriters Survey SFE Single Family Equivalent (equivalent to SF lot)

GCDWQ Guideline for Canadian Drinking Water Quality SDWR Safe Drinking Water Regulation

HGL Hydraulic Grade Line (slope of water in m/m) SWTR Surface Water Treatment Rule

HST Harmonized Sales Tax TCU True Color Units

Igpd Imperial Gallons per day TDH Total Dynamic Head

Igpm Imperial Gallons per minute THM Trihalomethane

IH Interior Health TOC Total Organic Carbon

L litre TWL Top Water Level ( metres )

L/ca/d Litres per capita per day UFW Unaccounted for Water

L/s litres per second (flow rate) µg/L micrograms / litre ( parts per billion)

m3/s cubic metre per second, (flow rate) uS /cm micro siemens

mg/L milligrams/litre ( parts per million) USgpm US gallons per minute

MAC Maximum Acceptable Concentration WSC Water Survey of Canada

MCC Motor Control Centre UV Ultraviolet

MF multi-family

ML megalitre ( one million litres = 1,000 m3)

ML/day megalitres per day

MDD Maximum daily demand

Image: Front Page – Aerial Photography – Kelowna Fire Department – Mission Creek just upstream of Falcon Ridge Utility

AAAAgua Consulting Inc.gua Consulting Inc.gua Consulting Inc.gua Consulting Inc. “Engineered Water Solutions”“Engineered Water Solutions”“Engineered Water Solutions”“Engineered Water Solutions”

Agua file: 030-07-401

May 29, 2015 Regional District of Central Okanagan 1450 KLO Road Kelowna, BC V1W 3Z4 Attention: Mr. Michael Noga, AScT., Project Manager Re: Falcon Ridge Water System Upgrade - Pre-Design Final Report Dear Michael: We are pleased to present our pre-design report for the Falcon Ridge Water Utility upgrades. The report contains the following items:

1. A summary of water system infrastructure;

2. A review of existing and future water demands;

3. An assessment of the trended water quality impacts;

4. Review of Reservoir siting and construction footprint;

5. A review of water intake options to upgrade quality and capacity;

6. Summary of the site reviews carried out in the fall of 2014;

7. Conclusions and Recommendations on how to best proceed to improve the water quality;

8. Geotechnical report prepared by Cascade Geotechnical.

We thank you for the opportunity to be of service. Yours truly,

AAAAgua Consulting Inc.gua Consulting Inc.gua Consulting Inc.gua Consulting Inc. Bob Hrasko, P.Eng. Principal RJH/rh

FALCON RIDGE WATER UTILITY

WATER SYSTEM UPGRADES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

iiii

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 DESIGN OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................................................... 4 1.3 EXISTING WATER SYSTEM - FALCON RIDGE UTILITY ........................................................................... 5

2. CRITERIA .................................................................................................................................. 7 2.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 WATER QUALITY CRITERIA ................................................................................................................. 7 2.3 WATER QUANTITY CRITERIA ............................................................................................................... 8 2.4 WATER DEMAND ASSESSMENT ......................................................................................................... 11

3. GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................... 13 3.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 13

4. INTAKE OPTIONS ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................ 17 4.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 17 4.2 WATER QUALITY TRENDS ................................................................................................................. 17 4.3 SOURCE WATER OPTIONS ................................................................................................................ 20 4.4 STAGED WATER TREATMENT APPROACH .......................................................................................... 29 4.5 INTAKE COST ESTIMATE ................................................................................................................... 30

5. RESERVOIR EXPANSION ASSESSMENT .......................................................................... 31 5.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 31 5.2 EXISTING RESERVOIR ....................................................................................................................... 31 5.3 RESERVOIR SITING OPTIONS ............................................................................................................ 32 5.4 RESERVOIR SIZING OPTIONS ............................................................................................................ 34 5.5 RECOMMENDED RESERVOIR SITE ..................................................................................................... 35 5.6 RESERVOIR COST ESTIMATE ............................................................................................................ 37

6. SYSTEM EXPANSION OPTIONS .......................................................................................... 39 6.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 39 6.2 EXPANSION AREAS .......................................................................................................................... 39 6.3 ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS .................................................................................................................... 43 6.4 FUTURE WATER TREATMENT CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................ 45

7. SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 47 7.1 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 47 7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 48

APPENDIX A - GEOTECHNICAL REPORT ..................................................................................... 51

APPENDIX B - PROPERTY SUMMARY LISTINGS ........................................................................ 53

APPENDIX C - REFERENCE DOCUMENTATION .......................................................................... 55



TABLE OF CONTENTS

iiiiiiii



SECTION 1.0

INTRODUCTION

3333

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

This draft report provides our assessment for how to best improve water supply reliability for the Falcon Ridge Water Utility. The current water supply system is challenged in regards to having a reliable and high quality supply. The existing infiltration gallery has capacity issues and supply has to be augmented by pumping directly from Mission Creek during the summer months.

This draft report is presented in the following sections:

1. Introduction: Provides the items that will be addressed within this technical memorandum;

2. Design Objectives / Existing Water Demand: Sets out criteria for water quality, water demand, reservoir storage sizing, along with design objectives to be achieved. The existing maximum daily water demand is summarized. Future water demands will be covered in this section;

3. Geotechnical Assessment: Information from the geotechnical information carried out on September 23, 2014 are provided here and in Appendix A;

4. Intake Options Assessment: Provides a list of options for development of a reliable and secure intake from Mission Creek, including by direct access, through infiltration, or through a combination of the first two options;

5. Reservoir Expansion Assessment: Sets out the location and rationale for determining where the reservoir expansion should be planned. Size and configuration are included in this assessment;

6. System Expansion Assessment: Are provided for expansion of the water distribution system including possible pump stations, reservoirs and PRV stations;

7. Summary: Conclusions and recommendations for this report are listed in Section 8.



SECTION 1.0

INTRODUCTION

4444

1.2 DESIGN OBJECTIVES

Tasks that were carried out by Agua Consulting Inc. for the Falcon Ridge Water System Upgrades are intended to meet the design objectives of the Regional District. These objectives include the list of items provided in their Terms of Reference for this project issued July 10, 2014.

The three main items to be addressed are:

1. Water Quantity and Quality Improvements: Provide options assessment and engineering for a water intake system that provides adequate and sustainable water supply and reduces turbidity for the Falcon Ridge Water System as per the Scope of Work;

2. New Reservoir: Provide options assessment and engineering for a new reservoir for the Falcon Ridge Water System as per the Scope of Work. A new reservoir is needed to provide additional storage for domestic demand, fire demand for existing users, and increased capacity for potential service area expansion;

3. Potential New Connections: Identify neighbouring properties that could connect to the water system cost effectively in the future.

The format of this report is adjusted to conform to the requirements in the Terms of Reference.



SECTION 1.0

INTRODUCTION

5555

1.3 EXISTING WATER SYSTEM - FALCON RIDGE UTILITY

The Falcon Ridge domestic water supply originates from Mission Creek. Mission Creek recharges a shallow well adjacent to and north of Mission Creek. The system serves 55 single-family homes that are located above north of Mission Creek near Highway 33. Daily demands for the water system have not been recorded therefore Maximum Daily Demand estimates are provided based on reasonable estimates.

The system includes the following components.

� Source water is obtained via a groundwater well located on the north side of Mission Creek. The well is of very shallow depth and is considered to be Groundwater Under Direct influence of Mission Ck;

� A 10 hp well pump lifts the water up from approximately elevation 738m to the closed concrete balancing reservoir located on the north side of Highway 33 on the property immediately west of the Cardinal Creek-Highway 33 intersection. The reservoir high water elevation is estimated to be at approximately 868 metres;

� The 10 hp well pump capacity has been estimated by Associated Engineering to be 3.2 L/s. The SCADA system estimates the pump flow to be 3.51 L/s;

� A 100mm dedicated transmission main conveys water from the well a distance of 990 metres to the 868m Reservoir;

� Disinfection is provided by means of sodium hypochlorite solution injection into the pipe entering the 868m Reservoir;

� Chlorination residual levels vary, depending on water temperature and chlorine demand and decay, and raw water quality which can have spikes in turbidity at certain times of year or higher colour, depending on the source water from above;

� The rectangular concrete reservoir is calculated to store 168 cubic metres of water;

� There is no pump back-up in the event of a failure and supply is dependent on the use of reservoir storage.



SECTION 1.0

INTRODUCTION

6666

The following figures are included and presented on the following pages:

� Figure 1.1 Aerial View of Transmission main from Wellhead to Reservoir;

� Figure 1.2 Key infrastructure Components map;

Figure 1.1 – Transmission Main Route – Source (Elev 723) to Reservoir (Elev 868)

Image Source - Google Earth/RDCO

To prepare this report, the following information was reviewed:

� Available topographic and aerial mapping;

� Earlier consultants and staff reports on the source water;

� Associated Engineering Report, 2012;

� Water quality data from Falcon Ridge Utility

� Water quality data from BMID on Mission Creek spanning the past 20 years;

� Water flow records for Mission Creek from Water Survey of Canada;

� Site visits on August 18, 2014 and September 4, 2014;

� Geotechnical Investigation that took place on September 23, 2014;



SECTION 2.0

CRITERIA

7777

2. CRITERIA

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Water supply criterion for this analysis is presented in Section 2. Water quality and treatment objectives of the regulator are provided. Criteria are provided for water demand, water quality and treatment, and for fire protection. Subdivision bylaw standards of the RDCO are presented as are variations of those standards that may be more appropriate for this application.

2.2 WATER QUALITY CRITERIA

To provide safe drinking water, the water utilities must meet the criteria set out within Drinking Water Protection Regulation, BC Reg. 200/2003. The regulation sets out the standards for water supply by public and private utilities in BC. The regulation does not set out stringent requirements for individual water quality parameters such as turbidity, colour, etc., but leaves this to the discretion of the Drinking Water Officer. The Drinking Water Officer’s authority is delegated by the Province to the local health authorities. This responsibility lies with the appointed Medical Health Officer. INTERIOR HEALTH REQUIREMENTS

The Interior Health requires that all larger water utilities in the Southern Interior meet the 4,3,2,1,0 Drinking Water Objective. The objective is derived from the GCDWQ and other industry and regulatory practices. It is defined as:

4 log (99.99%) Removal and/or inactivation of Bacteria and Viruses;

3 log (99.9%) Removal and/or inactivation of protozoa including Giardia Lamblia and Cryptosporidium;

2 treatment barriers Refers to at least 2 treatment processes for all surface water or unprotected GW sources;

< 1.0 NTU turbidity Refers to maintaining a turbidity of less than 1.0 unit year round;

0 Total Coliforms/E.Coli In the system at all times

Falcon Ridge Utility utilizes a shallow groundwater source that is influenced by the quality of raw water in Mission Creek. The need for filtration or two types of treatment is required. The existing chlorination system provides a level of assurance that viruses and bacteria are inactivated and that regrowth of bacteria within the water distribution system is reduced. The Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality (GCDWQ) is one of the critical documents relied upon by Interior Health. The table of specific parameters was recently updated and just recently released and is available on the web at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/water-eau/2012-sum_guide-res_recom/index-eng.php



SECTION 2.0

CRITERIA

8888

2.3 WATER QUANTITY CRITERIA

The water quantity criterion includes hydraulic criteria, water demand criteria and fire protection standards. Hydraulic criterion in the Okanagan varies somewhat, depending on the utility. There are utilities that are solely domestic water providers such as the ski hill water utilities, those that have a large indoor number of multiple family connections such as the City of Kelowna, and those such as South East Kelowna Irrigation District and Black Mountain Irrigation District, who provide domestic service and a significant volume of irrigation to the agricultural community. The RDCO utilizes subdivision bylaw No. 704 with amendments. Specific criteria used are as follows:

Roughness Coefficient “C” for water main analysis 120 Maximum Allowable Velocity under fire flow (FF) condition 4.0 m/s Maximum Allowable Velocity under Peak Hour Demand (PHD) 2.0 m/s Minimum Fire Flow (FFmin) 60 L/s Maximum Static Pressure 1000 kPa ( 145 psi) Minimum Static Pressure 275 kPa ( 40 psi) Minimum Residual Pressure under Max Day Demand (MDD) 250 kPa ( 36 psi) Minimum Residual Pressure under MDD plus Fire demand 140 kPa ( 20 psi) Average Daily Demand (ADD) for new development 900 L/person/day Maximum Daily Demand (MDD) for new development 2,400 L/person/day Peak hour demand (PHD) 4,000 L/person/day Density 3.0 person / SF unit

Recent trending has shown a reduction in the water demand design criteria. The amount of water per person or per household has been dropping in recent years due to the higher attention to conservation, water metering, smaller lot sizes, higher density (less space per person) and the price of water. In 2011, the City of Kelowna reduced its subdivision bylaw criteria to the following numbers for water demand.

Maximum Daily Demand (MDD) for single family housing 1,800 L/person/day Maximum Daily Demand (MDD) for multi-family housing 900 L/person/day

In moving forward with water system planning, water demand allotments are now typically being set lower than historic averages. Actual water usage is also dropping. This is leading to more effective water usage and lower infrastructure costs and a lower expectation of water availability by the public. Based on monthly demand records from the RDCO, actual maximum daily water demand at Falcon Ridge Utility based on 3.0 persons per residence and 55 homes is low. It averages 1,500 L/connection/day through the summer, or 500 L/ca/day. When reviewing the pump run times, the maximum daily number is significantly higher.



SECTION 2.0

CRITERIA

9999

Recommended Water Demand Criteria It is recommended that the RDCO consider using criteria that more accurately reflects this area’s water usage. The existing water usage is in the range of 1.50 m3/ day per connection for the summer months. With an average density of 3.0 persons per SF unit, this is only 500 L/ca/day. Typical indoor water demand, based on winter metered data for the Kelowna area, is in the range of 18 m3/month. A demand of 18m3/month works out to only 600 L/day/conn. or 200 L/ca/day. Our best estimate for winter demand would be consistent with the 200 L/ca/day amount. For summer demand, we believe that the demands of 790 L/ca/day should be increased to account for hotter days in the summer and a flow of 1,000 L/ca/day should be utilized for the outdoor component. The recommended demand criteria for estimating existing maximum daily demand (MDD) should be set as follows: MDD per person 1,200 L/ca/day MDD per connection 3,600 L/connection More information should be considered prior to adopting the above estimate. The detailed information to be collected should include:

1. Pump Flow Estimate: The current well pump flow estimated by Associated Eng. is 3.2 L/s. For this flow, the efficiency of the 10hp pump works out to only 58%. The RDCO has within their SCADA system pumped hours and total flow pumped. The total flow rate as calculated on May 3, 2013 was 42.7 m3 in 3.4 hours or a rate of 3.51 L/s. The existing pumping capacity of the well pump should be verified. This can be done by measurements at the reservoir at low demand times. The reservoir level in winter mid-day, for one hour of pumping and supplying demand, one hour of pump off, and another after with pumping should be recorded. By the monitoring the change in reservoir levels, this estimate can provide some insight into how much water is being drawn to the system and how much water the well pump moves up to the reservoir.

2. Pump Run Hours: With a longer period of pump flow rates, the pump run hours can be used to accurately monitor the water demands on a daily basis. This information will validate the MDD criteria. Longer period records that what is presently available would assist in the further design and upgrades of the system.



SECTION 2.0

CRITERIA

10101010

Fire Protection Coverage

In accordance with the Insurers Advisory Organization (IAO) and the Fire Underwriters Survey (FUS), we would recommend that if fire protection is to be provided, that only the minimum flow of 60 L/s as presented in Table 2.1 be utilized for assessing fire hydrant coverage and for determining the fire flow duration for varying flow demands. In some rural areas, a lower flow is utilized. For this site a flow of 60 L/s is recommended. The duration required would be 1.50 hours. It should be noted that fire protection capacity from municipal type water system is sufficient only for local house fires. For a rural forested interface area such as this, if a major forest fire were to occur, the municipal system would not be adequate to fight the fire. It should also be noted that the municipal system should have sufficient water so that in the event of a house fire during a summer drought condition, the system must be of sufficient capacity to contain the house fire and cover some of the adjacent property to prevent it carrying on into the forest interface. Reservoir Storage Sizing

Reservoir storage sizing is based on the sum of balancing storage (6 hrs. of MDD), fire protection storage (based on IAO) and emergency storage (25% of balancing and fire storage). Reservoir size is to be the sum of A + B + C where: A = Balancing storage equal to 6 hours of MDD B = Fire storage of the critical fire flow for the appropriate duration C = Emergency storage of 25% of (A+B) Emergency Supply Criteria

Currently water is provided to the system via a single well pump. In the event of an emergency, the system would be reliant on the balancing and emergency storage in the upper reservoir. Items to consider would be a duplex pumping system in the event of a pump failure. Another redundancy feature would be the potential connection of a genset to the electrical system to provide the ability to connection with a portable generator in the event of a power failure. Source Capacity

Intake capacity must be sufficient to provide Maximum daily water demands to the existing 55 homes connected to the Falcon Ridge water utility. In addition, the system should have sufficient capacity to provide for expansion, should that be required.

Trended water quality data from the Black Mountain Irrigation District shows swings in turbidity and the time for the creek to clean up after intense storm fall events. If the RDCO were to develop approximately 5 days of water storage off-line, that would be sufficient to reduce the impact from the highest turbidity deviation events in the raw water from Mission Creek.

Alternatively, should off-line buffering storage not be desired then treatment would be required for the raw water to reduce turbidity levels.



SECTION 2.0

CRITERIA

11111111

2.4 WATER DEMAND ASSESSMENT

As stated in the Terms of Reference, and confirmed by the monthly readings received from the RDCO, Falcon Ridge Utility uses an average of 1.50 m3/day during the summer months. This number provides the monthly, but not the daily maximum daily demand (MDD).

Associated Engineering estimated the existing well pump capacity is 3.2 L/s. Some closer monitoring of the utility was recorded and reviewed to provide a more accurate water demand numbers for the utility. Based on the daily pump run times provided by the RDCO, the pumping capacity is calculated to be 3.51 L/s. A flow meter is recommended on the supply line as this will be a requirement from the Province as part of any water licensing requirements.

The table is set up for the operators to continue to track the monthly demand data in a format similar to that which may ultimately be requested by the Province as part of utility reporting. The tracking is set up in a monthly format using megalitres (1,000m3 = 1 ML)as the reporting units.

Table 3.1 - Total Monthly Consumption (Mega-litres (ML) per month (= 1,000 m3))

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total

2012 1.934 1.460 1.136 1.191

2013 1.218 1.063 1.223 1.241

2014

2015

2016

Average



SECTION 2.0

CRITERIA

12121212

The highest use day for each month is summarized in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2 - Maximum Daily Demand (m3)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total

2012 162.6 128.5 85.8 72.4 47.5

2013 60.5 56.2 73.4 67.0

2014

2015

2016

Average

Number of Constructed Units 55 units/lots

Population Density 3.0

Total Population Serviced 165

Highest MDD recorded 162.8 m3 Winter Daily Demand 38.4194

Max Day Demand (MDD) 987 L/ca/day 233 L/ca/day

Water will also be needed for flushing, to have spare contingent capacity, and there will be unaccounted for water such as leakage both in the street and on private properties. A recommended water demand of 1,200 L/ca/day is recommended for the service area. This should be sufficient for the summer demands with limited outdoor water usage.



SECTION 3.0

GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

13131313

3. GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

3.1 INTRODUCTION

A geotechnical investigation was carried out at the reservoir site and at the intake site on September 23, 2014. Test pits were excavated and the results are summarized in this section. The report is included in Appendix A of this report. Reservoir Site Geotechnical – Preliminary Comments

A single test pit was excavated east of the reservoir site. The materials encountered to an elevation equivalent to the floor of the existing reservoir were cobbly sand and gravels. These materials will provide suitable bearing capacity for a proposed reservoir expansion. The bearing capacity of the soils is estimated to be 150 kPa (3,000 lbs / ft2) .

There is concern of the steep slope drop-off to the east of the site where Cardinal Creek Road leaves Highway 33. The slope stability was reviewed by our Geotechnical Engineer and recommendations are forthcoming in his report. Preliminary comments received are that with the reservoir being buried 3 to 4 metres into the ground, the setback should be sufficient for the reservoir to be set in stable ground, provided the construction is set back at least 6.0m from the top of slope.

Creek Intake Site Geotechnical – Preliminary Comments

Three test pits were excavated at the intake site.

Test Pit 1 was located in the clearing to the west of the access road in. Test Pit 2 was located approximately 10m west of the groundwater well. Test Pit 3 was dug mid-way between TPs 1 and 2 to verify the consistency materials.

See Figures 3.1 and 3.2 for test pit locations. All test pits were located to the west of the existing well site. Information that was to be collected included ground water levels, soil strata, soil permeability, and organic cover. The preliminary soil structure for the test pits is listed below.

TEST PIT 1 - In Clearing

0.0 – 0.40m Fine grained Sand

0.40 – 2.2 m Cobbly Sand / gravel / frequent boulders

2.2m Refusal due to large boulders

Very large boulders below 1.2m depth

Groundwater inflow below 1.2m depth

TEST PIT 2 - Near groundwater well

0.0 – 0.60m Silty Fine grained Sand

0.60 – 1.1 m Sand and Silt

1.10 – 2.1m Medium to coarse grained sand – very clean

1.7m Becoming cobbly, fine to medium grain

2.1 – 2.5m Cobbly boulders, sand and gravel

Groundwater encountered at 1.2m depth.

TEST PIT 3 - Mid Point between TP 1 and TP2

0.0 – 0.60m Sand and silt

0.60 – 1.0 m Fine grained sand, some silt

1.00 – 1.40m Cobbly Sand to end of pit

Heavy seepage at 1.1m depth



SECTION 3.0


14141414

Figure 3.1 - Test Pit Location – Reservoir Site



SECTION 3.0


15151515

Figure 3.2 - Test Pit Locations – Intake Site



SECTION 3.0


16161616

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK



SECTION 4.0

INTAKE OPTIONS ASSESSMENT

17171717

4. INTAKE OPTIONS ASSESSMENT

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This section presents several options for upgrading the water supply source for Falcon Ridge water utility. The current system does not operate in a reliable manner and upgrades are necessary so that a secure supply is constructed.

It is expected that for whatever option is selected, the raw water will originate from Mission Creek. Trended raw water quality information from Mission Creek is provided in the following figures. Both colour and turbidity are trended for several years. Other data that will be of interest to the RDCO is trended Ultra-violet transmissivity information on the creek as this data will provide some direction as to the applicability of UV disinfection as a second treatment method.

4.2 WATER QUALITY TRENDS

Historic trended raw water quality data for Mission Creek for various parameters is shown in Figures 4.1 through 4.5. The data source is the WQ master spreadsheet collected by the Black Mountain Irrigation District at their intake located 5.0 kms downstream of Falcon Ridge utility. This trended data provides an indication of the raw water quality to be expected by the Falconridge water utility.

Figure 4.1 - Hardness – 2010 – 2014 (source BMID WTP)

The graph for hardness varies with the softest water in the creek appearing during snowmelt and spring runoff. The hardest water in the 80 to 90 range annually is during the winter months when the flow in the creek is highly influenced by groundwater recharge below the frozen surface.



SECTION 4.0


18181818

Figure 4.2 - Raw Water pH – 2010-2014 (source BMID WTP)

The pH in Mission Creek water also varies with time of year. Snowmelt water in the creek has a much lower pH than the winter flows in the creek that has a higher percentage of groundwater. Figure 4.3 - Raw Water - UV Transmissivity – 2010-2014 (source BMID WTP)

The applicability of UV light as a treatment technology is dependent on the UV transmissivity levels in Mission Creek. The swings in the creek are dependent on which upper watershed storage reservoir BMID is utilizing to supplement the natural creek flows. Belgo Reservoir, which is low elevation reservoir located at 1500m elevation has a very high organic content and has water of low transmissivity ( < 50% UVT ). The high elevation reservoirs have UVT in the range of 75 to 80 UVT. The higher levels of UVT in recent years are due to the fact that BMID has been forced to run their water treatment plant throughout the entire summer irrigation season due to high turbidity from instability of the banks of Mission Creek.



SECTION 4.0


19191919

Figure 4.4 - Raw Water - True Colour – 2006-2014 (source BMID WTP)

The true colour data is the TCU numbers for BMID after settling and chemical treatment. Prior to 2011, the WTP at BMID did not run from August 1 to April 15 every year. The spikes in TCU levels in the years prior to 2011 are due to the influence from the higher colour water from Belgo Reservoir. All results in this table are after chlorination.

Figure 4.5 - Raw Water - Turbidity – Typical year (source BMID 1993 data file)



SECTION 4.0


20202020

Trends shown for turbidity are from old BMID data-files. The daily turbidity data was obtained from the BMID historical data files. This graph is representative of an annual year of raw water turbidity in Mission Creek without any form of treatment as the data pre-dates the BMID Water Treatment Plant.

4.3 SOURCE WATER OPTIONS

Option Evaluation Considerations

Factors that were considered in the evaluation of water supply options for Falcon Ridge utility included how sustainable the option would be, expected improvement of problematic water parameters, how well the option would facilitate future water system expansion, cost effectiveness of the works, and simplicity in design.

The time of year when water demand is highest in Falcon Ridge Water Utility is when the raw water quality characteristics also vary the most. Challenges to address in the development of the intake are as follows:

• The intake must provide adequate water for the existing utility and have spare source capacity to handle system capacity expansion;

• If an infiltration gallery is utilized, some method of backwashing or flushing the system should be considered so that the infiltration capacity does not bind off or have reduced capacity over time;

• Off-line storage from the creek would be beneficial so that Mission Creek does not have to be continually utilized. With the higher turbidity caused by runoff from summer storms, the ability to bypass the creek water for a period of 3 to 5 days usually allows sufficient time for the creek to flush the highest turbidity events down Mission Creek. There are times during spring freshet however when the turbidity will be elevated above 5.0 NTU for weeks;

• Colour in the raw water cannot be corrected through infiltration methods as the colour is dissolved in the raw water and does not reduce significantly when flowing through the subgrade sands and gravels;

• Future staged water treatment improvements should be considered above at the reservoir site as Agua Consulting Inc. believes that although the water source can be managed to access the best quality raw water, that UV disinfection may be needed in the future and possibly some form of pressure filtration might be utilized to reduce taste and odour and turbidity levels;

Five options are considered and described on the following pages.



SECTION 4.0


21212121

Option 1 - Groundwater Well

Description The original concept for Falcon Ridge utility was based on utilizing a groundwater well.

This option consists of drilling a new deep well in the vicinity of the existing well in order to obtain sufficient water demand for domestic purposes. The well would connect to the transmission main at the existing well head. The well would have to be constructed with surface seal and should be on ground high enough so that it is above the flood plain for Mission Creek.

An example of an accessible weatherproof well head enclosure is illustrated in the adjacent figure.

Sustainability - Reliability

There is the existing shallow well head for Falcon Ridge Utility and a nearby well head for Peregrine Water utility located approximately 100 metres to the west. The status of the Peregrine well is unknown. According to the Kala Groundwater Report, the existing Falcon Ridge well depth is _____ metres.

The existing well has had problems producing reliable volumes of water necessary to sustain the utility. In addition, there is known to be a thick layer of clay below the gravel moraine created by the meandering of Mission Creek several kilometers downstream of this site at the BMID site. The clay layer, if it exists at depth here, would protect the water supply, however it would also produce little water.

Quality Improvement

If the groundwater soils are fairly pervious, quality issues such as high turbidity and occasionally high levels of Colour would be expected. If the soils are tighter, then there would be expected to be less available water, some natural filtration, but little available.

Operational Issues

Normal groundwater well maintenance would be required for this option. The RDCO operates many wells and the Works and Utilities staff should have no trouble operating a new groundwater well.

Future Treatment Reqts

The potential for cost effective expansion of the well is not possible without drilling another well.

Expandability Expensive as there is no incremental means of increasing well capacity

Cost Estimate Drill well, install casing, well head protection $75,000

Purchase – supply – install well pump and screen $25,000

Connect to existing – process piping – electrical – well head $35,000

Contingency – Engineering (30%) $40,500

TOTAL ESTIMATE $ 175,500

Recommendation For the moderate expenditure required, this option would be considered a high risk



SECTION 4.0


22222222

Option 2 - Rainey Well

Description The Rainey Well option consists of sinking a large diameter casing in subsurface and then drilling from the centre of that casing laterally towards and below Mission Creek.

The concept is illustrated in the adjacent figure.

Rainey wells are sometimes considered for larger installations such as intakes for major centres along large rivers.

The clearance stated on the adjacent figure of 100 feet is so that there is filtration of the river sediments and contaminants.


The sustainability of a Rainey well depends on the soils and ability for the well to remain clear fine sediments and silts.

Quality Improvement

With larger spacing usually installed between the well and the raw water source, there is some removal of sediments, silts and reduction in turbidity levels. Studies peer reviewed for the AWWA Journal have provided the argument for one log removal of cryptosporidium for river installations in the United States.

Operational Issues

Large installation, too large for this application.


The potential for expansion of the rainey well is possible by drilling additional horizontal casings towards the Creek.

Expandability Expensive as there is no incremental means of increasing well capacity

Cost Estimate The order of magnitude cost to sink a large diameter caisson below creek level and then drill outwards would be considered to be very high. Groundwater control and sinking of a large diameter casing has been done recently at Okanagan Lake with the order of magnitude costs greater than $ 400,000.

Recommendation Expenditure required for this option is very high and not feasible for this application.



SECTION 4.0


23232323

Option 3 - Infiltration Trench / Gallery

Description This option consists of digging a trench parallel to Mission Creek in the stream gravels to a depth 4 to 5 metres below the creek bed. The trench would be filled with filter fabric, drain rock and a collector pipe that would bring the water to a sump/manhole where the water would be piped and pumped to the transmission system.


The existing system that provides water for Falcon Ridge Utilty is such a system and does not reliably supply the water system with a sufficient volume of water. The system was functional when first installed, however the silt loading in Mission Creek during the spring runoff of 2012 and 2013 were excessive and the creek is still in transition eroding many of the stream banks.

For the system to be sustainable, it must be much larger than the existing infiltration gallery and it must have a way of reversing the flow / pressuring the gallery so the water mounds and forces flow back to the creek occasionally.

Although not successful in the recent installation, this is a viable option if designed adequately.

Quality Improvement

The existing gallery provides some turbidity reduction in times of major storm events and high turbidity in Mission Creek. The reduction is not sufficient, however to reduce the turbidity to 1.0 NTU at all times. There would be no change in colour, UV transmissivity and minimal change in water hardness with an infiltration gallery. No credits would be available from Interior Health for log reduction of protozoa with this option.

Operational Issues

This option is relatively easy to operate and has no mechanisms for maintenance as is a static system with no maintenance features. Operations and longevity of this system could be improved if the pumps were to be limited to the times of day when the turbidity in the raw water was the lowest.


The reduction of turbidity would reduce the robustness required of further water treatment with this option. It may be possible to utilize UV disinfection after the chlorination to provide sufficient treatment to meet IH requirements.

Expandability Inexpensive option to install and easy to expand, provided there is sufficient land area available.

Cost Estimate

Environmental works - permitting $10,000

Clearing & Grubbing of site $15,000

Excavate materials – haul away $66,000

Embankment works $15,000

Outlet channel to creek + Miscell works – pipe to ex. wellhead $ 20,000



Recommendation This option has merit if there was a means to mitigate the binding off of materials adjacent to the creek.



SECTION 4.0


24242424

Option 4 - Direct Creek Intake & Off-Line Storage adjacent to Mission Creek

Description This option consists of excavating a large deep pond with sufficient storage volume so that the water from Mission Creek could be withdrawn at times when quality was the highest and stored for several days. This option has merit and is how the Black Mountain Irrigation District utilizes their off-line storage during the winter months when they have low demands.


This method would secure sufficient water volume for the utility from the creek as a direct intake would be required on the Creek. There would be maintenance in cleaning-scraping the reservoir occasionally.

Quality Improvement

The extremely high turbidity events in Mission Creek seldom last longer than 2 or 3 days. Seven days of storage in most cases would provide sufficient buffering time so that the turbidity levels in the creek would drop down to lower levels.

Operational Issues

This option would require an on-line turbidimeter on the raw water coming in from Mission Creek. It would also require an automated gate or butterfly valve on the inlet line that would operate to close or open, depending on water quality.


The controls and monitoring on the supply source-creek could form an integral part of the utility, regardless of which ever water treatment technology is ultimately required.

Expandability The expansion costs for this option would be high, but would offer several means of accessing creek and creek influenced groundwater.

Cost Estimate

Intake pipe and headwall at creek (Pre-cast structure) $ 35,000

Motorized control butterfly valve $ 10,000

Extend electrical and SCADA $25,000



Recommendation This expenditure would be part of a longer term strategy to access the best quality raw and treated water.



SECTION 4.0


25252525

Option 5 - Modified Direct Creek Intake & Off-Line Storage adjacent to Mission Creek

Description This option varies slightly from Option 4 in that it has all the same features, but there is the opportunity to draw in water through infiltration from Mission Creek. This option would allow water to be drawn in directly from the creek via an intake that is upstream of the pond site. With a normal water depth of 4.0m a shown on Figure 5.1, the length of pond to obtain a flow of 15 L/s would require a length of about 20 metres.


This method would secure sufficient water volume in two ways and would be the most robust system of those proposed. This system offers the benefit of filling the pond to levels higher than the adjacent creek and groundwater (during times when Mission Creek is of high quality) and surcharging-back flushing the infiltration reservoir.

Quality Improvement

The largest benefit towards water quality would be that the RDCO operators would be able to operate the system through infiltration, use of storage and having greater ability to access a wider range of water quality.

Operational Issues

This option would require an on-line turbidimeter on the raw water coming in from Mission Creek. It would also require an automated gate or butterfly valve on the inlet line that would operate to close automatically if water quality was poor. The system could be operated in an “Infiltration mode” when the raw water quality in Mission Creek is poor. When the water quality is high, water could be drawn off directly from the Mission Creek, and the reservoir could operate in a “Recharge mode” where the reservoir levels would be higher than the surrounding groundwater levels and the water could push material back towards the creek and away from the reservoir.


This system should be able to reduce the level of turbidity supplied to the Falcon Ridge customers. It still would be subject to the turbidity levels present in the raw water in Mission Creek.

Expandability The system could be expanded through expansion of the off-line storage.

Cost Estimate Provided in Section 4.5

Recommendation This approach can be phased with pond work and intake work to be in the first phase and controls and instrumentation to follow in subsequent phases.

All previous reports have commented that finding a deep groundwater source that is not directly connected to Mission Creek is not probable. Therefore, regardless of whether the water is directly accessed from the creek or through some form of infiltration gallery, the source water will originate from Mission Creek.



SECTION 4.0


26262626

More detail for the individual components of Option 5 are listed below:

In August of 2014, Agua staff carried out an elevation survey of the area around the existing facilities to determine what options may be possible. At time of survey, Mission Creek was flowing at a rate of a rate of 2.40 m3/s, 0.85m3/s to BMID, remainder of 1.55 m3/s to downstream.

Local Survey reference elevations:

Top of Well Head = 100.00 m, Top of concrete at Electrical Kiosk = 99.77 m Top of Magmeter chamber (outside) = 99.88 m Top of Rip Rap at Creek location = 100.74 m Mission Creek at Intake Site = 99.23 m

Figure 5.1 provides a section view of the proposed pond. A side slope of 2H to 1V is shown in the Figure. In discussions with the geotechnical engineer, a flatter slope of 3H:1V is recommended for slope stability however to maximize storage and access with equipment, the 2:1 will work.

Figure 5.1 - Section – Intake Berm and Creek Level



SECTION 4.0


27272727

Option 5 Components

1. Creek Intake: Creek Intake Creek Intake that would be set at an elevation 0.60m below the low water level. Low water level in the creek is a flow of approximately 1.0 m3/s. Rip rap would have to be moved and a small intake gate complete with trash rack and large rip rap protection could be installed. It is recommended that the intake structure be pre-cast and dropped into place. This will reduce dewatering and construction costs. The intake can be open pipe with buried valve installation away from the creek. A 150mm line is all that is necessary however, we would recommend a larger line size in the range of 250mm or 300 mm diameter;

2. Intake Reservoir: An intake reservoir could be set out in the area west of the existing well. The reservoir would be set at an elevation approximately 3.70m below the creek water level at the intake site. There is additional excavated depth possible to a depth of 5.70 m to increase the reservoir storage depth. The reservoir would not be lined and would rely on both infiltration and piped inflow for source water. An operational advantage of this set up is that when Mission Creek quality is high, the intake pipe would be used and would be at a higher head than the existing groundwater (see elevation 97.50 below). This would result in hydraulic mounding of the groundwater and would push clean water back against the soils around the reservoir. This would lengthen the lifespan of the infiltration capacity of the soils adjacent to the reservoir. The storage capacity at varying elevations illustrated in Figure 5.1 are as follows:

Full Pool 99.23m = 3,000 m3

Groundwater 98.70m = 2,200 m3 Low Level 95.50m = 800 m3

Reservoir Bottom 93.00m = 0 m3

3. Reservoir Inlet: The pipe from the creek would be extended to the far side of the reservoir so that it would short circuit towards the creek if quality were poorer.

4. Reservoir Outlet: Fish screens would be required for the reservoir outlet. The approach velocity for the screens would be 0.038m/s and the maximum clear opening size for local fish would be 2.50mm. With an effective opening area of 60%, the screen area size for an inflow of 5.0 L/s would be A = 0.220 m2. The water from here would be piped to the well head.

5. Overflow: The reservoir would require a drain to release the water back to the creek and an overflow release.



SECTION 4.0


28282828

Figure 5.2 - Creek Intake and Balancing Reservoir



SECTION 4.0


29292929

4.4 STAGED WATER TREATMENT APPROACH

For whatever option is finally selected, there may be the need to provide additional water treatment to meet the regulators requirements. An approach for future water treatment is provided in this section.

All of the proposed options that provide reliable water quantity have the risk of also providing lower quality source water quality. With the only stable quantity of water in the region originating from Mission Creek, the trends of the creek will dictate what water treatment processes are may be necessary. Mission Creek has substantial swings in turbidity levels, particularly during spring runoff.

The recommended source water intake modifications should provide the RDCO Operators with capacity to buffer the water quality deviations in Mission Creek, but the works will not eliminate all water quality events from occurring. Mission Creek has experienced must damage in the riparian area during the spring runoffs of 2012 and 2013. A flow of 120 m3/s occurred in June of 2013 which is the highest runoff recorded in the 64 years of creek flow monitoring. Turbidities in the summer months of the last three years did not decline to below 1.0 NTU. Fortunately in 2014 declining levels of turbidity were noted at the BMID raw water intake and the riparian area may finally be recovering from the extreme flows of 2012 and 2013.

For water treatment, there will be the physical issues of turbidity and colour to address. There will also be the microbiological risks of bacteria, viruses and protozoa to deal with.

The recommended approach to address future water quality issues would be as follows:

1. Monitor UVT levels in the raw water that is being pumped up to the reservoir. Collect readings monthly and trend them so that the range of UVT parameters encountered is recorded.

2. Monitor turbidity levels as frequently as is cost-effective to determine what is the normal expected levels of turbidity for the water being pumped up to the reservoir;

3. If water quality is consistently lower than 2.0 NTU turbidity units, and the UVT is stable at levels above 78% UVT, then UV disinfection could be considered as a means to get two types of treatment in place. The UV disinfection reactors should be located in a room at the reservoir site where water enters the reservoir. This would minimize the UV reactor size and price. Chlorination would occur after UV disinfection.

4. Should the turbidity be above 2.0 NTU and the UVT below 78%, then additional treatment in the form of filtration should be considered. Water quality parameters should be monitored after the recommended improvements are carried out. Further options to be considered in this scenario are pressure filters, membrane filtration, or a small package water treatment process.



SECTION 4.0


30303030

4.5 INTAKE COST ESTIMATE

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Page 1

FALCONRIDGE - INTAKE ESTIMATE 03-Nov-14

Project Description

This project involves the construction of a new creek intake, inlet piping, clearing and grubbing, excavation of new earth reservoir, spillway, inlet and

outlet pipeing, fish screen and inlet to the existing groundwater well.

2014 Capital Cost Estimate No. Unit Unit Price Extension

Preliminary Engineering - underway and near completion 1 LS -$

Geotechnical Analysis - completed 1 LS -$

Environmental assessment and monitoring during construction 1 allowance 15,000$ 15,000$

Contract Administration (by contractor) 1 LS 15,000$ 15,000$

Site preparation / stripping, clearing and grubbing 1 allowance 15,000.00$ 15,000$

Excavation of reservoir and haul material away 2200 m3 30.00$ 66,000$

Embankment construction of perimeter road around berm 1200 m3 12.00$ 14,400$

Build outlet channel back to creek, rock lined 1 allowance 10,000.00$ 10,000$

Pipeworks 150mm & 200mm diameter 75 m 175.00$ 13,125$

Pre-cast Concrete Creek intake headwall, c/w concrete collar, rip rap 1 LS 10,000.00$ 10,000$

Automated Butterfly control valve (inlet line to pond) - supply - install 1 each 15,000.00$ 15,000$

Instrumentation - programming 1 allowance 15,000.00$ 15,000$

Decant system from pond to well 1 each 2,500.00$ 2,500$

Alternate shallow pump cistern - pre-cast, drop in site c/w two 10hp pumps 1 each 30,000.00$ 30,000$

Gravel Surfacing 1 LS 3,000.00$ 3,000$

Finish grading and cleanup 1 LS 5,000.00$ 5,000$

Subtotal , Construction Cost Estimate 229,025$

Contingency and Engineering Allowance 25% 57,256$

TOTAL CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE 286,281$



SECTION 5.0

RESERVOIR EXPANSION ASSESSMENT

31313131

5. RESERVOIR EXPANSION ASSESSMENT

5.1 INTRODUCTION

This section summarizes our review of the existing and proposed reservoir storage. Also included is an evaluation of feasible locations for the reservoir storage expansion.

5.2 EXISTING RESERVOIR

The existing concrete reservoir is a buried concrete chamber that sits above Falcon Ridge Water Utility is situated at an elevation of approximately 869 metres. Expansion of reservoir storage for this service area should be located with the same high water level as the existing reservoir. Figure 5.1 provides a plan view of the existing reservoir.

Figure 5.1 – Plan view – Falcon Ridge Utility Reservoir Structure – Best Available Drawing



SECTION 5.0


32323232

Exterior Reservoir Dimensions: Based on field measurements, dimensions are as follows:

Total Depth = 3.96m

Width (east-west) = 7.41 m

Length (north-south) = 8.03m

Effective (interior) Reservoir Dimensions: Based on field measurements and drawing information as follows:

Utilized Depth = 3.66m (12 ft. depth full)

Width (east west) = 7.41m Subtract exterior walls (2 x 0.355m) subtract interior walls (2 x 0.20m) = 6.30 m

Length (north – south) = 8.03m - subtract exterior walls (2 x 0.355m) = 7.32 m

EXISTING RESERVOIR STORAGE VOLUME = 168 m3

This agrees with the 37,000 Imperial gallon volume on the as-constructed drawings. The existing reservoir has two layers of steel suggesting that the tank was properly designed to hold the external forces in both empty and full conditions. The 0.355 m thick exterior walls are typical for a reservoir depth of 3.66m. The interior walls provide additional support to the roof and shorten the span, however the roof has been a place where Operators have driven. The live load on the as-built drawings shows 150 lb./ft2 total design roof loading. The 0.20m thick ceiling-roof structure should not be parked upon or driven upon.

5.3 RESERVOIR SITING OPTIONS

Potential sites for reservoir development were reviewed considering the following criteria: site elevation, operational considerations, distance from existing infrastructure, physical constraints of the site, ownership and land rights, and how stageable expansion might be, and cost.

Reservoir Site Elevation Initially the sites for reservoir location were reviewed based on elevation. A site with an elevation of approximately 868m geodetic elevation is required for any new reservoir to properly integrate with the existing reservoir storage. The elevation line in Figure 5.2 shows the contour line at elevation 868 metres.

Figure 5.2 – Suitable Equivalent Reservoir Elevation Locations



SECTION 5.0


33333333

The orange line in Figure 5.2 illustrates the 870m contour elevation. Reservoir expansion should be located somewhere along

this contour.

Operational Considerations: The land above Highway 33 is all private with no known easements or pathways for new water main or reservoir. The 2010 Associated Engineering report suggested that a more central location be provided for reservoir storage to improve chlorine residual levels in the water distribution system. This is an expensive proposition as the costs would include land access, a dedicated 150mm main to the reservoir site, reservoir construction of the required volume, and water main back to the distribution system. An alternative means for ensuring there is fresh water at the limits of the system is to set up a flushing valve that would release stagnant water intermittently from the distribution system limits to a safe natural stream course. With the small customer base, cost is a critical issue for Falcon Ridge Utility and the maximization of the use of all existing infrastructure is a priority.

Fire Protection: Fire protection criterion requires a minimum of 60 L/s should be achieved at the hydrant locations. Presently there is one hydrant on the system and our model estimates a flow of 42 L/s that could be provided to this hydrant. The restrictions are due to the limited capacity of the 150mm main and not the reservoir location. If 200mm diameter main were in place, flows of 85 L/s could be achieved at the hydrant location. Although the 42 L/s (660 USgpm) does not meet the current RDCO bylaw, it is a significant flow and enough to provide significant fire flow for several hoses. The addition of hydrants further into the system is worthwhile.

Distance from Existing Infrastructure: For this criteria, the optimal location for additional reservoir storage would be to construct the storage immediately adjacent to the existing reservoir at elevation 868m. No off-site infrastructure changes would be required for this option, even if they only can provide 30 L/s.

Considerations for Expansion: Distribution system service expansion could occur both east and/or west of the site along Highway 33. The expansion of water service would have to originate from somewhere central such as the existing reservoir site.

Expansion up the hill to above on Cardinal Creek road and to the Goudie Road and Huckleberry Road areas would require a pump station. The existing reservoir site is a central good base location from which to start. The consideration of upgrading treatment is also something that should be at a central location, ideally right before the water is to enter the reservoir. The existing site is facilitates this possibilities well.

Land Access Issues: There are SRW footprint issues to resolve. The SRW does not extend up the hillside sufficiently far enough to encompass the existing reservoir. As such, retaining a legal surveyor at an earlier stage is recommended to verify the footprint for the station. The original survey was conducted in 1993 by Tom Ferguson and they would likely have some of the original information related to surveying and registering the original SRW.



SECTION 5.0


34343434

5.4 RESERVOIR SIZING OPTIONS

The recommended reservoir size is based on the sum of balancing, fire and emergency storage. Utilizing

A - Balancing Storage 3.60m3/unit/day x 55 units x 0.25 days (6 hrs.) 49.5 m3

B - Fire Storage 60 L/s x 1.50 hrs. 324.0 m3

C - Emergency Storage 25 % of A + B 93.4m3

TOTAL REQUIRED RESERVOIR STORAGE 467 m3

With 168m3 of existing storage, to meet the above sizing requirements, the minimum additional volume to be constructed is 299 m3. The number of serviced lots that are possible from the existing reservoir site by gravity is estimated to be 52 lots. To double the number of serviced units from 55 up to 110, the balancing storage requirement is relatively small, only 49.5 m3. The reservoir storage volume calculation for PZ 868 would be as follows:





EXISTING RESERVOIR STORAGE 168 m3

TOTAL ADDITIONAL RESERVOIR STORAGE 361 m3

Say 370m3

We would recommend providing balancing storage for no more than an additional 55 SF lots at this lower elevation – PZ 868.



SECTION 5.0


35353535

Maximum Reservoir Storage for Greater Service Area

A reservoir storage is provided for the entire service area, assuming all lots in the region are connected to the the local Falcon Ridge water system. The reservoir storage volume calculation would be as follows:





EXISTING RESERVOIR STORAGE 168 m3

TOTAL ADDITIONAL RESERVOIR STORAGE 539 m3

Say 540m3

An issue that the RDCO is considering is the expansion of water main up the hillside. If additional reservoir storage is constructed at higher elevations, fire storage will be constructed at the higher elevations. The installation of fire storage, with an electrical solenoid valve to release water from the higher elevation pressure zones back into the 868m PZ, would more cost effective than the construction of duplicate reservoir storage.

5.5 RECOMMENDED RESERVOIR SITE

The reservoir site was reviewed in detail. There are errors in the SRW plan as the plan does not close with the dimensions and azimuths shown. A legal surveyor should be retained to verify the SRW limits and setbacks prior to detailed design being completed.

A reservoir size 3.66m depth x 8.0 m x 14.0 m or similar is recommended. Siting is recommended to be on the east side of the existing reservoir. There are concerns regarding the existing Cardinal Creek road slope cut to the east of the site. Reservoir construction in proximity to this steep 1.5H to 1.0V slope needs to consider safe setback distances from a geotechnical perspective. The Geotechnical report recommends that the proposed setback of greater than 5.0 metres will be sufficient for the reservoir to be safely configured adjacent to the existing reservoir.

If the RDCO were to expand water service to a higher pressure zone, then fire storage could be located at higher elevations and could be fed back down through a control valve to the 868m elevation pressure zone when required.

At the reservoir site, we have considered future expansion of the site to include a vault for valve access for filling, outlet and draining of both cells of the reservoir, room for a future pump station, space for UV disinfection entering either cell of the reservoir, and room for electrical equipment to drive the future pumps and disinfection. The vault should be a walk-in level entrance with parking at the lower grade adjacent to the existing cell of the reservoir.

Parking on the roof of the existing reservoir is not recommended and should be discontinued.

An illustration of the area for the future valve chamber / pump room / water treatment area is included in Figure 5.3. Please note the SRW discrepancy for actual reservoir location in relation to the SRW boundary.



SECTION 5.0


36363636

Figure 5.3 – Reservoir Site Plan



SECTION 5.0


37373737

5.6 RESERVOIR COST ESTIMATE

Preliminary cost estimates are provided for the reservoir expansion work recommended in Section and for the creek intake pond recommended in Section 5.

FALCONRIDGE - RESERVOIR EXPANSION 02-Nov-14

Project Description

This project involves the expansion of reservoir storage capacity adjacent to the existing reservoir storage structure for Falconridge Water Utility.

The reservoir expansion would be for 370m3 of storage.

2014 Capital Cost Estimate No. Unit Unit Price Extension

Preliminary Engineering (completed) 1 LS -$

Geotechnical Analysis (completed) 1 Allowance -$

Contract Administration (by contractor) 1 LS 10,000$ 10,000$

Site preparation / stripping 350 m2 15.00$ 5,250$

Concrete works 370 m3 650.00$ 240,500$

Piping through walls, inside reservoir, to drain & connections to existing 1 allowance 30,000.00$ 30,000$

Concrete room for future pump station (Optional) 80 m2 1,200.00$ 96,000$

SCADA adjustments / chlorination adjustments 1 allowance 5,000.00$ 5,000$

Subtotal , Construction Cost Estimate 386,750$

Contingency and Engineering Allowance 25% 96,688$

TOTAL CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE 483,438$



SECTION 5.0


38383838

This page is intentionally left blank



SECTION 6.0

SYSTEM EXPANSION OPTIONS

39393939

6. SYSTEM EXPANSION OPTIONS

6.1 INTRODUCTION

This section of the report summarizes our preliminary design for extending the water supply system to additional properties beyond the current service boundaries of the Falcon Ridge Water Utility. Water is known to be a limiting factor for further subdivision of the area. If a larger and more reliable water system was developed, it is expected that development pressures for the area would increase. The greater area was subdivided into large rural lots averaging greater than 10 acres in size. Water supply for the area is either from Mission Creek, Dave’s Creek, groundwater wells or water is hauled in by truck. The groundwater wells have proven to be of very low capacity, Dave’s Creek is local and unreliable, Mission Creek very expensive to develop due to the pumping and high lift required, and trucking in water is also expensive.

6.2 EXPANSION AREAS

The areas included in our review include the properties as illustrated in Figure 6.1. A detailed review of properties extending from the east at 9050 Highway 33 west, to the site all the way to the switchback at Eight-Mile Ranch. The water system is also shown to extend up Cardinal Creek drive to the Goudie Road and Huckleberry Road areas as illustrated on Figure 6.1. The frontage of the lots on Figure 6.1 is colour-coded to match the colours in Tables 6.1 through 6.4.

A summary of lot areas, whether the lot has a housing structure on it, the folio number, PID and legal lot and plan number and the most likely means by which water is now provided are listed in the summary table in Appendix C. The list provides a summary of service area, size of parcels, addresses and their current water service. The pressure zone for the lot is also summarized within the table.



SECTION 6.0


40404040

Considerations for future water system development include cost, amount of infrastructure to install, topography, pressure limits and how to best structure the system to be efficient are important to set up a reliable and adequate water system. There are two options for structuring the pressure zones for the system. Figure 6.2 provides the RDCO bylaw zone spacing

Figure 6.2 - 80m Pressure Zone Spacing

The 80m of coverage per zone allows for a spacing of 35 psi minimum pressure and a maximum pressure of 145 psi per zone. To reduce the number of PRVs and Pump Stations, a wider spacing could be considered.

Figure 6.3 - 100m Pressure Zone Spacing

Figure 6.3 provides a wider spacing to reduce the number of pressure zones from 5 to 4.

The option for pressure zones maximizes the elevation range that can be serviced from a single pressure zone, thus minimizing the need for additional PRVs and Pump Stations. The maximum static system pressure proposed with this scenario is 175 psi which is within the pressure rating of

standard water service fittings (180 psi). C900 DR18 PVC pipe or equivalent pressure ratings to 200 psi would have to be used for the water mains which would be between the zones at points of the pump stations. It may be possible to reduce the zones to three if the service lines are installed with higher pressure rated valves and fittings.



SECTION 6.0


41414141

Table 6.1 provides a summary of the total number of existing lots connected to the Falcon Ridge Water Utility and an estimate of the number of connections that could be possible for each of the identified pressure zones. The estimates are consistent with Figure 6.2 as the upper and lower limits of the zones can be adjusted so that the number of PRVs and Pump stations is reduced.

Table 6.1 – Properties and Unit Count

PZ Area Description ParcelsMDD

(m3/day)MDD (L/s) ADD (L/s)

868 Falcon Ridge Utility 57 205.2 2.375 0.475

868 Highway 33 - West 47 169.2 1.958 0.392

868 Highway 33 - East 19 68.4 0.792 0.158

968 Lower Sun Valley Road 10 36.0 0.417 0.083

1068 Mid Sun Valley Road 14 50.4 0.583 0.117

1168 Upper Sun Valley Road 38 136.8 1.583 0.317

1168 Upper Huckleberry Road 26 93.6 1.083 0.217

1068 Lower Huckleberry Road 18 64.8 0.750 0.150

968 Lower Goudie Road 12 43.2 0.500 0.100

1068 Mid Goudie Road 9 32.4 0.375 0.075

1168 Jackpine Rd - Prather Rd 9 32.4 0.375 0.075

1268 Upper Goudie + cul-de-sacs 29 104.4 1.208 0.242

Fire Hall included in Upper Goudie

Potential Future Lots 231 831.6 9.625 1.925

Existing Lots 57 205.2 2.375 0.475

TOTAL 288 1036.8 12.00 2.40

190 Usgpm

MDD 1200 L/person/day

Density 3.0 persons/lot

MDD 3600 L/conn/day

check ADD 0.2 x MDD

The total number of parcels that could be connected is 288 lots. The MDD for 288 lots, based on 1200 L/ca/day and 3 persons per residence, is 12.00 L/s ( 190 USgpm).

Figure 6.4 on the following page provides a servicing layout for the lots identified in Table 6.1. The service area is developed by extending water mains up Cardinal Creek Road to the higher elevations. The service area is also expanded by extending mains west along Highway 33 to the large lots beyond the current service boundaries.



SECTION 6.0


42424242

An estimate of service costs is provided for a water distribution system to supply the lots/parcels summarized in Tables 6.2. The service costs are based on numbers of parcels, length of main, allowances for services, hydrants, PRVs, and pump stations. The estimates are the minimum installation that could reliably service the rural service area.

The only cost effective areas that appear to be feasible are those properties along Highway 33 to the east and immediately west that is in the same service pressure zone as the existing Falcon Ridge Reservoir. Servicing the area to the west of Falcon Ridge is expensive due to the long lengths of main that are required to service the large lots.

Table 6.2 – Service Cost Per Area

PZ Area Description Parcels PStn PRVWM

LengthWM Cost

PRV-PStn

Cost

Service

Conn.Eng./Cont. Total Cost

Cost per

Lot

868 Falcon Ridge Utility 57

868 Highway 33 - West 47 3300 412,500$ -$ 164,500$ 144,250$ 721,250$ 15,346$

868 Highway 33 - East 19 1200 150,000$ -$ 66,500$ 54,125$ 270,625$ 14,243$

968 Lower Sun Valley Road 10 3 2000 250,000$ 1,050,000$ 35,000$ 333,750$ 1,668,750$ 166,875$

1068 Mid Sun Valley Road 14 2000 250,000$ -$ 49,000$ 74,750$ 373,750$ 26,696$

1168 Upper Sun Valley Road 38 2000 250,000$ -$ 133,000$ 95,750$ 478,750$ 12,599$

1168 Upper Huckleberry Road 26 2000 250,000$ -$ 91,000$ 85,250$ 426,250$ 16,394$

1068 Lower Huckleberry Road 18 1 1780 222,500$ 65,000$ 63,000$ 87,625$ 438,125$ 24,340$

968 Lower Goudie Road 12 1 1090 136,250$ 65,000$ 42,000$ 60,813$ 304,063$ 25,339$

1068 Mid Goudie Road 9 1250 156,250$ -$ 31,500$ 46,938$ 234,688$ 26,076$

1168 Jackpine Rd - Prather Rd 9 1310 163,750$ -$ 31,500$ 48,813$ 244,063$ 27,118$

1268 Upper Goudie + cul-de-sacs 29 1 3060 382,500$ 350,000$ 101,500$ 208,500$ 1,042,500$ 35,948$

Fire Hall included in Upper Goudie 300,000$ -$ 75,000$ 375,000$

Future Lots (only) 231 4 2 20990 2,623,750$ 1,830,000$ 808,500$ 1,315,563$ 6,577,813$ 28,475$

Average Supply-Install cost - 50-150mm sizes 125.00$ Hydrants every 250 metres at $6500/hyd. $ 26/m

100mm PRV Cost 65,000$ 150mm cost $ 100/m

Cost 350,000$ 100mm cost $ 85/m

Water Service Cost 3,500$ Rock - 10% of trenching - add to all $ 10/m

Contingency / Engineering 25% Service cost based on 60% short, 40% long services

As listed on Table 6.2, the only area where it might be cost effective for the extension of water services might be the area to the east along Highway 33 where the existing Peregrine water utility is located. The specific boundaries of lots serviced by that utility are unknown.

The third stage of the work on Lower Sun Valley Road has three pump station lifts required to service the lots. The number of pump stations could be reduced to two (2) which may see some savings, however the lift is substantial and if the pressures are too high at the station, those costs go up with higher rating fittings being required.



SECTION 6.0


43434343

6.3 ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS

There are alternative designs used in North America that provide low volumes of water to service areas over time at a reduced cost. These options are used to maximize the use of the infrastructure so that the pipes are flowing slowly and steadily 24 hours a day to bring the necessary flow to the site. Further options for water servicing that may be valid include:

1. High Pressure Pump Station To reduce the number of stations, a higher horsepower, higher pressure station could be installed that would pump all water up to a single reservoir site located at the fire hall. That pressure zone is The elevation there is in the range of 1075m. One in-line station could be used above the fire hall and the distribution system would feed from this elevation to all areas through PRV stations. The highest pressures in the station would be in the range 290 psi. Two 40 hp multi-stage vertical turbine pumps would be necessary for this option as well as SRWs directly up to Cardinal Creek Road.

Table 6.3 High Pump Station Option – Cost Estimate


LengthWM Cost

PRV-PStn

Cost

Service


Cost per

Lot


868 Highway 33 - West 47 1200 150,000$ -$ 164,500$ 78,625$ 393,125$ 8,364$

868 Highway 33 - East 19 3300 412,500$ -$ 66,500$ 119,750$ 598,750$ 31,513$

968 Lower Sun Valley Road 10 1 2 2000 250,000$ 830,000$ 35,000$ 278,750$ 1,393,750$ 139,375$






1068 Mid Goudie Road 9 1250 156,250$ -$ 31,500$ 46,938$ 234,688$ 26,076$


1268 Upper Goudie + cul-de-sacs 29 0.5 3060 382,500$ 350,000$ 101,500$ 208,500$ 1,042,500$ 35,948$

Fire Hall included in Upper Goudie -$ -$ -$ -$

Potential Future Lots 231 1.5 4 20990 2,623,750$ 1,310,000$ 808,500$ 1,185,563$ 5,927,813$ 25,662$



Large PStn Costs 700,000$ 100mm cost $ 85/m

Water Service Cost 3,500$ Rock - 10% of trenching $ 10/m

Contingency / Engineering 25% Service cost is ave. 60% short, 40% long services Water main pressures along the road may be lower than bylaw standards in order to make this system work without extra costs. The system would be set up so that adequate pressures are available at the property line. With the lots extending high up the hillsides, the owners would be installing their own pressure pumps at the property line to access the public utility’s water supply.



SECTION 6.0


44444444

2. Low Pressure System This system consists of a low pressure mains (not in all areas) and water that would be available at a much lower rate. Many of the local residents already have cisterns and holding tanks for water. The water system would produce a smaller volume of water to the area, through smaller diameter mains with balancing storage provided by the home owners. This type of system exists in rural Alberta in the County of Sherwood Park. Pressures are low and water is always available, but sometimes at very low pressures. Cross connection plumbing policies must be in place to ensure that no back feed into the system is permitted. Savings would be realized in the smaller water main sizes and no hydrants throughout the system.

Table 6.4 Low Pressure System Option – Cost Estimate


LengthWM Cost

PRV-PStn

Cost

Service


Cost per

Lot


868 Highway 33 - West 47 1200 114,000$ -$ 164,500$ 69,625$ 348,125$ 7,407$

868 Highway 33 - East 19 3300 313,500$ -$ 66,500$ 95,000$ 475,000$ 25,000$

968 Lower Sun Valley Road 10 1 2 2000 190,000$ 750,000$ 35,000$ 243,750$ 1,218,750$ 121,875$






1068 Mid Goudie Road 9 1250 118,750$ -$ 31,500$ 37,563$ 187,813$ 20,868$


1268 Upper Goudie + cul-de-sacs 29 0.5 3060 290,700$ 350,000$ 101,500$ 185,550$ 927,750$ 31,991$

Fire Hall included in Upper Goudie -$ -$ -$ -$

Potential Future Lots 231 1.5 4 20990 1,994,050$ 1,150,000$ 808,500$ 988,138$ 4,940,688$ 21,388$



Large PStn Costs 700,000$ 100mm cost $ 85/m

Water Service Cost 3,500$ Rock - 10% of trenching $ 10/m

Contingency / Engineering 25% Service cost is ave. 60% short, 40% long services

The only means in which the area might be able to be succeed in developing a water system would be to obtain funding assistance from the Provincial and Federal government through the Build-Canada fund or some similar program of Senior Government Funding.

If 2/3 funding were secured, then the cost of servicing would be reduced from $23,000-$31,000 per lot down to $ 7,500-$11,000 per lot.



SECTION 6.0


45454545

6.4 FUTURE WATER TREATMENT CONSIDERATIONS

With the challenges posed by the Mission Creek raw water source, a staged approach to water quality improvements is recommended. The objective of this report is to set out a staged plan for water supply and treatment upgrades so that the water supply for Falconridge is reliable, sustainable, in conformance with licensing and provincial withdrawal allotments, and meets the water treatment objectives of Interior Health.

Because of the relatively low water demand and lesser outdoor irrigation than most of the Okanagan, the costs for water treatment may be manageable. The recommended order of improvements is set out as follows:

1. Obtain highest quality source water: This is possible by means of selective withdrawals from the creek. Having balancing storage or the access to infiltration during poor raw water quality times will help to buffer the peak turbidity events in Mission Creek;

2. Add UV disinfection to the existing chlorination process , consider designs to the NSF standard that applies to smaller water systems:

NSF/ANSI 55: Ultraviolet Microbiological Water Treatment Systems

NSF/ANSI 55 establishes the minimum requirements for the certification of point-of-use/point-of-entry (POU/POE) ultraviolet (UV) systems and includes two optional classifications:

Class A systems (40 mJ/cm2) are designed to disinfect and/or remove microorganisms, including bacteria and viruses, from contaminated water to a safe level. Class A systems may claim to disinfect water that may be contaminated with pathogenic bacteria, viruses, Cryptosporidium or Giardia.

Class B systems (16 mJ/cm2) are designed for supplemental bactericidal treatment of public or other drinking water that has been deemed acceptable by a local health agency. Class B systems may claim to reduce normally occurring nuisance microorganisms. (Source www.nsf.org)

3. Consider the addition of filtration in the form of pressure filters:

NSF/ANSI 42: Drinking Water Treatment Units - Aesthetic Effects

NSF/ANSI 42 establishes the minimum requirements for the certification of POU/POE filtration systems designed to reduce specific aesthetic or non-health-related contaminants (chlorine, taste, odor and particulates) that may be present in public or private drinking water.

The scope of NSF/ANSI 42 includes material safety, structural integrity and aesthetic, non-health-related contaminant reduction performance claims. The most common technology addressed by this standard is carbon filtration. (Source www.nsf.org)

NSF/ANSI 53: Drinking Water Treatment Units - Health Effects

NSF/ANSI 53 establishes the minimum requirements for the certification of POU/POE filtration systems designed to reduce specific health-related contaminants, such as Cryptosporidium, Giardia, lead, volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) and MTBE (methyl tertiary-butyl ether), that may be present in public or private drinking water.

The scope of NSF/ANSI 53 includes material safety, structural integrity and health-related contaminant reduction performance claims. The most common technology addressed by this standard is carbon filtration. (Source www.nsf.org)



SECTION 6.0


46464646

The scope and size of the UV and filter units can come in flow rates up to 30 USgpm per unit. Several units would provide the treatment and redundancy required for the utility at a much lower cost than larger filter or disinfection systems.

Future designs for reservoir expansion must consider the room and space requirements for the addition of UV disinfection and possibly pressure filters.

The recommended order of process would be prior to the water entering the reservoir, the water would be filtered, followed by UV disinfection and chlorination. The water would be driven through the process via the existing well pump near the creek. The treatment building would be located adjacent to the existing concrete reservoir.



SECTION 7.0

SUMMARY

47474747

7. SUMMARY

7.1 CONCLUSIONS

Conclusions and recommendations of this report are provided in this section. The major conclusions of this report are as follows:

C-1 The existing MDD water demand for the utility is estimated to be 163 m3 or a per capital demand of 990 L/ca/day;

C-2 Turbidity levels along Mission Creek can be extreme every spring or during major spring storms. With levels frequently over 50 NTU, we would conclude that off-line storage is required to ensure stable water supply. For levels between 1.5 and 50 NTU, infiltration may be appropriate, and for levels below 1.5 NTU, directly supply and settling may be a viable operational approach;

C-3 Based on our Geotechnical test pits, the soils along Mission Creek valley are suitable for the development of an infiltration gallery for water supply;

C-4 Of the intake options reviewed, both the direct intake and the infiltration gallery are insufficient to meet the operational flexibility needed to manage the inflow from Mission Creek. If both systems are implemented, the flexibility is greatly improved.

C-5 The existing reservoir storage is confirmed to be 168 m3 in size, exactly as stated on the record drawing title (37,000 Imperial gallons);

C-6 There are limited reservoir sites for reservoir expansion. Items considered in the review of reservoir sites are provided in Section 5.3. Development additional reservoir storage is most feasible at the existing reservoir site at 869m elevation;

C-7 The reservoir shortfall for the existing service area, utilizing a fire flow of 60 L/s for 1.5 hours is 299 m3. Accounting for additional connections in the lower pressure zone, a storage volume of 370m3 is set out in Section 5.4 of this report;

C-8 The SRW alignment at the reservoir site appears to be of insufficient size for the existing reservoir. The legal surveyor, Tom Ferguson, should be contacted to verify that the reservoir is covered within the existing SRW. The legal plan has errors as it does not close when coordinating the SRW boundary;

C-9 Provided that the per-capita demand is accurate, the estimated MDD for the service area, excluding irrigation and significant outdoor demand is 12.0 L/s. This is based on a criteria of 1,200 L/ca/day;

C-10 Extending water service to the existing PZ 868 pressure zone provides the lowest per unit cost as summarized in Table 6.2. Expansion costs become very high when the pumping is phased into the works;

C-11 The cost to service the area is the range of $30,000 per parcel. If alternative designs excluding fire protection are considered, this cost could be reduced to in the range of $23,000 per parcel;



SECTION 7.0

SUMMARY

48484848

7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

R-1 We would request that the RDCO confirm the number of connections that are currently drawing on the Falcon Ridge Utility. The number of service connection including the reservoir property is 57. Confirmation on those parcels using water and those with connections is requested;

R-2 With the existing maximum day demand estimated at 990 L/ca/day, the recommended criteria for Falcon Ridge Utility is 1,200 L/ca/day, however additional review should be carried out on pump run times in the summer months of 2013 and 2014 to confirm this number. This is deviation from the bylaw however there is minimal outdoor usage in the area and this should be considered only after additional review of pump run times and is conducted;

R-3 Local legal surveyor Tom Ferguson, should be contacted regarding the conflict in the SRW lines as the reservoir appears to be located partially outside of the SRW boundary;

R-4 The property owner at the concrete reservoir site should be contacted in regards to the statutory right-of-way (SRW) and proposed plan for reservoir expansion;

R-5 The estimated cost for the infiltration gallery and surface reservoir near the creek is estimated at $290,000. If acceptable to the RDCO, the property owner that granted the SRW at the creek intake site should be contacted to review the proposed works;

R-6 The recommended operation for the infiltration gallery is to run off of storage in the pond for turbidities greater than 25 NTU, run off of infiltration for turbidities between 25 and 1.0, and run directly off of the creek intake for turbidities below 1.0 NTU. There will be some benefit from several days of settling from within the pond, but the RDCO Operators will have to monitor the levels for inflow to the pond and for water leaving the open reservoir;

R-7 It is recommended that the RDCO approach the Water Treatment options slowly as per Section 4.4 of this report. This will allow the RDCO sufficient time to make appropriate decisions on treatment with sufficient water quality data available;

R-8 It is recommended that the RDCO construct 370m3 of additional reservoir storage at the existing reservoir site for a cost estimated to be $360,000. An allowance of $120,000 is provided in the cost estimate for a future vault/pump station/UV disinfection room;

R-9 The cost to expand the water system to a larger service area is estimated to be between $23,000 and $30,000 per lot, depending on what service features are to be provided. The lowest elevation lots within the existing pressure zone are the most cost effective to service. The expansion of the system is not realistic unless senior government funding is made available to assist in paying the capital costs;

R-10 Because of the rural nature of the area, the RDCO may wish to consider alternative approaches and may wish to reconsider the issue of providing fire protection



SECTION 7.0

SUMMARY

49494949

Closure We trust that this draft report is clearer and sufficiently addresses the critical issues regarding direction for the Falcon Ridge utility. Please review the report. We would be pleased to meet with you to discuss any aspects of the report. Yours truly

R. Hrasko, P.Eng. Agua Consulting Inc.



SECTION 7.0

SUMMARY

50505050

FALCON RIDGE UTILITY

WATER SYSTEM UPGRADE

APPENDIX A

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

AAAA ---- 51515151

APPENDIX A - GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

Appendix A includes the Geotechnical report prepared by Cascade Geotechnical.



APPENDIX A

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

A A A A ---- 52525252

FALCON RIDGE UTILITY


APPENDIX B

PROPERTY SUMMARY LISTINGS

BBBB ---- 53535353

APPENDIX B - PROPERTY SUMMARY LISTINGS

Property summary data was obtained from the RDCO GIS mapping system. The data was used to provide a complete estimate of the number of lots, their civic and legal lot and plan numbers, lot areas, etc.



APPENDIX B

PROPERTY SUMMARY LISTINGS

B B B B ---- 54545454



APPENDIX C

REFERENCE DOCUMENTATION

CCCC ---- 55555555

APPENDIX C - REFERENCE DOCUMENTATION

Reference documentation utilized in the preparation of this report includes:

� Associated Engineering – Preliminary Design Report – Falconridge Water utility, 2012;

� AWWA, Manual 31, 4th Edition, 2008 Distribution system Requirements for Fire Protection

� AWWA, M48, Waterborne Pathogens, Manual of Water Supply Practices, Second edition, 2006;

� Black Mountain Irrigation District; Raw water quality data for Mission Creek source – 1992-present;

� Cascade Geotechnical Ltd.: 2014 – Geotechnical engineering report;

� Fire Underwriters Survey, Water Supply for Fire Protection, 1999;

� Kala Groundwater – 1989 groundwater well report;

� Health Canada, Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality (GCDWQ), Sixth Edition, 1996 with current physical parameter updates to September, 2012;

� Interior Health – Email – November 27, 2014 - correspondence – Wayne Radomske;

� Ministry of Environment – Aquifer Classification Maps and Water well database;

� www.nsf.org/ water treatment standards for small systems;

� Regional District of Central Okanagan, Subdivision bylaw no. 704 and amendments;

� USEPA, LT1ESWTR Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking, Technical Guidance Manual, May, 2003;

� www.regionaldistrict.com/



APPENDIX C

REFERENCE DOCUMENTATION

C C C C ---- 56565656

100 water report final rev3 - regional district of central ... 10 hp well pump capacity has been...

Documents