corporation of the town of carleton place resiliency plan ... › photos › custom › 27871... ·...

JLR No.: 27871 Revision: 0

April 16, 2018

Corporation of the Town of Carleton Place

Resiliency Plan – Water Treatment Plant

Final Version

Value through service and commitment

Corporation of the Town of Carleton Place Resiliency Plan – Water Treatment Plant

J.L. Richards & Associates Limited April 16, 2018 JLR No.: 27871 -i- Revision: 0

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION .................................................................................... 1 FUTURE CAPACITY OF THE WTP ............................................................................... 2

Introduction ......................................................................................................... 2 Review of the WTP Historical Flows .................................................................... 2 Population Growth ............................................................................................... 4 Proposed Future Capacity of the WTP ................................................................ 5 Timing of the Upgrades ....................................................................................... 5 Definition of Plant Upgrades ................................................................................ 7

CLIMATE CHANGE ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... 9 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 9 Predicted Changes in Precipitation .....................................................................10 Predicted Changes in Temperature ....................................................................11 Predicted Changes in Wind/Storms ....................................................................12

DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO THE WTP ..............................................12 Potential Impacts from Changing Precipitation ...................................................12 Potential Impacts from Changing Temperatures .................................................17 Potential Impacts from Changing Winds/Storm Events .......................................19

Potential Resiliency Planning Measures ........................................................................19 Discussion of Findings .......................................................................................19 Potential Resiliency Planning Measures .............................................................19

CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................................................22 List of Figures Figure 1: WTP Flows (m3/d) between 1998 and 2017 ............................................................... 3 Figure 2: Historic WTP Flows and Predicted Growth between 2008 and 2050 .......................... 6 Figure 3: Precipitation for Year 2016 (mm) ...............................................................................11 Figure 4: Precipitation for Year 2017 (mm) ...............................................................................11 Figure 5: Minimum and Maximum Flows in the Mississippi River (1922 to 2017) .....................13 Figure 6: Daily Flows in the Mississippi River (2012 to 2016) ...................................................14 Figure 7: Predicted River Flows in m3/s – Dry Weather (2011 to 2099) ....................................14 Figure 8: Predicted River Flows in m3/s – Average Weather (2011 to 2099) ............................15 Figure 9: Predicted River Flows in m3/s – Wet Weather (2011 to 2099) ...................................15 Figure 10: WTP Flows vs River Flows for Year 2012 ...............................................................16 Figure 11: WTP Flows vs River Flows for Year 2014 ...............................................................17 Figure 12: WTP Flows vs River Flows for Year 2017 ...............................................................17 Figure 13: WTP Flows vs Precipitation for Year 2016 ..............................................................18 Figure 14: WTP Flows vs Precipitation for Year 2017 ..............................................................18 List of Tables Table 1: Average Unit Flows per Day per Household for Different Time Periods ....................... 4 Table 2: Maximum Flows at the WTP from Year 2008 to 2017 .................................................. 4 Table 3: Plant Expansion Phasing............................................................................................. 7


J.L. Richards & Associates Limited April 16, 2018 JLR No.: 27871 -ii- Revision: 0

Table 4: Proposed Upgrades .................................................................................................... 7 Table 5: Current and Future Conditions Water Storage Deficits ................................................ 8 Table 6: Precipitation Change Predictions ................................................................................10 Table 7: Temperature and Precipitation Change Predictions ....................................................12 Table 8: Climate Change Effects, Potential Impacts and Possible Resiliency Measures ..........20


J.L. Richards & Associates Limited April 16, 2018 JLR No.: 27871 -1- Revision: 0

INTRODUCTION

The Town of Carleton Place (the Town) has identified a need to develop a Resiliency Plan for both their Water Treatment Plant (WTP) and their Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) based on previous observations of climatic related events. These events included a very dry season in the summer of 2016 that stressed the WTP and a very wet 2017 spring season that stressed the WWTP. J.L. Richards & Associates Limited (JLR) was retained by the Town in January 2018 to assist in undertaking a review of both of these facilities in order to assess their vulnerability to current and future projected climatic conditions and to identify measures that could be considered to ensure both facilities have sufficient “resiliency” to accommodate these conditions. This Report focuses specifically on the WTP and a separate report has been prepared for the WWTP. The objectives of this Report are as follows:

• Present a rationale for the projection of flows that the WTP will need to accommodate in the future, strictly based on the continued growth of the community and identify upgrades required to accommodate this growth.

• Present and analyze climatic and plant related data, including historical river flows, rainfall data and plant flow production in order to assess potential future impacts to the performance of the plant.

• Identify resiliency measures and implementation timeframes that the Town could

consider to mitigate the potential effects of climate change (i.e., separate from those required strictly for future capacity expansion due to growth).

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Climate change has become a reality with impacts experienced across the globe and locally. Temperatures are warming everywhere causing hotter, drier periods of drought and water shortages. This is also creating conditions for more severe and frequent storm events leading to flooding. The Ontario Ministry in charge of managing and protecting our environment has fully recognized this reality as it was made very evident by changing their organizational name in June 2014 to the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC). New climate change related initiatives, including formal legislation, guidance documents and manuals and action plans have been developed within Ontario and Canada in recent years with the overarching goal of ensuring long-term sustainability of our way of life through protection of both the natural and manmade environments. A part of these initiatives includes reviewing existing manmade infrastructure (e.g. transportation, energy supplies, water supplies, etc.), assessing vulnerabilities, and then developing Resiliency Plans to ensure robustness, redundancy and to mitigate impacts from changing climatic conditions that will result in more reliable and uninterrupted services as well as long term economic benefits. As noted in Climate Ready - Ontario’s Adaptation Strategy and Action Plan (2011 to 2014), “Well targeted, early planning and meaningful investment to



improve the Province’s climate resilience are likely to be more effective than complex disaster relief efforts after the event”. Initiatives such as the Water Conservation Act (and Municipal Water Sustainability Plan), Clean Water Act, Source Water Protection, Ontario’s Five Year Climate Change Action Plan (2016-2012) and Optimization Guidance Manual for Sewage Works have all been undertaken with some of their focus (if not all) on the long term resiliency of water supply and wastewater management systems. The Town of Carleton Place owns, operates and maintains various assets that provide services to residents, including a communal water supply system and a communal wastewater management system. In recent years, impacts to these facilities from both water shortages and flooding events have occurred. In the particular case of the WTP, the hot and dry summer of 2016 created operational problems as the water demand was abnormally high. Water demand increased even with special controls on lawn watering through the application of municipal by-laws. At the same time, the flows in the Mississippi River (the Town's drinking water source) reached Level 3 drought conditions. There was even discussion at the time that river flows may not be sufficient to supply water to the Town. The low flow in the river and the stagnation of the water in Mississippi Lake also increased the risk of algae blooms in the source water that can cause treatment challenges at the WTP. Recognizing the importance of the WTP to the community, the Town is taking this first planning step to ensure it will be able to perform under predicted conditions. his includes the identification of resiliency measures that may be required in the future to reduce overall vulnerability and ensure that the plant can continue to provide long term and sustainable performance.

FUTURE CAPACITY OF THE WTP

Introduction

To assess potential impacts from climate change, it was first necessary to determine what the future requirements of the plant are in terms of flow production due to future growth. In some cases it could be determined that the requirements resulting from growth may also assist in addressing resiliency. For example, expanding the capacity of the plant could address additional demand requirements in the short term under drier type conditions. This section provides a review of the historical WTP flows; a projection of future water demands that the plant will need to meet over certain times; an estimate of when the expansion project will be required; and, the identification of the required WTP infrastructure upgrades for this expansion.

Review of the WTP Historical Flows

The Town developed a database consisting of minimum, average and maximum daily flows as measured at the WTP between 1998 and 2017. These flows represent treated water (TW) flows and generally correspond to the daily water demand within the Town.



Figure 1 below illustrates the treated water flows at the WTP from 1998 to 2017, including the minimum day flow recorded for each year, the maximum day flow recorded for each year and the mean (average) day flow recorded for each year.

Figure 1: WTP Flows (m3/d) between 1998 and 2017

The average daily flow is the total volume of water produced during the year divided by 365 days. The average daily flow for the years 1998 to 2007 averaged 6,019 m³/d whereas the average daily flow for the years 2008 to 2017 averaged 4,460 m³/d. Even though the population of the Town increased significantly between 1998 and 2017, the average daily flow for the system decreased by 1,559 m³/d. This is explained by two (2) significant watermain leaks that were repaired in 2007. The maximum day flow for the years 1998 to 2007 averaged 9,122 m³/d and the maximum day flow for the years 2008 to 2017 averaged 7,081 m³/d. Again, even though the population of the Town increased, the maximum day flow for the system decreased by 2,041 m³/d. This again is explained by the two (2) significant watermain leaks that were repaired in 2007. The decrease in water demand between the period from 1998 to 2007 and the period from 2008 to 2017 demonstrates the importance of closely monitoring flows and overall system demand to assess if further leak detection and investigation is required in the future to address potential problems.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Water Treatment Plant Flows (m3/d)

Min m³/day Max m³/day Mean m³/day



Table 1 below summarizes the average unit flow per day per household for the minimum, average and maximum daily flows recorded over different period of time.

Table 1: Average Unit Flows per Day per Household for Different Time Periods

Period Minimum flow (m³/day/unit)

Maximum flow (m³/day/unit)

Average flow (m³/day/unit)

1998-2017 (20 years) 0.864 2.032 1.309 2008-2017 (10 years) 0.670 1.639 1.024 2013-2017 (5 years) 0.592 1.536 0.951

The maximum daily flow between 2008 and 2017 ranged from 1.38 (recorded in 2017) to 1.84 m³/d/unit (recorded in 2012). This corresponds to the period after the leaks repairs. To be conservative, when planning for the future, it was assumed that a unit flow of 1.84 m³/d/unit would be used to calculate future maximum day demands. Table 2 below provides a summary of the maximum daily flows at the WTP from year 2008 to 2017 and summarizes the percentage of the current rated capacity of the WTP. The current maximum capacity of the plant is 12 MLD.

Table 2: Maximum Flows at the WTP from Year 2008 to 2017

Year Maximum Flow m³/d % of the Plant Rated Capacity (maximum flow)

2008 6,636 55.3% 2009 7,461 62.2% 2010 7,129 59.4% 2011 7,305 60.9% 2012 7,855 65.5% 2013 6,194 51.6% 2014 7,433 61.9% 2015 6,299 52.5% 2016 7,946 66.2% 2017 6,556 54.6%

The table above shows that the maximum daily flow for the period between 2008 and 2017 was 7,946 m3/d. A maximum daily treated water value of 8,000 m3/d has been used as the starting point for the year 2017 to calculate future maximum daily flows and the timing for a plant expansion.

Population Growth

Since the 1980s, the Town has experienced strong growth and this growth can be tracked several ways. The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) produces the tax roll for the Town annually which identifies the number of households within the Town. The MPAC data



shows that the number of households in 1990 was 2,833 and that this increased an average of 63 households each year to total 4,462 households in 2016. The Town’s growth can also be tracked by building permits. The building permit records show that the permits issued for new households each year varied from 23 in 1991 to 142 in 2008 with an average of 76 households per year. Lanark County has also been studying growth within the County and produced draft population projections for Carleton Place. For the next 25 years, the County’s study predicts the Town will grow by 310 people (135 households) per year with a low growth scenario and 414 people (180 households) per year with a high growth scenario. Based on all the information available, a growth rate of 150 households per year was assumed to predict future flows. It is important to note that the timing for an “actual” expansion at the WTP will be triggered by flows which are determined by growth rather than a fixed calendar year. If growth occurs faster or slower than the anticipated 150 households per year, then the timing for the expansion can be adjusted accordingly.

Proposed Future Capacity of the WTP

A WTP expansion to accommodate a 20 year period from the time when the plant’s current working capacity has been reached will require an estimated additional 5,520 m3/day of capacity (i.e., 150 households x 1.84 m3/d/unit x 20 years = 5,520 m3/d). It should be noted that the plant’s current rated capacity is 12 MLD although it has been shown to have a working capacity that is somewhat less due to constraints with the existing filters. For the purposes of this Report it is has been assumed that the plant would be expanded to provide a treated water capacity of 17 MLD. This will require various upgrades to certain components within the plant in order to accommodate the total required future treated water flow capacity.

Timing of the Upgrades

As indicated earlier, the maximum daily flow recorded over the period from 2008 to 2017 is 8,000 m3/d. Based upon the assumption that maximum day demand will increase every year by 276 m3/d corresponding to 150 households x 1.84 m3/d/unit, it was possible to develop the curve illustrated in Figure 2. The following assumptions were also considered: 1. The Town will initiate a Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) process (and any

other required planning steps) for an expansion of the WTP once approximately 90% of the current rated capacity is attained.

2. A period of approximately 5-years will be required from the start of the Class EA process to the time of commissioning of the expanded WTP (this includes all study, design and construction activities required to expand the plant).

3. A future expanded plant will be able to service the Town for 20 years thereafter consistent with Class EA guidelines for these types of facilities.


J.L. Richards & Associates Limited April 16, 2018

JLR No.: 27871 -6- Revision: 0

Figure 2: Historic WTP Flows and Predicted Growth between 2008 and 2050



Based on Figure 2, it was possible to identify key dates for the Class EA process initiation and plant upgrades completion. These are summarized in Table 3 below:

Table 3: Plant Expansion Phasing

Category of Works Recommended Start Date for

Class EA Process Upgrades

Completion Date Next Expansion

Plant expansion 2023 2028 2048

Additional water storage located in the distribution system and additional river crossing

2021 2023 n/a

Completion of the force main between the WTP and the WWTP

2020 2025 n/a

Definition of Plant Upgrades

The WTP consists of several different water treatment processes, pumping systems and chemical storage/feed systems. Based on a filtration capacity of 17 MLD, it is possible to identify the upgrades required throughout the treatment train and for the various auxiliary systems. This was done based on an assessment of the existing process/system and its current capacity constraints and identifying what additional infrastructure is needed to achieve the expanded capacity. The total cost of the upgrades in 2018 dollars is estimated to be $8.7 M. The existing processes and systems at the WTP are summarized in the table below along with proposed capacities and proposed upgrades.

Table 4: Proposed Upgrades

Process/System Proposed Capacity Proposed Upgrades Raw water intake structure

18 MLD No upgrades required.

Raw water pipe 18 MLD No upgrades required. Screening 18 MLD Install a new mechanical screen. Low Lift Pumps 18 MLD (with the largest

unit out of service) Replace two (2) pumps with larger units.

Raw Water Piping 18 MLD Some modifications for integration to third Actiflo® unit.

Coagulation/ Sedimentation

18 MLD Add a third Actiflo® unit, identical to the existing units.

Filtration 17 MLD Add two (2) new filters with a filtration surface each of 27 m2. The addition of two (2) new filters will provide an “n+1” configuration, which has become industry standards and is a MOECC Guideline.

Filter backwash Based on continuous Modify the existing configuration to



Process/System Proposed Capacity Proposed Upgrades wastewater and Actiflo®

residuals discharge from the Actiflo® units and maximum number of filter backwashes per day

transform the tanks as equalization tanks and modify the existing pump systems.

Clearwell 17 MLD Construct a third cell with a capacity of 1590 m3.

High Lift Pumps 17 MLD (with the largest unit out of service)

Replace one pump with a larger unit.

Coagulant storage and dosing system

For a maximum raw water flow of 18 MLD

Add a third coagulant pump.

Polymer preparation and dosing system

For a maximum raw water flow of 18 MLD

Add a second polymer preparation system, a third day tank and a third metering pump.

Hydrofluoric acid storage and dosing system

For a maximum treated water flow of 17 MLD

No upgrades required.

Chlorine storage and dosing system


Add a third chlorinator to improve redundancy.

Lime preparation and dosing system


Replace existing system with a soda ash preparation and dosing system.

In addition to the treated water storage at the WTP, it is important to consider overall system storage. The existing clearwell consists of a two (2) cell underground treated water reservoir with a total capacity of 3,180 m3. The reservoir currently provides equalization and emergency storage as well as chlorine disinfection contact time. The existing elevated storage tank within the distribution system provides an additional storage of 3,200 m3. With the proposed future expansion of the WTP, the overall equalization storage and emergency storage would need to be increased. Table 5 below summarizes the current and future water storage deficits. For the future conditions, it is logical to assume that a third cell will be constructed at the WTP. The third cell could have the same volume as the existing cells for an additional water storage volume of 1,590 m3.

Table 5: Current and Future Conditions Water Storage Deficits

Current Conditions (Maximum Day Demand of 12 MLD) Total storage available WTP 3,180 m3 Water tower 3,200 m3 Total available storage in the system 6,380 m3 Total storage required including chlorine contact time dedicated storage Winter conditions 7,280 m3 Summer conditions 6,887 m3 Overall deficit in storage Winter conditions 900 m3 Summer conditions 507 m3



Future Conditions (Maximum Day Demand of 17 MLD) Total storage available WTP (existing) 3,180 m3 WTP (proposed) 1,590 m3 Water tower 3,200 m3 Total available storage in the system 7,970 m3 Total storage required including chlorine contact time dedicated storage Winter conditions 9,076 m3 Summer conditions 8,519 m3 Overall deficit in storage Winter conditions 1,106 m3 Summer conditions 549 m3

The table above shows that the water storage deficits under future conditions would remain similar as under current conditions. Typically, for a town the size of Carleton Place, the emergency, equalization and fire storage would be distributed at key locations inside the Town’s limits. The water tower accounts for a theoretical usable volume of 3,200 m3, so typically, the water tower would satisfy the need for fire storage. However, the distribution system might not have the capacity to convey the MOECC Guidelines recommended fire flow of 220 L/s at any point inside the Town’s limits. Also, the need for additional storage for fire, emergency and equalization as well as potential locations within the distribution system is generally studied through a Class EA process. Often it is not practical and/or optimal to centralize all emergency and equalization storage at the WTP. Hydraulic modelling of the distribution system could be undertaken to more precisely define storage requirements. For example, it is possible that establishing storage of the north side of the Mississippi River perhaps at ground level with a booster pumping system could offer some advantages.

CLIMATE CHANGE ANALYSIS

Introduction

Climate change has the potential to alter weather patterns that in turn can have an effect on the ability of the WTP to maintain its current performance. For example, one of the biggest impacts in the case of the WTP could be on the source water – the Mississippi River. Changing precipitation patterns, temperatures and other climatic conditions could affect the flow and possibly the quality in the Mississippi River. Another example is that increasing temperatures could affect overall and peak treated water usage within the Town. For the purposes of this Report, climate change impacts associated with the following specific conditions have been analyzed:

1. Changes in Precipitation 2. Changes in Temperatures 3. Changes in Frequency and Severity of Wind/Storms



Each of these possible changes could impact the WTP in different ways. The following subsections presents an analysis of predicted changes associated with the climate in Eastern Ontario. Section 5 discusses the potential impacts and Section 6 discusses potential mitigation measures presented with consideration of future plant expansion (as previously outlined in Section 3.0 of this Report).

Predicted Changes in Precipitation

A provincial report “Climate change projections for Ontario: An updated synthesis for policymakers and planners – 2015” by Jenni McDermid, Shannon Fera, and Adam Hogg provides the following precipitation change prediction for eastern Ontario.

Table 6: Precipitation Change Predictions

Year Precipitation (1) 2011-2040 -50 to +100 mm 2040-2070 -50 to +100 mm 2070-2100 -50 to +100 mm

(1) Average annual precipitation of 920 mm could decrease by 50 mm or increase by 100 mm. Generally, this could mean that winters will be wetter and summers dryer. Note that that the above are not cumulative figures.

The Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority (MVCA) also recently began recording precipitation data. Precipitation for the area for year 2016 and year 2017 is presented in Figure 3 and 4. Figure 3 shows precipitation in 2016 (a relatively dry summer) and Figure 4 shows precipitation in 2017 (a relatively wet summer).



Figure 3: Precipitation for Year 2016 (mm)

Figure 4: Precipitation for Year 2017 (mm)

Predicted Changes in Temperature

A provincial report “Climate change projections for Ontario: An updated synthesis for policymakers and planners – 2015” by Jenni McDermid, Shannon Fera, and Adam Hogg provides the following climate change predictions for eastern Ontario.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Jan

1Ja

n 12

Jan

23Fe

b 3

Feb

14Fe

b 26

Mar

8M

ar 1

9M

ar 3

0Ap

r 10

Apr 2

1M

ay 2

May

13

May

24

June

4Ju

ne 1

5Ju

ne 2

6Ju

ly 7

July

18

July

29

Aug

9Au

g 20

Aug

31Se

pt 1

1Se

pt 2

2O

ct 3

Oct

14

Oct

25

Nov

5N

ov 1

6N

ov 2

7De

c 8

Dec

19De

c 30

Precipitation (mm) - 2016

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Jan

1Ja

n 8

Jan

15Ja

n 22

Jan

29Fe

b 5

Feb

12Fe

b 19

Feb

27M

ar 5

Mar

12

Mar

19

Mar

26

Apr 2

Apr 9

Apr 1

6Ap

r 23

Apr 3

0M

ay 7

May

14

May

21

May

28

June

4Ju

ne 1

1Ju

ne 1

8Ju

ne 2

5Ju

ly 2

July

9Ju

ly 1

6Ju

ly 2

3Ju

ly 3

0Au

g 6

Aug

13Au

g 20

Aug

27Se

pt 3

Precipitation (mm) - 2017



Table 7: Temperature and Precipitation Change Predictions

Year Temperature (1) 2011-2040 Increase of 1-2 deg. 2040-2070 Increase of 1.5-3.5 deg. 2070-2100 Increase of 1.5-7 deg.

(1) Temperature predicted to increase 1-2 degrees above the 1971-2000 baseline by 2040. Beyond 2040, temperature could increase up to 7 degrees depending upon GHG emissions and other factors. Generally, winters will be milder while summers are impacted less.

Predicted Changes in Wind/Storms

Although there is no quantitative information related to predicted changes to wind and storm patterns in Eastern Ontario available at this time, it would be logical to account for the impacts that even current storms today could have on the WTP and what measures should be put into place to mitigate these events. If the severity and/or frequency of these storm events increases in the future, these measures should still be at least partially effective and can also be updated to account for these changing conditions, if and when needed.

DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO THE WTP

Potential Impacts from Changing Precipitation

As noted in Section 4.1, precipitation amounts could vary from an overall decrease of 50 mm per year to an overall increase of 100 mm per year. In terms of specific impacts to the WTP, these changes could affect the flow quantity in the Mississippi River either in terms of low flows (impact on water availability) or high flows (impact on flooding potential). A decrease in precipitation at certain times could also impact the WTP by increasing the overall water demand in the system (e.g. additional demand for watering and other uses during hot summers). These impacts are discussed further under Section 5.2 - Potential Impacts from Changing Temperatures as increased temperatures will also have a pronounced impact on water demand. The following discussion, therefore, focuses on impacts on the flows in the raw water source. As previously noted, the Mississippi River is the raw water source for the WTP which is fed from the upstream watershed. The Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority (MVCA) records flows in the Mississippi River at a gauging station located just downstream in the community of Appleton. Figure 5 shows the recorded maximum and minimum river flows from 1922 to 2017.



Figure 5: Minimum and Maximum Flows in the Mississippi River (1922 to 2017)

The maximum flow in the river for each year varies considerably over the years from 280 m3/s in 1999 to 50 m3/s in 1957. Maximum peak flows greater than 220 m3/s have been recorded in 1928, 1937, 1961, 1977, 1999 and 2014. Minimum flows vary throughout the years. In 2016, the hot dry summer increased water demand and the river reached Level 3 drought conditions with a flow of only 1.6 m³/s. Low flow conditions have occurred in the past (2.2 m3/s in 1999 and 2.3 m³/s in 1929) but the 2016 flows are the lowest ever recorded. Daily flows in the Mississippi River for five (5) recent years (2012-2016) are plotted below in Figure 6. This figure illustrates the changes to flows in the river throughout the year for typical, wet and dry years. Year 2013 and 2014 were considered wet years, year 2016 was considered a dry year and year 2012 and 2015 were considered typical years.

020406080

100120140160180200220240260280300

1922

1925

1928

1931

1934

1937

1940

1943

1946

1949

1952

1955

1958

1961

1964

1967

1970

1973

1976

1979

1982

1985

1988

1991

1994

1997

2000

2003

2006

2009

2012

2015

Maximum and Minimum Flows -1922 - 2017 (m3/s)

Low High



Figure 6: Daily Flows in the Mississippi River (2012 to 2016)

The Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority (MVCA) has developed a model that incorporates climate change impacts to precipitation and predicts flows in the Mississippi River. Figures 7, 8 and 9 below show predicted river flows throughout the years based on a dry weather assumption, wet weather assumption and the average weather assumption.

Figure 7: Predicted River Flows in m3/s – Dry Weather (2011 to 2099)

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

Jan

1Ja

n 11

Jan

21Ja

n 31

Feb

10Fe

b 20

Mar

2M

ar 1

2M

ar 2

2Ap

r 1Ap

r 11

Apr 2

1M

ay 1

May

11

May

21

May

31

June

10

June

20

June

30

July

10

July

20

July

30

Aug

9Au

g 19

Aug

29Se

pt 8

Sept

18

Sept

28

Oct

8O

ct 1

8O

ct 2

8N

ov 7

Nov

17

Nov

27

Dec

7De

c 17

Dec

27

River Flows 2012 - 2016 (m3/s)

Flow(cms) 2012 Flow(cms) 2013 Flow(cms) 2014 Flow(cms) 2015 Flow(cms) 2016

020406080

100120140

Jan

1Ja

n 11

Jan

21Ja

n 31

Feb

10Fe

b 20

Mar

2M

ar 1

2M

ar 2

2Ap

r1Ap

r 11

Apr 2

1M

ay 1

May

11

May

21

May

31

June

10

June

20

June

30

July

10

July

20

July

30

Aug

9Au

g 19

Aug

29Se

pt 8

Sept

18

Sept

28

Oct

8O

ct 1

8O

ct 2

8N

ov 7

Nov

17

Nov

27

Dec

7De

c 17

Dec

27

Dry Weather

2011 2021 2031 2041 2051

2061 2071 2081 2091 2099



Figure 8: Predicted River Flows in m3/s – Average Weather (2011 to 2099)

Figure 9: Predicted River Flows in m3/s – Wet Weather (2011 to 2099)

020406080

100120140160180200

Jan

1Ja

n 12

Jan

23Fe

b 3

Feb

14Fe

b 25

Mar

8M

ar 1

9M

ar 3

0Ap

r 10

Apr 2

1M

ay 2

May

13

May

24

June

4Ju

ne 1

5Ju

ne 2

6Ju

ly 7

July

18

July

29

Aug

9Au

g 20

Aug

31Se

pt 1

1Se

pt 2

2O

ct 3

Oct

14

Oct

25

Nov

5N

ov 1

6N

ov 2

7De

c 8

Dec

19De

c 30

Average Weather

2011 2021 2031 2041 2051

2061 2071 2081 2091 2099

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

Jan

1Ja

n 12

Jan

23Fe

b 3

Feb

14Fe

b 25

Mar

8M

ar 1

9M

ar 3

0Ap

r 10

Apr 2

1M

ay 2

May

13

May

24

June

4Ju

ne 1

5Ju

ne 2

6Ju

ly 7

July

18

July

29

Aug

9Au

g 20

Aug

31Se

pt 1

1Se

pt 2

2O

ct 3

Oct

14

Oct

25

Nov

5N

ov 1

6N

ov 2

7De

c 8

Dec

19De

c 30

Wet Weather

2011 2021 2031 2041 2051

2061 2076 2081 2091 2099



As illustrated in Figure 9, some years have two (2) spring peak flow events (such as in 2017) and other years have multiple smaller peak events during the spring and fall. In the future, the peak flows in the river under wet weather conditions are predicted to never exceed 250 m3/s. Based on a review of historical high flows versus predicted high flows, flooding of the WTP does not appear to be a concern and special flood protection measures would not be deemed necessary. Very highs flows in the river are also not expected to affect plant operation. MVCA’s model predicts that river flows in the future (dry weather scenario) could be as low as 1.35 m³/s. In 2016, the hot dry summer increased water usage and the river reached Level 3 drought conditions with a flow of only 1.6 m³/s. It is noted that a future required raw water flow of 18 MLD (or 0.21 m3/s) will be required as per the capacity assessment presented in Section 3 of this Report. It appears that there should be sufficient available water from the Mississippi River although some additional resiliency measures may be prudent (e.g. additional storage in the system, contingency planning, etc.). Even if the river flow was zero, the WTP could draw water from the river/lake at the full rated future capacity of 18 MLD for many days. The surface of the lake is 24.5 km2. At the full future rated capacity of 18 MLD, the drop of water level in the lake is estimate at less than 1 mm per day. Low flows could also impact the water quality in the river (e.g. turbidity, algae blooms, organic content, manganese, etc.) and resiliency measures could be planned for these reasons as well. Figures 10, 11 and 12 below show the flows at the WTP and the river flows for year 2012, 2014 and 2017. These figures demonstrate that there is no direct relationship between the volume of flow in the river and demand flow at the WTP.

Figure 10: WTP Flows vs River Flows for Year 2012

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

WTP Flows vs River Flows - 2012

Treated Water Flows m3/d Flow m3/sec





Potential Impacts from Changing Temperatures

Figures 13 and 14 below illustrates that warmer summer temperatures and longer periods without precipitation will increase water demand. The data shows that the water demand rises when there is little precipitation and water demand is reduced after a rainfall. It is clear that water demand increase is caused by lawn watering activities and other water usage associated

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000



0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000





with sustained hot and dry conditions. Enforcement of watering restrictions through public education and by-law enforcement need to continue so lawn watering flows do not exceed current levels. More stringent by-laws could also be considered in the future.

Figure 13: WTP Flows vs Precipitation for Year 2016

Figure 14: WTP Flows vs Precipitation for Year 2017

It is also expected that the peak hour demand could increase with extreme summer heatwaves and lack of precipitation related to climate change. For example, people could take more showers and this would create additional demand. It is not expected however that the maximum day demand would increase substantially considering the existing water consumption by-laws and the current trend showing that water consumption per capita is decreasing. Future planned

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

WTP Flows vs Precipitation - 2016

Treated Water Flows m3/d Precipitation (mm)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

WTP Flows vs Precipitation - 2017

Treated Water Flows m3/d Precipitation (mm)



upgrades at the WTP will also include additional storage which can be used as operational storage during peak hour. Additional storage within the distribution system may also be prudent.

Potential Impacts from Changing Winds/Storm Events

Wind and storm events could impact the WTP operation regardless of whether they increase in severity and frequency in the future (e.g. ice storms in the past have impacted the WTP). It is logical to expect that with changing conditions (such as increased temperatures) that these types of events could become more prevalent and additional resiliency measures could be put in place by the Town to protect against these types of events. These events could impact the infrastructure at the WTP such as the main electrical service, general access to the WTP for chemical deliveries, communications and transportation. They could also impact the quality of the raw water source (e.g. increasing turbidity and algae blooms). It is recognized that the existing treatment process (Actiflo®) is well equipped to handle rapid and extreme changes in raw water quality although certain operational changes may need to be made under extreme events.

Potential Resiliency Planning Measures

Discussion of Findings

Available information relating to climate change within the vicinity of Carleton Place suggest that temperatures will increase and the total precipitation in the region could marginally increase or decrease over the next 50 years. Storm events may also become more severe and/or more frequent. Generally, the winters will be wetter (and with the increasing winter temperature more of the precipitation will be rain instead of snow) and the summers will be dryer. These conditions have the potential to affect the raw water source as well as increase treated water demand in the system. Based on a review of the available climate change information and a review of the current WTP configuration, the predicted effects are not considered to be “severe” to say an extent that would require investment significantly beyond what would be planned for a future expansion. There are, however, some resiliency measures that would be prudent for the Town to plan for in the future either as a separate undertaking and/or as part of the planning of a future plant expansion.

Potential Resiliency Planning Measures

Table 8 summarizes potential climate change effects, potential resulting impacts to the WTP and some possible resiliency measures that the Town could consider putting into place to counteract these impacts.



Table 8: Climate Change Effects, Potential Impacts and Possible Resiliency Measures

CLIMATE CHANGE EFFECT

POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO WTP

POSSIBLE RESILIENCY MEASURES

Changes to Precipitation (both increases and decreases)

Very low flows in the River during the summer.

The projected low flow of 1.35 m3/s would still provide sufficient water supply. The new design capacity of the WTP (18 MLD or 0.208 m3/s) represents only 15% of the projected extreme low flow in the river and the river is fed by Mississippi Lake which is a very large water reservoir.

- Provide additional treated water storage at the WTP and within the distribution system as part of a future plant expansion.

- Continue to enforce watering by-laws and amplify efforts under extreme conditions.

- Prepare an emergency preparedness plan which would include public communications protocols under sever conditions.

- Implement contingency measures for alternative water sources for fire protection.

Very low water levels in the River during the winter

Potential formation of frazil ice at the intake structure.

- Install a line from the high lift pump system to allow for a reverse of flow through the raw water pipe and intake system.

Higher flows in the River during the spring

Predicted high flows are not anticipated to be a problem in terms of flooding

- No action required.

Increases to Temperatures Water temperature increases in the upstream lake during very hot summers combined with low water levels.

Could cause occasional episodes of algae blooms and the development of cyanotoxins in the lake water that could eventually reach the WTP raw water intake. Algae blooms can also be a potential cause of taste and odor in the treated water.

- Consider installation of a PAC (Powdered Activated Carbon) system in front of the three (3) Actiflo® units. A contact chamber could be installed upstream of the Actiflo®. The chamber would be equipped with a mixing system. A new PAC dosage system would be required. The system would be activated during algae blooms episodes.

Water temperature increases in the lake during very hot summers.

Could promote occasional episodes of zebra mussels.

- Put into operation the existing zebra mussel control system at the WTP.

Warmer lake water in the summer.

Could impact chlorine residuals in the distribution system. Free chlorine depletion could be

- There is a possibility to increase the free chlorine residual at the outlet of the WTP.

- A better strategy would be to






accelerated in the distribution system with warmer water in the water tower.

add chlorine at the outlet of the water tower.

- Consider putting existing chloramination system into service.

Unexpected worsening of the microbial quality of the raw water due to anthropologic pollution.

More stringent log-removal for disinfection would be required for Giardia, Cryptosporidium and viruses.

- Additional disinfection for Cryptosporidium and Giardia could be achieved through the installation of installation of UV reactors on the filter effluent pipes or on the common filter effluent pipe or on the common discharge of the high lift pumps.

Increased air temperatures causing hotter and drier summers.

Increased water demand from residents for longer periods of time.

- Provide additional treated water storage at the WTP and within the distribution system as part of a future plant expansion. Storage is currently located at the WTP and at the water tower. The Town is already considering additional storage on the north side of Mississippi River.

- Continue to enforce watering by-laws and amplify efforts under extreme conditions.

- Prepare an emergency preparedness plan which would include public communications protocols under sever conditions.

- Implement contingency measures for alternative water sources for fire protection.

More Severe Winds/Storms

Summertime rainstorms in the upstream watershed.

This situation could produce rapid turbidity spikes at the raw water intake.

- The WTP will be equipped with three (3) Actiflo® units after the expansion and the ballasted floc clarification technology is known to be very efficient against rapid spikes of turbidity in the raw water. Do nothing.

Severe storms in the region during the summer and/or ice storms during the

Interruption of access to the WTP such as chemical deliveries and/or interruption of electrical grid

- Develop appropriate contingency plans.

- Provide enough storage for each chemical and secure an






winter. for extended periods of time.

alternative chemical supplier. for each chemical utilized.

- Review backup power system capacity and flexibility and upgrade as required.

Stronger runoff into the lake and river system from storms.

Could provoke an increase in DOC and TOC levels in the raw water at the WTP intake. This could be more significant during seasons with high occurrences of forest fires.

- The coagulation/sedimentation process at the WTP could be operated in an enhanced-coagulation mode with the addition of caustic soda or soda ash.

Severe storms in the region during the summer and/or ice storms during the winter.

The WTP is located near a school and future regulations related to climate change could force the Town to replace the existing gas chlorine system with a less hazardous system.

- Replace the gas chlorine system with a sodium hypochlorite system.

CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATIONS

The following are some of the conclusions and recommendations resulting from a review of the Town of Carleton Place WTP in terms of potential impacts from future climate change:

• The WTP capacity will need to increase in the future to accommodate population growth. This growth needs consideration when evaluating the effects of climate change as both will impact the facility in a similar manner. Some of the infrastructure required to accommodate growth could assist in establishing a facility that is more resilient to climate change;

• The predicted effects of climate change alone on the operation of the Town’s WTP are not considered to be overly severe (particularly compared to the impacts from growth) and should not result in investment significantly beyond what may be planned for growth in the future;

• There are some measures that could be undertaken by the Town to improve the WTP’s resiliency to climate change – these have been outlined in Section 6.2. It is recommended that the Town consider implementation of these measures at the appropriate time;

• The core of the water treatment process train at the WTP consisting of the coagulation/sedimentation and filtration processes will be significantly reinforced during the next plant expansion. Additional redundancy will be incorporated in the process train



and this will contribute in increasing the overall resiliency of the facility as for its capacity to sustain episodes of higher water demands and episodes of rapid and extreme raw water quality changes.

• The Class EA process that will need to be undertaken prior to the next expansion will offer an opportunity to study and identify potential additional resiliency measures based on additional data that will be available at the time. For example, the need for a second raw water intake structure and raw water pipe could be considered.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Corporation of the Town of Carleton Place, for the stated purpose, for the named facility. Its discussions and conclusions are summary in nature and cannot be properly used, interpreted or extended to other purposes without a detailed understanding and discussions with the client as to its mandated purpose, scope and limitations. This report was prepared for the sole benefit and use of Corporation of the Town of Carleton Place and may not be used or relied on by any other party without the express written consent of J.L. Richards & Associates Limited. This report is copyright protected and may not be reproduced or used, other than by Corporation of the Town of Carleton Place for the stated purpose, without the express written consent of J.L. Richards & Associates Limited.

J.L. RICHARDS & ASSOCIATES LIMITED Prepared by: Reviewed by:

Christian Thibault, P.Eng., ing. Senior Environmental Engineer

Brian Hein, P.Eng. Executive Director Chief Environmental Engineer

www.jlrichards.ca

JLR Logo is a Registered Trademark ® 2009, all rights are reserved

Ottawa 864 Lady Ellen Place Ottawa ON Canada K1Z 5M2 Tel: 613 728-3571 [email protected]

Kingston 203-863 Princess Street Kingston ON Canada K7L 5N4 Tel: 613 544-1424 [email protected]

Sudbury 314 Countryside Drive Sudbury ON Canada P3E 6G2 Tel: 705 522-8174 [email protected]

Timmins 201-150 Algonquin Blvd. East Timmins ON Canada P4N 1A7 Tel: 705 360-1899 [email protected]

North Bay 200-175 Progress Road North Bay ON Canada P1A 0B8 Tel: 705 495-7597 [email protected]

Hawkesbury 326 Bertha Street Hawkesbury ON Canada K6A 2A8 Tel: 613 632-0287 [email protected]

Guelph 107-450 Speedvale Ave. West Guelph ON Canada N1H 7Y6 Tel: 519 763-0713 [email protected]

corporation of the town of carleton place resiliency plan ... › photos › custom › 27871... ·...

Documents