PROBLEM AND OPPORTUNITY STATEMENT
MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR
UPGRADES TO THE AIRPORT WATER SUPPLY FACILITY
The Problem and Opportunity Statement defines the principal starting point when beginning a Municipal Class
Environmental Assessment Study and assists in defining the scope of the project. The problem and opportunity statement
for “Municipal Class Environmental Assessment for Upgrades to the Airport Water Supply Facility” is defined as follows:
 The Airport Road Pumping Station is located at 9 Airport Road in the County of Brant, and is the primary source of
potable municipal water supply and fire flow protection for the local area.
 Planned development in the area will increase the water supply and pumping demands including additional water
storage requirements to continue to provide adequate potable water distribution and fire protection requirements,
while following the Ministry of Environment (MOE) guidelines.
 The water supply and pumping station capacity must be increased to meet future water flow demands.
 Some watermains may be undersized for future water flow, and may require upgrades.
 Water storage facilities may need to be expanded to meet MOE guidelines. Storage alternatives being considered
include a partially buried reservoir, at-grade standpipe and an elevated tank.
MUNICIPAL CLASS EA PLANNING AND DESIGN PROCESS
NOTE: This flow chart is to be read in conjunction with Part A of the Municipal Class EA
PHASE 1
PIC #1 held
May 15, 2014
We are here
PIC #2
PHASE 2
PHASE 3
PHASE 4
PHASE 5
EXISTING AND FUTURE WATER REQUIREMENTS
MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR
UPGRADES TO THE AIRPORT WATER SYSTEM
Parameter
Existing System
Requirements for Ultimate Development
Permit to Take Water, Maximum Flow Rate
26.5 L/s
62.5 L/s
Permit to Take Water, Total Daily Volume Limit
2,290 m3
5,400 m3
Maximum Day Demand
8.3 L/s
62.5 L/s
Average Day Demand
3.0 L/s
22.7 L/s
Peak Hour Demand
12.1 L/s
90.9 L/s
Brant Fire Flow for 2 hour special case industrial
75.8 L/s
75.8 L/s
Water Supply
Water Demand1
Pumping Capacity
Pumping Capacity
103 L/s, 2
138.3 L/s, 3
90.9 L/s, 4
Storage Capacity
System Storage Capacity
287 m3
2,370 m3, 5
1. Water demands for Ultimate Development are based on County of Brant Development and Engineering Standards, March 2013 (D&ES). Existing water demands are based on current
water usage data with peaking factors derived from the County of Brant Development and Engineering Standards.
2. Pumping capacity is based on operate of two high lift pumps at maximum capacity.
3. Ultimate pumping capacity is based on maximum day flow plus fire flow within a closed pressure system (i.e. no elevated tank).
4. Ultimate pumping capacity is based on peak hour flow within an open pressure system (i.e. floating storage with elevated tank).
5. Recommended storage capacity is based on Ontario Ministry of Environment’s ‘Design Guidelines for Drinking-Water Systems, 2008’ based on emergency, fire and equalization storage
WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR UPGRADES TO THE AIRPORT WATER SYSTEM
Category
Alternative 1a
Do Nothing
Criteria
Alternative 1b
Construct production well at airport pump station site
Alternative 1c
Construct additional well(s) on a separate property from the existing well

Aesthetics of final system
Socio-Cultural
Environment

No change to aesthetics.
Impact on First Nations and
Métis

No impact
Land Use

Not consistent with the County’s official plan

No significant change to aesthetics


Existing pump station is located within an area subject to land claim.
A new production well at the same location as the existing well is not
anticipated to impact Aboriginal interests, and this will be confirmed
through ongoing communication with First Nation and Métis communities.





No impact

New well pump and piping connections are required, but will not result in
significant truck traffic, dust, or noise
Site is in an industrial area, so disturbance to residents will be minimized

Construction Impacts

No construction required
Public Health
and Safety
Natural
Environment

Potential Water Supply
Impacts

Vegetation

No impact
Designated Natural Features

No impact
Current system does not meet long term water supply
requirements
Impact on Terrestrial and
Aquatic Wildlife and Species
at Risk

No impact
Surface Water

No impact
Groundwater

No impact

The existing well does not have the capacity to supply the
Ultimate Development in the Airport area.



No impact on natural upland or wetland vegetation communities. There is
no vegetation on the existing airport pumping station site that would need
to be removed.

No designated natural features in potential development area

No impact

Need to determine any potential for impacts on Whiteman’s Creek to the
north during further pump tests
Potential impacts on groundwater are to be investigated further before
proceeding with this option. Well testing is underway.


Water Supply and Treatment
Technical
Considerations
Financial
Considerations
Further well testing is required to determine potential impact on existing
private wells
Likely to provide sufficient water supply for new development in area


Preliminary testing indicates that sufficient water is available to support
Ultimate Development
Test well at the required location is already drilled
Proposed production well is in close proximity to reservoir site, so minimal
raw watermain is required.
Operations and
Maintenance

Increased operation and maintenance costs as equipment
ages


Two well pumps would need to be maintained rather than one.
Added redundancy
Consistency with
legislation, regulations, and
guidelines

No additional permitting requirements.

Updated Permit To Take Water, and drinking water license are required.

No capital cost to implement, but long term cost to County
as development is not possible without establishing a new
water supply.

Lowest cost to implement, as no new land must be acquired
Costs
OVERALL RANKING
NOT RECOMMENDED
LEGEND
Low Impact (most preferred)
Low to Moderate Impact
Moderate Impact
Moderate to High Impact
High Impact (least preferred)
RECOMMENDED

Depending on location selected for the new well, associated well pump house may be visible
from the road.
Minimize impact by setting structure back from road and/or using landscape buffer/screening
plantings
A new production well is not anticipated to impact Aboriginal interests, and this will be
confirmed through ongoing communication with First Nation and Métis communities.
Depending on the proposed well location, an archaeological assessment will be undertaken to
address cultural heritage concerns.
It is not anticipated that any land use designation will need to change, but this will depend on
the availability of land.
New well needs to be drilled, along with associated pumping and disinfection equipment.
Depending on location selected, construction may occur close to or on neighbouring
properties, and may cause temporary disturbance in the form of noise, and visual impact.
Temporary road closure may be required if new well is located on the south side of Colborne
St W, as new watermain must pass under road.


Impact to existing wells is unknown; further testing is required
Likely to provide sufficient water supply for new development in area

Potential impact on natural upland or wetland vegetation communities. Potential for some
minor removal of park vegetation (sod, landscape plantings) if the well is drilled within the
County owned park. Impacts may be avoided/minimized by selecting an area with little or no
vegetation if possible.

No designated natural features in potential development area

There is a potential to encroach on the potential habitat of Eastern Meadowlark and Bobolink,
designated as Threatened Species (open fields of long grass,/hay > 5 ha). Care must be
taken during detailed design to avoid any nesting areas or other spaces used by these
species. MNR will be consulted regarding potential future targeted surveys or Endangered
Species Act permit requirements.
Need to determine any potential for impacts on Whiteman’s Creek to the north during further
pump tests
Potential impacts on groundwater are to be investigated further before proceeding with this
option.





Greater uncertainty about the availability of water at alternate sites within the Airport Urban
Development area
New test well required
Water from the offsite well would be conveyed to the Airport Pump Station site for treatment.

Because existing well and new well would be at different locations, more travel is required by
the operator to monitor the system and maintain the well pumps as required.

Updated Permit To Take Water, and drinking water license are required. May require road
occupancy permit, or zoning changes depending on location.

Highest capital cost, due to land acquisition requirements, and additional watermain to the
Airport Pump Station site.
NOT RECOMMENDED
WATER STORAGE AND PUMPING ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR UPGRADES TO THE AIRPORT WATER SYSTEM
Category
Socio-Cultural
Environment
Public Health
and Safety
Alternative 2a
Do Nothing
Criteria
Aesthetics of final
system

No impact
Impact on First
Nations and Métis

No impact
Land Use

Prevents development of lands in
accordance with the County’s official plan
Construction Impacts

No impact
Potential Water
Supply Impacts

Does not meet fire storage and flow
requirements for future development
Vegetation

No impact

No impact

No impact

Alternative 2b
Increase In-ground Storage Capacity
Designated Natural
Features
Impact on Terrestrial
and Aquatic Wildlife
and Species at Risk
Surface Water
Groundwater
Greatest visual impact, due to height of structure

Not anticipated to impact First Nations or Métis interests
although this will be confirmed through ongoing
communication with First Nation and Metis communities.
Proposed reservoir location is designated for the same land
use as the Airport Pump Station site, so no impact

Not anticipated to impact First Nations or Métis interests although
this will be confirmed through ongoing communication with First
Nation and Metis communities.

Potential locations are consistent with land use policies.

Some noise, dust and truck traffic disturbance during construction

Meets required fire storage and flow requirements for future
development

No impact on vegetation. None of the areas being
considering for the reservoir location have any vegetation
that would be need to be removed.
No designated natural features in potential development
area.

Trees exist along portion of Colborne St W on south side, and
along the southern boundary of the Employment Lands area, as
designated in the official plan


No designated natural features in potential development area

Area may be habitat of Eastern Meadowlark or Bobolink, so
consultation with MNR should be undertaken

Area may be habitat of Eastern Meadowlark or Bobolink, so
consultation with MNR should be undertaken

Area may be habitat of Eastern Meadowlark or Bobolink,
so consultation with MNR should be undertaken
No impact

No impact

No impact

No impact

No impact

No impact

No impact

No impact

Permit to Take Water associated with
existing well does not have sufficient
capacity for future development demand
and fireflow

Proposed reservoir site is close to proposed new well at the
Airport Pump Station site, so the raw watermain length
would be relatively short.
Flow between two reservoirs could be by gravity

Supply location does not affect the elevated storage option, as
water is pumped from the high lift station to the tower, and not
directly from the well as in Alternative 2b and 2d.

Proposed standpipe site is close to proposed new well
at the Airport Pump Station site, so the raw watermain
length would be relatively short.

Fire flow capacity does not need to be pumped. All fire flows can
be met by gravity flow out of the elevated tank.
Pumping station only needs to be sized for ultimate peak hour flow
(fire flow is derived from elevated tank).
Water system would be classified as “open” pressure system with
floating storage. Therefore, firm pumping capacity can be
maintained with only one largest pump out of service in
accordance with MOE guidelines.
Location of elevated tank more flexible than with in-ground storage
option.
Standby power only needs to be sized for maximum day flow.
Water tower could have secondary function as a communications
tower
Elevated tanks stabilize system pressures.
Highest elevation in the area, which is generally good location for
elevated tank, is located farthest from the area of industrial fire
demand, requiring longer water main sized for peak flow
conditions.

Fire flow capacity plus maximum day demand will need
to be pumped.
Standby power generator would need to be sized for full
fire flow capacity.
Water system would remain a closed pressure system.
Firm pumping capacity would need to be achieved with
two largest pumps out of service in accordance with
MOE guidelines.
Smaller footprint than a buried reservoir.
Maintains a higher minimum hydraulic grade line than a
buried reservoir (i.e. if all pumps are off or have failed).
Improved pumping station operation with flooded pump
suctions.







Existing reservoir storage and pumping
station capacity are undersized to meet
demand of ultimate development



Technical
Considerations


Water Distribution
Consistency with
legislation,
regulations and
guidelines
Financial
Considerations
Costs
OVERALL RANKING
Moderate visual impact; less than elevated tower, and
greater than buried reservoir
Not anticipated to impact First Nations or Métis interests
although this will be confirmed through ongoing
communication with First Nation and Metis communities.
Proposed standpipe location is designated for the same
land use as the Airport Pump Station site, so no impact


Operations and
Maintenance

Reservoir will be buried and grass covered.
Water Supply and
Treatment
Water Pumping and
Storage
Alternative 2d
Install standpipe


Natural
Environment
Alternative 2c
Install elevated water storage tank

Some existing watermains would require
upgrades to allow for future development
flows
Increased operation and maintenance
cost as equipment ages

No impact

No capital cost to implement, and
operating costs will not change
NOT RECOMMENDED
LEGEND
Low Impact (most preferred)
Low to Moderate Impact
Moderate Impact
Moderate to High Impact
High Impact (least preferred)
Some noise, dust and truck traffic disturbance during
construction
Meets required fire storage and flow requirements for future
development
Fire flow capacity plus maximum day demand will need to
be pumped.
Standby power generator would need to be sized for full fire
flow plus maximum day flow capacity.
Water system would remain a closed pressure system.
Firm pumping capacity would need to be achieved with two
largest pumps out of service in accordance with MOE
guidelines.
Will likely require additional neighbouring lands not currently
owned by the County.
Location must be within close proximity to supply well

Some existing watermains would require upgrades to allow
for future development flows
System pressures are controlled through pump operation.

Very similar maintenance requirements to existing system

Updated Permit To Take Water, and drinking water license
are required.


Moderate capital and operating cost for storage, but higher
cost for pump station upgrades
NOT RECOMMENDED








Tank will need to be repainted every 10 to 20 years depending on
the quality of coatings and exposure to the elements.

Updated Permit To Take Water, and drinking water license are
required.
Will require Aeronautical Assessment for Obstruction Marking and
Lighting from Transport Canada


Highest capital and operating cost for storage, but lower cost for
pumping station upgrades
RECOMMENDED
















Some noise, dust and truck traffic disturbance during
construction
Meets required fire storage and flow requirements for
future development
No impact on vegetation. None of the areas being
considering for the standpipe location have any
vegetation that would be need to be removed.
No designated natural features in potential development
area
Some existing watermains would require upgrades to
allow for future development flows
System pressures are controlled through pump
operation.
Standpipe will need to be repainted every 10 to 20 years
depending on the material of construction and exposure
to the elements
Updated Permit To Take Water, and drinking water
license required.
May require Aeronautical Assessment for Obstruction
Marking and Lighting from Transport Canada depending
on height
Lowest capital and operating cost for storage, but higher
cost for pump station upgrades
NOT RECOMMENDED
EVALUATION PROCESS AND RECOMMENDED SOLUTION
MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR
UPGRADES TO THE AIRPORT WATER SYSTEM
Alternative 2a:
Do Nothing
Alternative 1a:
Do Nothing
Alternative 1b:
Construct
Production Well at
Airport Pump
Station Site
Alternative 2b:
Increase In-ground
Storage Capacity
Alternative 1b
Recommended*
Alternative 2c:
Install Elevated
Water Storage
Tank
Alternative 1c:
Construct
additional well(s)
on a separate
property from the
existing well
Step 1: Water Supply
Alternatives 1b and 2c
Recommended*
Alternative 2d:
Install Standpipe
Step 2: Water Storage and Pumping
*The alternatives recommended provide the technically preferred solution prior to public consultation