2016 Utility Master Plan

Town of Canmore
Utilities Master Plan

Water and Sanitary
W899-012.12
January 2017
Formerly BSEI Municipal Consulting Engineers

January 26, 2017
Dennis Letourneau
Epcor Water Services
Suite 1210. 401- 9th Avenue SW
Calgary AB T2P 3C5
Blair Birch
Andreas Comeau
Town of Canmore
902 - 7th Avenue
Canmore AB T1W 3K1
Subject: Town of Canmore Utility Master Plan – Final Report
I have enclosed the Utility Master Plan – Final Report.
This report provides the Town direction on utility projects to meet your current standards of
service as well as provide guidance in planning for future growth and development.
With your help, this report is based on real world data collection and analysis as well as
open discussion and collaboration from everyone involved.
I appreciate the opportunity to work on this project with you. Please do not hesitate to
contact me if you have questions or concerns
Sincerely,
Steven Dawe, B.Sc., P. Eng

Lead Engineer, Partner
SD/er
Encl. as noted
Centre Eight Ten Phone : 403 247-2001

7777, 10th Street N.E., Suite 110 Fax : 403 247-2013
Calgary AB T2E 8X2 www.cima.ca
CANADA
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
Acknowledgements
Town of Canmore
Blair Birch
Andreas Comeau
Alaric Fish
EPCOR Water Services
Dennis Letourneau
John Groeneveld
Brendon Jenner
CIMA+
Steven Dawe
i
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
Executive Summary
Introduction
In March 2016, EPCOR Water Services retained CIMA+ to prepare a new Utility Master Plan. This Utility
Master Plan encompasses a review of the existing conditions and constraints, as well as the future
demands at projections of 5, 10, and 15 years including development to the full build-out of the service
area. It will also develop an ultimate servicing scenario for identified developable lands for the following
components:
+ Wastewater collection and transmission
+ Water supply, treatment, storage and distribution
This report was developed to assist the Town’s administrators to direct and plan for development, improve
system utilization and plan for future upgrades. This study will also assist the Town’s Administrators with
the preservation of future Rights-of-Ways (ROW) and to establish offsite levies.
The stated objectives of the UMP are as follows:
1. To conduct a detailed onsite assessment of the existing water and sanitary systems’ capacities.
This will be done using real and historical data collected from all of Canmore’s facilities and
networks.
2. To identify system deficiencies, provide recommendations for system maintenance and
improvements, and to provide a framework for future servicing.
3. To create a model for the Town’s growth projections and future land use scenarios. This will be
used to predict what impacts the various growth scenarios will have on the Town’s existing
infrastructure and provide a framework for future servicing.
4. To develop a prioritized list of capital projects. The list will include a high–level estimated cost and
a schedule for implementation over the planning period.
Methodology
The following methodology was used to meet the objectives of the UMP:
1. Develop population and development projections with input from stakeholders like locale
developers, Town staff and utility operators
2. Collect and review historical data and onsite measurements. Specially lift station draw down tests,
water distribution meter data, water service meter data, meter reading routes and other available
data.
ii
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
3. Create hydraulic models for the water and wastewater systems that reflect the existing systems.
This was completed using information from the Town’s previous water model, the Town’s GIS
system and record drawings.
4. Evaluate the existing systems against design criteria established with the Town and utility operators
to identify deficiencies.
1. Expand the hydraulic model to service future developments and identify utility
improvements required to support for growth and development
2. Provide a prioritized list of required projects.
Water System
The Town of Canmore currently has two drinking water sources.
The first source, Pump House 1, is a groundwater supply source from two deep wells located in the
downtown area which supply potable water primarily to the east side of the Trans-Canada Highway.
The second source, Pump House 2, is a surface water source from the Rundle Forebay which is a man-
made dam that receives snowmelt water from the mountains in Spray Valley Provincial Park. Pump
House 2 treats water from the Rundle Forebay and supplies potable water primarily to the west side of
the Trans-Canada Highway; plus, Harvie Heights, Deadman’s Flats, and portion of north-west Canmore
on the east side of the Trans-Canada Highway.
The two main water supplies can service their respective sides of the valley, but they also both service a
central area forming a total of three supply zones. The three supply zones are shown in Figure 2. Each
supply zone is divided into pressure zones to deliver appropriate pressures to the system’s users.
The water system also includes four water storage reservoirs and five pump stations.
Wastewater System
The existing wastewater infrastructure has three main components; gravity (manholes and pipes), pumping
(lift stations) and pressure (forcemains). These three systems all operate in conjunction to collect the
wastewater at the wastewater treatment plant.
The first component of the system is the gravity system which collects the wastewater from its many sources
(residential, institutional, commercial and industrial). The gravity system starts at the private property line
where services are collected and conveys it through a pipe and manhole system to a lift station at the low
point. The gravity pipes are mostly PVC with some sections of concrete, steel and unknown (unconfirmed)
materials. The pipe diameters range from 100mm to 600mm.
iii
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
The second component of the piped system are the forcemains. The forcemains convey the wastewater
from the lift stations to larger lift stations and eventually to the wastewater treatment plant. The forcemains
are mostly made of PVC and HDPE pipe, though some sections of forcemain are unknown (unconfirmed).
The size of the forcemains range in diameter from 100 mm to 500 mm.
The final component of the wastewater system are the 11 lift stations operated by the Town of Canmore.
The lift stations include various pumps as outlined in Table 38. The lift stations pump as per the Figure 17
- Collection Areas Flow Diagram where lift stations tend to pump from one station to another and then finally
to the WWTP.
Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) is assumed to be 0.66 L/s/ha in the “valley bottom” areas and 0.28 L/s/ha
throughout the rest of Canmore. The I&I assumption of 0.66 L/s/ha is based on a previous wastewater
system evaluation study that conducted wastewater flow monitoring. The “valley bottom” has been defined
as the collection areas of Lift Stations 1, 2, 3 and 5.
The I&I assumption of 0.28 L/s/ha is based on recommendations from AEP’s Standards and Guidelines.
I&I typically accounts for inflow through manholes, or infiltration into pipes and manholes. AEP also
recommends a flow of 0.4 L/s be added for each manhole at a sag or low point in a road. For the purposes
of this plan we have used the 0.28 L/s/ha.
The I&I rates used in this report are based on measurement and provincial standards, but if the Town can
achieve I&I rates lower than this it would have a considerable effect on the volume of water entering the
wastewater collection system. Reducing I&I would effectively add capacity to the system for additional
development.
Conclusions
Water System
Ten water system projects were identified to meet the Town’s service criteria and support future
growth. They are summarized as follows:
+ Projects to meet recommended service criteria
x Fire Flow Improvements
– BVT,
– Springcreek Dr.,
– Silvertip Trail
– South Bow Loop
x Pressure Improvements
iv
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
– Cougar Creek
– Hubman Landing
+ Projects to support growth and development
x Water Treatment Plant & Pump Station (Pump House 2)
x Grassi Reservoir
x Smith Creek Reservoir
Wastewater System
The following conclusions were made related to the wastewater system:
+ Infiltration in downtown area is major factor in over capacity gravity mains. Reducing infiltration
rate will result in shorter/smaller projects
+ Projects identified for existing system
x 2 Lift Station Upgrade Projects (LS2, LS6)
x 8 Gravity Sewer Upgrade Projects
x 1 Recommendation for Increased Monitoring (LS5)
+ Projects identified for development to full build-out
x Lift Station 2A
x Lift Station 8
x Lift Station 10
x Three Sisters Parkway in multiple phases
– Forecasted for greater than 15 years away
v
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................... i
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... ii
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Authorization and Terms of Reference ......................................................................................... 1
1.2 Background ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Objectives ...................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Growth and Development Analysis ................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Review of Existing Planning Documents ...................................................................................... 2
2.2 Population Growth ......................................................................................................................... 3
2.3 Development Projections .............................................................................................................. 4
3. Water System ....................................................................................................................................... 7
3.1 System Characterization ............................................................................................................... 7
3.1.1 Pipe Diameter and Material ....................................................................................................... 7

3.1.2 System Elevations and Pressure Zones ................................................................................... 9
3.1.3 Water Supply ........................................................................................................................... 10
3.1.4 Treatment ................................................................................................................................ 12
3.1.5 Storage .................................................................................................................................... 13
3.1.6 Distribution .............................................................................................................................. 14
3.2 Water Demand Analysis .............................................................................................................. 16
3.2.1 Existing Water Demands ......................................................................................................... 16

3.2.2 Peaking Factors ...................................................................................................................... 17
3.2.3 Water Losses .......................................................................................................................... 18
3.2.4 Water Demands Summary ...................................................................................................... 18
3.3 Model Development .................................................................................................................... 19
3.3.1 Water System Model Update .................................................................................................. 19

3.3.2 Hazen-Williams C Factor Calibration ...................................................................................... 20
3.3.3 Future Water System .............................................................................................................. 20
3.4 Design Criteria............................................................................................................................. 21
3.4.1 Supply Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 21
i
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
3.4.2 Level of Service Criteria .......................................................................................................... 21

3.4.3 Pumping Requirements ........................................................................................................... 21
3.4.4 Storage Requirements ............................................................................................................ 21
3.4.5 Fire Flow Requirements .......................................................................................................... 22
3.5 Existing System Evaluation ......................................................................................................... 24
3.5.1 Water Supply Analysis ............................................................................................................ 24

3.5.2 Water Treatment Analysis ....................................................................................................... 25
3.5.3 Distribution Analysis ................................................................................................................ 26
3.5.4 Fire Flow Analysis ................................................................................................................... 26
3.5.5 Pump Station Analysis ............................................................................................................ 27
3.5.6 Storage Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 28
3.6 Future System Evaluation ........................................................................................................... 29
3.6.1 Water Supply Analysis ............................................................................................................ 29

3.6.2 Water Treatment Analysis ....................................................................................................... 30
3.6.3 Distribution Analysis ................................................................................................................ 31
3.6.4 Fire Flow Analysis ................................................................................................................... 32
3.6.5 Pump Station Analysis ............................................................................................................ 33
3.6.6 Storage Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 34
3.7 Water Projects ............................................................................................................................. 35
3.7.1 Project 1 - Pump House 2 Treatment Upgrade ....................................................................... 35

3.7.2 Project 2 - Pump House 2 Distribution Upgrade ..................................................................... 36
3.7.3 Project 3 - Grassi Storage ....................................................................................................... 37
3.7.4 Project 4 – Bow Valley Trail Fire Flow Improvement .............................................................. 38
3.7.5 Project 5 – Silvertip Fire Flow Improvement ........................................................................... 39
3.7.6 Project 6 - Smith Creek Reservoir ........................................................................................... 40
3.7.7 Project 7 - South Bow River Loop ........................................................................................... 41
3.7.8 Project 8 – Spring Creek 250mm Loop ................................................................................... 42
3.7.9 Project 9 - Relocation of PRV 23 / Hubman Water Pressure Improvement ........................... 43
3.7.10 Project 10 - Cougar Creek Area + PH5 Decommissioning ................................................. 44
4. Wastewater System ........................................................................................................................... 45
4.1 System Characterization ............................................................................................................. 45
4.1.1 Existing Infrastructure ............................................................................................................. 45

4.1.2 New Infrastructure ................................................................................................................... 46
4.1.3 Collection Areas ...................................................................................................................... 46
ii
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
4.1.4 Low Pressure System ............................................................................................................. 46

4.1.5 Lift Stations .............................................................................................................................. 47
4.1.6 Hydraulic Model Data .............................................................................................................. 48
4.1.7 Flow Generation Determination .............................................................................................. 48
4.1.8 Wastewater Treatment ............................................................................................................ 50
4.2 Design Criteria............................................................................................................................. 50
4.3 Existing System Evaluation ......................................................................................................... 51
4.3.1 Collection System Capacity Analysis ...................................................................................... 51

4.3.2 Lift Station Capacity Analysis .................................................................................................. 51
4.3.3 Existing System Improvements ............................................................................................... 52
4.4 Future System Evaluation ........................................................................................................... 63
4.4.1 Demands ................................................................................................................................. 63

4.4.2 Improvements.......................................................................................................................... 64
5. Summary of Projects ......................................................................................................................... 74
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Development Projection ............................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2 - Existing Water Supply Areas and Pressure Zones ...................................................................... 8
Figure 3 - Reservoir Locations .................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 4 - Water Meter Route Example ...................................................................................................... 19
Figure 5 - Required Fire Flow Based on Existing Land Use ....................................................................... 23
Figure 6 - Existing Water Storage Analysis ................................................................................................ 28
Figure 7 - Future Water Storage Area ........................................................................................................ 34
iii
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
List of Tables
Table 1 - Town Population Census (2000 - 2014) ........................................................................................ 3
Table 2 - Area Development Projections ...................................................................................................... 4
Table 3 - Water Pipe Age and Material ......................................................................................................... 7
Table 4 - PRV Settings .................................................................................................................................. 9
Table 5 - Pump House 1 Water Supply and License .................................................................................. 10
Table 6 - Pump House 2 Water Supply and License .................................................................................. 11
Table 7 - Wastewater Treatment Plant - Water Supply and License .......................................................... 11
Table 8 - Water Treatment Processes ........................................................................................................ 12
Table 9 - Reservoir Summary ..................................................................................................................... 13
Table 10 - Distribution Facility Summary .................................................................................................... 14
Table 11 - Pump House 1 Pump Summary ................................................................................................ 14
Table 13 - Grassi Booster Pump Summary ................................................................................................ 15
Table 15 - Benchlands Pump Summary ..................................................................................................... 15
Table 16 - Historical Water Demand ........................................................................................................... 16
Table 17 - Historical Average Day vs. Maximum Day ................................................................................ 17
Table 18 - Water Loss Summary ................................................................................................................ 18
Table 19 - Water Demand Summary .......................................................................................................... 18
Table 20 - Level of Service Criteria ............................................................................................................. 21
Table 21 - Fire Flow Requirements ............................................................................................................. 22
Table 22 - Pump House 1 Water Supply Analysis ...................................................................................... 24
Table 23 - Pump House 2 Water Supply Analysis ...................................................................................... 24
Table 24 - Pump House 1 Water Treatment Analysis ................................................................................ 25
Table 25 - Pump House 2 Water Treatment Analysis ................................................................................ 25
Table 26 - Pump Station Pumping Capacity ............................................................................................... 27
Table 27 - Water Storage Analysis ............................................................................................................. 28
Table 28 - Pump House 1 Future Water Supply Analysis .......................................................................... 29
Table 29 - Pump House 2 Future Water Supply Analysis .......................................................................... 29
iv
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
Table 30 - Pump House 1 Water Treatment Analysis – Build-out .............................................................. 30
Table 31 - Pump House 2 Water Treatment Analysis – Build-out .............................................................. 30
Table 32 - Fire Flow Improvement Observations ........................................................................................ 32
Table 33 - Fire Pumping Capacity .............................................................................................................. 33
Table 34 - Future System Storage Recommendations ............................................................................... 34
Table 35 - Pump House 2 Water Treatment Analysis – Build-Out ............................................................. 35
Table 36 -:Smith Creek Reservoir Sizing Requirements ............................................................................ 40
Table 37 – Existing Collection Areas Summary .......................................................................................... 46
Table 38 – Existing Wastewater Lift Stations .............................................................................................. 47
Table 39 – Projected Service Populations .................................................................................................. 48
Table 40 – Flow Generation Rates ............................................................................................................. 49
Table 41 – Existing Lift Station Capacity Analysis ...................................................................................... 51
Table 42 - Future Wastewater System Demands ....................................................................................... 63
Table 43 - Summary of Projects ................................................................................................................. 74
List of Appendices
Appendix A – Canmore Lift Station No. 2 Evaluation
Appendix B – Wastewater Generation – Full Build-out Spreadsheet
Appendix C – Alternate to Project 6 – Sewer Upgrade – 7 Avenue
Appendix D – Lift Station Draw Down Tests
Figure W1 – Existing Water System - PHD
Figure W2 – Existing Water System – MDD+FF
Figure W3 – Build-out Water System - PHD
Figure W4 – Build-out Water System – MDD+FF
Figure S1 – Existing Wastewater System - PWWF
Figure S2 – Build-out Wastewater System – PWWF
v
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
1. Introduction
1.1 Authorization and Terms of Reference
In March 2016, EPCOR Water Services retained CIMA+ to prepare a new Utility Master Plan. This Utility
Master Plan will encompass a review of the existing conditions and constraints, as well as the future
demands at projections of 5, 10, and 15 years including development to the full build-out of the service
area. It will also develop an ultimate servicing scenario for identified developable lands for the following
components:
+ Wastewater collection and transmission
+ Water supply, treatment, storage and distribution
1.2 Background
This report was developed to assist the Town’s administrators to direct and plan for development, improve
system utilization and plan for future upgrades. This study will also assist the Town’s Administrators with
the preservation of future Rights-of-Ways (ROW) and to establish offsite levies.
A collection of existing infrastructure plans, studies and planning documents have been reviewed and
incorporated into this study.
1.3 Objectives
The stated objectives of the UMP are as follows:
1. To conduct a detailed onsite assessment of the existing water and sanitary systems’ capacities.
This will be done using real and historical data collected from all of Canmore’s facilities and
networks.
2. To identify system deficiencies, provide recommendations for system maintenance and

improvements, and to provide a framework for future servicing.
3. To create a model for the Town’s growth projections and future land use scenarios. This will be
used to predict what impacts the various growth scenarios will have on the Town’s existing
infrastructure and provide a framework for future servicing.
4. To develop a prioritized list of capital projects. The list will include a high–level estimated cost and
a schedule for implementation over the planning period.
1
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
2. Growth and Development Analysis

This section describes the assumptions and philosophies used in this report related to:
+ Town Population and Service Population

+ Development Areas
+ Growth Projections
+ Land Use
2.1 Review of Existing Planning Documents
CIMA+ reviewed available planning documents and discussed growth goals with Town staff to better
understand the development goals for the study area. The following planning documents and studies were
reviewed:
+ Town of Canmore UMP Report Final (EPCOR- December, 2010)

+ Town of Canmore Sanitary Master Plan (Stantec - June, 2010)
+ Municipal Development Plan (Updated 2010)
+ Municipal Census (various years)
+ Town of Canmore – Engineering Design & Construction Guidelines
+ Area Structure Plans
– Stewart Creek
– Indian Flats
– Silvertip
– Three Sisters Mountain Village?
+ Area Restructure Plans
– Bow Valley Trail
– Spring Creek
– TeePee Town
Establishment of development areas and growth projections is at the foundation of any utility master plan.
CIMA+ met with the Town’s engineering and planning staff, as well as EPCOR, at several workshops early
in the project to reach an agreement on these key parameters.
2
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
2.2 Population Growth
Canmore’s location at the base of the Rocky Mountains, and its proximity to the City of Calgary and Banff
National Park, make it an attractive place to reside both permanently and non-permanently. Municipalities
are authorized only to count permanent residents during a census. However, the Town of Canmore does
attempt to make an unofficial count of people who reside in Canmore occasionally, but whose primary
residence is elsewhere. The Town refers to occasional residents as our "non-permanent population." The
following table summarizes the Town’s census results since 2000.
Table 1 - Town Population Census (2000 - 2014)
Year Permanent Non-Permanent Total
2000 10,517 1,955 12,472
2001 10,843 2,273 13,116
2002
2003 11,458 2,763 14,221
2004
2005 11,442 3,790 15,232
2006 11,599 4,818 16,417
2007
2008 12,005 5,567 17,572
2009 12,226 5,744 17,970
2010
2011 12,317 5,982 18,299
2012
2013
2014 13,077 3,890 16,967
To effectively plan water and wastewater utilities Alberta Environment and Parks recommends to use the
worst case, or peak flow, scenarios to determine whether municipal infrastructure is adequately sized. For
the purposes of this report, there is no differentiation made between permanent and non-permanent
residents because the combined total represents the highest flow scenario. This assumption was discussed
and agreed to with the Town of Canmore and EPCOR.
3
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
The Town of Canmore provides water and wastewater services to Deadman’s Flats and Harvie Heights
within the M.D. of Bighorn, whose populations are not included in Canmore’s municipal census. This report
will include populations for each of these areas to account for their water and wastewater usage.
2.3 Development Projections
Due to the unique needs and development timelines for Canmore, the servicing plan presented in this report
is broken into stages referred to as “development horizons”. The four development horizons represent the
growth distribution for the 5, 10, 15 year horizons and full build-out. This is represented in Figure 1. The
Town provided the projections for the number of new units in each development area over the four time
periods. The number of units was used to calculate projected population using 2.5 people/unit. This data
forms the basis of when and where growth will occur for the purposes of the water and wastewater utility
planning in this report.
Service populations were assigned to Deadman’s Flats and Harvie Heights based on their current and
projected water usage. Growth in these areas was determined in discussions with the Town of Canmore.
This information is summarized in the following table:
Table 2 - Area Development Projections
0–5 6 - 10 11 - 15 > 16
Current Total
Years Years Years Years
Silvertip 0 350 413 2,355 3118
Palliser 350 100 100 0 550
Spring Creek 450 475 475 850 2,250
Tee Pee Town 50 100 100 250 500
Resort Centre 425 923 613 4,353 6,134
Stewart and Smith Creek 700 50 650 2,725 4,125
Peaks of Grassi 100 0 0 0 100
Valley Bottom Infill 100 65 25 0 190
Cougar Creek, Benchlands 0 125 125 0 250
New Population 2,175 2,188 2,500 10,533 17,396

Cumulative Canmore
16,967 19,142 21,330 23,830 34,362
Population
Deadman’s Flats 500 100 100 100 200 1,000
Harvie Heights 400 0 0 0 0 400
Cumulative Population of
17,867 20,142 22,430 25,030 35,762
Service Area
4
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
These development projections are the foundation of the utility plan and should be reviewed and adjusted
or confirmed on a regular basis. We recommend that the plan be reviewed at least every 5 years.
Historical composite per capita water usage and wastewater generation rates will be used later in the report
to establish service demands. The composite rates are inclusive of residential, industrial and commercial
uses and related to a residential population. These rates are determined using measured values and future
demands will be projected using composite per capita rates based on projected residential population
regardless of land use. This method simplifies the utility plan, but when developments are being approved
the hydraulic models should be revised to include more detailed demand projections.
The geographic areas for projected development are shown in Figure 1.
5
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
Figure 1 - Development Projection
6
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
3. Water System
3.1 System Characterization

The Town of Canmore has contracted EPCOR Water Services to operate and manage water
infrastructure within the community.
Canmore’s ultimate build out is to a population of approximately 34,000 and currently has two drinking
water sources.
The first source, Pump House 1, is a groundwater supply source from two deep wells located in the
downtown area which supply potable water primarily to the east side of the Trans-Canada Highway.
The second source, Pump House 2, is a surface water source from the Rundle Forebay which is a man-
made dam that receives snowmelt water from the mountains in Spray Valley Provincial Park. Pump
House 2 treats water from the Rundle Forebay and supplies potable water primarily to the west side of
the Trans-Canada Highway; plus, Harvie Heights, Deadman’s Flats, and portion of north-west Canmore
on the east side of the Trans-Canada Highway.
The two main water supplies can service their respective sides of the valley, but they also both service a
central area forming a total of three supply zones. The three supply zones are shown in Figure 2. Each
supply zone is divided into pressure zones to deliver appropriate pressures to the system’s users.
3.1.1 Pipe Diameter and Material

The water mains in the system are approximately 64% PVC pipe and 34% ductile iron which indicates a
mix between old and new pipe systems. This is expected because 36% of the pipes are older than 30
years. The water mains vary in size from 50 mm to 450 mm diameter. Table 3 summarizes the age and
construction material of Canmore’s water system.
Table 3 - Water Pipe Age and Material
Age Length (km) Percentage Material Length (km) Percentage

>30 Years 39.4 36 PVC 70 64
21-30 Years 22.7 20.7 DI 36.7 33.5
11-20 Years 39.4 36 PE 1.1 1
0-10 Years 5.4 5 Other/Unknown 1.6 1.5
Unknown 2.5 2.3 Total 109.4 100
Total 109.4 100
7
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
Figure 2 - Existing Water Supply Areas and Pressure Zones
8
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
3.1.2 System Elevations and Pressure Zones

Due to elevation differences in the water service areas, the water distribution system in the Town of
Canmore is divided into several pressure zones to sustain normal water pressure in high elevation areas
and prevent unacceptably high water pressure in low elevation areas. Most of these pressure zones are
regulated by pressure reducing valves. Canmore has fourteen pressure zones that are named from Zone
2 to Zone 15. Zone 1 is not currently used.
The pressure zones are identified in Figure 2.
The PRV settings for the existing system were obtained from EPCOR and adjusted to match residual
pressure measurements made at fire hydrants throughout the Town. The PRV settings used for the
evaluation of the system are shown in Table 4 - PRV Settings
Table 4 - PRV Settings
HGL Setting Pressure Setting

Label Description
(m) (kPa)
PRV1 Above 100 Grassi 1,381.81 380
PRV2 West side Benchlands, #126 1,432.72 428
PRV3 East side Benchlands near 210 Benchlands Terrace 1,431.47 455
PRV4 Benchlands Reservoir 1,452.10 559
PRV5 Glacier Dr. and Sandstone Terrace (Glacier Dr.) - East 1,371.23 386
PRV6 Boulder Crescent and 200 Glacier Dr. - West 1,375.47 455
PRV7 Not modelled- considered a service PRV
Homesteads Phase I, Mountain Greens Emergency Rd. (14 205
PRV8 1,361.00 297
Carey)
Homesteads Phase I (177 Carey near the intersection of Carey
PRV9 1,378.67 359
and Three Sisters )
PRV10 Homesteads Phase II Upper (167 McNeil Dr.) 1,380.30 373
PRV11 Highway 1A (Near 516 Bow Valley Trail) 1,352.87 455
PRV12 Alley off of Rundle Crescent (Mount Rundle Penstock Station) 1,355.00 483
PRV13 Olympic Dr. Rundle View 1,361.00 166
PRV14 Near 16 Prospect Heights 1,361.50 442
PRV15 Pump House 1- West Feed 1,354.00 458
PRV16 Removed
PRV17 Silvertip - Block 7 (Blue Grouse and Silvertip Rd.) 1,472.57 828
PRV18 Removed
PRV19 Three Sisters Dr. and 200 Grassi Pl. 1,355.00 233
PRV20 Outside Three Sisters Booster Station 1,417.79 321
PRV21 Lions Park CTFM 1,356.00 452
PRV22 Behind Recreation Centre CTFM 1,355.00 359
PRV23 On the line from Grassi Reservoir to Miskow 1,402.57 221
PRV24 Cairns on the Bow Three Sisters Parkway 1,371.06 497
PRV25 Three Sisters Mountain Village (Fitzgerald) 1,372.97 311
PRV26 Not modelled (Ridge Rd and Elkrun Blvd.)
PRV27 Near 561 Silvertip road 1,510.68 552
PRV28 Not modelled- considered a private PRV
PRV29 Not modelled- considered a private PRV
PRV30 Montane Rd. near Lincoln Park 1,364.72 428
PRV31 Bow Valley Trail (near Ray McBride St. CTFM) 1,357.00 389
PRV32 Palliser Trail By Cross Z ranch 1,389.94 656
PRV-
Dead Man's Flats 1,346.37 500
DMF
PRVT1 Morris and Van Horne Intersection 1,361.50 397
9
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
With the provision of as-builts and Lidar information provided by the Town, the location of the system was
accurately determined and modelled. Using precise information like high density Lidar for confirming the
elevations allows for more accurate planning of future pressure zone areas including reservoir and pump
station location/design parameters. It also supports calibrating minimum pressures throughout the existing
and future system especially when meeting fire flow requirements.
3.1.3 Water Supply

The Town has two water supplies. Pump House 1 is supplied through two deep groundwater wells and
Pump House 2 is supplied with surface water from the Rundle Forebay.
Pump House 1 has a maximum annual diversion of 2,121,965 m 3 at a maximum rate of 589.5 L/s. This is
equal to approximately 42% of the Town’s total diversion license. Diversion from well #2 at Pump House 1
is subject to instream flow objectives in the Bow River. Flow objectives are stated on a weekly basis in
Amendment 2 of the #31682 diversion license.
Table 5 - Pump House 1 Water Supply and License
License # 31681 31682 Total
Description Well #1 Well #2
Point of
SW33-024-10-W5
Diversion
Source Policeman Creek

Max Annual
1,195,620 926,345 2,121,965
Diversion (m3)
Max Rate of
49.5 L/s (4,582.5 m3/day) 540 L/s 589.5 L/s
Diversion (L/s)
Instream Objectives – License
Notes
Amendment 2
10
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
Pump House 2 has a maximum annual diversion of 2,944,329 m 3 at a maximum rate of 760 L/s. This is
equal to approximately 58% of the Town’s total diversion license.
Table 6 - Pump House 2 Water Supply and License
License # 31000 31001 356706 Total

For use by Canmore
Description
and Deadman’s Flat
Point of SW30-022-10-W5 and re-diverted at SE31-
Diversion 024-10-W5 (Rundle Forebay)
Spray River through the works of TransAlta
Source
Utilities Corporation
Max Annual
1,110,134 1,554,195 280,000 2,944,329
Diversion (m3)
Max Rate of
363 L/s 380 L/s 17 L/s 760 L/s
Diversion
License #30999 was originally intended to supply the wastewater treatment plant but the actual water usage
was much greater than originally estimated. This license is now supplemented by License #31682 to
provide an additional 71,300 m 3 of water annually to the wastewater treatment plant.
Table 7 - Wastewater Treatment Plant - Water Supply and License
License # 30999 31682
Wastewater Plant Supplemental

Description Wastewater Plant Well
Flow
Point of
SW28-24-10-W5
Diversion
Source Bow River
Max Annual
3,700 71,300
Diversion (m3)
Max Rate of
3 L/s 3 L/s
Diversion
Instream Objectives – License
Notes
Amendment 2
11
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
3.1.4 Treatment
Water is treated at Pump House 1 by adding chlorine to the well water and then storing it in a contact
tank. After sufficient contact time, treated water is pumped into the distribution system.
Pump House 2 is a direct filtration treatment plant that treats water from Rundle Forebay. The plant’s
treatment processes include coagulation, filtration, chlorination and UV disinfection systems. A reservoir
is currently under construction at Pump House 2 that will improve the chlorine contact time at this facility.
Table 8 - Water Treatment Processes
Facility Pump House 1 Pump House 2
Treatment + Disinfection by chlorination + Coagulation and flocculation

Processes + Rapid Sand Filtration. Four filters for a
total rate of 94 L/s
+ Disinfection by ultraviolet (UV) light.
Limited to 126 L/s maximum through
each of two reactors.
+ Disinfection by chlorination
Treatment + 8,000 m3/day (92.6 L/s) based on + Four filters for a total rate of 94 L/s
2010 UMP.
Rate + UV process limited to 126 L/s maximum
through each of two reactors.
+ Existing Limit: 94 L/s
Treatment + 4-Log reduction for viruses

Levels + 3-Log reduction for Giardia and Cryptosporidium
12
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
3.1.5 Storage
The Town of Canmore currently has five water storage reservoirs. Pump House 1, Benchlands Reservoir,
and Silvertip Reservoir normally service the east side of the Trans-Canada Highway and Pump House 2
and Grassi Reservoir normally service the west side.
Figure 3 - Reservoir Locations
Table 9 - Reservoir Summary
Reservoir Normal Supply Zone Volume (m3)
Pump House 1 East 166
Silvertip Reservoir East 5,400
Benchlands Reservoir East 11,200

1,100 (including 900m3 online
Pump House 2 West
end of 2017)
Grassi Reservoir West 5,000
Total 21,966
13
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
3.1.6 Distribution
The Town currently operates seven water distribution facilities summarized in the following table and
subsections.
Table 10 - Distribution Facility Summary
Name Treatment Distribution Type Storage
Pump House 1 Yes Pump Yes
Pump House 2 Yes Pump Yes
Grassi Reservoir No Gravity Yes
Grassi Booster No Booster No
Silvertip Reservoir No Gravity Yes

Pump House 5
No Booster No
(Canyon Ridge Booster Station)
Benchlands Reservoir No Pump Yes
Pump House 1 has six vertical turbine pumps that pump water from the clear well into the distribution
system. The pump station discharges at 825 kPa so that it can supply water up to Benchlands Reservoir.
A pressure reducing valve at the station will allow water into the downtown area if pressure in that pressure
zone drops below the set point. There is no dedicated “fire-pump” at this facility. Pumps are normally
staged on or off based on level at the Benchlands Reservoir, but pumps will also stage up or down to
maintain pressure during large demands such as a fire flow. Currently, the pumping staging is usually
completed by staging small pumps and large pumps in alternation.
Table 11 - Pump House 1 Pump Summary
Pump Manufacturer Model Motor HP Flow (L/s)
1 Grundfos 30 16.15
2 Grundfos 30 16.15
3 Grundfos 30 16.15
4 Floway 10 LKM 50 28.05
5 Floway 10 LKM 50 28.05
6 Floway 10 LKM 50 28.05
14
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
Pump House 2 has three vertical turbine pumps that pump water from the clear well into the distribution
system. The pump station discharges at approximately 165 kPa because it is located at a high elevation
in its pressure zone. These three pumps are also used to backwash the filters at Pump House 2.
Pump Manufacturer Model Stages Motor HP Flow (L/s) Head (m)
1 Aurora Pumps 12RM 1 15 66.25 14
2 Aurora Pumps 12RM 1 15 66.25 14
3 Aurora Pumps 12RM 1 15 66.25 14
The Grassi Booster Station pumps water from the same zone that Pump House 2 discharges into to fill the
Grassi Reservoir. Coordination between this station and Pump House 2 is required because Pump House
2 can only backwash its filters when this station is not running.
Table 13 - Grassi Booster Pump Summary
1 Grundfos CR60-30U 15 20.2
2 Grundfos CR60-30U 15 20.2
Pump House 5 has three inline booster pumps that are used to supply water to a higher-pressure zone on
Canyon Rd. and Ridge Rd.
1 Peerless C-610-AMBF 5 3.16
2 Peerless C1215-AMBF 15 12.62
3 Peerless 4AE11 ENGINE 69.39
Benchlands Reservoir and Pump Station has three vertical turbine pumps that supply water to the
surrounding area and provide water to the Silvertip area and Reservoir.
Table 15 - Benchlands Pump Summary
1 Peerless 12 LTD 100 39.74
15
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
3.2 Water Demand Analysis
3.2.1 Existing Water Demands

Average water consumption is represented by Average Day Demand (ADD) and represents the average
amount of water a person uses in a day regardless of the season. The ADD is determined from historical
flow records and is then used to project future demands on the system related to growth. When designing
and managing a water system it is also important to know the Maximum Daily Demand (MDD) and Peak
Hourly Demand (PHD) which are typically directly proportional to the ADD.
The water distribution volumes are recorded at both Pump House 1 and Pump House 2. The following
table summarizes the historical water demand1 and populations2 for the Town of Canmore since the year
2000.
Table 16 - Historical Water Demand
Year PH1 (m3) PH2 (m3) Total (m3) PH2/Total Population Demand (L/person/day)
2000 934,911 1,387,731 2,322,642 0.60 12,472 510
2001 1,037,746 1,433,259 2,471,005 0.58 13,116 516
2002 1,190,781 1,423,673 2,614,454 0.54
2003 1,297,201 1,627,581 2,924,782 0.56 14,221 563
2004 1,059,849 1,569,028 2,628,877 0.60
2005 1,199,001 1,478,848 2,677,849 0.55 15,232 482
2006 1,046,096 1,497,526 2,543,622 0.59 16,417 424
2007 1,087,760 1,498,255 2,586,015 0.58
2008 1,034,966 1,461,413 2,496,379 0.59 17,572 389
2009 1,022,067 1,459,209 2,481,276 0.59 17,970 378
2010 965,740 1,391,338 2,357,078 0.59
2011 984,629 1,384,236 2,368,865 0.58 18,299 355
2012 690,063 1,752,224 2,442,287 0.72
2013 739,159 1,819,877 2,559,036 0.71
2014 825,046 1,750,694 2,575,740 0.68 16,967 416
In 2013 and 2014 the annual water demand is very similar. In 2014 the demand for the Town of Canmore
was 2,575,740 m3/year with an average daily demand of 7056 m3/day (81.6 L/s). Using the Municipal
Census population for 2014 a per capita demand of 416 L/person/day is calculated. This report will assume
the average per capita water demand is 420 L/person/day for the present population.
1 Provided by Epcor Water Services
2 Town of Canmore Municipal Census 2014
16
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
A linear best-fit growth projection indicates that the total annual water consumption over the 14-year review
period has been relatively constant with a slight decline even though the Town population has been
growing. An explanation for this is that the Town’s population has been growing as the per capita demand
has been decreasing. Based on discussion with the Town and EPCOR, this report will assume that per
capita water demands will decrease to 360 L/person/day in the future.
The percentage of the Town’s demand for water that is being serviced from Pump House 2 is approximately
70%.
3.2.2 Peaking Factors

The relationship between the ADD, MDD and PHD are typically directly proportional through factors usually
between 1.5 and 6 (i.e. typically ADDx2=MDD and ADDx4=PHD). The historical data is presented in the
following table for analysis.
Table 17 - Historical Average Day vs. Maximum Day
Year Average Daily Demand (m3/day) Maximum Day Demand (m3/day) MDD/ADD
2000 6,363 11,545 1.81
2001 6,770 12,229 1.81
2002 7,163 12,711 1.77
2003 8,013 14,235 1.78
2004 7,183 12,973 1.81
2005 7,317 14,805 2.02
2006 6,969 11,051 1.59
2007 7,085 12,594 1.78
2008 6,821 11,771 1.73
2009 6,798 10,726 1.58
2010 6,458 No data ---
2011 6,490 No data ---
2012 6,691 No data ---
2013 6996 9,715 1.39
2014 7057 12,595 1.78
2015 6823 10,221 1.50
Max 2.02
Average 1.72
From the available data, the highest MDD/ADD ratio over the 15-year data set in 2.02. For the purposes
of this report, the MDD/ADD will be 2.0. Peak Hour Demand data has not been recorded so we assume
that it will be 2.0 x MDD (4.0 x ADD), which is standard in the industry.
17
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
3.2.3 Water Losses

The losses in a system can be quantified by comparing the volumes sent into distribution at the two
treatment facilities and the metered usage. In Canmore, there are known non-account based water users
such as: roadway cleanup, firefighting, sewer main flushing, parks watering, residential bleeders, etc. Each
year the volume of non-account water is estimated to try to understand the total losses in the system. The
water loss assessments for the past 5 years are summarized in Table 18.
Table 18 - Water Loss Summary
Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Water Distribution (m3) 2,368,865 2,442,287 2,559,036 2,575,740 2,495,169
Metered Usage (m3) 1,657,582 1,749,261 1,738,505 1,821,675 1,800,184
Non-Account Water (m3) 186,431 112,550 220,815 370,670 174,573
System Losses (m3) 524,852 580,476 599,716 383,395 520,412
System Losses (%) 22.2% 23.8% 23.4% 14.9% 20.9%
On average, 21% of the water sent into the distribution over the past year years is unaccounted for.
3.2.4 Water Demands Summary

The demands and factors developed in this section were used to determine the current level of service and
what is required to meet the demands of future growth. The existing demands and projected future demands
form the basis for the recommendations of this plan and the construction, operation and maintenance of
the water system now and into the future.
Table 19 - Water Demand Summary
Current Future
Average Daily Demand (Composite L/c/d) 420 L/person/day 360 L/person/day
Maximum Daily Demand 2.0 x ADD 2.0 x ADD
Peak Hour Demand 4.0 x ADD 4.0 x ADD
18
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
3.3 Model Development
3.3.1 Water System Model Update

Prior to this report, EPCOR maintained the Town of Canmore’s water model using Synergee. For this
report, a new water system model was created in Bentley WaterCAD. The new model was created based
on the information in the Town’s GIS records.
The Town provided high resolution LiDAR elevation information for the construction of a digital elevation
model. The LiDAR points were used to create a raster image from which a 5m x 5m elevation grid was
created to be used to assign elevations to nodes in the hydraulic model.
Data relative to PRV set points, pump curves, etc. were extracted from the Synergee model and replicated
in the new WaterCAD model. Once a working model was completed, the pressures in the model were
compared and calibrated against the pressures recorded during the annual hydrant inspections by adjusting
PRV set points.
In Section 3.2.3 metered water volumes vs distribution volumes are compared. Demands were added to
the new water model proportionately to EPCOR’s water meter reading routes. As an example, Route 105
had a metered usage of 37,481 m3 in 2014. In 2014, the distribution volume vs the metered volume for the
whole Town was 141.4% (2,575,740 m3 / 1,821,675 m3 = 141.4%). Therefore, the adjusted demand for
the water model for the area described by meter Route 105 is 37,481 m3 x 141.4% = 52,998 m3. By using
this approach and dividing the water usage across the 24 water meter routes, the actual system usage by
geographic region can be realized in the water model.
Figure 4 - Water Meter Route Example
19
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
3.3.2 Hazen-Williams C Factor Calibration

Field testing to determine C Factors for various pipe materials and ages was originally planned to be
completed for this report but was postponed due to scheduling. It is recommended to complete the C Factor
Calibration prior to the next utility master plan update.
C Factor Calibration ensures the model not only correlates well with the current system, but is also an
accurate basis for projecting future model and system requirements. Calibration supports the efficient
design, construction and operation of the water system, ensuring the system is not overly conservative or
under designed. It allows the decision makers to accurately look at each detail in the context of the entire
system.
3.3.3 Future Water System

To model the future water system the population growth and resulting demands were located per the
development projection discussed in Section 2.3.
An overall full-build water model was constructed to be able to effectively plan. This method ensures that,
regardless how a new development progresses, there will be enough flow and pressure to service
developments as efficiently and cost effectively as possible while keeping future utility planning in the
forefront.
In most cases, details of future developments were unavailable with respect the road alignment, water pipe
networking sizing, design elevations, etc. To address these demands a skeleton system was extended into
the growth areas to represent the future system.
As discussed in Section 3.2.4, the per capita water demand is expected to drop to 360 L/person/day in the
future. The demands in water model representing the future system have been adjusted accordingly.
20
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
3.4 Design Criteria

This section outlines the criteria that will be used to evaluate the current and future system. Section 3.5
details the evaluation of each component of the system.
3.4.1 Supply Criteria

Alberta Environment and Parks requires that a community’s water supply must be capable of the maximum
day demand (MDD).
3.4.2 Level of Service Criteria

The intention of the UMP is to maintain the level of service for the existing and future systems. The level
of service criteria has been set in accordance with the industry and current requirements, as well as
discussions with the Town. The level of service is shown in the following table.
Table 20 - Level of Service Criteria
Parameter Design Criteria
Minimum Pressure in Distribution System 350 kPa (50 psi)
Maximum Pressure in Distribution System 620 kPa (90 psi)
Maximum Allowable Velocity in Distribution System 3.0 m/s
3.4.3 Pumping Requirements

Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) requires that a water distribution pumping system should be able to
provide the greater of PHD or MDD + Fire Flow.
AEP also requires that the water distribution system facility be designed to deliver maximum design flow
with the largest pump out of service.
3.4.4 Storage Requirements

AEP guidelines recommend the storage requirements where the supply of treated water is only capable of
satisfying the maximum daily design flow.
For a storage facility to meet these recommendations it must be sufficiently sized to store the sum of the
following:
+ Fire storage (see following section)

+ Equalization storage (25% MDD)
+ Emergency or contingency storage (15% ADD)
21
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
Some areas of Canmore can be supplied with water from several reservoirs at once. This will be considered
when the existing and future systems are evaluated.
3.4.5 Fire Flow Requirements

The Municipal Government Act does not categorize Fire Protection as a core service. Therefore, it is at the
discretion of Municipalities to choose to provide the service or not, and if so to what level. There are many
guidelines throughout North America, the basic precept is that a Municipality chooses a level of service for
Fire Protection and then ensures they meet or exceed that level.
A commonly accepted, industry guideline for fire protection flow rates is the Fire Underwriter’s Survey
(FUS); a service to insurers and municipalities. The criteria adopted for the Town of Canmore are intended
to follow the FUS guide.
The fire flow requirements that were developed were based on land use designation and are shown in
Table 21. It should be noted that the fire flow requirements for R4 land use designations in South Canmore
and the Peaks of Grassi were reduced to 200 L/s at the direction of the Town of Canmore.
Table 21 - Fire Flow Requirements
Fire Flow Duration Volume

Land Designation
(L/s) (hrs) Required (m3)
Single Family and Duplex Residential
85 2.0 612 (R1, R1A, R1N, R1B, R1S, R2,R2A, MHP, MHR, STR-
1,TPT-CR,VIC and UR)
Multi-Family, Small to Medium Size Units
120 2.0 864
(R3, STR-2)
Commercial, Institutional, Industrial - adequately
200 2.5 1,800 separated, 3 floors or Less
(TC, GD, BVT, CC, TBD, TS,CRD, TS, TID, IND, SB)
Multi-Family, Medium Density (4-Plex to 6 Plex)
200 2.5 1,800
(R4 - South Canmore)
High Density, Multiple Closely Spaced or
300 3.5 3,780 Contiguous Buildings of 3 or More Floors
(R4 - Kananaskis Way, R5, EHD)
Figure 5 illustrates the fire flow requirements as determined from the land use designation.
22
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
Figure 5 - Required Fire Flow Based on Existing Land Use
23
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
3.5 Existing System Evaluation
3.5.1 Water Supply Analysis

Pump House 1 has a maximum annual licensed diversion of 2,121,965 m 3 at a maximum rate of 589.5 L/s.
This is equal to approximately 42% of the Town’s total diversion license. Diversion from Well #2 at Pump
House 1 is subject to instream flow objectives in the Bow River. Flow objectives are stated on a weekly
basis in Amendment 2 of the #31682 diversion license.
The current maximum day demand at Pump House 1 is slightly more than the licensed withdrawal limits for
Well 1, independently. But, the annual demand volume is less than the Well #1 license. If the flow
objectives required to use Well #2 are not met, Well #1 may not meet the maximum day demands and the
system will have to draw upon its stored water reserves.
Table 22 - Pump House 1 Water Supply Analysis
Current License License License

Demand (Well #1) (Well #2) (Total PH1)
Annual Demand (m3/year) ~825,000 1,195,620 926,345 2,121,965
Max Day Demand (L/s) 52.2 49.5 540.0 589.5
Pump House 2 has a maximum annual licensed diversion of 2,944,329 m 3 at a maximum rate of 760 L/s.
This is equal to approximately 58% of the Town’s total diversion license.
The current maximum day demand at Pump House 2 is significantly less than the licensed withdrawal limits
and the annual usage represents approximately 60% use of the Town’s existing license for the Rundle
Forebay.
Table 23 - Pump House 2 Water Supply Analysis
Current Demand License (Total PH2)
Annual Demand (m3/year) ~1,750,000 2,944,329
Max Day Demand (L/s) 111.0 760.0
24
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
3.5.2 Water Treatment Analysis

As defined in the design criteria, a water treatment plant should be able to supply a community with its
maximum day demand.
The 2010 Canmore UMP Update Report states: “A review of operational data from the last few years
suggests that the maximum capacity for Pump House 1 is approximately 8,000 m 3/day.” This value is used
in this report as the treatment capacity at Pump House 1.
Table 24 - Pump House 1 Water Treatment Analysis
Calculated Current
Treatment Capacity
Demand
Max Day Demand (m3/day) 4,510 8,000
Historical daily flow volumes for Pump House 1 were reviewed and found the highest daily usage in three
years worth of data was on August 7, 2014 with 6,325 m3 for the day. This is unusually high, as maximum
days from other years were more in line with the design criteria, that being 2 x ADD or approximately 4,510
m3 (52.2 L/s) for the existing system.
At Pump House 2, the water treatment process is currently limited by the filtration rate of 94.4 L/s (340
m3/hr). It is next limited by the UV disinfection process that has a maximum flow rate of 126 L/s.
Table 25 - Pump House 2 Water Treatment Analysis
Calculated Current Treatment

2014 Demand
Demand Capacity
Max Day Demand (L/s) 111 93.5 94.4
Max Day Demand (m3/day) 9590 8076 8,160
Historical daily flow volumes for Pump House 2 indicate that the treatment system is already at capacity.
When the design criteria are used to calculate the maximum day demand (ADD x 2), the calculated demand
is 17.5% greater than the capacity of the treatment facility.
Based on historical data, the most recent per capita demand figure is from 2014 which showed 416 L/c/d.
As stated in the design criteria, the expectation is that this demand figure will drop to 360 L/c/d as the Town
continues to grow.
Based on the information presented here, an upgrade to the Pump House 2 treatment process is required
immediately.
25
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
3.5.3 Distribution Analysis

Figure W1 (Appendix) shows the hydraulic model results for the Peak Hour Demand scenario at 420 L/c/d/.
Pressure nodes that do not meet the minimum pressure requirement of 350 kPa (50 psi) set out in the
Design Criteria are shown in orange. Nodes that have a pressure less than 275 kPa (40 psi) are shown in
red.
Based on the hydraulic model analysis, there are two areas in need of pressure improvements to meet the
design criteria of this report:
+ Hubman Heights Area (Minimum Pressure 222 kPa)

+ Coyote Way Area (Minimum Pressure 250 kPa)
3.5.4 Fire Flow Analysis

Figure W2 (Appendix) shows the hydraulic model results for the MDD + Fire Flow scenario. The water
model was used to calculate the available fire flow at each node while maintaining at least 138 kPa (20
psi) residual at every point in the distribution system. The nodes are color coded corresponding to the
colors in Figure 5, and the available fire flow labeled at each node in liters per second.
Based on the hydraulic model analysis, the following observations can be made:
+ South end of Kananaskis Way has an available fire flow of approximately 275 L/s when 300 L/s is
required.
+ The commercial area along Bow Valley Trail has an available fire flow of approximately 120 L/s
when 300 L/s is required.
+ The commercial area along Bow Valley Trail near the hospital has an available fire flow of
approximately 250 L/s when 300 L/s is required.
+ Area in Peaks of Grassi has an available fire flow between 155 L/s when 200 L/s is required.
+ Commercial area in Stewart Creek has an available fire flow of approximately 120 L/s when 200
L/s is required.
+ Elk Run commercial industrial area has an available fire flow that is only 5% greater than the
required fire flow of 200 L/s. This may be a limitation if a type of business requires more in the
future.
26
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
3.5.5 Pump Station Analysis

Pump House 1 normally discharges into Pressure Zone 4 and ultimately supplies water to approximately
30% of the Town of Canmore. Benchlands Reservoir is filled by Pump House 1 through Pressure Zone 4.
Pump House 1 and the Benchlands Reservoir can be considered one system although they are in
geographically different areas. Benchlands Reservoir assists Pump House 1 with meeting peak
requirements and fire flows and therefore Pump House 1 needs only to be able to supply maximum day for
the east supply zone demands to the system which is 52.2 L/s.
Pump House 2 discharges in to Pressure Zone 9 and ultimately supplies water to approximately 70% of the
Town of Canmore. Pump House 2 and the Grassi Reservoir can be considered one system although they
are in geographically different areas. Grassi Reservoir assists Pump House 2 with meeting peak
requirements and fire flows but fire flow through the cross town feeder main is heavily influenced by the
pump capacity at Pump House 2. The hydraulic model indicates that the firm pump capacity required at
Pump House 2 to satisfy maximum day demand and fire flow requirements is 225 L/s.
Pump House 5 boosts water from Zone 4 to Zone 6 to provide residents with adequate pressure. Pump
House 5 has one large pump that is used to supply fire flow to the area. The MDD for the Pump House 5
service area is 1.2 L/s, and based on Figure 5, the required fire flow in this area is 85 L/s. Therefore, the
required capacity at Pump House 5 is 86.2 L/s.
Grassi Booster Station boosts water from Zone 9 to Zone 12 so that Grassi Reservoir can be filled. There
is no fire flow aspect to its function, therefore its required capacity is to supply Grassi Reservoir with flow
equal to MDD which is approximately 20 L/s. This facility is near capacity, but approximately 7 L/s of this
demand can be supplied from Pump House 2 with some adjustments to the settings at PRVs 24 and 25.
Benchlands Pump Station supplies water to Silvertip Reservoir which is located in Pressure Zone 2.
Together, they provide distribution pressure to Pressure Zones 2, 3, 5, 16 and 17 using the pumps at
Benchlands Pump Station and gravity from Silvertip Reservoir. Benchlands Pump Station only needs to
supply maximum day demand to its service area which is approximately 8 L/s.
Table 26 - Pump Station Pumping Capacity
Pump Station Firm Pumping Capacity (L/s) Required Capacity (L/s)
Pump House 1 104.6 52.2
Pump House 2 132.5 225.0
Pump House 5 85.2 86.2
Grassi Booster 20.2 20.0
Benchlands 80.0 8.0
27
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
3.5.6 Storage Analysis

Many of the Town’s pressure zones can be serviced from multiple storage reservoirs at once. This makes
the analysis of available storage more complicated than a simpler system. For this analysis, the distribution
system is broken into three areas, Western, Central, and Eastern.
The Western Supply Area services the Figure 6 - Existing Water Storage Analysis
pressure zones identified in Figure 6 and
is supplied only by the Pump House 2 and
Grassi Reservoirs.
The Central Supply Area services the

pressure zones identified in Figure 6 and is
normally supplied by the Pump House 2
Western Supply Eastern Supply
and Grassi Reservoirs but can be supplied (PH2+Grassi) (Benchlands+Silvertip)
• Zones 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15 • Zones 2, 3, 5, 16, 17
from Benchlands and Silvertip during large
demands or fire events.
The Eastern Supply Area services the

pressure zones identified in Figure 6 and is Central Supply
supplied by the Benchlands and Silvertip Zones 4, 6, 7, 8, 13
Reservoir.
Table 27 summarizes the required and available storage for each Supply Area.
Table 27 - Water Storage Analysis
Supply Area West Central East

MDD (L/s) 28.3 127.1 7.8
MDD (m3/day) 2,445 10,981 674
Fire Storage (300 L/s at 3.5 hours) 3,780 3,780 3,780
Equalization Storage - 25% MDD (m3/day) 611 2745 168
Emergency Storage - 15% ADD (m3/day) 183 824 51
Recommended Storage 4,574 7,349 3,999
Available Storage 5,000 21,6003 16,600
The West Supply Area is approaching its available storage and an upgrade will be required soon. The
utility operators should be aware that when fighting a large fire in the West Supply Area, the system should
be adjusted so that Central Supply Area is mainly supplied by the reservoirs in the east.
3 Based on storage volume of all three reservoirs: Silvertip, Benchlands, and Grassi.
28
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
3.6 Future System Evaluation
3.6.1 Water Supply Analysis
Pump House 1 has a maximum annual licensed diversion of 2,121,965 m 3 at a maximum rate of 589.5 L/s.
This is equal to approximately 42% of the Town’s total diversion license. Diversion from Well #2 at Pump
House 1 is subject to instream flow objectives in the Bow River. Flow objectives are stated on a weekly
basis in Amendment 2 of the #31682 diversion license.
The maximum day demand at full build-out at Pump House 1 is almost double the licensed withdrawal limits
for Well 1, independently. In the future, the Town must rely on Well #2 for high demand periods. If the Bow
River flow objectives required to use Well #2 are not met, Well #1 will not meet the maximum day demands
and the system will have to draw upon its stored water reserves. The difference between the max day
demand the withdrawal limit for Well #1 is so great that it will use stored water very quickly. It is
recommended the Town either revisit the limitations on using Well #2, or procure an additional water license
for Pump House 1.
Table 28 - Pump House 1 Future Water Supply Analysis
Demand at License License License

Build-Out (Well #1) (Well #2) (Total PH1)
Annual Demand (m3/year) ~1,469,577 1,195,620 926,345 2,121,965
Max Day Demand (L/s) 93.2 49.5 540.0 589.5
Pump House 2 has a maximum annual licensed diversion of 2,944,329 m 3 at a maximum rate of 760 L/s.
This is equal to approximately 58% of the Town’s total diversion license.
The maximum day demand at full build-out at Pump House 2 is significantly less than the licensed
withdrawal limits. But, the annual volume required is more than the license allows. This is not expected to
cause an issue until a service population of approximately 33,000 people at which point additional water
license will be required. At a growth rate of 500 people per year, that is forecasted to occur in year 2048.
Table 29 - Pump House 2 Future Water Supply Analysis
Calculated Future Demand License (Total PH2)
Annual Demand (m3/year) ~3,207,211 2,944,329
29
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
3.6.2 Water Treatment Analysis
As defined the in the design criteria, a water treatment plant should be able to supply a community with its
maximum day demand.
The 2010 Canmore UMP Update Report states: “A review of operational data from the last few years
suggests that the maximum capacity for Pump House 1 is approximately 8,000 m 3/day.” This value is used
in this report as the treatment capacity at Pump House 1.
Table 30 - Pump House 1 Water Treatment Analysis – Build-out
Calculated Future Demand Treatment Capacity
If Pump House 1 can treat water at a rate of 8000 m3/day, then it is nearly adequate for the full build-out
population and service area.
In Section Water Treatment Analysis3.5.2 it was identified that the Pump House 2 was at or near its
treatment capacity for the existing population. To service the full build-out population and service area,
Pump House 2’s new treatment capacity is recommended to be 225 L/s. This allows a 10% factor of safety
in the number determined in the table below.
Table 31 - Pump House 2 Water Treatment Analysis – Build-out
Max Day Demand (L/s) 203.4 225
Given the geography of the existing Pump House 2, expanding the building to add more filters may be
difficult. Consideration should be given to a filtering technology that achieves higher filtering rates while
using the same or similar building footprint, like membrane filtration.
30
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
3.6.3 Distribution Analysis
Figure W3 (Appendix) shows the hydraulic model results for the Peak Hour Demand scenario for the full
build-out system. Pressure nodes that do not meet the minimum pressure requirement of 350 kPa (50 psi)
set out in the Design Criteria are shown in orange. Nodes that have a pressure less than 275 kPa (40 psi)
are shown in red.
The existing system analysis had identified two areas with low pressure. The hydraulic model was updated
to improve these areas in the following ways.
+ Hubman Heights Area (Minimum Pressure 222 kPa)

– PRV 23 is moved from its existing location (feeder from Grassi)
– A new pressure zone is created out of areas currently in Pressure Zone 14.
New PRVs located behind Miskow Close
New PRV located on Stewart Creek Dr.
+ Coyote Way Area (Minimum Pressure 250 kPa)
– Coyote Way Area (Pressure Zone 4) is connected to Pressure Zone 5
New PRV and connection to Pressure Zone 5 at Benchlands Trail
New PRV on Cougar Creek Dr to isolate from Pressure Zone 4
New PRV on Lady McDonald Dr to isolate from Pressure Zone 4
– Pressure Zone 6 is connected to Pressure Zone 5 and Pump House 5 can be
decommissioned
+ Bow Valley Trail Upgrade (Project 4)
In addition to these improvements from the existing system, several other additions have been made to the
system to increase the level of service and/or system redundancy.
+ South Bow River Loop (Project 7)

– Zone 9 is connected to Zone 4 via a new PRV
– Improves system redundancy by providing a second feeder main across the Bow River.
– Greatly improves fire flow at South end of Kananaskis Way (indicated as not meeting fire
flow requirements in Section 3.5.4)
– Greatly improves fire flow in Elk Run commercial/industrial area.
+ Springcreek Loop (Project 8)
– Improved available fire flow on 8 St. (Main St.)
– Improved available fire flow on Spring Creek Dr.
– Improved looping/reliability/redundancy on Spring Creek Dr.
31
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
3.6.4 Fire Flow Analysis
Figure W4 (Appendix) shows the hydraulic model results for the MDD + Fire Flow scenario for the full
build-out system. The water model was using to calculate the available fire flow at each node while
maintaining at least 138 kPa (20 psi) residual at every point in the distribution system. The nodes are
color coded corresponding to the colors in Figure 5, and the available fire flow labeled at each node in
liters per second.
The hydraulic model was updated to reflect the distribution system changes in the previous section as well
as increased pumping capacity at Pump House 2 which was critical to increasing overall available fire flow.
Based on the hydraulic model analysis, the following observations can be made about improvements to the
available fire flow:
Table 32 - Fire Flow Improvement Observations
Available Fire Flow - Available Fire Flow –

Area
Existing Build-out
South end of Kananaskis Way 275 350
The commercial area along Bow Valley Trail

120 330
(North end)
The commercial area on Bow Valley Trail near

250 396
Hospital
Peaks of Grassi 159 - 289 142 - 255
Commercial area in Stewart Creek 120 226 - 293
Elk Run Commercial 210 336
New development areas have had their pipes sized to adequately meet the fire flow requirements. Except
for the East Side of Peak of Grassi, available fire flow is improved throughout Town.
32
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
3.6.5 Pump Station Analysis
Pump House 1 normally discharges into Pressure Zone 4 and will ultimately supply water to approximately
30% of the Town of Canmore. Benchlands Reservoir is filled by Pump House 1 through Pressure Zone 4.
Pump House 1 and the Benchlands Reservoir can be considered one system although they are in
geographically different areas. Benchlands Reservoir assists Pump House 1 with meeting peak
requirements and fire flows and therefore Pump House 1 needs only to be able to supply maximum day
demand for the east supply zone demands to the system which is 93.2 L/s.
Pump House 2 discharges in to Pressure Zone 9 and ultimately supplies water to approximately 70% of the
Town of Canmore. Pump House 2 and the Grassi Reservoir can be considered one system although they
are in geographically different areas. Grassi Reservoir assists Pump House 2 with meeting peak
requirements and fire flows but fire flow through the cross town feeder main is heavily influenced by the
pump capacity at Pump House 2. The hydraulic model indicates that the firm pump capacity required at
Pump House 2 to satisfy maximum day demand and fire flow requirements is 225 L/s.
In the future build-out scenario Pump House 5 is decommissioned. Until this is work is completed, there is
no concern of capacity at Pump House 5 because it currently meets the service area requirements and
there is no expected growth that will affect it.
Grassi Booster Station boosts water from Zone 9 to Zone 12 so that Grassi Reservoir can be filled. There
is no fire flow aspect to its function, therefore its required capacity is to supply Grassi Reservoir with flow
equal to MDD. The hydraulic model indicates that the firm pump capacity required at Grassi Booster Station
to satisfy maximum day demand 57 L/s at full build-out. The recommended capacity for this facility is
rounded up to 60 L/s.
Benchlands Pump Station supplies water to Silvertip Reservoir which is located in Pressure Zone 2.
Together, they provide distribution pressure to Pressure Zones 2, 3, 5, 16 and 17 using the pumps at
Benchlands Pump Station and gravity from Silvertip Reservoir. Benchlands Pump Station only needs to
supply maximum day demand to its service area which is approximately 28 L/s for full build-out.
Table 33 - Fire Pumping Capacity
Pump Station Firm Pumping Capacity (L/s) Required Capacity at Build-out (L/s)
Pump House 1 104.6 93.2
Pump House 2 225 203.4
Grassi Booster 60.0 57.0
Benchlands 80.0 28.0
33
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
3.6.6 Storage Analysis Figure 7 - Future Water Storage Area
A new reservoir is required to support

growth in the Stewart and Smith Creek
areas because higher elevations in Smith
Creek
development cannot be supplied from Reservoir
Grassi Reservoir. The new reservoir is

referred to as the Smith Creek
Reservoir in this report. The area
serviced by Smith Creek Reservoir is
projected to have an ultimate MDD of 37 Western Supply Eastern Supply
(PH2+Grassi) (Benchlands+Silvertip)
L/s as determined by the hydraulic • Zones 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15 • Zones 2, 3, 5, 16, 17
model. Therefore, the recommended

size for the Smith Creek reservoir to
Central Supply
adequately provide a reliable supply
Zones 4, 6, 7, 8, 13
and the recommended fire flow storage
is 5,000 m3.
As previously discussed, for the purposes of calculating storage, Pump House 2 and Grassi Reservoir will
be considered one system with common storage. Since Smith Creek Reservoir cannot supply the entire
Grassi/Pump House 2 service area its demand is subtracted from the West Supply Area’s demands.
In Table 34 the treated water storage requirements are summarized. Grassi Reservoir is recommended to
have approximate 6,000 m3 of storage at the full build-out projection. But depending on the location and
timing of future development, Grassi may require additional storage until Smith Creek Reservoir is
commissioned. For this reason, this report is recommending constructing an additional 3,500 m 3 of storage
at Grassi Reservoir for a total available storage of 8,500 m 3.
Table 34 - Future System Storage Recommendations
Supply Area West Central East Smith Creek
MDD (L/s) 78.8 144.4 27.8 37

MDD (m3/day) 6808.32 12476.16 2401.92 3196.8
Fire Storage (300 L/s at 3.5 hours) 3,780 3,780 3,780 3780
Equalization Storage - 25% MDD (m3/day) 1702 3119 600 799
Emergency Storage - 15% ADD (m3/day) 511 936 180 240
Recommended Storage (m3) 5,993 7,835 4,560 4,819
Available Storage (m3) 8,500 21,600 16,600 5,000
34
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
3.7 Water Projects
3.7.1 Project 1 - Pump House 2 Treatment Upgrade

In Section 3.5.2 it was identified that the Pump House 2 was at or near its treatment capacity for the existing
population. To service the full build-out population and service area, Pump House 2’s new treatment
capacity is recommended to be 225 L/s. This allows a 10% factor of safety in the number determined in
the table below.
Table 35 - Pump House 2 Water Treatment Analysis – Build-Out
Given the geography of the existing Pump House 2, expanding the building to add more filters may be
difficult. Consideration should be given to a filtering technology that achieves higher filtering rates while
using the same or similar building footprint, like membrane filtration.
Project Trigger: MDD from Pump House 2 exceeding existing filtering rate.
Forecast: Construction Completion 2018
Upgrade Target: 225 L/s - Suitable for continued development and full build-out and this treatment rate
would allow for the distribution and storage systems to recover 3780 m3 in a 48-hour period during a
maximum day. 3780 m3 is the volume required to provide a 300 L/s fire flow for 3.5 hours.
Project Details:
+ New Filtration Process and Building
+ New or Additional UV Disinfection
+ Upgraded intake from Rundle Forebay
Project Cost:
Design $720,000
Construction $6,000,000
Contingency $1,200,000
Management Fee $200,000
Total $8,120,000
35
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
3.7.2 Project 2 - Pump House 2 Distribution Upgrade

Pump House 2 discharges in to Pressure Zone 9 and will ultimately supply water to approximately 70% of
the Town of Canmore. Pump House 2 and the Grassi Reservoir can be considered one system although
they are in geographically different areas. Grassi Reservoir assists Pump House 2 with meeting peak
requirements and fire flows and therefore Pump House 2 needs only to be able to supply maximum day for
the west supply zone (204 L/s).
Pump House 2 currently has a firm pumping capacity of 132.5 L/s and an existing maximum day demand
of 111 L/s. At full build-out, the maximum demand increases to 204 L/s. We recommend increasing the
firm pumping capacity of Pump House 2 to 225 L/s to match the treatment rate in Project 1 which includes
a 10% factor of safety. This flow rate would allow for the distribution and storage systems to recover 3,780
m3 in a 48-hour period during a maximum day. 3,780 m 3 is the volume required to provide a 300 L/s fire
flow for 3.5 hours.
This project increases the available fire flow to the commercial area on the north end of Bow Valley Trail to
300 L/s.
Trigger: MDD from Pump House 2 exceeding existing pump firm capacity.
When: Construction Completion 2018
Upgrade Target: 225 L/s
Project Details:
+ Three new pumps, each rated for 112.5 L/s. Estimated power 60 HP each.
+ New electrical service and VFDs
+ Backup Power / Standby Generator
Project Cost:
Design $150,000
Contingency $225,000
Total $1,935,000
36
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
3.7.3 Project 3 - Grassi Storage

The existing MDD of the Western Supply Area is 28.3 L/s and the required storage is 4,574 m3. When the
MDD increases to 43.4 L/s the required storage at Grassi will be 5,000 m 3 which is its current capacity.
This represents an increase in population in the Western Supply Area of approximately 1,800 people using
the future demand criteria of 360 L/person day. Based on the development projections, the Western Supply
Area is expected to see this amount of development in 6 to 7 years.
This project also includes an upgrade to the Grassi Booster Station to a firm pumping capacity of 60 L/s
which is suitable to support development in the Resort Areas, Stewart Creek and Smith Creek that a fully
or partially serviced by the Grassi Reservoir.
Trigger: Western Supply Area MDD increases to 43.4 L/s
When: 2022
Upgrade Target: Add 3,500 m3
Project Details:
+ Reservoir expansion of 3,500 m 3
+ Upgrade Grassi Booster Station to 60 L/s firm pumping capacity.
Project Cost:
Design $430,000
Total $5,283,000
37
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
3.7.4 Project 4 – Bow Valley Trail Fire Flow Improvement
The commercial area along Bow Valley Trail requires 300 L/s of available fire flow. Hydraulic modelling
indicates that the section of 200m diameter pipe between Benchlands Trail and the hospital is limiting fire
flow in this area to less than 300 L/s. Replacement of this section with 250mm pipe considerably increase
the available fire flow. This project should be coordinated with road replacement of Bow Valley Trail.
Project Trigger: Further development requiring 300 L/s fire flow
Forecast: 2019
Project Details:
+ 675m of 250mm pipe
+ Road Replacement not included in estimate (expected to be included under separate budget).
Project Cost:
Design $45,000
Construction $350,000
Contingency $50,000
Total $460,000
38
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
3.7.5 Project 5 – Silvertip Fire Flow Improvement
To provide the Silvertip development along Palliser Trail with 300 L/s of available fire flow, the connection
shown in the above figure is required between pressure zone 2 and pressure zone 4.
Project Trigger: Development of Silvertip along Palliser Trail requiring 300 L/s fire flow
Forecast: 2031
Project Details:
+ 375m of 300mm pipe
+ PRV Chamber
+ Road Replacement
Project Cost:
Design $60,000
Contingency $75,000
Total $655,000
39
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
3.7.6 Project 6 - Smith Creek Reservoir

A new reservoir is required to support growth in the Stewart and Smith Creek areas because higher
elevations in development cannot be supplied from Grassi Reservoir. The new reservoir is referred to as
the Smith Creek Reservoir in this report. The area serviced by Smith Creek Reservoir is projected to have
an ultimate MDD of 37 L/s as determined by the hydraulic model.
The recommended sizing is based on AEP Standards and Guidelines and is summarized in the following
table:
Table 36 -:Smith Creek Reservoir Sizing Requirements
Fire Flow
ADD (L/s) MDD (L/s) 15% ADD 25% MDD Total Req Storage
(3.5hrs at 300 L/s)
18.5 L/s 37 L/s 240 m3 799 m3 3780 m3 4819 m3
The recommended size for the Smith Creek reservoir to adequately provide a reliable supply and the
recommended fire flow storage is 5,000 m 3
Project Trigger: Required when development occurs on the east side of the Smith Creek
development area.
Forecast: 2026
Project Details:
+ New Underground Concrete Storage Reservoir – 5000 m3
+ Booster Station to fill Smith Creek Reservoir from distribution system.
Project Cost:
Design $600,000
Total $7,780,000
40
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
3.7.7 Project 7 - South Bow River Loop
The South Bow River Loop project connects pressure zone 9 on the west side of the Bow River to pressure
zone 4. This connection provides the Town with a third connection across the Bow River increasing the
redundancy of the existing system. This connection also provides the WWTP with potable water and allows
Pump House 2 to supply treated water to Benchlands Reservoir. This connection is required the achieve
300 L/s of fire flow in pressure zone 13 and improves available fire flows throughout town.
Project Trigger: Required to achieve 300 L/s fire flow in pressure zone 13.
Forecast: 2020
Project Details:
+ 2,200m of 250mm pipe
+ PRV Chamber
+ River Crossing
Project Cost:
Design $215,000
Total $3,057,000
41
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
3.7.8 Project 8 – Spring Creek 250mm Loop
Completing the loop and upsizing the existing pipe to 250mm improves fire flow on Spring Creek Drive This
project also improves available fire flow on Main Street.
Project Trigger: Malcolm Hotel & Spring Drive Development
Forecast: 2017
Project Details:
+ Install ~350mm of 250mm PVC water main
+ Replace ~350m of asphalt roadway
Justification / Benefits:
+ Improved available fire flow on Spring Creek Dr.
+ Improved looping/reliability/redundancy on Spring Creek Dr.
+ Improved available fire flow on 8 St. (Main St.)
Project Cost:
Design $58,000
Total $675,010
42
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
3.7.9 Project 9 - Relocation of PRV 23 / Hubman Water Pressure Improvement

Hubman Landing currently experiences water pressures as low as 220 kPa during peak demands. By
relocating PRV 23, and creating a new pressure zone for the Hubman Landing area, pressures are
increased to approximately 400 kPa. This project also increases the extent to which development can be
serviced from Grassi Reservoir.
Project Trigger: Development of Resort Area
Forecast: 2026
Project Details:
+ Install new PRV west of Miskow Close (behind houses)
+ Install new PRV on Three Sister Pkwy
+ Increase set point of existing PRV pressure from Grassi
Justification/Benefit:
+ Improved water pressure for Hubman Landing
+ Benefits future development to the East (can service with higher pressure to higher elevations)
Project Cost:
Design $43,000
Contingency $79,000
Total $504,475
43
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
3.7.10 Project 10 - Cougar Creek Area + PH5 Decommissioning
This project improves water pressure on Coyote Way and Kodiak Rd from 250 kPa to 500 kPa and improves
available fire flow to the SE industrial area. Completion of this project also removes the need for Pump
House 5.
Project Trigger: Prior to incurring replacement costs at Pump House 5.
Forecast: 2026
Project Details:
+ Install PRV at Benchlands Trail and Elk Run + Road excavation and repair at PRV
Blvd locations/road crossings
+ Install PRV at Cougar Creek Dr. + Decommission PH5
+ Install PRV on Lady McDonald Dr.
Justification/Benefit:
+ Improved water pressure on Coyote Way / + Pumphouse 5 not longer required (less
Kodiak Rd. operational costs)
+ Improved available fire flows to SE industrial + Improved system redundancy/reliability in area
area that is currently serviced by Pumphouse 5
Project Cost:
Design $57,000
Total $668,440
44
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
4. Wastewater System
4.1 System Characterization
The Town of Canmore’s wastewater system consists of nearly 80 km of gravity sewer, 24km of forcemain,
eleven Town operated lift stations and eight privately operated lift stations. Currently, all of the Town’s
wastewater is collected at the wastewater treatment plant, treated and discharged into the Bow River.
There are also a few private system on septic tanks and fields.
4.1.1 Existing Infrastructure
The existing infrastructure has three main components as previously outlined, the gravity (manholes and
pipes), pumping (lift stations) and pressure (forcemains). These three systems all operate in conjunction to
collect the wastewater at the wastewater treatment plant.
The first component of the system is the gravity system which collects the wastewater from its many sources
(residential, institutional, commercial and industrial). The gravity system starts at the private property line
where services are collected and conveys it through a pipe and manhole system to a lift station at the low
point. The gravity pipes are mostly PVC with some sections of concrete, steel and unknown (unconfirmed)
materials. The pipe diameters range from 100mm to 600mm.
An important aspect of the gravity system is the slopes of the pipes and therefore the resulting velocity of
the wastewater. The reason slope is important is to maintain a high enough velocity that solids do not settle
out in the pipe, reducing capacity. In some instances, this acts like calcifying the pipe creating restrictions
that adhere themselves to the side of the pipe. The minimum allowable slopes in Canmore also depend on
the diameter of the pipe due to the relationship between size and slope. There are several pipes in the
system that do not meet current standards. These will be reviewed in further detail in later sections.
The second component of the piped system are the forcemains. The forcemains convey the wastewater
from the lift stations to larger lift stations and eventually to the wastewater treatment plant. The forcemains
are mostly made of PVC and HDPE pipe, though some sections of forcemain are unknown (unconfirmed).
The size of the forcemains range in diameter from 100 mm to 500 mm.
The final component of the wastewater system are the 11 lift stations operated by the Town of Canmore.
The lift stations include various pumps as outlined in Table 38. The lift stations pump as per the Figure 17
- Collection Areas Flow Diagram where lift stations tend to pump from one station to another and then finally
to the WWTP.
45
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
4.1.2 New Infrastructure
Since the last Sanitary Master Plan (2010) the Town has grown and there have been expansions to the
system into new subdivisions. Specifically, several projects which have been completed or are currently
under construction are as follows:
+ Lift Station 1 Upgrade

+ Lift Station 4 Upgrade
+ Development in Stewart Creek (New Lift Station No. 11)
+ Deadman’s Flats Servicing
+ WWTP Influent Pump Upgrade (2014/2015) with another upgrade expected in 2018.
4.1.3 Collection Areas
The Town’s wastewater collection system is divided into collection areas as shown on Figure S1. The
following table summarizes each collection area.
Table 37 – Existing Collection Areas Summary
Collection Area 1 2 2A 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Lift Station 1 2 2A 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Collection Area
91 89 36 3 91 36 39 33 11 4 78
(ha)
4.1.4 Low Pressure System
The southeast area of downtown Canmore is serviced by a low-pressure sanitary sewer system. Each
service has its own wetwell and pump system and discharges into a common forcemain in the roadway.
The low-pressure system discharges into the gravity sewer at 5 th Avenue and then flows by gravity to Lift
Station 1.
There are also some homes on Spring Creek Drive, and home on the north side of 7 Street and east of 6 th
Avenue that are serviced by a low-pressure system.
46
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
4.1.5 Lift Stations
Table 38 summarizes the Town’s existing lift stations. Private lift stations are not included because the
Town neither owns nor operates them.
Table 38 – Existing Wastewater Lift Stations
Firm
Power / Voltage / Pump Discharge
Lift Station # and Pump Model
4
Phases Capacity Location
(L/s)
1 x Vaughn S4K2 10HP / 460V / 3

Lift Station 1 200+ WWTP
2 x Vaughn SE8N5 100HP / 460V / 3
1 x Flygt 3152.181 20HP / 460V / 3 Triple FM to
Lift Station 2 45
1 x Zoeller Unknown Unknown WWTP
Lift Station 2A 2 x Flygt NP3171.091-453 34HP / 600V / 3 51 WWTP
LS1 Collection
Lift Station 3 2 x Flygt CP3085.182MT 3.2HP / 460V / 3 --
Area
Lift Station 4 2 x Flygt NP3153.181-435 15HP / 208V / 3 85 WWTP
1 x Flygt CP3102.180-432 5HP / 208V / 3 LS1 Collection

Lift Station 5 405
1 x Zoeller 6221 HD Series 7.5HP / 208V / 3 Area
Triple FM to
Lift Station 6 2 x Flygt CP3152.181HT 20HP / 460V / 3 30
WWTP
Triple FM to
Lift Station 7 3 x Flygt CP3201.180HT 47HP / 600V / 3 120
WWTP
Lift Station 8 2 x Flygt CP3152.181-436 20HP / 600V / 3 72 WWTP
LS4 Collection
Lift Station 9 2 x Flygt MP3127.170-212 11HP / 208V / 3 7
Area
LS8 Collection
Lift Station 10 2 x Flygt CP3152.181-454 20HP / 600V / 3 80
Area
4 Firm pumping capacity is defined as the capacity of the facility with its largest pump out of service. i.e.
with one pump running at a two-pump facility, or two pumps running at a three-pump facility. The pumping
capacities were determined from draw down testing in May 2016. Raw data from draw down results shown
in Appendix D.
5Wetwell configuration made draw down measurements unreliable. Pump and theoretical system curves
were used to determine the operating point of both pumps to determine the firm pumping capacity.
47
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
4.1.6 Hydraulic Model Data
The existing hydraulic model was converted into Bentley SewerCAD. Spot elevation checks were made
from the existing model to as-built record drawings and this confirmed that there was a good correlation.
Several portions of the model needed to be updated to address growth/expansion to the system as well as
capital and operational program upgrades to the system. The modelling software calculates pipe slopes
based on inputted invert elevation and length. Manhole locations were inputted from the Town’s GIS
shapefiles and rim elevations were established using DEM/Lidar information provided by the Town.
The model calculates pipe capacity for gravity pipes using the Manning equation and a Manning’s
roughness coefficient of 0.013 and 0.018 were used throughout the model. The 0.013 coefficient is used
for pipes installed after 1980 and the 0.018 coefficient was used for pipes installed before 1980.
Pressurized flow is calculated using Hazen-Williams with a C factor of 110 to 130 used throughout the
model.
4.1.7 Flow Generation Determination
Population
Population growth is discussed in detail in Section 2 of this report. The following table summarizes the
expected population growth in the Town of Canmore over various development horizons.
Table 39 – Projected Service Populations
Year 2014 2019 2024 2029 Build-out
Population (Town) 16,967 19,142 21,.30 23,830 34,362
Population (Including HH and DMF) 17,867 20,142 22,430 25,030 35,762
48
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
Flow Generation
Historical flow records for the wastewater treatment plant between 2013 and 2015 have been reviewed to
determine a composite Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) for the 3-year period. Composite ADWF means
flow inclusive of residential, commercial and industrial uses.
Table 40 – Flow Generation Rates
2013 2014 2015

Population 17,412 17,867 18,322
Average Flow (m3/day) 8,793 7,150 6,175
Max Day Flow (m3/day) 27,869 16,203 14,437
Average per Capita Flow (L/c/day) 505 400 337
In Table 40, the 2014 population is from the municipal census and the populations for 2013 and 2015 have
been estimated based on the predicted annual growth rate.
Based on discussions with the Town and EPCOR, and comparisons with other reports and standards, the
following wastewater generation rates were agreed upon for this report:
+ 420 L/c/d composite flow for the current time and wastewater system
+ 360 L/c/d composite flow for the future development horizons and wastewater system
Peaking Factor
Peak Dry Weather Flow (PDWF) is calculated using Harmon’s Peaking Factor. This is an international
standard that AEP includes in their Guidelines. The calculation is based on the contributing populations.
Harmon’s Equation: PF = 1 + 14/(4+P1/2) where P is the contributing population in thousands and PF has a
minimum value of 2.5.
Peak Dry Weather Flow Determination: PDWF = ADWF x PF
Inflow and Infiltration

Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) is assumed to be 0.66 L/s/ha in the “valley bottom” areas and 0.28 L/s/ha
throughout the rest of Canmore. The I&I allowances are attributed to the gross development area of the
collection area.
The I&I assumption of 0.66 L/s/ha is based on a previous wastewater system evaluation study that
conducted wastewater flow monitoring. The “valley bottom” has been defined as the collection areas of Lift
Stations 1, 2, 3 and 5.
49
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
The I&I assumption of 0.28 L/s/ha is based on recommendations from AEP’s Standards and Guidelines.
I&I typically accounts for inflow through manholes, or infiltration into pipes and manholes. AEP also
recommends a flow of 0.4 L/s be added for each manhole at a sag or low point in a road. For the purposes
of this plan we have used the 0.28 L/s/ha.
The I&I rates used in this report are based on measurement and provincial standards, but if the Town can
achieve I&I rates lower than this it would have a dramatic effect on the volume of water entering the
wastewater collection system. Reducing I&I would effectively add capacity to the system for additional
development.
Flow Distribution
Wastewater flows are distributed in the model based on population. Like the water model, populations have
been assigned to geographic collection areas proportionate to water consumption recorded by EPCOR’s
bi-monthly water meter reading routes. The population equivalency and the geographic areas of the
existing system are shown in Figure S1. The table on Figure S1 summarizes the distribution of flow in the
existing system.
4.1.8 Wastewater Treatment
Wastewater is treated at the Town’s wastewater treatment plant and treated wastewater is discharged into
the Bow River. Review of the WWTP is outside of the scope of this report but a capacity evaluation was
completed in 2012.
4.2 Design Criteria
This section outlines the criteria that will be used to evaluate the current and future system. Section 4.3
details the evaluation of each component of the system.
The design criteria used to review and design the performance of the sanitary sewer system were:
+ Lift Station’s firm pumping capacity must be greater than Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF)
+ Gravity sewer’s hydraulic capacity must be greater than the peak expected flow
The capacity of a gravity sewer is evaluated based on the peak expected flow and the flow capacity of the
pipe which is calculated using pipe slope and diameter at 80% flow depth. Pipe capacity must be greater
than the expected peak flow or surcharging of the collection system can occur. This value is represented
as a percentage which is calculated by dividing the peak flow by the pipe’s flow capacity. A percentage
less than 100% means that peak flow is less than the capacity of the pipe.
50
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
4.3 Existing System Evaluation
4.3.1 Collection System Capacity Analysis
The existing system was modelled using Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF) and the results are shown on
Figure S1.
Peak Wet Weather Flow for the existing population of 17,867 (including Deadman’s Flats and Harvie
Heights) is calculated as 501.6 L/s at the influent to the wastewater treatment plant.
Eight sections of gravity sewer were indicated as being at or near capacity and require immediate attention
or further monitoring. These sections are indicated in red on Figure S1 with a hydraulic loading percentage
greater than 100%. Large portions of the identified over capacity areas are directly related to the higher
infiltration rates associated with the Valley Bottoms areas. A reduction in I&I rates would help reduce the
area affected by overcapacity sewer mains.
4.3.2 Lift Station Capacity Analysis
The following table identifies the existing firm pumping capacity of the lift stations compared to PWWF.
Where the PWWF exceeds the pump capacity the lift station would rely on wetwell capacity to meet
demands and potentially back flooding of the gravity system may occur. A lift station should have a firm
pumping capacity greater than the PWWF. Lift stations not meeting this requirement are identified in red.
Table 41 – Existing Lift Station Capacity Analysis
Lift Station Firm Pumping Capability (L/s) PWWF (L/s)

Lift Station 1 200+ 134.2
Lift Station 2 45 135.2
Lift Station 2A 51 45.4
Lift Station 3 -- 5.4
WWTP Influent 358 (506 Installed) 501.6
6The inlet to the wetwell is at or near the bottom of the wet well which made the wastewater volume
measurement uncertain because of portion of the wetwell volume was contained in the inlet piping. The
uncertainty in the volume measurement results in an uncertain flow rate calculation. Theoretical system
curve and published pump curves were used to determine to firm pumping capability.
51
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
4.3.3 Existing System Improvements
Based on discussions with the Town and EPCOR, the

following improvement plan should be implemented over the
next three to five years. Each project number has its location
within the Town identified on Figure S2.
Project 1 – LS2 Upgrade

Lift Station 2 was evaluated and found to be deficient in
regards to capacity, pumps, station structure, ventilation,
security and Alberta Environment current standards. Data
used in the evaluation include the 2015 pump records, an
onsite pumping test during a weekday mid-morning in May
2016, and a site inspection.
The hydraulic model indicates that this station should have a

flow capacity of 135 L/s and it currently has a capacity of
approximately 45 L/s.
It is recommended that a new lift station be built with larger pumps and a higher volume wetwell. The
station should be designed with a separate electrical and wetwell room, similar to the existing Lift Station
No. 2A, and all the issues listed above and discussed in detail below should be addressed.
Additional information can be found in the Lift Station No. 2 Evaluation Report (BSEI – August 8, 2016)
included in the Appendix
Project Details:
+ New wetwell and building
+ Higher capacity pumps
+ New electrical equipment
Project Cost: $1,850,000
Project Cost:
Design $162,000
Total $1,840,930
52
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
Project 2 – LS6 Monitoring and Replacement

Lift Station 6 has heavy corrosion on the
wetwell and piping. During the May 2016
inspections this station appeared to be the
poorest of all the lift stations based on a visual
inspection. Draw down tests at this station were
used to determine a firm pumping capacity of
approximately 30 L/s. The hydraulic model
indicates that the PWWF into this station is 31.5
L/s. Increased monitoring of wet weather flow
is recommended.
Project Details:
+ Replace/Repair existing wetwell and

piping.
+ Increasing pump capacity is

recommended.
+ Add Flow monitoring by installing an

electromagnetic flow meter on the
discharge pipe is recommended at time of
lift station upgrade.
+ The hydraulic capacity of the existing forcemain is sufficient, however the forcemain is planned to be
replaced due to frequent line breaks. Forcemain replacement is not accounted for in this project cost.
Project Cost:
Design $78,000
Total $897,430
53
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
Project 3 – LS5 Increased Monitoring
Lift Station 5 is reported to have the inlet into the lift station at the bottom of the wetwell. This makes wet
well draw down measurement inaccurate and therefore the draw down tests conducted in May 2016, are
inconclusive. The theoretical system curve and the published pump curves were used to determine a firm
pumping capability of 40 L/s. The hydraulic model indicates a PWWF of 35.3 L/s into LS5. It is
recommended to further investigate actual firm pumping capacity from this station.
Project Details:
+ Further investigation into the actual firm pumping capability of this Lift Station.
+ Install electromagnetic flow meter on the lift station discharge.
Project Cost:
Design $7,000
Contingency $10,000
Total $66,000
54
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
Project 4 – Sewer Upgrade – McNeill
At the existing sewer generation rate (420 L/c/d composite) the hydraulic model indicates that the depicted
section of gravity sewer pipe is currently operating over its design capacity (118%). In the future, the sewer
generation rate is expected to drop to 360 L/c/d. At the lower generation rate, the model indicates the
250mm section of pipe is borderline at capacity (94%). Recommend to replace the 200mm pipe section
shown with 250mm and to monitor the 250mm section during large weather events to look for evidence of
surcharging.
Project Details:
+ 120m of 200mm to 250mm
+ 120m of Road Replacement
+ Monitor capacity in 60m 250mm section
Project Cost:
Design $22,000
Contingency $31,000
Total $256,000
55
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
Project 5 - Sewer Upgrade – Railway Avenue
PWWF through this section of pipe is currently calculated at 34 L/s and this section of pipe has a design
capacity of 20 L/s (172% of design capacity) resulting in approximately 790m of 250mm pipe to cause
sewer surcharging. Additionally, the 350mm pipe under the railway is also causing surcharging at PWWF
conditions. Replacement with larger diameter pipe is recommended.
Project Details:
+ 100m of 350mm to 450mm
+ 790m of 250mm to 300mm
Project Cost:
Design $135,000
Total $1,494,000
56
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
Project 6 - Sewer Upgrade – 7 Avenue
PWWF through this section of pipe is currently calculated at up to 66 L/s operating at between 105 and
194% of its design capacity resulting in approximately 1100m of 300mm pipe to cause surcharging. The
hydraulic model indicates that manholes on this section of pipe could overflow at PWWF conditions.
An alternative to this project that involves installing a relief/bypass sewer on Fairholme is discussed in
Appendix C. The finding is that roughly 45m of sewer can be saved by installing the relief/bypass which is
a very small savings. Ultimately, the decision to proceed with this project on the shown alignment or on
Fairholme will be influenced by factors like timing of road replacements, etc.
Project Details:
+ 710m of 300mm to 375mm
+ 390m of 300mm to 450mm
+ 1100 m of Road Replacement
Project Cost:
Design $168,000
Total $1,860,000
57
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
Project 7 - Sewer Upgrade – Bow Valley Trail at Hospital
141% of its design capacity resulting in approximately 160m of 250mm pipe to cause surcharging.
Project Details:
+ 160m of 250mm to 300mm
+ 36m of 300mm to 375mm
Project Cost:
Design $29,000
Contingency $41,000
Total $334,000
58
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
Project 8 – Sewer Upgrade – 6 Avenue and 5 Street
190% of its design capacity resulting in approximately 580m of 400mm pipe to cause surcharging.
Project Details:
+ 580m of 400mm to 525mm
+ 160m of field replacement
+ 420m of road replacement
Project Cost:
Design $75,000
Total $847,000
59
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
Project 9 – Sewer Upgrade – 3 Street and 4 Street
300% of its design capacity resulting in approximately 450m of 200mm pipe to cause surcharging. The
hydraulic model indicates that manholes on this section of pipe could overflow at PWWF conditions.
Project Details:
+ 170m of 200mm to 375mm
+ 280m of 200mm to 250mm
Project Cost:
Design $69,000
Contingency $97,000
Total $778,000
60
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
Project 10 – Sewer Upgrade – Bow Valley Trail at Benchlands Trail
capacity of 69 L/s (119% of design capacity). This section of pipe will experience increased flow as the
population grows, but it should be offset by the expected decline in per capita sewer generation rate. We
recommend replacement with 450mm pipe.
Project Details:
+ 430m of 350mm to 450mm
Project Cost:
Design $69,000
Contingency $96,000
Total $775,000
61
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
Project 11 – Inlet into LS5 from 17 Street
capacity of 22 L/s. This section of pipe will experience increased flow as the population grows, but it should
be offset by the expected decline in per capita sewer generation rate. We recommend replacement with
375mm pipe or further monitoring of this section of pipe for evidence of surcharging. This section of sewer
main replacement could be timed with upgrades to Lift Station No. 5 depending on the results of ongoing
monitoring and upstream development/ re-development.
Project Details:
+ Increased monitoring
+ 35m of 300mm to 375mm
Project Cost:
Design $7,000
Contingency $10,000
Total $80,000
62
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
4.4 Future System Evaluation

4.4.1 Demands
Table 42 summarizes the wastewater demands for each of the collection areas. A more detailed version
of this table is included in the Appendix.
Table 42 - Future Wastewater System Demands
ADWF
Population PDWF PWWF
Area (ha) I&I (L/s) (Cumulative) PF
(per Area) (Cumulative) (Cumulative)
(L/s)
LS1 130.0 3069 85.8 12.8 3.43 43.9 129.7
LS2 105.0 5026 63.2 20.9 3.24 67.9 131.1
LS2A 49.7 4279 13.9 17.8 3.31 59.0 72.9
LS3 3.0 170 2.0 0.7 4.17 3.0 5.0
LS4 95.7 1763 26.8 7.3 3.63 26.6 53.4
LS5 36.0 706 23.8 2.9 3.89 11.5 35.2
LS6 39.0 1122 10.9 4.7 3.77 17.6 28.5
LS7 97.3 4707 27.2 19.6 3.27 64.1 91.4
LS8 473.8 12799 132.7 53.3 2.85 151.9 284.5
LS9 4.7 229 1.3 1.0 4.13 3.9 5.3
LS10 295.2 6246 82.7 26.0 3.15 82.1 164.7
TripleFM 148.0 4120 41.4 17.2 3.32 57.0 98.5

S&S Creek -
151.2 3825 42.3 15.9 3.35 53.4 95.7
LSA
S&S Creek -
129.3 3375 36.2 14.1 3.40 47.8 84.0
LSB
S&S Creek -
65.4 1488 18.3 6.2 3.68 22.8 41.1
LSC
S&S Creek -
28.1 650 7.9 2.7 3.91 10.6 18.5
LSD
SC - Phase 3
177.6 4125 49.7 17.2 3.32 57.1 106.8
- LS1
Silvertip -
10.4 575 2.9 2.4 3.94 9.4 12.4
LSE
WWTP 1099.5 35762 391.1 149.0 2.40 358.0 749.1
63
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
4.4.2 Improvements
Project 12 – LS8 - Upgrade, Phase 1

Development of the Stewart Creek and Resort areas will trigger an
upgrade at LS8. LS8 currently has a firm pumping capacity of
approximately 72 L/s. It is expected by 2020 the PWWF into LS8 will reach
its firm pumping capacity and an upgrade will be required. LS8 was
constructed to allow the installation of additional pumps and has a wetwell
division to allow for the future expansion of the wetwell.
Project Details:
+ Upgrade to firm pumping capacity of 150 L/s which is estimated to be

suitable for 15 years of development.
Project Trigger: PWWF into LS8 exceeding 72 L/s
Forecast: 2020
Project Cost:
Design $48,000
Contingency $70,000
Total $538,000
64
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
Project 13 – Sewer Upgrade – 1st Avenue and Hospital Place
Development of Teepee Town will increase flow rates in the existing sewer. The identified sections of pipe
will need to be replaced when peak flow from this area increases to 14 L/s. In increase in population in this
service area by approximately 200 people will result in peak flows greater than the capacity of the existing
pipes. Based on the current development projections, this is project is forecasted to be required by 2021.
If wastewater generation rates reduce to 360 L/c/d as expected, the section of pipe on Hospital Place may
not have to be upgraded.
Project Details:
+ 200m of 200mm to 250mm
+ Reduced to 110m if generation drops to 360 L/c/d
Project Trigger: Flow greater than 14 L/s; Teepee Town development of approximately 200 additional
people.
Forecast: 2021
Project Cost:
Design $30,000
Contingency $41,000
Total $339,000
65
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
Project 14 – LS2A Upgrade

Development of the
Springcreek area will trigger
an upgrade a LS2A. LS2A
currently has a firm pumping
capacity of approximately 51
L/s. It is expected by 2022 the
PWWF into LS2A will reach its
firm pumping capacity and an
upgrade will be required.
Project Details:
+ Upgrade firm capacity to 85 L/s
Project Trigger: PWWF into LS2A greater than 51 L/s. Development of Springcreek and other contributing
areas north of Bow Valley Trail.
Forecast: 2022
Project Cost:
Design $30,000
Contingency $35,000
Total $285,000
66
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
Project 15 – LS10 - Upgrade, Phase 1

Development of the Stewart Creek and Smith Creek
areas will trigger an upgrade at LS10. LS10 currently
has a firm pumping capacity of approximately 80 L/s.
It is expected by 2025 the PWWF into LS10 will reach
its firm pumping capacity and an upgrade will be
required.
Project Details:
+ Intermediate Upgrade to 110 L/s for 15-year

projection
Project Trigger: PWWF into LS10 greater than 80

L/s. Development of Stewart Creek and Smith Creek.
Forecast: 2025
Project Cost:
Design $50,000
Contingency $60,000
Total $490,000
67
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
Project 16 – Sewer Upgrade – Three Sisters Parkway
At full build-out the depicted section of gravity sewer has peak flows greater than the pipe capacity. When
peak flows exceed 75 L/s in this section of pipe, an upgrade will be required. This is not expected to happen
for more than 15 years when the Smith Creek area is partially developed.
Project Details:
+ 270m of 250mm to 300mm
Project Trigger: Flow greater than 75 L/s
Forecast: Beyond 15 Years
Project Cost:
Design $46,000
Contingency $65,000
Total $529,000
68
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
Project 17 – LS8 – Lift Station and Forcemain Upgrade, Phase 2
As development continues in the Resort Centre, Stewart Creek and Smith Creek the flow into Lift Station 8
will exceed the capacity achieved in the upgrade described in Project 13 (150 L/s). To meet the demands
of the full build-out this lift station should have a firm pumping capacity of 310 L/s.
The forcemain from Lift Station 8 under the river to the WWTP has a flow capacity of approximately 240 L/s
and would also need to be upgraded.
Project Details:
+ 300m of 350mm to 450mm forcemain
+ Upgrade to firm pumping capacity of 310 L/s which is estimated to be suitable for full build out.
Project Trigger: PWWF into LS8 greater than 240 L/s
Forecast: Beyond 15 Years
Project Cost:
Design $300,000
Total $4,410,000
69
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
Project 18 – Sewer Upgrade - Three Sister Parkway Phase 1
PWWF through this section of pipe is calculated at 202 L/s for full build-out and this section of pipe has a
design capacity of 140 L/s. To accommodate increased peak flows in the future this 460m of 450mm pipe
should be replaced with 525mm.
Project Details:
+ 460m of 450mm to 525mm
Forecast: Beyond 15 years
Project Cost:
Design $84,000
Total $937,000
70
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
Project 19 – Sewer Upgrade – Three Sisters Parkway Phase 2
should be replaced with sections of 600mm and 675mm.
Project Details:
+ 1400m of 525mm to 600mm and 675mm
Project Cost:
Design $179,000
Total $1,985,000
71
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
Project 20 – Sewer Upgrade – Three Sister Parkway Phase 3
should be replaced with 525mm.
Project Details:
+ 800m of 450mm to 525mm
Project Cost:
Design $49,000
Contingency $68,000
Total $555,000
72
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
Project 21 – LS10 – Upgrade, Phase 2
As development continues in Stewart Creek and Smith Creek the flow into Lift Station 10 will exceed the
capacity achieved in the upgrade described in Project 16 (110 L/s). To meet the demands of the full build-
out this lift station should have a firm pumping capacity of 180 L/s.
Project Details:
+ Upgrade to firm pumping capacity of 180 L/s which is estimated to be suitable for full build out.
Project Trigger: Incoming PWWF greater than upgrade capacity of Project 16 (110 L/s)
Project Cost:
Design $200,000
Total $2,600,000
73
Town of Canmore
W899-012.12 | January 2017
5. Summary of Projects
Table 43 summarizes the projects described in this report. Projects have been assigned a priority value from 1 to 10, 1 being the highest priority. Refer to Sections, 3.7, 4.3.3 and 4.4.2 for specifics.
Table 43 - Summary of Projects
Priority Type & Project # Name Description Trigger Forecast Total Cost
 Improved available fire flow on Spring Creek Dr.  Improved available fire flow on 8 St. (Main St.)
--- Water 8 Spring Creek 250mm Loop Malcolm Hotel & Spring Drive Development 2017 $675,010
 Improved looping/reliability/redundancy on Spring Creek Dr.
1 WW 1 LS2 Upgrade  Calculated PWWF into LS2 greatly exceeds firm pumping capacity PWWF exceeds 45 L/s at LS2 2018 $1,840,930
Pump House 2 Distribution  Three new pumps, each rated for 112.5 L/s. Estimated power 60 HP  New electrical service and VFDs MDD from Pump House 2 exceeding existing pump
1 Water 2 2018 $1,935,000
Upgrade each.  Backup Power / Standby Generator firm capacity.
Pump House 2 Treatment  New Filtration Process and Building  Upgraded intake from Rundle Forebay MDD from Pump House 2 exceeding existing
2 Water 1 2018 $8,120,000
Upgrade  New or Additional UV Disinfection filtering rate.
 Model indicates 31.5 L/s PWWF, pump capacity measured at
2 WW 2 Monitor LS6 PWWF exceeds 30 L/s at LS6 2018 $897,430
approximately 30 L/s. Recommend increased monitoring.
 Inlet into the wetwell is reported to be at the bottom which results in
2 WW 3 Monitor LS5 2018 $66,000
unreliable measured pump flow. Recommend further investigation.
 120m of 200mm to 250mm  Monitor capacity in 60m 250mm section
2 WW 4 Sewer Upgrade - McNeill Gravity Sewer Surcharging 2018 $256,000
 120m of Road Replacement
Sewer Upgrade - Railway  100m of 350mm to 450mm  790m of Road Replacement
2 WW 5 Gravity Sewer Surcharging 2018 $1,494,000
Avenue  790m of 250mm to 300mm
 710m of 300mm to 375mm  1,100 m of Road Replacement
2 WW 6 Sewer Upgrade - 7 Avenue Gravity Sewer Surcharging 2018 $1,860,000
 390m of 300mm to 450mm
Sewer Upgrade - Bow Valley  160m of 250mm to 300mm
2 WW 7 Gravity Sewer Surcharging 2018 $334,000
Trail at Hospital  36m of 300mm to 375mm
Sewer Upgrade - 6 Avenue and 5  580m of 400mm to 525mm  420m of road replacement
Street  160m of field replacement
Sewer Upgrade - 3 Street and 4  170m of 200mm to 375mm  450m of Road Replacement
Street  280m of 200mm to 250mm
Sewer Upgrade - Bow Valley  430m of 350mm to 450mm
2 WW 10 PWWF exceeds Pipe Capacity of 45 2018 $775,000
Trail at Benchlands Trail  430m of Road Replacement
Sewer Upgrade - Inlet to LS5  430m of 350mm to 450mm
2 WW 11 PWWF exceeds Pipe Capacity of 22 L/s 2018 $80,000
(from 17 Street)  430m of Road Replacement
 675m of 250mm pipe
Bow Valley Trail Fire Flow
3 Water 4  Road Replacement not included in estimate (expected to be included Further development requiring 300 L/s fire flow 2019 $460,000
Improvement
under separate budget).
4 WW 12 LS8 - Upgrade, Phase 1  Intermediate Upgrade to 150 L/s for 15 year projection PWWF exceeds 72 L/s 2020 $538,000
 2,200m of 250mm pipe  River Crossing Required to achieve 300 L/s fire flow in pressure
5 Water 7 South Bow River Loop 2020 $3,057,000
 PRV Chamber zone 13.
Sewer Upgrade - 1st Ave and  200m of 200mm to 250mm PWWF exceeds Pipe Capacity of 14 L/s. Teepee
6 WW 13 2021 $339,000
Hospital Place  Reduced to 110m if generation drops to 360 L/c/d Town Development of more than 200 people.
7 Water 3 Grassi Storage  Reservoir expansion of 3,500 m3  Upgrade Grassi Booster Station to 60 L/s Western Supply Area MDD increases to 43.4 L/s 2022 $5,283,000
8 WW 14 LS2A Upgrade  Upgrade firm capacity to 85 L/s PWWF exceeds 51 L/s 2022 $285,000
9 WW 15 LS10 - Upgrade, Phase 1  Intermediate Upgrade to 110 L/s for 15 year projection PWWF exceeds 80 L/s 2025 $490,000
 New Underground Concrete Storage Reservoir – 5000 m3 Required when development occurs on the east
10 Water 6 Smith Creek Reservoir 2026 $7,780,000
 Booster Station to fill Smith Creek Reservoir from distribution system. side of the Smith Creek development area.
Relocation of PRV 23 / Hubman  Install new PRV west of Miskow Close (behind houses)  Increase set point of existing PRV pressure from Grassi
10 Water 9 Development of Resort Area 2026 $668,440
Water Pressure Improvement  Install new PRV on Three Sister Pkwy
Cougar Creek Area + PH5  Install PRV at Benchlands Trail and Elk Run Blvd  Road excavation and repair at PRV locations/road crossings Prior to incurring replacement costs at Pump
10 Water 10 2026 $504,475
Decommissioning  Install PRV at Cougar Creek Dr.  Decommission PH5 House 5.
 375m of 300mm pipe  Road Replacement Development of Silvertip along Palliser Trail
10 Water 5 Silvertip Fire Flow Improvement 2031 $655,000
 PRV Chamber requiring 300 L/s fire flow
Sewer Upgrade - Three Sisters Beyond 15
10 WW 16  270m of 250mm to 300mm PWWF exceeds Pipe Capacity of 75 L/s $529,000
Parkway Years
LS8 - Lift Station & FM Upgrade,  300m of 350mm to 450mm Forcemain Beyond 15
10 WW 17 PWWF exceeds Pipe Capacity of 150 L/s $4,410,000
Phase 2  Upgrade firm capacity to 310 L/s for Build-out Years
Parkway to LS8 - Phase 1 Years
10 WW 19  1400m of 525mm to 600mm and 675mm PWWF exceeds Pipe Capacity of 188 L/s $1,985,000
Beyond 15
10 WW 21 LS10 - Upgrade, Phase 2  Upgrade firm capacity to 180 L/s for Build-out PWWF exceeds 80 L/s 100 $2,600,000
Years
74
APPENDIX A
CANMORE LIFT STATION NO. 2 EVALUATION
EPCOR WATER SERVICES
AUGUST ϭϬ, 2016 | W899-012.12

CONTENTS
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 1
1. Station Capacity ................................................................................................................................................. 1
2. Pumps ................................................................................................................................................................ 2
3. Station Wetwell ................................................................................................................................................. 3
3.1 Structural and Piping ................................................................................................................................. 3
3.2 Station Volume .......................................................................................................................................... 3
4. Station Ventilation ............................................................................................................................................. 3
5. Discharge Flow Measurement ........................................................................................................................... 4
6. Station Security.................................................................................................................................................. 4
7. Recommendation .............................................................................................................................................. 4
APENDICES
Appendix A – Cost Estimate
EPCOR WATER SERVICES
AUGUST ϭϬ, 2016
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Lift Station 2 was evaluated and found to be deficient in regards to capacity, pumps, station structure,
ventilation, security and Alberta Environment current standards. Data used in the evaluation include the 2015
pump records, an onsite pumping test during a weekday mid-morning in May and a site inspection.
It is recommended that a new lift station be built with larger pumps and a higher volume wetwell. The station
should be designed with a separate electrical and wetwell room, similar to the existing Lift Station No. 2A, and
all the issues listed above and discussed in detail below should be addressed.
1. STATION CAPACITY
Good lift station design requires 100% redundancy. Alberta Environment standards state that
“Wastewater pump station shall be designed with multiple pump units. Where only two units are
provided, they shall be of the same size. Units shall have capacity such that, with any unit out of
service, the remaining units will have capacity to handle the peak wastewater design flow.”
An analysis of pumping hours shows that the average number of hours pumps ran per day in 2015 was just over
25 hours. Since there are only 24 hours in a day, this indicates that a second pump came on regularly to keep up
with the demand. Therefore, one pump alone cannot keep up with the demand at this station.
To illustrate this, the following table shows the number of days each month (except June) that the number of
pumping hours was greater than 24 hours, and also equal to or greater than 30 hours. No daily data was
available for June.
Month Pump Hrs. Pump Hrs.

(2015) >24 hrs/day >=30 hrs/day
January 23 10
February 18 3
March 14 4
April 11 1
May 18 10
June --- ---
July 10 1
August 18 3
September 11 5
October 11 1
November 10 1
December 9 1
Yearly Totals 153 40
BSEI 1|Page
There were two days during the year where the pumping hours exceeded 40 hours, May 23 (43 hours) and May
27 (48 hours). Therefore; the station requires both pumps to meet peak demand. The station could not keep up
with inflow if any one pump is out of service.
For any two pump station, a duty cycle value can be defined to be 100% if one pump runs continuously. It is
calculated by determining the total pumping hours for the station and comparing it to the number of hours in a
year. At Lift Station 2, the 2015 duty cycle is 104%. The total annual pumping hours are greater than the
number of hours in a year. Therefore, both the pumps and the station size are inadequate.
Good lift station design would suggest a duty cycle of around 30% is optimal, since peak station flows are often 3
to 3.5 times average flows.
Lift Station 2 has almost double the annual pumping hours compared to Lift Station 5, the station with the
second highest annual pumping hours. In order of decreasing duty cycle, the remaining Town lift stations are as
follows:
Station Duty Cycle

Lift Station 2 104%
Lift Station 5 55%
Lift Station 8 32%
Lift Station 4 27%
Lift Station 2A 23%
Lift Station 1 20%
Lift Station 6 14%
Lift Station 3 14%
Lift Station 10 12%
Lift Station 7 5%
Lift Station 9 5%
This indicates that in terms of capacity, Lift Station 2 has greater issues than any other station in the Town. The
total pumping hours are almost double that of Lift Station 5, which has the next largest number of annual
pumping hours.
Record keeping by Operations confirms that there is concern from their perspective as well. Based on
information received, of the 10 lift stations, only Station No. 2 has daily pump records. All other lift stations in
the Town record pump data weekly.
2. PUMPS
The station was built in 1981. As far as can be determined, Pump 1, a Flygt, is one of the original pumps. Pump
2 was replaced with a Zoeller pump some years ago. A pumping test done in the spring showed that the newer
Zoeller pump’s output is approximately 75% of the older Flygt pump.
As noted above, it requires two pumps to meet peak demand, but Alberta Environment standards require that
one pump should be able to do this. Therefore, the pumps are undersized, and this station requires two pumps,
each with approximately twice the output capacity of existing Pump 1.
Another issue is the age of Pump 1, which, at 35 years, may be nearing the end of its life.
2|Page BSEI
3. STATION WETWELL
3.1 STRUCTURAL AND PIPING
The station is a 2.4 metre (8 ft.) diameter steel tank installed in 1981. A physical examination of the structure
shows significant corrosion. A failure of the tank would cause environmental issues if raw sewage leaks out.
Corrosion is also visible on the internal platform and ladder, with implications for operator safety. The platform
is located just above the discharge piping in the wetwell, and is supported by the wetwell sidewall and the
ladder.
Current Alberta Environment Standards stipulate that in order to minimize the requirement for entry into the
wetwell, valving should not be located inside the wetwell, but in a separate valve and metering vault. This
requirement has been in place since the 2006 AE Standards and was included to enhance operator safety.
Consideration should be given to implementing this construction if a new lift station is built.
3.2 STATION VOLUME

The station volume is inadequate and should be increased if larger pumps are installed. The fill time when the
pumps are off should not be too long, nor should the pump cycle time be too short. As noted in the Alberta
Environment Guidelines for Lift Station design:
“The design fill time and minimum pump cycle time should be considered in sizing the wet well.
The effective volume of the wet well should be based on design average flow and a filling time
not to exceed 30 minutes unless the facility is designed to provide flow equalization / storage.
The pump manufacturer's duty cycle recommendations may be utilized in selecting the minimum
cycle time.”
Too long a filling time leads to increased risk of hydrogen sulfide and methane gas production. Too short a
pump cycle leads to pumps exceeding manufacturers’ recommendations on maximum number of starts per
hour.
The May pump test went through five pump cycles. The average fill time between pump cycles was 1.75
minutes.
4. STATION VENTILATION
Lift Station No. 2 has no ventilation other than two goose neck vent pipes in the lid, and relies on natural
ventilation. Ventilation is necessary because of the potential presence of hydrogen sulfide and methane.
Ventilation was not a requirement when the station was built, and the codes of that era assumed that the
retention time was low enough so that one did not have to concern themselves with these gases. As noted in
both the 1980 and 1988 Alberta Electrical Protection Quarterly Bulletin:
“A lengthy sewage retention time is not intended in the operation of sewage lift stations. On this
basis they are not normally considered hazardous locations.”
This thinking was beginning to change in 1991, when the regulations required an evaluation to determine
whether hazardous concentrations of vapours would accumulate before classifying the area as non-hazardous.
BSEI 3|Page
Today, the Canadian Electrical code specifies that the wetwell is a hazardous location, and in order to reduce the
hazard to a Zone 2 classification, a minimum of six air changes are required. The Electrical Code makes
reference to the National Fire Protection Association Standards for fire Protection in Wastewater Facilities, and
suggests its use in design. The NFPA Standard is more stringent than the Electrical Code and requires 12 air
changes per hour to reduce the hazard to a Zone 2 classification.
Alberta Environment requires a minimum of six air changes per hour continuously or 30 air changes per hour
when the station is occupied if continuous ventilation is not provided. Furthermore, if continuous ventilation is
not provided, portable ventilation equipment must be readily available, capable of providing 30 air changes per
hour when the wetwell is occupied.
Alberta Environment also requires monitoring of the ventilation equipment, to ensure that the system is
working and that the air change requirements are being met.
The station therefore does not meet current ventilation standards for safety and fire protection.
5. DISCHARGE FLOW MEASUREMENT

There is no flowmeter located in the wetwell on the discharge line. Alberta Environment requires flow
monitoring for stations with peak flows greater than 50 litres per second.
The May pumping test showed that P1 was operating at about 57 litres per second, and P2 at about 44 litres per
second. At peak flow events, both pumps are running; therefore, the peak flow for this station is greater than
100 litres per second.
6. STATION SECURITY
Because there are potential hazards including the presence of poisonous and flammable gases the site should be
secured. Also, because the pump cables exit the wetwell and are unprotected between their exit and the
electrical disconnects above grade, public access should not be available.
At the station, a busy bicycle and pedestrian pathway passes within a couple of metres of the lift station. There
is no security fencing. The station sits in an open field off Railway Avenue, and any vehicle can drive up to the
station.
7. RECOMMENDATION
Because there are numerous issues with the lift station, including inadequate pumping, inadequate station
volume, no ventilation, corrosion, old equipment and lack of site security, it is recommended that a new lift
station be built to current Alberta Environment and Canadian Electrical Code standards that addresses the issues
raised above. Furthermore, this station should be housed in a two room aesthetically pleasing building to
ensure security and public safety.
The new station can be built beside the existing one to minimize disruption, and would require only minimal
pumping disruption while the new station is tied into the existing forcemains. After the new station is
commissioned, the existing station can be removed.
At the same time, the station inlet and discharge valves that are located on the pipes connecting to the
forcemain should be inspected and serviced or replaced as required.
4|Page BSEI
APPENDIX A
COST ESTIMATE
WK6WUHHW1(
&DOJDU\$%7(;
0XQLFLSDOLW\ 7RZQRI&DQPRUH -XO

&OLHQW (SFRU:DWHU6HUYLFHV
-RE)LOH :
&RQWUDFW &DQPRUH803
3URMHFW 6HZHU3URMHFW/68SJUDGH
'HVFULSWLRQ 7RWDO
3URMHFW
&RQVWUXFWLRQ
*HQHUDO&RQGLWLRQV
6LWH:RUN
%XLOGLQJ6HUYLFHV
:HW:HOO
%XLOGLQJ
(OHFWULFDO
5HPRYDO 6DOYDJH
7RWDO&RQVWUXFWLRQ
(QJLQHHULQJ
&RQWLQJHQF\
(3&252XWRI6FRSH/DERXU
68%727$/
6XPPDU\
68%727$/
(3&250DQDJHPHQW)HH
727$/
6FRSH
5HSODFHZHWZHOODQGSXPSV
1HZHOHFWULFDOIRUODUJHUSXPSV
-XVWLILFDWLRQ%HQHILW
,PSURYHVIORZFDSDFLW\IURP/6WR::73FDSDFLW\LVFXUUHQWO\DFRQFHUQ
RI
APPENDIX B
WASTEWATER GENERATION
FULL BUILD-OUT SPREADSHEET
WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ t&;ƉĞƌ
;ƉĞƌ /Θ/;WĞƌ ^ĞǁĞƌƐŚĞĚͿ Wt& Wtt&
ƌĞĂ;ŚĂͿ ^ĞǁĞƌƐŚĞĚͿ ^ĞǁĞƌƐŚĞĚͿ ;>ͬƐͿ W& ;ƵŵƵůĂƚŝǀĞͿ ;ƵŵƵůĂƚŝǀĞͿ &ŝƌŵĂƉĂĐŝƚǇ
>^ϭ ϭϯϬ ϯϬϲϵ ϴϱ͘ϴ ϭϮ͘ϳϵ ϯ͘ϰϯ ϰϯ͘ϵϭ ϭϮϵ͘ϳϭ ϮϬϬн
ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐͲŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶƌĞĂ ϵϭ ϮϭϬϯ ϲϬ͘Ϭϲ ϴ͘ϳϲ ϯ͘ϱϳ ϯϭ͘Ϯϳ ϵϭ͘ϯϯ
>^ϯ ϯ ϭϳϬ ϭ͘ϵϴ Ϭ͘ϳϭ ϰ͘ϭϳ Ϯ͘ϵϲ ϰ͘ϵϰ
>^ϱ ϯϲ ϳϬϲ Ϯϯ͘ϳϲ Ϯ͘ϵϰ ϯ͘ϴϵ ϭϭ͘ϰϱ ϯϱ͘Ϯϭ
sĂůůĞǇďŽƚƚŽŵŝŶĨŝůůͲϭϬzĞĂƌ Ϭ ϲϱ Ϭ Ϭ͘Ϯϳ ϰ͘Ϯϵ ϭ͘ϭϲ ϭ͘ϭϲ
sĂůůĞǇďŽƚƚŽŵŝŶĨŝůůͲϭϱzĞĂƌ Ϭ Ϯϱ Ϭ Ϭ͘ϭϬ ϰ͘ϯϳ Ϭ͘ϰϱ Ϭ͘ϰϱ
>^Ϯ ϭϬϱ ϱϬϮϲ ϲϯ͘ϮϮ ϮϬ͘ϵϰ ϯ͘Ϯϰ ϲϳ͘ϵϭ ϭϯϭ͘ϭϯ ϭϯϱ
ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐͲŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶƌĞĂ ϴϵ ϰϭϮϲ ϱϴ͘ϳϰ ϭϳ͘ϭϵ ϯ͘ϯϮ ϱϳ͘ϭϬ ϭϭϱ͘ϴϰ
,ĂƌǀŝĞ,ĞŝŐŚƚƐ ϭϱ ϰϬϬ ϰ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϲϳ ϰ͘ϬϮ ϲ͘ϳϬ ϭϬ͘ϵϬ
ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŶĞĂƌŽǁsĂůůĞǇdƌͲϱzĞĂƌ ϭ Ϭ Ϭ͘Ϯϴ Ϭ͘ϬϬ ϰ͘ϱϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘Ϯϴ
dĞĞWĞĞdŽǁŶͲϱzĞĂƌ Ϭ ϱϬ Ϭ Ϭ͘Ϯϭ ϰ͘ϯϭ Ϭ͘ϵϬ Ϭ͘ϵϬ
dĞĞWĞĞdŽǁŶͲϭϬǇĞĂƌ Ϭ ϭϬϬ Ϭ Ϭ͘ϰϮ ϰ͘Ϯϰ ϭ͘ϳϳ ϭ͘ϳϳ
dĞĞWĞĞdŽǁŶͲϭϱzĞĂƌ Ϭ ϭϬϬ Ϭ Ϭ͘ϰϮ ϰ͘Ϯϰ ϭ͘ϳϳ ϭ͘ϳϳ
dĞĞWĞĞdŽǁŶͲƵŝůĚŽƵƚ Ϭ ϮϱϬ Ϭ ϭ͘Ϭϰ ϰ͘ϭϭ ϰ͘Ϯϴ ϰ͘Ϯϴ
>^Ϯ ϰϵ͘ϳ ϰϮϳϵ ϭϯ͘ϵϭϲ ϭϳ͘ϴϯ ϯ͘ϯϭ ϱϴ͘ϵϲ ϳϮ͘ϴϴ ϴϱ
ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐͲŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶƌĞĂ ϯϲ ϮϬϮϵ ϭϬ͘Ϭϴ ϴ͘ϰϱ ϯ͘ϱϴ ϯϬ͘Ϯϳ ϰϬ͘ϯϱ
^ƉƌŝŶŐĐƌĞĞŬͲϱzĞĂƌ Ϯ͘ϴ ϰϱϬ Ϭ͘ϳϴϰ ϭ͘ϴϴ ϰ͘ϬϬ ϳ͘ϰϵ ϴ͘Ϯϴ
ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŶĞĂƌŽǁsĂůůĞǇdƌͲϱzĞĂƌ Ϭ͘ϴ Ϭ Ϭ͘ϮϮϰ Ϭ͘ϬϬ ϰ͘ϱϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϮϮ
^ƉƌŝŶŐĐƌĞĞŬͲϭϬzĞĂƌ Ϯ͘ϴ ϰϳϱ Ϭ͘ϳϴϰ ϭ͘ϵϴ ϯ͘ϵϵ ϳ͘ϴϵ ϴ͘ϲϳ
^ƉƌŝŶŐĐƌĞĞŬͲϭϱzĞĂƌ Ϯ͘ϳ ϰϳϱ Ϭ͘ϳϱϲ ϭ͘ϵϴ ϯ͘ϵϵ ϳ͘ϴϵ ϴ͘ϲϰ
^ƉƌŝŶŐĐƌĞĞŬͲƵŝůĚŽƵƚ ϰ͘ϲ ϴϱϬ ϭ͘Ϯϴϴ ϯ͘ϱϰ ϯ͘ϴϰ ϭϯ͘ϲϮ ϭϰ͘ϵϬ
>^ϯ ϯ ϭϳϬ ϭ͘ϵϴ Ϭ͘ϳϭ ϰ͘ϭϳ Ϯ͘ϵϲ ϰ͘ϵϰ ͲͲͲ
ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐͲŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶƌĞĂ ϯ ϭϳϬ ϭ͘ϵϴ Ϭ͘ϳϭ ϰ͘ϭϳ Ϯ͘ϵϲ ϰ͘ϵϰ
>^ϰ ϵϱ͘ϳ ϭϳϲϯ Ϯϲ͘ϳϵϲ ϳ͘ϯϱ ϯ͘ϲϯ Ϯϲ͘ϲϱ ϱϯ͘ϰϰ ϴϱ
ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐͲŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶƌĞĂ ϵϭ ϭϱϯϰ Ϯϱ͘ϰϴ ϲ͘ϯϵ ϯ͘ϲϳ Ϯϯ͘ϰϳ ϰϴ͘ϵϱ
>^ϵ ϰ͘ϳ ϮϮϵ ϭ͘ϯϭϲ Ϭ͘ϵϱ ϰ͘ϭϯ ϯ͘ϵϰ ϱ͘Ϯϱ
>^ϱ ϯϲ ϳϬϲ Ϯϯ͘ϳϲ Ϯ͘ϵϰ ϯ͘ϴϵ ϭϭ͘ϰϱ ϯϱ͘Ϯϭ ϰϬ
ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐͲŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶƌĞĂ ϯϲ ϲϬϲ Ϯϯ͘ϳϲ Ϯ͘ϱϯ ϯ͘ϵϯ ϵ͘ϵϮ ϯϯ͘ϲϴ
sĂůůĞǇďŽƚƚŽŵŝŶĨŝůůͲϱzĞĂƌ Ϭ ϭϬϬ Ϭ Ϭ͘ϰϮ ϰ͘Ϯϰ ϭ͘ϳϳ ϭ͘ϳϳ
>^ϲ ϯϵ ϭϭϮϮ ϭϬ͘ϵϮ ϰ͘ϲϴ ϯ͘ϳϳ ϭϳ͘ϲϭ Ϯϴ͘ϱϯ ϯϱ
ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐͲŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶƌĞĂ ϯϵ ϭϭϮϮ ϭϬ͘ϵϮ ϰ͘ϲϴ ϯ͘ϳϳ ϭϳ͘ϲϭ Ϯϴ͘ϱϯ
>^ϳ ϵϳ͘ϯ ϰϳϬϲ͘ϱ Ϯϳ͘Ϯϰϰ ϭϵ͘ϲϭ ϯ͘Ϯϳ ϲϰ͘ϭϭ ϵϭ͘ϯϲ ϭϮϬ
ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐͲŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶƌĞĂ ϯϯ ϭϬϯϵ ϵ͘Ϯϰ ϰ͘ϯϯ ϯ͘ϳϵ ϭϲ͘ϰϬ Ϯϱ͘ϲϰ
WĂůůŝƐĞƌͲϱzĞĂƌ Ϯ͘ϭ Ϭ Ϭ͘ϱϴϴ Ϭ͘ϬϬ ϰ͘ϱϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϱϵ
WĂůůŝƐĞƌͲϱzĞĂƌ ϭ͘ϳ ϯϱϬ Ϭ͘ϰϳϲ ϭ͘ϰϲ ϰ͘Ϭϱ ϱ͘ϵϬ ϲ͘ϯϴ
^ŝůǀĞƌƚŝƉͲϭϬzĞĂƌ Ϭ͘ϳ ϯϱ Ϭ͘ϭϵϲ Ϭ͘ϭϱ ϰ͘ϯϰ Ϭ͘ϲϯ Ϭ͘ϴϯ
^ŝůǀĞƌƚŝƉͲϭϬzĞĂƌ ϭ͘ϴ ϴϱ Ϭ͘ϱϬϰ Ϭ͘ϯϱ ϰ͘Ϯϲ ϭ͘ϱϭ Ϯ͘Ϭϭ
WĂůůŝƐĞƌͲϭϬzĞĂƌ Ϭ͘ϴ ϭϬϬ Ϭ͘ϮϮϰ Ϭ͘ϰϮ ϰ͘Ϯϰ ϭ͘ϳϳ ϭ͘ϵϵ
^ŝůǀĞƌƚŝƉͲϭϬzĞĂƌ ϭ͘ϳ ϭϬϮ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϰϳϲ Ϭ͘ϰϯ ϰ͘Ϯϰ ϭ͘ϴϭ Ϯ͘Ϯϵ
WĂůůŝƐĞƌͲϭϬzĞĂƌ Ϯ͘ϯ ϭϮϳ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϲϰϰ Ϭ͘ϱϯ ϰ͘Ϯϭ Ϯ͘Ϯϰ Ϯ͘ϴϴ
^ŝůǀĞƌƚŝƉͲϭϱzĞĂƌ ϭ͘Ϯ ϰϬ Ϭ͘ϯϯϲ Ϭ͘ϭϳ ϰ͘ϯϯ Ϭ͘ϳϮ ϭ͘Ϭϲ
WĂůůŝƐĞƌͲϭϱzĞĂƌ Ϯ͘ϯ ϭϬϬ Ϭ͘ϲϰϰ Ϭ͘ϰϮ ϰ͘Ϯϰ ϭ͘ϳϳ Ϯ͘ϰϭ
^ŝůǀĞƌƚŝƉͲϭϱzĞĂƌ ϭ͘ϵ ϭϬϬ Ϭ͘ϱϯϮ Ϭ͘ϰϮ ϰ͘Ϯϰ ϭ͘ϳϳ Ϯ͘ϯϬ
^ŝůǀĞƌƚŝƉͲϭϱzĞĂƌ Ϯ͘ϲ ϭϮϬ Ϭ͘ϳϮϴ Ϭ͘ϱϬ ϰ͘ϮϮ Ϯ͘ϭϭ Ϯ͘ϴϰ
^ŝůǀĞƌƚŝƉͲϭϱzĞĂƌ Ϯ͘ϳ ϭϱϮ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϳϱϲ Ϭ͘ϲϰ ϰ͘ϭϵ Ϯ͘ϲϲ ϯ͘ϰϮ
^ŝůǀĞƌƚŝƉͲƵŝůĚŽƵƚ ϯ͘ϳ ϮϮϳ͘ϱ ϭ͘Ϭϯϲ Ϭ͘ϵϱ ϰ͘ϭϯ ϯ͘ϵϭ ϰ͘ϵϱ
^ŝůǀĞƌƚŝƉͲƵŝůĚŽƵƚ ϭϮ͘ϰ ϲϴϱ ϯ͘ϰϳϮ Ϯ͘ϴϱ ϯ͘ϵϬ ϭϭ͘ϭϯ ϭϰ͘ϲϬ
^ŝůǀĞƌƚŝƉͲƵŝůĚŽƵƚ ϭϲ ϴϲϳ͘ϱ ϰ͘ϰϴ ϯ͘ϲϭ ϯ͘ϴϰ ϭϯ͘ϴϴ ϭϴ͘ϯϲ
EĞǁ^ŝůǀĞƌƚŝƉ>^ ϭϬ͘ϰ ϱϳϱ Ϯ͘ϵϭϮ Ϯ͘ϰϬ ϯ͘ϵϰ ϵ͘ϰϰ ϭϮ͘ϯϲ
>^ϴ ϰϳϯ͘ϴ ϭϮϳϵϴ͘ϱ ϭϯϮ͘ϲϲϰ ϱϯ͘ϯϯ Ϯ͘ϴϱ ϭϱϭ͘ϴϱ Ϯϴϰ͘ϱϮ ϯϭϬ
ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶƌĞĂ ϭϭ ϭϮϵ ϯ͘Ϭϴ Ϭ͘ϱϰ ϰ͘Ϯϭ Ϯ͘Ϯϲ ϱ͘ϯϰ
>^ϭϬ Ϯϵϱ͘Ϯ ϲϮϰϲ ϴϮ͘ϲϱϲ Ϯϲ͘Ϭϯ ϯ͘ϭϱ ϴϮ͘Ϭϵ ϭϲϰ͘ϳϰ
/ZE^>^ ϲ ϭϭϭ ϭ͘ϲϴ Ϭ͘ϰϲ ϰ͘Ϯϯ ϭ͘ϵϲ ϯ͘ϲϰ
ZĞƐŽƌƚͲϱzĞĂƌ Ϯ ϭϱϬ Ϭ͘ϱϲ Ϭ͘ϲϯ ϰ͘ϭϵ Ϯ͘ϲϮ ϯ͘ϭϴ
ZĞƐŽƌƚͲϱzĞĂƌ ϲ͘ϴ Ϯϳϱ ϭ͘ϵϬϰ ϭ͘ϭϱ ϰ͘Ϭϵ ϰ͘ϲϵ ϲ͘ϲϬ
ZĞƐŽƌƚͲϭϬzĞĂƌ Ϭ͘ϴ Ϯϱ Ϭ͘ϮϮϰ Ϭ͘ϭϬ ϰ͘ϯϳ Ϭ͘ϰϱ Ϭ͘ϲϴ
ZĞƐŽƌƚͲϭϬzĞĂƌ ϰ͘ϰ ϯϵϳ͘ϱ ϭ͘ϮϯϮ ϭ͘ϲϲ ϰ͘ϬϮ ϲ͘ϲϲ ϳ͘ϵϬ
ZĞƐŽƌƚͲϭϬzĞĂƌ ϭϮ ϱϬϬ ϯ͘ϯϲ Ϯ͘Ϭϴ ϯ͘ϵϳ ϴ͘Ϯϴ ϭϭ͘ϲϰ
ZĞƐŽƌƚͲϭϱzĞĂƌ ϯ͘ϲ ϭϴϮ͘ϱ ϭ͘ϬϬϴ Ϭ͘ϳϲ ϰ͘ϭϲ ϯ͘ϭϳ ϰ͘ϭϳ
ZĞƐŽƌƚͲϭϱzĞĂƌ ϯ͘Ϯ ϭϵϱ Ϭ͘ϴϵϲ Ϭ͘ϴϭ ϰ͘ϭϱ ϯ͘ϯϳ ϰ͘Ϯϳ
ZĞƐŽƌƚͲϭϱzĞĂƌ Ϯ͘ϲ Ϯϯϱ Ϭ͘ϳϮϴ Ϭ͘ϵϴ ϰ͘ϭϮ ϰ͘Ϭϰ ϰ͘ϳϲ
ZĞƐŽƌƚͲƵŝůĚŽƵƚ ϯ ϮϰϬ Ϭ͘ϴϰ ϭ͘ϬϬ ϰ͘ϭϮ ϰ͘ϭϮ ϰ͘ϵϲ
ZĞƐŽƌƚͲƵŝůĚŽƵƚ ϴϬ͘ϵ ϭϴϳϱ ϮϮ͘ϲϱϮ ϳ͘ϴϭ ϯ͘ϲϭ Ϯϴ͘ϭϴ ϱϬ͘ϴϯ
ZĞƐŽƌƚͲƵŝůĚŽƵƚ ϰϮ͘ϯ ϮϮϯϳ͘ϱ ϭϭ͘ϴϰϰ ϵ͘ϯϮ ϯ͘ϱϱ ϯϯ͘Ϭϳ ϰϰ͘ϵϮ
>^ϵ ϰ͘ϳ ϮϮϵ ϭ͘ϯϭϲ Ϭ͘ϵϱ ϰ͘ϭϯ ϯ͘ϵϰ ϱ͘Ϯϱ ϳ
ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐͲŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶƌĞĂ ϰ ϭϮϵ ϭ͘ϭϮ Ϭ͘ϱϰ ϰ͘Ϯϭ Ϯ͘Ϯϲ ϯ͘ϯϴ
WĞĂŬƐŽĨ'ƌĂƐƐŝͲϱzĞĂƌ Ϭ͘ϳ ϭϬϬ Ϭ͘ϭϵϲ Ϭ͘ϰϮ ϰ͘Ϯϰ ϭ͘ϳϳ ϭ͘ϵϲ
>^ϭϬ Ϯϵϱ͘Ϯ ϲϮϰϲ ϴϮ͘ϲϱϲ Ϯϲ͘Ϭϯ ϯ͘ϭϱ ϴϮ͘Ϭϵ ϭϲϰ͘ϳϰ ϭϴϬ
ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶƌĞĂ ϳϴ ϭϭϮϭ Ϯϭ͘ϴϰ ϰ͘ϲϳ ϯ͘ϳϳ ϭϳ͘ϲϬ ϯϵ͘ϰϰ
D&ͲǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ ϭϱ ϱϬϬ ϰ͘Ϯ Ϯ͘Ϭϴ ϯ͘ϵϳ ϴ͘Ϯϴ ϭϮ͘ϰϴ
D&ͲϱzĞĂƌ ϯ ϭϬϬ Ϭ͘ϴϰ Ϭ͘ϰϮ ϰ͘Ϯϰ ϭ͘ϳϳ Ϯ͘ϲϭ
D&ͲϭϬzĞĂƌ ϯ ϭϬϬ Ϭ͘ϴϰ Ϭ͘ϰϮ ϰ͘Ϯϰ ϭ͘ϳϳ Ϯ͘ϲϭ
D&ͲϭϱzĞĂƌ ϯ ϭϬϬ Ϭ͘ϴϰ Ϭ͘ϰϮ ϰ͘Ϯϰ ϭ͘ϳϳ Ϯ͘ϲϭ
D&ͲƵŝůĚŽƵƚ ϲ ϮϬϬ ϭ͘ϲϴ Ϭ͘ϴϯ ϰ͘ϭϱ ϯ͘ϰϲ ϱ͘ϭϰ
ϵ͘ϲ Ϭ Ϯ͘ϲϴϴ Ϭ͘ϬϬ ϰ͘ϱϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϯ͘ϲϵ
^ͲWŚĂƐĞϯͲ>^ϭ ϭϳϳ͘ϲ ϰϭϮϱ ϰϵ͘ϳϮϴ ϭϳ͘ϭϵ ϯ͘ϯϮ ϱϳ͘Ϭϵ ϭϬϲ͘ϴϭ
dƌŝƉůĞ&D ϭϰϴ ϰϭϮϬ ϰϭ͘ϰϰ ϭϳ͘ϭϳ ϯ͘ϯϮ ϱϳ͘ϬϮ ϵϴ͘ϰϲ ͲͲͲ
ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶƌĞĂ ϭϬϵ Ϯϳϰϴ ϯϬ͘ϱϮ ϭϭ͘ϰϱ ϯ͘ϰϳ ϯϵ͘ϳϴ ϳϬ͘ϯϬ
>^ϲ ϯϵ ϭϭϮϮ ϭϬ͘ϵϮ ϰ͘ϲϴ ϯ͘ϳϳ ϭϳ͘ϲϭ Ϯϴ͘ϱϯ
ŽƵŐĂƌƌĞĞŬΘĞŶĐŚůĂŶĚƐͲϭϬzĞĂƌ Ϭ ϭϮϱ Ϭ Ϭ͘ϱϮ ϰ͘ϮϮ Ϯ͘ϮϬ Ϯ͘ϮϬ
ŽƵŐĂƌƌĞĞŬΘĞŶĐŚůĂŶĚƐͲϭϱzĞĂƌ Ϭ ϭϮϱ Ϭ Ϭ͘ϱϮ ϰ͘ϮϮ Ϯ͘ϮϬ Ϯ͘ϮϬ
^Θ^ƌĞĞŬͲ>^ ϭϱϭ͘Ϯ ϯϴϮϱ ϰϮ͘ϯϯϲ ϭϱ͘ϵϰ ϯ͘ϯϱ ϱϯ͘ϰϬ ϵϱ͘ϳϰ ϭϬϱ
^Θ^ƌĞĞŬͲϱzĞĂƌ ϭϵ͘ϭ ϰϬϬ ϱ͘ϯϰϴ ϭ͘ϲϳ ϰ͘ϬϮ ϲ͘ϳϬ ϭϮ͘Ϭϱ
^Θ^ƌĞĞŬͲϭϬzĞĂƌ Ϯ͘ϴ ϱϬ Ϭ͘ϳϴϰ Ϭ͘Ϯϭ ϰ͘ϯϭ Ϭ͘ϵϬ ϭ͘ϲϴ
^Θ^ƌĞĞŬͲ>^ ϭϮϵ͘ϯ ϯϯϳϱ ϯϲ͘ϮϬϰ ϭϰ͘Ϭϲ ϯ͘ϰϬ ϰϳ͘ϳϵ ϴϯ͘ϵϵ
^Θ^ƌĞĞŬͲ>^ ϭϮϵ͘ϯ ϯϯϳϱ ϯϲ͘ϮϬϰ ϭϰ͘Ϭϲ ϯ͘ϰϬ ϰϳ͘ϳϵ ϴϯ͘ϵϵ ϵϱ
^Θ^ƌĞĞŬͲƵŝůĚŽƵƚ ϲϯ͘ϵ ϭϴϴϳ͘ϱ ϭϳ͘ϴϵϮ ϳ͘ϴϲ ϯ͘ϲϭ Ϯϴ͘ϯϱ ϰϲ͘Ϯϱ
^Θ^ƌĞĞŬͲ>^ ϲϱ͘ϰ ϭϰϴϳ͘ϱ ϭϴ͘ϯϭϮ ϲ͘ϮϬ ϯ͘ϲϴ ϮϮ͘ϴϮ ϰϭ͘ϭϯ
^Θ^ƌĞĞŬͲ>^ ϲϱ͘ϰ ϭϰϴϳ͘ϱ ϭϴ͘ϯϭϮ ϲ͘ϮϬ ϯ͘ϲϴ ϮϮ͘ϴϮ ϰϭ͘ϭϯ ϰϱ
^Θ^ƌĞĞŬͲ>^ Ϯϴ͘ϭ ϲϱϬ ϳ͘ϴϲϴ Ϯ͘ϳϭ ϯ͘ϵϭ ϭϬ͘ϲϬ ϭϴ͘ϰϳ
^Θ^ƌĞĞŬͲƵŝůĚŽƵƚ ϯϳ͘ϯ ϴϯϳ͘ϱ ϭϬ͘ϰϰϰ ϯ͘ϰϵ ϯ͘ϴϱ ϭϯ͘ϰϯ Ϯϯ͘ϴϳ
^Θ^ƌĞĞŬͲ>^ Ϯϴ͘ϭ ϲϱϬ ϳ͘ϴϲϴ Ϯ͘ϳϭ ϯ͘ϵϭ ϭϬ͘ϲϬ ϭϴ͘ϰϳ Ϯϱ
^Θ^ƌĞĞŬͲϭϱzĞĂƌ Ϯϴ͘ϭ ϲϱϬ ϳ͘ϴϲϴ Ϯ͘ϳϭ ϯ͘ϵϭ ϭϬ͘ϲϬ ϭϴ͘ϰϳ
^ͲWŚĂƐĞϯͲ>^ϭ ϭϳϳ͘ϲ ϰϭϮϱ ϰϵ͘ϳϮϴ ϭϳ͘ϭϵ ϯ͘ϯϮ ϱϳ͘Ϭϵ ϭϬϲ͘ϴϭ ϭϮϬ
^Θ^ƌĞĞŬͲ>^ ϭϱϭ͘Ϯ ϯϴϮϱ ϰϮ͘ϯϯϲ ϭϱ͘ϵϰ ϯ͘ϯϱ ϱϯ͘ϰϬ ϵϱ͘ϳϰ
^Θ^ƌĞĞŬͲϱzĞĂƌ Ϯϲ͘ϰ ϯϬϬ ϳ͘ϯϵϮ ϭ͘Ϯϱ ϰ͘Ϭϴ ϱ͘ϭϬ ϭϮ͘ϰϵ
^ŝůǀĞƌƚŝƉͲ>^ ϭϬ͘ϰ ϱϳϱ Ϯ͘ϵϭϮ Ϯ͘ϰϬ ϯ͘ϵϰ ϵ͘ϰϰ ϭϮ͘ϯϲ ϭϱ
^ŝůǀĞƌƚŝƉͲƵŝůĚŽƵƚ ϰ͘ϰ ϮϱϬ ϭ͘ϮϯϮ ϭ͘Ϭϰ ϰ͘ϭϭ ϰ͘Ϯϴ ϱ͘ϱϭ
^ŝůǀĞƌƚŝƉͲƵŝůĚŽƵƚ ϲ ϯϮϱ ϭ͘ϲϴ ϭ͘ϯϱ ϰ͘Ϭϲ ϱ͘ϱϬ ϳ͘ϭϴ
ttdW ϭϬϵϵ͘ϱ ϯϱϳϲϮ ϯϵϭ͘Ϭϴ ϭϰϵ͘Ϭϭ Ϯ͘ϰϬ ϯϱϴ͘Ϭϰ ϳϰϵ͘ϭϮ
dƌŝƉůĞ&D ϭϰϴ ϰϭϮϬ ϰϭ͘ϰϰ ϭϳ͘ϭϳ ϯ͘ϯϮ ϱϳ͘ϬϮ ϵϴ͘ϰϲ
>^ϭ ϭϯϬ ϯϬϲϵ ϴϱ͘ϴ ϭϮ͘ϳϵ ϯ͘ϰϯ ϰϯ͘ϵϭ ϭϮϵ͘ϳϭ
>^Ϯ ϭϬϱ ϱϬϮϲ ϲϯ͘ϮϮ ϮϬ͘ϵϰ ϯ͘Ϯϰ ϲϳ͘ϵϭ ϭϯϭ͘ϭϯ
>^Ϯ ϰϵ͘ϳ ϰϮϳϵ ϭϯ͘ϵϭϲ ϭϳ͘ϴϯ ϯ͘ϯϭ ϱϴ͘ϵϲ ϳϮ͘ϴϴ
>^ϰ ϵϱ͘ϳ ϭϳϲϯ Ϯϲ͘ϳϵϲ ϳ͘ϯϱ ϯ͘ϲϯ Ϯϲ͘ϲϱ ϱϯ͘ϰϰ
>^ϳ ϵϳ͘ϯ ϰϳϬϲ͘ϱ Ϯϳ͘Ϯϰϰ ϭϵ͘ϲϭ ϯ͘Ϯϳ ϲϰ͘ϭϭ ϵϭ͘ϯϲ
>^ϴ ϰϳϯ͘ϴ ϭϮϳϵϴ͘ϱ ϭϯϮ͘ϲϲϰ ϱϯ͘ϯϯ Ϯ͘ϴϱ ϭϱϭ͘ϴϱ Ϯϴϰ͘ϱϮ
APPENDIX C
ALTERNATE TO PROJECT 6
SEWER UPGRADE – 7 AVENUE
Alternate to Project 6 - Sewer Upgrade – 7 Avenue
PWWF through this section of pipe (green) is currently
calculated at up to 66 L/s operating at between 105 and
194% of its design capacity resulting in approximately
1100m of 300mm pipe to cause surcharging. The
hydraulic model indicates that manholes on this section
of pipe could overflow at PWWF conditions.
A bypass on Fairholme (blue) was discussed through the

UMP development process and is summarized here.
There are about 280m of pipe that would have to be

replaced regardless of a possible diversion. That
common 280m of pipe is ignored in this comparison.
On 7th Avenue the overcapacity pipes are as follows:
+ 216m are up to 5 L/s over capacity

+ An additional 266m are up to 9 L/s over
capacity
+ An additional 230m are up to 13 L/s over capacity
+ An additional 90m are up to 23 L/s over capacity
+ Total of 802m
On the proposed bypass on Fairholme:
+ 300m of new bypass pipe would have to be installed

+ 110m of the existing pipes have spare capacity up to 0.2 L/s (basically nothing)
+ An additional 200m of the pipes have up to an extra 5 L/s of spare capacity
+ An additional 40m of the pipes have up to an extra 7 L/s of spare capacity
+ An additional 105m of the pipes have up to an extra 14 L/s of spare capacity.
+ Total length of 455m of existing pipe + 300m of new
The table below compares the lengths of pipe installation vs the volume of diversion
C = New
Diversion A = Saved Length of B = Additional Replacement on Diversion B+C-A = Net
Rate (L/s) Replacement on 7th (m) Fairholme and 10 Street (m) (m) Difference (m)
6 216 310 300 394
10 482 350 300 168
23 800 455 300 -45
Conclusion: if the bypass was installed with the intention of eliminating pipe replacement on 7 th, about 45
meters would be saved overall. Perhaps timing or other influencing factors will decide which route this
project will take.
APPENDIX D
LIFT STATION DRAW DOWN TESTS
LS1 Change In Well Level With Time
2.50
2.00
1.50
Well Level (m)
1.00
0.50
0.00
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Total Elapsed Time (s)
1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
Well Level (m)
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
LS2A Change In Well Level With Time
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
Well Level (m)
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
1.20
1.00
0.80
Well Level (m)
0.60
24-May
25-May
0.40
0.20
0.00
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
2.00
1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
Well Level (m)
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
Well Level (m)
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
Well Level (m)
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
Well Level (m)
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
Well Level (m)
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

2016 Utility Master Plan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2016 Utility Master Plan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Town of Canmore

Utilities Master Plan

Formerly BSEI Municipal Consulting Engineers

Subject: Town of Canmore Utility Master Plan – Final Report

I have enclosed the Utility Master Plan – Final Report.

Steven Dawe, B.Sc., P. Eng

Centre Eight Ten Phone : 403 247-2001

EPCOR Water Services

+ Wastewater collection and transmission

+ Water supply, treatment, storage and distribution

The stated objectives of the UMP are as follows:

2. Provide a prioritized list of required projects.

The Town of Canmore currently has two drinking water sources.

+ Projects to meet recommended service criteria

x Fire Flow Improvements

– South Bow Loop

+ Projects to support growth and development

x Water Treatment Plant & Pump Station (Pump House 2)

x Smith Creek Reservoir

The following conclusions were made related to the wastewater system:

+ Projects identified for existing system

x 2 Lift Station Upgrade Projects (LS2, LS6)

x 8 Gravity Sewer Upgrade Projects

x 1 Recommendation for Increased Monitoring (LS5)

+ Projects identified for development to full build-out

x Three Sisters Parkway in multiple phases

– Forecasted for greater than 15 years away

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... ii

1.1 Authorization and Terms of Reference ......................................................................................... 1

1.2 Background ................................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Objectives ...................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Growth and Development Analysis ................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Review of Existing Planning Documents ...................................................................................... 2

2.2 Population Growth ......................................................................................................................... 3

2.3 Development Projections .............................................................................................................. 4

3. Water System ....................................................................................................................................... 7

3.1 System Characterization ............................................................................................................... 7

3.1.1 Pipe Diameter and Material ....................................................................................................... 7

3.2 Water Demand Analysis .............................................................................................................. 16

3.2.1 Existing Water Demands ......................................................................................................... 16

3.3 Model Development .................................................................................................................... 19

3.3.1 Water System Model Update .................................................................................................. 19

3.4 Design Criteria............................................................................................................................. 21

3.4.1 Supply Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 21

3.4.2 Level of Service Criteria .......................................................................................................... 21

3.5 Existing System Evaluation ......................................................................................................... 24

3.5.1 Water Supply Analysis ............................................................................................................ 24

3.6 Future System Evaluation ........................................................................................................... 29

3.6.1 Water Supply Analysis ............................................................................................................ 29

3.7 Water Projects ............................................................................................................................. 35

3.7.1 Project 1 - Pump House 2 Treatment Upgrade ....................................................................... 35

4. Wastewater System ........................................................................................................................... 45

4.1 System Characterization ............................................................................................................. 45

4.1.1 Existing Infrastructure ............................................................................................................. 45

4.1.4 Low Pressure System ............................................................................................................. 46

4.2 Design Criteria............................................................................................................................. 50

4.3 Existing System Evaluation ......................................................................................................... 51

4.3.1 Collection System Capacity Analysis ...................................................................................... 51

4.4 Future System Evaluation ........................................................................................................... 63

4.4.1 Demands ................................................................................................................................. 63

5. Summary of Projects ......................................................................................................................... 74

Figure 2 - Existing Water Supply Areas and Pressure Zones ...................................................................... 8

Figure 3 - Reservoir Locations .................................................................................................................... 13

Figure 4 - Water Meter Route Example ...................................................................................................... 19