preliminary site servicing stormwater management report -...

Preliminary Site Servicing &

Stormwater Management Report

North York Central Park Subdivision Part of Lot 09, Concession 7

Geographic Township of Russell Blais Street / St-Pierre Road

Embrun, Ontario

Prepared for

Solidex Holdings Limited & Investissement Maurice Lemieux Investments Attn: Mr. Anthony Corvinelli & Mr. Maurice Lemieux

P.O. Box 580 Russell, Ontario

K4R 1E7

By Lascelles Engineering & Associates Limited

870 James Street Hawkesbury, Ontario

K6A 2W8

Lascelles File No.: 160323 February 2018

Preliminary Site Servicing & Stormwater Management Report Lascelles File: 160323

North York Central Park Subdivision February 2018 Blais Street & St-Pierre Road, Embrun, Ontario i

Lascelles Engineering & Associates Ltd.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................1

1.1 Objectives....................................................................................................................1

2 SITE DESCRIPTION ...........................................................................................................2

2.1 Existing Site ................................................................................................................2

2.2 Site Geology ................................................................................................................4

2.3 Proposed Project ........................................................................................................4

3 EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE ..........................................................................................5

4 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DESIGN ..........................................................................5

4.1 Design Criteria ............................................................................................................5

4.1.1 Water Quantity .........................................................................................................5

4.1.2 Water Quality ...........................................................................................................6

4.2 Method of Analysis .....................................................................................................6

4.3 Allowable Release Rate ..............................................................................................6

4.4 Proposed Stormwater Management Plan ..................................................................7

4.4.1 Proposed Quantity Controls .....................................................................................8

4.4.2 Proposed Quality Controls .......................................................................................9

5 SANITARY SERVICE ..........................................................................................................9

5.1 Design Criteria ............................................................................................................9

5.2 Sanitary Sewers Design ...........................................................................................10

6 WATER SUPPLY DESIGN ................................................................................................11

6.1 Design Criteria ..........................................................................................................11

6.2 Domestic Water Demand ..........................................................................................11

6.3 Fire Flow Demand .....................................................................................................12

6.4 Hydraulic Modeling of the Distribution Network .....................................................12

6.4.1 Watermain Connections .........................................................................................12

6.4.2 Hydraulic Modeling Parameters .............................................................................12

6.4.3 Modeling Results ...................................................................................................13

7 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ............................................................................13

8 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................14

8.1 Stormwater Management .........................................................................................14


North York Central Park Subdivision February 2018 Blais Street & St-Pierre Road, Embrun, Ontario ii


8.2 Sanitary Servicing: ...................................................................................................15

8.3 Water Supply Servicing: ...........................................................................................15

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Subdivision Location

Figure 2: Property Location

Figure 3: Watermain Hydraulic Model Schematic

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Runoff Coefficients by Land Use

Table 2: Catchment Runoff Coefficient Summary

Table 3: Water levels for Castor Tributary

Table 4: Maximum Release Rate to Municipal Storm Sewer by Block

Table 5: Maximum Release Rate to Sanitary Sewer by Block

Table 6: Potable Water Supply Design Criteria

Table 7: Domestic Water Demand Summary

APPENDICES

Appendix A Stormwater Management Calculations

Appendix B Stormceptor Report and Manual

Appendix C Sanitary Design Sheet

Appendix D Water Demand Calculation Sheet

Appendix E EPAnet Report and Results


North York Central Park Subdivision February 2018 Blais Street & St-Pierre Road, Embrun, Ontario Page 1 of 15


1 INTRODUCTION

Lascelles Engineering & Associates Ltd. (Lascelles) was retained by Solidex Holdings Limited &

Investissement Maurice Lemieux Investments to prepare a preliminary Site Servicing &

Stormwater Management Report in support of a Proposed Residential Subdivision to be

submitted for Draft Plan approval. The subdivision is referred to as North York Central Park

Subdivision. The subdivision is located on vacant parcels of land that would be accessed from

Blais Street and St-Pierre Road within the Village of Embrun, Ontario. Refer to Figure 1 for

location.

Figure 1: Subdivision Location

1.1 Objectives

The purpose of this preliminary report is to demonstrate the manner in which the proposed

subdivision can be serviced by the existing infrastructures as wells as conforming with local and

provincial guidelines.




The Servicing and Stormwater Management Report will demonstrate that:

a) For Stormwater Management (SWM)

• The existing drainage patterns of the site and surroundings were analysed;

• The allowable stormwater release rates were calculated;

• The anticipated post development stormwater release rates were calculated; and,

• How the quantity and quality control objectives in accordance with MOE’s guidelines are achieved with the use of SWM Best Practices.

b) For Stormwater Servicing

• The anticipated post development stormwater flows along with any external tributary flows were calculated; and,

• The proposed municipal storm sewer network required to service the proposed subdivision were properly sized and laid out.

c) For Sanitary Servicing

• The subdivision sanitary demand was calculated; and,

• The proposed municipal sanitary sewer network required to service the proposed subdivision were properly sized and laid out

d) For Water Servicing

• The subdivision’s average, daily and peak hour domestic demands were calculated; and,

• The fire flow demand, as per the Fire Underwriter’s Survey (FUS), at key locations in the subdivision, was calculated; and,

• The proposed municipal watermain network required to service the proposed subdivision was properly sized and laid out.

2 SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 Existing Site

The subdivision property (the property) consists of several parcels; eight (8) in total as shown in

Figure 2. It is our understanding that the developer and the Township have an agreement to

exchange lands; those along the former railway for those along the watercourse. The site is

located on Part of Lot 9, Concession 7, within the Geographic Township of Russell and within the

United Counites of Prescott-Russell.

The property is located in the middle north portion of the urban core of the Village of Embrun,

Ontario. It is bordered on its south side by a former railroad that has been transformed to a nature

trail, known as North York Central Fitness Trail. The property is also bordered to its north by a

natural creek, which its meanders defines the property lines of the said subdivision property.




Figure 2: Property Location

REF: UCPR - GIS

The property is currently vacant and contains no existing building structures. The site is generally

flat with a gently slope towards the north and up to a small slope that falls onto valley land that

leads to the natural creek. The slope was created from former erosion activities of the said creek

and the valleyland is considered a floodplain. The creek is part of the Lower North York Municipal

Drain as well as being a tributary to the Castor River, which flows approximately 400m south of

the site.

Currently, most of the property is used as an agricultural field for crops. The agricultural activities

are limited to the upper plateau and to the south of the valley land. The valleyland is either

forested or covered with wild grasses and shrubs. A small narrow tree lines is found along the

former railway.




The property has an elongated irregular shape being about 100m wide by 170m long on average

for a total surface area of 6.71 ha. However, only 4.09 ha will be developed as the remaining

area of the property (valleyland and floodplain area) will remain undeveloped and undisturbed.

2.2 Site Geology

As per the Geotechnical Report prepared by Fondex Ontario Limited (Fondex - June 2006) in

support of this subdivision development, the subsurface soil conditions established at this site

consist of a 200mm thick layer of topsoil overlaying a layer sandy silt that extends to a depth of

0.7m to 1.0m below ground surface (bgs). The sandy silt is underlain by a thick silty clay deposit.

The depth to the groundwater table, determined from sample appearance at the time of the field

investigation, was estimated to be at a depth of about 1.6m to 2.5m bgs.

The report recommended that the footings for the proposed dwellings be founded within the upper

stiff natural silty clay crust at an approximate depth of 1.5m. In addition, the report recommended

that the fill height required for grade raise should not exceed 1m in order to limit the potential

settlement at the site. Finally, the report conducted a slope stability analysis and concluded that

there were no significant construction restraints with regards to the subject slope bordering this

project and consequently, no geotechnical setback was provided. Refer to the Geotechnical

Report for more details.

The recommendations, outlined in the Fondex - June 2006 report, were taken into consideration

as part of the preliminary design of this subdivision.

2.3 Proposed Project

The proposed subdivision will join the existing Blais Street found to the south to the existing St-

Pierre Road located to the west via a new street (North York Central Street). It is our

understanding that the proposed subdivision will consist of mixed density residential development

composed of townhouses and apartments/condominium building complexes. The proposed

subdivision is to be serviced by municipal water and sewers.

A Draft Plan of Subdivision was prepared by Annis O'Sullivan Vollebekk Ltd. (AOV) dated Nov

16th, 2017, which shows sixteen (16) blocks. Of these, Block 3 to Block 6 and Block 8 and Block

9 will house townhouses totalling thirty-two (32) units. Block 1, Block 2, Block 7, Block 16 and

Block 10 to Block 13 will house either an apartment or condominium building complex. The

remaining blocks will remain vacant and be transferred to the Town of Russell.

It is noted that the lands are currently zoned R1 and floodplain. No development will occur with

the floodplain designation of the property. However, a zoning by-law amendment will be required

for the proposed high-density blocks. The Draft Plan shows the maximum number of units for

each block allowed by the zoning by-law, once the zoning by-law amendment for high density is

obtained. Under this Draft Plan, a total of two hundred eighteen (218) units would be created.

It is noted that Block 14 and Block 16 will consist of lands to be transferred to Township of Russell

for parkland as well as land exchanged along recreational trail. Block 14 encompasses most of

the land located within the floodplain and below the top of the slope, which basically defines the




limits of the floodplain where not involve in the subdivision development. Block 16 is a small

parcel located to the west of Block 1. Finally, Block 15 is a proposed walkway that will join the

recreational trail with the new street. Please refer to the Draft Plan of Subdivision prepared AOV

for more details.

As mentioned herein, the Draft Plan of Subdivision was prepared in considering the maximum

density for each the proposed blocks and is conceptual at present time. Meaning that other than

the proposed townhouse units, which should remain fairly the same as presented on the draft

plan, the apartment/condominium buildings change depending on the final and individual design

of each said block. Therefore, these blocks will be reviewed and approved as part of Site Plan

Control and depending on what is proposed to be constructed on the said blocks. Nevertheless,

as part of the design of this subdivision and its infrastructures, allocations were made with regards

to the amounts of stormwater release rate, sanitary influent, and water consumptions for each

block. The civil designer of a said block will need to ensure that his design meets the allocations

presented herein for the said blocks, and if not, provided on-site mitigation measures as required

to meet the allocation provided (i.e. on-site stormwater storage).

3 EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE

Based on as-built drawings obtained from the Township of Russell and the topographic survey

provided by AOV, the existing municipal services that the subdivision will connect to are located

on Blais Street and St. Pierre Road. Currently, there is an existing 200mm diameter watermain

on Blais Street as well as on St. Pierre Street, which was recently installed (Summer 2017).

Therefore, it will be possible to loop the watermain as part of this project. We have however not

received the as-builts drawings for the new watermain installed on St. Pierre Road. It is our

understanding that from Blais Street, a 250mm diameter sanitary sewer and a 200mm watermain

lateral have been installed and extended about 50m within the future new street right-of-way, both

service lateral were capped in 2004. Since we did not obtain as-builts of these services and they

will need to be verified as part of the detail design of this subdivision.

4 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DESIGN

4.1 Design Criteria

The stormwater management criteria for this development is based on City of Ottawa Design

Guidelines - Sewer (2012), MTO Drainage Management Manual and the Ministry of the

Environment (MOE)’s Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual (2003).

4.1.1 Water Quantity

The post development peak flow rate must not exceed the corresponding pre-development peak

runoff for storm events with return periods of 5 and 100 years.




4.1.2 Water Quality

Enhanced, 80% Total Suspended Solids (TSS) removal, quality control is to be provided for the

development.

4.2 Method of Analysis

The Modified Rational Method has been used to calculate the runoff rate from the drainage

catchment to quantify the retention storage for all control measures. Refer to Appendix A for all

stormwater calculations. Due to the size of the site.

4.3 Allowable Release Rate

The runoff coefficients used for both pre and post development conditions are based on Table 5-

1 of the MOE Design Guidelines for Sewage Works 2008 and are summarized below in Table 1.

Table 1: Runoff Coefficients by Land Use

Sources Runoff Coefficient

Vegetated Area (i.e. grass, forest) 0.20

Hardscape (i.e. asphalt, building, concrete) 0.90

ROW Boulevard Area (including sidewalk) 0.40

ROW Street Area (including asphalt & curbs) 0.90

Under pre-development conditions, the runoff from the subject site (4.09 ha) is primarily made up

of vegetated area and some existing roofs and gravel areas. The minor runoff coefficient of the

4.09 ha drainage catchment is 0.20, and the major storm runoff coefficient is 0.25, as per the

modified rationale method.

Under post-development conditions, the site changes from vegetated area into urban

development. The minor runoff coefficient of the post development 4.09 ha drainage catchment

is 0.59, and the major storm runoff coefficient is 0.74, as per the modified rationale method. The

catchment runoff coefficients are summarized in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Catchment Runoff Coefficient Summary

Design Storm

Event

Runoff Coefficient

Pre- Development Post- Development

1:5 0.20 0.59

1:100 0.25 0.74

Based on the topography for the site, the overland drainage is toward the northeast and towards

the adjacent floodplain/watercourse at an average slope of ±3.5%. The ground surface elevation

along the south property boundary is about Elev. ±68.30 metres above sea level (masl) and about

Elev. ±62.20m masl along the watercourse.




The development property area is 4.09ha and is outlined as existing watershed area EWS-01 in

Existing Storm Watershed Plan (SWM-1). Refer to the Existing Storm Watershed Plan (SWM-1)

for the details.

The allowable release rate from the property is calculated according to the 100-year storm event,

with a pre-development runoff coefficient of 0.25. Since the runoff coefficient is less than 0.40,

the airport formula was used to calculate the time of concentration. The time of concentration for

this property is about 30 minutes based on the major storm runoff coefficient of 0.25 and an

average slope of 3.5%.

Based on the above, the total allowable release rate from the property is 123 L/s for the 5-year

storm event and 261 L/s for the 100-year storm event. Refer to Existing Storm Watershed Plan

(SWM-1) for existing watershed areas, and Appendix A for the detailed calculations.

According to a floodplain analysis report done by J.F. Sabourin and Associated Inc. for an

adjacent property, 42 Blais Street, Embrun, dated February 23rd, 2016, the water levels of the

watercourse at various location from the St. Pierre Road bridge (upstream) to the Blais Street

culvert are listed below. Based on these levels, the headwall pipe outlet elevation 64.50 (msal)

was chosen to design the storm water system.

Table 3: Water levels for Castor Tributary

Location Water Level (m)

2 Year 5 Year 10 Year 20 Year 50 Year 100 Year

Downstream of St. Pierre Bridge 63.40 63.72 63.98 64.20 64.52 64.82

Upstream of Blais Street 62.94 63.45 63.78 64.04 64.41 64.71

Downstream of Blais Street 62.09 62.44 62.72 62.85 63.01 63.20

4.4 Proposed Stormwater Management Plan

The subject property will have an on-site storm sewer network to collect, convey and detain drainage in accordance with the applicable stormwater management requirements. The post development property is subdivided into ten (10) watersheds (WS), which is comprised of seven controlled (7) WS and three (3) uncontrolled WS by existing site topography. The land within 15m of the watercourse will remain undisturbed. These WS are illustrated in Proposed Storm Watershed Plan (SWM-2). The runoff from WS-1 to WS-7 is controlled and will be collected via a network of on-site swales, catch basins and manholes and conveyed through an inlet control device (ICD), that will be installed in MH-4 to control the site runoff to the allowable release rate for all storm events, including the both 5-year and 100-year storm event.




The controlled flow will outlet through 900mm diameter storm sewer that will direct the water towards the existing creek. The required on-site storage will be provided by the storm sewer pipes, catch basin and manholes as well as by stormwater storage chambers installed within the future street boulevard. Refer to the Preliminary Servicing Plan (GS-1) for the proposed stormwater management layout.

4.4.1 Proposed Quantity Controls

The proposed development will be serviced with an on-site storm sewer network of 375 - 900mm diameter PVC and concrete pipes and an ICD used for flow control installed in MH4, which will control the runoff from WS-1 to WS-7.

In order to control the developed site to the allowable release rate during the 100-year storm event, the 200mm ICD was chosen and sized to release 101.51 L/s at a maximum head of 1.43m. The ICD will be installed at an centerline of 64.95m centred in the outlet from MH4 leading to the existing watercourse. The 100-year high water level (HWL) is expected to be at 66.30 masl.

The maximum total release rate from the site under a 5-year storm event will be 118.73 L/s, which is less than the total calculated allowable release rate of 123 L/s. The maximum total release rate from the site under a 100-year storm event will be 198.30 L/s, which is less than the total calculated allowable release rate of 261 L/s.

By using the above designed ICD, a total of 1,224m3 of stormwater storage is required to be provided on-site. The required storage will be provided in the following manner:

• 112m3 within the proposed storm sewer pipe network;

• 13m3 within the proposed catch basin/manhole structures;

• 1,099m3 storage in the underground stormwater storage chambers.

• The total storage volume provided is 1,224m3.

The underground stormwater storage chamber will consist of ADS stormtech MC-4500 chambers, these dual rows chamber are proposed to install on north side of North York Central street boulevard, the layout and standard cross section are as shown on drawing GS-1.

Refer to the Site Servicing Plan (SS-1) for the location of the services and structures noted above, and finally the Storm Watershed Plan (STM-1 & 2) for proposed drainage catchment areas. The following Table 4 provides maximum release rate allocated to each block for 5-year and 100-year storm event.




Table 4: Maximum Release Rate to Municipal Storm Sewer by Block

BLOCK

Area (Sq. m)

5-year storm event 100-year storm event

Peak Runoff

(l/s)

Uncontrolled Runoff

(l/s)

Allowable Runoff

(l/s)

Peak Runoff

(l/s)

Uncontrolled Runoff

(l/s)

Allowable Runoff

(l/s)

Block 1 2577.4 7.7 0.0 7.7 22.0 0.0 22.0

Block 2 1416.2 4.2 0.0 4.2 12.1 0.0 12.1

Block 3 1518.5 4.6 0.0 4.6 12.9 0.0 12.9

Block 4 1419.3 4.3 0.0 4.3 12.1 0.0 12.1

Block 5 1418.4 4.3 0.0 4.3 12.1 0.0 12.1

Block 6 1463.7 4.4 0.0 4.4 12.5 0.0 12.5

Block 7 2974.8 8.9 0.0 8.9 25.4 0.0 25.4

Block 8 1029.3 3.1 1.3 1.8 8.8 3.7 5.1

Block 9 1096.4 3.3 1.5 1.8 9.3 4.2 5.2

Block 10 3045 9.1 2.2 6.9 26.0 6.3 19.7

Block 11 4168 12.5 4.8 7.7 35.5 13.5 22.0

Block 12 2731.2 8.2 2.6 5.6 23.3 7.5 15.8

Block 13 3939.8 11.8 4.8 7.0 33.6 13.7 19.9

Total 28798 86.3 17.2 69.1 245.4 48.9 196.5

In the event that a residential development is proposed on one of the above referenced blocks, which would exceed allowable release rate for the said block, the designer will need to provide mitigation with regard to quantity and quality as part of the stormwater management of the said block.

4.4.2 Proposed Quality Controls

Enhanced quality control providing 80% TSS removal will be accomplished with the use an oil-grit separator. A Stormceptor 2000 (STC - 2000) was selected for this site. The STC 2000 will be located 5.0m downstream of the ICD installed in MH-4, which will then discharge to the existing watercourse. The STC 2000 will provide 80% TSS removal. Therefore, on-site quality control is achievable and has been designed accordingly.

Maintenance of the STC-2000 is required to maintain the calculated TSS removal efficiency. The municipality is to comply with the manufacturer recommended maintenance schedule. If inspection indicates the potential need for maintenance, access is provided via the manhole lid of the STC2000. Maintenance is accomplished with the use of a sump-vac. Refer to Appendix B for manufacturer maintenance schedule recommendations.

5 SANITARY SERVICE

5.1 Design Criteria

The sanitary service design criteria for this development is based on The Township of Russell Design Requirements, City of Ottawa Design Guidelines - Sewer (2012); and the Ministry of the Environment (MOE)’s Design Guidelines for Sewage Works (2008).




5.2 Sanitary Sewers Design

As noted in Section 3, there is an existing capped 250mm diameter sanitary sewer that extends about 50m from Blais Street onto the property. A proposed 250mm diameter PVC DR 35 sanitary sewer network will connect to the existing sanitary lateral by a property MH9 as shown on design drawing.

The proposed subdivision development will have a maximum of 218 residential units; 32 townhouses units and 186 apartment/condominium units. The City of Ottawa’s Sewer Design Guidelines recommends a population of 2.7 persons per townhouse and 2.1 persons for 2-bedroom apartment unit. Therefore, the total expected population for this subdivision was calculated to be 477 persons.

With an average domestic flow of 350 L/cap/day, the total anticipated sanitary flow from this proposed development is 8.4 L/s. Please refer to Appendix C for the sanitary design sheet.

In order to convey the sanitary flow to the existing sanitary sewer, it is proposed to install 250mm sanitary sewer pipe along new street. According to existing design drawing at Blais st intersection provided by Client, the length/slope/invert info of sanitary lateral extended to proposed subdivision is unclear. Since such lateral as built drawing is not available at this moment, the current sanitary sewer design is basing on such sewer lateral invert in existing sanitary manhole on Blais street confirmed by AOV field investigation. Further effort, such as CCTV, could be carried out during detail design stage. Refer to the Site Servicing Plan (SS-1) as well as the Sanitary Sewer shed Plan (SAN-1) for more details.

The following Table 5 provides maximum sanitary release rate allocated to each block based on the Draft Plan prepared for this subdivision.

Table 5: Maximum Release Rate to Sanitary Sewer by Block

Block Type of Unit

Population Sanitary Flow

L/s Townhouse

Apartment/

Condominium

Block 1 -- 22 46 0.75

Block 2 -- 12 25 0.41

Block 3 6 -- 16 0.26

Block 4 6 -- 16 0.26

Block 5 6 -- 16 0.26

Block 6 6 -- 16 0.26

Block 7 -- 25 53 0.85

Block 8 4 -- 11 0.18

Block 9 4 -- 11 0.18

Block 10 -- 26 55 0.88

Block 11 -- 36 76 1.23

Block 12 -- 23 48 0.78

Block 13 -- 42 88 1.43

Total 32 186 477 7.73




6 WATER SUPPLY DESIGN

6.1 Design Criteria

The water supply design criteria for this development is based on City of Ottawa Design Guidelines – Water Distribution (2010), the Ministry of the Environment (MOE)’s Design Guidelines for Drinking Water System (2008); and the Fire Underwriters Survey – Water Supply for Public Fire Protection (1999).

6.2 Domestic Water Demand

The proposed new street will be serviced by a 200mm watermain connecting to the existing 200mm diameter watermain on Blais Street and looped to St-Pierre Street. Currently, there is a 50m length watermain lateral extends from Blais Street onto the property, and it is capped at the end for future connection. The proposed watermain will be connected to the this watermain lateral at property boundary and extend along new street paving area per typical cross section drawing.

The subdivision population is calculated to be a maximum of 477 persons. There are no industrial, commercial or institutional land uses proposed are part of this subdivision. The following Table 6 summarizes the design criteria used, while Table 7 summarizes the expected domestic water demands.

Table 6: Potable Water Supply Design Criteria

Design Parameter Value

Residential average daily demand 350 L/d/person

Residential maximum daily demand* 2.75 x average daily demand

Residential peak hourly demand* 4.13 x average daily demand

Operating pressure range at peak hourly demand 40 PSI to 100 PSI

Minimum operating pressure for domestic flow 50 PSI

Minimum pressure under fire flow 20 PSI

* Residential max. daily & peak hour demand factors as MOE Design Guidelines, Drinking Water System (2008) Table 3.1, Peaking Factors

Average daily demand, Qavg = 350 L/d/person x 477 persons = 166,950 L/d

Maximum daily demand, Qmax = 2.75 x Qavg = 2.75 x 166,950 L/d = 459,112.5 L/d

Maximum hourly demand, Qpeak = 4.13 x Qavg = 4.13 x 166,950 L/d = 689,503.5 L/d

Table 7: Domestic Water Demand Summary

Demand Flow Rate (L/d)

Flow Rate (L/s)

Average daily demand, Qavg 166,950 1.9

Maximum daily demand, Qmax 459,112.5 5.3

Maximum hourly demand, Qpeak 689,503.5 8.0




6.3 Fire Flow Demand

For the calculation of the fire flow requirements and for the watermain sizing, the method developed by the Fire Underwriters Survey – Water Supply for Fire Protection was used. The required fire flow is described as the amount (volume) and rate of water application required in firefighting to confine and control the fires possible in a building or group of buildings which compromise essentially the same fire area by immediate exposure.

F = 220 x C x √𝐴

where F = the required fire flow rate in L/min C = a coefficient related to the type of construction

A = total floor area (all storeys excluding basements at least 50% below grade) in m2

The fire flow was calculated to be 171 L/s. Refer to the calculation provided in Appendix D.

6.4 Hydraulic Modeling of the Distribution Network

6.4.1 Watermain Connections

The proposed subdivision will be supplied from two existing municipal watermain lines which will be extended from Blais Street and looped to St-Pierre Road to feed the subdivision.

6.4.2 Hydraulic Modeling Parameters

In order to understand the boundary conditions, the Township of Russell provided fire hydrant test results carried out on May 26, 2016. In order to study the behaviour of the distribution network and obtain the operating pressures under different flow scenarios, the proposed watermain network was modeled and analyzed using EPAnet flow balancing software, Version 2. The operating pressures and the flows under each street for supply pipe segments were calculated and are tabulated below. The simulation was done using a water supply reservoir and a pump. A pump curve was developed using the Township’s hydrant test results obtained on May 26, 2016 from the nearest hydrant location Notre-Dame street; The main connection at St-Pierre Road is represented by Reservoir R1, while Reservoir R2 represent the connection on Blais Street. Refer to Figure 3 for the pipe network model schematic.




Figure 3: Watermain Hydraulic Model Schematic

6.4.3 Modeling Results

The watermain on Blais Street is 200mm in diameter as well as on St-Pierre Road. Based on the proposed water demand design, a watermain size of 200 mm diameter was chosen for the subdivision and to loop the system. The proposed watermain will consist of a 200mm PVC DR 18 pipes. A roughness coefficient of 110 was used for the hydraulic modeling. Fire hydrants will be provided and installed in accordance to City of Ottawa Guidelines (2010), specifically provided at a maximum spacing of 90 metres along each street. Fire hydrants will be installed with a valve as per Township of Russel standard drawing W-304. The scenario was modeled on the basis of having the fire demand and the maximum daily demand and fire flow. The hydraulic model simulating the peak hourly domestic demand of 8.0 L/s and distributed it uniformly across the entire subdivision. The lowest pressure of 37.4 PSI is obtained at node 22 (near Block13). Refer to the EPAnet report provided as part of Appendix E. In the modeling scenario, all the noted pressures were above MOE’s minimum requirement of 20 PSI in a fire situation and 40 PSI under maximum hourly demand. Therefore, the proposed water distribution network of a 200mm diameter watermain will adequately supply the subdivision expected flows demand, both for fire flow and peak domestic demand.

7 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL

During all construction activities, erosion and sedimentation shall be controlled using the following techniques:

• The Contractor will obtain a copy of the Environment Impact Statement and abide with any

recommendations outlined in the report that deal with mitigation measures during

construction.




• Contractor to implement erosion and sediment control measures as identified in the erosion

and sediment control plan, and in accordance with OPSS 805, as well as to the satisfaction

of the governing authority, prior to undertaking any site alterations (filling, grading, removal of

vegetation, etc.).

• During all phases of the site preparation and construction, the erosion and sediment control

measures are to be maintained to the satisfaction of the engineer and governing authority in

accordance with the best management practices for erosion and sediment control.

• Contractor will monitor the water clarity downstream of the work site throughout the day and

during rain events. No turbid water is permitted to leave the work area. Contractor will install

additional measures as required in order to ensure and prevent transportation of sediment

downstream.

• Should any additional measures be required to address field conditions they shall be installed

as directed by the engineer or the governing authority. At minimum measures will consist,

without being limited to:

o The installation of filter cloths across manhole and catchbasin lids follow installation

as shown on drawing and OPSD/OPSS to prevent sediment from entering the

structure;

o Placement of rip-rap to reduce the movement of loose soil;

o The installation of a light-duty silt fence barrier (OPSD 219.110) around any disturbed

areas, as required;

o It is noted that heavy duty silt fence barrier (OPSD 219.130) will be required between

any disturbed area (located 30m from a watercourse) and the sensitive natural feature;

o Erosion and sediment controls will not be removed until the terrestrial vegetation has

become re-established.

• Any stockpiles of soil or fill material shall be stored at least 30m from the watercourse and

shall be protected by silt fencing.

• All equipment working within 30m of the watercourse shall be well maintained, clean and

free of leaks.

• Inlet sedimentation control device to be placed on all existing catchbasins, catchbasin

manholes as per detail on drawing.

Refer Sediment and Erosion and Sedimentation Plan (ES-1) for details.

8 CONCLUSIONS

Based on the information presented within this report, the civil engineering design prepared for this proposed subdivision ensures that the site servicing and stormwater management requirements are achievable. The following provides a summary of the design.

8.1 Stormwater Management

• The allowable release rate for the site development area is 123 L/s for the 5-year storm event and 261 L/s for the 100-year storm event.

• Using the Modified Rational Method, the entire site will be controlled by an ICD to a peak rate of 73.54 L/s during the 5-year and 101.51 L/s during the 100-year storm event, thereby meeting the allowable release rate.

• The ICD will be a concentric 200mm and will be located within MH-4 at an centerline of 64.95m, producing a HWL of 66.30 masl during the 100-year storm event.




• With a 100-year total release rate of 225.27 L/s, 1,224 m3 of storage volume capacity is required. Accordingly, a total storage volume of 1,224 m3 will be provided whereby 112 m3 will be stored within the on-site storm sewers, 13 m3 will be stored within all manhole structures, and 1,099 m3 will be stored using underground storage chambers.

• Enhanced quality control of 80% TSS removal is required for this site. A Stormceptor, specifically model STC2000, has been sized to provide 80% TSS removal thereby meeting quality control requirements.

8.2 Sanitary Servicing:

• A 250mm diameter PVC DR 35 sanitary sewer network will connect to the existing sanitary lateral by a property MH9 as shown on design drawing.

8.3 Water Supply Servicing:

• A 200 mm diameter PVC DR18 will be used to supply the subdivision, it will be connected to the this watermain lateral at property boundary and extend along new street paving area per typical cross section drawing.

• The maximum daily domestic flow is 5.3 L/s and the maximum hourly domestic flow is 8.0 L/s. A fire flow of 171 L/s was found as per the Fire Underwriters Survey.

• Fire demand scenario was simulated using EPAnet. The lowest pressure of 37.4 PSI and a highest velocity of 3.41 m/s in the pipes.

9 REPORT CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS

The report conclusions and recommendations are applicable only to the project described in the report. Any changes to the project will require a review by Lascelles Engineering & Associates Ltd., to ensure compatibility with the recommendations contained in this project.

We trust this report provides sufficient information for the purposes of Draft Plan Approval. If you have any questions concerning this report or if we may be of further services to you, please do not hesitate to contact our office.

Prepared by: Lascelles Engineering & Associates Ltd.

Heng Jiang, P.Eng Civil Engineer

Site Servicing & Stormwater Management Report Lascelles File: 160323 Proposed Residential Subdivision December 2017

Blais St / St Pierre Road, Enbrum, Ontario


APPENDIX A

Stormwater Management Calculations

William

Rectangle

Stormwater Calculation Sheet

Project: 160323 - Lemieux Subdivision

Location: Embrun, Ontario

Date: 2018-02-16

Completed By: H.Jiang

Allowable Release Rate

Runoff Equation Intensity Equations

Q = 2.78CIA (L/s) I5 = 998.07 / (Tc + 6.053) 0.814

(mm/hr)

C = Runoff Coefficient I100 = 1735.688 / (Tc + 6.014) 0.820

(mm/hr)

I = Rainfall Intensity (mm/hr) = a / (Tc + b) c

Tc = Time of Concentration (hr)

A = Area (ha)

Tc = Time of Concentration (min)

Time of Concentration Equations

Bransby Williams formula (where C > 0.40) Airport formula (where C < 0.40)

tc = 0.057 L (min) tc = (min)

(s0.2

A0.1

)

L = Length of watershed (m) L = Length of watershed (m)

s = Average slope of watershed (%) s = Average slope of watershed (%)

A = Area of watershed (ha) C = Runoff Coefficient

Pre Development Watershed Area and Runoff Coeffecient

Watershed Total Area (ha)Grass Area (ha)

with C=0.20

Gravel Area

(ha) with

C=0.50

Hardscape

Area (ha) with

C=0.90

Minor Runoff

Coefficient,

C

Major Runoff

Coefficient, C

EWS-01 4.09 4.09 0.00 0.000 0.20 0.25

Total 4.09 4.09 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.25

Pre Development Time of Concentration and Peak Flow Rates

Watershed

Time of

Concentration,

tc (mins)

5 yr Intensity

(mm/hr)

5 yr Peak

Runoff (L/s)

100 yr

Intensity

(mm/hr)

100 yr Peak

Runoff (L/s)

EWS-01 30 53.9 122.63 91.9 261.14

Total 122.63 261.14

Therefore, the site allowable release rates are: 123 L/s for the 5-year, Minor, storm event and

261 L/s for the 100-year, Major, storm event.

Post Development Watershed Area and Runoff Coeffecient

Watershed Total Area (ha)Softscape Area

(ha) with C=0.20

Blvd Area

(ha) with

C=0.40

Hardscape

Area (ha) with

C=0.90

Runoff

Coefficient,

C

WS-01 0.380 0.030 0.100 0.250 0.71 Controlled

WS-02 0.450 0.050 0.100 0.300 0.71 Controlled

WS-03 0.450 0.100 0.100 0.250 0.63 Controlled

WS-04 0.630 0.100 0.080 0.450 0.73 Controlled

WS-05 0.510 0.130 0.080 0.300 0.64 Controlled

WS-06 0.540 0.060 0.100 0.380 0.73 Controlled

WS-07 0.350 0.070 0.100 0.180 0.62 Controlled

WS-09 0.320 0.320 0.000 0.000 0.20 Uncontrolled

WS-10 0.280 0.280 0.000 0.000 0.20 Uncontrolled

WS-11 0.180 0.180 0.000 0.000 0.20 Uncontrolled

5-Year Storm 100-Year Storm

Total Site Area = 4.090 ha ∑C= 0.59 0.74

2.110 ha C= 0.90 1.00

0.460 ha C= 0.40 0.50

1.320 ha C= 0.20 0.25

3.310 ha C= 0.69 0.86

0.780 ha C= 0.20 0.25

Landscape Area =

Total Controlled =

Total Uncontrolled =

Blvd Area =

3.26 (1.1-C) L0.5

(s0.33

)

Hardscape Area =




Date: 2018-02-16


100-Year Post-development Stormwater Management

I100 = 1735.688 / (Tc + 6.014) 0.820

a = 1735.688 b = 6.014 c = 0.82

Controlled

Runoff (L/s)

Controlled

Release (L/s)

Storage

Volume (m3)

10 178.6 198.30 96.80 1409.14 101.51 785

20 120.0 166.53 65.03 946.62 101.51 1014

30 91.9 151.31 49.80 725.00 101.51 1122

40 75.1 142.24 40.74 593.03 101.51 1180

50 64.0 136.18 34.67 504.71 101.51 1210

60 55.9 131.81 30.30 441.11 101.51 1223

70 49.8 128.50 26.99 392.93 101.51 1224

80 45.0 125.90 24.39 355.06 101.51 1217

90 41.1 123.79 22.29 324.44 101.51 1204

100 37.9 122.05 20.55 299.12 101.51 1186

110 35.2 120.59 19.08 277.81 101.51 1164

120 32.9 119.34 17.83 259.60 101.51 1138

Inlet Control Device Parameters

Product Orifice Plate at MH-4

Pipe Invert Level = 64.50 m

Min. Grate Level = 67.75 m

Max. Pond depth = 0.00 m

HWL = 66.30 m

Outlet Pipe Dia. = 900 mm

ICD Centerline = 64.95

HWL Head = 1.43 m

Orifice Diameter = 200

Orifice Area = 0.0314 m2

C = 0.61

Q = 101.51 L/s

On-Site Stormwater Detention During 100-Year Return Period

Total Storage Required = 1224 m3

Pipe Storage = 112 m3

refer to Storm Sewer Design Sheet

CB/MH Storage = 13 m3


underground chamber Storage = 1099 m3

refer to DT-2 plan for more details

Total Storage Provided = 1224 m3

Onsite Storage

Time

(min)

Intensity

(mm/hr)

Total Release

Rate

(L/s)

Uncontrolled

Runoff

(L/s)




Date: 2018-02-16


5-Year Post-development Stormwater Management

I5 = 998.07 / (Tc + 6.053) 0.814

a = 998.071 b = 6.053 c = 0.814

Controlled

Runoff (L/s)

Controlled

Release (L/s)

Storage

Volume (m3)

10 104.2 118.73 45.19 657.81 73.54 351

20 70.3 104.01 30.47 443.52 73.54 444

30 53.9 96.93 23.39 340.47 73.54 480

40 44.2 92.70 19.16 278.95 73.54 493

50 37.7 89.87 16.33 237.72 73.54 493

60 32.9 87.83 14.29 207.98 73.54 484

70 29.4 86.28 12.74 185.44 73.54 470

80 26.6 85.06 11.52 167.70 73.54 452

90 24.3 84.08 10.53 153.34 73.54 431

100 22.4 83.26 9.72 141.46 73.54 408

110 20.8 82.57 9.03 131.46 73.54 382

120 19.5 81.98 8.44 122.91 73.54 355

Inlet Control Device Parameters

Product Orifice Plate at MH-4

Pipe Invert Level = 64.50 m

Min. Grate Level = 67.75 m

Max. Pond depth = 0.00 m

HWL = 65.70 m

Outlet Pipe Dia. = 900 mm

ICD Centerline = 64.95

HWL Head = 0.75 m

Orifice Diameter = 200 mm

Orifice Area = 0.0314 m2

C = 0.61

Q = 73.54 L/s

On-Site Stormwater Detention During 5-Year Return Period

Total Storage Required = 493 m3

Pipe Storage = 0 m3


CB/MH Storage = 4 m3


Underground Storage = 1099 m3

refer to DT-2 plan for more details

Total Storage Provided = 1103 m3

Onsite Storage

Time

(min)

Intensity

(mm/hr)

Total Release

Rate

(L/s)

Uncontrolled

Runoff

(L/s)




APPENDIX B

Stormceptor Report and Manual

William

Rectangle

1

Stormceptor Sizing Detailed ReportPCSWMM for Stormceptor

Project InformationDate 8/28/2017Project Name Lemieux SubdivisionProject Number 160323Location Embrun, Ontario

Stormwater Quality Objective

This report outlines how Stormceptor System can achieve a defined water quality objective through theremoval of total suspended solids (TSS). Attached to this report is the Stormceptor Sizing Summary.

Stormceptor System Recommendation

The Stormceptor System model STC 2000 achieves the water quality objective removing 81% TSS for aFine (organics, silts and sand) particle size distribution.

The Stormceptor System

The Stormceptor oil and sediment separator is sized to treat stormwater runoff by removing pollutantsthrough gravity separation and flotation. Stormceptor’s patented design generates positive TSS removalfor all rainfall events, including large storms. Significant levels of pollutants such as heavy metals, freeoils and nutrients are prevented from entering natural water resources and the re-suspension ofpreviously captured sediment (scour) does not occur.

Stormceptor provides a high level of TSS removal for small frequent storm events that represent themajority of annual rainfall volume and pollutant load. Positive treatment continues for large infrequentevents, however, such events have little impact on the average annual TSS removal as they represent asmall percentage of the total runoff volume and pollutant load.

Stormceptor is the only oil and sediment separator on the market sized to remove TSS for a wide rangeof particle sizes, including fine sediments (clays and silts), that are often overlooked in the design ofother stormwater treatment devices.

2

Small storms dominate hydrologic activity, US EPA reports“Early efforts in stormwater management focused on flood events ranging from the 2-yrto the 100-yr storm. Increasingly stormwater professionals have come to realize thatsmall storms (i.e. < 1 in. rainfall) dominate watershed hydrologic parameters typicallyassociated with water quality management issues and BMP design. These small stormsare responsible for most annual urban runoff and groundwater recharge. Likewise, withthe exception of eroded sediment, they are responsible for most pollutant washoff fromurban surfaces. Therefore, the small storms are of most concern for the stormwatermanagement objectives of ground water recharge, water quality resource protection andthermal impacts control.”

“Most rainfall events are much smaller than design storms used for urban drainagemodels. In any given area, most frequently recurrent rainfall events are small (less than1 in. of daily rainfall).”

“Continuous simulation offers possibilities for designing and managing BMPs on anindividual site-by-site basis that are not provided by other widely used simpler analysismethods. Therefore its application and use should be encouraged.”

– US EPA Stormwater Best Management Practice Design Guide, Volume 1 – GeneralConsiderations, 2004

Design Methodology

Each Stormceptor system is sized using PCSWMM for Stormceptor, a continuous simulation modelbased on US EPA SWMM. The program calculates hydrology from up-to-date local historical rainfalldata and specified site parameters. With US EPA SWMM’s precision, every Stormceptor unit is designedto achieve a defined water quality objective.

The TSS removal data presented follows US EPA guidelines to reduce the average annual TSS load.Stormceptor’s unit process for TSS removal is settling. The settling model calculates TSS removal byanalyzing (summary of analysis presented in Appendix 2):

Site parametersContinuous historical rainfall, including duration, distribution, peaks (Figure 1)Interevent periodsParticle size distributionParticle settling velocities (Stokes Law, corrected for drag)TSS load (Figure 2)Detention time of the system

The Stormceptor System maintains continuous positive TSS removal for all influent flow rates. Figure 3illustrates the continuous treatment by Stormceptor throughout the full range of storm events analyzed.It is clear that large events do not significantly impact the average annual TSS removal. There is nodecline in cumulative TSS removal, indicating scour does not occur as the flow rate increases.

3

Figure 1. Runoff Volume by Flow Rate for OTTAWA MACDONALD-CARTIER INT'L A – ON 6000,1967 to 2003 for 3.31 ha, 30% impervious. Small frequent storm events represent the majority ofannual rainfall volume. Large infrequent events have little impact on the average annual TSS removal,as they represent a small percentage of the total annual volume of runoff.

Figure 2. Long Term Pollutant Load by Flow Rate for OTTAWA MACDONALD-CARTIER INT'L A– 6000, 1967 to 2003 for 3.31 ha, 30% impervious. The majority of the annual pollutant load istransported by small frequent storm events. Conversely, large infrequent events carry an insignificantpercentage of the total annual pollutant load.

4

Stormceptor ModelTSS Removal (%)

STC 200081

Drainage Area (ha)Impervious (%)

3.3130

Figure 3. Cumulative TSS Removal by Flow Rate for OTTAWA MACDONALD-CARTIER INT'L A –6000, 1967 to 2003. Stormceptor continuously removes TSS throughout the full range of storm eventsanalyzed. Note that large events do not significantly impact the average annual TSS removal.Therefore no decline in cumulative TSS removal indicates scour does not occur as the flow rateincreases.

5

Appendix 1Stormceptor Design Summary

Project InformationDate 8/28/2017Project Name Lemieux SubdivisionProject Number 160323Location Embrun, Ontario

Designer Information

Company Lascelles Engineering &Associates Ltd.

Contact Heng Jiang

Rainfall

NameOTTAWAMACDONALD-CARTIER INT'LA

State ON

ID 6000

Years of Records 1967 to 2003

Latitude 45°19'N

Longitude 75°40'W

Notes

N/A

Water Quality ObjectiveTSS Removal (%) 80

Drainage AreaTotal Area (ha) 3.31

Imperviousness (%) 30

The Stormceptor System model STC 2000 achievesthe water quality objective removing 81% TSS for aFine (organics, silts and sand) particle sizedistribution.

Upstream StorageStorage Discharge(ha-m) (L/s)0.000 00.0000.007 25.0000.039 89.0600.102 117.050

Stormceptor Sizing Summary

Stormceptor Model TSS Removal

%STC 300 70STC 750 77STC 1000 77STC 1500 78STC 2000 81STC 3000 82STC 4000 85STC 5000 85STC 6000 88STC 9000 90

STC 10000 90STC 14000 92

6

Particle Size DistributionRemoving silt particles from runoff ensures that the majority of the pollutants, such as hydrocarbons and heavymetals that adhere to fine particles, are not discharged into our natural water courses. The table below lists theparticle size distribution used to define the annual TSS removal.

Fine (organics, silts and sand)

Particle Size Distribution SpecificGravity

SettlingVelocity Particle Size Distribution Specific

GravitySettlingVelocity

µm % m/s µm % m/s20 20 1.3 0.000460 20 1.8 0.0016150 20 2.2 0.0108400 20 2.65 0.06472000 20 2.65 0.2870

Stormceptor Design NotesStormceptor performance estimates are based on simulations using PCSWMM for Stormceptor version 1.0Design estimates listed are only representative of specific project requirements based on total suspendedsolids (TSS) removal.Only the STC 300 is adaptable to function with a catch basin inlet and/or inline pipes.Only the Stormceptor models STC 750 to STC 6000 may accommodate multiple inlet pipes.Inlet and outlet invert elevation differences are as follows:

Inlet and Outlet Pipe Invert Elevations Differences

Inlet Pipe Configuration STC 300 STC 750 toSTC 6000

STC 9000 toSTC 14000

Single inlet pipe 75 mm 25 mm 75 mm

Multiple inlet pipes 75 mm 75 mm Only one inletpipe.

Design estimates are based on stable site conditions only, after construction is completed.Design estimates assume that the storm drain is not submerged during zero flows. For submergedapplications, please contact your local Stormceptor representative.Design estimates may be modified for specific spills controls. Please contact your local Stormceptorrepresentative for further assistance.For pricing inquiries or assistance, please contact Imbrium Systems Inc., 1-800-565-4801.

7

Appendix 2Summary of Design Assumptions

SITE DETAILS

Site Drainage AreaTotal Area (ha) 3.31 Imperviousness (%) 30

Surface CharacteristicsWidth (m) 378Slope (%) 2Impervious Depression Storage (mm) 0.508Pervious Depression Storage (mm) 5.08Impervious Manning’s n 0.015Pervious Manning's n 0.25

Maintenance FrequencySediment build-up reduces the storage volume forsedimentation. Frequency of maintenance isassumed for TSS removal calculations.Maintenance Frequency (months) 12

Infiltration ParametersHorton’s equation is used to estimate infiltrationMax. Infiltration Rate (mm/h) 61.98Min. Infiltration Rate (mm/h) 10.16

Decay Rate (s-1) 0.00055

Regeneration Rate (s-1) 0.01

EvaporationDaily Evaporation Rate (mm/day) 2.54

Dry Weather FlowDry Weather Flow (L/s) No

Upstream AttenuationStage-storage and stage-discharge relationship used to model attenuation upstream of the Stormceptor Systemis identified in the table below.

Storage Dischargeha-m L/s0.000 00.0000.007 25.0000.039 89.0600.102 117.050

8

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONParticle Size DistributionRemoving fine particles from runoff ensures the majority of pollutants, such as heavy metals, hydrocarbons, free oilsand nutrients are not discharged into natural water resources. The table below identifies the particle size distributionselected to define TSS removal for the design of the Stormceptor System.

Fine (organics, silts and sand)

Particle Size Distribution SpecificGravity

SettlingVelocity Particle Size Distribution Specific

GravitySettlingVelocity

µm % m/s µm % m/s20 20 1.3 0.000460 20 1.8 0.0016150 20 2.2 0.0108400 20 2.65 0.0647

2000 20 2.65 0.2870

Figure 1. PCSWMM for Stormceptor standard design grain size distributions.

9

TSS LOADINGTSS Loading ParametersTSS Loading Function Buildup / Washoff

ParametersTarget Event Mean Concentration(EMC) (mg/L) 125

Exponential Buildup Power 0.4Exponential Washoff Exponential 0.2

HYDROLOGY ANALYSISPCSWMM for Stormceptor calculates annual hydrology with the US EPA SWMM and local continuous historicalrainfall data. Performance calculations of the Stormceptor System are based on the average annual removal ofTSS for the selected site parameters. The Stormceptor System is engineered to capture fine particles (silts andsands) by focusing on average annual runoff volume ensuring positive removal efficiency is maintained during allrainfall events, while preventing the opportunity for negative removal efficiency (scour).

Smaller recurring storms account for the majority of rainfall events and average annual runoff volume, as observedin the historical rainfall data analyses presented in this section.

Rainfall StationRainfall Station OTTAWA MACDONALD-CARTIER INT'L A

Rainfall File Name ON6000.NDC Total Number of Events 4537Latitude 45°19'N Total Rainfall (mm) 20978.1Longitude 75°40'W Average Annual Rainfall (mm) 567.0Elevation (m) Total Evaporation (mm) 574.8Rainfall Period of Record (y) 37 Total Infiltration (mm) 14655.1

Total Rainfall Period (y) 37 Percentage of Rainfall that isRunoff (%) 27.6

10

Rainfall Event Analysis

Rainfall Depth No. of Events Percentage ofTotal Events Total Volume Percentage of

Annual Volumemm % mm %6.35 3564 78.6 5671 27.012.70 508 11.2 4533 21.619.05 223 4.9 3434 16.425.40 102 2.2 2244 10.731.75 60 1.3 1704 8.138.10 33 0.7 1145 5.544.45 28 0.6 1165 5.650.80 9 0.2 416 2.057.15 5 0.1 272 1.363.50 1 0.0 63 0.369.85 1 0.0 64 0.376.20 1 0.0 76 0.482.55 0 0.0 0 0.088.90 1 0.0 84 0.495.25 0 0.0 0 0.0

101.60 0 0.0 0 0.0107.95 0 0.0 0 0.0114.30 1 0.0 109 0.5120.65 0 0.0 0 0.0127.00 0 0.0 0 0.0133.35 0 0.0 0 0.0139.70 0 0.0 0 0.0146.05 0 0.0 0 0.0152.40 0 0.0 0 0.0158.75 0 0.0 0 0.0165.10 0 0.0 0 0.0171.45 0 0.0 0 0.0177.80 0 0.0 0 0.0184.15 0 0.0 0 0.0190.50 0 0.0 0 0.0196.85 0 0.0 0 0.0203.20 0 0.0 0 0.0209.55 0 0.0 0 0.0

>209.55 0 0.0 0 0.0

11

Pollutograph

Flow Rate CumulativeMass

L/s %1 32.44 81.69 97.416 99.725 100.036 100.049 100.064 100.081 100.0

100 100.0121 100.0144 100.0169 100.0196 100.0225 100.0256 100.0289 100.0324 100.0361 100.0400 100.0441 100.0484 100.0529 100.0576 100.0625 100.0676 100.0729 100.0784 100.0841 100.0900 100.0




APPENDIX C

Sanitary Design Sheet

William

Rectangle

Lemieux Multi Residential Subdivision, Township of Hawkesbury

Avg. Domestic Flow = 350.0 l/c/d

Project #: 160323 Min Diameter = 250 mm New Development Infiltration = 0.190 l/s/ha

Date: Mannings 'n'= 0.013 Existing Development Infiltration = 0.280 l/s/ha

Designed: H.J. Min. Velocity = 0.6 m/s Max. Peaking Factor = 4.00

Checked 0.0 Max. Velocity = 3.0 m/s Min. Peaking Factor= 2.00 Factor of Safety = 0 % NOMINAL PIPE SIZE USED

RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL/INSTITUTIONAL FLOW CALCULATIONS PIPE DATA

CONSTANT PIPE

DESCRIPTION FROM TO ACC. ACCUM. ACC. EQUIV. FLOW EQUIV. ACCUM. INFILTRATION TOTAL PEAKING POP. COMM. ACCUM. TOTAL SLOPE DIAMETER FULL FLOW FULL FLOW PERCENT

MH MH AREA AREA UNITS DENISTY DENSITY POP RES. AREA AREA POP. RATE POP. EQUIV. ACCUM. FACTOR FLOW FLOW COMM. FLOW FLOW CAPACITY VELOCITY FULL

(ha) (ha) (#) (P/ha) (P/unit) POP. (ha) (ha) (p/ha) (l/s/ha) POP. (l/s) POP. (l/s) (l/s) (l/s) (l/s) (%) (mm) (l/s) (m/s) (%)

SS-01 MH 1 MH 2 1.17 1.17 76 0 2.10 160 160 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0 0 0.2 160 4.00 2.6 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.24 250 29.1 0.6 10%

SS-02 MH 2 MH 3 0.19 1.36 29 0 2.22 65 224 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0 0 0.3 224 4.00 3.6 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.24 250 29.1 0.6 13%

SS-03 MH 3 MH 4 0.53 1.89 42 0 2.19 92 316 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0 0 0.4 316 4.00 5.1 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.24 250 29.1 0.6 19%

SS-04 MH 4 MH 5 0.69 2.58 38 0 2.29 87 403 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0 0 0.5 403 4.00 6.5 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.24 250 29.1 0.6 24%

SS-05 MH 5 MH 6 0.19 2.77 4 0 2.70 11 414 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0 0 0.5 414 4.00 6.7 0.0 0.0 7.2 0.24 250 29.1 0.6 25%

SS-06 MH 6 MH 7 0.58 3.35 29 0 2.18 64 477 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0 0 0.6 477 3.98 7.7 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.24 250 29.1 0.6 29%

0 MH 7 MH 8 0.00 3.35 0 0 0.00 0 477 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0 0 0.6 477 3.98 7.7 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.24 250 29.1 0.6 29%

0 MH 8 MH 9 0.00 3.35 0 0 0.00 0 477 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0 0 0.6 477 3.98 7.7 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.24 250 29.1 0.6 29%

0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0%

0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0%

0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0%

0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0%

0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0%

0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 0%

16-Aug-17

SANITARY SEWER DESIGN SHEET

Page 1




APPENDIX D

Water Demand Calculation Sheet

William

Rectangle

Water Demand Calculation Sheet



Date: 2018-02-20


Fire Flow Calculation

Based on Fire Underwriters Survey

1

Where F= Fire flow in Lpm

C= construction type coefficient

= 1.5 wood frame construction

A = total building area in sq.m. excluding basements.

Dwelling Area= 4000.00 sq.m

F = 20,871.03 L/min

Round to nearest 1000 l/min

F = 21,000 Ll/min

2 Occupancy Reduction

25% reduction for normal residential occupancy

Reduction = 5250 L/min

F = 15,750 L/min

3 Sprinkler Reduction

50% With Sprinkler System

Reduction = 7875 L/min

4 Separation Charge

0% 3.1m to 10m

0% 0m to 3m

0% 10.1m to 20m

10% 20.1m to 30m

5% 30.1m to 45m

15% 2363 L/min

Note: Maximum Total Separation Charge is 75%

F = 15,750 - 7875 + 2363 = 10,237.50 L/min

F = 171 L/s

F = 2703 USGPM

Domestic Flow Calculations

Residential Commercial

Population = 477 (From Sanitary Design Sheet) Population = 0 (From Sanitary Design Sheet)

Average Day Demand = 350 L/cap/day Average Day Demand = 191 L/cap/day

= 1.9 L/s = 0.0 L/s

= 31 USGPM = 0 USGPM

Max. Daily Demand P.F. = 2.75 Max. Daily Demand P.F. = 2.25

Max. Daily Demand = 5.3 L/s Max. Daily Demand = 0.00 L/s

= 84 USGPM = 0 USGPM

OR OR

Max. Hourly Demand P.F. = 4.1 Max. Hourly Demand P.F. = 4.0

Max. Hourly Demand = 8.0 L/s Max. Hourly Demand = 0.00 L/s

= 126 GPM = 0 GPM

Therefore,

Dommestic Flow (Comm)= 0.0 L/s = 0 USGPM

Dommestic Flow (Res)= 8.0 L/s = 126 USGPM

Fire Flow= 171 L/s = 2703 USGPM

Total Separation Charge,

ACF 220




APPENDIX E

EPAnet Report and Results

William

Rectangle

WM.rpt Page 1 11/24/2017 2:06:10 PM ********************************************************************** * E P A N E T * * Hydraulic and Water Quality * * Analysis for Pipe Networks * * Version 2.0 * ********************************************************************** Input File: WM.net Link - Node Table: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Link Start End Length Diameter ID Node Node m mm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 20 19 100.86 200 4 19 21 31.68 200 5 21 22 27.89 200 6 22 23 48.29 200 7 23 24 132.13 200 8 24 25 65.63 200 9 25 26 51.57 200 10 26 27 46.65 200 1 1 20 #N/A #N/A Pump 2 2 27 #N/A #N/A Pump Energy Usage: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Usage Avg. Kw-hr Avg. Peak Cost Pump Factor Effic. /m3 Kw Kw /day ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 100.00 75.00 0.13 50.06 50.06 0.00 2 100.00 75.00 0.14 34.24 34.24 0.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Demand Charge: 0.00 Total Cost: 0.00 Node Results: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Node Demand Head Pressure Quality ID LPS m m ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 19 0.00 28.57 28.57 0.00 20 0.00 35.78 35.78 0.00 21 171.00 26.30 26.30 0.00 22 2.00 27.07 27.07 0.00 23 2.00 28.48 28.48 0.00 24 0.70 32.56 32.56 0.00

Page 1

WM.rpt 25 0.70 34.62 34.62 0.00 26 0.00 36.27 36.27 0.00 27 0.00 37.77 37.77 0.00 1 -107.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reservoir

� Page 2 Node Results: (continued) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Node Demand Head Pressure Quality ID LPS m m ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 -69.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reservoir Link Results: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Link Flow VelocityUnit Headloss Status ID LPS m/s m/km ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 107.03 3.41 71.57 Open 4 107.03 3.41 71.57 Open 5 -63.97 2.04 27.59 Open 6 -65.97 2.10 29.20 Open 7 -67.97 2.16 30.87 Open 8 -68.67 2.19 31.46 Open 9 -69.37 2.21 32.05 Open 10 -69.37 2.21 32.05 Open 1 107.03 0.00 -35.78 Open Pump 2 69.37 0.00 -37.77 Open Pump

Page 2

preliminary site servicing stormwater management report -...

Documents