Stormwater Management and Site Servicing Report

Transcription

SITE SERVICING AND STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT REPORT
FOR
VALECRAFT HOMES
DEERFIELD VILLAGE
CITY OF OTTAWA
PROJECT NO.: 09-392
APRIL 2010 – REV 1
© DSEL
SITE SERVICING AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT
FOR
VALECRAFT HOMES
DEERFIELD VILLAGE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0!
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1!
1.1!
Existing Conditions ............................................................................................... 1!
1.2!
Summary of Pre-Consultation............................................................................... 1!
1.2.1! Rideau Valley Conservation Authority – 2009-10-13 ................................. 2!
1.2.2! City of Ottawa – 2009-11-05 ...................................................................... 2!
1.3!
Required Permits / Approvals ............................................................................... 3!
1.3.1! City of Ottawa ............................................................................................ 3!
1.3.2! Ministry of the Environment ....................................................................... 3!
2.0!
GUIDELINES, PREVIOUS STUDIES, AND REPORTS ....................................... 3!
2.1!
Existing Studies, Guidelines, and Reports............................................................ 3!
2.2!
Studies, Guidelines, and Reports in Progress ...................................................... 4!
3.0!
WATER SUPPLY SERVICING ............................................................................ 4!
3.1!
Existing Water Supply Services ............................................................................ 4!
3.2!
Water Supply Servicing Design ............................................................................ 5!
3.3!
Water Supply Conclusion ..................................................................................... 6!
4.0!
WASTEWATER SERVICING ............................................................................... 7!
4.1!
Existing Wastewater Services .............................................................................. 7!
4.2!
Wastewater Design .............................................................................................. 7!
4.3!
Wastewater Pumping Station ............................................................................... 8!
4.3.1! Wastewater Servicing Conclusions............................................................ 8!
5.0!
STORMWATER CONVEYANCE ......................................................................... 9!
5.1!
Minor System Design ........................................................................................... 9!
5.2!
Foundation Drain Collector ................................................................................... 9!
5.3!
Hydraulic Grade Line Analysis............................................................................ 10!
5.4!
Major System Design ......................................................................................... 10!
DAVID SCHAEFFER ENGINEERING LTD.
PAGE I
© DSEL
VALECRAFT HOMES
DEERFIELD VILLAGE
6.0!
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ...................................................................... 10!
6.1!
Dry Pond............................................................................................................. 11!
6.2!
Stormceptor and Pond Operating Characteristics .............................................. 11!
7.0!
SITE GRADING .................................................................................................. 11!
8.0!
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ............................................................ 12!
9.0!
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................... 13!
PAGE II
© DSEL
VALECRAFT HOMES
DEERFIELD VILLAGE
FIGURES
Figure 1
Site Location
TABLES
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Water Demand and Boundary Conditions Existing
Conditions!
Water Supply Design Criteria!
Water Demand and Boundary Conditions Proposed
Conditions!
Wastewater Design Criteria!
Storm Sewer Design Criteria!
Pond Characteristics!
DRAWINGS
Drawing 1
Drawing 2
Drawing 3
Drawing 12
Drawing 13
Sanitary Drainage Plan
Storm Drainage Plan
Servicing Plan
SWM Pond
Erosion Control Plan
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Pre-consultation Meeting Notes
Water Supply
Wastewater Collection
Stormwater Management
PAGE III
© DSEL
FOR
VALECRAFT HOMES
DEERFIELD VILLAGE
CITY OF OTTAWA
PROJECT NO.: 09-392
1.0
INTRODUCTION
The Valecraft Homes retained David Schaeffer Engineering Ltd., DSEL, to prepare a
Functional Servicing Study in support of their application for site plan control.
The subject property is located within City of Ottawa urban boundary inside the
greenbelt. As illustrated in Figure 1, Albion Road and Bank Street are located to the
West and East while Queendale Avenue and Lester Road are to the North and South.
Site access is gained through Meandering Brook. The subject property measures
approximately 3.6ha.
The proposed development by Valecraft Homes involves the construction of 264
stacked townhomes to be operated and maintained by a condominium corporation.
The objective of this report is to provide sufficient detail with respect to site servicing,
grading, and stormwater management in support of the Valecraft Homes application for
site plan control.
1.1
Existing Conditions
The subject property is vacant and slopes gently to the north beginning at an elevation
of approximately 93.5m and ending at 92.8m.
An existing residential property is located to the West and North, while the lands to the
East and South are undeveloped. Sawmill Creek borders the site western limit of the
site.
1.2
Summary of Pre-Consultation
The City of Ottawa and Rideau Valley conservation authority were contacted prior to
detailed design of the site for pre-consultation. The following summarizes the
discussions relevant to site servicing.
PAGE 1
© DSEL
VALECRAFT HOMES
DEERFIELD VILLAGE
1.2.1 Rideau Valley Conservation Authority – 2009-10-13
In attendance was:
!
Glen McDonald, RVCA
!
Kellie Adams, RVCA
!
Adam D. Fobert, DSEL
The RVCA was contacted to obtain relevant information pertaining to Sawmill Creek. It
was indicated that floodplain elevations estimated in 1984 considered no longer
relevant. The Sawmill Creek Subwatershed Update by CH2MHILL will contain quantity
and quality objectives for the development. Stantec Consulting Ltd, prepared a
hydraulic analysis for the construction of the Meandering Brooke Road crossing.
Requested by RVCA to employ flow rates presented in Stantec study for estimating
100-year flood elevation. See attached e-mail contained in Appendix A.
1.2.2 City of Ottawa – 2009-11-05
In attendance was:
!
Simon Deiaco, City of Ottawa Planner
!
Abdul Mottalib, City of Ottawa Infrastructure Approvals
!
Pat Daniels, Valecraft Homes
!
Deborah Belfie, Planning Consultant
!
Stephen J. Pichette, DSEL
!
Adam D. Fobert, DSEL
City Planner outlines reports required to deem submission complete. DSEL presented a
drawing that illustrates City of Ottawa 2k mapping and site in context with surrounding
area. DSEL suggested that two watermain connections will be provided for looping and
will be connected to the existing Lester Road watermain. Abdul noted that area is in a
low pressure zone, background servicing report should contain information pertaining to
elevation. DSEL presented strategy for stormwater management noting that the
subwatershed indicates, post-development runoff rates are to equal pre-development.
Furthermore, the proposed stormwater management plan will to provide 80% TSS
removal, enhanced level of protection per MOE. DSEL indicated that the existing
forcemain would be utilized that connects to the existing infrastructure on Stedman
Street. DSEL requested sanitary sewer calculation sheets for the existing infrastructure.
PAGE 2
© DSEL
VALECRAFT HOMES
DEERFIELD VILLAGE
1.3
Required Permits / Approvals
The proposed development is subject to the following permits and approvals.
1.3.1 City of Ottawa
The City of Ottawa is required to approve the engineering design drawings and reports.
The City of Ottawa must review and sign off on the design and forward to the Ministry of
the Environment (MOE) for their transfer of review program.
1.3.2 Ministry of the Environment
The MOE is required to review the engineering design and issue Certificates of
Approval for Sanitary, Storm Sewers and Stormwater Management. The development
does not require a Certificate of Approval for Watermains.
2.0
GUIDELINES, PREVIOUS STUDIES, AND REPORTS
2.1
Existing Studies, Guidelines, and Reports
The following studies were utilized in the preparation of this report.
!
Sewer Design Guidelines,
City of Ottawa, November 2004.
(City Standards)
!
Stormwater Planning and Design Manual,
Ministry of the Environment, March 2003.
(SWMP Design Manual)
!
RMOC Design Guidelines, Section 3 – Watermain Design Criteria
City of Ottawa, May 1991
(RMOC Water Supply Guidelines)
!
City of Ottawa Official Plan
City of Ottawa, adopted by Council 2003.
(Official Plan)
!
Grade and Servicing Control Guidelines
City of Ottawa, May 14, 2004
(Infill Guidelines)
!
Sawmill Creek Subwatershed Study Update
CH2MHILL., May 2002
(Subwatershed Study)
PAGE 3
© DSEL
VALECRAFT HOMES
DEERFIELD VILLAGE
!
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Residential Development,
Lester Road, Block 147
Kollaard Associates, September 2009
(Geotechnical Study)
!
Lester Road Serviceability Study, Albion and Lester Road
Stantec Consulting Ltd., January 31, 2003
(Serviceability Study)
!
Design Brief, Hydraulic Analysis for Sawmill Creek Road Crossing, Lester
Road Subdivision
Stantec Consulting Ltd., February 4, 2005
2.2
Studies, Guidelines, and Reports in Progress
In the preparation of this study the proponent was aware of the following studies,
guidelines, and report in progress.
!
Watermain Design Guidelines,
City of Ottawa, anticipated completion early 2010
3.0
WATER SUPPLY SERVICING
3.1
Existing Water Supply Services
The subject property lies within the 2W2C pressure zone. A 300mm diameter
watermain exists to the south of the subject property. The Serviceability Study
indicated that the subject area is a low pressure zone with a static pressure of
approximately 125m. The City of Ottawa Drinking Water Services branch completed
fire hydrant testing in May 2008 and confirmed that the static pressure near the subject
site is approximately 125m, see Appendix B. To mitigate the effects of the low
pressures the Serviceability Study recommended that ground elevations are not to
exceed 99.00m and that 25mm dia water services should be used in place of 19mm
water services.
The subject property is zoned “R5A [1235] H(22)” where this zoning allows for the
construction of medium density apartments. Table 1 summarizes the anticipated water
supply demand and boundary conditions for the existing zoning based on the RMOC
water design guidelines.
PAGE 4
© DSEL
VALECRAFT HOMES
DEERFIELD VILLAGE
Table 1
Water Demand and Boundary Conditions
Existing Conditions
1
Design Parameter
2
Anticipated Demand
Boundary Condition
(L/min)
(m H2O / kPa)
Average Daily Demand
189.6
N/A
Max Day + Fire Flow
8,474.0
27.1 / 265.9
Peak Hour
1042.7
28.8 / 282.5
1) Water demand calculation per RMOC 1991 design guidelines. See Appendix A
for detailed calculations.
2) Boundary conditions supplied by the City of Ottawa. Assumed ground elevation
95.5m. See Appendix A
3.2
Water Supply Servicing Design
The City of Ottawa is currently reviewing their watermain design criteria. In the absence
of the completed review, the water supply servicing of the subject lands will be designed
according to the RMOC Water Supply Guidelines as summarized in Table 2.
Table 2
Water Supply Design Criteria
Design Parameter
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density
Average Water Demand Rate per Person
Maximum Daily Demand
Maximum Hourly
Minimum Watermain Size
Service Lateral Size
Minimum Depth of Cover
During Peak Hourly Demand operating pressure
must remain within
During fire flow operating pressure must not drop
below
Value
3.8p/unit
3.5p/unit
2.4p/unit
450L/p/day
2.5 x Average Daily
2.2 x Maximum Daily Demand
150mm diameter
19mm dia Soft Copper Type ‘K’
2.4m from top of watermain to finished grade
275kPa and 690kPa
140kPa
Extracted from Section 3: Watermain Design Criteria - RMOC Design Guidelines, May 1991.
The proposed water supply network is illustration on Drawing 3, Servicing Plan.
Table 3 summarizes the anticipated water supply demand and boundary conditions for
the proposed development based on the RMOC water design guidelines.
PAGE 5
© DSEL
VALECRAFT HOMES
DEERFIELD VILLAGE
Table 3
Water Demand and Boundary Conditions
Proposed Conditions
Design Parameter
1
2
Anticipated Demand
Boundary Condition
(L/min)
(m H2O / kPa)
Average Daily Demand
198.0
N/A
Max Day + Fire Flow
8,495.0
27.1 / 265.9
Peak Hour
1,089.0
28.8 / 282.5
1) Water demand calculation per RMOC 1991 design guidelines. See Appendix A
for detailed calculations.
2) Boundary conditions supplied by the City of Ottawa. Assumed ground elevation
95.0m. See Appendix A.
Fire flow requirements are to be determined in accordance with Local Guidelines (FUS),
City of Ottawa Guidelines, and the Ontario Building Code. The FUS indicates that the
provision for Fire Flow should not exceed 45,000L/min nor be less than 2,000L/min. If
buildings are contiguous, such as multi-block dwellings, a minimum of 8,000 L/min is
recommended by the FUS. The City of Ottawa typically recommends a fire flow rate of
7,500L/min for residential properties.
3.3
Water Supply Conclusion
Anticipated water demand under existing and proposed conditions were submitted to
the City of Ottawa for establishing boundary conditions considering the existing and
proposed zoning.
As demonstrated in Tables 2 and 3, there is a no difference in the anticipated
pressures during periods of peak hour and fire flow. The recommended pressure range
is respected under all conditions.
As indicated by the City the maximum pressure is estimated to be 55 PSI which is less
than 80 PSI. A pressure check at completion of construction is recommended to
determine if pressure control is required.
City of Ottawa completed fire hydrant testing in 2008. The testing indicated that water
supply is available between 6,720L/min and 8,720L/min at 140kPa. Therefore supply is
available per FUS recommendations for multi-block dwellings.
The proposed water supply design conforms to all relevant City Guidelines and Policies.
PAGE 6
© DSEL
VALECRAFT HOMES
DEERFIELD VILLAGE
4.0
WASTEWATER SERVICING
4.1
Existing Wastewater Services
The subject site lies within the Albion Road Collector catchment. An existing forcemain
was extended to the subject property for the purpose of conveying wastewater from the
subject property to the existing municipal infrastructure on Stedman Street. A
reproduction of the sanitary sewer calculation sheet for the existing municipal
infrastructure is included in Appendix C. The original concept plan for the subject
property contained 584people with 2.906ha of tributary area. The peak wastewater flow
rate from the development was estimated to be 10.14L/s.
The existing sanitary sewers on Stedman Street were installed circa 2006 as such it is
anticipated that no cross-connections were made and that the sewers are in good
condition. Therefore, it is expected that extraneous flows are within the anticipated
allowance per City Guidelines.
4.2
Wastewater Design
Table 4 summarizes the City Standards employed in the design of the proposed
wastewater sewer system.
Table 4
Wastewater Design Criteria
Design Parameter
High Density
Peak Wastewater Generation per Person
Peaking Factor Applied
Value
2.3p/unit
350L/p/d
Harmon’s Equation
&
$
$
14
P.F . = 1 + $
1
$
& P # 2
$ 4 + $ 1000 !
%
"
%
#
!
!
!× K
!
!
"
Infiltration and Inflow Allowance
Sanitary sewers are to be sized employing the
Manning’s Equation
0.28L/s/ha
Minimum Sewer Size
Minimum Manning’s ‘n’
200mm diameter
0.013
135mm dia PVC SDR 28 with a minimum slope of
1.0%
2.5m from crown of sewer to grade
0.6m/s
3.0m/s
Minimum Full Flowing Velocity
Maximum Full Flowing Velocity
Q=
2
1
1
AR 3 S 2
n
Extracted from Sections 4 and 6 of the City of Ottawa Sewer Design Guidelines, November 2004.
PAGE 7
© DSEL
VALECRAFT HOMES
DEERFIELD VILLAGE
The proposed sanitary sewer network is illustration on Drawing 3 and the associated
calculation sheets are located in Appendix C.
As demonstrated on the attached calculation sheets the anticipated peak flow from the
development was estimated to be 10.7L/s, which is an increase of 0.56L/s over the
previous estimate.
4.3
Wastewater Pumping Station
The proposed development will be serviced by a privately held sanitary pumping station
and will utilize the existing forcemain extended to the subject property along
Meandering Brooke.
ITT Water and Waterwater prepared a selection for a
prefabricated pumping station. The prefabricated unit will be equipped with backup
power as well as a communications model for monitoring. Appendix C contains the ITT
quote and rating curve for the selected pump.
4.3.1 Wastewater Servicing Conclusions
A review of the downstream capacity in the existing sewers on Stetman Street indicated
that limiting sanitary sewer length is between MH 28 and the connection to the Existing
Trunk Sewer on Albion Street. Based on the Stantec Consulting Ltd. calculation sheet
dated 2005-04-11, this length of sewer has an available capacity of 19.02L/s.
Therefore, the increase in peak sanitary flow is within the available capacity of the
receiving wastewater sewers.
The proposed wastewater design conforms to all relevant City guidelines and Policies.
PAGE 8
© DSEL
VALECRAFT HOMES
DEERFIELD VILLAGE
5.0
STORMWATER CONVEYANCE
As specified in the City Standards, Greenfield developments are to be designed with
minor (storm sewers) and major system (open channels / flow within right-of-way)
components. The following sections outline the design criteria of the minor and major
systems as well as the subject land’s existing features and external drainage
considerations.
5.1
Minor System Design
Table 5 summarizes the relevant City Standards employed in the design of the
proposed storm sewer system referred to as the minor system.
Table 5
Storm Sewer Design Criteria
Design Parameter
Intensity Duration Frequency Curve (IDF) 5-year
storm event.
A = 998.071
B = 6.053
C = 0.814
Minimum Time of Concentration
Rational Method
Value
i=
10 minutes
Q = CiA
Runoff coefficient for paved and roof areas
Runoff coefficient for landscaped areas
Storm sewers are to be sized employing the
Manning’s Equation
Minimum Sewer Size
Minimum Manning’s ‘n’
Minimum Full Flowing Velocity
Maximum Full Flowing Velocity
A
(t c + B )C
0.9
0.2
Q=
2
1
1
AR 3 S 2
n
250mm diameter
0.013
100mm dia PVC SDR 28 with a minimum slope of
1.0%
2.0m from crown of sewer to grade
0.8m/s
3.0m/s
Extracted from Sections 5 and 6 of the City of Ottawa Sewer Design Guidelines, November 2004.
The proposed storm sewer network is illustration on Drawing 3 and the associated
calculation sheets are located in Appendix D.
5.2
Foundation Drain Collector
A foundation drain collector was provided to service the proposed units in accordance
with Section 5.8 of the City of Ottawa Sewer Design Guidelines. The foundation drain
PAGE 9
© DSEL
VALECRAFT HOMES
DEERFIELD VILLAGE
was sized to accommodate 0.075L/s/unit in additional to an extraneous flow allowance
of 0.28L/s/ha. The associated calculation sheet is included in Appendix D.
Stormwater collected in the weeping tile is considered clean as the water captured has
been filtered by the layers of soil above. Therefore, the weeping tile is directly
connected to Sawmill Creek. An anticipated added benefit of the configuration is that
the weeping tile will provide cool water base flow to Sawmill Creek.
5.3
Hydraulic Grade Line Analysis
The beginning elevation for the hydraulic grade line was interpolated from the Stantec
Consulting Report, “Hydraulic Analysis for Sawmill Creek Road Crossing” as presented
by the RVCA in the pre-consultation meeting. The body of the report has been included
in Appendix D. The analysis presented in Stantec’s report utilized the Existing and
“Future” condition peak flows as determined by A.J. Robinson, in their study, “Sawmill
Creek Quality and Quantity Study. JFSA was retained to establish the maximum water
elevation in Sawmill Creek based on HEC-RAS modeling. The JFSA analysis is
included in Appendix D.
As discussed in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 the site is serviced by separate storm sewers for
the parking lot and foundation drains. Therefore, the units are protected during periods
of peak flow where the anticipated peak hydraulic grade line elevation in the foundation
drain is established by the backwater condition in Sawmill Creek. Furthermore, site
grading was established to ensure a minimum freeboard of 0.30m between the
maximum ponding elevation and the lowest unit opening. The estimated water level in
Sawmill Creek was found to be 92.89m (See Table 1 JFSA memorandum Appendix
D), while the lowest USF is 94.05m, therefore a freeboard of 1.16m is provided.
5.4
Major System Design
The proposed site plan grading plan was designed to convey major flows, those in
excess of the 5-year capture, to the dry pond located at the northern most extent of the
development.
Curb cuts are proposed to ensure that the peak anticipated 100-year flows are safely
directed to the pond.
6.0
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
The subject lands are within the Sawmill Creek watershed. Stormwater management
requirements for the development area are specified in the Sawmill Creek
Subwatershed Study Update prepared by CH2MHILL in May 2003 where the proposed
development is required to:
PAGE 10
© DSEL
VALECRAFT HOMES
DEERFIELD VILLAGE
!
Attenuate post development runoff rates to pre development levels for all storms
up to and including the 100-year storm event.
!
Provide enhanced level of quality treatment per the MOE stormwater
management planning and design manual.
!
Minimize surface runoff volumes through infiltration techniques.
It is proposed to achieve the stormwater management objects through the use of
Stormceptor® Maintenance Structures and a dry pond.
6.1
Dry Pond
The function of the proposed dry pond is to provide the required storage to attenuate
the 2, 5, and 100 year storm events to pre-development levels.
Table 6 summarizes the pre-development target flow rates, required storage volumes
and anticipated elevations in the dry pond area.
Table 6
Pond Characteristics
Design Storm Event
2-year
5-year
100-year
Target Release Rate
(L/s)
42.0
56.2
95.3
Required Storage
(m3)
473.5
635.0
1,077.3
Elevation in Dry Pond
(m)
93.74
93.95
94.40
Should a blockage at the outlet occur, the facility was designed with an emergency 100year overflow sized to convey the peak flow rate during the 100-year storm event.
Detailed pond storage calculations are contained within Appendix D.
6.2
Stormceptor and Pond Operating Characteristics
The proposed Stormceptors® were sized by Hanson Pipe and Concrete to provide
Enhanced level of sediment removal per the SWMP Design Manual as specified by the
Subwatershed Study..
Appendix D contains the sizing calculations provided by Hanson Pipe and Concrete
that demonstrate 80% total suspended solid removal for each catchment.
7.0
SITE GRADING
The parking lot was graded such that in the event of a blockage of the outlet or catch
basins the maximum depth of ponding will be limited to 0.30m. The site is graded such
that the water beyond the maximum ponding depth in the parking lot will cascade down
PAGE 11
© DSEL
VALECRAFT HOMES
DEERFIELD VILLAGE
to the dry pond, located in the northwest end of the site. The overland flow route is
depicted on Drawing 2, site grading plan.
The site is graded to provide storage up to a 100-year event. For storm events greater
than the 100-year event, flows are directed to an overflow, outletting to Sawmill Creek.
Valecraft Homes retained Kollard Associates to carry out a geotechnical site
investigation. Their findings are presented in the following report and letter reports:
! September 2009 – Geotechnical Investigation Proposed
Development, Lester Road, Block 147, City of Ottawa, Ontario
Residential
! October 13, 2009 – Letter Report RE: Additional Geotechnical Input.
! April 1, 2010 – Letter Report RE: Additional Geotechnical Information.
The initial study prepared by Kollard and Associates identified a grade raise restriction
of 1.5m. Whereas, the proposed site grading, based on the invert elevation of the
Sawmill Creek, results in fill depths between 1.5m and 3.9m. Therefore, the
geotechnical consultant is recommending the construction of monitoring mounds to
simulate the proposed condition in order to assess any requirement for the use of light
weight fill.
The site soils were identified as being “sensitive to water depletion.”
seepage barriers are recommended and have been provided.
8.0
Therefore,
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
Soil erosion occurs naturally and is a function of soil type, climate and topography. The
extent of erosions losses is exaggerated during construction where the vegetation has
been removed and the top layer of soil become agitated.
Prior to topsoil stripping, earthworks or underground construction, erosion and sediment
controls will be implemented and will be maintained throughout construction. Erosion
and sediment control measures are depicted on Drawing 13.
Silt fence will be installed around the perimeter of the site and will be cleaned and
maintained throughout construction. Silt fence will remain in place until the working
areas has been stabilized and re-vegetated.
Catch basins will have filter fabric installed under the grate during construction to protect
from silt entering the storm sewer system.
A mud mat will be installed at the construction access in order to prevent mud tracking
onto adjacent roads.
PAGE 12
© DSEL
VALECRAFT HOMES
DEERFIELD VILLAGE
Erosion and sediment controls must be in place during construction. The following
recommendations to the contractor will be included in contract documents.
!
Limit extent of exposed soils at any given time.
!
Re-vegetate exposed areas as soon as possible.
!
Minimize the area to be cleared and grubbed.
!
Protect exposed slopes with plastic or synthetic mulches.
!
Install silt fence to prevent sediment from entering existing ditches.
!
No refueling or cleaning of equipment near existing watercourses.
!
Provide sediment traps and basins during dewatering.
!
Install filter cloth between catch basins and frames.
!
Plan construction at proper time to avoid flooding.
Establish material stockpiles away from watercourses, so that barriers and filters may
be installed.
The contractor will, at every rainfall, complete inspections and guarantee proper
performance. The inspection is to include:
!
Verification that water is not flowing under silt barriers.
Clean and change filter cloth to catch at catch basins.
9.0
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Valecraft Homes are applying for site plan control to develop an existing vacant parcel
of land in to 264 Stacked Townhouse style units. DSEL was retained to prepare a
functional servicing study and detailed design drawings to facilitate the approvals
process.
!
Proposed watermain will connect to an existing 300mm diameter watermain on
Lester Road;
!
Due to low water pressures in the area, grades are restricted to a maximum
elevation of 99.0m and water services will be 25mm in diameter;
!
Sanitary sewers will connect to an existing forcemain, which was extended along
Meandering Brook Drive from the subject property to the existing municipal
infrastructure on Stedman Street.
!
The minor storm system consists of parking lot drainage and a foundation drain
system that separates the road / parking lot drainage from the weeping tile
drainage;
PAGE 13
© DSEL
VALECRAFT HOMES
DEERFIELD VILLAGE
!
The storm sewers outlet to a dry pond, while the foundation drain system outlets
to Sawmill Creek;
!
The grading of the site is designed to direct flows in excess of the 5-year flow to
a dry pond in the northwest portion of the site, which provides storage up to the
100-year event;
!
If a blockage occurs, or for storm events greater than a 100-year frequency, an
emergency overflow is provided, outletting directly to Sawmill Creek.
!
The objectives for stormwater management for the site are to attenuate post
development flows to pre development levels for all storms up to and including
the 100-year storm event, provide enhanced level of quality treatment and
minimize surface runoff volumes through infiltration techniques;
!
Stormceptor® Maintenance Structures and a dry pond are used to meet
stormwater objectives;
!
Erosion and sediment controls will be implemented prior to any earthworks and
will be maintained throughout construction
Prepared by,
David Schaeffer Engineering Ltd.
Reviewed by,
David Schaeffer Engineering Ltd.
Per: Adam D. Fobert, P.Eng.
Per: Stephen J. Pichette, P.Eng.
© DSEL
z:\projects\09-392 valecraft - deerfield village\design\d reports\e.1 functional servicing\rpt-2010-04_site_servicing-adf.doc
PAGE 14
© DSEL
APPENDIX A
Pre-consultation Meeting Notes
Adam Fobert
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Kellie Adams [kellie.adams@rvca.ca]
Monday, October 05, 2009 7:09 PM
Adam Fobert
Bruce Reid; Kellie Adams
RE: Sawmill Creek Floodplain Mapping
165 Meandering Brooke Dr, Gloucester.pdf
Good Evening Adam,
Please refer to the above RVCA Regulation Limit mapping (Schedule Defining Regulation Limit) which should be referenced
as a guide to determine whether the property in question is within the development area. Note that this map is not to scale.
After viewing the RVCA Regulation Limit Mapping it would appear that the properties in question are not within the RVCA’s
regulation limit area and therefore would not require written approval. However, please note that the yellow line delineates a
Class ‘C’ municipal drain = The Alexander (Sawmill Ck) Municipal Drain and therefore it would appear that this
drain/watercourse is located adjacent to the lots in question (165 & 195 Meandering Brooke Drive, Gloucester). This being
said, please note that setbacks from watercourses do exist and that any alteration to a waterway including shoreline
work requires written approval from the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority.
!
The following link may be referenced in regards to development in a regulated area and specifically to Ontario Regulation
174/06:
http://www.rvca.ca/plan-reg/files/regs_package_06.pdf
*Please note that these Policies are under review and are subject to change with RVCA Board of Directors approval.
You must check with the City of Ottawa (613-580-2424) to ensure the current zoning reflects your intended
use for the property.
Should you wish to conduct a property inquiry search at a fee of $200.00; the RVCA will provide comments stating whether a
property, such as this one, is likely to be affected by Authority policies and regulations and if there are any previous or
outstanding violations on the property. This file search response provides a formal record of the inquiry and offers valuable
information to the client when making decisions to purchase, build on, re-grade or alter natural features on the site. In other
cases, the file search response serves as official confirmation that the property is not affected by Authority policies and
regulations, and provides the client with added peace of mind. RVCA staff cannot advise you on whether or not to purchase a
property; however, we provide the facts to help you make an educated decision. (Please note that a file search/regulatory
letter and site inspection is also available at a fee of $350.00).
RVCA Property Inquiry Search link:
http://www.rvca.ca/plan-reg/PDF/flood_plain_inquiry_form.pdf
With regards to obtaining the most up to date Sawmill Creek Watershed Plan, our Planner, Glen McDonald provided me with
the following information.
!"#$%"#$%&"'()*&+$,""
&'()%"'*&,+-."/(0*1%2"34."5336"7857"9'"
*#%":%$$;%"<,+=>"
&+,-'.)%"?@8"A+B=;$$"C2%%D"E$**,F$+;&"'+FF;&G
!
Kellie:
Darlene Conway at the City of Ottawa was the project manager for the Sawmill Creek Watershed Plan Update. I doubt if
Darlene has hard copies of the report still available but she may be able to provide them with a digital copy. If Adam is
looking for updated floodplain mapping in that report, it is not there. The study did not include any updated floodplain
mapping.
I have also been informed that we may have some elevation mapping available dating back to the 1980’s which I will
discuss further with Bruce Reid tomorrow in order to verify if this information is current and would be beneficial to
your needs.
Should you require further information please do not hesitate to contact me.
!
!"##$"%&"''$(")%*+,-./%0".12)3"%45"3$,#$.6%
0$+",2%7,##"8%91'."):,6$1'%*26;1)$68<=09%
>1?%@AA/%BCCA%0$+",2%7,##"8%D)$:"/%E1)6;%
F,'16$3G%%HE%%!IF%J*@%
KJBLKAMLB@NJ%"?6O%JJMC%%
P,?Q%KJBLKAMLRCBJ%
EST%SLF*U=Q%kellie.adams@rvca.ca
EST%TS>4UVSQ%WWWO):3,O3,%
Coming to visit us?
WARNING! Rideau Valley Drive is under construction with no southbound traffic allowed. From Manotick, northbound traffic is not
affected. From Ottawa, please continue south on Prince of Wales - turn left onto Barnsdale. Follow Barnsdale to Rideau Valley
Drive - turn left with northbound traffic. Watch for right hand turn into Authority office at 3889 Rideau Valley Drive / Beryl Gaffney
Park entrance
V;$.%-"..,X"%$.%+$)"36"+%$'%31'($+"'3"%.1#"#8%61%6;"%5").1'Y.Z%',-"+%,[1:"%,'+%-,8%31'6,$'%5)$:$#"X"+/%31'($+"'6$,#%1)%5)$:,6"%$'(1)-,6$1'%W;$3;%$.%'16%61%["%+$.3#1."+O%U(%812%,)"%
'16%6;"%,++)"..""%1)%,'%,26;1)$\"+%)"5)"."'6,6$:"%6;")"1(/%5#",."%31'6,36%6;"%2'+").$X'"+%,'+%6;"'%+".6)18%6;$.%-"..,X"O%
%
9"%-"..,X"%".6%+".6$'"%2'$]2"-"'6%,2?%5").1''".%$'+$]2"".%+,'.%#^"'6"6"%"6%5"26%31'6"'$)%2'"%$'(1)-,6$1'%5)$:$#"X$""/%31'($+"'6$"##"%12%5)$:""%"6%'"%512:,'6%"6)"%+$:2#X2""O%4$%
:12.%'^"6".%5,.%#"%+".6$',6,$)"%+"%3"%-"..,X"%12%2'"%5").1''"%261)$.""%#"%)"3":1$)/%:"2$##"\%31--2'$]2")%,:"3%#"%.12..$X'"%"6%"'.2$6"%+"6)2$)"%3"%-"..,X"O%
%%
!
!"#$%"#$%&"'()*+,"-&%./,(0%1()*+,2$3*/45%6""
&'()%"'+.$%78"95,()*+":;8";::<"==0:>"#?"
*#%"@*//.*"#$%&3"
&+,-'.)%"A%B&.//"C+**D"'/(($E/%.F"?%EE.FG
!
"#$$%!&#$$'#(!
!
)*!+'*,-**#+!.!/%-$+!$'0#!1!,%23!%4!56#!4$%%+2$1'7!8122'79!4%:!;1/8'$$!<:##0!15!=#*5#:!>%1+!1*!'$$-*5:15#+?!!@6#!7#1:#*5!,'A',!
1++:#**#+!1:#!BCD!17+!BED!F#17+#:'79!G:%%0#!H:'A#?!
!
<%-$+!3%-!1$*%!0'7+$3!4%:/1:+!8#!56#!$'70!5%!:#I-#*5!1!4'$#!*#1:,6!%4!56#!2:%2#:53?!
!
=1*5$3(!/615!1:#!56#!122:%2:'15#!,6177#$*!5%!:#I-#*5!56#!*-J/15#:*6#+!*5-+3!4%:!*1/8'$$!,:##0K!
!
!
@6170!3%-!4%:!3%-:!6#$2?!
____________________
Adam Fobert, P.Eng.
Senior Design Engineer
!"#$%
david schaeffer engineering ltd.
120 Iber Road, Unit 203
Stittsville, ON K2S 1E9
phone: (613) 836-0856 ext.231
fax:
(613) 836-7183
email: afobert@DSEL.ca!
This email, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain private, confidential, and privileged information. Any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient or if this information has been inappropriately
forwarded to you, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original.!
!
!
!
!
165 Meandering Brooke Dr, Gloucester
Legend
0
120
240 m.
Map produced by RVCA, under License with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2008. This
map is the property of the RVCA, and the RVCA holds a copyright on them. These maps may be copied or reproduced, provided
that the RVCA is properly acknowledged as the original source of the information and provided that no fee is charged (other than to
cover handling charges). The RVCA cannot guarantee the accuracy of the mapping for all possible uses. End-users of the
information contained herein must therefore determine if the information is of suitable accuracy for their purposes.
Map center: 450705, 5021204
Scale: 1:6,756
APPENDIX B
Water Supply
Valecraft Homes
Deerfield Village
Existing Zoning
392C
Water Demand Design Flows per Gross Acreage
RMOC Design Guidelines 1991
Type of Housing
Single Family
Semi-detached and duplex
Townhouse
Apartment
Low Density (62 unit/ha)
Med-Low (86 unit/ha)
Med Density (124 unit/ha)
High Density (274 unt/ha)
Per / Gross Ha
65
100
125
150
210
300
600
Area
2.889
Pop
0
0
0
0
0
607
0
0
Total Pop
607
Estimated Consumption Rate
Avg Daily Demand (0.45 m3/c/d)
m3/d
273.0
L/min
189.6
Maximum Daily Demand (2.5 x avg day)
682.5
474.0
Maximum Hourly (2.2 x max day)
1501.6
1042.7
Z:\Projects\09-392 Valecraft - Deerfield Village\Design\C Detailed Design\C.1 Data\wtr\wtr-2010-03-23_demand-adf.xlsx
2010-03-23
Valecraft Homes
Deerfield Village
Proposed Development
392C
Water Demand Design Flows per Unit Count
RMOC Design Guidelines 1991
Type of Housing
Single Family
Semi-detached and duplex
Townhouse
Apartment
Bachelor
1 Bedroom
2 Bedroom
3 Bedroom
Average
Per / Unit
3.8
3.8
3.5
Units
Pop
264
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
634
Total Pop
634
Estimated Consumption Rate
Avg Daily Demand (0.45 m3/c/d)
m3/d
285.1
L/min
198.0
Maximum Daily Demand (2.5 x avg day)
712.8
495.0
Maximum Hourly (2.2 x max day)
1568.2
1089.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
2.4
Z:\Projects\09-392 Valecraft - Deerfield Village\Design\C Detailed Design\C.1 Data\wtr\wtr-2010-03-23_demand-adf.xlsx
2010-03-23
Adam Fobert
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mottalib, Abdul [Abdul.Mottalib@ottawa.ca]
Friday, March 26, 2010 2:29 PM
afobert@DSEL.ca
Mottalib, Abdul
FW: 392: Deerfield Village Watermain Boundary Request
392 Deerfield Village.pdf
Hi Adam,
Please see below.
Thank you,
Abdul
"""""#$%&%'()*+,--(&,"""""*
!"#$%*./),0*1$23,**
&'()%*+($34*560*57!7*!896*:+*
*#%*+/;;()%<0*=<>2)*
&+,-'.)%*?@8*AB58*C,,$D%,)>*E%))(&,*F(;,$G(%'*1/2'>($H*?,I2,-;
The following are boundary conditions, HGL, for hydraulic analysis in front of 392 Deerfield Road on Lester Road
(see attached PDF for location). The watermain was broken approximately 400 m west of the Bank Street and
Lester Rd intersection.
Condition 1 is virtually the same as Condition 2 the results for Condition 2 are:
Max Day + FF = 122.6 m with a fire flow of 142 l/s
Peak_Hour = 124.3 m
Max Pressure Check is estimated to be 55 PSI which is less than 80 PSI. A pressure check at completion of
construction is recommended to determine if pressure control is required.
These are for current conditions and are based on computer model simulation.
Disclaimer: The boundary condition information is based on current operation of the city water distribution system.
The computer model simulation is based on the best information available at the time. The operation of the water
distribution system can change on a regular basis, resulting in a variation in boundary conditions. The physical
properties of watermains deteriorate over time, as such must be assumed in the absence of actual field test data. The
variation in physical watermain properties can therefore alter the results of the computer model simulation.
Bruce Cole P. Eng.
Infrastructure Assessment Engineer - Watermains
City of Ottawa
Infrastructure Services Department
tel.: (613)-580-2424, ext. 20065
e-mail: Bruce.Cole@ottawa.ca
!
!
!"#$%*+/;;()%<0*=<>2)**
&'()%*+($34*5A057!7*J855*:+*
*#%*./),0*1$23,*
/.%*K(D/<,$;L>-,)M3(0KN*+/;;()%<0*=<>2)*
&+,-'.)%*OF8*AB58*C,,$D%,)>*E%))(&,*F(;,$G(%'*1/2'>($H*?,I2,-;*
!
Hi Bruce,
I would appreciate it if you could take a look at the email below?
!
Thank you,
Abdul
"""""#$%&%'()*+,--(&,"""""*
!"#$%*./(0*123,$4*50(%)426(723,$48/-,)9:(;*
&'()%*+($:<*!=>*!?@?*A6?A*B+*
*#%*+244()%3>*.3/C)*
&+,-'.)%*=D!6*E,,$7%,)/*F%))(&,*G(4,$0(%'*H2C'/($I*J,KC,-4
Hello Abdul,
I am finalizing my Servicing Report for the Valecraft Homes Deerfield Village project. I would like to request the watermain
boundary pressures for the following conditions. Can you please coordinate with the Watermains Division of the Infrastructure
Services Department.
Condition 1:
Avg Day
189.6
Max Day + Fire Flow 8,474.0
Peak Hour
1,042.7
Condition 2:
Avg Day
198.0
Max Day + Fire Flow 8,495.0
Peak Hour
1,089.0
____________________
Adam Fobert, P.Eng.
!"#$%
phone: (613) 836-0856 ext.231
fax:
(613) 836-7183
email: afobert@DSEL.ca!
forwarded to you, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original.!
!
This e-mail originates from the City of Ottawa e-mail system. Any
distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it
contains by other than the intended recipient(s) is unauthorized.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me at the
telephone number shown above or by return e-mail and delete
this communication and any copy immediately. Thank you.
Le pr'esent courriel a 'et'e exp'edi'e par le syst`eme de courriels de
la Ville d'Ottawa. Toute distribution, utilisation ou
reproduction du courriel ou des renseignements qui s'y trouvent
par une personne autre que son destinataire pr'evu est interdite.
Si vous avez recu le message par erreur, veuillez m'en aviser par
t'el'ephone (au num'ero pr'ecit'e) ou par courriel, puis supprimer
sans d'elai la version originale de la communication ainsi que
toutes ses copies. Je vous remercie de votre collaboration.
!
LA
EL
B
SE
RO
E
AV
KIN
E
AV
LE
A
D
GS
S
VI
MA
QU
E
AV
LE
A
D
NS
EE
.
ST
T
Y
WA
ES
ON
OR
NN
BA
NM
FE
G
HO
E
AV
TH
R
A
ST
ON
KT
NK
BA
OC
ST
DR
2C
RO
GB
ER
ST
E
L
DR
ST
AN
ST
ED
M
RD
OK
RIV
AVE
IEW
VE
WA
V
ER
DE
DO
EA
NM
DE
DP
HID
N
PO
IN
ER
D
AL
ER
EM
D
AN
ME
N
SO
VID
A
D
2D
9
3
d
iel
f
r
ee
la
V il
ge
!(
ILD
W
Location of boundary condition
RD
I
IR
VE
SA
Adam Fobert
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Crowder, Murray [Murray.Crowder@ottawa.ca]
Monday, November 16, 2009 8:38 AM
Adam Fobert
RE: 392: Deercraft Village
Lester & Albion.pdf
`
Adam Fobert
Company:
DSEL_David Schaeffer Engineering Ltd.
Tel:
(613) 836-0856 ext.231
Fax:
(613) 836-7183
Location:
Lester @ Albion
Request_dt:
09-11-16-08:30:35
Email: afobert@DSEL.ca
Inspection
Flow
Residual
Pressure (psi) Flow (igpm)
Date
Hydrant Hydrant Static Dynamic Pitot
actual @ 20 psi
2008/05/15
7222101
7222099
44
>36
34
817
2008/05/14
7222102
7222105
50
>42
42
908
2008/05/14
7222103
7222104
52
>44
42
908
2008/05/14
7222104
7222105
50
>42
43
918
1478
1853
1919
1875
Murray Crowder
Technical Support, Drinking Water Services Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability City of Ottawa
951 Clyde Avenue, Ottawa, On K1Z 5A6
Mail Code 06-65
Tel:
(613) 580-2424 x 22231
Fax: (613) 728-4183
e-mail: murray.crowder@ottawa.ca
-----Original Message----From: Adam Fobert [mailto:afobert@dsel.ca]
Sent: November 13,2009 8:22 AM
To: Crowder, Murray
Subject: 392: Deercraft Village
Hello Murray,
I am looking for any fire hydrant testing data that you may have on Lester Road between Albion Road and Bank Street.
Thank you for your help.
____________________
Adam Fobert, P.Eng.
DSEL
phone: (613) 836-0856 ext.231
fax:
(613) 836-7183
email: afobert@DSEL.ca
This email, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain private, confidential,
and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient or if this information has been inappropriately forwarded to you, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy
all copies of the original.
!
This e-mail originates from the City of Ottawa e-mail system. Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it
contains by other than the intended recipient(s) is unauthorized.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me at the telephone number shown above or by return e-mail and delete
this communication and any copy immediately. Thank you.
Le présent courriel a été expédié par le système de courriels de la Ville d'Ottawa. Toute distribution, utilisation ou reproduction
du courriel ou des renseignements qui s'y trouvent par une personne autre que son destinataire prévu est interdite.
Si vous avez reçu le message par erreur, veuillez m'en aviser par téléphone (au numéro précité) ou par courriel, puis
supprimer sans délai la version originale de la communication ainsi que toutes ses copies. Je vous remercie de votre
collaboration.
!
?!
!.
?!
EE
?!
!.
D
R
V
D
WIL
?!
E
?!
?!
?!
!.
?!
E
T
NS
AV
MA
AV
ED
IRIS
W
IE
ST
!.
!.
?!
?!
372022H103
!.
?!
?!
!.
!.
b
?!
?!
"
?!
?!
!.
?!
IN L
?!
?!
AN
?!
E
?!
KE
YP
!.
±
LE
?!
?!
P
M!. A
RIV
?!
?!
?!
LE
?!
?!
!.
?!
IO N
RD
372022H101
!.
?!
?!
?!
PV
C
?!
A LB
m
5m
30
372022H102
DD
?!
!.
!.
?!
A LA
?!
!.
?!!
.
ST
ER
RD
?!
b
"
!?
?!!
.
372022H104
!.
!.
±
APPENDIX C
Wastewater Collection
!
!
!
!
PROPOSAL
Proposal to ...............................ALL BIDDERS
To the attention of....................
Project ......................................DeerCraft Village
Date ..........................................2009-11-02
Station.......................................DeerCraft Village P.S
ITT Quotation No. .................09-32-2488
ITT Representative .................Eric Benoit
Printed on: Monday, 02 November 2009 10:02
21 Bentley Avenue, Ottawa, ON K2E 6T7
Tel.: 613-225-9600 - Fax: 613-225-5496
page: 1
ITT Quotation No......
Date............................
Project........................
09-32-2488
2/11/2009
DeerCraft Village
ITT Water & Wastewater hereinafter called the Company of the Vendor, proposes to furnish the
Purchaser the Equipment covered by this proposal, as follows:
DeerCraft Village P.S
Item#
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
Qty
Description
2 3085.183-0942
FLYGT MODEL CP-3085 SUBMERSIBLE PUMP 600 VOLT 3/60
2.2HP/1.6KW 1730 RPMMT IMP 436 VOL 3" 16M AWG 14/7
C/W FLS
FLUSH VALVE READY
1 556 51 01
FLUSH VALVE
STD VERSION
C/W ONE BENT NOZZLE P/N 586 6800
2 444 68 05
DISCHARGE CONNECTION3" X 3" FLANGE ANSI
8 13-44 00 12
ANCHOR BOLT
3/8"X 3 3/4" S/S316
2 613 68 00
2" UPPER GUIDE BAR HOLDER
12 13-45 00 57
CHAIN 3/16"
S/S 316L GRADE 50
2 13-44 00 57
CHAIN CONNECTOR 3/16STAINLESS STEEL 316LGRADE 50
2 13-44 00 76
MASTER LINK 3/8" S/S 316L GRADE 50
2 13-52 03 51
CHAIN HOOK GALV. CALIBRATED FOR FLYGTCHAIN 13-45 00 12/ 13/1352 01 32/91/ 13-52 02 07
ONLY TO HOOKED CHAIN
2 13-50 70 07
CABLE HOOK SS 304
4 582 88 13
LEVEL REGULATOR ENM-10SG 0.95-1.10 CPE RUBBER CABLE 20M
COLOR GREY
4 13-50 70 06
SWAY CONTROL RING S/S 304
1 13-52 00 06
HORIZONTAL LEVEL REGULATOR HANGER GALV.STEEL
1 13-00 93 68
SPECIAL CONTROLS
Duplex Control Panel 2.2 hp, 600V,3ph,60hz.
Includes :
- Dry contact, common alarm.
- Dry Contact, high level
- Low level alarm
- High level alarm
Tel.: 613-225-9600 - Fax: 613-225-5496
page: 2
Date............................
Project........................
Item#
Qty
09-32-2488
2/11/2009
DeerCraft Village
Description
- 2 pumps in parallel
- Limited if Genset is running
- Control Transformer 1000VA
- Standard Simplex Lighting receptacle, 100W max
- Generator Plug and Manual transfer switch disconnect 30A/4 pole
UPS 120VAC
- APP521 - 2 Pumps
- 1 Time totallizer
- Supply Voltage, Phase imbalance or failure detection.
- Panel heater 50W
- Minicas II with two auxillary relays.
- Enclosure steel EEMAC 3, Double door
- 3 -Phase Starter
- Enclosure size 80L x 100H x 40 D cm
- 2 pumps in parallel.
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.22
2 13-70 20 00
MINI CAS II KIT COMPRISE OF:
1 MINI CAS 835857 1 SUPPORT 13400187 1 BASE 13-400200
1 40-50 12 95
APP 521 CONTROLER 100-240VAC,
C/W COMMUNICATION MODULE
1 13-40 00 58
UPS UNINTERRUPTED POWER SUPPLY
2 13-40 04 06
RELAY INTRISICALLY SAFE
1 13-00 95 51
PRE-FAB FIBREGLASS
8 foot dia x 19 feet deep
Discharge Piping 3"
Common Discharge Piping 6"
With Intermediate platform
Ladder : Full
Electrical Connections : 2" - qty (3)
1 13-43 00 91
SAFE HATCH DUPLEX ACCESS FRAME DOUBLE DOORS 780 X 1000
ALUM
2 83 91 72
CHECK VALVE 3" CAST IRON HDL #5087C/W SINKING BALL FLANGE
DRILLED #125
2 13-43 97 53
BALLCENTRIC VALVE 3"PLUG TYPE C/W HANDLEFLANGE DRILLING
150#CAST IRON
Tel.: 613-225-9600 - Fax: 613-225-5496
page: 3
Date............................
Project........................
Item#
1.23
1.24
1.25
Qty
09-32-2488
2/11/2009
DeerCraft Village
Description
1 GL-9150
CONTRACT / START UP
1 GL-9571
FREIGHT CHARGES
1 GL-9681
OPTIONAL TEST CHARGE
Total Price of Quotation:
Prices
Prices in Canadian dollars.
Taxes
Terms of delivery
Terms of payment
Validity
Comments and Exceptions
All taxes extra and not included in the above prices.
FOB CDN ORIGIN, PREPAID/CHARGED BACK
30 DAYS FROM INVOICE DATE
This Quote is valid for sixty (60) days.
$ 122,044.65
Comments and Exceptions are part of this proposal and
must be observed.
This proposal is in accordance with our interpretation of the
plans and specifications provided to us. All equipment
offered is subject to the engineers/customers acceptance,
and we reserve the right to withdraw our offer if such
acceptance is not granted. Should any changes be made
regarding the quantities and/or construction of the
equipment offered, extra charges will apply accordingly.
Important Notes / Exceptions :
Site installation not included.
All internal piping, external piping, guide bars, fans, nuts,
bolts and gaskets to be supplied by others.
All lengths and quantities to be confirmed.
Project scope of supply as per quote, change in scope of
supply will need prices and lead time adjustments.
Applicable specifications as per quote, change in
specifications will need prices and lead time adjustments.
Tel.: 613-225-9600 - Fax: 613-225-5496
page: 4
Date............................
Project........................
09-32-2488
2/11/2009
DeerCraft Village
Sincerely,
Rajnesh Kalia
Technical Sales Coordinator
613-225-9600
rajnesh.kalia@itt.com
Tel.: 613-225-9600 - Fax: 613-225-5496
page: 5
Date............................
Project........................
09-32-2488
2/11/2009
DeerCraft Village
General Conditions of Sale or Rental
1. ITT Water & Wastewater, a division of ITT Industries of Canada Ltd. (“the Company”) will fill orders pursuant to the following
General Conditions of Sale or Rental, which General Conditions will apply, notwithstanding all other terms and conditions, whether
written or not, notwithstanding those set out on Buyer’s Purchase Order.
2. Payment is due thirty (30) days following date of full or partial shipment, on approved credit. Interest on past due payments will
be calculated at a rate of eighteen per cent (18%) per annum (1.5% per month) on the overdue balance. Buyer pays all taxes as
well as additional charges resulting from modifications or errors in Buyer’s design drawings. Shipping is FOB Company’s factory.
This Order is not subject to hold back.
3. Company will not be responsible for losses or delays arising from force majeure events or for consequential or indirect
damages, however caused. In all cases, the liability of Company for damages arising directly from late delivery shall be limited to
five percent (5%) of contract value, regardless of cause. A claim for damages arising from delay will not exist until the presentation
to the Company of independently verified actual damages directly resulting from the delay.
4. Company guarantees products manufactured by Company to the original user against defects in material and workmanship
under normal operating conditions which comply with written Company operating instructions. Various products are guaranteed for
the following periods:
BS, DS, CS and HS Flygt pumps are guaranteed for the lesser of six months following installation or twelve months from
shipment by Company.
All other Company products are guaranteed for the lesser of twelve (12) months following installation or eighteen (18) months
from date of shipment.

Repairs carried out by Company service personnel are guaranteed for a period of ninety (90) days following date of repair,
applicable only to those parts repaired or replaced.
Replacement parts shipped separately and not installed by Company are guaranteed for a period of thirty (30) days following
shipment.
This guarantee will not apply to products or parts which have been subjected to accidents, negligence, abuse, or use, installation,
service, storage, handling or treatment in a manner contrary to the written instructions of Company or to products on which the
identification plates have been modified or removed. The Company must receive written notice of all claims during the guarantee
period. The Company will, at its sole discretion, decide whether to repair or replace defective goods. Buyer will pay all other charges,
including, but not limited to, shipping, handling and installation and removal charges. Company does not guarantee any equipment
as fit for a particular purpose and does not provide any guarantee of plans and designs supplied by Buyer, or of parts or
components provided by others. Company guarantees only that equipment manufactured and conforming to plans and
specifications provided by the Buyer will conform to those plans and specifications and not to any particular performance standard.
This guarantee is in place and in lieu of all guarantees or warranties whether provided in law or otherwise, of merchantability and/or
fitness for any particular purpose. The obligation of the Company to repair or replace all defective parts is the sole recourse of the
Buyer and the value of the liability incurred thereby shall be limited to the lesser of the cost of the repair or the replacement of the
part in question.
5. The Company will defend all claims or allegations that the goods violate any Canadian copyright, trademark, or other
intellectual property rights, provided that the Company is promptly advised of such claims, that the Buyer assists the Company as
requested in such defense (in the preparation of the necessary documentation) and goods have been paid for in full. The liability of
the Company shall not extend to goods manufactured to Buyer’s plans and/or specifications, for which the Buyer will indemnify the
Company for all costs or damages resulting from a violation of a patent or other similar claim.
6. The cumulative liability of the Company from all causes and as set out herein shall not exceed the total value of the sale or
rental.
7. In the event that any part or portion of this contract is ruled invalid or unenforceable by competent authority, such provision
shall be severed from the contract without affecting the validity or enforceability of the balance.
8. The sale or rental is governed by the laws of Canada and the province to which the goods are shipped, unless the shipping
destination is outside Canada in which case the laws of Quebec shall apply.
9. Company shall retain title to the goods until payment in full, Buyer shall not sell or transfer the goods to a third party before
Company has received full payment for the goods in question. Buyer acknowledges receipt and agrees to these general conditions
and has had the opportunity to consult counsel in connection herewith. Buyer agrees and represents that the goods sold pursuant to
these General Conditions will not be installed or used in a nuclear facility.
10. The use of a variable speed drive without proper sizing, harmonics, filtering, protection etc... could result in damages to the
motor or to other equipment on this system. Using variable speed drive control without the express written agreement of the
Company will void all warranties.
11. Ce contrat est rédigé en Anglais à la demande expresse des parties aux présentes. This contract has been prepared in English
at the specific request of the parties hereto.
day of
This quotation is hereby accepted on
by
Name of the Customer
20
_____ .
Signature of the Customer
Tel.: 613-225-9600 - Fax: 613-225-5496
page: 6
APPENDIX D
Stormwater Management
!"#$%
!123+456$%
&"'(")*+,-.+/0,0
07897/
G!!1HI!-G,.I--CJ!
K*L,G1M,NOPG
KQCJ!,R,KQO1CJ!,KN1!CGKS!!Q
+:+!123
!"#$%&'()
*%&#+,-#$#"
405
789:;
<(&&(0
7/;<0
7/;<=
7/;?0
7/;?=
7/;70
7/;7=
79;00
79;0=
79;,0
79;,=
79;/0
79;/=
79;90
79;9=
79;-0
79;-=
79;=0
79;==
79;>0
79;>=
79;<0
769>?
8,@+
79;<=
79;?0
79;?=
79;70
7697;
;,@+
7-;00
7-;0=
7-;,0
7-;,=
7-;/0
7-;/=
7-;90
7-;9=
7?9?=
B==,@+
7-;-=
7-;=0
7-;==
7-;>0
7-;>=
7-;<0
7-;<=
7?9A= CDD#EE,1(%3,F,<#+0
.("/0#,N+($'3#3
4065
=9=
,0;,
/,;>
99;<
-<;,
>0;7
<=;7
7/;0
,0?;<
,/>;7
,->;/
,>>;7
,?7;0
/,/;9
/9<;/
8:69;
/7,;7
9/0;7
9=0;9?0;,
-,9;/
--<;=
?>:98
-?9;=,7;<
==?;;7A9:
:?=9B
>?9;9
</?;/
<<-;A8898
?<,;7
7/9;=
7<=;?
,09?;9
BB>797
,,9=;?
,,7>
,/=<;=
,9/,;,9?<;,
,-=-;?
,=/,;B;7B9:
.("/0#,1#2/'+#3,,
4065
?>?
:6;
B=>A
Estimated Pre-development
Time of Concentration and Time to Peak
09-392
Drainage Basin Characteristics
A (ha)
3.629
L (m)
290
S (%)
0.2
C (-)
0.2
CN (-)
77
Estimated Tc
Tc1 (min)
Tc2 (min)
Tc3 (min)
85.4
50.8
74.8
Tp = 2/3 Tc
Tp1 (hrs)
Tp2 (hrs)
Tp3 (hrs)
0.95
0.56
0.83
1) Time of Concentration per Federal Aviation Administration
tc =
1.8(1.1 − C ) L0.5
S 0.333
tc, in minutes
C, rational method coefficient, (-)
L, length in ft
S, average watershed slope in %
2) Time of Concentration per Bransby Williams Formula
tc =
0.605L
S 0.2 A 0.1
tc, in hours
L, length in km
S, average watershed slope in %
A, area in km2
3) Time of Concentration per SCS lag equation
&, 1000 ) #
100 L $*
' − 9!
+ CN ( "
%
tc =
1900S 0.5
0.7
0.8
L, length in ft
CN, SCS runoff curve number
S, average watershed slope in (%)
Z:\Projects\09-392 Valecraft - Deerfield Village\Design\C Detailed Design\C.1 Data\C.1.3 SWM\2010-02-05_swm-rational_method.xlsx
2010-02-05
09-392
Estimated Pre-development Peak Flow Rate
Rational Method
IDF Parameters
City of Ottawa
A
B
C
tc
A
C
i
Q
2-year
732.951
6.199
0.810
5-year
998.071
6.053
0.814
100-year
1735.688
6.014
0.820
75 min
3.629 ha
0.2 (-)
2-year
21
42.0
5-year
28
56.2
100-year
47
mm/hr
95.3
L/s
2010-02-05
09-392
2010-02-05
Estimated Post-Development Storage Requirements
Modified Rational Method
Design Parameters
City of Ottawa - IDF Parameters
2-year
5-year
100-year
A
732.951
998.071 1735.688
B
6.199
6.053
6.014
C
0.810
0.814
0.820
tc
A
C
Storm
Freq.
2-year
5-year
100-year
20 min (tc at outlet without restriction rounded to nearest 5 minutes)
3.629 ha
0.7 (-)
Qrelease
(L/s)
42.0
56.2
95.3
tc
i
(min)
(mm/hr)
52
45
40
36
33
30
28
26
25
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
Vstored
(m3)
473.5
635.0
1,077.3
2-year
Qactual
Qrelease
(L/s)
367.2
318.7
282.6
254.4
231.9
213.4
197.9
184.7
173.3
163.4
154.6
146.9
139.9
133.7
128.0
122.9
(L/s)
42.0
42.0
42.0
42.0
42.0
42.0
42.0
42.0
42.0
42.0
42.0
42.0
42.0
42.0
42.0
42.0
Qstored
(L/s)
325.2
276.8
240.6
212.5
189.9
171.4
155.9
142.7
131.3
121.4
112.7
104.9
98.0
91.7
86.1
80.9
Vstored
(m3)
390.2
415.1
433.1
446.2
455.9
462.8
467.7
470.9
472.8
473.5
473.2
472.1
470.2
467.8
464.7
461.2
tc
i
(min)
(mm/hr)
70
61
54
49
44
41
38
35
33
31
29
28
27
25
24
23
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
5-year
Qactual
Qrelease
(L/s)
495.7
429.7
380.5
342.4
311.8
286.7
265.7
247.8
232.5
219.1
207.3
196.8
187.4
179.0
171.4
164.5
(L/s)
56.2
56.2
56.2
56.2
56.2
56.2
56.2
56.2
56.2
56.2
56.2
56.2
56.2
56.2
56.2
56.2
Qstored
(L/s)
439.5
373.5
324.3
286.1
255.6
230.5
209.5
191.6
176.2
162.8
151.0
140.6
131.2
122.8
115.2
108.2
Vstored
(m3)
527.4
560.2
583.8
600.9
613.3
622.3
628.4
632.3
634.4
635.0
634.3
632.5
629.8
626.2
621.9
616.9
tc
i
(min)
(mm/hr)
120
104
92
83
75
69
64
60
56
53
50
47
45
43
41
39
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100-year
Qactual
Qrelease
(L/s)
846.4
732.8
648.3
582.7
530.3
487.2
451.3
420.7
394.4
371.5
351.3
333.5
317.5
303.1
290.1
278.3
(L/s)
95.3
95.3
95.3
95.3
95.3
95.3
95.3
95.3
95.3
95.3
95.3
95.3
95.3
95.3
95.3
95.3
Qstored
(L/s)
751.1
637.5
553.0
487.4
435.0
392.0
356.0
325.5
299.1
276.2
256.1
238.2
222.2
207.8
194.8
183.0
Vstored
(m3)
901.4
956.3
995.4
1023.6
1044.0
1058.3
1068.0
1074.0
1076.9
1077.3
1075.5
1071.8
1066.6
1059.9
1052.0
1043.1
!"#"$%&'()*+,$&,-$.//(0+&12/$3,0"$
45$%6*+,7'*((8$9*+:2;$<11&=&;$<>$$?5%$@AB$
12C"D$E@F"GFE"FGGH;$I&JD$E@F"GFE"KFF5;$==="LI/&"0(M$
$
April 20, 2010
our file: 80709
David Schaeffer Engineering Limited
Attention:
Mr. Steve Pichette
Subject:
Deerfield Village Development / Hydraulic Analysis of Sawmill Creek
Dear Sir,
As requested by your office, we have evaluated the 100-year design water levels along the Sawmill
Creek Headwaters and within the Deerfield Village Subdivision site under existing and proposed
conditions.
In undertaking this work, the following available information was considered:
1)
The hydrologic data used in our evaluation was based on the July 1984 analysis by A.J. Robinson
and Associates Inc (AJR). The existing and future flows from the AJR study were used in our
HEC-RAS model of the creek for comparison purposes. Notwithstanding this, we did not confirm
that the AJR future conditions are representative of the current development conditions.
2)
We prepared a HEC-RAS model for a portion of Reach 6 and the upstream end of Reach 5 (as per
CH2M Hill, 2003) of Sawmill Creek under existing and proposed conditions. The model extends
over approximately 840 m from the Meandering Brook Drive crossing to the Queensdale Avenue
crossing to account for the potential backwater effect of the latter culvert. The hydraulic data for
existing conditions is based on a recent topographic survey of the subject property provided by
Annis, O’Sullivan, Vollebekk Ltd. (AOV) and on the 1:2000 topographic map provided by DSEL
for the cross sections found outside the surveyed area. Minimum channel elevations were not
available for cross sections outside the surveyed area and were interpolated based on an average
representative local channel slope of 0.5%. The dimensions and cross sections at the Meandering
Brook Drive culvert were taken from the hydraulic analysis of the crossing undertaken by Stantec
in 2005. Refer to Figure 1 for the locations of the HEC-RAS model cross-sections under existing
conditions.
3)
For comparison purposes, a second HEC-RAS model was prepared to represent proposed
conditions. The same HEC-RAS cross sections found in the existing model were included in the
proposed model. However, the cross sections No. 6427, No. 6309, and No. 6208 which intersect
the proposed Deerfield Village Subdivision were modified to represent the proposed grading
provided by DSEL. Refer to Figure 2 for the locations of the HEC-RAS model cross-sections
under proposed conditions. A 30 m buffer form the center of the channel to the edge of the
proposed fill line has been provided.
J.F. Sabourin and Associates Inc. / ref: 807-09 / April 2010
Page -1-
Client: David Schaeffer Engineering Ltd.
Deerfield Village Development
Hydraulic Analysis of Sawmill Creek
4)
While the post-development release rates to Sawmill Creek from the Deerfield Village Subdivision
will be controlled to pre-development conditions, the flows in the HEC-RAS model were
unchanged and conservatively set to the future flows provided in the 1984 AJR Floodplain study.
5)
The backwater from the Queensdale culvert was verified with HEC-RAS. The downstream
boundary conditions were set at the known surface water elevation determined from nomographs of
the Queensdale Avenue culvert. The culvert was assessed for inlet and outlet control and the
outlet control, with the latter being most critical (see Attachment 3). The maximum water
elevation for the 100 yr flow of 8.30 cms at the Queensdale Avenue culvert was found to be 91.75
m. The maximum capacity of the Queensdale Avenue culvert was estimated to be 9.0 cms before
overtopping of the road would occur at an elevation of 92.0 m.
Based on the above information, the 100 year design flows and water levels for existing and proposed
conditions over the reach of Sawmill Creek under study were determined with HEC-RAS and are
presented in Attachment 1. Details of the HEC-RAS cross-sections for existing conditions and those
modified for proposed conditions are presented in Attachment 2.
Table 1 summarizes the 100 year surface water elevations along the modeled reach for various flow
conditions under existing and proposed channel configurations. As may be seen from the results
presented in Table 1, and for the future 100 year flow conditions, the surface water elevations along the
proposed Deerfield Village subdivision (cross-sections 6427, 6309, 6208) could increase by as much as
24 cm. However, such an increase will be contained within the channel and will not increase the risk of
flooding to neighbouring properties. Furthermore, this expected increase in surface water elevations will
be limited along the proposed subdivision such as that cross-section 6464 (upstream of Meandering
Brook Drive culvert) the 100 year water level will be slightly lower.
Please note, and as indicated above, that the flows used in our HEC-RAS and presented in Table 1 may
not reflect current development conditions which may or may not include stormwater management
practices.
Sincerely yours,
J.F. Sabourin and Associates Inc.
for Jean-François Sabourin, M.Eng., P.Eng.
Director of Water Resources Projects
Table 1:
Figure 1:
Figure 2:
100 Year Surface Water Elevations along Sawmill Creek from Meandering Brook Drive to Queensdale Avenue
Existing Cross Sections for the Development Site
Proposed Cross Sections for the Development Site
Appendix 1:
Appendix 2:
Appendix 3:
HEC-RAS Model Results for the Headwater of Sawmill Creek Under Existing and Proposed Conditions
HEC-RAS Model Cross Sections Details Under Existing and Proposed Conditions
Nomographs at Queensdale Avenue, Inlet and Outlet Controls
Page -2-
Table 1: 100 Year Surface Water Elevations along Sawmill Creek from Meandering Brook Drive to
Queensdale Avenue - Under Existing and Proposed Conditions
!"#$$%&'()#*+,$
-./$("&01(#2#3*$("&014
GBGB
D&0*2&")*7H"##I,"J!.9K&"(
GBLM
GNO@
GLOA
,#3*$("&01527&#F,&&"F)&92
B
P)9907& G?ON
GOOO
;9#3$0(!#*F9.&*'&3)(80
Q")R.(0"E
SAAA
SML@
N
56)$()*7!80**&9!#*2)()#*$
56)$()*7
;.(."&
C.&&*$209&
;9#3$0$
;9#3$0$/&"
!"#$$)*7
/&"<=>
<=>-?@AB4?
D06)1.1
-?@AB4?
!$#*%&'()
!0/0')(E
!"#$%&'()
!+#,,&'()
!')
!')
!')
+-#-%
+-#"-
+-#$.
+-#"/
+-#.,
+-#%,
!"#$%$
+/#+.
+-#*,
+/#%,
+/#%-
+/#%0
:"#/#$&2!80**&9!#*2)()#*$
56)$()*7
;.(."&
C.&&*$209&
F9#3$0$/&"
;9#3$0$
!"#$$)*7
<=>-?@AB4?
/&"<=>
D06)1.1
!"#$%&'()
-?@AB4?
!0/0')(E
!$#*%&'()
!+#,,&'()
!')
!')
!')
+-#/%
+-#",
+-#$,
+-#-$
+-#"0
+-#$%
+-#**
+-#*+
+-#"-
+/#0"/
+/#0+
!$#&!$
+/#..
+/#".
+/#/-
+/#.+
+/#.,
+/#",
+/#.+
+/#$*
+/#./
+/#$*
+/#".
+/#/-
+/#.+
+/#"+
+/#",
+/#$*
+/#..
+/#./
!.#-,&'()
+*#/%
+,#0-
!0#-,&'()
+*#+0
+*#%.
!+#,,&'()
+/#/,
+/#,,
!.#-,&'()
+*#/%
+,#0-
!0#-,&'()
+*#+0
+*#%.
!+#,,&'()
+/#/,
+/#,,
C.&&*$209&<K&J!.9K&"( Notes: 1) 100 year water elevation as per AJ Robinson 1984 Floodplain study.
2) Higher water elevation because flows are contained within the narrower part of the channel controlled by levees.
3) Top of road at Queensdale Avenue crossing= 92.00 m.
4) Surface water elevations are interpolated based on distance between bounding cross sections.
Appendix 1
HEC-RAS Model Results
for the Headwater of Sawmill Creek
Under Existing and Proposed Conditions
J.F. Sabourin and Associates Inc. / ref: 807-09
April 2010
!"#$%&'()*Ͳ+,-./0%$+%12$314/5-"678$$*5%%92:0%5);8138:<*/:0838/:1 !"#
$%&Ͳ'()
'*+,-)./.*01
!"#
2-03*4,
5406
71+,-.
&8/11,4
%4,+/.*01
9/.,-
):-3/;,
%4,+/.*01
</=*>:>
&8/11,4
?,@.8
%1,-AB
C-/D,4*1,
%4,+/.*01
&-*.*;/4
9/.,-
):-3/;,
%4,+/.*01
&8/11,4
E,40;*.B
5406(-,/
!>FGH#
!>#
!>#
!>#
!>#
!>#
!>GH#
!>I#
JKJK
(L'"MMB-%=*H.
KNJO
PINKQ
PFNFO
MNPI
PFNKR
PFNIM
"NQF
FNMJ
JKJK
(L'"MMB-5:.:-
JN"O
PINKQ
PFNKF
MNPR
PFNJM
PFNFM
"NRI
FNKM
JKJK
S:,,1HD/4,T&
PNMM
PINKQ
PFNJQ
"NIM
PFNRQ
PFNKQ
INMM
KNQM
JKFR
&:4+,-.
JKIO
(L'"MMB-%=*H.
KNJO
PIN"P
PFNKI
"NIF
PFNKJ
PINRF
MNPM
QNI"
JKIO
(L'"MMB-5:.:-
JN"O
PIN"P
PFNQM
"NF"
PFNQJ
PINPF
"NMP
QNJK
JKIO
S:,,1HD/4,T&
PNMM
PIN"P
PFNOM
"NQ"
PFNRM
PFNMR
"NFQ
JNJJ
JFMP
(L'"MMB-%=*H.
KNJO
PINFM
PFNIJ
MNPJ
PFNFM
PINRQ
MNRK
QNQP
JFMP
(L'"MMB-5:.:-
JN"O
PINFM
PINPQ
MNJQ
PFN"O
PINPQ
INMJ
INPP
JFMP
S:,,1HD/4,T&
PNMM
PINFM
PFN"M
MNRM
PFNFK
PFN"M
INIM
KNMR
JIMR
(L'"MMB-%=*H.
KNJO
P"NRF
PINOM
MNRO
PINRF
PINOM
"NQR
INPQ
JIMR
(L'"MMB-5:.:-
JN"O
P"NRF
PINOF
MNPM
PINOK
PINOF
MNFF
F"N"K
JIMR
S:,,1HD/4,T&
PNMM
P"NRF
PINOR
MNPQ
PINOR
PINOF
MNK"
FONMF
J"MF
(L'"MMB-%=*H.
KNJO
P"NFF
PINKQ
"N"I
PINQ"
PINKQ
"NFQ
RNOR
J"MF
(L'"MMB-5:.:-
JN"O
P"NFF
PINQM
"N"O
PINQQ
PINQM
"NFO
"KNMQ
J"MF
S:,,1HD/4,T&
PNMM
P"NFF
PINJ"
"NIR
PINJF
PINQF
"NMI
IQNKO
JMMM
(L'"MMB-%=*H.
KNJO
P"N"O
PINIF
"NMJ
PINIK
PIN""
MNJO
"KNMI
JMMM
(L'"MMB-5:.:-
JN"O
P"N"O
PINKM
"NIF
PINK"
PIN"F
MNKP
IKNMO
JMMM
S:,,1HD/4,T&
PNMM
P"N"O
PINQI
"NFQ
PINQI
PIN"O
MNQQ
FMNKQ
QRRR
(L'"MMB-%=*H.
QNFM
RPNQJ
P"NIO
"NO"
P"NOM
P"NIO
INP"
"NRI
QRRR
(L'"MMB-5:.:-
RNFM
RPNQJ
P"NPR
INKI
PIN"P
P"NJJ
INMO
KNMM
QRRR
S:,,1HD/4,T&
PNMM
RPNQJ
PINIM
INJK
PINFJ
P"NOK
"NOJ
QN"I
QOIP
(L'"MMB-%=*H.
QNFM
RRNR"
PMNRF
INMI
PMNPI
PMNM"
"NFF
FNPP
QOIP
(L'"MMB-5:.:-
RNFM
RRNR"
P"NOQ
INPK
P"NRK
PMNIO
"NFI
JNIP
QOIP
S:,,1HD/4,T&
PNMM
RRNR"
PINMM
FN"P
PINMP
PMNFF
"NFM
JNP"
',H:4.H0U./*1,D3-0>%=*H.*1A&01D*.*01H$%&'()>0D,4)/6>*44&V$9W%=HFN@-X
Y0:1D/-B;01D*.*01HH,./HZ10619/.,-[,+,4/H@,-\0>0A-/@8H/.S:,,1HD/4,(+,1:,;:4+,-.N
!"#$%&'()*Ͳ+,-./0%$+%12$314/5-"678$$*5%%92:0%5;5/</1%0*/:0838/:1 !"#
$%&Ͳ'()
'*+,-)./.*01
!"#
2-03*4,
5406
71+,-.
&8/11,4
%4,+/.*01
9/.,-
):-3/;,
%4,+/.*01
</=*>:>
&8/11,4
?,@.8
%1,-AB
C-/D,4*1,
%4,+/.*01
&-*.*;/4
9/.,-
):-3/;,
%4,+/.*01
&8/11,4
E,40;*.B
5406(-,/
!>FGH#
!>#
!>#
!>#
!>#
!>#
!>GH#
!>I#
JKJK
(L'"MMB-%=*H.
KNJO
PINKQ
PFNIO
MNRI
PFNKK
PFNIM
"NRF
INQQ
JKJK
(L'"MMB-5:.:-
JN"O
PINKQ
PFNKM
MNPQ
PFNQP
PFNFM
"NPM
FNIK
JKJK
S:,,1HD/4,T&
PNMM
PINKQ
PFNJM
"N"Q
PFNRF
PFNKQ
IN"I
KNIK
JKFR
&:4+,-.
JKIO
(L'"MMB-%=*H.
KNJO
PIN"P
PFNFJ
"N"O
PFNK"
PINRF
MNPQ
KNPK
JKIO
(L'"MMB-5:.:-
JN"O
PIN"P
PFNKR
"NIP
PFNQQ
PINPF
"N""
QNQQ
JKIO
S:,,1HD/4,T&
PNMM
PIN"P
PFNJO
"NKR
PFNOJ
PFNMR
"NFP
JNKR
JFMP
(L'"MMB-%=*H.
KNJO
PINFM
PFN""
MNR"
PFN"R
"N""
KNII
JFMP
(L'"MMB-5:.:-
JN"O
PINFM
PFN"P
MNRP
PFNIO
"NIJ
KNRP
JFMP
S:,,1HD/4,T&
PNMM
PINFM
PFNKF
"N"F
PFNKP
"N"I
"MNKK
JIMR
(L'"MMB-%=*H.
KNJO
P"NRF
PINRK
"NM"
PINRJ
PINOM
MNJR
PNIQ
JIMR
(L'"MMB-5:.:-
JN"O
P"NRF
PINRP
"NMJ
PINP"
PINOF
MNOO
"MNR"
JIMR
S:,,1HD/4,T&
PNMM
P"NRF
PINOP
MNPJ
PINRP
PINOP
"NQP
ONQR
J"MF
(L'"MMB-%=*H.
KNJO
P"NFF
PINKQ
"N"I
PINQ"
PINKQ
"NFQ
RNOR
J"MF
(L'"MMB-5:.:-
JN"O
P"NFF
PINKP
"N"J
PINQQ
PINKR
"NKI
""NIO
J"MF
S:,,1HD/4,T&
PNMM
P"NFF
PINQQ
"NII
PINQQ
PINFK
MNIJ
PFNKR
JMMM
(L'"MMB-%=*H.
KNJO
P"N"O
PINIF
"NMJ
PINIK
PIN""
MNJO
"KNMI
JMMM
(L'"MMB-5:.:-
JN"O
P"N"O
PINKM
"NIF
PINK"
PIN"F
MNKP
IKNMO
JMMM
S:,,1HD/4,T&
PNMM
P"N"O
PINQI
"NFQ
PINQI
PIN"O
MNQQ
FMNKQ
QRRR
(L'"MMB-%=*H.
QNFM
RPNQJ
P"NIO
"NO"
P"NOM
P"NIO
INP"
"NRI
QRRR
(L'"MMB-5:.:-
RNFM
RPNQJ
P"NPR
INKI
PIN"P
P"NJJ
INMO
KNMM
QRRR
S:,,1HD/4,T&
PNMM
RPNQJ
PINIM
INJK
PINFJ
P"NOK
"NOJ
QN"I
QOIP
(L'"MMB-%=*H.
QNFM
RRNR"
PMNRF
INMI
PMNPI
PMNM"
"NFF
FNPP
QOIP
(L'"MMB-5:.:-
RNFM
RRNR"
P"NOQ
INPK
P"NRK
PMNIO
"NFI
JNIP
QOIP
S:,,1HD/4,T&
PNMM
RRNR"
PINMM
FN"P
PINMP
PMNFF
"NFM
JNP"
',H:4.H0U./*1,D3-0>2-0@0H,D&01D*.*01H$%&'()>0D,4)/6>*44&V$9W2-0@FN@-X
Y0:1D/-B;01D*.*01HH,./HZ10619/.,-[,+,4/H@,-\0>0A-/@8H/.S:,,1HD/4,(+,1:,;:4+,-.N
Appendix 2
HEC-RAS Model Cross Sections Details
Under Existing and Proposed Conditions
April 2010
Plan: Plan 01
River = Sawmill Creek Reach = Reach 6
2/4/2010
SawmillCkHW_Exs3
RS = 6464
.035
96.0
Plan: Plan 01
.06
96
Legend
.035
2/4/2010
WS Queensdale IC No
Ineff
94.0
Bank Sta
93.5
Elevation (m)
Elevation (m)
Ground
Legend
WS AJR 100 yr Exist
WS Queensdale IC No
WS AJR 100 yr Exist
Ground
Ineff
94
Bank Sta
WS AJR 100 yr Futur
94.0
Ground
Levee
93.5
Ineff
Bank Sta
93
92.5
92.5
5
10
15
20
25
92
30
0
20
40
60
SawmillCkHW_Exs3
100
120
140
92.0
160
0
50
100
Station (m)
Plan: Plan 01
.
95.0 0
3
5
94.5
80
2/4/2010
SawmillCkHW_Exs3
RS = 6208
Plan: Plan 01
.06
..
94.0 00
63
5
Legend
WS Queensdale IC No
2/4/2010
93.5
Levee
Ineff
93.0
Bank Sta
250
300
Plan: Plan 01
.06
94.0
Legend
.
0
3
5
WS Queensdale IC No
2/4/2010
RS = 6000
.06
Legend
WS Queensdale IC No
93.5
WS AJR 100 yr Futur
WS AJR 100 yr Futur
WS AJR 100 yr Exist
93.0
Elevation (m)
Ground
200
.06
WS AJR 100 yr Exist
94.0
SawmillCkHW_Exs3
RS = 6103
93.5
WS AJR 100 yr Futur
150
Station (m)
Ground
Levee
92.5
Ineff
Bank Sta
WS AJR 100 yr Exist
93.0
Elevation (m)
0
Station (m)
Elevation (m)
.06
93.0
93.0
92.0
2/4/2010
RS = 6309
94.5
WS AJR 100 yr Futur
95
WS AJR 100 yr Exist
94.5
.
95.0 0
3
5
Legend
WS AJR 100 yr Futur
95.0
Plan: Plan 01
.06
WS Queensdale IC No
95.5
SawmillCkHW_Exs3
RS = 6427
Elevation (m)
SawmillCkHW_Exs3
Ground
Levee
92.5
Ineff
Bank Sta
92.0
92.0
91.5
91.5
92.5
92.0
91.5
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
91.0
400
0
50
100
Station (m)
SawmillCkHW_Exs3
.06
Plan: Plan 01
.035
200
250
300
2/4/2010
SawmillCkHW_Exs3
RS = 5888
Plan: Plan 01
.06
.035
94
Legend
94
.035
2/4/2010
RS = 5729
.
0
3
5
Legend
WS Queensdale IC No
93
WS AJR 100 yr Futur
WS AJR 100 yr Futur
WS AJR 100 yr Exist
Ground
Levee
92
Bank Sta
WS AJR 100 yr Exist
92
Elevation (m)
Elevation (m)
93
Ineff
90
90
89
0
20
40
60
80
Station (m)
100
120
140
Ground
91
91
88
Bank Sta
0
20
40
60
Station (m)
0
100
200
Station (m)
WS Queensdale IC No
89
91.0
350
Station (m)
95
150
80
100
120
300
400
Plan: Plan 01
2/4/2010
SawmillCkHW_Prop3
RS = 6464
.035
96.0
Plan: Plan 01
.06
96
Legend
.035
2/4/2010
Ineff
Ineff
Elevation (m)
Elevation (m)
Legend
94.5
WS AJR 100 yr Futur
WS AJR 100 yr Exist
Ground
93.5
.06
WS Queensdale OC No
WS AJR 100 yr Futur
95
Ground
Bank Sta
94.0
2/4/2010
RS = 6309
WS Queensdale OC No
WS AJR 100 yr Exist
94.5
.035
95.0
Legend
WS AJR 100 yr Futur
95.0
Plan: Plan 01
.06
WS Queensdale OC No
95.5
SawmillCkHW_Prop3
RS = 6427
Bank Sta
94
WS AJR 100 yr Exist
Ground
94.0
Elevation (m)
SawmillCkHW_Prop3
Bank Sta
93.5
93.0
93.0
93
92.5
92.5
0
5
10
15
20
25
92
30
0
20
40
60
Station (m)
SawmillCkHW_Prop3
Plan: Plan 01
.035
95.0
80
100
120
92.0
140
2/4/2010
SawmillCkHW_Prop3
RS = 6208
10
20
30
.06
..
94.0 00
63
5
Legend
94.5
Plan: Plan 01
2/4/2010
.06
Bank Sta
93.0
.06
94.0
Legend
.
0
3
5
WS Queensdale OC No
70
Plan: Plan 01
2/4/2010
RS = 6000
.06
Legend
WS Queensdale OC No
93.5
WS AJR 100 yr Futur
WS AJR 100 yr Futur
WS AJR 100 yr Exist
Ground
93.0
Elevation (m)
93.5
60
WS AJR 100 yr Exist
Ground
Levee
50
WS Queensdale OC No
94.0
SawmillCkHW_Prop3
RS = 6103
93.5
WS AJR 100 yr Exist
40
Station (m)
WS AJR 100 yr Futur
Elevation (m)
0
Station (m)
Levee
Ineff
92.5
Bank Sta
Ground
93.0
Elevation (m)
92.0
Levee
Ineff
92.5
92.0
92.0
91.5
91.5
Bank Sta
92.5
92.0
91.5
0
10
20
30
40
91.0
50
0
50
100
150
Station (m)
SawmillCkHW_Prop3
Plan: Plan 01
.06
95
.035
200
250
300
2/4/2010
SawmillCkHW_Prop3
RS = 5888
Plan: Plan 01
.06
.035
94
Legend
94
2/4/2010
RS = 5729
.035
.
0
3
5
Legend
WS Queensdale OC No
93
WS AJR 100 yr Futur
WS AJR 100 yr Futur
WS AJR 100 yr Exist
Levee
Bank Sta
92
Ineff
90
90
89
20
40
60
80
Station (m)
100
120
140
Bank Sta
91
91
0
Ground
92
Elevation (m)
Elevation (m)
WS AJR 100 yr Exist
Ground
93
88
0
20
40
60
Station (m)
0
100
200
Station (m)
WS Queensdale OC No
89
91.0
350
Station (m)
80
100
120
300
400
Appendix 3
Nomographs at Queensdale Avenue
Inlet and Outlet Controls
April 2010
610Ø
Ø152
IN-LIN E S T O RM C E P T O R
M O D E L S T C 750
JAN
PAG E
2003
G-2
152Ø
M O D E L S T C 2000
JAN
PAG E
2003
G-5
152Ø
M O D E L S T C 3000
JAN
PAG E
2003
G-6
Queensdale Avenue Culvert Inlet Control Headwater
Inlet Type : Projecting (3)
3
With Q = 5.3 m /s:
0.75*1.9 m +88.81 m = 90.24 m
3
With Q = 8.3 m /s:
1.05*1.9 m +88.81 m = 90.81 m
With HW Elevation = 92 m:
3
Q = 13 m /s
HW/D = (Top of Road - Invert u/s) * (1/D)
HW/D = (92 m - 88.81 m) * (1 / 1.9 m)
HW/D = 1.68
B = 2.5 m
D = 1.9 m
P 807-09
E.H.
JFSA inc
January 26, 2010
Queensdale Avenue Culvert Outlet Control Headwater
m/
3
5.3
s
Projecting : ke = 0.9
Length = 103 m
3
8.3 m /s
3
9.0 m /s
3
With Q = 5.3 m /s
Elevation = 88.30m + 1.9m +0.63m = 90.83m
3
With Q = 8.3 m /s
Elevation = 88.30m + 1.9m +1.55m = 91.75m
With HW Elevation = 92 m:
3
Q = 9.0 m /s
H (m) = Top of road - Invert d/s - D
H (m) = 92 m - 88.30 m - 1.9 m
H (m) = 1.8 m
B = 2.5 m
D = 1.9 m
P 807-09
E.H.
JFSA inc
January 27, 2010
Stormceptor Sizing Detailed Report
PCSWMM for Stormceptor
Project Information
Date
1/14/2010
Project Name
Deerfield Village
Project Number
09-392
Location
City of Ottawa, Ontario
Stormwater Quality Objective
This report outlines how Stormceptor System can achieve a defined water quality objective through the
removal 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 a
Fine (organics, silts and sand) particle size distribution and 94% runoff volume.
The Stormceptor System
The Stormceptor oil and sediment separator is sized to treat stormwater runoff by removing pollutants
through gravity separation and flotation. Stormceptor’s patented design generates positive TSS removal
for all rainfall events, including large storms. Significant levels of pollutants such as heavy metals, free
oils and nutrients are prevented from entering natural water resources and the re-suspension of
previously captured sediment (scour) does not occur.
Stormceptor provides a high level of TSS removal for small frequent storm events that represent the
majority of annual rainfall volume and pollutant load. Positive treatment continues for large infrequent
events, however, such events have little impact on the average annual TSS removal as they represent a
small 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 range
of particle sizes, including fine sediments (clays and silts), that are often overlooked in the design of other
stormwater treatment devices.
1
Small storms dominate hydrologic activity, US EPA reports
“Early efforts in stormwater management focused on flood events ranging from the 2-yr
to the 100-yr storm. Increasingly stormwater professionals have come to realize that
small storms (i.e. < 1 in. rainfall) dominate watershed hydrologic parameters typically
associated with water quality management issues and BMP design. These small storms
are responsible for most annual urban runoff and groundwater recharge. Likewise, with
the exception of eroded sediment, they are responsible for most pollutant washoff from
urban surfaces. Therefore, the small storms are of most concern for the stormwater
management objectives of ground water recharge, water quality resource protection and
thermal impacts control.”
“Most rainfall events are much smaller than design storms used for urban drainage
models. In any given area, most frequently recurrent rainfall events are small (less than
1 in. of daily rainfall).”
“Continuous simulation offers possibilities for designing and managing BMPs on an
individual site-by-site basis that are not provided by other widely used simpler analysis
methods. Therefore its application and use should be encouraged.”
– US EPA Stormwater Best Management Practice Design Guide, Volume 1 – General
Considerations, 2004
Design Methodology
Each Stormceptor system is sized using PCSWMM for Stormceptor, a continuous simulation model
based on US EPA SWMM. The program calculates hydrology from up-to-date local historical rainfall data
and specified site parameters. With US EPA SWMM’s precision, every Stormceptor unit is designed to
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 by
analyzing (summary of analysis presented in Appendix 2):
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Site parameters
Continuous historical rainfall, including duration, distribution, peaks (Figure 1)
Interevent periods
Particle size distribution
Particle 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 3
illustrates 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 no decline
in cumulative TSS removal, indicating scour does not occur as the flow rate increases.
2
Figure 1. Runoff Volume by Flow Rate for OTTAWA MACDONALD-CARTIER INT'L A – ON 6000,
1967 to 2003 for 1.31 ha, 71% impervious. Small frequent storm events represent the majority of annual
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 1.31 ha, 71% impervious. The majority of the annual pollutant load is
transported by small frequent storm events. Conversely, large infrequent events carry an insignificant
percentage of the total annual pollutant load.
3
Stormceptor Model
TSS Removal (%)
STC 2000
81
Drainage Area (ha)
Impervious (%)
1.31
71
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 events
analyzed. 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 rate increases.
4
Appendix 1
Stormceptor Design Summary
Project Information
Date
Rainfall
1/14/2010
Name
OTTAWA MACDONALDCARTIER INT'L A
Project Name
Deerfield Village
Project Number
09-392
State
ON
Location
ID
6000
Designer Information
Years of Records
1967 to 2003
Company
Contact
Latitude
45°19'N
Longitude
75°40'W
DSEL
Zhenyong Li
Notes
Water Quality Objective
EAST SECTION
TSS Removal (%)
80
Runoff Volume (%)
90
Upstream Storage
Drainage Area
Total Area (ha)
1.31
Imperviousness (%)
71
Storage
(ha-m)
0
Discharge
(L/s)
0
The Stormceptor System model STC 2000 achieves
the water quality objective removing 81% TSS for a
Fine (organics, silts and sand) particle size distribution
and 94% runoff volume.
Stormceptor Sizing Summary
Stormceptor Model
TSS Removal
Runoff Volume
%
65
75
76
76
81
82
85
85
88
91
90
92
%
73
88
88
88
94
94
97
97
99
100
100
100
STC 300
STC 750
STC 1000
STC 1500
STC 2000
STC 3000
STC 4000
STC 5000
STC 6000
STC 9000
STC 10000
STC 14000
5
Particle Size Distribution
Removing silt particles from runoff ensures that the majority of the pollutants, such as hydrocarbons and heavy
metals that adhere to fine particles, are not discharged into our natural water courses. The table below lists the
particle size distribution used to define the annual TSS removal.
µm
20
60
150
400
2000
%
20
20
20
20
20
Specific
Gravity
1.3
1.8
2.2
2.65
2.65
Fine (organics, silts and sand)
Settling
Velocity
m/s
µm
%
0.0004
0.0016
0.0147
0.1437
3.5923
Specific
Gravity
Settling
Velocity
m/s
Stormceptor Design Notes
•
Stormceptor performance estimates are based on simulations using PCSWMM for Stormceptor version 1.0
•
Design estimates listed are only representative of specific project requirements based on total suspended
solids (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
STC 750 to
Inlet Pipe Configuration
STC 300
STC 6000
Single inlet pipe
75 mm
25 mm
Multiple inlet pipes
75 mm
75 mm
STC 9000 to STC
14000
75 mm
Only one inlet
pipe.
•
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 submerged
applications, please contact your local Stormceptor representative.
•
Design estimates may be modified for specific spills controls. Please contact your local Stormceptor
representative for further assistance.
•
For pricing inquiries or assistance, please contact Imbrium Systems Inc., 1-800-565-4801.
6
Appendix 2
Summary of Design Assumptions
SITE DETAILS
Site Drainage Area
Total Area (ha)
1.31
Imperviousness (%)
Surface Characteristics
Width (m)
71
Infiltration Parameters
Horton’s equation is used to estimate infiltration
229
2
Max. Infiltration Rate (mm/h)
61.98
Impervious Depression Storage (mm)
0.508
Min. Infiltration Rate (mm/h)
10.16
Pervious Depression Storage (mm)
5.08
Decay Rate (s-1)
Impervious Manning’s n
0.015
Regeneration Rate (s-1)
Pervious Manning's n
0.25
Slope (%)
0.00055
0.01
Evaporation
Maintenance Frequency
Daily Evaporation Rate (mm/day)
Sediment build-up reduces the storage volume for
sedimentation. Frequency of maintenance is
assumed for TSS removal calculations.
Maintenance Frequency (months)
2.54
Dry Weather Flow
Dry Weather Flow (L/s)
12
No
Winter Months
Winter Infiltration
False
Upstream Attenuation
Stage-storage and stage-discharge relationship used to model attenuation upstream of the Stormceptor System is
identified in the table below.
Storage
ha-m
0
Discharge
L/s
0
7
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Removing fine particles from runoff ensures the majority of pollutants, such as heavy metals, hydrocarbons, free oils
and nutrients are not discharged into natural water resources. The table below identifies the particle size distribution
selected to define TSS removal for the design of the Stormceptor System.
Specific
Settling
Specific
Settling
Gravity
Velocity
Gravity
Velocity
µm
%
m/s
µm
%
m/s
20
20
1.3
0.0004
60
20
1.8
0.0016
150
20
2.2
0.0147
400
20
2.65
0.1437
2000
20
2.65
3.5923
Figure 1. PCSWMM for Stormceptor standard design grain size distributions.
8
TSS LOADING
TSS Loading Parameters
TSS Loading Function
Buildup / Washoff
Buildup/Washoff Parameters
TSS Availability Parameters
Target Event Mean Concentration
(EMC) (mg/L)
125
Exponential Buildup Power
0.4
Exponential Washoff Exponential
0.2
Availability = A + BiC
Availability Constant A
0.057
Availability Factor B
0.04
Availability Exponent C
1.1
Min. Particle Size Affected by
Availability (µm)
400
HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS
PCSWMM for Stormceptor calculates annual hydrology with the US EPA SWMM and local continuous historical
rainfall data. Performance calculations of the Stormceptor System are based on the average annual removal of TSS
for the selected site parameters. The Stormceptor System is engineered to capture fine particles (silts and sands) by
focusing on average annual runoff volume ensuring positive removal efficiency is maintained during all rainfall
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 observed in
the historical rainfall data analyses presented in this section.
Rainfall Station
Rainfall Station
OTTAWA MACDONALD-CARTIER INT'L A
Rainfall File Name
Latitude
Longitude
Elevation (m)
Rainfall Period of Record (y)
ON6000.NDC
45°19'N
75°40'W
371
37
Total Rainfall Period (y)
37
9
Total Number of Events
Total Rainfall (mm)
Average Annual Rainfall (mm)
Total Evaporation (mm)
Total Infiltration (mm)
Percentage of Rainfall that is
Runoff (%)
4536
20974.3
566. 9
1409.6
6064.3
64.8
Rainfall Event Analysis
Rainfall Depth
No. of Events
Percentage of
Total Events
Total Volume
%
mm
%
3563
508
223
102
60
33
28
9
5
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
78.5
11.2
4.9
2.2
1.3
0.7
0.6
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5667
4533
3434
2244
1704
1145
1165
416
272
63
64
76
0
84
0
0
0
109
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27.0
21.6
16.4
10.7
8.1
5.5
5.6
2.0
1.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
mm
6.35
12.70
19.05
25.40
31.75
38.10
44.45
50.80
57.15
63.50
69.85
76.20
82.55
88.90
95.25
101.60
107.95
114.30
120.65
127.00
133.35
139.70
146.05
152.40
158.75
165.10
171.45
177.80
184.15
190.50
196.85
203.20
209.55
>209.55
10
Percentage of
Annual Volume
Pollutograph
Flow Rate
Influent Mass
Effluent Mass
Total Mass
Cumulative Mass
L/s
kg
kg
kg
%
1
4
9
16
25
36
49
64
81
100
121
144
169
196
225
256
289
324
361
400
441
484
529
576
625
676
729
784
841
900
24907
48216
59366
63487
65366
66362
66900
67227
67418
67523
67563
67584
67597
67600
67600
67600
67600
67600
67600
67600
67600
67600
67600
67600
67600
67600
67600
67600
67600
67600
42793
19435
8261
4133
2254
1248
706
378
184
79
38
16
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
67600
67600
67600
67600
67600
67600
67600
67600
67600
67600
67600
67600
67600
67600
67600
67600
67600
67600
67600
67600
67600
67600
67600
67600
67600
67600
67600
67600
67600
67600
36.8
71.3
87.8
93.9
96.7
98.2
99.0
99.4
99.7
99.9
99.9
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
11
Cumulative Runoff Volume by Runoff Rate
Runoff Rate
Runoff Volume
Volume
Overflowed
Cumulative
Runoff Volume
L/s
m³
m³
%
1
4
9
16
25
36
49
64
81
100
121
144
169
196
225
256
289
324
361
400
441
484
529
576
625
676
729
784
841
900
34101
94672
134362
153649
163732
169668
173119
175243
176514
177345
177744
177916
178002
178027
178027
178027
178027
178027
178027
178027
178027
178027
178027
178027
178027
178027
178027
178027
178027
178027
143929
83351
43688
24377
14298
8358
4909
2784
1514
683
284
112
25
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19.2
53.2
75.5
86.3
92.0
95.3
97.2
98.4
99.1
99.6
99.8
99.9
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
12
Project Information
Date
1/14/2010
Project Name
Deerfield Village
Project Number
09-392
Location
1
Design Methodology
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Site parameters
Interevent periods
TSS load (Figure 2)
2
3
Stormceptor Model
TSS Removal (%)
STC 750
86
Drainage Area (ha)
Impervious (%)
0.42
71
4
Appendix 1
Project Information
Date
Rainfall
1/14/2010
Name
Project Name
Deerfield Village
Project Number
09-392
State
ON
Location
ID
6000
Years of Records
1967 to 2003
Company
Contact
Latitude
45°19'N
Longitude
75°40'W
DSEL
Zhenyong Li
Notes
NORTH SECTION
TSS Removal (%)
80
Runoff Volume (%)
90
Upstream Storage
Drainage Area
Total Area (ha)
0.42
Imperviousness (%)
71
Storage
(ha-m)
0
Discharge
(L/s)
0
The Stormceptor System model STC 750 achieves the
water quality objective removing 86% TSS for a Fine
(organics, silts and sand) particle size distribution and
98% runoff volume.
Stormceptor Model
TSS Removal
Runoff Volume
%
78
86
86
86
90
90
92
93
94
96
96
97
%
92
98
98
98
99
99
100
100
100
100
100
100
STC 300
STC 750
STC 1000
STC 1500
STC 2000
STC 3000
STC 4000
STC 5000
STC 6000
STC 9000
STC 10000
STC 14000
5
µm
20
60
150
400
2000
%
20
20
20
20
20
Specific
Gravity
1.3
1.8
2.2
2.65
2.65
Settling
Velocity
m/s
µm
%
0.0004
0.0016
0.0147
0.1437
3.5923
Specific
Gravity
Settling
Velocity
m/s
•
•
•
•
•
STC 750 to
STC 300
STC 6000
Single inlet pipe
75 mm
25 mm
75 mm
75 mm
STC 9000 to STC
14000
75 mm
Only one inlet
pipe.
•
•
•
•
6
Appendix 2
SITE DETAILS
Site Drainage Area
Total Area (ha)
0.42
Imperviousness (%)
Width (m)
71
130
2
61.98
0.508
10.16
5.08
Decay Rate (s-1)
0.015
0.25
Slope (%)
0.00055
0.01
Evaporation
2.54
Dry Weather Flow
12
No
Winter Months
Winter Infiltration
False
Storage
ha-m
0
Discharge
L/s
0
7
Specific
Settling
Specific
Settling
Gravity
Velocity
Gravity
Velocity
µm
%
m/s
µm
%
m/s
20
20
1.3
0.0004
60
20
1.8
0.0016
150
20
2.2
0.0147
400
20
2.65
0.1437
2000
20
2.65
3.5923
8
TSS LOADING
Buildup / Washoff
(EMC) (mg/L)
125
0.4
0.2
0.057
0.04
1.1
Availability (µm)
400
HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS
Rainfall Station
Rainfall Station
Rainfall File Name
Latitude
Longitude
Elevation (m)
ON6000.NDC
45°19'N
75°40'W
371
37
37
9
Total Rainfall (mm)
Runoff (%)
4537
20978.1
567. 0
1340.6
6064.6
65.2
Rainfall Depth
No. of Events
Percentage of
Total Events
Total Volume
%
mm
%
3564
508
223
102
60
33
28
9
5
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
78.6
11.2
4.9
2.2
1.3
0.7
0.6
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5671
4533
3434
2244
1704
1145
1165
416
272
63
64
76
0
84
0
0
0
109
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27.0
21.6
16.4
10.7
8.1
5.5
5.6
2.0
1.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
mm
6.35
12.70
19.05
25.40
31.75
38.10
44.45
50.80
57.15
63.50
69.85
76.20
82.55
88.90
95.25
101.60
107.95
114.30
120.65
127.00
133.35
139.70
146.05
152.40
158.75
165.10
171.45
177.80
184.15
190.50
196.85
203.20
209.55
>209.55
10
Percentage of
Annual Volume
Pollutograph
Flow Rate
Influent Mass
Effluent Mass
Total Mass
Cumulative Mass
L/s
kg
kg
kg
%
1
4
9
16
25
36
49
64
81
100
121
144
169
196
225
256
289
324
361
400
441
484
529
576
625
676
729
784
841
900
14077
20098
21378
21806
21973
22033
22049
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
8002
1963
678
248
80
20
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
22053
63.8
91.1
96.9
98.9
99.6
99.9
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
11
Runoff Rate
Runoff Volume
Volume
Overflowed
Cumulative
Runoff Volume
L/s
m³
m³
%
1
4
9
16
25
36
49
64
81
100
121
144
169
196
225
256
289
324
361
400
441
484
529
576
625
676
729
784
841
900
25992
46832
53292
55795
56829
57278
57396
57425
57425
57425
57425
57425
57425
57425
57425
57425
57425
57425
57425
57425
57425
57425
57425
57425
57425
57425
57425
57425
57425
57425
31442
10596
4134
1631
596
147
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45.3
81.6
92.8
97.2
99.0
99.7
99.9
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
12
Project Information
Date
1/14/2010
Project Name
Deerfield Village
Project Number
09-392
Location
1
Design Methodology
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Site parameters
Interevent periods
TSS load (Figure 2)
2
3
Stormceptor Model
TSS Removal (%)
STC 3000
80
Drainage Area (ha)
Impervious (%)
1.59
71
4
Appendix 1
Project Information
Date
Rainfall
1/14/2010
Name
Project Name
Deerfield Village
Project Number
09-392
State
ON
Location
ID
6000
Years of Records
1967 to 2003
Company
Contact
Latitude
45°19'N
Longitude
75°40'W
DSEL
Zhenyong Li
Notes
WEST SECTION
TSS Removal (%)
80
Runoff Volume (%)
90
Upstream Storage
Drainage Area
Total Area (ha)
1.59
Imperviousness (%)
71
Storage
(ha-m)
0
Discharge
(L/s)
0
The Stormceptor System model STC 3000 achieves
the water quality objective removing 80% TSS for a
Fine (organics, silts and sand) particle size distribution
and 92% runoff volume.
Stormceptor Model
TSS Removal
Runoff Volume
%
62
73
73
74
79
80
83
84
86
89
89
91
%
68
85
85
85
92
92
96
96
98
99
99
100
STC 300
STC 750
STC 1000
STC 1500
STC 2000
STC 3000
STC 4000
STC 5000
STC 6000
STC 9000
STC 10000
STC 14000
5
µm
20
60
150
400
2000
%
20
20
20
20
20
Specific
Gravity
1.3
1.8
2.2
2.65
2.65
Settling
Velocity
m/s
µm
%
0.0004
0.0016
0.0147
0.1437
3.5923
Specific
Gravity
Settling
Velocity
m/s
•
•
•
•
•
STC 750 to
STC 300
STC 6000
Single inlet pipe
75 mm
25 mm
75 mm
75 mm
STC 9000 to STC
14000
75 mm
Only one inlet
pipe.
•
•
•
•
6
Appendix 2
SITE DETAILS
Site Drainage Area
Total Area (ha)
1.59
Imperviousness (%)
Width (m)
71
252
2
61.98
0.508
10.16
5.08
Decay Rate (s-1)
0.015
0.25
Slope (%)
0.00055
0.01
Evaporation
2.54
Dry Weather Flow
12
No
Winter Months
Winter Infiltration
False
Storage
ha-m
0
Discharge
L/s
0
7
Specific
Settling
Specific
Settling
Gravity
Velocity
Gravity
Velocity
µm
%
m/s
µm
%
m/s
20
20
1.3
0.0004
60
20
1.8
0.0016
150
20
2.2
0.0147
400
20
2.65
0.1437
2000
20
2.65
3.5923
8
TSS LOADING
Buildup / Washoff
(EMC) (mg/L)
125
0.4
0.2
0.057
0.04
1.1
Availability (µm)
400
HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS
Rainfall Station
Rainfall Station
Rainfall File Name
Latitude
Longitude
Elevation (m)
ON6000.NDC
45°19'N
75°40'W
371
37
37
9
Total Rainfall (mm)
Runoff (%)
4536
20974.3
566. 9
1413.7
6063.7
64.7
Rainfall Depth
No. of Events
Percentage of
Total Events
Total Volume
%
mm
%
3563
508
223
102
60
33
28
9
5
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
78.5
11.2
4.9
2.2
1.3
0.7
0.6
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5667
4533
3434
2244
1704
1145
1165
416
272
63
64
76
0
84
0
0
0
109
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27.0
21.6
16.4
10.7
8.1
5.5
5.6
2.0
1.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
mm
6.35
12.70
19.05
25.40
31.75
38.10
44.45
50.80
57.15
63.50
69.85
76.20
82.55
88.90
95.25
101.60
107.95
114.30
120.65
127.00
133.35
139.70
146.05
152.40
158.75
165.10
171.45
177.80
184.15
190.50
196.85
203.20
209.55
>209.55
10
Percentage of
Annual Volume
Pollutograph
Flow Rate
Influent Mass
Effluent Mass
Total Mass
Cumulative Mass
L/s
kg
kg
kg
%
1
4
9
16
25
36
49
64
81
100
121
144
169
196
225
256
289
324
361
400
441
484
529
576
625
676
729
784
841
900
27665
54245
68847
74898
77586
79036
79865
80349
80657
80851
80959
81005
81030
81044
81051
81052
81052
81052
81052
81052
81052
81052
81052
81052
81052
81052
81052
81052
81052
81052
53555
26923
12278
6188
3488
2028
1196
707
397
202
93
47
22
7
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
81052
81052
81052
81052
81052
81052
81052
81052
81052
81052
81052
81052
81052
81052
81052
81052
81052
81052
81052
81052
81052
81052
81052
81052
81052
81052
81052
81052
81052
81052
34.1
66.9
84.9
92.4
95.7
97.5
98.5
99.1
99.5
99.8
99.9
99.9
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
11
Runoff Rate
Runoff Volume
Volume
Overflowed
Cumulative
Runoff Volume
L/s
m³
m³
%
1
4
9
16
25
36
49
64
81
100
121
144
169
196
225
256
289
324
361
400
441
484
529
576
625
676
729
784
841
900
35544
103309
153254
179879
193860
202345
207486
210738
212789
214106
214989
215443
215649
215757
215801
215808
215808
215808
215808
215808
215808
215808
215808
215808
215808
215808
215808
215808
215808
215808
180276
112492
62590
35924
21954
13461
8323
5069
3020
1702
820
365
159
51
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16.5
47.9
71.0
83.4
89.8
93.8
96.1
97.7
98.6
99.2
99.6
99.8
99.9
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
12
Adam Fobert
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Zhenyong Li [zli@dsel.ca]
Thursday, January 14, 2010 5:24 PM
'Adam Fobert'
'Kaca'; 'Steve Pichette'
FW: Our File: 09-392 Deerfield Village
Stormceptor Budgetary Costs 10-6-2009.pdf; PCSWMM STC Report WEST SECTION.pdf;
PCSWMM STC Report EAST SECTION.pdf; PCSWMM STC Report NORTH SECTION.pdf;
StormceptorOSR Sizing EAST SECTION.pdf; StormceptorOSR Sizing NORTH SECTION.pdf;
StormceptorOSR Sizing WEST SECTION.pdf; Imbrium-OSR-300 DWG.pdf; Imbrium-OSR-750
DWG.pdf; G2 Model (1).pdf; G5 Model (1).pdf; G6 Model (1).pdf
Hi Adam,
Please find the stormceptor sizing for three locations for your report preparation. This time, we will select as per the follows:
1. North section: OSR 300
2. West Section: OSR 750
3. East Section: OSR 750.
We will update the drawings accordingly as well.
Should you have any questions, please call.
Yours truly,
Zhenyong Li, M.Sc., P.Eng.
Manager of Detailed Design
!"#$%
600 Alden Road, Suite 500
Markham, ON L3R 0E7
phone: (905) 475-3080 ext.240
fax:
(905) 475-3081
email: zli@DSEL.ca
forwarded to you, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original.
!"#$%"#$%&'())*"+)%,-./01"23-4.$%56/7"89":4-%)0(;+)%,-./01<#$%&'())=1->&(><'(4?""
&'()%"@1A$&5-B*"C->A-$B"!D*"EF!F"D;GD"HI"
*#%",)%=5&/)<'-"
&+,-'.)%"J+;"KA$"L%)/;"FMNOME"#//$P%/)5"Q%))-6/
Good Afternoon Zhenyong
I have attached the Stormceptor OSR sizing reports as requested. I have also attached the Stormceptor STC reports for your
reference as I have generated different model sizes compared to your attachment. Contact me should you require anything
further.
Thank you and have a good night.
Elizabeth Driscoll
!
Technical Services
Hanson Pipe & Precast
R.R. #2
Cambridge, ON N1R 5S3
Tel: 888-888-3222 Ext: 233
Fax: 519-621-7750
Elizabeth.Driscoll@hanson.com
www.hansonpipeandprecast.com
!"Tread lightly...Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
!"#$%"#$%&$'(%)*"+&,"-.&/0%1)234"56""
&'()%"789%:)&;*"<&=9&%;">?*"!@>@"AB>!"6C"
*#%"D%1:E(,,*"F,1G&03$8"-.&/0%1)234"56"
&+,-'.)%"HIB"J9%"H1,3B"@KLMK!"D33%'13,)"N1,,&23
Can you please look after this?
Any problems let me know.
Thanks
Hal Stratford
Technical Resource Manager
Hanson Pipe & Precast
Cambridge Plant
Phone 888-888-3222 ext-238
Cell 226-220-3943
Fax 519-621-8233
hal.stratford@hanson.com
!"#$%"O83=;(=2"P1"Q/&1,$(BG,1R):3,SE&T""
&'()%"I3)=3:)&;*"<&=9&%;">M*"!@>@"!B!M"UC"
*#%"#$%&$'(%)*"+&,"-.&/0%1)234"56"
/.%"VW&E&VX"V6)&/"H(03%$V"
&+,-'.)%"J9%"H1,3B"@KLMK!"D33%'13,)"N1,,&23
Hi Hal,
Happy New Year!
Attached kindly find the Stormceptor design info for Deerfield Village site plan. Please provide your stormceptor and OSR
sizing analysis, including the report, drawings and quota, as you helped as all the times.
Please be advised this project is located in City of Ottawa. We will apply for the “Enhanced” treatment level and need the
sizing for each section (three in total).
As always, your prompt assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated.
Should you have any questions, please call.
Have a good day,
Yours truly,
Zhenyong Li, M.Sc., P.Eng.
Manager of Detailed Design
!"#$%
!
600 Alden Road, Suite 500
Markham, ON L3R 0E7
phone: (905) 475-3080 ext.240
fax:
(905) 475-3081
email: zli@DSEL.ca
forwarded to you, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original.
!
StormceptorOSR
Sizing Worksheet
Version 1.0
1. Project Information
Name
Project #
Location
Date
Project Information
Deerfield Village
09-392 EAST SECTION
Oakville, Ontario
14-Jan-10
Regional Information
Units
Affiliate
Site information
Runoff Capture Required
Drainage Area
Imperviousness
Rainfall Station used
Company
Name
Contact #
DSEL
Zhenyong Li
905-475-3080
OSR Model
OSR Model
Maximum Hydraulic Capacity
TSS Removal
Runoff Volume
OSR0750
39.9
89.6
95.9
Metric
1 - Hanson
L/s
%
%
StormceptorOSR TSS Removal
OSR0750
Runoff
Rate
Runoff
Volume
Volume
Overflowed
(L/s)
1
4
9
16
25
36
49
64
81
100
121
144
169
196
225
256
289
324
361
400
441
484
529
576
625
676
729
784
841
900
(cu. m)
34101
94672
134362
153649
163732
169668
173119
175243
176514
177345
177744
177916
178002
178027
178027
178027
178027
178027
178027
178027
178027
178027
178027
178027
178027
178027
178027
178027
178027
178027
(cu. m)
143929
83351
43688
24377
14298
8358
4909
2784
1514
683
284
112
25
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cumulative
Runoff
Volume
Runoff
Volume
Weighted
TSS
Removal
%
%
%
%
19.2
19.2
2.5%
100.0
19.2
53.2
34
10.0%
96.7
32.9
75.5
22.3
22.6%
93.1
20.8
86.3
10.8
40.1%
85.3
9.2
92
5.7
62.7%
76.7
4.4
95.3
3.3
90.2%
62.1
2.0
97.2
1.9
122.8%
45.4
0.9
98.4
1.2
160.4%
20.2
0.2
99.1
0.7
203.0%
0.0
0.0
99.6
0.5
250.6%
0.0
0.0
99.8
0.2
303.3%
0.0
0.0
99.9
0.1
360.9%
0.0
0.0
100
0.1
423.6%
0.0
0.0
100
0
491.2%
0.0
0.0
100
0
563.9%
0.0
0.0
100
0
641.6%
0.0
0.0
100
0
724.3%
0.0
0.0
100
0
812.0%
0.0
0.0
100
0
904.8%
0.0
0.0
100
0
1002.5%
0.0
0.0
100
0
1105.3%
0.0
0.0
100
0
1213.0%
0.0
0.0
100
0
1325.8%
0.0
0.0
100
0
1443.6%
0.0
0.0
100
0
1566.4%
0.0
0.0
100
0
1694.2%
0.0
0.0
100
0
1827.1%
0.0
0.0
100
0
1964.9%
0.0
0.0
100
0
2107.8%
0.0
0.0
100
0
2255.6%
0.0
0.0
AVERAGE ANNUAL TSS REMOVAL:
89.6
Operating
TSS
Rate
Removal
80
90
1.31
71
3 - OK-110
ON100
%
%
ha
%
#
StormceptorOSR
Sizing Worksheet
Version 1.0
Name
Project #
Location
Date
Project Information
Deerfield Village
09-392 NORTH SECTION
Oakville, Ontario
14-Jan-10
Units
Affiliate
Site information
Drainage Area
Imperviousness
Company
Name
Contact #
DSEL
Zhenyong Li
905-475-3080
OSR Model
OSR Model
TSS Removal
Runoff Volume
OSR0300
17.8
90.9
97.6
Metric
1 - Hanson
L/s
%
%
OSR0300
Runoff
Rate
Runoff
Volume
Volume
Overflowed
(L/s)
1
4
9
16
25
36
49
64
81
100
121
144
169
196
225
256
289
324
361
400
441
484
529
576
625
676
729
784
841
900
(cu. m)
25992
46832
53292
55795
56829
57278
57396
57425
57425
57425
57425
57425
57425
57425
57425
57425
57425
57425
57425
57425
57425
57425
57425
57425
57425
57425
57425
57425
57425
57425
(cu. m)
31442
10596
4134
1631
596
147
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cumulative
Runoff
Volume
Runoff
Volume
Weighted
TSS
Removal
%
%
%
%
45.3
45.3
5.6%
98.4
44.6
81.6
36.3
22.5%
93.1
33.8
92.8
11.2
50.6%
81.1
9.1
97.2
4.4
89.9%
64.6
2.8
99
1.8
140.4%
33.3
0.6
99.7
0.7
202.2%
0.0
0.0
99.9
0.2
275.3%
0.0
0.0
100
0.1
359.6%
0.0
0.0
100
0
455.1%
0.0
0.0
100
0
561.8%
0.0
0.0
100
0
679.8%
0.0
0.0
100
0
809.0%
0.0
0.0
100
0
949.4%
0.0
0.0
100
0
1101.1%
0.0
0.0
100
0
1264.0%
0.0
0.0
100
0
1438.2%
0.0
0.0
100
0
1623.6%
0.0
0.0
100
0
1820.2%
0.0
0.0
100
0
2028.1%
0.0
0.0
100
0
2247.2%
0.0
0.0
100
0
2477.5%
0.0
0.0
100
0
2719.1%
0.0
0.0
100
0
2971.9%
0.0
0.0
100
0
3236.0%
0.0
0.0
100
0
3511.2%
0.0
0.0
100
0
3797.8%
0.0
0.0
100
0
4095.5%
0.0
0.0
100
0
4404.5%
0.0
0.0
100
0
4724.7%
0.0
0.0
100
0
5056.2%
0.0
0.0
90.9
Operating
TSS
Rate
Removal
80
90
0.42
71
3 - OK-110
ON100
%
%
ha
%
#
StormceptorOSR
Sizing Worksheet
Version 1.0
Name
Project #
Location
Date
Project Information
Deerfield Village
09-392 WEST SECTION
Oakville, Ontario
14-Jan-10
Units
Affiliate
Site information
Drainage Area
Imperviousness
Company
Name
Contact #
DSEL
Zhenyong Li
905-475-3080
OSR Model
OSR Model
TSS Removal
Runoff Volume
OSR0750
39.9
87.7
94.5
Metric
1 - Hanson
L/s
%
%
OSR0750
Runoff
Rate
Runoff
Volume
Volume
Overflowed
(L/s)
1
4
9
16
25
36
49
64
81
100
121
144
169
196
225
256
289
324
361
400
441
484
529
576
625
676
729
784
841
900
(cu. m)
35544
103309
153254
179879
193860
202345
207486
210738
212789
214106
214989
215443
215649
215757
215801
215808
215808
215808
215808
215808
215808
215808
215808
215808
215808
215808
215808
215808
215808
215808
(cu. m)
180276
112492
62590
35924
21954
13461
8323
5069
3020
1702
820
365
159
51
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cumulative
Runoff
Volume
Runoff
Volume
Weighted
TSS
Removal
%
%
%
%
16.5
16.5
2.5%
100.0
16.5
47.9
31.4
10.0%
96.7
30.4
71
23.1
22.6%
93.1
21.5
83.4
12.4
40.1%
85.3
10.6
89.8
6.4
62.7%
76.7
4.9
93.8
4
90.2%
62.1
2.5
96.1
2.3
122.8%
45.4
1.0
97.7
1.6
160.4%
20.2
0.3
98.6
0.9
203.0%
0.0
0.0
99.2
0.6
250.6%
0.0
0.0
99.6
0.4
303.3%
0.0
0.0
99.8
0.2
360.9%
0.0
0.0
99.9
0.1
423.6%
0.0
0.0
100
0.1
491.2%
0.0
0.0
100
0
563.9%
0.0
0.0
100
0
641.6%
0.0
0.0
100
0
724.3%
0.0
0.0
100
0
812.0%
0.0
0.0
100
0
904.8%
0.0
0.0
100
0
1002.5%
0.0
0.0
100
0
1105.3%
0.0
0.0
100
0
1213.0%
0.0
0.0
100
0
1325.8%
0.0
0.0
100
0
1443.6%
0.0
0.0
100
0
1566.4%
0.0
0.0
100
0
1694.2%
0.0
0.0
100
0
1827.1%
0.0
0.0
100
0
1964.9%
0.0
0.0
100
0
2107.8%
0.0
0.0
100
0
2255.6%
0.0
0.0
87.7
Operating
TSS
Rate
Removal
80
90
1.59
71
3 - OK-110
ON100
%
%
ha
%
#
DESIGN BRIEF
)
Stanbec
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS FOR
SAWMILL CREEK ROAD CROSSING
LESTER ROAD SUBOIVlSION
*.
PrepaM
Canada Lands Gompaw LM.
Pnpar%dby:
S t e n t e c w n g Ltd.
1505 Lapenigre Ave.
OttPwa, oll@rio
K i t 7T1
February 4,2005
Ow hoJect No. 6o4ax90
Design Brief
Hydraulic Analysis for Sawmill Creek Road Crossing
1.0 Introduction
This design brief is prepared in support of the proposed Sawmill Creek bridge crossing,
which is required as part of the construction of Meandering Brook Street in the Lester
Subdivision. The crossing will consist of a 5.lm wide x 37m long cast-in-place concrete
bridge, as shown on the "Site Plan for Meandering Brook 'Hy-Span' Concrete Structure
and Tributary Realignment, CSCI" drawing.
Tributary realignment, improvements to fish habitat, rip-rap end treatment and erosion
and sediment controls are proposed as part of this project. The 1:lOOyr creek flow is to
be conveyed through the structure without adversely affecting upstream water levels or
floodplain function.
This report will describe the hydraulic design of the proposed structure and its effect on
existing water levels.
2.0 Design Flow Rates
Flow data was obtained from the Sawmill Creek Water Quality and Quantity Study by
A.J. Robinson & Associates, 1984. Cross sections of the creek in the vicinity of the
proposed crossing were determined from a recent topographic Survey, as presented on
drawing CSCI .
Table 10-1 of the A.J. Robinson study presents estimated existing and future peak flow
rates at various locations along Sawmill Creek for various return periods. These flow
rates are summarized in Table 1, below.
Values in table were obtained from the 'Sawmill Creek Water Quality and Quantity Study'. A.J. Robinson. 1984.
Meandering Brook Road will cross Sawmill Creek approximately 700m upstream of
Queensdale Avenue and just downstream from the re-aligned Tributary watercourse.
Flow rates at Meandering Brook Street were estimated by using values at the Tributary
since the station coincides with the proposed location of the crossing.
3.0 Hydraulic Analysis
Hydraulic gradelines were estimated for cross sections directly upstream and
downstream of the proposed bridge under existing and proposed conditions. Ministry of
Trans~ortationOntario (MTO) desian methods were followed for backwater
comp;tations at bridge bpenings (constricted open channel flow). In addition,
FlowMaster and CulvertMaster computer models were used to verify the values
produced from the MTO guidelines.
The following steps and assumptions were used in the analysis:
a topographic survey was conducted to establish existing ground elevations
upstream and downstream of the proposed structure.
cross sections were prepared and entered into the computer model.
the normal depth was selected to establish upstream and downstream boundary
conditions. The channel s l o ~ ewas estimated from t 0.~ 0-a r.a D hinformation.
i~
Manning roughness coefficients for the main channel (n=0.045, for natural winding
streams with some weeds and stones) was selected from published literature.
4.0 Results
Results from analysis indicate that the proposed structure will have negligible impact on
water levels in Sawmill Creek. Hydraulic losses created by the proposed structure are
expected to increase the water surface at the inlet of the structure by approximately 4cm
during the 1:100 year storms (future) and 2cm during the 5yr storms. Results of these 4
assessments are presented in the attached Appendix.
5.0 Conclusion
A 5.lm wide x 37m long concrete bridge crossing over Sawmill Creek is proposed as
part of the extension of Meandering Brook Road in the Lester Subdivision. Construction
of this structure will include tributary realignment, rip-rap treatment for inlet and outlet,
erosion and sediment controls and improvements to fish habitat. A complete fish habitat
assessment and recommendations were prepared by Niblett Environmental Associates
Inc. and it was reviewed and approved by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on
December 1,2004.
Hydraulic calculations indicate that the proposed structure will have negligible impact on
water levels in Sawmill Creek for storm events up to and including the 1:100 year design
storm.
Sincerely,
STANTEC CONSULTING LTD.
Matthew A. Ford, EIT
Urban Land
1AB1C2A'DE-AE>-!FA>->ABA
12-E+6
1&G(#G$"
IJGK"F*"L6
12-3
12-4
12-<
12-7
12-8
12-5
12-=
>12-:
12-9
12-3;
12-33
12-34
12-3<
12-37
12-38
12-35
12-3=
12-3:
12-39
12-4;
12-43
12-44
@!12-4<
@!12-47
@!12-48
12-45
445678
3986==
3<4693
95643
8469:
4;6;;
47868=
437673
3:;6;;
3386;;
586;;
<=657
486:;
476=;
37767:
3=76<5
3:96=7
?
==647
=5653
4<86:5
4396;3
33;634
7<6=7
3756=3
:76:5
976:;
98634
98678
98683
98659
9865=
986<=
976:8
9769=
9864;
9864:
986=5
98685
98684
98697
986:=
986:8
986==
986=;
986=3
976:;
976::
986<<
98659
986<8
97688
12-!"GH
D#L"J%-F*"L6
!"#$%&
'()"
9<6<;
9<654
9<698
976;3
97639
9763=
9<6:=
9<6<8
9<67=
9<6=;
9<6=:
97645
976;5
976;4
97677
976<=
9763;
9764=
9764;
97643
9<6<;
9<6<:
9<6:<
97639
9<6:8
9<6;8
=6;
<6;
<6;
<6;
<6;
<6;
436;
<6;
<6;
<6;
<6;
=6;
968
:68
<6;
<6;
4<68
346;
356;
4<6;
356;
<868
<868
<868
3968
3:6;
4;;
4;;
4;;
4;;
4;;
4;;
4;;
48;
4;;
4;;
4;;
4;;
4;;
4;;
4;;
4;;
48;
4;;
4;;
4;;
4;;
4;;
48;
48;
48;
4;;
!"GHD#L"J%-M'*+,"-./0 NG(#
36;
36;
36;
36;
36;
36;
36;
36;
36;
36;
36;
36;
36;
36;
36;
36;
36;
36;
36;
36;
36;
36;
36;
36;
36;
36;
9<64<
9<689
9<694
9<69:
97635
97637
9<655
9<6<4
9<677
9<65=
9<6=8
97639
9<69=
9<697
97673
976<7
9<6:=
97638
976;7
9<69:
9<637
9<6;<
9<67:
9<6:7
9<655
946:=