STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM DRAFT FINAL FOSTER DRIVE AREA SANITARY SERVICING AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CLASS EA

Transcription

1 The City of Committed to Total Service Excellence STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM DRAFT FINAL FOSTER DRIVE AREA SANITARY SERVICING AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CLASS EA April 2015 Revised November 2015 Technical Memorandum i Stormwater Management Assessment

2 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT TECHINCAL MEMORANDUM FOSTER DRIVE AREA - SANITARY SERVICING CLASS EA TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 BACKGROUND Introduction Study Area Objectives of the Technical Memorandum PHASE 1 PROBLEM OR OPPORTUNITY Problem Statement Drainage Deficiency Storm Sewers Deficiency Stormwater Quality Deficiency Stormwater Quantity/Erosion Control Deficiency STORMWATER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES Introduction Stormwater Quality Stormwater Erosion Control Stormwater Quantity Control (Flood Control) Catchment Areas Yonge Catchment Foster Catchment Lovers Catchment PCSWMM Modelling Predeveloped Condition PCSWMM Modelling Developed Condition PHASE 2 - ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS Alternative Solutions Alternative 1 Do-Nothing Alternative 2 Stormwater Management Wet Pond Alternative 3 Low Impact Development Alternative 4 Low Impact Development and Stormwater Management Dry Pond PROJECT ENVIRONMENT SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS Alternative Analysis Developable Lands Alternative 1 Do-Nothing Alternative 2 Stormwater Management Wet Pond Alternative 3 Low Impact Development Alternative 4 Low Impact Development and Stormwater Management Dry Pond Alternatives Analysis Property Acquisition Preliminary Cost Estimate Technical Memorandum ii Stormwater Management Assessment

3 7.0 PUBLIC CONSULTATION Public and Agency Comments SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Preferred Alternative Solution - Details IMPLEMENTATION Project Timing/Phasing Impacts and Mitigation General Impacts and Mitigation SWM outlet Impacts and Mitigation LIDs Design Considerations Investigation Requirements Approval Requirements Next Steps LIST OF TABLES Table 1 MOECC Water Quality Storage Requirements Table 2 Yonge Catchment Area Attributes Table 3 Foster and Lovers Catchment Area Attributes Table 4 Stormwater Management Improvement Opportunities Assessment of Alternatives Table 5 Alternative 2 Water Quality Treatment Levels Table 6 Alternative 4 Catchment Area Stormwater Management Table 7 Alternative 4 Predevelopment and Future Condition Peak Flow Control Table 8 Preliminary Cost Estimate Table 9 Alternatives Ranking Table 10 Preferred Alternative Predevelopment and Future Condition Peak Flow Control Table 11 Property Requirements Table 12 Mitigation Measures LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Existing Storm Infrastructure/Drainage Boundaries Figure 1A Contour Mapping Figure 1B Predevelopment Conditions Catchment Boundary Figure 1C Future Condition Catchment Boundary Figure 2 Alternative 2 Stormwater Management Wet Pond Figure 3 Alternative 3 Low Impact Development Figure 4 Alternative 4 Low Impact Development and Stormwater Management Dry Pond APPENDIX A COST ESTIMATES APPENDIX B STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CALCULATIONS APPENDIX C LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT DETAILS Technical Memorandum iii Stormwater Management Assessment

4 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 Introduction The following technical memorandum (memo) evaluating stormwater management improvements forms part of the Foster Area Sanitary Servicing and Stormwater Management Class EA (Foster Class EA Report). This memo shall be read in conjunction with the Foster Class EA Report; it will follow the guidelines for a Schedule B (Phase 1 and Phase 2) project contained in the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) dated October 2000 and as amended in 2007 and Please refer to the flow chart summarizing the Class EA process in the main body of the Foster Class EA report. As part of the Foster Area Class EA Report, the City of Barrie is examining stormwater management improvements that could be implemented with the preferred sanitary servicing alternative to address stormwater runoff, specifically quality, quantity and erosion control. The study area is located within both the Whiskey Creek and Lovers Creek subwatersheds. Currently, stormwater generated in the study area is uncontrolled. This study will examine the potential to provide stormwater management to a catchment that is approximately 22 ha (see Figure 1 and Figure 1A). The health of Lake Simcoe has suffered in recent years as a result of increased development and more intensive agricultural practices. The primary symptom of this damage is lack of dissolved oxygen in the lake as a result of excessive nutrients, specifically phosphorus. Excessive nutrients result in aggressive aquatic growth including algae and aquatic plants. As this growth decomposes it consumes dissolved oxygen (DO) in the water. Reduced DO levels impact cold water fish species the greatest since they tend to congregate in deeper waters where DO levels are naturally low. This has resulted in significant negative impacts to populations of cold water fish species such as Lake Trout, Lake Herring and Lake Whitefish. Both rural and urban runoff contribute to this problem. From an urban perspective, untreated runoff is a source of these nutrients. In addition, uncontrolled runoff contributes to increased erosion. The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP) designated specific strategic actions that municipalities are to undertake to improve the health of Lake Simcoe. The LSPP encourages municipalities to identify and implement stormwater management retrofit ponds (or equivalent stormwater management infrastructure) into existing developed areas that do not have stormwater management infrastructure. 1.2 Study Area Please refer to the main body of the Foster Class EA report. 1.3 Objectives of the Technical Memorandum The overall objective of this memo is to document the planning process for stormwater management improvements for the study area. The objectives of this updated report are as follows: To prepare a detailed description of the problem; To establish alternatives solutions to address the problem; Technical Memorandum 1 Stormwater Management Assessment

5 Reference the detailed inventory of the natural, social, cultural and economic environment completed as part of the Foster Class EA report; To screen the impact of the alternatives on the environment; To establish mitigative measures to minimize potential environmental effects; To document public input and comments generated from the upcoming public information centre (PIC); To address any concerns that are raised; To develop the preferred alternative in consideration of comments received; To document Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA process within the Foster Class EA report; and To outline the remaining steps involved in the planning and design for the implementation of stormwater management improvements to the study area in conjunction with the preferred sanitary servicing alternative. Technical Memorandum 2 Stormwater Management Assessment

6

7

8 2.0 PHASE 1 PROBLEM OR OPPORTUNITY 2.1 Problem Statement The Foster Area including Foster Drive, Merrett Drive, Yeates Avenue, Garson Street and MacLaren Avenue (between Foster Drive and Little Avenue) does not have stormwater infrastructure; runoff generated from this area flows uncontrolled and untreated to Kempenfelt Bay via Whiskey Creek and Lovers Creek. The release of uncontrolled stormwater may be contributing to erosion occurring on Whiskey Creek downstream of Yonge Street. 2.2 Drainage Deficiency Existing surface flows from rainfall events are directed to roadside ditches within the study area. As part of their normal function, these ditches have partially filled with sediment over time. Routine ditch cleanout and re-grading should be considered Storm Sewers Deficiency There are no storm sewers within the study area. Currently, stormwater runoff is routed through the study area via roadside ditches, culverts or as overland flow Stormwater Quality Deficiency There are no stormwater quality facilities servicing the study area (with the exception of Yonge Street between Little Avenue and Foster Drive, which is treated by oil grit separators located within the municipal right-of-way). Untreated urban runoff is a potential source of pollutants Stormwater Quantity/Erosion Control Deficiency There are no stormwater quantity facilities servicing the study area. Stormwater runoff generated from the study area flows uncontrolled into receiving watercourses without engineered controls to limit this flow to predevelopment conditions. Development within a watershed results in increased peak flows as compared to predevelopment conditions due to the increased amount of impervious areas. This increase in peak flows overwhelms the natural conveyance capacity of a watercourse and results in erosion. The implementation of engineered controls limits peak flows to predevelopment levels providing protection from erosion. Currently, erosion is occurring on Whiskey Creek downstream of Yonge Street. 2.3 Opportunity Statement The City of Barrie is committed to improving the water quality in creeks flowing to Lake Simcoe and implementation of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. Where possible and subject to available budgets, the City implements stormwater management retrofits in areas currently not served by a stormwater management system/facility. As part of the preferred sanitary servicing alternative; the opportunity exists to implement stormwater management within the study area. 3.0 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES Technical Memorandum 5 Stormwater Management Assessment

9 3.1 Introduction The following section outlines stormwater management objectives. As this is considered a stormwater retrofit, municipalities make best efforts to achieve enhanced stormwater quality treatment where feasible. Due to site constraints, including limited area for a stormwater management facility, reduced treatment levels may be implemented. A description of the catchment areas within the study area is included (see Section 3.5) which details the predevelopment and existing conditions used for this study. 3.2 Stormwater Quality As per the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual (2003), water quality protection is required since Lake Simcoe is identified as a sensitive aquatic habitat. The following table outlines the required water quality storage requirements for different water quality protection levels. All stormwater management facilities for new development is required to provide enhanced level protection as per the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP, 4.9 DP). Table 1 MOECC Water Quality Storage Requirements Protection SWMP Type Storage Volume (m 3 /ha) for Impervious Level Level 35% 55% 70% 85% Enhanced Infiltration % long-term S.S. removal Wet Pond Normal Infiltration % long-term S.S. removal Wet Pond Infiltration Wet Pond Basic 60% long-term S.S. removal Dry Pond (Continuous Flow) Table 3.2, MOECC Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual 1) Of the specified storage volume for wet facilities, 40m 3 /ha is extended detention, while the remainder represents the permanent pool. 3.3 Stormwater Erosion Control The City of Barrie Storm Drainage and Stormwater Management Policies and Design Guidelines require developments greater than 5 ha capture and store the 25 mm 4 hr Chicago storm and release over a minimum 24 hour period. This control requirement protects watercourses from erosion by requiring that the stormwater runoff generated up to this design storm is stored within the pond and slowly released over a 24 hour period. 3.4 Stormwater Quantity Control (Flood Control) The City of Barrie Storm Drainage and Stormwater Management Policies and Design Guidelines requires that stormwater runoff from new development not exceed the predevelopment rates for up to the 100 year critical storm event. The development/site must include an overland flow route to contain and route the larger of the 100 year critical storm or the regional storm (Hurricane Hazel design storm within LSRCA boundary) to the receiving watercourse. Technical Memorandum 6 Stormwater Management Assessment

10 3.5 Catchment Areas The following table identifies the stormwater catchments (refer to Figure 1, 1A, 1B, 1C) included in the evaluation of alternatives including the attributes of the catchment for the predevelopment and developed conditions. Predevelopment conditions were based on 1954 aerial photography. The study area was primarily pasture/hay crops with Yonge Street and Foster Drive as the only existing roads at that time. There was limited development concentrated along Yonge Street and a small number of residential units on Foster Drive. The developed condition is based on existing conditions with an allowance for increased imperviousness to account for urbanization of relevant study area streets. Technical Memorandum 7 Stormwater Management Assessment

11

12

13 3.5.1 Yonge Catchment The Yonge Street catchment flows southerly via storm sewers to a direct connection to the Whiskey Creek culvert under Yonge Street. This stormwater is currently treated using oil grit separators (OGS) designed to provide enhanced level protection. There are three municipal and one private OGS devices installed in this catchment. There is no quantity or erosion control for this catchment. This catchment contains Hydrologic Group B soils (Simcoe County soils mapping) Foster Catchment The Foster Catchment area includes the majority of the study area. The topography naturally slopes from southeast to northwest. Outside of the Yonge Street catchment, stormwater is intercepted by the Foster Drive roadside swales and the drainage swale along the south side of the Metrolinx Corridor where stormwater flows in a northwest direction to Whiskey Creek. There is currently no stormwater control for this catchment. This catchment primarily contains Hydrologic Group B soils. Group A soils exist near the north end of the catchment (Simcoe County soils mapping) Lovers Catchment The Lovers Catchment area includes a small portion of the study area near MacLaren Avenue and Little Avenue. Stormwater is captured by storm sewers installed on Little Avenue. These flows are directed eastward on Little Avenue to the Metrolinx rail corridor where they continue via swale/overland flow to Lover s Creek. There is no stormwater control for this catchment. This catchment contains Hydrologic Group B soils (Simcoe County soils mapping) PCSWMM Modelling Predeveloped Condition Predevelopment conditions are typically modelled as the present condition to determine the additional storm runoff generated from increased imperviousness as a result of a proposed development/redevelopment or general increase in imperviousness. For this study, the predevelopment condition utilized was based on 1954 aerial imagery as a conservative approach. Alternatively, if the predeveloped condition was considered as the existing condition, a higher return storm period could be controlled, but the overall SWMF volume would not change as this SWMF is being sized based on existing site and property constraints PCSWMM Modelling Developed Condition For the Foster and Lovers catchments impervious values have been selected from Table 7.6 in the City s Storm Drainage and Stormwater Management Policies and Design Guidelines (Design Guideline). For the Foster and Lovers catchments; these values are higher than existing conditions, but reflect a typical urban environment with urbanized roads and sidewalks. This is appropriate for the developed condition. Subcatchments F6_DEV, F7_DEV, F9_DEV have been modelled in their present state (F6_DEV, F7_DEV meadow, F9_DEV - forest). Any development will be required to maintain predevelopment runoff. For the Yonge catchment, the impervious values have been approximated based on existing land use as this area is outside of the proposed construction area and is Technical Memorandum 10 Stormwater Management Assessment

14 remaining in its existing condition. Subcatchments located outside the municipal right-ofway will become more impervious if redevelopment occurs. Those subcatchments are S3B, S4C and S5C. Subcatchment S6C is developable land and has been modelled in its present state (meadow). Any development or redevelopment will be required to maintain predevelopment runoff and achieve the necessary stormwater management targets as required by the City of Barrie and LSRCA. Technical Memorandum 11 Stormwater Management Assessment

15 Table 2 Yonge Catchment Attributes Catchment Area (ha) Description % Impervious CN Value Catchment Area (ha) Description % Impervious (2015) % Impervious (used in model) 2 CN Value Outlet Yonge Street Catchment Predevelopment Developed S1A 1.39 Rural ROW S Urban ROW Whiskey S1B 0.40 Rural ROW S Urban ROW Whiskey S1C 0.41 Rural ROW S3A 0.35 Urban ROW Whiskey S1D 0.48 Rural ROW S3B 0.51 Commercial Whiskey S1E 0.59 Rural ROW S4A 0.18 Urban ROW Whiskey S Meadow good condition S4B 0.21 Urban ROW Whiskey S Pasture good condition 5 61 S4C 0.95 Commercial, but primarily undeveloped Whiskey S Pasture good condition 5 61 S5A 0.15 Urban ROW Whiskey S Pasture good condition 5 61 S5B 0.18 Urban ROW Whiskey TOTAL Imperviousness values to be reviewed as part of detailed design. S5C 1.11 Commercial Whiskey S6A 0.12 Urban ROW Whiskey S6B 0.22 Urban ROW Whiskey S6C 1.02 Meadow good condition Whiskey S7A 0.08 Urban ROW Whiskey S7B 0.28 Urban ROW Whiskey S7C 0.09 Urban ROW Whiskey S Urban ROW Whiskey Technical Memorandum Stormwater Management Assessment Apr

16 Table 3 Foster and Lovers Catchment Attributes Catchment Area (ha) Description % Impervious CN Value Catchment Area (ha) Description % Impervious (2015) % Impervious (used in model) 2 CN Value Outlet Foster Area Catchment Predevelopment Developed F Rural ROW, Pasture 5 61 F Residential, 0.15 acre lots Whiskey F Pasture 0 39 F Residential, 0.15 acre lots Whiskey L Pasture 0 61 F Residential, 0.15 acre lots Whiskey F Residential, 0.15 acre lots Whiskey F Residential, 0.15 acre lots Whiskey F6_DEV Meadow future development property Whiskey F7_DEV Meadow future development property Whiskey F Residential, primarily rear yards and park Whiskey F9_DEV Forest future development property Whiskey F Residential, 0.15 acre lots Whiskey F Residential, 0.15 acre lots Whiskey F Residential, 0.25 acre lots Whiskey F Residential, 0.25 acre lots Whiskey F Residential, 0.15 acre lots Whiskey F Commercial, McDonalds/Midas Whiskey F Residential, 0.15 acre lots Whiskey Subtotal Foster L Residential, 0.15 acre lots Lovers L Residential, 0.15 acre lots Lovers L Residential, 0.15 acre lots Lovers L Residential, 0.15 acre lots Lovers Subtotal Lovers 2.13 TOTAL Catchment areas represent developable land it is the developer s responsibility to implement SWM to address the increased imperviousness (as compared to pre-development conditions) as a result of development. 2 Imperviousness values will be reviewed as part of detailed design. Existing impervious values do not account for urbanization of Foster Drive, Merrett Drive, Garson Street, Yeates Avenue, MacLaren Avenue (i.e. existing impervious values (2015) will increase). Technical Memorandum Stormwater Management Assessment Apr

17 4.0 PHASE 2 - ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS Integral to this planning process is the development of alternative solutions to correct the noted deficiencies. The alternatives presented in this section are potential solutions to address lack of stormwater infrastructure. 4.1 Alternative Solutions This section will identify the alternative solutions to the problems statement. There is usually more than one way to solve a problem. Therefore, the preferred solution may involve a combination of the following alternative solutions, which are all reasonable and feasible. All alternatives include the installation of a storm sewer conveyance system which is typically installed as part of road urbanization (roads with curbs and gutters require storm sewers) Alternative 1 Do-Nothing The Do-Nothing alternative allows for the consideration of allowing stormwater runoff to discharge from the study area uncontrolled. This alternative provides a benchmark to gauge the environmental effect of allowing the uncontrolled and untreated release of stormwater from the study area Alternative 2 Stormwater Management Wet Pond Alternative 2 (see Figure 2) will provide stormwater quality treatment by routing stormwater runoff from the Foster catchment into a stormwater management wet pond. Stormwater management ponds are constructed to control runoff from urbanized areas. Traditionally, these facilities are designed to provide stormwater quality treatment, quantity and erosion control from urbanized areas to match the predevelopment condition. Quantity and erosion is controlled by storing stormwater (up to a specified storm event) within the pond and releasing it at rates comparable to the predevelopment condition. Treatment is achieved by sizing the facility sufficiently, thereby slowing flows and providing sufficient time for suspended solids to settle out of the stormwater. Suspended solids are a primary transport mechanism for pollutants. Stormwater management ponds are located at the most downstream area within a specified catchment as the goal is to capture and treat the entire catchment area and be able to discharge to a watercourse or storm sewer. For this study area, the stormwater management pond is proposed to be located at 202 and 204 Foster Drive with an outlet through the northeast portion of 201 Minet s Point Road. This location is the most downstream point in the study area/catchment area and is adjacent to Whiskey Creek (receiving watercourse). This alternative is intended to provide water quality control to the Foster catchment. Subject to available budgets, if selected as the preferred alternative, the City would seek to acquire 202 and 204 Foster Drive and a permanent easement through 201 Minet s Point Road for the pond outlet. Technical Memorandum 14 Stormwater Management Assessment

18

19 4.1.3 Alternative 3 Low Impact Development Alternative 3 (see Figure 3) will implement LID practices within the existing road right-ofway to provide stormwater quality treatment (for both the Foster and Lovers catchments). LID is a stormwater management strategy that seeks to mitigate the impacts of increased runoff and stormwater pollution by managing runoff as close to its source as possible. LID comprises a set of site design strategies that minimize runoff and distributed, small scale structural practices that mimic natural or predevelopment hydrology through the processes of infiltration, evapotranspiration, harvesting, filtration and detention of stormwater. These practices can effectively remove nutrients, pathogens and metals from runoff, and they reduce the volume and intensity of stormwater flows (U.S. EPA, 2007). Specific LID practices that form part of this alternative consist of infiltration trenches and perforated pipe systems located within the public right-of-way. Infiltration/Swale systems direct runoff generated from pervious areas to very shallow grassed swales and allowed to infiltrate through a soil layer into the infiltration trench. Perched inlets are provided to accommodate larger storm events. Stormwater that does not infiltrate into the ground and exceeds the storage in the infiltration trench (volume between perforated pipe invert and bottom of trench) will enter into the perforated pipe and discharge to a traditional stormwater system. The following figure illustrates a typical infiltration trench with a perched perforated pipe underdrain. Infiltration Swale. Source: Credit Valley Conservation Authority, Low Impact Development Stormwater Management Planning and Design Guide - Paul Wisner and Associates, 1994 An alternative LID practice is a perforated pipe system that allows stormwater to exit the stormwater pipe and infiltrate into the ground. This type of system is frequently referred to as the Etobicoke Exfiltration System (EES) as it was one of the first pilot projects utilizing a perforated pipe sewer system and is located in Etobicoke. The system is uniquely suited for urbanized roadways with constrained boulevard areas. The following figure is an illustration of the EES. Technical Memorandum 16 Stormwater Management Assessment

20 Etobicoke Exfiltration System (EES). Source: Technical Memorandum 17 Stormwater Management Assessment

21

22 4.1.4 Alternative 4 Low Impact Development and Stormwater Management Dry Pond Alternative 4 (see Figure 4) will implement low impact development (LID) practices (see Alternative 3) within the road right-of-way in the Foster and Lovers catchments to provide stormwater quality treatment and include a traditional end-of-pipe stormwater management dry pond to provide quantity and erosion control for the Foster catchment and Yonge catchment. The stormwater management dry pond will be located using the same rationale as Alternative 2. The proposed located of the pond is at 202 and 204 Foster Drive with an outlet through the northeast portion of 201 Minet s Point Road. This location is the most downstream point in the study area/catchment area and is adjacent to Whiskey Creek (receiving watercourse). Subject to available budgets, if selected as the preferred alternative, the City would seek to acquire 202 and 204 Foster Drive and a permanent easement through 201 Minet s Point Road for the pond outlet. Technical Memorandum 19 Stormwater Management Assessment

23

24 5.0 PROJECT ENVIRONMENT This project environment provides a description of the physical, social, cultural and economic environment for the study area and is detailed in the Foster Class EA report. Additional evaluation criteria specific to this memo are identified in Section 6.0, Table 4 Stormwater Management Improvement Opportunities Assessment of Alternatives. 6.0 SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS The alternatives developed in Section 4 to correct the deficiencies noted in Section 2 are screened in Table 4. The assessment process compares the alternatives to address the opportunity statement in a comprehensive manner by ensuring that the conclusions and recommendations are reached in a clear and logical fashion, and that all environmental issues sensitive to each undertaking are given thorough consideration. This assessment has been based on the work undertaken to-date. Technical Memorandum 21 Stormwater Management Assessment

25 Table 4 Stormwater Management Improvement Opportunities Assessment of Alternatives Criteria How the Criteria is Being Assessed Weight Alternative 1 Do Nothing (uncontrolled discharge to receiving waters) Physical and Natural Environment Catchment Area 1 developable land is only considered in its existing condition (meadow). Development is responsible for their own SWM system for quality, quantity and erosion control. Extent of area that the stormwater management facility can control and treat. 5 No facility, therefore no catchment area. 0.0 Ha Alternative 2 Stormwater Management Wet Pond (Quality) Provides stormwater quality treatment for the foster Catchment (includes undeveloped lands in their natural state) Ha 1 Alternative 3 Low Impact Development Provides stormwater quality treatment for the Foster and Lovers catchments Ha 1 Alternative 4 Low Impact Development and Stormwater Management Dry Pond (Quantity and Erosion) LIDs will provide stormwater quality treatment for Foster and Lovers catchments. SWM dry pond will provide quantity and erosion control for Foster and Yonge catchments Ha 1 Qualtiy via LID 14.4 Ha Ha Quantity/Erosion via Dry Pond Stormwater Quality/Quantity/Erosion Control Fisheries & Aquatic Habitat Opportunity to provide water quality treatment as per MOECC requirements (Enhanced Protection Level), quantity control (flood protection) and erosion control. Opportunity to improve fisheries and aquatic habitat in receiving waters. 5 4 Provides no stormwater quality treatment, quantity or erosion control. No opportunity to improve fisheries and aquatic habitat through water quality treatment. Provides basic level quality treatment only with limited quantity and erosion control. Provides opportunity to improve fisheries and aquatic habitat through water quality treatment. Provides quality treatment only potential enhanced level* Provides opportunity to improve fisheries and aquatic habitat through water quality treatment. Provides quality treatment (potential enhanced level*) and limited quantity and erosion control. Provides opportunity to improve fisheries and aquatic habitat through water quality treatment and rate control. Groundwater Resources Opportunity to increase infiltration quantities to help restore groundwater levels (indirectly assists in maintaining cold water base flow). 3 Provides limited opportunity to infiltrate stormwater and help restore the natural water balance. Provides limited opportunity to implement infiltration gallery at stormwater pond site. Provides opportunity to infiltrate stormwater (study area primarily Hydrologic Group B soils). Provides opportunity to infiltrate stormwater (study area primarily Hydrologic Group B soils). Municipal and Private Utilities (water, san, stm, telecommunications, cable, natural gas) Potential impacts and degree of such to overhead and underground utilities. 1 No impact on existing utilities. No impact on existing utilities. Utilities will be located outside of LID practice to mitigate impacts. Utilities will be located outside of LID practice to mitigate impacts. Private Property Impacts Potential impacts and degree of such to the natural environment that exists on the private properties where the SWM pond is proposed to be located. 3 No impact on natural environment located on private properties. Minor impacts to forested area along Whiskey Creek to construct SWM pond and outfall. No impact on natural environment located on private properties. Minor impacts to forested area along Whiskey Creek to construct SWM pond and outfall. Subtotal Technical Memorandum Stormwater Management Assessment 22

26 Criteria How the Criteria is Being Assessed Alternative 1 Do Nothing (uncontrolled discharge to receiving waters) Social Environment No property required. Property Required property to implement stormwater management alternative. 3 Alternative 2 Stormwater Management Wet Pond Property required. 202, 204 Foster Drive. Easement through 201 Minet s Point Road. Alternative 3 Low Impact Development Alternative will utilize area within the existing/proposed right-of-way. Alternative 4 Low Impact Development and Stormwater Management Dry Pond Property required. 202, 204 Foster Drive. Easement through 201 Minet s Point Road. Subtotal Cultural/Heritage Environment No impacts. Potential for impacts. Stage 2 Potential for impacts. Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment is required Archaeological Assessment is required and will be completed as part of and will be completed as part of detailed design. detailed design. Archaeological / Heritage Resources Potential Impacts to Archaeological Resources. 3 Potential for impacts. Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment is required and will be completed as part of detailed design. Subtotal Economic Environment No water quality treatment Additional cost for LIDs in study area infrastructure (over traditional storm sewers) Construction Cost (water quality treatment elements only) Associated capital costs to implement the alternative. 3 $0 Cost to construct stormwater management pond and property acquisition cost. $1,300,000 $550,000 Cost to construct stormwater management pond, LIDs and property acquisition cost. $1,900,000 Maintenance Cost Associated maintenance costs to operate the alternative. 3 No direct maintenance cost, but continued release of uncontrolled and untreated flows to Whiskey and Lovers Creeks resulting in erosion requiring capital repairs and phosphorus offset projects elsewhere. Annual cost to maintain fencing/trim vegetation. Sediment removal required as per design. Annual cost to maintain LID (street sweeping, possible removal of accumulated sediments in shallow swales). Reconstruction required at end of life cycle (frequency dependent on design) Annual cost to maintain LID (street sweeping, possible removal of accumulated sediments in shallow swales). Reconstruction required at end of life cycle (frequency dependent on design) Annual cost to maintain fencing/trim vegetation. Sediment removal if required. Subtotal Overall Score Neutral Rank: No significant change between alternatives *Enhanced level treatment pending detailed design/additional geotechnical/hydrogeological investigations. Positive Rank: Fully shaded circle indicates greatest positive effect (+1 to +4) Negative Rank: Fully shaded circle indicates greatest negative effect (-1 to -4) Technical Memorandum Stormwater Management Assessment 23

27 6.1 Alternative Analysis Developable Lands 223, 237 Foster Drive and 357 Yonge Street are currently undeveloped and in the existing condition consist of meadow lands (223 Foster Drive and 357 Yonge Street) and forest (237 Foster Drive). If these lands were to develop, the responsibility of the developer would include the provision of stormwater management as required by the City of Barrie and LSRCA (quantity, erosion, quality, water balance, phosphorus). These lands, in their present form generate runoff, but at a much lower rate due to their low level of imperviousness. The following stormwater management alternatives will include these areas for quantity/erosion control in their existing, non-developed condition only. These areas will not be considered for stormwater quality treatment as these areas are in an undeveloped/semi-natural state Alternative 1 Do-Nothing Alternative 1 will have a greatest number of significant negative effects on the environment as no engineered stormwater controls are in place to mitigate the effects of development as compared to predevelopment conditions. The risk of downstream flooding is not reduced. The urbanization of streets within the study area and any increase in impervious areas through new development or repurposing property previously used for septic systems will further exacerbate the existing negative effects resulting from the release of untreated and uncontrolled stormwater. The continued release of untreated and uncontrolled stormwater does have an associated cost including the repair of erosion damage and environmental damage to Kempenfelt Bay/Lake Simcoe and Whiskey Creek Alternative 2 Stormwater Management Wet Pond Alternative 2 will service the Foster catchment (12.4 ha). This alternative has a positive effect on the natural environment by improving fisheries and the aquatic environment by reducing phosphorus and sediment loadings from stormwater runoff generated in this catchment through the implementation of a wet pond with sediment forebay. Excluding the developable lands, the existing condition is approximately 28% impervious. Assuming a 20% increase in imperviousness to account for urbanization; imperviousness increases to 33%. The required storage volumes for different levels of treatment as per MOECC criteria (using 35% impervious) and excluding developable parcels (12.4 ha less 3.6 ha = 8.8ha): Table 5 Alternative 2 Water Quality Treatment Levels Treatment Level 35% Impervious Level Storage Enhanced m 3 /ha Normal - 90 m 3 /ha Basic 60 m 3 /ha Components Total Storage 1232 m m m 3 Requirements Extended Detention 352 m m m 3 Permanent Pool 880 m m m 3 Technical Memorandum 24 Stormwater Management Assessment

28 Foster Catchment: net of development property = 8.8 ha; quality calculation includes catchments F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F8, F10, F11, F12, F13, F14, F15, F16 Due to unfavourable geometry, the permanent pool would be inadequate to provide enhanced level treatment. Depending on the forebay arrangement, only basic level treatment may be achievable in the present condition. It is anticipated that urbanization of the study area streets will result in impervious levels approaching 50%. Using MOECC required storage volumes; a permanent pool of 308m 3 would be required for basic level treatment. It is not anticipated that there would be sufficient capacity in the permanent pool to achieve basic level treatment when urbanization is considered. Preliminary modeling indicates the SWM facility can provide quantity control for the 2 year critical storm event with backwater effects into the minor system. This alternative has significant private property impacts as the stormwater management pond requires the acquisition of 202 and 204 Foster Drive for the SWMF wet pond and a permanent easement through 201 Minet s Point Road for the SWMF outlet. The portion of 201 Minet s Point Road and most of 202 Foster Drive fall within Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) regulation boundaries. This restricts future redevelopment opportunities. The estimated capital cost for the SWM facility is $1,300,000 (see Appendix A for further details) equating to approximately $100,000 per hectare for this alternative. This alternative is ranked second highest in total cost and highest on a per hectare basis. Please refer to Appendix A for detailed cost calculations Alternative 3 Low Impact Development Alternative 3 will service the Foster (12.4 ha) and Lovers (2.1 ha) catchment areas (includes developable lands in their undeveloped condition) by providing stormwater quality treatment through the use of low impact development (LID) practices (refer to Figure 3). This alternative has a positive effect on the natural environment by improving fisheries and the aquatic environment by providing stormwater treatment, thus reducing phosphorus and sediment loadings from stormwater runoff generated in this catchment. This alternative will improve stormwater infiltration through the use of infiltrating LID practices thus helping to replenish groundwater levels, which in turn, supply cold water baseflows to Whiskey Creek and Lovers Creek. LID practices will be sized to capture and infiltrate (pending detailed geotechnical investigations) the 90 th percentile storm event from impervious surfaces. This equates to greater than 80% enhanced treatment level. LIDs will provide limited quantity control as they are typically sized to capture the 90 th percentile storm event. Any storm event larger than the 90 th percentile event will by-pass the LID practice and flow uncontrolled to the receiving watercourses. LID practice selection and final sizing to be confirmed during detailed design. The implementation of LIDs could be considered during the design of the minor storm system, which could potentially result in a reduction in conveyance infrastructure (minor system only) due to the attenuation/infiltration provided by LIDs (i.e. allow smaller sewer diameters). It is recommended that the City further discuss this concept as impacts from climate change that will occur during the approximately 100 year sewer life is unknown. Technical Memorandum 25 Stormwater Management Assessment

29 The estimated capital cost for the LID practices is $500,000 equating to approximately $35,000 per hectare for this alternative. This alternative is ranked lowest in total cost and lowest on a per hectare basis. Please refer to Appendix A for detailed cost calculations Alternative 4 Low Impact Development and Stormwater Management Dry Pond Alternative 4 will service the Foster catchment (12.4 ha quality/quantity/erosion) and the Yonge catchment (7.7 ha quantity/erosion) and Lovers Creek (2.1 ha quality) catchment areas by providing stormwater quality treatment through the use of low impact development (LID) practices and stormwater quantity and erosion control through the construction of a stormwater management dry pond (refer to Figure 4). These catchments include developable lands in their undeveloped condition. Stormwater management dry ponds provide stormwater quantity (flooding) and erosion control. The following tables outline the treatment and control opportunities corresponding with this alternative: Table 6 Alternative 4 Catchment Area Stormwater Management Catchment Area Quality Treatment Quantity Control Erosion Control Foster yes LID yes dry pond yes dry pond Lovers yes LID limited 1 limited 1 Yonge yes - existing OGS system yes dry pond yes dry pond OGS oil grit separator underground device that separates sediments and oil from stormwater flows. The separated oil and sediment are removed from the chamber on a regular basis. 1 LID practices are not designed to provide quantity and erosion control, but they inherently provide a limited reduction in peak flows Table 7 Alternative 4 Predevelopment and Future Condition Peak Flow Control Foster and Yonge Predevelopment Catchment Return Period Dry Pond Max % Full* Critical Storm Peak Flow (m 3 /s) Critical Storm Peak Flow 1 (m 3 /s) 5 year SCS5Y24HR SCS5Y6HR year SCS2Y24HR CHI2Y4HR Design and quantity control critical storm to be confirmed during detailed design. *Utilizing pond volume over ~30% results in backwater effect into the minor system. 1 Controlled flow from pond outlet This alternative has positive effects on the natural environment as it provides stormwater quality treatment as well as limited stormwater quantity and erosion control. This alternative has a positive effect on the natural environment by improving fisheries and the aquatic environment by reducing phosphorus and sediment loadings as well as helping to reduce erosion and habitat impairment on Whiskey Creek. This alternative will significantly improve stormwater infiltration through the use of infiltrating LID practices thus helping to replenish groundwater levels, which in turn, supply cold water baseflows to Whiskey Creek and Lovers Creek. LID practices should be sized to capture and infiltrate the 90 th percentile storm event. This equates to greater than 80% enhanced treatment level. Technical Memorandum 26 Stormwater Management Assessment

30 The alternative has significant private property impacts as the stormwater management dry pond is located at 202 and 204 Foster Drive and requires an easement through 201 Minet s Point Road for the pond outlet. The acquisition of 202 and 204 Foster Drive and a permanent easement through 201 Minet s Point Road is required to implement this alternative. The portion of 201 Minet s Point Road and most of 202 Foster Drive fall within Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) regulation boundaries. This restricts future redevelopment opportunities. The estimated capital cost for the SWM facility and LID practices is $1,900,000 equating to approximately $85,000 per hectare for this alternative. This alternative is ranked highest in total cost and 2 nd highest on a per hectare basis. Please refer to Appendix A for detailed cost calculations Alternatives Analysis The alternatives were assessed against the City of Barrie Storm Drainage and Stormwater Management Policies and Design Guidelines (November 2009) as well as the MOECC Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual (March 2003). For detailed calculations associated with Alternative 2, 3 and 4, please see Appendix B Property Acquisition Property is required for Alternative 2 and 4. The City would seek to acquire 202 and 204 Foster Drive and a permanent easement from the SWMF to Whiskey Creek from 201 Minet s Point Road, or any combination thereof to allow implementation. These properties would be acquired at fair market value subject to budget approval for the property acquisition project phase Preliminary Cost Estimate The following preliminary cost estimates have been developed for the stormwater management alternatives. They include all costs to construct the alternatives that would be an additional cost to standard road urbanization with a storm sewer system directly discharging to the receiving watercourse. Detailed calculations are available in Appendix A. Table 8 Preliminary Cost Estimate Alternative Total Cost 1 Cost per Hectare Level of Treatment 2 SWM Wet Pond $1,300,000 $100,000 Basic 3 LID $500,000 $35,000 Enhanced* 4 SWM Dry Pond and LID $1,900,000 $85,000 Enhanced* *based on infiltrating the 90 th percentile storm event from all impervious surfaces using low impact development practices 1 cost estimates are based on capital costs for water quality treatment infrastructure only and do not include common elements such as storm sewers, catchbasins, road restoration, etc.. Cost estimates will be refined at the detailed design stage. Technical Memorandum 27 Stormwater Management Assessment

31 7.0 PUBLIC CONSULTATION Please refer to the main body of the Foster Class EA report for a summary of the public consultation program. 7.1 Public and Agency Comments Respondents were asked to rank the alternatives in order of preference. The following table outlines the instances each alternative was ranked as the preferred alternative (number one). Table 9 Alternatives Ranking Alternative Instances Ranked No. 1 Alternative 1 Do Nothing 32% Alternative 2 Stormwater Management Wet Pond 8% Alternative 3 Low Impact Development 36% Alternative 4 Low Impact Development and Stormwater Management Dry Pond 24% Key issues noted within the written stakeholder responses following the PIC relate to implementation costs and alteration of existing ditches. The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) selected Alternative 3 Low Impact Development as their preferred alternative. Please refer to the main body of the Foster Class EA report for a complete listing of all public/agency comments and responses. Technical Memorandum 28 Stormwater Management Assessment

32 8.0 SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The selection of a Preferred Alternative for Phase 2 of this Class EA has been based on the evaluation of the alternatives from established criteria. The Preferred Alternative was selected based on the evaluation of the alternatives and consideration of the comments received from stakeholders, agencies and interested parties. The Preferred Alternative is Alternative 3 Low Impact Development. The primary reasons for the selection are as follows: Provides cost effective stormwater quality treatment within the study area through the implementation of LID practices within the municipal right-of-way; Assists with groundwater recharge through infiltration, thus improving baseflows to Whiskey and Lovers Creeks Reduces phosphorus loadings to Lake Simcoe through implementation of LIDs; and Demonstrates the City s commitment to the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. It is recommended that the vertical alignment of the storm sewer routed in front of 202 and 204 Foster Drive be installed at a suitable depth to not preclude the conveyance of flows from Yonge Street to a possible future stormwater management facility located at these properties. As part of the City s upcoming City-wide Stormwater Management Master Plan, these properties will be further assessed for the inclusion of a stormwater management facility. 8.1 Preferred Alternative Solution - Details The preferred alternative consists of the following elements: Water quality provided via LID implementation on Foster Drive, Merrett Drive, Garson Street, Yeates Avenue and MacLaren Avenue (see Figure 3). Sizing based on the 90 th percentile storm event where possible pending geotechnical and hydrogeological investigations. LID practices are recommended to be based on the Etobicoke Exfiltration System (EES). See Appendix C for design details. Technical Memorandum 29 Stormwater Management Assessment

33 9.0 IMPLEMENTATION 9.1 Project Timing/Phasing For timing and phasing refer to the Foster Class EA report. 9.2 Impacts and Mitigation General For general impacts and mitigation measures pertaining to the construction of the stormwater management system, refer to the Foster Class EA report. The mitigation measures identified in the main report apply to the implementation of the stormwater management Preferred Alternative. 9.3 Impacts and Mitigation SWM outlet Specific impacts and mitigation measures pertaining to the implementation of the SWMF and SWMF outlet should be implemented in order to mitigate the negative impacts of construction on the environmental features of the immediate area. Table 12 Mitigation Measures Potential Negative Effect Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat (construction of stormwater outfall) Natural/Physical Environment Archaeological / Heritage Resources Property Impacts 9.4 Impacts and Mitigation LIDs Mitigating Measures Stage work to avoid spawning periods Restore stream substrate Seasonal constraints/coldwater fishery timing windows Delineate no-touch zone using construction fencing Implement Erosion and Sediment Control measures to protect Whiskey Creek and prevent the migration of sediment from designated work areas. Actively monitor weather to prepare for storm events Establish an emergency spill response plan. Restore all impacted areas and stabilize construction area immediately after construction Utilize tree protection zones. Complete hydrogeological/geotechnical study Stage 1 - Archaeological review is complete has found high potential for cultural significance within Foster Drive ROW. Stage 2 - Archaeological review to be undertaken for work within Foster Drive. No acquisition required. For construction impacts and mitigation measures, refer to the Foster Class EA. Technical Memorandum 30 Stormwater Management Assessment

34 Approximately 14 homes (identified homes with no water meters per the City s GIS database) use private wells. Implementation of LIDs on Foster Drive may adversely affect these wells. Impacts to these wells should be assessed as part of detailed design and monitored during construction. Resident s currently utilizing wells for drinking water have the option of connecting to the municipal system. The geotechnical/hydrogeological investigation to be completed as part of detailed design shall confirm LID sizing, suitability and any possible impacts in areas where homes are situated lower than the road surface as well as impacts to private wells. The existing condition consisting of ditches and overland sheet flow should be used as the baseline condition. 9.5 Design Considerations In addition to impacts identified in 9.2 through 9.4, the following items shall be considered during detailed design: Sizing storm sewer pipes for the 100 year or regional storm at (unless overland flow route can be established on Foster Drive and accommodate significant slope and directional change where Merrett and MacLaren intersect with Foster): - MacLaren Avenue from Merrett Drive to Foster Drive, Foster Drive from MacLaren Avenue to Whiskey Creek. - Merrett Drive between existing terminus to Foster Drive (connect to 100 year pipe on Foster Drive). Design the vertical alignment of the storm sewer routed in front of 202 and 204 Foster Drive to allow future installation of storm sewer from Yonge to potential future stormwater management facility. Inclusion of CB Shields and SAFL Baffle systems (or equivalent technology) in catchbasins and maintenance holes connected to the EES (captures and prevents coarse sediment from entering exfiltration pipes). Consideration of utilizing catchbasins with deep sumps (i.e. 900mm vs 600mm) to provide additional capacity for sediment capture. Sanitary maintenance holes shall have cast-in-place boots and waterproofed joints (in addition to bituminous seals) using Blueskin SA or equivalent impermeable membrane to reduce infiltration. Installation of trench plugs on both the sanitary and storm sewers at regular intervals. Placement of trench plugs on the storm sewer shall be in consideration with the EES (i.e. typically on the downstream side of maintenance holes). 9.6 Investigation Requirements The following is non-exhaustive list of investigation/studies required to implement this project: Hydrogeological (including private well survey) and Geotechnical studies; Precondition survey of residences/structures; Technical Memorandum 31 Stormwater Management Assessment

35 Stage 2 Archeological on Foster Drive; and Compliance with Migratory Birds Convention Act (where vegetation/trees are disturbed), 9.7 Approval Requirements The following is non-exhaustive list of approvals required to implement this project: Completion of Department of Fisheries and Oceans Assessment for in-water works related to the stormwater outfall; Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority Permit (common for sanitary and stormwater servicing); and Environmental Compliance Approval (common for sanitary and stormwater servicing). Refer to the Foster Class EA report for other common approval requirements. 9.8 Next Steps As part of the Foster Class EA report, the City will advise by mail those individuals and agencies that have indicated they wish to be kept informed. The letter will contain staff recommendations for the Preferred Alternative (for both sanitary servicing and stormwater management) and outline the process for residents/agencies to provide a deputation to Council. Subject to Council s endorsement of the Preferred Alternative, the stormwater component of this project can proceed to implementation as the work is classified as a Schedule A+ project. Technical Memorandum 32 Stormwater Management Assessment

36 APPENDIX A Cost Estimates

37 Stormwater Management Improvement Opportunities Stormwater Quality Treatment Infrastructure Cost Comparison Revised January 5, 2016 Capital Cost Alternative 2 SWM Wet Pond Alternative 3 LID Alternative 4 LID and SWM Dry Pond Cost Items Units Unit Price Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Site Preparation Erosion and Sediment Control m $ $9,375 NA 375 $9,375 Construction Fencing m $ $3,750 NA 375 $3,750 Tree Protection L.S. $5,000 1 $5,000 NA 1 $5,000 Demolition/Clearing & Grubing L.S. $20,000 1 $20,000 NA 1 $20,000 Excavation/Disposal (Pond) m 3 $ $122,500 NA 5800 $203,000 Site Works Fine Grading, 150mm Topsoil and Sod m 2 $ $86,250 NA 5750 $86,250 Pond Outlet/Overflow L.S. $50,000 1 $50,000 NA 1 $50,000 Chain Link Fence m $ $28,800 NA 360 $28,800 Standard Storm Sewer Cost to Top of Bedding Additional Cost for EES System m $218 NA 1520 $331, $331,466 CB Shield each $ $27,200 SAFL Baffle each $1, $12,000 Subtotal $325,675 $370,666 $737,641 Engineering $48,851 $55,600 $110,646 Contingency $97,703 $111,200 $221,292 Property Acquision 2 Property Acquisition L.S. $600,000 1 $800,000 NA 1 $800,000 Total Cost $1,272,229 $537,466 $1,869,580 Total Area Treated/Controlled Per Alternative Total Cost per Hectare $102,599 $37,324 $84,981 Note: 1. estimate does not include costs that are included as part of standard road urbanization (i.e. storm sewers, catchbasins, boulevard restoration, etc.). 2. property costs will be based on fair market value including consideration for LSRCA Regulation Limits impacting use 3. unit costs from City of Barrie historical unit price database 4. cost estimate based on Etobicoke exfiltration system 5. cost estimate does not include costs associated with implementing sewers on Merrett Drive extension 6. estimate is for comparison purposes and focuses on costs pertaining to stormwater treatment 7. estimate for EES is based on cost delta between standard sewer installation and EES, 450mm diameter main sewer pipe, to 0.3m above top of pipe

38 Low Impact Development Etobicoke Exfiltration System Cost Estimate Comparison vs Traditional Storm Sewers December 16, 2015 Traditional Storm Sewer Etobicoke Exfiltration System Standard Sewer (based on 450mm Sewer Size) Etobicoke Exfiltration System (based on 450mm Sewer Size) Granular Material Granular Material % Diff Sewer Diameter (primary) 0.45 Sewer Diameter (primary) 0.45 Sewer Diameter (infiltration A) 0 Sewer Diameter (infiltration A) 0.2 Sewer Diameter (infiltration B) 0 Sewer Diameter (infiltration B) 0.2 Sewer X Sectional Area Sewer X Sectional Area % Trench Height 0.9 Trench Height % Trench Width 1.05 Trench Width % Trench X Sectional Area Gross Trench X Sectional Area Gross % Trench X Sectional Area Net Trench X Sectional Area Net % Total Excavation Volume/m (cu.m) Total Excavation Volume/m (cu.m) % Granular Volume/m (cu.m) 0.79 Granular Volume/m (cu.m) % Filter Cloth per Metre (sq.m) 0 Filter Cloth per Metre (sq.m) 7.5 Unit Avg. Unit Price Quantity Price/m Unit Avg. Unit Price Quantity Price/m Earth Excavation cu.m $ $ TMP Earth Excavation cu.m $ $ TMP Granular A cu.m $ $ TMP 19mm Clear Stone cu.m $ $ Dufferin Maple Yard 2015 Price List ($26.50/t+$12/t delivery) 450mm Ultrarib m $ $ mm Ultrarib m $ $ Corix Barrie 200mm HDPE Boss 2000/w filter sock m $ $ 200mm HDPE Boss 2000/w filter sock m $ $ Armtech Guelph quote received December 16, 2015 HDPE Coupler each $ $ HDPE Coupler each $ $ 0.98 Armtech Guelph quote received December 16, 2016 Filter Cloth sq.m $ $ Filter Cloth sq.m $ $ 7.50 City of Barrie Contract Price Summary Total Cost $ Total Cost $ Cost Delta (additional cost over traditional storm sewer) $ Note: Does not include cost of fill above pipe embedment as costs are equal between standard and EES. TMP = Multimodal Active Transpotation Master Plan

39 APPENDIX B Stormwater Management Calculations

40

41 EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build ) Predevelopment Conditions ********************************************************* NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step. ********************************************************* **************** Analysis Options **************** Flow Units... CMS Process Models: Rainfall/Runoff... YES RDII... NO Snowmelt... NO Groundwater... NO Flow Routing... NO Water Quality... NO Infiltration Method... CURVE_NUMBER Starting Date... JAN :00:00 Ending Date... JAN :00:00 Antecedent Dry Days Report Time Step... 00:01:00 Wet Time Step... 00:05:00 Dry Time Step... 00:05:00 ************* Element Count ************* Number of rain gages... 3 Number of subcatchments... 3 Number of nodes... 2 Number of links... 0 Number of pollutants... 0 Number of land uses... 0 **************** Raingage Summary ****************

42 Data Recording Name Data Source Type Interval CHI2Y4H CHI2Y4H INTENSITY 10 min. Raingage1 SCS2Y24HOUR INTENSITY 15 min. SCS100Y24H SCS100Y24H INTENSITY 15 min. ******************** Subcatchment Summary ******************** Name Area Width %Imperv %Slope Rain Gage Outlet F CHI2Y4H OF1 F CHI2Y4H F1 L CHI2Y4H OF2 ************ Node Summary ************ Invert Max. Ponded External Name Type Elev. Depth Area Inflow OF1 OUTFALL OF2 OUTFALL ************************** Volume Depth Runoff Quantity Continuity hectare-m mm ************************** Total Precipitation Evaporation Loss Infiltration Loss Surface Runoff Final Surface Storage Continuity Error (%) ************************** Volume Volume Flow Routing Continuity hectare-m 10^6 ltr ************************** Dry Weather Inflow Wet Weather Inflow Groundwater Inflow

43 RDII Inflow External Inflow External Outflow Internal Outflow Evaporation Loss Exfiltration Loss Initial Stored Volume Final Stored Volume Continuity Error (%) *************************** Subcatchment Runoff Summary *************************** Total Total Total Total Total Total Peak Runoff Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff Subcatchment mm mm mm mm mm 10^6 ltr CMS F F L Analysis begun on: Wed Nov 04 10:14: Analysis ended on: Wed Nov 04 10:14: Total elapsed time: < 1 sec

44

45 EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build ) Predevelopment Conditions ********************************************************* NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step. ********************************************************* **************** Analysis Options **************** Flow Units... CMS Process Models: Rainfall/Runoff... YES RDII... NO Snowmelt... NO Groundwater... NO Flow Routing... NO Water Quality... NO Infiltration Method... CURVE_NUMBER Starting Date... JAN :00:00 Ending Date... JAN :00:00 Antecedent Dry Days Report Time Step... 00:01:00 Wet Time Step... 00:05:00 Dry Time Step... 00:05:00 ************* Element Count ************* Number of rain gages... 3 Number of subcatchments... 3 Number of nodes... 2 Number of links... 0 Number of pollutants... 0 Number of land uses... 0 **************** Raingage Summary ****************

46 Data Recording Name Data Source Type Interval CHI5Y4H CHI5Y4H INTENSITY 10 min. Raingage1 SCS2Y24HOUR INTENSITY 15 min. SCS100Y24H SCS100Y24H INTENSITY 15 min. ******************** Subcatchment Summary ******************** Name Area Width %Imperv %Slope Rain Gage Outlet F CHI5Y4H OF1 F CHI5Y4H F1 L CHI5Y4H OF2 ************ Node Summary ************ Invert Max. Ponded External Name Type Elev. Depth Area Inflow OF1 OUTFALL OF2 OUTFALL ************************** Volume Depth Runoff Quantity Continuity hectare-m mm ************************** Total Precipitation Evaporation Loss Infiltration Loss Surface Runoff Final Surface Storage Continuity Error (%) ************************** Volume Volume Flow Routing Continuity hectare-m 10^6 ltr ************************** Dry Weather Inflow Wet Weather Inflow Groundwater Inflow

47 RDII Inflow External Inflow External Outflow Internal Outflow Evaporation Loss Exfiltration Loss Initial Stored Volume Final Stored Volume Continuity Error (%) *************************** Subcatchment Runoff Summary *************************** Total Total Total Total Total Total Peak Runoff Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff Subcatchment mm mm mm mm mm 10^6 ltr CMS F F L Analysis begun on: Wed Nov 04 10:14: Analysis ended on: Wed Nov 04 10:14: Total elapsed time: 00:00:01

48

49 EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build ) ********************************************************* NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step. ********************************************************* **************** Analysis Options **************** Flow Units... CMS Process Models: Rainfall/Runoff... YES RDII... NO Snowmelt... NO Groundwater... NO Flow Routing... YES Ponding Allowed... NO Water Quality... NO Infiltration Method... CURVE_NUMBER Flow Routing Method... DYNWAVE Starting Date... JAN :00:00 Ending Date... JAN :00:00 Antecedent Dry Days Report Time Step... 00:01:00 Wet Time Step... 00:05:00 Dry Time Step... 00:05:00 Routing Time Step sec Variable Time Step... YES Maximum Trials... 8 Head Tolerance m ************* Element Count ************* Number of rain gages Number of subcatchments Number of nodes Number of links Number of pollutants... 0 Number of land uses... 0

50 **************** Raingage Summary **************** Data Recording Name Data Source Type Interval CHI10Y4H CHI10Y4H INTENSITY 10 min. CHI2Y4H CHI2Y4H INTENSITY 10 min. CHI5Y4H CHI5Y4H INTENSITY 10 min. Raingage1test Timeseries1scs5y12h INTENSITY 15 min. SCS_24h_Type_I_25mm SCS_24h_Type_I_25mm INTENSITY 15 min. SCS100Y6H SCS100Y6H INTENSITY 15 min. SCS10Y6H SCS10Y6H INTENSITY 15 min. SCS10Y6HR SCS10Y6HOURCOB INTENSITY 15 min. SCS25Y6H SCS25Y6H INTENSITY 15 min. SCS25Y6HR SCS25Y6HRCOB INTENSITY 15 min. SCS25YR24HR SCS25YR24HRCOB INTENSITY 15 min. SCS2Y24H SCS2Y24H INTENSITY 15 min. SCS2YR6HR SCS2Y6HR INTENSITY 15 min. SCS50Y6H SCS50Y6H INTENSITY 15 min. SCS50Y6HR SCS50YR6HR INTENSITY 15 min. SCS50YR24HR SCS50Y24HR INTENSITY 15 min. SCS5Y24H SCS5Y24H INTENSITY 15 min. SCS5YR6HR SCS5Y6HOUR INTENSITY 15 min. ******************** Subcatchment Summary ******************** Name Area Width %Imperv %Slope Rain Gage Outlet F SCS2Y24H J8 F SCS2Y24H J17 F SCS2Y24H J17 F SCS2Y24H J18 F SCS2Y24H J14 F SCS2Y24H J19 F SCS2Y24H J19 F SCS2Y24H J22 F SCS2Y24H J8 F SCS2Y24H J9 F SCS2Y24H J9 F SCS2Y24H J12 F6_DEV SCS2Y24H J14

51 F7_DEV SCS2Y24H J22 F SCS2Y24H J25 F9_DEV SCS2Y24H J15 L SCS2Y24H J2 L SCS2Y24H J3 L SCS2Y24H J4 L SCS2Y24H J5 ************ Node Summary ************ Invert Max. Ponded External Name Type Elev. Depth Area Inflow JUNCTION J10 JUNCTION J11 JUNCTION J12 JUNCTION J13 JUNCTION J14 JUNCTION J15 JUNCTION J16 JUNCTION J17 JUNCTION J18 JUNCTION J19 JUNCTION J2 JUNCTION J20 JUNCTION J22 JUNCTION J25 JUNCTION J3 JUNCTION J4 JUNCTION J5 JUNCTION J8 JUNCTION J9 JUNCTION OF1 OUTFALL OF2 OUTFALL Wet_Pond STORAGE ************ Link Summary ************ Name From Node To Node Type Length %Slope Roughness J22 J13 CONDUIT

52 10 J3 J4 CONDUIT J4 J5 CONDUIT J4 J5 CONDUIT J5 OF2 CONDUIT J16 J17 CONDUIT J17 J18 CONDUIT J18 J14 CONDUIT J14 J19 CONDUIT J19 J20 CONDUIT J13 J14 CONDUIT J8 J9 CONDUIT J20 Wet_Pond CONDUIT OF1 CONDUIT J25 J17 CONDUIT J8 J9 CONDUIT J9 J10 CONDUIT J10 J11 CONDUIT J11 J12 CONDUIT J12 J13 CONDUIT J3 J4 CONDUIT J2 J3 CONDUIT C10 J10 J11 CONDUIT C11 J11 J12 CONDUIT C12 J12 J13 CONDUIT C13 J13 J14 CONDUIT C14 J14 J19 CONDUIT C15 J15 J16 CONDUIT C16 J16 J17 CONDUIT C17 J17 J18 CONDUIT C18 J18 J14 CONDUIT C19 J19 J20 CONDUIT C2 J2 J3 CONDUIT C21 J9 J10 CONDUIT C22 J22 J13 CONDUIT C3 J3 J4 CONDUIT C9 J8 J9 CONDUIT Orifice_1 Wet_Pond 1 ORIFICE Orifice_2 Wet_Pond 1 ORIFICE Overflow Wet_Pond 1 ORIFICE ********************* Cross Section Summary ********************* Full Full Hyd. Max. No. of Full Conduit Shape Depth Area Rad. Width Barrels Flow

53 CIRCULAR Street Street CIRCULAR CIRCULAR Street Street Street Street Street Street CIRCULAR CIRCULAR CIRCULAR CIRCULAR Street Street Street Street Street CIRCULAR Street C10 CIRCULAR C11 CIRCULAR C12 CIRCULAR C13 CIRCULAR C14 CIRCULAR C15 CIRCULAR C16 CIRCULAR C17 CIRCULAR C18 CIRCULAR C19 CIRCULAR C2 CIRCULAR C21 CIRCULAR C22 CIRCULAR C3 CIRCULAR C9 CIRCULAR **************** Transect Summary **************** Transect Street1

54 Area: Hrad: Width: ************************** Volume Depth Runoff Quantity Continuity hectare-m mm ************************** Total Precipitation Evaporation Loss Infiltration Loss Surface Runoff Final Surface Storage Continuity Error (%)

55 ************************** Volume Volume Flow Routing Continuity hectare-m 10^6 ltr ************************** Dry Weather Inflow Wet Weather Inflow Groundwater Inflow RDII Inflow External Inflow External Outflow Internal Outflow Evaporation Loss Exfiltration Loss Initial Stored Volume Final Stored Volume Continuity Error (%) *************************** Time-Step Critical Elements *************************** Link C19 (7.02%) ******************************** Highest Flow Instability Indexes ******************************** Link 20 (3) ************************* Routing Time Step Summary ************************* Minimum Time Step : 1.82 sec Average Time Step : 4.82 sec Maximum Time Step : 5.00 sec Percent in Steady State : 0.00 Average Iterations per Step : 2.03 Percent Not Converging : 0.02 *************************** Subcatchment Runoff Summary *************************** Total Total Total Total Total Total Peak Runoff

56 Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff Subcatchment mm mm mm mm mm 10^6 ltr CMS F F F F F F F F F F F F F6_DEV F7_DEV F F9_DEV L L L L ****************** Node Depth Summary ****************** Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max Depth Depth HGL Occurrence Node Type Meters Meters Meters days hr:min JUNCTION :20 J10 JUNCTION :15 J11 JUNCTION :15 J12 JUNCTION :15 J13 JUNCTION :15 J14 JUNCTION :15 J15 JUNCTION :00 J16 JUNCTION :00 J17 JUNCTION :15 J18 JUNCTION :15 J19 JUNCTION :15 J2 JUNCTION :15

57 J20 JUNCTION :15 J22 JUNCTION :15 J25 JUNCTION :15 J3 JUNCTION :15 J4 JUNCTION :15 J5 JUNCTION :15 J8 JUNCTION :15 J9 JUNCTION :15 OF1 OUTFALL :20 OF2 OUTFALL :00 Wet_Pond STORAGE :20 ******************* Node Inflow Summary ******************* Maximum Maximum Lateral Total Flow Lateral Total Time of Max Inflow Inflow Balance Inflow Inflow Occurrence Volume Volume Error Node Type CMS CMS days hr:min 10^6 ltr 10^6 ltr Percent JUNCTION : J10 JUNCTION : J11 JUNCTION : J12 JUNCTION : J13 JUNCTION : J14 JUNCTION : J15 JUNCTION : ltr J16 JUNCTION : ltr J17 JUNCTION : J18 JUNCTION : J19 JUNCTION : J2 JUNCTION : J20 JUNCTION : J22 JUNCTION : J25 JUNCTION : J3 JUNCTION : J4 JUNCTION : J5 JUNCTION : J8 JUNCTION : J9 JUNCTION : OF1 OUTFALL : OF2 OUTFALL : Wet_Pond STORAGE :

58 ********************** Node Surcharge Summary ********************** No nodes were surcharged. ********************* Node Flooding Summary ********************* No nodes were flooded. ********************** Storage Volume Summary ********************** Average Avg Evap Exfil Maximum Max Time of Max Maximum Volume Pcnt Pcnt Pcnt Volume Pcnt Occurrence Outflow Storage Unit 1000 m3 Full Loss Loss 1000 m3 Full days hr:min CMS Wet_Pond : *********************** Outfall Loading Summary *********************** Flow Avg Max Total Freq Flow Flow Volume Outfall Node Pcnt CMS CMS 10^6 ltr OF OF System ******************** Link Flow Summary ********************

59 Maximum Time of Max Maximum Max/ Max/ Flow Occurrence Veloc Full Full Link Type CMS days hr:min m/sec Flow Depth CONDUIT : CHANNEL : CHANNEL : CONDUIT : CONDUIT : CHANNEL : CHANNEL : CHANNEL : CHANNEL : CHANNEL : CHANNEL : CONDUIT : CONDUIT : CONDUIT : CONDUIT : CHANNEL : CHANNEL : CHANNEL : CHANNEL : CHANNEL : CONDUIT : CHANNEL : C10 CONDUIT : C11 CONDUIT : C12 CONDUIT : C13 CONDUIT : C14 CONDUIT : C15 CONDUIT : C16 CONDUIT : C17 CONDUIT : C18 CONDUIT : C19 CONDUIT : C2 CONDUIT : C21 CONDUIT : C22 CONDUIT : C3 CONDUIT : C9 CONDUIT : Orifice_1 ORIFICE : Orifice_2 ORIFICE : Overflow ORIFICE :

60 *************************** Flow Classification Summary *************************** Adjusted Fraction of Time in Flow Class /Actual Up Down Sub Sup Up Down Norm Inlet Conduit Length Dry Dry Dry Crit Crit Crit Crit Ltd Ctrl C C C C C C C C C C C C C

61 C C ************************* Conduit Surcharge Summary ************************* No conduits were surcharged. Analysis begun on: Fri Nov 06 13:46: Analysis ended on: Fri Nov 06 13:46: Total elapsed time: 00:00:03

62

63 EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build ) ********************************************************* NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step. ********************************************************* **************** Analysis Options **************** Flow Units... CMS Process Models: Rainfall/Runoff... YES RDII... NO Snowmelt... NO Groundwater... NO Flow Routing... YES Ponding Allowed... NO Water Quality... NO Infiltration Method... CURVE_NUMBER Flow Routing Method... DYNWAVE Starting Date... JAN :00:00 Ending Date... JAN :00:00 Antecedent Dry Days Report Time Step... 00:01:00 Wet Time Step... 00:05:00 Dry Time Step... 00:05:00 Routing Time Step sec Variable Time Step... YES Maximum Trials... 8 Head Tolerance m ************* Element Count ************* Number of rain gages Number of subcatchments Number of nodes Number of links Number of pollutants... 0 Number of land uses... 0

64 **************** Raingage Summary **************** Data Recording Name Data Source Type Interval CHI10Y4H CHI10Y4H INTENSITY 10 min. CHI2Y4H CHI2Y4H INTENSITY 10 min. CHI5Y4H CHI5Y4H INTENSITY 10 min. Raingage1test Timeseries1scs5y12h INTENSITY 15 min. SCS_24h_Type_I_25mm SCS_24h_Type_I_25mm INTENSITY 15 min. SCS100Y6H SCS100Y6H INTENSITY 15 min. SCS10Y6H SCS10Y6H INTENSITY 15 min. SCS10Y6HR SCS10Y6HOURCOB INTENSITY 15 min. SCS25Y6H SCS25Y6H INTENSITY 15 min. SCS25Y6HR SCS25Y6HRCOB INTENSITY 15 min. SCS25YR24HR SCS25YR24HRCOB INTENSITY 15 min. SCS2Y24H SCS2Y24H INTENSITY 15 min. SCS2YR6HR SCS2Y6HR INTENSITY 15 min. SCS50Y6H SCS50Y6H INTENSITY 15 min. SCS50Y6HR SCS50YR6HR INTENSITY 15 min. SCS50YR24HR SCS50Y24HR INTENSITY 15 min. SCS5Y24H SCS5Y24H INTENSITY 15 min. SCS5YR6HR SCS5Y6HOUR INTENSITY 15 min. ******************** Subcatchment Summary ******************** Name Area Width %Imperv %Slope Rain Gage Outlet F SCS5Y24H J8 F SCS5Y24H J17 F SCS5Y24H J17 F SCS5Y24H J18 F SCS5Y24H J14 F SCS5Y24H J19 F SCS5Y24H J19 F SCS5Y24H J22 F SCS5Y24H J8 F SCS5Y24H J9 F SCS5Y24H J9 F SCS5Y24H J12 F6_DEV SCS5Y24H J14

65 F7_DEV SCS5Y24H J22 F SCS5Y24H J25 F9_DEV SCS5Y24H J15 L SCS5Y24H J2 L SCS5Y24H J3 L SCS5Y24H J4 L SCS5Y24H J5 ************ Node Summary ************ Invert Max. Ponded External Name Type Elev. Depth Area Inflow JUNCTION J10 JUNCTION J11 JUNCTION J12 JUNCTION J13 JUNCTION J14 JUNCTION J15 JUNCTION J16 JUNCTION J17 JUNCTION J18 JUNCTION J19 JUNCTION J2 JUNCTION J20 JUNCTION J22 JUNCTION J25 JUNCTION J3 JUNCTION J4 JUNCTION J5 JUNCTION J8 JUNCTION J9 JUNCTION OF1 OUTFALL OF2 OUTFALL Wet_Pond STORAGE ************ Link Summary ************ Name From Node To Node Type Length %Slope Roughness J22 J13 CONDUIT

66 10 J3 J4 CONDUIT J4 J5 CONDUIT J4 J5 CONDUIT J5 OF2 CONDUIT J16 J17 CONDUIT J17 J18 CONDUIT J18 J14 CONDUIT J14 J19 CONDUIT J19 J20 CONDUIT J13 J14 CONDUIT J8 J9 CONDUIT J20 Wet_Pond CONDUIT OF1 CONDUIT J25 J17 CONDUIT J8 J9 CONDUIT J9 J10 CONDUIT J10 J11 CONDUIT J11 J12 CONDUIT J12 J13 CONDUIT J3 J4 CONDUIT J2 J3 CONDUIT C10 J10 J11 CONDUIT C11 J11 J12 CONDUIT C12 J12 J13 CONDUIT C13 J13 J14 CONDUIT C14 J14 J19 CONDUIT C15 J15 J16 CONDUIT C16 J16 J17 CONDUIT C17 J17 J18 CONDUIT C18 J18 J14 CONDUIT C19 J19 J20 CONDUIT C2 J2 J3 CONDUIT C21 J9 J10 CONDUIT C22 J22 J13 CONDUIT C3 J3 J4 CONDUIT C9 J8 J9 CONDUIT Orifice_1 Wet_Pond 1 ORIFICE Orifice_2 Wet_Pond 1 ORIFICE Overflow Wet_Pond 1 ORIFICE ********************* Cross Section Summary ********************* Full Full Hyd. Max. No. of Full Conduit Shape Depth Area Rad. Width Barrels Flow

67 CIRCULAR Street Street CIRCULAR CIRCULAR Street Street Street Street Street Street CIRCULAR CIRCULAR CIRCULAR CIRCULAR Street Street Street Street Street CIRCULAR Street C10 CIRCULAR C11 CIRCULAR C12 CIRCULAR C13 CIRCULAR C14 CIRCULAR C15 CIRCULAR C16 CIRCULAR C17 CIRCULAR C18 CIRCULAR C19 CIRCULAR C2 CIRCULAR C21 CIRCULAR C22 CIRCULAR C3 CIRCULAR C9 CIRCULAR **************** Transect Summary **************** Transect Street1

68 Area: Hrad: Width: ************************** Volume Depth Runoff Quantity Continuity hectare-m mm ************************** Total Precipitation Evaporation Loss Infiltration Loss Surface Runoff Final Surface Storage Continuity Error (%)

69 ************************** Volume Volume Flow Routing Continuity hectare-m 10^6 ltr ************************** Dry Weather Inflow Wet Weather Inflow Groundwater Inflow RDII Inflow External Inflow External Outflow Internal Outflow Evaporation Loss Exfiltration Loss Initial Stored Volume Final Stored Volume Continuity Error (%) *************************** Time-Step Critical Elements *************************** Link C19 (8.22%) ******************************** Highest Flow Instability Indexes ******************************** Link 20 (10) Link C19 (3) ************************* Routing Time Step Summary ************************* Minimum Time Step : 1.33 sec Average Time Step : 4.79 sec Maximum Time Step : 5.00 sec Percent in Steady State : 0.00 Average Iterations per Step : 2.13 Percent Not Converging : 0.12 *************************** Subcatchment Runoff Summary ***************************

70 Total Total Total Total Total Total Peak Runoff Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff Subcatchment mm mm mm mm mm 10^6 ltr CMS F F F F F F F F F F F F F6_DEV F7_DEV F F9_DEV L L L L ****************** Node Depth Summary ****************** Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max Depth Depth HGL Occurrence Node Type Meters Meters Meters days hr:min JUNCTION :56 J10 JUNCTION :15 J11 JUNCTION :15 J12 JUNCTION :15 J13 JUNCTION :15 J14 JUNCTION :15 J15 JUNCTION :15 J16 JUNCTION :15 J17 JUNCTION :15 J18 JUNCTION :15 J19 JUNCTION :15

71 J2 JUNCTION :15 J20 JUNCTION :45 J22 JUNCTION :15 J25 JUNCTION :15 J3 JUNCTION :15 J4 JUNCTION :15 J5 JUNCTION :14 J8 JUNCTION :15 J9 JUNCTION :15 OF1 OUTFALL :20 OF2 OUTFALL :00 Wet_Pond STORAGE :56 ******************* Node Inflow Summary ******************* Maximum Maximum Lateral Total Flow Lateral Total Time of Max Inflow Inflow Balance Inflow Inflow Occurrence Volume Volume Error Node Type CMS CMS days hr:min 10^6 ltr 10^6 ltr Percent JUNCTION : J10 JUNCTION : J11 JUNCTION : J12 JUNCTION : J13 JUNCTION : J14 JUNCTION : J15 JUNCTION : J16 JUNCTION : J17 JUNCTION : J18 JUNCTION : J19 JUNCTION : J2 JUNCTION : J20 JUNCTION : J22 JUNCTION : J25 JUNCTION : J3 JUNCTION : J4 JUNCTION : J5 JUNCTION : J8 JUNCTION : J9 JUNCTION : OF1 OUTFALL : OF2 OUTFALL :

72 Wet_Pond STORAGE : ********************** Node Surcharge Summary ********************** No nodes were surcharged. ********************* Node Flooding Summary ********************* Flooding refers to all water that overflows a node, whether it ponds or not Total Maximum Maximum Time of Max Flood Ponded Hours Rate Occurrence Volume Depth Node Flooded CMS days hr:min 10^6 ltr Meters Wet_Pond : ********************** Storage Volume Summary ********************** Average Avg Evap Exfil Maximum Max Time of Max Maximum Volume Pcnt Pcnt Pcnt Volume Pcnt Occurrence Outflow Storage Unit 1000 m3 Full Loss Loss 1000 m3 Full days hr:min CMS Wet_Pond : *********************** Outfall Loading Summary *********************** Flow Avg Max Total Freq Flow Flow Volume Outfall Node Pcnt CMS CMS 10^6 ltr OF

73 OF System ******************** Link Flow Summary ******************** Maximum Time of Max Maximum Max/ Max/ Flow Occurrence Veloc Full Full Link Type CMS days hr:min m/sec Flow Depth CONDUIT : CHANNEL : CHANNEL : CONDUIT : CONDUIT : CHANNEL : CHANNEL : CHANNEL : CHANNEL : CHANNEL : CHANNEL : CONDUIT : CONDUIT : CONDUIT : CONDUIT : CHANNEL : CHANNEL : CHANNEL : CHANNEL : CHANNEL : CONDUIT : CHANNEL : C10 CONDUIT : C11 CONDUIT : C12 CONDUIT : C13 CONDUIT : C14 CONDUIT : C15 CONDUIT : C16 CONDUIT : C17 CONDUIT : C18 CONDUIT : C19 CONDUIT :

74 C2 CONDUIT : C21 CONDUIT : C22 CONDUIT : C3 CONDUIT : C9 CONDUIT : Orifice_1 ORIFICE : Orifice_2 ORIFICE : Overflow ORIFICE : *************************** Flow Classification Summary *************************** Adjusted Fraction of Time in Flow Class /Actual Up Down Sub Sup Up Down Norm Inlet Conduit Length Dry Dry Dry Crit Crit Crit Crit Ltd Ctrl C C C C C

75 C C C C C C C C C C ************************* Conduit Surcharge Summary ************************* Hours Hours Hours Full Above Full Capacity Conduit Both Ends Upstream Dnstream Normal Flow Limited Analysis begun on: Fri Nov 06 13:46: Analysis ended on: Fri Nov 06 13:46: Total elapsed time: 00:00:03

76

77

78 EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build ) Predevelopment Conditions ********************************************************* NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step. ********************************************************* **************** Analysis Options **************** Flow Units... CMS Process Models: Rainfall/Runoff... YES RDII... NO Snowmelt... NO Groundwater... NO Flow Routing... NO Water Quality... NO Infiltration Method... CURVE_NUMBER Starting Date... JAN :00:00 Ending Date... JAN :00:00 Antecedent Dry Days Report Time Step... 00:01:00 Wet Time Step... 00:05:00 Dry Time Step... 00:05:00 ************* Element Count ************* Number of rain gages... 4 Number of subcatchments Number of nodes... 2 Number of links... 0 Number of pollutants... 0 Number of land uses... 0 **************** Raingage Summary ****************

79 Data Recording Name Data Source Type Interval Raingage1 SCS2Y24HOUR INTENSITY 15 min. SCS_24h_Type_I_25mm SCS_24h_Type_I_25mm INTENSITY 15 min. SCS100Y24H SCS100Y24H INTENSITY 15 min. SCS2Y24H SCS2Y24H INTENSITY 15 min. ******************** Subcatchment Summary ******************** Name Area Width %Imperv %Slope Rain Gage Outlet F SCS2Y24H OF1 F SCS2Y24H F1 L SCS2Y24H OF2 S1A_Y SCS2Y24H S1B_Y S1B_Y SCS2Y24H S1C_Y S1C_Y SCS2Y24H S1D_Y S1D_Y SCS2Y24H S1E_Y S1E_Y SCS2Y24H OF1 S2_Y SCS2Y24H S1A_Y S3_Y SCS2Y24H S1B_Y S4_Y SCS2Y24H S1C_Y S5_Y SCS2Y24H S1D_Y ************ Node Summary ************ Invert Max. Ponded External Name Type Elev. Depth Area Inflow OF1 OUTFALL OF2 OUTFALL ************************** Volume Depth Runoff Quantity Continuity hectare-m mm ************************** Total Precipitation Evaporation Loss Infiltration Loss Surface Runoff

80 Final Surface Storage Continuity Error (%) ************************** Volume Volume Flow Routing Continuity hectare-m 10^6 ltr ************************** Dry Weather Inflow Wet Weather Inflow Groundwater Inflow RDII Inflow External Inflow External Outflow Internal Outflow Evaporation Loss Exfiltration Loss Initial Stored Volume Final Stored Volume Continuity Error (%) *************************** Subcatchment Runoff Summary *************************** Total Total Total Total Total Total Peak Runoff Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff Subcatchment mm mm mm mm mm 10^6 ltr CMS F F L S1A_Y S1B_Y S1C_Y S1D_Y S1E_Y S2_Y S3_Y S4_Y S5_Y Analysis begun on: Tue Nov 03 11:51: Analysis ended on: Tue Nov 03 11:51:

81 Total elapsed time: 00:00:01

82

83 EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build ) Predevelopment Conditions ********************************************************* NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step. ********************************************************* **************** Analysis Options **************** Flow Units... CMS Process Models: Rainfall/Runoff... YES RDII... NO Snowmelt... NO Groundwater... NO Flow Routing... NO Water Quality... NO Infiltration Method... CURVE_NUMBER Starting Date... JAN :00:00 Ending Date... JAN :00:00 Antecedent Dry Days Report Time Step... 00:01:00 Wet Time Step... 00:05:00 Dry Time Step... 00:05:00 ************* Element Count ************* Number of rain gages... 4 Number of subcatchments Number of nodes... 2 Number of links... 0 Number of pollutants... 0 Number of land uses... 0 **************** Raingage Summary ****************

84 Data Recording Name Data Source Type Interval Raingage1 SCS2Y24HOUR INTENSITY 15 min. SCS_24h_Type_I_25mm SCS_24h_Type_I_25mm INTENSITY 15 min. SCS100Y24H SCS100Y24H INTENSITY 15 min. SCS5Y24H SCS5Y24H INTENSITY 15 min. ******************** Subcatchment Summary ******************** Name Area Width %Imperv %Slope Rain Gage Outlet F SCS5Y24H OF1 F SCS5Y24H F1 L SCS5Y24H OF2 S1A_Y SCS5Y24H S1B_Y S1B_Y SCS5Y24H S1C_Y S1C_Y SCS5Y24H S1D_Y S1D_Y SCS5Y24H S1E_Y S1E_Y SCS5Y24H OF1 S2_Y SCS5Y24H S1A_Y S3_Y SCS5Y24H S1B_Y S4_Y SCS5Y24H S1C_Y S5_Y SCS5Y24H S1D_Y ************ Node Summary ************ Invert Max. Ponded External Name Type Elev. Depth Area Inflow OF1 OUTFALL OF2 OUTFALL ************************** Volume Depth Runoff Quantity Continuity hectare-m mm ************************** Total Precipitation Evaporation Loss Infiltration Loss Surface Runoff

85 Final Surface Storage Continuity Error (%) ************************** Volume Volume Flow Routing Continuity hectare-m 10^6 ltr ************************** Dry Weather Inflow Wet Weather Inflow Groundwater Inflow RDII Inflow External Inflow External Outflow Internal Outflow Evaporation Loss Exfiltration Loss Initial Stored Volume Final Stored Volume Continuity Error (%) *************************** Subcatchment Runoff Summary *************************** Total Total Total Total Total Total Peak Runoff Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff Subcatchment mm mm mm mm mm 10^6 ltr CMS F F L S1A_Y S1B_Y S1C_Y S1D_Y S1E_Y S2_Y S3_Y S4_Y S5_Y Analysis begun on: Tue Nov 03 11:51: Analysis ended on: Tue Nov 03 11:51:

86 Total elapsed time: 00:00:02

87

88 EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build ) Predevelopment Conditions ********************************************************* NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step. ********************************************************* **************** Analysis Options **************** Flow Units... CMS Process Models: Rainfall/Runoff... YES RDII... NO Snowmelt... NO Groundwater... NO Flow Routing... YES Ponding Allowed... NO Water Quality... NO Infiltration Method... CURVE_NUMBER Flow Routing Method... DYNWAVE Starting Date... JAN :00:00 Ending Date... JAN :00:00 Antecedent Dry Days Report Time Step... 00:01:00 Wet Time Step... 00:05:00 Dry Time Step... 00:05:00 Routing Time Step sec Variable Time Step... YES Maximum Trials... 8 Head Tolerance m ************* Element Count ************* Number of rain gages Number of subcatchments Number of nodes Number of links Number of pollutants... 0

89 Number of land uses... 0 **************** Raingage Summary **************** Data Recording Name Data Source Type Interval CHI10Y4H CHI10Y4H INTENSITY 10 min. CHI2Y4H CHI2Y4H INTENSITY 10 min. CHI5Y4H CHI5Y4H INTENSITY 10 min. Raingage1test Timeseries1scs5y12h INTENSITY 15 min. SCS_24h_Type_I_25mm SCS_24h_Type_I_25mm INTENSITY 15 min. SCS100Y6H SCS100Y6H INTENSITY 15 min. SCS10Y6H SCS10Y6H INTENSITY 15 min. SCS10Y6HR SCS10Y6HOURCOB INTENSITY 15 min. SCS25Y6H SCS25Y6H INTENSITY 15 min. SCS25Y6HR SCS25Y6HRCOB INTENSITY 15 min. SCS25YR24HR SCS25YR24HRCOB INTENSITY 15 min. SCS2YR6HR SCS2Y6HR INTENSITY 15 min. SCS50Y6H SCS50Y6H INTENSITY 15 min. SCS50Y6HR SCS50YR6HR INTENSITY 15 min. SCS50YR24HR SCS50Y24HR INTENSITY 15 min. SCS5Y24H SCS5Y24H INTENSITY 15 min. SCS5Y6H SCS5Y6H INTENSITY 15 min. SCS5YR6HR SCS5Y6HOUR INTENSITY 15 min. ******************** Subcatchment Summary ******************** Name Area Width %Imperv %Slope Rain Gage Outlet F1_F CHI2Y4H J8_F F10_F CHI2Y4H J17_F F11_F CHI2Y4H J17_F F12_F CHI2Y4H J18_F F13_F CHI2Y4H J14_F F14_F CHI2Y4H J19_F F15_F CHI2Y4H J19_F F16_F CHI2Y4H J22_F F2_F CHI2Y4H J8_F F3_F CHI2Y4H J9_F F4_F CHI2Y4H J9_F F5_F CHI2Y4H J12_F

90 F6_DEV_F CHI2Y4H J14_F F7_DEV_F CHI2Y4H J22_F F8_F CHI2Y4H J25_F F9_DEV_F CHI2Y4H J15_F L1_F CHI2Y4H J2_F L2_F CHI2Y4H J3_F L3_F CHI2Y4H J4_F L4_F CHI2Y4H J5_F S CHI2Y4H No.1 S CHI2Y4H No.2 S3A CHI2Y4H No.3 S3B CHI2Y4H No.3 S4A CHI2Y4H CBMHNo.2 S4B CHI2Y4H No.4 S4C CHI2Y4H No.4 S5A CHI2Y4H CBMHNo.4 S5B CHI2Y4H No.5 S5C CHI2Y4H No.5 S6A CHI2Y4H CBMHNo.5 S6B CHI2Y4H No.6 S6C CHI2Y4H No.6 S7A CHI2Y4H CBMHNo.7 S7B CHI2Y4H No.7 S7C CHI2Y4H CBMHNo.6 S CHI2Y4H 1 ************ Node Summary ************ Invert Max. Ponded External Name Type Elev. Depth Area Inflow JUNCTION JUNCTION JUNCTION JUNCTION CBMHNo.1 JUNCTION CBMHNo.2 JUNCTION CBMHNo.3 JUNCTION CBMHNo.301 JUNCTION CBMHNo.302 JUNCTION CBMHNo.4 JUNCTION CBMHNo.5 JUNCTION CBMHNo.6 JUNCTION CBMHNo.7 JUNCTION

91 J10_F JUNCTION J11_F JUNCTION J12_F JUNCTION J13_F JUNCTION J14_F JUNCTION J15_F JUNCTION J16_F JUNCTION J17_F JUNCTION J18_F JUNCTION J19_F JUNCTION J2_F JUNCTION J20_F JUNCTION J22_F JUNCTION J25_F JUNCTION J3_F JUNCTION J4_F JUNCTION J5_F JUNCTION J8_F JUNCTION J9_F JUNCTION No.1 JUNCTION No.2 JUNCTION No.3 JUNCTION No.4 JUNCTION No.5 JUNCTION No.6 JUNCTION No.7 JUNCTION STC.3000 JUNCTION OF1 OUTFALL OF2_F OUTFALL STORAGE ************ Link Summary ************ Name From Node To Node Type Length %Slope Roughness CBMHNo.301 CBMHNo.302 CONDUIT _F J22_F J13_F CONDUIT CONDUIT _F J3_F J4_F CONDUIT CBMHNo.5 CBMHNo.6 CONDUIT _F J4_F J5_F CONDUIT CBMHNo.6 CBMHNo.7 CONDUIT _F J4_F J5_F CONDUIT CBMHNo.7 No.7 CONDUIT

92 13_F J5_F OF2_F CONDUIT CBMHNo.1 CBMHNo.2 CONDUIT _F J16_F J17_F CONDUIT CBMHNo.2 CBMHNo.3 CONDUIT _F J17_F J18_F CONDUIT CBMHNo.3 CBMHNo.4 CONDUIT _F J18_F J14_F CONDUIT CBMHNo.4 STC.3000 CONDUIT _F J14_F J19_F CONDUIT STC.3000 No.5 CONDUIT _F J19_F J20_F CONDUIT CONDUIT _F J13_F J14_F CONDUIT CBMHNo.302 No.1 CONDUIT _F J8_F J9_F CONDUIT J20_F CONDUIT _F J20_F 4 CONDUIT OF1 CONDUIT _F J25_F J17_F CONDUIT No.1 No.2 CONDUIT _F J8_F J9_F CONDUIT No.2 No.3 CONDUIT _F J9_F J10_F CONDUIT No.3 No.4 CONDUIT _F J10_F J11_F CONDUIT No.4 No.5 CONDUIT _F J11_F J12_F CONDUIT No.5 No.6 CONDUIT _F J12_F J13_F CONDUIT No.6 No.7 CONDUIT _F J3_F J4_F CONDUIT No.7 1 CONDUIT _F J2_F J3_F CONDUIT C10_F J10_F J11_F CONDUIT C11_F J11_F J12_F CONDUIT C12_F J12_F J13_F CONDUIT C13_F J13_F J14_F CONDUIT C14_F J14_F J19_F CONDUIT C15_F J15_F J16_F CONDUIT C16_F J16_F J17_F CONDUIT C17_F J17_F J18_F CONDUIT C18_F J18_F J14_F CONDUIT C19_F J19_F J20_F CONDUIT C2_F J2_F J3_F CONDUIT C21_F J9_F J10_F CONDUIT C22_F J22_F J13_F CONDUIT

93 C3_F J3_F J4_F CONDUIT C9_F J8_F J9_F CONDUIT ORIFICE ORIFICE Orifice_1 4 5 ORIFICE ********************* Cross Section Summary ********************* Full Full Hyd. Max. No. of Full Conduit Shape Depth Area Rad. Width Barrels Flow CIRCULAR _F CIRCULAR CIRCULAR _F Street CIRCULAR _F Street CIRCULAR _F CIRCULAR CIRCULAR _F CIRCULAR CIRCULAR _F Street CIRCULAR _F Street CIRCULAR _F Street CIRCULAR _F Street CIRCULAR _F Street CIRCULAR _F Street CIRCULAR _F CIRCULAR CIRCULAR _F CIRCULAR CIRCULAR _F CIRCULAR CIRCULAR _F Street CIRCULAR _F Street CIRCULAR

94 5_F Street CIRCULAR _F Street CIRCULAR _F Street CIRCULAR _F CIRCULAR CIRCULAR _F Street C10_F CIRCULAR C11_F CIRCULAR C12_F CIRCULAR C13_F CIRCULAR C14_F CIRCULAR C15_F CIRCULAR C16_F CIRCULAR C17_F CIRCULAR C18_F CIRCULAR C19_F CIRCULAR C2_F CIRCULAR C21_F CIRCULAR C22_F CIRCULAR C3_F CIRCULAR C9_F CIRCULAR **************** Transect Summary **************** Transect Street1 Area: Hrad:

95 Width: ************************** Volume Depth Runoff Quantity Continuity hectare-m mm ************************** Total Precipitation Evaporation Loss Infiltration Loss Surface Runoff Final Surface Storage Continuity Error (%) ************************** Volume Volume Flow Routing Continuity hectare-m 10^6 ltr ************************** Dry Weather Inflow Wet Weather Inflow Groundwater Inflow RDII Inflow External Inflow External Outflow Internal Outflow Evaporation Loss Exfiltration Loss Initial Stored Volume Final Stored Volume

96 Continuity Error (%) *************************** Time-Step Critical Elements *************************** Link 20_F (47.23%) Link C19_F (2.12%) Link 20 (1.34%) ******************************** Highest Flow Instability Indexes ******************************** Link 20 (5) Link 19 (5) Link 20_F (5) Link 10 (3) ************************* Routing Time Step Summary ************************* Minimum Time Step : 0.64 sec Average Time Step : 3.15 sec Maximum Time Step : 5.00 sec Percent in Steady State : 0.00 Average Iterations per Step : 2.31 Percent Not Converging : 1.15 *************************** Subcatchment Runoff Summary *************************** Total Total Total Total Total Total Peak Runoff Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff Subcatchment mm mm mm mm mm 10^6 ltr CMS F1_F F10_F F11_F F12_F F13_F F14_F

97 F15_F F16_F F2_F F3_F F4_F F5_F F6_DEV_F F7_DEV_F F8_F F9_DEV_F L1_F L2_F L3_F L4_F S S S3A S3B S4A S4B S4C S5A S5B S5C S6A S6B S6C S7A S7B S7C S ****************** Node Depth Summary ****************** Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max Depth Depth HGL Occurrence Node Type Meters Meters Meters days hr:min JUNCTION :30 2 JUNCTION :30 3 JUNCTION :20 5 JUNCTION :14

98 CBMHNo.1 JUNCTION :00 CBMHNo.2 JUNCTION :30 CBMHNo.3 JUNCTION :30 CBMHNo.301 JUNCTION :00 CBMHNo.302 JUNCTION :00 CBMHNo.4 JUNCTION :30 CBMHNo.5 JUNCTION :30 CBMHNo.6 JUNCTION :30 CBMHNo.7 JUNCTION :30 J10_F JUNCTION :30 J11_F JUNCTION :30 J12_F JUNCTION :30 J13_F JUNCTION :30 J14_F JUNCTION :30 J15_F JUNCTION :00 J16_F JUNCTION :00 J17_F JUNCTION :30 J18_F JUNCTION :30 J19_F JUNCTION :30 J2_F JUNCTION :30 J20_F JUNCTION :15 J22_F JUNCTION :30 J25_F JUNCTION :30 J3_F JUNCTION :30 J4_F JUNCTION :30 J5_F JUNCTION :30 J8_F JUNCTION :30 J9_F JUNCTION :30 No.1 JUNCTION :30 No.2 JUNCTION :30 No.3 JUNCTION :30 No.4 JUNCTION :30 No.5 JUNCTION :30 No.6 JUNCTION :30 No.7 JUNCTION :30 STC.3000 JUNCTION :30 OF1 OUTFALL :14 OF2_F OUTFALL :00 4 STORAGE :14 ******************* Node Inflow Summary *******************

99 Maximum Maximum Lateral Total Flow Lateral Total Time of Max Inflow Inflow Balance Inflow Inflow Occurrence Volume Volume Error Node Type CMS CMS days hr:min 10^6 ltr 10^6 ltr Percent JUNCTION : JUNCTION : JUNCTION : JUNCTION : CBMHNo.1 JUNCTION : ltr CBMHNo.2 JUNCTION : CBMHNo.3 JUNCTION : CBMHNo.301 JUNCTION : ltr CBMHNo.302 JUNCTION : ltr CBMHNo.4 JUNCTION : CBMHNo.5 JUNCTION : CBMHNo.6 JUNCTION : CBMHNo.7 JUNCTION : J10_F JUNCTION : J11_F JUNCTION : J12_F JUNCTION : J13_F JUNCTION : J14_F JUNCTION : J15_F JUNCTION : ltr J16_F JUNCTION : ltr J17_F JUNCTION : J18_F JUNCTION : J19_F JUNCTION : J2_F JUNCTION : J20_F JUNCTION : J22_F JUNCTION : J25_F JUNCTION : J3_F JUNCTION : J4_F JUNCTION : J5_F JUNCTION : J8_F JUNCTION : J9_F JUNCTION : No.1 JUNCTION : No.2 JUNCTION : No.3 JUNCTION : No.4 JUNCTION : No.5 JUNCTION : No.6 JUNCTION : No.7 JUNCTION : STC.3000 JUNCTION : OF1 OUTFALL :

100 OF2_F OUTFALL : STORAGE : ********************** Node Surcharge Summary ********************** No nodes were surcharged. ********************* Node Flooding Summary ********************* No nodes were flooded. ********************** Storage Volume Summary ********************** Average Avg Evap Exfil Maximum Max Time of Max Maximum Volume Pcnt Pcnt Pcnt Volume Pcnt Occurrence Outflow Storage Unit 1000 m3 Full Loss Loss 1000 m3 Full days hr:min CMS : *********************** Outfall Loading Summary *********************** Flow Avg Max Total Freq Flow Flow Volume Outfall Node Pcnt CMS CMS 10^6 ltr OF OF2_F System ********************

101 Link Flow Summary ******************** Maximum Time of Max Maximum Max/ Max/ Flow Occurrence Veloc Full Full Link Type CMS days hr:min m/sec Flow Depth CONDUIT : _F CONDUIT : CONDUIT : _F CHANNEL : CONDUIT : _F CHANNEL : CONDUIT : _F CONDUIT : CONDUIT : _F CONDUIT : CONDUIT : _F CHANNEL : CONDUIT : _F CHANNEL : CONDUIT : _F CHANNEL : CONDUIT : _F CHANNEL : CONDUIT : _F CHANNEL : CONDUIT : _F CHANNEL : CONDUIT : _F CONDUIT : CONDUIT : _F CONDUIT : CONDUIT : _F CONDUIT : CONDUIT : _F CHANNEL : CONDUIT : _F CHANNEL : CONDUIT : _F CHANNEL : CONDUIT : _F CHANNEL : CONDUIT : _F CHANNEL :

102 8 CONDUIT : _F CONDUIT : CONDUIT : _F CHANNEL : C10_F CONDUIT : C11_F CONDUIT : C12_F CONDUIT : C13_F CONDUIT : C14_F CONDUIT : C15_F CONDUIT : C16_F CONDUIT : C17_F CONDUIT : C18_F CONDUIT : C19_F CONDUIT : C2_F CONDUIT : C21_F CONDUIT : C22_F CONDUIT : C3_F CONDUIT : C9_F CONDUIT : ORIFICE : ORIFICE : Orifice_1 ORIFICE : *************************** Flow Classification Summary *************************** Adjusted Fraction of Time in Flow Class /Actual Up Down Sub Sup Up Down Norm Inlet Conduit Length Dry Dry Dry Crit Crit Crit Crit Ltd Ctrl _F _F _F _F _F _F

103 15_F _F _F _F _F _F _F _F _F _F _F _F _F _F _F C10_F C11_F C12_F C13_F C14_F C15_F C16_F C17_F C18_F C19_F C2_F C21_F C22_F C3_F C9_F

104 ************************* Conduit Surcharge Summary ************************* Hours Hours Hours Full Above Full Capacity Conduit Both Ends Upstream Dnstream Normal Flow Limited Analysis begun on: Fri Nov 06 16:12: Analysis ended on: Fri Nov 06 16:12: Total elapsed time: 00:00:02

105

106 EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build ) Predevelopment Conditions ********************************************************* NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step. ********************************************************* **************** Analysis Options **************** Flow Units... CMS Process Models: Rainfall/Runoff... YES RDII... NO Snowmelt... NO Groundwater... NO Flow Routing... YES Ponding Allowed... NO Water Quality... NO Infiltration Method... CURVE_NUMBER Flow Routing Method... DYNWAVE Starting Date... JAN :00:00 Ending Date... JAN :00:00 Antecedent Dry Days Report Time Step... 00:01:00 Wet Time Step... 00:05:00 Dry Time Step... 00:05:00 Routing Time Step sec Variable Time Step... YES Maximum Trials... 8 Head Tolerance m ************* Element Count ************* Number of rain gages Number of subcatchments Number of nodes Number of links Number of pollutants... 0

107 Number of land uses... 0 **************** Raingage Summary **************** Data Recording Name Data Source Type Interval CHI10Y4H CHI10Y4H INTENSITY 10 min. CHI2Y4H CHI2Y4H INTENSITY 10 min. CHI5Y4H CHI5Y4H INTENSITY 10 min. Raingage1test Timeseries1scs5y12h INTENSITY 15 min. SCS_24h_Type_I_25mm SCS_24h_Type_I_25mm INTENSITY 15 min. SCS100Y6H SCS100Y6H INTENSITY 15 min. SCS10Y6H SCS10Y6H INTENSITY 15 min. SCS10Y6HR SCS10Y6HOURCOB INTENSITY 15 min. SCS25Y6H SCS25Y6H INTENSITY 15 min. SCS25Y6HR SCS25Y6HRCOB INTENSITY 15 min. SCS25YR24HR SCS25YR24HRCOB INTENSITY 15 min. SCS2YR6HR SCS2Y6HR INTENSITY 15 min. SCS50Y6H SCS50Y6H INTENSITY 15 min. SCS50Y6HR SCS50YR6HR INTENSITY 15 min. SCS50YR24HR SCS50Y24HR INTENSITY 15 min. SCS5Y24H SCS5Y24H INTENSITY 15 min. SCS5Y6H SCS5Y6H INTENSITY 15 min. SCS5YR6HR SCS5Y6HOUR INTENSITY 15 min. ******************** Subcatchment Summary ******************** Name Area Width %Imperv %Slope Rain Gage Outlet F1_F SCS5Y6H J8_F F10_F SCS5Y6H J17_F F11_F SCS5Y6H J17_F F12_F SCS5Y6H J18_F F13_F SCS5Y6H J14_F F14_F SCS5Y6H J19_F F15_F SCS5Y6H J19_F F16_F SCS5Y6H J22_F F2_F SCS5Y6H J8_F F3_F SCS5Y6H J9_F F4_F SCS5Y6H J9_F F5_F SCS5Y6H J12_F

108 F6_DEV_F SCS5Y6H J14_F F7_DEV_F SCS5Y6H J22_F F8_F SCS5Y6H J25_F F9_DEV_F SCS5Y6H J15_F L1_F SCS5Y6H J2_F L2_F SCS5Y6H J3_F L3_F SCS5Y6H J4_F L4_F SCS5Y6H J5_F S SCS5Y6H No.1 S SCS5Y6H No.2 S3A SCS5Y6H No.3 S3B SCS5Y6H No.3 S4A SCS5Y6H CBMHNo.2 S4B SCS5Y6H No.4 S4C SCS5Y6H No.4 S5A SCS5Y6H CBMHNo.4 S5B SCS5Y6H No.5 S5C SCS5Y6H No.5 S6A SCS5Y6H CBMHNo.5 S6B SCS5Y6H No.6 S6C SCS5Y6H No.6 S7A SCS5Y6H CBMHNo.7 S7B SCS5Y6H No.7 S7C SCS5Y6H CBMHNo.6 S SCS5Y6H 1 ************ Node Summary ************ Invert Max. Ponded External Name Type Elev. Depth Area Inflow JUNCTION JUNCTION JUNCTION JUNCTION CBMHNo.1 JUNCTION CBMHNo.2 JUNCTION CBMHNo.3 JUNCTION CBMHNo.301 JUNCTION CBMHNo.302 JUNCTION CBMHNo.4 JUNCTION CBMHNo.5 JUNCTION CBMHNo.6 JUNCTION CBMHNo.7 JUNCTION

109 J10_F JUNCTION J11_F JUNCTION J12_F JUNCTION J13_F JUNCTION J14_F JUNCTION J15_F JUNCTION J16_F JUNCTION J17_F JUNCTION J18_F JUNCTION J19_F JUNCTION J2_F JUNCTION J20_F JUNCTION J22_F JUNCTION J25_F JUNCTION J3_F JUNCTION J4_F JUNCTION J5_F JUNCTION J8_F JUNCTION J9_F JUNCTION No.1 JUNCTION No.2 JUNCTION No.3 JUNCTION No.4 JUNCTION No.5 JUNCTION No.6 JUNCTION No.7 JUNCTION STC.3000 JUNCTION OF1 OUTFALL OF2_F OUTFALL STORAGE ************ Link Summary ************ Name From Node To Node Type Length %Slope Roughness CBMHNo.301 CBMHNo.302 CONDUIT _F J22_F J13_F CONDUIT CONDUIT _F J3_F J4_F CONDUIT CBMHNo.5 CBMHNo.6 CONDUIT _F J4_F J5_F CONDUIT CBMHNo.6 CBMHNo.7 CONDUIT _F J4_F J5_F CONDUIT CBMHNo.7 No.7 CONDUIT

110 13_F J5_F OF2_F CONDUIT CBMHNo.1 CBMHNo.2 CONDUIT _F J16_F J17_F CONDUIT CBMHNo.2 CBMHNo.3 CONDUIT _F J17_F J18_F CONDUIT CBMHNo.3 CBMHNo.4 CONDUIT _F J18_F J14_F CONDUIT CBMHNo.4 STC.3000 CONDUIT _F J14_F J19_F CONDUIT STC.3000 No.5 CONDUIT _F J19_F J20_F CONDUIT CONDUIT _F J13_F J14_F CONDUIT CBMHNo.302 No.1 CONDUIT _F J8_F J9_F CONDUIT J20_F CONDUIT _F J20_F 4 CONDUIT OF1 CONDUIT _F J25_F J17_F CONDUIT No.1 No.2 CONDUIT _F J8_F J9_F CONDUIT No.2 No.3 CONDUIT _F J9_F J10_F CONDUIT No.3 No.4 CONDUIT _F J10_F J11_F CONDUIT No.4 No.5 CONDUIT _F J11_F J12_F CONDUIT No.5 No.6 CONDUIT _F J12_F J13_F CONDUIT No.6 No.7 CONDUIT _F J3_F J4_F CONDUIT No.7 1 CONDUIT _F J2_F J3_F CONDUIT C10_F J10_F J11_F CONDUIT C11_F J11_F J12_F CONDUIT C12_F J12_F J13_F CONDUIT C13_F J13_F J14_F CONDUIT C14_F J14_F J19_F CONDUIT C15_F J15_F J16_F CONDUIT C16_F J16_F J17_F CONDUIT C17_F J17_F J18_F CONDUIT C18_F J18_F J14_F CONDUIT C19_F J19_F J20_F CONDUIT C2_F J2_F J3_F CONDUIT C21_F J9_F J10_F CONDUIT C22_F J22_F J13_F CONDUIT

111 C3_F J3_F J4_F CONDUIT C9_F J8_F J9_F CONDUIT ORIFICE ORIFICE Orifice_1 4 5 ORIFICE ********************* Cross Section Summary ********************* Full Full Hyd. Max. No. of Full Conduit Shape Depth Area Rad. Width Barrels Flow CIRCULAR _F CIRCULAR CIRCULAR _F Street CIRCULAR _F Street CIRCULAR _F CIRCULAR CIRCULAR _F CIRCULAR CIRCULAR _F Street CIRCULAR _F Street CIRCULAR _F Street CIRCULAR _F Street CIRCULAR _F Street CIRCULAR _F Street CIRCULAR _F CIRCULAR CIRCULAR _F CIRCULAR CIRCULAR _F CIRCULAR CIRCULAR _F Street CIRCULAR _F Street CIRCULAR

112 5_F Street CIRCULAR _F Street CIRCULAR _F Street CIRCULAR _F CIRCULAR CIRCULAR _F Street C10_F CIRCULAR C11_F CIRCULAR C12_F CIRCULAR C13_F CIRCULAR C14_F CIRCULAR C15_F CIRCULAR C16_F CIRCULAR C17_F CIRCULAR C18_F CIRCULAR C19_F CIRCULAR C2_F CIRCULAR C21_F CIRCULAR C22_F CIRCULAR C3_F CIRCULAR C9_F CIRCULAR **************** Transect Summary **************** Transect Street1 Area: Hrad:

113 Width: ************************** Volume Depth Runoff Quantity Continuity hectare-m mm ************************** Total Precipitation Evaporation Loss Infiltration Loss Surface Runoff Final Surface Storage Continuity Error (%) ************************** Volume Volume Flow Routing Continuity hectare-m 10^6 ltr ************************** Dry Weather Inflow Wet Weather Inflow Groundwater Inflow RDII Inflow External Inflow External Outflow Internal Outflow Evaporation Loss Exfiltration Loss Initial Stored Volume Final Stored Volume

114 Continuity Error (%) *************************** Time-Step Critical Elements *************************** Link 20_F (33.80%) Link 21 (13.22%) Link 19 (3.53%) Link C19_F (2.58%) Link 20 (1.50%) ******************************** Highest Flow Instability Indexes ******************************** Link 20 (12) Link 20_F (8) Link 19 (7) Link 10 (5) Link C19_F (5) ************************* Routing Time Step Summary ************************* Minimum Time Step : 0.50 sec Average Time Step : 2.97 sec Maximum Time Step : 5.00 sec Percent in Steady State : 0.00 Average Iterations per Step : 2.40 Percent Not Converging : 0.58 *************************** Subcatchment Runoff Summary *************************** Total Total Total Total Total Total Peak Runoff Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff Subcatchment mm mm mm mm mm 10^6 ltr CMS F1_F F10_F F11_F

115 F12_F F13_F F14_F F15_F F16_F F2_F F3_F F4_F F5_F F6_DEV_F F7_DEV_F F8_F F9_DEV_F L1_F L2_F L3_F L4_F S S S3A S3B S4A S4B S4C S5A S5B S5C S6A S6B S6C S7A S7B S7C S ****************** Node Depth Summary ****************** Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max Depth Depth HGL Occurrence Node Type Meters Meters Meters days hr:min JUNCTION :16

116 2 JUNCTION :16 3 JUNCTION :29 5 JUNCTION :23 CBMHNo.1 JUNCTION :00 CBMHNo.2 JUNCTION :15 CBMHNo.3 JUNCTION :15 CBMHNo.301 JUNCTION :00 CBMHNo.302 JUNCTION :00 CBMHNo.4 JUNCTION :15 CBMHNo.5 JUNCTION :15 CBMHNo.6 JUNCTION :15 CBMHNo.7 JUNCTION :15 J10_F JUNCTION :15 J11_F JUNCTION :15 J12_F JUNCTION :15 J13_F JUNCTION :15 J14_F JUNCTION :15 J15_F JUNCTION :00 J16_F JUNCTION :00 J17_F JUNCTION :15 J18_F JUNCTION :15 J19_F JUNCTION :15 J2_F JUNCTION :15 J20_F JUNCTION :29 J22_F JUNCTION :15 J25_F JUNCTION :15 J3_F JUNCTION :15 J4_F JUNCTION :15 J5_F JUNCTION :15 J8_F JUNCTION :15 J9_F JUNCTION :15 No.1 JUNCTION :15 No.2 JUNCTION :15 No.3 JUNCTION :06 No.4 JUNCTION :05 No.5 JUNCTION :15 No.6 JUNCTION :15 No.7 JUNCTION :16 STC.3000 JUNCTION :15 OF1 OUTFALL :23 OF2_F OUTFALL :00 4 STORAGE :23 ******************* Node Inflow Summary

117 ******************* Maximum Maximum Lateral Total Flow Lateral Total Time of Max Inflow Inflow Balance Inflow Inflow Occurrence Volume Volume Error Node Type CMS CMS days hr:min 10^6 ltr 10^6 ltr Percent JUNCTION : JUNCTION : JUNCTION : JUNCTION : CBMHNo.1 JUNCTION : ltr CBMHNo.2 JUNCTION : CBMHNo.3 JUNCTION : CBMHNo.301 JUNCTION : ltr CBMHNo.302 JUNCTION : ltr CBMHNo.4 JUNCTION : CBMHNo.5 JUNCTION : CBMHNo.6 JUNCTION : CBMHNo.7 JUNCTION : J10_F JUNCTION : J11_F JUNCTION : J12_F JUNCTION : J13_F JUNCTION : J14_F JUNCTION : J15_F JUNCTION : ltr J16_F JUNCTION : ltr J17_F JUNCTION : J18_F JUNCTION : J19_F JUNCTION : J2_F JUNCTION : J20_F JUNCTION : J22_F JUNCTION : J25_F JUNCTION : J3_F JUNCTION : J4_F JUNCTION : J5_F JUNCTION : J8_F JUNCTION : J9_F JUNCTION : No.1 JUNCTION : No.2 JUNCTION : No.3 JUNCTION : No.4 JUNCTION : No.5 JUNCTION : No.6 JUNCTION :

118 No.7 JUNCTION : STC.3000 JUNCTION : OF1 OUTFALL : OF2_F OUTFALL : STORAGE : ********************** Node Surcharge Summary ********************** Surcharging occurs when water rises above the top of the highest conduit Max. Height Min. Depth Hours Above Crown Below Rim Node Type Surcharged Meters Meters JUNCTION JUNCTION No.3 JUNCTION No.4 JUNCTION ********************* Node Flooding Summary ********************* Flooding refers to all water that overflows a node, whether it ponds or not Total Maximum Maximum Time of Max Flood Ponded Hours Rate Occurrence Volume Depth Node Flooded CMS days hr:min 10^6 ltr Meters : No : No : ********************** Storage Volume Summary ********************** Average Avg Evap Exfil Maximum Max Time of Max Maximum Volume Pcnt Pcnt Pcnt Volume Pcnt Occurrence Outflow

119 Storage Unit 1000 m3 Full Loss Loss 1000 m3 Full days hr:min CMS : *********************** Outfall Loading Summary *********************** Flow Avg Max Total Freq Flow Flow Volume Outfall Node Pcnt CMS CMS 10^6 ltr OF OF2_F System ******************** Link Flow Summary ******************** Maximum Time of Max Maximum Max/ Max/ Flow Occurrence Veloc Full Full Link Type CMS days hr:min m/sec Flow Depth CONDUIT : _F CONDUIT : CONDUIT : _F CHANNEL : CONDUIT : _F CHANNEL : CONDUIT : _F CONDUIT : CONDUIT : _F CONDUIT : CONDUIT : _F CHANNEL : CONDUIT : _F CHANNEL : CONDUIT : _F CHANNEL : CONDUIT :

120 17_F CHANNEL : CONDUIT : _F CHANNEL : CONDUIT : _F CHANNEL : CONDUIT : _F CONDUIT : CONDUIT : _F CONDUIT : CONDUIT : _F CONDUIT : CONDUIT : _F CHANNEL : CONDUIT : _F CHANNEL : CONDUIT : _F CHANNEL : CONDUIT : _F CHANNEL : CONDUIT : _F CHANNEL : CONDUIT : _F CONDUIT : CONDUIT : _F CHANNEL : C10_F CONDUIT : C11_F CONDUIT : C12_F CONDUIT : C13_F CONDUIT : C14_F CONDUIT : C15_F CONDUIT : C16_F CONDUIT : C17_F CONDUIT : C18_F CONDUIT : C19_F CONDUIT : C2_F CONDUIT : C21_F CONDUIT : C22_F CONDUIT : C3_F CONDUIT : C9_F CONDUIT : ORIFICE : ORIFICE : Orifice_1 ORIFICE : ***************************

121 Flow Classification Summary *************************** Adjusted Fraction of Time in Flow Class /Actual Up Down Sub Sup Up Down Norm Inlet Conduit Length Dry Dry Dry Crit Crit Crit Crit Ltd Ctrl _F _F _F _F _F _F _F _F _F _F _F _F _F _F _F _F _F _F _F

122 _F _F C10_F C11_F C12_F C13_F C14_F C15_F C16_F C17_F C18_F C19_F C2_F C21_F C22_F C3_F C9_F ************************* Conduit Surcharge Summary ************************* Hours Hours Hours Full Above Full Capacity Conduit Both Ends Upstream Dnstream Normal Flow Limited _F _F _F C19_F C3_F Analysis begun on: Fri Nov 06 16:12: Analysis ended on: Fri Nov 06 16:12: Total elapsed time: 00:00:02

123 APPENDIX C Low Impact Development Details

124 Figure 1 Etobicoke Exfiltration System, Source: Appendix C Low Impact Development Details

125 Appendix C Low Impact Development Details Figure 2 Etobicoke Exfiltration System Schematic Detail, Source:

126 Appendix C Low Impact Development Details Figure 2 Etobicoke Exfiltration System Trench Cross Section detail, Source: technologies.ca

127

128

129

130

131