Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report Paris Grand Submission

Transcription

1 Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report Paris Grand Submission GolfNorth Properties 400 Golf Course Road Conestoga, ON N0B1N0 R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 6990 Creditview Road, Unit 2 Mississauga ON L5N 8R9 CANADA March 2015 PGD020165

2

3 GolfNorth Properties ii Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March 2015 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction and Previous Area Study Submission Site Description Background Information Additional Studies and Documentation Development Concept Existing Site Conditions Topography Soil Conditions Groundwater Conditions County of Brant Servicing Master Plan Grading and Storm Drainage Site Grading Existing Storm Drainage Proposed Storm Drainage Minor System Storm Conveyance Major System Storm Conveyance Post-Development Catchments Stormwater Management Environmental Constraints Environmental and Natural Heritage Features Gilbert Creek Flood LInes Gilbert Creek Erosion Criteria Gilbert Creek Subwatershed Study Erosion Criteria Previous Memo Comparison of Runoff Volumes to Gilbert Creek SWS Proposed Volumetric Reduction Approach LVM/Stantec Water Balance Update Stormwater Management Design Implications Stormwater Management Facility Design Design Approach Erosion Control Storage Quantity Control Criteria Existing Paris Links Road SWM Facility Existing Paris Lakes Road SWM Outfall Quality Control Site Infiltration and Water Balance Gilbert Creek WT South Wetland WT Implementation of 3 rd Pipe Diversion and Infiltration Gallery Additional Considerations and Detailed Design R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

4 GolfNorth Properties iii Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March Thermal Impacts and Temperature Mitigation Monitoring Erosion and Sediment Control Recommendations Stormwater Management Wastewater Servicing Wastewater Design Criteria Design Flows New Sanitary Pumping Station Existing Paris Links Road SPS Conveyance of Existing Flows to New Paris Grand SPS Proposed New Sanitary Pumping Station Staged Development on Draft Plan Lands External Sanitary Sewer System Constraints Paris Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Downstream Sanitary Sewer Analysis Conclusions Draft Plan Area Wastewater Servicing Water Supply and Distribution Design Criteria Design Flows Existing Supply Conditions and System Upgrades Paris Water Model Update to Include Paris Grand Demand Existing GolfNorth Supply Wells Preliminary Watermain Layout Conclusions Draft Plan Area Water Servicing Traffic Study and Roads Traffic Report Right-of-Way Widths Paris Lake Road Improvements Summary Conclusion R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

5 GolfNorth Properties iv Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March 2015 Tables Table 1: Preliminary Unit Counts and Populations... 6 Table 2: 25 mm Event (Erosion Storage) Requirements Table 3: Storage Volume Alternatives for Pond 1 (100-year Design Event, SCS 24 Hour) Table 4: Diversion Comparison for Pond 1 (100-year Design Event, SCS 24 Hour Table 5: Pond 1-3 Hour Chicago SWMHYMO Modelling Outputs Table 6: Pond 2-3 Hour Chicago SWMHYMO Modelling Outputs Table 7: Diversion Comparison for Pond 3 (100-year Design Event. SCS 24 Hour) Table 8: Pond 3-24 Hour SCS - SWMHYMO Modelling Outputs Table 9: Quality Control Volume Summary Table 10: Sanitary Design Flows Table 11: Downstream Sewer Surcharging with Paris Grand Flows Included Table 12: Preliminary Estimate of Water Demand Figures Figure 1: Site Location Plan... 3 Figure 2: Development Concept Plan... 5 Figure 3: Existing Site Conditions... Back Pocket Figure 4: Preliminary Grading Plan... Back Pocket Figure 4A: Preliminary Plan/Profile Paris Links Road... Back Pocket Figure 5: Pre-Development Storm Drainage Plan... Back Pocket Figure 6: Post Development Storm Drainage Plan... Back Pocket Figure 6A: Post-Development Storm Drainage Plan (3 rd Pipe Rooftop Collection) Back Pocket Figure 7: Preliminary Pond Design... Back Pocket Figure 7A: Preliminary Pond Cross Sections... Back Pocket Figure 8: Preliminary Storm Servicing Plan... Back Pocket Figure 8A: Preliminary Storm Servicing Plan (3 rd Pipe Rooftop Collection)... Back Pocket Figure 9: Preliminary Sanitary Servicing Plan... Back Pocket Figure 10: Preliminary Water Servicing Plan... Back Pocket Appendices Figures Appendix A LVM Borehole Data Appendix B Preliminary Storm Sewer Design Calculations Appendix C Stormwater Management Calculations and Modelling Appendix D Preliminary Sanitary Sewer Design Calculations Appendix E Downstream Sanitary Sewers Summary Table and Constraint Maps Appendix F Sanitary Pumping Station Rationale and Preliminary Design Brief Appendix G Preliminary Water Demand Calculations and Additional Background R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

6 GolfNorth Properties v Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March 2015 Disclaimer This document contains proprietary and confidential information. As such, it is for the sole use of the addressee and R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited, and proprietary information shall not be disclosed, in any manner, to a third party except by the express written permission of R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited. This document is deemed to be the intellectual property of R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited in accordance with Canadian copyright law. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

7 GolfNorth Properties 1 Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March Introduction and Previous Area Study Submission R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited (Burnside) has been retained by GolfNorth Properties Ltd. to complete a Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report for the proposed Paris Grand residential subdivision. The Report will support applications for Zoning Bylaw Amendment and Draft Plan of Submission approval by demonstrating that the subject lands can be provided with municipal servicing in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements and criteria. Burnside had previously prepared an Infrastructure Servicing Study for the subject property which was included with the Paris Grand Area Study documentation submitted in February Subsequently, an initial submission of this Functional Servicing Report was included in support of an application for Draft Plan Approval in November This updated Report will serve to extend and provide additional detail as it relates to the proposed sanitary, water and stormwater servicing strategies for the subject lands and address Country and Grand River Conservation Authority comments received on the previous submission. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

8 GolfNorth Properties 2 Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March Site Description The subject lands are located within the existing urban boundary at the east limit of the former Town of Paris, Ontario (now the County of Brant) with a municipal address of 150 Paris Links Road. The property is the site of an operating 18-hole golf course (the Paris Grand Country Club). Paris Links Road divides the property into north and south parcels. The property is bordered to the south by the Grand River, to the north by a former C.N. railway right-of-way and to the west by the built-up area of Paris. The total property holding occupies approximately 59.6 hectares. Figure 1 on the following page is a location plan showing the property in the context of the surrounding area of Paris. The proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision provides for approximately 400 residential units, with a mix of low and medium density unit types. The Draft Plan also provides for roadways, Stormwater Management blocks, blocks for on-site water treatment and sanitary sewage pumping facilities and appropriate designations for environmental features and associated setback buffers. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

9 WOODSLEE AVE AYR RD GRAND RIVER ST N SCOTT AVE OAK AVE SITE PARK LINKS RD SILVER ST WEST RIVER RD S CAPRON ST BROADWAY RIVERVIEW TER WILLOW ST ST W W RIVER ST GRAND RIVER ST N CONSOLIDATED DR GREEN LINE WILLOW ST GOVERNORS RD W KING EDWARD ST DUNDAS ST E PARIS RD WASHINGTON ST RACE ST CURTIS AVE S REST ACRES RD Client CLEAVER RD Meters GOLFNORTH PROPERTIES Figure Title Drawn J.H. Scale N.T.S. PARIS GRAND SUBDIVISON SITE LOCATION PLAN Checked Date Figure No. P.H. OCTOBER 2013 Project No. PGD FIG1 File Name: _FIG01 (LOCATION PLAN).dwg Date Plotted: March 12, :10 PM

10 GolfNorth Properties 4 Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March Background Information 3.1 Additional Studies and Documentation The current report has been prepared in accordance with, and consideration of the information and recommendations provided in the following documents: County of Brant Development and Engineering Standards, May 2014; Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual, Ministry of Environment (MOE), March 2003; Paris Grand Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment - Planning Justification Report, GSP Group Inc., November 2013; Paris Grand Country Club Environmental Impact Study, Natural Resources Solutions Inc. (NRSI), January 2013; Response to GRCA Comments on Environmental Impact Study, Natural Resources Solutions Inc., October 2013; Paris Grand Golf and Country Club Environmental Impact Study - Addendum Report, Natural Resources Solutions Inc. (NRSI), March 2015; Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, LVM, June 2012; Hydrogeology Study Report, LVM, March 2015 (with appended Water Balance and Hydrological Impact Assessment Study, Stantec, March 2015); Analysis of Proposed Access Locations, Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited, June 2012; Paris on the Grand Residential Development TIS - Response to City of Brant Comments, Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited, September 2014; County of Brant Sanitary Sewer Hydraulic Design Sheets, 2012; Paris Grand Golf Club Development Hydraulic Analysis and Field Testing, AECOM, July 2013; Gilbert Creek Subwatershed Study, Planning and Engineering Initiatives Ltd., November 1999; and Design Brief - Paris Links Road SWM Facility, Totten Sims Hubicki, August Development Concept The development proposal includes a mix of low and medium density residential units. Figure 2 - Land Use Concept Plan on the following page is based on the current Draft Plan provided by GSP Group (January 2015). The plan indicates the areas for proposed residential lots, park dedications, Stormwater Management Blocks, Open Space dedications and buffers associated with environmental features on the property. The Plan includes residential areas designated at the block level as low and medium density residential; this has been previously discussed with County Planning and is considered acceptable for this submission. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

11 Riverview Terrace Grand River Existing Residential Street H Residential Block 9 Block ha. Residential 1.27ha. Residential 0.16ha. Res. 0.35ha. Res. Block ha. Open Space Charlton Dr. 0.34ha. 0.24ha. Residential Residential Block 6 Block 8 Block 10 Street G Street I 0.66ha. 0.66ha. Residential Residential Block 14 Block ha. Street A Block ha. 0.36ha. 0.73ha. Block 21 Stormwater Management Block 25 STAGE 1 Res. Existing Residential Management Stormwater Existing Block 27 Block 11 Block 3 Medium Density Residential Residential Block 2 Block ha. 0.41ha. 0.20ha. Residential Residential Block ha. STAGE 1 Management Stormwater 3.78ha. Open Space Block ha. 0.22ha. 0.17ha. STAGE 1 Block 5 Future Dev. Future Dev. Block ha. 0.05ha. Overland Flow Block ha. 0.11ha. Res. Future Dev. Block 4 Block 28 Future Development Block m Reserve 0.3m Reserve Block ha. Block 32 Open Space Block 23 Creek Gilbert Existing Open Space 3.38ha. Medium Density Residential Block ha. Residential Block 16 Creek 0.09ha. Gilbert Res. Blk ha. Stormwater Management Block 12 Street B Block ha. Res. Block ha. Residential Paris Links Road 0.52ha. Residential Block ha. Res. Existing Residential Existing Residential Block ha. 0.40ha. Lot Addition Block 8 Residential Residential Residential Residential Street F 0.40ha. Block 10 Street C Street D 0.60ha. 2.28ha. Block 3 Block 8 Block ha. Residential Block ha. Block ha. Block 3 Block ha. Residential Residential Park SOURCE: Draft Plan of Subdivision, GSP Group Inc., Date January 12, ha. Open Space Block 22 Existing Open Space Existing Residential 0.15ha. and Storage Water Treatment Block 14 Block 13 Overland Flow 0.28ha. Medium Density Residential Block 9 STAGE 2 Block ha. 0.02ha. Walkway Block 15 STAGE ha. Open Space 0.53ha. Residential Block ha. Block 4 Residential Block ha. Open Space Street E Block 10 Lands Owned by Others 0.3m Reserve 0.3m Reserve Block 16 Block ha. Residential 1.67ha. Residential Block ha. Open Space Block 11 Proposed Gravel Pit Total LAND USE SCHEDULE LOTS/BLKS. UNITS STAGE 1 AREA (ha.) Stormwater Management Residential Medium Density Residential Park Open Space Overland Flow Roads Total 0.3m Reserve ,18 19, , , Future Development STAGE 2 LOTS/BLKS. UNITS AREA (ha.) Residential Park Open Space Walkway 0.3m Reserve Roads Total Medium Density Residential Water Treatment & Storage Total Max. 400 Stormwater Management 10, , ,17 STAGE 3 UNITS AREA (ha.) Residential Lot Addition Roads Open Space Meters Client GOLFNORTH PROPERTIES Figure Title PARIS GRAND SUBDIVISION LAND USE CONCEPT Drawn D.T Checked Date F.J.B. FEB 2015 Scale Project No. 1:5000 PGD Figure No. FIG 2 N LOTS/BLKS Overland Flow File Name: _FIG02 (DRAFT PLAN).dwg Date Plotted: March 12, :09 PM

12 GolfNorth Properties 6 Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March 2015 The Concept Plan allows for some flexibility in densities and lot types, with a proposed maximum of 400 units. For the purpose of the analysis provided in this Report, the maximum number of units is assumed, with a split of 300 single residential and 100 medium density units. The resulting unit breakdown is provided as Table 1 below, along with projected population based on the County s person per unit sanitary and water demand design criteria. Table 1: Preliminary Unit Counts and Populations Type No. of Units Person/ Unit Population Singles Medium Density (Townhomes) Total 400-1, Existing Site Conditions Topography Figure 3 - Existing Site Conditions Plan (included at the back of this document) includes information from a topographical survey carried out in There is significant relief across the site, with several localized drainage divides and areas where drainage collects from multiple directions before outletting at the point of lowest relief. Existing drainage patterns and drainage catchments are indicated on Figure 5 - Pre- Development Storm Drainage Plan. Additional discussion on the existing drainage conditions is provided in Section 5.2 of this Report Soil Conditions LVM Inc. has provided data from twenty boreholes advanced on the site during July and August of 2011 (Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, June 2012). Excerpts of the borehole data are included in Appendix A of this Report. The boreholes were drilled to depths ranging from 1.5 to 13.5 metres and the data was used to characterize the in-situ subsoils and groundwater conditions. The information provided by LVM indicates some variance in soil stratigraphy. However, in general over the areas to be developed (i.e. outside of areas adjacent to or within wetlands), topsoil is underlain directly by fine to coarse granular deposits of sands and gravels, with underlying silt or clay tills at depth. The thickness of the granular layer was R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

13 GolfNorth Properties 7 Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March 2015 found to vary considerably. In the northwest area of the property thin layers of silt and peat were found above the granular layer. The Geotechnical Report also identified potential slope hazard areas along the top of bank at the Grand River and Gilbert Creek. Hazard areas are regulated by the Grand River Conservation Authority, including stipulations for erosion setback, stable slope setback, and access setback. Appropriate setbacks have been incorporated on the Draft Plan. Stormwater pond outlets will be designed to mitigate erosion and ensure there will be no adverse effects on the slopes Groundwater Conditions Groundwater levels were recorded at the twenty borehole locations and at an additional ten piezometer locations at the creek and in the wetland areas. The initial set of readings was taken in August 2011 and follow up monitoring to obtain a full year of data has now been completed and is included in the report titled Water Balance and Hydrological Impact Assessment Study prepared by Stantec and included in the LVM Hydrogeology Study Report submitted concurrently with this application. Observed groundwater levels at the monitoring locations typically ranged from between 3.0 to 11.5 meters below ground surface. Exceptions were noted at Boreholes 3 and 16 with groundwater in proximity to the surface elevations. Borehole 3 is located at the watercourse and Borehole 16 is within a wetland feature at the southwestern portion of the property. These locations are outside the area proposed for development. Shallow groundwater depths of 1.0 to 1.3 meters below ground surface were also observed at Boreholes 9 and 10, within the low area near the northeast site limit. As discussed in the LVM Report, water levels recorded in areas adjacent to the wetlands indicate periodic discharging conditions and support the conclusion that the wetlands located on the banks of Gilbert Creek are connected to and supported by groundwater. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

14 GolfNorth Properties 8 Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March County of Brant Servicing Master Plan The County of Brant is currently undertaking a Master Servicing Study (PMSP) in order to address wastewater collection and water distribution, stormwater management and traffic for the Paris community. The Study will present preferred strategies to service lands within the urban boundary through The County has confirmed that the Paris Grand development would be given consideration as a Future Growth Area within the 2031 planning horizon in the PMSP. At the time of this Study, the PMSP has not been completed and the revised timeframe for public presentation is unknown. Some preliminary material relating to the overall servicing scheme has been made available to the proponent in the interim. As the Master Servicing Study is advanced, GolfNorth will participate in the review of the Study as a full stakeholder, as the final findings and recommendations will factor significantly into the ultimate servicing approach for the GolfNorth lands, particularly with regard to the sanitary and water servicing. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

15 GolfNorth Properties 9 Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March Grading and Storm Drainage 5.1 Site Grading The conceptual site grading design provided in this report takes into consideration the following requirements and constraints: Conformance to the County s grading and drainage criteria; Matching of existing boundary grades at the development limits; Optimization of required earthworks; Provision for adequate cover on proposed services; and, Provision for overland flow conveyance on the roadways to the proposed stormwater facilities (i.e., major system storm drainage and emergency overland flow). The grading has been designed to generally follow the existing topography with the intent of matching pre- and post-development drainage patterns to the extent possible and minimizing the amount of earthworks required during development. The proposed road grades indicated on Figure 4 - Conceptual Grading Plan (included at the back of this Study) fall within the range of 0.5% to 8.0% and therefore meet the County s criteria. The road grades allow for overland flow conveyance on the future right-of-ways in order to direct major system storm drainage to the future stormwater facility locations. 5.2 Existing Storm Drainage Figure 5 (Pre-Development Storm Drainage Plan, included at the back of this report) provides an overview of the existing drainage patterns and catchment boundaries over the site. For the Study Area west of Gilbert Creek: Approximately 7.9 ha of the western portion of the property (including areas south and north of Paris Links Road) currently drain in a north-easterly direction toward Gilbert Creek. There is a limited area along the west property boundary that drains toward the existing Paris Links Road stormwater management (SWM) facility; Approximately 6.3 ha of area south of Paris Links Road drains toward the wetland feature in the southwest portion of the property; The balance of the area south of Paris Links Road drains either southerly toward the Grand River, or easterly toward Gilbert Creek, as delineated on Figure 5. For the Study Area east of Gilbert Creek: Approximately 12.4 ha of area drains directly to Gilbert Creek or toward an internal watercourse feature which outlets at the creek; R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

16 GolfNorth Properties 10 Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March 2015 The balance of the area (easterly 8.9 ha) drains to a self-contained low area near the northeast property limit, or sheet drains toward the east and south property limits. The site topography is such that no significant drainage from external lands is conveyed through the property, other than external drainage conveyed by Gilbert Creek. Some minor external tributary area associated with the railway embankment along the north property limit has been delineated on Figure Proposed Storm Drainage Minor System Storm Conveyance The minor storm system is a series of storm sewers sized to convey the 5-year return period storm. Preliminary storm design sheets have been completed for the proposed development and are included in Appendix B. Figure 8 (Preliminary Storm Servicing Plan) provides an overview of the storm sewer routing within the development area. Minor system flows for post development conditions will be directed toward a total of three (3) stormwater management facilities for attenuation and treatment, prior to outletting to the existing receivers described in Section 5.2 above. Additional details for the stormwater facilities are provided in Section 6 of this Study. The locations of the facilities are indicated on the Post-Development Storm Drainage Plan included as Figure 6 at the back of this report Major System Storm Conveyance The major system uses a combination of proposed right-of-ways and overland flow blocks to convey major system drainage (i.e., overland flow from major storm events up to and including the 100-year storm event) into the stormwater facilities. Overland flow conveyance directions are shown on Figure Post-Development Catchments The proposed post-development storm drainage catchments for the Study Area are indicated on Figure 6. The drainage design has been developed with consideration of minimizing the number of proposed stormwater management facilities. As a result there are proposed adjustments to drainage boundaries from the pre-development conditions; these are summarized as follows: For the area to the north of Paris Links Road and east of Gilbert Creek: The 8.9 ha self-contained area at the easterly limit is proposed to be conveyed to the new SWM facility adjacent to Gilbert Creek (Pond 1). This is consistent with the approach outlined in the Gilbert Creek Subwatershed Study. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

17 GolfNorth Properties 11 Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March 2015 For areas south of Paris Links Road: An additional area of approximately 4.5 ha west of the central wetland area is proposed to be diverted north across Paris Links Road to the proposed stormwater facility in the northwest portion of the site (Pond 3). This will preclude the requirement for one additional SWM facility south of Paris Links Road; All the development area to the east of the central wetland (approximately 3.9 ha) is proposed to be conveyed to the proposed SWM facility adjacent to the wetland (Pond 2). As a result, the overall catchment area draining to the proposed SWM pond/storm outlet will remain approximately equivalent to pre-development. The increases in tributary drainage areas to the ponds have been fully considered in the preliminary design of the respective stormwater facilities. For both ponds, the design for post-development controls fully considers pre-development release rates based on drainage from existing (pre-development) areas. Further details are provided in Section 6 of this Report. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

18 GolfNorth Properties 12 Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March Stormwater Management Stormwater management practices are planning and technical measures which will be implemented to manage the quality and quantity of urban runoff. The Ministry of Environment has developed guidelines for the quality control of stormwater runoff from proposed developments (Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual, Ministry of Environment, MOE, March 2003). The proposed stormwater facilities for the development will be designed in accordance with the recommendations and criteria outlined in the MOE manual. Recommendations from the Gilbert Creek Subwatershed Study will also be incorporated into the overall stormwater management design for the development. 6.1 Environmental Constraints Environmental and Natural Heritage Features The Natural Resources Solutions Inc. (NRSI) Opportunities and Constraints Report recommended buffers to protect the identified natural features within or adjacent to the property. Associated setbacks from environmental features include: 10 m buffer from the drip line at woodlands; 30 m buffer from Gilbert Creek and its tributaries; 30 m setbacks from wetlands, including the Gilbert Creek wetland complex; and, 30 m setback from the Grand River. The NRSI Report also recommends that an appropriate stormwater management and erosion control plan be developed in conjunction with the development application. The constraints and buffers have been identified and incorporated on the current Draft Plan. Site grading, including construction of proposed stormwater facilities or other disturbance related to construction activity is not proposed to occur in these areas, with the following exceptions: Localized grading for stormwater facility outfalls; and Construction of access for a stormwater pond located in the south west portion of the plan (Pond 2). During consultation with the County, it was suggested that an existing golf cart pathway could be upgraded for this use, as it would eliminate the need for County access through a future medium density condominium block Gilbert Creek Flood LInes The Gilbert Creek Subwatershed Study (SWS) included hydraulic modelling for the Gilbert Creek watercourse. The elevations provided on Map 5 of the SWS have been used to plot the 100-year and Regulatory floodlines based on elevations obtained from R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

19 GolfNorth Properties 13 Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March 2015 topographical survey and the plotted floodlines are included on the grading and storm drainage figures provided in this Study. The Regulatory floodline elevation of metres for the Grand River has also been plotted on the drawings. The proposed development limits are outside the area defined by the floodlines. The normal water level and proposed outlets for all three proposed stormwater facilities are above the 100-year flood elevations and the pond functionality will therefore not be impacted up to this storm event. 6.2 Gilbert Creek Erosion Criteria Gilbert Creek Subwatershed Study Erosion Criteria The Gilbert Creek SWS included Erosion Modelling using a GAWSER model for both the existing conditions of the watershed as well as a proposed future development scenario. The Erosion modelling included assumptions for future development on the GolfNorth lands between the former railway and Paris Links Road and accounted for areas draining to Gilbert Creek as follows: ha of existing developed area to the west of the GolfNorth property (model catchment 406); 2. 8 ha of undeveloped area, including the creek and wetlands (model catchment 4051); ha of future development (model catchment 4052), with an assumed imperviousness of 35%. An additional area on the easterly portion of the Paris Grand lands that does not currently drain to the Gilbert Creek was also included in the Gilbert Creek modelling for assumed post-development conditions. The area was noted as Future Potential Diversion Area to the east of Catchment 405 on Figure C2.7 in Section C2.5.2 of the Report The proposed drainage from the combination of catchments 4051 and 4052 was assumed to discharge to Gilbert Creek following attenuation in a stormwater management facility. The future development imperviousness of 35% that was applied in the original SWS modelling is low in comparison to typical developed conditions. Under the proposed development scenario for Paris Grand, it is expected that imperviousness will be higher than the original SWS model. The proposed stormwater management plan for the site R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

20 GolfNorth Properties 14 Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March 2015 will incorporate measures to ensure that the erosion criteria for Gilbert Creek, as defined in the SWS, are met Previous Memo Comparison of Runoff Volumes to Gilbert Creek SWS Burnside prepared a memo to GRCA dated August 20, 2014 summarizing a proposed approach to mitigate potential increases in runoff to Gilbert Creek. A copy of the memo is included in Appendix C of this report. The memo highlighted the increases in capture area and post-development imperviousness with the currently proposed development. It was noted that runoff from the development would exceed the rates determined and approved in the SWS modelling if normal post- to pre- volumetric control were provided via SWM ponds. As a result, it was concluded that additional volumetric controls or diversion of flow would be required. The memo provided a calculation of runoff volumes to Gilbert Creek under the proposed post-development land use scenario without mitigation. An approximation of runoff unit rates was established using the 100-year runoff volumes identified in the future development GAWSER modelling output and associated input. The preliminary estimate of the volume reduction required is provided below as taken from the original memo: Volumes per SWS Model with original assumptions for development a) Area 406 (development to the west): runoff mm x49 ha = 7,115 m 3 b) Area 4051 (assumed undeveloped per SWS): runoff mm x 8 ha = 1,839 m 3 Unit Rate: 1,839 m 3 / 8 ha = 230 m 3 /ha c) Area 4052 (assumed developed per 0.35 imp): runoff 59.9 mm x 26 ha = 15,574 m 3 Unit Rate: 444 m 3 / pervious ha* 887 m 3 / impervious ha* Total to Gilbert Creek just above Paris Links Road: (a+b+c) = 24,528 m 3 Total to Gilbert Creek from assumed Paris Grand development: (b+c) = 17,413 m 3 Volumes estimated per current development proposal through application of Unit Rates d) Area 406 (same as above) = 7,115 m 3 e) Undeveloped area: 3.2 ha x 230 m 3 /ha = 736 m 3 f) Developed area: 32.7 x (444 x x 0.57) = 22,774 m 3 Total to Gilbert Creek from Paris Grand: (e+f) = 23,510 m 3 Reduction in proposed runoff volume required to meet original SWS volumes = 6,097 m 3 *Unit Rate derived using SCS method The memo included preliminary calculations indicating that diversion of rooftop areas within the catchments discharging to Gilbert Creek would generate greater than the required diversion volume in the 100 year storm event, as follows: R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

21 GolfNorth Properties 15 Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March 2015 Volumes estimated with rooftop diversion option through application of Unit Rates d) Area 406 (unchanged) = 7,115 m 3 e) Undeveloped area: 3.2 ha x 230 m 3 /ha = 736 m 3 f) Adjusted developed area (excluding rooftops**): 25.3 x (444 x x 0.45) = 16,249 m 3 ) Total to Gilbert Creek from Paris Grand: (e+f) = 16,984 m 3 ) Reduction achieved in proposed runoff volume through rooftop diversion from original SWS volumes = (429 m 3 ** Adjusted developed area = total area rooftop area % Impervious is adjusted for diversion of rooftop area: (total area*57% - rooftop area*100%)/(adjusted developed area) Rooftops provide a clean source of stormwater runoff, which allows for diversion options that can bypass the stormwater management facilities. Additional options for volumetric diversion outlined in the memo included: 1. Reduction in the contributing drainage area to the two northerly stormwater ponds that are currently proposed to discharge to Gilbert Creek, via a) piping a portion of the drainage area directly to the southerly stormwater facility; b) piping rooftop runoff directly to the south wetland; c) piping rooftop runoff directly to the Grand River. 2. Maintaining the current drainage areas to the northerly ponds, but diverting a portion of the outflow either to the southerly stormwater pond or directly to the Grand River; 3. Implementation of LIDs (i.e. lot level controls or centralized infiltration facilities) that would provide for the required reduction in runoff Proposed Volumetric Reduction Approach The approach presented in this Report to achieve the volumetric reductions necessary to meet the Gilbert Creek SWS criteria involves: Collection and diversion of rooftop runoff in the area south of Paris Links Road and west of the south wetland, with the collected runoff discharging directly to the south wetland; and Collection and diversion of rooftop runoff in the development area east of Gilbert Creek to a centralized infiltration facility. East of Gilbert Creek, where the soils and groundwater elevations are more conducive to infiltration, targeted reduction would include the implementation of a 3 rd pipe collection R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

22 GolfNorth Properties 16 Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March 2015 system and a centralized infiltration facility on Block 13 of the Draft Plan, sufficient to infiltrate the rooftop runoff from the catchment area. On the west side of the creek the soils and groundwater elevations are limiting with respect to infiltration. To supplement the volumetric reductions on the east side of the creek, a portion of the rooftop areas west of Gilbert Creek would also be collected and diverted to the south wetland through a 3 rd pipe rooftop collection system. This would not only achieve the required volume diversion but has the additional benefit of the maintenance of volumetric inputs to the existing wetland feature. A review of the proposed diversion as it relates to wetland capacity has been completed by NRSI and it has been confirmed that the input of the diversion flow will have no adverse impacts to the existing wetland feature. The environmental benefits of the approach outlined above include: Maintenance of surface hydrology to the creek (pond outflows to Gilbert Creek north of Paris Links Road); Maintenance of water source to the wetland (direct rooftop discharge west side of Gilbert Creek south of Paris Links Road); Promotion of infiltration and subsurface cooling of rooftop runoff through infiltration measures, and Increased post-development infiltration to augment site water balance LVM/Stantec Water Balance Update The Water Balance and Hydrological Impact Assessment Study prepared by Stantec (included in the LVM Hydrogeology Study Report) includes catchment based PCSWMM modelling that establishes runoff and infiltration volumes for the pre- and postdevelopment site conditions. The LVM and Stantec reports also include discussion of infiltration potential and the Stantec Report includes mapping illustrating postdevelopment infiltration potential over the property. The Stantec modelling was used to refine the volumetric reductions required to meet the targets for reduction in runoff to Gilbert Creek, i.e. capture and diversion of the rooftop areas was accounted for in the modelling. Additional discussion on the proposal for flow diversion and infiltration is provided in Section 6.4 of this Report Stormwater Management Design Implications The proposed approach for volume diversion noted above will have implications to the overall servicing and stormwater management design of the site as follows: For SWM Pond 1 (east of Gilbert Creek): R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

23 GolfNorth Properties 17 Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March 2015 For areas east of Gilbert Creek, a rooftop runoff collection system (3 rd pipe) will be required to convey the 100 year design flow from the rooftops to a proposed centralized infiltration bed (located on Block 13 of the Draft Plan); A centralized infiltration system will be required on Block 13 with capacity to infiltrate the volume from the proposed rooftops; Storm sewer drainage areas and associated pipe size can be reduced on the basis of the redirection of the rooftop runoff into the 3 rd pipe system; and The stormwater management facility will have reduced inflow and consequently, reduced pond volumes will be required to achieve volumetric controls. For SWM Pond 3 (west of Gilbert Creek): For areas south of Paris Links Road tributary to Pond 3, a rooftop runoff collection pipe will be sized to convey the 100 year design flow from the rooftops to the south wetland; Areas north of the Paris Links Road will not require diversion as rooftop diversions in Pond 1 catchment and south of Paris Links Road will achieve the overall targeted runoff reductions; Storm sewer drainage area and conveyance pipe sizing will be reduced on the basis of the redirection of the rooftop runoff to infiltration to the south wetland; and The stormwater management facility will have reduced inflow and consequently, reduced pond volumes will be required to achieve volumetric controls. Additional details for the proposed flow diversion and infiltration feature is provided in Section 6.4 of this Report. 6.3 Stormwater Management Facility Design The design concepts presented in the following sections address the recommendations provided in the Gilbert Creek SWS and incorporate design criteria per the current MOE Stormwater Planning and Design Manual Design Approach The conceptual SWM management facility designs reflect the MOE criteria for conventional wet pond design, as follows: 5:1 side slopes for 3 m on either side of permanent pool, 3:1 side slopes elsewhere; Retention of the 25 mm event for a minimum of 24 hours (Erosion Control); Forebay with berm containment to trap larger particulates and improve removal performance; Adequate flow path (length to width) ratios; Maintenance access to sediment forebay and outlet structure areas; Volumetric storage to accommodate quantity control requirements; R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

24 GolfNorth Properties 18 Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March 2015 Pond elevations established with respect to groundwater elevations; and 0.30 m freeboard, with emergency overflow weir at 100-year storage level. Conceptual designs for the three facilities are provided on Figures 7 and 7A - Preliminary Pond Design and Preliminary Pond Cross Sections, provided at the back of this report. Appendix C includes design calculations and SWMHYMO output used to establish release rates and storage requirements for the three facilities. The predevelopment Time of Concentration values have been calculated using the Airport Method as per GRCA guidelines; refer to Appendix C for calculations. At detailed design, additional Geotechnical recommendations will be required to establish requirements for appropriate pond liner designs as required. This is to ensure that groundwater will not impact pond functionality and that the liners will not result in other localized adverse effects such as groundwater mounding behind the liners Erosion Control Storage Calculations using MOE guidelines for erosion control (i.e., storage volumes required for 24 hour detention of the 25 mm design) have been developed and are provided in Appendix C. Table 2 below provides a summary of the volumes and maximum release rates: Table 2: 25 mm Event (Erosion Storage) Requirements SWM Facility 25 mm Storage Volume * 25 mm Release Rate (m 3 ) (L/s) Pond 1 (East Pond) 1, Pond 2 (Southwest Pond) 1, Pond 3 (Northwest Pond) 1, * The erosion control volume is incorporated in the total storage volume provided at each facility. It has been confirmed that the above volumes can be accommodated based on the preliminary grading of the respective stormwater facilities as provided on Figure 7 of this report. Calculations and details for control outlet orifice sizing will be confirmed at detailed design; however it is anticipated that extended detention storage volumes would typically be controlled with a reverse slope outlet and an appropriately sized orifice control located in a control structure in the pond embankment. This is shown in concept on Figure 7A. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

25 GolfNorth Properties 19 Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March Quantity Control Criteria Section C2.7 of the Gilbert Creek Subwatershed Study (SWS) provides the following recommended quantity control criteria for new development: Control of post-development flows to pre-development levels for the 2- year through 100-year design storm events; Maximize infiltration rates at source to maintain groundwater recharge and base flow to Gilbert Creek; Maintain function of wetlands as these provide for additional runoff attenuation; and Minimize external areas diverted into the watershed. In addition to the above, consideration of runoff volumes to Gilbert Creek is required to meet the objectives identified in the SWS as discussed in Section 6.2 above Pond 1 (East Pond) Quantity Control Design Based on the concept grading, the post-development drainage area to Pond 1 (east of Gilbert Creek and north of Paris Links Road) has been established at ha, with a further breakdown by area coverage as follows: ha low and medium density residential; 1.25 ha external area (undeveloped); and, 1.71 ha pond block. With the incorporation of the rooftop diversion identified for this catchment, the overall area draining towards the SWM facility will be reduced. Accordingly, the modelled area for Pond 1 (east of Gilbert Creek) is ha. This is based on the approximation of rooftop coverage being 25% of the low and medium density residential development area, consistent with the approach used in Stantec s water balance modelling and the diversion applying to the catchment area that is internal to the Draft Plan. SWMHYMO modelling was used to establish the allowable release rates within the development and the amount of storage that is required to meet these release rates. In accordance with the approach recommended in the Gilbert Creek SWS, Pond 1 has been designed to include the easterly area (approximately 9.5 ha) within the Study Area that currently does not drain directly into Gilbert Creek. This area currently drains to an area of low topography that has no defined outlet. Two scenarios were evaluated in order to determine the most conservative approach for stormwater storage design. Note that these scenarios were assessed without the inclusion of the diversion of rooftop flow: R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

26 GolfNorth Properties 20 Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March 2015 Scenario 1 used the formula provided in the SWS to estimate the additional storage volume requirement due to the easterly area noted above. The following calculation was completed: Volume required per hectare = x I I = % impervious = 0.57 for the area East of Gilbert Creek V = 312 m³/ha V in m³ = 312 m³/ha x ha V = 2972 m³ Scenario 2 incorporated the additional area into the SWMHYMO modelling, with allowable release rates to Gilbert Creek remaining equivalent to those in Scenario 1. Table 3 below summarizes results from both modelling scenarios for Pond 1: Table 3: Storage Volume Alternatives for Pond 1 (100-year Design Event, SCS 24 Hour) Alternative Pre- to Post-Control with additional storage using Gilbert Creek SWS formula Pre- to Post- with Full Development Area modeled using SWMHYMO SWMHYMO Pond 1 Volume (m³) Additional Volume Calculated by SWS Storage Formula Total Volume Required (m³) (not applicable) 9968 The alternative of designing Pond 1 storage based on Scenario 2 (i.e., post- to pre- control using the entire development area vs. use of the Gilbert Creek SWS formula approach) is therefore selected as it is more conservative. It is noted that modelling included the 3 hour Chicago and the 24 hour SCS Type II distributions and the more conservative results were used for preliminary pond design. The SCS Type II distribution resulted in a 100 year storage requirement of 9,715m 3 vs. the 3 hour Chicago volume of 9,968m 3. All modelling has been documented in Appendix C. Incorporating the diversion of the rooftop runoff, for all storms up to and including the 100 year event results in a reduction of the pond volume requirements. The table below identifies the comparison of parameters and calculated 100 year pond volume with and without the diversion. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

27 GolfNorth Properties 21 Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March 2015 Table 4: Diversion Comparison for Pond 1 (100-year Design Event, SCS 24 Hour Modelled Scenario Catchment Area Impervious Storage Volume (ha) (%) (m³) Original (no diversion) % 9968 Updated (with diversion) % 7019 For post- to pre- control, under the diversion scenario, the volume requirements for Pond 1 are presented as Table 5 below: Table 5: Pond 1-3 Hour Chicago SWMHYMO Modelling Outputs Event Pre-Development Post-Development Active Storage Flow (m 3 /s) Flow (m 3 /s) Volume Required (m³) Preliminary grading of Pond 1 shows an available active storage volume of 7,363 m³. The Gilbert Creek 100-year flood elevation in the vicinity of the outlet of the pond is approximately m. The proposed normal water elevation in the pond is m and therefore the 100-year flood levels at Gilbert Creek will not impact the pond function Pond 2 (South Pond) Quantity Control Design Based on the concept grading, the post-development drainage area to Pond 2 (south of Paris Links Road, adjacent to the wetland) has been established at 6.37 ha, with additional breakdown by area coverage as follows: 5.30 ha low and medium density residential; 0.69 ha pond block; and, 0.38 ha external area (developed). Pond 2 will require control of post development flows to pre development levels for each design storm. SWMHYMO was used to establish the allowable release rates within the development and the storage that is required to meet these release rates. Modelling was completed using both the 3 hour Chicago and the 24 hour SCS Type II distributions and the more conservative result was used for preliminary pond design. The SCS Type II distribution resulted in a 100 year storage requirement of 2,771 m 3 vs. the 3 hour Chicago volume of 2,928 m 3. All modelling has been documented in Appendix C. The volume requirements for Pond 2 for are presented as Table 6 below: R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

28 GolfNorth Properties 22 Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March 2015 Table 6: Pond 2-3 Hour Chicago SWMHYMO Modelling Outputs Event Pre-Development Post-Development Active Storage Flow (m 3 /s) Flow (m 3 /s) Volume Required (m³) Preliminary grading of Pond 2 shows available active storage volume of 3791 m 3. Pond 2 is sufficiently set back from both the Grand River and Gilbert Creek such that floodlines are not a concern Pond 3 (Northwest Pond) Quantity Control Design Based on the concept grading, the post-development drainage area to Pond 3 has been established at ha, with additional breakdown by area coverage as follows: 9.46 ha low and medium density residential; 0.44 ha external area (developed); 0.48 ha external area (undeveloped); and, 0.85 ha pond block. With the incorporation of the rooftop diversion identified for this catchment, the overall area draining towards the SWM facility will be reduced. Accordingly, the modelled area for Pond 3 (west of Gilbert Creek) is 9.01 ha. This is based on the approximation of rooftop coverage being 25% of the low and medium density residential development area, consistent with the approach used in Stantec s water balance modelling and the diversion applying to the catchment area that is internal to the Draft Plan. Pond 3 is located west of Gilbert Creek and north of Paris Links Road. This pond will require control of post development flows to pre development levels for each design storm. SWMHYMO was used to establish the allowable release rates within the development and the amount of storage that is required to meet these release rates. The development area north of Paris Links Road is approximately 3.5 ha, which is less than the 5 ha MOE recommended drainage area required to maintain appropriate quality control function of a wet pond. The inclusion of additional tributary drainage area from south of Paris Links Road will ensure that this occurs. Storage volumes for Pond 3 have been calculated based on limiting the allowable post-development flows for the combined area to the pre-development level from the original (smaller) 3.5 ha drainage catchment. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

29 GolfNorth Properties 23 Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March 2015 The piped outlet for the existing SWM facility immediately west of the Draft Plan lands runs right on an easement that is partially within Pond 3 block. The existing sewer will be reconstructed along the new subdivision roadway and will bypass the new pond, to outlet with the new Pond 3 outlet. Further discussion is provided in Section below. Modelling, prior to incorporation of the diversion, was completed using both the 3 hour Chicago and the 24 hour SCS Type II distributions and the more conservative result was used for preliminary pond design. The SCS Type II distribution resulted in a 100 year storage requirement of 5,122 m 3 vs. the 3 hour Chicago volume of 5,105 m 3. Incorporating the diversion of the rooftop runoff, for all storms up to and including the 100 year event results in a reduction of the pond volume requirements. The table below identifies the comparison of parameters and calculated 100 year pond volume with and without the diversion. Table 7: Diversion Comparison for Pond 3 (100-year Design Event. SCS 24 Hour) Modelled Scenario Catchment Area Impervious Storage Volume (ha) (%) (m³) Original (no diversion) % 5,122 Updated (with diversion) % 3,592 For post- to pre- control, under the diversion scenario, the volume requirements for Pond 3 are presented as Table 8 below: Table 8: Pond 3-24 Hour SCS - SWMHYMO Modelling Outputs Event Pre-Development Post-Development Active Storage Flow (m 3 /s) Flow (m 3 /s) Volume Required (m³) Preliminary grading of Pond 3 shows a total available active storage volume of 4,205 m³. The Gilbert Creek 100-year flood elevation in the area of the outlet is approximately m. This elevation is at the proposed NWL of m and therefore the 100-year flood levels at Gilbert Creek will not impact the pond function Existing Paris Links Road SWM Facility External drainage from the existing Paris Links Road stormwater facility (west of the Study Area) has been considered in the overall storm drainage design for the Study Area. The facility has a piped outlet that crosses the GolfNorth property within an R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

30 GolfNorth Properties 24 Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March 2015 easement, outletting to a tributary of Gilbert Creek. The existing pond has a controlled 100-year release rate of m³/s as per the TSH SWM Design Brief. The potential of directing some of the development area drainage to the existing Paris Links Road stormwater facility was evaluated. Although a portion of the subdivision area along the west limit could potentially be directed to the existing facility, this would not preclude the requirement for a new stormwater facility to service the development area north of the road. Therefore, directing drainage to the existing facility would involve an upgrade to the existing facility in addition to construction of the new pond. It will therefore be more cost effective to construct a new pond as a standalone solution for the new development area Existing Paris Lakes Road SWM Outfall The possibility of conveying the piped drainage from the existing Paris Links Road pond via the new local storm sewers within the study area (i.e., into Pond 3) was also evaluated. To accommodate this, the inlet at Pond 3 would have to be lowered by approximately 1.2 metres to an invert of m. The proposed NWL and pond inlet elevation are at an elevation of m, which is also the approximate groundwater elevation. Therefore, accommodating piped flow from the existing stormwater facility is not feasible because this would either require a fully submerged inlet, or significant lowering of the Pond 3 active storage to below the groundwater elevation. It is therefore proposed that the existing Paris Links Road SWM pond outflows be routed in a separate new bypass sewer along the future subdivision rights-of-way to the existing storm outfall location. The proposed routing has been shown in concept on Figure Quality Control The Gilbert Creek Subwatershed Study outlines that Level 1 control (i.e., enhanced protection or 80% T removal) will be the appropriate level of quality control for each facility discharging to Gilbert Creek. Calculations for permanent pool volumes based on MOE recommendations are provided in Appendix C and a summary is provided in Table 9 below. The summary table also includes estimates of available permanent pool volumes based on the conceptual stormwater facility grading provided on Figure 7. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

31 GolfNorth Properties 25 Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March 2015 Table 9: Quality Control Volume Summary SWM Facility Tributary Area (ha) Water Quality Unit Rate (m 3 /ha) Volume Required (m 3 ) Volume Provided (m 3 ) Pond 1 ( East Pond ) , Pond 2 ( Southwest Pond ) , Pond 3 ( Northwest Pond ) , Site Infiltration and Water Balance Levels of natural infiltration of rainwater are variable over the property. The LVM and Stantec reports include discussion of infiltration potential and the Stantec Report includes mapping illustrating post-development infiltration potential. In general, there is higher infiltration potential in areas east of Gilbert Creek where soils are generally more pervious and lower potential in the areas west of Gilbert Creek. The Stantec Report includes catchment based PCSWMM modelling (completed by Stantec) for infiltration and water balance for both the pre- and post-development scenarios. In the discussion below, WT1 designates the areas tributary to Gilbert Creek and the associated wetland. WT2 designates the wetland in the southwest portion of the property, i.e. Block 21 Open Space on the Draft Plan. The Water Balance calculations summarized below from the Stantec modelling account for diversions of rooftop areas as follows: For areas east of Gilbert Creek and tributary to Pond 1, a rooftop runoff collection system (3 rd pipe) will be implemented to convey the 100 year flow from the rooftops to a proposed centralized infiltration bed on Block 13; For areas south of Paris Links Road tributary to Pond 3/Gilbert Creek, a rooftop runoff collection system (3 rd pipe) will be sized to convey the 100 year flow from the rooftops to the south wetland; Rooftop areas within these catchments are assumed at 25% of the development area (lots and roadways). Catchment areas and a preliminary piping layout and sizing for the 3 rd pipe collection system are included on Figures 6A and 8A at the back of this Report. Sizing design sheets for the 3 rd pipe systems are included in Appendix B. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

32 GolfNorth Properties 26 Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March Gilbert Creek WT1 The following table is taken from the Stantec modelling included in the LVM Report. Stantec selected 2005 as the most representative year based on their review of historical data. Further explanation is provided in their report. Water balance differential for WT1 Year 2005 from 1 st may to 1 st November Differential Variable 2005 simulated seasonal volumes (m³) Differential Volume Volume per unit area Pre-development Post-development (m³) % (m³) % A : drained area m² Vol per unit m² Vol per unit m +36% - - area (m³/m²) area (m³/m²) ² P : Precipitation % % I : Infiltration % % T : Transpiration % % E : Evaporation % % R : Runoff * %* % *Note: See section for comparison of runoff with the Gilbert Creek SWS The water balance summary for WT1 indicates that infiltration will be maintained on a unit area basis. The volumetric increase corresponds directly to the additional areas included in the catchment tributary to Gilbert Creek. The comparison case for the runoff is the development scenario outlined in the Gilbert Creek SWS. This included 26 ha of development at (35% Imperviousness) north of Paris Links Road, Therefore, the Stantec report included a scenario representing the subwatershed study assumptions with the summary results being provided below: R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

33 GolfNorth Properties 27 Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March 2015 (Runoff Comparison to Gilbert Creek Development Scenario) Water balance comparison for WT1 Year 2005 from 1 st may to 1 st November Variable 2005 simulated seasonal volumes (m³) Differential Volume Gilbert Creek Subwatershed Study Post-development (26ha 35% impervious) Presently proposed Postdevelopment Differential Volume per unit area (m³) % (m³) % A : drained area m² Volume per m² Volume per m² 7% - - unit area (m³/m²) unit area (m³/m²) P : Precipitation % % I : Infiltration % % T : Transpiration % % E : Evaporation % % R : Runoff % % The values above include the assumption that rooftop capture within the 3rd pipe collection areas will result in reductions in volumetric runoff to Gilbert Creek beyond what was anticipated as a result of development in the original Subwatershed Study South Wetland WT2 The following table is taken from the Stantec modelling included in the LVM Report. Water balance differential for WT2 - Year 2005 from 1 st May to 1 st November Differential Volume 2005 simulated seasonal volumes (m³) Differential Volume Variable per unit area Pre-development Post-development (m³) % (m³) % A : drained area m² Vol per unit m² Vol per unit m² 7% - - area (m³/m²) area (m³/m²) P : Precipitation % % I : Infiltration % % T : Transpiration % % E : Evaporation % % R : Runoff %* % *Note: A discussion about the runoff is included in the NRIS report. The water balance summary for WT2 indicates that there will be a reduction in infiltration on a unit area basis in the post-development condition. However, with the assumption of 3 rd pipe diversion of rooftops in the development area south of Gilbert Creek and west of the wetland into the wet land, the overall volumetric input to the wetland (runoff + infiltration) will actually increase. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

34 GolfNorth Properties 28 Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March 2015 The NRSI Environmental Impact Study Addendum Report included with the current submission provides a review of the runoff increases and the potential impacts and concludes that these should not have significant impact to the wetland features on the site Implementation of 3 rd Pipe Diversion and Infiltration Gallery Figure 6A at the back of this Report is a catchment area plan showing the areas where the 3 rd pipe rooftop collection system would be implemented. Figure 8A shows the preliminary pipe layout and sizing. A preliminary pipe sizing design sheet has been completed and included in Appendix B. The infiltration facility on Block 13 is indicated on Figures 6A and 8A. The sizing of the facility is based on an estimated infiltration rate of mm/hr for soil in the area of the infiltration gallery. This is taken from information provided by LVM per Table 102 in their report (a copy of this Table is also provided in Appendix C). The infiltration capacity was established using Borehole at the west limit of Block 13 and includes a significant Factor of Safety of 2.5x to account for compaction and long term build-up of fines. A calculation of the area requirement for the infiltration facility on Block 13 is included in Appendix C. The storage requirement is based on net rooftop capture area and a 100 year design storm rainfall depth of 87mm (consistent with the 3-hour Chicago Storm used in the SWMHYMO modelling). From the calculation, the volumetric infiltration requirement in the 100 year event is 3,644 m 3. It is assumed that the volume would be infiltrated over a maximum of 72 hours, resulting in an infiltration bed area requirement of 937 m 2. The area indicated on Block 13 for the facility is 1260 m 2 (7 m x 180 m). Detailed design of the facility will include details for the recharger chambers to be installed within the block over the infiltration bed. Options for the chambers include commercially available products by manufacturers including Cultec and StormTech. Documentation for a typical Stormtech chamber unit that could be used for this application is included for reference in Appendix C Additional Considerations and Detailed Design The current design proposal includes a conservative case for sizing and extent of the 3 rd pipe collection system and for the infiltration gallery on Block 13. This approach was taken in order to ensure that sufficient area has been designated on the Draft Plan for the centralized facility and to confirm that the necessary piping network could be implemented without conflicting with other services. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

35 GolfNorth Properties 29 Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March 2015 At detailed design, further analysis can be undertaken to evaluate whether additional passive low impact development (LID) measures can be implemented to augment or partially replace the 3 rd pipe collection system or reduce the extent of the infiltration facility. This should also involve additional geotechnical work, including additional boreholes over lot areas, in order to better define where at-source infiltration measures can potentially be utilized. Measures that can be incorporated at detailed design potentially include the following: Maximizing the water availability in pervious areas such as grading that directs rooftop runoff to open space areas; Increasing topsoil thickness on lot surfaces and other green areas by up to two times the normal thickness to promote infiltration; Providing lot-level soakaway pits (infiltration galleries) for roof leaders in rear yard areas. This will be most effective where the galleries can extend across multiple rear yards and where groundwater and soil conditions permit; and Providing for additional infiltration at SWM pond outlets where feasible. 6.5 Thermal Impacts and Temperature Mitigation The Stantec Water Balance and Hydrological Impact Assessment Study (included in the LVM Hydrogeology Study Report) includes modelling used to evaluate potential thermal impacts associated with stormwater discharge for the development and a discussion of recommended measures for addressing the same. The Report notes a potential increase in peak water temperature for Gilbert Creek due to discharge from the stormwater ponds (i.e. modelled increase of 2.7 degrees C). Stantec recommends mitigation measures that would include source controls, pond shading, and buried piping at the stormwater pond inlets and outlets, all of which will be implemented during detailed design. Stantec notes specifically that the buried pipe network heat exchange was not modelled and that including this would reduce outlet temperatures by a few degrees. 6.6 Monitoring As outlined in the Gilbert Creek SWS, monitoring of the stormwater facilities and natural features is required, particularly in the initial years of operation. This section provides a brief summary of monitoring requirements outlined in the SWS, which can be used as the basis for discussion moving forward on formalizing the specific requirements for the subdivision. The SWS suggests that a photographic inventory of the natural heritage buffer at the limit of developing area needs to be completed prior to construction and that this R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

36 GolfNorth Properties 30 Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March 2015 inventory should be updated annually until the end of the maintenance period. Fixed reference points should be depicted in each inventory to ensure direct comparisons can be made over time. SWM facility inspections are an integral component of the monitoring program. Regular visual inspections should be conducted: After every significant rainfall (> 30 mm) for the first two years of operation; and, Minimum of four visits per year after the first two years of operation (spring, summer, fall and winter). The SWS recommends that background water quality levels and other characteristics in the receiving water bodies (wetlands and Gilbert Creek) should be established prior to construction. Parameters are to include: Flow rates Temperature Dissolved Oxygen (DO) content Phosphorous and bacteriological levels The sampling period should continue until the end of the maintenance period for the purpose of monitoring for adverse impacts on the receiving water bodies. The outlet channels should also be monitored with appropriate checks for evidence of erosion and/or scouring. Any infiltration facilities functionality should be monitored until the maintenance period is complete and ownership is transferred to the County or property owner. Erosion and Sediment Control Monitoring will also be required during the construction phase. This should include weekly silt fence and sediment pond inspections. Additional inspections should be carried out after rainfall events larger than 10 mm. Checklists should be completed during each inspection. A sample inspection checklist is provided in Appendix C. The County may elect to keep a record of the completed checklists. 6.7 Erosion and Sediment Control Erosion and Sediment Controls will be implemented for all construction activities including topsoil stripping, foundation excavation and stockpiling of materials. The Erosion and Sediment Control strategy will consider the implementation of the following measures: R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

37 GolfNorth Properties 31 Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March 2015 Temporary sediment control fence at construction limits and/or downstream of any disturbed areas prior to grading. Double row fencing may be appropriate adjacent to sensitive natural areas; Gravel mud mats at construction vehicle access points to minimize off-site tracking of sediments; Temporary sedimentation control ponds; Check dams, etc. for erosion / velocity control; Sediment traps in catchbasins; Routine inspection, monitoring, and repair as necessary of all temporary Erosion and Sediment Control measures during construction; and, Removal of temporary controls once the areas they serve are restored and stable. All reasonable measures will be taken to ensure that sediment loading is minimized both during and following construction. Additional details will be provided as part of the detailed design. 6.8 Recommendations Stormwater Management The preliminary conclusions resulting from the analysis provided above can be summarized as follows: The stormwater design presented adheres to guidelines set out in the Gilbert Creek Subwatershed Study and as provided in the MOE Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual; Three stormwater management facilities will be constructed on-site to provide for quality control and volumetric control (i.e. flood/erosion control storage) to meet Agency requirements; The net drainage area to the Gilbert Creek sub-watershed will increase due to an added catchment area at the west limit of the Draft Plan (consistent with the Gilbert Creek SWS); Concerns with increased volumetric runoff to Gilbert Creek identified via comments from GRCA can be addressed via measures that will include on-site infiltration and flow diversion as outlined in the Section 6 of this Report; Additional Low Impact Development (LID) measures including source controls can be evaluated at detailed design and implemented to augment the measures proposed in this Report; and A preliminary summary of Erosion and Sediment Control measures has been provided to illustrate how sediment runoff and the potential for erosion can be mitigated during and following construction. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

38 GolfNorth Properties 32 Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March Wastewater Servicing 7.1 Wastewater Design Criteria A preliminary sanitary servicing design for the development lands has been prepared. The following County of Brant criteria have been applied in generating average and peak design flows: Residential flow rate litres per capita per day; Infiltration Allowance litres per second per hectare; Peaking Factor - Harmon Peaking Factor Formula (max value = 5); and, Population Density PPU low density / 1.94 PPU medium density. 7.2 Design Flows A summary table with estimated sanitary flows for the development has been included in Appendix D and the flows are tabulated in Table 10 below. Table 10: Sanitary Design Flows Catchment Ultimate Outlet Development Area (ha) Total Pop n Peak Design Flow (L/s)* West of Gilbert Creek Internal SPS East of Gilbert Creek Internal SPS Total * * Accumulated flow includes a reduction due to peaking factor The Preliminary Sanitary Servicing Plan (included as Figure 9) provides an overview of local sewer catchment areas, proposed sewer routing and pipe sizes. A preliminary sewer design sheet used for sizing of new local sewers within the Study area is included in Appendix D. 7.3 New Sanitary Pumping Station The existing site topography will require the construction of a new sanitary pumping station to service the development lands, as most areas are below the invert of m at the existing sanitary pumping station to the west of the proposed development. The Paris Links Road grade of m at the Gilbert Creek crossing presents an additional constraint. The existing sewage pumping station does not have capacity to service additional lands and would require upgrading or replacement, even if partial flows could be directed by gravity to that location. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

39 GolfNorth Properties 33 Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March Existing Paris Links Road SPS The existing residential area to the west (Wynfield Glen Subdivision) is serviced by the Paris Links Road sewage pumping station, located adjacent to Paris Links Road and indicated on Figure 9. The station is a wet well type (3000 mm diameter circular manhole chamber) with two marginally sized pumps. The station services an approximate area of 28 hectares and a design population of 1160, with a design pumping rate of 26.5 L/s. Flows are pumped via an existing 200mm diameter forcemain for a distance of approximately 500 m to a gravity sewer outlet at Grand River Street North. The existing SPS does not have capacity to accept additional flows from new development; therefore any proposal to convey additional flow to the station would involve a significant upgrade or replacement of the existing station. The County s 2015 Development Charges Background Study (in progress) identifies upgrades to the existing station with an approximate timing of 2023, which is within the current 10-year planning period of the DC By-law. The County has expressed interest in replacing the existing station with an upsized station to service existing development and the Draft Plan lands and is open to discussion on cost-sharing for this proposal Conveyance of Existing Flows to New Paris Grand SPS A review of the existing sewer elevations at the Paris Links Road SPS has confirmed that gravity conveyance of existing sanitary flows from the Wynfield Glen subdivision from the existing SPS location into the sewers within the new development lands would not require extended depths of sewers within the development area. Costs associated with conveying the existing flows would therefore be limited to: Decommissioning of the existing station; Providing a gravity connection to the new sewers (approximately 120 m of sewer); and Marginal oversizing of the some internal sewers from the connection point to the new SPS (400 m± of upsizing from 200 mm to 250 mm diameter and 200 m± of upsizing from 250 mm to 300 mm diameter) Proposed New Sanitary Pumping Station The County has previously identified significant capacity constraints in the downstream sanitary sewers between the Grand River Street North / Paris Links Road intersection and the Paris Wastewater Treatment Plant. Additional discussion is provided in Section 7.4 below. Analysis is provided in this section for an option where the maximum pumped flows from the combined new development and the existing SPS service area would be discharged R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

40 GolfNorth Properties 34 Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March 2015 at no greater than the current SPS design pumping rate of 26.5 L/s. The option would therefore require that flow equalization storage be provided at the new SPS. Appendix F includes calculations for the equalization storage requirement associated with the above scenario. A storage volume of 660m 3 is required to attenuate flows from the Draft Plan lands plus the existing serviced area. This modelling of the storage requirement includes a conservative assumption of significant peak extraneous flows from the existing serviced area. Flow records provided by the County for the existing station gave total annual pumping hours but no discretized data for single events (i.e., during or following major rainfall event). Total annual pumped volumes from the SPS indicate that actual pumped flows are approximately half the design average flow for the station. However, the more conservative assumptions were carried forward in the analysis. It is recommended that a rigorous flow monitoring program be implemented at the existing station in order to provide a more accurate calibration of existing flows to be used in the modelling of the flow equalization storage required at the new SPS. This should be undertaken if the County agrees that the approach suggested above is an acceptable design solution. A preliminary capital cost estimate for the new pumping station has been included with the SPS Design Brief included as Appendix F Staged Development on Draft Plan Lands A Phase 1 scenario involving interim development over the westerly portion of the Draft Plan lands was considered (i.e. areas west of Gilbert Creek, design population of 475 persons). The analysis provided in Appendix F indicates that there would be an approximate flow equalization storage requirement of 170 m 3 for this initial phasing. Given that it will take several years for the development to be fully built-out, it is likely that the proposed storage at the new combined SPS could be constructed in phases. The initial equalization storage for Phase 1 could be sized at approximately 180m 3 in one storage tank. Subsequently the flows and storage utilization can be monitored and the storage requirements reassessed for the purposes of future expansion. The ultimate storage required will likely be less than the theoretical maximum of 660 m 3 for full development. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

41 GolfNorth Properties 35 Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March External Sanitary Sewer System Constraints Paris Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) The Paris WWTP has a rated design capacity of 7,056 m 3 /day per the current MOE Certificate of Approval. Based on a per capita flow average of 400 L/cap/day, the station has capacity for an equivalent design population of 17,640. The current population in the urban area of Paris is in the order of 11,763 persons (2011 Census data). It can therefore be concluded that the Paris WWTP has sufficient reserve capacity to treat the full 23.5 L/s projected design flow from the 400 units within the Draft Plan. The County s 2015 Development Charges Background Study (in progress) identifies upgrades to the existing Treatment Plant with an approximate timing of 2021, within the 10-year planning period of the DC By-law. The DC Study provides forecasted growth in Southwest Paris of 2203 equivalent single detached residential units (SDU) to year 2031, with 1080 units occurring by The growth forecast for the balance of Paris is 600 units over an initial 10-year period. The 2021 timing for the WWTP expansion presented in the DC Study therefore coincides with development of 600 units within the balance of Paris including the Paris Grand development. The County s forthcoming Servicing Master Plan should provide confirmation that the future WWTP expansion will incorporate additional growth in the balance of Paris which may not have been considered in the 2008 DC Study Downstream Sanitary Sewer Analysis Section 7.3 above provides an option for flow equalization at a new sanitary pumping station with the Draft Plan lands, which would result in no additional surcharging of existing sewers. However, additional analysis is provided in this section in order to determine the impact of introducing the Paris Grand development area flows directly into the existing system (i.e., without flow equalization storage at the new SPS described in Section above). The County s current sanitary design sheets were used to evaluate existing and potential constraints in the sewers between the Study Area and the Paris WWTP and the information is summarized in the Table and Figures provided in Appendix E. Figure E-1 indicates currently surcharged sewers between the proposed development and the WWTP. Figure E-2 includes the additional surcharged sewers with the full Paris Grand development flows introduced. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

42 GolfNorth Properties 36 Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March 2015 Table 11 below is a summary of the undersized sewer lengths. The non-highlighted cells represent sewers that are surcharged under current conditions. The highlighted cells represent the additional sewer legs that are surcharged with full introduction of the Paris Grand sanitary flows. Table 11: Downstream Sewer Surcharging with Paris Grand Flows Included Street Name Sanitary Pipe No. Peak Design Flow Q(d) (L/s) Pipe Diameter (mm Length (m) Grade (%) Cap. (L/s) GR. RIVER ST. N. PRS GR. RIVER ST. N. PRS WILLIAM ST. PRS WILLIAM ST. PRS WILLIAM ST. PRS WILLOW ST. PRS WILLOW ST. PRS WILLOW ST. PRS WILLOW ST. WSPS BALL ST. PRS BALL ST. PRS RACE ST. PRS RACE ST. PRS RACE ST. PRS * The summary above is based on a flow of 23.5 L/s introduced into the existing system. Flows were calculated using 350 L/cap/day population flow for the new development area and no further peaking reduction of the introduced flow. The length of downstream sewer identified as surcharged on the County s current design sheets under existing conditions is approximately 620 m per the non-highlighted legs in the above table. The addition of the Paris Grand flows results in surcharging of an additional six legs of sewer (360 m total length), with the bulk of these legs (PRS0360, PRS238, PRS0290, PRS0281 and PRS002) having only very minor surcharging indicated. It is noted that the County s 2015 Development Charges Background Study identifies upgrades to the trunk sanitary sewers on Willow, Race and Ball Streets with approximate timing of 2021, which is within the current 10-year planning period of the DC By-law. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

43 GolfNorth Properties 37 Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March Conclusions Draft Plan Area Wastewater Servicing The preliminary conclusions resulting from the analysis provided above can be summarized as follows: Due to topographical constraints, a new sanitary sewage pumping station will be required to service the Paris Grand development; Based on a review the County s current sanitary design sheets, additional lengths of downstream sewers may have to be upgraded in order to allow for conveyance of the Draft Plan area flows to the Paris WWTP; Additional review and consultation is required to determine how the costs for upgrades to downstream sewers will be attributed to benefitting upstream parties and to the County. This should be undertaken in conjunction with the current County s Master Servicing Study. As the upgrades would provide a benefit to existing serviced areas, this should be considered in any future update of the County s Development Charge Bylaw; The County s current Development Charges Bylaw identifies upgrades to the existing Paris Links Road sanitary pumping station (approximate timing in 2023, within the 10-year planning period of the DC By-law). There would be a realized net benefit to both the Developer and the County In providing a single sanitary pumping station within the Paris Grand development, replacing the existing SPS at Paris Links Road. The combined facility would benefit existing serviced areas and this should be considered in any update of the County s Development Charge Bylaw; Phased development on the Study Area lands could occur immediately if flow equalization storage is provided at the new sanitary pumping station, i.e. there would be no net impact to flow conditions within the existing Paris sewer system; and, It is recommended that a flow monitoring program be implemented at the existing Paris Links Road SPS in order to provide a more accurate calibration of existing flows to be used in the modelling of the total flow equalization storage required. This should be undertaken once the County gives an indication that the SPS replacement and upgrade incorporating flow equalization storage is an acceptable servicing alternative. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

44 GolfNorth Properties 38 Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March Water Supply and Distribution 8.1 Design Criteria The following County of Brant criteria were applied in order to calculate water demand for the Study Area: Average Daily Demand per-capita litres per day; Maximum Daily Demand Factor ; and, Maximum Hourly Demand Factor Design Flows A preliminary water demand calculation sheet is included in Appendix G. The resulting design flows are tabulated in Table 12 below. Table 12: Preliminary Estimate of Water Demand Catchment Total Pop n Average Day Demand (L/s) Max Day Demand (L/s) Max Hour Demand (L/s) West of Gilbert Creek East of Gilbert Creek Total Existing Supply Conditions and System Upgrades Based on the water system map provided by the County, the proposed development is located within Pressure Zone 1 of the municipal supply system. Planned upgrades for the Paris water supply that directly impact the north Paris Area within this zone include a planned elevated storage facility, currently expected to be constructed in As this project is within the local pressure zone, there presumably will be improved supply conditions as a result of the upgrade. The County has advised that current policy is to require that major new development within the Paris urban area provide for its own water supply (i.e., new source wells). The County would then elect to protect the new supply or have it implemented at their discretion. The County s current Master Servicing Study will include additional recommendations for Paris water infrastructure upgrades. GolfNorth should have full stakeholder opportunity to review and participate as the County s Study is advanced. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

45 GolfNorth Properties 39 Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March Paris Water Model Update to Include Paris Grand Demand Preliminary estimates of water demand were provided to the County for the purpose of updating the existing Paris Water System hydraulic modelling to include the Draft Plan lands. The County provided results in a Report prepared by AECOM dated July The analysis included calibration using results obtained from flow testing at six hydrants fronting the development and westerly along Paris Links Road. System pressures under all modelled scenarios generally fall in the range of 75 to 105 psi. Extrapolating from the results it was noted that greater than 150 L/s of supply would be available at a 20 psi residual system pressure. The AECOM Report is included in Appendix G of this report. The Report notes that pressure reducing valves may be required in instances where system pressures exceed the generally recommended 100 psi maximum. From the data provided by AECOM, this has the potential to occur where proposed elevations are lower than an approximate elevation of m. The preliminary grading prepared for this Functional Report indicated that this might occur locally in two areas: South of Paris Links Road adjacent to Gilbert Creek, and Along frontages adjacent to Paris Links Road east of Gilbert Creek. While the detailed hydraulic modelling for the internal subdivision area has not been developed at this stage, the following can be noted: The highest proposed elevation within the subdivision is approximately m, on Street C along the north limit of the Plan. The associated pressure drop associated with an elevation change of 17.2 meters (i.e. from elevation m at the Street B/Paris Links Road intersection) would be in the order of 25 psi. Based on the AECOM modelling, it can be surmised that the maximum elevation change would still allow for more than adequate supply pressures; There will also be internal system pipe losses over the future network; these should not have an adverse effect on the system given the adequacy of existing pressures in the overall system, but they can be minimized via appropriate looping to the supply main at Paris Links Road. 8.5 Existing GolfNorth Supply Wells Additional evaluation of an option for potential on-site water supply is presented in this section. There are currently two approved 300 mm diameter large supply irrigation wells within the GolfNorth property. These locations are noted as PW1/00 and PW1/97 on the Water Servicing Plan included as Figure 10. The wells are cased bedrock wells with water R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

46 GolfNorth Properties 40 Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March 2015 pumped from depths of approximately meters. PW1/97 is the normally in use irrigation supply well for the golf course while PW1/00 is a backup irrigation well. A copy of the Ministry approved Permit to Take Water document is included in Appendix G. The permitting allows for total water taking at 1,636 m 3 per day over 214 days of seasonal operation. Based on the permit documentation, the currently approved annual water taking for the on-site well supply is 350,104 m 3. The average day demand for the GolfNorth Study area is 4.3 L/s. Extrapolating from this to obtain the annual supply required to satisfy domestic demand for the Study Area results in a supply requirement of 135,604 m 3 annually. It can therefore be inferred that the existing well supply would have capacity to service the development, and there may be surplus available for County use beyond the Study Area. If an on-site supply option is determined to be appropriate for the development, reservoir storage for fire protection will also be required. Conversion of the on-site wells for domestic use would require treatment to potable quality, as well as re-permitting of the wells to allow for domestic use and year round water taking. These wells and other bedrock wells in the Paris area exhibit high levels of sulfate and hardness due to the presence of gypsum. Sulfate levels in particular are a concern from a taste and odour standpoint. Sampling results confirm that on-site treatment for hardness (water softening) and sulfate removal (reverse osmosis) for potability would be required. The County is generally familiar with these treatment requirements as the water supplied from existing municipal supply wells is treated for the same general characteristics. Block 14 on the Draft Plan is noted as a potential site for on-site water treatment and storage. A preliminary layout for the facility has been developed in order to confirm that the area has been sized appropriately. The layout is included in Appendix G of this Report. A preliminary capital cost estimate for the water treatment system and storage facility has also been included in Appendix G. 8.6 Preliminary Watermain Layout The Preliminary Water Servicing Plan (included as Figure 10 at the back of this report) includes an internal watermain layout that follows the alignments of the proposed right-of-ways, with connections to the existing 350 mm diameter main on Paris Links Road; a total of six connections are indicated. The layout provides for excellent internal looping within the proposed system. The plan also shows the location for the Block 14 on-site water treatment and storage facility. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

47 GolfNorth Properties 41 Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March Conclusions Draft Plan Area Water Servicing The conclusions resulting from the analysis and discussion provided above are summarized as follows: The County has provided an update to the Paris water system hydraulic modelling that includes projected demands for the Draft Plan lands. The results confirm that system pressures are not a constraint to servicing of the proposed development; A proposal and costing for on-site well based supply has been presented. If this solution is implemented, there would be a realized net benefit to both the Developer and the County as a result of upgrading the existing irrigation wells for potable supply. Excess supply to augment the County s overall supply may be available from the wells; Implementation of on-site supply will require that the water be treated for hardness and sulfate removal. A preliminary treatment plant layout and a capital cost estimate for the facility have been provided for the County s consideration; and Additional review is required to determine how the costs for external upgrades to the existing County supply will be attributed to benefitting parties and to the County. This should be undertaken in conjunction with the County s Master Servicing Study and at the Development Charge study level. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

48 GolfNorth Properties 42 Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March Traffic Study and Roads 9.1 Traffic Report A Traffic Study was undertaken with other studies prepared in support of the previous submissions to the County (Transportation Impact Study, Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited, January 2013). The report includes forecasts and analyses for traffic generation and associated impacts. Discussion and recommendations on external improvements are included in the PTSL Study; discussion in this Report is limited to issues with respect to the localized road frontage and proposed subdivision entrances from Paris Links Road. 9.2 Right-of-Way Widths The proposed road network within the subject property will be designed in accordance with County Standards for 20 m right-of-ways. 9.3 Paris Lake Road Improvements The PTSL Study includes analysis of sightline conditions for Paris Links Road with consideration of the proposed new intersection locations and based on a design speed of 70 km/h (20 km/h over a posted 50 km/h limit). The sightline conditions as they exist are substandard with respect to the existing residential driveway accesses. With the introduction of the new street intersections, improvements are recommended that would involve reconstruction of the existing roadway to meet sightline requirements. Figure 4A of this Report is a preliminary road profile that delineates the extent of the road high point lowering that is required to mitigate the sightline issues. The proposed grades for the subdivision intersections (Figure 4) reflect the new profile grades for Paris Links Road. The above reconstruction would be undertaken with the upgrading of Paris Links Road along the entire site frontage to an urban section, which the County will also require. The current submission includes a response by Paradigm to the comments on the Traffic Impact Study. The response includes discussion on options to realign Paris Links Road to create a four-leg intersection with Grand River Street and/or Silver Street/Capron Street. The current Draft Plan and associated Burnside drawings reflect the roadway allowance required for this realignment within the westerly portion of the Draft Plan lands. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

49 GolfNorth Properties 43 Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report March Summary Conclusion The preceding Report provides analysis of existing servicing capacities and a review of options for servicing of the proposed Paris Grand residential subdivision development. Although several constraints exist at this time, particularly with respect to water supply and downstream sanitary conveyance capacity, options to address these constraints have been presented. In summary, this Report addresses the servicing related requirements associated with the Draft Plan and Zoning Bylaw Amendment applications for the subject property. We therefore propose that the preceding Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management analysis be accepted for review and approval by the County of Brant in order to facilitate the Planning Approvals required before development can proceed. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited FSR Preliminary Report PGD020165

50 Figures Figure 3 - Existing Site Conditions Figure 4 Preliminary Grading Plan Figure 4A Preliminary Plan/Profile Paris Links Road Figure 5 Pre-Development Storm Drainage Plan Figure 6 Post-Development Storm Drainage Plan Figure 6A Post-Development Storm Drainage Plan (3 rd Pipe Rooftop Collection) Figure 7 Preliminary Pond Design Figure 7A Preliminary Pond Cross Sections Figure 8 Preliminary Storm Servicing Plan Figure 8A Preliminary Storm Servicing Plan (3 rd Pope Rooftop Collection) Figure 9 Preliminary Sanitary Servicing Plan Figure 10 Preliminary Water Servicing Plan Figures

51 Appendix A Appendix A LVM Borehole Data

52 Borehole Number: Ground Elevation: n/a Project: Paris Grand Country Club Job No.: P Location: 150 Paris Links Road, Paris, Ontario Drill Date: SOIL PROFILE SAMPLE Dynamic Cone Shear Strength (PP) kpa WP WL Depth (m) Description Symbol Elevation (m) Number Type N-Value Standard Penetration Shear Strength (FV) kpa Water Content (%) Groundwater Observations and Standpipe Details Ground Elevation TOPSOIL: dark brown silt, moist SILT: brown silt, some sand and gravel, moist SILT TILL: stiff to very stiff brown silt, some clay, trace sand, DTPL occasional silt layers, moist SILT: loose brown silt, moist; some brown clayey silt layers, APL compact SAND: compact brown fine to medium sand, trace silt, saturated protective cover and concrete 50 mm pipes bentonite seal 0.9 m slotted screen sand pack bentonite seal sand pack 1.5 m slotted screen Borehole terminated at 7.62 m native cave Reviewed by: F. Chartier/C. Helmer Field Tech.: R. McMillan Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Sheet: 1 of 1 Notes: Drafted by: K. Staples

53 Borehole Number: Ground Elevation: n/a Project: Paris Grand Country Club Job No.: P Location: 150 Paris Links Road, Paris, Ontario Drill Date: SOIL PROFILE SAMPLE Dynamic Cone Shear Strength (PP) kpa WP WL Depth (m) Description Symbol Elevation (m) Number Type N-Value Standard Penetration Shear Strength (FV) kpa Water Content (%) Groundwater Observations and Standpipe Details Ground Elevation FILL: brown to dark brown silt, some topsoil, trace gravel, moist PEAT: black, amorphous peat, APL SILT TILL: loose brown silt, some sand, trace clay and fine gravel, moist to very moist SILT AND SAND: very loose brown silt and fine sand, saturated SAND: very loose brown fine to coarse sand, some silt, saturated (unsampled) * * mm pipe bentonite seal **please confirm? 1.5 m slotted screen sand pack native cave Borehole terminated at 6.71 m Reviewed by: F. Chartier/C. Helmer Field Tech.: R. McMillan Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Sheet: 1 of 1 Notes: * weight of hammer Drafted by: K. Staples

54 Borehole Number: 02A-11 Ground Elevation: n/a Project: Paris Grand Country Club Job No.: P Location: 150 Paris Links Road, Paris, Ontario Drill Date: SOIL PROFILE SAMPLE Dynamic Cone Shear Strength (PP) kpa WP WL Depth (m) Description Symbol Elevation (m) Number Type N-Value Standard Penetration Shear Strength (FV) kpa Water Content (%) Groundwater Observations and Standpipe Details Ground Elevation FILL: brown to dark brown silt, some topsoil, trace gravel, moist PEAT: black, amorphous peat, APL SILT TILL: loose brown silt, some sand, trace clay and fine gravel, moist to very moist SILT AND SAND: very loose brown silt and fine sand, saturated SAND: very loose brown fine to coarse sand, some silt, saturated protective cover 50 mm pipes bentonite seal sand pack 0.3 m slotted screen native cave Borehole terminated at 6.10 m m slotted screen Reviewed by: F. Chartier/C. Helmer Field Tech.: R. McMillan Drill Method: Solid Stem Auger Sheet: 1 of 1 Notes: Soil stratigraphy inferred from Borehole Drafted by: K. Staples

55 Borehole Number: Ground Elevation: n/a Project: Paris Grand Country Club Job No.: P Location: 150 Paris Links Road, Paris, Ontario Drill Date: SOIL PROFILE SAMPLE Dynamic Cone Shear Strength (PP) kpa WP WL Depth (m) Description Symbol Elevation (m) Number Type N-Value Standard Penetration Shear Strength (FV) kpa Water Content (%) Groundwater Observations and Standpipe Details Ground Elevation FILL: dark brown silt (topsoil), moist brown silt, some sand and clay, moist PEAT: black amorphous peat, APL SAND AND GRAVEL: compact brown sand and gravel, some silt, saturated AS % protective cover and concrete 50 mm pipe bentonite seal sand pack 1.5 m slotted screen 4.00 Borehole terminated at 3.81 m Reviewed by: F. Chartier/C. Helmer Field Tech.: R. McMillan Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Sheet: 1 of 1 Notes: Auger sample taken from 0.61 to 1.22 m. Drafted by: K. Staples

56 Borehole Number: Ground Elevation: n/a Project: Paris Grand Country Club Job No.: P Location: 150 Paris Links Road, Paris, Ontario Drill Date: SOIL PROFILE SAMPLE Dynamic Cone Shear Strength (PP) kpa WP WL Depth (m) Description Symbol Elevation (m) Number Type N-Value Standard Penetration Shear Strength (FV) kpa Water Content (%) Groundwater Observations and Standpipe Details Ground Elevation TOPSOIL: dark brown silt, moist SILT: brown silt, some sand, moist SAND AND GRAVEL: compact brown sand and gravel, trace silt and cobbles, damp AS protective cover and concrete 50 mm pipe some cobbles frequent cobbles and boulders bentonite seal very dense, damp \150mm native cave saturated m slotted screen Water level in pipe at Borehole terminated at m m upon completion. Reviewed by: F. Chartier/C. Helmer Field Tech.: R. McMillan Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Sheet: 1 of 1 Notes: Auger sample taken from 0.61 to 0.91 m. Auger seized by cobbles; turned augers up to m to unseize. Auger refusal at m on fallen-in Drafted by: K. Staples cobbles and boulder.

57 Borehole Number: Ground Elevation: n/a Project: Paris Grand Country Club Job No.: P Location: 150 Paris Links Road, Paris, Ontario Drill Date: SOIL PROFILE SAMPLE Dynamic Cone Shear Strength (PP) kpa WP WL Depth (m) Description Symbol Elevation (m) Number Type N-Value Standard Penetration Shear Strength (FV) kpa Water Content (%) Groundwater Observations and Standpipe Details Ground Elevation FILL: dark brown sandy silt, moist SAND AND GRAVEL: brown silty sand and gravel, some cobbles, damp SAND: loose brown fine to coarse sand, damp; some silty fine sand layers, damp SAND AND GRAVEL: compact brown sand and gravel, some cobbles, trace silt, damp AS protective cover and concrete 50 mm pipe bentonite seal 6.00 very dense frequent cobbles to 8.53 m, damp \150mm saturated sand pack 0.76 m slotted screen 9.00 SILT TILL: dense brown sandy silt, some gravel and limestone fragments, trace clay, moist bentonite seal Borehole terminated at m Reviewed by: F. Chartier/C. Helmer Field Tech.: R. McMillan Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Sheet: 1 of 1 Notes: Auger sample taken from 0.76 to 1.22 m. Drafted by: K. Staples

58 Borehole Number: Ground Elevation: n/a Project: Paris Grand Country Club Job No.: P Location: 150 Paris Links Road, Paris, Ontario Drill Date: SOIL PROFILE SAMPLE Dynamic Cone Shear Strength (PP) kpa WP WL Depth (m) Description Symbol Elevation (m) Number Type N-Value Standard Penetration Shear Strength (FV) kpa Water Content (%) Groundwater Observations and Standpipe Details Ground Elevation FILL: dark brown silt (topsoil), moist brown sandy silt, trace gravel, moist SAND AND GRAVEL: dense brown sand and gravel, frequent cobbles, trace silt, damp AS 42 protective cover and concrete 50 mm pipe \150mm bentonite seal \150mm saturated native cave 1.5 m slotted screen Borehole terminated at m Water level in pipe at 9.75 m Reviewed by: F. Chartier/C. Helmer Field Tech.: R. McMillan Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Sheet: 1 of 1 Notes: Auger sample taken from 0.76 to 1.22 m. Drafted by: K. Staples

59 Borehole Number: Ground Elevation: n/a Project: Paris Grand Country Club Job No.: P Location: 150 Paris Links Road, Paris, Ontario Drill Date: SOIL PROFILE SAMPLE Dynamic Cone Shear Strength (PP) kpa WP WL Depth (m) Description Symbol Elevation (m) Number Type N-Value Standard Penetration Shear Strength (FV) kpa Water Content (%) Groundwater Observations and Standpipe Details Ground Elevation TOPSOIL: dark brown silt, moist SAND: brown silty sand, some fine gravel, damp SILT: brown sandy silt, moist SAND AND GRAVEL: compact brown sand and gravel, trace silt, frequent cobbles, damp AS bentonite seal boulder Borehole terminated at 5.94 m with auger refusal on boulder Reviewed by: F. Chartier/C. Helmer Field Tech.: R. McMillan Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Sheet: 1 of 1 Notes: Auger sample taken from 0.61 to 1.22 m. Drafted by: K. Staples

60 Borehole Number: Ground Elevation: n/a Project: Paris Grand Country Club Job No.: P Location: 150 Paris Links Road, Paris, Ontario Drill Date: SOIL PROFILE SAMPLE Dynamic Cone Shear Strength (PP) kpa WP WL Depth (m) Description Symbol Elevation (m) Number Type N-Value Standard Penetration Shear Strength (FV) kpa Water Content (%) Groundwater Observations and Standpipe Details Ground Elevation FILL: dark brown silt (topsoil), some brown silt, moist SILT: very loose brown silt, some sand and clay, moist protective cover and concrete 50 mm pipe 3.00 SAND: compact brown fine to medium sand, trace silt, damp bentonite seal SAND AND GRAVEL: dense brown sand and gravel, some cobbles and silt, damp saturated * 1.5 m slotted screen sand pack 6.00 CLAY TILL: hard grey silty clay, APL **pls confirm - text faint > native cave 7.00 Borehole terminated at 6.55 m Reviewed by: F. Chartier/C. Helmer Field Tech.: R. McMillan Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Sheet: 1 of 1 Notes: * sampler striking gravel Drafted by: K. Staples

61 Borehole Number: Ground Elevation: n/a Project: Paris Grand Country Club Job No.: P Location: 150 Paris Links Road, Paris, Ontario Drill Date: SOIL PROFILE SAMPLE Dynamic Cone Shear Strength (PP) kpa WP WL Depth (m) Description Symbol Elevation (m) Number Type N-Value Standard Penetration Shear Strength (FV) kpa Water Content (%) Groundwater Observations and Standpipe Details Ground Elevation TOPSOIL: dark brown silt, moist SILT: brown silt, trace sand, moist SAND: compact brown fine to medium sand, some silt, saturated SILT: dense brown silt, some sand and clay, moist SAND AND GRAVEL: dense brown sand and gravel, some cobbles, saturated CLAY TILL: hard brown silty clay, trace sand, DTPL grey, APL some gravel > > > protective cover and concrete 50 mm pipe bentonite seal native cave 1.5 m slotted screen sand pack Borehole terminated at 6.55 m > Water level at 1.22 m Reviewed by: F. Chartier/C. Helmer Field Tech.: R. McMillan Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Sheet: 1 of 1 Notes: * sampler striking gravel Drafted by: K. Staples

62 Borehole Number: 09A-11 Ground Elevation: n/a Project: Paris Grand Country Club Job No.: P Location: 150 Paris Links Road, Paris, Ontario Drill Date: SOIL PROFILE SAMPLE Dynamic Cone Shear Strength (PP) kpa WP WL Depth (m) Description Symbol Elevation (m) Number Type N-Value Standard Penetration Shear Strength (FV) kpa Water Content (%) Groundwater Observations and Standpipe Details Ground Elevation TOPSOIL: dark brown silt, moist SILT: brown silt, trace sand, moist SAND: compact brown fine to medium sand, some silt, saturated Borehole terminated at 1.52 m protective cover bentonite seal 19 mm pipe sand pack 0.6 m slotted filter Upon completion of excavation, water level at 0.91 m Reviewed by: F. Chartier/C. Helmer Field Tech.: R. McMillan Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Sheet: 1 of 1 Notes: Soil stratigraphy inferred from Borehole Drafted by: K. Staples

63 Borehole Number: Ground Elevation: n/a Project: Paris Grand Country Club Job No.: P Location: 150 Paris Links Road, Paris, Ontario Drill Date: SOIL PROFILE SAMPLE Dynamic Cone Shear Strength (PP) kpa WP WL Depth (m) Description Symbol Elevation (m) Number Type N-Value Standard Penetration Shear Strength (FV) kpa Water Content (%) Groundwater Observations and Standpipe Details Ground Elevation FILL: dark brown silt (topsoil), moist SAND: brown fine to coarse sand, some fine gravel, damp saturated AS 20 protective cover and concrete 50 mm pipe bentonite seal 3.00 SAND AND GRAVEL: compact brown sand and gravel, trace silt, saturated native cave 1.5 m slotted screen 4.00 some cobbles Borehole terminated at 4.57 m AS 0.91 (?) m of heave at 4.57 m Reviewed by: F. Chartier/C. Helmer Field Tech.: R. McMillan Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Sheet: 1 of 1 Notes: Drafted by: K. Staples

64 Borehole Number: 10A-11 Ground Elevation: n/a Project: Paris Grand Country Club Job No.: P Location: 150 Paris Links Road, Paris, Ontario Drill Date: SOIL PROFILE SAMPLE Dynamic Cone Shear Strength (PP) kpa WP WL Depth (m) Description Symbol Elevation (m) Number Type N-Value Standard Penetration Shear Strength (FV) kpa Water Content (%) Groundwater Observations and Standpipe Details Ground Elevation FILL: dark brown silt (topsoil), moist SAND: brown fine to coarse sand, some fine gravel, damp saturated protective cover 19 mm pipes bentonite seal 150 mm slotted filter 3.00 SAND AND GRAVEL: compact brown sand and gravel, trace silt, saturated native cave 4.00 some cobbles mm slotted filter 5.00 Borehole terminated at 4.57 m Reviewed by: F. Chartier/C. Helmer Field Tech.: R. McMillan Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Sheet: 1 of 1 Notes: Soil stratigraphy inferred from Borehole Drafted by: K. Staples

65 Borehole Number: Ground Elevation: n/a Project: Paris Grand Country Club Job No.: P Location: 150 Paris Links Road, Paris, Ontario Drill Date: SOIL PROFILE SAMPLE Dynamic Cone Shear Strength (PP) kpa WP WL Depth (m) Description Symbol Elevation (m) Number Type N-Value Standard Penetration Shear Strength (FV) kpa Water Content (%) Groundwater Observations and Standpipe Details Ground Elevation TOPSOIL: dark brown silt, moist SAND: brown silty fine sand, damp SAND AND GRAVEL: compact brown sand and gravel, frequent cobbles and boulders, trace silt, damp protective cover and concrete 50 mm pipe bentonite seal dense SAND: compact brown fine to coarse sand, trace silt and fine gravel, damp native backfill saturated m slotted screen Borehole terminated at m Reviewed by: F. Chartier/C. Helmer Field Tech.: R. McMillan Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Sheet: 1 of 1 Notes: Drafted by: K. Staples

66 Borehole Number: Ground Elevation: n/a Project: Paris Grand Country Club Job No.: P Location: 150 Paris Links Road, Paris, Ontario Drill Date: SOIL PROFILE SAMPLE Dynamic Cone Shear Strength (PP) kpa WP WL Depth (m) Description Symbol Elevation (m) Number Type N-Value Standard Penetration Shear Strength (FV) kpa Water Content (%) Groundwater Observations and Standpipe Details Ground Elevation TOPSOIL: dark brown silt, moist SILT: brown sandy silt, some gravel, damp SAND AND GRAVEL: dense brown sand and gravel, frequent cobbles, trace silt, damp protective cover * pls confirm * 50 mm pipe bentonite seal saturated sand pack SAND: compact brown fine to coarse sand, some gravel, saturated m slotted screen 8.00 Borehole terminated at 7.62 m AS 1.07 m of heave at 7.62 m Reviewed by: F. Chartier/C. Helmer Field Tech.: R. McMillan Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Sheet: 1 of 1 Notes: Drafted by: K. Staples

67 Borehole Number: Ground Elevation: n/a Project: Paris Grand Country Club Job No.: P Location: 150 Paris Links Road, Paris, Ontario Drill Date: SOIL PROFILE SAMPLE Dynamic Cone Shear Strength (PP) kpa WP WL Depth (m) Description Symbol Elevation (m) Number Type N-Value Standard Penetration Shear Strength (FV) kpa Water Content (%) Groundwater Observations and Standpipe Details Ground Elevation TOPSOIL: dark brown silt, moist SAND: brown silty fine sand, trace gravel, damp SAND AND GRAVEL: very dense brown sand and gravel, frequent cobbles and boulders, damp * very difficult drilling * protective cover and concrete 50 mm pipe bentonite seal 4.00 saturated native cave \150mm 1.5 m slotted screen 6.00 Borehole terminated at 6.10 m wih 1.22 m of heave Reviewed by: F. Chartier/C. Helmer Field Tech.: R. McMillan Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Sheet: 1 of 1 Notes: * sampler striking cobble Drafted by: K. Staples

68 Borehole Number: Ground Elevation: n/a Project: Paris Grand Country Club Job No.: P Location: 150 Paris Links Road, Paris, Ontario Drill Date: SOIL PROFILE SAMPLE Dynamic Cone Shear Strength (PP) kpa WP WL Depth (m) Description Symbol Elevation (m) Number Type N-Value Standard Penetration Shear Strength (FV) kpa Water Content (%) Groundwater Observations and Standpipe Details 0.00 Ground Elevation TOPSOIL: dark brown silt, moist 0.00 protective cover and concrete 1.00 SILT: loose brown silt, trace sand and clay, moist bentonite seal SAND: loose to compact rusty brown sand, some silt, damp some gravel and cobbles SAND AND GRAVEL: brown sand and gravel, frequent cobbles and boulders to 2.59 m, damp saturated sand layers to 3.96 m SAND: compact brown fine to coarse sand, trace silt, saturated mm upper pipe sand pack 150 mm slotted screen 50 mm lower pipe bentonite seal sand pack 1.5 m slotted screen native cave 8.00 Borehole terminated at 7.62 m Reviewed by: F. Chartier/C. Helmer Field Tech.: R. McMillan Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Sheet: 1 of 1 Notes: Drafted by: K. Staples

69 Borehole Number: Ground Elevation: n/a Project: Paris Grand Country Club Job No.: P Location: 150 Paris Links Road, Paris, Ontario Drill Date: SOIL PROFILE SAMPLE Dynamic Cone Shear Strength (PP) kpa WP WL Depth (m) Description Symbol Elevation (m) Number Type N-Value Standard Penetration Shear Strength (FV) kpa Water Content (%) Groundwater Observations and Standpipe Details Ground Elevation TOPSOIL: dark brown silt, some sand, moist SAND AND GRAVEL: compact brown sand and gravel, some silt, damp dense protective cover and concrete moist 3 24 bentonite seal SAND: compact brown, medium sand, trace silt and gravel, damp SAND AND GRAVEL: very dense brown and grey sand and gravel, some silt, occasional cobbles, moist SAND: dense brown fine sand, some silt, trace gravel, damp mm pipe 8.00 moist to very moist silty sand, wet SILT: dense brown silt, some fine sand and clay, trace fine gravel, wet SAND: dense brown silty fine sand, trace fine gravel, very moist to wet SAND AND GRAVEL: very dense brown silty sand and gravel, wet to saturated Borehole terminated at m \150mm sand pack 1.5 m slotted screen Reviewed by: F. Chartier/C. Helmer Field Tech.: D. Souter Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Sheet: 1 of 1 Notes: Drafted by: K. Staples

70 Borehole Number: Ground Elevation: n/a Project: Paris Grand Country Club Job No.: P Location: 150 Paris Links Road, Paris, Ontario Drill Date: SOIL PROFILE SAMPLE Dynamic Cone Shear Strength (PP) kpa WP WL Depth (m) Description Symbol Elevation (m) Number Type N-Value Standard Penetration Shear Strength (FV) kpa Water Content (%) Groundwater Observations and Standpipe Details Ground Elevation TOPSOIL: dark brown silt, some sand, trace gravel, moist SILT: very loose grey/brown silt, some sand and clay, very moist PEAT: very loose dark brown fibrous peat, very moist SILT TILL: very loose brown silt, some clay, trace fine sand and gravel, wet SAND AND GRAVEL: loose brown silty sand and gravel, saturated compact SAND: compact brown silty sand, trace gravel, saturated SILT TILL: dense brown silt, some fine sand and clay, trace fine gravel, moist some wet sand layers Borehole terminated at 6.55 m protective cover and concrete 50 mm pipe bentonite seal sand pack 3.0 m slotted screen Reviewed by: F. Chartier/C. Helmer Field Tech.: D. Souter Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Sheet: 1 of 1 Notes: Drafted by: K. Staples

71 Borehole Number: 16A-11 Ground Elevation: n/a Project: Paris Grand Country Club Job No.: P Location: 150 Paris Links Road, Paris, Ontario Drill Date: SOIL PROFILE SAMPLE Dynamic Cone Shear Strength (PP) kpa WP WL Depth (m) Description Symbol Elevation (m) Number Type N-Value Standard Penetration Shear Strength (FV) kpa Water Content (%) Groundwater Observations and Standpipe Details Ground Elevation TOPSOIL: dark brown silt, some sand, trace gravel, moist SILT: very loose grey/brown silt, some sand and clay, very moist PEAT: very loose dark brown fibrous peat, very moist SILT TILL: very loose brown silt, some clay, trace fine sand and gravel, wet Borehole terminated at 2.29 m protective cover and concrete 19 mm pipe bentonite seal sand pack 0.8 m slotted screen Reviewed by: F. Chartier/C. Helmer Field Tech.: D. Souter Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Sheet: 1 of 1 Notes: Soil stratigraphy inferred from Borehole Drafted by: K. Staples

72 Borehole Number: Ground Elevation: n/a Project: Paris Grand Country Club Job No.: P Location: 150 Paris Links Road, Paris, Ontario Drill Date: SOIL PROFILE SAMPLE Dynamic Cone Shear Strength (PP) kpa WP WL Depth (m) Description Symbol Elevation (m) Number Type N-Value Standard Penetration Shear Strength (FV) kpa Water Content (%) Groundwater Observations and Standpipe Details Ground Elevation TOPSOIL: dark brown silt, some sand, moist SAND AND GRAVEL: compact brown sand and gravel, some silt, trace cobbles, moist SAND: compact brown coarse sand, some gravel and silt, moist SAND AND GRAVEL: dense brown sand and gravel, some silt, moist protective cover and concrete 50 mm pipe bentonite seal SAND: dense brown silty sand, some gravel, saturated compact, silty fine sand sand pack m slotted screen 8.00 Borehole terminated at 8.08 m Reviewed by: F. Chartier/C. Helmer Field Tech.: D. Souter Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Sheet: 1 of 1 Notes: Drafted by: K. Staples

73 Borehole Number: Ground Elevation: n/a Project: Paris Grand Country Club Job No.: P Location: 150 Paris Links Road, Paris, Ontario Drill Date: SOIL PROFILE SAMPLE Dynamic Cone Shear Strength (PP) kpa WP WL Depth (m) Description Symbol Elevation (m) Number Type N-Value Standard Penetration Shear Strength (FV) kpa Water Content (%) Groundwater Observations and Standpipe Details 0.00 Ground Elevation FILL: dark brown silt (topsoil), moist 0.00 protective cover and concrete SILT: fine brown silt, some clay, trace sand, APL loose brown silt, trace fine sand and clay, very moist to wet compact, saturated, dilatant mm upper pipe bentonite seal sand pack 0.9 m slotted screen some clayey silt layers SAND: compact brown fine to medium sand, trace silt and fine gravel, damp SAND AND GRAVEL: compact brown sand and gravel, some silt and cobbles to 5.18 m, damp mm middle pipe bentonite seal saturated SILT TILL: hard brown silt, some clay, sand and gravel, moist sand pack 0.9 m slotted screen 50 mm lower pipe compact brown silt (till), some sand and gravel, some limestone fragments, moist SAND AND GRAVEL: compact brown silty sand and gravel, saturated (water in augers to m) bentonite seal sand pack 1.5 m slotted screen Borehole terminated at m with auger refusal on bedrock or boulder Reviewed by: F. Chartier/C. Helmer Field Tech.: R. McMillan Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Sheet: 1 of 1 Notes: Drafted by: K. Staples

74 Borehole Number: Ground Elevation: n/a Project: Paris Grand Country Club Job No.: P Location: 150 Paris Links Road, Paris, Ontario Drill Date: SOIL PROFILE SAMPLE Dynamic Cone Shear Strength (PP) kpa WP WL Depth (m) Description Symbol Elevation (m) Number Type N-Value Standard Penetration Shear Strength (FV) kpa Water Content (%) Groundwater Observations and Standpipe Details Ground Elevation TOPSOIL: dark brown silt, moist SILT: firm brown silt, some clay, some brown clayey silt layers, APL SAND AND GRAVEL: dense brown sand and gravel, trace silt, damp SILT TILL: hard brown silt, some clay, trace sand and gravel, DTPL; some clayey silt layers, APL boulder to 3.35 m SAND TILL: loose to compact brown silty sand (till), some gravel and cobbles, moist (free groundwater on gravel at 4.11 m) frequent limestone fragments boulder to 6.02 m > protective cover and concrete 50 mm pipe bentonite seal \150mm highly weathered grey limestone with sand and silt layers, free groundwater Borehole terminated at m with auger refusal on possible bedrock sand pack 0.8 m slotted screen Reviewed by: F. Chartier/C. Helmer Field Tech.: R. McMillan Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Sheet: 1 of 1 Notes: Drafted by: K. Staples

75 Borehole Number: Ground Elevation: n/a Project: Paris Grand Country Club Job No.: P Location: 150 Paris Links Road, Paris, Ontario Drill Date: SOIL PROFILE SAMPLE Dynamic Cone Shear Strength (PP) kpa WP WL Depth (m) Description Symbol Elevation (m) Number Type N-Value Standard Penetration Shear Strength (FV) kpa Water Content (%) Groundwater Observations and Standpipe Details Ground Elevation FILL: dark brown silt (topsoil), moist brown silt, some sand and gravel, frequent cobbles, moist SILT TILL: compact brown silt, some sand and gravel, trace clay, moist protective cover bentonite seal 19 mm pipe 3.00 frequent limestone fragments SAND AND GRAVEL: very dense brown sand and gravel, some silt and limestone fragments, damp \150mm sand pack 4.00 augering on boulder m slotted filter Borehole terminated at 4.88 m with auger refusal on boulder * Note: sp may be dry No free groundwater encountered during drilling Reviewed by: F. Chartier/C. Helmer Field Tech.: R. McMillan Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Sheet: 1 of 1 Notes: * sampler bouncing Drafted by: K. Staples

76 Appendix B Preliminary Storm Sewer Design Calculations Appendix B

77 STORM SEWER DESIGN SHEET: (5 Year Storm) PROPOSED STM SEWER TO POND 1 Paris Grand Subdivision, County of Brant Rainfall Intensity = A Project #: PGD Min. Diameter = 300 mm (Tc+B)^c where Tc is in minutes Date: MAR 2015 Mannings 'n'= A = 1593 Designed: DT Starting Tc = 10 min B = 11 (5 Yr) Checked: FJB Factor of Safety = 10 % C = NOMINAL PIPE SIZE USED Rooftop C = DESCRIPTION FROM TO AREA RUNOFF AR Drainage Modified ACCUM. RAINFALL FLOW CONSTANT CONSTANT TOTAL LENGTH SLOPE PIPE FULL FLOW FULL FLOW ACTUAL INITIAL TIME OF ACC. TIME OF PERCENT MH MH COEFFICIENT From AR' 'AR' INTENSITY FLOW FLOW FLOW DIAMETER CAPACITY VELOCITY VELOCITY Tc CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION FULL (ha) "R" Rooftops (mm/hr) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m) (%) (mm) (m3/s) (m/s) (m/s) (min) (min) (min) (%) ACCUM. Street F MH120 MH % Street C MH119 MH % Street F MH118 MH % Street F MH117 MH % Street C MH116 MH % Street C MH124 MH % Street E MH123 MH % Street E MH122 MH % Street F MH121 MH % Street F MH115 MH % Street C MH114 MH % Street C MH111 MH % Street D MH110 MH % Street D MH109 MH % Street D MH108 MH % Street D MH107 MH % Street D MH106 MH % Street C MH105 MH % Overflow MH104 MH % Street C MH103 MH % Street C MH111 MH % Street C MH113 MH % Street B MH112 MH % Street B MH125 MH % Outlet MH102 MH % Street D MH101 HW % % % % % % \\MONTY\Shared Work Areas\ PARIS GRAND SUBDIVISION\Civil\7_DesignDocs\STORM\020165_STM_5 yr (DRAFT PLAN_POND 1).xls:STM

78 STORM SEWER DESIGN SHEET: (5 Year Storm) PROPOSED STM SEWER TO POND 2 Paris Grand Subdivision, County of Brant Rainfall Intensity = A Project #: PGD Min. Diameter = 300 mm (Tc+B)^c where Tc is in minutes Date: MAR 2015 Mannings 'n'= A = 1593 Designed: DT Starting Tc = 10 min B = 11 (5 Yr) Checked: FJB Factor of Safety = 10 % C = NOMINAL PIPE SIZE USED ACCUM. DESCRIPTION FROM TO AREA RUNOFF 'AR' ACCUM. RAINFALL FLOW CONSTANT CONSTANT TOTAL LENGTH SLOPE PIPE FULL FLOW FULL FLOW ACTUAL INITIAL TIME OF ACC. TIME OF PERCENT MH MH COEFFICIENT 'AR' INTENSITY FLOW FLOW FLOW DIAMETER CAPACITY VELOCITY VELOCITY Tc CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION FULL (ha) "R" (mm/hr) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m) (%) (mm) (m3/s) (m/s) (m/s) (min) (min) (min) (%) 0 MH205 MH % 0 MH204 MH % 0 MH206 MH % 0 MH203 MH % 0 MH202 MH % 0 MH201 MH % % % % % % % \\MONTY\Shared Work Areas\ PARIS GRAND SUBDIVISION\Civil\7_DesignDocs\STORM\020165_STM_5 yr (DRAFT PLAN_POND 2).xls:STM

79 STORM SEWER DESIGN SHEET: (5 Year Storm) PROPOSED STM SEWER TO POND 3 Paris Grand Subdivision, County of Brant Rainfall Intensity = A Project #: PGD Min. Diameter = 300 mm (Tc+B)^c where Tc is in minutes Date: MAR 2015 Mannings 'n'= A = 1593 Designed: DT Starting Tc = 10 min B = 11 (5 Yr) Checked: FJB Factor of Safety = 10 % C = NOMINAL PIPE SIZE USED Drainage DESCRIPTION FROM TO AREA RUNOFF 'AR' from AR' ACCUM. RAINFALL FLOW CONSTANT CONSTANT TOTAL LENGTH SLOPE PIPE FULL FLOW FULL FLOW ACTUAL INITIAL TIME OF ACC. TIME OF PERCENT MH MH COEFFICIENT Rooftops (modified) 'AR' INTENSITY FLOW FLOW FLOW DIAMETER CAPACITY VELOCITY VELOCITY Tc CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION FULL (ha) "R" x Rooftop C (mm/hr) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m) (%) (mm) (m3/s) (m/s) (m/s) (min) (min) (min) (%) ACCUM. 0 MH311 MH % 0 MH310 MH % 0 MH312 MH % 0 MH309 MH % 0 MH308 MH % 0 MH501 MH % 0 MH206 MH % 0 MH307 MH % 0 MH306 MH % 0 MH205 MH % 0 MH502 MH % 0 MH503 MH % 0 MH504 MH % 0 MH505 MH % 0 MH509 MH % 0 MH508 MH % 0 MH 505 MH % % % % % % % \\MONTY\Shared Work Areas\ PARIS GRAND SUBDIVISION\Civil\7_DesignDocs\STORM\020165_STM_5 yr (DRAFT PLAN_POND 3).xls:STM

80 STORM SEWER DESIGN SHEET: (5 Year Storm) EX PARIS LINKS ROAD SWM POND BYPA TO GILBERT CREEK Paris Grand Subdivision, County of Brant Rainfall Intensity = A Project #: PGD Min. Diameter = 300 mm (Tc+B)^c where Tc is in minutes Date: MAR 2015 Mannings 'n'= A = 1593 Designed: DT Starting Tc = 10 min B = 11 (5 Yr) Checked: FJB Factor of Safety = 10 % C = NOMINAL PIPE SIZE USED DESCRIPTION FROM TO AREA RUNOFF 'AR' ACCUM. RAINFALL FLOW CONSTANT CONSTANT TOTAL LENGTH SLOPE PIPE FULL FLOW FULL FLOW INITIAL TIME OF ACC. TIME OF PERCENT MH MH COEFFICIENT 'AR' INTENSITY FLOW FLOW FLOW DIAMETER CAPACITY VELOCITY Tc CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION FULL (ha) "R" (mm/hr) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m) (%) (mm) (m3/s) (m/s) (min) (min) (min) (%) ACCUM. OUTLET FROM EX POND EX STM MH05 EX STM MH % SWM BLOCK EX STM MH04 EX STM MH 03 (MODIFIED) % ACRO PARIS LINKS EX STM MH 03 (MODIFIED) MH % TO GILBERT CREEK MH 600 MH % 0 MH 601 MH % 0 MH 602 MH % % % % % % % % % \\MONTY\Shared Work Areas\ PARIS GRAND SUBDIVISION\Civil\7_DesignDocs\STORM\020165_STM_5 yr (DRAFT PLAN_EX SWM BYPA TO GILBERT).xls:STM

81 STORM SEWER DESIGN SHEET: (5 Year Storm) PARIS LINKS ROAD DRAINAGE TO GILBERT CK (BETWEEN STREET B & D) Paris Grand Subdivision, County of Brant Rainfall Intensity = A Project #: PGD Min. Diameter = 300 mm (Tc+B)^c where Tc is in minutes Date: OCT 2013 Mannings 'n'= A = 1593 Designed: TPH Starting Tc = 10 min B = 11 (5 Yr) Checked: FJB Factor of Safety = 10 % C = NOMINAL PIPE SIZE USED ACCUM. DESCRIPTION FROM TO AREA RUNOFF 'AR' ACCUM. RAINFALL FLOW CONSTANT CONSTANT TOTAL LENGTH SLOPE PIPE FULL FLOW FULL FLOW ACTUAL INITIAL TIME OF ACC. TIME OF PERCENT MH MH COEFFICIENT 'AR' INTENSITY FLOW FLOW FLOW DIAMETER CAPACITY VELOCITY VELOCITY Tc CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION FULL (ha) "R" (mm/hr) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m) (%) (mm) (m3/s) (m/s) (m/s) (min) (min) (min) (%) 0 MH403 MH % 0 MH402 MH % % \\Monty\Shared Work Areas\ PARIS GRAND SUBDIVISION\Civil\SUBMIIONS\ (FSR SUB TO BRANT)\APPENDICES\B - Preliminary Storm Sewer Design Sheets\ _STM_5 yr (DRAFT PLAN_PARIS TO GILBERT).xls:STM

82 STORM SEWER DESIGN SHEET: (100 Year Storm) PROPOSED 3rd PIPE ROOFTOP COLLECTION Paris Grand Subdivision, County of Brant Rainfall Intensity = A Project #: PGD Min. Diameter = 300 mm (Tc+B)^c where Tc is in minutes Date: 1EMarE15 Mannings 'n'= A = 4688 Designed: DT Starting Tc = 10 min B = 17 (100 Yr) Checked: FB Factor of Safety = 10 % C = NOMINAL PIPE SIZE USED % of Rooftops Drainage 27.5% Rooftop Area ACCUM. DESCRIPTION FROM TO AREA RUNOFF 'AR' ACCUM. RAINFALL FLOW CONSTANT CONSTANT TOTAL LENGTH SLOPE PIPE FULL FLOW FULL FLOW INITIAL TIME OF ACC. TIME OF PERCENT MH MH COEFFICIENT 'AR' INTENSITY FLOW FLOW FLOW DIAMETER CAPACITY VELOCITY Tc CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION FULL (ha) (ha) "R" (mm/hr) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m) (%) (mm) (m3/s) (m/s) (min) (min) (min) (%) Street C MH1B MH3B % Street C MH2B MH3B % Street B MH3B MH4B % Street B MH4B MH5B % Outlet to Infil Gallery MH5B MH37B % Street C MH2B MH6B % Street C MH6B MH7B % Street D MH7B MH8B % Street D MH8B MH9B % Street D MH9B MH10B % Street C MH11B MH12B % Street C MH12B MH13B % Street E MH13B MH14B % Street E MH14B MH15B % Street C MH16B MH17B % Street C MH18B MH17B % Street F MH17B MH20B % Street F MH20B MH22B % Street F MH22B MH15B % Street F MH15B MH23B % Street F MH23B MH10B % Street D MH10B MH24B % Street D MH24B MH25B % Outletto Infil Gallery MH25B MH36B % Street G MH35B MH34B % Street G MH34B MH31B % Street I MH31B MH32B % Outlet to Wetland MH32B HW % Street G MH26B MH30B % Street G MH30B MH29B % Street G MH29B MH28B % Street G MH28B MH33B % Street I MH 30B MH33B % Street G MH33B MH38B % Outlet to Wetland MH38B HW % % \\MONTY\Shared Work Areas\ PARIS GRAND SUBDIVISION\Civil\7_DesignDocs\STORM\3rd Pipe Final.xls:STM

83 Appendix C Stormwater Management Calculations and Modelling Appendix C

84

85 Airport Method for Time to Peak Calculations Most applicable for a relatively flat, consistent watershed with little variability in slopes or cover. Paris Grand - PGD Natural Area Watershed Information 11/11/2013 Area Length Slope CN Time to Peak Time to Peak WS (ha) (m) (m/m) (min) (hrs) NOTE: Time to Peak = 0.60Tc Tc = 0.87 hrs

86 Project: Location: Project #: Designer: Date: Paris Grand Paris PGD L. Garner 12-Mar-2015 Composite Runoff Coefficent Calculations POND 1 - EAST OF GILBERT CREEK Total Area = ha Area (ha) Brant Runoff 'C' A x C Low Density incl ROWs = Medium Density = SWM Block (Allowance) = External Area (Undeveloped)= = C (comp) POND 2 -SOUTH Total Area = 6.37 ha Area (ha) Brant Runoff 'C' A x C Low Density incl ROWs = Medium Density = SWM Block (Allowance) = External Area (Paris Rd ROW) = = C (comp) POND 3 - WEST OF GILBERT CREEK Total Area = ha Brant Runoff Area (ha) 'C' A x C Low Density incl ROWs = Medium Density = SWM Block (Allowance) = External Area (Paris Rd ROW) = External Area (Undeveloped)= = C (comp) Composite Runoff Coefficient and Total Imperviousness Calcs

87 Project: Paris Grand Location: Project #: Designer: Date: Paris PGD L. Garner 12-Mar-2015 Runoff Coefficient and % Imperviousness Calculations POND 1 - EAST OF GILBERT CREEK RC (Runoff Coefficient) = 0.60 Composite RC calculated on previous page imp (imperviousness) =? RC = 0.7imp imp = 0.57 POND 2 -SOUTH RC (Runoff Coefficient) = 0.69 Composite RC calculated on previous page imp (imperviousness) =? RC = 0.7imp imp = 0.70 POND 3 - WEST OF GILBERT CREEK RC (Runoff Coefficient) = 0.60 Composite RC calculated on previous page imp (imperviousness) =? RC = 0.7imp imp = Composite Runoff Coefficient and Total Imperviousness Calcs

88 Project: Location: Project #: Designer: Date: Paris Grand Paris PGD L. Garner 12-Mar-2015 Runoff Coefficient and % Imperviousness Calculations POND 1 - EAST OF GILBERT CREEK Original Adjusted Internal Area Area = ha 4.35 Imp = External Area Area = ha Imp = Catchment Area = ha Imp = POND 2 -SOUTH Original Internal Area Area = 5.99 Imp = 0.71 External Area Area = 0.38 Imp = 0.57 Catchment Area = 6.37 Imp = 0.70 POND 3 - WEST OF GILBERT CREEK Original Adjusted Internal Area Area = ha 2.22 Imp = External Area Area = ha Imp = Catchment Area = ha Imp = Note: Adjusted values reflect the area and imperviousness of the catchment tributary to the pond with the incorporation of the diversion of all rooftops (22.5% of development) to a separate system for infiltration. Imperviousness of rooftops taken at 98%.

89 POND 1 MOE Tables for Level of Quality Control Taken from Stormwater Management Planning and Deisgn Manual (2003) Table 3.2 Water Quality Storage Requirements Based on Receiving Waters. WET POND INPUT SITE IMPERVIOUS VALUE TO OBTAIN STORAGE VOLUME REQUIREMENTS IMPERVIOUSNE 46 % Protection Level (1, 2, or 3) 1 NOTE - 40 cu.m/ha has been removed from MOE table values for Ex. Detention Portion Enhanced (Level 1) Protection Permanent Pool Imperviousness (%) StorageVolume (cu.m./ha) *design site Extrapolated P.P. Storage Volume (cum/ha) ENHANCED (Level 1) PROTECTION y = x Impervious Level REQUIRED PERMANENT POOL VOLUME 127 cu.m/ha x ha = m³

90 POND 2 MOE Tables for Level of Quality Control Taken from Stormwater Management Planning and Deisgn Manual (2003) Table 3.2 Water Quality Storage Requirements Based on Receiving Waters. WET POND INPUT SITE IMPERVIOUS VALUE TO OBTAIN STORAGE VOLUME REQUIREMENTS IMPERVIOUSNE 70 % Protection Level (1, 2, or 3) 1 NOTE - 40 cu.m/ha has been removed from MOE table values for Ex. Detention Portion Enhanced (Level 1) Protection Permanent Pool Imperviousness (%) StorageVolume (cu.m./ha) P.P. Storage Volume (cum/ha) ENHANCED (Level 1) PROTECTION y = x Impervious Level REQUIRED PERMANENT POOL VOLUME 185 cu.m/ha x 6.37 ha = m³

91 POND 3 MOE Tables for Level of Quality Control Taken from Stormwater Management Planning and Deisgn Manual (2003) Table 3.2 Water Quality Storage Requirements Based on Receiving Waters. WET POND INPUT SITE IMPERVIOUS VALUE TO OBTAIN STORAGE VOLUME REQUIREMENTS IMPERVIOUSNE 46 % Protection Level (1, 2, or 3) 1 NOTE - 40 cu.m/ha has been removed from MOE table values for Ex. Detention Portion Enhanced (Level 1) Protection Permanent Pool Imperviousness (%) StorageVolume (cu.m./ha) *design site Extrapolated P.P. Storage Volume (cum/ha) ENHANCED (Level 1) PROTECTION y = x Impervious Level REQUIRED PERMANENT POOL VOLUME 127 cu.m/ha x 9.01 ha = m³

92 Project: Location: Project #: Designer: Date: Paris Grand Paris PGD L. Garner 27-Sep-2012 Extended Detention Storage Required 25 mm over 24 hours (MOE, Stormwater Management Planning and Design Guidelines, 2003) POND 1 - EAST OF GILBERT CREEK Area = ha Imp= 0.46 % V= 25 mm x A x I x 10 = m³ [Storage Volume Required] m³ /24/3600 x 1.5 = m³/s [Peak Flow Required] Peaking Factor POND 2 -SOUTH Area = 6.37 ha Imp= 0.7 % V= 25 mm x A xi x 10 = m³ [Storage Volume Required] m³ /24/3600 x 1.5 = m³/s [Peak Flow Required] Peaking Factor POND 3 - WEST OF GILBERT CREEK Area = 9.01 ha Imp= 0.46 % V= 25 mm x A xi x 10 = m³ [Storage Volume Required] m³ /24/3600 x 1.5 = m³/s [Peak Flow Required] Peaking Factor Extended Detention Calcs

93 Project: Paris Grand - Pond 1 (Northeast) Project #: PGD Designed By: Mona Xu Checked By: L. Niemi Date: 12-Mar-2015 latest ELEV Elev Diff AREAS Forebay Main Cell Total Volume Storage Provided TOP OF POND (@ 3:1) YEAR (@ 3:1) slope transition (@ 5:1) BERM (@ 5:1) PERM POOL (@ 5:1) slope transition (@ 3:1) BOTTOM Total Depth: 2.50 Diameter Slope Velocity Full Flow Capacity (mm) (%) (m/s) (L/s)

94 Project: Paris Grand - Pond 2 (South) Project #: PGD Designed By: O. Feniak Checked By: K.Harrington Date: 11-Nov-2013 latest ELEV Elev Diff AREAS Forebay Main Cell Total Volume Storage Provided TOP OF POND (@ 3:1) YEAR (@ 3:1) slope transition (@ 5:1) BERM (@ 5:1) PERM POOL (@ 5:1) slope transition (@ 3:1) BOTTOM Total Depth: 2.90 Diameter Slope Velocity Full Flow Capacity (mm) (%) (m/s) (L/s)

95 Project: Paris Grand - Pond 3 (Northwest) Project #: PGD Designed By: Mona Xu Checked By: L. Niemi Date: 12-Mar-2015 latest ELEV Elev Diff AREAS Forebay Main Cell Total Volume Active Storage TOP OF POND YEAR BERM PERM POOL BOTTOM Total Depth: 2.50 Diameter Slope Velocity Full Flow Capacity (mm) (%) (m/s) (L/s)