Water and Wastewater Servicing Assessment and Wastewater Servicing Assessment Final Report Prepared...

Tremaine Road Secondary Plan Water and Wastewater Servicing Assessment Final Report

Prepared for: Region of Halton Prepared by: AECOM Canada Limited 105 Commerce Valley Drive West Markham, Ontario L3T 7W3 September 2009 Project No 105443

Tremaine Road Water & Wastewater Secondary Plan Servicing Assessment

Page ii

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................................3 1.1 PURPOSE ..................................................................................................................................................3 1.2 SCOPE OF WORK .........................................................................................................................................4

2 MODELLING METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................5 2.1 POPULATION ALLOCATION AND DEMAND CALCULATION FOR THE TREMAINE ROAD DEVELOPMENT .........5 2.2 WATER DEMANDS AND SEWAGE LOADS CALCULATION .............................................................................6 2.3 HYDRAULIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT BASIS .................................................................................................8

2.3.1 Water System .........................................................................................................................................8 2.3.2 Sanitary System......................................................................................................................................8

3 HYDRAULIC MODELLING ANALYSIS AND RESULTS .........................................................................8 3.1 WATER SYSTEM...........................................................................................................................................8

3.1.1 External Servicing Plan .........................................................................................................................8 3.1.2 Internal Servicing Plan..........................................................................................................................9 3.1.3 Water System Hydraulic Analysis Results ...........................................................................................10 3.1.4 Water Storage Requirement (Zone 3) ..................................................................................................12 3.1.5 Water Treatment Plan Capacity ..........................................................................................................12 3.1.6 Water Infrastructure Interconnection between Tremaine Road and North Oakville West ..................13

3.2 WASTEWATER SYSTEM..............................................................................................................................13 3.2.1 External Servicing Plan .......................................................................................................................13 3.2.2 Internal Servicing Plan........................................................................................................................14 3.2.3 Wastewater System Hydraulic Analysis Results ..................................................................................15 3.2.4 Mid Halton Treatment Plant Capacity.................................................................................................16 3.2.5 Wastewater Infrastructure Interconnection between Tremaine Road and North Oakville West .........17

4 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES IMPACT.......................................................................................................18 4.1 WATER SYSTEM ........................................................................................................................................18 4.2 WASTEWATER SYSTEM..............................................................................................................................18

5 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................................................................................19 5.1 WATER SYSTEM ........................................................................................................................................19 5.2 WASTEWATER SYSTEM..............................................................................................................................20

APPENDICES

I ROAD DEVELOPMENT LAYOUTS II INTERNAL WATERMAIN SIZING III CALCULATION INFORMATION IV DETAILED HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS RESULTS V AREA SERVICING PLAN REGIONAL REQUIREMENTS


1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE AECOM was retained by the Regional Municipality of Halton (RMOH) to undertake a hydraulic

analysis for both the water system and the sanitary sewer system for a proposed development

referred to as Tremaine Road as shown in Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1 – Proposed Development Area

The purpose of the hydraulic analyses was to evaluate the serviceability of the proposed

development via existing and proposed infrastructure in the RMOH’s water distribution system

and sanitary sewer system. This report presents the results of the hydraulic analyses

undertaken for the water distribution system and reports on the available pressure under

different options of development landuse demand conditions as well as during fire flow

conditions for the proposed development. This report also presents the results from the

hydraulic analysis performed on the sanitary system and reports on the available capacity for

different options of the proposed development landuse as well as identifying infrastructure

deficiencies and improvement works required to accommodate additional loading associated

with the proposed development.


To perform the hydraulic analysis, AECOM used the recently updated hydraulic models.

AECOM had previously completed model updates for the RMOH in 2006/2007. These models

were developed in InfoWater for the water system and in InfoSewer for the sanitary system.

1.2 SCOPE OF WORK Based on discussions with the Regional Municipality of Halton, the following tasks were to be

completed as part of this study:

Review the latest Water and Wastewater Master Plan and incorporate planned infrastructure

into the hydraulic models.

Calculate sanitary sewer loads and water demands for the entire Region of Halton

(excluding the communities of Georgetown and Acton) based on the projected population

information provided and the RMOH’s water consumption rate and wastewater sewage

generation rate design criteria.

Calculate water demands and sewage loads for each of the three different landuse

development options within the Tremaine Road development. Demand/load conditions were

not calculated for the intermediate build out condition since no information was provided for

an interim design year.

Propose specific watermain and sewermain sizes for each landuse development option

within Tremaine Road development site.

Perform hydraulic analyses for both water and wastewater systems and identify additional

infrastructure requirements (if any) within the existing systems and which would be triggered

by the Tremaine Road development.

Perform a fire flow analysis based on the Region’s design criteria on the water distribution

mains within the Tremaine Road development boundary.

Prepare a Technical Memorandum to summarize the methodology, the results of the

analyses and provide conclusions.


2 MODELLING METHODOLOGY In performing the hydraulic analyses, the general methodology followed is described below:

Reviewed the South Halton Master Plan to identify future infrastructure planned within

the water and wastewater systems, and incorporated this infrastructure into the model.

Allocated future (2021) Traffic Zone population to the demand nodes and loading

manholes in the water system and wastewater system respectively. The Traffic Zones

within the Tremaine Road development area were excluded from this process because

more detailed population number used for this development area.

Undertook hydraulic analyses for three different internal servicing

watermains/sewermains infrastructure within Tremaine Road development area as per

the three landuse development options provided by the Steering Committee and

incorporated them into the hydraulic models

Calculated future (2021) Average Day, Maximum Day, and Peak Hour water demand

and peak wastewater load conditions based on the Region of Halton’s Master Plan

Design Criteria for the entire Region of Halton and for the three different landuse

options.

Performed hydraulic analyses to assess system serviceability.

2.1 POPULATION ALLOCATION AND DEMAND CALCULATION FOR THE TREMAINE ROAD DEVELOPMENT

The projected population data and proposed development layout for three different landuse

options within the Tremaine Road area were provided to AECOM by the RMOH and other

stakeholders. The three servicing options assessed are as below:

1. Option 1: Employment Option

2. Option 2: Residential Option

3. Option 3: Mixed Use Option


The available population information is summarized in Table 2.1 while the road and

development layouts for each option are presented in Appendix I. Table 2.1 – Tremaine Road Population Figures

Option Landuse Total Area (Ha)

Equivalent Population

Density (Persons/Ha)

Total Equivalent Population

Option 1 Employment 23.9 1,050 43.9 1,050 Residential 18.7 2,398 128.2 Option 2

Employment 2.5 120 48.0 2,518

Residential 5.8 1,277 220.2 Option 3 Employment 9.8 540 55.1

1,817

2.2 WATER DEMANDS AND SEWAGE LOADS CALCULATION Based on the allocated population numbers, the water demands and sanitary loads at each

junction were then calculated based on the RMOH’s Master Plan Design Criteria for the water

system and wastewater system respectively presented in Table 2.2a and Table 2.2b.

Table 2.2a - Water System Master Plan Design Criteria

Landuse Rates Unit Max Day Factor

Peak Hour Factor

Residential 330 lpcd Industrial 302 lpcd Commercial 213 lpcd Institutional 74 lpcd

1.9 3

Fire Flow Residential 5,500 l/min Industrial/Commercial/Institutional 15,000 l/min

Table 2.2b – Wastewater System Master Plan Design Criteria

Landuse Rates Unit Residential 365 lpcd Industrial 410 lpcd Commercial 260 lpcd Institutional 135 lpcd Inflow/Infiltration

Milton 0.24-1(1) l/ha/s Oakville Southwest 0.4-3(1) l/ha/s Burlington 0.35-0.65(1) l/ha/s Other 0.286(2) l/ha/s

(1) Highest rates were applied to the system (2) Regional design criteria


It should be noted that the Region of Halton’s design criteria for residential average Dry

Weather Flow (DWF) is 275 lpcd. The 365 lpcd residential rate stated in the Master Plan Update

is used when assessing the treatment plant capacity. Nevertheless, this rate was still used in

this study in order to adopt a conservative approach.

In order to calculate the peak DWF, a peaking factor was applied to the Average DWF. The

Harmon formula was utilized to calculate the peaking factor, and a minimum peaking factor of 2

was applied as per MOE Design Guideline. The estimated water demands and wastewater

loads for the proposed development area in Tremaine Road are shown in Table 2.3a and Table 2.3b.

Table 2.3a – Estimated Water Demand Within Tremaine Road Development

Water Demand Option Landuse Total Area

(Ha) Population Avg Day (L/s)

Max Day (L/s)

Peak Hour (L/s)

Option 1 Employment (1) 23.9 1,050 3.7 7.0 11.0 Residential 18.7 2,398 9.2 17.4 27.5 Employment (1) 2.5 120 0.4 0.8 1.3 Option 2 Subtotal 21.2 2,518 9.6 18.2 28.8 Residential 5.8 1,277 4.9 9.3 14.6 Employment (1) 9.8 540 1.9 3.6 5.7 Option 3 Subtotal 15.6 1,817 6.8 12.9 20.3

(1) Industrial water consumption rate and sanitary loading rate was used for more conservative results

Table 2.3b – Estimated Wastewater Load Within Tremaine Road Development

Wastewater Load

Option Landuse Total Area (Ha) Population Avg

DWF (L/s)

Peak DWF (L/s)

I/I (L/s)

Peak WWF (L/s)

Option 1 Employment (1) 23.9 1,050 5.0 18.9 6.8 25.7 Residential 18.7 2,398 10.1 35.5 5.3 40.9 Employment (1) 2.5 120 0.6 2.0 0.7 2.7 Option 2 Subtotal 21.2 2,518 10.7 37.5 6.0 43.6 Residential 5.8 1,277 5.4 19.5 2.0 21.6 Employment (1) 9.8 540 2.6 9.3 3.0 12.3 Option 3 Subtotal 15.6 1,817 8.0 28.8 5.0 33.9

(1) Industrial water consumption rate and sanitary loading rate was used for more conservative results


2.3 HYDRAULIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT BASIS 2.3.1 Water System The hydraulic analysis results were assessed in accordance with the water distribution design

guidelines provided by the Ministry of the Environment (MOE). As stated in the MOE Guidelines,

water supply systems should be designed to satisfy the greater of either of a Maximum Day plus

Fire Flow demand condition, or a Peak Hour (maximum hourly) demand condition. Fire flow

varies with municipality and the nature of the development. For the purpose of this study, fire

flow requirement stated in Table 2.2b were used.

According to MOE Guidelines, water distribution systems should be designed so that the normal

operating pressure ranges between 350 kPa and 700 kPa (50-100 psi) under conditions of

maximum day demand and not less than 275 kPa (40 psi) under peak hour demand. Under

conditions of simultaneous maximum day and fire flow demands, the pressure should not be

less than 140 kPa (20 psi).

2.3.2 Sanitary System In general, a sewermain should be able to convey a flow associated with peak Wet Weather

Flow (WWF) conditions. For safety reasons, a pipe that reaches 90 percent of its full capacity

during WWF condition should be flagged and should be considered for twinning or replacement.

3 HYDRAULIC MODELLING ANALYSIS AND

RESULTS 3.1 WATER SYSTEM 3.1.1 External Servicing Plan

There are currently no existing watermains in the vicinity Tremaine Road that could be utilized

as the supply point for the proposed development in this area. Following a review of Region of

Halton’s Master Plan, four (4) trunk watermains within the vicinity of Tremaine Road were

identified that could be used as main trunk lines to provide water to this development. These

were:


1. A 900 mm diameter watermain along Dundas Street, from Appleby Line to Tremaine

Road (Regional ID: 3812);

2. A 1200 mm diameter watermain along Dundas Street, from Tremaine Road to Bronte

Road (Regional ID: 5851).

3. A 600 mm diameter watermain along Tremaine Road, from Dundas Street to

approximately 950 m north of Dundas Street (Regional ID: 5853); and

4. A 600 mm diameter watermain through North Oakville Lands from Tremaine Road to

Bronte Road (Regional ID: 5627).

The 1200 mm diameter watermain along Dundas Street would provide the necessary supply for

Tremaine Road development. The construction of this trunk watermain is the preferred option to

service the Tremaine Road development area. In addition, the 600 mm diameter watermain on

Tremaine Road would also need to be constructed in advance of the Tremaine Road

development to provide the necessary looping for the internal servicing plan within Tremaine

Road development. The locations of these trunk watermains are shown in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1 – External Watermains as per Master Plan (directly adjacent to Tremaine Road

Development)

3.1.2 Internal Servicing Plan

The total water demand estimated for the proposed Tremaine Road development was allocated

according to the landuse map available for each proposed development option. The internal


watermains within Tremaine Road development were sized to satisfy the minimum pressure

requirements as per MOE Design guidelines. In addition, where possible pipe looping was

maintained to minimize dead-end conditions and to potentially improve water quality in the

system. The size of the watermains required to service this development area range from 250

mm to 300 mm for Option 1, and from 150 mm to 300 mm for Options 2 and 3. Further details of

the proposed internal watermain sizes within the area for each landuse option are provided in

Appendix II, Figures A2.1 to A2.3.

3.1.3 Water System Hydraulic Analysis Results

The pressure conditions within the water system, in particular within Pressure Zone Oakville 3

(O3), were assessed as summarized in Tables 3.1 for each development landuse option.

Table 3.1 – Pressure Condition Within Tremaine Road Development Area

Average Day Max Day Peak Hour Location Min

Pressure (psi)

Max Pressure

(psi)

Min Pressure

(psi)

Max Pressure

(psi)

Min Pressure

(psi)

Max Pressure

(psi) Option 1 46.01 64.4 43.31 61.8 39.81 58.3 Option 2 45.91 64.3 43.21 61.7 39.61 58.2 Option 3 46.0’ 64.3 43.41 61.8 40.2 58.6

1 Outside MOE recommended normal operating pressure range of 50 psi to 100 psi.

Tables 3.1 indicates that the minimum pressure for each development option was below the

MOE recommended minimum operating pressure under average and maximum demand

conditions. During the hydraulic analysis, under all scenarios, the Hydraulic Grade Line (HGL)

was maintained at the design HGL of this zone (currently 198 m). The potential low pressure

issue within the Tremaine Road development would be attributed to the high ground elevations

within the proposed development. Figure 3.3 shows potential low pressure areas within

Tremaine Road development area.

During the hydraulic analyses, the pressure within Oakville Zone 3 was assessed under pre-

and post-development conditions. This assessment showed that there was no negative impact

triggered by the development to the overall pressure conditions within Oakville Zone 3.


Figure 3.3 – Potential Low Pressure Areas within the Study Area

Since the ground elevation information for this analysis was obtained from the Region’s Digital

Elevation Model (DEM), it is recommended that the modeling analysis be revised when the

grading for this development site is finalized.

Fire Flow Analysis The system’s response under Maximum Day conditions plus Fire Flow was also assessed to

confirm the serviceability of this new proposed development area. The fire flow used for this

analysis was 250 L/s for Employment, High Density Residential and Mixed Use Landuse areas

and 91.7 L/s for Medium Density Residential Landuse areas. The minimum pressure in the

system should not be lower than 20 psi as per the MOE Design Guideline presented previously.

The summary of the minimum pressure within the development area is presented in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2 – Fire Flow Analysis Results

Servicing Option Min

Residual Pressure

(psi)

Max Available Flow to Maintain

20 psi (L/s)

Option 1 (employment landuse) 25.3 278.9 Option 2 (residential landuse) 32.2 136.0 Option 3 (mixed landuse) 27.3 228.3


Based on the results from the hydraulic simulations, the three proposed internal servicing

options within Tremaine Road development would have sufficient hydraulic capacity to sustain

simultaneous maximum day demand plus fire flow conditions.

3.1.4 Water Storage Requirement (Zone 3) Storage requirement calculations were conducted based on the MOE’s design guideline to size

water storage facilities. Table 3.3 shows the calculation summary conducted to compare

storage requirements with and without Tremaine Road development in place. More detailed

calculation information is presented in Appendix III.

Table 3.3 – Storage Requirement Calculation (Zone 3)

Design Scenario 2021

Without Tremaine Road

2021 + Option 1

2021 + Option 2

2021 + Option 3

A. Fire Storage (ML) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2

B. Equalization Storage (ML) 23.0 23.1 23.4 23.4

C. Emergency Storage 25% of A + B (ML) 7.8 7.8 7.9 7.9

Total Storage Requirement (ML) 39.0 39.1 39.5 39.5

Total Existing Storage (ML) 54.6 54.6 54.6 54.6

Storage Surplus (+) / Deficit (-) 15.6 15.5 15.1 15.1

Table 3.3 shows that no storage upgrades would be required within pressure zone 3 in order to

service the additional water demand from the proposed Tremaine Road development. This table

also shows that Option 1 will reduce the available Zone 3 storage capacity by approximately

1.3%, while Options 2 and 3 will reduce the available Zone 3 storage capacity by 3.2%.

3.1.5 Water Treatment Plan Capacity In addition to assessing the storage requirement, the future water purification plant capacity in

the system was also assessed. Table 3.4 shows the total plant capacity in the system by 2021

as per the latest master plan information and compares treatment plant requirements with and

without Tremaine Road development.


Table 3.4 – 2021 Future Plant Capacity System 2021

Without Tremaine Road2021

+ Option 12021

+ Option 2 2021

+ Option 3

Burlington WPP (MLD) 263 263 263 263

Oakville WPP (MLD) 109 109 109 109

Burloak WPP (MLD) 165 165 165 165

Milton Groundwater (MLD) 16 16 16 16

Total Plant Capacity (MLD) 553 553 553 553

Maximum Day Demand (MLD) 476 476.6 477.6 476.5 Treatment Plant Surplus Capacity (MLD) 77 76.4 75.4 76.5

Table 3.4 shows that no water treatment plant capacity upgrades would be required in order to

service the additional water demand from the Tremaine Road development. This table also

shows that Option 1 will reduce the available treatment plant capacity by approximately 0.8%,

Option 2 will reduce the capacity by 2.1%, and Option 3 will reduce the capacity by 0.7%.

3.1.6 Water Infrastructure Interconnection between Tremaine Road and North Oakville West

The same transmission watermains identified in Section 3.1.1 would be utilized to service both

the Tremaine Road and the North Oakville West proposed developments. The analyses

undertaken for this study show that there is enough capacity available on these transmission

watermains to service the North Oakville West development. With regards to available pressure

within North Oakville West, the final grading/elevation within North Oakville West would need to

be confirmed to develop the appropriate pressure zone servicing boundary.

3.2 WASTEWATER SYSTEM 3.2.1 External Servicing Plan The trunk sanitary system, in particular from the Tremaine Road development area to Mid-

Halton WWTP was assessed as part of the present study. The capacity of the trunk sewers for

this section were reviewed under pre and post-development conditions.

There are currently no existing sewermains directly adjacent to the proposed Tremaine Road

development. The latest Master Plan drainage area plan shows that the Tremaine Road

development area would be serviced by a 450 mm diameter sewermain (approximately 900 m

in length) on Dundas Street (Regional ID: 3706) which will be connected to the existing 600 mm


diameter trunk sewermain on Colonel William Parkway. The location of these trunk sewers is

shown in Figure 3.4. Under this servicing strategy, the 450 mm diameter sewermain on Dundas

Street would need to be constructed prior to any development on Tremaine Road. Additionally,

a sewermain with a diameter of 250 mm (for Option 1) or 375 mm (for Options 2 and 3) would

be needed in order to connect the internal sewer pipes within Tremaine Road to the future 450

mm diameter sewer pipe on Dundas Street.

Figure 3.4 – External Servicing Plan

App

leby

Lin

e

Hwy 407

Bro

nte

Roa

d

Dundas St 450mm

/

600m

m

300m

m

825m

m

675m

mCol

Will

iam

Pkw

y

Valle

y R

idge

Gra

nd O

ak

675m

m

Trem

aine

Roa

d

250mm sewermain (Option 1)375mm sewermain (Option 2 and Option 3)

Development Area Boundary

Future Proposed Pipes Adjacent to Development Area

External Servicing Sewermain Required

Existing Trunk Sewermains

Roads





Roads

3.2.2 Internal Servicing Plan The total sanitary load estimated for the proposed Tremaine Road development was allocated

according to the landuse map available for each proposed development option. The internal

sewermains within the Tremaine Road development were sized so that the peak flow/full pipe

flow ratio (q/Q ratio) would not be greater than 90% while maintaining pipe depth less than 10

m. The size of the sewermain required to service this development area ranges from 150 mm to

250 mm for Option 1, 150 mm to 375 mm for Option 2 and 150 mm to 300 mm for Option 3.

Detailed proposed internal sewermain size information for each landuse option is provided in

Appendix II, Figures A2.4 to A2.6.


3.2.3 Wastewater System Hydraulic Analysis Results Based on the external servicing plan explained in the previous sections, under all landuse

options, the load generated from Tremaine Road development would be conveyed by the 450

mm diameter sewermain on Dundas and its downstream connected sewermains which

ultimately connected to Mid Halton WWTP, as shown in Figure 3.5.

Figure 3.5 – Existing and Proposed Trunk Sewermains Impacted by Tremaine Development

Dundas St

Hwy 407

Bro

nte

Rd

Dundas St

Col

Will

iam

Pkw

y

Westoak Trails

Upper Middle Rd

Mid Halton WWTP

/

Trem

aine

Rd






Roads

Dundas St

Hwy 407

Bro

nte

Rd

Dundas St

Col

Will

iam

Pkw

y

Westoak Trails

Upper Middle Rd

Mid Halton WWTP

/

Trem

aine

Rd






Roads





Roads

The hydraulic analysis conducted showed that there would be enough capacity along these

trunk sewermains to convey the load generated by the Tremaine Road development under all

landuse development options. Table 3.5 shows the summary of the results, while detailed

hydraulic analysis results are provided in Appendix IV.

Table 3.5 – Peak Flow vs. Pipe Capacity (q/Q) Results Landuse Option Minimum q/Q Maximum q/Q

Option 1 - Employment 0.05 0.71 Option 2 - Residential 0.08 0.72 Option 3 - Mixed 0.12 0.74

During the analysis, pipe spare capacity along the affected sewermains was also calculated.

The spare capacity of a sewermain was calculated based on the following formula:


Spare Capacity (L/s) = 90% x Full Pipe Capacity – Peak WWF Conveyed

The results of this calculation are summarized in Table 3.6.

Table 3.6 – Spare Capacity on 450 mm Sewermain on Dundas Street and Its Downstream

Sewerlines

Landuse Option Maximum Spare Capacity (L/s)

Without Tremaine Road Development 164 Option 1 - Employment 138 Option 2 - Residential 120 Option 3 - Mixed 97

The table above shows that Option 1, Option 2 and Option 3 would reduce the available

sewermain spare capacity by 16%, 26.8% and 40.9% respectively.

3.2.4 Mid Halton Treatment Plant Capacity The proposed development area would be serviced by the Mid Halton Treatment Plant. Table 3.7 shows ultimate Mid Halton Treatment Plant capacity as identified in the Master Plan and

compares the plant’s available capacity to treat extra loading from Tremaine Road development.

Table 3.7 – Mid Halton Treatment Plant Capacity

System 2021 Without

Tremaine Road

2021 + Option 1

2021 + Option 2

2021 + Option 3

Average DWF (MLD) 113 113.4 113.9 114.2

Mid Halton Treatment Plant Capacity (MLD) 125 125 125 125

Treatment Plant Surplus Capacity (MLD) 12 11.6 11.1 10.8

Table 3.7 shows that there is enough capacity available at the treatment plant to treat the

expected average DWF under 2021 load conditions for all the landuse options within the

Tremaine Road development. This table also shows that Option 1 will reduce the Mid Halton

surplus treatment capacity by 3%, Option 2 will reduce 7.5% of the capacity, while Option 3

shows a reduction of approximately 10%.


3.2.5 North Halton Pumping Station Capacity North Halton pumping station is located enroute to Mid Halton WWTP. Due to greater sanitary

load conditions, 2021 Peak wet weather flows relating to the Tremaine Road development

would increase through this pumping station. Table 3.8 summarizes the existing capacity and

required pumping capacity of the North Halton Pumping Station.

Table 3.8 – North Service Road Pumping Station Capacity

RMOHID / Oper. ID 85 / H-2

WWTP Drainage Area Mid Halton WWTP

No. of Pumps 4

Pump Sizes (1) 385.7 L/s, (2) 385.7 L/s, (3) 385.7 L/s, (4) 385.7 L/s

Design Firm Capacity (L/s) 1157 I & I (L/s/ha) 0.252 Proposed Expansion as per Master Plan (L/s) 2314 (200 ML/d) Future Total Capacity (L/s) 3424 Estimated Future Firm Capacity (L/s) 3054

Total WWF (L/s) With

Tremaine Road

Capacity Surplus (+) / Deficit (-)

(L/s)

Without Tremaine

Road

Capacity Surplus (+) / Deficit (-)

(L/s) Option 1 – Employment 3398.2 -344.2 3330.5 -276.5

Option 2 – Residential 3416.1 -362.1 3348.4 -294.4

Option 3 – Mixed Use 3372.5 -318.5 3304.8 -250.8

Based on the capacity assessment presented in Table 3.8, the future firm capacity was not

sufficient to accommodate the projected peak wet weather flow even without the Tremaine

Road development. It is recommended that the Region review the proposed future expansion

of the North Halton Pumping Station with the consideration of the preferred growth option for the

Tremaine Road development.

3.2.6 Wastewater Infrastructure Interconnection between Tremaine Road and

North Oakville West Based on the analyses conducted, the proposed 450 mm sewermain on Dundas Street and its

downstream connection sewermains have enough capacity to convey the peak flow generated


from the Tremaine Road development regardless of the landuse options. Section 3.2.4 above

discussed the spare capacity along these sewermains which ranges from 120 L/s to 137 L/s

depending on the type of landuse option selected to be developed in Tremaine Road. Based on

this analysis, some portion of the development within North Oakville West area could also be

serviced by these trunk sewermains, subject to more detailed final grading/elevation analysis.

4 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES IMPACT 4.1 WATER SYSTEM The hydraulic modelling and analysis undertaken as part of this present project suggest that the

pipe infrastructure upgrades identified previously in the Master Plan (relevant to the study area)

are adequate to service the Tremaine Road development for build-out conditions. The three

different landuse options that have been assessed for Tremaine Road will not have any

detrimental impact on Regional/DC planned water infrastructure.

However, the construction timing of adjacent future infrastructure may need to be adjusted to

accommodate water servicing to this development area, and this is explained in more detail in

Section 3.1.1. The Region of Halton Finance department may need to be consulted regarding

this matter.

4.2 WASTEWATER SYSTEM The hydraulic analyses conducted suggest that the pipe infrastructure identified previously in

the Master Plan (relevant to the study area) is sufficient to service the proposed Tremaine Road

development. The three different landuse options would not impact the Regional/DC planned

wastewater infrastructure.

It should be noted that the future 450 mm diameter sewermain on Dundas Street has to be in

place in order to convey the sanitary load generated by this development area. A connection of

either 250 mm or 375 mm in diameter would be required between the Tremaine Road

development and the 450 mm on Dundas. The Region of Halton Finance may need to be

consulted should there be any adjustment to the construction timing of this infrastructure as

opposed to that identified in the master plan.


5 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS Hydraulic analysis has been conducted using the latest RMOH’s water and wastewater models.

In this study, future (2021) population, water demand, and sanitary load conditions were

incorporated into the models accordingly and the Tremaine Road development serviceability

was assessed.

It should be noted that this report does not satisfy all the requirements of an Area Servicing Plan

as defined by the Region of Halton. Therefore, there will be policies that will be required in the

secondary plan that identify the requirement for an Area Servicing Plan and that this plan would

need to be based on the Area Servicing Plan Terms of Reference, a copy of which is provided

in Appendix V. Also, it should be noted that new infrastructure required to service the Tremaine

Road development was assessed from a hydraulic analysis point of view only and therefore

land and easement issues would need to be reviewed addressed where necessary to fully

appreciate infrastructure costs.

5.1 WATER SYSTEM For the water system, all three different landuse options were analyzed and their impact to the

existing and future/proposed infrastructure was also assessed. In general, the Tremaine Road

development is located within Zone 3 pressure zone and therefore will be serviced through this

pressure zone. There will likely be some low pressure areas within the development regardless

of the type of landuse development put in place, since the low pressure issue is mainly

attributed to high elevation that may be resolved through re-grading.

With regards to the external servicing strategy, the future 1200 mm diameter watermains on

Dundas Street from Tremaine Road to Bronte Road, as well as the future 600 mm diameter

watermain on Tremaine Road are the preferred feedermains to supply the development area.

Therefore, these watermains would need to be in place prior to any development within

Tremaine Road.

With regards to internal servicing, the required pipe size ranges from 250 mm to 300 mm for

Option 1, and it ranges from 150 mm to 300 mm for Options 2 and 3. Under all three different

landuse options, there would not be any additional infrastructure required other than that


already identified in the Master Plan, providing either re-grading the high spots or not building

on the high spots, is adopted. In general, due to greater water demand conditions, Option 3

would have the greatest impact in reducing the treatment plant capacity and Zone 3 storage

tank capacity than the other landuse options.

Based on our hydraulic analysis, no storage upgrades would be required in order to service the

additional water demand from the proposed Tremaine Road development under all landuse

development options. In addition to assessing the storage requirement, no water treatment plant

capacity upgrades would be required in order to service the additional water demand from the


Recommendations: 1. Conduct a detail topographic analysis on Tremaine Road development area.

2. Based on the hydraulic analysis, the maximum elevation that could be serviced by

pressure zone 3 is 162 m so that the minimum pressure allowed of 50 psi is maintained.

Should any of the development area be higher than 162 m, there are three possible

servicing options that are recommended:

a. Appropriate surface grading should be implemented where possible, or

b. Avoid having development in these high spots and allocate more development in

other surrounding areas within Tremaine Road development, or

c. Provide local booster pump station for the high ground areas above 162m

3. Consult the Region of Halton Finance with regards to the timing adjustment that would

be needed in order to accommodate the Tremaine Road development.

4. Undertake a further hydraulic analysis once the grading within the development site is

defined, so that any potential low pressure servicing areas below the minimum operating

pressure of 50 psi can be corrected through revision of final grading.

5. Review the hydraulic analysis once the Tremaine Road development timing is defined.

5.2 WASTEWATER SYSTEM All three different landuse options were analyzed to assess its impact to both internal and

external servicing strategies. With regards to the external servicing plan, as identified in the

latest Master Plan, the Tremaine Road development area would be serviced by the future 450


mm diameter sewermain on Dundas Street which would be connected to the existing

sewermain on Colonel William Parkway and ultimately convey the sewage loads to Mid Halton

WWTP. An additional sewermain (250 mm for Option 1 and Option 2, 375 mm for Option 3)

would be needed to connect the internal sewermains within the Tremaine Road development to

the 450 mm sewermain on Dundas Street. Hydraulic analysis was conducted to assess the

capacity of all the trunk sewermains downstream of the Tremaine Road development

connection point. The results show that there would be enough capacity along these trunk

sewermains to convey the additional sanitary load from Tremaine Road.

The hydraulic analysis conducted showed that trunk sewermains provide sufficient capacity to

convey the load generated by the Tremaine Road development under all landuse development

options. Furthermore, the Mid Halton Treatment Plant has the available capacity to treat the

expected average DWF under 2021 load conditions for all the landuse options for the

development.

Based on the capacity assessment of the North Halton Pumping Station, the future firm capacity

was not sufficient to accommodate the projected peak wet weather flow even without the


With regards to internal servicing, the required pipe size for Tremaine Road development

ranges from 150 mm to 250 mm for Option 1 and from 150 mm to 375 mm for Option 2 and

Option 3.

It should be noted that choosing the residential versus employment development option does

not have any impact on external (outside of the development area) infrastructure, and therefore

neither would be preferable to the other through servicing requirements

Recommendations: 1. Conduct detail topographic analysis on Tremaine Road development area.

2. Consult with the Region of Halton Finance with regards to the timing adjustment that

would be needed in order to accommodate Tremaine Road development.

3. Refine hydraulic analysis once the final grade within the development site is finalized

and Tremaine Road development timing is defined.


4. Review the pumping capacity and proposed future expansion of the North Halton

Pumping Station with the consideration of the preferred growth option for the Tremaine

Road development.

APPENDIX I

Road Development Layouts

Figure A1.1 – Tremaine Road Secondary Plan (Option 1 - Employment)

Figure A1.2 - Tremaine Road Secondary Plan (Option 2 - Residential)

Figure A1.3 - Tremaine Road Secondary Plan (Option 3 – Mixed Use)

APPENDIX II

Internal Watermain Sizing

900mm

1200mm

60

0m

m

1.0

0.7

0.3

1.0

0.7

0.3

600mm

1.7

1.0

0.6

1.7

1.0

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.6

0.4

0.2

1.2

0.8

0.4

1.2

0.8

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.1

0.4

0.2

0.1

2.6

1.6

0.9

2.6

1.6

0.9

1.0

0.6

0.3

1.0

0.6

0.3

1.7

1.1

0.6

1.7

1.1

0.60.9

0.6

0.3

0.9

0.6

0.3

300mm Proposed mains within development area 250mm Proposed mains within development areaFuture mains as per Master Plan

1.7

1.1

0.6

1.7

1.1

0.6 Avg Day Demand (L/s)

Max Day Demand (L/s)

Peak Hour Demand (L/s)

Figure A2.1 – Proposed Watermains and Estimated Water Demands (Option 1)

900mm1200mm

60

0m

m

5.3

3.3

1.8

5.3

3.3

1.8

600mm

2.8

1.8

0.9

2.8

1.8

0.9

1.9

1.2

0.6

1.9

1.2

0.6

0.8

0.5

0.3

0.8

0.5

0.3

0.4

0.3

0.1

0.4

0.3

0.1

0.7

0.4

0.2

0.7

0.4

0.2

1.5

0.9

0.5

1.5

0.9

0.5

3.3

2.1

1.1

3.3

2.1

1.1

1.1

0.7

0.4

1.1

0.7

0.4

2.6

1.7

0.9

2.6

1.7

0.9

6.0

3.8

2.0

6.0

3.8

2.0

0.8

0.5

0.3

0.8

0.5

0.3

1.4

0.9

0.5

1.4

0.9

0.5

300mm Proposed mains within development area

250mm Proposed mains within development area200mm Proposed mains within development area


Future mains as per Master Plan

1.7

1.1

0.6

1.7

1.1





900mm1200mm

600

mm

1.7

1.1

0.6

1.7

1.1




1.1

0.7

0.4

1.1

0.7

0.4

600mm

1.3

0.8

0.4

1.3

0.8

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.5

0.3

0.2

0.5

0.3

0.2

0.4

0.2

0.1

0.4

0.2

0.1

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.5

0.3

0.2

0.5

0.3

0.2

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.10.8

0.5

0.3

0.8

0.5

0.3

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.6

0.4

0.2

300mm Proposed mains within development area 250mm Proposed mains within development area150mm Proposed mains within development area

Future mains as per Master Plan


5.15.1 1.11.1

2.82.80.80.8

3.73.7

2.12.1

3.93.9

6.16.1



3.73.7 Peak WWF (L/s)

Proposed servicing strategy

Figure A2.4 – Proposed Sewermains and Estimated Sewage Loads (Option 1)

9.59.5 5.35.3

2.32.3

5.75.7

0.40.4

3.33.3

3.83.8

2.82.8

3.53.5

3.03.0

3.93.9












6.76.71.91.9

2.92.9

2.32.3

1.41.4

2.42.4

1.21.2

0.70.7

0.10.1

0.80.8

0.50.5






APPENDIX III

Calculation Information

Table A3.1 – Storage Requirement Calculation (Zone 3)

Design Scenario 2021

Without Tremaine Road

2021 + Option 1

2021 + Option 2

2021 + Option 3

A. Fire Storage

- Fire Flow (L/s) 378 378 378 378

- Duration (hr) 6 6 6 6

Total Fire Storage (ML) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2

B. Equalization

Oakville Zone 3 (ML/d) 55.01 56.71 55.62 56.58

Burlington Zone 3 (ML/d) 36.94 36.94 36.94 36.94

Total Zone 3 Max Day Demand (ML/d) 91.95 93.65 92.56 93.52

Total Equalization Storage (25% of MDD) (ML) 22.99 23.41 23.14 23.38

C. Emergency

Total Emergency Storage (25% of A + B) (ML) 7.79 7.89 7.83 7.89

Total Storage Requirement (ML) 38.98 39.47 39.13 39.43

Existing Storage (ML)

6th Line Tank (O3) 32 32 32 32

Headon Res (B3) 18 18 18 18

Tyandaga Res (B3) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6

Total Existing Storage (ML) 54.6 54.6 54.6 54.6

Storage Surplus (+) / Deficit (-) 15.66 15.13 15.47 15.17

APPENDIX IV

Detailed Hydraulic Analysis results

Option 1 – Employment Landuse q/Q Results for 450 mm Sewermains on Dundas Street and Its Downstream Connection

ID Diameter

(mm) Length

(m) Slope

Total Flow (L/s)

Velocity (m/s)

d/D q/Q

28201 600 43.518 0.009 91.919 1.528 0.265 0.154

28202 600 18.758 0.003 92.148 1.04 0.351 0.265

28203 675 44.192 0.005 143.57 1.322 0.343 0.253

28206 675 37.573 0.005 144.619 1.324 0.344 0.255

28208 675 69.493 0.005 145.655 1.335 0.344 0.255

28209 675 10.387 0.008 146.042 1.608 0.301 0.197

28210 675 45.665 0.005 146.142 1.385 0.336 0.243

28218 675 17.037 0.015 154.756 2.09 0.26 0.148

28219 675 95.408 0.005 150.638 1.389 0.343 0.253

28220 675 39.665 0.014 155.728 2.039 0.266 0.155

28223 675 84.665 0.005 146.798 1.378 0.338 0.246

28224 675 6.626 0.005 147.831 1.364 0.342 0.252

28225 675 65.687 0.005 148.73 1.383 0.341 0.25

30937 600 90.541 0.003 91.237 0.951 0.372 0.295

30938 600 103.687 0.002 91.533 0.94 0.377 0.302

30957 600 71.356 0.002 56.981 0.783 0.304 0.201

30958 600 108.685 0.003 60.701 0.946 0.278 0.169

30960 600 103.968 0.005 61.946 1.052 0.261 0.15

30961 600 43.22 0.002 84.17 0.792 0.402 0.34

30962 600 72.277 0.003 84.757 0.93 0.359 0.275

30963 600 85.3 0.003 85.416 1.014 0.338 0.247

30973 600 9.533 0.003 62.203 0.926 0.287 0.18

30995 600 148.448 0.003 56.702 0.936 0.267 0.156

30996 600 57.209 0.003 56.9 0.937 0.267 0.156

SP-00324-O 600 73.32 0.003 56.702 0.982 0.258 0.146

SP-00326-O 600 86.18 0.004 56.702 1.001 0.254 0.142

SP-00320-O 600 70.9 0.003 56.702 0.95 0.264 0.153

SP-00322-O 600 27.4 0.005 56.702 1.162 0.229 0.115

SP-00314-O 600 59.262 0.004 56.702 1.011 0.253 0.14

SP-00316-O 600 45.1 0.007 56.702 1.245 0.218 0.104

SP-00318-O 600 89.9 0.003 56.702 0.977 0.259 0.147

SP-00308-O 600 47.5 0.003 25.701 0.767 0.176 0.067

SP-00312-O 600 53.238 0.004 56.702 1.006 0.254 0.141

SP-00300-O 600 230 0.007 25.701 1 0.146 0.046

SP-00304-O 600 27.5 0.003 25.701 0.786 0.173 0.065

SP-00306-O 600 65.1 0.003 25.701 0.763 0.177 0.068

SP-11 450 898.342 0.009 25.701 1.069 0.209 0.095

16468 1,200.00 200.155 0.003 1,436.02 1.947 0.621 0.707

16509 1,200.00 224.458 0.007 1,438.43 2.825 0.461 0.434

16511 2,400.00 231.696 0.003 3,205.88 2.302 0.347 0.258

16510 2,400.00 301.489 0.003 3,210.80 2.309 0.346 0.258

ID Diameter

(mm) Length

(m) Slope

Total Flow (L/s)

Velocity (m/s)

d/D q/Q

16512 1,500.00 31.427 0.005 1,502.83 2.437 0.38 0.307

20686 2,400.00 300.237 0.003 3,216.56 2.378 0.339 0.248

29150 2,400.00 258.64 0.002 3,231.26 2.175 0.363 0.282

29151 2,400.00 280.811 0.002 3,238.87 2.269 0.353 0.267

29152 2,400.00 289.601 0.002 3,248.11 2.246 0.356 0.272

29153 2,400.00 245.946 0.002 3,254.37 2.291 0.352 0.265

Min 0.046

Max 0.707

Option 2 – Residential Landuse q/Q Results for 450 mm Sewermains on Dundas Street and Its Downstream Connection

ID Diameter

(mm) Length

(m) Slope

Total Flow (L/s)

Velocity (m/s)

d/D q/Q

28201 600 43.518 0.009 109.768 1.608 0.291 0.184

28202 600 18.758 0.003 109.997 1.092 0.386 0.316

28203 675 44.192 0.005 161.42 1.365 0.365 0.285

28206 675 37.573 0.005 162.468 1.368 0.366 0.287

28208 675 69.493 0.005 163.505 1.379 0.366 0.286

28209 675 10.387 0.008 163.892 1.661 0.32 0.222

28210 675 45.665 0.005 163.991 1.43 0.357 0.273

28218 675 17.037 0.015 172.605 2.157 0.275 0.165

28219 675 95.408 0.005 168.487 1.432 0.364 0.283

28220 675 39.665 0.014 173.577 2.103 0.281 0.173

28223 675 84.665 0.005 164.647 1.423 0.359 0.276

28224 675 6.626 0.005 165.681 1.408 0.364 0.283

28225 675 65.687 0.005 166.58 1.427 0.362 0.28

30937 600 90.541 0.003 109.086 0.998 0.41 0.353

30938 600 103.687 0.002 109.383 0.986 0.415 0.36

30957 600 71.356 0.002 74.83 0.846 0.351 0.264

30958 600 108.685 0.003 78.551 1.017 0.318 0.219

30960 600 103.968 0.005 79.795 1.131 0.298 0.193

30961 600 43.22 0.002 102.019 0.834 0.447 0.412

30962 600 72.277 0.003 102.606 0.98 0.397 0.333

30963 600 85.3 0.003 103.265 1.069 0.374 0.298

30973 600 9.533 0.003 80.052 0.994 0.327 0.232

30995 600 148.448 0.003 74.552 1.012 0.307 0.205

30996 600 57.209 0.003 74.75 1.013 0.307 0.205

SP-00324-O 600 73.32 0.003 74.552 1.062 0.296 0.191

SP-00326-O 600 86.18 0.004 74.552 1.083 0.292 0.186

SP-00320-O 600 70.9 0.003 74.552 1.027 0.304 0.201

SP-00322-O 600 27.4 0.005 74.552 1.258 0.263 0.151

SP-00314-O 600 59.262 0.004 74.552 1.093 0.29 0.184

SP-00316-O 600 45.1 0.007 74.552 1.348 0.25 0.137

SP-00318-O 600 89.9 0.003 74.552 1.057 0.298 0.193

SP-00308-O 600 47.5 0.003 43.55 0.896 0.228 0.114

ID Diameter

(mm) Length

(m) Slope

Total Flow (L/s)

Velocity (m/s)

d/D q/Q

SP-00312-O 600 53.238 0.004 74.552 1.088 0.291 0.185

SP-00300-O 600 230 0.007 43.55 1.169 0.189 0.078

SP-00304-O 600 27.5 0.003 43.55 0.918 0.224 0.111

SP-00306-O 600 65.1 0.003 43.55 0.891 0.229 0.115

SP-11 450 898.342 0.009 43.55 1.246 0.272 0.161

16468 1,200.00 200.155 0.003 1,453.87 1.952 0.626 0.716

16509 1,200.00 224.458 0.007 1,456.28 2.834 0.464 0.44

16511 2,400.00 231.696 0.003 3,223.73 2.306 0.348 0.26

16510 2,400.00 301.489 0.003 3,228.65 2.313 0.347 0.259

16512 1,500.00 31.427 0.005 1,520.68 2.445 0.383 0.311

20686 2,400.00 300.237 0.003 3,234.41 2.382 0.34 0.249

29150 2,400.00 258.64 0.002 3,249.11 2.178 0.365 0.284

29151 2,400.00 280.811 0.002 3,256.72 2.273 0.354 0.269

29152 2,400.00 289.601 0.002 3,265.96 2.249 0.357 0.274

29153 2,400.00 245.946 0.002 3,272.21 2.294 0.353 0.267

Min 0.078

Max 0.716

Option 3 – Mixed Use Landuse q/Q Results for 450 mm Sewermains on Dundas Street and Its Downstream Connection

ID Diameter

(mm) Length

(m) Slope

Total Flow (L/s)

Velocity (m/s)

d/D q/Q

28201 600 43.518 0.009 133.967 1.701 0.322 0.225

28202 600 18.758 0.003 134.196 1.152 0.431 0.385

28203 675 44.192 0.005 185.618 1.419 0.394 0.327

28206 675 37.573 0.005 186.667 1.420 0.395 0.329

28208 675 69.493 0.005 187.703 1.433 0.394 0.328

28209 675 10.387 0.008 188.090 1.727 0.344 0.254

28210 675 45.665 0.005 188.190 1.486 0.384 0.313

28218 675 17.037 0.015 196.804 2.240 0.294 0.189

28219 675 95.408 0.005 192.685 1.486 0.391 0.323

28220 675 39.665 0.014 197.776 2.183 0.301 0.197

28223 675 84.665 0.005 188.845 1.478 0.387 0.317

28224 675 6.626 0.005 189.879 1.461 0.392 0.324

28225 675 65.687 0.005 190.778 1.481 0.389 0.320

30937 600 90.541 0.003 133.285 1.053 0.459 0.431

30938 600 103.687 0.002 133.581 1.039 0.464 0.440

30957 600 71.356 0.002 99.028 0.913 0.408 0.350

30958 600 108.685 0.003 102.749 1.096 0.366 0.286

30960 600 103.968 0.005 103.994 1.218 0.342 0.251

30961 600 43.220 0.002 126.218 0.881 0.505 0.509

30962 600 72.277 0.003 126.804 1.037 0.447 0.412

30963 600 85.300 0.003 127.464 1.131 0.420 0.368

30973 600 9.533 0.003 104.251 1.069 0.377 0.302

30995 600 148.448 0.003 98.750 1.094 0.356 0.271

ID Diameter

(mm) Length

(m) Slope

Total Flow (L/s)

Velocity (m/s)

d/D q/Q

30996 600 57.209 0.003 98.948 1.095 0.356 0.272

SP-00324-O 600 73.320 0.003 98.750 1.150 0.343 0.254

SP-00326-O 600 86.180 0.004 98.750 1.173 0.338 0.247

SP-00320-O 600 70.900 0.003 98.750 1.111 0.352 0.266

SP-00322-O 600 27.400 0.005 98.750 1.364 0.303 0.200

SP-00314-O 600 59.262 0.004 98.750 1.184 0.336 0.244

SP-00316-O 600 45.100 0.007 98.750 1.461 0.289 0.182

SP-00318-O 600 89.900 0.003 98.750 1.143 0.345 0.255

SP-00308-O 600 47.500 0.003 67.749 1.018 0.285 0.178

SP-00312-O 600 53.238 0.004 98.750 1.177 0.337 0.245

SP-00300-O 600 230.000 0.007 67.749 1.331 0.236 0.122

SP-00304-O 600 27.500 0.003 67.749 1.043 0.281 0.172

SP-00306-O 600 65.100 0.003 67.749 1.012 0.287 0.179

SP-11 450 898.342 0.009 67.749 1.412 0.342 0.251

16468 1200 200.155 0.003 1505.603 1.967 0.641 0.741

16509 1200 224.458 0.007 1508.007 2.859 0.474 0.455

16511 2400 231.696 0.003 3315.598 2.324 0.353 0.267

16510 2400 301.489 0.003 3320.516 2.330 0.353 0.266

16512 1500 31.427 0.005 1572.411 2.467 0.390 0.321

20686 2400 300.237 0.003 3326.276 2.402 0.345 0.256

29150 2400 258.640 0.002 3340.981 2.195 0.370 0.292

29151 2400 280.811 0.002 3348.588 2.289 0.359 0.276

29152 2400 289.601 0.002 3357.829 2.266 0.363 0.281

29153 2400 245.946 0.002 3364.084 2.313 0.358 0.274

Min 0.122

Max 0.741

APPENDIX V

Area Servicing Plan Regional Requirements

Area Servicing Plan

Regional Requirements

1.0 General

Area Servicing Plans are required in accordance with the Regional Official Plan in

support of a Secondary Plan. The Area Servicing Plan shall have regard for the Halton

Region of Halton Water and Wastewater Area Plan and shall be in accordance with the

Region of Halton Design Criteria, Contract Specifications and Standard Drawings as well

as other Regional policies related to water and wastewater.

The Area Servicing Plan (ASP) will address water and wastewater infrastructure as

outlined below. The ASP will be completed following the principles of a Municipal

Class EA , in terms of considering and evaluating alternatives etc. The ASP will be

prepared by a Consulting Engineer in consultation with the Region of Halton and other

relevant agencies. The ASP will be prepared as a draft document first with a more

extensive circulation to the various agencies and the public through the balance of the

planning process.

2.0 Water Servicing

The following issues related to the provision of water servicing to the secondary plan area

should be addressed.

2.1 Evaluation of Existing Water System

The following considerations with respect to existing infrastructure should be reviewed:

• Outline of existing water system and Pressure Zone impacted by the Secondary

Plan.

• Improvements required to the existing water system infrastructure based on

forecasted growth in the secondary plan. Triggers for improvements should also

be identified.

2.2 Proposed Water system

The following elements with respect to the proposed water system should be examined:

• Preliminary servicing plan that shows the trunk water distribution system.

• Watermain modelling analysis of the proposed system which will include

preliminary sizing of mains, expected static pressures and fire flows.

• Watermain analysis will also assess impact of phasing on critical elements and

review alternatives.

• Review opportunities for system redundancies and watermain looping

2.3 Proposed Development Charge (DC) Water System Infrastructure

The ASP shall examine in further detail the following elements with respect to DC

infrastructure:

• Review land and easement requirements for DC watermain infrastructure.

• Review details with respect to cost and timing of DC infrastructure.

• Examine impact of phasing on cost and timing of DC infrastructure and review

alternatives related to DC infrastructure.

• Identify all DC projects that may potentially require a Municipal Class EA when

project specific details are better defined.

3.0 Wastewater Servicing

The following issues related to the provision of wastewater servicing to the secondary

plan area should be addressed.

3.1 Evaluation of Existing Wastewater System

The following considerations with respect to existing infrastructure should be reviewed:

• Outline of existing wastewater system and drainage areas impacted by the

Secondary Plan.

• Downstream constraints – pump stations, pipe capacity etc.

• Improvements required to the existing wastewater system infrastructure based on

forecasted growth in the secondary plan. Triggers for improvements should also

be identified.

3.2 Proposed Wastewater System

The following elements with respect to the proposed wastewater system should be

examined:

• Preliminary servicing plan that shows the trunk wastewater distribution system.

• Internal and external drainage area plans and preliminary design sheets for major

trunk sewers.

• Sanitary sewer analysis of the proposed system which will include preliminary

sizing of mains based on drainage areas.

• Analysis will also assess impact of phasing on critical elements and review

alternatives.

• Review size and location of pump station infrastructure including overflows and

environmental impacts.

• Provide analysis on size, location and number of pump stations verses depth of

trunk sewer infrastructure.

3.3 Proposed Development Charge (DC) Wastewater System Infrastructure

The ASP shall examine in further detail the following elements with respect to DC

infrastructure:

• Plan & Profile drawings for DC sewers based on preliminary grades (note:

maximum permissible depth is 10m).

• Review land and easement requirements for DC wastewater main infrastructure

including land requirements for pump stations.

• Review details with respect to cost and timing of DC infrastructure.

• Examine impact of phasing on cost and timing of DC infrastructure and review

alternatives related to DC infrastructure.

• Identify all DC projects that may potentially require a Municipal Class EA when

project specific details are better defined.

4.0 Conclusion

In conclusion, the Area Servicing Plan once approved will be a comprehensive document

that will set out the framework for infrastructure requirements for servicing the

Secondary Plan area. The document will be used by developers and their consultants as

well as municipal staff for the following purpose:

• To ensure that Functional Servicing Reports in support of individual draft plans of

subdivision are prepared and reviewed with regard to the ASP.

• To provide guidance with respect to timing and budgets for DC projects.

• To provide input into Financial Plans.

Water and Wastewater Servicing Assessment and Wastewater Servicing Assessment Final Report Prepared...

Documents

Transcript of Water and Wastewater Servicing Assessment and Wastewater Servicing Assessment Final Report Prepared...