final report - ottawa...final report . prepared for: city of ottawa 100 constellation crescent 6th...

Carp Snow Disposal Facility Melt Water Management Report

Final Report

Prepared for: City of Ottawa 100 Constellation Crescent 6th Floor Ottawa, ON K2G 6J8

August 14, 2013

Sign-off Sheet

This document entitled Carp Snow Disposal Facility Melt Water Management Report was prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd. for the account of the City of Ottawa. The material in it reflects Stantec’s best judgment in light of the information available to it at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions made based on it, are the responsibilities of such third parties. Stantec Consulting Ltd. accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report.

Prepared by (signature)

John van Gaal, P.Eng.

Reviewed by (signature)

Gerry Lalonde, P.Eng. M.Eng.

CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MELT WATER MANAGEMENT REPORT

sl w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\surface water_drainage_meltwater & receiving stream assessment\rpt_melt water mgmt report_20130815_final.docx i

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ I

1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1.1

2.0 SDF CONCEPT DESIGN AND OPERATIONS ................................................................. 2.1

3.0 MELT WATER DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ...................................................................... 3.1

4.0 PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF THE MELT WATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY (MWMF) .. 4.1 4.1 CONCEPT DESIGN .......................................................................................................... 4.1 4.2 POND SIZING FOR QUALITY CONTROL ........................................................................ 4.1 4.3 POND SIZING FOR QUANTITY CONTROL ..................................................................... 4.3

5.0 MELT WATER DISCHARGES AND ASSIMILATION ANALYSIS .................................... 5.1 5.1 INPUT PARAMETERS ...................................................................................................... 5.1 5.2 ASSIMILATION ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 5.4 5.3 RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 5.6 5.4 RECOMMENDATION RESULTING FROM THE ASSIMULATION ANALYSIS ................. 5.6

6.0 OPERATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 6-1 6.1 OPERATING THE MELT WATER POND ........................................................................ 6-1 6.2 MONITORING PROGRAM .............................................................................................. 6-1

LIST OF TABLES Table 5-1: Background Water Quality Sampling Results in the Feedermill Creek Watershed at Station 72-15 and 72-11 ........................................................................................................... 5.1 Table 5-2: Base Flows (Lps) .................................................................................................... 5.2 Table 5-3: Average Year Assimilation of SDF Chlorides with SWMP ....................................... 5.5 Table 5-4: 1 in 10 Year Assimilation of SDF Chlorides with SWMP .......................................... 5.5 Table 6-1: Monitoring and Sampling Program ......................................................................... 6-1

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1: Area Map .............................................................................................................. 1.2 Figure 1-2: Westbrook Site Area Plan ...................................................................................... 1.3 Figure 2-1: Conceptual Site Layout .......................................................................................... 2.2 Figure 4-1: Concept Schematic with Preliminary Evaluations and Sizing ................................. 4.2 Figure 5-1: Average Year Daily Chloride Concentration from the SDF ..................................... 5.3 Figure 5-2: 1 in 10 Year Daily Chloride Concentration from the SDF ........................................ 5.3

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A – Comparison of Engineered SDF’s Appendix B – Evaluation of Carp SDF using traditional Environmental Criteria Appendix C – Modeling Results


sl w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\surface water_drainage_meltwater & receiving stream assessment\rpt_melt water mgmt report_20130815_final.docx i

Executive Summary

The City of Ottawa is preparing a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment for the development of a new Snow Disposal Facility (SDF) at 2125 Carp road in Ottawa. The proposed site development will be designed to contain 357,000m3 of snow to a potential height of 15 meters. Melt water will be treated and discharged into the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) ditches that ultimately outlet to Feedmill Creek and then the Carp River. Figure 1-1 provides a key plan showing the SDF site, the pertinent MTO ditch location and its outlet into Feedmill Creek. The purpose of this report is to review the potential impact of snow melt from the site and its impact on existing surrounding land uses, including the receiving stream.

The SDF drainage system will include a gentle (approximately 0.5%) slope on the snow disposal pad, where the melt water is directed to grass swales. The entire site runoff will be treated for quality and quantity control in a melt water treatment pond system prior to discharge into the SWM outlet drain.

The SDF melt water is treated by infiltration in the swales, decanting in an oil trap, a sediment forebay and then into the 24 hour (melt water) retention pond. The pond features include a forebay and servicing road for sediment removal. The pond bottom will consist of 300mm of 150mm minus limestone and the side slopes are finished with 200mm thickness of granular B – these details to be confirmed during detail design. The entire melt water pond would be underlain by a liner of low vertical hydraulic conductivity to restrict infiltration of meltwater into the groundwater within the site.

The meltwater pond discharge will combine with a Stormwater Management Facility (SWMF) outlet drain discharge and flow in a northerly direction in a lowered manmade channel though a 600mm diameter culvert into the MTO Highway 417 ditches.

The SDF is within the south west limits of the Feedmill Creek watershed which has been identified as a cool water fish habitat of some significance. During early consultation with the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority (MVCA) in 2012, the MVCA has indicated that a maximum mixed chloride concentration of 1000mg/L at the MTO ditch outlet is desirable to protect the fish habitat of Feedmill Creek.

The SDF location is outside of the Kanata West Master Drainage Plan but within the same watershed as the Kanata West Development. Accordingly the proposed SDF development will be compliant with the applicable environmental/drainage criteria of the Kanata West Concept Plan Master Servicing study noted as follows:

• Each SWM pond serving the area will provide 80% removal of TSS for Level 1 fish habitat protection.

• Ponds to provide flow augmentation to the Carp River through prolonged extended detention. • Within the study area, infiltration rates of 73 to 104mm/yr are required for all subcatchments. A

water balance is to be completed to ensure that infiltration targets are met. • Final hydrologic modeling for Poole Creek, Feedmill Creek, and Carp River (by others) will

account for direct major system discharges from all tributary areas.

The Ministry of the Environment had requested in meetings (2012) with the City, that the drainage improvements done on the 2125 Carp property (to accommodate the SDF) also include corrective measures for drainage issues within Westbrook Business Park Drainage system.

Water quality from the SDF MWMF should be within the MOE provincial water quality objectives and a TSS compliance limit of 40mg/L. The MOE does not have a surface water objective for chloride concentration. Under the average year scenario, wherein climatic data, snow disposal volumes and the


ii sl w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\surface water_drainage_meltwater & receiving stream assessment\rpt_melt water mgmt report_20130815_final.docx

chloride concentrations are averaged, the MVCA chloride design objective of 1000mg/L at the MTO ditch must be achieved. Three Options for dilution of the meltwater with water stored in the stormwater pond were investigated for average year conditions and one Option for the 1:10 year event.

Under Option 1, the SDF meltwater is diluted with water from the Westbrook SWMF by a ratio of 0.3:1. The assimilation modeling results in a target chloride concentration of 1000mg/L being met only after April 15th.

Under Option 2, the SDF melt water (i.e. 25Lps) is diluted with water pumped from the Westbrook SWM (i.e. 40Lps) by a ratio of 1.6:1. The assimilation modeling results in a chloride concentration of 1000mg/L being met only after April 4th.

Under Option 3, the April 1st objective of 1000mg/L, at the MTO ditch is obtained with a flow rate and storage volume of 50Lps and 50,000m3 respectively.

For melt conditions under a 1:10 year event, under Option 4, the Westbrook SWMF quiescent storage volume, and pump rate, necessary to model the target chloride concentration of 1000mg/L from April 1st on was calculated to be 65,000m3 and 85Lps respectively.

In summary, the Westbrook SWMF is sized to provide quality control and quantity control, as per Option 2. For quantity control sizing, the melt water pond will provide for 3500m3 detention volume and a quiescent storage volume (3000 m3) for a total storage volume of 6500m3. Based on 4:1 side slopes and assuming a 600mm grade difference between the pond outlet invert and maximum water level, our initial development shown in Figure 2-1 has calculated the pond size to be 1.6 ha.

CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MELT WATER MANAGEMENT REPORT August 20, 2013

sl w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\surface water_drainage_meltwater & receiving stream assessment\rpt_melt water mgmt report_20130815_final.docx 1.1

1.0 Introduction

The City of Ottawa is preparing a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment for the development of a new Snow Disposal Facility (SDF) at 2125 Carp road in Ottawa. The location for the new SDF was based on the findings of a City of Ottawa (City) land search study in 2009 which considered the cost associated with various relocation scenarios for existing facilities and the need to develop additional disposal capacity to service the City’s west end. In 2010, Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) completed a conceptual design of the site to show how it could be developed, albeit incorporating some mitigative measures.

The proposed site development will include a design to contain 357,000m3 of snow to a potential height of 15 meters. Melt water is treated and discharged into the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) ditches that ultimately outlet to Feedmill Creek and then the Carp River. Figure 1-1 on the page following provides a key plan showing the SDF site, the pertinent MTO ditch location and its outlet into Feedmill Creek.

Figure 1-2 shows the site’s relative coordinates within the Westbrook Business Park and existing land uses within 300 meters, these being; to the north of the SDF includes the Carp Landfill and Highway 417, to the south and west includes lands with industrial type uses, to the east includes a single residence and several small commercial establishments.

The purpose of this report is to review the potential impact of snow melt from the site and its impact on existing surrounding land uses, including the receiving stream.

City of Ottawa

Carp Road Snow Disposal Facility

Drainage Report

C

A

R

P

R

O

A

D

H

W

Y

4

1

7

H

U

N

T

M

A

R

D

R

H

U

N

T

M

A

R

D

R

C

A

R

P

R

O

A

D

P

A

L

L

A

D

I

U

M

D

R

TERRY FOX DR

R

I

C

H

A

R

D

S

O

N

S

I

D

E

R

D

H

A

Z

E

L

D

E

A

N

R

D

MTO ROADSIDE DITCH

W

E

S

T

B

R

O

O

K

R

D

saclarke

Line

saclarke

Text Box

CK72-15

saclarke

Text Box

1.1

CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MELT WATER MANAGEMENT REPORT Introduction August 20, 2013


Figure 1-2: Westbrook Site Area Plan



2.0 SDF Concept Design and Operations

The main components of the proposed Carp SDF development will include an entrance road from Westbrook near the Walgreen intersection, a dump pad for snow which will accommodate truck turning movements, an area for snow stockpile, landscaped berms, a sedimentation pond, a security trailer near the proposed entrance road, equipment parking area, security fencing, monitoring wells, and lighting. Truck routes for access into the site will include Westbrook Road but only that portion from Carp Road to the site entrance. The trucked in snow will be disposed of in a south to north direction to the limits shown on the site plan.

The SDF operation includes “end dumping” the trucks of incoming snow, and bulldozing from ground level to a maximum height of 15 meters. While the site’s capacity will be designed to provide for the 1:50 year annual snowfall of 357,000m3, it would usually have much less snow during average conditions. An event such as the 1:10 year annual snowfall would produce a truck volume of 255,000m3.

The projected completion of the snow melt off will range from the 4th week in April to the 1st week in June depending on the volume of snow and climatic conditions that affect melt.

The SDF drainage system will include a gentle (approximately 0.5%) slope on the snow disposal pad, where the melt water is directed to grass swales. The entire site runoff will be treated for quality and quantity control in a melt water treatment pond system prior to discharge into the SWM outlet drain.

The SDF melt water is treated by infiltration in the swales, decanting in an oil trap, a sediment forebay and then into the 24 hour (melt water) retention pond. The pond features include a forebay and servicing road for sediment removal. The pond bottom will consist of 300mm of 150mm minus limestone and the 3 to 1 side slopes are finished with 200mm thickness of granular B – these details to be confirmed during detail design. The entire melt water pond would be underlain by a liner of low vertical hydraulic conductivity to restrict infiltration of meltwater into the groundwater within the site.

The meltwater pond discharge will combine with a Stormwater Management Facility (SWMF) outlet drain discharge and flow in a northerly direction in a lowered manmade channel though a 600mm diameter culvert into the MTO Highway 417 ditches. The combined flow from the upstream MTO ditches on the south side of Highway 417, then flows easterly for a distance of several hundred meters where it then turns north crossing a box culvert near the Carp Road interchange. At this point the flow from the MTO ditches flow easterly and joins the flow from the Palladium SWM facility, all feeding into Feedmill Creek. Feedmill Creek then flows in a generally easterly direction for 2kms and discharges into the Carp River. The Carp River flows in a generally northerly direction to the Ottawa River.

The concept site plan is shown on Figure 2-1 on the following page.

City of Ottawa

Carp Road Snow Disposal Facility

Drainage Report

W

ALG

RE

EN

R

OA

D

saclarke

Text Box

2.1



3.0 Melt Water Design Requirements

Meltwater quality is an important element in the design of a snow disposal facility. Concerns with the discharge of contaminants come under several Federal and Provincial laws. The Canada Fisheries Act, which protects fish habitat, is the most significant legislation protecting the surface water environment. The Ontario Water Resources Act is equally important and under it, the City is required to obtain an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) for the proposed drainage modifications, more particularly the melt water management facility, the on-site stormwater pond and the off-site inline pond. The design report for these facilities will need to quantify impacts of the melt water on the receiving water body and approved by the Ministry of the Environment through the issuance of an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA). In addition, the City’s Official Plan requires that new snow disposal facilities be recognized in the zoning by-law and will only be permitted in areas where it can be demonstrated that the trucking and any other negative impacts can be mitigated. Surface Water Criteria

The importance of the surface water criteria to the snow disposal operations lies in the fact that meltwater from snow piles contains levels of certain components that may exceed environmental guidelines. Therefore, a meltwater management strategy is a fundamental component of the overall SDF operation. Some of these undesirable substances include metals such as cadmium, manganese, chromium, copper, iron, nickel, and zinc, as well as suspended and organic solids and dissolved elements such as sodium and chloride. Strategies aimed at removing as much of the undesirable components as possible are required prior to allowing the melt water to be discharged into the natural environment.

Fish Habitat Type in the Receiving Watercourses

The SDF is within the south west limits of the Feedmill Creek watershed which has been identified as a cool water fish habitat of some significance. During early consultation with the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority (MVCA) in 2012, the MVCA has indicated that a maximum mixed chloride concentration of 1000mg/L at the MTO ditch outlet is desirable to protect the fish habitat of Feedmill Creek.

Feedmill Creek, approximately 1.9kms downstream of the subject property, beginning downstream of MTO Highway 417 culvert has been documented as fish habitat with a well-developed fisheries community that includes minnow species and several game-fish species. The Carp River Watershed/Subwatershed Study (City of Ottawa 2004) provides a detailed fish habitat analysis and outlines all species encountered within Feedmill Creek. Twenty-two species of fish were documented in the Carp River system, including Feedmill Creek and Pool Creek in a study (TSH 2006) that overlaps the area of Feedmill Creek downstream of the proposed project. The fish observed were predominantly warm water species that are tolerant of degraded conditions, although one cool water species (Mottle Sculpin) was recorded (TSH 2006)1. Drainage Outlet

The SDF location is outside of the Kanata West Master Drainage Plan but within the same watershed as the Kanata West Development. Accordingly the proposed SDF development will be compliant with the

1 Feedmill Creek is categorized as a Type1/2 fish habitat in the Carp River watershed /Subwatershed Study.

CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MELT WATER MANAGEMENT REPORT Melt Water Design Requirements August 20, 2013

3.2 sl w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\surface water_drainage_meltwater & receiving stream assessment\rpt_melt water mgmt report_20130815_final.docx

applicable environmental/drainage criteria of the Kanata West Concept Plan Master Servicing study noted as follows:

Section 4.6.7.2 of the Kanata West Concept Plan, Master Servicing Study, has the following documentation;

• Each SWM pond serving the area will provide 80% removal of TSS for Level 1 fish habitat protection.

• No flood or erosion control requirements for ponds tributary to the Carp River.

• Ponds to provide flow augmentation to the Carp River through prolonged extended detention.

• Within the study area, infiltration rates of 73 to 104mm/yr are required for all subcatchments including the Transitway. A water balance is to be completed to ensure that infiltration targets are met.

• Suggested infiltration design is based on a perforated pipe system connected to catchbasins, with

overflows to the storm sewer, and a perforated pipe infiltration trench concept.

• Proposed SWM ponds are generally oversized to provide some quantity control and address hydraulic grade line (HGL) constraints within adjacent subdivisions.

• Final hydrologic modeling for Poole Creek, Feedmill Creek, and Carp River (by others) will

account for direct major system discharges from all tributary areas.

• Pond normal water levels will cause backwater in minor system. Outlets to receiving streams also will also impose hydraulic constraints on facility outlets.

The Ministry of the Environment had requested in meetings (2012) with the City, that the drainage improvements done on the 2125 Carp property (to accommodate the SDF) also include corrective measures for drainage issues within Westbrook Business Park Drainage system. To accommodate all of the above, the application and design reports for the ECA should include the following four components; 1) on-site melt water pond, 2) on-site stormwater pond, 3) the off-site inline pond south of Westbrook, and 4) Westbrook roadway drainage ditches.



4.0 Preliminary Design of the Melt Water Management Facility (MWMF)

From a water quality perspective, the in-stream water quality from the SDF MWMF should be within the MOE Provincial Water Quality Objectives and Section 2.1.6 of the Fisheries Act. As noted in Section 3.0, a Meltwater Management Facility (MWMF) is required to treat for total suspended solids (TSS) and reduce its discharge concentration to provide 80% removal or 40mg/L whichever is the more stringent criteria. The MVCA has further recommended a chloride concentration of 1000mg/L at the point of discharge from the site.

From past experience with existing SDF melt water management ponds in the City, detention of the melt water and allowing settlement of sediment to occur was shown as an efficient and well-understood method for the removal of suspended solids prior to discharge to a storm sewer or watercourse. Since other substances adhere to the suspended solid particles, a significant improvement in water quality can be achieved.

For environmental and cost reasons, the use of a settling pond has been the preferred method to treat for water quality at all new SDFs and we recommend that it be applied to the Carp facility.

4.1 CONCEPT DESIGN

A concept schematic with preliminary elevations and sizing is shown on Figure 4-1 on the page following.

Melt water from the SDF will be directed overland to the Melt water Management Facility (MWMF) as described in Section 4.2, and the rate of flow from the MWMF will be controlled as described in Section 4.3.

Prior to discharge into Highway 417 (MTO) ditches, the MWMF discharge is to be mixed with the Westbrook SWMF discharge. The mixing volume and resulting concentrations are discussed in Section 5.0. The concept scheme includes utilizing the quiescent storage in the Westbrook SWMF to dilute the Carp MWMF discharges.

The concept plan currently indicates that a pump will be utilized to access the quiescent zone volume of the SWMF, however if the discharge outlet invert could be lowered sufficiently (beyond the 0.5m noted in the drainage report) to accommodate a gravity outlet to the MTO ditch, the mixing could be done through gravity and remove the need for the pumps.

4.2 POND SIZING FOR QUALITY CONTROL

A vegetative strip, oil/grit separator, sediment fore bay and a wet pond are all components proposed in the design of the SDF for the purpose of improving water quality prior to discharge via the MTO ditches into Feedmill Creek.

The vegetative strip provides a Best Management Practice (BMP) for removing the heavier sediments and any oil and grease that may adhere to both the sediment and vegetation.

The oil and grit separator shall consist of a deep sump manhole with a “snout” on the outlet pipe. Oil and grease will float on the surface and the heavy grit will settle in the chamber. Some oil may settle with the grit. The sump should be inspected frequently and cleaned as required (i.e. when the grit depth exceeds 600mm).

The pond provides the required pool storage for water quality control, the pond size is large enough to provide required removal efficiencies and meet the MOE specified target rate for TSS.

CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MELT WATER MANAGEMENT REPORT Preliminary Design of the Melt Water Management Facility (MWMF) August 20, 2013


A preliminary melt water pond design, as described below, provides some conservative sizing requirements. Further discrete analysis using OTTSWM will be required for the design report for the ECA to size the melt water pond for quality.

It is recognized that the pond will undergo both dynamic settlement which occurs during the runoff period and quiescent settlement which occurs between the storms. Because the melt occurs on a continuous basis, the quality control is for the removal of the smaller particles with the quiescent storage being the more significant removal process. Retention Time/Volume

The retention volume was calculated based on a 24 hour retention time and a release rate of 30 L/s. The resultant required storage volume is estimated to be 2,590m3. As a preliminary estimate, a retention volume of 3,000m3 is considered sufficient for a minimum of 80% TSS removal and a target 15mg/L concentration for the discharge. The maximum allowable concentration is still noted to be 40mg/L.

Settling Velocity

The settling velocity (Vs) and concentration (C) correlation was shown to follow a power function trend (Vs=0.0067 C 0.755). This has some variability, but this should be reasonably conservative estimate. For a design concentration of 5mg/L, which was found to be attainable at the Innes and Standherd SDF’s, the settling velocity can be as low as 2.2 cm/hr. As there is a distribution of settling velocities, the required 80% fraction removal is the integration of all the particles that have settling velocity less than the stated 2.2cm/hr.

Active Zone

The pond will be filled with cold water during all of the melt. As the water in the retention pond gets heated by the atmosphere, the colder water from the melt will be slightly denser and sink towards the bottom of the pond. As it does this, it creates a “trap” for sediment, ensuring it does not re-suspend.

4.3 POND SIZING FOR QUANTITY CONTROL

For quantity control sizing, a more discrete analysis using melt water volume combined with precipitation is required. For preliminary design purposes, a diurnal hydrograph of the melt event was used to estimate the dynamic volume necessary to regulate peak flows to a maximum of 25Lps. The resultant 3500m3 detention volume is subsequently added to the quiescent storage volume (3000 m3) for a total storage volume of 6500m3. Based on 4:1 side slopes and assuming a 600mm grade difference between the pond outlet invert and maximum water level, the resultant minimum surface area is calculated to be 6500m2. Since there are many variables that may change our final design, our initial development shown in Figure 2-1 has assumed the pond size to be 1.6 ha.



5.0 Melt Water Discharges and Assimilation Analysis

The appropriateness of a new snow disposal facility is to be evaluated on the basis of specified criteria including water quality conditions and the impact on open water courses. The 2 main parameters indicative of water quality from an SDF are chloride and TSS. The TSS is managed by settlement in a Meltwater Management Pond and the chlorides are to be managed through assimilation.

5.1 INPUT PARAMETERS

Urban Creek Quality and Quantity

The City of Ottawa has been monitoring Feedmill Creek for both flow rates and water quality for the years 2011 and 2012. The recorded values for chloride and TSS are summarized in Table 5-1:

Table 5-1: Background Water Quality Sampling Results in the Feedermill Creek Watershed at Station 72-15 and 72-11

Chloride Concentration

Total Suspended Solids Concentration

Station 72-11 Station 72-15 Station 72-11 Station 72-15 Stream (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) March 22nd 2012 236 10 May 3rd 2012 294 2 May 14th 2012 270 2 May 12th 2011 260 3 May 17th 2011 220 5 Source: City of Ottawa Monitoring program Note: There were no April (i.e. spring freshet) measurements.

Based on the above data it is assumed that the post spring freshet values for chloride and TSS in Feedmill Creek are approximately 260mg/L and 3mg/L respectively. In reviewing the data, we note that chloride levels increases during the summer months, likely a factor of upstream activities.

The Feedmill Creek chloride concentration is consistent for most urban creeks which are noted to have a typical chloride concentration of 250mg/l. (source: Table 4-7 of Characterization of Ottawa Watersheds 2011, March)

For the April 1st to May 31th period, an average measured concentration of 250 mg/l is applicable. For the period after May 30th, the chloride concentrations increases to a base level of 500mg/L in the summer months. The reason for this increase in chloride concentration in the summer is unknown.

To define base flow during the meltoff period, the 2012 Feedmill Creek stream flow monitoring data was used as a check of the modeled base flow. A summary of 2012 base flows is presented in Table 5-2.

CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MELT WATER MANAGEMENT REPORT Melt Water Discharges and Assimilation Analysis August 20, 2013


Table 5-2: Base Flows (Lps)

March 22 to March 31 flow

April 1 to April 15 flow

April 15 to April 30th flow

May 1 to May 31th Flow

Feedmill Creek at Station 72-11 Area=955ha.

150 82 119 98

Transposed Base Flow at SDF/Westbrook outlet to MTO Ditch Area= 59 Ha

10 5 8 6

The average 2012 base flow from the Westbrook development is estimated at 7Lps. This is relatively consistent with the estimated base flow estimated in the hydrogeological report of 5Lps.

The March 21st to April 30th total daily inflows into the Westbrook SWMF, were estimated based on statistical snowpack (corresponding to the design year), combined with average daily temperatures and average daily rainfalls.

The Westbrook SWMF discharges will be either the resulting synthetic daily inflow hydrograph or a pump rate as determined sufficient to dilute the SDF MWMF discharges in accordance with the target Chloride concentration of 1000mg/L.

SDF Water Quality and Discharge Rate

Numerous studies are available from which data on SDF melt off water quality is available. For the Ottawa SDF’s, the water quality has a second order polynomial curve starting off at the beginning of the melt at high concentrations and decreasing quickly with time and leveling of near the end of the melt.

Chloride and TSS data collected from various snow disposal facilities is presented in Figure 5-1. The outer greenbelt facilities are more indicative of the proposed Carp SDF and more emphasis is placed on the Strandherd facility as it is similar in snow type and pile size to the proposed Carp facility. The data from the Maple Grove SDF and Innes SDFs were not transferrable because of the reduced pile height.

The Strandherd chloride data is presented as 2 curves. The total of all the measurements is correlated and assumed to be an average representation applicable to an average snow disposal volume. The 2013 chloride concentration was time shifted to be more indicative of a 1 in 10 snow disposal event (refer to Figure 5-2).



Figure 5-1: Average Year Daily Chloride Concentration from the SDF

Source: Strandherd SDF pond outlet chloride concentrations (2011 to 2013)

Figure 5-2: 1 in 10 Year Daily Chloride Concentration from the SDF

Source: Strandherd SDF pond outlet chloride concentrations (2013)

y = 5103.91285e-0.06068x R² = 0.83970

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Chloride (mg/L)

Chloride (mg/L)

y = -0.07372x3 + 9.82116x2 - 453.83386x + 7441.88642 R² = 1.00000

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

0 10 20 30 40 50

Daily Chloride (mg/L)

Chloride (mg/L)



The March 21st to April 30th average daily inflow to the MWMF was estimated based on the melting of the SDF volumes using average daily temperatures and combining with average daily rainfalls. Flows into the pond will vary significantly over the day and depend on the climatic condition, however the target flow rate occurring out of the pond will be set at 25 LPs for the 1 in 10 year snow disposal volume.

5.2 ASSIMILATION ANALYSIS

Option 1

Under Option 1 we modeled that there is no pumping of the Westbrook SWMF to increase flows for mixing of the MWMF runoff. Flows and chloride concentrations in the mixing zone are the result of normal base flows from the Westbrook SWMF combined with the controlled discharge from the SDF MWMF.

Option 2

The Westbrook SWMF is sized to provide quality control and quantity control for the local site conditions of the Westbrook Development. Although water quality control requirements are foreseeably met by the grassed conveyance systems in the development, the pond will provide additional water quality control. The permanent pool volume of 50,000m3 (on site + off site pons) exceeds the required MOE volume for enhanced protection. As per the MOE guidelines, for an area of 59 ha at 35% imperviousness, the required permanent pool volume for enhanced protection is 5,900m3 and the required extended detention volume is 2,400m3.

The available ice free and sediment free zone of the Westbrook SWMF quiescent zone is 40,000m3 and can be pumped to a rate of 40Lps from April 1st to April 17th.

Under option 2 the 40Lps pump rate from the Westbrook SWMF is mixed with the SDF MWMF discharge rate to determine a chloride concentration at the MTO ditch.

Option 3

Under option 3 the Westbrook SWMF will have a set pump discharge and sufficient volume to dilute the MWMF discharges in accordance with the target Chloride concentration of 1000mg/L.

This pump rate will continue subject to the pond volume being exhausted or the MWMF chloride concentration being less than 1000mg/L, whichever occurs first.

Option 4

Option 4 is similar to option 3 except that the 10year event is used to determine the set pump discharge and volume requirement to dilute the SDF MWMF discharges in accordance with the target chloride concentration of 1000mg/L.

Table 5-3 and Table 5-4 summarize the assimilation modeling of the SDF meltoff mixed with the Westbrook Development Storm Water Management facility discharges for the average year and 10 year SDF snow volume events respectively.



Table 5-3: Average Year Assimilation of SDF Chlorides with SWMP

March 21 to March 31 flow(1)

April 1st to April 7th flow

April 8th to April 15th flow

April 16th to April 30th Flow

Opt

ion

1 M

TO

ditc

h at

W

estb

rook

di

scha

rge

w/o

P

umpi

ng

Average Flow 70 L/s 44 L/s 35 L/s 35 L/s

Max. Cl- Conc.

2569 mg/L

(March 21st)

1762 mg/L

(April 3rd)

1342 mg/L

(April 10th)

874 mg/L

(April 18th)

Opt

ion

2 M

TO d

itch

at

Wes

tbro

ok

disc

harg

e w

/Pum

ping

to

40 L

Ps


Max Cl- Conc.

2569 mg/L

(March 21st)

1102 mg/L

(April 2ndt)

774 mg/L

(April 9th)

992 mg/L

(April 17th)

Opt

ion

3 M

TO d

itch

at

Wes

tbro

ok

disc

harg

e w

/Pum

ping

to

50LP

s


Max Cl- Conc.

2730 mg/L

(March 21st)

988 mg/L

(April 2nd)

704 mg/L

(April 9th)

992 mg/L

(April 17th)

Table 5-4: 1 in 10 Year Assimilation of SDF Chlorides with SWMP

March 21 to March 31 flow(1)

April 1st to April 7th flow

April 8th to April 15th flow

April 16th to April 30th Flow

Opt

ion

1 M

TO

ditc

h at

W

estb

rook

di

scha

rge

w/o

P

umpi

ng


Max. Cl- Conc.

3792 mg/L

(March 21st)

1204 mg/L

(April 1st)

1491 mg/L

(April 9th)

786 mg/L

(April 17th)

Opt

ion

3

MTO

ditc

h at

W

estb

rook

di

scha

rge

w/P

umpi

ng to

50

LPs


Max Cl- Conc.

3152 mg/L

(March 31st)

1204 mg/L

(April 1st)

986 mg/L

(April 8th)

897 mg/L

(April 17th)

Opt

ion

4 M

TO d

itch

at

Wes

tbro

ok

disc

harg

e w

/Pum

ping

to

85LP

s


Max Cl- Conc.

3152 mg/L

(March 31st)

998 mg/L

(April 1st)

616 mg/L

(April 9th)

986 mg/L

(April 16th)



(1) From the modeling, the Carp SDF chloride concentrations are the highest during the March 14th to March 31st period, which is outside the fish habitat period. Subsequently all the pumping options are based on pumping after April 1st.

5.3 RESULTS

Water quality from the SDF MWMF should be within the MOE provincial water quality objectives and a TSS compliance limit of 40mg/L. The MOE does not have a surface water objective for chloride concentration.

From a water quality viewpoint, the concentration of chlorides from the snow disposal facility requires a certain downstream assimilation capacity to reduce its downstream impacts. SDF snow melt concentrations are influenced by the precedent climatic conditions and are thus highly variable. Also the snow disposal volume to be discharged will impact the concentration of chlorides and the timing of when these chlorides are released.

Average Year

Under the average year scenario, wherein climatic data, snow disposal volumes and the chloride concentrations are averaged, the MVCA chloride design objective of 1000mg/L at the MTO ditch must be achieved.

Under Option 1, the SDF meltwater is diluted with water from the Westbrook SWMF by a ratio of 0.3:1. The assimilation modeling results in a target chloride concentration of 1000mg/L after April 15th.

Under Option 2, the SDF melt water (i.e. 25Lps) is diluted with water pumped from the Westbrook SWM (i.e. 40Lps) by a ratio of 1.6:1. The assimilation modeling results in a chloride concentration of 1000mg/L after April 4th.

Under Option 3, the April 1st objective of 1000mg/L, at the MTO ditch is obtained with a flow rate and storage volume of 50Lps and 50,000m3 respectively.

1 in 10 Year

The assimilation modeling indicates that, under average conditions, the pumping of water from the Westbrook SWM at a rate of 50Lps can meet the average year conditions. The purpose of the 1:10 assimilation modeling was to provide an indication of the chloride concentrations for the 1:10 snow disposal volume and a worse case chloride concentration scenario (i.e. a later time shift in the meltoff).

Under Option 3, the 1 in 10 year assimilation modeling results in a April 1st chloride concentration of 1200mg/L and the target chloride concentration of 1000mg/L occurs after April 8th.

Under Option 4, the Westbrook SWMF quiescent storage volume, and pump rate, necessary to model the target chloride concentration of 1000mg/L from April 1st on was calculated to be 65,000m3 and 85Lps respectively.

5.4 RECOMMENDATION RESULTING FROM THE ASSIMULATION ANALYSIS

Under option 1 (minimum mixing), there is no additional cost to the Carp SDF. However, natural runoff from the Westbrook development is insufficient to dilute the Carp SDF meltoff to the target concentration of 1000mg/L. The do nothing option is environmentally unacceptable, and was not considered further. To reduce chloride concentrations, the Westbrook SWMF facility quiescent volume is to be mixed with the SDF MWMF outflow as part of the Carp SDF design.

Under option 2, the quiescent volume available in the Westbrook SWMF is pumped at a rate of 40Lps. However, from a chloride concentration point of view, the 40Lps pump rate and 40,000m3 storage volume is insufficient to meet the April 1st target level. This option is judged environmentally less desirable than options 3 or 4.



Under option 3, a 50Lps pump rate and 50,0000m3 storage volume in the Westbrook SWMF is sufficient to meet the chloride target criteria. However it is noted that the 10 year SDF volume and climatic conditions may cause the design chloride objective to be exceeded.

Under option 4, the 85Lps pump rate and 65,000m3 storage volume is required for the 10 year design event. Designing to the 10 year event would add significant costs to the SDF development since it would increase the SWMF size from 5.0 hectares to 8.0 hectares. While this scheme provides the highest dilution benefit, it is financially unsustainable.

Based on the above cost benefit analysis, the Carp SDF design is proceeding on the basis of a dilution flow from the SWMF of 50Lps and 50,000m3 of accessible quiescent storage in order to maintain this flow rate for 15 days in April.

The assimilation analysis should be used as a guide only. On any given day, the measured Chloride concentration will be influenced by the actual SDF snow volume melted, precipitation, temperature, and background chloride concentrations occurring prior to the measurement.

On a real time basis, the City should evaluate the natural melt process at the SDF, and should modify the dilution flow discharges to attain the mixed chloride concentration by the specified date. For that reason and to minimize operational complexity of a pump, a gravity outlet to the MTO ditch is to be pursued further at the detail design stage.

Flooding and Erosion Associated with the SDF

Peak flows generated by melt are typically associated with the spring freshet rather than from locally generated storm runoff. Precipitation events are the more significant in terms of downstream erosion and flooding. The proposed SWMF discharge will maintain its discharge rate below the existing capacity of the discharge culvert to the MTO ditch, thus the SDF discharges will not add to flooding or erosion of the MTO ditches.

West Nile Virus

The MWMF will be fully discharged following the melt period to allow for a cleanup of the pond bottom. Following the cleanup of the dump pad, snow stockpile area and pond, the stormwater from the pad area would be directed to the SWMF. As most of the melt occurs in March and April and considering that the MWMF pond will remain dry for the remainder of the year, we do not anticipate any issues with West Nile virus.


sl w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\surface water_drainage_meltwater & receiving stream assessment\rpt_melt water mgmt report_20130815_final.docx 6-1

6.0 Operational Recommendations

6.1 OPERATING THE MELT WATER POND

During the summer and fall seasons, the melt water facility will be drained and operate as a dry ditch. Discharges will be to the adjacent Storm water management facility.

During the winter disposal period and spring melt period (as defined by real time weather conditions), the pond melt operations will maintain the drain pipe to the storm water management facility in a closed position. Closing the pond drain is done just prior to start of the snow disposal operation. This will ensure chlorides are contained on site and are diluted in a controlled manner.

6.2 MONITORING PROGRAM

Certain substances (in addition to TSS) have been identified as being of particular interest to either the MOE or the City. The Ministry has concerns over the concentration of phenols, oil and grease, and BOD. The City is interested in concentrations of heavy metals including cadmium, zinc, copper, lead and manganese, and concentrations of sodium and chloride in solution. By measuring substance concentrations at both the facility inlet and outlet, the efficiency of the melt water management facility can be determined along with the effluent quality.

To determine if the site is operating as designed, a multiyear sampling and monitoring program is proposed. The program is outlined in Table 6-1 below.

Table 6-1: Monitoring and Sampling Program

Year No. Of Samples

Parameter Sampling Location Carp SDF

MWMF inlet Carp SDF MWMF

outlet After mixing prior to

MTO ditch Outlet 1 to 10 1,2,3 1,2,3 1,2,3 1,2,3 1 to 5

1 to 10 1,2,3 1,2,3 1,2,3 1,2,3 1,2,3 1,2,3

8 (weekly frequency)

1 1 1 1 1

8(weekly) 3 (bi-weekly) 3(bi-weekly) 3(bi-weekly)

1 1 1

TSS Cadmium

Zinc Iron

Copper Manganese

Chloride Sodium

TDS Phenols

BOD Oil & Grease

Mercury

X X X X X X X X X

X

X

X X X X X X X X X

X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X


sl w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\surface water_drainage_meltwater & receiving stream assessment\rpt_melt water mgmt

report_20130815_final.docx A-1

APPENDIX A Comparison of Engineered SDF’s

The proposed Carp SDF physical characteristics were compared to similar SDF’s in the outer Greenbelt as follows:

Physical characteristics of City of Ottawa Outer Greenbelt SDF’s

Site SDF Size (Ha) Snow Foot Print Size (Ha)

Design Volume (m3)

Pond Surface Area (ha)

Pond to SDF ratio

Conroy 5.2 0.32 6.2%

Innes 5.4 2.7 225,000 1.0 18.5%

Strandherd 8.5 4.0 355,000 0.55 6.5%

Carp 7.9 4.9 357,000 1.6 20.2%


sl w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\surface water_drainage_meltwater & receiving stream assessment\rpt_melt water mgmt report_20130815_final.docx B-1

APPENDIX B Evaluation of Carp SDF using traditional Environmental Criteria

In 1991, the Regional Municipality of Ottawa Carleton (RMOC) purchased an 18 ha site, known as the Maple Grove B site. Now identified as 1655 Maple Grove, the site includes a12 hectares (30 acres) non-engineered Snow Disposal Facility (SDF) used to dispose of snow from City streets within the West Urban Community (WUC).

In 2000, the West Urban Boundary was expanded and the Kanata West Community Design study was completed. That community design did not include for development of the Maple Grove B site and its related Works Garage. By its exclusion; the SDF was found to be incompatible with the proposed community design plan.

The 2002 Scoping Analysis of Snow Disposal Facilities Report, submitted by Stantec, made recommendations to ultimately close the Maple Grove B site and to find a replacement WUC site.

In 2007 the City of Ottawa prepared a consolidated plan to leverage the Maple Grove asset. The revised site development strategy included short term retention of the Maple Grove SDF with a planned exit strategy to relocate the facility within the operational area.

Stantec has completed a preliminary evaluation of Environmental Criteria for the Carp SDF as follows:

1. Appropriate setbacks from residential uses and neighbouring properties in accordance with Ministry of Environment Guidelines for setbacks from residential uses and for recommended acceptable noise levels; The MOE “Guidelines for Disposal and Deicing Operations in Ontario” (attached in B1) states “Richards Associates suggest that a dump site on level ground should be 1000 feet from a residential are. A site in a hollow or other location where natural or man-made barriers will baffle the sound may be located closer to residences without creating a nuisance.” The setback from the closest residential unit is 100 meters. This distance is non-conforming to the MOE recommended distance of 1000feet (i.e. 305 meters) from residential areas. However the site shall include a 4 meter high berm and a 2.4 meter high noise fence on this side. The snow pile height is restricted to 5 meters or 0.4 meters below the noise attenuation barrier. The SDF is only used 10 to 20 days/nights a winter season and for those events the proposed noise attenuation features (i.e. berm and fence) will reduce the nuisance noise from the site to acceptable levels.

2. Safe and secure access which does not encourage truck traffic on local roads; Private snow will not be disposed of at the site. Only snow from the West Urban and Village area roads will be disposed of at the Carp SDF site. (see attached catchment area plan) Traffic to the facility will be from Westbrook Road traveling north from Carp Road. There is no traffic on local roads that impact on residential areas.

3. A grading and drainage plan that shows all meltwater can be handled in an environmentally- acceptable fashion A grading and drainage plan has been prepared and is included as part of the site plan submission. That plan shows the pertinent site features proposed for the handling of meltwater. As a point of reference, the MOE guidelines (refer to page 4 in Appendix B1 “Drainage Factors”-

CARP SNOW DISPOSAL FACILITY MELT WATER MANAGEMENT REPORT Error! No text of specified style in document. August 20, 2013

2 sl w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\surface water_drainage_meltwater & receiving stream assessment\rpt_melt water mgmt report_20130815_final.docx

MOE “Guidelines for Snow Disposal and Deicing Operations in Ontario” attached to the report) noted a separation distance of 180 meters between the SDF and a watercourse. This distance is really as a fall back position to the use of dikes. In the past, the 180-meter distance has been used in identifying candidate areas for the locating of a land disposal site. Suggesting a hard distance does two things; first, it discourages the location of an SDF near a watercourse and ensures the SDF is located beyond the floodplain limits. And secondly, in respect of treatment, it recognizes that vegetative strips can provide some form of treatment. The treatment train proposed for the Carp SDF includes a 120-meter long vegetative strip, an oil trap, a 50meter long fore bay and a 100-meter long retention pond before it discharges via the MTO ditches to Feedmill Creek.

4. Specific Environmental Issues addressed: i. Stantec Consulting Ltd. have under taken an existing soil and water quality conditions

survey to establish baseline levels of soil and water components, ii. Presence of any contaminants and the potential for accumulation of any contaminants

that could migrate or be made more dangerous as a result of the snow disposal facility, has been studied by Stantec Consulting Ltd. in the reports attached hereto.

iii. Proximity to drinking wells and impact on them,

• The nearest wells to the temporary SDF are the residential wells on Carp Road and within the Westbrook Business Park. These wells will be monitored during the course of the SDF operation.

iv. Soil stability,

• There are no soil stability issues associated with the site. v. Sub-surface drainage and impact on surrounding properties,

• It is proposed to install a geo-membrane under the whole site, the membrane will seal the site off and not permit sub-surface drainage.

vi. Proximity to any open water courses and potential impacts on them,

• The SDF discharge is with the Westbrook Business Park. Lowering of the profile grade of the channel from the MTO ditch to the Westbrook Road will provide improved outlet to the Westbrook Business Park including a reduction in nuisance ponding. Discharges from the SDF will be controlled by an outlet control and meltwater treatment and flow control pond. Melt discharges from the pond will be will be at a average rate of 30 Lps during the spring freshet season. In relative terms, a discharge during the spring freshet is preferable in terms dilution and in stream impacts. The 30 Lps flow represents an increase of 2.0% and 0.35% on the 2 year and 100 year events, into Feedmill Creek, respectively. Thus the impacts of the proposed discharge on erosion and flooding within the Feedmill Creek watercourse are judged to be minimum. Flow and water quality treatment within the SDF will mitigate its impacts on both the MTO ditches and Feedmill Creek.

vii. Noise and vibration,

• The site operation will include the building of a landscaped berm and a noise fence on top of that to attenuate noise emitting from the site.

• Under the near and long term snow disposal scenario, the snow is to be end dumped and dozer operations will be limited to operating below the noise fence height limit. Accordingly noise emitting from the site is mitigated to acceptable levels.


sl w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\surface water_drainage_meltwater & receiving stream assessment\rpt_melt water mgmt report_20130815_final.docx B-3

viii. Aesthetics,

• Highway 417 is considered an entry route to the Capital and is thus of interest to the NCC. A landscaped berm, and existing coniferous trees along the MTO Highway 417, will buffer the site from highway views.

ix. Seagull control,

• Seagull control with the SDF has not been a significant problem at other similar sites and we see no reason that seagull control will be a problem for this site.

x. Air quality.

• Air Quality associated with other similar SDF’s has not been a previous problem and we see no reason that air quality will be a problem for this site.


sl w:\active\1634_01046_carp_road_snow_disposal_ea\planning\report\surface water_drainage_meltwater & receiving stream assessment\rpt_melt water mgmt report_20130815_final.docx C-1

APPENDIX C Modeling Results

Option 1: Assumes no pumping

Input Parameter: Notes:SWM pond area: 40000 m2 <footprint required for SWM active storage based on most recent modeling

SWM pond perm.pool depth: 1 m < minimum depth of 1.5m required for quality purposes. Top 0.3m ice covered. Bottom 0.2m sedimented.

Exponential Cl- curve: 3447.80189*EXP(-0.00356*t(hr))

Background [Cl-]: 250 mg/L < from JVG

SWM PondPumping Rate: 0 L/s

Max [Cl-] (while pumping) 1762 mg/L

Total Base Melt Area: 590000 m2 Snow depthRunoff C 0.6 113 mm of equivalent waterTotal Snow Melt Area: 79000 m2 Total volume 40002 m3 Runoff C 0.9

DateDays from March 21st

Pumping? (y/n)

SWM pond volume remaining (m3)

Average Daily Precipitation (1992-2011) (mm/day)

Average Temp C0

Base Melt Flow (2yr snow volume) (L/s)

Total Inflow to SWM pond (L/s)

Pumping Rate (L/s)

Total SWM Pond Outlfow (L/s)

SDF Melt Rate (2 year volume) (L/s)

Total Flow (Melt pond) (L/s)

SDF [Cl-] (mg/L)

Total Outflow (L/s)

Effluent Conc (mg/L)

Dilution Ratio

21-Mar 0 n 40000 2.9 1.04 15.6 27.3 0 27.3 8.5 25.0 5104 52.3 2569 1.09313922-Mar 1 n 40000 2.7 0.94 14.0 25.3 0 25.3 9.1 25.0 4803 50.3 2515 1.01021123-Mar 2 n 40000 0.9 1.18 17.7 21.6 0 21.6 9.7 25.0 4521 46.6 2543 0.86257324-Mar 3 n 40000 0.4 1.72 25.7 27.3 0 27.3 10.3 25.0 4254 52.3 2165 1.09131625-Mar 4 n 40000 1.7 2.49 37.3 44.2 0 44.2 10.8 25.0 4004 69.2 1606 1.76807926-Mar 5 n 40000 3.4 2.09 31.3 45.4 0 45.4 11.2 25.0 3768 70.4 1499 1.81596827-Mar 6 n 40000 2.4 2.91 43.6 53.5 0 53.5 11.7 25.0 3546 78.5 1300 2.13959228-Mar 7 n 40000 2.8 3.43 51.4 62.9 0 62.9 12.1 25.0 3338 87.9 1128 2.51571729-Mar 8 n 40000 2.4 3.39 50.8 60.8 0 60.8 12.4 25.0 3141 85.8 1093 2.43135130-Mar 9 n 40000 1.6 3.70 55.4 61.8 0 61.8 12.7 25.0 2956 86.8 1030 2.47109731-Mar 10 n 40000 1.7 3.59 53.8 60.6 0 60.6 13.0 25.0 2782 85.6 990 2.423366

1-Apr 11 n 40000 2.7 3.08 46.2 57.2 0 57.2 13.3 25.0 2618 82.2 970 2.2890482-Apr 12 n 40000 4.1 3.35 0.0 16.9 0 16.9 13.5 25.0 2464 41.9 1570 0.6768613-Apr 13 n 40000 2.3 3.32 0.0 9.2 0 9.2 13.7 25.0 2319 34.2 1762 0.368754-Apr 14 n 40000 5.2 2.65 0.0 21.2 0 21.2 13.9 25.0 2183 46.2 1297 0.8464865-Apr 15 n 40000 1.4 2.70 0.0 5.6 0 5.6 14.0 25.0 2054 30.6 1723 0.2245286-Apr 16 n 40000 3.4 2.81 0.0 13.8 0 13.8 14.2 25.0 1933 38.8 1333 0.5539447-Apr 17 n 40000 2.4 3.01 0.0 10.0 0 10.0 14.3 25.0 1819 35.0 1371 0.399889

8-Apr 18 n 40000 3.7 3.29 0.0 15.1 0 15.1 14.3 25.0 1712 40.1 1161 0.604759-Apr 19 n 40000 1.8 4.06 0.0 7.4 0 7.4 14.4 25.0 1611 32.4 1300 0.296639

10-Apr 20 n 40000 1.2 3.83 0.0 5.0 0 5.0 14.4 25.0 1517 30.0 1305 0.19994411-Apr 21 n 40000 3.6 4.07 0.0 14.8 0 14.8 14.4 25.0 1427 39.8 990 0.59172512-Apr 22 n 40000 2.6 4.16 0.0 10.6 0 10.6 14.4 25.0 1343 35.6 1019 0.42201413-Apr 23 n 40000 3.2 3.71 0.0 12.9 0 12.9 14.4 25.0 1264 37.9 918 0.51788914-Apr 24 n 40000 0.3 4.90 0.0 1.2 0 1.2 14.4 25.0 1190 26.2 1147 0.04752815-Apr 25 n 40000 1.6 5.65 0.0 6.7 0 6.7 14.3 25.0 1120 31.7 936 0.26713916-Apr 26 n 40000 5.7 5.29 0.0 23.2 0 23.2 14.3 25.0 1054 48.2 667 0.92640417-Apr 27 n 40000 1.3 4.39 0.0 5.2 0 5.2 14.2 25.0 992 30.2 865 0.206518-Apr 28 n 40000 0.6 5.71 0.0 2.4 0 2.4 14.1 25.0 933 27.4 874 0.09505619-Apr 29 n 40000 1.7 6.73 0.0 7.1 0 7.1 14.0 25.0 878 32.1 740 0.28270820-Apr 30 n 40000 3.4 6.27 0.0 13.9 0 13.9 13.9 25.0 827 38.9 620 0.55722221-Apr 31 n 40000 4.5 5.96 0.0 18.2 0 18.2 13.8 25.0 778 43.2 555 0.72930622-Apr 32 n 40000 2.6 5.72 0.0 10.4 0 10.4 13.7 25.0 732 35.4 590 0.41791723-Apr 33 n 40000 2.8 5.77 0.0 11.5 0 11.5 13.6 25.0 689 36.5 551 0.46052824-Apr 34 n 40000 2.4 6.17 0.0 9.7 0 9.7 13.4 25.0 648 34.7 537 0.38841725-Apr 35 n 40000 1.6 5.68 0.0 6.5 0 6.5 13.3 25.0 610 31.5 536 0.26140326-Apr 36 n 40000 2.2 5.46 0.0 9.1 0 9.1 13.2 25.0 574 34.1 488 0.36547227-Apr 37 n 40000 2.8 5.98 0.0 11.4 0 11.4 13.0 25.0 541 36.4 449 0.4572528-Apr 38 n 40000 4.2 5.87 0.0 17.1 0 17.1 12.9 25.0 509 42.1 404 0.68488329-Apr 39 n 40000 0.5 6.16 0.0 1.9 0 1.9 12.8 25.0 479 26.9 463 0.07456930-Apr 40 n 40000 2.4 6.94 0.0 9.7 0 9.7 7.8 25.0 451 34.7 395 0.386433

Option 2 Assumes constant pumping from permanent pool of SWM pond at 40L/s to provide Cl- dilution





SWM PondPumping Rate: 40 L/s < iterate to find required maximum rate to maintain pond volume


Total Base Melt Area: 590000 m2 Snow depthRunoff C 0.6 113 mm of equivalent waterTotal Snow Melt Area: 79000 m2 Total volume 40002 m3Runoff C 0.9


Pumping? (y/n)



Average Temp C0



Pumping Rate (L/s)




SDF [Cl-] (mg/L)

Total Outflow (L/s)


Dilution Ratio


1-Apr 11 n 40000 2.7 3.08 46.2 57.2 0 57.2 13.3 25.0 2618 82.2 970 2.2890482-Apr 12 y 40000 4.1 0.0 16.9 40 40.0 13.5 25.0 2464 65.0 1102 1.63-Apr 13 y 38006 2.3 0.0 9.2 40 40.0 13.7 25.0 2319 65.0 1046 1.64-Apr 14 y 35347 5.2 0.0 21.2 40 40.0 13.9 25.0 2183 65.0 993 1.65-Apr 15 y 33719 1.4 0.0 5.6 40 40.0 14.0 25.0 2054 65.0 944 1.66-Apr 16 y 30748 3.4 0.0 13.8 40 40.0 14.2 25.0 1933 65.0 897 1.67-Apr 17 y 28488 2.4 0.0 10.0 40 40.0 14.3 25.0 1819 65.0 854 1.6

8-Apr 18 y 25896 3.7 0.0 15.1 40 40.0 14.3 25.0 1712 65.0 812 1.69-Apr 19 y 23746 1.8 0.0 7.4 40 40.0 14.4 25.0 1611 65.0 774 1.6

10-Apr 20 y 20931 1.2 0.0 5.0 40 40.0 14.4 25.0 1517 65.0 737 1.611-Apr 21 y 17907 3.6 0.0 14.8 40 40.0 14.4 25.0 1427 65.0 703 1.612-Apr 22 y 15729 2.6 0.0 10.6 40 40.0 14.4 25.0 1343 65.0 670 1.613-Apr 23 y 13185 3.2 0.0 12.9 40 40.0 14.4 25.0 1264 65.0 640 1.614-Apr 24 y 10847 0.3 0.0 1.2 40 40.0 14.4 25.0 1190 65.0 611 1.615-Apr 25 y 7494 1.6 0.0 6.7 40 40.0 14.3 25.0 1120 65.0 584 1.616-Apr 26 y 4615 5.7 0.0 23.2 40 40.0 14.3 25.0 1054 65.0 559 1.617-Apr 27 n 3160 1.3 0.0 5.2 0 0.0 14.2 25.0 992 25.0 992 018-Apr 28 n 3606 0.6 0.0 2.4 0 0.0 14.1 25.0 933 25.0 933 019-Apr 29 n 3811 1.7 0.0 7.1 0 0.0 14.0 25.0 878 25.0 878 020-Apr 30 n 4422 3.4 0.0 13.9 0 0.0 13.9 25.0 827 25.0 827 021-Apr 31 n 5626 4.5 0.0 18.2 0 0.0 13.8 25.0 778 25.0 778 022-Apr 32 n 7201 2.6 0.0 10.4 0 0.0 13.7 25.0 732 25.0 732 023-Apr 33 n 8104 2.8 0.0 11.5 0 0.0 13.6 25.0 689 25.0 689 024-Apr 34 n 9098 2.4 0.0 9.7 0 0.0 13.4 25.0 648 25.0 648 025-Apr 35 n 9937 1.6 0.0 6.5 0 0.0 13.3 25.0 610 25.0 610 026-Apr 36 n 10502 2.2 5.5 0.0 9.1 0 0.0 13.2 25.0 574 25.0 574 027-Apr 37 n 11291 2.8 5.98 0.0 11.4 0 0.0 13.0 25.0 541 25.0 541 028-Apr 38 n 12279 4.2 5.87 0.0 17.1 0 0.0 12.9 25.0 509 25.0 509 029-Apr 39 n 13758 0.5 6.16 0.0 1.9 0 0.0 12.8 25.0 479 25.0 479 030-Apr 40 n 13920 2.4 6.94 0.0 9.7 0 0.0 7.8 25.0 451 25.0 451 0

Option 3. Assumes constant pumping from permanent pool of SWM pond at 50L/s to provide Cl- dilution

Input Parameter: Notes:

SWM pond perm.pool volume: 50000 m3 < iterate to find required volume such that pumping can be sustained



SWM PondPumping Rate: 50 L/s < iterate to find required pumping rate for dilution (ensure [Cl-] < 1000mg/L) Apr 1


Total Base Melt Area: 590000 m2 76.0Runoff C 0.6 Snow depthTotal Snow Melt Area: 79000 m2 113 mm of equivalent waterRunoff C 0.9 Total volume 40002 m3


Pumping? (y/n)



Average temp (high temp spread out over 10 hr day)



Pumping Rate (L/s)




SDF [Cl-] (mg/L)

Total Outflow (L/s)


Dilution Ratio

21-Mar 0 n 50000 2.9 1.04 3.81 0.03 15.6 27.3 0 27.3 8.5 25.0 5104 52.3 2569 1.09313922-Mar 1 n 50000 2.7 0.94 3.43 0.03 14.0 25.3 0 25.3 9.1 25.0 4803 50.3 2515 1.01021123-Mar 2 n 50000 0.9 1.18 4.33 0.04 17.7 21.6 0 21.6 9.7 25.0 4521 46.6 2543 0.86257324-Mar 3 n 50000 0.4 1.72 6.28 0.06 25.7 27.3 0 27.3 10.3 25.0 4254 52.3 2165 1.09131625-Mar 4 n 50000 1.7 2.49 9.10 0.08 37.3 44.2 0 44.2 10.8 25.0 4004 69.2 1606 1.76807926-Mar 5 n 50000 3.4 2.09 7.65 0.07 31.3 45.4 0 45.4 11.2 25.0 3768 70.4 1499 1.81596827-Mar 6 n 50000 2.4 2.91 10.65 0.09 43.6 53.5 0 53.5 11.7 25.0 3546 78.5 1300 2.13959228-Mar 7 n 50000 2.8 3.43 12.55 0.11 51.4 62.9 0 62.9 12.1 25.0 3338 87.9 1128 2.51571729-Mar 8 n 50000 2.4 3.39 12.41 0.11 50.8 60.8 0 60.8 12.4 25.0 3141 85.8 1093 2.43135130-Mar 9 n 50000 1.6 3.70 13.52 0.12 55.4 61.8 0 61.8 12.7 25.0 2956 86.8 1030 2.47109731-Mar 10 n 50000 1.7 3.59 13.12 0.12 53.8 60.6 0 60.6 13.0 25.0 2782 85.6 990 2.423366

1-Apr 11 n 50000 2.7 3.08 11.28 0.10 46.2 57.2 0 57.2 13.3 25.0 2618 82.2 970 2.2890482-Apr 12 y 50000 4.1 3.35 0.0 16.9 50 50.0 13.5 25.0 2464 75.0 988 23-Apr 13 y 47142 2.3 3.32 0.0 9.2 50 50.0 13.7 25.0 2319 75.0 940 24-Apr 14 y 43619 5.2 2.65 0.0 21.2 50 50.0 13.9 25.0 2183 75.0 894 25-Apr 15 y 41127 1.4 2.70 0.0 5.6 50 50.0 14.0 25.0 2054 75.0 851 26-Apr 16 y 37292 3.4 2.81 0.0 13.8 50 50.0 14.2 25.0 1933 75.0 811 27-Apr 17 y 34168 2.4 3.01 0.0 10.0 50 50.0 14.3 25.0 1819 75.0 773 28-Apr 18 y 30712 3.7 3.29 0.0 15.1 50 50.0 14.3 25.0 1712 75.0 737 29-Apr 19 y 27698 1.8 4.06 0.0 7.4 50 50.0 14.4 25.0 1611 75.0 704 2

10-Apr 20 y 24019 1.2 3.83 0.0 5.0 50 50.0 14.4 25.0 1517 75.0 672 211-Apr 21 y 20131 3.6 4.07 0.0 14.8 50 50.0 14.4 25.0 1427 75.0 642 212-Apr 22 y 17089 2.6 4.16 0.0 10.6 50 50.0 14.4 25.0 1343 75.0 614 2

13-Apr 23 y 13681 3.2 3.71 0.0 12.9 50 50.0 14.4 25.0 1264 75.0 588 214-Apr 24 y 10479 0.3 4.90 0.0 1.2 50 50.0 14.4 25.0 1190 75.0 563 215-Apr 25 y 6262 1.6 5.65 0.0 6.7 50 50.0 14.3 25.0 1120 75.0 540 216-Apr 26 y 2519 5.7 5.29 0.0 23.2 50 50.0 14.3 25.0 1054 75.0 518 217-Apr 27 n 200 1.3 4.39 0.0 5.2 0 0.0 14.2 25.0 992 25.0 992 018-Apr 28 n 646 0.6 5.71 0.0 2.4 0 0.0 14.1 25.0 933 25.0 933 019-Apr 29 n 851 1.7 6.73 0.0 7.1 0 0.0 14.0 25.0 878 25.0 878 020-Apr 30 n 1462 3.4 6.27 0.0 13.9 0 0.0 13.9 25.0 827 25.0 827 021-Apr 31 n 2666 4.5 5.96 0.0 18.2 0 0.0 13.8 25.0 778 25.0 778 022-Apr 32 n 4241 2.6 5.72 0.0 10.4 0 0.0 13.7 25.0 732 25.0 732 023-Apr 33 n 5144 2.8 5.77 0.0 11.5 0 0.0 13.6 25.0 689 25.0 689 024-Apr 34 n 6138 2.4 6.17 0.0 9.7 0 0.0 13.4 25.0 648 25.0 648 025-Apr 35 n 6977 1.6 5.68 0.0 6.5 0 0.0 13.3 25.0 610 25.0 610 026-Apr 36 n 7542 2.2 5.46 0.0 9.1 0 0.0 13.2 25.0 574 25.0 574 027-Apr 37 n 8331 2.8 5.98 0.0 11.4 0 0.0 13.0 25.0 541 25.0 541 028-Apr 38 n 9319 4.2 5.87 0.0 17.1 0 0.0 12.9 25.0 509 25.0 509 029-Apr 39 n 10798 0.5 6.16 0.0 1.9 0 0.0 12.8 25.0 479 25.0 479 030-Apr 40 n 10960 2.4 6.94 0.0 9.7 0 0.0 7.8 25.0 451 25.0 451 0

10YEAR VOL, Option 1: Assumes no pumping



Background [Cl-]: 250 mg/L

SWM PondPumping Rate: 0 L/s


Total Base Melt Area: 590000 m2 Snow depthRunoff C 0.6 189 mm of equivalent waterTotal Snow Melt Area: 79000 m2 66906Runoff C 0.9




Pumping? (y/n)


Average Daily Precipitation (1992-2011) (mm/day) 1.04 15.6


Pumping Rate (L/s)




SDF [Cl-] (mg/L)

Total Outflow (L/s)


Dilution Ratio


1-Apr 11 n 40000 2.7 3.35 50.2 61.3 0 61.3 20.1 25.0 3540 86.3 1204 2.4501482-Apr 12 n 40000 4.1 3.32 49.8 66.7 0 66.7 20.5 25.0 3283 91.7 1077 2.6675013-Apr 13 n 40000 2.3 2.65 39.8 49.0 0 49.0 20.9 25.0 3040 74.0 1193 1.9597644-Apr 14 n 40000 5.2 2.70 40.4 61.6 0 61.6 21.3 25.0 2811 86.6 989 2.463725

5-Apr 15 n 40000 1.4 2.81 42.1 47.8 0 47.8 21.5 25.0 2595 72.8 1056 1.9104536-Apr 16 n 40000 3.4 3.01 45.1 59.0 0 59.0 21.8 25.0 2393 84.0 888 2.3585097-Apr 17 n 40000 2.4 3.29 49.4 59.4 0 59.4 21.9 25.0 2203 84.4 829 2.3742948-Apr 18 n 40000 3.7 4.06 0.0 15.1 0 15.1 22.1 25.0 2025 40.1 1356 0.604759-Apr 19 n 40000 1.8 3.83 0.0 7.4 0 7.4 22.2 25.0 1859 32.4 1491 0.296639

10-Apr 20 n 40000 1.2 4.07 0.0 5.0 0 5.0 22.2 25.0 1704 30.0 1462 0.19994411-Apr 21 n 40000 3.6 4.16 0.0 14.8 0 14.8 22.2 25.0 1560 39.8 1073 0.59172512-Apr 22 n 40000 2.6 3.71 0.0 10.6 0 10.6 22.2 25.0 1426 35.6 1077 0.42201413-Apr 23 n 40000 3.2 4.90 0.0 12.9 0 12.9 22.1 25.0 1302 37.9 943 0.51788914-Apr 24 n 40000 0.3 5.65 0.0 1.2 0 1.2 22.0 25.0 1188 26.2 1145 0.04752815-Apr 25 n 40000 1.6 5.29 0.0 6.7 0 6.7 21.9 25.0 1082 31.7 907 0.26713916-Apr 26 n 40000 5.7 4.39 0.0 23.2 0 23.2 21.7 25.0 986 48.2 632 0.92640417-Apr 27 n 40000 1.3 5.71 0.0 5.2 0 5.2 21.5 25.0 897 30.2 786 0.206518-Apr 28 n 40000 0.6 6.73 0.0 2.4 0 2.4 21.2 25.0 816 27.4 767 0.09505619-Apr 29 n 40000 1.7 6.27 0.0 7.1 0 7.1 20.9 25.0 742 32.1 634 0.28270820-Apr 30 n 40000 3.4 5.96 0.0 13.9 0 13.9 20.6 25.0 675 38.9 523 0.55722221-Apr 31 n 40000 4.5 5.72 0.0 18.2 0 18.2 20.3 25.0 615 43.2 461 0.72930622-Apr 32 n 40000 2.6 5.77 0.0 10.4 0 10.4 19.9 25.0 560 35.4 469 0.41791723-Apr 33 n 40000 2.8 6.17 0.0 11.5 0 11.5 19.5 25.0 511 36.5 429 0.46052824-Apr 34 n 40000 2.4 5.68 0.0 9.7 0 9.7 19.0 25.0 467 34.7 407 0.38841725-Apr 35 n 40000 1.6 5.46 0.0 6.5 0 6.5 18.6 25.0 428 31.5 391 0.26140326-Apr 36 n 40000 2.2 5.98 0.0 9.1 0 9.1 18.1 25.0 393 34.1 354 0.36547227-Apr 37 n 40000 2.8 5.87 0.0 11.4 0 11.4 17.6 25.0 361 36.4 326 0.4572528-Apr 38 n 40000 4.2 6.16 0.0 17.1 0 17.1 17.1 25.0 333 42.1 299 0.68488329-Apr 39 n 40000 0.5 6.94 0.0 1.9 0 1.9 16.5 25.0 307 26.9 303 0.07456930-Apr 40 n 40000 2.4 0.0 9.7 0 9.7 16.0 25.0 284 34.7 275 0.386433

10 YEAR VOL, Option 3. Assumes constant pumping from permanent pool of SWM pond at 50L/s to provide Cl- dilution


SWM pond perm.pool depth: 1.25 m < minimum depth of 1.5m required for quality purposes. Top 0.3m ice covered. Bottom 0.2m sedimented. 60,000m3 required (from avg year analysis)


SWM PondPumping Rate: 50 L/s < iterate to find required maximum rate to maintain pond volume


Total Base Melt Area: 590000 m2 Snow depthRunoff C 0.6 189 mm of equivalent waterTotal Snow Melt Area: 79000 m2 66906Runoff C 0.9




Pumping? (y/n)


Average Daily Precipitation (1992-2011) (mm/day) 1.04 15.6


Pumping Rate (L/s)




SDF [Cl-] (mg/L)

Total Outflow (L/s)


Dilution Ratio


1-Apr 11 y 50000 2.7 3.35 50.2 61.3 50 61.3 20.1 25.0 3540 86.3 1204 2.52-Apr 12 y 50000 4.1 3.32 49.8 66.7 50 66.7 20.5 25.0 3283 91.7 1077 2.73-Apr 13 y 50000 2.3 2.65 39.8 49.0 50 50.0 20.9 25.0 3040 75.0 1180 2.04-Apr 14 y 49913 5.2 2.70 40.4 61.6 50 50.0 21.3 25.0 2811 75.0 1104 2.0

5-Apr 15 y 50915 1.4 2.81 42.1 47.8 50 50.0 21.5 25.0 2595 75.0 1032 2.06-Apr 16 y 50721 3.4 3.01 45.1 59.0 50 59.0 21.8 25.0 2393 84.0 888 2.47-Apr 17 y 50721 2.4 3.29 49.4 59.4 50 59.4 21.9 25.0 2203 84.4 829 2.48-Apr 18 y 50721 3.7 4.06 0.0 15.1 50 50.0 22.1 25.0 2025 75.0 842 2.09-Apr 19 y 47708 1.8 3.83 0.0 7.4 50 50.0 22.2 25.0 1859 75.0 786 2.0

10-Apr 20 y 44028 1.2 4.07 0.0 5.0 50 50.0 22.2 25.0 1704 75.0 735 2.011-Apr 21 y 40140 3.6 4.16 0.0 14.8 50 50.0 22.2 25.0 1560 75.0 687 2.012-Apr 22 y 37098 2.6 3.71 0.0 10.6 50 50.0 22.2 25.0 1426 75.0 642 2.013-Apr 23 y 33690 3.2 4.90 0.0 12.9 50 50.0 22.1 25.0 1302 75.0 601 2.014-Apr 24 y 30489 0.3 5.65 0.0 1.2 50 50.0 22.0 25.0 1188 75.0 563 2.015-Apr 25 y 26271 1.6 5.29 0.0 6.7 50 50.0 21.9 25.0 1082 75.0 527 216-Apr 26 n 22528 5.7 4.39 0.0 23.2 0 0.0 21.7 25.0 986 25.0 986 017-Apr 27 n 24529 1.3 5.71 0.0 5.2 0 0.0 21.5 25.0 897 25.0 897 018-Apr 28 n 24975 0.6 6.73 0.0 2.4 0 0.0 21.2 25.0 816 25.0 816 019-Apr 29 n 25181 1.7 6.27 0.0 7.1 0 0.0 20.9 25.0 742 25.0 742 020-Apr 30 n 25791 3.4 5.96 0.0 13.9 0 0.0 20.6 25.0 675 25.0 675 021-Apr 31 n 26995 4.5 5.72 0.0 18.2 0 0.0 20.3 25.0 615 25.0 615 022-Apr 32 n 28570 2.6 5.77 0.0 10.4 0 0.0 19.9 25.0 560 25.0 560 023-Apr 33 n 29473 2.8 6.17 0.0 11.5 0 0.0 19.5 25.0 511 25.0 511 024-Apr 34 n 30468 2.4 5.68 0.0 9.7 0 0.0 19.0 25.0 467 25.0 467 025-Apr 35 n 31307 1.6 5.46 0.0 6.5 0 0.0 18.6 25.0 428 25.0 428 026-Apr 36 n 31871 2.2 5.98 0.0 9.1 0 0.0 18.1 25.0 393 25.0 393 027-Apr 37 n 32661 2.8 5.87 0.0 11.4 0 0.0 17.6 25.0 361 25.0 361 028-Apr 38 n 33648 4.2 6.16 0.0 17.1 0 0.0 17.1 25.0 333 25.0 333 029-Apr 39 n 35128 0.5 6.94 0.0 1.9 0 0.0 16.5 25.0 307 25.0 307 030-Apr 40 n 35289 2.4 0.0 9.7 0 0.0 16.0 25.0 284 25.0 284 0

10 YEAR VOL, Option 4. Assumes constant pumping from permanent pool of SWM pond to provide Cl- dilution to 1000mg/L on April 1st

Input Parameter: Notes:

SWM pond perm.pool volume: 65000 m3 < iterate to find required volume such that pumping can be sustained


SWM PondPumping Rate: 85 L/s < iterate to find required pumping rate for dilution (ensure [Cl-] < 1000mg/L) Apr 1


Total Base Melt Area: 590000 m2Runoff C 0.6 Snow depthTotal Snow Melt Area: 79000 m2 189Runoff C 0.9 66906


Pumping? (y/n)






Pumping Rate (L/s)




SDF [Cl-] (mg/L)

Total Outflow (L/s)


Dilution Ratio


1-Apr 11 y 65000 2.7 3.08 46.2 57.2 85 85.0 20.1 25.0 3540 110.0 998 3.42-Apr 12 y 62600 4.1 3.35 50.2 67.2 85 85.0 20.5 25.0 3283 110.0 939 3.43-Apr 13 y 61059 2.3 3.32 49.8 59.0 85 85.0 20.9 25.0 3040 110.0 884 3.44-Apr 14 y 58811 5.2 2.65 39.8 60.9 85 85.0 21.3 25.0 2811 110.0 832 3.45-Apr 15 y 56732 1.4 2.70 40.4 46.0 85 85.0 21.5 25.0 2595 110.0 783 3.46-Apr 16 y 53366 3.4 2.81 42.1 56.0 85 85.0 21.8 25.0 2393 110.0 737 3.47-Apr 17 y 50860 2.4 3.01 45.1 55.1 85 85.0 21.9 25.0 2203 110.0 694 3.4

8-Apr 18 y 48278 3.7 3.29 49.4 64.5 85 85.0 22.1 25.0 2025 110.0 653 3.49-Apr 19 y 46505 1.8 4.06 0.0 7.4 85 85.0 22.2 25.0 1859 110.0 616 3.4

10-Apr 20 y 39802 1.2 3.83 0.0 5.0 85 85.0 22.2 25.0 1704 110.0 580 3.411-Apr 21 y 32889 3.6 4.07 0.0 14.8 85 85.0 22.2 25.0 1560 110.0 548 3.412-Apr 22 y 26824 2.6 4.16 0.0 10.6 85 85.0 22.2 25.0 1426 110.0 517 3.413-Apr 23 y 20391 3.2 3.71 0.0 12.9 85 85.0 22.1 25.0 1302 110.0 489 3.414-Apr 24 y 14166 0.3 4.90 0.0 1.2 85 85.0 22.0 25.0 1188 110.0 463 3.415-Apr 25 y 6924 1.6 5.65 0.0 6.7 85 85.0 21.9 25.0 1082 110.0 439 3.416-Apr 26 n 157 5.7 5.29 0.0 23.2 0 0.0 21.7 25.0 986 25.0 986 017-Apr 27 n 2158 1.3 4.39 0.0 5.2 0 0.0 21.5 25.0 897 25.0 897 018-Apr 28 n 2605 0.6 5.71 0.0 2.4 0 0.0 21.2 25.0 816 25.0 816 019-Apr 29 n 2810 1.7 6.73 0.0 7.1 0 0.0 20.9 25.0 742 25.0 742 020-Apr 30 n 3420 3.4 6.27 0.0 13.9 0 0.0 20.6 25.0 675 25.0 675 021-Apr 31 n 4624 4.5 5.96 0.0 18.2 0 0.0 20.3 25.0 615 25.0 615 022-Apr 32 n 6199 2.6 5.72 0.0 10.4 0 0.0 19.9 25.0 560 25.0 560 023-Apr 33 n 7102 2.8 5.77 0.0 11.5 0 0.0 19.5 25.0 511 25.0 511 024-Apr 34 n 8097 2.4 6.17 0.0 9.7 0 0.0 19.0 25.0 467 25.0 467 025-Apr 35 n 8936 1.6 5.68 0.0 6.5 0 0.0 18.6 25.0 428 25.0 428 026-Apr 36 n 9500 2.2 5.46 0.0 9.1 0 0.0 18.1 25.0 393 25.0 393 027-Apr 37 n 10290 2.8 5.98 0.0 11.4 0 0.0 17.6 25.0 361 25.0 361 028-Apr 38 n 11278 4.2 5.87 0.0 17.1 0 0.0 17.1 25.0 333 25.0 333 029-Apr 39 n 12757 0.5 6.16 0.0 1.9 0 0.0 16.5 25.0 307 25.0 307 030-Apr 40 n 12918 2.4 6.94 0.0 9.7 0 0.0 16.0 25.0 284 25.0 284 0

final report - ottawa...final report . prepared for: city of ottawa 100 constellation crescent 6th...

Documents