HomeMy WebLinkAboutSanitary Master Plan.pdfMAPLE Rf�GE
City of Maple Ridge
A=COM
Sanitary Master Plan
Final Report
Prepared by:
AECOM
3292 Production Way, Floor 4
Burnaby, BC, Canada V5A 4R4
www.aecom.com
Project Number:
60285153
Date:
November 7t", 2016
604 444 6400 tel
604 294 8597 fax
* . . ' �COM AECOM
� 3292 Production Way, Floor 4 604 444 6400 tel
Burnaby, BC, Canada V5A 4R4 604 294 8597 fax
www.aecom.com
November 7'", 2016
City of Maple Ridge
Engineering Department
11995 Haney Place
Maple Ridge, BC
V2X 6A9
Attention:
Regarding:
Joe Dingwall, P.Eng.
Manager of Utility Engineering
City of Maple Ridge Sanitary Master Plan
Final Report
Please find attached our Final Report for the Sewer Master Plan. This report summarizes the
following:
• Approach to model development;
• Model calibration results and parameters used;
• Future growth projections and flow estimates (2018, 2023 and OCP);
• Hydraulic assessment and results for various time horizons; and
• Recommendations on capital upgrades
We look forward to discussing the report with you at your earliest convenience. In the meantime, if
you have any questions please don't hesitate to contact me at 604.444.6400.
Sincerely,
AECOM Canada Ltd.
Final Report - Maple Ridge Smp Rev20161107
MAPLE RIOGE � .
Distribution List
# of Hard Copies PDF Required Name
Sanitary Master Plan
Final Report
Revision Log
Revision #
1
2
3
4
5
Revised By
Suman Shergill
Chris ODonnell
Chris ODonnell
Chris ODonnell
David Lee
AECOM Signatures
Prepared by:
c�� �
Chris O'D nell, P.Eng
Project Engineer
Date
July 20, 2014
November 6, 2014
December 8, 2014
April 23, 2015
November 7, 2016
Revised by:
David Lee, P.Eng
Senior Infrastructure Planning Engineer
Final Report - Maple Ridge Smp Rev20161107
Draft Final Report
Final Report
Revised Final Report
Final Report
Revised Final Report
Reviewed by:
�� .'r�,
,� ,,; .
Jason Colenutt, P.Eng.
Project Manager
MAPLE RlOGE � .
Table of Contents
Sanitary Master Plan
Final Report
page
1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................4
1.1 Overview .............................................................................................................................................. 4
1.2 Key Objectives ..................................................................................................................................... 6
1.3 Past Technical Memorandums ............................................................................................................ 6
1.4 Key Terms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................. 7
2 Model Development and Calibration ...........................................................................................8
2.1 GIS Integration ..................................................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Model Development ............................................................................................................................. 8
2.3 Existing Sewage Flow Generation ..................................................................................................... 10
2.4 Dry Weather Calibration Results ....................................................................................................... 16
2.5 Pump Station Inflow and Outflow ...................................................................................................... 18
2.6 Wet Weather Calibration Results ...................................................................................................... 21
2.7 Model Validation ................................................................................................................................ 22
3 Future Scenarios ........................................................................................................................23
3.1 Land-Use / Planning Scenario Overview ........................................................................................... 23
3.2 Future Flow Generation ..................................................................................................................... 25
4 Sewer System Assessment .......................................................................................................27
4.1 Hydraulic Capacity Criteria ................................................................................................................ 27
4.2 Gravity Sewer Assessment ................................................................................................................ 27
4.3 Inverted Siphon Sewer Assessment .................................................................................................. 34
4.4 Pump Station and Forcemain Assessment ....................................................................................... 35
4.5 Recommended Upgrades .................................................................................................................. 37
4.6 I&I Assessment .................................................................................................................................. 39
4.7 Thornhill Urban Reserve .................................................................................................................... 42
4.8 Backwater Effects .............................................................................................................................. 44
4.9 CCTV Database Specifications ......................................................................................................... 49
5 Conclusion and Recommendations ......................................................................................... 52
5.1 Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 52
5.2 Recommendations .............................................................................................................................53
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Existing Sewer Network and Flow Monitoring Locations
Figure 2.1 Dry Weather GWI Rate ...................................................
Figure 2.2 Residential Diurnal Curves .............................................
Figure 2.3 ICI Diurnal Curve ............................................................
Figure 2.4 Dry Weather Calibration Results - Site 8 .......................
Figure 2.5 Dry Weather Calibration Results - Site 9 .......................
Figure 2.6 Dry Weather Calibration Results - Site 10 .....................
Figure 2.7 Katzie IDF Curve with Calibration Events Overlaid........
Final Report - Maple Ridge Smp Rev20161107
.5
14
15
16
17
17
18
21
MAPLE RlOGE � .
Figure 3.1 Population Growth Areas ...........................................
Figure 4.1 Current Scenario Model Results ................................
Figure 4.2 2018 Scenario Model Results ....................................
Figure 4.3 2023 Scenario Model Results ....................................
Figure 4.4 OCP Scenario Model Results .....................................
Figure 4.5 Recommended Upgrades ..........................................
Figure 4.6 I&I Monitoring Sites ....................................................
Figure 4.7 Extent of Sewer Backwatering due to Pump Settings
Figure 4.8 Effects of 225 Street Pump Station Shutdown ...........
List of Tables
Table 1.1 — Key Terms/Abbreviations ................................................
Table 2.1 — Observed Sewage Flow for Three Primary Sites ...........,
Table 2.2 — Measured GW I Rates ......................................................
Table 2.3 — Observed 225 Street Pump Station Flow ........................
Table 2.4 — Pump Station Calibration Summary ................................
Table 2.5 — RTK Parameters Used for Calibration .............................
Table 4.1 — Local / Collector Sewer Capacity Summary (Q < 40 L/s)
Table 4.2 — Trunk Sewer Capacity Summary (Q > 40 L/s).
Table 4.3 — Inverted Siphon Capacity Assessment
Table 4.4 — Pump Station Capacity Assessment ...
Table 4.5 — 5yr:24hr I&I Flow Rate Estimates ........
Table 4.6 — Fields for City Pipe Database ..............
Table 4.7 — Inspection History Fields .....................
Table 4.8 — Maintenance History Fields .................
Appendices
Appendix A Wet Weather Calibration Results
Appendix B Model Validation Results
Appendix C Full Size Hard Copy Maps of Model Results and Proposed Upgrades
Appendix D Max HGL Profile of Trunk Sewers
Appendix E Tabular Summary of Proposed Pipe Upgrades
Final Report - Maple Ridge Smp Rev20161107
Sanitary Master Plan
Final Report
24
30
31
32
33
38
40
45
47
.7
11
13
19
20
22
28
28
34
36
39
49
50
51
� � ��0� Sanitary Master Plan
` - � Final Report
Introduction
1.1 Overview
The City of Maple Ridge has an estimated population of 79,142 residents according to 2013 BC Stats. The City's
sanitary sewage collection system, which serves the majority of the City, is composed of 22 catchments, with 31
pump stations and over 290 km of pipes. In 2002, AECOM developed a Sanitary Master Plan for the City that
focused on assessing the capacity of the sanitary trunk sewers. The model for the 2002 Master Plan was developed
using HYDRA software, which was widely used at the time for sewer assessment. The City has experienced
significant growth since the last master plan and there was a need to develop a more comprehensive hydro-dynamic
(flow hydrology and hydraulics) model of the sewer system as part of the continuing stewardship of these assets.
The City retained AECOM to develop a new hydro-dynamic using Inovyze's InfoSWMM software package. The new
model includes the City's entire sanitary sewer system excluding service laterals and private systems, up to Metro
Vancouver's Katzie Pump Station. Figure 1.1 shows the City's existing sanitary sewer system up to the Katzie Pump
Station. As illustrated in Figure 1.1, a large percentage of the City's total land area is not currently serviced by a
municipal sewer system; however, these areas are primarily agricultural properties that make up approximately 15°/o
of the total population.
With exception to the lands within the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR), most of the City is within Metro Vancouver's
Fraser Sewerage Area (FSA); this implies that most properties in the City are permitted to connect to the municipal
sewer system and drain to Metro Vancouver's regional system and treatment facilities. There will be an ongoing
demand to expand the City's sewer system to service the area's ultimate development potential, mainly in the
Albion, Silver Valley, and Thornhill areas.
4
� .��
� ,�
-,
: -�� ,s
.,� � �",. � � � �,, .r � � : � ��
. , � � " ����� ;.���v ��UBC �-� � �� � �� -s. s^�" :' "mf, i 'ir S�'��� •R ���x� �'��'^��i���'�'���.r h �� �.`�'r:�-'�� - � �
_ ��� � i. ,t r, .5 � �1 J � �" � .t � x -� r�S�`T����`�i�`'*ris�s cis�' �r� � ! �`� �. � *`
` 5� e� � �y�. '�a.,a,. ��� �`� ;�` ;a�. ?��z�'�x ;�,ei §':{�'kas o;.nt#.� ��°^#���.`` �
_. � � . . � . � - � �r�; � � x-� F w , '� � � 'a ' � ,� .
. . � A-' 'iS � A� vF.J M y '- - _ �
� �`��� � " � ���� �� � � � Maple Ridge
, � ,__ � v �S�ar� � � :�.� .� �> ' ��' ��� ��. ; �''
. - ���� ��.-����� ���'�+�� 'Y ����� �� ,� � r s, Sanitary Master Plan
, � , ��� � I ,. ° � ���x,� ��, �
�,
� ' .. ;. , i , _�s� 6'-;.
m.
. �� .� , . i�,
P . - - � , �-� :
�� �i ��
�r . , y ,� �_ :.,; ��� -. `'�j
sc` °
.;. �. .. , �a�ir � , ��' r�� � �.i .q��
:..,._�i .. � . �.. _ . _ -
..,�,. .�..� .
-_ .. ,. . .. � �' ��,�$"----n. - �.-� -
'' ' . � 7 :, . . � - ..,'. � - .. � -
� ° � �,�� ���� � � �� � r Legend
- PS 5136'. `� I '� ���a�� ���, � �,� `/
� a � b ����,a� �.+�� ,,.m.�� � F�'" � -
. .
� ,.
�
. . -; ,� - y � y ;� ain a
.
Q
. -�-- .;
` � � i , : g: u ���;., ,�
� ; -= r ���,, , ,� R G uge
_ k ; -
� � , ,.'' � , �` ��`_ ,°���;� ��� •�,�,- �- �
. - � ,. ,
,.; °
. v
, ' � � ,s. . '(��� � � � e r . . � . ., �i., ,�a„ ,�.:, - �. � �,;, ,� i„ � � �;- � ��„+ ..�w � �s -.`;� �;,,.�- rn .,�,.r-
' - I��,� � _� �L:, .l-.�-' : � 1 ?F.F .f. ;y:- Fri'�, '�R
�-._'. .. . �� .� .. a
r�� ,'ea�i+r �. ; �, wa �, . y� �.;4� S' r.`�'` ��P'` �
�: , � ' ' �t' r.: f �. �.s� � ��.
- �.� � � 3 � ��` �� -�� ...�:-�� Monitorin Site 2013
I� E 3:uT�;; �• s �g � �'�X� ��:� � �y v .�'_ �v�' .; g � )
.S �' . . ,, � � ���,, �- �, ..S=c, - `X. �`��s;: '� ��'�! �;� . �a.�::, .i 9�.a � - ".� - � y �.
. �"'`�i'f��-��,�,'+ � �� � atl.. _ �:.:s� .mr _m3" 17. a f;'._, - 7 -:.� g
. ,
G
.. _ '" -. � - .''�� .A ,Lu _ .. � . - 'v4 _ �aqb'w-., . ��: d' q
�
�. - . . .. . , u , �:
- � Y�. � � F I �'e r` - ,..�... � ',.�� '�.
. � , ., �� 7 ;. �
... -�.. , , .
,.
.
�, -� , 3 � � " ,n,-.:.
r Y. 7 �
,, .:.. , � � .,, _ � _ Y� , ,;: �� ��� � � .�� u a ions
,
. _. � i ,, E . . _ � � � �;�r v, ar �� � �'' x � �
yq� � :. W . �,:�
�I .,'�. ; . . , , ..:;' : : � i . __ . ..::-. "�:�1: ., �' '° . . .r �•�. - .,��.,.�k
�� <, • : � pS t�
� .� .; ; ,',e. : _ , , , _ ..,_a, ;; � s,: ;:e6 � �.,. � �:
.� � � ; : . � �, z f�� _ ,g �� � "�� ��. � �:�< P m
, , . ., . � . , .;; . .,._. � �. :_r ,% � - � �« �. ,
. _ ... ., �... C-� . .. � r .,.j,. _�. ..,,r �, __��
_ � ,.; _ , _ � ._ , .. . . !; •�:s: �F . .�;. . . :; v . -YFern-PS � '�d �� � ��-_
. - 1. . a.: . _ r.:..,Y.. : :'fe:� �_._` ��� e $ ., °:�"' _ .i%�
, r
� `
� - � ����:� �. . -.. ► �--.:..__..__ �� , ..�,.. , , .:. ,tix: � - .. .!. r. 1 '��:t..�d �{h,
�. ,.. . __ . -. t . �... -.. .. . .. ... �-,.:_< ..,. �,�; � �s� ' �.. a�. . ; s
.. _. �� ... .., . ,�. , .:��.::- .: . � . ��;- :. . . � , ,.. : ,'� _... � �.. �: a :-,�r�" .�� �'s
- ?A..�. .� .�*" S: •.w� � � a. �' ,� '�', �,. :a � �"a�' �?..
, , � � „ .�,. „ , . � , . � . „ �.. �._ � . , . ..Y < 3 _ � � ��,' � �� _ . ._ '�: � anit ewer
� � , . _ ,. . _. .� �� , .<.. , �� � . � _ � .___��.�,��.,,� �.� _,_ �.�, � � , - � �
,
-- - „ _ �_ _. _._ . .. . � _ _ .� -- -- - - . _.. . ,.;: ��� ;�,. ,_. .� �, .,.� ,. � fi�'.
� �
S ar S
,. .m;� � ,. : , . .._ F .. _.;,: - ,-, �. _ :� �u -���, �-..� x � s �;
,_.... ,, . .o. . ., .. E _� _ _ . ;' , , _ . .,. -v �-, �h ;t� ;�� �
_ k � ,.. � _ . ,� , � ;_ . ..�.,, . ,a . ��__.:. . �-,
, ...a. . .,r� :_.. �-., €_ . .- �: ,. r .��- .o. .:c ..� . E'�". .a ,e,
. . �' �`_..: � ...i.. -� .,,�'�� �.e .._. :c� a �..'". } a .i...� . .,„... ._.-. !- .�.,...: p;L* .�'$4' ..`� �t +�`
,.{,. . ... . ... � .. v. .�,,. ��r._' .@+I ,t... :. .;.'. • ,� .,., a . i �. , �.r.
;. . .a . � � . .. ,- k - , t�.-s, �- � - r.�_. ,. . , � . ,i4 . s. - - ,�-'i� �:.� � '�,,�, "'
q�,.,., : . . ...�.. . . .. . .-..- - �.� � �...-...... , . . . a.e.H_. _ �,'7*- .�. , .��- .- ���p a ':t; � �� +.,_..,.
. ., . . ,� �. �,.. ...:..,.:_.. -. .�--.. ........,-,...-. _ . �,:-�-, .9...:_., ..,,...... .�,�., r.'S6 t ..r:�_E a- '�`�3 �} C �
. .. �p .
�.
�, . -��: . ,:F ..� �� r..r -; �..a . . �5.ai. .d.-.l �zM '� '��...... J . � ,'3a;.., t ,.e.f��. �r4 ,,�
yq,,e , �-.. - .. a . � : . . ,,, . . ,, i. . _ .. -:. . � _„_.i . p,. �..� ; rr+� _ * � �: `, I
. . . i. . I _ . . -.:. ..:.. .. ,.. .. � . , .�,,,. :. . u �� � � a� . a� � � � � � '
. < .. � � . . , . .. , , , .,. a� F k., iz t . v �� t.,.
_�. � x_ t �;
X .. .. _. ,.-w , _ ..'r.,.�1C��"'..�.�::. . �- �. . .�,� .. :-�: . '�. ...ii ,,.�`•, . .��. "1� � {, ti349��l�[S S.g L,... ..lq"„3
r
I � .'F.+ R � �A. .'�e .i� �:A�F "+�"
,rk �. �.
i
..-.' .. ., ,�".
� . _ _ . . ... . > _ .�P �...�- s� �, �. .r_ . �� . . � ,��� . . -;�� Forcemains
, , , � �. �x ' �-
... �.. . - =-�_ ..: .�.,.,., �i� .,,<:1.-• _,.... ,e. ,.r.y ,. �-- �� � �..-.:l..r., F S. g,�F. .�a� a�.t 1 y�, ,�� r �r. �a'°�`� �.a�".E:t � r
. . , .. , �---.. i ..:�.. .,.n a.. �ix �.. �..:. :: . ,,.:d> .. .. ��.:.:, .. ..:.��� -.. s.�• .3-.q�.� �-� y�'� �� � .�...
. -.- � ., � ,..._ . . �,... - ... g;. .._.<� `� b � , ..�rc -�.1 �. t,i r . -. ;.r,. ......4 .�� �tF'6. r� .^ '. ;� f��; M 3� I. - •r� ���
,�'� .� ,. �J r',. . t ... . � ,. � �: ... . � ,... .. , ' ,. ,�.... . ..J : .. .1`.a .:..:i.: -a.,€.1,,���.. , �. _ �5 ' � { ��.
: d
� - y . � � .� - _ �
„._.. .r; .. . s . _. .-.. � � :...,xi. . .,.>. �'.''�i.. ..Itc'- .. .. ,'...,.:.. ..�.,. ... _, . .5 .� de wd 7€`... y.�;. ( ::�i� �t� _g�+��a
, ., . o- _ i . . s � .. t . < � ,. =±.w.., .. �•: tl. .� � i N .}. :. �' .:.i,v F ..'� . , ,.::.� , . �
:� . - ,lo:. ._.. � � ..... . . �,�..,� � .�, �..._ -�:ri .,r.. ..� i]�r. .w -<F-'. 1 ,i� �s Y� 9. ,L ti\ �P,. �Y'��- x�M2
. ' . r a �- .. -.55 . . .,,.!?�.r. ... � .. _ . 1 . ... �, „ - . . �sd.. ,$? r,�� . ;-� .�..'�.. t�' ,n, . .: � F, ,r;°� ,,:5, �* ef'� "Y-:aYBR`Kt . � , � ,
.r. : i . I�I . . I - �, . Ai. �i . '.� . i� . , �, .: ��.�.. ! .1� . . .. . , .. .,. _ . ...., . .r.... ��, . �. Y, . � .��A�. (r. n.�i'.�orh.. .4.. - - _� ,
. . �'. d ._,,�,,.. -, ..a ,>.. v_I,.,-�...�..-�.,. .,. -t�.�. :,.� �- . ,. , � ., .�.. .;�t0�i -H ��" f.".rrv`� _ q;- .-g.
., �� ' _-,.. � . � .. , 3 M . _ '
,. :. . -. _ . . _ .-.. . . ,.,_..., ^ �._,�. .. ,..., ia�.. ...:�... ae.t�',e,.t, i� y �:�5 .. �AFetsi3r�i ..13. p.�:
, ��, . ,:. ..:, _ _ ._,' . . . . .... .... ... - n.:�, '.F ;:..,,.:: 1 ��.r' ...,, ,.,:� . .-:. - , � �'` d �. b - ,�Y as=` r,`� s,i.-i;�'�
- ,v, ^.. ' � ` !
,.� , _, .. ..�;�,is.- . . . , Y �t�:-.�.. ..-��.... ..�.o- :: �.�_.._... �. .3.� � .5.���1 � �:---.§:3 ��'Y- J�, 24'�� - �
- - - - .< �i I ,�. . _ � . ' . � . a.ae. - .:_4 � ... . ._ _.'. _..K � '1�;�:. ,� E"' ^^ �a � .., .�e:F���� r, n - �6 �� ��. �s� p - r
, . �.. . ,. .�, .. r � � a. :J . � � � 7. .,.�. M'- e 8sn�:. I �''�F �r ro-.:�.:ti '.�� a I��'�, �i'.
. . ... . �, ; - . � .
. - ._,3 _' . �•� �q;',: .ti�. � . .�.. �.�.�. � �ai� p9�� ,�a.%" <�,:.G% „�;: i p� � r�s�, „�'�; �+s. ��`��. �P� �ti t{ . -
j ��. . ,
3 -., �r�-... � .� �� . � ..,1�.. .a�.. .�-,'� .._�i-�.�,�=- C"� .:,.e....�-.. � _'iW._� �.b-�. i� �,1M�} l:� -�i .y:a� �1i�, �,Y.•fiF .yT-� �Y�;'
.� .w.�. .'�.. .E � . ., . i'.. ��.'�w�fi1t � '.... ef.0 a .Mf� 1 � 4g !41 � . � + f ��¢f� .a"`.R 4r1 � e�' "ci'...., -
��.T ° _:.:, r.., � . � : . . ' � . ��'� °$ -��.a..., -�.•-} . ._.�.... d,� r a�: �� a��.. �4�'�� r �.���� - �?.,�. � . . �,rA-
y
, . . 3.t' �_• �
,. ,-= ; . '°�T'�.'�a. 'F8?,�;,r .�I'�wna ._.,. ,e' a��.� s$ `� ,a�r:��� �r,= ..r���.G� i
.;.
.. ' � ,.:;$, �. - ,r,ti . ,,� ��:. �.c� � �� =vsti .� '�'.0 r;'�o' `.k .� ✓
t.:' ' �' � ' �.: .' i .. �i . ' . � _ - - - -''. .. ; .. f; .,, �".- -� v�. � n w�.v , a n 3.._ 3 -,`sB��- "4� ♦ ..Y`
�
- r..,�. � .-. , . ,:. �;, .„.. . .., . ��ep� �f ',:-.- `Ci .I� �.,�+ r ,Y �� -. _
,. :.- '�:<,,--- .,._. .:_... ,-:: r.�.a,.. _;': ': -_ _..-. ,i.'_�.. �� .. .ra, - �.
.I ..-���., ..4 , ..�.,. � ..._:" ��.__ :F. � c ., _ __ tl! � ,i.q.. �;k '�"i 1 k. -
�. k �'.`.: .. :,_,t. . �.';��1 a 7�:' "e..4.,_ ��. S:�'r, _ :�r
--� �� �-= . .... .. _.,._._ ., ...,., . �...: � . - - Sr _....�� . ,'��,w_,. �' -s�.r.y,v a -
. .�,5 �I��Si . �� ., .. ,. . . � , . , ....:. a.. . �; . ._, � , ct - :...,. . r, s . - �_ .. - -- _ : �k, 4� I", i �-.. . ` N
� . �. - . ��..il .., _. ... . . . r:. -. . . �, �: - . . . :tu, � � �. . . _ . . , ��. � a. ' �E - � - :. �i� � dr w .� �- a� � '�.�.> � �-s.._ .l:. ..'Y � -
_- . .4' �. � - �� Y'_ �' a.:�.l:T �?' _�°,n. 5 �
__�_ .. . .: � . � e. , r.i . - ��.. ...�... ... . .", .�... ' .-.:,',r � .�.� .. .. . . . ��'a-. �'= �"�: -kf:��. . A �.l ';.y.
..... �: =. � -: �. .i. r.. - . � . �. _y . �s,3. ..;,, . � _,. - `. � � �� y .3 , y . ��. . c• w
� ,.,.. .: . ..:.._ ,__,. ..,.,. ..,, � �, �.V .�,..�..,.e� _, , � ��, ,- .:l,.�.a:�__r"" . -.. �... br.. ���rfer.,�
- . � ._ i � k �, ; . . . : ._�. , - ,... � ,: � . . .a�._ _ �a � F, ?,.. :a �i� }��" ��^ .:;
.� ... � .� .�_ .i-.� � . ,��,-. ...�� [ ....�is.�..�.. „..,,.,�. ��;� „;��:c st-, `�-,A �,-c� ���, �em;:«,-us�.i �L�
� _... Site #8 - ,, � . . . . e, , . ;; a : : ,,; „� _ ,.:.�- Site �#4 �. ..;. `'. �. .��� ,Y � �_ �,
r-. ,,. .. .. . . ._ ,� ,.,t, . . .r. ,:. �....: , �. .,:....�� . �-. . .� .. �.:-:.r�.�� Y � �t. :o-a-.-. , . :-,.:, ..-. � 1���t:.:� , �:ss.:,; � _ r.:,�• , �:� . -+es.-�� �x. �.:.r. -
;� _. -. :r ... ��... ,..:.,.,i, � �... ___.. .r �,.w. ���.i r-. .. .r., 1.,,,. .J�: --:� . .,� .�.,F� '=z: - .c25:r,-.a .. y 'a°r�a° s.,��v:�r+�
". .. '. :a.�, .. . ,.. : i. , f_ x ..I. .. ..�: �.. . -. ..�4:f. xJ�..Y' . � �._.:�-� `]F ..wt,� �� L-_�:�x''w �c'.�,::,�:`.., i. _ S:'
-�. .t _._ ._ ._! ��. :,x.ik _., .�. � - �.� i i � �.r'v:¢��rs'^- y��;t`�,� ah1_.:.
�
� s.
. ..�. - s, . � - . . � '..o-...J. ; r- i - -. lu:,.�. �,..:, :.try ', ....- , ... . �, i�l" ✓ �s'_ v R f,y ..�(', , r
.��,_ r. �'� _�,. �. �� �� ,x ,�.
.• � � , - .,.�^:� -: ' :� I �' .� - r ..r . �- ... :.. :.. . .. .�.. ; �• ,�s "� "� r �?�. rt. '���'td�:
» �
_ . _. _. ' � 1; � _ �.,
,.. _ . :. . ., , ,.:. ... �-.-. , - -. � .. - .-�.. �. .. . ..:�, , .. _ �.'a �._ .�� "r.��.:w. � .�p -r� ..,a:w,'a . � - .';'an '�..X -. .,.Lr
o v.� a. 3J '__ _ :� p �'�.
Y
, '�> . . ., .. ..
. . �' .. :' -. -.-:..
. ,,,. . . � ., r �. -,:a� ;.-: , t .�a,,.w�+r. . . � . -..:. .:� .,.. . T,,. . x.+� � .w; � � c' �'i.*^x '4�i 44� . ' � yac - � ��;m, �y;�,�.- r��i3
� .., < :. �? � . i`s �.:: .,.. .,,,,. �� r- . ...:.., �..�r. ..... ... irn' �.. .�-- : �Gi� .�� �-, # sr-
... . . �,.. . _ , .. . . . :. , a��5�. ,.,.. . �s��_ .a ,r '� �":c�� a.. r }�'.�a a�•.�.,��s+ �E..< s.� .�,�'t;,�
.. >... �;:r -.; „.. r . _ . . , �,: , ,: . . t.,.M , �e n . F �" � .
�= .,
. _�... , _ �rrr _ .�. .._ �.._.c.t,,._. ;.,s T �_�,S241�Academ =Park PS��. L:`:, : w
SIt2 $�7 Meadow Brook PS.�.'t : . - ;. . . . :.. , .: .... .. .:....... . •� ..�! : - .�:�.... �.. •_ r:.. .. ,, Y. s . i ��,3 r�-� � sa� �+s�:�
_. «, m� ., ., y. . :, ,, _ .,. v� � n�v- ,��___, �?, ` �
.- . � . �,_. `� ... ... �h:a e.f , -
... _.__: ... -� ,-- . . : '�- . - ,� ,� ,.�
. .� .''�� a:�.:..a- . ,,:-.. � ,- ...-�. � �. � ��.. . � , � <. : _ . ..:.. _,. i- :- _ . ..--::.. - '��'e'`.:.�.�, - 'i.a-�i�- a - ..a�. t.._�- 'rra�.. �
� > ' -
„ a . . _: _ -�..� `.'L . : : �:� . �� � �.. : .�
,; ,
� - .,�� .
-� ��-. ..- , ' . �..:�. .. .i: v '�t"i,� .�`-.. I� s� 1%,M ..':�..
�.� w �. � .-.� , ,�.-- . . ' , v.. �: . _ ,.�
":.,ti_ ... .. ,. � .�. ..: i��� ,_„ , _Yi Ye .�:dZ.,� :R - ��r4'6' I�
�� �,... .,� . .; .� i .
= -•�' , � . ..... .�'�' . , .. .'. . >� .. _ ... . ._: . ' ..::.4Y - ' 1 ' ! r
' . -..,. .} �
�
o '� �'ikP �� �=��a a s� �S��s,mE ��' ,c�'. �-^'���� �', ;� � � �.:
` . �� .-i 'xa-:'�� �� � �.a� � .�i;�,� o-' _
� s - t�x vw �2��5 ..� �, �:. �.:�
,. .. ..
, -• ,
, . ,
-
.; ;. . � .
,
, - »... .4t sr:: . �; .. . ..- ._.�. ', � -„« - . �, ��.t> ���€4��,� .i� �'4 . �s
. ---: . ,.. . . a_ -.. ..- .. , �
. . s ,
.. �, , - . � �. c. . . !. »; , . ��, _ . ..:, �[ . . ., s -:'.. . ::. '�. . - ';-., . S _ .de _.�.�., 7y -s�' ,'"�*'�3
.. ..-. ..-.� ,. ,. .. .' - . , . . ..:: _. _.i, . �.:a- ... . . . �._.:.. ...'.-.. _ ,:�. ..,-.�. '� ` . i'.:. n.. ,7� . .3,-...<..n-r,L'.._ y�
,., . �.K: .... _. -..�.. ,._� :. .�,,. �..._.ii,.��IRc.� ....._....:,- �. ,,... .. .....-.- . _... -._ ,....._ . ..� - .... - .L-.' �� ...�.A-.., �i�..F
... �,. .�.:: ,.::.. a. : . ...�. _ . ...� . _ . ., a . i . . . ...� - .. . .. �^` . ..�. ... .. .. ._ ,., � -:... . . S .: f = 1 ^Y ..v:�Y � ,
...� `,}� :. , . ,.t ..... ,., . . . , .. - . �::.�, .. �.� . ir., . .......�. ,�._ ,..�a „ .� ,_.-.,_ -:�h.. _ 1 I.,� . � .. P P - - ✓�;.'� - ..r.F- F. _ +�w}!. .
.. . . .... . ........�� .u-. _... -..-:. ��� ... .. ..... :< .�A!; -
..F. . .;_ .� ...,. '__ :.�__ , . ...,..... ,�.��i;. ;_�� ._.. $ _ � .4��: ;-'�.
. w .��„ , .. . : -.. : e,. c._. �. _.. .�.�. - .-a� . . - . . , .. > . , . . ,:.� , .. , -,. .. _ .. . .., -. " . - . .Y. �f'��. e+'r„< <�. .. +656;. � t:, .
�, .
3'
h. 'd'
$Ym c
. ,�...# ._... .. _. '..,- ,. . '.��., .. . .. �i._. .,� .. . .r.: �........ 3 ..: "; �:,, ..sd..s�
< .. . _.-� . ., - � :.. . . .... ...... .. .. . . s .T. �i - .:.. - . -a - ._ .:�: -._ . i:h.
�
��,
_ , ... .r , '�"�' . d .. "_ , ..,". -..Suv..A . �
. ,. . i .- a , ::;��r1 �..'_.. L .i:.3Y� , le. 3 - .ti , p� .
. . �. .. - .. __ _. .. _, .. ....._ . .. . � . - � , ,., ., .. --- .. ',:._ .._ . i. � . ..� � _- _' .�@ ,
....�. ,. . . .. . ..,.�.:_. .�.' . .. . ._. ._., .....�. .,..s.. �, .. . .�.:.._.:a.. ..k ,,....�..., .. k'.. �.
R : ,. 5�
e:�
i w.,. ..,.�. . ,:�� .. .....,;.... .. .f .;. .. .- �..- ... ...iY', �... .,.:.... ,. .... ,. '�.�._-.A..,. i . .. ^�'�„�r�"', ,i}
..,-' y,._ < �:
iG
v-. '. . ... :�_ ,.,� . -.s. : � .4i ., i . ., .. �.. ._. : .:�, � ' iit ..:. -.-�". . �a9 � '.'.I
„ �- : ,. � , � � : .: , ,�.._ ,_�.. � s r.. .,.. . _. ;`��`� '�,�" :�. ��., ��
. �. :��., . �: .. „ .. . . ...-;. ... ,__. �.;:::....... �,- .�.,_�„ �c: ,:. , ,. ,-...,.. .� .�._.� - _W�,.-..:a . �.:..,?�.,,�a4 ,Y. -
: .. �+ .. . ,., . - - ; u., r .. . .. ,. .. ,. �, rq,:,,,: , . ,.. :.�_.. -. . : i. ._ _ _.. 4'}' -
. . , � Ji �: _ ...... .- ,:, ,z. .. . ,5�.._
:. '._. .a.....,. �... . .�,. ,.., �- � . -
-_... , �.: � .. .;- . . ,>..,.. ,. . -..:-. .. ._.�:.. -a. -„ _. -, , .;-_':. � ..� ... ��,. � _.: .*�. 'el II
: _.:,_...._...,- '_ �- ,..x- �- . .... _.. , -�,..... �:. .r.,.. �,:� ��(1��f : ..' . - ���:.�, .a.. - w ���'"
'�. '�-- , ._... . . � ,�... .. ..... _, ...- .:�, .. � �3 .. ,,.., .. . ...: _......- .. ._ , ';ry _
0
�.
L
e-,. ' . "'•v "
�:....' ,.:.-.,_ . _"_' ��_� ...,. :_� . .._...;�. . ::. , .. . ..,- .__.-._ -.... ..,�:: - .i�`!'P"r,•.«..• q�J��'
�;. �
... �:.-. .. ,-� .. , . . .,. .,.,I,. :" • . . - " .-�. . -:�- ,.. . . . --. i. .. . c..-- . �il. _. .. :� . �h„�. _
�:�y �. .. ..• .r ... .... ... ...... -'✓9. '. ,� '_-.._.r, :_'. �i'.'�fl�. _.. ,. ..... ., �.,. �",". ; ; i':�:...' .1Lr. ,..� .,��.
.� ., :�: �;:-. . ...:�..., .`,. .. .,..5, ..__�� �; .,,�-,- ..,�_ . :.._?� ,.. __. _... ., __ . ' . 'r:.
`�,.. ...� < ._. _, ... . .. _ ,-� ,.. , ..: : R ;� .yd�.�� �� �
. , . :f,�, . , _ _.. -
. a ;. ,. ..., .. .. , . � -
� , ,.,_. ,: _.._ ,. ,
� � . . .. . - , : .;. ,:: i .��, ,
,�. '� � ' � j
. , :: „ ,, .. . .. , .. . . , �.
� �. ': - .- - - , . ., � . .,e,; : �..- _ . ._, a a ,.� ...
;� �. ' : . . .. ..... .. ._.. �. .. ...: -. .. ._ . . _. . , -...,-. ,.... . _.. . .,:.,.� _. : ._ .._ _,_ . , �_. . �.�:'' �.�a.,
_. . .n. ...�- . ,. -:-�_., . .:. .,... ..'��:e�.n. ._...a ...... ........m..., -.: .. �a.,+€.� -
. � -: , . 20� P$ .._ , _ ,, ,,._ : I, � a �''
, _ e. _ _ !�, _. . . : . _. . ._ . , . _ ' . . � , '' x�.. � .r
� - �.E. . .. ., � a, .. ,,,,_: � . .. a. . , ,. , ,.. . _. .� ,.A ,�:.� ��
�C � " ..�?�tK ���"
. - fi:
. r;.; x ,,.E .- . . .,,., ,. - .:. : ,,. - . �
�.d -'. -� �.� r .... .,.-..,.v �.� � .,,.:. ,_ „`-� ._ u.,_� -? �. �(r� ..a�
`,- � - .: � _._ ,_� _ a � _ , - ,: . . ..:. ,� ... _. ��
� I _ , .;.• _ ,�_ :. , ,.��,�� - . . � - ��
_,, , , ,,, , .- ,> , _ �
,� _: - , _ :: ; . Q , , .. : , ,, 1 -
- , . ,. ,.�- � __ . , „ ,._. ,,, : _; � ._ :. , 4 � , � �,_ . ,��
� , ;,� �•: � ..,-_. . . � .._--, , - - . _ 1 �;
, . . . _ ' f S250 PS
, �,,,` - -- ,"., a: r ,,, ., _ , . . ;. . .,_
- . .,::J _�_ . I .,_„ . , ' �. , • ) t y 7 i�'�
�,-..� - .� . . ., ... _: , .:..., ..- ,,, ....:.� -. ! .�.,�... .--r . .. '_" - - `'t�'�7 � �� .
..�:...� .,. -� . ... . . ...I.�K.-.�. i„� ".iF'_�. �.�.... -. _,.-..�.... ..,... ..-.S _.�� . -. �� rL�P.:. . _ - ",'Yr- "TY..w 3�y {�' .
. 1 . .. , ..._...i . . . ._.. ._.�- '�.. �. ,.�' � r�^
_ . ` -� � '� _ �
,.:, . _ c? .,..: -.. . ,,. �,_ . , , � -. Maple Ridge Operations Centre,A '�'"*' p � � s ,
� _ . ,. . S208 St PS
,� , ,,: I
,.', ts.;.'..' � -,�., - �.:_-: � � ,� v,':�. , .�,., � .,..��.� �- '",.:, - - ' '�FA .. ,
7.. . . ..,. . � .� I �,/� �5 tyt
-...'... .. , :� . . � . ' � � _._ ,. -.-�� . � '. �.� �-. .- - _
. i
.. .f..,�{� �r . ... . . :_-� -:.-.. _ .'. .In. .. ':��«,- . a �,.. � ..� .r"�. . � ' �' i - _ .. M #9N 1��Sw""`fCJ �PV i�� I
... : �: :p,} � � �.. s "- . . . . �_ �' ' . ..'.': . � �-. . ..':-��.:.1= '. ..I�. .. �l..e ,_ . . . . _ . ' .¢ r � 5 . - .
�. ;.� _.... �i. � , � v.. . ... ..�. ,. i.:� _ . �_r,A r vn ,. .a . _ _.- '1' i�_.' .��:.. - ! k`'. ,aa��� fi t
_...� ,,.,..._. . , . . ,: ,. ��._, , ,� r:,- __ ' � .: � - S251 Ma le Creek PS
1 .. e ..as , v u,.< _ . �l ,r � :w:M-�� t��,:st ;;�r p
��'. 5i ., . _ .._ _.,:.'.. .., ....�r. . - t�...'. _.r .,. . . .:,� ' + ' �, �^� - rk'R � fi+�'._ �f .:�r� . . . '�1
{( ...:. '�', .�- � _ -' :�.. �_' �,i. "" ..,I-L '_ ".I �._'..>> k.. :1' '.Y-
. . � ,. ��;i . ._ �.,- . :' _. .... '..: '. .._ .. .�; e .,. .. �.{_ .. e --..,. �.. �.'� . . � 2 `�.` _ �.;.S�S�V q I
0. .� 3.�..��. ,. .. - ..sJ �.t.� ,.-I ,.,.�.��.:� I � ,__ " . - �
, � � .. . ... .. % _. _ � , . ... :�.. ...... �. :r .
, , , s;.,,. . ._ .. . . , ,,. - . � . „.. - � : �; :_ ��?�. �, �„�: i
. , __, e _ , _ .s. _ _, � - �� ::�249 St PS �e,
. „ _..; . .� � .r ....- .:. , S�te #5 : �".:��. s� ri C� � �;
�.. ,. _ ,. : ; . ., �- - � r.: ., , r � � . x_ . - - �
. _ ., �, , r . _. ,�:: . ._. .. . x : .. _ _ 3:: ¢. p �
_._..... - :� ..,:. . ..�..._ .,.�.. .. ,�. .��.. �:,..,..__ ,. . . �'.- �., ... .x _:i. :x,,, �.�� ,� -i.-. -
..- „ � 7 . - - r I...i�.,,� .; ��' .�+,a .-�.r
a� i
.
�� 'i'
�
"''""�`� �.' ���
. . ,: _ ,. ... _ . . 4 -.!_ ?"'lr�: .-r. . ���'
,. - , ,_. . . . . _ . . � - - . •. d
�.. � ;,>., _ . , _ _, f . :. .: , ..- .; Irff P ,.. __ _ _ ; - �,., •,�. .
e _ � . : _ ,. Cutler RS ., W�._ . _ . . „C S R , , ``�rl .- �a. �
�,._. i �_ _ ,. a,_ : . .: , ,. , . - _ , ;. ,.. .
�
,
• .�, < . _� .
,. : ,. ,. �.
,.
_� y
., . . , .. : .�, � ;,. ...-=mr ...; _ ., � _. ,s � wt - ,
` a ,. ` ' .. _.. . _ , _. , _ ,_ d`� � ,,, � _:�. �.. . . , _ :, .,- ,- , k" .� `� s�
__. �_ ., : , i-.. 1 ,. ...�.._ �� - �,� ., :_- . „ . �-: ��: .,..._ .� ,.. t. ` -` . �1 Y -t
_, i . _ .,. � ,:. .� ,���� u ,. ;.> . , ,. .: k. f p , �, , ,� . � ' �r �.
' Site #9 r ._ .,...: , . � . . . .�_ -�, .. � .. _.� : .. � E,: . � . ,. : �s.,� ��' � �
1. .. l� - � a e. n,, _ :,,s
'^ : . � .,. . ., ,,, I � , .., ;. .. _ ,. .. ,, , : , .
.- .:, -'.. � .. : _ . ,....... � .... .;::�, ., --,�_ __ .. _ �_ .. �. . ,... .e: .. �6: a.... . ...;%p.� :� r :.r,.:�' � -
. � i �. . ... ipr,-.. ... -.., '$, . .. .,- .... . ... . . ... .� . ._ �r. , .� G:.. '.:�...,= i . .
:.. . �" .. . ....... . . . .... .. . .. ..... �. � . .a :4- . .i.': . - .. ., e�. .�: , , .. ..., .
x
�':, ..-.ti �.�. ... .:....... .. ....,.._.. .... .�-.. .� .:�..- ..��.r:..'., ... ,. ..;..3 .-.. ....'� ,�. A. , �rie�
-, . ...� .. . ,.� .<,� . , � -,. .-. , �. ..,<<. ,-. . ... �.. . . . � ?�. , a � � � ...: � � e. ... xv°i . . . .. ii _ � 4. . , .swi'" 4 �
..� . ....., _�. : Y..4: . __ ..,. .. . _, a:... �. �-. ,�... . , ..- 9,...
�� �l .-.,;.: :;.-.�_ „-�-.: - .e . �,_ ,� :..:......... �. . _ ,..,: :. . �,. .� �-,.;-� / .. ..:' , . __ �,, �.,� <;a. 'r�' . . . /1e.
�� ,. ..-_.<_. �_..:. . �.,�_.-.: ,;.-.... ...�-,.. ..... � ,:�_�: .:.:r�. . , .. . ..��... ...... .�. .;:� ���`.;� ..�,�� -
.r .- ; y�r. �.�,, ., � ��.,. . .,..a ,.,. ..S te #6 .,„...: y.,.� .� DM62 a� -r. �
.
� , _ ... �. , .. . i: � ., ,.; \ , ..; _ - � e
;
r
. ..i.-. . ._. _ _ . . . � _ .-..,. . ._ .. ... .. : :..1. , -....__ . ..� �.'..: -. ... . . -.�. . ✓ " . : .. . ::. ....: • � - �.!':S "�F �.�fl�.'��
s.q .� �� �... .._,. .. . . '. .-.:' _ . �. .,r.i. ., ..... � '.. --..".� . ....�. '.b.,. ., . _.. . .. ... :....: ,:.. _ - ..`°% 1. .�
-,.' S �-�. . .... ......:.:.�». �.�. < ._...:. ,"'�... �. I . _.._ .i.... .. .,. . , � . .� ♦ .I. �. ;.-.- -.., t' - .. _'+:f
, . � _ ,._ �,,,,. . _ � : , . .. a . . ,. .' . � � . ti*�. �r S239 PS � �
a.. ... - :,. _ ...?. .r, . . . . F . . -. _ •. ,- ' r«��� �, ��
� . � , , .: � . , _ ; _ . .. � . .. :�.. , „ < ;zY . -
,.: - . �_ . , . . ,.. . . : , , ,_ . , , :.. ,, , , � , � ..< . ... _.� _ - ,.. - - ,�
e.,._ : _ - .,: „� ., :,: ,: .. _ _ , ... ,. . .. : ; _ ., s.. < _ ;: �
._. ,. ., .. ._ _ _, .-, .. . .,:..�.. .....�..,a��� .. ..:... ... .._ _. ., �_ .. .� . .. .. _ . ,. .. - .,u;�, - - '� 9':a�.
yZ
..... ,. , . . �,w� . ,.acr: , _,_._�� � � � .:: . --- -. � . ., :.�� ; ., _ _ . � .�: :, . . . . ... . ;. -.'„ _ ,�. �- _.- "�' e+�! , - 1 1 -Fi."
�y.... .�'i. _ . _ .�� c�_ . ..__. � �- '.. .. ,.. ,. ��x,. ,,., ,w. . . - .� � "`"""_9!_i '-.i?. _
_ ". _ . _ ._'_�. .. .. . �,. ...... .- , . . .. ..._ . ., .. , _ iv -�.; .:
.. .. - . , i .. ,�.. ", i L ,
... :r.� _.,.. Y„ „ .�, .._:.. , .:: ._,,K . �., ri,:-_ _'' ,.,',ase.-�. � ' � �a�.�;�., �a ,.� �.
_-�-..,. �� � , .,- ..o . � ..�. . w _ �. �:. ".r..
+ 4
'"'">. ..,+ �.:9'. ,. „.- . , : r� . -, :. .;:_ � _ ', .. : 6 �f. � � a
} _ ,
: ,.
s
�
��
. ,�
_ , �., � , 4 .. „ _ , . : . i p ; ,- , : . '; . . . . . , 225 St PS .. _. , � r croi � - . u � � -.a':
_ .. ,, .,:aR � . . v _ . .. ;,.... , �, - i �'.: �
. � �.L_..�_: . .,.. .�... '_.... . .. �, tl.-�.:... .. '.'_. I. _. _...r_.,....,. �. ..-__..� r / �� 'd�yF"��� . � -:'`• ve.:: `. S. ,_ . � . -`�g'� ��#�.`�`vy�_ r^
�.ry ; �: : •:' � . Q.., ., . Rrver Bend PS , . . „ . � �. ,n.. <� .��# �L�. � '��. :�_°
, . . ,. _. . ,.. . .. . _ _ ,. 5. . 'Anderson PS . . � . ,. ., e �!�Leachate PS r; � vi; , � �
_,�..., _� -_ , . .. � .4,. _ �. :: �. � t'q;_ _ � . � �.� ,._ .. . .-'� . . : ., . � � � �_ , '�k',. ��.:,� ri : � ;� x . .}�.s .�; � 'i°' _ :sl ,.
�, � � :, , � � � ,.,. , ..;: , . ,. . :.
� .,� - -,-� . ,_,z.. :. .. . � .� �- .�.�;.. .._.:.. . - - .. . ..�._. . �.'... - k. -
:
-a.,
M-
..�: ..�I - '�. � / .. . ... .. -... �:. �.. ��.. ." _.._: }.I:.i...�.. .:. .� . : .. .... . - .�;� ' "� � - �`b��:
•�
n�
�. _. � . �.. . - _ _ ,,., . _. ; �. . , � .:, � .r � � .�
7��„ R , t ..4`e �� t 4�Q . ,�, ,"!�' �'�. J'~. �, i� 4 e�°.. . ��� �f�x��.
, .. . �.
�.� _ , i °: .� ;' . . ,;r .,.., . Q:GoIf�LanePS $It2#'3 , *���- :� ��,:� y,�,�' � .�..���q �,:.
,, . .__ -' �._,.,..,� 1 ._ . �..:-: .�� ..:��: ..":'�'3,. a i��:��,: r�,
, :
-, . .
_ .o. _ '�,t " -E'" _ _4a � q, - dx5 . �� ^gt h` n(3-.« "r/�'�=..
K Zi P : :y ,,; . _� , z� �`� �' = t �,.. r b , , i
at e. S A � - •; � .. ;. ,� „� - S1:13rPS ��:�' , r�� at
, �,- , . .;.
..
- - �� L� � � � '�?.. �" `` � -
�'�' rr�-- .. .,y;,:: i' -� ��',r,,., ..x � � u,�-� �'�'� �� .>I_ - .'2.�#�
� i , � - .;�3:" _ t$"'
,. .� : . , , .
�i.. o i= � e �k . F � � . X�. i� '�� +l� i
">:'.-�, w� �G� , .f' !: E A S
- , ,. �i . ., �.
�r" .3 ,..,rs, �'" �
..-,.. � . _-� . .K., _� . .:-�, � , ..._. ... .. ._,.._. .- •.�.;'� ���:= . ..,�� �, � h�.
:
r � : .. �: . ... . :,. .. _ . . . �.- .. .._ ,:_ . ''^a E , ,.. ' %f r w- r . Q 4 �?�* 2 .r'' x
,.
-- -.: ..:-.,,-_,. . ;,.,, ._.., i...'_ .:� e, . .:� ;:.... �. .:,... ,., � .� .a, +r. .r,�, '�?�.,t ;�y. -u� .Q
. . . . , , ._: �., s ,...._ ,. J ,,.. - _ �'� ., ;.. .� -; , � p � `�FR�
T.. , . 9 ; . .,; ?. - f -
.,. . . , � , . ,,,� . .. < �: -.,. �- -
, .< �., ,3. .a. , � . . _:; �., , . � a_ , •,� ° .- _ _S240 PS� ;>, Y� � �g �,�
:�_ . :,, .. . , , � r. �. ,:..: �,�, -,. r ._ _ . , . < � �a -C ...: . �. . ....� _ ... t , - - � . �.. . �? � �'
��r�.
: �.. �3' �..` A. C � � .<4 � .a C:.�C� „�
%. .'�` 1.J ,�',: .3•.��: ��.�.. . . .<J-� 3 �,'.. ,.i. ..,L�%`��_.._ 5 _ _ y �.
y*. ..e3,":. .[': tC ::d�� ::�.5.. }i .
DM44 � r � Cottonwood PS �r� x'" .�,� .����.=��, '�� -�.
1 , .:. �
��__ �Site #10 . :�. .. _ - - -
, � .: ��'- ,�^� �. ,�' � `� �� ��"' � .� �.. �
, ;
..
>,�
`r° � � E : c'�t �. ,,, .- �, �... : , . - , , ,A' � .t ..: �. "'.,,,,�� ,.>. � �y . � :y,v �'� W ,.c �a:� - -- ���
y ^ a�
\ trc' ��
�:
:,;�,a * .",'� r �1.. . . :.-� . F� _ � f.., �� : a:-..- '�ak t� �` _'{�d `'F"� ..�•t� ��-"h�' y„„f "4�..
'e�� �'.w► ,6� � �:s ? � ,�jk'�: �:' .� %u ,�... i :�s N��' '�, ^� �a"; ' �.�� ;ti�:� ��:i:
;�.';' -� e + usa 3 �� �t�' <:a', I �,.. _ . 5�°, � °-6> % ':;.'�`� � , �1.. -
,".a:` .k: �.��'�v`! � �, 9.,�' �i � � .�.wSq�''� �" , � �', '' v r:`9�����1 ,�' �
.�� �, .��' s �' � .,�. �:. - • � ��,' .. � �a ,�¢ � � -��.a ..e~�� '���,�i�'.': � .'.,�.� �..._z v�5'�,....
� :' �. - J 4'��°._n�� r� - ' � �s�a'�i' .� '.�.`�'�` > +�` ;� dt` _ "a�'�� ��� -
°,, •= h � Site"#2 � ,- - - � �� � -
� �� Wharf PS d - �, �� `� n� +� �„„„;. > �;� %� fS�59a?h�sa � '^�. �''`}r
o-, ,,r�;:k.�: � .`�,� .� t . � -w�',3�?!� .n4 z P� '•�zsr �is�'� :�, ;s .�' .u'�'
,^„ ar3'-� Q_r .,�r� ,fi�r_III . �, `�.. _ "y. w.._ �,y f ,es.->�a�n���cffi f� dw�� & o'S� ` °g�F;3 �
,
.��� �. �� ,�:X, - .���: ��u. �� ����. �. ..� � �� �COM
. , w
._
. �
..�k r .. � �. . � F � �� �.�
� . : W,
�s j�; .,_ i�- II � ,� � � � `�. TamarackLoopiPSp;. ,��,�`'���� 3 �' A� T � r���, �f � � `' �R
- �'t *.'l�� � . v n L �. y,� rt�� R � � a
.. �`l�"�- ;s � �"7� � +rari4 � 4 d� 4�;. �' � ..�K ! ;� r .0 �� SS� 4 �5 � ¢� � ��.
" ' r �: . s .f ...` <� tTrai�s Edge PS ". ��o, ,� :, � � ��x
� 7 � C '�~�, �, � �
`�' ,�y � �;;1 , �4 �, ��.�� , .� ��;� '� � r � .: 0 375 750 1,500 Meters
��R�- --."� � :� �L?-' 'j "`�1' $24$ P$ � .. e ;Sc,".':�+ s '� y, f � � �^ ♦`�; t5, k� -+t"�
�, � I f + ' ''� ,�,<Tamarack Lane PS �-� �+� �` � � ��Th�o �n,�sHill„ �, ; � ,,
_a
�.. .,; ...... , � ` � ; �j� y
�'• dro'a '�n � � �,�✓p `�- aS€n °E t '- � �.�h^�� : � ��' . .:
...:: � .. ' "_'_ , we-':_ "'�"` `.:i.. �' �a1 � . . � .`� . � : � w.A4� S' A � k S �.j 4 ]e
_ .' T!A'��,. - " �'_ _. � .._ ""� �^`;�,..� . `.'� .; ' �. �,i "�' .g���,'.^� Y�3e,� ���c�'ti, ���t�,F.'-�ii'��'�.'yl: .� ��
.y .�h_ 9 a. _, r ' zA, ,- 4. � "� � �a -�.�
. .�-.�°` � l � � � �.�r� � e � "'� a �": � � � �� � �, > ' � �y ��p x�� � s�. PI'OJ@Ct N0. �8te
. i �"' � � 'z��
_ , ^ � : T V � b" ,�r � ' V
` � � � *� ' `� � � ' 60285153 Au ust 2013
a��� ��+k� ' �*� Fairground�IPS ��� ,-�°� a ` '; r� , � g
�'+,��.re`�c�$� _ � , . �`; �n^'�,.._ � .�., ;�� ',,�1� +�,E � n"� �� �, 'i..'s,�' �a� _.'. �'�' " �� .ee_c
iF `�� �.__ J _� �, ,� ; �": a .:�. �yt� �4 �3@ .{ �;- �f �'f �' ._ ,�c '`� t y. r � , �',
d ,�
�, -. is$�,.d ,A- �a� � - , y. �' .. ' � aw ��, � .R, z � �� �. zd..�°jK `'ex `ae� ,�e�'
" �� � ' � ' � � ��� �� Existing Sewer
�, " � �{ m.r��' ' � �'�� . � r `�r��' ` � � �+i � f � . 'i a� �', � �' •
� � ,�. _ . � .� r � .�,°' � �w� w � � . . a . �'; � �f � ) ! _'
� ��
�,.: ¢ ����4g �' �. �';�� ` � � � � � � .�.. , � ��f� , � ::���a;��, ����, ��� Network
,� ; �� � � '��� , 4 �q � �. �� � �� � � � � , �t � ''� r:
♦ �{ ` � " �' ,,�t � "' �w �.� �
� � x
� �'r� � `} ��S�le it1 '..s a� �S ' e CJ� � � 3 . R� t' �,��
�e: ''6.; � � - . ; ` � ,� , r r ' _ i,�Rr� �'r ��.� '� a �' . '� �� �txry �-��C �{
r+. � .. - � ' -. � �.:- � �� r �P ....
�.� . , �� �� S� Figure 1.1
z� ,y
�� f � � � �.,� � �a�� �,
��.;� _, �. �.���� �.u„t. . � �{. . � . �- _ �
�;;r �;�Q. ��
.� �=' �
� * � A=COM
1.2 Key Objectives
Sanitary Master Plan
Final Report
The report constitutes the Final Report for the development of the City's Sanitary Master Plan. The City's key
objectives for this project and report are:
1. Develop a new hydraulic model of the City's entire sanitary sewer system;
2. Calibrate the model to "existing conditions/populations" using historical dry and wet weather flow data, then
validate pump station inflow/outflows;
3. Develop sanitary flow projections for various planning level horizons including: (i) Current Zoning (ii) 2018
(iii) 2023; and (iv) OCP;
4. Characterize I&I (and RDII) in specific catchments;
5. CCTV database review and recommendations;
6. Assess the hydraulic capacity of the sewer system under various planning level time horizons; and
7. Provide City Staff with InfoSWMM model / software training(optional), focused on attributes of their new
model.
1.3 Past Technical Memorandums
Over the course of this project, a series of Technical Memoranda have been prepared at the conclusion of milestone
activities. Key information from each Technical Memorandum has been extracted, updated, summarized, and
incorporated into this report; however a full copy of each Technical Memorandum and their associated tables, figures
and appendices has not been included herein.
The following three Technical Memoranda are fundamental deliverables in the development and calibration of the
model. These memoranda form part of our overall report and are included by reference. For each milestone
activity, refer to the appropriate sections in this report for updated synopsis/results and then subsequently, any
background information included in the following memoranda:
• Technical Memorandum #01 —Model Development and Calibration, dated August 30, 2013.
• Technical Memorandum #02 —River Road and Town Center Sewer Capacity Analysis,
dated October 08, 2013.
• Technical Memorandum #03 —Albion Flats & North Albion Sanitary Servicing Strategy,
dated January 27, 2014.
• Technical Memorandum #05 —Inflow & Infiltration Assessment,
dated October 20, 2014.
• Technical Memorandum #06 —Thornhill Urban Reserve Assessment Sanitary Servicing Strategy,
dated October 22, 2014.
0
MAPLE RIOGE , .
��
Sanitary Master Plan
Final Report
1.4 Key Terms and Abbreviations
A list of key terms and abbreviations along with their definitions is presented in Table 1.1.
�� Term
Average Dry Weather Flow
(ADW F)
Base Sanitary Flow
(BSF)
Diurnal Pattern
Fraser Sewer Area (FSA)
Groundwater Infiltration
(GWI)
Greater Vancouver Regional
City (GVRD)
Hydraulic Grade Line (HGL)
I nflow
Inflow and Infiltration (I&I)
Metro Vancouver (MV)
Peak Dry Weather Flow
(PDW F)
Peak Wet Weather Flow
(PWWF)
Rain Dependent Inflow and
Infiltration (RDII)
RTK
Sanitary Sewer Overflow
(SSO)
Sanitary Sewer Overflow
Analysis and Planning
(SSOAP)
Table 1.1 — Key Terms/Abbreviations
� _ Definition _ � �
The lowest 24-hour average sanitary flow value during a 7-day period of dry weather. The
sanitary flow is composed of base sanitary flow plus groundwater infiltration (ADWF = BSF +
GWI).
All wastewater flow from residential, commercial, industrial and institutional sources that the
sanitary sewer system is intended to carry. (BSF = ADWF — GWI)
Pattern describing the variance in sewage flows over a day
Metro Vancouver's catchment area / boundary that identifies all properties that are permitted
Ito discharge sewage to the Regional System. Areas outside the FSA are assumed to not be
permitted to connect to a municipal sewer.
Groundwater infiltration that enters the sanitary sewer system during dry weather periods;
through breaks, cracks, misaligned joints, tree root punctures and manhole joints and
+ covers. In general, GWI = 70 - 85% of minimum night-time flow.
Regional City whose trunk system collects all sewage from the City, and neighbouring
municipalities, and conveys it to a treatment facility
The maximum level of water in the pipe system, calculated as the height that liquid will rise
in a piezometer using the Bernoulli's Equation
Stormwater that enters the sewer through direct connections (i.e. CB leads or roof drains
connected to the sanitary sewer)
The total inflow and infiltration that enters the sanitary sewer system from all sources, equal
to GWI + RDII
Same entity as GVRD (Regional City)
Peak instantaneous sanitary flow value during dry weather conditions (peak of the diurnally
varying BSF plus normal GWI).
Maximum instantaneous sanitary flow value. It represents all flow contributions carried by
the sanitary sewer system (equals PDWF + RDII).
All stormwater inflow (see above) into the sanitary sewer system plus increase in GWI that
occurs directly due to the influence of rainfall
A synthetic unit hydrograph technique used by InfoSWMM and SSOAP to quantity and
simulate RDII. The R parameter is the fraction of rainfall volume entering the sewer system
as RDII, T is the time to peak, and K is the recession time/ratio
Non-frequent occurrence when sewage backs-up, surcharges and overflows from the
municipal sewer system.
A software program / toolbox developed by the US EPA. The software is used to quantify
RDII using a hydraulic approach and RTK method.
7
� � ��0� Sanitary Master Plan
` - � Final Report
Model Development & Calibration
2.1 GIS Integration
Prior to importing the sewer data into the model, a review of the GIS network data was completed to identify all "data
gaps". We were able to reconcile the majority of the GIS data gaps using information provided by the City.
Model connectivity gaps were reviewed using connectivity tools available in InfoSWMM to ensure all pipes connect
to manholes. Pipe slopes were reviewed in GIS prior to importing into the model to make sure pipes have positive
slopes, particularly at those manholes where inverts were originally missing in GIS. Common connectivity gaps
found, and corrected, include the missing upstream or downstream pipe inverts, isolated manholes with no
connecting pipes, pipes with no assigned upstream/downstream manhole ID, manhole inverts above the pipe invert,
and the manhole missing invert or ground elevations.
In order to incorporate the data gaps found during model development, AECOM will provide shape files showing
updated invert and rim elevations for all the manholes and pipes in the model. The shape files will only be for those
elevations that were changed, and not a reiteration of the entire sewer system, so that the City can review the data.
2.2 Model Development
2.2.1 Sewer Network
Once the GIS data gaps were resolved, the sewer network attributes were imported into InfoSWMM. Data imported
into the model included pipe ID, diameter, pipe inverts, length and material type (Manning's roughness coefficient),
manhole ID, inverts, ground elevations and "X-Y" coordinates. Pipe offsets (i.e. inverts at drop manholes) were
inserted in the model using the corresponding pipe and manhole inverts.
2.2.2 Pump Stations
In total, 28 City operated pump stations (out of total 31) were incorporated into the model. The S232, S236, and
Nelson Peak pump stations were not included in the model because these stations are located in very new
developments and/or are not in use yet (sewer network information was not available for these areas).
0
i � � ��0� Sanitary Master Plan
- � Final Report
2.2.3 Boundary Conditions
Sewage from the City eventually discharges into Metro Vancouver's (MV) Katzie Pump Station. The Katzie Pump
Station also receives wastewater from areas of Pitt Meadows. The station is comprised of 4 centrifugal pumps
installed in a parallel configuration. Three of the pumps are powered by 250 hp electric motors, and one by a 100hp
electric motor. The Katzie PS discharges to Metro Vancouver's Maple Ridge Forcemain (MRFM), which in turn,
discharges to the North Surrey Interceptor. The Katzie Pump Station Pump and Piping Upgrade Study (AECOM,
2013) estimated the current firm capacity of the pump station to be 700 L/s. Basic Service Flow according to Metro
Vancouver's criteria is the peak dry weather flow plus the standard I&I allowance of 11,200 L/ha/day. According to
MV, Katzie's 2011 Basic Service Flow (BSF) is 977 L/s, and the 2061 BSF is projected to be 1660 L/s; therefore, a
station capacity upgrade is already required. MV is in the process of upgrading the North Surrey Interceptor,
however the timing of other future upgrades (including the pump station) is unknown at this time. Modelling of the
Katzie Pump Station collection and discharge system is beyond the scope of this study.
Due to capacity constraints further downstream of Katzie, surcharging of the North Surrey Interceptor (Port Mann
Section) can occur during wet weather. In order to avoid sanitary sewer overFlows (SSO) to Bon Accord Creek, MV
reduces the discharge from the Katzie Pump Station during significant storms (which can be less than the 1:5yr
storm). This reduced pumping results in sanitary flows backing up in Maple Ridge's North Slope and South Slope
Interceptors.
MV is currently designing plans for construction of an SSO containment tank, with the aim of preventing SSOs from
rainfall events with a return period of less than 5 years, as well as allowing the 225 Street Pump Station to operate
normally. However, currently the MV's Katzie Pump Station operating procedures dictate that flows at the station are
controlled by operators during significant storm events. When the sewage level at Katzie reaches a depth 4.57m
(- 0.66m elevation) MV operators at Katzie coordinate with operators at the City's 225 Street Pump Station to reduce
flows into the Katzie Pump Station. This is done to prevent overflows to the Katzie Slough as well as overland SSOs
to Bon Accord Creek in Surrey, which is accomplished by turning off some of the pumps at the 225 Street station. If
the levels continue to rise at Katzie, then the 225 Street PS is shut down, resulting in an overFlow to the Fraser River.
Several parties are notified by Metro Vancouver via e-mail as soon as a sewage overflow begins and again when it
ends. They are also provided a summary report which includes an environmental assessment. Notified parties
include Emergency Management BC (EMBC), Environment Canada, BC Ministry of Environment, BC Ministry of
Agriculture and the Fraser Health Authority.
For modelling purposes, three boundary conditions were used:
• Scenario 1- Katzie Pump Station modelled at current capacity: In this scenario the station outflow is set
to the maximum rated capacity of the station (700 L/s), with on/off levels matching MV settings. Under this
condition there is regular sewage backups into the upstream interceptor sewers. This scenario is used for
the model capacity assessments under current, and interim scenarios (2013, 2018, 2023).
0
� � ��0� Sanitary Master Plan
` - � Final Report
• Scenario 2- Katzie Pump Station modelled as an Ideal Pump: In this scenario modelled outflow from the
pump station is the same as inflow. Under this condition there is no backup into the upstream network. This
scenario is used to assess the ultimate OCP capacity of the upstream sewer network.
• Scenario 3- Katzie/225 Street Pumps Station turned off, Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO): To study the
impact of a worst case scenario, upstream HGL will be reviewed during the design storm when the Katzie
and 225 Street pump stations are shut down
2.3 Existing Sewage Flow Generation
This section describes the process used to generate sewage flows for the calibration scenarios, which was
translated into the flow rates for the "existing land-use, actual flows" scenario. Planning level scenarios such as:
2018, 2023, and OCP are discussed further in this report under Section 3.
2.3.1 Flow Allocation
Sanitary flow allocation was determined on a parcel by parcel basis (i.e. each parcel/lot is its own sanitary
catchment). The City provided the existing land use information at the lot level in the form of a shape file. Each
parcel has a unique Identification number (Oracle PIN) which was used to identify & assign flows in the model. The
shape file also contained information about the number of units within a particular parcel, and all units within a parcel
have the same Oracle PIN. The existing residential population was based off the 2011 census data. The census
population is available in the form of "dissemination blocks", for which the City is divided into 527 blocks. Population
was assigned to each parcel/unit based on existing land use. To compare the AECOM assigned population with the
census block data, parcels were grouped into the same boundaries. The difference between total estimated
population and the census population was less than 1%.
Once flows were generated in GIS, the catchment (or parcel) was then automatically allocated to the nearest fronting
sewer manhole using tools within InfoSWMM.
2.3.2 Residential Land-Use
Residential unit flow rates were then determined based on observed flows from the 2013 flow monitoring data
supplied by SFE Global. Average DWF (ADWF) was first determined based on the dry weather week of May 4t" to
11t", 2013. Residential flow component of ADWF was then determined by subtracting ICI and GWI flows from
ADWF. Serviced residential population for each flow monitoring catchment was determined from the City's land use
shape file using GIS tools. All houses with fronting sewer are assumed to be serviced.
Sites 8, 9 and 10 (see Figure 1.1) are the three primary locations that represent 94% of the total serviced population
in Maple Ridge (approximately 66,200 people). The total serviced population of Sites 8, 9 and 10 catchments is
estimated at 62,000 people. Table 2.1 shows the calculated residential sewage flow rates on a unit rate basis
(L/cap/day) for the above three catchments. The weighted average base sanitary flow across the above flow
monitoring sites is 191 L/capita/day.
10
MAPLE RIOGE , .
��
Table 2.1 - Observed Sewage Flow for Three Primary Sites
Site#
Site 8
Site 9 �
Site 10
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
Site 5
� Site 6
Site 7
Sanitary Master Plan
Final Report
ADWF Residential
(Observed GWI ICI flow Residential Residential Rate
Data) (L/s) (L/s) Flow (L/s) Pop.
(L/s) (L/Capita/Day)
83.0 20.0 7.6
11.1 � 1.6 � 3.0
118.2 13.6 29.0
TotalServiced Population
7.6 2.2 0.7
18.5 3.7 0.8
12.2 1.6 4.6
14.4 2.6 1.2
4.6 0.1 2.7
21.5 � 7.8 � 4.7
11.3 3.4 0.7
Total Serviced Population
55.4 25,761
� 6.5 � 3,258 �
75.6 33,010
62, 029
4.6 2,716
� 14 7,967
6.0 3,135
10.7 5,110
1.7 596
7.1 5,284 �
7.1 3,224
28, 031
�
186
172
198
191
147
152
166
180
252
146
191
Table 2.1 also shows the summary of sanitary flows and populations for the remaining 7 flow meter catchments.
These catchments are smaller in size as compared to the above three locations and are located upstream of them.
Results show the residential base sanitary flow rate varies from 147 to 252 L/capita/day in these catchments.
Variations in per capita flow rates are more noticeable in catchments with smaller populations since they are more
sensitive to fluctuations in monitored flow. These 7 flow monitoring sites are captured in the three (3) primary flow
monitoring sites (8, 9, and 10)
2.3.3 ICI Land Use
ICI flow rates were calculated from water consumption records provided by the City. The average sanitary flow was
assumed to be 100% of average water consumption during the winter (based on January to March, 2012 water
meter records). This period was selected to factor out irrigation, which is not typically done during winter months.
11
� � ��0� Sanitary Master Plan
` - � Final Report
2.3.4 Groundwater Infiltration
Groundwater infiltration (GWI) is the non-rainfall dependent flow that enters the sewer system through holes in the
sewers and manholes, misaligned joints and service laterals. Determining the rate of GWI can be complicated and
highly variable across the City because GWI varies with:
• pipe age because as pipes age they deteriorate;
• pipe conditions such as cracks, joint dislocations etc;
• material type because some pipe materials are brittle (AC and concrete), and some pipes have gasketted
joints to minimize infiltration;
• amount of pipe in the catchment (diameter and length), because the more pipe and surface area in contact
with groundwater will result in more infiltration;
• depth of groundwater table relative to sewer pipe;
• number of service connections, with the more connections resulting in a higher rate of infiltration; and
• subsurface soil type and location of pipe relative to till/clay layers. If a pipe is at deeper depths and installed
above an impermeable layer, the groundwater table is most likely elevated and can cause infiltration
whereas a pipe installed at shallower depths in sandy soils will tend to have a lower groundwater table since
the material is free draining.
In addition to the sanitary flow, Ground Water Infiltration (GWI) was added based on parcel areas and unit rates
determined from each flow meter catchment. Groundwater infiltration (GWI) estimates were determined using the
night-time flow monitoring data during dry weather period for each flow meter catchment. Table 2.2 shows the
observed GW I rate for each flow meter, which have been applied to the model. The location and the catchment area
(sum of serviced lot areas excluding roads & green space) is also included. For catchments with no flow monitoring
data, the GWI rate of the adjacent metered area was applied. Figure 2.1 shows the observed dry weather GWI
variation across the City, and the location of the 10 temporary flow monitoring sites.
12
MAPLE RIOGE , .
��
Table 2.2 — Measured GWI Rates
Serviced Area
Location (Ha)
Site #
Site 1 River Rd. 38.8
Site 2 Kanaka Way 276.2
Site 3 Haney Bypass 44.4
Site 4 232 St. 163.8
Site 5 Royal Cres. 22.4
Site 6 212 St. 127.9
Site 7 Powell Ave. 119.6
Site 8�1� I 203 St. I 668.5�1�
Site 9 I Stewart Cres. I 86.9
� (u/s of 225st PS)
285.8�1�
Site 10�1� Lorne Ave. (d/s of 225st PS)
142.3�1�
Not Metered I Varies I 165.8
�1� Catchment area shown is downstream of other flow meter locations
�z� Refer to Wet Weather Calibration Section 4.2
GWI
(L/s)
2.2
3.7
1.6
2.6
0.1
7.8
3.4
19.1
1.6
Dry Weather
GWI
(L/Ha/Day)
4,989
1,151
3,117
1,350
555
5, 294
2,484
2,466
1,590
4.1 1,228
4.1 2,481
-- � 2,476
Sanitary Master Plan
Final Report
Wet Weather
GWI
(L/Ha/Day) �z�
4,989
1,151
3,117
1,870
555
2,484
3,763
1,590
750
5,486
2,476
GWI of inetered areas range from 555 to 5,294 L/ha/day, with a weighted average of 2,342 L/ha/day. For the three
major catchment areas (Sites 8, 9, 10) the average GWI was calibrated to be 2,201 L/ha/day. The detailed results of
GWI rates for each metered catchment are presented in our Technical Memorandum #01.
During wet-weather, saturated soil conditions result in a shallower groundwater table, which in turn can increase
GWI compared to dry weather. Therefore, we made further adjustments to GWI rates where required based on
observed flow during wet weather weeks in March and April 2013. Analysis of observed flow showed that there was
a significant increase in the ground water infiltration rate (GW I) from dry months to wet winter months at two
monitoring sites (Site 6 and Site 8). As a result, a separate Wet Weather GWI data set was created for the sites
affected during wet months and applied for wet weather calibration to simulate increased infiltration that results from
saturated soil conditions. As listed in Table 2.2, Sites 4, 6, 8, & 10 have separate Wet Weather GWI values.
13
r�
� �
Maple Ridge
Sanitary Master Plan
Legend
• Monitoring Site (2013)
Sanitary Sewer
GWI (L/Ha/d)
Site 1 : 4,989
Site 2 : 1,151
Site 3 : 3,117
Site 4 : 1,350
Site 5: 555
Site 6 : 5,294
Site 7 : 2,484
Site 8 : 2,466 (Excluding 4 &7)
Site 9 : 1,590
Site 10 : 1,228(u/s of 225 PS)
Site 10 : 2,481(d/s of 225 PS)
Unmetered : 2,476
A=COM
0 375 750 1,500 Meters
Project No. Date
60285153 August2013
Dry Weather
GWI Rates
Figure 2.1
i � � ��0� Sanitary Master Plan
- � Final Report
2.3.5 Diurnal Curve
Diurnal curves for sanitary flows, for each land use, were determined from the 2013 flow monitoring data. For single
family and multi-family land-use, the typical diurnal pattern was developed using a 5 day average of the flow
monitoring at Site 2 which has a residential population of approximately 8,000(mostly single family), and limited flows
from ICI. The 5 day period selected was in May, 2013 and no rainfall was observed for at least one week before this
period. The residential diurnal curve shown in Figure 2.2 was then incorporated into the model. The results revealed
a peaking factor of 2.0 for base residential sanitary flows. Overall, this factor is slightly lower than, but in-line with
residential sanitary peaking factors we have observed in other master planning assignments in Surrey, Township of
Langley and Richmond. The peaking factor of 2.0 is reasonable for moderately sized catchments, but non-
conservative for small catchments and local sewers. It is recommended that the peaking factor should be reviewed
in greater detail for local sewers (defined as having a total capacity less than 40 L/s) as part of the development
permitting process for future developments.
2.5
2
L
�
� 1.5
�
�
oc
c
Y
� 1
a
0.5
0
N
N
O
O
D
�
Figure 2.2 Residential Diurnal Curves
w rn �o N w rn �o N w
O O O N O O O N O
O O O O O O O O O
O O
� � � � � � � � �
Time
For commercial land-use, the typical diurnal pattern was developed using a 5-day average of the flow monitoring at
Site 5. There were no flow meters available to represent 100% institutional land-use; therefore, the institutional
pattern was assumed to be the same as the commercial pattern and was applied to all schools, government
buildings, senior care facilities, and hospitals. The temporary flow monitoring program in the City did not isolate any
catchments that were solely industrial land-use. For industrial areas in Maple Ridge, we applied the diurnal patterns
that we recently developed for the City of Surrey. For industrial land-use, the curve was developed from 10 days of
flow monitoring data from a meter in North-Surrey. The monitored area was of primarily industrial land use, similar to
the Hammond industrial park in south-western Maple Ridge. Figure 2.3 shows the industrial, commercial &
institutional diurnal curves incorporated into the model.
15
� � ��0� Sanitary Master Plan
` - � Final Report
2.5
2
Figure 2.3 ICI Diurnal Curve
O.S
0
F' W Q1 �D F' W Q� �b F' W
N O O O � O O O N O
O O O O O p p O O O
0 � � � � � � � � �
� � � � � � � � � �
iime
2.4 Dry Weather Calibration Results
This section summarizes the calibration and validation results for dry-weather conditions. The model was calibrated
at 10 flow monitoring sites throughout Maple Ridge. The site locations are shown in Figure 1.1. Calibration was
completed using a full hydrograph approach (i.e. not just peak flows). Model parameters such as pump discharge,
diversion structures, diurnal factors and groundwater rate were adjusted to match night time flows, peak flows,
hydrograph shape and time to peak.
A comparison of model predicted flows against the observed flow for dry weather periods was completed at all flow
monitoring sites for a 7 day period (May 4 to May 11, 2013). Sites 8, 9 and 10 are the three major flow monitoring
locations that represent approximately 94% of the total serviced population in Maple Ridge. Hydrograph plots
comparing the model predictions with the measured flows from the above 3 benchmark locations are shown in
Figure 2.4 through Figure 2.6.
Please refer to Technical Memorandum #01 for dry weather calibration plots for the remaining 7 sites and tables
summarizing the peak flows and volumes . A good correlation was achieved between the observed flow hydrographs
and model predicted results, in terms of peak flows, night time flows and daily volumes.
16
� � ��0� Sanitary Master Plan
- � Final Report
zao
i�s
150
125
�
� 100
� 1�
�
75
50
25
0
�
Q
0
[V
ri
.-I
�
�
�l
Figure 2.4 Dry Weather Calibration Results — Site 8
� � �
� � � � � � � � � � � �
a � a Q a Q a � a Q a Q
0 o a o a o o Q o 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0
N ry N ry N ry N ry N ry N ry
.-I � .-I � .-I � r-I � .-I � .-I �
r1 r1 M r1 M r1 r1 n� M r1 M r1
ri .-I ri .-I ri .-I ri .-I ri .-I ri .-I
� � k � k � � � k � � �
� V5 Ifl � tiD f� f� W � Qi Q� O
O O 4 O 4 O O 6 O O O .-�
� � � � � � � � � � � �
lfl �l Ill �l Ill �l lfl lll Ill �l l!1 �l
Figure 2.5 Dry Weather Calibration Results — Site 9
- Monitored Floav
-Madel Floav
a Q
0 0
0 0
N ry
.-I �
M r1
� �
O .-�
� �
l!1 �l
17
� � ��0� Sanitary Master Plan
- � Final Report
Figure 2.6 Dry Weather Calibration Results — Site 10
Note: Measured peak flows are affected by 225 Street PS which has four different sized pumps cycling, where model flow cannot vary the pump
capacity for each cycle.
2.5 Pump Station Inflow and Outflow
2.5.1 225 Street Pump Station
The 225 Street Pump Station is the City's largest pumping station, and was the most difficult to model. The station
conveys flow from the River Road and Cotton Wood trunk sewers , along with the majority of the Town Centre area.
The 225 Street PS discharges into a 500mm diameter forcemain which is approximately 1.2km long. This forcemain
then ties into a 1050mm diameter gravity sewer on River Road. The station consists of 4 different sized pumps
ranging from 100 hp to 250 hp. Pump curves were obtained from Flygt and input into the model. As-Built drawings
were provided by the City, and used to generate the wet-well volume.
A pump test was conducted on December 9, 2013 to observe actual flow rates from the stations duty pumps P1, P3,
and P4; the results are summarized in Table 2.3. The maximum flow of 509.5 L/s was observed with all three pumps
in operation. The observed firm capacity of the station, measured with largest pump (P4) not in operation, was 505
L/s.
18
MAPLE RIOGE , .
��
Pump
P1
P2
P3
P4
P1&P3
P1&P4
P3&P4
P1,P3&P4
Table 2.3 — Observed 225 Street Pump Station Flow
Motor Rating
(hp)
214
100
250
250
Impeller
Diameter (mm)
380
450
425
425
Test Duration
(mins)
11
13
12
11
11
12
13
Sanitary Master Plan
Final Report
Observed Average
Flow (L/s)
298.5
301.2
442.8
505.0
510.9
499.4
509.5
The 225 Street pumps are operated in rotating cycles in order to distribute the runtime more evenly over the duty
pumps. The InfoSWMM model simulates pump on-off cycles based on simple fixed water levels; activating each
pump when the wet-well water level reaches the `start-up depth', and shutting down when it lowers to the `shutoff
depth'. Due to the variations in pump usage, actual and simulated pump cycles were different. To validate the results
of the model calibration a volume comparison of the downstream Site 10 was used. The total difference during the
dry weather calibration period was within 6%, and 1%for the wet weather validation period. The wet weather
calibration period had a volume difference of 8%, which was affected by a sewage overflow at the station.
2.5.2 Minor Pump Stations
Out of 28 City operated pump stations modelled- three pump stations had no as built drawings; four pump stations
had only pump on-off data, but no level data; and one pump station was missing both level and as-built information.
For pump stations with missing as-builts, the wet well size was assumed. For pump stations with missing level data,
the as-builts were used (if available) for determining the on-off levels.
We validated the model using average inflows and pump discharge rates developed using SCADA records provided
by the City. All of the pump stations have average dry weather inflow of less than 5 I/s, with the exception of the 225
Street Pump Station. Most of the stations have pump run times in the range of 1- 5 minutes during dry weather. One
minute interval SCADA data was available for all pump stations. One station had varying pump run times of 2 to 4
minutes which affected the calculated outflow. In this case the pump was modeled to the middle range , and the
pump station and downstream pipe capacity were reviewed to ensure both the low and high estimate could be
serviced . Table 2.4 summarizes the observed and modelled outflow at each pump station.
19
City of Maple Ridge
Sanitary Master Plan
Table 2.4 - Pump Station Calibration Summary
MAPLE RIDGE � .
BritisM1 Columbia
ADW Inflow
Name Location Model ID Calculated SCADA Model from SCADA Model ADW. Comments
Pump Outflow (L/s) Outflow (L/s) ���S� Inflow (L/s)
Katzie PS01 -- -- -- -- PS not modelled
Wharf St 20208 Wharf St PS02 4 4 0.1 0.1
S207 St 20686 - 120B Ave PS03 8 to 18 �'� 14 2.0 2.0 No SCADA Level data
S208 St 20810 Dewdney Trunk Rd PSO4 14 15 2.2 2.2 Missing As-Built Drawing
Steeves St 20937 River Rd PS05 -- gg __ 1 8 No SCADA level data, Missing As-Built Drawing. Assumed
1800mm dia. wet well
Golf Lane 20975 Golf Lane PS06 3 5.5 2.3 2.2
Cutler PI 21198 Cutler PI PS07 9 12 0.2 0.3
Anderson PI 11583 Anderson PI PS09 7 11 0.3 0.2
Meadow Brook PI 12463 Meadow Brook PI PS10 10 9 1.0 0.9 No SCADA Level data
Cliff Ave 22010 Cliff Ave PS11 6 6 0.2 0.2
River Bend 22197 River Rd PS12 12 11 1.8 1.5 No SCADA Level data, cycle depth of 700mm is assumed
S225 11555 - 225 St PS13 299 266 �2� -- -- Observed Firm Capacity = 505 L/s (P1 &P3)
Leachate 11589 Cottonwood Dr PS14 16 15 1.4 1.4 Model Inflow set from ADW Inflow from SCADA.
Cottonwood 1 1335 - 234A St PS15 10 8 0.7 0.6
Tamarack Lane 23527 Tamarack Lane PS16 26 30 5.0 4.0
Fairgrounds 23588 - 105 Ave PS17 11 15 0.8 0.9
Tamarack Loop 23680 - 108 Loop PS18 8 5 0.3 0.4
S239 St 1 1 600 - 238A St PS20 16 18 1.6 1.5
S240 11320 - 240 St PS21 4 6 0.6 0.4
S113 24195 - 113 Ave PS22 6 7 0.2 0.2
S249 St 1 1 804 - 249 St PS23 8 8 0.8 0.7
S250 24927 Dewdney Trunk Rd PS24 30 29 3.8 3.1
S251 St / Maple Creek 11881 - 250 St PS25 7 8 0.5 0.4
S243 St / McClure 24300 McClure Drive PS26a 9 10 0.9 0.8 Very small catchment Area
S245 24483 - 106B Ave PS27A 9 9 0.3 0.2
Fern Crescent 23291 - 132 Ave PS29A 25 25 1.8 2.3
S136 Ave 22620 - 136 Avenue PS30 67 71 3.9 5.0
Trails Edge 24185 - 106 B Ave PS31 A 11 17 1.0 0.7
S241 12510 - 241 St (Academy Pk.) PS32 12 11 1.0 0.9
�l� SCADA data resolution of+/- lmin coupled with short pump cycle affect calculated pump discharge rate
�z� Average model outflow of P1. Pump flow ranges from 250 - 281 L/s based on pump curve. Volume of flow is within 6% of observed
�
MAPLE RIOGE , .
��
2.6 Wet Weather Calibration Results
Sanitary Master Plan
Final Report
The first steps for wet weather calibration were to analyze the rainfall data, compare periods of rain with flow data
available, and then select the appropriate calibration sites and events. Rainfall data from February to May 2013 was
analyzed for long-duration events proceeded by rainfall to ensure wet antecedent conditions existed. As a result, the
two most significant rainfall events during the monitoring period were selected for model calibration/validation:
• March 11-15, 2013
• April 9-11, 2013
Figure 2.7 shows the IDF curves for above two rainfall events overlaid on the IDF curve of DM44 rain gauge (Katzie
Pump Station). The storm events were close to the order of a 6-month return period storm in the 1-6 hour duration,
and the March storm approached a 1 year event for 12 hour durations. It is preferred to calibrate to events on the
order of a 2 to 10-year return period because RDII analysis are often simulated for a 5-year return period. However,
these events were the largest storms observed during the monitoring period.
�
_
= 1G.G0
c
Figure 2.7 Katzie IDF Curve with Calibration Events Overlaid
� � ��■■ ua� ���■■ � ������ ■■� ���� �� ■■��
���■■■� ���t■�■������■■�������■■■■�
���■�■�L� ���■■■�11���■■[�11���■■■■�
��������I► '�������������t�����������
��������i �. �����ii����n�ii��������
� ■ ■�II III�.Z'�. '`►! �I�■�� III II� ■ ■� IIII I
��1�������►1����. �����������1�����
� .����� ������I
! �III►��.. '�+_
—��������—�� ��A ������� _��������
�����������W ���� ��������: ��������
���■■■��I���■■■�1����►�■���� ��■■■��
����������������������������-. ����1�
��■■�1111��■■�1111�����l111��. � �il1
�■■�IIIII�■■�IIIII�■��1�i:�:_►�►�.. I
�� ��ii iii� �� �ii i ii���� iii ii� ��� ��ii
.
� .oa
❑.oi o.1❑ i.o❑ io.o❑ ioo.no
ouracion (hr)
Wet weather calibration was completed using a full hydrograph approach (i.e. not just peak flows) for a minimum
5-day period including at least 2 days before and after the major storm event. The rainfall-derived infiltration/inflow
(RDII) into a sewer system was modelled using the Unit Hydrographs (UHs) approach. A UH set contains up to three
such hydrographs, one for a short-term response, one for an intermediate-term response, and one for a long-term
response. Each UH group is considered as a separate object by InfoSWMM and is assigned its own unique name
along with the name of the rain gauge that supplies the rainfall data. The rainfall data for each inflow node was
supplied by the nearest gauge to the node.
21
MAPLE RIOGE , .
��
Each unit hydrograph is defined by three parameters :
• R: the fraction of rainfall volume that enters the sewer system
• T: the time from the onset of rainfall to the peak of the UH in hours
• K: the ratio of time to recession of the UH to the time to peak
Sanitary Master Plan
Final Report
Each inflow node in the model is assigned a UH group based on the flow meter catchment in which it is located. To
generate RDII into a node, the model applies the assigned UH to the sewershed area draining to that node.
Separate RTK parameters for each flow meter were applied based on observed flows during the calibration events.
Table 2.5 summarizes the calibrated RTK values used for each location. Appendix A provides hydrograph plots of
the wet weather calibration results, comparing model vs observed flows over during the calibration event (March
2013).
Catchment
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
Site 5
Site 6
Site 7
Site 8
Site 9
Site 10
R1 T1
0.4%
0.4% ,
6.0 %
1.3%
1.5%
0.4 %
1.6%
0.3 %
0.6 %
0.8 %
2.7 Model Validation
Table 2.5 - RTK Parameters Used for Calibration
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
K1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
R2 T2
0.4 %
0.4% I
1.0%
1.0%
3.0 %
0.5 %
1.0%
0.4 %
0.4 %
0.6 %
K2
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
R3 T3
0.5%
0.4 %
1.0%
0.5 %
1.0%
2.0%
0.5 %
0.9 %
0.5 %
0.5 %
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
K3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
R Sum
1.3 %
1.2 %
8.0 %
3.1 %
5.5 %
2.9%
3.1 %
1.6%
1.5 %
1.9 %
In addition to calibrating the model at above mentioned sites, the model was also validated using the April 2013
storm. Appendix B shows the detailed plots for all validation results at temporary monitoring sites. The model was
also validated using average inflows and pump discharge rates developed using SCADA records provided by the
City.
Please refer to Technical Memorandum #01 for a more detailed analysis of the wet weather calibration and
validation.
22
� � ��0� Sanitary Master Plan
` - � Final Report
Future Scenarios
�
3.1 Land-Use / Planning Scenario Overview
Land-use, zoning, and OCP information was collected from the City in GIS/hardcopy format. The following is a
summary of key information obtained from the City:
• GVRD's Traffic Zone population projections in shapefile format. The shapefile updated by City's planning
staff was used as a basis for the OCP population projections for most areas except Albion and Albion Flats.
Please refer to Technical Memorandum #03 for more details regarding future population projections for the
Albion and Albion Flats area;
• Existing zoning and existing land-use shape files;
• Land use shape file of the various growth areas. Figure 3.1 shows the location for each area within the City;
and
• OCP shape file.
Various land-use and/or zoning scenarios were developed in the InfoSWMM model. Each scenarios include
different flow generation data sets. The scenarios include:
• "Existing Actual" — Represents current land-use and flow conditions based on calibration results. Only
includes lots currently serviced by the City. Populations based on the latest census data, sewage flows
based on population, water meter records and observed GWI rates. Infrastructure is existing infrastructure
as per the City's GIS;
• "Intermediate 2018 and 2023" — Population for the interim scenarios (2018 & 2023) were interpolated from
current and OCP scenarios, with emphasis from the Planning department on what is expected in the next 5
to 10 years in terms of growth. Two meetings were held with the City's planning staff to better understand
the staging of expected growth in the areas outlined in Figure 3.1.
• "'OCP Scenario" — Represents the ultimate future development scenario (2041).
There is significant growth planned for the Albion area, Town Center, Silver Valley, Thornhill, and Albion Flats.
Limited growth is also expected along major transportation corridors. AECOM met with the City's Planning
department to develop future population estimates that accurately reflect the OCP and planned developments.
23
�
�
�,
N
� �
-
Maple Ridge
Sanitary Master Plan
Legend
Neighbourhood Boundary
Urban Reserve
Agricultural
Industrial
Park and Conservation Areas
Institutional
� Commercial
Tourist Commercial
PH Adaptive Use
Low Density Residential
Low/Medium Density Residential
Eco Clusters
Medium Density Residential
Medium/High Density Residential
High Density Residential
� A=COM
0 500 1,000 2,000 m
Project No. Date
60285153 July 2014
�
I�J�L�`�d�1L�
- � � �
��
Growth Areas
Figure 3.1
� � ��0� Sanitary Master Plan
` - � Final Report
The OCP scenario also reflects the amendment approved by Council in July 2013 which permits an increase in
development density in the Albion area. Finally, land use assumptions for the Albion Flats neighbourhood were
based on November 2013 plans made available by the City. The OCP Scenario does not include development in the
urban reserve, however that area is reviewed in Section 4.7.
The population increases were estimated using community growth areas instead of a"City-wide" blanket approach;
this better captures the different rates of growth expected throughout Maple Ridge. The Traffic Zone populations
maintained by the City were used as the starting base, but in several instances did not reflect the full amount of
growth expected from the Area Plans. Future populations for the Town Centre and Silver Valley were developed
using the OCP land use and estimated density values. Intermediate (2018 and 2023) year populations were
interpolated between the current and ultimate population estimates. This was accomplished using a linear regression
from the expected build-out year to the desired scenario year.
3.2 Future Flow Generation
In order to input dry weather flows in model on a parcel-by-parcel basis, a separate shape file was created for each
scenario containing land-use, residential populations, and industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) flows for each
property in the City. AECOM consulted with City staff to develop the unit-rates that were used to generate future
flows for assessment. The average dry weather flow (ADWF) was calculated using a unit rate of 300 UCapita/Day.
This rate was applied to all residential and ICI equivalent populations (PE).
25
� � ��0� Sanitary Master Plan
` - � Final Report
3.2.1 Commercial Flows
The average commercial rate of 80 PE/ha was determined using winter water meter records from a sample of
existing neighbourhood and community commercial lots in the calibrated model. This rate was used for all future
neighbourhood and community commercial areas. For future big box commercial developments 120 PE/ha was
used as per MMCD design criteria. To account for re-development of existing neighbourhood and community
commercial lots in the future, the following criteria was used:
• If existing flows were less than or equal to average plus one standard deviation: the average flow rate of 80
PE/ha was used
• If existing flows were greater than the average plus one standard deviation: flow rate was based on the
existing winter water meter data.
3.2.2 Industrial and Institutional Flows
Flows from existing industrial and institutional lots were calculated using the winter water meter data. For future
industrial areas, 200PE/ha was used as per MMCD design criteria.
3.2.3 GWI and I&I
The ground water infiltration (GWI) and RDII rates for existing areas are based on the calibrated model. For details
please refer to AECOM's Technical Memorandum #01 —Model Development and Calibration. For future
developments (greenfields), Inflow & Infiltration (I&I) was estimated using the Metro Vancouver unit rate of 11,200
L/ha/day (equivalent to 5-year I&I level).
For future developments (greenfields) in Albion Flats and North Albion, average dry weather flows (ADWF) was input
into the model along with the diurnal pattern to model the peak dry weather flow. The diurnal pattern established in
the model was used to create the peak flows. After discussing with City staff we decided not to use the Harmon
Peaking Factor since the diurnal pattern is based on a calibrated model, and is more accurate for estimating peak
flows in trunk sewers and inflows to the pump stations.
26
� � ��0� Sanitary Master Plan
` - � Final Report
Sewer System Assessment
4.1 Hydraulic Capacity Criteria
Sections 2 and 3 of this report described the approach to developing the sewer model, and the subsequent
scenarios that were developed to assist the City with planning for capital works required to service increased
development. The model scenarios were simulated to identify hydraulic constraints such as undersized sewers and
pump stations. The OCP boundary condition does not reflect any backwater conditions at the Katzie Pump Station,
as discussed in Section 2. The capacity assessment was completed for the four scenarios including current, 2018,
2023 and OCP. All scenarios were simulated under a 5-year 24-hour design storm condition.
The following criteria were used to assess the sanitary sewer system:
• Local sewers (PWWF<40 L/s) running more than 70% full (Qpeak/Qfull > 0.7) were recommended for
upgrade.
• Trunk sewers (PWWF>40 L/s) running more than 83.5% full (Qpeak/Qfull > 0.835) were recommended for
upgrade. This is equivalent to approximately 70% of the full pipe depth.
• Pump stations should have capacity to convey the PWWF using only the duty pump. Stand-by pumps were
deactivated for the assessment.
4.2 Gravity Sewer Assessment
The results of each scenario are summarized in Figures 4.1 to 4.4. Sewers with a Qpeak/Qfull greater than the
threshold criteria have been flagged, and are shown in bold red. Manholes are colour-coded based on the maximum
surcharge level experienced in the simulation. Surcharging is defined when the HGL is above the pipe crown, but
below the ground surface, where flooding is when the HGL exceeds the ground elevation.
As an important reminder, the calibration of model results was based on a tolerance of +/- 15% and some of the
highlighted sewers may fluctuate on the design criteria threshold. The sewers highlighted as exceeding the design
criteria and/or surcharging are not necessarily considered undersized sewers and in need of immediate upsizing
because they are based on theoretical population horizons. These highlighted sewers should be examined in more
detail on a case by case basis in order to confirm if and when capital upgrades and upsizing are warranted. The
detailed examination should consider diversion options to alleviate peak flows, alternate routing / twinning options,
risk of property damage upstream and potentially flow/level monitoring to confirm model results in these localized
areas.
27
� � ��0� Sanitary Master Plan
` - � Final Report
Tab/es 4.1 and 4.2 provide a summary of the total length of sewers in each category of capacity (PWWF vs full) for
the various population scenarios The tables are separated respectively for local and trunk sewers.
Table 4.1 - Local / Collector Sewer Capacity Summary (Q < 40 L/s)
Length of Undersized sanitary sewers (km)
Qpeak / Qfull Ratio
Current 2018 2023
0- 0.5 248.7 241.8 240.0
0.5 - 0.70 4.7 3.5 3.6
0.70 - 1.00 1.7 2.4 3.1
>=1.0 0.6 0.4 0.5
Table 4.2 - Trunk Sewer Capacity Summary (Q > 40 L/s)
Length of Undersized sanitary sewers (km)
Qpeak / Qfull Ratio
Current 2018 2023
0- 0.5 20.3 18.7 17.6
0.5-0.835 2.2 8.7 11.2
0.835 - 1.00 0.1 0.6 0.9
>=1.0 I 0.3 I 2.2 I 2.5 I
OCP
236.5
4.3
3.0
0.9
OCP
16.7
Full size hardcopies of Figures 4.1 through 4.4 showing model results of the various scenarios are provided in
Appendix C. Plots of Maximum HGL in the major trunk sewers are provided in Appendix D.
Under the current scenario several manholes are flagged as surcharging during the design storm, but in all instances
the HGL remains within the MH depth. The surcharging MH's are mainly limited to the interceptor sewers adjacent
to the Katzie PS, and the River Road trunk sewer immediately upstream of the 225 Street PS. Along with the model
results, corroborating evidence from City staff indicates that the River Road trunk does not cause any flooding under
existing surcharged conditions, which are present when the 225 Street Pump Station is shut down. The area of
Skillen Street and 123 Avenue has several pipes flagged as under capacity, with the connecting MHs experiencing
some surcharging.
28
� � ��0� Sanitary Master Plan
` - � Final Report
In the interim and OCP scenarios, the list of surcharging manholes increases; mostly in the areas upstream of the
225 Street PS. Several MH's on the River Road trunk sewer are surcharged, and approximately 8 are shown to
flood. The flooding is related to the 225 Street PS, which is shown to be under capacity beginning in the 2018
scenario (see Section 4.4). The inadequate capacity at the pump station leads to HGL rising in the River Road trunk
sewer, which is also under capacity for the scenario.
When the River Road trunk sewer is surcharged, several upstream MHs flood under peak flow conditions in the area
of Makay Avenue and Fisherman Road. While the River Road trunk sewer is estimated to be over capacity
(Qpeak/Qfull > 0.835) for the 2018 scenario, actual peak flows will be dependent on the rate of upstream
development. The 2018 scenario has assumed rapid development in Albion Flats, including the diversion of flows
from the Fairgrounds PS to River Road, and further development in south Albion. As such, recommended
improvements on the trunk sewer could likely be delayed beyond 2018, and the area is recommended for further
study as development progresses.
Two MHs located at the rear of residential lots on Tamarack Lane, R044 and R045, were also flagged as flooding in
the interim and OCP scenarios. The simulations showed the MH's flooded when the upstream Tamarack Lane PS
was active. Downstream sewer capacity at River Road was reduced such that the pumped flow caused a sharp but
brief rise in HGL. It is recommended that these manholes be bolted to reduce the potential of flooding due to short
periods of high HGL. Property damage near these MHs would not be likely due to the topography; the adjacent
homes are several meters above the manhole rim elevations.
Two MHs located on 232 Street (L078 & L076) were identified as surcharging for the Interim and OCP scenarios
with several pipes identified as under capacity. The residential neighbourhood located immediately west of the
surcharged manholes is built above the road elevation and will not be affected by the surcharging manholes. The
modeled HGL through this sewer remains well below ground level for all of the scenarios. It is recommend that the
City upgrade these sewers prior to permitting any new service connections at this location.
29
� �
Maple Ridge
Sanitary Master Plan
Legend
* Dlversion MH
Slphon
--- Forcemain
s PumpSta�ion
� Untlersizetl Pump Station
Q Neighbourhood Boundary
Manhole HGL Dep[h
• Below Pipe Crown
Surcharged
• Flooded
Sewer Capacity
q/Q < 0.50
Q>40 Us; 0.50 <q/Q< 0.835 Q<40 Us; 0.50 <q/Q<OJO
— Q>40 Us; q/Q > 0.835 Q<40 Us; q/Q>OJO
Peak Flow (Us)
Full Flow Capacity (Us)
A=COM
0 500 1000 2000m
Project No. Date
60285153 July 2014
Current Scenario
5 yr-24hr Design Storm
Results
Figure 4.1
m
r �� _.
� ..
�
N * �
A
Maple Ridge
� Sanitary Master Plan
�
Legend
* DlversionMH
Slphon
--- Forcemain
' � PumpS�e�lon
" / UndersizedPumpStation
- O Neighbourhootl Bountlary
" Manhole HGL Depth
Below Pipe Crown
Surcharged
• Flooded
� Sewer Capacity
q/Q < 0.50
_ _ ., 4_ Q>40 L/s; 0.50 <q/Q< 0.835 Q<40 Us; 0.50 <q/Q<O70
- Q>40 Us; q/Q > 0.835 Q<40 Vs; q/Q>OJO
Peak Wet Weather Flow
Loaded to MH
� � Peak Flow (Us)
.. Full Flow Capaci[y (Ls)
A=COM
0 500 1000 2000m
Project No. Date
60285153 July 2014
2018 Scenario
5 yr-24hr Design Storm
Results
Figure 4.2
_ i
,�� . ao , ,o� . na -a '
-� . ... ,9a -, �.. ,. , �„ ,n. s. „ „� � _
v . , no� . ..a ._ '. _ ' .,._ R
� mea� cs
��- �_ � ���
�-- �
.. "�F,"
��� �����-v - . -
a��� �,� ��� � � � „ - _ -
,5 . , -
_� �
�d - � � esias� � � -
3� '
� . .
".,.. ._ . . �:.
� ^ ] �
n >> rv
+� . az� . .v .,... -
���r I�y_�� " .�-W' �
:. �
�� 'o � n e r ..
�g -
5 � ^ � . i
.
ss �
� P�at � r--^F, �v�a v� � da'.i
� ,� �° ' w� s '���,�o�Ps A.e. _
� '� �� � �
---�-���� �Y,`J, . �
"\
w �Ps. r
�a �,,
N � �
A
Maple Ridge
� Sanitary Master Plan
_ �,
Legend
* D'iversion MH
��.�1. S'iPM1on
---- Forcemain
� �._ 1 PumP Station
/ Undersized Pump Sta�ion
ONeighbourhootl Boundary
�' �'"' + .,.. - Manhole HGL Depih
�hr
:�,� Below Pipe Crown
f
Surcharged
• Flooded
" ° ' 6 Sewer Capacity
., ° . �, > ;
�� r 3
_... .,✓F q/Q < 0.50
,,. � Q>40 Us; 0.50 <q/Q< 0.835 Q<40 L/s; 0.50 <q/Q<070
, . �� -- � . ,,. . .. a ,, ,, , ,, ,,, ,,, ,. _ . . . „ .. _ - Q>40 L/s; 9/Q > 0.835 Q<40 Us: 9/Q>070
' � � Peak Wet Weather Flow
.- _ � Loaded to MH
�a�a v ,�_ .. . , .....
�� � . � � Peak Flow (L/s)
Full Flow capacity (us)
�1
.
""'""' "�-�.:T"c_ zsaas _._..
�1
j�" 5 St Maple Creek PS
,���
52099�P¢ �
� A=COM
0 500 1000 2000rr
Project No. Date
60285153 July 2014
2023 Scenario
5 yr-24hr Design Storm
Results
Figure 4.3
"'e �
�� , .. _� me.a� a oex v
•. �, � �
N � �
A
Maple Ridge
Sanitary Master Plan
���� Legend
a-
* Diversion MH
Siphon
--- Forcemain
' � Pump S�e�lon
- � UndarslzedPumpSlatlon
ONeighbourhootl Bountlary
Manhole HGL Depth
Below Pipe Crown
Surcharged
• Flooded
- Sewer Capacity
q/Q < 0.50
_ , � Q>40 Us; 0.50 <q/Q< 0.835 Q<40 Vs; 0.50 <q/Q<0.70
� - Q>40 Us; q/Q > 0.835 Q<40 Us; q/Q>0.70
Peak Wet Weather Flow
Loaded to MH
. �� Peak Flow (Us)
,. Full Flow Capacity (L�s)
� A=COM
0 500 1000 2000m
Project No. Date
60285153 July 2014
OCP 2041 Scenario
5 yr-24hr Design Storm
Results
Figure 4.4
I � � ��0� Sanitary Master Plan
- � Final Report
4.3 Inverted Siphon Sewer Assessment
The City operates several inverted siphons to convey sanitary flows across creeks and rivers. Due to the complexity
involved in their modelling, siphon capacities were also assessed using the manning's equation. The theoretical
capacity was compared to the peak OCP flows to identify any gaps in conveyance capacity. The results of the
assessment are summarized in Table 4.3. Of the five siphon crossing areas assessed, only one location has an
OCP flow exceeding the capacity; 240 Street at Kanaka Creek. With a total a hydraulic capacity of 37 L/s, the twin
siphon is adequate to convey the current and 2018 peak flows, but will be exceeded by a 2023 flow of 38 L/s, and an
OCP flow of 49 L/s. The City has indicated the 240 Street bridge crossing the creek has an opening to install a future
sanitary pipe up to 650mm diameter. At an estimated slope of 1%, a 300mm diameter sewer would be the minimum
size required to provide sufficient capacity at this crossing.
Table 4.3 - Inverted Siphon Capacity Assessment
u/s
From Inv.
Name MH to MH (m)
River Road TS15 TS14 -0.4
River Road � TS15 , TS14 � -0.4 I
River Road TS15 TS14 -0.4
Total Capacity - River Road @ Kanaka A
Tamarack Lane R054 R053 1.09
Tamarack Lane R054 R053 1.09
Tamarack Lane R054 R053 1.09
Total Capacity - Tamarack Lane @ Kanaka Creek
Lane west of 243A St R340 R163 21.92
Lane west of 243A St R340 R163 21.92
Total Capacity - Lane west of 243A Street
240 Street W004 W001 6.25
240 Street W004 W001 6.25
Total Capacity - 240 Street @ Kanaka Creek
128 Avenue Y018 Y017 38.88
128 Avenue Y018 Y017 38.88
Total Caaacitv 128 Ave � Alouette River
d/s Inv
(m)
-0.54
-0.54
-0.54
L (m)
60.0
60.0
60.0
0.33 61.4
0.22 61.4
0.22 65.2
21.55 47.2
21.55 I 47.2
5.3 98.0
5.3 98.0
36.06 I 253.0
36.03 I 253.0
Pipe Elev. Full OCP
Dia. Mann- ���• S Vel. Flow PWWF
(mm) ing's n (m) (m/m) (m/s) (�/s) (�/s)
750 0.013 0.14 0.002 1.2 538 --
450 � 0.013 i 0.14 I 0.002 , 0.9 i 138 I --
250 0.013 0.14 0.002 0.6 29 --
704 101.2
200 0.013 0.76 0.012 1.2 36 --
150 0.013 0.87 0.014 1.0 18 --
150 0.013 0.87 0.013 1.0 18 --
72 27.4
150 0.013 0.37 0.008 0.8 13 --
150 0.013 0.37 0.008 0.8 13 --
27 0.4
200 0.013 0.95 0.010 1.0 32 --
100 0.013 0.95 0.010 0.6 5 --
37 49.1
200 0.013 2.82 0.011 1.1 35 --
375 0.013 2.85 0.011 1.7 186 --
I 221 I 36.4
34
� * � A=COM
4.4 Pump Station and Forcemain Assessment
Sanitary Master Plan
Final Report
In conjunction with the gravity sewer evaluation, the capacity of the existing sanitary pump stations was reviewed.
Table 4.4 summarizes the existing station capacity versus the predicted PWWF flows for each scenario. Note the
station capacity is calculated based on the SCADA data and assumes one pump is held out of service as a back-up
only. PWWF is measured as the maximum inflow at the station. For pump stations with multiple inlet sewers (e.g.
225 Street) the peak flow in each pipe may occur at different times, therefore peak inflow is not necessarily the sum
of the inlet PWWFs.
As noted in Table 4.4, 3 of 28 pump stations are undersized for the "OCP Scenario" peak flows. These stations are
highlighted in orange in table below. In conjunction with pump station upgrades, some of the discharge forcemains
may require upsizing. Forcemain upgrades will most likely be required for the 225 Street Pump Station. It is
important to re-iterate that the peak inflows predicted at the pump stations may vary depending on the model
calibration, and therefore any pump stations within a 10% +/- tolerance of the predicted peak inflows should be
monitored regularly for longer run times and increased pump cycles as these are signs of potential under-sizing.
Stations that fall into this category include those highlighted in "green" in Table 4.4.
The 225 Street Pump Station is the most critical in the list. The station has a firm capacity of 505 L/s, which is
estimated to be reached after 2018. Options to attenuate pumping rates by using more storage capacity in the
interceptor sewers feeding the station are minimal as these sewers are already surcharged during the design storm.
The capacity assessment is based on a conservative estimate of total peak flows conveyed by the station, however
the timing of when peak flows will exceed the current capacity will depend on actual L per capita flows, and I&I. Our
assessment assumes 300 L/c/d along with an allowance of 50 L/s inflow from the Leachate pump station. If the
leachate was not included in the assessment, the capacity would not be exceeded until the next planning horizon,
2023. Similarly, if the station is assessed using a residential rate of 250 L/c/d or lower, the capacity would be
sufficient in 2018, but exceeded in 2023 or later.
When the 225 Street Pump Station and forcemain are upgraded, they should be sized to accommodate flow from
Thornhill. As described in the boundary conditions, Metro Vancouver is not expected to be able to accept PWWF
from significant storms until after 2021 due to limitations in their system capacity; therefore there will be no benefit to
upgrading pumping capacity before then.
The River Bend Pump Station is estimated to be out of capacity under the current scenario. The Pump Station
catchment is located adjacent to an area identified with high rates of I&I. In the model simulation wet weather inflow
accounts for the majority of pumped flow during the design storm, therefore station capacity may be improved
through better I&I management. It is important to note the SCADA data used to calibrate this station did not include
water level information, therefore the capacity was based on an estimated pump cycle depth. This station should be
further investigated to confirm capacity estimates and determine if high inflows are occurring during wet weather
prior to planning any upgrade.
The Fern Pump Station may require an upgrade to service future flows from development in Silver Valley. The
station is estimated to be out of capacity for the OCP planning horizon. Inflows should be reviewed prior to any
upgrades since the nature of development in Silver Valley will affect the loading at this pump station.
35
NAME
W harf St
S207 St
S208 St
Steeves St
MAPLE RIOGE , .
��
LOCATION
20208 W harf St
20686 - 120B Ave
20810 Dewdney Trunk Rd
20937 River Rd
Golf Lane 20975 Golf Lane
Cutler PI 21198 Cutler PI
Anderson PI 11583 Mderson PI
Meadow Brook PI 12463 Meadow Brook PI
Cliff Ave 22010 Cliff Ave
River Bend 22197 River Rd
S225 I 11555 - 225 St
Leachate 11589 Cottonwood Dr
Cottonwood 11335 - 234A St
Tamarack Lane 23527 Tamarack Lane
Fairgrounds 23588 - 105 Ave
Tamarack Loop 23680 - 108 Loop
S239 St 11600 - 238A St
S240 11320 - 240 St
S113 24195-113 Ave
S249 St 11804 - 249 St
S250 24927 Dewdney Trunk Rd
S251 St / Maple Cr 11881 - 250 St
S243 St / McClure 24300 NkClure Drive
S245 24483-1066 Ave
Fern Crescent 23291 - 132 Ave
S136 Ave
Trails Edge
S241
Table 4.4 - Pump Station Capacity Assessment
Approximate P�F (L/s)
Firm
Sanitary Master Plan
Final Report
ModeIID Ca acit Current Comments
p y 2018 2023 OCP
(L/s) Scenario
PS02 4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 --
PS03 14 4.4 4.5 4.9 6.2 --
PSO4 15 8.7 9.4 9.5 9.9 --
No SCADA level data and as-builts
PS05 38 6.4 8.9 9.5 11.0 available for this pump station. Firm
PS06
PS07
PS09
PS10
PS11
PS12
6
9
7
10
6
12
PS13 I 505 i 4007
PS14
PS15
PS16
PS17
PS18
PS20
PS21
PS22
PS23
PS24
PS25
PS26a
PS27A
PS29A
22620 - 136 Avenue PS30
24185 - 106 B Ave PS31A
12510 - 241 St (Academy Pk.) PS32
50
10
26
11
5
16
4
6
8
29
7
9
9
25
75
11
12
1.1
2.3
24.6
9.2
1.3
3.2
6.5
0.6
2.1
23.6
1.1
1.9
0.5
6.7
13.6
2.5
5.5
capacity based on pump curve
5.6 5.7 5.7 High GW I rate was observed at this pump
station
1.6 1.8 2.7 --
0.8 0.8 0.8 --
1.8 1.8 1.2 --
1.9 1.9 2.1 --
No SCADA level data available for this
14.5 14.6 15.3 Pump station. Cycle depth of 700mm
assumed. High RDII rates observed in this
catchment
521.5 593.8 655.7 Future scenarios include 50 Us Inflow
from the Leachate PS
Peak Wet Weather Flow assumed to be
50.0 50.0 50.0 maximum design flow with both pumps
operating.
2.3 2.3 2.3 --
17.4 17.4 17.4 Flows from Fairground PS assumed to be
diverted to River Road Trunk in future
Flows from future development in Albion
10.6 10.6 10.6 Flats loaded directly to River Road Trunk
in Nbdel
1.5 1.5 1.5 --
3.2 3.2 3.8 --
� 4 � � $ 2 Inflow to this pump station to be diverted
to south by gravity in future.
0.7 0.7 0.7 --
2.5 2.5 2.5 --
Peak Inflows to this pump station are
27.3 27.4 2� 2 influenced by flow from Maple Creek PS.
Inflows to this PS should be monitored in
future
1.3 1.3 1.3 --
2.0 2.0 2.0 --
0.5 0.5 0.5 --
12.9 15.9 2�.q Part of future development in Silver Valley
is assumed to be serviced by this PS
26.3 31.0 47.4 Part of future development in Silver Valley
is assumed to be serviced by this PS
4.6 5.1 5.8 --
7.8 8.1 8.8 --
36
� * � A=COM
4.5 Recommended Upgrades
Sanitary Master Plan
Final Report
An analysis of the existing sewer capacities vs. future peak flows was completed. In general, the OCP scenario
results in the highest peak flows of all the scenarios. For the purposes of sewer assessment, the OCP 5-yr 24hr
peak flows were used to assess sewer capacity and determine the recommended pipe diameters.
Figure 4.5 shows the location of proposed pump station and pipe upgrades as well as the existing and ultimate
required pipe diameters. Figure 4.5 only shows the pipes that do not meet the design criteria threshold. At a few
locations the pipes downstream of proposed upgrade are smaller in size than the proposed diameter but have
sufficient capacity to convey the design flows because of steep slopes. The City can consider upgrading these
sections during the detailed design stage to avoid downsizing diameters as flow travels downstream, even if the pipe
has sufficient capacity. Also there are some sewers that currently have capacity for OCP flows because of steep
pipe slopes; upgrades are still recommended on some of these sewers, where the upstream and downstream pipes
are undersized, in order to avoid having smaller diameters as flows travel downstream.
Appendix E provides a tabular summary of the recommended pipe upgrades, including pipe ID, existing
diameter/capacity, Peak Wet Weather Flow for each scenario and the proposed diameter. A total of 110 upgrades
have been recommended for a total length of 8.2 km of sewers. Pipe upgrades have been grouped into 36 projects
listed in ascending order of priority. Trunk sewers that lack capacity under current PWWF were given the highest
priority, followed by trunk sewers needed to support ongoing developments, particularly in Albion, but also including
Silver Valley and Town Centre. Segments of trunk sewer on the North Slope Interceptor (adjacent to the Katzie PS)
flagged as under capacity should undergo a backwater analysis before upgrading.
Local sewers with insufficient capacity under current conditions were given the next priority, followed by trunk and
then local sewers for the later future scenarios up to the OCP. Pipes that require future upgrades but are adjacent to
those requiring current upgrades were grouped into the same project in order to achieve possible cost savings in
mobilization and to avoid disturbing the same street several times.
High level cost estimates have been included for each project in Table E.1, along with an estimated percent of cost
eligible for DCC funding. All Infrastructure requiring future upgrades due to increased population are assumed
eligible for DCC funding. Pump Station and related forcemain cost estimates are summarized in Table E.2 while the
unit cost rates used in the estimates are included in Table E.3.
37
: _�f-�--�_� ___ �
.: � ��� �lf{� " : . �..
250/.""�f 1 1+
,------��.,�-.��-�-
Katzie I
N
MAPLE RIDGE
Bri[ish Columbia
Maple Ridge
Sanitary Master Plan
Legend
� Undersized Pump Station
Pump Station
Upgrade Required for Scenario:
Current
2018
2023
2041 (OCP)
Sewers
Local Sewer
Trunk Sewer
- - - - Forcemain
Siphon
* Diversion MH
• Sanitary MH
0
Proposed Diameter
for OCP (mm)
Existing Diameter (mm)
A=COM
400 800 1,600 m
Project No. Date
60285153 October 2014
Recommended Upgrades
Figure 4.5
MAPLE RIOGE , .
� ��
4.6 I&I Assessment
Sanitary Master Plan
Final Report
As part of the assessment of the sanitary system, a characterization of Inflow & Infiltration (I&I) in catchments A& K
(which were previously noted in in the 2002 Master Plan to have the highest I&I rates) as well as a general review of
system wide I&I was completed.
Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) includes the Groundwater infiltration (GWI) representing groundwater that enters the
sewer system during dry weather conditions, and Rainfall Dependent Inflow & infiltration (RDII) which represents
both inflow + rainfall induced groundwater infiltration that enters the sewer system. AECOM developed RDII values
for the 5-year (24-hour) events in using MV's envelope method in accordance with the I&I Management Plan
Template. The purpose of the envelope method is to use a collection of recorded storm events to create a
correlation between the amount of rain that falls in a catchment and the amount of RDII it generates. Knowing the
return period of the rainfall allows the correlation to be used to produce estimates for return period based RDII.
In February 2013 AECOM developed a flow monitoring plan for the purpose of I&I determination of the selected
catchments. Nine (9) sites were selected for a monitoring period between December 2013 and May 21, 2014. The
monitoring sites are depicted in Figure 4.6, and the results of the analysis are summarized in Table 4.5 below;
Sites 1-4 and Site 9 are located near rain gauge DM62 at Golden Ears Elementary. Sites 5-8 are located close to
gauge DM44 at the Katzie Pump Station. During the monitoring period a total of 10 rainfall events were identified
and isolated for analysis; however only one rainfall event exceeded 55mm in 24 hours, which is comparable to a 6-
month storm at the Maple Ridge rain gauges. Typically storms that are less than the 6-month return period are not
used to extrapolate 5-year I&I rates. We used the available data to generate the RDII envelope, but caution that this
extrapolation to a 5-year return period may be further off than if this exercise were to be repeated with a longer
duration of monitoring data. Due to the varying dates of commissioning for the monitoring sites, and maintenance
issues encountered at each, the number of storms used to extrapolate the RDII ranges from 4 to 9.
Location
Site 2
Site 3-4
Site 4
Site 6
Table 4.5 — 5yr:24hr I&I Flow Rate Estimates
Area (ha) ADWF
(L/s)
63 7.4
20 35.4
44 12.4
15 � 1.4
Site 7 20 1.6
Site 8-5 98 35.4
Site 8 1020 160.3
(South Slope Interceptor)
North Slope Interceptor �l� 960 96.2
) Interceptor was not monitored during the same period. Data used to develop I,
GWI
(L/s)
2.9
9.3
5.7
0.4
0.8
12.8
47.0
5yr-
24hr
RDII
(L/s)
13.1
26.5
31.7
0.5
9.2
41.0
245.0
5yr-24hr
I&I
(L/ha/day)
21,883
154,762
72,686
5,006
43,667
47,451
24,732
I 19.10 I 80.0 I 8,919 I
was taken from the 2013 calibration flow monitoring data.
39
� � ��0� Sanitary Master Plan
` - � Final Report
For a more detailed description of the I&I assessment, please refer to Technical Memorandum #05. The results of
the I&I assessment are summarized below:
• Catchment A represents predominantly single family residential areas. The only major exception is the
large industrial lot to the south in Site 7, and a community centre located in the Site 6 catchment.
• Catchment A— The south west portion characterized by Site 7 has a larger than typical I&I, and likely
includes direct connections to the sanitary sewer.
• Catchment A— the north east portion characterized by Site 6 indicated I&I did not contribute any significant
amount of flow during the observed storms. Estimated I&I rates were lower than the MV target of 11,200
L/ha/d.
• Catchment A— In total was characterized by the composite Site 8-5. The I&I rate was larger than Site 6 and
Site 7 indicating the unmonitored portions of the catchment may also be contributing a significant portion of
I&I.
• Catchment K represents the Town Centre area of Maple Ridge, covered by monitoring Site 2, Site 3 and
Site 4. All of the areas are a mix of multi-family and single family residential land uses, combined with a large
portion of commercial and several institutional areas.
• Catchment K— the eastern half characterized by Site 2 indicates a significant portion of inflow, but I&I rates
are only marginally above MMCD guidelines.
• Catchment K- the western portion characterized by Site 4 has high I&I, and significant inflows can be
observed during wet weather. This area likely has many direct storm connections to the sanitary sewer.
• Catchment K— the southern portion characterized by the composite Site 3-4 had the highest I&I rates in this
study. The catchment I&I is predominantly inflow and likely has direct storm connections to the sanitary
sewer. The site area and upstream pump station (River Bend) should be studied further.
Due to high variability between the 5yr I&I rates, the City is advised to exercise caution when applying blanket
rates to localized areas.
Overall the I&I rates estimated for the whole City are close to or below the Metro Vancouver target rate. There is
a greater portion of I&I draining to the South Slope Interceptor, which may be explained by extraneous flows
such as leachate that should not be included in the estimates. Potential leachate flow from the Cottonwood
landfill would not impact I&I rates calculated for Catchment K, or Catchment A.
41
i � � ��0� Sanitary Master Plan
- � Final Report
4.7 Thornhill Urban Reserve
As part of the assessment of the sanitary system, the City requires an estimate of potential future sanitary flows from
the Thornhill Urban Reserve, a 630ha area located to the east of Albion. The City also requires conceptual servicing
options for Thornhill. The Urban Reserve is within the urban area boundary but is not serviced by the water or
sanitary system. According to the OCP, urban development in the Thornhill area will not occur until the City's
population exceeds 100,000 and capacity in the urban area boundary is approaching build-out. Prior to urban
development occurring, an area plan is to be developed that will specify land-use patterns, density, and servicing
requirements.
In order to assess the impact of future development, the area was reviewed using GIS mapping and contours. The
81 ha park designated area was excluded from the assessment area, along with areas of steep terrain and
allowances for creek-buffers. The net area considered developable was 521ha. In a high level nature AECOM
estimated the population using a single type of land use density from values in the North Albion & Albion Flats
Servicing Strategy. The total residential population estimated was 20,300 residents, which is similar to previous
consultants' estimates of approximately 19,400 based on the City's 1996 OCP. An equivalent population was used
to represent potential commercial and institutional areas in Thornhill based on the ratio of residential to ICI
population in North Albion. A rate of 0.0185 Eq. Pop per Resident was used. The total population may be
significantly less than estimated depending on the density agreed to as part of the future area plan.
To generate flow in the model an average dry weather flow (ADWF) of 300 L/cap/day was assumed for the
population. An I&I rate of 11,000 L/ha/d was applied to the area, and the diurnal pattern was used in the model to
generate peak flows. Thornhill flows were loaded to the model's OCP scenario for the assessment.
To service Thornhill, sanitary flows must be conveyed to the City's 225 Street Pump Station. The general topography
of the urban reserve and the physical constraints of the existing sanitary network mean there are only two viable
options to route the future flow to the pump station:
• The River Road trunk sewer
• The Cottonwood trunk sewer on Kanaka Way
42
� � ��0� Sanitary Master Plan
` - � Final Report
River Road Trunk Sewer Option:
The Thornhill area can be internally serviced predominantly by gravity sewer by constructing a trunk sewer along
100 Ave/Jackson Rd. Some areas of Thornhill are located at a lower elevation and will require servicing by a
pumping station.
For this scenario, the Thornhill design flow was loaded to MH R328 on Jackson Rd at 102 Ave, and a model
simulation was run. The model predicted a PWWF of 211 L/s from Thornhill. When combined with the OCP flows,
the total PWWF on River Rd was estimated to be up to 306 L/s. This is about double current pipe capacities,
therefore in order to service Thornhill the City may require twinning the existing sewer on River Rd instead of
replacing existing pipes with larger ones. This option assumes the existing pipes are in ok condition at that time, and
will remain in service.
The cost of constructing the new trunk, and twinning of the River Rd. sewer was estimated at approximately $6.2 M.
Note that costs mentioned are for offsite works only, and do not include purchase of land/ROW, or additional
Thornhill pumping costs.
Cottonwood Trunk Sewer Option:
It is possible to service Thornhill via an outlet at 104 Ave to the Cottonwood trunk sewer. Due to the higher elevation
at 104 Ave this option will increase the amount of internal area in Thornhill to be serviced by a pump station.
In this scenario the design flows from Thornhill were loaded at MH W213 located on 245B St. The simulation
estimated a maximum PWWF of 387 L/s in the Cottonwood trunk sewer when combined with the previously modeled
OCP flows. The trunk sewer is able to accommodate the flow predominantly with existing pipe sizes. Approximately
660m of the Cottonwood sewer would require an increased diameter. Most of the local sewers between 245B St and
Kanaka Creek will also require upgrades to trunk sewers. As described in section 4.2, the inverted siphon crossing
Kanaka Creek at 240 St is expected to be out of capacity by 2023. Replacement of the siphon is assumed to have
already taken place for this assessment, and that the new pipe will have sufficient capacity to convey Thornhill
flows.
The costs of the sewer upgrades and construction of the 800m sewer from 104 Ave to 245B St are estimated to be
$4.0 M. This is the more cost effective option and requires the least amount of trunk sewer upgrades. Note that costs
mentioned do are for offsite works only, and do not include the purchase of land for ROWs, or any replacement
costs for the 240 Street inverted siphon.
Beyond the 225 Street Pump Station, it is estimated the current pipe diameters have sufficient capacity to convey
the peak flows from Thornhill to the Katzie Pump Station. See Technical Memorandum #06 for the full analysis of
the Thornhill Urban Reserve and alternative routing options conducted for this assessment.
43
� * � A=COM
4.8 Backwater Effects
4.8.1 Backwater Effects due to Katzie Pump Station
Sanitary Master Plan
Final Report
As discussed in Section 2.2.3, the Katzie Pump Station is the only outlet for sewage from the City. Sewage is
conveyed to the station by the City's major trunk sewers, the North Slope and South Slope Interceptors. Both
sewers connect to the station at an invert elevation of -2.86m. Metro Vancouver`s operating procedures at the Katzie
Pump Station result in regular sewage backups in both interceptors under dry weather conditions. The first pump
starts when levels reach an elevation of -1.43m and stop at -2.83m elevation. The wet well working volume below
the interceptors is relatively small at 80m3, therefore sewage backups occur with each pump cycle. The full extent of
the backup due to pump settings is shown in Figure 4.7.
Accumulation of solids will occur as a result of sewage backups. The figure highlights the sections of pipe where the
Average Dry Weather Flow velocity is less than 0.6 m/s, which is the minimum for self-cleansing. These sections will
be the most susceptible to solids accumulation. Stagnant sewage can lead to corrosive gases forming in the pipes
(H2S) which negatively affect the integrity of the concrete. It is recommended that a condition assessment of the
interceptor be undertaken to determine if the sewage backups have resulted in pipe degradation, and determine any
requirements for maintenance/rehabilitation. Routine maintenance could include periodic cleaning using high velocity
cleansing equipment, coupled with a vacuum truck to remove debris and grease accumulations. Inspection and
maintenance of the interceptor will require Metro Vancouver to run the Katzie PS and draw down water levels in the
interceptor; therefore these works should only be scheduled during low-flow periods in dry months.
During storm events which cause capacity constraints in trunk sewers downstream of Katzie, MV will reduce flow
from the station using the pump's Variable Frequency Drives (VFD). The reduced pumping further increases the
amount of sewage backwatering in the City's interceptors. The boundary conditions used to develop the sanitary
sewer model account for these backwater effects for the current, 2018 and 2023 scenarios. The OCP scenario does
not account of backwatering since the Katzie PS is due to be upgraded in the future. It is recommended that the City
contact Metro Vancouver to discuss future servicing, and explore options to reduce backwatering of the City's
interceptors.
44
n
i�
« • • ��»�« �
� Po��� • • ��
�. • � • �,o< . � �
�� � �
� • � ,zs r � h�.�E � � •
` • � � . ,,.e , r.� ~ ~ � � �EAo� � ��+.A�E
TN14 � a r „<a,� • � � � � � � ,,..�E � �' �
� �
• • �,��+ �,va ,va �
� a,���Es •
�.—•
• � � •
� � • N • •
� •
• +�� •� so
� �� •
•
,=,.A � �a�
,�,a� � �
oaa f � •
�� • � R • � •
ao�N �: � m � : • ��E�looA�F •
• g
wa � „sa�E • �_ — — — „�,�.o •
05
�� MAo�E�� � 4�
• � � o �KA�E •
N �
• �
� �,,�E � • i ,� � --• �,sA�E � � � • • „�A�E •
� / �.
� � M �� �--�� �
�• � • •
� as.� t �--� • • o.�,�E �f—�� � �
; . , • —«-� • �
�,a�ro� � i s.� � � ���nE
•�"��� � . ? .s oA�Eoa �—. .. � R � �,�..,�..
� ` � • • 1 � e � ; • " =�.o�,EE • • �
� � E 9 � � • �
,.�,E.� �� � �
� • �
� �� � • • „s,� � ��Ea� ��� ��
ay � � �
��3 • � • o _
• •,�•��
f �ra. E �
I �.— • .. ,s. „sa�E � �
s s^° � •
� •�� �
� • � �o� � � •
.� ,.. r .�=��oa��
Katzie PS •
� � , ,,.� � ♦
r � �p o
------� • i
�
• g "''E �T�"�'
.• • T — •
. E��
•� �a , , ,
• �
• �
,o�� � 1 �
� ,o�s� �
TG4 � �/ � � �•�`'�� � •
r •
• • ��� >�Ri
� „ � Legend
� Pump Station �Sewage Backwater
Maple Ridge • Sanitary MH Local Sewer
$8111t8Y)/ MaSt@I' P�all - - Forcemain —Trunk Sewer
Project No: Date: * Diversion MH ADWF < Cleansing Vel (0.6 m/s)
60285153 October2014
�COM Extent of Sewage
Backwatering due to
Pump Settings
0 75 150 300 m
Figure 4.7
� � ��0� Sanitary Master Plan
` - � Final Report
4.8.2 Effects of 225 Street Pump Station Shut Down/Failure
AECOM developed several model scenarios to study the effects of a failure or shut down of the City's 225 Street
Pump Station during a freshet. In this event, the 225 Street PS would have a sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) into the
Fraser River via a connection to the storm sewer on River Rd. The emergency overflow is activated when water
levels reach an elevation of 2.63m at the 225 Street PS. The storm sewer would convey flow away from the pump
station discharging to an outfall on the Fraser River (invert elevation 0.82m). During a freshet the Fraser River water
levels may rise, thus reducing the capacity of the emergency overflow. Table H.3 provided by the City from the
Fraser River Hydraulic Model Update was used to identify flood stage elevations at the Albion Ferry Dock.
Two scenarios were considered for a pump station shutdown during freshet conditions;
(1) 5 year design storm during river stage elevation of 4.25m, corresponding to typical Fraser River freshet
conditions.
(2) Dry weather flows with the river stage elevation at 6.97m. This is the estimated high water level for the 1894 flood
which has been adopted as the design flood condition for the Fraser River.
A shut down during the 5 year design storm was also assessed assuming a free flowing outfall, ie Fraser River at
normal water levels. The various scenarios of the model analysis identified three manholes at risk for flooding, which
are shown in Figure 4.8.
MH TS13 is located on the north edge of Kanaka Creek, with a rim elevation of 2.50m; this places the MH below the
elevation of the 225 Street PS emergency overflow, therefore it will surcharge and potentially flood before the
overflow is activated. Given that the 225 Street PS experiences a number of SSOs each year, this MH should be
bolted to the rim (if not already so) and inspected for signs of previous flooding. There are no adjacent properties or
developments at risk of flooding, but the model flagged this MH for all three scenarios.
In general, the River Road trunk sewer is located below the elevation of adjacent trunk and local sewers, which
minimizes the possibility of an overflow to the upstream network. Model results indicated that MH TS13, due to its
low rim elevation, was the only MH at risk of overflow while the 225 Street PS is offline. After MH TS13 the
manholes with the lowest rim elevations on the trunk sewer are TS14 and TS11, at 3.19m and 3.80m respectively.
Both of these manholes are above the emergency overflow manhole.
46
� 4' � �+ ro,; ''� €,—, ,r rw� f -- a x N
M�im,osHnvE � � _ ��� . � �` � r�q r� ��� i-�� '.Wa , o a_;. AAA
LL i� [x �m . av[. W a� ����[_�f � suG[Rni. . sa��aaraavr. ? '._' I\
� ° �T rc ,.�
�E,F � ° i �:
°.���-: _ .r � 3
�:R � �� , � � �,,.N���E ��
�� - snxrRKavr. � inNe . " sF� iaxave �..�k��� '� w 3 �, � _ _.
i: � �! � � �.,
n � w„NuooR� A�,
' _ o � . . 4 d,�' ". +� . . .
� , P �� ' ' <oRrjk j � Y� `I� u�r•�
�nNE I `� 'Vw k _ m nve -'eAqS� rr . �� -, §� � � .
, � �i ` � ��. „e . �� _ , � .r i v
� � n � �'r� � � i , �
�iit �� �s— ..�� "���'-,a� _ �, i���;- �����E �� � ,,,aa�E ,� #�,:
. � �' ,<� s�"'' " � I
,r
5 �e � � �� „���_ � ° �r
� , � �, �� � : �� ���
— LL r�° �� a�� �«E���E � —,—��� ,.
.,. � � � 225 St PS " „�A,� °��` �� � � ��
_ f
� �����;.�� ��:::�,� Overflow �- ` " „sA�E 6�� �,,� '����
��,o � �- Elev. 2 63m m ,:: . �,
,, :
�
� . . }} � �
� t�` � �//. j�ya� � � '
^� � (, �y - • ttt AVE "Sc- 4c. , k I �+ \� �� � �' . J� � � � JG
4 � �' h
. . - �j � -� � '� «;aa^a�_� . .. ' � �
s _ �� �
., . �,��� . . - r��. �r
225StPS ��� ,�� , �� � ,��. ��.
. _ � p
+�"� Ih/ 4 � *F 0.sKvavE. �4 . o
� ,�, V, N . L cha e PS �F �F�"'a� �a,,. „
ea t �
� ���,'- � � � �� : � � o s�. ' p��4"E r- „� ���'°
..� '�,"-�,��' r�� �. ��. r � ` �f� �,� 7.�c�b�".
�+i,�,�s� ,a�t=�v� 'Cr �.'� ,YR;��r>>.:�'.
�f�'-h.,� ,�`�`. � � * t� .. .:.':— „ „� � � - .
�� „s��� �� � � ��—�� , _
z ,r� i � p� A�E�
. . �'3�e?4" �e �f 9 w
; � i Z.
n�;$A� q .� j�iJfl�"s : ¢
y� s m �`� -�� � �`�� �I �� �� Cottonwood PS „�9a�F q
a�'�'. ^- �'�' • �s ��� .., � ;:,� w
� s �.e ��� "� . ` � „ann�e. �
Storm Outfall s � �{`� �"� � �'' � '"`� � � � � �
�� ;�i ��, � ,� �
Elev. 0.83m '� � �� � _ ��
�
�'.�'£ L���°" r1��'4 � .�i�.` �.. �,�. � -- �... �y° C �.
;,{� . y �, F'� . P -. _
� � " �,��'�`�" � MHE R109 �� . -„ y^^;
a�' � �-� �.� � _ � � ,, -
� '� .��' �, � ��� _� �; `� Rim Elev 7.34m Kanaka Creek
������;��� �'�'�� . ` � ��` � ,. v �y"��. Ro�
� � �, , ,, � `� ;;
��' ���` y,E ,�.r�'��riJ. .. �.` / �r"'� ���A � .� `.. — . .. �: �`'
j1k �
D� �� � ��T ��eY � YL, .. ��p�'< h��
. �fi�� ::.� ` �: �.�'' . � �S -.- ��h -..•;
� �
f � '�x
J � 'A�`'n y � �. ,���: � ., �
. � �, ` � . �` ���� � � � � �
MH TS13 �� � � . �' � �� , � ��
t � � ; �. �s � �
x� �� �
�- Rim Elev. 2 5m �� � � �� y�.�
" „�,. =a� �;,� � ;�P
� �-;^�. '� �;r �F x v.�-
� � � �ai, � �
d-
a
MH TS15 � �
Rim Elev. 4.25m ,�,f ��; �"`� �.
� �. y����
t. � �'# ; r
� .
_ ; �
1,
, : � ,; � ` 1 Tamarack Lane PS ".
� } r � L z..
� � .. � . �� � za� � :.
' � � �' ' �`� � b MH R044 & R045
� � ` a� Rim Elev
� "�
� � � ��
�' ���' ���- ` � 3.43m & 4.80m
,�� � �, � ��
� �` ;� '>z � - `_ < - . �;
} r °�a'�'� �
R �. �� ;� � �
�, .. � � . ��� ��`s4� � ,� ���E�
d k�
.d:` -e Yg t� a� .,. �µ '. �l � , �5
�'s,� ' "�. � a� v�:
"�` �+�, �a � � Fair rounds PS
x ���d '� �' � �'�� ; _; g
�" »F ., r � � w
S)y �3 l ,� �1�.�f � �1.�•
��n . � '` �'� '�' :$' _ �• � � �
_ �
Le end w
y � g MH-Maximum HGL e �O� 225 St Pump
� Pump Station ���� Station Shutdown
Maple Ridge Local Sewer Below Pipe Crown
Sanitary Master Plan �TrunkSewer surcnar ed 5yr-24hr Design Storm
-- Forcemain g 0 75 150 300 m
Project No: Date: Flooded
60285153 October 2014 * Diversion MH • Figure 4.$
� � ��0� Sanitary Master Plan
` - � Final Report
During the first freshet scenario, with the Fraser River water level at 4.25m, many of the manholes on River Road
will be submerged. The model does not account for this inundation, showing relief was achieved through MH TS13.
An examination of the MH rim elevations on River Road with relation to the river elevation indicates relief would likely
be achieved at MH TS15 which is located on the east bank of Kanaka Creek. TS15 has a rim just above 4.25m, and
would be the first location where the HGL would be higher than the river, allowing for relief flow.
For the Fraser River design flood, the majority of the River Road trunk sewer will be submerged. This is due to the
low elevation of the MHs, and their proximity to the river. Similar to the freshet conditions, An examination of the MH
rim elevations helped to identify where possible relief flow may occur. MH TS4, adjacent to the 225 Street PS on
Haney Bypass, would be the most likely location for an overflow. At an elevation of 7.02m, it would be the only MH
on the trunk sewer not inundated by the 6.97m river level. If the HGL were to rise higher, MH R109 would be the
next possible relief location at 7.34m elevation. It is located on a vacant parcel south of Kanaka Way at Lougheed
Hwy.
The City has followed up with recommendations in this section and confirmed the MH's mentioned above
(MH'sTS12, TS13, TS14, TS15, R052, and R109) have been raised; therefore further investigation will be required
to determine the next upstream MH's that would flood.
48
MAPLE RIOGE , .
��
4.9 CCTV Database Specifications
Sanitary Master Plan
Final Report
The CCTV database shall be capable of being linked to through the City's GIS, typically through the use of a unique
identification code. The fields of the database and their sources should be as per Table 4,6:
FIELD Type
Unique ID Code String
Pipe material String
Table 4.6 — Fields for City Pipe Database
Length
8
3
Pipe diameter Short Integer 5
Pipe depth Short integer 2
Installed year Short integer 4
Cost Short integer 5
Upstream manhole ID Short integer 4
Downstream manhole Short integer 4
ID
Inspection History N/A N/A
Structural Grade String
O&M Grade String
Maintenance History N/A
Next inspection Date
Next maintenance Date
4
4
N/A
5
5
Example DESCRIPTION SOURCE �
P01822ST Unique code for the pipe to City assigned.
allow referencing and linking
to other systems.
AC = Asbestos 2 or 3 character code from City records.
cement PACP, should be from a pick
list of allowed values.
350 Nominal pipe diameter in mm. City records.
2 Depth of pipe in meters. City records.
1952 Year of installation. City records.
$ 5,182 Original cost of pipe. City records.
2155 ID of upstream manhole or City assigned.
access location.
2156 ID of downstream manhole or City assigned.
access location.
N/A Relational table with From CCTV
information on inspection Contractor.
history, see TABLE 2.
3224 Latest pipe condition, 4 digit From CCTV
PACP Quick rating denoting Contractor
condition.
5632 Latest pipe O&M rating, 4 digit From CCTV
PACP Quick rating denoting Contractor
O&M grade.
N/A Relational table with From City
information on maintenance maintenance records.
history, see TABLE 3.
6/2018 = Next The month and year of the City assigned.
inspection from next scheduled inspection.
Inspection
History I
Relational Table
4/2018 The date of the next City assigned.
scheduled maintenance.
49
� � ��0� Sanitary Master Plan
` - � Final Report
In order to track the inspection history of the pipe, a relational table should be used with the fields as described in
Table 4.7:
Table 4.7 — Inspection History Fields
FIELD Type Length Example DESCRIPTION SOURCE
Unique ID Code String 8 P01822ST Unique code for the pipe to allow City assigned.
referencing and linking to other
systems.
CCTV Video ID String 8 VR123414 Unique ID code for video and City assigned.
report.
CCTV Link String 99 ftp:\\CCTV\VR12314.mpg Hyperlink to CCTV and report (if City assigned.
available).
CCTV Operator String 99 John Smith Name of CCTV Contractor. CCTV Contractor
Date of Date 7 1/7/2014 Date of CCTV inspection CCTV Contractor.
inspection
Upstream Short 4
manhole ID integer
Downstream Short 4
manhole ID integer
Direction of String 1
S u rvey
Height Short 5
(Diameter) Integer
Width Short 5
Integer
Shape String 1
Material String 3
2155 ID of upstream manhole or CCTV Contractor.
access location.
2156 ID of downstream manhole or CCTV Contractor.
access location.
U U= Upstream, D= Downstream CCTV Contractor.
K 11'
300
Circular = C
Polyethylene = PE
Pre-Cleaning String 1 Jetting = J
Structural String 4 3224
Grade
O&M Grade String 4 5632
Pipe maximum diameter if CCTV Contractor.
circular, height if non-circular. To
nearest mm.
For non-circular sewers, CCTV Contractor.
maximum width to nearest mm.
1 character code from PACP. CCTV Contractor.
2 or 3 character code from CCTV Contractor.
PACP, should be from a pick list
of allowed values.
Code that indicates what CCTV Contractor.
cleaning was carried out before
survey.
Structural condition grade CCTV Contractor or
according to PACP. updated by verifying
engineer.
Capacity condition grade CCTV Contractor or
according to PACP. updated by verifying
engineer.
Link to report String 99 ftp:\\CCTV\VR12314.pdf Link to CCTV Contractors report CCTV Contractor.
Comments String 140 Survey abandoned Any comments from the CCTV Contractor.
inspection.
Next Inspection Date 5 6/2018 = Next inspection from Recommended next inspection. City engineer.
Inspection History Relational Table
Maintenance String 140 Point repair, grout injection at joint. Recommended maintenance City engineer.
from inspection.
1
�
50
� � ��0� Sanitary Master Plan
` - � Final Report
In order to track the maintenance history of the pipe, a relational table should be used with fields as described in
Table 4.8:
FIELD Type
Unique ID Code String
Date of maintenance Date
Work Crew String
Work Undertaken String
Location
Quantity
Result
Cost
Comments
Table 4.8 — Maintenance History Fields
Length Example DESCRIPTION SOURCE �
8 P01822ST Unique code for the pipe to City assigned.
allow referencing and linking
to other systems.
5 14/4/2018 Date of pipe maintenance. Maintenance crew.
140 S. Steube, S. Crew that undertook Maintenance crew.
Shergill maintenance.
8 Pt Repair Maintenance performed, Maintenance crew.
should be from a pick list of
allowed values.
Short integer 3 12 Distance from upstream Maintenance crew.
manhole in meters.
Float 3 2.3 Quantity or length of pipe Maintenance crew.
worked on.
String 140 Lined pipe Outcome of maintenance. Maintenance crew.
successfully
Short integer 6 $ 12,000 Cost of maintenance. Maintenance crew / city
records.
String 140 High Any comments regarding the Maintenance crew.
groundwater, maintenance.
consider
trenchless in
future. �
51
� � ��0� Sanitary Master Plan
` - � Final Report
Summary and Recommendations
�
5.1 Summary
Development of a new City wide sanitary sewers model ("an all pipe model") has been completed for four different
scenarios. The following is a summary of the key conclusions:
• Sanitary sewer model was developed using Innovyze's InfoSWMM software package version 12;
• Sanitary sewer model was built using the City's 2012 GIS information for pipe network and the latest census
data for populations. Some of the recently constructed sewers over the past two years were added to the
model, and likewise future population projections were developed for various planning level scenarios;
• Sewer model includes all of the City's infrastructure up to its tie-in location at Katzie Pump Station;
• Sewer model was calibrated at 10 locations for dry and wet weather flow conditions and also validated at 28
pump stations (both inflow and outflow). Through this process, a good correlation was achieved;
• The total serviced population of Sites 8, 9 and 10 catchments is estimated at 62,000 people. The weighted
average base sanitary flow across the above flow monitoring sites is 191 L/capita/day. For the remaining 7
sites, results show that residential base sanitary flow rate varies from 147 to 252 L/capita/day in these
catchments. The high variation of per capita flow rate can be attributed to small catchments, where
variations in population can have a large impact on unit based sanitary flow rates;
• For ICI properties, the base sanitary flows was input based on 100% of average water consumption during
the winter (based on January to March, 2012 water meter records);
• Using the flow and pump station monitoring data, GWI and RDII rates were determined through the
calibration process;
• Four (4) engineering planning level scenarios were created in the model: (i) current land-use (ii) 2018 (iii)
2023 and (iv) OCP; and
• Analysis of the hydraulic capacity of the existing sanitary sewers and pump stations was completed for each
planning level scenario, with upgrades sized for the OCP condition.
52
i � � ��0� Sanitary Master Plan
- � Final Report
5.2 Recommendations
With the aid of the updated hydraulic model the City will be in a stronger position to plan capital works and respond
to queries from developers. Going forward, the following is a list of recommendations for the City with respect to the
sewer model, I&I, sewer system capacity and sewer model maintenance:
• The City should continue with I&I Management Plan and flow monitoring. Results from these programs
should be used to further calibrate the model in localized catchment areas, and refine GWI and RTK
parameters. For the I&I estimates, the RTK parameters and more specifically the "R" parameter has a
significant impact on RDII volumes/flows therefore further calibration in un-metered areas would be
beneficial.
• If the OCP is modified, the three growth areas may develop to be denser than predicted in the OCP and the
City should review the future populations (and resulting sewage flows) for these local areas as development
occurs.
• The City should visit all the manholes where surcharging is predicted by the model to observe if evidence of
surcharging exists and potentially "bolt down" these manholes to minimize risk of an overflow; especially
MH's TS13 on River Rd, and R044 & R045 on Tamarack Lane.
• The River Road trunk sewer is at currently at capacity in several sections, and will be further under capacity
as development continues in the Albion area (See Section 4.2). These sewers should be upgraded as
described in Appendix E.
• The City should begin planning upgrades for the 225 Street Pump Station and force main. Conservative
model predictions estimate the station will be out of capacity after the 2018 planning horizon.
• Modelling estimates show the River Bend pump station to be out of capacity for the current scenario. High
rates of I&I identified adjacent to this catchment indicate inflow may be reducing the station's capacity. This
station should be further investigated to confirm existing capacity and inflows prior to planning an upgrade.
• The Fairgrounds and S240 pump stations are expected to be redirected and decommissioned respectively.
These plans should be assessed to ensure adequate capacity is provided for the OCP scenario.
• The Fern Crescent Pump Station is estimated to be out of capacity for the OCP scenario. Development in
Silver Valley should be reviewed closer to the planning horizon to verify if and when a capacity upgrade is
required.
• Due to backwatering from the Katzie Pump Station, a condition assessment should be carried out on the
affected areas of the North and South Slope interceptors to determine requirements for maintenance and or
rehabilitation.
• It is recommended that the City contact Metro Vancouver to discuss servicing by the Katzie Pump Station,
which is to be upgraded in the near future, and explore options to reduce backwatering of the City's
interceptors.
53