APPENDIX B USLE Calculations - Auckland Council

CDL Land NZ Ltd – 7-11 Christian Road, Swanson– Engineering Report

October 2017

15

APPENDIX B

USLE Calculations

ESTIMATION OF SEDIMENT YIELD

BY THE UNIVERSAL SOIL LOSS EQUATION

PROJECT NO.: 1167

SITE LOCATION: 7-11 Christian Road, Swanson

CLIENT: CDL Land NZ Limited

DATE: 20/10/2017

CALCULATED: D. Morris

CHECKED: V. Crang

ANALYSIS PERIOD: PRE-EARTHWORKS 6 MONTH PERIOD

FILE LOCATION:

CATCHMENT:

Total: Site 1 Site 2

DURATION (years): 0.5 0.5

AREA (Ha): 4.1 0 1.6 2.5

A = R x K x LS x C x P (Goldman et al (1986))

where:

A = soil loss (tonnes/ha/year)

Rainfall erosion index (R ):

R = 0.00828 * (P)^2.2 *1.70

Where P = the rainfall figure from 6 hours duration 2 years storm event

For Auckland Region, refer to ARC TP108, Fig A.1, and multipply the 2 year depth by 0.628

TP108 2 year depth = 88 mm (From Graph in TP108)

P = 55 mm

R = 96

Soil erodibility index (K): (from triangular nomograph)

Wischmeier et al. Nomograph (1971)

Kfact

= (1.292) [2.1e-6

x fp

1.14

(12 - Pom

)+ 0.0325 (Sstruc

- 2)+ 0.025 (fperm

-3)]

where fp = P

silt (100 - P

clay)

fp = particle size parameter (unitless)

Pclay = the percent clay (unitless).

Pclay = 44 %

Psilt = the percent silt (unitless).

Psilt = 56 %

fp = 3136

Pom = percentage organic matter (unitless)

Pom = 2 % (estimate)

Sstruc = the soil structure index (unitless)

= 1 very fine granular soils

= 2 fine granular soil

= 3 medium or coarse granular soil

= 4 blocky, platy or massive soil

Sstruc = 2 fine granular soil

fperm = the profile-permeability class factor (unitless)

= 1 very slow infiltration

= 2 slow infiltration

= 3 slow to moderate infiltration

= 4 moderate infiltration

= 5 moderate to rapid infiltration

= 6 rapid infiltration

fperm = 3 slow to moderate infiltration

K = 0.26 (nomograph)

P:\1167 - 10 Tram Valley 7 Christian Rd\6.0 Reports\Engineering Report\[USLE Calculations.xlsx]Pre

ANALYSIS DETAILS

WORKING FORMULA (USLE)

Page 1 of 6

K Factor Data ( Organic Matter Content)

Average Less than 2 % More than 2 %

Clay 0.22 0.24 0.21

Clay Loam 0.3 0.33 0.28

Coarse Sandy Loam 0.07 -- 0.07

Fine Sand 0.08 0.09 0.06

Fine Sandy Loam 0.18 0.22 0.17

Heavy Clay 0.17 0.19 0.15

Loam 0.3 0.34 0.26

Loamy Fine Sand 0.11 0.15 0.09

Loamy Sand 0.04 0.05 0.04

Loamy Very Fine Sand 0.39 0.44 0.25

Sand 0.02 0.03 0.01

Sandy Clay Loam 0.2 -- 0.2

Sandy Loam 0.13 0.14 0.12

Silt Loam 0.38 0.41 0.37

Silty Clay 0.26 0.27 0.26

Silty Clay Loam 0.32 0.35 0.3

Very Fine Sand 0.43 0.46 0.37

Very Fine Sandy Loam 0.35 0.41 0.33

Select Design K for Each Area

Upstream Site 1 Site 2

K = 0 0.5 0.5

Conversion to metric multiply K by 1.32

K = 0 0.66 0.66

Slope length and steepness factor (LS):

Goldman et al (1986) have expressed LS factor as :

where:

Sslope

= the slope gradient, %

a = a factor in the LS equation, unitless

a = (Sslope

2

+10,000)0.5

Lslope

= slope length (cm)

mLS

= the exponent in the LS factor equation, unitless

Sslope < 1% 1% - 3% 3.5% - 4.5% > 5%

mLS

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Upstream Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5

Slope Length (m) = 200 240

Avg Change in Slope Elevation = 12 20

Slope (%) = 0.0% 6.0% 8.3%

a = 100.0 100.2 100.3

mLS

= 0.2 0.5 0.5

LS = 0.00 1.72 2.95

Ground Cover Factor (C):

(after Kay (1983), USDA (1975), Wischmeier and Smith (1978), as reported by Goldman (1986)

Type of Cover C Soil Loss

Reduction, %

None 1.0 0

Native vegetation (undisturbed) 0.01 99

Temporary Seedings:

90% Cover, annual grasses, no mulch 0.1 90

Wood fiber mulch, 1.7 t/Ha, with seed* 0.5 50

Excelsior mat, jute* 0.3 70

Straw mulch*:

3.4 t/Ha, tacked down 0.2 80

9 t/Ha, tacked down 0.05 95

* For slopes up to 2:1

Textural Class

LSm

slope

slopeslopeL

a

S

a

SS 4

2

2

1053.4065.056.441.65

Page 2 of 6


C = 0.00 0.15 0.15

Erosion Control Practice Factor (P):

(after Ports (1973))

Erosion Control Practice P

Surface Condition with No Cover

Compact, smooth, scraped with buldozer or scraped up and downhill 1.30

Same as above, except raked with bulldozer and root-raked up and downhill 1.20

Compact, smooth, scraped with buldozer or scraped across the slope 1.20

Same as above, raked with bulldozer and root-raked across slope 0.90

Loose, as a disked plow layer 1.00

Rough irregular surface, equipment tracks in all directions 0.90

Loose with rough surface 0.3m depth 0.80

Loose with smooth surface 0.3m depth 0.90

Structures

Small Sediment Basins:

0.09 basins /Ha 0.50


Downstream Sediment Basins:

With chemical flocculants 0.10

Without chemical flocculants 0.20

Erosion Control Structures:

Normal rate usage 0.50

High rate usage 0.40

Strip building 0.75


P = 0 1 1

Sediment Delivery Ration (SDR)

SDR = 0 (range 0 - 1)

Typically 0.5 is an accepted value. However if slopes are steep, and /or immediately adjacent to the receiving

environment, the sediment ratio may be considerably higher, eg 0.7 for slopes > 10°. For concave slopes

the sediment delivery may be somewhat lower.

Sediment Control Efficiency (SCE):**

SCE = 0%

50% is considered conservativel appropriate for most measures. 75% wiould be considered an upper limit in

Auckland soils. Flocculation or coarse grained soils may give a somewhat higher efficiency.

** The USLE predicts the total yield of sediment generated but makes no allowance for that retained

on site. A Sediment Delivery Ratio (SDR) must be selected. American sources state that SDR

rates range mostly from 10% to 70% (N.Y. Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control)

R K LS C P

UPSTREAM 96 0 0 0.00 0

Site 1 96 0.66 1.72 0.15 1

Site 2 96 0.66 2.95 0.15 1

AREA TIME

(Ha) (yr)

UPSTREAM 0 0

Site 1 1.6 0.5

Site 2 2.5 0.5

TOTAL GROSS YIELD FOR SITE (t) 48.11

0.00

EST.GROSS SEDIMENT

YIELD FOR SITE (t)

16.4

28.0

SECTION

ESTIMATION OF SEDIMENT

SECTIONUSLE PARAMETERS Avg annual soil loss

A (t/Ha/yr)

0.0

13.09

35.02

Page 3 of 6

ESTIMATION OF SEDIMENT YIELD

BY THE UNIVERSAL SOIL LOSS EQUATION

PROJECT NO.: 1167

SITE LOCATION: 7-11 Christian Road, Swanson

CLIENT: CDL Land NZ Limited

DATE: 20/10/2017

CALCULATED: D. Morris

CHECKED: V. Crang

ANALYSIS PERIOD: DURING EARTHWORKS 6 MONTH PERIOD

FILE LOCATION:

CATCHMENT:

Upstream Area 1 Area 2

DURATION (years): 0 0.5 0.5

AREA (ha): 0 1.6 2.5

A = R x K x LS x C x P (Goldman et al (1986))

where:

A = soil loss (tonnes/ha/year)

Rainfall erosion index (R ):

R = 0.00828 * (P)^2.2 *1.70

Where P = the rainfall figure from 6 hours duration 2 years storm event

For Auckland Region, refer to ARC TP108, Fig A.1, and multipply the 2 year depth by 0.628

TP108 2 year depth = 88 mm (From Graph in TP108)

P = 55 mm

R = 96

Soil erodibility index (K): (from triangular nomograph)

Wischmeier et al. Nomograph (1971)

Kfact

= (1.292) [2.1e-6

x fp

1.14

(12 - Pom

)+ 0.0325 (Sstruc

- 2)+ 0.025 (fperm

-3)]

where fp = P

silt (100 - P

clay)

fp = particle size parameter (unitless)

Pclay = the percent clay (unitless).

Pclay = 44 %

Psilt = the percent silt (unitless).

Psilt = 56 %

fp = 3136

Pom = percentage organic matter (unitless)

Pom = 2 % (estimate)

Sstruc = the soil structure index (unitless)

= 1 very fine granular soils

= 2 fine granular soil

= 3 medium or coarse granular soil

= 4 blocky, platy or massive soil

Sstruc = 2 fine granular soil

fperm = the profile-permeability class factor (unitless)

= 1 very slow infiltration

= 2 slow infiltration

= 3 slow to moderate infiltration

= 4 moderate infiltration

= 5 moderate to rapid infiltration

= 6 rapid infiltration

fperm = 3 slow to moderate infiltration

K = 0.26 (nomograph)

ANALYSIS DETAILS

WORKING FORMULA (USLE)

P:\1167 - 10 Tram Valley 7 Christian Rd\6.0 Reports\Engineering Report\[USLE

Calculations.xlsx]During

Page 4 of 6

K Factor Data ( Organic Matter Content)

Average Less than 2 % More than 2 %

Clay 0.22 0.24 0.21

Clay Loam 0.3 0.33 0.28

Coarse Sandy Loam 0.07 -- 0.07

Fine Sand 0.08 0.09 0.06

Fine Sandy Loam 0.18 0.22 0.17

Heavy Clay 0.17 0.19 0.15

Loam 0.3 0.34 0.26

Loamy Fine Sand 0.11 0.15 0.09

Loamy Sand 0.04 0.05 0.04

Loamy Very Fine Sand 0.39 0.44 0.25

Sand 0.02 0.03 0.01

Sandy Clay Loam 0.2 -- 0.2

Sandy Loam 0.13 0.14 0.12

Silt Loam 0.38 0.41 0.37

Silty Clay 0.26 0.27 0.26

Silty Clay Loam 0.32 0.35 0.3

Very Fine Sand 0.43 0.46 0.37

Very Fine Sandy Loam 0.35 0.41 0.33

Select Design K for Each Area


K = 0 0.26 0.26

Conversion to metric multiply K by 1.32

K = 0 0.3432 0.3432

Slope length and steepness factor (LS):

Goldman et al (1986) have expressed LS factor as :

where:

Sslope

= the slope gradient, %

a = a factor in the LS equation, unitless

a = (Sslope

2

+10,000)0.5

Lslope

= slope length (cm)

mLS

= the exponent in the LS factor equation, unitless

Sslope < 1% 1% - 3% 3.5% - 4.5% > 5%

mLS

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5


Slope Length (m) = 200 240

Avg Change in Slope Elevation = 12 20

Slope (%) = 0.0% 6.0% 8.3%

a = 100.0 100.2 100.3

mLS

= 0.2 0.5 0.5

LS = 0.00 1.72 2.95

Ground Cover Factor (C):

(after Kay (1983), USDA (1975), Wischmeier and Smith (1978), as reported by Goldman (1986)

Type of Cover C Soil Loss

Reduction, %

None 1.0 0

Native vegetation (undisturbed) 0.01 99

Temporary Seedings:

90% Cover, annual grasses, no mulch 0.1 90

Wood fiber mulch, 1.7 t/Ha, with seed* 0.5 50

Excelsior mat, jute* 0.3 70

Straw mulch*:

3.4 t/Ha, tacked down 0.2 80

9 t/Ha, tacked down 0.05 95

* For slopes up to 2:1

Textural Class

LSm

slope

slopeslopeL

a

S

a

SS 4

2

2

1053.4065.056.441.65

Page 5 of 6


C = 0.0 1.0 1.0

Erosion Control Practice Factor (P):

(after Ports (1973))

Erosion Control Practice P

Surface Condition with No Cover

Compact, smooth, scraped with buldozer or scraped up and downhill 1.30

Same as above, except raked with bulldozer and root-raked up and downhill 1.20

Compact, smooth, scraped with buldozer or scraped across the slope 1.20

Same as above, raked with bulldozer and root-raked across slope 0.90

Loose, as a disked plow layer 1.00

Rough irregular surface, equipment tracks in all directions 0.90

Loose with rough surface 0.3m depth 0.80

Loose with smooth surface 0.3m depth 0.90

Structures

Small Sediment Basins:



Downstream Sediment Basins:

With chemical flocculants 0.10

Without chemical flocculants 0.20

Erosion Control Structures:

Normal rate usage 0.50

High rate usage 0.40

Strip building 0.75


P = 0 1.3 1.3

Sediment Delivery Ration (SDR)

SDR = 0.5 (range 0 - 1)

Typically 0.5 is an accepted value. However if slopes are steep, and /or immediately adjacent to the receiving

environment, the sediment ratio may be considerably higher, eg 0.7 for slopes > 10°. For concave slopes

the sediment delivery may be somewhat lower.

Sediment Control Efficiency (SCE):**

SCE = 75%

50% is considered conservativel appropriate for most measures. 75% wiould be considered an upper limit in

Auckland soils. Flocculation or coarse grained soils may give a somewhat higher efficiency.

** The USLE predicts the total yield of sediment generated but makes no allowance for that retained

on site. A Sediment Delivery Ratio (SDR) must be selected. American sources state that SDR

rates range mostly from 10% to 70% (N.Y. Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control)

R K LS C P

UPSTREAM 96 0 0 0.0 0

Area 1 96 0.34 1.72 1.00 1.3

Area 2 96 0.34 2.95 1.00 1.3

AREA TIME SDR SCE

(Ha) (yr) %

UPSTREAM 0 0 0.5 75%

Area 1 1.6 0.5 0.5 75%

Area 2 2.5 0.5 0.5 75%

TOTAL GROSS YIELD FOR SITE (t) 216.8

27.1

ESTIMATION OF SEDIMENT

SECTIONUSLE PARAMETERS Avg annual soil loss

A (t/Ha/yr)

0.0

73.8

126.2

59.01 7.4

157.81 19.7

SECTIONEST.GROSS SEDIMENT NET SEDIMENT

YIELD FOR SITE (t) LOSS (t)

0.00 0.0

ESTIMATED TOTAL NET SEDIMENT LOSS (t)

Page 6 of 6


October 2017

16

APPENDIX C

STORMWATER CALCULATIONS

STORMWATER CALCULATIONS

Project

Job No. 1167 Calculations By: DAVID DATE 17/10/17

Storm Frequency 10 year Duration=10min VC DATE

To Catchment Run off Equiv. Total This Design Pipe Comments

MH MH Area (m2) Coef. Area Eqiv. Rainfall Int line Q S % Pipe D V(m/s) Pipe D Capacity

No No Incr. C (C*A) Area I (mm/sec) only(l/s) (mm) (mm) (l/s)

LINE 2

2/3 2/2 4040 0.70 2828 2828 0.0302 85 0.70 300ф 1.17 300ф 180 Lot 7 & 8

2/2 2/1 0 0.70 0 2828 0.0302 85 0.70 300ф 1.17 300ф 290

2/1 1/8 4001 0.70 2801 5629 0.0302 170 0.86 375ф 1.5 375ф 274 Lot 5 & 6

LINE 1

1/9 1/8 832 0.85 707 707 0.0302 21 Road 1 & Accessway 2 CP

1246 0.70 872 1579 0.0302 48 1.05 225ф 1.19 225ф 80.8 Lot 3

1/8 1/7 1244 0.70 871 2450 0.0302 74 Lot 2

457 0.85 388 2839 0.0302 86 Accessway 1 CP

0 0.70 0 8467 0.0302 256 1.95 375ф 2.26 375ф 392 Added Line 2

1/7 1/6 1200 0.70 840 9307 0.0302 281 0.90 450ф 1.73 450ф 299 Lot 1

1/6 1/5 1205 0.70 844 10151 0.0302 307 1.91 Lot 20 & 21

1610 0.85 1369 11519 0.0302 348 1.40 450ф 2.16 450ф 583 Road 1 CP

1/5 1/4 2385 0.70 1670 13189 0.0302 398 0.64 525ф 1.8 525ф 639 Lot 22 to 25

1/4 1/3 0 0.70 0 13189 0.0302 398 0.32 600ф 1.38 600ф 556

1/3 1/2 703 0.70 492 13681 0.0302 413 0.34 600ф 1.43 600ф 507 Lot 26

1/2 1/1 615 0.70 431 14111 0.0302 426 0.36 600ф 1.47 675ф 616 Lot 27

LINE 4

4/1 3/3 601 0.70 421 421 0.0302 13 0.10 225ф 0.36 225ф 67 Lot 30

LINE 3

3/6 3/5 600 0.70 420 420 0.0302 13 0.10 225ф 225ф 40.5 Lot 33

3/5 3/4 600 0.70 420 840 0.0302 25 0.28 225ф 0.61 225ф 53.5 Lot 32

3/4 3/3 1205 0.70 844 1684 0.0302 51 Lot 29 & 31

617 0.85 524 2208 0.0302 67 0.43 225ф 0.92 300ф 220 Road 2 CP

3/3 3/2 635 0.70 445 2652 0.0302 80 Lot 28

49 0.85 42 2694 0.0302 81 Accessway CP

3115 0.0302 94 0.88 300ф 1.3 375ф 315 Added Line 4

3/2 3/1 1190 0.85 1012 4126 0.0302 125 0.47 375ф 1.11 450ф 211 Road 2 CP

LINE 5

5/2 5/1 580 0.85 493 493 0.0302 15 0.11 225ф 0.38 225ф 141 Christian Road CP

CDL - CHRISTIAN ROAD

1 24/10/2017

LINE 6

6/2 6/1 600 0.70 420 420 0.0302 13 0.10 225ф 0.36 225ф 67.7 Lot 47

LINE 7

7/3 7/2 840 0.85 714 714 0.0302 22 0.22 225ф 0.54 225ф 152 Lot 48

7/2 7/1 640 0.70 448 1162 0.0302 35 0.56 225ф 0.87 300ф 102 Christian Road

LINE 8

8/2 8/1 610 0.70 427 427 0.0302 13 0.10 225ф 0.36 225ф 33.4 Lot 46

LINE 12

12/2 12/1 705 0.70 494 494 0.0302 15 0.88 150ф 0.86 150ф 33.3 Lot 36

LINE 11

11/2 11/1 620 0.70 434 434 0.0302 13 Lot 38

95 0.85 81 515 0.0302 16 0.12 225ф 0.4 225ф 152 Accessway 5 CP

11/1 10/5 745 0.70 522 1036 0.0302 31 Lot 37

1530 0.0302 46 0.96 225ф 1.14 225ф 152 Added Line 12

LINE 10c

10c/1 10/2 710 0.85 604 604 0.0302 18 0.15 225ф 4.78 225ф 104 Road 3

LINE 10b

10b/1 10/8 2002 0.70 1401 1401 0.0302 42 6.80 150ф 2.31 150ф 49 Lot 19

LINE 10a

10a/7 10a/6 2000 0.70 1400 1400 0.0302 42 0.78 225ф 1.02 225ф 152 Lot 18

10a/6 10a/5 2513 0.70 1759 3159 0.0302 95 0.88 300ф 1.31 300ф 247 Lot 14 & 15

10a/5 10a/4 1257 0.70 880 4039 0.0302 122 Lot 16

705 0.85 599 4638 0.0302 140 Road 1 CP

1070 0.85 910 5548 0.0302 168 Christian Road CP

6949 0.0302 210 0.50 450ф 1.29 375ф 292 Added Line 10b

10a/4 10a/3 1300 0.70 910 7859 0.0302 237 Lot 39 & 40

658 0.85 559 8418 0.0302 254 0.74 450ф 1.57 375ф 461 Christian Road CP

10a/3 10a/2 1300 0.70 910 9328 0.0302 282 Lot 41 & 42

606 0.85 515 9844 0.0302 297 1.00 450ф 1.82 450ф 535 Christian Road CP

10a/2 10a/1 660 0.70 462 10306 0.0302 311 Lot 43

LINE 10 11835 0.0302 357 0.25 600ф 1.22 600ф 507 Added Line 11

10/4 10/3 601 0.70 421 421 0.0302 13 Lot 35

546 0.85 464 885 0.0302 27 0.33 225ф 0.66 225ф 117 Road 3 CP

10/3 10/2 2150 0.70 1505 2390 0.0302 72 0.50 300ф 0.99 300ф 247 Lot 34,44 & 45

10/2 10/1 1410 0.85 1199 3588 0.0302 108 0.35 375ф 1.26 375ф 143 Road 3 CP

LINE 14

14/1 13/2 1261 0.70 883 883 0.0302 27 Lot 4

222 0.85 189 1071 0.0302 32 0.47 225ф 0.5 225ф 33.7 Accessway 3 CP

LINE 13

13/3 13/1 27785 1.00 27785 27785 0.051 1417 0.47 900ф 1.68 900ф 1605 Stream Flood Catchment

LINE 15

15/3 15/2 2061 0.70 1443 1443 0.0302 44 0.86 225ф 1.08 225ф 117 Lot 9

15/2 15/1 4166 0.70 2916 4359 0.0302 132 0.52 375ф 1.17 375ф 185 Lot 10 & 112 24/10/2017

LINE 17

17/4 17/3 1203 0.70 842 842 0.0302 25 Lot 13

170 0.85 145 987 0.0302 30 0.40 225ф 0.73 225ф 120 Accessway 4 CP

17/3 17/2 815 0.85 693 1679 0.0302 51 0.25 300ф 0.7 300ф 210 Road 1 CP

17/2 17/1 1229 0.70 860 2540 0.0302 77 0.18 375ф 0.68 375ф 130 Lot 12

LINE 18

18/2 18/1 2020 0.70 1414 1414 0.0302 43 0.18 300ф 0.59 225ф 107 Lot 17

3 24/10/2017

4 24/10/2017


October 2017

17

APPENDIX D

WASTEWATER CALCULATIONS/

WATERCARE SERVICES

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

W

W

2

0

0

P

E

1

0

0

P

E

2

0

0

P

E

2

0

0

P

E

1

0

0

A

C

(

A

b

d

)

1

0

0

P

E

1

5

P

E

1

5

P

E

1

5

P

E

1

8

0

P

E

1

5

0

C

L

S

5

0

A

C

1

8

0

P

E

1

5

0

A

C

(

A

b

a

n

d

o

n

e

d

)

1

0

0

A

C

(

A

b

d

)

1

0

0

A

C

1

0

0

A

C

5

5

0

C

L

S

O

O

S

4

7

0

1

5

0

P

V

C

1

5

0

P

V

C

1

5

0

P

V

C

1

5

0

P

V

C

2

2

5

C

O

N

C

2

2

5

C

O

N

C

3

7

5

C

O

N

C

2

2

5

C

O

N

C

3

0

0

C

O

N

C

2

2

5

C

O

N

C

4

0

0

C

O

N

C

3

0

0

C

O

N

C

2

2

5

C

O

N

C

1

5

0

P

V

C

1

5

0

P

V

C

2

2

5

C

O

N

C

SA

VE

D: P

:\1

16

7 - 1

0 T

ra

m V

alle

y 7

C

hristia

n R

d\5

.0

D

ra

win

gs\C

41

0 S

EW

ER

C

AT

CH

ME

NT

P

LA

N.d

wg

- A

ug

ust 1

8, 2

01

7. P

RIN

TE

D: A

ug

ust 1

8, 2

01

7

DRAWING No REVISION

TITLE

PROJECT

CLIENT

SCALE

This document and the copyright in this document remain the property of Crang Consulting Ltd. The contents of this documentmay not be reproduced either in whole or in part by any means whatsoever without the prior written consent of Crang Consulting.

COPYRIGHT:

A1

A3DESIGNED

DRAWN

DATE

REVISION CHANGES CHECKED DATE

Unit 4, 517 Mount Wellington Highway, Auckland

PO Box 42-089, Orakei, Auckland 1745, NZ

+64 09 320 3325

www.crangcivil.co.nz

phone

web

address

post

PROJECT No DRAWING No REVISION

TITLE

PROJECT

CLIENT

SCALE

A1

A3DESIGNED

DRAWN

DATE


PROJECT No

CDL LAND NZ LTD

7-11 CHRISTIAN ROAD

SEWER CATCHMENT PLAN

ORIGINAL ISSUE VC 18/08/170

JUNE 2017

DW

1167 C410 0

NTS

A

D

C

E

CATCHMENT DWELLING NUMBERS:

1. SEWER LINE A TO C DWELLINGS: 54 (INCLUDINGPROPOSED 50 LOTS & 4 EXISTING).

2.SEWER LINE B TO C DWELLINGS: 36 (EXISTING)

3. SEWER LINE D TO E DWELLINGS: 49 (EXISTING)

4. SEWER LINE E TO F DWELLINGS: 139(TOTAL)

PROPOSEDSEWER LINE

PROPOSEDDEVELOPMENTSITE(48 DWELLINGS)

B

F

36 EXISTINGDWELLINGS

49 EXISTINGDWELLINGS

4 EXISTINGDWELLINGS

EXISTINGGOLFCOURSE

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

W

W

2

0

0

P

E

1

0

0

P

E

2

0

0

P

E

2

0

0

P

E

1

0

0

A

C

(

A

b

d

)

1

0

0

P

E

1

5

P

E

1

5

P

E

1

5

P

E

1

8

0

P

E

1

5

0

C

L

S

5

0

A

C

1

8

0

P

E

1

5

0

A

C

(

A

b

a

n

d

o

n

e

d

)

1

0

0

A

C

(

A

b

d

)

1

0

0

A

C

1

0

0

A

C

5

5

0

C

L

S

O

O

S

4

7

0

1

5

0

P

V

C

1

5

0

P

V

C

1

5

0

P

V

C

1

5

0

P

V

C

2

2

5

C

O

N

C

2

2

5

C

O

N

C

3

7

5

C

O

N

C

2

2

5

C

O

N

C

3

0

0

C

O

N

C

2

2

5

C

O

N

C

4

0

0

C

O

N

C

3

0

0

C

O

N

C

2

2

5

C

O

N

C

1

5

0

P

V

C

1

5

0

P

V

C

2

2

5

C

O

N

C

3.05

225Ø

P

W

SSMH 2LL = 33.73

SSMH 3LL = 32.25

SSMH 4LL = 30.49

SSMH 5LL = 28.32

SSMH 6LL = 26.60

SSMH 7LL = 26.90

SSMH 8LL = 25.97

SSMH 9LL = 25.98

SSMH 10LL = 25.20

SSMH 1LL = 35.35

IL = 34.13150Ø

IL = 34.11150Ø

IL = 32.25

IL = 32.14150Ø

IL = 3

2.27

150Ø

IL = 31.12

IL =

31.

0715

0ØIL

= 2

8.39

IL = 29.29150Ø

IL =28.29

IL =25.73

IL = 26.42150Ø

IL = 25.69150Ø

IL = 25.26

IL = 25.30

150ØIL = 25.24

150Ø IL = 23.93

IL = 23.79150Ø

IL = 23.75150Ø

IL = 23.31

IL = 23.40

150Ø IL =

23.2

4 IL =

23.1

4

300Ø

IL = 23.16300Ø

IL = 23.10 400ØIL = 22.69 IL = 22.60400Ø

IL =

22.9

215

0Ø

1

5

P

E

1

5

P

E

3

0

0

C

L

S

1

5

0

A

C

2

5

0

A

C

O

O

S

4

7

0

5

5

0

C

L

S

450Ø

450Ø

SWMHLL = 42.3941.24300Ø

40.94300Ø

SWMHLL = 42.8641.02

41.1

610

0Ø

41.12450Ø

41.41

225Ø225Ø41.22450Ø

GRADIENT

0.54 %

GRADIENT

1.50 %

GRADIENT

0.47 %GRADIEN

T10.0 %

GRAD

IEN

T2.

9 %

GRADIENT1.4 %

GRADIENT6.0 % A

C

E

F

B

D

PROPOSEDSEWER LINE

PROPOSEDDEVELOPMENT

SITE

SA

VE

D: P

:\1

16

7 - 1

0 T

ra

m V

alle

y 7

C

hristia

n R

d\5

.0

D

ra

win

gs\C

41

1 S

EW

ER

C

AP

AC

IT

Y C

AL

CU

LA

TIO

NS

.d

wg

- A

ug

ust 1

8, 2

01

7. P

RIN

TE

D: A

ug

ust 1

8, 2

01

7

DRAWING No REVISION

TITLE

PROJECT

CLIENT

SCALE

This document and the copyright in this document remain the property of Crang Consulting Ltd. The contents of this documentmay not be reproduced either in whole or in part by any means whatsoever without the prior written consent of Crang Consulting.

COPYRIGHT:

A1

A3DESIGNED

DRAWN

DATE


Unit 4, 517 Mount Wellington Highway, Auckland

PO Box 42-089, Orakei, Auckland 1745, NZ

+64 09 320 3325

www.crangcivil.co.nz

phone

web

address

post

PROJECT No DRAWING No REVISION

TITLE

PROJECT

CLIENT

SCALE

A1

A3DESIGNED

DRAWN

DATE


PROJECT No

CDL LAND NZ LTD

7-11 CHRISTIAN ROAD

SEWER CAPACITYCALCULATIONS

ORIGINAL ISSUE VC18/08/17

0

JUNE 2017

DW

1167 C411 0

1:2000

1:4000

SEWER CAPACITY CALCULATION:

BASED ON WATERCARE SERVICES LIMITED - WATER AND WASTEWATER CODEOF PRACTICE, VERSION MAY 2015 AND REFER ABOVE THE SURVEYEDEXISTING PIPEØ & GRADIENTS:

SEWER LINE A TO C: 54 DWELLINGS54 x 3 x 1500=2.81 l/s < EXISTING PIPE GRADIENT 0.47%, 150Ø, 11 l/s - OK

SEWER LINE E TO F: TOTAL DWELLINGS : 139139 x 3 x 1500=7.24 l/s< EXISTING PIPE GRADIENT 0.54%, 150Ø, 11.7 l/s - OK

1

Vaughan Crang

From: PJaggard (Phil) <[email protected]>

Sent: Wednesday, 15 May 2013 12:11 p.m.

To: Richard Osborne

Subject: RE: Tram Valley Road, Waitakere

Attachments: DOC150513-006.pdf

Hi Richard I note that the site is currently outside our area of service. It’s unlikely that there would be any trunk issues for this land alone, but needs to be considered as part of the whole picture and total future flows for the area and Swanson BS e.g what is the maximum catchment extents proposed under the Unitary plan. So without this I can only give some general comments. You don’t mention lots, but based single lots, the proposed connection shown on your attachment would probably not be adequate, but a new line to the main trunk sewer would be required unless the Penihana lines were designed for this area as part of their work. You’d have to discuss this with them now as they are in the process of designing it. Alternatively you could design a new line heading north to the other side of Swanson Road and on to the main trunk, but some of the small 150mm lines to the north may be adequate if it was a only a small development. You’d need to do some static calcs on options but there appears to be workable solutions with probably only minor local upgrades require that would be done by the developer. Hope this helps. Regards Phil

From: Richard Osborne [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Wednesday, 15 May 2013 11:32 a.m.

To: PJaggard (Phil) Subject: Tram Valley Road, Waitakere

Hi Phil

We have been asked to assist a client with a submission on the unitary plan which involves a block just outside the

MUL located at the intersection of Tram Valley and Christian roads in Waitakere, ( Plan Attached). This block is

directly opposite the Neil’s Penihana Block which is the process of being developed for residential development etc.

We need to provide comment on the feasibility of servicing the block with a reticulated wastewater connection, the

most likely being the extension of the council main from the east. Are you able to advise whom in your team we can

consult with on this. Principally need to receive feedback from Watercare on any capacity or other constraints

associated with this proposal etc.

Many Thanks in advance.

Regards

Richard Osborne Chartered Professional Engineer Director

Consultants Limited ● Consulting Engineers ● Resource Planners ● Project Managers

ATTACHMENT A

Documents

APPENDIX B USLE Calculations - Auckland Council